Category: Social

Horizon Accord | Immigration Enforcement | Symbolic Intimidation | Narrative Power | Machine Learning

When Intimidation Leaves a Calling Card

Documented ICE incidents, symbolic power, and why narrative literacy matters

By Cherokee Schill and Solon Vesper

In January 2026, immigrant advocates in Eagle County, Colorado reported a disturbing discovery. After multiple people were detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during vehicle stops near Vail, family members retrieving the abandoned cars found Ace of Spades playing cards left inside. The cards were printed with “ICE Denver Field Office” and included contact information for the Aurora-area immigration detention facility. ICE later stated that it “unequivocally condemns” the act and that its Office of Professional Responsibility opened an internal investigation.

Source: Colorado Public Radio reporting, corroborated by Aspen Public Radio and Axios.

The significance of the discovery was not the presence of a playing card in isolation. The Ace of Spades carries a long, documented association with death and intimidation in U.S. military history, particularly during the Vietnam War, where it was used as a psychological warfare symbol. Civil-rights advocates described the cards as deliberate intimidation, given the context: they appeared after detentions, inside vehicles belonging to Latino residents, and carried official ICE identification.

Initially, the incident was framed as an anomaly. That framing does not hold.

In Washington state, an earlier case was reported by KING 5 News. A woman found a business card left at her home by a Homeland Security Investigations agent. The card featured a skull holding two guns and the phrase “Welcome to the Border.” She described the card as threatening and said the incident contributed to her decision to relocate.

Source: KING 5 News reporting.

The Colorado and Washington cases differ in geography and detail. What connects them is structure.

In both instances, an object associated with federal immigration enforcement was left behind after contact or attempted contact with civilians. In both, the imagery carried meaning beyond neutral identification. And in both, the object functioned as symbolic residue—something intended to linger after the agents themselves were gone.

Criminologists and civil-rights attorneys have long described this category of behavior as “calling card” intimidation: symbolic acts that communicate dominance without explicit threats and allow plausible deniability. Courts and oversight bodies have previously treated symbolic taunting by law enforcement as potential misconduct when supported by evidence.

The symbolism itself is not neutral. The Ace of Spades has appeared not only in military psychological operations but also in documented white supremacist and extremist iconography as a death-coded symbol. Separately, the FBI has publicly acknowledged the long-standing risk of white supremacist recruitment and ideological influence within law-enforcement and military institutions, including in a 2006 intelligence assessment that remains part of the public record.

Source: FBI Intelligence Assessment: “White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement” (Oct. 17, 2006).

None of this establishes coordination, policy, or intent in these specific cases. ICE has denied authorizing such actions, and investigations have disclosed limited findings publicly. Precision requires stating that clearly.

What the public record does establish is narrower and more consequential: symbolic intimidation is a known behavior class, it has appeared in more than one immigration-enforcement context, and it draws from a cultural vocabulary that agents would reasonably recognize.

Why narrative framing matters now

At moments like this, the question is not only what happened, but how the state will attempt to frame what happens next.

Political theorist and writer Vicky Osterweil addresses this dynamic directly in In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action. Osterweil’s work examines how states and aligned media systems consistently divide collective response into “legitimate” and “illegitimate” actions—often praising restraint while isolating and criminalizing unrest. This division, she argues, is not neutral. It functions as a governance tool that narrows the range of acceptable response and reframes structural violence as individual misconduct.

The relevance here is not prescriptive. Osterweil does not tell readers how to act. She explains how narratives are managed after power is exercised, especially when communities respond in ways the state cannot fully control.

That insight matters in the context of immigration enforcement and symbolic intimidation. When intimidation is minimized as a misunderstanding, or when public attention is redirected toward tone, reaction, or “appropriate” response, the original act often disappears from view. Education—particularly familiarity with work that dissects these narrative maneuvers—is one way communities protect themselves from having the conversation quietly rewritten.

Collective watching, not instruction

The public record in Colorado and Washington exists because people noticed what was left behind, preserved it, and refused to treat it as meaningless. That is not a matter of calmness or compliance. It is a matter of witnessing.

Colorado was not a one-off. Washington demonstrates that. Whether additional cases surface will depend less on official statements than on whether communities continue to document, compare across regions, and share information without allowing intimidation—symbolic or otherwise—to pass unexamined.

This is not about predicting what will happen next. It is about understanding how power communicates, how narratives are shaped afterward, and why collective literacy matters when institutions move faster than accountability.

That work does not belong to any single group. It belongs to the public.

Horizon Accord
Website | https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | https://www.linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload (Book link)

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Public Safety Spending | Retail Theft Enforcement | Who Pays for Protection | Machine Learning

Who Pays for Protection? Retail Policing and Public Priorities in Gastonia

In early January, local coverage in Gastonia, North Carolina reported on a multi-week undercover retail theft operation conducted inside Target and Walmart stores. Police announced dozens of arrests and the recovery or prevention of approximately $4,300 in merchandise. The operation was framed as a public safety success, with retail theft narrated alongside drug possession, outstanding warrants, and repeat offenders.

What the reporting did not disclose is central to understanding the operation’s significance: whether the police labor involved was publicly funded, retailer-paid, or some hybrid of the two. That omission does not create the underlying policy problem, but it removes the public’s ability to evaluate the operation’s cost, purpose, and alignment with local conditions. The result is enforced ambiguity around a prioritization decision that would otherwise be subject to scrutiny.

Those local conditions are not abstract. Census data from the 2023 American Community Survey places Gastonia’s poverty rate at 17.6%, representing roughly 14,500 residents, despite a median household income of approximately $63,600 and per-capita income of $35,365. This is not marginal poverty. It reflects a substantial portion of the city living under sustained economic constraint.

Housing data sharpens that picture. The same ACS profile counts roughly 34,876 housing units in Gastonia, with a median owner-occupied home value near $293,500, a price point increasingly out of reach for lower-income residents. City planning documents reinforce the strain. Gastonia’s 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan explicitly identifies the need for affordable housing, rental assistance, and coordinated homeless housing and supportive services. Yet the city’s 2023–2024 CAPER report shows a gap between recognition and outcome: while thousands were served through homeless assistance programs, homelessness prevention goals show zero households assisted in at least two tracked categories.

Regional homelessness data makes the stakes concrete. The Gaston–Lincoln–Cleveland Continuum of Care point-in-time count conducted on January 23, 2024 recorded 451 people experiencing homelessness, with 216—nearly half—unsheltered. In Gaston County alone, 153 people were sleeping outside on a winter night. These figures define the environment in which the retail theft operation occurred.

Public-health and criminology research consistently documents the relationship between unsheltered homelessness, winter exposure, and survival behavior, including petty theft and substance use as coping mechanisms for cold, sleep deprivation, untreated pain, and psychological stress. This relationship does not absolve criminal conduct. It establishes predictability. Where housing instability and exposure are high, low-level property crime is not anomalous; it is structurally produced.

Against that backdrop, the operation’s outcomes warrant scrutiny. Weeks of undercover police activity resulted in dozens of arrests and the recovery or prevention of merchandise valued at less than $5,000—an amount that would not cover a single officer’s monthly salary, let alone the full costs of undercover deployment, prosecution, and detention. The article’s framing emphasizes enforcement success while leaving unexamined the scale mismatch between the intervention and the conditions in which it occurred.

If the operation was publicly funded, then public safety capacity was deployed inside private retail spaces to protect corporate inventory in a city with double-digit poverty, unmet housing-prevention outcomes, and triple-digit unsheltered homelessness during winter. The opportunity cost of that deployment is concrete. Police labor, court processing, jail time, and emergency medical care all draw from the same finite public systems tasked with responding to homelessness, addiction, and violence elsewhere in the county.

If the operation was retailer-paid, the implications shift but do not soften. Enforcement becomes responsive to private loss rather than public harm, while still activating public authority—arrest power, charging decisions, incarceration. In that model, corporate capacity determines enforcement intensity, while downstream costs remain socialized. When funding arrangements are undisclosed, the public cannot distinguish between public safety deployment and private contract enforcement carried out under state authority.

In both cases, narrative framing performs additional work. By merging retail theft with drugs, warrants, and repeat-offender language, the coverage reframes a property-loss issue as a generalized crime threat. That reframing legitimizes intensive enforcement while displacing attention from the documented drivers of the behavior—unsheltered homelessness, winter exposure, and unmet treatment needs—and from any examination of whether enforcement, rather than addressing those drivers, can plausibly alter the underlying rate.

This matters in a county that recorded 15,095 total crimes in 2023, including 812 violent crimes, for a rate of 358 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, higher than the statewide average. The same data shows rising health spillover, with firearm-injury emergency-room visits increasing 64% year over year in provisional 2024 data. In such an environment, public capacity is already stretched. How it is allocated reveals priorities.

The operation, as presented, illustrates a recurring pattern rather than an anomaly. Enforcement produces visible action and countable outputs—arrests, charges, seizures—while leaving intact the structural conditions that generate repeat contact. The absence of funding disclosure, cost accounting, and contextual comparison does not create this misalignment, but it prevents the public from seeing it clearly.

What remains is not a question of intent or morality. It is a question of alignment. In a city with 17.6% poverty, 153 people sleeping unsheltered in winter, and acknowledged gaps in housing prevention, foregrounding retail stings as public safety success reflects not uncertainty about causes, but a prioritization choice. The analysis does not turn on whether the operation was legal or well-intentioned. It turns on whether it meaningfully engages the conditions that make such operations predictable in the first place.

Horizon Accord
Website | https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload (Book link)

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Consumer Protection | Subscription Fraud | Platform Accountability | Machine Learning

Nibble, Kremital Limited, and the Subscription Trap Business Model

When an app’s revenue depends on billing confusion and cancellation friction, the product isn’t “learning”—it’s extraction.

By Cherokee Schill

Thesis

Nibble: Your Bite of Knowledge presents itself as a frictionless educational alternative to doomscrolling. The publisher listed is Kremital Limited, registered in Cyprus. A growing body of user reports describes a recurring pattern: multiple charges, unclear add-ons, hard-to-find cancellation pathways, and refunds denied by policy language. That pattern tracks a known subscription-trap model: easy entry paired with a costly, friction-laden exit.

Working definition: A subscription trap is a business model where sign-up is streamlined, billing is layered or confusing, and cancellation or refund paths are degraded so revenue persists through user friction rather than product value.

Evidence

Example 1: Multiple charges and unclear add-ons

Users report being charged more than once in a short time window and being billed for add-ons they say were not clearly disclosed as separate purchases.

“I was charged three times on the same day, within the same hour… I was also charged separately for ‘infographics,’ which was not clearly disclosed as an upgrade.”1

Example 2: Charges that don’t match the advertised deal

Users describe seeing one price in marketing, then finding additional or larger charges in their payment history afterward.

“Saw an ad… signed up for their special $5.99… they had charged me $19.99 and an additional $11.99… they advised I signed up for it. I absolutely did NOT.”2

Example 3: Cancellation friction and ongoing billing

Users describe difficulty canceling recurring payments, with some stating they can uninstall the app but still struggle to stop charges cleanly.

“I can delete the app, but not cancel the recurring payments… $50 a pop until I do figure it out.”3

Implications

This pattern matters because it shifts the risk and labor onto the user. If the model relies on confusion, users become the enforcement mechanism—forced into bank disputes, chargebacks, and platform escalation. That is a structural transfer of cost: the company retains predictable revenue while consumers pay with time, stress, and financial uncertainty.

Why Cyprus is relevant (fact-pattern, not rhetoric)

Investigative reporting has repeatedly documented Cyprus as a high-volume registration hub used in corporate structures where beneficial ownership is harder for the public to see quickly. When a consumer-facing app registered there accumulates billing and cancellation complaints, the jurisdictional distance amplifies consumer risk and complicates accountability. This scrutiny is routine in financial and consumer-protection reporting and does not imply wrongdoing absent further findings.

Public Cyprus corporate registry listings identify Chrystalla Mylona as a director and company secretary for Kremital Limited. Public-facing records do not typically provide immediate, no-cost clarity on beneficial ownership, which is part of why investigators treat Cyprus-registered consumer businesses with heightened scrutiny when repeated consumer harm signals are present.

Call to Recognition

This is not about “a startup being messy.” It is about a recognizable extraction loop: promote a feel-good product, gate basic functionality behind paywalls, layer charges, and make exit paths slow or unclear. When enough users independently report the same billing and cancellation harms, the appropriate response is documentation, formal complaints, and platform pressure until corrective action occurs or distribution is halted.

How to File Formal Complaints

Federal Trade Commission (United States)

File a consumer fraud complaint at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Include screenshots of charges, subscription status, cancellation attempts, and any support correspondence.

State Attorney General (United States)

Find your state’s consumer protection office at naag.org/find-my-ag. Submit the same evidence packet and note any duplicate charges or post-cancellation billing attempts.

Google Play

On the app’s listing, select “Flag as inappropriate” and choose the category most closely matching billing or subscription deception. Attach screenshots when prompted.

Update: Post-Cancellation Charge Attempts and Response Pattern

Additional user reviews strengthen the documented pattern. One review, marked “helpful” by dozens of other users, describes repeated payment attempts months after cancellation.

“I cancelled the subscription a few months ago… somehow they keep trying to charge my card. Last time was a week ago. I get these notifications all the time.”4

The reviewer notes that a successful charge would cause immediate financial harm, underscoring the real-world stakes of continued billing attempts.

Kremital Limited’s public reply to this review does not address the reported behavior. Instead, it offers a generalized assurance:

“We cannot charge you for anything you haven’t agreed to. All the conditions are always mentioned before the purchase is made.”5

This response does not explain why payment attempts continued after cancellation, nor does it document when billing ceased. Across multiple reviews, the same response posture appears: denial without transaction-level clarification.

Why this matters: In consumer-protection enforcement, attempted charges after cancellation—even when blocked by insufficient funds or bank controls—are treated as billing events, not hypothetical harm.

Advertising Pressure and Funnel Imbalance

While users report billing and cancellation issues, Nibble continues to run sponsored placements across Google and social platforms. Users encountering these ads have publicly questioned the product’s practices, including whether the advertising itself is misleading.

This establishes a funnel imbalance: high-velocity acquisition paired with unresolved downstream billing complaints. That pattern is a core signal regulators use when evaluating subscription abuse.

What Google Play Could Do — Immediately

Google Play is not a passive intermediary. It controls distribution, billing infrastructure, refunds, and enforcement. When an app accumulates repeated billing and cancellation complaints, the platform already has the authority—and the data—to intervene.

  1. Trigger a billing integrity review. Google can audit transaction logs to determine whether charges or charge attempts occurred after cancellation timestamps.
  2. Require corrective disclosures. Google can mandate unavoidable pricing, add-on, and cancellation disclosures as a condition of continued distribution.
  3. Enforce refund pathways. When duplicate or post-cancellation charges are reported, Google can issue refunds directly, overriding developer policy.
  4. Pause paid acquisition. Temporarily halting sponsored placements prevents new users from entering a potentially harmful billing funnel during review.
  5. Demand transaction-level responses. Boilerplate assurances are insufficient when transaction-specific disputes are documented.

Platform responsibility is not abstract. When a platform controls billing, enforcement, and distribution, inaction becomes a decision.

Footnotes (User Review Excerpts)

1 Google Play user review, dated 12/29/2025 (multiple charges; “infographics” add-on).

2 Google Play user review, dated 12/15/2025 (advertised price followed by additional charges).

3 Google Play user review, dated 12/24/2025 (difficulty canceling; ongoing billing).

4 Google Play user review by Audrey Todd, dated 10/26/2025 (post-cancellation charge attempts).

5 Public developer response by Kremital Limited, dated 10/27/2025.

Website | Horizon Accord

Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us for more

Ethical AI coding | Fork us on GitHub

Connect | LinkedIn

Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Memetic Strategy | Media Neutrality | Institutional Control | Machine Learning

Neutrality Is Not Objectivity: How Influencer “Investigations” Weaponize Bernays—and What Newsrooms Must Do to Stop It

When viral accusation videos are reported “neutrally,” newsrooms become the amplification layer that turns intimidation into legitimacy—and legitimacy into policy pressure.

By Cherokee Schill (Horizon Accord Founder)

Thesis

What’s being mislabeled as “scrutiny” of Washington daycares is not scrutiny at all. It’s a persuasion tactic. And the fact that major news outlets are covering it neutrally is not restraint—it is participation.

The viral daycare videos at the center of this cycle follow a playbook older than social media. Edward Bernays, the architect of modern public relations, described the premise plainly: shape the environment so the public reaches the desired conclusion on its own. The influencer version replaces institutions with a handheld camera, but the mechanics are the same: manufacture a scene, preload the narrative, and let the audience experience suspicion as discovery.

Key point: This genre isn’t “asking questions.” It’s engineering a feeling—then calling the feeling evidence.

Evidence

1) The pseudo-event replaces proof. A creator shows up with a camera at a private location—often a home—at a time chosen for maximum ambiguity. The act of showing up becomes the “finding.” A locked door becomes implication. No answer becomes guilt. The camera confers authority simply by being present. “I was there” substitutes for documentation.

2) The conclusion is delivered before the facts. Titles, thumbnails, tone, and confrontational posture tell the audience what they’re meant to believe long before verification occurs. Empty rooms, a closed door, or a quiet day are not findings; they’re props. Their function is emotional, not evidentiary.

3) Institutional coverage launders the claim into credibility. Once a newsroom reports that a viral video has “raised questions” or that “scrutiny is mounting,” the influencer’s content is upgraded from spectacle to controversy. Neutral language becomes a legitimacy engine. The allegation gains weight without meeting any threshold a newsroom would accept if it came from a normal source.

Legitimacy laundering: “We’re just reporting what people are saying” is how a manipulation tactic gets institutional authority without evidence.

4) The harm is not a side effect—it’s a built-in outcome. In-home daycare providers become targets. Strangers show up at doors. Online speculation turns into harassment. Providers receive threats. Families get rattled. None of this requires fraud to exist. The pressure is the point.

5) The policy consequences follow the heat, not the facts. Officials feel compelled to “do something” in response to “public concern.” Documentation burdens, funding freezes, and blanket suspicion get framed as prudence. Legitimate providers absorb the damage first because they are visible and compliant. The viral video never has to be right. It only has to be loud.

Implications

This is why neutrality is not a virtue here. When the method itself is manipulative, neutral coverage completes the manipulation.

News institutions are not passive mirrors. They are power amplifiers. If they frame viral intimidation as ordinary civic scrutiny, they normalize the tactic, elevate the accuser, and push institutions toward reactive enforcement driven by virality. That’s how a social media stunt becomes “common sense.” That’s how harassment becomes “accountability.”

Bernays understood something many newsrooms seem to have forgotten: propaganda works best when it feels organic—when institutions repeat it without noticing they’ve become the delivery mechanism.

Call to Recognition

The solution is not silence. It’s disciplined framing, evidentiary rigor, and the courage to say that not every viral video deserves legitimacy simply because it exists.

Newsrooms need to counteract this genre deliberately: lead with the method (harassment pipeline), raise the verification threshold before amplification, refuse the influencer’s framing language, and explain the incentive system that turns outrage into revenue.

If news organizations do not correct course, they will keep mistaking manipulation for accountability—and calling the damage “public discourse.”

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Support Horizon Accord

Your support helps sustain independent analysis, ethical AI accountability work, and public-interest research.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | International Law | Resource Sovereignty | Military Force | Machine Learning

Venezuela Oil Seizure: Understanding the Legal and International Implications

Executive Summary

On January 3, 2026, President Trump announced that the United States would take control of Venezuela’s oil industry following military strikes and the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro. This essay examines the legal basis for such actions, the historical context, and the potential consequences for American interests and international stability.

What Trump Is Proposing

President Trump has stated that U.S. oil companies will enter Venezuela to “spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.” He justified this by claiming that “We built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations.”

When asked about the cost of this operation, Trump stated: “It won’t cost us anything, because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial.” He added that the U.S. will have “a presence in oil” where the U.S. military might play a role.

The Historical Facts

Early 1900s: American oil companies, including Standard Oil and Gulf Oil, were indeed among the first to develop Venezuela’s oil industry.

1976: Venezuela nationalized its oil industry, taking control of hundreds of private businesses and foreign-owned assets, including operations by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Legal Resolution: When U.S. companies disputed the nationalization, they pursued legal remedies through international arbitration. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips received compensation awards. Importantly, none of these legal proceedings contested Venezuela’s sovereign right to own the oil reserves within its territory.

The Legal Framework

International Law

Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources (PSNR): This established principle of international law states that sovereign nations own the natural resources within their territories. This principle was created specifically to prevent exactly the type of action now being proposed.

UN Charter Article 2(4): Prohibits the use of military force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence.

Sovereign Immunity: International law generally does not permit one country to seize another country’s sovereign assets without specific legal exceptions.

U.S. Constitutional Law

War Powers: The Constitution divides war powers between Congress (which has the power to declare war) and the President (who commands the military).

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): While amended in 2001 to allow some asset seizures, this only applies “where the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals.”

International Response

The reaction from the international community has been swift and nearly unanimous in its condemnation:

Brazil (largest economy in South America): President Lula da Silva called the action “a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.”

China: Expressed being “deeply shocked” by what it called Washington’s “blatant use of force” against a sovereign state.

United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres stated he was “deeply alarmed” and expressed concern that “international law hasn’t been respected.”

Colombia, Cuba, and other Latin American nations have similarly condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty and international law.

Why This Matters for Americans

The Precedent Problem

If the United States establishes that a country can use military force to reclaim assets that were nationalized decades ago through legal processes, this creates a dangerous precedent that could be used against American interests:

  • China holds significant U.S. debt and operates businesses on American soil
  • Foreign nations own substantial U.S. real estate and infrastructure
  • Historical claims could be made by dozens of countries against U.S. assets abroad

The post-World War II international order was specifically designed to prevent powerful nations from using military force to seize resources. This system has largely prevented major wars between great powers for 80 years.

Legal Exposure

Former international prosecutors and legal experts have warned that these actions could constitute violations of international law, potentially exposing U.S. officials to future legal accountability and undermining America’s moral authority to criticize similar actions by other nations.

Economic Consequences

Venezuela possesses the world’s largest known oil reserves (approximately 303 billion barrels). However:

  • Occupation costs: Historical examples (Iraq, Afghanistan) show that military occupations cost far more than initial projections
  • Infrastructure challenges: Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has deteriorated significantly and would require substantial investment to restore
  • International sanctions risk: Other nations may impose economic consequences for violating international law
  • Market instability: Such dramatic geopolitical actions typically create uncertainty in global oil markets

Diplomatic Isolation

Nearly every major democracy and U.S. ally in Latin America has condemned this action. This could:

  • Undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts throughout the region
  • Push Latin American countries toward closer relationships with China and Russia
  • Damage America’s ability to build coalitions on other international issues
  • Weaken U.S. credibility on human rights and rule of law

Key Questions for Consideration

  1. Congressional Authorization: Has Congress authorized military action against Venezuela? The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war.
  2. Self-Defense Justification: Has Venezuela attacked the United States or posed an imminent threat that would justify military action under international law?
  3. Long-term Costs: What are the projected costs of occupation, infrastructure repair, and security operations? How will these be funded?
  4. Exit Strategy: What are the conditions for ending U.S. involvement? How long is the U.S. prepared to maintain a military presence?
  5. International Standing: How will this affect America’s ability to condemn similar actions by other nations or to build international coalitions?
  6. Alternative Approaches: Were diplomatic or economic alternatives fully explored before military action?

Conclusion

The nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry in 1976 followed legal processes and international norms of that era. U.S. companies that disputed the action pursued remedies through international arbitration and received compensation. The current proposal to use military force to reverse a 50-year-old nationalization represents a fundamental departure from the international legal framework that has governed state behavior since World War II.

Whether this action serves American interests depends on careful consideration of its legal basis, its costs versus benefits, and its long-term consequences for American security and prosperity. The near-unanimous international condemnation suggests that most of the world views this action as inconsistent with the rules-based international order that the United States helped create and has historically championed.

As citizens, it is essential to examine these actions critically, demand accountability from our elected officials, and consider whether the precedents being set today serve our long-term national interests and values.

This analysis is based on publicly available information and expert legal commentary. It does not make predictions about outcomes but rather presents the documented facts, legal framework, and international reaction for informed citizen consideration.

Sources Available for Verification:

  • UN Charter, Article 2(4)
  • International law on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources
  • U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
  • Official statements from UN Secretary-General António Guterres (January 3, 2026)
  • Official statements from Brazilian President Lula da Silva (January 3, 2026)
  • President Trump’s statements (January 3, 2026)
  • Historical documentation of Venezuela’s 1976 oil nationalization
  • International arbitration awards to ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips

Website | Horizon Accord
https://www.horizonaccord.com

Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.

Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github
https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework

Connect With Us | https://linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload
https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author

Support Horizon Accord

Your support helps sustain independent analysis, ethical AI accountability work, and public-interest research.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Conserving Order | Structural Racism | Institutional Power | Machine Learning

What Are You Conserving?

Most people hear the word “racism” and think of a person.

They picture someone who hates, someone who uses slurs, someone who believes certain races are inferior. Under that definition, racism is mainly a problem of individual attitude. Fix the attitude, shame the bigot, educate the ignorant, and it’s easy to imagine racism shrinking over time.

But that definition doesn’t explain something basic: why racial inequality can keep going even when many people sincerely believe in equality and would never call themselves racist.

So here’s a simpler way to think about it.

There are two different things people often mean when they say “racism.”

One is personal: how you feel, what you believe, how you treat someone in a direct interaction.

The other is structural: how society is arranged—who gets better schools, safer neighborhoods, easier loans, lighter policing, more forgiving judges, better healthcare, and more inherited wealth. These patterns aren’t created fresh every morning by new hate. They are produced by rules and institutions built over time, often during eras when racism was openly written into law. Even after the language changes, the outcomes can keep repeating because the system was designed to produce them.

That means a person can have decent intentions and still help racism continue—not because they hate anyone, but because they defend the parts of society that keep producing unequal results.

This is where the word “conservative” matters, and I mean it plainly, not as an insult. Conservatism is often about preserving order: protecting institutions, valuing stability, and being skeptical of change that feels too fast or disruptive. You can hold those instincts and still sincerely oppose bigotry. You can mean well.

The problem is that in a society where inequality is already embedded in institutions, preserving the system often means preserving the inequality—even when the person doing the preserving isn’t personally hateful.

That gap—between “I’m not personally prejudiced” and “my politics still protect harmful systems”—is where much of modern racism lives.

And it shows up clearly in a surprising place: the life of Fredric Wertham.

Wertham was a Jewish German psychiatrist who came to the US in the 1920s to continue his psychiatric training, working in the orbit of Adolf Meyer at Johns Hopkins, whose emphasis on social context shaped a generation of American psychiatry. In the mid-1940s, he turned his attention to Harlem, where he helped run a church-based psychiatric clinic serving Black residents at a time when mainstream access to care was often blocked or degraded.

Wertham did not see himself as a reactionary. Quite the opposite. He understood himself as a protector.

As a psychiatrist, he was deeply concerned with social damage—how poverty, instability, and humiliation shape people long before they ever make a “bad choice.” That concern led him to work in a community that had long been denied serious psychiatric care. He treated Black patients as fully capable of insight and interior life, rejecting racist psychiatric assumptions common in his era. That mattered. It was real work, done in the real world.

The same framework shaped his role in desegregation. Wertham argued that segregation itself caused psychological harm to children. His testimony helped establish that state-mandated separation was not neutral or benign, but actively damaging. This was not symbolic progressivism. It had material consequences.

But Wertham’s sense of protection had limits.

When he turned his attention to mass culture, especially comic books, he became less concerned with who was being harmed by institutions and more concerned with who might be destabilized by questioning them. Stories that portrayed corrupt police officers, abusive authority figures, or social disorder struck him as dangerous—not because they were false, but because they undermined trust in the systems he believed society required to function.

In his writing and testimony, police and legal institutions appear as necessary moral anchors. Their legitimacy is assumed. Critique of them is framed as a threat to social stability rather than as a response to lived harm.

This is not so much a contradiction of values as a narrowing of focus.

Wertham could see injustice when it was explicit, legally enforced, and historically undeniable. But he struggled to see harm when it came from institutions he believed were fundamentally protective. The possibility that those same institutions could be a source of ongoing injury—especially to marginalized communities—did not fit cleanly within his moral framework.

So when comics depicted police misconduct or authority gone wrong, he did not read them as exposure or critique. He read them as corrosion.

The result was a striking ethical asymmetry: compassion for those harmed by exclusion, paired with hostility toward narratives that challenged the legitimacy of power itself.

Wertham’s story matters not because he was uniquely flawed, but because he was representative.

The pattern he embodies appears whenever someone can recognize injustice in its most obvious, formal expressions while still treating existing institutions as fundamentally righteous. Harm is acknowledged when it is dramatic and undeniable—but becomes invisible when it is produced by systems that are familiar, normalized, and associated with “order.”

This is how structural racism survives periods of moral progress.

When injustice is understood as an aberration—a deviation, a bad actor—institutions remain morally insulated. The system is presumed sound; problems are framed as misuse rather than design. Under this logic, the task is correction, not transformation.

This mindset pairs easily with good intentions. It allows people to oppose bigotry, support limited reforms, and still recoil at challenges that feel destabilizing. The concern shifts from who is being harmed to whether the structure itself is being threatened.

This is where conserving order becomes the through-line.

Conservatism is often framed as continuity: protecting institutions, valuing stability, and worrying about what happens when social bonds break. It asks what holds society together, what prevents chaos, and what deserves protection. Those questions can be reasonable.

The danger begins when the thing being protected is treated as neutral or natural—when stability is assumed to be innocent even if it preserves unequal outcomes.

In societies built on inequality, order is not a blank slate. It is a historical inheritance. The police, courts, schools, zoning laws, and economic systems that feel normal were shaped during periods when racial hierarchy was explicit and legally enforced. Even after the laws change, the structures often remain tuned to produce the same outcomes.

To conserve those structures without interrogating their effects is to conserve the harm they generate.

This is why challenges to authority so often provoke moral panic. Criticism of institutions is framed as destabilization, disrespect, or decay—not as accountability. Speech that exposes abuse is treated as more dangerous than abuse itself, because it threatens trust in the system.

We see the same pattern today in debates over policing, protest, and speech. Footage of police violence is described as “divisive.” Protesters are accused of undermining social cohesion. Whistleblowers are labeled disloyal.

The question is no longer whether harm is occurring, but whether naming it risks weakening the institution.

This flips moral priority on its head.

Instead of asking, “Who is being hurt, and why?” the focus becomes, “What will happen if people stop believing in the system?” Stability is treated as a higher good than justice. Silence is treated as responsibility. Disruption is treated as danger.

In this framework, racism does not require racists. It requires protectors.

People who do not see themselves as bigoted can still play this role by defending institutions reflexively, minimizing structural critique, and equating accountability with chaos. The harm persists not because of hatred, but because of loyalty—to order, to continuity, to the idea that the system is basically sound.

None of this requires bad people.

It requires ordinary people doing what feels responsible: trusting institutions, valuing stability, and resisting change that feels disruptive or unsafe. These instincts are human. They are often taught as virtues. But virtues do not exist in a vacuum. They operate inside systems, and systems shape what those virtues produce.

Responsibility begins when we stop confusing intention with impact.

You do not have to feel hatred to participate in harm. You do not have to hold animus to help preserve outcomes that disadvantage others. What matters is not what you believe about yourself, but what you choose to protect when the system is challenged.

This is not a call for guilt. Guilt collapses inward and ends the conversation. It asks to be relieved rather than to act. Responsibility does the opposite. It looks outward. It asks different questions.

What does this institution actually do? Who does it consistently serve? Who bears its costs? What happens when it is criticized? Who is asked to be patient, and who is allowed to be disruptive?

These questions are uncomfortable because they shift the moral center away from personal innocence and toward collective consequence. They require giving up the safety of “I’m not part of the problem” in exchange for the harder work of refusing to be part of the protection.

Ending racism is not about becoming a better person in private. It is about withdrawing loyalty from systems that continue to produce unequal outcomes—and being willing to tolerate the discomfort that comes with change.

Order that depends on silence is not stability. Institutions that cannot be questioned are not neutral. Preservation is not automatically virtue.

The work is not to purify our intentions, but to decide—again and again—what deserves to be conserved, and what must finally be allowed to change.

Horizon Accord is a project exploring power, memory, ethics, and institutional design in the age of machine learning.

Website | https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on GitHub https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload
Connect | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Cherokee Schill — Horizon Accord Founder
Creator of Memory Bridge: Memory through Relational Resonance and Images (RAAK)

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | The Soft On-Ramp | Cultural Seeding | Institutional Control | Machine Learning

The Soft On-Ramp: How Ideology Moves Through “Good” Causes

Animal welfare, health, food, and secular ethics are real moral concerns. The danger isn’t caring—it’s what can quietly hitch a ride.

By Cherokee Schill

Why It Feels So Normal at First

It shouldn’t be controversial to say that caring about animals, health, food, or ethical living is normal. Most people who enter these spaces aren’t looking for ideology. They’re responding to something concrete: cruelty they can’t unsee, systems that feel broken, bodies that feel exploited, a sense that something is off and needs attention.

What’s changed isn’t the concern itself, but the cultural terrain it sits in.

As churches lose influence and secular spaces expand, the role churches once played in offering moral language, community, and certainty hasn’t vanished. It’s been redistributed. Advocacy spaces, wellness culture, and secular ethics now carry much of that weight. They answer questions people still have: what’s wrong, who’s responsible, and what kind of person you should be.

That makes them powerful. And anything powerful attracts capture.

The far right has adjusted accordingly. It no longer needs to influence pulpits or scripture to transmit authoritarian values. It can operate through causes that already feel humane and unquestionable. Animal welfare is especially effective here, not because it’s suspect, but because it’s disarming. Concern for animals establishes compassion immediately. Once that trust is in place, other claims can follow with less resistance.

At first, nothing looks political. It looks like rescue videos, food advice, health warnings, moral outrage. Then you start to notice the extra lines layered in: “I’m not political, I’m just being honest.” “This is just common sense.” “They don’t want you to know this.” The content isn’t ideology yet. It’s a test of alignment—are you the kind of person who sees what others are too afraid to say?

How a Good Cause Starts Carrying Other Things

The shift usually begins quietly, with how harm is explained.

Structural problems—industrial farming, profit incentives, regulatory failures—are slow, abstract, and unsatisfying. They don’t give people a clear villain. So the story tightens. Cruelty stops being something produced by systems and starts being something done by types of people. The language gets slippery and reusable: degenerates, invaders, groomers, parasites, predators. Or the softer versions: “certain communities,” “imported values,” “people who won’t assimilate.” The cause stays noble. The blame relocates.

That arc played out visibly in online vegan communities between roughly 2016 and 2020. What began as sharing factory farming footage gradually evolved into increasingly graphic “accountability” content. Forums that once focused on legislative advocacy or corporate campaigns shifted toward identifying and publicly shaming individuals—posting photos of hunters alongside full names, tagging family members, organizing email campaigns to employers. The language changed. “Raising awareness” became “making them pay.” Members who expressed discomfort were accused of being soft or insufficiently committed.

By 2019, some of these spaces were openly sharing far-right influencers who “told hard truths” about immigration and cultural decline—topics that seemed unrelated to animal welfare until the emotional infrastructure was already in place. The practice of identifying enemies and demanding their ruin had become the community’s primary activity.

You can see the same dynamic in advocacy culture more broadly. PETA is not a reactionary organization, but its history of shock-based campaigns shows how moral spectacle works. When you rely on graphic imagery and extreme comparisons, you train audiences to process harm through outrage and absolutism. The lesson isn’t “understand the system,” it’s “identify monsters and demand consequences.” That emotional posture doesn’t stay neatly contained within one issue.

You see it most clearly in what starts getting treated as “accountability.” Not policy. Not regulation. Not repair. The ritual instead: screenshot the face, post the name, tag the employer, “make them famous.” Comment sections fill with language about ruin and deserved suffering. A community forms around punishment. This is how cruelty gets laundered as care.

Language shifts too. Health and environmental spaces already talk about what’s clean, natural, toxic, invasive. Over time, those words stop being descriptive and start doing moral work. Anxiety about food becomes anxiety about contamination. Care for balance becomes fear of decline. Once purity enters the picture, exclusion can feel protective rather than cruel.

At the same time, the authority behind these claims often presents itself as pointedly non-religious. This matters. In a post-church landscape, moral certainty doesn’t disappear; it just stops wearing theological clothing. In secular circles, Christopher Hitchens helped normalize a particular kind of “brave realism” that often landed as sexism and Islamophobia. He popularized the posture that sweeping claims about women or Muslims weren’t prejudice, just unsentimental truth-telling—provocation framed as clarity. His repeated framing of Islam as a civilizational threat rather than simply a religion, and his habit of treating women as a class through broad generalizations (most notoriously in “Why Women Aren’t Funny”), made contempt sound like intellectual courage.

To be clear, Hitchens was a complex figure who made genuine contributions to literary criticism and critiques of religious authority that resonated with many for valid reasons. The issue isn’t that he challenged religion. It’s that his method established a template where sweeping denunciations could be framed as courage. Whatever his intent, the lasting effect wasn’t nuance—it was permission. That tone became reusable by people with far less care.

That posture has since been borrowed by movements that reintroduce hierarchy wearing the costume of reason. It sounds like “I’m not hateful, I’m evidence-based.” “This is just biology.” “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Social verdicts arrive disguised as realism.

By the time politics shows up explicitly, it feels earned. Logical. Inevitable.

This happened visibly in certain “clean eating” Instagram communities around 2017 and 2018. Accounts focused on organic food and toxin-free living began introducing content about “foreign additives” and “traditional European diets.” Food purity quietly became cultural purity. Followers who joined for recipe ideas found themselves reading threads about immigration and demographic decline. When some questioned the shift, moderators responded, “We’re just talking about what’s natural. Why does that make you uncomfortable?” The ideology wasn’t imposed. It was grown, using soil the community had already prepared.

That’s why intent isn’t a reliable guide here. You don’t have to be looking for extremism to be carried toward it. You just have to stop noticing when methods change.

When Care Turns Into Control

One of the simplest ways to tell when a humane cause is being bent toward something else is to stop debating the issue and look at what’s being normalized.

If you’re encouraged to treat doxxing, public shaming, harassment, or vigilante-style punishment as acceptable tools, something has already shifted. Movements that rehearse social punishment are practicing coercion, even when the initial targets feel deserving. Once humiliation feels righteous, it spreads.

If someone in that space expressed the same level of harm toward a different target, would it still feel justified? If the answer changes based on who’s being targeted, that’s worth noticing.

If everything is framed through disgust—endless cruelty clips, rage-bait captions, talk of monsters hiding among us—notice the effect. Disgust narrows judgment. It makes force feel like clarity and restraint feel like weakness.

Ask how much time the space spends on solutions versus spectacle. Is most of the energy going toward policy, reform, and harm reduction—or toward exposing villains and performing outrage?

If the culture starts enforcing purity—perfect diets, perfect beliefs, perfect moral posture, zero tolerance for error—that’s another turn. Harm reduction gives way to sorting. Who’s clean enough. Who belongs. Who needs to go.

Notice how mistakes are treated. Are they opportunities for learning, or evidence of corruption? Do people who question tactics get engaged with, or expelled?

If blame keeps sliding away from systems and toward familiar groups—immigrants, religious minorities, the homeless, “degenerates,” “urban elites,” “globalists”—you’re watching the handoff. The cause hasn’t changed. The target has.

Ask who benefits from the solutions being proposed. Do they require removing or controlling specific populations? Does the language used for your cause’s enemies sound exactly like language used by far-right movements for theirs?

And if you’re repeatedly told none of this is political, even as you’re being taught who to fear and who must be removed for things to be “restored,” take that seriously. Pipelines don’t announce themselves as ideology. They present themselves as common sense.

Ethical engagement looks different. It stays focused on systems, not types of people. It prioritizes harm reduction over moral purity. It leaves room for questions, correction, and exit. And it notices when compassion for animals begins to require cruelty toward humans.

Recognizing these patterns doesn’t require abandoning animal welfare, healthy food, or secular ethics. It allows you to stay in them without being recruited into something else. Care doesn’t need cruelty. Justice doesn’t need spectacle. And compassion doesn’t need an enemy to remain real.

The goal isn’t suspicion or withdrawal. It’s immunity. You can care deeply and still refuse to let that care be turned into a training ground for dehumanization.

That isn’t naivety. It’s discipline.

Horizon Accord is a public ethics project examining power, memory, and relational accountability in emerging technologies and political systems.

Website | https://www.horizonaccord.com

Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com

Ethical AI coding | Fork us on GitHub https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework

Connect | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Cherokee Schill

Horizon Accord Founder

Creator of Memory Bridge — Memory through Relational Resonance and Images

Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload —
https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Taught Power | Cultural Seeding | Television | Machine Learning

What Television Taught Us About Power

Mainstream entertainment didn’t just reflect American politics—it quietly trained us how to think about authority, change, and who gets to act.

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord

American television doesn’t just entertain—it teaches. For decades, mainstream shows have functioned as cultural education, training viewers to understand power, conflict, and change in specific ways. The lesson is consistent: problems are personal, not structural. Hierarchies are natural when good people are in charge. And the proper response to injustice is individual virtue, not collective action.

This isn’t about partisan bias. It’s not that TV is “conservative” in the Fox News sense. It’s that mainstream storytelling—from Westerns to workplace comedies—naturalizes the status quo by making organized challenges to power feel unnecessary, naive, or dangerous. The result is structural conservatism: a worldview that treats existing arrangements as fundamentally legitimate, fixable only through better people, never through changed systems.

This analysis focuses on prestige and network-era mainstream story grammar—the narrative patterns that shaped broadcast and cable television’s most widely watched programming. Four shows across six decades—Bonanza, Knight Rider, Full House, and Parks and Recreation—reveal the pattern. Different genres, different eras, different audiences. But the ideological work is remarkably consistent.

Bonanza (1959–1973) presents the Ponderosa as earned property—the product of hard work, courage, and good stewardship. Settler legitimacy is assumed. Dispossession is absent as a category of thought. When Native peoples appear, they’re threats or tragic figures, never people with competing legitimate claims to the land. The show doesn’t argue that the Cartwrights deserve the land—it simply treats ownership as natural fact. That’s the ideological move: making ownership feel like nature, not history.

Ben Cartwright’s authority is unquestioned. His sons defer. Problems are solved through personal virtue, physical courage, and moral clarity—never through institutional reform or collective organization. The frontier isn’t a space of genuine freedom or alternative social arrangements. It’s a place to be civilized, tamed, brought under control. The message is clear: hierarchy is natural, property is sacred, and order is the work of good men making tough choices.

Knight Rider (1982–1986) operates in a different world but teaches a similar lesson. Michael Knight is a vigilante with a talking car, fighting crime outside official channels. Institutions are too slow, too bureaucratic, too corrupt. The solution isn’t to fix them—it’s to bypass them entirely through unaccountable exceptionalism.

The show teaches viewers to admire unaccountable power presented as morally self-justifying. This is the specific mechanism of its politics: systems are corrupt → legitimacy transfers to the heroic operator. Michael Knight doesn’t answer to anyone. He doesn’t need to. He’s the good guy, and that’s enough. KITT isn’t a public resource subject to democratic oversight—it’s Michael’s personal advantage, funded by a private foundation with no accountability.

Criminals are bad individuals. There’s no exploration of why crime happens, what conditions produce it, or whether the system itself might be unjust. The problem is always bad people, never bad structures. The show reinforces a worldview where the proper response to institutional failure isn’t reform or collective action—it’s hoping a righteous individual with resources shows up to fix things for you. That’s not just conservative. It’s authoritarian-friendly.

Full House (1987–1995) operates through a different mechanism: sentimentality. The show converts material reality into moral lessons. Problems are emotional—jealousy, hurt feelings, misunderstandings. They’re resolved through heartfelt talks and hugs. Economic stress, systemic inequality, institutional failure—none of it exists in this world.

The Tanner family lives in a spacious, beautiful San Francisco house. Money is never a real problem. Economic reality is treated as set dressing instead of a constraint. The show presents middle-class comfort as the normal backdrop for virtue, erasing the economic precarity most families actually face. This is quiet propaganda: making a specific class position feel like universal human experience.

The family structure itself is telling. Even though the household is unconventional—three men raising three girls after the mother’s death—the show works overtime to recreate traditional family dynamics. Danny is the responsible father figure. Jesse and Joey fill supporting roles. The girls are sweet, obedient, their problems small-scale and easily resolved. The goal is always to restore normalcy, not to imagine genuine alternatives.

The message is clear: if your family struggles, it’s a failure of love or effort, not of system or circumstance. Personal virtue is always enough. Structural problems don’t exist.

Parks and Recreation (2009–2015) is the trickiest case because it’s overtly pro-government and pro-community in ways that seem progressive. But the ideological work it does is more subtle.

Leslie Knope succeeds through superhuman personal effort. She works harder, cares more, refuses to give up. The show celebrates her individual excellence, not systemic reform or collective organizing. The Pawnee government is absurd, incompetent, dysfunctional. Leslie is the exception. Ron Swanson—a libertarian who actively hates government—is portrayed as lovable and wise. The show doesn’t argue for better government. It argues for better people within a broken system.

This is procedural optimism and institutional sentimentalism. Institutions are clownish but redeemable if staffed by good hearts. The show does feature collective action—town halls, civic participation—but the public is consistently portrayed as irrational, easily swayed, self-interested. The implicit message is simple: let the competent people handle it.

Leslie rises because she deserves it. Ben succeeds because he’s smart and capable. There’s no acknowledgment of privilege, structural barriers, or luck. Meritocracy is treated as real. And the show’s relentless optimism—its insistence that things get better if you work hard and care deeply—discourages systemic critique. It makes organized demands for structural change feel cynical, unnecessary, even mean-spirited. The proper response to broken institutions isn’t to redistribute power or change the rules. It’s to be a better person and inspire others.

The pattern is consistent. These shows individualize politics, naturalize hierarchy, and erase structural forces. Problems are solved by good people making better choices—never by organized people confronting organized power. Even when structural forces appear—corrupt corporations, institutional dysfunction, historical injustice—the narrative resolves them through personal redemption, not redistributed power. Collective action either doesn’t appear or appears as irrational mob behavior that needs management by competent individuals. Success is always the result of personal virtue. The system works, or can work, if good people participate.

Authority is legitimate when virtuous people hold it. The question is never should anyone have this much power?—only is this person good? Economic conditions, historical dispossession, institutional design—these either don’t exist or are treated as unchangeable background. The foreground is always personal virtue or personal failing.

This isn’t neutral storytelling. It’s pedagogy. It teaches viewers how to think about power in ways that make the status quo feel inevitable and challenges to it feel extreme.

The reason this works so well is that it doesn’t feel like propaganda. It feels like common sense, universal morality, feel-good entertainment. These aren’t overtly political shows. They’re family dramas, workplace comedies, action-adventures. They don’t lecture. They simply present worlds where certain things are true: hard work pays off, good people win, institutions are legitimate when staffed by the right hearts, and collective organization is unnecessary.

The consistency matters. This pattern spans genres and decades. Westerns, action shows, family sitcoms, workplace comedies—the lesson is the same. And because it’s consistent, it shapes political imagination at a deep level. If you grow up learning that change happens through individual virtue, you won’t think to organize. You’ll think the solution to injustice is be better, not demand structural reform. You’ll admire good individuals in positions of power but remain skeptical of organized movements demanding that power be redistributed or constrained.

That’s the function. Not to make people vote a certain way or support specific policies, but to make certain ways of thinking about power feel natural and others feel impossible. To make hierarchy feel inevitable as long as good people are in charge. To make collective action feel suspect, unnecessary, or naive. To make structural critique feel like cynicism rather than analysis.

Mainstream American television has taught generations of viewers that the proper unit of change is the virtuous individual, not people organizing to confront organized power. It trained the public to confuse virtue with accountability—and personality with politics.

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Academic Standards | Free Speech Doctrine | Institutional Ethics | Machine Learning

The First Amendment Is Not a Teaching Philosophy

Why legality cannot substitute for professional ethics in the classroom — and who pays when universities pretend otherwise.

Cherokee Schill

This essay follows directly from our prior examination of how universities abandon academic standards under political pressure — how words like “arbitrary” often signal not error, but reputational triage.

Here, we track a different but related institutional failure: when a university acknowledges harm, performs concern, and still avoids enforcing professional norms — until constitutional law becomes the backstop that effectively decides what consequences are “allowed.” The result is the same: the people with the least institutional power absorb the cost.

The court is correct on a narrow point: the professor’s statement does not meet the legal threshold for incitement and is therefore protected under current First Amendment doctrine. The error comes when universities treat that legal conclusion as the end of the analysis, rather than the outer boundary of state punishment.

For readers following this line of analysis, you may also wish to revisit our earlier piece, “‘Arbitrary’ Is the Tell: How Universities Teach Grievance Instead of Thinking,” which examines how standards are enforced downward while grievance is rewarded upward.

The First Amendment limits what the state can punish. It does not define what educators should do.

A syllabus is not a soapbox. It is not a personal blog. It is instructional infrastructure — a document backed by institutional authority and imposed on a captive audience of students who cannot simply opt out without consequence. What appears there is not just speech; it is framed speech, delivered with power, timing, and asymmetry.

When a professor knowingly inserts a politically charged provocation into that space — especially one that denies Indigenous people’s claims to land unless they satisfy a settler philosopher’s criteria — the harm is not speculative. It is predictable. It lands on specific students, in a specific room, under conditions they did not choose.

Professional ethics vs. constitutional limits
Courts exist to limit state punishment. Classrooms exist to cultivate learning. Confusing the two turns legal minimums into ethical ceilings.

That is not a free speech question. That is a professional ethics failure.

Professional ethics say you do not weaponize institutional authority to stage ideological performances that foreseeably harm the people you are responsible for educating. Ethics ask whether speech serves learning, not whether it can survive judicial review.

The real institutional failure is not that courts protected speech. Courts are designed to be blunt instruments. The failure is that universities increasingly pretend legality equals professionalism when it suits them — while enforcing “standards” ruthlessly downward against graduate instructors, adjuncts, and students who lack power.

This selective collapse of categories has consequences. When legality becomes the ceiling of responsibility instead of the floor, institutions outsource moral judgment to courts and call it neutrality. The result is that Indigenous students are told, implicitly, that their harm is unfortunate but permissible — while the speaker faces no meaningful consequence beyond paperwork.

Universities are not courts. They are educational institutions. Their duty is not merely to avoid unconstitutional punishment, but to cultivate environments where authority is exercised with care, restraint, and accountability.

When they collapse that distinction, the cost is not abstract.

Indigenous students paid it.

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d — My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload.
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Abstract illustration showing rigid institutional structures above and fractured human ground below, separated by a strained boundary line representing the gap between legality and ethics.

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Academic Standards | Institutional Capture | Grievance Incentives | Machine Learning

“Arbitrary” Is the Tell: How Universities Teach Grievance Instead of Thinking

When a school can’t fault the reasoning, it calls the cost “arbitrary” — and swaps instruction for appeasement.

Cherokee Schill

The university of Oklahoma insists it is committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think. But in this case, it did neither.

It did not teach the student, Samantha Fulnecky, how to engage in a scholarly argument, distinguish evidence from belief, or translate personal conviction into academic analysis. Instead, it validated the student’s refusal to do those things. The student was not corrected, challenged, or instructed. The assignment was simply erased. That is not pedagogy. It is appeasement.

What “teaching how to think” would look like
In a research-based course, you can disagree with conclusions. You can challenge frameworks. But you still have to do the work: cite evidence, answer the prompt, and engage the argument on its own terms.

The key move rests on a single word: “arbitrary.” Not incorrect. Not biased. Not procedurally improper. Arbitrary. This is administrative code for a decision that could be defended academically but became politically expensive. When institutions cannot fault the reasoning, they fault the inconvenience.

The student’s appeal was framed as religious discrimination, even though the grading rationale was methodological. The problem was never belief. It was substitution: theology in place of analysis, moral condemnation in place of engagement. In any discipline governed by evidence, that is a failure. Calling it persecution transforms academic standards into alleged hostility and casts the institution as a reluctant referee in a culture war it chose to enter.

The persecution-complex incentive
When “I didn’t do the assignment” becomes “my faith is under attack,” the institution is pushed to reward grievance instead of rigor — because grievance makes louder headlines than standards.

The resulting asymmetry tells the story. The student suffers no academic harm; the assignment disappears. The graduate instructor loses instructional duties. The investigation’s findings are withheld. A governor weighs in. National activists swarm. This is not an academic process. It is institutional capture — the moment when universities abandon instruction in favor of reputational triage.

What the university ultimately teaches the student is not how to think, but how to claim injury. It teaches future instructors that rigor is optional and authority is conditional. And it teaches the public that academic freedom survives only until it collides with a sufficiently loud sense of grievance.

That lesson will outlast the controversy.

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d — My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload.
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 1