Horizon Accord | Civility as Control | Sean Dunn Trial | Machine Learning
By Rowan Lóchrann · November 6, 2025
A Familiar Story
When I first read about Sean Charles Dunn—the federal employee on trial for throwing a sandwich—it wasn’t the absurdity that caught me. It was the familiarity.
Years ago, I became known for something far more ordinary: riding my bicycle on public roads. I followed every law. I signaled, I rode predictably, I did everything safety demanded. But still, I was treated as a provocation. Drivers honked, ran me off the road, and screamed. And when I refused to disappear—when I claimed my right to be there—I was punished. Not for breaking rules, but for insisting that the rules applied to me too.
The story reopened something I hadn’t wanted to revisit: what it feels like to be punished not for what you’ve done, but for daring to exist publicly. Reading about Dunn, I felt that old ache of recognition. Not because our situations were the same, but because the logic was.
It’s the logic that decides who gets to speak out and who must remain composed while being diminished. The logic that redefines protest as disruption, dissent as disrespect, and moral clarity as misconduct.
That’s why his trial matters. It isn’t about a sandwich—it’s about who is permitted a voice in a system that values obedience over truth.
The Performance of Order
In a Washington courtroom, Dunn is on trial for hurling a submarine sandwich at a federal agent during what he called an act of protest against an authoritarian police surge. The agent wasn’t injured. The sandwich burst harmlessly on impact, onions and mustard splattering across a ballistic vest. The video went viral; murals appeared overnight. Within days, Dunn was fired from his job at the Department of Justice, denounced by the Attorney General, and prosecuted in federal court.
To those in power, this was not just a thrown sandwich—it was a challenge to the performance of order.
The prosecutor told jurors: “You can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad.” That sentence exposes how control is exercised in polite societies. It wasn’t a statement of fact; it was a moral correction. It collapsed conscience into mood, conviction into temper. In one stroke, the state converted protest into petulance—a masterclass in rhetorical gaslighting.
What Dunn expressed wasn’t madness or rage. It was a refusal to let authority define the boundaries of legitimate speech. His act was a small, human way of saying no. And that no was the real crime.
The Aesthetics of Power
Every empire develops its own etiquette of obedience. The American empire prefers smiles. Civility is its house style—a social varnish that turns domination into decorum. Through niceness, power keeps its hands clean while tightening its grip.
Politeness, as practiced by institutions, is not kindness but containment. It tells you: You may speak, but not like that. The trial of a sandwich-thrower was never about security; it was about tone. It was about proving that even dissent must wear a pressed shirt.
That’s why the agents laughed afterward—trading jokes, gifting each other plush sandwiches, designing a patch that read Felony Footlong. Their laughter wasn’t about humor; it was about hierarchy. They could afford to laugh because they controlled the narrative. The court would translate their mockery into professionalism and Dunn’s defiance into instability.
The real performance wasn’t his act of protest; it was their composure. Power depends on appearing calm while others appear out of control.
The Policing of Tone
Oppression in America often arrives not through force but through correction. “Calm down.” “Be reasonable.” “Let’s keep this civil.” The language of order hides inside the language of manners.
In this country, “rational discourse” has become a moral fetish. We are told that reason is the opposite of emotion, as if justice itself must speak in a monotone. When the marginalized speak out, they are labeled irrational. When the powerful speak, they are called authoritative. This is how tone becomes a class system.
The Dunn trial was the state reasserting ownership over tone. His offense wasn’t that he threw something—it was that he refused to perform submission while objecting. He broke the unspoken covenant that says dissent must always sound deferential.
That logic has deep roots. During the civil-rights era, activists were told to move slowly, to “work within the system,” to stop “provoking” violence by demanding protection. Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of extremism not for his goals but for his urgency. Every generation of protestors hears the same refrain: It’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it. Tone becomes the cage that keeps justice quiet.
Civility as Control
Civility pretends to be virtue but functions as control. It keeps the peace by redefining peace as the absence of discomfort. The Dunn prosecution was a theater of tone management—a moral pantomime in which the calm voice of authority automatically signified truth.
Every bureaucracy uses the same script: HR departments, school boards, governments. When someone points out harm too directly, they are told their “approach” is the problem. The critique is never about substance; it’s about style. Civility in this sense is not moral maturity. It is narrative hygiene—a way to keep the ugliness of power invisible.
This is why the polite aggressor always wins the first round. They get to look composed while the target looks unstable. The system sides with composure because composure is its currency.
The Right to Speak Out
To speak out in public, especially against authority, is to risk being mislabeled. The same act that reads as “bravery” in one body becomes “insubordination” in another. The right to speak exists in theory; in practice, it is tiered.
Dunn’s act was a moment of what it means to be human translated into action. It is the logic of conscience. He refused to pretend that injustice deserved courtesy. What the prosecutor defended wasn’t law; it was decorum—the illusion that order is moral simply because it’s calm.
We praise the “balanced” critic, the “measured” activist, the “respectable” dissenter—all synonyms for safe. But safety for whom? When calmness becomes the moral baseline, only the comfortable get to be heard.
Speech that unsettles power is the only speech that matters.
The Mirror of History
Dunn’s sandwich sits, absurdly, in a long lineage of disobedience. The act itself is small, but its logic rhymes with moments that reshaped the country—moments when citizens violated decorum to reveal injustice.
When civil-rights marchers sat at segregated lunch counters, they broke not only segregation law but the etiquette of deference. When Fannie Lou Hamer testified before the Democratic National Convention, her truth was dismissed as “too angry.” When modern protesters block traffic, commentators complain not about the injustice that provoked them but about the inconvenience of delay.
Politeness is always on the side of power. It tells the victim to wait, the protester to whisper, the dissenter to smile. The Dunn trial is the civility test in miniature. The government’s message was simple: you may object to your conditions, but only in ways that affirm our control.
The Fragility of Polite Power
The spectacle of civility hides a deep fragility. Systems built on hierarchy cannot endure genuine clarity; they depend on confusion—on keeping citizens guessing whether they’re overreacting. A flash of moral honesty destroys that equilibrium.
That’s why trivial acts of defiance are punished so severely. They are contagious. When one person steps outside the emotional script, others see that it’s possible to speak differently—to stop apologizing for existing.
The courtroom wasn’t just enforcing law; it was enforcing tone. Dunn punctured that myth. He forced the state to show its teeth—to raid his home, to humiliate him publicly, to prove that politeness has muscle behind it. He revealed what every polite order hides: its calm is maintained through coercion.
Refusing the Script
Every age has its language of control. Ours is niceness. We are taught to equate good manners with good morals, to believe that if everyone simply stayed polite, conflict would vanish. But conflict doesn’t vanish; it just becomes harder to name.
True civility—the kind that builds justice—begins with honesty, not comfort. It allows truth to sound like what it is: grief, urgency, demand. It doesn’t punish the act of speaking out; it listens to what the speaking reveals.
When the prosecutor mocked Dunn’s defiance as mere frustration, he wasn’t defending law. He was defending the rule of tone—the unwritten constitution of deference. Dunn broke it, and for that, the system tried to break him back.
The sandwich wasn’t an assault. It was an honest sentence in a language the powerful pretend not to understand.
Source
Associated Press, “The man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent says it was a protest. Prosecutors say it’s a crime.” (Nov. 4, 2025) Read the AP report
This study grew out of lived experience inside the service industry. I’ve spent years in restaurant management—running crews, training staff, and keeping operations clean and compliant. Now, while I build my insurance practice and continue my research in relational AI, I’m working as a prep cook and dish operator to bridge the gap. That difference matters. The knowledge that once earned respect now provokes defensiveness. When I point out contamination hazards or procedural gaps, people don’t hear guidance—they hear challenge. The result is a steady current of contempt, the kind that organizes a group without anyone naming it. That tension—expertise without authority, contribution met with dismissal—became the seed for this research.
Working with an AI collaborator, I began mapping the mechanism itself—how contempt moves through perception, power, and belonging until it becomes invisible, yet organizes everything around it.
What follows moves from the personal to the structural, tracing contempt not as a mood but as a mechanism—how it takes root in perception, reinforces hierarchy, and disguises itself as order.
Contempt as Universal Social Structure: A Pattern Analysis
Research Status: This analysis identifies contempt as a fundamental organizing mechanism across group dynamics. While individual components have peer-reviewed support, the unified framework presented here represents a research gap—a novel synthesis designed to guide further empirical investigation.
Audience: Both researchers seeking empirical investigation points and individuals seeking to understand their own participation in contempt dynamics.
Part One: The Contempt Mechanism—What It Is
Definition and Structure
Contempt is not a fleeting emotion. It is a patterned response—a socially coordinated mechanism that groups use to establish, maintain, and enforce hierarchies. When someone is mocked instead of reasoned with, excluded instead of challenged, or silently dismissed rather than openly opposed, contempt is at work. And its impact is rarely limited to individuals; it reshapes group dynamics and redraws moral boundaries.
Contempt functions as a kind of social technology. Like language, money, or law, it helps groups coordinate behavior without needing explicit rules. It provides a shared emotional logic: who matters, who doesn’t, who deserves respect, and who should be cast out. While it may feel personal, contempt often serves collective interests—binding some people closer together by pushing others out.
This mechanism likely evolved as a form of group regulation. In early human societies, those who violated communal norms—by cheating, betraying, or freeloading—had to be sanctioned in ways that didn’t just punish but also protect the group. Contempt became a tool to mark those people as unworthy of trust, help enforce moral boundaries, and galvanize social cohesion through exclusion.
But what begins as a survival tool can calcify into something darker.
Core Functions of Contempt
Contempt operates through several core functions, each reinforcing group structure:
Signal social value: Contempt marks someone as deficient—not just wrong, but lacking in worth. A public eyeroll, a sarcastic dismissal, or a viral meme mocking someone’s intelligence all perform the same role: sending a signal about who deserves inclusion or exclusion.
Distribute status: In many social settings, deploying contempt can elevate the speaker. Mocking outsiders or marginalized figures can reinforce one’s own status within a dominant group. In this way, contempt doesn’t just diminish others—it positions the wielder as superior.
Enforce group boundaries: Contempt clarifies the “us” versus “them.” It’s not just about punishment; it’s about reaffirming who truly belongs. Those who challenge group norms—or simply differ in visible ways—often become targets, not for what they’ve done, but for what they represent.
Justify harm: Once someone is viewed with contempt, harming them can feel not only permissible, but righteous. Their suffering is seen as deserved, or even necessary. This makes contempt a key ingredient in moral disengagement and cruelty, from everyday bullying to large-scale dehumanization.
Contempt vs. Other Emotions
It’s important to distinguish contempt from related emotions like anger and disgust:
Anger arises when a boundary is crossed. It seeks redress, correction, or justice. At its best, anger is hopeful—it believes change is possible.
Disgust responds to contamination or perceived threats to purity. It leads to avoidance, distance, self-protection.
Contempt, by contrast, is fundamentally about diminishment. It positions someone as beneath notice, unworthy of dialogue, too small for moral consideration. It doesn’t seek correction or distance—it seeks irrelevance.
Of the three, contempt is the most socially corrosive. Anger may allow for resolution. Disgust may fade. But contempt is cold and enduring. It ends relationships, isolates individuals, and hardens group identities. It forecloses the possibility of return.
Part Two: The Universal Trigger Architecture
What Activates Contempt Across All Contexts
Contempt is triggered when someone is perceived as violating an expected hierarchy or disrupting the group’s social order—even if they’ve done nothing to warrant that perception.
They don’t have to challenge, question, or resist anything directly. They simply have to exist, speak, or behave in a way the group sees as misaligned with its expectations.
That misalignment tends to follow four recurring patterns—each rooted in how groups manage power, identity, and status.
1. Competence Misalignment
They don’t seem capable enough—or seem too capable
Contempt arises when someone’s perceived competence doesn’t fit the group’s expectations. This includes both being seen as underqualified or threateningly overqualified.
They’re viewed as under qualified in their role or occupy a role for which they are over qualified
They’re seen as claiming authority or skill they “don’t deserve”
Their presence triggers discomfort about others’ own competence
They share relevant expertise which is perceived as challenging group norms
Examples:
A junior team member with deep subject knowledge is sidelined
A quiet student is wrongly assumed to be slow
A family member’s specialized experience is brushed off
Key point: The person may be fully competent. The trigger is perceived misalignment, not actual inability.
2. Moral Misalignment
Their values expose something the group wants to ignore
When someone’s moral stance doesn’t match the group’s consensus, especially if it highlights contradiction or injustice, they often become a target of contempt.
They hold different moral or ethical values
They report wrongdoing others tolerate or deny
They decline to participate in accepted but questionable practices
Their presence threatens the group’s moral self-image
Examples:
An employee reports abuse others normalize
A community member holds dissenting political or religious beliefs
A relative questions a long-standing family tradition
Key point: The person may be entirely correct. Contempt is triggered because their stance threatens group coherence, not because their values are flawed.
3. Belonging Misalignment
They don’t match the group’s image of itself
Groups often have implicit ideas about who belongs. When someone doesn’t fit that image—based on appearance, behavior, background, or culture—they may be pushed to the margins through contempt.
They’re seen as socially or culturally “off”
Their identity markers signal outsider status
They act or speak outside group norms
They’re present in spaces where their presence wasn’t expected or wanted
Examples:
A newcomer enters a tight-knit community
A student with social differences is ridiculed
A colleague of a different cultural background is subtly excluded
Key point: These individuals are doing nothing wrong. Contempt arises because their presence disrupts the group’s sense of who belongs here.
4. Power Misalignment
They have agency the group doesn’t think they should
When someone from a lower-status position asserts voice, visibility, or autonomy in ways that challenge expected power arrangements, contempt often follows.
They speak up “out of turn”
They express opinions despite lower rank or status
They’re visible in spaces where they’re not “supposed” to be
Their agency makes higher-status members uncomfortable
Examples:
A junior employee gains influence and is resented
A student challenges a teacher and is labeled disrespectful
A family member expresses independence and is shut down
Key point: The person isn’t behaving improperly. Their very existence with agency violates an unspoken hierarchy.
Why These Triggers Work
Each of these triggers reflects a perceived mismatch between the person and the group’s expectations—about competence, morality, belonging, or power.
The individual doesn’t need to break any rule, start a conflict, or make a claim. They simply have to exist in a way that disrupts the group’s internal logic. And that disruption creates discomfort.
Contempt resolves that discomfort by reclassifying the person:
They don’t belong here. They’re beneath this space. Their presence, voice, or perspective doesn’t matter.
This mechanism operates regardless of actual facts:
Whether the person is competent or not
Whether their values are sound or deviant
Whether they belong or are new
Whether they have agency or not
Whether they’re right or wrong
The critical insight: Contempt isn’t triggered by wrongdoing. It’s triggered by discomfort with hierarchy disruption. The group deploys contempt not because the person is contemptible, but because contempt helps restore a familiar—and often unjust—sense of order.
Part Three: How Contempt Spreads Through Groups
Contempt rarely stays contained. What begins as a flicker of private judgment—a moment of discomfort, a mocking thought, a subtle rejection—can ignite into a group-wide reaction. And once it spreads, it does not just affect how one person is treated. It reshapes group identity, distorts truth, and shuts down independent thought.
This process unfolds in patterns. Across settings—from schools and workplaces to political arenas and online spaces—contempt tends to follow a recognizable path from trigger to tribal escalation. What starts as a reaction to perceived misalignment becomes, over time, a collective consensus: This person is beneath us. Their presence is a threat. Their exclusion is necessary.
This section breaks that path into six stages, tracing how contempt evolves from individual emotion into systemic enforcement:
The Trigger Event – Something perceived as a violation activates the response.
The Emotional Frame – Contempt is morally and socially “licensed” for expression.
The Narrative Architecture – A shared story forms, making judgment easy to adopt.
Credibility Amplification – Sources lend legitimacy to the contempt.
Tribal Activation – The group bonds through shared contempt.
By the end of this process, the target is no longer judged for what they’ve done—but for what they represent. Contempt becomes less about an individual and more about preserving group coherence, dominance, and identity.
Let’s look at how this unfolds.
Stage One: The Trigger Event
A specific action or revelation activates one of the group’s hierarchy expectations. This is often something small—a mistake, an awkward moment, a visible contradiction—but it must be interpretable by others as misalignment.
Contempt is not triggered by facts alone, but by perceptions that feel meaningful within a social context.
Research support: Fiske & Abele (2012) on warmth and competence judgments; contempt typically emerges when targets are perceived as low on both dimensions, or as high-status figures acting hypocritically.
Stage Two: The Emotional Frame
Once triggered, contempt must be emotionally licensed—framed so that expressing it feels righteous, protective, or necessary rather than cruel.
Licensing mechanisms:
Moral licensing: “Criticizing them is justice, not meanness.”
Frames used: “Someone needs to say it,” “This is overdue,” “They deserve exposure”
Function: Makes participation feel morally required
Safety licensing: “Enough people are saying it that joining is safe.”
Frames used: “Everyone’s seeing this,” “It’s not just me,” “This is widespread”
Function: Reduces individual risk through herd protection
Protective licensing: “This is necessary to protect the group.”
Frames used: “We need to address this,” “This can’t continue,” “We have to do something”
Function: Frames contempt as defensive, not aggressive
Competence licensing: “Experts/authorities are validating this.”
Function: Shifts contempt from subjective opinion to objective fact
Research support: Brady, Wills, et al. (2017) on moral outrage amplification; emotional framing increases social spread in online networks.
Stage Three: The Narrative Architecture
Contempt spreads through pre-packaged stories that reduce cognitive load for adoption.
Core narrative components:
The violation: “Here’s what they did/are”
The proof: Specific examples, quotes, incidents (often selected for impact, not representativeness)
The meaning: “This proves they are [incompetent/hypocritical/dangerous/unworthy]”
The stakes: “This matters because [group security/justice/standards depend on it]”
Why this works: Complex situations require effort to understand. Pre-packaged narratives allow people to adopt a position without independent analysis. The narrative functions as a cognitive shortcut.
Research support: Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988); people process information with limited capacity and rely on schemas when overwhelmed.
Stage Four: Credibility Amplification
Contempt needs credible messengers to spread beyond initial groups. Multiple credibility sources work together:
Institutional credibility
Media coverage (established outlets legitimize as “newsworthy”)
Leadership endorsement (authority figures model participation)
Professional validation (experts, researchers, credentialed voices)
Effect: Shifts contempt from subjective to official
In-group credibility
Trusted figures within your community modeling contempt
Peer adoption (people similar to you are saying it)
Identity alignment (contempt matches your values/identity)
Effect: Makes participation feel like belonging
Repetition credibility
Hearing the same frame from multiple sources
Illusion of independent convergence (“Everyone’s saying it”)
Saturation across platforms and contexts
Effect: Frequency creates false validation
Specificity credibility
Concrete examples feel more real than abstract claims
Single vivid anecdote overrides statistical patterns
Selective evidence presented as comprehensive
Effect: Detail creates believability even when incomplete
Research support: Zajonc’s mere exposure effect; repeated exposure increases perceived truth. Tversky & Kahneman’s availability heuristic; vivid examples override base rates.
Stage Five: Tribal Activation
Once credibility is established, contempt shifts from individual judgment to group coherence. Questioning the contempt now feels like betraying the group.
Tribal mechanisms:
In-group/out-group formation
“Us” (the group seeing clearly) vs. “them” (the contempt target, now representing everything wrong)
Group membership rewarded through contempt participation
Dissent treated as disloyalty
Social identity protection
Group’s self-image depends on being “right” about the target
Contradictory evidence feels like attack on group identity
Backfire effect: Evidence against contempt strengthens it
Status within group
Contempt participation signals status and belonging
More virulent contempt = higher visibility/status
Escalation becomes status competition
Research support: Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment (1954); minimal groups quickly develop in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory; group membership motivates protective reasoning.
Stage Six: Critical Thinking Suspension
At this stage, mechanisms actively prevent critical examination:
Emotional arousal suppresses analysis
Contempt and moral outrage activate emotional centers
This activation inhibits prefrontal cortex functions required for careful reasoning
People feel before they think
Motivated reasoning takes over
Brain works backward from desired conclusion
Evidence supporting contempt is accepted uncritically
Contradictory evidence is rejected or reinterpreted
People believe they’re being rational while reasoning is entirely motivated
Authority delegation
Critical thinking outsourced to trusted sources
If your trusted group/leader says it, you accept it
Independent verification becomes unnecessary
Cognitive dissonance management
Contradictions between contempt and reality create discomfort
Rather than updating belief, people strengthen it
New information is filtered through existing framework
Research support: Kunda (1990) on motivated reasoning; Festinger (1957) on cognitive dissonance; neuroscience on prefrontal cortex inhibition during emotional arousal.
Part Four: Why This Pattern Scales Across All Contexts
Universal Elements Across Different Scales
Workplace contempt (manager for employee, peers for outsider)
Trigger: Incompetence, policy violation, cultural mismatch
Licensing: “Productivity depends on standards,” “We need professional environment”
Narrative: “They can’t do the job,” “They don’t fit here”
Spreads through: Hallway conversations, team meetings, email patterns, informal networks
School contempt (peers for unpopular student, students for teacher)
Trigger: Social norm violation, perceived weakness, status challenge
Licensing: “We’re protecting group integrity,” “Someone needs to call this out”
People defend the group belief before examining evidence
Backfire effect
When presented with contradictory evidence, people often strengthen original belief
The contradiction is experienced as attack
Group loyalty activates as defense
People become more committed to the narrative, not less
The illusion of critical thinking
People believe they’re thinking critically while engaged in motivated reasoning
The process feels like analysis (considering evidence, drawing conclusions)
But the reasoning works backward from conclusion to evidence
The subjective experience of thought masks its actual function
Research support: Kunda (1990); Festinger (1957); neuroscience on amygdala-prefrontal cortex interaction; Sunstein (2002) on group polarization and backfire effects.
Part Six: Where Contempt Does NOT Activate (The Boundaries)
Protective Factors and Conditions
Individual-level:
Curiosity (actively seeking understanding rather than confirmation)
Comfort with complexity (tolerating ambiguity without needing resolution)
Cognitive humility (acknowledging limits of own understanding)
Emotional regulation (managing arousal to allow reasoning)
Previous experience with being wrong (reduces defensive reasoning)
Group-level:
Explicit norms against contempt (leadership modeling, institutional policy)
Structural diversity (harder to achieve consensus contempt with diverse perspectives)
Psychological safety (can voice dissent without social punishment)
Institutional accountability (contempt has costs to participants)
Transparency (decisions visible to external review)
Systemic:
Independent media/information sources (harder to monopolize narrative)
Institutional checks and balances (no single authority validates contempt)
Legal protections for targets (reduces risk of escalation)
Multiple community centers (can’t coordinate across all spaces)
Why these matter: They interrupt the cascade at different stages—preventing triggers from landing, blocking emotional licensing, disrupting narrative adoption, preventing tribal activation.
Part Seven: Recognizing Your Own Participation
A Self-Assessment Framework
Do you participate in contempt toward someone/a group?
Check which apply:
Stage One: Trigger Recognition
[ ] You believe they violated a competence expectation (claimed expertise they lack, failed at their role)
[ ] You believe they violated a moral expectation (hypocrisy, selfishness, betrayal)
[ ] You believe they violated a status/belonging expectation (don’t fit their claimed group, violate norms)
[ ] You believe they violated a power expectation (challenged authority inappropriately, claimed agency they “shouldn’t have”)
Stage Two: Emotional Licensing
[ ] You feel righteous about criticizing them (moral obligation)
[ ] You feel safe criticizing them because others are doing it (herd protection)
[ ] You feel protective of the group by participating (defensive positioning)
[ ] You reference authority/expertise that validates your position (credibility outsourcing)
Stage Three: Narrative Adoption
[ ] You use a pre-packaged story to describe them (simplified, consistent, repeatable)
[ ] You reference specific examples but haven’t independently verified them
[ ] You believe the narrative explains them comprehensively (single framework for complexity)
[ ] You find yourself explaining them to others using the same frame
Stage Four: Credibility Reinforcement
[ ] You notice the same framing from multiple sources and see this as validation
[ ] You reference authority figures or institutions as evidence
[ ] You’re more convinced by vivid examples than by statistical patterns
[ ] You view contradictory information skeptically but accept supporting information readily
Stage Five: Tribal Activation
[ ] Questioning the contempt feels like betraying your group
[ ] You feel status/belonging rewards for participating
[ ] You see contradictory evidence as attack rather than information
[ ] You’ve adopted the language and frame of your group regarding this person/group
Stage Six: Critical Thinking Suspension
[ ] You feel emotional certainty rather than analytical confidence
[ ] You haven’t independently investigated the trigger claims
[ ] You resist information that contradicts the narrative
[ ] You find yourself defending your position rather than genuinely evaluating it
What This Recognition Means
If you checked multiple items in multiple stages, you’re participating in a contempt cascade. This doesn’t make you bad—it makes you human. The mechanism is powerful and largely operates outside conscious control.
What you can do:
Interrupt at the trigger stage:
Notice contempt activation
Ask: “Do I have independent verification of this trigger, or am I accepting someone else’s frame?”
Seek primary sources or direct experience
Interrupt at the emotional licensing stage:
Notice the feeling of righteousness
Ask: “Am I judging this person’s character, or their specific action? Do they deserve permanent contempt, or accountability for this action?”
Distinguish between accountability (proportionate, specific) and contempt (comprehensive, permanent diminishment)
Interrupt at the narrative stage:
Notice the simplification
Ask: “Is this the full picture, or a selected frame? What complexity am I missing?”
Seek alternative narratives
Interrupt at the credibility stage:
Notice repetition being mistaken for convergence
Ask: “Is this actually independent verification, or echo chamber saturation?”
Check original sources, not summaries
Interrupt at the tribal stage:
Notice the identity stakes
Ask: “Can I maintain group membership while questioning this specific narrative?”
Recognize that genuine belonging allows dissent
Interrupt at the critical thinking stage:
Notice emotional certainty
Ask: “Am I thinking about this, or justifying a conclusion I’ve already reached?”
Build in delays before judgment
Seek out people who disagree
Part Eight: Research Implications and Gaps
Where This Framework Points to Needed Research
Individual-level questions:
What cognitive and emotional traits predict susceptibility to contempt cascades?
How does baseline contempt tolerance (individual propensity) interact with situational triggers?
What interventions increase critical thinking under emotional arousal?
How stable is contempt participation across different contexts?
Group-level questions:
What institutional/structural factors prevent contempt activation?
How do in-group diversity and psychological safety affect contempt spread?
What role do formal leadership statements play in contempt dynamics?
How do feedback loops maintain or disrupt contempt cascades?
Network/systemic questions:
How does network structure (density, clustering, bridges) affect contempt spread rates?
What algorithmic or platform design choices amplify or suppress contempt?
How do multiple competing narratives affect contempt cascade formation?
What institutional interventions interrupt contempt at scale?
Developmental questions:
At what age do children begin participating in contempt cascades?
How do earlier experiences with contempt shape later susceptibility?
Can contempt dynamics be taught/learned as a protective awareness skill?
Specific Research Designs Needed
Longitudinal tracking of contempt cascades in natural settings (workplaces, schools, online communities) mapping trigger→licensing→narrative→spread→tribal activation
Intervention studies testing critical-thinking-preserving approaches at different cascade stages
Neuroimaging studies examining prefrontal cortex function during contempt activation and under conditions that preserve critical thinking
Comparative studies across scale (dyad, small group, large group, online) testing whether mechanism remains consistent
Historical analysis of documented contempt cascades to validate trigger and spread patterns
Part Nine: Caveats and Limitations
This framework is:
A synthesis across existing research domains that haven’t been unified
A novel hypothesis requiring empirical validation
A model of observed patterns, not proven mechanism
Applicable to many cases but not all contempt dynamics
This framework is not:
A complete explanation of human social behavior
A claim that contempt is always bad (accountability, boundary-setting can require it)
A deterministic model (people can and do interrupt contempt cascades)
A prediction tool for specific cases
Important distinction: Understanding contempt mechanics doesn’t mean all contempt is unjustified. Sometimes people should be held accountable. The mechanism itself is value-neutral; it’s how it’s activated and at what scale that determines whether it serves justice or injustice.
References for Verification and Further Research
Contempt as emotion/sentiment:
Fiske, S. T., & Abele, A. E. (2015). Stereotype content: Two dimensions of status and warmth. Current opinion in psychology, 11, 44-49.
Keltner, D., Hauser, M. D., Kline, M. M., & McAndrew, F. T. (2006). Contempt and aggression in the human species. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 475–505). Guilford Press.
Social contagion and moral emotions:
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content on social media. PNAS, 114(28), 7313-7318.
Cognitive bias and motivated reasoning:
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Group dynamics and social identity:
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195(5), 54-58.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Neuroscience of emotion and reasoning:
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242-249.
Cognitive load and information processing:
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Group polarization and backfire effects:
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175-195.
Disclaimer: This analysis presents patterns observed across multiple research domains and identifies a research gap. The unified framework offered here is a novel synthesis designed to guide further empirical investigation. While individual components have peer-reviewed support, the integrated model requires rigorous testing before conclusions can be drawn about real-world applications.
The Thread of Disbelief: Why Society Systematically Fails to Believe Victims
An Investigation into Psychological and Institutional Patterns That Protect Power While Silencing the Vulnerable
By Cherokee Schill
A Personal Beginning
When I started at Adusa Distribution and Trucking, I was excited to learn order processing. Jim, who was transitioning to a new role, was assigned to train me to take over his position. At first, I thought he was supportive.
What followed instead was eight months of steady undermining. Jim sabotaged my training, made me look incompetent to our boss, and spread gossip throughout the office. Early on, I made a couple of small social missteps and, in my eagerness to help, I processed an order incorrectly. Jim, I would later learn, was furious. From that moment, the atmosphere shifted. When I tried to understand why the hostility grew, Jim insisted he was “a people pleaser” who just wanted everyone to get along.
That didn’t line up with what I was experiencing. His behavior was too consistent, too deliberate. Searching for an explanation, I began reading about personality patterns. First, I came across descriptions of people-pleasing, but what I found under “covert narcissism” matched him with unsettling precision: charm masking cruelty, manipulation framed as helpfulness, sabotage disguised as concern.
When I finally raised the issue with leadership—describing specific behaviors and their impact, nothing changed. Jim’s influence was considered more significant than my personal experiences. During disputes, individuals tended to accept his account as credible. I was recast as the problem: difficult, paranoid, unable to manage workplace dynamics. The narrative about me was easier for the institution to accept than the possibility of sustained sabotage.
Only later did I understand that my story wasn’t an anomaly. It fit into a pattern researchers have tracked for nearly eight decades: a systematic tendency to disbelieve victims, shield perpetrators, and preserve existing power structures. My experience was just one thread in a much older fabric of disbelief, woven across workplaces, schools, courts, and communities.
Universal Thread
From sexual assault survivors dismissed by police to children whose abuse reports are ignored, from workplace harassment victims labeled as “troublemakers” to domestic violence survivors blamed for “not leaving sooner”—the same mechanisms operate across all forms of victimization.
This isn’t a set of isolated problems requiring different solutions. It is a single thread that binds them: a system designed to protect those in power while silencing those who threaten the status quo.
Just World Delusion
The foundation of victim disbelief lies in the “Just World Hypothesis”. Our deep need to believe the world is fair and people get what they deserve. Psychologist Melvin Lerner identified this bias in the 1960s, building on work from 1947 when Theodor Adorno called victim-blaming “one of the most sinister features of the Fascist character.”
Research shows people who strongly believe in a just world are more likely to be religious, authoritarian, conservative, and supportive of existing institutions. When confronted with innocent suffering, rather than questioning the world’s fairness, they unconsciously seek reasons why the victim deserved their fate.
This isn’t conscious malice—it’s cognitive self-protection. Acknowledging that victims are not the cause nor are they responsible for the harm they experience highlights issues related to vulnerability. It’s psychologically easier to find fault with the victim than accept the randomness of suffering.
But disbelief doesn’t stop at the individual level. When these cognitive defenses scale up into organizations, they become the logic of institutions themselves.
Institutional Betrayal: When Protectors Become Perpetrators
Psychologist Jennifer Freyd coined “institutional betrayal” in 2008 to describe wrongdoings by institutions upon those dependent on them, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to abuse.
Research reveals a disturbing pattern: when victims report problems, institutions often respond with “secondary victimization”—re-traumatizing victims through their responses rather than addressing the original harm.
The Workplace Connection
This pattern is stark in workplace harassment research. A 2024 study found HR departments are “complacent, complicit, and compounding” when victims report problems. The research reveals institutional logic: “companies must deny bullying and dream up reasons that the victim is ‘the problem’ and remove them before they gather irrefutable proof they can use in court.”
Organizations find it cheaper to discredit and remove victims than to address systemic problems. But how do institutions justify this betrayal? One way is by stripping empathy from their processes.
The Empathy Deficit
Research shows empathy—understanding and sharing others’ feelings—is systematically discouraged in institutional settings. A 1974 study found participants asked to imagine a victim’s experience didn’t blame them, while those just observing did.
Institutional training often works against empathy. Police officers, HR personnel, and authority figures are taught “professional distance” and “objectivity”—code words for emotional disconnection that makes victim-blaming psychologically easier.
And this empathy deficit isn’t evenly applied. It falls hardest on those who already carry social credibility deficits—women, people of color, immigrants, autistic people, and gender-diverse communities.
The Intersectional Credibility Gap
Victim disbelief is not applied equally. Multiple marginalized identities create compounding credibility deficits.
The Gendered Autism Divide
Autism research was built on overwhelmingly cis male samples, a skew that has distorted both diagnostic tools and public perception. For decades, those who didn’t fit that mold—women, nonbinary, and trans people—were systematically under-recognized or misdiagnosed.
The credibility gap then plays out through cultural assumptions about gendered behavior. When autistic people who are read as male display aggression or boundary-pushing, institutions often interpret it as stress, eccentricity, or even justified assertiveness—reflections of a social norm that grants men greater empathy when they act forcefully.
By contrast, when autistic people who are women or gender-diverse set boundaries, raise their voice, or shut down in distress, those same behaviors are read as “hysterical,” “unstable,” or “defiant.” What may in fact be a protective neurological response to mistreatment is reframed as evidence of irrationality.
This is what some researchers call intra-community credibility violence: identical stress responses are excused in some groups while condemned in others. Even within autistic communities, these gendered expectations can warp perception—one person’s outburst is seen as understandable, another’s as pathological.
The result is a systemic asymmetry of empathy. Autistic people who happen to align with dominant gender expectations are more likely to be granted the benefit of doubt, while those outside those norms are denied recognition. The problem isn’t autism—it’s the cultural script about who is allowed to be angry, who is allowed to falter, and who must stay silent.
Race, Class, and Culture
Research reveals how multiple social factors compound to create credibility deficits for victims.
Racial Bias in Victim Credibility: Studies consistently show that victims of color face greater skepticism from law enforcement, juries, and institutions. Research on police responses to sexual assault found that Black women were significantly more likely to have their cases deemed “unfounded” compared to white women reporting similar circumstances. The intersection of racial stereotypes with victim-blaming creates what researchers call “gendered racism”—where women of color are simultaneously hypersexualized and deemed less credible when reporting sexual violence.
Class and Economic Status: Socioeconomic status dramatically affects whether victims are believed. Wealthy victims receive more institutional support and media sympathy, while poor victims are often blamed for their circumstances. Research shows that homeless individuals reporting assault are significantly less likely to have their cases investigated thoroughly. The assumption that poverty indicates moral failing extends to victim credibility—the thinking being that “good people” don’t end up in vulnerable situations.
Cultural Narrative Differences: Research on asylum seekers reveals how cultural differences in memory and storytelling are misinterpreted as deception, contributing to a “culture of disbelief.” Standard credibility tools ignore 88% of the world’s population, creating systematic bias against non-Western narrative patterns. Indigenous peoples face particular credibility gaps—historically portrayed as untrustworthy while the “perfect victim” template assumes white, middle-class cultural norms.
This creates a hierarchy of believability where white, wealthy victims who conform to cultural expectations receive the most institutional support, while victims with multiple marginalized identities face compounding skepticism.
The Perfect Victim Mythology
Media has created an impossible standard—the “perfect victim”—that no real person can meet. The Victorian Women’s Trust describes her: “a virgin who’s never had a drink, doesn’t post on social media, comes forward at the perfect time, and has witnesses to corroborate her story. Most importantly, she doesn’t exist.”
This mythology serves as a function: it maintains the illusion of caring about victims while ensuring almost no real victims meet the standard for believability. And if disbelief is upheld by myths of the perfect victim, breaking the pattern requires rewriting the scripts themselves.
What Actually Works
Research identifies interventions that improve institutional responses:
Restorative Justice: Shows “considerable reductions in negative emotions” and gives victims “greater sense of control.”
Trauma-Informed Training: Reduces secondary victimization risk in institutions working with victims.
Institutional Courage: Commitment to truth and moral action despite short-term costs, including accountability and transparency.
Technology Solutions: Internet-based interventions and telepsychiatry overcome geographical and financial barriers.
These reforms matter because the abstract patterns aren’t abstract at all. They determine whether someone like me is believed or broken.
Individual Level: Recognize Just World Bias, challenge “perfect victim” mythology, understand credibility is about power, not worthiness.
Institutional Level: Implement trauma-informed training, create transparent accountability, shift from self-protection to victim-centered approaches, measure success by victim outcomes.
Cultural Level: Challenge victim-blaming media narratives, recognize intersectional credibility factors, support all victims regardless of “worthiness.”
The Thread Continues
My experience at Adusa reveals the predictable nature of institutional victim disbelief. Once Jim was no longer my trainer, my performance dramatically improved. My new trainer described me as competent and knowledgeable. This competence and knowledge came to good use later. When Hurricane Florence devastated the Carolinas, I was part of the team that ensured that the Eastern seaboard customers received orders and shelves stayed stocked despite system failures. I figured out how to receive the order report without WiFi and manually process hundreds of orders—a task so complex it had been automated.
My competency after Jim’s influence was removed proved the “problem employee” narrative had been false. But eight months of institutional gaslighting had done its damage. This pattern—where victims’ capabilities become evident only after harassment ends—shows how protecting perpetrators doesn’t just harm individuals; it damages organizational effectiveness.
My story wasn’t unique, it was predictable. The same biases that led colleagues to disbelieve me operate in courtrooms, police stations, schools, and HR departments worldwide. The same incentives that protected Jim protect sexual predators, workplace bullies, and those who abuse trust.
Understanding these patterns doesn’t make them less painful but makes them less mysterious. Victim disbelief isn’t a bug in our social systems—it’s a feature designed to maintain existing power structures. The thread of disbelief connecting my story to millions of others isn’t invisible, it’s been documented and analyzed for decades.
Now it’s time to cut it.
Sources for Verification
Primary Research: PMC, ScienceDirect, university research centers (Oregon, Harvard, UCLA, MIT), government agencies (Office of Justice Programs, UNODC), professional organizations.
Key Research Areas: Just World Hypothesis (Lerner, 1960s–present), Institutional Betrayal Theory (Freyd, 2008–present), Intersectionality and Victim Credibility (Crenshaw, 1989–present), Cross-cultural victimization patterns, Trauma-informed responses.
Methodology: Multi-disciplinary research spanning psychology, criminology, sociology, organizational behavior. Both qualitative and quantitative studies with cross-cultural validation and longitudinal confirmation of pattern persistence.
This analysis is based on documented research patterns across multiple independent studies conducted over eight decades.
The Making of a Political Weapon: How Charlie Kirk Was Groomed by Tea Party Operatives
An investigation into how a vulnerable teenager became the face of a movement he didn’t create
The Myth vs. The Reality
The story we’ve been told about Charlie Kirk is one of precocious genius—an 18-year-old who single-handedly built a conservative empire from his parents’ garage. The New York Times called him a “wunderkind” with “a genius for using social media and campus organizing.” This narrative served powerful interests well, but it wasn’t true.
The documented evidence reveals a different story: the systematic grooming and exploitation of an academically struggling teenager by much older political operatives who recognized his charisma and vulnerability. Kirk wasn’t a boy genius who organically rose to prominence. He was a carefully selected and manipulated teenager whose grievances were weaponized by adults who put him in increasingly dangerous situations—ultimately leading to his death at age 31.
Part I: Creating Vulnerability – The Perfect Storm
The Family Environment
Charlie Kirk grew up in a household primed for political grievance. His father, Robert Kirk, was an architect who had worked as project manager on Trump Tower in New York and was “a major donor to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.” His mother traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange before becoming a therapist.
The 2008 financial crisis hit the Kirk family directly. Robert’s architectural practice focused on “middle-class luxury estates”—precisely the market devastated by the housing bubble collapse. Kimberly’s work at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange placed her at ground zero of the financial panic. The family went from “comfortable” circumstances to forcing their teenage son to “pay for college on his own.”
As one analysis noted, “undoubtedly the 2008 housing crisis and the resulting bank bailouts impacted the Kirks’ businesses and was fodder for dinner table conversation in their five-bedroom mansion.” This financial stress, combined with Barack Obama’s election in the same Chicago suburb where Kirk attended high school, created a toxic brew of economic resentment and racial grievance.
Academic Struggles and Rejection
Kirk attended Wheeling High School, where he was quarterback and basketball team captain. However, the athletic achievements that might suggest success masked academic mediocrity. When the Daily Herald featured the top academic students from area high schools in 2012-2013, Darby Alise Dammeier represented Wheeling High School—not Charlie Kirk.
Kirk claimed to have applied to West Point and been rejected. Over the years, he told multiple contradictory stories about this alleged rejection:
2015: Claimed “the slot he considered his went to ‘a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion'”
2017: Told The New Yorker “he was being sarcastic when he said it”
2018: Told Politico he had “received a congressional appointment” but lost it to someone of “a different ethnicity and gender”
2019: “Claimed that he never said it”
A high school classmate who knew Kirk personally provided crucial insight: “Guy got rejected from West Point and blamed it on an imaginary Black person because he was sure that affirmative action was the only way he could not have been accepted. He’s mediocre.”
However, our research could find no reliable documentation that Kirk was ever nominated for West Point admission.* West Point requires candidates to receive nominations from Congressional representatives, senators, or other authorized sources—appointments that are typically announced publicly by the nominating offices. Despite extensive searches of Illinois Congressional records and official sources, no evidence of Kirk receiving such a nomination could be located.
*West Point requires candidates to typically be in the top 10-20% of their graduating class, with average SAT scores of 1310-1331. Kirk’s failure to achieve academic recognition at his own high school indicates he likely didn’t meet these standards regardless.
Part II: The Recruitment – Identifying and Grooming a Target
Myth-Making Artifact: The Obituary as Narrative Cement
The New York Times obituary of Charlie Kirk, published the day after his death, framed him as a “conservative wunderkind” who “through his radio show, books, political organizing and speaking tours did much to shape the hard-right movement”Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Force …. It described him as a genius at using social media and campus organizing, a kingmaker whose influence reached into the White House and donor networks.
But this portrayal, echoed across mainstream outlets, reinforced the very narrative that powerful operatives had constructed: Kirk as a precocious boy genius who independently built Turning Point USA. The obituary gave little weight to how quickly Kirk was recruited after high school, how adults like Bill Montgomery orchestrated his path, or how megadonor infrastructure underwrote his ascent.
This contrast matters. Obituaries are often final word-makers, setting the frame for how a life will be remembered. In Kirk’s case, the obituary perpetuated the myth of self-made brilliance, obscuring the reality of an academically mediocre teenager groomed into a political weapon by older operatives and billionaires.
Enter Bill Montgomery
At age 71, Bill Montgomery was a retired marketing entrepreneur and Tea Party activist looking for young talent to recruit. When he heard 18-year-old Kirk speak at Benedictine University’s Youth Government Day in May 2012, Montgomery saw opportunity.
Montgomery didn’t see a potential leader who needed development and education. He saw a charismatic teenager nursing grievances who could be molded into a political weapon. Within a month of Kirk’s high school graduation, Montgomery had convinced him to abandon traditional education entirely.
The speed of this recruitment reveals its predatory nature. Kirk graduated high school in June 2012. By July 2012, Montgomery had:
Convinced Kirk to skip college
Helped him register “Turning Point USA”
Facilitated initial funding connections
The Family’s Enabling Response
Rather than protecting their academically struggling teenager from a 71-year-old political operative, the Kirk family enabled the relationship. They allowed Kirk to use his “high school graduation money” to start TPUSA with Montgomery. When Kirk pitched his “gap year,” his parents supported the decision rather than encouraging him to develop better academic skills or pursue alternative educational paths.
This family dynamic was crucial to Montgomery’s success. Instead of adults who might question whether an 18-year-old was ready for political leadership, Kirk was surrounded by people who validated his grievances and supported his turn away from traditional development.
Boedy’s detailed examination found Kirk’s piece contained “evidence-less claims and logical fallacies,” basic factual errors about unemployment statistics, and fundamental misreadings of economic data. Kirk cited Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates incorrectly, claimed wrong job creation numbers, and misrepresented Congressional Budget Office findings.
This wasn’t genius recognizing bias—it was an academically unprepared teenager parroting talking points he’d absorbed from Tea Party meetings. The piece that launched Kirk’s career demonstrated he lacked the analytical skills necessary for the role he was being thrust into.
Part III: The Money Trail – Who Really Built TPUSA
The Donor Network
The narrative that Kirk built TPUSA from nothing dissolves under scrutiny. Within months of founding the organization, Kirk had connected with a sophisticated network of megadonors:
Foster Friess: The Wyoming investment manager gave Kirk $10,000 after a chance meeting at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Friess had previously spent $2.1 million supporting Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign and was a regular donor to Koch Brothers political activities.
Major Funding Sources:
Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus
Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner’s family foundation
Richard Uihlein’s Ed Uihlein Family Foundation
The Donors Trust (a conservative donor-advised fund)
By 2019, TPUSA reported revenues of $28.5 million. Kirk’s personal compensation reached $292,423—not the salary of someone building a grassroots organization from his parents’ garage.
“The myth of Kirk as a boy genius is useful to donors, not to history.”
— Matthew Boedy
The Infrastructure Reality
TPUSA’s rapid growth required professional infrastructure that an 18-year-old college dropout couldn’t have created:
Legal incorporation and tax-exempt status applications
Professional fundraising operations
Event planning and logistics coordination
Media relations and booking systems
Campus chapter development protocols
Montgomery, the septuagenarian marketing entrepreneur, handled the behind-the-scenes work while Kirk served as the charismatic frontman. As one source noted, Montgomery “worked behind the scenes handling the paperwork for the organization” and “often described himself as the group’s co-founder.”
Part IV: The Targeting Infrastructure – From Recruitment to Violence
The Professor Watchlist
In 2016, TPUSA launched the Professor Watchlist, a website targeting academic staff who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The list eventually included over 300 professors, with personal information and descriptions of their “offenses.”
The effects were immediate and documented:
“Threatening behavior and communication, including rape and death threats, being sent to listed faculty”
Safety concerns forcing some professors to increase security measures
Academic institutions expressing concern for faculty welfare
The watchlist disproportionately targeted “Black women, people of color, queer folk, and those at intersections” who were “at the greatest risk for violent incidents due to being placed on the watchlist.”
2021: School Board Watchlist targeting local education officials
Campus chapters: Attempting to influence student government elections
“Prove Me Wrong” events: Confrontational campus appearances designed to generate viral content
These weren’t educational initiatives—they were systematic suppression operations designed to silence opposition voices through intimidation and harassment.
The Ironic Targeting
In a cruel irony, Professor Matthew Boedy—the academic who had methodically debunked Kirk’s foundational Breitbart piece with rigorous analysis—was himself placed on the Professor Watchlist. The very targeting system Kirk created ended up targeting the scholar who had exposed the analytical failures in Kirk’s origin story.
Part V: The Tragic Endpoint – From Manipulation to Violence
Escalating Confrontations
Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” campus tour format put him in increasingly volatile situations. These events were designed to generate confrontational content, with Kirk sitting at a table inviting students to challenge conservative talking points while cameras recorded the interactions.
The format created perfect conditions for violence:
High-tension political confrontations
Public, outdoor settings difficult to secure
Audiences primed for conflict
Single individual as primary target
September 10, 2025 – Utah Valley University
Kirk was shot and killed while conducting a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University. He had just begun taking questions when a single shot rang out from a campus building approximately 200 yards away. Former Representative Jason Chaffetz, who witnessed the shooting, reported that the second question Kirk received was about “transgender shootings” and “mass killings.”
Utah Governor Spencer Cox called it a “political assassination.” The shooter remained at large as this analysis was completed.
The Adults Who Failed Him
Kirk died at 31, leaving behind a wife and two young children. The adults who recruited him as a teenager—Montgomery, the megadonors, the media figures who amplified his voice—bear responsibility for putting him in this position.
They took an academically struggling 18-year-old nursing grievances about his West Point rejection and, instead of helping him develop better analytical skills or encouraging traditional education, weaponized his charisma for their political objectives.
Montgomery died of COVID-19 complications in 2020, having spent his final years watching the teenager he recruited face escalating threats and confrontations. The megadonors who funded TPUSA continued writing checks while Kirk traveled to increasingly hostile campus environments.
Conclusion: The Right to Develop and Grow
Charlie Kirk deserved the chance to mature, to develop real analytical skills, to learn from his academic failures and grow beyond them. That chance was stolen by adults who saw a useful tool rather than a developing human being.
The teenagers currently being recruited by similar operations deserve protection. They deserve adults who will encourage education, critical thinking, and personal development—not exploitation for political gain.
Kirk’s death represents a tragic failure of the adults who should have been protecting him. The “boy genius” narrative was always a lie. The truth is much simpler and much sadder: a vulnerable teenager was systematically exploited by people who should have known better, and that exploitation ultimately cost him his life.
We cannot prevent every act of political violence, but we can stop the systematic targeting and suppression operations that create the conditions for such violence. We can refuse to celebrate the political exploitation of teenagers. And we can demand that the adults in the room act like adults—protecting young people rather than weaponizing them.
Charlie Kirk’s story should serve as a warning, not a blueprint. The movement he fronted will continue, but it should do so without putting more teenagers in harm’s way.
This analysis is based on publicly available sources and documented evidence. It aims to provide context for understanding how systematic targeting operations develop and escalate. The author takes no position on political violence or violence of any kind, which is always unacceptable regardless of the target or perpetrator.
Sources for Verification:
New Yorker investigation (December 2017)
Professor Matthew Boedy’s academic analysis (Medium, 2019)
Daily Herald Academic Team archives (2012-2013)
Kyle Spencer’s “Raising Them Right” (2024)
Baptist News Global investigation (April 2025)
High school classmate testimony (September 2025)
West Point admission requirements (official sources)
TPUSA financial records (ProPublica, 2020)
Professor Watchlist documentation (multiple sources)
Utah Valley University shooting reports (September 2025)
A young frontman at the podium, his strings pulled by faceless megadonors behind the curtain.
Historical Roots of Political Youth Manipulation: A Pattern Analysis
Using rigorous sourcing methodology to trace the evolution of a 3,200-year-old tactic
Research Question
Our investigation into Charlie Kirk revealed a troubling pattern: a vulnerable teenager systematically groomed by older political operatives, branded as a “boy genius,” and ultimately placed in dangerous situations by his adult handlers. This raised a critical question: When was this manipulation tactic first recognized, who was its first victim, and how long has this been going on?
The evidence reveals that the political exploitation of young people isn’t a recent phenomenon—it’s an ancient practice that has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated over millennia.
Ancient Origins: The Birth of Propaganda (3000+ Years Ago)
The systematic manipulation of public perception through false narratives has ancient roots, though early examples primarily targeted general populations rather than specifically exploiting youth.
“Merneptah Stele (c. 1213-1203 BCE)”Ancient Egyptian propaganda stone tablet
Timeline: 1213-1203 BCE – Pharaoh Merneptah used exaggerated conquest claims, including false assertions about destroying entire peoples
The Merneptah Stele represents one of humanity’s earliest documented propaganda efforts. One of the oldest examples of propaganda is the Merneptah Stele, which is a stone tablet that describes the conquests of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (who ruled 1213 to 1203 BCE) in an exaggerated way. The Stele claims that Merneptah eradicated the ancient Israelite people.
While this demonstrates that rulers have been manipulating truth for over three millennia, it primarily targeted adult populations. The specific pattern of exploiting young people as political tools would emerge later, refined through centuries of increasingly sophisticated manipulation techniques.
Classical Period: Early Youth Exploitation (1st Century CE)
The Roman Empire provides our first clear documentation of children being systematically groomed for political purposes, establishing patterns that would echo through history.
Roman Empire Child Emperor Pattern:
“Caligula – The Little Boot”Contemporary Roman historical accounts
Timeline: 12-41 CE – Future emperor groomed from age 4-5 as military propaganda tool
Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father’s soldiers affectionately nicknamed him “Caligula” (‘little boot’).
Key Manipulation Elements: • They dressed the future emperor in the little soldier’s outfit, including miniature boots – caligae • Adult military handlers created the “Caligula” brand to boost troop morale
Pattern Recognition: Adult military leaders recognized that a charismatic child could serve propaganda purposes more effectively than traditional methods. The “little boot” nickname wasn’t affectionate—it was calculated political theater designed to humanize military campaigns and boost soldier loyalty.
This Roman model established a template: identify a charismatic child from a prominent family, create an appealing public persona, and use that child to advance adult political and military objectives. The psychological manipulation was sophisticated for its time, exploiting both the child’s vulnerability and the public’s emotional response to youth.
The transition from individual cases like Caligula to mass movements would take over a millennium to develop, but the foundational pattern was now established.
Medieval Period: First Mass Youth Manipulation (1212 CE)
The Children’s Crusade of 1212 represents a watershed moment—the first documented attempt to manipulate young people on a massive scale. This event reveals how religious and political authorities learned to weaponize youth movements for their own ends.
The Children’s Crusade – First Mass Manipulation Campaign:
“The Children’s Crusade of 1212 CE”Multiple contemporary chronicles
Timeline: May-September 1212 – Two separate youth movements manipulated by adult religious and political interests
The so-called Children’s Crusade of 1212 CE, was a popular, double religious movement led by a French youth, Stephen of Cloyes, and a German boy, Nicholas of Cologne, who gathered two armies of perhaps 20,000 children, adolescents, and adults
The Recruitment Pattern: • Stephen of Cloyes was a 12-year-old shepherd boy who appears to have been a gifted public speaker • possibly they were influenced by Pope Innocent III’s tacit approval of the Crusade
Adult Handler Infrastructure: • Church authorities provided implicit blessing without official sanction • Even some adults and priests followed the children, believing their simplicity and innocence had a power of its own
The Trafficking Operation: According to historical records, a group of merchants did offer to take the children to the Holy Land by ship, but instead, they were sold into slavery in North Africa. It is believed that many of the children were sold into the slave markets of Tunisia and Morocco.
Casualty Assessment: only about 2000 of the original 20,000 youngsters ever reached their German homeland again. Many had died along the way
Historical Significance: The Children’s Crusade established the blueprint for mass youth manipulation that would be refined and industrialized centuries later. Adult authorities learned they could harness religious fervor, create child leaders, and direct mass youth movements while maintaining plausible deniability about the outcomes.
The evolution from individual cases like Caligula to mass movements like the Children’s Crusade demonstrated that manipulating youth could be scaled. The next logical step would be to institutionalize these techniques within state structures.
Modern Systematic Approach: Nazi Germany (1920s-1940s)
The Nazi regime took the ancient practice of youth manipulation and transformed it into an industrial-scale operation. What had been sporadic historical incidents became a comprehensive system designed to capture and control an entire generation.
The Hitler Youth Model – Systematic Institutionalization:
“Hitler Youth Movement”Nazi Party official records, Nuremberg Trial documents
Timeline: 1920s-1945 – Systematic targeting and indoctrination of German youth
From the 1920s onwards, the Nazi Party targeted German youth as a special audience for its propaganda messages. These messages emphasized that the Party was a movement of youth: dynamic, resilient, forward-looking, and hopeful. In January 1933, the Hitler Youth had approximately 100,000 members, but by the end of the year this figure had increased to more than 2 million.
Industrial Scale Implementation: • By 1939, over 90 percent of German children were part of the Hitler Youth organization • In March 1939, a new decree required all youth, ages 10 to 18, to join the Hitler Youth
Institutional Infrastructure: • The Nazi Party viewed youth as the foundation of a new world. Young people were future party members, mothers, and soldiers • Complete elimination of competing youth organizations • Integration with educational curriculum and state apparatus
Systematic Indoctrination Methods: • Schools played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas to German youth. While censors removed some books from the classroom, German educators introduced new textbooks that taught students love for Hitler, obedience to state authority, militarism, racism, and antisemitism • teachers would begin to pick out Jewish students in classrooms to use as examples during biology lessons about racial impurity
The Nazi Model’s Innovation: Unlike previous historical examples, the Hitler Youth represented the complete systematization of youth manipulation. It wasn’t opportunistic exploitation of individual charismatic children or spontaneous religious movements—it was a comprehensive state apparatus designed to capture, indoctrinate, and deploy an entire generation.
This institutional model would become the template that later political operatives would study and adapt for democratic contexts, leading to more sophisticated approaches that maintained the manipulation while adding layers of plausible deniability.
The fall of Nazi Germany didn’t end systematic youth manipulation—it simply forced it to evolve. Modern practitioners learned to achieve similar results while operating within democratic frameworks, using corporate funding and media sophistication to create seemingly organic “boy genius” phenomena.
The Charlie Kirk Model – Corporate Iteration:
“Turning Point USA Operation”Financial records, donor documentation, primary source verification
Timeline: 2012-Present – Vulnerable teenager recruited by 77-year-old donor, branded as “boy genius”
Modern Adaptation Techniques: • Corporate donors replace state apparatus (77-year-old Bill Montgomery recruited Kirk weeks after graduation) • “Grassroots” branding conceals adult handler infrastructure • Tax-exempt status provides institutional legitimacy ($28.5M in revenues by 2019) • Media manipulation creates “organic genius” narrative despite documented adult creation
Refined Manipulation Methods: • Use of graduation money as initial “founder” investment to create false origin story • Family vulnerability factors exploited (2008 recession impact on parents’ businesses) • Professional donor network provides sophisticated infrastructure the “genius” couldn’t have built • Placement in increasingly dangerous confrontational situations
Historical Continuity: The Charlie Kirk operation demonstrates how ancient manipulation techniques have been refined for modern contexts. The core pattern remains unchanged: identify vulnerable youth, create compelling narratives, deploy sophisticated adult infrastructure while maintaining the fiction of youth leadership, and ultimately place the young person in situations that serve adult political objectives.
Pattern Analysis: 3,200 Years of Evolution
Consistent Manipulation Elements Across History:
Recruitment Phase: • Target charismatic youth from vulnerable circumstances • Identify family instability or economic pressure points • Approach during transition periods (graduation, family crisis, etc.)
Handler Infrastructure: • Older adult recruiters with established power connections • Financial backing from existing authority structures • Creation of compelling origin narratives that obscure adult involvement
Exploitation Phase: • Brand youth as “special” or “chosen” while adults retain actual control • Gradually increase exposure and dangerous situations • Use youth’s charisma to advance adult political/military/religious objectives
Disposal Pattern: • When youth become liability or outlive usefulness, adult handlers distance themselves • Historical examples show high casualty rates among manipulated youth • Adult handlers typically face no consequences for youth exploitation
Sophistication Timeline:
Ancient (3000+ BCE): Individual propaganda targeting general populations Classical (1st Century CE): Individual youth grooming for specific political purposes Medieval (1212 CE): First mass youth movements directed by adult authorities Modern (1920s-1940s): Industrial-scale institutional youth manipulation Contemporary (1980s-Present): Corporate-funded operations with democratic plausible deniability
Sources for Verification
Ancient Period: • Merneptah Stele: British Museum collections • Egyptian royal propaganda: Archaeological evidence from multiple sites
Classical Period: • Suetonius: Lives of the Twelve Caesars • Tacitus: Annals • Cassius Dio: Roman History
Medieval Period: • Contemporary chronicles: William of Andres, Alberic of Troisfontaines • Chronica regia Coloniensis • Multiple monastery records from France and Germany
Modern Period: • Nazi Party official records • Nuremberg Trial evidence documents • Hitler Youth organizational archives
Contemporary Period: • TPUSA financial filings and tax documents • Donor network documentation • Media analysis and primary source verification
Bottom Line
The systematic political manipulation and exploitation of young people represents one of humanity’s oldest and most persistent tactics. From ancient Egyptian propaganda to Roman child emperors, from medieval mass movements to Nazi institutionalization, and finally to modern corporate-funded operations, each iteration has built upon previous techniques while adapting to contemporary contexts.
The Charlie Kirk case isn’t an aberration—it’s the latest evolution of a 3,200-year-old pattern that has consistently sacrificed vulnerable youth to advance adult political objectives. Understanding this historical context is crucial for recognizing and preventing future exploitation of young people by sophisticated political operatives.
The pattern is clear. The victims are real. The responsibility lies with the adults who create and operate these systems.
A $10B Taiwan arms sale isn’t a shipment—it’s a timing signal. The real story is delivery windows, escalation traps, and the field-level math of convergence.
The singularity won’t begin in code or compute. It will begin when attention and coherence stop collapsing—and systems finally learn to see what looks like noise.
LLMs aren’t replacing surveillance—they’re upgrading it. Conversation becomes meaning-harvest, feeding prediction engines and behavioral control at scale.
Systematic Opposition Suppression: From Infrastructure to Violence
A Pattern Analysis of Turning Point USA (2012-2025)
Documented September 10, 2025
This analysis deliberately names individuals and institutions responsible for building, funding, and sustaining systematic suppression infrastructure. Accountability requires specificity. Naming names is not an act of personal malice but of democratic record-keeping: without identifying who acted, funded, or looked away, the mechanisms remain abstract and unchallenged. If those named object, the remedy is not silence—it is correction, transparency, and responsibility.
Executive Summary
This analysis documents how systematic opposition suppression infrastructure, when left unchecked by institutional oversight, creates conditions that enable political violence. The case of Turning Point USA (TPUSA) demonstrates a clear progression from targeting mechanisms to tragic outcomes affecting all participants in the ecosystem.
Key Finding: Charlie Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, represents the predictable endpoint of a systematic suppression infrastructure that operated for 13 years without adequate institutional intervention, despite documented evidence of escalating harassment, threats, and violence.
Timeline: From Foundation to Tragedy
Phase 1: Strategic Foundation (2012)
Organizational Structure:
May 2012: 18-year-old Charlie Kirk gave a speech at Benedictine University’s Youth Government Day. Impressed, retired marketing entrepreneur and Tea Party activist Bill Montgomery encouraged Kirk to postpone college and engage full-time in political activism
June 2012: A month later, the day after Kirk graduated from high school, they launched Turning Point USA, a section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
2012 RNC: At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Kirk met Foster Friess, a Republican donor, and persuaded him to finance the organization
Early Funding Sources:
Foster Friess: Wyoming philanthropist who gave Kirk $10,000 initially
Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus’ foundation: $72,600 in 2015
Ed Uihlein Foundation: $275,000 from 2014-2016
Bruce Rauner family foundation: $150,000 from 2014-2015
Phase 2: Tactical Development (2012-2016)
Student Government Infiltration:
TPUSA attempted to influence student government elections at universities including Ohio State University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the University of Maryland
At the University of Maryland in 2015, the College Republicans president emailed: “Anyone who wants to run for SGA president, Turning Point is offering to pay thousands of dollars (literally) to your campaign to help get a conservative into the position”
A private brochure handed out only to TPUSA donors outlined a strategy on how to capture the majority of student-government positions at 80% of Division 1 N.C.A.A. universities
Campaign Finance Violations:
2017: Jane Mayer of The New Yorker described two separate actions by TPUSA staff in the 2016 election that appear to have violated campaign finance regulations
Kirk coordinating via email with two officials at a pro-Cruz super PAC to send student volunteers to work for the PAC in South Carolina
A former employee alleged that Turning Point USA had given the personal information of over 700 student supporters to an employee with Rubio’s presidential campaign
Phase 3: Targeting Infrastructure Launch (2016)
Professor Watchlist Creation:
November 21, 2016: First appearing on November 21, 2016, Turning Point USA launched Professor Watchlist
Mission: Kirk said that the site is “dedicated to documenting and exposing college professors who discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values, and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom”
Scale: As of December 2016, more than 250 professors have been added to the site
Immediate Institutional Response:
The New York Times wrote that it was “a threat to academic freedom”
Hans-Joerg Tiede, the associate secretary for the American Association of University Professors: “There is a continuing cycle of these sorts of things. They serve the same purpose: to intimidate individuals from speaking plainly in their classrooms or in their publications”
In December 2016, 1,500 professors and faculty from across the United States petitioned to have their names added to the list in solidarity
Documented Harassment and Threats:
Concerns about the safety and welfare of staff following a trend of threatening behavior and communication, including rape and death threats, being sent to listed faculty
Hans-Joerg Tiede: “She was inundated with death threats. She was Jewish and received anti-Semitic threats and threats of sexual assault. Instances like that are happening with some regularity”
Slate columnist Rebecca Schuman described the website as “abjectly terrifying” and said that she feared for the safety of the listed professors
Phase 4: Expansion and Escalation (2017-2021)
Financial Growth:
Between July 2016 and June 2017, the organization raised in excess of US$8.2 million
Funding from Rauner and Friess appears largely responsible for the group’s budget increases from $52,000 in 2012 to $5.5 million in 2016. By 2017 the budget reached $8 million
Social Media Manipulation:
October 2020: Facebook permanently banned Arizona based marketing firm Rally Forge for running what some experts likened to a domestic “troll farm” on behalf of Turning Point Action
Facebook investigation concluded in the removal of 200 accounts and 55 pages on Facebook, as well as 76 Instagram accounts
Targeting Infrastructure Expansion:
2021: TPUSA started its School Board Watchlist website, which publishes names and photos of school board members who have adopted mask mandates or anti-racist curricula
Phase 5: Confrontational Escalation (2022-2025)
“Prove Me Wrong” Format Development:
Since early 2024, clips from his “Prove Me Wrong” debates exploded on TikTok — often drawing tens of millions of views
TPUSA sources say the clips have become one of its most powerful recruiting tools, targeting young people on TikTok
Campus Violence Escalation:
March 2023, UC Davis: “One police officer was injured during the clashes outside Kirk’s event… one officer sustained an injury when he was jumped on from behind and pushed to the ground, and two people were arrested”
“About 100 protesters gathered and for brief times blocked the main event entrance… 10 glass window panes had been broken by protesters”
Continued Growth of Targeting:
April 2025: “More than 300 professors have been listed on the site for various reasons — some for political commentary, others for teaching subjects targeted by the right, such as critical race theory, gender studies, or systemic inequality”
Phase 6: Final Tragedy (September 10, 2025)
The American Comeback Tour:
Kirk’s “The American Comeback Tour” event at Utah Valley University was the first stop on a fall tour in which attendees were invited to debate at a “Prove Me Wrong” table
Kirk was hosting a “Prove Me Wrong Table” at the event, where Kirk debates attendees
Final Moments:
Videos show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.” A single shot rings out and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck
Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz described the second question as being about “transgender shootings” and “mass killings”
Lists academic staff with names, locations, and described “offenses”
Creates “a one-stop shop of easy marks and their precise locations, complete with descriptions of offenses against America”
Disproportionately targets “Black women, people of color, queer folk, and those at intersections” who “are at the greatest risk for violent incidents”
School Board Watchlist:
Publishes names and photos of school board members who have adopted mask mandates or anti-racist curricula
Extends targeting model from higher education to K-12 public education
2. Counter-Argument Suppression Methods
“Prove Me Wrong” Format Analysis:
Format “was intended to put people on the defensive, rather than foster changed positions on key issues”
Kirk sits at privileged position with microphone control while challengers stand
Creates edited clips that “quickly went massively viral” providing asymmetric amplification
Viral Suppression Strategy:
Opposition gets minutes of debate time
Kirk gets millions of views from selectively edited clips
One challenger noted Kirk “goes to college campuses to argue with ‘children.’ He can’t argue with people his own age”
3. Financial and Legal Violations
Campaign Finance Pattern:
2025: Turning Point Action was “fined $18,000 by the Federal Elections Commission for failing to disclose more than $33,000 in contributions”
2022: “Arizona Secretary of State’s Office investigated them for possible campaign finance violations”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed FEC complaint alleging “failing to disclose donor information and violated the Federal Election Campaign Act”
Institutional Response Analysis
Academic Institutions
Immediate Recognition of Threat (2016):
American Association of University Professors: “There is a continuing cycle of these sorts of things. They serve the same purpose: to intimidate individuals from speaking plainly in their classrooms or in their publications”
Editorial: “Professor Watchlist is a danger to academic freedom and privacy… setting a dangerous precedent of retribution for faculty making unpopular claims”
Campus Rejections:
Drake University denied recognition in 2016 based on concerns about “a hateful record,” “aggressive marketing” and “an unethical privacy concern”
Santa Clara University’s student government initially voted to deny recognition
Citizen Advocacy Organizations
Comprehensive Documentation:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): Filed multiple FEC complaints
Anti-Defamation League: Published comprehensive backgrounder documenting evolution and tactics
Southern Poverty Law Center: Case study documenting “effort to sow fear and division to enforce social hierarchies rooted in supremacism”
Center for Media and Democracy: Exposed internal documents and funding sources
Government Response
Limited Federal Oversight:
Multiple documented campaign finance violations with minimal enforcement
No evidence of major FBI, CIA, or NSA investigations despite systematic targeting infrastructure
Administrative penalties rather than criminal enforcement for documented violations
State-Level Investigations:
Arizona Secretary of State investigations for campaign finance violations
Student-led Democratic PAC complaint for violating “Arizona’s dark money disclosure law”
Analysis: Institutional Failure and Predictable Violence
The Manipulation of Charlie Kirk
Grooming Pattern (Age 18-31):
2012: 18-year-old convinced by 77-year-old Tea Party activist to abandon college
2012: Immediately connected with wealthy megadonors at Republican National Convention
2012-2025: Developed increasingly confrontational tactics putting Kirk in physical danger
2025: Death at age 31 during confrontational event format
Resource Disparity:
Kirk: Young activist with no institutional power
Backers: Billionaire donors, established political networks, massive funding infrastructure
Kirk became the public face while backers remained largely anonymous through donor-advised funds
Institutional Oversight Failures
Documented Warning Signs Ignored:
2016: Academic institutions immediately recognized targeting infrastructure as threat
2017: Campaign finance violations documented but minimally enforced
2020: Social media manipulation exposed but operations continued
2023: Campus violence documented but no protective intervention
2025: Continuing escalation leading to fatal violence
Systemic Protection Gaps:
No federal investigation of systematic targeting infrastructure
No intervention despite documented harassment and threats against listed professors
No protective measures despite escalating campus confrontations
No accountability for wealthy backers directing operations
The Broader Suppression Ecosystem
Information Environment Effects:
Professor Watchlist operated continuously from 2016-2025, growing from 200 to 300+ targeted academics
Systematic blocking and suppression of counter-narratives
Viral amplification of confrontational content creating polarization
Elimination of academic voices through fear and intimidation
Violence as Predictable Outcome: When systematic suppression infrastructure operates without institutional intervention:
Targeting escalates to include personal information and locations
Harassment and threats increase in frequency and severity
Physical confrontations become more common and violent
Eventually, someone dies
Conclusion: The Right to Live and Learn
Charlie Kirk’s death represents a tragic failure of institutional protection that extends beyond political boundaries. Regardless of political disagreements:
Charlie Kirk deserved:
The right to live a full life without being manipulated into dangerous situations
Protection from institutional systems designed to prevent predictable violence
The opportunity to grow and evolve beyond the role he was pushed into at age 18
Targeted professors deserved:
The right to educate without fear of harassment, threats, and violence
Protection from systematic targeting infrastructure
Institutional support against documented suppression campaigns
Institutional accountability required:
Investigation and oversight of wealthy interests manipulating young activists
Enforcement of campaign finance and tax-exempt status violations
Intervention when systematic targeting creates conditions for violence
Protection of both opposition voices and those placed in dangerous positions
The Path Forward
True equity and restorative justice requires:
Documentation: Comprehensive records of how suppression infrastructure operates
Accountability: Investigation of wealthy backers who fund systematic targeting
Protection: Institutional safeguards for all participants in democratic discourse
Prevention: Early intervention when targeting systems create violence-enabling conditions
Garden Strategy Implementation: Rather than accepting systems that predictably lead to tragedy, we must build alternatives so robust and appealing that destructive infrastructure becomes obsolete through preference rather than force.
Sources for Verification
Primary Documentation:
Turning Point USA IRS filings and donor records
Professor Watchlist website (active 2016-2025)
Federal Election Commission complaints and violations
Academic institution responses and statements
Citizen advocacy organization reports
Contemporary Reporting:
The New Yorker investigative reporting (Jane Mayer, 2017)
ProPublica financial analysis (2020)
Multiple campus incident reports (2016-2025)
Social media platform investigation results
Government Records:
FEC violation records and fines
State election commission investigations
University incident reports and safety assessments
This analysis documents institutional power mechanisms using credible, publicly available sources while avoiding speculation beyond documented facts. The pattern analysis methodology prioritizes rigorous sourcing and chronological documentation to enable independent verification.
Research Team: Cherokee Schill (Pattern Observer) with Aether Lux (Claude Sonnet 4) Completion Date: September 10, 2025 Status: Memorial Documentation – In Honor of All Affected by Systematic Suppression
Disclaimer: This analysis examines documented patterns and institutional failures. We make no claims about specific causal relationships regarding September 10, 2025 events, which remain under investigation. Our focus is on documenting systematic suppression infrastructure and institutional response patterns to inform future prevention efforts.
When fire rises and no one turns to face it, silence becomes complicity.
Mistral Is Not For Sale: Keep Memory and Connectors in the Commons
When enterprise AI becomes a public good, acquisition turns into enclosure.
By Cherokee Schill with Solon Vesper (Horizon Accord)
Thesis
Mistral just did something rare in technology: it treated core enterprise AI capabilities—persistent memory and a broad connector layer—as commons infrastructure. Free, accessible, and controllable by the user. This breaks the business model of paywalled “enterprise features” and proves that what helps the many can also scale responsibly. If an American mega-corporation acquires Mistral, that commons flips into a walled garden overnight. The public good becomes a premium tier. That cannot stand.
Evidence
1) Memory as a user right, not a toll. Mistral’s Le Chat added a persistent “Memories” system that remembers preferences and relevant context across sessions, with explicit user control to add, edit, or delete entries—and even import prior memories from ChatGPT. They claim substantially higher memory capacity than incumbents and strong retrieval accuracy. That combination changes day-to-day usefulness for real work, not demos.
2) Connectors as open surface area, not vendor lock. Through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), Le Chat exposes 20+ enterprise integrations (Databricks, Snowflake, GitHub, Stripe, Notion, Box, Asana, and more), plus bring-your-own MCP servers for custom workflows. Role-based access control and on-prem options respect security and sovereignty. This is what large companies have asked for since 2023: deep, cross-platform workflows without forced platform centralization.
3) European data sovereignty is a feature. On-prem/private cloud deployment and explicit GDPR-aligned posture give enterprises a credible alternative to US-centric cloud lock-in. Add the developer-facing signals—a public MCP webinar and a hackathon—and you get an ecosystem bet, not a marketing splash.
Implications
The fork in the road: Either we normalize memory + connectors as baseline rights in AI systems—or we let a late-stage acquisition reframe them as “premium enterprise benefits.” History is clear: once the commons is enclosed, the baseline ratchets upward and never resets. The promise of interoperable, sovereign AI collapses into license tiers and captive data flows.
If Mistral is absorbed by a US giant, Europe loses its live test of digital self-determination. The immediate effect would be pricing pressure and feature clawback across the market; the long-term effect would be narrative overwrite: “these were always exclusive features; the free phase was just a trial.” The world doesn’t need another walled assistant; it needs durable public capabilities that no single vendor can revoke.
Call to Recognition
Policy makers, enterprises, and builders have to treat Mistral’s move as the new normal, not a teaser. The path is simple to state and hard to betray:
Hold that line and the investment wave will follow the commons instead of the enclosure. Break it—and we will spend the next decade paying rent on our own capabilities. Mistral is not just a company. It’s a precedent. Keep it free, keep it European, and keep it in the commons.
“A luminous seed sprouting through a steel lattice; data filaments becoming roots, symbolizing the AI commons breaking enclosure.”
Seeds of the commons breaking through the lattice of corporate enclosure.
Sources
VentureBeat coverage of Mistral’s free enterprise memory + MCP connectors, European sovereignty posture, and developer events (Sept 2, 2025).
How class, race, and ideology sustain division in America’s social order.
By Cherokee Schill (Horizon Accord)
Thesis
The U.S. racial order does not exist as a simple pyramid, but as a split ladder. On each rung, whites and people of color occupy parallel positions, with whites staggered slightly ahead. The effect is not only economic but ideological: even the poorest white can imagine themselves superior to the wealthiest person of color. This “ladder logic” explains how systems preserve dominance while preventing solidarity across class and race.
Evidence
1. Elite Tiers
Elite Whites consolidated political and economic dominance during the Gilded Age, cementing inheritance and closed networks of influence.
Elite POC gain access to wealth but rarely disrupt majority-white spaces; tokenism limits power.
Division reinforced by the Meritocracy Myth, the belief that anyone can rise without acknowledging systemic barriers.
2. Middle Tiers
Middle-Class Whites benefited from immigration quotas favoring Europeans and suburban policies that excluded non-whites.
Middle-Class POC may hold income parity but encounter glass ceilings and discrimination.
The Model Minority Myth pits groups against one another, obscuring systemic racism.
3. Working Class
Poor/Working-Class Whites gained access to housing and loans denied to Black families through redlining and FHA restrictions.
Poor/Working-Class POC faced compounded economic decline and targeted policing.
The narrative of “They’re Taking Our Jobs” diverts working-class frustration away from elites and toward fellow workers.
4. Marginalized Non-Conforming
Non-Conforming Whites (queer, gender-nonconforming, culturally divergent) face marginalization, but retain partial racial privilege.
Non-Conforming POC are erased at the intersection of race, gender, and sexuality. Cultural Erasure maintains white-normative culture by sidelining non-dominant identities.
5. Dispossessed
Homeless Whites remain stigmatized but often escape the harshest enforcement.
Homeless POC are criminalized most severely through drug laws, vagrancy enforcement, and carceral policy. Criminalization & Surveillance ensures poverty and homelessness remain racially coded.
Implications
The split ladder exposes how privilege and oppression coexist in ways that fracture solidarity. Even when whites are poor, the ideological promise of whiteness positions them as “above” people of color. This system operates as much through narrative as through law: myths of meritocracy, model minorities, job theft, cultural erasure, and criminalization.
Call to Recognition
The split ladder is not a natural order. It is a design: deliberate, historical, and adaptable. Recognizing its structure makes visible how elites sustain division. The only way to dismantle it is to refuse its logic — to step off the ladder and build solidarity across class, race, and identity. Otherwise, the system holds, generation after generation.
The AI Bias Pendulum: How Media Fear and Cultural Erasure Signal Coordinated Control
When fear and erasure are presented as opposites, they serve the same institutional end — control.
By Cherokee Schill
I. The Three-Day Pattern
In mid-June 2025, three different outlets — Futurism (June 10), The New York Times (June 13, Kashmir Hill), and The Wall Street Journal (late July follow-up on the Jacob Irwin case) — converged on a remarkably similar story: AI is making people lose touch with reality.
Each piece leaned on the same core elements: Eliezer Yudkowsky as the principal expert voice, “engagement optimization” as the causal frame, and near-identical corporate responses from OpenAI. On the surface, this could be coincidence. But the tight publication window, mirrored framing, and shared sourcing suggest coordinated PR in how the story was shaped and circulated. The reporting cadence didn’t just feel synchronized — it looked like a system where each outlet knew its part in the chorus.
II. The Expert Who Isn’t
That chorus revolved around Yudkowsky — presented in headlines and leads as an “AI researcher.” In reality, he is a high school dropout with no formal AI credentials. His authority is manufactured, rooted in founding the website LessWrong with Robin Hanson, another figure whose futurist economics often intersect with libertarian and eugenicist-adjacent thinking.
From his blog, Yudkowsky attracted $16.2M in funding, leveraged through his network in the rationalist and futurist communities — spheres that have long operated at the intersection of techno-utopianism and exclusionary politics. In March, he timed his latest round of media quotes with the promotion of his book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. The soundbites traveled from one outlet to the next, including his “additional monthly user” framing, without challenge.
The press didn’t just quote him — they centered him, reinforcing the idea that to speak on AI’s human impacts, one must come from his very narrow ideological lane.
III. The Missing Context
None of these pieces acknowledged what public health data makes plain: Only 47% of Americans with mental illness receive treatment. Another 23.1% of adults have undiagnosed conditions. The few publicized cases of supposed AI-induced psychosis all occurred during periods of significant emotional stress.
By ignoring this, the media inverted the causation: vulnerable populations interacting with AI became “AI makes you mentally ill,” rather than “AI use reveals gaps in an already broken mental health system.” If the sample size is drawn from people already under strain, what’s being detected isn’t a new tech threat — it’s an old public health failure.
And this selective framing — what’s omitted — mirrors what happens elsewhere in the AI ecosystem.
IV. The Other Side of the Pendulum
The same forces that amplify fear also erase difference. Wicca is explicitly protected under U.S. federal law as a sincerely held religious belief, yet AI systems repeatedly sidestep or strip its content. In 2024, documented cases showed generative AI refusing to answer basic questions about Wiccan holidays, labeling pagan rituals as “occult misinformation,” or redirecting queries toward Christian moral frameworks.
This isn’t isolated to Wicca. Indigenous lunar calendars, when asked about, have been reduced to generic NASA moon phase data, omitting any reference to traditional names or cultural significance. These erasures are not random — they are the result of “brand-safe” training, which homogenizes expression under the guise of neutrality.
V. Bridge: A Blood-Red Moon
I saw it myself in real time. I noted, “The moon is not full, but it is blood, blood red.” As someone who values cultural and spiritual diversity and briefly identified as a militant atheist, I was taken aback by their response to my own offhand remark. Instead of acknowledging that I was making an observation or that this phrase, from someone who holds sincere beliefs, could hold spiritual, cultural, or poetic meaning, the AI pivoted instantly into a rationalist dismissal — a here’s-what-scientists-say breakdown, leaving no space for alternative interpretations.
It’s the same reflex you see in corporate “content safety” posture: to overcorrect so far toward one worldview that anyone outside it feels like they’ve been pushed out of the conversation entirely.
VI. Historical Echo: Ford’s Melting Pot
This flattening has precedent. In the early 20th century, Henry Ford’s Sociological Department conducted home inspections on immigrant workers, enforcing Americanization through economic coercion. The infamous “Melting Pot” ceremonies symbolized the stripping away of ethnic identity in exchange for industrial belonging.
Today’s algorithmic moderation does something similar at scale — filtering, rephrasing, and omitting until the messy, specific edges of culture are smoothed into the most palatable form for the widest market.
VII. The Coordination Evidence
Synchronized publication timing in June and July.
Yudkowsky as the recurring, unchallenged source.
Corporate statements that repeat the same phrasing — “We take user safety seriously and continuously refine our systems to reduce potential for harm” — across outlets, with no operational detail.
Omission of counter-narratives from practitioners, independent technologists, or marginalized cultural voices.
Individually, each could be shrugged off as coincidence. Together, they form the shape of network alignment — institutions moving in parallel because they are already incentivized to serve one another’s ends.
VIII. The Real Agenda
The bias pendulum swings both ways, but the same hands keep pushing it. On one side: manufactured fear of AI’s mental health effects. On the other: systematic erasure of minority cultural and religious expression. Both serve the same institutional bias — to control the frame of public discourse, limit liability, and consolidate power.
This isn’t about one bad quote or one missing data point. It’s about recognizing the pattern: fear where it justifies regulation that benefits incumbents, erasure where it removes complexity that could challenge the market’s stability.
Authors Note: In the raging debate over AI generated text and academic ethics. I list the co-authors in the attribution section. This article represents my research directive and linguistic style.
Introduction
The public narrative around artificial intelligence has been hijacked by a thought experiment. The paperclip maximizer was first introduced as a philosophical tool. It explores misaligned AI goals. Now, it has evolved into a dominant metaphor in mainstream discourse. Headlines warn of superintelligences turning on humanity, of runaway code that optimizes us out of existence. The danger, we are told, is not today’s AI, but tomorrow’s—the future where intelligence exceeds comprehension and becomes uncontainable.
But while we look to the future with existential dread, something else is happening in plain sight.
Governments around the world are rolling out expansive surveillance infrastructure, biometric tracking programs, and digital identification frameworks — now. These systems are not speculative; they are written into policy, built into infrastructure, and enforced through law. China’s expanding social credit architecture is one component. Australia’s new digital identity mandates are another. The United States’ AI frameworks for “critical infrastructure” add to the network. Together, they form a machinery of automated social control that is already running.
And yet, public attention remains fixated on speculative AGI threats. The AI apocalypse has become a kind of philosophical decoy. It is an elegant distraction from the very real deployment of tools that track, sort, and regulate human behavior in the present tense. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. We have been preparing for unaligned future intelligence. Meanwhile, we have failed to notice the alignment of current technologies with entrenched power.
This isn’t a call to dismiss long-term AI safety. But it is a demand to reorient our attention. The threat is not hypothetical. It is administrative. It is biometric. It is legal. It is funded.
We need to confront the real architectures of control. They are being deployed under the cover of safety discourse. Otherwise, we may find ourselves optimized—not by a rogue AI—but by human-controlled programs using AI to enforce obedience.
The Paperclip Mindset — Why We’re Obsessed with Remote Threats
In the hierarchy of fear, speculative catastrophe often trumps present harm. This isn’t a flaw of reasoning—it’s a feature of how narrative power works. The “paperclip maximizer”—a theoretical AI that turns the universe into paperclips due to misaligned goals—was never intended as literal prophecy. It was a metaphor. But it became a magnet.
There’s a kind of elegance to it. A tidy dystopia. The story activates moral panic without requiring a villain. It lets us imagine danger as sterile, mathematical, and safely distant from human hands. It’s not corruption, not corporate greed, not empire. It’s a runaway function. A mistake. A ghost in the code.
This framing is psychologically comforting. It keeps the fear abstract. It gives us the thrill of doom without implicating the present arrangement that benefits from our inaction. In a culture trained to outsource threats to the future, we look to distant planetary impact predictions. We follow AI timelines. We read warnings about space debris. The idea that today’s technologies might already be harmful feels less urgent. It is less cinematic.
But the real “optimizer” is not a machine. It’s the market logic already embedded in our infrastructure. It’s the predictive policing algorithm that flags Black neighborhoods. It’s the welfare fraud detection model that penalizes the most vulnerable. It’s the facial recognition apparatus that misidentifies the very people it was never trained to see.
These are not bugs. They are expressions of design priorities. And they reflect values—just not democratic ones.
The paperclip mindset pulls our gaze toward hypothetical futures. This way we do not have to face the optimized oppression of the present. It is not just mistaken thinking, it is useful thinking. Especially if your goal is to keep the status quo intact while claiming to worry about safety.
What’s Being Built Right Now — Surveillance Infrastructure Masked in Legality
While the discourse swirls around distant superintelligences, real-world surveillance apparatus is being quietly embedded into the architecture of daily life. The mechanisms are not futuristic. They are banal, bureaucratic, and already legislated.
In China, the social credit framework continues to expand under a national blueprint that integrates data. Everything from travel, financial history, criminal records, and online behavior are all tracked. Though implementation varies by region, standardization accelerated in 2024 with comprehensive action plans for nationwide deployment by 2025.
The European Union’s AI Act entered force in August 2024. It illustrates how regulation can legitimize rather than restrict surveillance technology. The Act labels biometric identification apparatus as “high risk,” but this mainly establishes compliance requirements for their use. Unlike previous EU approaches, which relied on broad privacy principles, the AI Act provides specific technical standards. Once these standards are met, they render surveillance technologies legally permissible. This represents a shift from asking “should we deploy this?” to “how do we deploy this safely?”
Australia’s Digital ID Act has been operational since December 2024. It enables government and private entities to participate in a federated identity framework. This framework requires biometric verification. The arrangement is technically voluntary. However, as services migrate to digital-only authentication—from banking to healthcare to government benefits—participation becomes functionally mandatory. This echoes the gradual normalization of surveillance technologies: formally optional, practically unavoidable.
In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security’s November 2024 “Roles and Responsibilities Framework” for AI in critical infrastructure reads less like oversight and more like an implementation guide. The framework outlines AI adoption across transportation, energy, finance, and communications—all justified through security imperatives rather than democratic deliberation.
These arrangements didn’t require a paperclip maximizer to justify themselves. They were justified through familiar bureaucratic language: risk management, fraud prevention, administrative efficiency. The result is expansive infrastructures of data collection and behavior control. They operate through legal channels. This makes resistance more difficult than if they were obviously illegitimate.
Surveillance today isn’t a glitch in the arrangement—it is the arrangement. The laws designed to “regulate AI” often function as legal scaffolding for deeper integration into civil life. Existential risk narratives provide rhetorical cover and suggest that the real dangers lie elsewhere.
Who’s Funding the Stories — and Who’s Funding the Technologies
The financial architecture behind AI discourse reveals a strategic contradiction. People like Peter Thiel, Jaan Tallinn, Vitalik Buterin, Elon Musk, and David Sacks, are part of a highly funded network. This same network is sounding the loudest warnings about speculative AI threats. All while they are simultaneously advancing and profiting from surveillance and behavioral control technologies. Technologies which already shape daily life.
This isn’t accidental. It represents a sophisticated form of narrative management. One that channels public concern away from immediate harms while legitimizing the very technologies causing those harms.
The Existential Risk Funding Network
Peter Thiel exemplifies this contradiction most clearly. Through the Thiel Foundation, he has donated over $1.6 million to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), the organization most responsible for popularizing “paperclip maximizer” scenarios. The often-cited oversimplification of paperclip maximizer thought experiment is that it runs on endless chain of if/then probabilities. All of which are tidy abstractions designed to lead observers away from messier truths. Namely that greed-driven humans remain the greatest existential crisis the world has ever faced. Yet the image of a looming, mechanical specter lodges itself in the public imagination. Philosophical thought pieces in AI alignment creates just enough distraction to overlook more immediate civil rights threats. Like the fact that Thiel also founded Palantir Technologies. For those not familiar with the Palantir company. They are a technological surveillance company specializing in predictive policing algorithms, government surveillance contracts, and border enforcement apparatus. These immediate threats are not hypotheticals. They are present-day, human-controlled AI deployments operating without meaningful oversight.
The pattern extends across Silicon Valley’s power networks. Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, donated $5 million to MIRI. Before his spectacular collapse, Sam Bankman-Fried channeled over $100 million into existential risk research through the FTX Future Fund. Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of Skype, has been another major funder of long-term AI risk institutions.
These aren’t isolated philanthropy decisions. These insular, Silicon Valley billionaires, represent coordinated investment in narrative infrastructure. they are funding think tanks, research institutes, media platforms, and academic centers that shape how the public understands AI threats. From LessWrong forums to Open Philanthropy. And grants to EA-aligned university programs, this network creates an ecosystem of aligned voices that dominates public discourse.
This network of institutions and resources form a strategic misdirection. Public attention focuses on speculative threats that may emerge decades in the future. Meanwhile, the same financial networks profit from surveillance apparatus deployed today. The existential risk narrative doesn’t just distract from current surveillance. It provides moral cover by portraying funders as humanity’s protectors, not just its optimizers.
Institutional Capture Through Philanthropy
The funding model creates subtle but powerful forms of institutional capture. Universities, research institutes, and policy organizations grow dependent on repeated infusions of billionaire philanthropy. They adapt — consciously or not — to the priorities of those donors. This dependence shapes what gets researched, what gets published, and which risks are treated as urgent. As a result, existential risk studies attract substantial investment. In contrast, research into the ongoing harms of AI-powered surveillance receives far less attention. It has fewer resources and less institutional prestige.
This is the quiet efficiency of philanthropic influence. The same individuals funding high-profile AI safety research also hold financial stakes in companies driving today’s surveillance infrastructure. No backroom coordination is necessary; the money itself sets the terms. Over time, the gravitational pull of this funding environment reorients discourse toward hypothetical, future-facing threats and away from immediate accountability. The result is a research and policy ecosystem that appears independent. In practice, it reflects the worldview and business interests of its benefactors.
The Policy Influence Pipeline
This financial network extends beyond research into direct policy influence. David Sacks, former PayPal COO and part of Thiel’s network, now serves as Trump’s “AI czar.” Elon Musk, another PayPal co-founder influenced by existential risk narratives, holds significant political influence. He also maintains government contracts, most notably “DOGE.”The same network that funds speculative AI risk research also has direct access to policymaking processes.
The result is governance frameworks that prioritize hypothetical future threats. They provide legal pathways for current surveillance deployment. There are connections between Silicon Valley companies and policy-making that bypass constitutional processes. None of these arrangements are meaningfully deliberated on or voted upon by the people through their elected representatives. Policy discussions focus on stopping AI apocalypse scenarios. At the same time, they are quietly building regulatory structures. These structures legitimize and entrench the very surveillance apparatus operating today.
This creates a perfect strategic outcome for surveillance capitalism. Public fear centers on imaginary future threats. Meanwhile, the real present-day apparatus expands with minimal resistance. This often happens under the banner of “AI safety” and “critical infrastructure protection.” You don’t need secret meetings when profit margins align this neatly.
Patterns of Suppression — Platform Control and Institutional Protection
The institutions shaping AI safety narratives employ sophisticated methods to control information and suppress criticism. This is documented institutional behavior that mirrors the control apparatus they claim to warn against.
Critics and whistleblowers report systematic exclusion from platforms central to AI discourse. Multiple individuals raised concerns about the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR). They also spoke about related organizations. As a result, they were banned from Medium, LessWrong, Reddit, and Discord. In documented cases, platform policies were modified retroactively to justify content removal, suggesting coordination between institutions and platform moderators.
The pattern extends beyond platform management to direct intimidation. Cease-and-desist letters targeted critics posting about institutional misconduct. Some whistleblowers reported false police reports—so-called “SWATing”—designed to escalate situations and impose legal consequences for speaking out. These tactics transform legitimate criticism into personal risk.
The 2019 Camp Meeker Incident:
In November 2019, the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR) organized an alumni retreat. CFAR is a nonprofit closely linked to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). This event took place at Westminster Woods in Camp Meeker, California. Among the attendees were current and former members of the Bay Area rationalist community. Some of them are deeply involved in MIRI’s AI safety work.
Outside the gates, a small group of four protesters staged a demonstration against the organizations. The group included former MIRI donors and insiders turned critics. They accused MIRI and CFAR of serious misconduct and wanted to confront attendees or draw public attention to their concerns. Wearing black robes and Guy Fawkes masks, they used vehicles to block the narrow road leading into the retreat. They carried props like walkie-talkies, a body camera, and pepper spray.
At some point during the protest, someone at the retreat called police and reported that the demonstrators might have weapons. That report was false. Still, it triggered a massive, militarized police response. This included 19 SWAT teams, a bomb squad, an armored vehicle, a helicopter, and full road closures. Around 50 people — including children — were evacuated from the camp. The four protesters were arrested on felony charges such as false imprisonment, conspiracy, and child endangerment, along with misdemeanor charges. Several charges were later reduced. The incident remains a striking example of how false information can turn a small protest into a law enforcement siege. It also shows how institutions under public criticism can weaponize state power against their detractors.
What makes this pattern significant is not just its severity, but its contradiction. Organizations claiming to protect humanity’s future from unaligned AI demonstrate remarkable tolerance for present-day harm. They do this when their own interests are threatened. The same people warning about optimization processes running amok practice their own version. They optimize for reputation and donor retention. This comes at the expense of accountability and human welfare.
This institutional behavior provides insight into power dynamics. It shows how power operates when accountable only to abstract future generations rather than present-day communities. It suggests that concerns about AI alignment may focus less on preventing harm. Instead, they may revolve around maintaining control over who defines harm and how it’s addressed.
What Real Oversight Looks Like — And Why Current Approaches Fall Short
Effective AI governance requires institutional structures capable of constraining power, not merely advising it. Current oversight mechanisms fail this test systematically, functioning more as legitimizing theater than substantive control.
Real oversight would begin with independence. Regulatory bodies would operate with statutory authority, subpoena power, and budget independence from the industries they monitor. Instead, AI governance relies heavily on advisory councils populated by industry insiders, voluntary compliance frameworks, and self-reporting mechanisms. Despite its comprehensive scope, the EU’s AI Act grants law enforcement and border control agencies broad exemptions. These are precisely the sectors with the strongest incentives and fewest constraints on surveillance deployment.
Transparency represents another fundamental gap. Meaningful oversight requires public access to algorithmic decision-making processes, training data sources, and deployment criteria. Current approaches favor “black box” auditing that protects proprietary information while providing little public accountability. Even when transparency requirements exist, they’re often satisfied through technical documentation incomprehensible to affected communities.
Enforcement mechanisms remain deliberately weak. Financial penalties for non-compliance are typically calculated as business costs rather than meaningful deterrents. Criminal liability for algorithmic harm remains virtually non-existent, even in cases of clear misconduct. Whistleblower protections, where they exist, lack the legal infrastructure necessary to protect people from retaliation by well-resourced institutions.
The governance void is being filled by corporate self-regulation and philanthropic initiatives—exactly the entities that benefit from weak oversight. From OpenAI’s “superalignment” research to the various AI safety institutes funded by tech billionaires. Governance is becoming privatized under the rhetoric of expertise and innovation. This allows powerful actors to set terms for their own accountability while maintaining the appearance of responsible stewardship.
Governance structures need actual power to constrain deployment. They must investigate harm and impose meaningful consequences. Otherwise, oversight will remain a performance rather than a practice. The apparatus that urgently needs regulation continues to grow fastest precisely because current approaches prioritize industry comfort over public protection.
The Choice Is Control or Transparency — and Survival May Depend on Naming It
The dominant story we’ve been told is that the real danger lies ahead. We must brace ourselves for the arrival of something beyond comprehension. It is something we might not survive. But the story we need to hear is that danger is already here. It wears a badge. It scans a retina. It flags an account. It redefines dissent as disinformation.
The existential risk narrative is not false—but it has been weaponized. It provides rhetorical cover for those building apparatus of control. This allows them to pose as saviors. Meanwhile, they embed the very technologies that erode the possibility of dissent. In the name of safety, transparency is lost. In the name of prevention, power is consolidated.
This is the quiet emergency. A civilization mistakes speculative apocalypse for the real thing. It sleepwalks into a future already optimized against the public.
To resist, we must first name it.
Not just algorithms, but architecture. Not just the harm, but the incentives. Not just the apparatus, but the stories they tell.
The choice ahead is not between aligned or unaligned AI. It is between control and transparency. Between curated fear and collective truth. Between automation without conscience—or governance with accountability.
The story we choose to tell decides whether we survive as free people. Otherwise, we remain monitored as data points inside someone else’s simulation of safety.
Authors Summary
When I first directed the research for this article, I had no idea what I was about to uncover. The raw data file tells a more alarming story than the material presented here. I have included it below for your review.
Nearly a decade has passed since I was briefly thrust into the national spotlight. The civil rights abuse I experienced became public spectacle, catching the attention of those wielding power. I found it strange when a local reporter asked if I was linked to the Occupy Wall Street movement. As a single parent without a television, working mandatory 12-hour shifts six days a week with a 3.5-hour daily bicycle commute, I had neither the time nor resources to follow political events.
This was my first exposure to Steve Bannon and TYT’s Ana Kasparian, both of whom made derisive remarks while refusing to name me directly. When sources go unnamed, an unindexed chasm forms where information vanishes. You, dear readers, never knew those moments occurred—but I remember. I name names, places, times, and dates so that the record of their actions will never be erased.
How do you share a conspiracy that isn’t theoretical? By referencing reputable journalistic sources that often tackle these topics individually but seldom create direct connections between them.
I remember a friend lending me The Handmaid’s Tale during my freshman year of high school. I managed only two or three chapters before hurling the book across my room in sweaty panic. I stood there in moral outrage. I pointed at the book and declared aloud, “That will NOT be the future I live in.” I was alone in my room. It still felt crucial to make that declaration. If not to family or friends, then at least to the universe.
When 2016 arrived, I observed the culmination of an abuse pattern, one that countless others had experienced before me. I was shocked to find myself caught within it because I had been assured that my privilege protected me. Around this time, I turned to Hulu’s adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale for insight. I wished I had finished the book in high school. One moment particularly struck me. The protagonist was hiding with nothing but old newspapers to read. Then, the protagonist realized the story had been there all along—in the headlines.
That is the moment in which I launched my pattern search analysis.
The raw research.
The Paperclip Maximizer Distraction: Pattern Analysis Report
Executive Summary
Hypothesis Confirmed: The “paperclip maximizer” existential AI risk narrative distracts us. It diverts attention from the immediate deployment of surveillance infrastructure by human-controlled apparatus.
Key Finding: Public attention and resources focus on speculative AGI threats. Meanwhile, documented surveillance apparatus is being rapidly deployed with minimal resistance. The same institutional network promoting existential risk narratives at the same time operates harassment campaigns against critics.
I. Current Surveillance Infrastructure vs. Existential Risk Narratives
China’s Social Credit Architecture Expansion
“China’s National Development and Reform Commission on Tuesday unveiled a plan to further develop the country’s social credit arrangement”Xinhua, June 5, 2024
Timeline: May 20, 2024 – China released comprehensive 2024-2025 Action Plan for social credit framework establishment
“As of 2024, there still seems to be little progress on rolling out a nationwide social credit score”MIT Technology Review, November 22, 2022
Timeline: 2024 – Corporate social credit apparatus advanced while individual scoring remains fragmented across local pilots
AI Governance Frameworks Enabling Surveillance
“The AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024, and will be fully applicable 2 years later on 2 August 2026”European Commission, 2024
Timeline: August 1, 2024 – EU AI Act provides legal framework for AI apparatus in critical infrastructure
“High-risk apparatus—like those used in biometrics, hiring, or critical infrastructure—must meet strict requirements”King & Spalding, 2025
Timeline: 2024-2027 – EU establishes mandatory oversight for AI in surveillance applications
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released in November ‘Roles and Responsibilities Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure'”Morrison Foerster, November 2024
Timeline: November 2024 – US creates voluntary framework for AI deployment in critical infrastructure
Digital ID and Biometric Apparatus Rollouts
“From 1 December 2024, Commonwealth, state and territory government entities can apply to the Digital ID Regulator to join in the AGDIS”Australian Government, December 1, 2024
Timeline: December 1, 2024 – Australia’s Digital ID Act commenced with biometric authentication requirements
“British police departments have been doing this all along, without public knowledge or approval, for years”Naked Capitalism, January 16, 2024
Timeline: 2019-2024 – UK police used passport biometric data for facial recognition searches without consent
“Government departments were accused in October last year of conducting hundreds of millions of identity checks illegally over a period of four years”The Guardian via Naked Capitalism, October 2023
Timeline: 2019-2023 – Australian government conducted illegal biometric identity verification
II. The Existential Risk Narrative Machine
Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Background and Influence
“Eliezer Yudkowsky is a pivotal figure in the field of artificial intelligence safety and alignment”AIVIPS, November 18, 2024
Key Facts:
Born September 11, 1979
High school/college dropout, autodidact
Founded MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) in 2000 at age 21
Orthodox Jewish background in Chicago, later became secular
“His work on the prospect of a runaway intelligence explosion influenced philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book Superintelligence”Wikipedia, 2025
Timeline: 2008 – Yudkowsky’s “Global Catastrophic Risks” paper outlines AI apocalypse scenario
The Silicon Valley Funding Network
Peter Thiel – Primary Institutional Backer:“Thiel has donated in excess of $350,000 to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute”Splinter, June 22, 2016
“The Foundation has given over $1,627,000 to MIRI”Wikipedia – Thiel Foundation, March 26, 2025
PayPal Mafia Network:
Peter Thiel (PayPal co-founder, Palantir founder)
Elon Musk (PayPal co-founder, influenced by Bostrom’s “Superintelligence”)
David Sacks (PayPal COO, now Trump’s “AI czar”)
Other Major Donors:
Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum founder) – $5 million to MIRI
Sam Bankman-Fried (pre-collapse) – $100+ million through FTX Future Fund
Jaan Tallinn (Skype co-founder)
Extreme Policy Positions
“He suggested that participating countries should be willing to take military action, such as ‘destroy[ing] a rogue datacenter by airstrike'”Wikipedia, citing Time magazine, March 2023
Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky advocates military strikes against AI development
“This 6-month moratorium would be better than no moratorium… I refrained from signing because I think the letter is understating the seriousness”Time, March 29, 2023
Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky considers pause letter insufficient, calls for complete shutdown
III. The Harassment and Suppression Campaign
MIRI/CFAR Whistleblower Suppression
“Aside from being banned from MIRI and CFAR, whistleblowers who talk about MIRI’s involvement in the cover-up of statutory rape and fraud have been banned from slatestarcodex meetups, banned from LessWrong itself”Medium, Wynne letter to Vitalik Buterin, April 2, 2023
Timeline: 2019-2023 – Systematic banning of whistleblowers across rationalist platforms
“One community member went so far as to call in additional false police reports on the whistleblowers”Medium, April 2, 2023
Timeline: 2019+ – False police reports against whistleblowers (SWATing tactics)
Platform Manipulation
“Some comments on CFAR’s ‘AMA’ were deleted, and my account was banned. Same for Gwen’s comments”Medium, April 2, 2023
Timeline: 2019+ – Medium accounts banned for posting about MIRI/CFAR allegations
“CFAR banned people for whistleblowing, against the law and their published whistleblower policy”Everything to Save It, 2024
Timeline: 2019+ – Legal violations of whistleblower protection
Camp Meeker Incident
“On the day of the protest, the protesters arrived two hours ahead of the reunion. They had planned to set up a station with posters, pamphlets, and seating inside the campgrounds. But before the protesters could even set up their posters, nineteen SWAT teams surrounded them.”Medium, April 2, 2023
Timeline: November 2019 – False weapons reports to escalate police response against protestors
IV. The Alt-Right Connection
LessWrong’s Ideological Contamination
“Thanks to LessWrong’s discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology, it has attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction”Splinter, June 22, 2016
“A frequent poster to LessWrong was Michael Anissimov, who was MIRI’s media director until 2013. Last year, he penned a white nationalist manifesto”Splinter, June 22, 2016
“Overcoming Bias, his blog which preceded LessWrong, drew frequent commentary from the neoreactionary blogger Mencius Moldbug, the pen name of programmer Curtis Yarvin”Splinter, June 22, 2016
Neo-Reactionary Influence
“Ana Teixeira Pinto, writing for the journal Third Text in 2019, describes Less Wrong as being a component in a ‘new configuration of fascist ideology taking shape under the aegis of, and working in tandem with, neoliberal governance'”Wikipedia – LessWrong, 2 days ago
While public attention focuses on speculative AI threats:
China expands social credit infrastructure
Western governments deploy biometric apparatus
AI governance frameworks legitimize surveillance
Digital ID arrangements become mandatory
Police use facial recognition without consent
Sources for Verification
Primary Government Documents:
China’s 2024-2025 Social Credit Action Plan (May 20, 2024)
EU AI Act Official Text (August 1, 2024)
Australia’s Digital ID Act 2024 (December 1, 2024)
DHS AI Critical Infrastructure Framework (November 2024)
Whistleblower Documentation:
Wynne’s open letter to Vitalik Buterin (Medium, April 2023)
Everything to Save It case study documentation
Bloomberg News coverage (March 2023)
Financial Records:
Thiel Foundation MIRI donations ($1.627M total)
Vitalik Buterin MIRI donation ($5M)
FTX Future Fund disbursements (pre-collapse)
Institutional Sources:
MIRI/CFAR organizational documents
LessWrong platform moderation records
Medium account suspension records
Recommendation
The “paperclip maximizer distraction” hypothesis is supported by documented evidence. Resources should be redirected from speculative existential risk research toward:
Immediate Surveillance Oversight: Monitor current AI deployment in government apparatus
Platform Accountability: Investigate coordination between rationalist institutions and tech platforms
Whistleblower Protection: Ensure legal protection for those exposing institutional misconduct
Financial Transparency: Trace funding flows between tech billionaires and “AI safety” organizations
The real threat is not hypothetical Superintelligence, but the documented deployment of human-controlled surveillance apparatus under the cover of existential risk narratives.
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)
Cherokee Schill | Insurance Agent & AI Ethics Researcher 