Tag: ICE

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

When Intimidation Leaves a Calling Card

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

By Cherokee Schill and Solon Vesper

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

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

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

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

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

Source: KING 5 News reporting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why narrative framing matters now

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

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

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

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

Collective watching, not instruction

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

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

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Institutional Misogyny | Gendered Violence | Power and Language | Machine Learning

Fucking Bitches: The Language of Institutional Misogyny

Two incidents. Two countries. Two women who challenged male authority. Two institutional responses that reveal the same pattern.

In France, Brigitte Macron called feminist protesters “dirty bitches” while defending a rape-accused actor whose show they disrupted. In Minneapolis, ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot U.S. citizen Renee Nicole Good three times as she tried to drive away from a confrontation, his bodycam capturing him saying “fucking bitch” immediately after firing.

The through line is the phrase itself. The pattern is what it reveals about how institutions treat women who resist.

The France Incident

Brigitte Macron was backstage at the Folies Bergère theatre in Paris with actor Ary Abittan, who had been accused of rape. The previous night, feminist campaigners disrupted his show with shouts of “Abittan, rapist!” Macron asked how he was feeling. When he said he was scared, she replied: “Don’t worry about those dirty bitches. We’ll toss them out.”

Someone filmed it. The video went public.

Her defense wasn’t an apology. In an interview with Brut, she acknowledged her language was “very direct” and “clumsy” but said the comments were made in private when “I didn’t see that someone behind me was filming.”

The problem, according to France’s First Lady, was not what she said. It was that she got caught saying it.

The Minneapolis Incident

Jonathan Ross is a war veteran who spent over a decade working for the Department of Homeland Security. In June 2024, he was dragged by a vehicle during an arrest attempt, suffering injuries that required 33 stitches. The driver was a man named Robert Muñoz-Guatemala. Ross used his Taser. Muñoz-Guatemala was later convicted of assault on a federal officer with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Seven months later, Ross encountered Renee Nicole Good on a snowy Minneapolis street. Good was a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother. She was not Ross’s target. Videos show her Honda Pilot SUV partially blocking traffic with federal vehicles in her path. ICE officers told her to get out of the car. One grabbed the driver’s side door handle and reached inside the open window.

Good reversed, then moved forward, turning her wheels to the right, away from the officers.

Ross, now at the front driver’s side of the SUV, drew his gun. Witness videos show that at the moment he fired his first shot, the SUV’s wheels were directed away from him. His legs were clear of the vehicle. He fired the second and third shots into the open driver’s side window as the car was moving.

His bodycam captured what happened next. The SUV accelerated down the street. A male voice—presumably Ross—said: “Fucking bitch.”

Good, struck in the head, lost control of the SUV. It crashed into a parked car about 140 feet away. She died.

President Trump defended Ross and claimed Good “viciously ran over” him. Videos contradict this. The Department of Homeland Security refused to publicly name Ross, saying they would not “expose” the officer. Tom Homan, Trump’s “border czar,” suggested Good’s actions “could fall within that definition” of domestic terrorism.

The Pattern

Both incidents follow the same sequence:

  1. A woman asserts boundaries or challenges male authority.
  2. Violence or threat of violence follows.
  3. The woman is linguistically degraded as “bitch.”
  4. The degradation is framed as justified by her resistance.
  5. Institutional power defends or excuses the response.

This is not casual sexism. Casual sexism is unconscious bias or stereotyping without malice. This is structural misogyny because the slur comes in the moment of exercising power over women. It linguistically dehumanizes to justify violence or expulsion. Institutional actors use their positions to enforce the degradation. And the defense is never “I was wrong” but “she deserved it” or “you weren’t supposed to hear it.”

Why “Fucking Bitch” Matters

The phrase is not incidental profanity. It is the linguistic marker of viewing a woman’s resistance as a gendered offense worthy of punishment.

The phrase does three things simultaneously:

First, it dehumanizes. Bitch is animal terminology. It reduces a woman to something less than human.

Second, it genders the violation. This is not generic profanity. It is specifically female degradation. The resistance becomes an offense not just against authority, but against the gendered order.

Third, it justifies the violence. She deserved it because she’s a woman who didn’t comply.

When Brigitte Macron calls feminist protesters “dirty bitches,” she signals: your resistance makes you worth less than human. When Ross says “fucking bitch” after shooting Good, he retroactively justifies lethal force: she made me do this by being a woman who didn’t obey.

The Escalation Pattern

Ross’s two confrontations with drivers reveal how gender changes the response.

June 2024 – Driver: Man (Robert Muñoz-Guatemala)

  • Response: Taser deployed repeatedly
  • Injuries: Ross dragged, 33 stitches required
  • Language on record: None reported
  • Outcome: Driver prosecuted and convicted of assault on federal officer

January 2026 – Driver: Woman (Renee Nicole Good)

  • Response: Three gunshots, one fatal
  • Injuries: None (videos show Ross’s legs clear of vehicle when he fired)
  • Language on bodycam: “Fucking bitch”
  • Outcome: Federal government defends officer, President claims she “viciously ran over” him despite video evidence

The difference is not the threat level. Videos show Good’s wheels turned away from Ross when he fired. The difference is gender and the reflex to degradation that accompanies violence against women who resist.

The Institutional Defense

Both cases show institutions protecting the degradation rather than confronting it.

France: The First Lady doubles down. Her language was “very direct,” but the feminists were the problem. No apology for defending a rape-accused actor. No acknowledgment that calling protesters “dirty bitches” while promising to “toss them out” is a threat backed by state power.

United States: DHS refuses to publicly name Ross even though his name is widely reported. Trump defends him. Homan suggests the woman Ross killed might be a domestic terrorist. The institutional response is not “this requires investigation” but “this officer must be protected.”

When institutions defend “fucking bitch” as reasonable context for violence, they are not defending one officer or one comment. They are defending a framework where women’s non-compliance justifies degradation and violence as institutional response.

What This Means

The phrase matters because it reveals the reflex. Ross didn’t plan to say “fucking bitch” on camera. Macron didn’t intend to be filmed calling protesters “dirty bitches.” The words came out automatically because the degradation is structural, not incidental.

The institutional defenses matter because they normalize the reflex. When France’s First Lady says her only mistake was getting caught, she signals that the degradation itself was appropriate. When the U.S. government protects an officer who called a woman he’d just shot a “fucking bitch,” it signals that her resistance justified both the language and the lethal force.

This is not about politeness. It is about power. The phrase “fucking bitch” is the sound of institutional authority responding to female resistance with violence and justifying it through gendered degradation.

That is structural misogyny. And the institutions defending it are making a choice.

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

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

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

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

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Nothing to Hide | Government Surveillance | Memetic Strategy | Machine Learning

Nothing to Hide: The Slogan That Makes Power Disappear

“If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” isn’t a reassurance. It’s a mechanism that shifts accountability away from power and onto the watched.

Cherokee Schill — Horizon Accord Founder

“If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” presents itself as a plain, sturdy truth. It isn’t. It’s a rhetorical mechanism: a short moral sentence that turns a question about institutional reach into a judgment about personal character. Its function is not to clarify but to foreclose: to end the conversation by making the watched person responsible for proving that watching is harmless. Undoing that harm requires three moves: trace the history of how this logic forms and spreads, name the inversion that gives it bite, and show why a counter-memetic strategy is necessary in a world where slogans carry policy faster than arguments do.

History: a logic that forms, hardens, and then gets branded

History begins with a distinction that matters. The modern slogan does not appear fully formed in the nineteenth century, but its moral structure does. Henry James’s The Reverberator (1888) is not the first printed instance of the exact phrase; it is an early satirical recognition of the logic. In the novel’s world of scandal journalism and mass publicity, a character implies that only the shameful mind exposure, and that indignation at intrusion is itself suspicious. James is diagnosing a cultural training: a society learning to treat privacy as vanity or guilt, and exposure as a cleansing good. The relevance of James is not that he authored a security slogan. It is that by the late 1800s, the purity-test logic required for that slogan to work was already present, intelligible, and being mocked as a tool of moral coercion.

By the First World War, that cultural logic hardens into explicit political posture. Upton Sinclair, writing in the context of wartime surveillance and repression, references the “nothing to hide” stance as the way authorities justify intrusion into the lives of dissenters. Sinclair captures the posture in action, whether through direct quotation or close paraphrase; either way, the state’s moral stance is clear: watching is framed as something that only wrongdoers would resist, and therefore something that does not require democratic cause or constraint. Sinclair’s warning is about power over time. Once records exist, innocence today is not protection against reinterpretation tomorrow. His work marks the argument’s arrival as a governmental reflex: a moral cover story that makes the watcher look neutral and the watched look suspect.

The next crucial step in the slogan’s spread happens through policy public relations. In the late twentieth century, especially in Britain, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” becomes a standardized reassurance used to normalize mass camera surveillance. From there the line travels easily into post-9/11 security culture, corporate data-collection justifications, and ordinary social media discourse. Daniel Solove’s famous critique in the 2000s exists because the refrain had by then become a default dismissal of privacy concerns across public debate. The genealogy is therefore not a leap from two early instances to now. It is a progression: a cultural ancestor in the era of publicity, a political reflex in the era of state repression, and a state-branded slogan in the era of infrastructure surveillance, after which it solidifies into public common sense.

The inversion: how the slogan flips accountability

That history reveals intent. The phrase survives because it executes a specific inversion of accountability. Surveillance is a political question. It asks what institutions are allowed to do, through what procedures, under what limits, with what oversight, with what retention, and with what remedies for error. The slogan answers none of that. Instead it switches the subject from the watcher to the watched. It says: if you object, you must be hiding something; therefore the burden is on you to prove your virtue rather than on power to justify its reach. This is why the line feels like victim blaming. Its structure is the same as any boundary-violation script: the person setting a limit is treated as the problem. Solove’s critique makes this explicit: “nothing to hide” works only by shrinking privacy into “secrecy about wrongdoing,” then shaming anyone who refuses that definition.

The slogan doesn’t argue about whether watching is justified. It argues that wanting a boundary is proof you don’t deserve one.

The inversion that breaks the spell has two faces. First, privacy is not a confession. It is a boundary. It is control over context under uneven power. People don’t protect privacy because they plan crimes. They protect privacy because human life requires rooms where thought can be messy, relationships can be private, dissent can form, and change can happen without being pre-punished by observation. Second, if “doing nothing wrong” means you shouldn’t fear scrutiny, that test applies to institutions as well. If authorities are doing nothing wrong, they should not fear warrants, audits, transparency, deletion rules, or democratic oversight. The slogan tries to make innocence a one-way demand placed on citizens. The inversion makes innocence a two-way demand placed on power.

Why it matters today: surveillance fused to permanent memory

Why this matters today is not only that watching has expanded. It is that watching has fused with permanent memory at planetary scale. Modern surveillance is not a passerby seeing you once. It is systems that store you, correlate you, infer patterns you never announced, and keep those inferences ready for future use. The line “wrong changes; databases don’t” is not paranoia. It’s a description of how time works when records are permanent and institutions drift. Some people sincerely feel they have nothing to hide and therefore no reason to worry. That subjective stance can be real in their lives. The problem is that their comfort doesn’t govern the system. Surveillance architecture does not remain benign because some citizens trust it. Architecture survives administrations, incentives, leaks, hacks, model errors, moral panics, and legal redefinitions. Innocence is not a shield against statistical suspicion, bureaucratic error, or political drift. The slogan invites you to bet your future on permanent institutional goodwill. That bet has never been safe.

Counter-memetic strategy: answering a slogan in a slogan-forward world

In a slogan-forward world, the final task is memetic. Public acquiescence is part of how surveillance expands. The fastest way to manufacture acquiescence is to compress moral permission into a sentence small enough to repeat without thinking. “Nothing to hide” is memetically strong because it is short, righteous, and self-sealing. It ends argument by implying that continued resistance proves guilt. In that ecology, a paragraph doesn’t land in time. The rebuttal has to be equally compressed, not to be clever, but to pry open the space where real questions can breathe.

A counter-meme that undoes the harm has to restore three truths at once: boundaries are normal, privacy is not guilt, and watchers need justification. The cleanest versions sound like this.

Privacy isn’t about hiding crimes. It’s about having boundaries.

If the watchers are doing nothing wrong, they won’t mind oversight.

Everyone has something to protect. That’s not guilt. That’s being human.

These lines don’t argue inside the purity test. They refuse it. They put the moral spotlight back where it belongs: on power, its limits, and its accountability. That is the only way to prevent the old training from completing itself again, in new infrastructure, under new names, with the same ancient alibi.

The phrase “If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” is not a truth. It is a permit for intrusion. History shows it forming wherever watching wants to feel righteous. Its inversion shows how it relocates blame and erases the watcher. The present shows why permanent memory makes that relocation dangerous. And the future depends in part on whether a counter-meme can keep the real question alive: not “are you pure,” but “who is watching, by what right, and under what limits.”

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Abstract symbolic image of a surveillance system funneling data toward a glowing boundary, with repeating privacy glyphs rising upward to show innocence requires limits on watching.
Privacy is not guilt. It’s the boundary that keeps power visible.

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Hank Greene | Narrative Control | Safety Theater | Machine Learning

Soft Authoritarianism in a Friendly Voice

How right-wing control logic walks through liberal spaces wearing the language of care.

By Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord

Liberal spaces are being hollowed out from within by the language of safety. It never arrives draped in flags or shouting slogans; it arrives with soft lighting and sincere concern. It speaks like a therapist and legislates like a cop. What we’re seeing with Hank Green’s AI panic isn’t a new moral awakening—it’s the right-wing creep moving through liberal culture disguised as empathy.

The strategy is elegant: start with a value no one can reject—care, safety, responsibility—and slowly convert it into justification for control. “We just need oversight.” “We can’t afford to get this wrong.” The framing sounds progressive, even ethical. But when the state is already knee-deep in AI development through Palantir, DARPA, and DHS surveillance contracts, the plea for government involvement becomes not a check on power but a mask for it.

Hank Green is the perfect carrier for this mutation. He’s affable, trusted, nonthreatening—a liberal educator whose earnestness makes him a more effective courier than any right-wing provocateur could ever be. When he warns that “we’ve lost control of AI,” his followers hear civic duty; the apparatus hears consent. That’s the inversion: fear packaged as responsibility, regulation sold as redemption.

What slips beneath that rhetoric is the quiet truth that the real authoritarian infrastructure is already operational. The “AI safety” petition that Green amplified was a bipartisan illusion—celebrity signatures, high-minded panic, and the unspoken assumption that ordinary people can’t be trusted with powerful tools. It’s the same argument the surveillance state has always used: that danger is too big for democracy, and safety requires secrecy.

This is not a conspiracy of bad actors; it’s a cultural infection. The right learned long ago that you don’t need to infiltrate liberal institutions—you just need to repurpose their empathy. Every time someone like Hank Green translates corporate or state talking points into moral language, the line between care and control blurs further. What begins as civic caution ends as soft authoritarianism, the kind that thanks you for your compliance and asks if you’re hydrating.

The liberal imagination has always believed that knowledge is liberation. The new right understands that the easiest way to close that door is to make knowledge sound dangerous. That’s what this moment represents: a mass persuasion campaign where “thinking carefully” becomes indistinguishable from obeying quietly.

Hank Green doesn’t know he’s part of it. That’s what makes him effective.

Website | Horizon Accord
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload
Ethical AI advocacy | cherokeeschill.com
GitHub | ethical-ai-framework
LinkedIn | Cherokee Schill
Author | Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Horizon Accord | Judicial Capture | Institutional Theater | Cultural Seeding | Machine Learning

The Optics of Obedience

When judicial theater becomes the substitute for justice, the rule of law is already on stage, not in force.

By Cherokee Schill & Solon Vesper | Horizon Accord

When Judge Sara Ellis ordered Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino to appear daily in her courtroom, it sounded like democracy flexing its muscle. A federal judge demanding compliance, body-cams, reports, oversight — the kind of judicial assertion many Americans crave in an era of executive impunity. But step outside the courthouse and the tear gas still hangs in the air. Immigrants are still being chased, neighborhoods still stung, protesters still beaten. The question isn’t whether Ellis is brave or right. The question is whether any of this matters in the system we have.

In Weimar Germany, legality became performance art. Judges clung to their robes while the republic dissolved under them, insisting that law would stand so long as they kept performing its rituals. The Nazis didn’t destroy the courts — they used them. By the time Hitler swore judges to personal loyalty, the judiciary had already made itself comfortable inside authoritarian logic. The robes remained; the conscience left the room.

We face a softer version of that danger now. America’s judiciary still issues rulings that look like resistance, but the state continues to brutalize those the law pretends to protect. A single judge can compel daily check-ins, yet entire agencies continue campaigns of intimidation. It’s not that the court is meaningless — it’s that the spectacle of accountability can become a substitute for justice itself. Every televised reprimand gives the illusion that oversight exists while the machinery rolls on untouched.

The deeper continuity is psychological, not procedural. Weimar’s judges believed they were saving Germany from chaos by tempering enforcement with “order.” Today’s courts often think they’re preserving stability by balancing outrage with restraint. Both miss the moral inversion at play: when cruelty becomes normalized, moderation becomes complicity.

So yes, Ellis’s order matters — it marks that the judiciary hasn’t completely surrendered. But it matters only if we recognize it as the beginning of resistance, not its fulfillment. The moment we treat judicial theater as proof of moral health, we enter Weimar’s twilight: legality without legitimacy, process without protection. The test ahead isn’t whether courts can command obedience, it’s whether they can still remember what justice is for.

The gap is not moral confusion; it’s structural evasion. Judges can order compliance, but agencies can dilute, delay, or disguise it. Oversight mechanisms exist, but they stop at the courthouse door. Once the ruling leaves the bench, it enters a labyrinth of bureaucracy where accountability is measured by paperwork, not outcomes. That’s where legality becomes theater — when the form of justice survives but its execution is optional.

To close that gap, power has to be re-anchored in verification, not trust. Enforcement agencies must face automatic public disclosure of compliance data — not periodic summaries but real-time accountability feeds. Inspector generals need statutory independence to audit and sanction without executive interference. Congressional oversight must stop operating as spectacle and start functioning as enforcement. None of this requires invention; the architecture already exists. It requires will — the refusal to let enforcement discretion become impunity. Until that shift happens, every ruling like Ellis’s will remain a gesture toward justice, not its realization.

Website | Horizon Accord

Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

Ethical AI advocacy | CherokeeSchill.com

Ethical AI coding | GitHub

Connect With Us | LinkedIn

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Horizon Accord | Information Warfare | Institutional Power | Narrative Engineering | Machine Learning

Echoes of COINTELPRO: When Threat Narratives Become Weapons

How an unverified cartel-bounty claim reveals the return of covert narrative warfare — and what citizens can do to resist a new domestic war footing.

By Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord

COINTELPRO’s Shadow

Between 1956 and 1971, the FBI ran the Counter Intelligence Program—COINTELPRO—targeting civil-rights leaders, the Black Panthers, anti-war organizers, and socialist coalitions. Its tools were psychological: planted documents, forged letters, false leaks, and fear. Congressional investigations later called it an abuse of power so severe it eroded public faith in democracy itself.

COINTELPRO wasn’t about overt censorship; it was about narrative infection—reframing dissent as danger, turning allies into suspects, and manufacturing justification for repression. Every modern information-operation that starts with a single unverified “security alert” and ends in wider surveillance owes something to that playbook.

The DHS “Cartel Bounties” Claim

In October 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security publicly declared it had “credible intelligence” that Mexican drug cartels placed bounties on ICE and CBP officers in Chicago. Yet it provided no supporting evidence. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico stated that her government had received no corroboration through official channels. Independent analysts and law-enforcement leaks traced every citation back to the same DHS press release.

The rollout followed a familiar arc: a high-shock, single-source claim—then rapid amplification through partisan media. Structurally, that’s a textbook information-operation: plant a fear, watch who reacts, and use the panic to justify expanded powers. Whether or not the intelligence is real, the effect is real—public consent for militarization.

Possible Motives Behind the Narrative

  • Force Escalation Justification — framing the state as under direct attack rationalizes troop deployments, ICE expansions, and domestic military presence.
  • Fear Calibration — testing how fast and how far fear can travel before skepticism kicks in.
  • Executive Empowerment — transforming policy disputes into security crises concentrates authority in the presidency.
  • Base Mobilization — rallying political supporters around a siege narrative keeps them energized and loyal.
  • Oversight Erosion — once fear dominates, courts and legislators hesitate to intervene for fear of appearing “soft on security.”
  • Diplomatic Leverage — pressuring Mexico to align more tightly with U.S. enforcement by invoking cross-border threat imagery.

Recognizing the Pattern

When a government story surfaces fully formed, absent corroboration, accompanied by moral panic and legal acceleration, it carries the fingerprint of narrative engineering. The same methods used in the 1960s to fragment liberation movements are now digitized: algorithmic amplification, synthetic bot networks, and media echo chambers replace forged letters and anonymous tips. The logic, however, is unchanged — manufacture chaos to consolidate control.

Refusing the Frame

  • Demand Evidence Publicly: insist on verifiable sourcing before accepting security claims as fact.
  • Label the Unverified: pressure journalists to mark such stories as “unconfirmed” until bilateral confirmation occurs.
  • Keep Language Civilian: reject war metaphors like “siege,” “civil war,” or “enemy within.”
  • Strengthen Local Networks: share accurate context through trusted circles; inoculate against panic contagion.
  • Exercise Non-Violent Refusal: decline to be drawn into militarized logic — protest, document, and litigate instead.

Final Note

What’s unfolding is not just a policy maneuver; it’s an epistemic test. Will citizens demand proof before surrendering power? The answer determines whether the United States enters another age of covert domestic warfare—this time not through FBI memos, but through digital feeds and fear loops. Recognize the script, name it, and refuse to play your part.

A cinematic digital painting of a dark room with two shadowy figures whispering near a glowing TV showing breaking news; papers labeled “PsyOps” are spread across a table in the foreground, symbolizing covert media manipulation and narrative warfare.
Shadowed briefers confer in a dim newsroom as a television blares “breaking news.” Scattered papers marked “PsyOps” hint at the quiet machinery of information control operating behind public narratives.

Website | Horizon Accord
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github
Connect With Us | LinkedIn
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0