How nationalist capitalism turned broken promises into a grand illusion.

By: Charles Becco

Every magic trick begins with the pledge.

The magician shows you something real before he makes it disappear.

Donald Trump’s pledge began on June 16, 2015, inside Trump Tower in New York City, when he came down the escalator and announced his campaign for president. Unlike other famous campaigns, this presidential launch did not begin in a union hall in Michigan or a church basement in Ohio. Trump’s campaign started in a gold-plated lobby owned by a billionaire. But the President’s message was aimed, was designed, for people who felt the country had been stolen from them, who, abandoned them. The sting in their hearts was the only truth in the futures President’s overtures.

President Trump pointed at Mexico as the reason for rising crimes and low wages, at China for bad trade deals, and Washington insiders, the elites who got rich while towns in the Appalachia and the rust belt died in the face of progress.

That was the first move: show the audience the wound, the first act in The President’s magic act: the pledge.

The wound was real; factories had closed, wages were flat, costs were up while China grew into a manufacturing behemoth all while, Americans faltered. The border had become a permanent national argument, a national flashpoint. The working class had plenty of reasons to be angry.

The President did not invent the pain. He walked on stage, pointed at it, and said to the American audience: I know who did this to you.

Then came the promise, the second phase of the magic act.

The President did not offer a structured economic program; he promised revenge in the form of nationalistic capitalism. Remember “the wall”? The President said Mexico pay for it. The wall was never just about immigration policy; it was the start of America’s redemption arc, guised in Mexico’s humiliation. America would no longer be laughed at, used, invaded, cheated, or ignored. Mexico would pay because Trump would make them pay.

He made Hillary Clinton the face of elite corruption. At the Republican National Convention in July 2016, the chant became, “Lock her up.” Hillary was not just an opponent. She became the symbol of a system Trump said had one set of rules for insiders and another for everyone else. Bill Clinton became part of that same old order: the old money, the old scandals, the old Washington machine, was responsible for lack of jobs, crime, and American stagnancy.

Barack Obama became another grievance. Trump had spent years pushing questions about Obama’s birthplace; then, on September 16, 2016, he finally said Obama was born in the United States, while falsely blaming Hillary Clinton for starting the controversy.

Then came James Comey. In 2016, Comey was useful when the FBI email investigation hurt Hillary Clinton. On October 28, 2016, eleven days before Election Day, Comey told Congress the FBI had found additional emails related to Clinton’s private server. For Trump, the system was proving his point. Hillary was protected. Washington was corrupt. He was the outsider exposing it.

But when Comey later became part of the Russia investigation cloud around Trump, the role changed. On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired him.

That is how the magic works: the same institution can prove corruption one day and persecution the next, depending on where the spotlight needs to fall.

Then came the turn, the next phase in the magic act.

In a magic trick, the turn is when the object changes: the card disappears or reappears; the woman in the box vanishes. In President Trump’s politics, the promise goes unfulfilled, the blame shifts to a new target, and the President takes credit for a promise partly fulfilled. This is part of Trumpnomics core.

Mexico did not pay for the wall. The wall became leverage for manipulating the federal budget, a fight which led to an American shutdown fight, transformed into a budget fight the President then conventiently blamed the democrats fort. When the promise failed, the magician misdirects attention, siphons additional resources, finds a new target to blame, and further indocrinates his base and American resources into the illusion of progress. This is the genius of Trumpnomics: it doesn’t have to work, as long as there is someone to blame. And in this fight, it was the “far left,” the same people responsible for rising crime and a floundering job market.

Health care followed the same pattern. Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare something better and cheaper, “insurance for everybody.” But the replacement never arrived in the way he sold it, always out of reach, always blocked by Democrats, Congress, courts, or the media.

Then came the factory promises.

Carrier became the early symbol. In February 2016, Carrier workers in Indianapolis were told their jobs were moving to Monterrey, Mexico. After the election, Trump announced a deal to keep some jobs in Indiana. It looked like the magician had stopped the plant from disappearing. But the reality was smaller than the show. About 800 jobs were saved, while hundreds of others were still moving to Mexico.

Then came Foxconn. In 2017, Foxconn’s Wisconsin project was sold as a manufacturing rebirth: massive investment, thousands of jobs, proof that factories were coming home. But by January 2019, Foxconn was already reconsidering major parts of the manufacturing plan, and the dream of 13,000 jobs had diminished.

That completes the turn: the promises goes unfulfilled, partial, delayed, or simply rebranded.

Then comes misdirection, the following stage in the magician’s act.

Misdirection is not a side effect of a magic trick. It is the method. The audience looks where the magician points, not where the hand is moving.

Trump pointed outward. Mexico was the wall. China was the factory. Hillary was corruption. Bill Clinton was the old machine. Obama was illegitimacy and elite contempt. Comey was useful, then dangerous. Xi Jinping was the foreign rival. NATO was taking advantage. The Fed was getting it wrong. The media was lying. Judges were obstructing. Experts were cooking the numbers. The deep state was sabotaging the will of the people.

Some of these targets had real substance. China’s rise did damage American manufacturing. Washington did have a corruption problem. Trade policy did hurt certain workers. The media did make mistakes. The border did have real failures.

But the magic is in what the audience did not see while it watched the enemy.

The tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited corporations, investors, and higher-income households. Deregulation helped business, not the American taxpayer. Tariffs were sold as punishment for China, but they moved through American importers, suppliers, retailers, small businesses, whop all gained their pounds of flesh at the expense of the American consumer.

On January 15, 2020, Trump signed the “Phase One” trade agreement with China. President Trump presented the deal as proof that his pressure campaign had worked. China would buy more American goods. Farmers would benefit. Manufacturing would recover. But later analysis found China did not meet the massive purchase commitments.

Then, in the current presidency, the same performance returned. On April 2, 2025, at 4:06 p.m., Trump stood in the Rose Garden and called it “Liberation Day.” He said American industry would be reborn and America’s destiny reclaimed. He announced reciprocal tariffs as a declaration of economic independence.

The stage was familiar: flags, cameras, charts, applause, and the language of national rescue. The enemy was outside the walls again. Foreign countries had cheated America. Trade partners had abused America. The global system had laughed at America.

But tariffs are not magic; they became higher prices. The hidden taxwas paid by everyday American’s The President promised to protect. The confrontation was nothing more than spectacle. Pound for pound, tariffs hurt the consumer, but the President claimed victory while Americans wilted in pain. This was a masterful misdirection in the magician’s act.

This is where President Trump becomes “The Trickler.”

By this point in the act, the stage is crowded with enemies: Mexico. China. Hillary. Obama. Comey. Xi. The media. The judges. The deep state. The globalists. The bureaucrats. The Fed. While the audience watches the fight, the hand moves the money. Outrage flows down from The President’s gilded microphone, while money flows upwards, and the audience, primarily President Trump’s base, is dazzled by the spectacle off his attacks while promises go unfulfilled.

On December 22, 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This gist to employee’s was a clear boon for employers and fueled one of the biggest corporate buybacks om corporate history, as the corporate tax rate fell from 35 percent to 21 percent. The theory was familiar: give companies more money, and they will invest more, hire more, raise wages, and bring jobs back home. But none of this happened; companies doubled down on their stock, not on the American worker, all while the President espoused that the benefits would “trickle down,” the calling card of “The Trickler.”

That is trickle-down economics, in plain English: big business gets the capital, and the benefits will eventually metriculate.

Trump did not invent that doctrine. Reagan had sold a cleaner version decades earlier. Reaganomics said, trust the market. Trumpnomics said, trust me. Corporations got relief immediately. Investors got the market upside, while Americans got the promise of a future benefit, a benefit yet to materialize.

Tariffs had been sold as punishment for foreigners, but the true cost was landing on American citizens in the price of energy, utilties, and commodities. As Congress decried the unilateral exercize of execvutive power and courts blocked and the reversed the Tariffs of 2025, President Trump obliged himself to another excuse of his policies failures: it was everyone else’s fault, democrats, courts, the far left.

That is how The Trickler survives.

Then came the sequel. On July 4, 2025, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House sold it as a working- and middle-class victory: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, deductions, bigger paychecks, and relief for ordinary families. The presentation was tinged with nationalist overtones; it was patriotic declaration that finally the downtrodden, forgotten, Amercan worker was finally getting paid.

However, The bill extended much of the old tax architecture and layered in the familiar, business-friendly provisions. Analysts at Yale Budget Lab found that the combination of the bill and 2025 tariffs would reduce resources on average among the bottom 80 percent of U.S. households, while the top would see an increase.

The sales pitch was relief for the forgotten American workers, but Trumpnomics pumped the benefits to the top. The trickle never fails; it is always interrupted. Someone stole it, blocked it, sabotaged it, or betrayed the movement.

That is Trump’s version of trickle-down economics is no different than previous models, but it includes an outrage mechanic, aimed squarely at the head of President Trump’s enemies.

Then comes the prestige.

In a magic trick, the prestige is the final reveal. The audience applauds in anticipation of the final turn.

Trickler’s prestige works differently. He did not need every promise to come true; to the contrary, every broken promise becomes the proof that he was still fighting tooth and nail against an indomitable foe on behalf of thje people, and this is the Trickler’s true power: the foes are always many, they are always might, and the Trickler and his proselytes are always in then minority.

When Mexico did not pay for the wall, the wall was still working. When the health-care plan never arrived, the plan was still coming. When the swamp was not drained, that meant the swamp was fighting back. When tariffs raised costs, that was the pain required to beat China. When tax cuts favored business first, wages would rise later. When factories did not return, globalists, Democrats, regulators, unions, China, weak CEOs, and bad trade actors were blocking the comeback. When prices remained painful, the media was lying, the numbers were fake, or the wrong basket was being measured.

By 2026, the Trickler’ was still promising a manufacturing boom, but factory jobs continued to decline.

In May 2026, The Trickler’ claimed he was making food affordable, pointing to selected items that had fallen in price. That is the prestige in miniature: show the audience the card you want them to see. Avocados, eggs, olive oil, berries, selected evidence arranged for applause. But appalling Overall grocery prices were still up nearly 3–9 percent in April 2026 compared with the year before.

The Trickler’ had long complained that his enemies used “lawfare,” which uses legal systems and institutions to achieve objectives by weaponizing the law to hinder, intimidate, or damage an opponent.

The irony of The Tricklers’ “lawfare” complaint is that he turned alleged persecution into one of the central myth engines of his grand illusion. When the law moved against his enemies, it was justice; when it was aimed at himself, it became the reason why his policies failed, were stymied, or did not work.

The targets were not random. James Comey, the FBI director Trump fired, was charged on September 25, 2025, with false statements and obstruction tied to congressional testimony. Letitia James, the New York attorney general who brought Trump’s civil fraud case, was indicted on October 9, 2025, on bank-fraud and false-statement charges tied to mortgage documents. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser turned critic, was indicted on October 16, 2025, over alleged mishandling of classified information. Adam Schiff, one of Trump’s loudest impeachment-era opponents, became the subject of a DOJ-reviewed mortgage-fraud probe by November 20, 2025. E. Jean Carroll, who won civil judgments against The Trickler, who then reportedly became the subject of a DOJ criminal inquiry in May 2026 over alleged perjury tied to litigation funding. The jokes writes themselves; the same man who condemned lawfare as a corrupt weapon also benefited politically from watching the weapon swing toward Comey, James, Bolton, Schiff, and Carrol. But why do this at all? By weaponizing the power on the backs of the credibility of DOJ and the FBI, the Trickler’ puts a face and a name to the cause of the everyday American suffering, which is a masterful turn of the magician’s prestige arc.

That is the final move. The trick is complete when the audience no longer judges the promise by whether it came true. They judge it by whether the performer is still fighting, and as long as the Trickler has enemies to direct his proselytes too, the more the audience becomes indoctrinated in the illusion. An illusion that reboots in the hearts and minds of the Trickler’s suppoorters as he scores symbolic wins in the form of baseless legal indictments, and the public executions of out of favor colleagues, like Pam Bondi.

Trump’s greatest trick was not convincing his base that he delivered everything he promised. It was convincing them that every failure to deliver proved how badly his enemies wanted to stop him.

That is The Trickler.

He sells the pain. He names the enemy. He promises restoration under a new slogan (i.e. Maga, America First.) He delivers partial victories, symbolic wins, embossed by the spectacle of executive orders or overtly improper military against foreign adversaries. Then he tells the audience the real benefit is still coming.

Wait for the wall. Wait for the plan. Wait for the factory. Wait for the wage. Wait for the price drop. Wait for the swamp to drain. Wait for the trickle.

For Americans, the rich, get richer, and the middle class disappears while waiting for the benefits to “trickle down.”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Trickler.

What the price of gold tells us about the next crisis

By Charles Becco

On a trading desk in Lower Manhattan, the signs of stress rarely shout from the rooftops. They show up in cragged edges, they show up in a line of crushed Adderall beside a tactile keyboard, in a can of Red Bull gone flat, inside a whiskey hidden in a nearby thermos. Anything to take the edge off a commodities trader who has been glued to his monitor since 4 a.m. On one screen, rubble and fire from a mortar strike in Iran. On another, crude oil ticking from red to green, eyes darting from one battlefield to another. Gold is climbing, not inching higher, not behaving like the old, patient conservator of value it is supposed to be, but moving with the violence of a drug-addled crypto trader.

Gold is not supposed to move like this. Gold is supposed to be old, slow, deliberate, the asset of undertakers, emperors, and central banks. It belongs in vaults and war chests, not in price action that looks more like a meme stock, a penny stock, or a panic-driven crypto chart. Yet from roughly $2,300 an ounce in April 2024 to above $5,100 in January 2026, gold nearly doubled in less than two years. That is not an ordinary price move, that is not just scared money buying a little insurance, that is the kind of move that suggests serious institutions are repricing risk at a systemic level.

The public explanation for a move like that is always neat and tidy. We are told gold rises because of inflation, geopolitical uncertainty, shifting rate expectations, or generic safe-haven holdings. All of that can be true. But what matters is the rate of change, how sharply the price has changed given that amount of time. Gold doubled in under 3 years, which is insane for one of the safest stores of value in history, indicating that there is deeper loss of confidence, not just in markets, but in the foundations underneath them.

History offers a possible explanation in Great Britain’s devaluation of sterling. Britain once sold sterling as more than a currency; it sold it as imperial reassurance, this was the “dollar” before the dollar. Countries across the world held reserves in pounds, settled trade through London, and trusted that the monarchy would protect the value of what they held. But by the mid-1960s, Britain was weaker than the image it projected. Kuwait saw the risk early enough to ask in 1964 for a national guarantee on the value of its sterling holdings. It was refused, on the assurance that there would be no devaluation. Then, in November 1967, Britain devalued sterling by 14.3 percent anyway. Kuwait’s losses were later estimated at about 5.89 percent of its GDP. The lesson was a brutal realization that reserve systems often weaken in trust before they weaken in headlines. In terms of Britain, the government kept promoting an image of strength and stability while sophisticated holders began quietly repositioning.

That is why gold matters now. Not because the dollar is destined to replay sterling beat for beat, but because the pattern is familiar. States, institutions, and reserve managers do not wait for the official story to catch up. They move part of their wealth into something that does not depend on another government’s promise, another banking system’s integrity, or another official assurance that everything is under control. In that sense, gold looks less like a simple inflation hedge and more like strategic repositioning before an expected breakdown.

In terms of the United States, that pattern is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Britain. As of April 16, 2026, the total federal debt stood at about $38.99 trillion, including roughly $31.36 trillion held by the public. In fiscal year 2025, the federal government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit, equal to 5.8 percent of GDP, while net interest on the debt alone reached $970 billion. Debt held by the public was running at about 98.2 percent of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2025, which is the highest it’s ever been. In plain English: the empire is borrowing heavily, barely servicing expensive debt, and moving deeper into the danger zone. In light of all this, the United States’ actions in Venezuela, South America, the Caribbean, in Iran, and its ambitions for Greenland make much more sense.

The American middle class does not experience monetary erosion through complex financial jargon on CNBC. It experiences it at the gas pump, in the grocery aisle, in the rent renewal email, in the mortgage quote, daycare invoice, insurance premium, and in the doctor’s office. A man with a decent job, a wife, two kids, and a mortgage is not reading macroeconomic releases at midnight, he just knows that five years ago he could breathe a little easier. He knows the bank empties faster and that the emergency fund is no longer an emergency fund so much as a delay in the family’s inevitable financial collapse. He now knows that one bad month has the power to rearrange the entire household.

This is also where Venezuela enters the picture. Venezuela matters not because it signaled that American imperialism was fully alive and well, but because it also exposed the machinery of that ambition in unusually clear terms. Sanctions, tanker pressure, oil restrictions, and banking restrictions are used under the guise of anti-drug enforcement, but may be necessary tools to sustain empire. An empire defended by energy infrastructure, currency access, and financial barriers: tools of the new world order employed to discipline states. Venezuela, via Russia’s black fleets and with support from China, had secretly been trading oil, not in the U.S. dollar, but in gold, a familiar arbitrage employed by BRICS to undermine the petrodollar’s dominance, and America’s foreign policy, one etched in blood and fire, responded in kind. During a spectacularly executed raid on the Venezuelan capital, Nicolás Maduro was captured in January 2026. The United States’ gambit was successful, and its empire quickly moved to authorize transactions with PDVSA and took control of Venezuela’s oil-sale proceeds through a managed fund. Expectedly, Venezuelan exports soon climbed to their highest level since 2018, and the United States conveniently availed itself of more resources to sustain said empire under the banner of defending itself against a “narco-state.” For the rest of the world, the lesson, in plain English, was clear: denominate your oil business in dollars, or else. So why is gold rising? Besides acting as a hedge against uncertainty, it may be evidence of an overt rebellion against America’s dollar sovereignty.

That is why BRICS matter, because more countries are looking for ways to trade, settle accounts, and store reserves with less dependence on the U.S. dollar and the Western banking system. More local-currency trade, more bilateral deals, more gold buying, and more hedging against a system that no longer feels politically neutral or permanently secure. The point is not that the dollar is dead. The point is that more countries want a hedge against a system that no longer feels unquestionable.

If that is true, then the damage will not be distributed evenly. The wealthy hedge, governments improvise, central banks diversify to float nominal inflation. But the middle class is still expected to save in dollars, borrow in dollars, earn in dollars, and trust institutions denominated in dollars, but are then expected to sustain bouts of rampant inflation without flinching. They absorb blows through food, rent, fuel, childcare, healthcare, and insurance insecurity. They are the ones still being asked to believe in the system, even as the people in control of that system possibly, divest from it.

So the real question is not whether gold is sending a signal. It clearly is. The question is whether we are willing to admit what kind of signal it is. Because gold does not usually move like this when the world is stable. It moves like this when trust begins to fail before the headlines catches up.

Works Cited

“Central Banks.” Gold Demand Trends: Full Year 2025, World Gold Council, 29 Jan. 2026, www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gold-demand-trends-full-year-2025/central-banks. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“Debt to the Penny.” U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data, U.S. Department of the Treasury, fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“Gold Demand Trends: Q4 and Full Year 2025.” World Gold Council, 29 Jan. 2026, www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends/gold-demand-trends-full-year-2025. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“Gold Races to $5,100 Record Peak on Frantic Safe-Haven Demand.” Reuters, 26 Jan. 2026, www.reuters.com/business/finance/gold-races-5100-record-peak-safe-haven-demand-2026-01-26/. Accessed 17 May 2026.

Newton, Scott. “The Two Sterling Crises of 1964 and 1967.” Contemporary British History, vol. 24, no. 1, Mar. 2010, pp. 39–54, orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/13695/1/912.full%20Newton.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“Rio de Janeiro Declaration: Strengthening Global South Cooperation for a More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance.” BRICS Brasil 2025, 6 July 2025, brics.br/en/documents/presidency-documents/250705-brics-leaders-declaration-en.pdf/%40%40download/file. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“US Broadly Authorizes Transactions with Venezuela’s Oil Company PDVSA.” Reuters, 18 Mar. 2026, www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-waives-sanctions-deals-involving-venezuelas-pdvsa-2026-03-18/. Accessed 17 May 2026.

“Venezuela’s Oil Exports Jump to Highest Since 2018, with More Sales to US, India.” Reuters, 1 May 2026, www.reuters.com/business/energy/venezuelas-oil-exports-jump-highest-since-2018-with-more-sales-us-india-2026-05-01/. Accessed 17 May 2026.

The Core of Social Media Derived Mental Illness

By Charles Becco

It starts in the dark, not in a therapist’s office, not in a hospital room, not with a diagnosis printed on a clipboard. It starts in bed. The room is quiet. The house is asleep. The phone is inches from the face, blue light washing over the eyes like a police siren no one else can hear. The thumb moves almost by itself, a loose synapse finding its footing amongst a sea of thumbnails. A comedian appears. Then a dead child. Then a perfect body. Then a political outrage. Then a woman crying in her car. Then a man beside a rented Lamborghini telling strangers how to escape poverty. Then a war clip, a thirst trap, a sermon, a humiliation, a dog rescue, a cosmetic procedure, a conspiracy, a couple in Santorini, a supplement, a fistfight, a baby laughing, a body on pavement, and finally a discount code so you can “grab the look.” The nervous system does not know it is entertainment, but the body’s balance of endorphins, dopamine, and serotonin has been spun out of whack.

The user says, “I’m just scrolling,” but something else is happening. The algorithm is studying. It is learning where the eye pauses, where the insecurity resides, where the fantasy rests, where the anger is anchored, where the loneliness defecates, and where old wounds bleed. Social media did not invent anxiety, depression, loneliness, vanity, envy, resentment, narcissism, body hatred, political hatred, or spiritual confusion. But it codified a system to exploit them into an industrialized business built on insecurity. The algorithms that power social media study the ego, find the wound, feed the wound, reward the reaction, culture reality, and then sell the cure.

Social media is not an idle distraction; it is a sophisticated predator, an assassin of the psyche. The deeper danger is enveloped in its singular purpose: a constant influence campaign against the human self. They make you self-conscious, then sell you confidence via products and experiences. They make you feel ugly, then sell you beauty. They make you feel poor, then sell you a stock-trading course. They make you feel weak, then sell you protein powder or online coaching. They make you feel lonely, then sell you connection in digital communities that enforce biases through implied echo chambers. They make you feel politically terrified, then sell you the tribe, a sense of belonging, always with a logo, a slogan, or flags. First, the machine wounds the ego, then provides a homogeneous bandage that always involves the expenditure of capital.

The U.S. Surgeon General has warned that social media is not proven sufficiently safe for children and adolescents, and I am here to proclaim that it is not safe for adults either. The advisory notes that young people who spend more than three hours a day on social media face roughly double the risk of mental-health problems, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, and that 46% of adolescents ages 13–17 say social media makes them feel worse about their body image. Social media users are being trained to dislike themselves, and once that happens, they become easier to sell to, easier to provoke, easier to isolate, easier to radicalize, and easier to capture. A whole marketplace waits on the other side of human fragility.

Nancy Yang and Bernard Crespi’s 2025 systematic review, “I tweet, therefore I am,” gives clinical language to what many people already feel but cannot explain. They argue that social media creates a historically new form of human interaction, one where time, space, body language, physical presence, and shared social cues are separated from each other. Their model is called “Delusion Amplification by Social Media.” The phrase is clinical, but the meaning is science fact. Real life keeps the self accountable; social media lets the user self-evaluate, exaggerate, edit, filter, inflate, hide, and repeat itself without the same fidelity from embodied reality.

In real life, people see your face. They hear your nervous laugh. They feel the awkward pause. They notice contradiction. They notice fatigue. In real life, we see the exhibition of humanity through vanity, tenderness, and clear vulnerabilities. Online, there is a façade: the perfect self, absent of the body, devoid of the real self. An edited soul, distorted by time and covered up by a trending filter. A person can post a perfect version of themselves at midnight, delete the failed take, filter the face, exaggerate the lifestyle, perform victimhood, perform wealth, perform holiness, perform outrage, perform wisdom, and perform peace, devoid of all corresponding faults. Posts are relegated to performative ritual. Other users respond with likes, shares, views, comments, follows, or silence. The self becomes outsourced to the audience. But here’s the real issue: the self has long since died, bludgeoned by repeated online campaigns targeting the user’s insecurity. The outsourced “self” is a body double, a corporatized corruption of the true self, which was fashioned from stem to stern. This is not “life imitating art.” This is the algo-printed self in the form of a man.

Researchers Nancy Yang and Bernard Crespi connect increased social media usage especially to disorders involving altered self-perception, including narcissism, body dysmorphic disorder, eating disorders, and psychotic-spectrum or delusionality traits. This does not mean Instagram creates every narcissist, TikTok creates every eating disorder, or X creates every paranoid mind. That would be a bastardization of their research. However, the actual argument is worse: social media may be uniquely built to enable, intensify, and preserve distorted versions of the self, especially in vulnerable people. A narcissist always has a stage. Body dysmorphia is availed a churrascaria of mirrors. The one with an eating disorder dines on a gallery of impossible bodies. The paranoid always find evidence, and the lonely are afforded a simulation and then stimulation via an OnlyFans subscription or sex toy. The deluded are never rebuked; they always have a community of like-minded degenerates. And the algorithm, indifferent to truth or healing, harvests “engagement.”

The machine does not keep people hooked by making them miserable all the time. That would be too obvious. It keeps them hooked through alternation: reward, punishment, shock, joke, humiliation, fantasy, tragedy, prophecy, threat, fight, miracle, notification. Behavioral psychology has language for this: variable-ratio reinforcement and intermittent reinforcement. Slot machines work because the reward is unpredictable. B.F. Skinner’s operant-conditioning work used lever-equipped chambers for rats to study how rewards shape behavior. The social media version is simple. The rat had a lever; we have thumbs. The pellets are the likes, and the chamber is our phones.

Doomscrolling is a slot machine without the casino carpet. You do not pull a lever; you scroll, to your own demise. You do not always win, and you do not always lose. You get a funny clip, then a dead child, then a beautiful body, then political outrage, then a luxury vacation, then a product promising to fix the insecurity the last five posts just activated. You are trapped in a world of complex emotional gambling. Every swipe might deliver relief or pain, and an algorithm decides your fate. But you swipe on toward a projected outcome, where you open your wallet to ease your pain while reinforcing your fate. A fated destiny, where every swipe, every Amazon delivery, every orgasm, or every booked vacation might deliver the thing that makes you feel alive for three seconds as it destroys your self-image.

And when the platform is not feeding insecurity, it is training outrage. Yale researchers found that social feedback online, including likes and shares, can reinforce moral outrage, essentially teaching users to express more outrage over time. The algorithm did not invent hatred; it gamified hatred and gave you plenty of targets for your “Twitter fingers turned trigger fingers.” Now comes the product-cure funnel. Feel ugly? Here is a new chemical-free foundation. Feel fat? Here is the peptide cycle for those who can’t take GLP-1. Feel poor? Here is the trading course. Feel lonely? Here is another casino-coded dating app. Feel undesirable? A BBL surgery, Botox, implants, and cheek fillers are your salvation. Feel powerless? Here is a new doctrine for you to practice. Feel an existential crisis coming along? Here is the firebrand politician who comes armed with word bombs to hurl at his, and now your, political victims.

The system cannot cure the wound without losing the customer, so it manages the wound. It inflames it, soothes it, inflames it again, then introduces another cure. The paradigm of mental illness expressed as a business model takes a clearer form. Your fear creates the inventory that marketers jostle over. Your shame is lead generation. Anger is the retention mechanic, and your newfound identity becomes a subscription model you can never escape from. The genius of it all is how it functions so innocently, so innocuously, that you don’t even know it’s there, but you feel its effects.

In 2023, a bipartisan coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Meta, alleging the company designed harmful and addictive features for young users. In 2026, Reuters reported that Meta had to face a Massachusetts youth-addiction lawsuit over Instagram’s design, and that New Mexico was pursuing a major teen mental-health remedy against Meta tied to alleged platform harms. Meta disputes these claims, but the legal theory is clear: the harm may not simply be the content; it may be the design.

The studies keep pointing in the same direction. A 2013 PLOS ONE study found Facebook use predicted declines in subjective well-being. A 2017 American Journal of Epidemiology study found Facebook activity negatively associated with well-being. A 2018 experimental study, “No More FOMO,” found that limiting social media use to about 30 minutes per day reduced loneliness and depression over three weeks. No honest article should claim every mental illness begins on a phone. Depression existed before Instagram. Anxiety existed before TikTok. Narcissism existed before selfies. Eating disorders existed before filters. Political hatred existed before X. Social media did not invent these things; it scaled them, accelerated them, personalized them, rewarded them, and sold against them.

Then comes the higher danger: micro-realities. Your timeline is not the world; it is a private theater built from a repository of your habits, fears, desires, resentments, politics, fantasies, purchases, pauses, searches, friends, enemies, and trauma. Two people can live in the same city, walk past the same buildings, shop in the same stores, vote in the same election, and inhabit completely different algorithmic and actual realities. One feed says immigrants are destroying the country. Another says racists are destroying the country. One says men are evil. Another says women are ungrateful. Another says Christians are under siege. Another says Christians are the siege. One says the rich are demons. Another says the poor are parasites. These are not merely opinions; they are algo-generated worlds that manifest in how we treat each other in real life.

Sometimes the online self does not merely perform beauty, wealth, outrage, or victimhood; sometimes it performs violence. In Binghamton in April 2026, police said five juveniles beat Peter Bennedum in an alleged social-media-inspired attack; he later died, turning vulnerability into trend bait. In Vineland, New Jersey, in May 2020, Zachary Latham’s TikTok-fueled feud with the Durham family ended with William “Timmy” Durham Sr. dead; Latham was later acquitted, but the case remains a portrait of neighborhood conflict mutated by online attention. In Jeannette, Pennsylvania, in February 2015, prosecutors said Maxwell Morton killed Ryan Mangan and took a Snapchat selfie with the dying teenager instead of calling for help. In Harris County, Texas, in July 2019, William Underwood was accused of killing Ryan Bates and posting Snapchat video from the crime scene. In Manitoba in April 2017, Serena McKay was beaten to death, with video of the attack later circulating on Facebook. In Liverpool in November 2021, 12-year-old Ava White was fatally stabbed after a dispute over a Snapchat video. In Bendigo, Australia, in March 2025, police alleged teens attacked a security guard amid broader reporting on filmed assaults posted for “clout.” And in Utica, New York, in July 2019, Bianca Devins was murdered by Brandon Clark, who posted images of her body online; her mother later said social media did not make him kill her daughter, but it gave him “a platform to show it off.” These cases do not prove social media creates every violent person; they prove something narrower and more disturbing: in the age of the feed, violence can become performance, humiliation can become currency, and the camera can enter the crime before conscience does.

The Center for Humane Technology and The Social Dilemma helped popularize this critique: social platforms are not neutral public squares; they are persuasive technologies that manipulate attention, psychology, relationships, and reality itself. And sometimes online unreality leaves the screen. The Pizzagate conspiracy led an armed man into Comet Ping Pong. The Christchurch mosque attacker livestreamed mass murder on Facebook. New York’s attorney general investigated platforms linked to the Buffalo supermarket shooter’s planning, promotion, and broadcast ecosystem. In the Pittsburgh Tree of Life case, prosecutors introduced social-media posts to show antisemitic motive. These cases do not prove social media causes every violent act; they prove online unreality can enter the body, pick up a weapon, and walk into the world.

Now we arrive at the final indictment of social media’s crime against humanity, which is not merely psychological; it is spiritual. Socials teaches people to despise themselves. Then it teaches them to despise each other. Psalm 139:14 says, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” This exhortation is not just a comforting verse; it is a declaration of human dignity. The body is not trash. The face is not flawed. The person is not a failed product waiting for an algorithmic upgrade. Social media has waged a constant war against the truth, the same self-soul made in the image of God. Socials teaches the girl to hate the face God gave her. It teaches the boy to hate his weakness, designed to build self-esteem. Socials teaches mothers to hate the body that carried life. Socials tells the aging man that without money, he is without worth. It teaches the ordinary person to hate the once dignified ordinary.

Then comes the second spiritual inversion. Proverbs 6:19 condemns “he that soweth discord among brethren.” Social media has made that sin scalable by sowing discord between men and women, Black and white, rich and poor, left and right, parent and child, believer and unbeliever, neighbor and neighbor. Then it harvests the engagement and brings it to market as a commodity to advertisers. That is the essence of algorithms: it teaches you to despise what God made in you. Then it teaches you to despise what God made in your neighbor. A society cannot survive an onslaught of distortion, but we are living in a constant state of it. A mind cannot survive that forever. A family cannot survive that forever, because discord is not just disagreement. Discord is the permanent, inalienable corruption of bonds that mend us together; the destroyer of real community.

And the algorithm has become one of the greatest sowers of discord in human history: a Skinner box with better lighting, a casino for the nervous system, a marketplace for insecurity, a private Truman Show for the ego, a machine that studies the wound, feeds the wound, rewards the reaction, cultures reality, divides the brethren, and sells the cure that inevitably jumpstarts the cycle. And the most dangerous thing about it is not that it lies, but that the machine has learned you well enough to make the lie feel so real to you that it becomes you.

Works Cited

Brady, William J., et al. “How Social Learning Amplifies Moral Outrage Expression in Online Social Networks.” Science Advances, vol. 7, no. 33, 2021. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Science)

Hunt, Melissa G., et al. “No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 37, no. 10, 2018, pp. 751–768. Accessed 15 May 2026. (guilfordjournals.com)

Kross, Ethan, et al. “Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults.” PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, 2013. Accessed 15 May 2026. (PLOS)

Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023. Accessed 15 May 2026. (HHS.gov)

Shakya, Holly B., and Nicholas A. Christakis. “Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 185, no. 3, 2017, pp. 203–211. Accessed 15 May 2026. (PubMed)

Yang, Nancy, and Bernard Crespi. “I Tweet, Therefore I Am: A Systematic Review on Social Media Use and Disorders of the Social Brain.” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 25, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12888–025–06528–6. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Springer)

Harris, Tristan. “Tristan Harris on the Need to Change the Incentives of Social Media Companies.” 80,000 Hours Podcast, 3 Dec. 2020. Accessed 15 May 2026. (80,000 Hours)

The Social Dilemma. Directed by Jeff Orlowski, Exposure Labs, 2020. The Social Dilemma. Accessed 15 May 2026. (The Social Dilemma)

“Skinner Box.” EBSCO Research Starters. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Creators Free Press)

Skinner, B. F. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century, 1938.

Associated Press. “States Sue Meta Claiming Its Social Platforms Are Addictive and Harm Children’s Mental Health.” AP News, 24 Oct. 2023. Accessed 15 May 2026. (AP News)

James, Letitia. “Attorney General James and Multistate Coalition Sue Meta for Harming Youth.” New York State Office of the Attorney General, 24 Oct. 2023. Accessed 15 May 2026. (New York State Attorney General)

Jones, Diana Novak. “Meta Must Face Youth Addiction Lawsuit by Massachusetts, Court Rules.” Reuters, 10 Apr. 2026. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Reuters)

Jones, Diana Novak. “New Mexico Seeks $3.7 Billion, Changes to Meta Platforms in Youth Harm Trial.” Reuters, 4 May 2026. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Reuters)

Jones, Diana Novak. “Meta Challenges New Mexico’s $3.7 Billion Plan for Teen Mental Health in Social Media Trial.” Reuters, 13 May 2026. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Reuters)

“Bianca Devins Murder: Violent Images Sent to Victim’s Family.” CBS News, 13 Aug. 2022. Accessed 15 May 2026. (CBS News)

“Comet Ping Pong Shooter Wanted to Rescue ‘Child Sex Slaves’ From Fake News Story, Officials Say.” TIME, 5 Dec. 2016. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Time)

“Facebook Removes Video Linked to Death.” Winnipeg Free Press, 27 Apr. 2017. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Winnipeg Free Press)

“Teen Arrested After Taking Snapchat Selfie With Murder Victim’s Body.” TIME, 7 Feb. 2015. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Time)

“Texas Teen Accused of Murder Posted on Snapchat from Crime Scene: Court Documents.” ABC7 Chicago, 16 Aug. 2019. Accessed 15 May 2026. (ABC7 Chicago)

“How a Social Media Trend Allegedly Led to a Vulnerable Man’s Fatal Beating by 5 Teens.” People, May 2026. Accessed 15 May 2026. (People.com)

Miller, Joshua Rhett. “Boy Charged With Fatally Stabbing 12-Year-Old Girl at Christmas Tree Lighting.” New York Post, 29 Nov. 2021.

“Pizzagate: What to Know About the Conspiracy Theory.” TIME, 5 Dec. 2016. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Time)

Associated Press. “Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter’s Social Media Posts Used as Evidence in Death Penalty Trial.” AP News, 2023. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Time)

Macklin, Graham. “The Christchurch Attacks: Livestream Terror in the Viral Video Age.” Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, July 2019. Accessed 15 May 2026. (Time)

“New York AG to Investigate Social Media Platforms Used by Buffalo Grocery Gunman.” Reuters, 18 May 2022. Accessed 15 May 2026.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. Psalm 139:14.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. Proverbs 6:19.

If inflation doesn’t get you, avarice will.

By Charles Becco

The apartment in California’s 48th Congressional District looked respectable from the street. That was the trick. A clipped lawn. A porch light with a dying bulb. A stucco roof with hanging plants tucked neatly beneath it. But inside, just after midnight, the place smelled like reheated coffee, damp drywall, and despondency.

Anna sat at the kitchen table in a T-shirt and mascara she was too tired to wipe off, school papers spread beside a mortgage statement she had opened three times, as if numbers could change from shame alone. Her two children were asleep down the hall, one curled around a toy with a missing eye. By day, she taught fourth grade: fractions, reading comprehension, the little civic syllabus that tells children the world still adds up. By night, under the aquarium-blue light of her phone, she sold a private version of herself to strangers for money.

Anna, like many Americans, lives on a single income in an America that has long since moved past the single-income model. Her income affords her one small luxury, even one small privilege: the ability to drown slowly. Anna also lives in a district represented by Darrell Issa, a U.S. congressman whose wealth has recently been estimated at roughly $400 million. And decisions men like Mr. Issa make every day shape the lives of Anna and tens of millions of Americans just like her.

That contrast reveals the real divide in modern America. It is not merely red versus blue. It is what it has always been: the haves and the have-nots. Anna lives by monthly cash flow, heavily supplemented by debt, while members of Congress increasingly live by wealth, assets, and appreciation. By 2018, 229 of 535 members of Congress, 43 percent, had an average net worth of at least $1 million. In 2012, a majority of Congress crossed that threshold for the first time. The problem is not that every lawmaker is corrupt. The problem is that too many lawmakers inhabit a financial micro-universe so unlike Anna’s that representation begins to feel less like a sworn oath and more like fantasy.

Anna does not experience the economy as something that rewards hard work. She experiences it as a sequence of blows. Housing comes first. The Census Bureau says median U.S. gross rent now sits at $1,413 a month, while median monthly owner costs for households with a mortgage reached $2,035 in 2024. That means even “making it” through homeownership comes with a meter running in the background. Anna is not building wealth when the mortgage comes due. She is keeping her head above water.

Child care and education arrive next, not as services but as ransom notes with logos. Child Care Aware of America says the national average annual price of child care was $13,128 in 2024. That equals about 10 percent of median income for married couples with children and 35 percent for single-parent families. The broader inflation story is uglier still. The FRED index for tuition, school fees, and childcare rose from 57.5 in January 1978 to 906.7 in February 2026, a long-term surge that has badly outpaced general inflation. Anna does not need a chart to understand that. She understands it every time a child gets sick, school closes early, or a summer program becomes an impossible equation.

Then there is health care, the single category capable of turning a hard month into financial collapse. KFF says the average premium for employer-sponsored family health coverage hit $26,993 in 2025, and workers paid roughly a quarter of that directly. Groceries, gas, housing, child care, education, and health coverage have all seen steep increases over time. Anna’s budget is not failing because she bought too many luxuries. Her budget is failing because basic life has grossly outpriced her earnings.

People say “inflation” as if everyone feels it the same way. They do not. For Anna, inflation is intimate. It burrows into mortgage payments, school fees, car insurance, child care, and the grocery receipt. Her budget is now in triage. For the ownership class, inflation is often something else entirely: a headline to be managed, hedged, or even benefited from through assets and appreciation. That is the real bifurcation. One America survives the cost while the other spreads the risk of rising costs through appreciating capital.

The faces changed, but the class signal never did. Claiborne Pell and John Heinz were not ordinary lawmakers who happened to do well; they were men of capital, with Pell’s household wealth put around $20 million in 1981 and Heinz’s minimum disclosed assets rising to $9.6 million by 1987. Jay Rockefeller and John Danforth carried the same pattern into the next era, one as a Standard Oil heir with an estimated $150 million fortune in 1985 and later disclosure-based estimates above $100 million, the other as a corporate-law power broker whose holdings placed him among the Senate’s richest members. By the 2000s, the numbers became obscene: John Kerry sat around $232 million to $236 million, Darrell Issa around $448 million to $480 million, Mark Warner around $193 million to $258 million, and Rick Scott more recently between roughly $296 million and $551 million. This is not a chamber built in the image of people living paycheck to paycheck. It is a chamber crowded with fortunes, trusts, equity, and holdings people who do not merely govern a wage economy, but live safely above it.

That matters because wealth does not merely buy comfort. It changes what kind of pain reaches you. Anna cannot consult for the systems squeezing her. She cannot turn her classroom into a hedge fund. She cannot leave teaching on Friday and come back on Monday working for the same machine that set the standards strangling her. But lawmakers and political gatekeepers often can. Billy Tauzin moved from shaping drug policy to leading PhRMA. James Greenwood left Congress to run BIO. Evan Bayh moved from the Senate into Apollo Global Management. Phil Gramm left the Senate for a lucrative role at UBS. The conflict is not always criminal in the narrow sense. More often it is structural. Govern an industry today, work for it tomorrow. Regulate it in the morning and get hired by afternoon. Sounds like a far fetched idea, but it has happened dozens of times in years past; the revolving door between congress and corporate.

And that conflict became even more dangerous after Citizens United v. FEC. The case struck down limits on corporate independent expenditures and certain corporate-funded electioneering communications, accelerating the super PAC era and deepening the force of outside money in elections. In plain language, corporate America found a roundabout way to back, pressure, and reward its candidates of choice.

Imagine if Anna could swap places with the school board whenever she pleased. Imagine if she could move in and out of the principal’s office at will, or leave the classroom long enough to work as a consultant for the very districts shaping her pay, her workload, her future. Imagine if she had the freedom to cash in on the same system that kept her vulnerable. Imagine if she never once had to sell herself online under a pseudonym, under the constant threat of losing the one legitimate job keeping her family alive. But Anna’s story is not that much different from everyday Americans who sell a little bit of themselves, their dignity, their self-respect, and their families’ well-being for far less than their work is actually worth.

And what about the gatekeepers? What about the congressmen and women tasked with protecting vulnerable families like Anna’s from the cold, predatory levers of capitalism? Is it appropriate for a congressman not to abide by any conceptual non-compete when working for the same companies and industries he is meant to regulate? Does Anna’s three-dollar donation to the party of her choice really matter in contrast to the king’s ransom that arrives through super PACs backed by corporate money? If you were a congressman, would Anna’s two mites and all the exploitation behind them mean more to you than the fortune waiting on the other side of falling in line with everyone else? The very question is another moral crux which answer, is as banefully loath some as colorectal cancer. While Anna and millions of Americans sells hope to to survive another day Congressmen has sold that hope, for another gold lapel, for mammon, expressed as a series of zeroes in an expense account.

By Charles Becco

I’m five years old, sitting cross legged on the living room floor, a mouth full of Captain Crunch making a minefield in the roof of my mouth. Saturday morning cartoons were a blast, Captain Planet and G.I. Joe, were my favorites. Those were simpler times, the villains were obvious and the heroes were too. The world is cleanly divided between the good guys and the bad guys.

At night, I watch Delta Force with my father. Like most movies from the 80’s, the rules are simple, the “bad guys” terrorize the innocent then Chuck Norris appears, M-16 in hand and he dishes out American branded justice in a hail of gunfire and explosions. These movies, TV shows and in school, our text books, help to reinforce the doctrine of American Exceptionalism; the idea that the United States holds the moral high ground above all others.

The tenets of American exceptionalism preaches that America may be flawed but we are fundamentally the “good guys.” This doctrine has held America to a supreme moral standard that the country had adorned itself in. This moral language was ubiquitous with our actions and our identity and made our country impossible to exist without it. After all, empire survives when it doesn’t call itself an empire.

Morality (or the appearance thereof) carried America through most of the modern era. However before our righteous identity was formed America embodied “Manifest Destiny.” Therefore expansion was not only our right but expansion was ordained. Land was taken, borders moved and Indigenous populations vanished overnight. Mexico lost half its territory. Violence wasn’t explained away through a clergy of legal doctrine it was fully justified.

That was Imperialism 1.0, it was out in the open, brash and accepted by the old world order.

But cameras arrived, microphones probed, eyewitness testimonies espoused and International law hardened. Empires learned that conquest required better manners, so America adapted.

Imperialism 2.0 didn’t conquer land, it shaped outcomes. Loans replaced legions, economists replaced generals, and debt, occupation. This is the world described in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man that showed battles were won without invasion. American led conflict resolved through predatory loans, sanctions and political espionage The system allowed America to maintain its good guy image while preserving leverage and margins.

Insert Venezuela, it’s 2020, the U.S. indicts Nicolás Maduro as a “narco-terrorist.” A rival head of state has just been branded a criminal and his apprehension becomes a matter of “law enforcement.” In this manner paperwork does the job of a sniper’s bullet and Imperialism 2.0 is in full swing. But something happens… it doesn’t work, regime change doesn’t go as planned as it had in other South American countries like Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

Sanctions don’t collapse Maduro’s regime, political pressure doesn’t deliver the projected results. Venezuela bends, but it doesn’t break and beyond Venezuela, something larger is happening, something the old model was never designed to survive. Quietly, the world is drifting away from the dollar, and the Donald Trump led Tariffs of 2025 works only to further isolate the country.

For decades, the U.S. dollar secured the countries supremacy because oil is priced in it. The petrodollar relationship forces global demand for U.S. currency. Dollar reliance, gives Washington leverage in the forms of sanctions, asset freezes, and allowed the United States to rack up $38 trillion dollars of debt on the backs of global markets without weakening the dollar or subjecting it’s citizens to the perilous effects of inflation.

Venezuela threatens this system, not by socialist rhetoric, but by selling oil through channels outside of the U.S. financial system. The “dark fleet” is a shadowy group of unregistered ships supplied by Venezuela and other “third world countries” who were allegedly settling trades with China and Russia in their own currencies. The dark fleet, threatened the United States' domination in the oil market and by proxy it’s economy that has it’s backbone in oil.

At the same time, BRICS nations are growing stronger via trading their own currencies backed by gold and not the petrodollar ecosystem. This analysis is no secret, since 2023 Wall Street has been aggressively betting on an eventual dollar exodus. Since then, the price of gold more than doubled from $2000 to $4200 an ounce.

Instead of shoring up alliances to defend their system, the Trump administration chose tariffs, further eroding its position on the international stage. Tariffs don’t just punish rivals, they alienate partners and fracture trust. They turn economic coordination into confrontation. As Europe and Asia bristle under the weight of tariffs Latin America and smaller players looks elsewhere. And into the leadership vacuum steps China, not with propaganda, but with investments via ports, roads, rail, and power plants across South America and the Caribbean.

Imperialism 2.0 depends on cooperation to maintain legitimacy. Tariffs make cooperation near impossible. This is the pressure cooker Venezuela sits inside.

As oil markets tighten and the U.S Strategic Petroleum Reserve drains, American refineries built for heavy crude need supply they can’t replace domestically. Venezuela has it and China is willing to buy it. And every barrel sold outside the dollar weakens the architecture of U.S. power.

In the face of a weakening dollar and threats to the economy the rhetoric around Venezuela hardens. “Narco-terrorism” stops being a paper charge and becomes something of a casus belli . Tough words and economic sanctions transform into maritime interdictions, a seized tanker , then strikes. Then another strike , followed congressional scrutiny and finally, public outrage.

Venezuela, Maduro, was never about law enforcement, from America’s perspective, it’s self preservation. The attacks on Venezuela, the sanctions, the murders in international waters, the kidnapping of Maduro seems less about enforcing international law but more about ensuring America’s place as an economic powerhouse.

Today, President Trump speaks openly about controlling Venezuelan oil sales, with U.S. firms overseeing flows indefinitely. In that way oil is redirected away from China while the American oil industry benefits as rivals claim piracy.

This is Imperialism 3.0 , same ambition, but because the story is stripped away, the empire stops pretending it’s refereeing and admits it’s playing the the game of thrones, just like everyone else. The actions of the state are never moral and can only be understood through the cold calculating lens of power, and not from the substantive virtue of morality.

Once one ignores flaccid narrative and understands the machinations of power, the conflicts and their true reasons come better into focus.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea has been condemned by the west as imperial aggression. But from Moscow’s view, it’s about establishing a buffer zone. Russia has no natural borders, except the cold. NATO crept, almost to Moscow’s very doorstep despite promises from the U.S that it wouldn’t. Crimea wasn’t seized only for it’s oil rich basin but because from Moscow’s point of view, Crimea’s territory is a preeminent issue of national security and represents a dagger of hypocrisy, manifested from America’s Venezuelan action. In light of the present circumstances every critique of the Kremlin’s actions is reduced to no more than petty virtue signaling.

Through the lens of power, the acquisition of Greenland, too, stops sounding absurd. It isn’t just ice and Arctic lanes, Greenland houses rare earth elements, neodymium, dysprosium, yttrium: the raw materials of modern war machines and energy systems. In a world where China dominates supply chains, Greenland is seen more as a necessary strategic opportunity for the United States to maintain the current balance of power.

The real hypocrisy isn’t that America acts like a hegemon, it’s that it always insisted that others didn’t get to. President Trump doesn’t invent this paradigm, he just tore off the façade of uprightness and boldly absorbs the reputational harm. He drops the diplomatic language and accepts the scrutiny in exchange for leverage.

The reasons for imperialism never changed, the American empire finally decided that the performance of virtue is no longer worth the carry costs.

As Venezuela’s oil flows north, the belief that Americans are still the “good guys” can no longer be supported by the self righteous narrative of American Exceptionalism and American children can no longer be fooled like I once was.

By Charles Becco

Bullet casings glitter under the lights of a police car like coins at the bottom of a wishing well. A senator’s wife lay dead under a bloodied sheet. Her husband, once a trusted voice in the Minnesota legislature, Mark Hortman, is being rushed to the hospital, hours later he’s dead. Mark’s wife, State Representative Melissa Hortman had been murdered in her own home. The suspect, Vance Boelter, a far right supporter, wore police gear and carried a manifesto with a political hit list.

A month later in Minneapolis, on August 27, 2025, early morning, Robin Westman, a trans identity extremist, fired a long rifle into a Catholic school during Mass, killing two children and wounding 17 others. He ended his own life minutes later. Westman’s writings , a jumble of gun-worship and fractured ideologies , reads less like a manifesto and more like a mental breakdown.

Last week, on September 24, 2025 a far left extremist, Joshua Jahn, aged 29, a 4-chan user whom friends described as an “edge lord,” climbed to a rooftop near a Dallas ICE facility and opened fire , killing one detainee and critically wounding two others before shooting himself. Jahn left behind handwritten notes calling ICE agents “dirty paycheck collectors,” and investigators later found shell casings engraved with “ANTI-ICE” sentiments.

Just the prior weekend, during Sunday Service, smoke and the sounds of gunfire rose from a LDS church in Michigan. A former Marine, Thomas Jacob Sanford, a Maga Nationalist, drove his truck into the sanctuary, doused it with gasoline, and opened fire. Two died instantly, two more hospitalilized, and eight were wounded before police shot Sanford dead.

These terror attacks weren’t committed on foreign battlefields by designated terrorist organizatons, they happened on American streets, in American classrooms, inside of American churches by “regular”people. The killers, are not the product of organized armies, not decentralized assassins, their targets hold no special status or place in society. The killers, all white American males, from different social classes shared one common truth, each shooter represents an entrenched, ideological stance. Their identities have been forged, hardened in digital battlefields via legacy and social media. Their brutality, outcomes of a decade of heated, political-rhetoric and represents a growing threat of mass casualty events that are happening more and more frequently in America, but why now?

We tell ourselves that America is not a monarchy, not a dictatorship, that our society, like many others, depend on a central covenant or law. A Law with one universal tenet solidifying the social contract; that the rules apply equally, to the mighty and the meek.

But what happens if the law is broken? Beyond all else, the custodians of authority, have a duty to hold the guilty accountable and to defend the law itself. But what happens when those entrusted with upholding the law, break the law?

In the United States we have three branches of the government who serve as a checks and balances in our government: Congress, the Supreme Court and the Office of The President.

But what happens when one branch, let’s say the President, wields controls over all three branches?

For the last few years I looked at President Donald Trump and said in my heart: “he’s untouchable.” Here was a man who played “the game of thrones” so well he was able to curry favor among his allies and base so securely, that he openly and wantonly breaks the law; with near impunity.

The President was impeached twice, incited an insurrection, his non profit foundation was convicted of stealing from children’s charities. His lieutenants, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn , were convicted of fraud, conspiracy, perjury, lying to the FBI and were properly indicted and sentenced. Yet one by one, they were pardoned, commuted, and spared. But with each dismissal, a fragment of the public’s trust was eroded.

Consider Jeffrey Epstein, once a prominent companion of the President, who fell from grace when it was discovered that he sex trafficked hundreds of teenage girls. When Epstein fell, his infamous “list” of associates threatened to expose the breadth and complicity of his political and business connections. Yet to this day, its full release has been stalled, blocked, and obstructed most aggressively by voices within the Republican Party who fear the President more than their will for Justice. Even the exploitation and trafficking of teenaged girls remain unaddressed under the shadow of the Presidents control which, as of late, has come in sharp conflict with the public good.

The Mueller investigation from years earlier documented the Presidents complicity in allowing Russia to intefere in the 2016 Election, but the Department of Justice’s policy shielded Trump from indictment while in office. Then came the January 6th reckoning before the Presidents second term. In January 2025, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report concluded that President Trump “would have been convicted” for his role in January 6 insurrection had he not been re-elected, a bewildering admission that the highest office had not just delayed the democratic process but was a direct threat to it. (Associated Press).

Further erosion of public trust and the law occurred when Trump pardoned more than 1,270 people convicted for the January 6th insurrection sending a clear message, that under his leadership, the law applied to some, but not all, creating further cracks in the the tableau of public trust.

With every indiscretion, a new paradox formed : the most powerful man in the nation broke the law, however by virtue of his office, was now practically beyond the law. This paradox created a karmic gap of Justice that has had debilitating consequences.

As a result of the “gap” the nation experienced a sharp increase in violence and mass shootings across North America, but what does the one have to do with another?

The book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible, regarded for its wise words had this to say about crime and punishment:

“When the sentence for a crime is not speedily executed, the hearts of men become fully set on doing evil.” — Ecclesiastes 8:11

In context to the proverb, each day that justice is delayed for the President and his enablers, the trust grows weaker and the powerless learn that the law is not immutable. The proverbs are not mere words, these thousand year old maxims are actually backed up by hard data.

During the Presidents time in office, murders surged nearly 30 percent, the steepest rise in modern history (FBI). Hate crimes nearly doubled from 2015 to their 2023 peak. Over 22,900 incidence of political violence occurred in 2020 alone. The covenant had snapped, and America’s streets kept score.

In the last decade, America has seen mass shootings shift from shocking anomaly to an everyday routine. According to the Gun Violence Archive, incidents meeting the definition of four or more people shot surged from under 300 annually in the mid-2010s to over 600 per year since 2020, peaking at 690 in 2021. The Pew Research Center notes that in 2023 alone, 722 people were killed in mass shooting events, underscoring that this is not only a statistical increase but a deepening scar on the nation’s conscience. The FBI’s Active Shooter Reports confirm the same trend, showing a steady rise from the late 2010s through 2023. And theNortheastern University Mass Killing Database, which uses a stricter definition of four or more killed, likewise recorded record-high numbers of fatalities in the same period.

Here is a more startling reality , history bares witness to the Ecclesiastical warning. Roman corruption rotted from the inside out before the empire collapsed under the weight of itself. France was hollowed by the Bourbons’ arrogance before the guillotine was raised. Richard Nixon corroded American trust long before he resigned. History is clear, the wickedness of unfaithful rulers multiplies sin in their people,.

The President of the United States is not merely a man, by proxy of his power and influence on the world stage, the Potus is, in truth, the de facto Vicar of moral law and order, not only in the United States, but also the World. And if America, a republic built on the tenets of law and order, cannot compel its President to abide by such law, why should its own citizens?

The lack of justice in the highest echelons of office is not just a political flaw; it is a wicked scar upon the moral heart of America. Out of that self same scar, we reap an outflow of violence, apathy, moral decay and depravity.

And so, America finds itself in a season where the blood on its streets mirrors the corruption in its palaces. Where the sins of kings echo in the chaos of classrooms and churches, Ecclesiastes 8:11 is not a quaint proverb. It is our present condition. Until America binds the wounds of Justice, the scar will deepen and our the pavements will continue to glisten with the color of blood and shell casings.

America has found itself here before standing on a financial fault line, hoping the cracks beneath our feet don’t give way. In 2008, it was housing. In 2020, it was cheap money and ballooning debt. Now, in 2025, the story is different but just as dangerous: record household borrowing, a government weighed down by $37 trillion in obligations, and a market riding high on AI dreams.

Michael Bloomberg put it bluntly earlier this year: “The US is on course for fiscal breakdown… Unless Congress changes course, there’ll be a reckoning, and it will be grim.” And JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon sharpened the warning: “You are going to see a crack in the bond market, it is going to happen.”

The question for Wall Street and Main Street alike isn’t whether America is broke. It’s whether America is busted.

Debt: Plastic and Paper Cuts

Household debt has climbed to $18.4 trillion. Credit card balances now exceed $1.2 trillion, and delinquencies are rising at their fastest pace since the financial crisis. For many families, it’s no longer a question of discretionary spending — it’s survival. The cost of gas, food, and rent is being financed on plastic carrying 20%+ interest rates.

At the same time, Washington is adding $1 trillion in new debt every five months. Interest payments are approaching $1 trillion a year, rivaling the defense budget. That’s money going not into infrastructure or education but into bondholder pockets.

Why it matters: Americans are maxed out, and so is Uncle Sam. That leaves little cushion when the next shock comes.

The Yield Curve Doesn’t Lie

The bond market has spoken. After nearly two years of inversion, the 2-year/10-year spread has flipped back to positive (+0.6%). Inversions are the storm clouds; the snap-back is often the thunder. Historically, recessions strike not during inversion but shortly after the curve un-inverts.

Dimon has been warning of this risk: “If people decide that the U.S. dollar isn’t the place to be, you could see credit spreads gap out. That would be quite a problem.”

Why it matters: This isn’t a technical footnote. A yield curve reset has preceded nearly every modern recession. For anyone with a 401(k) or a mortgage, it’s the market whispering: brace yourself.

Markets on Stilts

The S&P 500 trades at 22 times forward earnings, well above historical averages. Nearly 40% of the index rests on just ten companies. Nvidia alone makes up 8%. That concentration means a stumble by a few giants could drag down everyone.

AI spending is real, trillions committed to data centers, chips, and power. But the risk is also real. History is littered with overbuilds, from railroads to dot-coms. Bubbles always look unstoppable until the moment they aren’t.

Why it matters: For professionals, it’s portfolio risk. For a stay-at-home mom, it’s whether her retirement account shrinks. For a 20-year-old with his life savings in a Robinhood account, it’s whether he bet everything on one stock.

Limited Firepower, Political Risk

The Fed holds rates at 4.25 — 4.5%, which gives room to cut in a downturn. But the institution’s independence is under attack. Recent talk of firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook rattled markets and raised questions about credibility.

Back in 2020, the problem was zero rates and no room. In 2025, the problem isn’t room — it’s trust. And trust is the one thing central banks can’t manufacture.

Why it matters: If credibility slips, the Fed’s toolbox won’t calm markets or households. Mortgages won’t ease, credit won’t flow, and layoffs will arrive faster.

Trump’s Cash-Hoard Cuts

The administration is pushing deep budget cuts: entitlements, Medicaid, housing, education, and federal jobs. On paper, the savings reach into the trillions. In practice, those cuts ripple through households already under pressure.

Cuts like these don’t just trim fat. They pull support away from families leaning on food stamps, after-school programs, and community services. In a fragile economy, that risks pulling away the parachute just as people are falling.

Why it matters: Fiscal policy should stabilize. Right now, Washington looks more like it’s hoarding cash than preparing to spend when needed most.

Sage of the Three Paths:

• Soft Landing (40 — 45%): Inflation cools, growth slows but continues, markets grind forward.

• Mild Recession (30 — 35%): Rising credit stress, higher unemployment, and equity repricing. Painful but contained.

• Crisis (20 — 25%): A Fed credibility loss, a Treasury market freeze, or an AI bubble burst cascades into systemic failure.

Bloomberg’s warning echoes here: “Unless Congress changes course, there’ll be a reckoning, and it will be grim.”

Bottom Line

So, is the U.S. broke? No. Busted? Not yet. But we are stretched, households on plastic, markets on stilts, and Washington on borrowed time. The scaffolding holding this economy together is shaking harder than most want to admit.

For Wall Street, that means higher tail risk. For Main Street, it means keep cash close, diversify savings, and don’t assume the cavalry is coming.

In plain English: don’t panic but don’t get too comfortable either.

By: Charles Becco

Rachel walks into her apartment at 9 p.m., heels in hand, laptop humming in her bag. She’s 29, a manager at her firm, the first in her family with a graduate degree. On her counter: basil plants, a cat, and a bottle of wine from last weekend’s trip to Napa. Her life looks like the highlight reel of modern independence.

But tonight is quiet. Too quiet. She scrolls through dating apps — faces blur, clever bios dissolve into noise. She sighs. She did everything right, she did everything she was told would bring fulfillment, and yet a solid love interest remains elusive.

Rachel is not alone. She is a living parable for her generation a Single American Woman

For the first time in U.S. history, women outnumber men in higher education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, women now earn about 58% of bachelor’s degrees. This is a remarkable victory for equality.

But it comes with a paradox. Historically, women “married up” seeking partners slightly older, more educated, or better established. Now the “upward” rungs are missing, an ever shrinking pool of men have an education and are making substantially less than their counterparts. Many women face the choice of competing for a smaller pool of highly educated men or dating across or down, risking insecurity, imbalance and the assurance of a safety blanket in case she decides to start a family.

Rachel did nothing wrong. The board itself has shifted.

Meanwhile, men are disengaging. Labor force participation among eligible men has fallen steadily since the 1960s (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Non-college men in particular are losing ground economically and socially. Many retreat into gig work, video games, or digital escapes.

So while women raise their value, men have disengaged.

Technology has further destabilized intimacy. Dating apps, pornography, and subscription platforms like OnlyFans make sexual gratification more accessible than at any time in history. A 2023 study in The Journal of Sex Research found that young adults increasingly separate sex from commitment, prioritizing “experimentation” and “convenience.”

For men, this reduces the incentive to pursue long-term partnership. For women, it strips intimacy of the leverage it once carried. Rachel learns that attention is abundant, but commitment is scarce.

Today, political identity is a dating filter. A 2020 Pew study found half of singles would not date someone across party lines. Since women lean more Democratic and men lean more Republican, ideological sorting narrows the pool even further.

Rachel’s grandmother once said, “Your grandfather and I never agreed on politics, but we agreed on raising kids.” That kind of compromise now feels almost impossible. The rise of #MeToo, girlboss culture, and empowerment campaigns gave women language for dignity, protection, and ambition. These were necessary. Yet they also created new complexity. Some men retreated into hesitation; others swung into hyper-masculine bravado.

Rachel often finds herself choosing between extremes, men too cautious to lead, or men too brash to trust.

Her life is full: friendships, travel, career, volunteer work, yoga, and a beloved cat. These are not distractions; they are genuine fulfillment. But abundance has a trade-off. Family formation, once the center of adulthood, is now one option among many. Optionality breeds deferral — and deferral sometimes becomes permanent.

Even those who never marry live in its shadow. Roughly 69% of U.S. divorces are initiated by women (American Sociological Association). Men often face disproportionate financial and custodial losses, making marriage feel high-risk. As more men hesitate, women encounter fewer willing partners.

Taken together, the numbers tell a sobering story. The U.S. fertility rate hovers at 1.6, well below replacement. The average age of first marriage is now 28 for women and 30 for men. What once was the defining project of adulthood is increasingly delayed — or abandoned.

What Rachel feels in her quiet apartment is not just personal. It is demographic, cultural, civilizational.

The essential point: women are not wrong. Pursuing education, independence, and empowerment were rational and overdue. But progress collided with other shifts: men’s withdrawal, the commodification of sex, political polarization, and the specter of divorce.

The result is not personal failure but systemic sabotage. Rachel didn’t break the system. She is surviving inside it.

Here is the truth that hangs in the air like incense: the old social contract between men and women has ended. For centuries it was grounded in economic interdependence and clear, if rigid, roles. He worked, she nurtured, and together they forged a household. It carried civilizations through famine, plague, flood, even an ice age. It was imperfect, often unjust, yet it functioned.

Today, that contract is dissolved. In its place we see a marketplace of competing models. The “red pill” and manosphere cling to hierarchy and dominance. Feminism and #MeToo emphasize autonomy, justice, and safety. Others experiment with polyamory, ethical non-monogamy, or even the so-called “pink pill.” These are not fringe curiosities — they are society’s attempts to draft a new agreement in the vacuum left behind.

And conflict is natural in such a moment. Every revolution in human history has come with experimentation and chaos before equilibrium. What we are living through now — the endless podcasts, the culture wars over gender, the frustration of women like Rachel — is the turbulence of transition.

Perhaps the analogy is technological. We attempted to upgrade the operating system, but instead society blue-screened. The old disk — traditionalism — still sits in the drawer. We may not want to reinstall it wholesale, with all its bugs and limitations. But as a template, it sustained us for thousands of years, through war and calamity. It might remind us of the stability needed to rebuild.

Rachel’s quiet apartment, her thriving plants, her hard-earned promotion — all of these are triumphs of progress. But until we develop a new, durable contract between men and women, they will sit alongside the ache of belonging unfulfilled.

The crisis of modern dating is not about women failing or men failing. It is about society in the middle of a reboot searching for an operating system strong enough to carry us into the next age.

How some black boys are bred for a war without, before conquering the war within.

By : Charles Becco

August 23, 2025 — 9:47 p.m., Sun Valley, Los Angeles.

The lights above the KnokX Pro ring cast a harsh glow on two men locked in an armlock. A crowd cheered, phones raised, streams rolling. Then, without warning, Raja Jackson stormed the ring. He slammed Syko Stu to the mat, knocking him completely unconscious, leaving him defenseless ,as the veteran lay unconscious, he kept swinging. Fist after fist, more than twenty in all, the sound of bone on flesh silenced the crowd in shock and disbelief.

By the time security pulled him off, it was no longer a show. It was an assault, broadcast live, replayed in slow-motion GIFs, dissected on timelines. And yet the real story incubating in the brutal headline begun years earlier, far from the ropes, in a household where humiliation passed for humor and strength was demanded like oxygen.

Quinton “Rampage” Jackson’s public persona has always been one of toughness. He was a UFC champion, a Pride FC star, a man who represented violence as if it were a birthright; it was in the name “Rampage” Jackon. But when the cameras followed him home, the mask never slipped. His son became the punchline.

• On podcasts, Rampage bragged about choking Raja unconscious during a fight two years earlier.

• On streams, he mocked his son’s vegan diet as weakness.

• He even joked about disowning him in favor of a tougher child.

For viewers, these were just bits. For Raja, they became a steady drumbeat of shame. By 2023, in livestreams and vlogs, you could already see the pattern: Raja retreating, eyes downcast, absorbing the ridicule rather than confronting it. Toxic masculinity was not an online abstraction in his Raja’s world it was the curriculum.

What Raja endured in private echoes what Black boys live in public. From the first day of preschool, they are treated as older, less innocent, more culpable. The Department of Education’s 2020 — 21 data show that while Black boys made up only 8% of K — 12 students, they accounted for 18% of all suspensions and expulsions. In juvenile courts, Black youth are 5.6 times more likely than white youth to be confined. In hospitals, Black boys with broken bones or appendicitis are still less likely to be given pain medication.

The message is consistent: you are not a child, you are a problem that needs management. You are not someone to be nurtured, you are someone to be measured. By adolescence, this pressure calcifies into the language of achievement. You are valuable if you score points, if you win fights, if you earn quickly. You are disposable if you don’t, a contrast that feeds the “fast money” culture prevalent among black youth, but that’s another conversation entirely.

Even the most successful Black men are not exempt. Barack Obama, for all his polish and intellect, was told he had to be “twice as good and half as Black” to be tolerated in American politics. For those without power, the standard is even harsher.

August 2025 was not Raja’s first rupture. He had recently suffered a concussion. His father’s streams regularly mocked him. His online chat fans taunted him for being soft. Years of swallowed humiliation came to a boiling point, when Syko Stu struck him with a beer can earlier at the event, the fuse burned down fast. Psychologists call this the shame — rage spiral: humiliation internalized until it explodes outward as violence.

That night, Raja’s eruption was immediate and merciless. During. a live streamed phone call after the beat down Raja said “Don’t call me [weak] … I’m tired of everybody playing with me.” It wasn’t just about Stu. It was about years of being shamed, online and at home.

There is no excuse for what Raja did. He will answer for it in court and in conscience. But the story here is not the fight alone it is the culture that groomed it. The real violence began long before fists were thrown: in a father’s public humiliations, in a society that molds Black boys into producers of strength, in the machinery that measures them only by output and toughness.

And yet, it is too simple to cast Quinton “Rampage” Jackson only as the villain. His own life was forged in hardship and survival, and the same overbearing toughness that helped him rise in combat sports became the language he used at home. What looked like guidance was often humiliation, and what he may have intended as shaping resilience became the very thing that drove his son to overcompensate in a now failed viral attempt, at. earning his father’s approval.

Raja’s crime is his own, but his spiral is also a mirror of the unresolved wounds that pass from one generation to the next. Until we confront how these cycles of masculinity and shame are reproduced — fathers hardening sons the way they were hardened we will keep mistaking eruptions like August 23, 2025, for isolated explosions rather than the curated pain they manifested from.

A new model of Social Justice Warrior?

By Charles Becco

On July 29, 2025, it’s rush hour in Midtown Manhattan. The lobby of a glass and steel tower hums with the sounds of workers, footsteps, elevator dings, and subdued chatter. The next minute, the humdrum of the serene afternoon collapses into panic.

Through the revolving door steps Shane Devon Tamura, AR-15 in hand. No warning, no words — just sweeping shots in tight, controlled bursts, bullets chewing through the inner facade, exploding glass, and human bodies. Four are dead in seconds, among them a police officer and building security, their deaths blocking any hope of locking down the building or sealing the elevators.

Tamura rides the elevator up, weapon still warm, and finds Bonnie LePatner (43) stepping into a hallway. She doesn’t have time to flinch; a few shots later and LePatner is a bloodied memory.

Shane sits down against the wall, presses the muzzle under his chin, and fires. By the time NYPD reaches the scene, it’s over, five dead, Tamura among them, the floor slick with blood, the air stale with gun smoke.

In the days that followed, headlines focused entirely on Tamura, a casino security officer from Las Vegas who drove hundreds of miles to murder a woman he apparently never met. In terms of a motive, police have pointed to a hastily scribbled suicide note addressed to the NFL, whose headquarters occupy the same building. But the suicide letter raises more questions than answers. In the note, Tamura blamed the entire incident on CTE, or Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease often seen in athletes, military veterans, and others exposed to repetitive brain trauma.

But why would a man with no record of playing college football suddenly express a grievance with the NFL? Where would Tamura, a man who only played a few years of high school ball suddenly develop the idea that he has CTE?

The gaps in logic provide a platform for scrutiny; there may be a far more plausible explanation, a motive private interests would rather keep out of the headlines.

Lost within the ensuing media spectacle is Bonnie LePatner, the woman whom Fox Business described as an “employee,” which positions LePatner as more of a bureaucratic casualty of a deranged killer.

But LePatner wasn’t just an employee, she was the youngest woman CEO of the nation’s largest privately owned housing trust, a portfolio quietly responsible for absorbing thousands of single-family homes and converting them into rentals. The $60+ billion subsidiary functioned as the world’s largest private landlord. Critics say these acquisitions are a key driver of the U.S. housing crisis, inflating prices and making homeownership out of reach for millions. Yet in LePatner’s coverage, the financial and political weight of her position was softened, blurred, reduced to corporate shorthand.

Taken by itself, Tamura’s act isn’t the first time a private individual has taken aim at a figure sitting atop a mountain of concentrated power. Months earlier, Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson.

Unlike Tamura’s brash, John Wick-esque bravado, Mangione allegedly stalked Thompson and executed him quietly under the cover of dusk with a silenced weapon. Police say Mangione managed to handily evade them and the FBI for nearly a week until he was spotted eating at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. Law enforcement painted Mangione as a terrorist, yet in certain corners of the internet, he was reframed as a folk hero, an unyielding avenger striking at Big Pharma’s abusive policies that enrich themselves at the cost of their subscribers’ livelihoods, which has caused a moral conundrum.

In the wake of Tamura’s attack, similar whispers emerged: Was this a coincidence? Or was there an emerging pattern of lone shooters targeting the corporate elite? The men, some regard as arbiters of public justice, rebalancing the scales of corporate overreach in favor of those harmed by said policies.

The Folk Hero Paradox
In an age where distrust of institutions runs high, figures like Mangione and Tamura become strange Rorschach tests for society’s moral quotient. To some, they are monsters; to others, they are instruments of raw, unfiltered justice, decentralized actors stepping into a righteous gap where legal and political remedies have failed or become nullified.

These killings play out almost like vigilante epics, but without the gloss of fiction. The targets are real. The blood is real. And the motives, while murky, align with broad public grievances, housing unaffordability, medical bankruptcy, abrogated by the weight of corporate influence.

Donald Crooks and the Pattern of Omission
Tamura’s attack and the absence of details surrounding his life recall the case of Donald Crooks, whose attempt on arguably the most important person in the world, Donald Trump, remains shrouded in mystery and bears eerie similarities to Tamura. As I wrote previously, the lack of social media footprint, the tightly controlled narrative, and the glaring lapses in security make it Crooks seem like a real life “man from nowhere,” an outrageous oddity who came within inches of changing American history forever.

In all three cases, the public is left encumbered by questions and the cold embrace of doubt brought on by men with obscure identities and unknowable motivations.

Killing the Freedom of Speech — Charlie Kirk. (Revised 9/11/25)

The September air over Utah Valley University was dry and hot with anxious anticipation for a speech with conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk, when the shots rang out. Three thousand faces froze, then fractured into panic. People screamed, stumbled, pressed in each other in the crush of confusion. No one looked upward, all eyes were on Kirk as he bled out in under a minute, while the assassin vanished across the roof.

Tyler Robinson, twenty-two, allegedly crouched on the roof of the Losee Center, leveled a bolt-action rifle, and silenced a conservative leader with a single round.

He left no manifesto, only fragments bullet casings etched with antifascist slogans, Discord whispers about a “drop point.” A lone operator, unaffiliated with party or foreign hand, Robinson allegedly fit the mold precisely: a lone shooter, converting private grievance into public rupture. Like Tamura, Mangione, and Crooks before him, he struck not for power seized but for power denied, hurling his defiance straight into the neck of America’s most powerful conservative voice.

Decentralized Radicalized Assassins
The one through line between Tamura, Mangione, Robinson and Crooks is their resemblance to a new phenomenon: the decentralized, self radicalized assassin. They are (alleged) private actors, unmoored from political parties or foreign influencing targeting elite figures in acts framed as personal grievances yet resonating from the roots of latent, social outrage.

The targets, Big Pharma (in Brian Thompson,) Big Finance ( in Bonnie LePatner,) independent Media( in Charlie Kirk,)and the political class (in Donald Trump) were not chosen at random, all three occupied rarefied air, commanding vast wealth, influence and political capital. They all embodied symbols of power which behaved like lightening rods for public grievances. In a culture where injustice feels both systemic and untouchable, these killings function as violent oracles of righteous indignation pointed at the head of the countries eco-political power structure. As the real story emerges , the titan slayer paradigm acts as a dark doctrine, proselytizing new converts into a decentralized assassin’s guild.

It’s tempting to read these acts as the work of a clandestine network, a real-life “Jason Bourne” program aimed at toppling “titans” of industry and politics. Perhaps these occurrence’s are in fact just spurious phenomenon; lone wolves shaped by the same environmental pressures: housing collapse, medical debt, discrimination or political alienation. Perhaps they are just private citizens , disconnected joints of resentment, anger, bound by some sublime, cosmic response to inept courtrooms, a futile congress and the façade of democracy.

We may never know the outcome before it’s time, but a necessary something is broken in the core of that which binds our society together.