Jan 9, 2026 | Politics
James Lindsay on X on what is going in Minnesota as “Classic Bolshevik moves using Soros’s media-based reflexive dialectic as the mechanism.”
“Your target’s reaction is your real action,”
Minnesota has provided us with yet another good example of the Communist and radical principle of “your target’s reaction is your real action,” which is a key strategic tactic for them.
For many months, ICE and other federal law enforcement, not to mention Trump himself, have been made out to be the kinds of tyrants that have to be stopped at almost any cost, including by reckless citizen actions, like obstructing law enforcement, resisting arrest, throwing things at police, etc.
All of it is framed out in ridiculous false narratives designed to “come true” at the moment of crisis, at which point they will seize control of the narrative to drive specific, pre-planned action. In this case, the false narratives are not just about the status of federal law enforcement and ICE but also about their alleged unwillingness to work with or coordinate with local and state police who have, behind the scenes, been ordered to be non-compliant, if not softly antagonistic.
This is called “Operational Preparation of the Environment” in the unrestricted or political warfare environment in which radicals today do their work. The model they’re using is called “reflexivity” and is George Soros’s “shoelace dialectic” (his terms) as a theory of change.
The goal was always to create antagonistic situations between citizens, who can be framed as fighting a noble anti-oppression cause, and ICE, who can be framed as engaging in unwelcome oppression.
By ordering local and state police to be uncooperative, not only do the operations fall more heavily on federal law enforcement, but also several other things are achieved. For examples,
a) Locals can be led to believe federal law enforcement is operating outside of the bounds of the more local law and against the wishes of their state/locality, which they are led to believe holds sovereignty;
b) This generates a conflict between the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution and local and state law enforcement that citizens are led to believe renders the federal LEOs out of line;
c) Local and state police aren’t usually openly antagonistic, therefore creating an illusion of resistance to the feds that they cannot actually fulfill because of their roles, shifting responsibility onto (activist) citizens;
d) Circumstances where local citizens are believed to be on the side of the rightful law against oppressive alien law (and may expect diminished or no consequences for resisting the “alien” law, even though it is actually supreme).
There are more we could think of, I’m sure, but a key point is that the leadership in states like Minnesota (and California, etc.) know they’re creating this powder keg of citizen versus federal law enforcement (here: ICE) while spreading various agitating narratives like about fascism, “protecting communities and neighbors,” etc. They are the primary willful bad actors in this situation, together with some professional and other paid agitators who take things to the next level on the streets.
Goal is to get citizens to create anarchy and chaos
The goal is to get citizens to obstruct and even threaten or attack ICE, which in effect creates a decision dilemma for ICE/federal law enforcement. Either the feds can stand down and thus negate the Supremacy Clause and fail to do their jobs, or they can act within their authority and seek to arrest and detail the people obstructing their lawful mandate that the states are resisting less directly and more through engineered fuckery (for lack of a better word).
Once that happens enough times, statistics kind of take over.
Some proportion of those antagonistic encounters will go sideways. Eventually, as happened yesterday, you’ll find a federal law enforcement (ICE) agent do something, either unreasonably or reasonably with sufficient ambiguity (as here), to frame it as an illegitimate overreaction and initiate the reflexive campaign on what looks like firm footing.
Soros’s reflexivity dialectic (his word for it) works by generating the conditions for chaos and then placing down “guideposts” through the chaos once it arises. He says that himself in The Alchemy of Finance (1992) in the first chapter. The goal is to generate chaotic environments in which “historical change” (his term) can occur and then to shape the outcome of that change when it arrives by leading people to believe certain things about the chaotic environment they’re in that gets them to take specific actions they wouldn’t otherwise take.
In this case, the points of the reflexive campaign are really obvious because they keep saying them over and over and over: get ICE out of Minnesota (and thus protect their rampant fraud racket) and impeach Secretary Noem (take down a political rival so they can demand a more compliant replacement). Classic Bolshevik moves using Soros’s media-based reflexive dialectic as the mechanism.
Tim Walz “creates a constitutional crisis and is, frankly, direct insurrection he should be prosecuted for”
Further, as Governor Tim Walz made clear, he’s willing to try to induce a profound crisis by naming Minnesota as being “at war” with the federal government and threatening to attempt to deploy the National Guard against federal law enforcement (in violation of their Constitutional oath), which creates a constitutional crisis and is, frankly, direct insurrection he should be prosecuted for. This puts the Trump Administration in a similar, higher decision dilemma: deal with Walz on these terms and trigger a huge falsely justified reaction on the Left or let him get away with what amounts to literal insurrection to avoid that trap. We called this same dilemma the “Trump Trap” back in 2020, but the stakes are actually higher now, even though the situation isn’t as heated.
So, there’s the Minnesota ICE Floyd psyop in a nutshell. They’ve used the reaction of the ICE officer (shooting a woman he believed for good reason was posing an imminent threat) to justify not just this campaign but the direct actions in the streets (which were also coordinated, funded, and ready to be activated in the same way the National Guard is on standby), and with a certain population, most of whom lean Left, it will work. That’s what’s happening.
Jan 9, 2026 | Politics
The CNN provided audio clearly shows that Renee Good accelerated her car at the office before she was shot.
I understand that people are very emotional right now, especially those Objectivists who are virulently anti-ICE, but let ALL THE FACTS come out before we declare murder.
Also let me remind you what our fellow teacher, Leonard Peikoff, taught us: a picture — and may I add a video — is not an argument.
If one wishes to protest what one believes to be an unjust law, initiating physical force against federal agents is not the way to do it.
In principle, the violent actions against federal ICE agents today are just as wrong as the violence committed against the Capitol police on J6. The only difference is that the scope and extent of the anti-ICE violence is much worse than J6 — and is much more damaging to America, as Democrat state and local authorities are enabling the violence by not providing local police to maintain the peace, as governors and mayor threaten the federal government. It was only a matter of time that these constant scuffles with law enforcement would lead to someone’s death.
Minnesota Leftists now have their 2026 BLM George Floyd moment with the unfortunate tragic shooting of Renee Good.
Updates:
Justin Amash claims:
“Many people believe the legal threshold for self-defense is lower for government officers than for ordinary citizens. It’s not. There’s one simple test for evaluating whether an officer’s use of force was unlawful or justified as self-defense. Ask yourself: If you, an ordinary citizen, did the same thing the officer did, how would your actions be assessed? If someone were obstructing a street in your neighborhood, and you demanded they move, and everyone were in the same physical positions and took the same actions, would you be justified in shooting the driver of the vehicle? I can say, unequivocally, that if you did the same thing the ICE officer in Minneapolis did, you would be found guilty of a crime, and your claim of self-defense would be rejected outright.”
As Tara Smith observes in her book on Objective Law this is incorrect. In order for the government to operate it gains powers that a citizen does not possess – such as to force a witness to crime to appear in court.
Moreso, Amash’s analogy does not hold. The driver of the car was the one obstructing legal law enforcement. She was not merely using the street as a thruway to get to her destination but as an act of political disobedience. Videos of her behavior before the incident confirmed this. Renee Good (her and her partner) were the aggressor. Does this justify her tragic death? No, but neither does it make the officer’s actions cold-blooded murder (given the present evidence which is incomplete).
When she saw a federal officer who told her to stop and saw another officer was in front of her vehicle she should not have engaged it to accelerate in his direction.
***
As Colin Wright on X observes:
“These people put themselves in inherently dangerous situations, then cry when bad things happen.” That’s the entire point. Activist leaders deliberately encourage people to place themselves in risky confrontations, knowing that increased interactions with law enforcement raise the odds of producing a viral incident that can be used as a catalyst for a broader uprising. You can’t expect influential figures on the left to discourage this behavior, because it is one of the most effective tactics in their revolutionary playbook. The mass public mourning at vigils is largely performative. It is meant to generate sympathy, which is then leveraged to advance their desired revolution. They rely on the fact that calling all this out makes you look heartless. They count on that. It’s the reputational cost critics must pay, and it functions to shield their strategy designed to manufacture and weaponize victimhood.
***
NEW YORK POST ON “ICE WATCH” “WARRIOR”
“It was through her involvement in the school community that Good became involved in “ICE Watch” — a loose coalition of activists dedicated to disrupting ICE raids in the sanctuary city.” “…ICE Watch and adjacent groups can also turn confrontational — with numerous instances of activists ramming agents with their cars in the past.”
Jan 9, 2026 | Sci-Tech
From America Last: How Fuentes’s Coordinated Raids and Foreign Fake-Speech Networks Inflate His Influence:
Nick Fuentes’s surge into national visibility did not originate from a broad or sudden shift in American political sentiment. It emerged from a pattern of online amplification that was unusually fast, unusually concentrated, and unusually foreign in origin. This report examines the
structure of that amplification, the signals it produced inside the information environment, and the ways mainstream, legacy institutions interpreted those signals as indicators of emerging relevance. The goal is not to explain Fuentes’s ideology or his existing audience, but to assess
how synthetic engagement, real-world events, and media incentives converged to elevate a fringe figure into a central subject of national attention.
– Algorithmic Amplification Far Exceeds Legitimate Reach: Fuentes received dramatically higher early retweet velocity than any comparator, including Elon Musk (the platform’s most-followed user). Within the critical first 30 minutes, Fuentes routinely outperformed
accounts with 10-100× more followers.
– Early Engagement is Dominated by Repeat Actors: In a sample of 20 recent posts, 61% of Fuentes’s first-30-minute retweets came from accounts that retweeted multiple of these 20 posts within that same ultra-short window – behavior highly suggestive of coordination or automation.
– The Amplification Network is Overwhelmingly Anonymous & Ideologically Dedicated: 92% of repeat early-retweeters were fully anonymous (no real name, no real photo, no location, no contact info) and the majority are openly or functionally single-purpose “Groyper” / “AmericaFirst” accounts whose primary activity is boosting Nick Fuentes and related fringextremist messaging.
– Foreign-Origin Amplification Dominated Fuentes’s Viral Posts: In the months before Charlie Kirk’s death, roughly half of the retweets on Fuentes’s most-viral posts came from foreign accounts, heavily concentrated in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
These regions have no organic link to Fuentes’s politics but do match the known geographic footprint of low-cost engagement farms, making the pattern consistent with bot-farm amplification rather than genuine foreign audiences.
– Mainstream Media Reinforcement: Since September 2025, mainstream media coverage increased more than threefold and high-status descriptions of Fuentes increased by 59.6%. Outlets also adopted markedly more polished visual treatments, including studio-grade portraits,
controlled lighting, shallow depth of field, and editorial framing that visually positioned Fuentes as a consequential political figure.
– Fuentes Himself is Involved in Coordination: His manipulated reach is not accidental; full show transcripts reveal hundreds of real-time commands to “retweet this” and “retweet me,” establishing raid-style amplification as a core operating method. These directed raids built the
behavioral infrastructure of his account and laid the groundwork for consistent X policy violations by the anonymous and foreign network now amplifying him.
Jan 9, 2026 | Philosophy
This fact is expressed by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, when he wrote:
“…an amendment was proposed…that…would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected…in proof that they meant to comprehend…the Jew & Gentile, Christian & Mohammedan, Hindoo & Infidel…”
America is a nation of the Enlightenment founded on the philosophy that each individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is the government’s job to protect these rights.
Jan 9, 2026 | Philosophy
Statists on “warm” – mystical – collectivism:
“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” — ZOHRAN MAMDANI
“The interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests of the collective.” — MAO
“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” — MUSSOLINI
“The individual is nothing; the collective is everything.” — STALIN
And now from the “frigid” – rational – individualist:
“COLLECTIVISM holds that the INDIVIDUAL has NO RIGHTS, that his life and work belong to the group … and that the group may SACRIFICE him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of BRUTE FORCE—and STATISM has always been the political corollary of collectivism.” — AYN RAND, Virtue of Selfishness
Source, Source
Jan 9, 2026 | Politics
“It strikes me that we are undergoing an epidemic of political vigilantism right now.”
“Why are people showing up in vehicles, in convoys, not just in Minneapolis, but all over the country in an effort to obstruct lawful federal law enforcement activities?”
“This is not an isolated incident. We’ve had hundreds of car rammings against ICE agents across the country.”
“According to DHS, this lady in this car today, along with other vehicles, had been tracking ICE agents around. Why are people believing that they can drive their car into a federal law enforcement situation, and that’s somehow appropriate?”
“I understand they don’t like the fact that these agents are enforcing existing immigration law… but that’s not how we change laws in this country.”
“If you don’t like the law, you talk to politicians. You don’t drive your car into the middle of a building or a law enforcement situation.”
“If I don’t like how much the IRS is charging me in taxes, I don’t drive my car into the Treasury Department. I call my congressman.”
“Political vigilantism is being encouraged by Democratic officials like Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who earlier this year told people to, quote, ‘put your bodies on the line.’”
“And Governor Tim Walz has been calling these guys Gestapo all year.”
“What do you think happens when you radicalize a base of people like this?!”
Jan 6, 2026 | World
Related:
Venezuela—Indictments, Invasions, and the Constitution’s Crumbling Guardrails
Article I commits to Congress—not the president—the power to decide when the United States will initiate hostilities against foreign sovereigns.
Justice in Caracas
Venezuela has a chance at revival. America has removed a security threat. And autocrats everywhere just learned that no palace provides immunity from justice.
Apr 1, 2025 | Politics
Excellent historical overview of Government Intevention in American Medicine By Amesh Adalja MD, FACP, FACEP, FIDSA.
Jan 22, 2025 | Politics
Justin Amash points to the problems with President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order on X:The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part:“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s odd claim is that a child born in the United States without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or citizen is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.But this is simply false.Set aside that Trump’s EO would affect children whose parents are lawfully but not permanently here. Let’s look at the “harder” case: the children of illegal immigrants.It should be obvious that even individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Jurisdiction” is just the applicability of legal authority to them and the potential exercise of state power against them.People who are unlawfully present in the country can, of course, be charged with crimes, arrested, etc., just like almost anyone else in the United States.There is not a person who doubts this, least of all someone in the Trump administration.I include the word “almost” before “anyone else” two paragraphs above because the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does exclude certain children: mainly the children of foreign diplomats, who, in fact, are generally not subject to U.S. laws. They have immunity that may or may not be waived by their home country. [1]Now, you may not like the fact that the Constitution broadly grants birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are simply, perhaps even temporarily, present in the United States, but that is the law absent a constitutional amendment.We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law. The president cannot amend the Constitution (or laws) via executive order. Any unilateral effort by a president to change the Constitution is void. Only an Article V amendment can change it.
Notes:[1] Senator Howard was making my point. He says: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.” He is describing one class of persons. This is evident from the phrasing. “Aliens” is being used as a further descriptor for “foreigners,” and he’s specifically referring to aliens who are foreign diplomats. That’s why the word “who” immediately follows the modifier “aliens.”
From
8. The FBI and Capitol Police both failed to investigate the individuals responsible for building fake gallows on Capitol grounds on January 6.9. The Subcommittee published more than 44,000 hours of CCTV footage from the Capitol.10. The Subcommittee conducted an extensive review of the investigation into the two pipe bombs on January 5 and 6, and that report is set to be released within the next few days. BACKGROUND:This interim report reveals that there was not just one single cause for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6; but it was a series of intelligence, security, and leadership failures at several levels and numerous entities.Over the course of the 118th Congress, this Subcommittee has interviewed hundreds of witnesses, scoured over millions of pages of documents, analyzed thousands of hours of surveillance videos, listened to hundreds of hours of radio communications, and conducted hearings.Chairman Loudermilk released his first January 6, 2021 report, “Initial Findings Report” on March 11, 2024 which focused on identifying and reviewing the numerous security failures on and leading up to, January 6, 2021, and reviewed the creation, operation, and claims made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. 
