MK3 BLOG

MKitch3|Sept. 22,2025

Every country has its favorite myths. Ours are red, white, blue, and stamped with two words that people swear mean the same thing: freedom and liberty. They don’t. They never did. And the fact we keep pretending otherwise is one of the reasons American law, politics, and daily life have been one long tug-of-war between what we think we’re promised and what we’re actually allowed.

The Bare Bones: Legal and Philosophical Roots

Freedom is the raw condition of being unconstrained. It’s the natural state—what philosophers call a negative right, an absence of interference.

Liberty is freedom that has been recognized, structured, and (inevitably) limited by law. It’s not the absence of restraint but the protection against arbitrary restraint.

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), defined liberty as “the absence of external impediments.” John Locke upped the ante, calling liberty a natural right, but one that had to exist under law for civil society to function.

Black’s Law Dictionary draws the line clean:

• Freedom: “The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint.”

• Liberty: “Freedom from arbitrary restraint, especially by government.”

So freedom is the wild field. Liberty is the fenced pasture the state swears you can run around in.

Founding Era: The Word Choices That Still Haunt Us

• Declaration of Independence (1776): Jefferson wrote “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He didn’t say “freedom.” Liberty here was a philosophical ideal, imported straight from Locke.

• Constitution (1787): The preamble promised to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The Bill of Rights mixed the two: freedom of speech, freedom of the press—but framed them as liberties that government couldn’t touch.

• Federalist Papers (1787-88): Madison and Hamilton tossed the words around strategically. Madison warned that liberty without structure dissolves into anarchy. Hamilton argued too much freedom would shred the Union.

The Founders, in short, used both words with purpose. Freedom was a condition; liberty was a principle.

The Timeline: Law, Politics, and the Shrinking (or Expanding) Circle

1798 – The Alien and Sedition Acts

• Congress criminalized criticism of the government. Freedom of speech existed in theory; liberty was mutilated in practice. Jefferson and Madison pushed back in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, claiming liberty was being crushed by federal overreach.

1860s – The Civil War and the 13th Amendment

• Lincoln’s rhetoric danced between liberty and freedom. He said at Gettysburg the war would bring a “new birth of freedom.” The legal system codified liberty for the formerly enslaved—but reality lagged a century behind.

1866 – Civil Rights Act

• Congress declared all persons born in the U.S. citizens with “full and equal benefit of all laws.” Freedom on paper. Liberty in practice? Still throttled by Black Codes and Jim Crow.

1917–1918 – The Espionage and Sedition Acts

• World War I saw dissent criminalized again. Eugene Debs went to prison for anti-war speech. The Supreme Court (in Schenck v. United States, 1919) blessed it, birthing the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” doctrine. Freedom got an asterisk.

1941 – FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech

• Roosevelt reframed freedom globally: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. Two were classic liberties; two were positive rights requiring massive government action.

1960s – Civil Rights Movement

• Martin Luther King Jr. talked about freedom ringing from every mountainside, but the fight was about liberty—forcing the state to honor rights it had already promised. Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) tried to close the gap.

2001 – The Patriot Act

• Freedom shrank in the name of security. Liberty was recast as something you have only if you’re not suspected of terrorism. The state’s leash tightened.

2020 – Pandemic Restrictions

• “Freedom” became the battle cry of those resisting mandates. “Liberty” became the lawyered-up justification for state power: public health outweighed personal autonomy.

Quotes That Show the Creep

• Patrick Henry (1775): “Give me liberty, or give me death!” — fiery, but limited to a select class.

• Abraham Lincoln (1864): “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty.” — still true.

• Benjamin Franklin (1759): “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — a warning ignored every generation.

• Justice Brandeis (1928, Olmstead v. U.S. dissent): “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Freedom vs. Liberty in the Real World

• Speech: Freedom means you can say what you want. Liberty means the courts decide if what you said qualifies as “protected.”

• Travel: Freedom suggests you can move wherever. Liberty is why you still need ID at TSA and a passport at borders.

• Property: Freedom says you own your land. Liberty is the zoning board telling you what you can’t build on it.

Why It Still Matters

Freedom is the banner. Liberty is the contract. One fires the imagination, the other locks horns with reality. Every major American conflict—political, social, or cultural—sits in that gap.

• Too much freedom without structure = chaos (see: mob rule).

• Too much liberty without freedom = authoritarianism dressed in legalese.

The Founders knew it, Lincoln knew it, Roosevelt twisted it, and we’re still choking on the difference.

The Punchline

Freedom is what you claim.

Liberty is what survives the lawyers, the judges, and the politicians.

The American project, at its best, is keeping those two words close enough that citizens don’t feel conned. At its worst, it’s watching the distance grow until freedom becomes rhetoric, and liberty becomes permission slips.

Allies spy on allies. Everyone in intelligence knows it, but the public hates to admit it. When it comes to Israel and the United States, the espionage trail isn’t rumor—it’s court records, DOJ press releases, and declassified intelligence assessments. For decades, Israel has run some of the most aggressive collection efforts inside America, and Washington has responded with a mix of prosecutions, cover-ups, and shrugs.

Here’s some of the documented history, stripped of spin.

The Pollard Affair

The name Jonathan Jay Pollard still echoes in counterintelligence circles. Pollard was a Navy intelligence analyst who, between 1984 and 1985, passed highly classified documents to Israel’s LAKAM unit. In 1986 he pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government.

In 1987 he was sentenced to life in prison, one of the stiffest sentences ever handed to an American spying for an ally (D.C. Circuit opinion). His Israeli handler Aviem Sella was indicted but never extradited. The mastermind, Rafi Eitan, headed LAKAM, which was disbanded in the scandal’s aftermath.

Pollard spent three decades in prison, paroled in 2015, and had his restrictions lifted in 2020. Israel later embraced him as a hero, granting him citizenship.

Ben-Ami Kadish: The Quiet Sequel

In 2008, the FBI arrested Ben-Ami Kadish, a retired mechanical engineer who worked at a U.S. Army research center in New Jersey. Between 1980 and 1985, Kadish had passed classified documents on missile systems and nuclear weapons to—astonishingly—the same Israeli official tied to Pollard: Yossi Yagur.

Kadish pled guilty to conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Israel. He was fined $50,000 and received no prison time, largely because of his age. It was a quiet echo of Pollard, but it confirmed a pattern: this wasn’t a one-off operation.

Franklin and the AIPAC Collapse

The 2000s brought the Lawrence Franklin case, where a Pentagon analyst leaked classified information on Iran to two senior AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—and to an Israeli diplomat.

Franklin pled guilty in 2005 under the Espionage Act and was sentenced to over 12 years (later reduced). Rosen and Weissman, however, became the center of a sensational trial. The DOJ tried to prosecute them under the Espionage Act—an extraordinary move against lobbyists—but in 2009, prosecutors dropped all charges.

The collapse of the AIPAC case stands as one of the most glaring examples of politics derailing espionage prosecutions.

The Nozette Sting

In 2009, the FBI launched an undercover sting against Stewart Nozette, a scientist with deep ties to U.S. nuclear and space programs. Agents posed as Mossad operatives. Nozette quickly agreed to sell classified secrets for cash.

In 2011 he pled guilty to attempted espionage and was sentenced to 13 years in prison (DOJ press release).

Israel wasn’t actually involved—the “handlers” were FBI agents—but the fact the FBI used Mossad as bait says a lot about credibility.

Procurement and Nuclear Secrets

Espionage isn’t always cloak-and-dagger. Sometimes it’s paperwork and exports.

• Richard Kelly Smyth, head of a California company, illegally exported krytrons—nuclear triggers—to Israel in the 1980s. He fled, was arrested in 2001, and pled guilty to export violations (Los Angeles Times coverage).
• Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan later admitted he had been part of Israel’s clandestine procurement network, helping funnel sensitive U.S. technology into Israeli weapons programs.

And before that, in the 1960s, there was NUMEC—a Pennsylvania plant where highly enriched uranium went missing. CIA and Atomic Energy Commission officials long suspected it ended up in Israel. The case was never prosecuted, but declassified memos show the suspicions.

What U.S. Intelligence Really Thinks

For anyone tempted to dismiss these as relics of the Cold War, the U.S. intelligence community has said otherwise.

• A 2008 NSA memo, revealed by Edward Snowden and published by The Guardian, described Israel as a “good SIGINT partner” but admitted: “they target us to learn our positions” on Middle East issues.
• A National Intelligence Estimate ranked Israel as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the United States, behind only China and Russia.

This is not internet rumor—it’s the official assessment of American intelligence agencies.

Spyware: The 21st Century Front

Today’s espionage is digital, and Israel’s role continues.

• In 2021, the U.S. Commerce Department blacklisted NSO Group and Candiru, citing their role in surveillance of U.S. persons (Federal Register notice).
• In 2024, the Treasury Department sanctioned Intellexa, another Israeli-linked spyware consortium, for targeting Americans, including U.S. officials.

The message was clear: Israeli-linked surveillance firms aren’t just shady—they’re national security threats.

Allegations That Didn’t Stick

Some claims remain “officially” unproven.

• The “Israeli art students” of 2001: DEA documented suspicious door-to-door visits near federal offices. DOJ said there was no substantiated espionage (DEA memo coverage).
• Alleged Israeli telecom backdoors (Amdocs, Comverse): heavily reported post-9/11, but no charges or official findings ever confirmed them (Fox News archive).

The Pattern

Put all this together, and the picture is plain:

• Classic espionage: Pollard, Kadish, Franklin, Nozette.
• Illegal procurement: Smyth, Milchan, possibly NUMEC.
• Intelligence assessments: Israel ranked as one of the top collectors against the U.S.
• Modern cyber: NSO, Candiru, Intellexa sanctioned for targeting Americans.

The U.S. has prosecuted when it could, quietly dropped cases when it couldn’t, and buried scandals when politics demanded it.

Conclusion

Allies spy on allies. That’s the way of the world. But the United States has spent decades pretending Israel doesn’t spy on it. That’s the lie.

From stolen nuclear secrets to aggressive lobbying pipelines, from FBI stings to modern spyware hacks, the history is public and undeniable. Court dockets, declassified documents, and sanctions lists tell the story.

The real scandal isn’t that Israel spies—it’s that the American public is told it doesn’t happen.

Read more »

MKitch3|Sept 19, 2025

Executive Summary

The Constitution of the United States explicitly declares itself—and laws made in pursuance thereof—as the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2). Nowhere does it elevate the Supreme Court to that status. Yet over time, through practice and precedent, the Court has come to be treated as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning. This paper examines the historical roots of this transformation, the warnings issued by presidents and founders against judicial supremacy, the legal and political events that entrenched it, and the implications for American constitutional government today.

I. Constitutional Text: What the Founders Wrote

Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause):

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Key features:

• The Constitution itself is supreme.
• Laws made pursuant to it are supreme.
• Judges (state and federal) are bound by it.
• Nowhere does it say “the Supreme Court’s interpretations are the supreme law.”

The judiciary is established in Article III, with jurisdiction defined, but there is no explicit claim of “judicial supremacy.” The very idea of the Court being the “final word” was created later, politically and culturally.

II. The Birth of Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803):

Chief Justice John Marshall declared it the duty of the judiciary “to say what the law is.” This was the first assertion of judicial review: the idea that courts could strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution.

Marshall: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

The Constitution never states this directly. Judicial review was widely accepted as reasonable, but the claim that the Court’s interpretations are binding on everyone—forever—was a leap.

III. Early Resistance to Judicial Supremacy

Jefferson’s Warnings

Thomas Jefferson fiercely opposed judicial supremacy:

• 1820 Letter to William Jarvis:
  “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
• He argued that each branch had the equal right to interpret the Constitution:
  “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson’s philosophy: every branch has the duty to uphold the Constitution, not defer to judges.

Jackson’s Defiance

President Andrew Jackson rejected judicial supremacy during the Worcester v. Georgia controversy (1832). While the quote “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it” is apocryphal, Jackson did ignore the Court’s decision, demonstrating his belief that the judiciary did not rule over the executive branch.

IV. Lincoln and the Civil War Context

Abraham Lincoln, confronting the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, argued that while Court decisions bind the parties to a case, they do not dictate national policy:

• First Inaugural Address (1861):
  “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Lincoln respected Court rulings in limited scope but denied the notion that Dred Scott defined the Constitution forever.

V. The 20th Century Rise of Judicial Supremacy

Post–Civil War Developments

• The Court began asserting broader constitutional interpretations in commerce and civil rights cases.
• Precedent hardened around the idea that the Court’s rulings were binding on all levels of government.

Civil Rights Era

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) held racial segregation unconstitutional. Its moral force and federal enforcement cemented the Court as the “final word.”
• President Eisenhower used troops to enforce Brown in Little Rock (1957), showing executive backing.

This set a new standard: Court rulings would be treated as binding constitutional commands, not mere interpretations.

VI. Modern Expansion of Judicial Supremacy

Key examples of the Court reshaping law and policy:

• Roe v. Wade (1973): Created a national right to abortion.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Redefined campaign finance as protected speech.
• Dobbs v. Jackson (2022): Overturned Roe.

Each of these cases demonstrates the Court effectively setting national policy—without legislation. Critics argue this elevates nine unelected justices above Congress, the President, and the people.

VII. Departmentalism vs. Judicial Supremacy

• Judicial Supremacy: The Court is the final interpreter; its rulings bind all.
• Departmentalism (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln): Each branch has equal right and duty to interpret the Constitution.

Departmentalism maintains balance but risks chaos if branches openly defy one another. Judicial supremacy provides stability but risks oligarchy.

VIII. Modern Critiques

• Left-leaning critiques: Court is captured by conservative ideology and unresponsive to democratic will.
• Right-leaning critiques: Court has usurped lawmaking powers and imposed liberal social policies.
• Populist critique (both sides): Nine unelected justices should not decide issues that Congress avoids.

Public trust in the Court has fallen sharply in the 21st century, with polling showing historically low approval after Dobbs (2022).

IX. Rebalancing Options

1. Constitutional Amendment: Clarify limits on judicial review.
2. Jurisdiction Stripping: Congress can limit the Court’s jurisdiction under Article III.
3. Term Limits for Justices: Reduce lifetime judicial entrenchment.
4. Revive Departmentalism: Presidents and Congress openly interpret the Constitution independently.

X. Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The idea that Supreme Court opinions hold that title is a political invention, not a constitutional command. From Jefferson’s denunciations to Lincoln’s resistance, history is filled with leaders who saw the danger of judicial supremacy.

Today, with polarization and declining trust in institutions, America faces the same question Jefferson posed two centuries ago: Do we live under a Constitution, or under the rulings of nine judges? The answer determines whether sovereignty lies with the people and their representatives, or with an unelected judicial elite.

Appendix: Key Quotes

• Jefferson (1820): “The Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary.”
• Jackson (1832): “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges.”
• Lincoln (1861): “The people will have ceased to be their own rulers… resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Appendix: Timeline of Major Cases and Events Shaping Judicial Supremacy

Early Republic and Foundations

1787 – U.S. Constitution Ratified

• Article VI establishes the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof) as the supreme law of the land.
• No explicit mention of judicial supremacy.

1791 – First Bank of the United States

• Early dispute over implied powers. Hamilton (pro) vs. Jefferson (anti). Congress charters the Bank anyway.

1803 – Marbury v. Madison

• Chief Justice John Marshall establishes judicial review.
• Quote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
• This creates the precedent that courts may strike down unconstitutional laws.

Expansion of Federal Power

1819 – McCulloch v. Maryland

• Court upholds Congress’s power to create the Second Bank.
• Marshall: the Necessary and Proper Clause allows implied powers.
• Significance: Strengthened national supremacy, widened scope of implied powers, and bolstered judicial authority.

1824 – Gibbons v. Ogden

• Court broadly interprets the Commerce Clause, expanding federal power.

1832 – Worcester v. Georgia

• Court rules that Georgia laws had no authority in Cherokee territory.
• President Jackson refuses to enforce it, exposing limits of judicial authority when the executive resists.

Antebellum Crisis

1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford

• Court rules that African Americans cannot be citizens and Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories.
• Seen as judicial overreach; inflames sectional tensions.
• Lincoln later rejects the decision’s authority beyond the specific case.

1861 – Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

• Rejects judicial supremacy:
  “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government… is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Reconstruction and Early 20th Century

1869 – Texas v. White

• Court rules secession unconstitutional, bolstering the authority of federal institutions after the Civil War.

1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson

• Court upholds racial segregation under “separate but equal.”
• Judicial supremacy entrenches systemic racism for decades.

1913 – Federal Reserve Act

• Congress creates the Federal Reserve under implied constitutional powers. Judicial precedent (McCulloch) provides cover.

1935 – Gold Clause Cases (Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Perry v. United States)

• Court upholds Congress’s sweeping power to regulate monetary policy, even voiding private contracts.
• Judicial blessing of federal financial authority.

Civil Rights and the High Tide of Judicial Supremacy

1954 – Brown v. Board of Education

• Overturns Plessy, declaring school segregation unconstitutional.
• Becomes a defining moment for judicial supremacy as national policy-setter.

1957 – Little Rock Crisis

• President Eisenhower sends troops to enforce Brown.
• Shows judicial decisions backed by executive force become national law in practice.

1973 – Roe v. Wade

• Court creates nationwide abortion rights framework.

• Seen by critics as judicial lawmaking beyond constitutional text.

Late 20th Century – Judicial Policymaking

2000 – Bush v. Gore

• Court halts Florida recount, effectively deciding the presidential election.
• Cemented public view of the Court as political actor.

2010 – Citizens United v. FEC

• Court rules that corporate spending on elections is protected speech.
• Expands First Amendment interpretations, reshaping campaign finance.

21st Century Polarization

2015 – Obergefell v. Hodges

• Court legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide.
• Hailed as a landmark for equality, criticized as judicial overreach bypassing legislatures.

2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

• Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
• Returns abortion regulation to states, sparking fierce debates over judicial power and legitimacy.

Modern Critiques and Challenges

• Audit the Fed Movement (2000s–present): Efforts to rein in Federal Reserve independence highlight blurred lines between constitutional authority and judicial-accepted precedent.
• Public Trust Decline (2020s): Polling shows trust in the Supreme Court at record lows, suggesting the doctrine of judicial supremacy is being questioned by both left and right.

Concluding Note on the Timeline

From Marbury to Dobbs, the Court has shaped policy more than any other branch by claiming the power to decide constitutional meaning. But moments like Jackson’s defiance, Lincoln’s resistance, and modern political backlash remind us: the Constitution is supreme law. The Court’s supremacy exists only because other branches and the people consent to it.

MK3|Sept 14,2025

Every few months, it happens.

Your feed floods with hashtags, slogans, and profile-picture filters. Corporations suddenly have something to say. Politicians scramble to issue statements. Your friends quietly judge you if you don’t join in.

And like clockwork, we’re all asked the same question: Are you for it, or against it?

That’s The Current Thing.

Every few months, the world demands you care about something. A hashtag. A war. A protest. A slogan. Silence isn’t neutral — it’s suspicious.

What Exactly Is The Current Thing?

The Current Thing isn’t just the latest headline. It’s a loyalty test.

It’s the issue that hijacks the conversation, forces people into binary camps, and turns politics into a game of allegiance.

Here’s the recipe:

• A trigger event — a war, a pandemic, a viral video, a protest.

• Media framing — simplified into “good guys vs. bad guys.”

• Symbols and slogans — hashtags, flags, emojis, profile filters.

• Social pressure — silence suddenly equals complicity.

• Institutional bandwagon — corporations, governments, and NGOs line up.

• Peak saturation — it’s everywhere, all the time.

• The drop-off — it fades, replaced by the next thing.

By the time people stop arguing, you’re already onto the next Current Thing.

Why Do Current Things Matter?

They aren’t random — they’re how modern politics works.

• They give people identity badges. Display the right emoji, wear the right pin, and everyone knows which tribe you belong to.

• They offer moral clarity. Forget nuance — this is good vs. evil, right vs. wrong.

• They act as elite coordination tools. Governments, media, and corporations all get to signal they’re “on the right side.”

• And yes, they can be distractions.

While everyone fights over flags in their bios, bigger, slower issues — like rights being restricted or mass surveillance — slide under the radar.

The Ugly Side of the Current Thing

The problem isn’t that people care. It’s that the care is shallow, manic, and disposable.

• Hashtags don’t fix broken systems.

• Binary framing crushes complexity.

• Yesterday’s “moral emergency” is today’s forgotten headline.

Yesterday’s “moral emergency” is today’s forgotten headline. The victims remain. The policies stay. The crowd moves on.

Meanwhile, as Noam Chomsky pointed out decades ago, the media doesn’t just tell us what to think — it tells us what it’s acceptable to think about.

And corporations have learned to exploit this. They swap their logos during Pride Month, pledge solidarity during protests, or change colors for the flag of the moment. Then, once the spotlight fades, so does their commitment.

Corporations swap their logos during Pride Month, pledge solidarity during protests — then go silent once the spotlight moves on. Marketing masquerading as morality.

Some Examples You’ll Remember

• COVID-19: Masks and vaccines weren’t just health issues; they became political purity tests.

• George Floyd / BLM: Corporate logos went black, fists went up, and protest slogans were suddenly everywhere.

• Ukraine (2022): The blue-and-yellow flag emoji became unavoidable, as Western governments and companies pledged loyalty.

• Israel–Gaza (2023–2025): Competing Current Things (#StandWithIsrael vs. #FreePalestine) split publics down the middle.

• Meanwhile… Yemen, Congo, Sudan? Crickets. Some crises just never qualify as The Current Thing.

And it’s not only foreign policy. Think of the Flint water crisis or the opioid epidemic. Both were once national scandals. Both were described as urgent emergencies. And yet, both faded from public attention long before solutions were reached. That’s how the memory hole works.

Why You Should Care About The Current Thing (Even If You’re Sick of It)

You might think: so what? People always follow trends.

But here’s the kicker: Current Things aren’t just trends — they’re tools.

They show us:

• Who has the power to set the agenda. Why Ukraine, but not Yemen? Why Gaza now, but Congo never?

• How shallow engagement warps democracy. Politics gets reduced to virtue-signaling instead of real policy.

• How attention itself has become currency. If we’re always reacting to the Current Thing, who’s doing the long-term thinking?

If we’re always reacting to the Current Thing, who’s doing the long-term thinking?

A Historical Reminder

The Current Thing has always existed — what’s new is the speed.

• During World War II, Pearl Harbor transformed American opinion overnight.

• In the 1950s, McCarthyism forced Americans to prove their loyalty or risk ruin.

• In the 1960s and ’70s, Vietnam War protests dominated public life, splitting the country into hawks and doves.

Back then, it took weeks or months for public opinion to coalesce. Today, it happens in hours — because social media compresses outrage into viral bursts.

Final Thought

The phenomenon of The Current Thing is not trivial. It reflects how collective attention is orchestrated, how political identities are formed, and how moral clarity is manufactured in a media-saturated society.

While Current Things can mobilize the masses and bring urgent issues into focus, they also risk superficiality, polarization, and distraction from structural change. In the networked age, where attention is currency, politics is increasingly governed by spectacles of the moment.

The challenge for democratic societies is to find ways to engage beyond the Current Thing — to cultivate deeper deliberation, longer-term commitment, and more nuanced debate. Otherwise, we risk a politics permanently trapped in cycles of outrage and amnesia.

The Bezmenov Angle

If you want a deeper understanding of how these cycles work, a good place to start is with Yuri Bezmenov’s warnings about “ideological subversion.”

His four stages — demoralization, destabilization, crisis, normalization — describe exactly how societies can be manipulated. In many ways, Current Things are the perfect vehicles for this process:

• They demoralize by overwhelming people with outrage.

• They destabilize by polarizing groups.

• They create a sense of crisis that demands instant response.

• They normalize the new status quo once attention moves on.

Demoralization. Destabilization. Crisis. Normalization. Current Things are the perfect vehicles for ideological subversion.

Reader Challenge

When the next Current Thing hits, don’t just ask what it is. Ask:

• Who benefits?

• Who is ignored?

• What’s being buried while the spotlight shines here?

Because the spectacle will pass. The only question is: what will you remember when it does?