Counterculture Magazine Issue Six

Table of Contents •

Contributors

page 3

•

Letter from the editor

page 4

•

VOX and Their Response to the Influx of Immigrants from North African Countries

page 5-7

•

Financialization and the Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods

page 8-9

•

Proof of Citizenship, Voter Roll Purges, & Restricted Voting Assistance:

•

A Reflective Criticism of the Elimination of

•

Affirmative Action in College Decisions

page 12-13

•

Minority Parents as Champions of Education: The Microschool Movement

page 14-17

•

Imagining Beyond - American Rage

page 18-23

•

Are refugees still welcome?

page 24-26

•

Dialogue to Direct Attack: The Transformation

•

.

page 10-11

of the Presidential Debate

page 27-28

“With Fear for Our Democracy, I Dissent”

page 29-31

2

Acknowledgements The Executive Board of Counterculture Magazine would like to extend an immense amount of gratitude to everyone who participated in this project and helped us create Issue Six. It is because of your support that we were able to keep the momentum we needed to make it into the magazine it is today.

We would first like to extend a huge thank you to our faculty advisor, Dr. Thad Williamson at the Jepson School of Leadership. Dr. Williamson was one of the first supporters of this project and helped to conceive many of the ideas that are foundational to the magazin. His support during our time as both an affiliated and unaffiliated organization is unprecedented, and we are forever grateful.

Next we would also like to thank our team of writers, who persisted despite personal and academic stress. Thank you for telling your stories and providing your insights, as well as devoting your time towards the creation of this project.

Without your hard work, this magazine would not be able to exist. We would also like to extend a thank you to our creative design and social media teams for developing the concept of this issue and making it come to life through visual narratives. To our cover model, thank you for your participation in this project and for creating the beautiful photos both on the cover and throughout the magazine.

Lastly, we would like to thank the larger University of Richmond community for their consistent support over the last five issues of the magazine. From sharing social media posts from the Counterculture Instagram account to telling us how excited you were to see this project come to fruition, your needless support and enthusiasm propelled us to make this issue come alive. We are elated to have you as our mentors, peers, and friends.

3

Letter from the Editor At the beginning of the year, I asked members of Counterculture to brainstorm potential theme ideas to commemorate our sixth issue. Immediately, people suggested the idea of American rage. With the election looming in the not too distant future, it felt fitting to capture the heated sentiments felt by many throughout the country. As we started to develop our creative vision for the magazine, I began reflecting on what America means to me. And in doing so, I was unable to come up with a concrete answer.

Given the fact that I spent the majority of my life in the States, I should feel deeply connected to the idea of “America.”

Afterall, the government has always attempted to portray the country as a special promised land that champions life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I readily believed this propaganda as a child, my opinions have changed with perspective and age; I now feel disillusioned with these assurances, no longer perceiving them to be true. Unfortunately, even though some individuals have benefited from the country’s promises, others, especially marginalized communities, have historically been left behind. I feel like these dynamics have become even more prevalent in the last few election cycles, as more people have vocalized their frustration at being abandoned or disadvantaged by the systems designed to “protect” them.

After pondering these unsavory feelings, I also thought of my family, friends, and the communities to which I belong. No matter where I am, they always make me feel as though I have a home. I reminded myself of the physical places that evoke feelings of peace, fondness, and belonging. I recalled all of the cultures that fight to flourish and make themselves heard within this country. I thought of all of the activists who forced stubborn individuals to accept widespread social changes. And I smiled, because while I feel endlessly frustrated and discouraged with “America” and its corrupted politics, I do feel intimately linked to my community, grateful for how it has shown me what is possible.

Like many others, I felt acutely disappointed and troubled by the results of the presidential election earlier this month. It most certainly complicated my already convoluted feelings regarding my previous question. Though I didn’t agree with all of Kamala Harris’ policies, I felt like she offered a new and important vision for the future of American politics. Having lived through Trump’s first administration, I dread his political vision and the potential it has to cultivate even more hatred and discord. The little hope I had after Kamala Harris announced a presidential bid earlier this summer disappeared, leaving me questioning what I might be able to do to help rectify this situation. Which, I must admit, I don’t know if I have a clear answer for that question, either.

In conclusion, I don't really know how to define what the idea of “America” means to me. While I grow more disenchanted with what it represents, I also appreciate how it has encouraged me to grow into the person that I am today. That being said, Trump's re-election has underscored the importance of pushing back against his vitriolic platform to both protect what we already have and make strides to improve our democracy. I strongly encourage all of you to consider how you might be part of the solution as well.

Thank you all so much for your interest in this magazine! I hope that you enjoy reading the articles as much as I did.

Sydney Dwyer Editor and Chief

4

VOX and Their Response to the Influx of Immigrants from North African Countries The recent influx of immigration to Spain has converted the phenomenon into an important national issue. Each party established a different stance with respect to the phenomenon. While some parties such as the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and Podemos have adopted a more open attitude towards immigrants, the Popular Party (PP) has responded in a more restrictive way. However, none of the parties have reacted as strongly as Vox, who quickly developed an extreme populist discourse regarding immigrants from North African countries. The party was officially established in 2014, after individuals discontent with the PP’s centerright approach decided to create their own far-right platform. They began to acquire national prominence in 2018, when they won important regional elections, especially in Andalucía. Ever since their electoral victories, they’ve worked to carefully cultivate a discourse that portrays immigrants from these countries as a threat to traditional Spanish society. By categorizing these immigrants as Muslim, criminals, and uneducated, Vox articulates their desire to wage an ideological war against non-European cultures.

As I stated above, Vox portrays those who practice Islam as inherently bad to Spanish society. For example, the political party retweeted a brief clip of a speech given by Deputy Congresswoman Macarena Olona in May of 2022. Throughout the speech, Olona emphasized the dangers posed by Nigerian Muslim immigrants. Upon speaking, she explained that her unwillingness to let more immigrants from Nigeria “does not have anything to do with nationality or race. It has to do with origin and culture.” In doing so, the politician implied that Nigerian Muslim culture is incompatible with Spanish Christian culture. Afterward, Olona continued developing this narrative by discussing an incident where a group of “Nigerian savages” violently murdered a fellow Christian student “for alleged blasphemies against Islam.”

These statements suggested that Nigerians’ dedication to Islam encouraged them to perceive other religions as enemies or rivals. By emphasizing the obstinate nature of Islam in this instance, Olona subtly implied that their

religious beliefs led them to become murderous individuals willing to eradicate their opponents. As a result, she utilized this ideological positioning to depict Spaniards as powerless victims in the face of extreme violence.

Thus, she begins to cultivate a rhetoric that otherizes Nigerian Muslims.

During the second half of her speech, Olona referenced important dates, like the Taking of Granada, to solidify her argument. The festival takes place on January 2 in order to commemorate the final surrender of the Alhambra fortress in 1492 by Granada’s last Muslim ruler, Abū ‘Abdi-llāh Muḥammad XII after he entered a truce with the Catholic monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand. However, this celebration has turned controversial in recent years, as many far-right individuals and parties utilize it to denounce Muslim heritage in Spain. Olona acted similarly when she took advantage of her platform to advocate for the continuation of this historic festival: “If we elevate the voice against those who consider that the celebration of the day of the taking in Granada as an exaltation of racism, it’s because these historic dates…marked the triumph of western values and the end of eight centuries of Muslim invasion. By declaring the Day of the Taking to be a “triumph of Western values” over the “eight centuries of Muslim invasion,” the politician indicated that the Moorish empire tainted the pure nature of Western Christian culture. By depicting Nigerian Muslim culture as a parasitic force that dismantles crucial Western values, she treats all Muslims the same, creating an “us” versus “them” narrative.

Vox also utilizes its media presence to otherize Muslim immigrants from African countries in other ways, as well. In July of 2024, the political party posted an advertisement on its official Facebook account that contained the following argumentative tactics:

In this image, two women walk side by side into the distance, showcasing their backs to the audience. The background colors obscure their figures and their identities. Apart from their hijabs, which indicate their status as Muslims, Vox entirely disregards these women, paying no attention to their lived experiences. Thus, the political party suggests that their supporters should also ignore other aspects of their identity, contributing to the differentiation of African Muslims from Christian Spaniards. Thus, the political party not so subtly implies their negative perception of Muslims by categorizing all of them in the same way. Within these dynamics, the cool tones of the background colors darken the image, an artistic decision that depicts Islam as a religion inherently associated with darkness. Additionally, Vox’s omission of specific characteristics also suggests that Muslims capitalize on these dubious environments to conceal their actions and motives. Overall, these elements help establish Muslim immigrants as the “other,” which enables politicians to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about the religion and those who practice it.

5

The text found on the post also supports this ideological positioning. In English, it states “If you think that illegal immigration caused a loss of identity, affiliate yourself with Vox.” Underneath this photo in the caption box, Vox also wrote “NO MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!” Consequently, the political party attempts to develop a dichotomous perception of immigrants and white Spaniards as opposing one another. This juxtaposition suggests that the increased number of immigrants has resulted in an ongoing loss of Spanish identity. After emphasizing the threat posed by immigrants from North Africa, Vox utilizes the advertisement to acquire more supporters who view immigration from this incongruous perspective. As a result, Vox’s marketing approach centers its supporters around the idea of “us” versus “them,” a narrative that subtly instructs white Spaniards to prepare for a future fight in which they will have to defend Spanish culture.

This discourse also informs the way Vox officials approach their supporters in interviews and in-person conversations.

Jorge Buxadé, a Spanish lawyer, became a member of the European Parliament in 2019. Ever since 2020, he has utilized his platform to campaign on behalf of Vox. In 2024, he interviewed an anonymous man

from Tenerife about the migrant encampment on the island. From December 2024 to July 2024, the island received more than 19,000 immigrants.

Upon arrival, they meet with the civil police to discuss their case before being dispersed to Foreigner Internment Centers (FICs) where they can stay for a maximum of sixty days. During the interview, the production team used a modifier to distort the tone of the man's voice and blurred his face to ensure that no one could identify the interviewee.

These decisions helped Vox establish a prevailing sense of danger before the interview even began. When describing his life near one of the FICs, the anonymous man remarked: “From the camp, they pass by and drink a lot of beer, and throw all types of things, they relieve themselves. Here, there’s a small room that they utilize for prostitution and smoking drugs.” While Vox does not leverage the contrasting narrative of “us” versus “them” in the same way throughout this interview, the conversation makes several allusions to this discourse. In the first few seconds, the directors indicate a stark difference between the Spaniards who live in Tenerife, and the immigrants from Northern Africa who vandalize the area and participate in problematic behaviors, like smoking drugs and prostitution.

Therefore, the anonymous man indicates that the immigrants’ criminal-like behavior destroys the stability of his home.

After the man revealed the previous information, Buxadé asked pointed questions to encourage the man to reveal even more about these dynamics. The interviewee continued elaborating, stating that “This [area] has been converted into a ghetto and a place without laws, where they are unpunished, they can do anything to you, you don’t know who they are, and of course no one investigates…” Instead of naming the threat that Spaniards in Tenerife face, the interviewee only uses the word “they” to describe immigrants. This phenomenon reflects Vox's tendency to employ a nebulous discourse that depicts immigrants as a nameless threat. As the anonymous man explains, “you don’t know who they are.” Consequently, the vague way officials describe these social groups causes Spaniards to feel more fear and desperation. The interviewee expanded on these dynamics when he disclosed that “Here, life has changed, because the older people who walked

peacefully through these areas no longer do so. The young people, especially girls and women, who went out alone don’t leave anymore. And then, well, a series of crimes have happened here. I don’t feel safe.” By describing how the town has changed since the onset of immigration to Tenerife, the anonymous man implies that it has resulted in high amounts of crime, which prevents residents from feeling safe whenever they leave their homes alone. In doing so, the anonymous man and Buxadé invoke the “us” versus “them” narrative by contrasting the upstanding moral behavior of Spaniards with the unscrupulous illegal activity of immigrants.

As a result, both figures implore individuals and government officials alike to fight against the dire threat that the immigrants pose.

Santiago Abascal also emphasizes the criminal behavior of immigrants from Northern Africa in many of his public speeches. During one such parliamentary appearance, the president of Vox stated the following: “‘Anyone can tell the difference between (Ukrainian refugees) and the invasion of young military-aged men of Muslim origin who have launched themselves against European borders in an attempt to destabilize and colonize it.’”

According to Abascal, all of the immigrants entering Spain from North Africa colluded with each other to develop a hazardous militaristic strategy to “destabilize” and “colonize” the country. By emphasizing the problematic behaviors of Muslim immigrants, Vox encourages sympathizers and supporters to believe harmful generalizations about these social groups.

Within this dynamic, Santiago Abascal's decision to incorporate the words “destabilize” and “colonize” alludes to a looming conflict between Muslim and Spanish identities. In doing so, Abascal utilizes this rhetoric to intensify fear and desperation among the Spanish public.

Not only does this panic help Vox galvanize the public against Muslim immigrants, but it also motivates Spaniards to adopt a more defensive stance as they prepare for a perceived future confrontation.

For example, Vox posted a video of Santiago Abascal explaining the effects of “Islamic immigration” to their official Facebook account. Towards the beginning of his speech, he explains that individuals from Islamic Republics“do not have our same convictions about liberty, about the rights for women and men, about the

6

equality of men and women, about what it means to separate religion from the state…” Throughout this part of his speech, Abascal insinuates that immigrants from these republics have not acquired a strong education regarding their understanding of liberty, equality between men and women, and the separation between the Church and the state. By lamenting their inability to understand these important European values, Abascal indicates that they do not possess the necessary knowledge to enter European spaces like Spain. Within these dynamics, the politician suggests that the educational systems throughout Spain encourage citizens to become more enlightened. He contrasts the cultured nature of the Spaniards against “immigrants from Islamic Republics” who enter the country and make no effort to educate themselves about different beliefs.

Santiago Abascal expands upon this argument in the second half of his speech. . The politician explains that this type of immigration “is destroying Europe. It’s causing Zones where police are not able to enter, where Sharia laws are applied, where there are honor crimes. And this is what we don’t want. The anonymous man indicates that immigrants in Tenerife frequently establish zones that exclude the police, preventing them from governing these spaces. Therefore, Abascal suggests that the new immigrants do not possess a strong enough education to act with decorum or respect for the host country. Imbuing North African immigrants with these characteristic traits enables the politician to establish a fundamental difference between this social group and white Spaniards. Additionally, by stating that this immigration “will destroy Europe,” Abascal emphasizes their supposed lack of education as a reason why Spaniards show become increasingly defensive of their presence within the country.

Similar discourses also appear in national debates regarding education. Given the regional differences that exist in Spain, the national government granted the autonomous communities a greater level of independence when developing educational curricula. In response to high levels of immigration from Islamic countries, some regions have proposed creating classes focused on teaching Spanish children about Islam to promote greater harmony and inclusion. When politicians from the Commission of Culture gathered to discuss these proposals, Vox’s spokesperson, Joaquín Robales, explained that the decision to transfer educational power to the autonomous communities placed education “in the hands of the regionalist elites, and, above all, separatists attacking national unity…” Robales

immediately condemns those in favor of these proposals as “separatists attacking national unity,” a reference to certain political parties across the autonomous communities who advocate for secession from Spain. Their political agenda threatens Vox’s platform, as they champion national unity.

Robales continued to denounce these parties for emphasizing so heavily on other cultures. According to the politician, separatist parties desire to incorporate “the Black antiSpanish legend [into educational curricula]...” This statement inherently suggests that one cannot separate anti-Spanish propaganda from Black legends and traditions. According to Robales, the fundamentally intertwined concepts “insult everything that has to do with unity,” prioritizing “signs of regional, folkloric, or ethnic identities as fundamental for succession.” Thus, the politician flips the argument, making it impossible to support both immigration and Spanish national unity. The use of words such as “attack” imply that this ideological positioning creates a dangerous threat to Spanish society. Within this dynamic, the vague way in which Robales describes the threat makes this phenomenon appear even more nebulous, convoluted, and therefore alarming. Overall, the rhetorical decisions employed by Robales insinuate the existence of a dire problem that requires immediate national attention.

In conclusion, Vox relies on many strategies to articulate its anti-immigrant agenda. By emphasizing the “negative” nature of the immigrants’ religion, politicians from this party portray Islam as inherently bad for Western society. They build on this classification by making harmful generalizations that depict immigrants from these regions as militarized individuals who attack Spanish borders in an attempt to “colonize” and “destabilize” the country. Similarly, they also explain that immigrants do not possess the necessary education levels to become productive members of society. As a result, they utilize this reasoning to suggest that immigrants from North African countries are preparing to wage a war against traditional Spanish culture. Vox capitalizes on this ideological positioning to encourage Spaniards to become even more defensive and wary of immigrants. However, this attitude also contributes to the idea of a future battle between cultures. Thus, by using these rhetorical strategies to structure their argument, Vox indirectly encourages Spaniards to initiate an ideological war against North African cultures. 

7

Financialization and the Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods The sharp rise of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in diets globally has significantly impacted public health and will continue without intervention. Particularly in highincome countries, there is a large profit margin for the manufacturers and shareholders, taking advantage of the population's health and the efficiency of their workers. Linked to the financialization of the food industry, this occurrence makes profit of utmost importance. With this move towards UPFs, it is clear how the financialization of this industry in highincome countries has allowed for deleterious health implications for those targeted in low socioeconomic standings globally. The nutritional deficits remain important as health is a long-term result of the short-term profit being made. Understanding these connections is central to addressing the connection between UPF consumption and the rising prevalence of diet-related chronic diseases.

What are Ultra-Processed Foods?

Ultra-processed foods are classified according to NOVA as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, that result from a series of industrial processes.” NOVA, for reference, is the name of a food classification system that groups foods based on the degree to which they are processed. The distinction between UPFs from minimally processed and fresh foods becomes apparent in the multiple processes that the ingredients undergo. Additionally, the ingredients in UPFs are a clear reason for raised concerns, as they are not found in domestic kitchens. Under this classification, examples include sugary drinks, reconstituted meats, ice creams, and other industrialized snacks. The rapid growth of UPFs in the human diet worldwide is a serious public health concern, as it is a main source of dietary energy in a multitude of countries. The prevalence continued to grow following the 1970s, largest food service corporations, including McDonald’s and those under PepsiCo, made their first public offering on the New York Stock Exchange.

During this time, the UPFs began becoming available in this globalization of food systems. This ‘nutrition transition’ adversely affected ‘low-and-middle -income countries,

as there was a shift away from their traditional diets towards those of easier accessibility and consequently highly processed. This is another method for the higher-income countries to reign control, profiting off of nutrition inequity among populations of increased food insecurity, health resources, and education. All play into the impact of those in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions worldwide.

FDA as the Standard Considering the legislation currently in place of acceptable levels of processing, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards give a preconception of health and wellness, when their lack of authority has been deemed to be a problem. Since the establishment of the Food Additive Amendment in 1958, the FDA has been the party responsible for ensuring food safety in the chemicals added to foods. Congress “intended that the FDA address the chronic and cumulative exposures to chemicals in the food supply when considering safety.” The American diet, just like that of most developed countries, has changed dramatically in the nearly 60 years since the law passed. Instead, thousands of chemicals have been manufactured into the food supply with a lack of long-term safety assessments and health effects. The GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) exemption allows many additives to pervade the U.S., contributing to the problem of UPFs. The interpretation of the law perpetuates companies avoiding FDA approval as they determine GRAS substances without being in contact with the FDA directly. To make the FDA more effective in their legislation, they attempted to do a voluntary review safety assessment. The FDA then offered feedback, being of promotion rather than setting a standard or making a decision. With all of the nuances around getting FDA approved, companies have in hand profited off chemicals that they are making safety decisions on for the market.

Financialization and Market Dynamics Financialization refers to the “increasing role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial

8

institutions in the economy,” specifically through corporate strategies aimed at maximizing shareholder value. UPF corporations have obtained a high degree of power through competitive and financial advantages. This unequal distribution of wealth is achieved through increasing product durability and facilitating product and brand differentiation. The financial factors present shape the population's diet as they stay at the forefront of food distribution.

Such industrialization of food systems by corporate strategies increases multi-stakeholders in this economic globalization. The selfregulation in this system as UPF corporations position themselves as part of the solution to the problems they singlehandedly control.

Shareholders can be categorized into five food sectors: agricultural inputs (chemicals); production, primary processing, and commodity trading; UPF manufacturing; food retailing; and food services.

Notably, between 1962 and 2021, “the aggregate market capitalisation of agri-food corporations in the five sectors increased…from around US$120 billion to US$3.7 trillion.” This market capitalization increase began in the 1980s as the share price of many corporations increased. Moreover, non-U.S.-based agrifood corporations began to feature on the U.S. stock exchanges. In this time frame, corporations that rely heavily on manufacturing and marketing UPFs to drive profits have progressively shifted more money to their shareholders compared to their total revenue. In more recent years, major hedge fund managers have played a significant role in shaping the governance of the leading UPF companies, prioritizing short-term profits. Meanwhile, shareholders interested in enhancing public diets have had little impact, largely because large asset managers often reject public health proposals.

The movement of money through this exchange is problematic as the large proportion of profit comes from lower-income individuals in high-income countries and those in low-and-middle-income countries and goes towards shareholders who are positioned as mega-wealthy in high-income countries.

Health implications The health risks associated with UPFs are multifaceted and profound. These risks include nutritional concerns, chronic illness, and socioeconomic factors, all being significant for the overall impact. To begin, the nutritional deficiencies associated with UPFs are at the center of this global problem. The highsugars, unhealthy fats, and low overall nutrients do not provide the benefits that the low cost is trying to pervade. In a recent study by the National Institutes of Health aimed at understanding the sharp rise in obesity in the U.S., volunteers were randomly assigned to consume either minimally processed foods or ultra-processed foods, ensuring both groups received the same daily nutrients, including carbohydrates, sodium, fat, and sugar. The researchers hypothesized that weight gain would be similar in both groups due to the equivalent nutrient composition, but they found the contrary. Although more research is needed, it is clear additives and processing in the UPFs are the problem, not just nutritional content. Next, the poorer dietary quality of those consuming high amounts of UPFs leads to an immense list of possible health problems. Notably, cardio-metabolic disease, cancer, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, and depression are all within increased likelihood. Within this categorization are chronic illnesses. This includes diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and high cholesterol. Moving away from the global perspective, about 678,000 Americans die each year from chronic food illness, with the economic cost of nutrition-related chronic diseases being estimated at $16 trillion over the period from 2011 to 2020.

These chronic illnesses are caused by the processing and additives of UPFs, through the extent of them being staples in our day-to-day lives. Lastly, financialization, as previously mentioned, impacts both food accessibility and health disparities across different socioeconomic groups. In high-income countries, UPF consumption is inversely associated with socioeconomic position whereas the reverse is prevalent in low-and-middle-income countries. This pattern of inequitable distribution reinforces and is reinforced by the disproportionate burden of social and ecological harms imposed by major UPF corporations on marginalized groups and lowerincome governments. As the trend of increased consumption of UPFs continues to rise, the overall global shift in diets will continue to worsen. By examining the role of these processes in shaping the global dietary transition toward ultra-processed foods, we can identify potential structural and transformative interventions to mitigate this trend.

Addressing the Challenges: Policy Recommendations Considering the listed healthcare implications and the political economy within the UPF food industry, there is a strong need for regulatory laws that emphasize the importance of monitoring and acting on the healthcare challenges being perpetuated. Regulators have previously made provisions to address food contamination that makes people acutely ill. To put this into perspective, “these regulated contaminants kill an estimated 1,400 Americans per year. By contrast, 1,600 Americans die every day from chronic food illness,” which are the illnesses caused by UPFs. The agencies hold authority for any threat to public health based on food, yet nothing is being actively done. The FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must make an effort to prevent chronic food illness as they do acute food illness. Through deeper regulation and enforcement of food safety laws, the FDA must establish a legal framework for food companies to incentivize change in the prioritization of health. This provides taste, cost, and convenience as genuine factors of concern instead of simply the convenience and cheapness of manufacturing for profit. The USDA comes into play in their collaboration with the FDA. There are previous circumstances where the need was clear with the deadly Shiga toxin-producing E. Coli in 1993; in this case, the USDA can use preventive control measures and its stronger food safety laws, bigger budget, and effective collaboration with the FDA. Without this level of adapted control, public health and safety are at risk of the continuously growing use of ultra-processed foods. In the end, it is a business where wealthy UPF corporations and shareholders continue to commodify society in this financialization of food. Is the serious health risk of chronic food illness worth the profit margins? 

9

Proof of Citizenship, Voter Roll Purges, & Restricted Voting Assistance: Voter Suppression Tactics at the State Level The ballot box can be viewed as a symbol of promise; the epitome of the U.S. democracy that allows citizens to make their voices heard. But is voting really ‘the great equalizer’ of a society that makes the right to vote conditional, that views some eligible voters as legitimate and others as fraudulent? In recent elections, voter suppression has become more rampant throughout the United States, and it has disproportionately impacted people of color (POC) and other marginalized groups. While 30% of all eligible voters are POC, only 22% of votes are actually cast among people of color, illustrating the vast underrepresentation of POC in voting. Meanwhile, white voters are overrepresented in voter turnout because voter suppression generally does not target them as a racial group.

Much of this underrepresentation in voting is attributed to the voter suppression laws being introduced and passed in state legislatures. States like Arizona, Texas, and Alabama have been accused of violating voting rights to the point where the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Department of Justice have stepped in to ensure eligible voters are included in this sacred practice. Some of these cases will be discussed in the current article. Republican legislators who have introduced these bills claim they will make elections more secure and enhance people’s trust in our election system. A major talking point is that recent

elections, most notably the 2020 presidential election, have been invalidated by voter fraud, which to date has not been proven by any existing evidence. These elected officials are abusing their power in an attempt to silence the voices of voters, particularly those who might remove them from office. As this is a crucial election year, it would be beneficial to analyze specific cases of voter suppression so that We the People are aware of the blatant injustices regarding the ballot box.

Arizona’s H.B. 2492 Arizona is just one of several states to implement voter suppression legislation. In March 2022, Arizona’s governor signed into law House Bill 2492, which requires people to provide proof of citizenship/residency to vote in presidential elections or to vote by mail for all elections. In addition, this law would only allow Arizona voters to register using a state form, not a form at the federal level. Two years later on August 2, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and blocked this law due to a lawsuit filed by two Latinx provoting organizations. This case advanced to the Supreme Court, and three weeks after the Circuit Court’s decision, Supreme Court justices ruled that Arizona voters registered by a federal form could vote in presidential elections and by mail.

However, they stated that Arizona had the right to reject applications without proof of citizenship, granting a small win for the RNC and Arizona’s GOP. The motivation to create a voting bill that requires proof of citizenship or residency stems from the claim that noncitizens are voting in federal elections.

However, such occurrences are rare and this act is already considered illegal according to federal law. This faulty argument reveals that GOP lawmakers are

grasping at straws to convince their constituents that our electoral system is at risk. Instead of rooting out votes from noncitizens, this law will reject eligible voters at the ballot box and even purge them from the voter rolls, similar to Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s recent voter purges of 1,600 suspected noncitizens. In Virginia, some voters were eliminated because the state government cited outdated citizenship records from the DMV. Something similar might have occurred in Arizona or other states with voter suppression laws. There is nothing more dishonorable than denying eligible voters the right to vote based on the unsubstantiated claim that people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are illegally voting, or even that the last presidential election was riddled with voter fraud.

Texas’s “Voter Fraud” Investigations The harmful aftermath of Texas voter suppression was brought to attention by Texas Democrats in August 2024 when they requested the Department of Justice’s help in examining potential voting rights violations. Recently, Texas leaders have been purging voter rolls based on suspected noncitizenship, conducting raids on Latinx civil rights organizers’ homes due to voter fraud accusations, and investigating voter registration organizations and groups offering aid to immigrants. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a Latinx civil rights organization, also asked that the Department of Justice intervene after some older members received search warrants on the basis of voter fraud. This unyielding investigation of LULAC senior members is largely credited to Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has persevered in his efforts despite being discouraged by Texas judges. These

10

Right to Vote outrageous acts are dis-proportionately targeting Latinx populations and other POC in that are already Texas, groups underrepresented in voting compared to white voters. Furthermore, Democratic legislators are concerned about how these suppression tactics in Texas are being enforced too close to the 2024 election. In fact, there is a federal law that bans states from purging voter rolls in the 90-day period leading up to federal elections, something that Texas Democrats believe Texas Republicans are blatantly violating. As with Arizona Republicans, GOP leaders in Texas are attempting to find evidence of voter fraud to support their unsupported notions about illegal voting, thereby demonizing POC and immigrants in the process. The fact that the Justice Department had to get involved illustrates how pervasive and degrading these voter suppression efforts are in the state of Texas.

Alabama’s Attempt to Restrict Voter Assistance Voter suppression tactics can even prohibit citizens from helping voters in the registration and voting process, which has occurred in the state of Alabama. Senate Bill 1 in the state legislature, passed in March 2024, makes it illegal for anyone who is not a family member or cohabitant to help someone request, complete, or mail an absentee ballot. Although some exceptions exist, these only apply to those with print disabilities and do not include low literacy voters, blind voters, or voters with other disabilities. Alabama Republicans steadfastly defended this legislation,

claiming it would increase security in elections and prevent unwanted influence.

However, pro-voting groups contended that this law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees that voters with disabilities can choose anyone to assist them in voting. Consequently, the Department of Justice took action to make sure the federal Voting Rights Act was being followed, writing in a court brief that “Alabama may not substitute its judgment for that of Congress or rewrite Section 208.” In other words, the Alabama state legislature cannot modify federal law in their own interests.

This state bill would impact voters with disabilities and voters with low levels of literacy by limiting the pool of people they can ask for help. If these voters do not have family or cohabitants within reach, they might decide against voting because they would not receive assistance. It is unclear how this law would be enforced without extreme levels of policing that seems impractical. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that voting organizations would be scrutinized and perhaps even shut down for attempting to help potential voters. Alabama’s Senate Bill 1 further showcases the GOP’s desperation to block out the voices of their dissenters.

People should be able to receive voting assistance from anyone they wish, not be penalized for getting help from someone other than a family member or someone living with them.

Our Unfortunate Reality The right to cast a ballot is under attack by Republican politicians, and this may continue to be our reality as U.S. politics becomes more polarized. Is our election system really being compromised by voter fraud as these lawmakers claim, or is the real threat the lack of federal oversight? U.S. Representative Terri Sewell (AL-07) has shot down the GOP’s fear-mongering about voter fraud and instead emphasized that the federal government is not doing enough to prevent voter suppression at the state level. Rep. Sewell introduces a valid argument that warrants further investigation by the national government, especially in the election cycles to come. In a country that boasts about democracy, it is undemocratic to snatch away the fundamental right to vote amid barrages of criticism due to baseless claims. These recent suppression tactics call into question whether the U.S. can even call itself a representative democracy. As voters, we may feel powerless to halt voter suppression efforts in state legislatures. However, educating ourselves about these laws is a form of resistance against the politicians advocating for such legislation. After all, these lawmakers must listen to us, their constituents, if they wish to remain in office for the foreseeable future. 

11

A Reflective Criticism of the Elimination of Affirmative Action in College Decisions In June 2023, the US Supreme Court decided the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA v. Harvard) 6-3 along party lines in favor of SFFA, reversing decades of legal precedent. The decision effectively outlawed the practice of affirmative action in college admissions, which intends to compensate for unequal opportunity earlier in life by taking race into account, previously established as constitutional by Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In essence, the decision claimed that Harvard’s practice of race-based affirmative action did not meet standards set in Bakke and the later case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) which require “strict scrutiny” of a practice to permit deviation from the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, technically not overturning either of these cases but essentially prohibiting race-based affirmative action for college admissions entirely. This decision was unsurprisingly among the court’s most controversial. It was a reckless misuse of the 14th Amendment and an abandonment of fundamental American principles of justice. A year later, it is prudent to reflect on the decision, examine its observable and likely effects, and consider the future of college admissions.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

In the case, SFFA argued that Harvard’s admissions practices discriminated against Asian American applicants.

Harvard defended its practices, which are common among higher education institutions, claiming that its account of race in admissions was constitutional and adhered to precedent, only doing so to create fairer outcomes. These arguments, more or less, represent the broader discourse about affirmative action.

Opponents, largely conservative, usually claim it is racist because it treats people differently based on race and puts less qualified applicants in spots deserved by more qualified (generally white or Asian American) applicants. Supporters point out that the practice’s purpose is actively anti-racist, compensating for the widely studied effects of structural racism that give racial minorities, particularly nonwhite and non-Asian American students, better educational opportunities earlier in life.

The Supreme Court’s decision favoring SFFA shows a clear misuse of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of American justice. The injustice of this decision is evident through both examination of purely moral or legal arguments and analysis of the actual and possible effects of affirmative action policy. The primary moral injustice is the implicit statement that racially disadvantaged students are less deserving of education.

This is plainly untrue, as established by core American doctrines.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent points out, the Equal Protection Clause did not support colorblind (not considering race) policies, but actively supported non-colorblind policies to reduce inequalities that may remain after slavery’s abolishment, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) supported the same principles as affirmative action: eliminating segregation and discrimination in schools despite unequal treatment already being unconstitutional. These

12

foundational American ideas clearly support affirmative action under strict scrutiny. The court’s decision against this fact shows that the majority does not view diversity or elimination of segregation as important enough values to legally support affirmative action, which is clearly racist. Further, diversity is not only an important value for fairness, but improves education— diverse learning environments encourage students to understand the historical and modern perspectives of disadvantaged groups.

Diversity in education improves outcomes and fosters student growth.

An examination of empirical evidence and critical thinking shows that not only is the SFFA decision deviant from important principles of justice, its effects and implications are and will be reckless and counterproductive. It is important to note that Asian Americans—the group SFFA claimed discrimination against— already compose disproportionately large amounts of the student population at many selective universities, including Harvard, where Asian Americans made up about 30% of both the class of 2027 and 37% of the class of 2028 despite representing about 7% of the US population. These disproportionate numbers are reflective of differences in educational opportunities, signaling that the decision worked expectedly, increasing racial gaps in access to higher education. This is unsurprising, as research has shown that affirmative action bans predictably decrease underrepresented minority enrollment and increase white enrollment, particularly at selective colleges and universities. Other schools have also seen increases in Asian American enrollment, but while demographic data from the class of 2028 is massively variable and unreliable in predicting long-term effects, the clearest difference has been a slight drop in African American enrollment. It is clear that the decision has had some effect, and it is likely that it will continue to exacerbate racial inequalities in higher education.

In addition to these more obvious points, more nuanced arguments and predictions can be made about the SFFA decision that further show its unjustness. It may lead to repressive legalism, a phenomenon where institutions overcompensate for legal

requirements out of fear of litigation. In this case, educational institutions may actively be more discriminatory despite SFFA not requiring active discrimination to avoid lawsuits alleging disobedience. The common objection that institutions using race-blind processes will rationally decide the best candidates for selection has also received serious scholarly doubt. In an endemically prejudiced society, without regulation, institutions will select candidates discriminatorily. Additionally, the “mismatch hypothesis” that affirmative action places unqualified students in higher education institutions and even leads to failure through this process is severely lacking empirical or scholarly support. While support for affirmative action tends to fall along party lines as it did in SFFA, the decision can even be objected to with conservative values. Many conservatives support the decision ostensibly because it intends to eliminate admissions decisions based on race, encouraging students to expect rewards simply for their race. However, while affirmative action is merely intended to compensate for the effects of structural racism and provide a somewhat even playing field where race can be less of a concern, the SFFA decision still allows students to write essays about their race if they feel it is an important part of their identity, so it may well encourage students now to center applications more around their race.

The decision in SFFA was irresponsible, reckless, and counterproductive. Reflecting after one year of its implementation shows its injustice in greater detail. As a moral decision, it displayed carelessness for people disadvantaged by their race in education. As a legal decision, it abandoned fundamental American principles of justice. Under empirical scrutiny, it is clear that it will lead to both increased inequality and unintended effects in college admissions. As scholarly work, legal ripple effects, and changing college admissions continue to emerge, it will grow clearer and clearer that SFFA was an unjustified decision directly exacerbating racial inequalities. 

13

Minority Parents as Champions of Education: The Microschool Movement Introduction It’s nearly impossible to consume current media reports concerning the education sector without stumbling across the term ‘microschool.’ But what is a microschool? Erroneously, the term is often used interchangeably with ‘PODs,’ and while the two institutions share similar characteristics they remain distinctly different. PODs, created solely in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of most public schools, refer to ad hoc, home-based learning environments. Most of these PODS were established with the intention of being temporary and continued to rely heavily on public school curriculums. Essentially, they are an extension of existing formal learning institutions. What makes microschools so drastically different from PODs, is the fact that they have no mandatory curriculum. Instead, these schools have considerable autonomy when it comes to the organizational structuring of the learning model. Despite this, common trends exist across microschool curricula. Overwhelmingly, these schools tend to emphasize flexible, project-based, experiential learning. There is clear encouragement and expectation for students to champion their own education, evident in the marketing language these schools use. For example, “classrooms” are instead called “studios,” and adults in leadership positions aren’t referred to as “teachers,” but as “guides.” The informality of these institutions that stresses intrapersonal interaction, along with the noticeable rise in support of school choice have cooperatively ensured the creation of an estimated 125,000 microschools in the United States. Even more impressive than the rapid growth of these schools though, is the role they have played in decoupling the historical link between schooling and housing. For decades, social scientists have been concerned with weakening and eradicating this link that has disproportionately affected students of color by limiting their access to educational opportunities as a result of racist and discriminatory housing and school zoning policies. Yet the microschool movement has made advancements where social scientists and supporters of school choice policies could not. More specifically, they have done so by placing power directly in the hands of parents. But we can’t entertain a solely idealistic view of micoschools. It is also important to consider the problems they may create. Take the fact that the websites of most microschools are homogeneously white for example. Homogeneous schools could mean that it is much more likely that these schools could intensify gentrification and racial segregation of students. Any conversation around these schools must remain nuanced and must center the education of students of color.

How can microschools empower parents of color?

The inherent structural organization of microschools invites parental involvement to a larger extent in comparison to traditional and specialized forms of schooling. The positive effects of this involvement on students have been researched

and documented well, with a majority of the literature affirming that students with more involved parents tend to have more positive attitudes towards school, higher attendance rates, and high academic achievement. Obviously, these benefits have not been distributed equally as there remain large achievement gaps between white students and students of color. I, and other social scientists, believe the established microschool movement may offer a potential solution by empowering parents of color and making engagement with the school itself more accessible in three distinct ways: by minimizing the importance of formal letter grades, by allowing parents to dictate accountability standards, and by being geographically accessible.

The function of grades is almost nonexistent in microschools, a distinct deviation from traditional schools that actively work to produce the highest comparative test scores. High test scores tend to be used as a proxy by parents for determining whether a school is “good” or “bad” even in the scope of school choice policies, incentivizing schools to emphasize grades to a dangerous extent. Students too are motivated by grades, which act as extrinsic motivators. However, structured around project-based

14

systems of learning, microschools determine student progress by observing what they refer to as “tangible learning outcomes.”

Methods used to measure this tangible outcome vary from microschool to microschool. For example, Prenda, one of the first and largest microschool providers in the United States, administers diagnostic testing at the beginning of every school year to assess students’ levels. Based on these scores, students and parents cooperatively choose the proper digital learning tools to aid students’ learning and create goals that will be used to assess student achievement in the long run. Comparatively, Acton Academy facilitates meetings with the families of each enrolled student in order to outline specific learning goals and expectations. This happens three more times each school year in order to ensure that students are adhering to guidelines. Goals can range from a commitment to focusing more in class, developing spelling skills, and improving handwriting. For the most part, the majority of microschools operate under some altered form of these models, always including an aspect of parental involvement in determining the curricula, but they rarely administer tests or assign formal letter grades. By eliminating the proxy role grades play in school choice and making parental involvement a necessary function of the curricula, microschools give parents greater autonomy and allow them to advocate more easily for their students. This last part is, arguably, the most important as students of color are often disciplined, suspended, and expelled at higher rates than their white counterparts, limiting their learning time. In line with that fact the “bad behavior” that results in disciplinary action often leads to the misdiagnosis of a learning disability among these students. This occurs so often, that social scientists have coined a term for it. The belief gap, or the difference between what students can accomplish and what teachers believe they can accomplish.

Empowering both parents and students with a designated space for advocacy then is incredibly important and may be easier to implement in microschools.

Policy-makers are and continue to be obsessed with the concept of accountability, and the term has often been at the center of many debates surrounding schooling policy. On one hand, proponents argue that being able to hold teachers accountable is a determining factor of both school and student success. This success is only ensured through the use of teacher evaluations, strict curriculums, and standardized testing they contend. Opponents of accountability provisions point to the impossibility of standardizing education, as it is contingent on so many uncontrollable factors.

Students arrive in the classroom with differing abilities, levels, and learning styles on account of their racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Teachers must be able to cater to these differences in order for students to learn effectively, and they are unable to do so under the rigidity of current accountability provisions that often utilize the threat of termination to incentivize higher test scores.

This is evident within the groundwork of both No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), two of the most sweeping pieces of school choice legislation that are hyper-focused on accountability. Under NCLB, schools were required to test 3rd8th grade students yearly in order to ensure that they were meeting federal “adequate yearly progress” goals. If a school missed these goals they were subject to increasingly more overbearing federal policies. For example, if a school missed goals two years in a row they were required to provide students with the ability to transfer to a different school. If a school missed goals three years in a row they were required to offer free tutoring. Continuous failure to meet goals often resulted in the complete closure of the school or the transition of the school into a charter. Similar provisions are outlined in ESSA. While it eliminated the use of “adequate yearly progress” goals, it continued the tradition of using test scores as measurements of success. In comparison, due to the fact that microschools serve such small populations of students, encourage parental involvement at every level, and de-emphasize

15

the role of grades, parents can more readily hold their students’ teachers accountable. In fact, most microschools employ the use of parent satisfaction surveys and questionnaires in order to ensure that they are meeting and exceeding parent’s expectations for their students’ growth.

One of the greatest problems that continues to limit the scope of current school choice policies is transportation or, in most cases, lack thereof. Though policy differs by state, charter schools and private schools are not always required to provide transportation for students. So, while an education savings account (ESA) or a school voucher might eliminate financial barriers to education, these school choice policies remain useless if parents are unable to provide transportation for their student. Parents of color objectively work longer and more frequently than their white counterparts. Because of this, they typically have a greater reliance on school-provided transport and are directly disadvantaged by this problem. It has further been exacerbated by the current shortage of bus drivers. This results in longer wait times for students using school-provided transport, often causing them to miss hours of school. However, microschools, like charters and private schools, don’t make use of attendance boundaries in determining student enrollment.

While priority may sometimes be given to students who live in geographic areas close to the school, where a student lives does not determine their ability to attend these schools. Due to this and the fact that microschools typically tend to serve less than sixteen students, they currently operate out of a number of institutions: churches, residential houses, storefronts, community centers, and universities. Because of this flexibility, a microschool might be located down the street from a family, eliminating the need for reliable transport completely. While charter schools and private schools additionally blur the connection between schooling and housing, the ability of microschools to manipulate zoning policies means that they can sometimes be more accessible than other forms of schooling, widening the choices and expanding the autonomy of minority parents of K-12 students. In effect, they are more convenient.

The reality of the situation It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of microschools founders are white. The National Microschooling Center (NMC) confirms this in a 2023 sector analysis of all microschools currently operating in the United States. They report that of founders, 64.4% are white. In the same sector analysis however NMC reports that over half of microschool founders, 52.5%, started schools because they were motivated to increase opportunities for underserved and marginalized communities. This hasn’t translated in practice. The marketing of microschools like West End Acton Academy (VA), Citrus Grove Microschool (AZ), and Wisdom Warehouse (FL) to name a few, display little to no students of color. This observation is incredibly problematic especially since it is largely white “guides” who are purporting messages of equality and benefiting from operation in more affordable commercial buildings in urban communities. The fact that these microschools tend to be homogenous creates another dilemma involving confirmation bias, or the tendency of an individual to actively seek out information that reaffirms their views and ignores all others.

Because the curriculum of microschools is so flexible, “guides” have the ability to teach whatever they want. This is further problematized by the fact that there is no formal accreditation

requirement for microschools like there is for public, private, and charter schools and that there is additionally no requirement for “guides” to be licensed teachers. Anyone can open a microschool and anyone can teach in them. Given the current contentious arguments surrounding the history curriculum, particularly the teaching of critical race theory (CRT), there’s nothing stopping parents opposed to this curriculum from mobilizing and opening their own microschool. In fact, according to the NMC most microschools were started by parents themselves. As mentioned, microschools additionally have incentive to seek establishment in urban areas where commercial buildings may be cheaper and with the expanding support of school choice policies, white parents are moving to more urban areas in droves and bypassing the established public and charter schools in the area. Research has documented this recent phenomenon well, revealing that “a predominantly nonwhite neighborhood’s chance of gentrification more than doubles” when white parents are able to capitalize on school choice policies.

Conclusion Microschools, dubbed ‘the new frontier,’ certainly have the potential to transform the education system for the better I think. This is especially the case for families of color who haven’t benefited from school choice policies the way their white counterparts have. However, their current structure and organization threaten to do more harm than good on behalf of these individuals by providing an “out” for white parents who frown upon public education and curricula that teach a complete history of America. However, the fact that parental involvement in schooling is a large determinant of student achievement cannot be ignored and forces us to more critically consider the role of microschools as they foster more parental involvement than any other existent form of education. If the founders of these schools truly want to combat achievement gaps between students as they say, they must make an active effort to foster racial and socioeconomic integration and create an environment not only where students and parents of color are seen but are heard as well. 

16

Imagining Beyond American Rage

Imagining Beyond Intro: a Lacanian Explanation and Justification for Alternatives Rage is surging throughout the nation - flooding down the Rocky Mountains, rising amongst the corn fields in Central Plains, growing under Alaskanian auroras and galloping in the deserts of New Mexico. More importantly, I, along with many others, find none of the mainstream explanations compelling. Thus, I am trying to offer a different explanation here via a philosophical and psychoanalytic approach. With many elements coming from continental philosophy and a heavy focus on Lacanian psychoanalysis, this article seeks to rethink the Trump victory and then justify an open space for bold imaginations as a response. With regards to theories applied, a radical-left version of Lacanian Psychoanalysis is at the heart. Jacques Lacan, known for his confusing words and paranoiac arrogance, is a controversial French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist. His reading of Freud based on Hegelian dialectics, structural linguistics and anthropology is very influential. In addition, the radical potential of his theory has been excavated in many ways. Slavoj Žižek is the most notable one, who is also notoriously controversial. However, these theories connect subtle personal feelings and an acute critique of the current social ideology, through which I wish to provide readers with personal resonances and theoretical critique at the same time.

Rethinking the American Rage

Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!

You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!

-King Lear, Act III, Scene II Rage is a mere outcome of something historical. Therefore it is crucial to see how the dark clouds gather prior to the rainstorm of rage. The next step is to think about the mechanism of such a rainstorm, which then retroactively forged our understanding of previous dark clouds. Thus, this is a intertwined process, and it changes along the present, which helps us to excavate left-over

truths buried in the ashes of that burning rage across America. A nice African American staff member once told me that people were willing to work hard back then. Her memory echoes the words of a Teamsters member, who mentioned decent work for “honest workers who are fairly paid.” It was a time when one of the parent’s salaries was sufficient to raise a family. MAGA supporters would also agree with this nostalgia, rejoicing a cropped picture of “an earlier era (that) has the warm glow of childhood remembrance.” Whatever people recall, the uncomfortable present has exiled their passion to the past.

According to NBC, since they started the poll in 2012, the percentage of US citizens who think the nation is on the wrong track is consistently above 50%. This isn’t a good sign for group projects of any kind. On a family trip for instance, if half isn’t satisfied, then you know in the SUV, there will be a troublesome juvenile, a crying baby, an upset mother, and an irritable father. The precious vacation ends in a disastrous symphony of arguments. Unfortunately, right now, America also has a musical concert: a clamorous Duet of political alternation. Since the 2016 election, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been reelected. This Duet is just like a pendulum swinging between Pepsi and Coca-Cola: they are drastically different but essentially similar. “Pepsi wasn’t good enough, so we tried CocaCola. Coca-Cola didn’t work either, while Pepsi’s new version is out, with a thicker taste and enhanced refreshment. We’re in. The most important selection in history!” Moreover, to show a difference from the last time it was on this side, the pendulum is reaching a new maximum height with a larger scope.

Apparently, there is something wrong with Uncle Sam. Although Uncle Sam is the assemblage of 300 million people, it also embodies characters that can be discussed as a singular entity. Rage is a personal feeling that is felt everywhere, and the inner-tension between personal feelings and national phenomena offer us two ways to approach it. Therefore, I’ll first arbitrarily take the United States as a single titanic figure. Placing him/her in a clinical scenario, we could indirectly understand where the rage originates. For a Lacanian psychoanalyst, a person’s rage is considered a defensive mechanism. Rage occurs when the Self in reality differs greatly from the Ideal Self. It isn’t hard to imagine a kid in a rage reacting to a

17

shameful mistake. He/she cannot fit into the ideal image of him/herself that is desired by his/her parents. He/she would deny any accusations and refuse reason and logic. While it’s obvious that the kid is embarrassed in front of others, he/she is also embarrassed in front of him/herself. The kid is not only denying what others say, but is also denying his/her own realization of what has happened. In other words, this is a retreat from logic into a preverbal chaos of feelings and violence. As for adults, the exact mechanism also applies. Think about a dramatic film where the antagonist faces a major challenge and turns into rage. It is also the denial of that major challenge or catastrophe that makes the plot more intriguing.

Since the collapse of the USSR, the US has always been dominating the world. However, the US hegemony is under question, and Uncle Sam desperately tries to stay in the spotlight.

Couldn’t we compare these emotions with an identity crisis?

America has been at its peak for so many years, and thus, a fall from that height will be devastating: everyday life here is built on the American economic, financial, military, and cultural hegemony.

In addition, the ideal image of America surrounded by the lingering golden smell of the Clinton and Bush administration still lingers on.

The dichotomy between memories of the ideal America and the present is thus unacceptable, and Uncle Sam reacts with rage.

It is under this context that we could take a closer look at the very word “rage.”As it’s so inclusive and wide-reaching, “Rage” only functions within a constellation of other words that marks the coordinate system. However, from King Lear’s rage in the storm to the anger embodied in a shoe thrown at George Bush, the common defense mechanism mentioned above still ties various feelings to this inter-subjective concept of “rage.” Via a more theoretical Lacanian Psychoanalytic approach, rage is considered the disjunction between experience and the Imaginary Order (imaginaire). It is through the Imaginary Order that one can

recognize oneself as an independent being. In addition, the Imaginary Order is reciprocally based on the Symbolic Order (symbolique), the realm of pure words and symbols. The realm of words is purely symbolic, and the Imaginary Order interferes to create a subject who can organize these words. Or rather, the way the chain of words flow is where the subject emerges. The third order is the Real, (réel) which is worth mentioning but absent from this article. In brief, the two orders combined are everything that is sayable. It’s the operating system for Earth Online Simulator.

The Symbolic Order resembles an eternal ouroboros chain of words, and the Imaginary Order is how these words speak through subjects. This system is justified by itself. However, as Gödel's incompleteness theorem reveals, for a system built on Peano axioms, it is always incomplete and can generate a contradiction. While quoting Gödel's theorem here would piss mathematicians and logicians off, such analogy underlines the inevitable malfunction of our rhetorics. Rhetorics, a creature coming from both the Symbolic and the Imaginary, does contain everything mentally tangible, yet the surplus of the realm of words still exists. Since they are everything else, they swarm in whenever a malfunction happens. The primordial voidness leaks in as the rhetorics shorts out and creates cracks. Furthermore, if rhetorics is about sanity, logic, and words, the other side is then about madness, chaos, and physical impulse. With a failure of rhetorics comes the destructive turbulence of swelling darkness, and such feeling occupies our mind.

Rage is thus a product of a failed rhetoric. Rage reveals itself in betrayal, in disappointment, in assaults, etc. There is always something destroyed, and expectations fail. Whether it is trust in someone, belief in something, or certitude in oneself, something is berserkly invaded. This is how the up-mentioned malfunction takes place. Another essential part of the word “rage” is that it’s excessive, it’s violent and hard to control. Usually, when something unexpected happens, frustration does come. Yet, we can calm ourselves down and adapt, where we establish a new explanation. The rhetoric evolves. But when the scale of discrepancy between understanding and reality is enormous, we can’t easily give an explanation. This layer of logic and language therefore fails to suppress the desire and emotions beneath, and a stretched-out rhetoric gives way to an out-burst of rage.

18

Prescribing Rage “We used to be a proper country.”

-Random dude under a short video, commenting on a memory where brown kids dressed up as Taliban and white kids as Bush to play dodgeball during halloween

As an example, think of a primitive-human-v.s.-moderntechnology scenario, where restarting every four years isn’t really helping. People cannot understand what the heck is going on.

Sometimes, grievance comes as we’ve done everything we can.

The sudden betrayal of a once trusted techno-servant mires us greatly. We have full-heartedly placed our most sincere logic and indifferent scientific reasoning on the altar for the god of technology. Yet, there isn’t any response to our imploration.

There’s no daily common sense, science, or logic to turn to, and all are left alone to this unapproachable reality, an un-sayable unknown. In denial, we resort to the primordial force of destruction. This is when we would hit the reset button harder, if we are not mad enough to directly unplug the whole thing, that is.

Returning to the question of American rage, now we can see how it works. During my chats with others, many are strongly confused about why people vote for the other side. Whether it is about the economy or traditional values, people find themselves unable to understand others. This is where the excessive part of rage declares its own existence. Not being able to talk about something or articulate an intersubjective verbal bridge is precisely a failure of our rhetorics. We have lost the ability to weave words into a net that upholds ourselves and others. It is clear that life is getting hard for millions of Americans. Trade war, COVID, and increasing daily expenses are tangible changes on the storage shelf. Meanwhile, the economic inequality is worsening, as the top 5% was the only group that had gained wealth after the Great Recession, and this gap has further widened during COVID. Racial inequality hasn’t been reduced significantly as well.

Moreover, the once unquestionable Uncle Sam is being challenged and domestic conflicts pierce through the affluence built on American dominance. This is a major malfunction of the “American” rhetoric embodied in what Trump described as the establishment. The words like “expert”, “human rights”, “hope” have failed. The American people’s experience doesn't fit what the experts have told them, and it’s sometimes hopeless. This collapse therefore demands a new way of explaining, a new rhetoric.

However, simply depicting how rage is generated isn’t enough.

Why did the old one fail? Why has Trump captured this change, and what should we do?

While understanding the mechanism of rage helps us diagnose the current situation, it's equally important to examine how this rage is being channeled and manipulated. As mentioned, rage emerges in a total failure to describe unexpected incidents. The harsh daily life in a declining US requires a response. Usually, destructive emotions are drained away, like flushing the toilet: the remnants of our life, the surplus of digestion that sustains the body, are sent to a sewage abyss. This can be done by a promise from the new president, a vision of hope and unity, or the simple fact that the office party has switched. Nevertheless, the toilet is clogged as the system fails, and feces returns from darkness. We rise into anger as we get tired of the pendulum that swings from one side to the other yet never introduces something new. In addition, anger always requires an object, which Americans are prescribed. Democrats and Republicans have been taking advantage of the demand for new rhetorics to enhance their positions which rely on the old rhetoric. They change the expression, the intensity, but not the structure.

Rage can be drained by pulling the fragmented events and feelings together and thus forging a story. Looking back to 9/11, there was a gap between the actual event and the coming of rage. This gap, where people say, “I wasn’t angry because I couldn’t believe it was happening,” emerges when people’s lives are invaded by the brutal fact that immense discontent exists with the US-led world order, expressed by some extremes through a ferocious explosion. Actually, the word “fact” was nailed after people were taught about rage, and before that, it was still an event. 9/11 is now remembered as an attack by an inhumane terrorist group, which is essentially correct.

However, rhetoric differs from a simple definition: this rhetoric complex contains retrospectively revised memories and deep feelings, and the patriotic view decontextualized the tragic 9/11 event. It implies a US-dominant worldview, as things are simplified into vicious attacks launched by inhumane residua of civilization in a modern world led by the US and her liberal democracy ideals. By concluding that an inhumane object -not human, and thus not deserving common sense and cannot be understood, and is only eligible for total annihilation- is responsible for this heterogeneous incident, all towering wrath could find its catharsis in explosions cast down on Afghanistan.

Patriotic rhetoric conquered the indescribable event, which was much more cold, ugly, and devouring.

America responded with a worldwide anti-terrorism war.

However, there is hardly any universal liberal democracy and human rights cause, but rather, a reaction to the panic evoked by the dramatic scenes: the falling of a sign of American masculine

19

power, a symbol of a pumping cash-made heart. This resembles an unexpected weakness of the primordial and violent father, the American leviathan state machine, who is there to uphold our casual daily life. As we dwelled into the belief that an alien enigma of terrorism is to blame, we became psychasthenic and distributed terrorist-Muslim- limited headscarves to people we didn’t like. As a matter of fact, after egregiously wasting billions of dollars in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the US failed to cultivate established democracy there, not even something close. In brief, the grievous 9/11 was an invasion into the ordinary petit-bourgeois peaceful American life. At that very moment, the American dream was questioned. However, this dream returns in a more “real” way, identifying “The Other,” the enemy, conversely enhancing itself. By telling everyone that 9/11 has woken America up, the American dream is even further entrenched. For us, after the dream is cracked, we continue to dream in reality, or, in other words, dream of reality.

The 9/11 example demonstrates how national rage can be channeled through rhetoric and narrative construction. This pattern becomes particularly relevant when we examine the current political landscape, where similar mechanisms are at work, albeit in a different context. Returning to the latest election, a dualistic division is also seen in the current political polarization.

The inner conflict replaces the attack from outside, though the intensity is not comparable, yet. Trump’s triumph, through which the frustration with the current system is cried out, is the new rhetoric that addresses the invasion of our time, which is not a short explosion from without but a long, tortuous descent from within. Trump promised to “Make America Great Again” and get rid of the deep state. His survival from assassination brings his figure into messianic holinesses.

People reaffirm their belief in a savior or the only way out when they are desperate, as there’s not much we can do after we are stuck in a one-way bus rushing into the wild. Imagining an umbrella enemy is pretty simple and easy, and this is more of an aesthetic expression than a serious reflection. However, this is absolutely what should happen after the system fails its people.

Individuals find themselves helpless, facing difficult lives, so they resort to a crusade. No longer could they shoulder the complex dialect of being a person in social and poli-economic relations, as they have spent all their efforts fighting a full-out war against this never-ending rainy day, and they are now all wet. Many Americans are too tired to handle the subjectivity of perpetual pain and rebirth, and they thus devote all and every part of their passion and action in a collective momentum. One is now a part of this vague figure; hence, one no longer has to bear the struggle of life. This fight, along with a surging anger, is redirected to the dichotomy between “US” and “THEM.” “i” in minuscule is replaced by the uppercase “US,” one no longer needs to make choices or shoulder a singular existence. All the wills are sacrificed to that brutal, masculine father, and one dissolves oneself into this configuration.

Trump successfully addressed this tide and has been sanctified into the embodiment of people’s anger, for now at least.

His ideas have successfully captured this anger, and by offering a

way to say the anger, he prescribed Americans rage of his style. The American rage is held hostage by him, and in this sense, the democrats are somehow correct in accusing Trump of being fascist, hitting the mark by a fluke. Although there are huge differences between Trump and Hitler, they follow the same paradigm. Hitler responded to the Germans’ frustration and became the premier constitutionally. Hitler pointed out enemies like the Jewish people within and the international order without. Trump, naming domestic enemies and claiming that the rest of the world is taking advantage of America, is abiding by a similar logic. To put it in an awfully simple vulgar way, a malfunctioning democracy slides towards tyranny, and fascism emerges after the capitalist liberal democracy collapses.

Even if it isn't Trump, there will still be a Slunp alike. And even if it isn’t a republican, there will still be a democrat alike. All revolves around the decline of America and the discrepancy between the American dream and reality. Trump will lift tariffs, withdraw from other parts of the world and reduce taxation, Harris would continue military support, try to mend relations with allies, and rais taxation. However, a raise in tariff will make daily necessity even more expensive, his withdrawal will weaken US dollar dominance, and taxation cut will just widen the rich-poor gap. Harris, on the other side, will exhaust America’s military prestige and over stretch the US, and will waste taxations on corruption or bureaucracy. They are all trying to keep the US dominance, which is necessary for any domestic prosperity.

Relying on finance, there was still enough money that could “tickle-down” back then. The American people were able to live with gigantic monstrous pharmaceuticals industry, financial crises caused by irresponsible private groups yet solved by government and taxation, and brutal global interferences with a ridiculous amount of expenditure. Unfortunately, things have changed.

In the end, the liberal-left democrats who talk about identity politics all day long and the conservative reactionary right MAGAs concerned with “common sense” and the good old days are symbiotic. They recognize themselves by deprecating the other side, without which there’s no one to blame. However, it’s a distraction in its essence. There isn’t a true original America which

20

we could retreat to, or to put it differently, all the versions of the United States are true. Rage disguises the pain of bearing our own failure and holding our subjectivity accountable. The American dream is about countless possible futures, not the predetermined and domesticated one we have now.

For the American people in rage,

he did not know that it was already “ behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night…

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

”

-The Great Gatsby

The seemingly neutral, apolitical techno-centeredness rules our life. Since the collapse of the USSR, western democracy has been the only correct answer. Social problems are technical issues, and experts can solve them. We are taught about the norm: we can succeed as long as we are intelligent and hardworking enough, and we can be optimistic if we adjust our minds and feelings correctly. If we can’t succeed, we are lazy, self-indulgent, and narcissistic. If we are always sad and pessimistic, there’s something wrong with our psychological mechanism, which could be corrected via scientific treatment. This is all for our own good.

Or is it? Compared with the old dictatorship, where he orders us to do something by physical force, we are actually in a new one. He puts on the mask of science, producing our desire for us. He knows what we want better than ourselves, and we could hardly even think in another way. The statement that “the USA isn’t democratic at all” seems to be so ridiculous that people hardly seriously consider it. The marriage between capitalism and Western democracy, which gives birth to prosperity, is as firm as mathematical equality. We have loads of movies thinking about the end of the world, but not even one that is talking about an alternative to the current life that doesn’t contain aliens who somehow always land in the US.

This hegemony also colonizes the future and the past.

History is deconstructed into countless fragments. Consequently, Imagining Between Shits there are so many ways to explain history that we are dragged into absolute relativism. No longer could a collective understanding of The only difference I ever found between the Democratic the past persist, and what’s left is only innumerable events, words, leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is and stories that are not very different from Tiktok videos. I am not skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the ear down. appealing for the return of a Stalinist uniform understanding, yet voidness is the back side of Stalinism: everything is the only thing -Huey Long in Stalinist telling. Now, we are dominated by nothing as the only thing. What I would like to invite you is to create a “something” that carries infinite potential. Besides the past, our future is Vientos del pueblo me llevan, The winds of the people carry me, colonized as well. The alien possibility of infinite futures has been the winds of the people blow me on, vientos del pueblo me arrastran, domesticated through assessments and calculations to be placed me esparcen el corazón scattering this heart of mine on goods shelves. We can’t articulate possible futures without y me aventan la garganta. and readying my throat along. words, as possibility itself sprouts in our minds, and only with verbal logic can we even think. We are now deprived of the -Miguel Hernández language to describe our frustrations. Everything is formalized into Translation by A. S. Kline statistics, and we lose our human voice. No wonder the American people feel the rage. What could they possibly do after their discontent is silenced? This rage is justified, or rather, it doesn’t Having examined how rage has been prescribed and even care whether it is justified at all. Completeness of the sorrow how the current system is doomed, we can now imagine and anger returns in an overwhelming tide beyond words, which is possibilities that lie beyond this false choice. We live in a gray, the return of the oppressed. The sublime scarlet rage is rising into repetitive, suffocating modernity. Life is filled with splices of existence. dramatic information. It has inundated us, and even horrible videos are already getting monotonous. There is nowhere to Perhaps some find the clash between Trump and escape from this gloomy, repetitive reality, and there seems to Democrats releasing, where all the suppressed anger returns, be not much we can do except gorge ourselves on fragmented expelling years-long numbness. Nevertheless, it’s still the same short videos and posts to get a little rest from the voidness and pseudo dilemma. The two candidates are just two sides of the helplessness of living. By surrendering our desire to algorithms, same coin, and their discrepancy is the foundation for their very we are indeed the walking dead. Maybe worse, as we still have existence. Only by pointing out the enemies could they realize who consciousness: a gradually dying body with a gradually dying they are. However, is there a difference in essence? No matter mind, as opposed to zombies with an inanimate body and an how the administration changes, isn’t the defense industry always empty head.

21

prevailing? Aren't the billionaires who hedge their bets consistently winning? Aren’t the nameless, from vendors in NYC to seasonal workers at the border, still stuck intheir lives? For the time being, Trump is riding on the tide of rage. Initially, he was not one of the establishments, but his last administration did prove that he wasn’t very different either. The tide of rage is always there, and we must imagine something completely different to say to it. This is the utmost honest cry from the people across the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes, and it deserves a sincere and wholehearted response.

We could go beyond this. We should go beyond this. We must abandon the stiff, squelching picking and leap into a truly free space with explosive possibilities. We can ask for something that is neither Pepsi or Coca. In addition, we should remember that Pepsi and Coca-Cola aren’t the only options, and this present is based on contingency instead of inevitability. Possibilities are set free through reimagining the future, reimagining the present, and reimagining the past.

Do not underestimate the power of imagination. We used to have the ability to imagine, or, more precisely, the dare to imagine. A gloomy helplessness haunts this place through its embodiment of whataboutism and be-practicalism, yet the coldblood calculation of the market underestimates the force of erratic and elusive imaginations. From forsaken humility grows the sparkle for something new. Imagination is more than practical, as it is precisely imagination that responds to the unique human part which could never be assessed. This surplus at the core of being a human is much more realistic than flying short videos and floating balance sheets. Mark Fisher wrote a book, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? and it’s already been 15 years since. We should ask this question again in the time of American rage.

Revisiting the Lacanian structure I mentioned, the dare to imagine is also pivotal. It is important to realize that there is no complete structure to dwell in. There is no such thing as a Whig history to rely on. And the future and the past are battlefields that will never be settled. The Ideal Self always fails, and nothing is permanent. There is no home to go back to, and we are forever travelers wandering in the wilderness. It is only after recognizing the nomadic rootless state can we embrace a space of total nothingness, and it is precisely this nothingness that is

capable of igniting explosive possibilities in every direction.

Moreover, this eternal return of death and rebirth is where the subjectivity really unfolds, where we become ourselves.

Therefore, the emancipatory and liberating imagination is important: it is about what could, not what will, is or was. It constantly puts everything under question like a hysteric, and constantly liberates oneself.

This reimagining of possibilities is not merely an academic exercise but a practical necessity. As Slavoj Žižek's perspective helps illuminate, the power of imagination has concrete political implications. He once mentioned that the youth should echo like the wind. That is a wind of imagination: They can protest, and so on… But the system will move on. We live in an era where the truth is not hidden, but is promulgated everywhere. Whatever media you use. They are talking about ecological catastrophe, war, Palestinians dying in Gaza, but nothing happens. This does not mean we should do nothing. We can… now, this is a philosophical point… We can change the very situation within which nothing can be done. In many ways, for example, you change the way of discussion so as to mobilize people. You organize boycotts, strikes, and so on.

And this is for the young people to do. It is not enough for them “to be heard.” The voice of the young people must echo, not in the respectful sense, “Young people have said what they wanted to say, but now we have to be realistic.” NO! The voice of young people must echo like the wind! [bora, Slovenian] A wind that touches everything, that changes the field. And here I even argue for… not against people, but in moderate form, forcible means: sabotage, and so on. People must be sobered up. Do not listen to the empty phrase, “Yes, but non-violently.” There is violence, not of killing people, but of sabotaging the system, which is needed.

This is what is expected of the young. Be the wind!

-Slavio Zizek Now, in conclusion, I solemnly invite you to join the party of wippy-wappy imaginations, and please enjoy your own wind. Imagine that: One morning You are gonna wake up in a different world -“Folly”, by Sea Power 

22

Are refugees still welcome?

How a hybrid war undermines human rights at the EU Border The EU has imposed numerous sanctions against Belarus for human rights abuses, for assisting Russia's military invasion against Ukraine, and because of a fraudulent presidential election in August 2020. Afterward, the Belarusian government began distributing Belarusian visas and coordinating the illegal passage of migrants into Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The EU has perceived these events as an attempt to weaponize refugees for hybrid warfare and retaliate for sanctions. In the summer of 2021, thousands of refugees from the Middle East and Africa attempted to enter the EU via its borders with Belarus, resulting in a humanitarian crisis that continues today. Rumors regarding a safe route to enter the EU via Belarus reached thousands of people in conflict areas, motivating them to leave their families and try their luck for a better future. In some accounts, the Belarusian government has utilized their national aircrafts on their own cost to bring migrants to Belarus. After reaching a national airport, buses would take migrants to the border region and leave them with instructions on how to reach a possible crossing point. What those people only found out once they reached the border was that they were considered weapons and threats to security.

Instead of being welcomed, their asylum rights were taken and they were illegally thrown back over the border into a dark and dangerous forest with no humanitarian aid. Even though this has been condemned by human rights organizations and even ruled unlawful by a court in Warsaw, Polish border guards disregard both, denying refugees their right for an asylum trial and pushing them back into the danger they tried to escape. Since the start of the migrant crisis three years ago, statistics as of July 2024 from Poland, Lithuania and Latvia show that border guards have stopped more than 150,000 illegal crossings, mostly in Poland.

Why is this a humanitarian crisis?

It is increasingly difficult to receive up-to-date information about the situation around the border, due to a no-entry buffer zone introduced by the Polish government that prohibits access to the area for journalists, humanitarian organizations, citizens, and anyone else. The area currently traps an estimated amount of 4000 migrants without access to proper shelter, food or medication.

Refugee rights groups have spoken out against the buffer zone, saying it will prevent them from assisting migrants who cross the border in remote areas and are in need of food or medical assistance. At least 94 people have died at the border since the crisis began due to the inhumane conditions in the forest, mostly

including little children, mothers undergoing childbirth and older people. NGOs estimate that over 160 people have died as a result of drowning in marshy areas or sub-zero temperatures.

Many more people might have lost their lives in the “death zone”, which is not accessible to anyone but the Belarusian military. Yousef, a 48-year-old teacher from Damascus, Syria, shares his account of an encounter with Belarusian border guards who aggressively beat him before shoving him under the barbed wire border fences into Poland with Journalists: “They hit us, my friend broke his nose, they took our money, they took our passports, they took everything.” Amnesty International and other humanitarian organizations accuse Poland of illegally pushing back migrants with full knowledge of abuses and human rights violations they face on the other side of the fence or back in their home countries. But, with the change in government in Poland from the right-wing and nationalist Law and Justice Party (PiS) to a more liberal government, the policy on the Belarusian border also changed. Unfortunately, not for the better.

Tusk administration At a conference in May 2024, Aleksandra Chrzanowska from the Association of Legal Intervention said “In the accounts of migrants turning to humanitarian organizations for help in recent weeks, there are more and more stories of escalation of violence. Beating, kicking, destroying documents, phones, using pepper spray, stripping naked – such practices are faced by foreigners not only by Belarusian, but also by Polish services.” In October 2023, the Liberal Democratic Congress (KLD) party took office, headed by the Prime Minister Donald Tusk. While in opposition, Tusk and his allies frequently criticized the treatment of migrants by the former nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) government. Tusk’s party initially voted against building a barrier along the border with Belarus and strongly opposed pushing back migrants rather than hearing their asylum claims. His rhetoric and actions have profoundly changed since he came to power, for which he is now facing the criticism of human rights organizations, arguing that Tusk goes against Poland’s obligations under international and EU asylum law.

From defending migrants and their right for asylum, Tusk has started introducing even harsher regulations than the previous nationalist government. Previously referencing the

23

number of helpless children that are among the migrants, he switched to making numerous statements about the need to strengthen the border, as “in 80 cases out of 100 we are dealing with organized groups of young men, 18-30 years old, very aggressive.” He fails to acknowledge that there is a general increase of migrants, including those from the most vulnerable groups like children or the elderly. This change in heart becomes evident in his policies.

On July 26th, 2024, the Polish Parliament approved a controversial proposal to decriminalize in certain circumstances the use of firearms by border guards in selfdefense. The government justified this bill against criticism from human rights organizations by referencing a 21-year-old soldier who died after he was stabbed trying to prevent migrants from entering the country, which they blame on the increasing number of “aggressive gangs of migrants”. The public was largely in support of this bill, with polls finding 86% support for allowing soldiers to use their weapons against attacks by some migrants. Strong adverse reactions from the public could be seen a month before when three soldiers were detained and handcuffed after they fired over 40 warning shots towards a group of migrants trying to break through the fence. The upcoming presidential election might be why Donald Tusk changed his rhetoric and actions so strongly. He might be trying to appeal to his potential voters and secure the position against the Law and Justice party.

This month, October 2024, Donald Tusk has presented plans to suspend the right to asylum within Poland’s territory. Such strategies are not new in Europe.

Poland is joining an increasing number of countries closing their borders to migrants due to public opinion or security reasons. Germany has lately increased its border controls.

Hungary has refused to comply with European standards regarding migration for years and is facing various sanctions and heavy criticism. Nevertheless, suspending the asylum law is a clear breach of international and human rights law. It would help make those illegal pushbacks, using force and now also guns, legal. I can’t stress enough how scary such a prospect is. Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Europe, Dinushika Dissanayake, shares my concerns and says: Suspending the right to seek asylum is flagrantly unlawful and Prime Minister Tusk knows this. EU member states like Poland are playing politics with the rights of refugees and migrants. From Poland to Finland, Greece and Germany, so-called emergencies are being weaponized to enact laws that gravely undermine access to asylum and the protection from refoulement.

These proposals endanger the rights of people seeking safety. They penalize people who may have been subject to violence and trafficking , or lured

to EU borders under false pretenses. They provide for a temporary and territorial suspension of ‘the right to submit asylum applications’, affecting both people crossing ‘irregularly’ along the land border and to those at official border crossing points.

Implications on Europe The EU is facing a difficult situation, with many countries having to find a balance between a growing right-wing power calling for stronger regulations of borders and immigration, and humanitarian responsibilities under national and EU law. It is worth noting that as a former President of the European Council, Tusk is the best-connected Eastern European politician with the European Union and all his actions are considered to be well aligned with the government of the EU. Looking at the case of Poland, Italy, Germany and other countries, we can draw important assumptions about a rather stringent future of migration politics in the EU. EU member states have experimented with restrictive interpretations of asylum and international law, such as increased border controls, pushbacks, and adjusted welfare benefits for migrants. This trend does push the boundaries of existing legal frameworks, raising concerns among human rights advocates and the EU itself. It is illegal to deport individuals to countries where they may face danger. Yet several countries, including Italy, have begun sending migrants rescued at sea, regardless of origin, to several African countries designated as safe to bypass the asylum process. Italy has also established asylum centers in Albania, where deportations have begun. This setup allows responsibility to shift between Albania and Italy, often resulting in more rejected asylum requests.

However, the case of Poland shows that even liberals can quickly change their morals and policies once in power and facing responsibility for both migrants and representing their citizens.

Priorities Simultaneously, Ukrainian refugees are arriving at the Polish border and are welcomed by the same border guards who push

24

back migrants trying to enter from the Belarusian side. The incentive of both public and politicians in welcoming and helping Ukrainians has been incredible to experience.

People opened their hearts to strangers, already waiting for them at the border and taking anyone who needed it into their car and then their home like long-lost relatives. Since the beginning of the war against Ukraine, 18.1 million Ukrainians crossed the Polish border. This number includes every border crossing in both directions, but combined with the statistic that 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled Ukraine so far, it still allows us to assume that several million of refugees crossed the border into Poland due to the war.

One million Ukrainians are currently residing in Poland and are registered as refugees with a Polish social security number (Pesel). 4000 people are caught in the forest at the Belarusian border. Analyzing those numbers, it becomes clear that Poland has the capacity for 4000 migrants without a significant destabilizing effect.

The EU firmly stands against the instrumentalizetion of refugees and migrants for political purposes and contributes to the dehumanization of those affected people through treating humans as weapons used in hybrid warfare. An alternative reaction of Poland that would be more in line with EU principles, whether generally upheld or not, could be to challenge Lukaschenko - the Belarusian president - and accept the asylum requests of the migrants.

Belarus does not have indefinite resources. Through processing the asylum requests of those people, Lukaschenko would have to realize that 4000 people do not have a destabilizing effect on the EU. He might attempt to send more, but does Belarus really have the means to send enough refugees to truly destabilize the EU? I doubt it.

We have to ask, what did Lukaschenko want to achieve and how do we best respond? By treating a humanitarian crisis like hybrid warfare and responding with illegal pushbacks, increasing border control, and even violence, we are contributing to Lukaschenko’s cause of creating a security threat and a border crisis. Who wins if we forget our humanity and even the essence of our laws?

The increasing influence of right-wing parties has created an internal threat to what the EU stands for, and migrants are used as a tool to further their cause. How can we justify the discrepancy with which we treat them? Are people worth less simply because they are used as part of an act of retaliation by the Belarusian government? Where do we draw the line between stranger and friend, is it the language, skin tone or how many borders lie in between our homes? Weaponizing humans is not only against laws, but also against our human morals and should be condemned.

But it is equally wrong to punish those who happen to be caught in the middle of two parties fighting a political war and to treat them as less human than what we believe we would deserve ourselves. 

25

Dialogue to Direct Attack: The Transformation of the Presidential Debate

Presidential debates are a long-standing tradition and the centerpiece of the American presidential election process. They allow voters to compare the priorities and plans of candidates and decide who they want to be their representative for the next four years. Originally, these debates offered a unique opportunity for Americans, and the world, to get new insights into the plans of presidential candidates and make more informed choices.

However, recent election cycles have seen a noticeable shift from policy debates to personal attacks. This trend is not the result of a single party, but rather a systematic shift in American politics that focuses more on personal attacks than policy.

A Brief History of Presidential Debates The prominence of Presidential debates is relatively new in American history. The first widely seen Presidential debate was in 1960 and featured John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The two candidates held four debates throughout their campaign with both candidates discussing their positions on economic enhancement, foreign policy, and more. Notably, both candidates emphasized the importance of image in political success and showed respect for each other. 16 years later, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford brought the debates back for the 1976 presidential election. Since the 1976 election, presidential debates have been held in each election cycle. The majority of debates continued to focus on policy throughout the 20th century. While personal disagreements and critiques did happen, they were generally rare and tame.

From Policy to Personal The 21st century brought a steady increase in the number of personal attacks involved in presidential debates. The 2016 and 2020 elections, in particular, saw significant amounts of personal attacks which ultimately overshadowed policy.

Interruptions, accusations, and childish name-calling left little time for in-depth policy debate. As many news organizations have said, there is not

much benefit to presidential debates if the candidates spend the entire time slinging insults. If the public is not getting to learn more about the candidates’ policy proposals, then debates simply serve to divide an already polarized country. Furthermore, much current research asserts that the current debates, which largely focus on personal attacks, are not effective at swaying voters. Among voters that already had a preference prior to the debate, the overwhelming majority still intend to vote for that candidate after the debate. Personal attacks are often more memorable, creating viral moments that can become major news stories and instagram stories. It enhances an “us versus them” mentality that frames politics as an inherently combative phenomenon rather than an opportunity to express one’s beliefs about what the future of the country should look like. Audiences are too often left with an impression of each candidate’s potential flaws and not an understanding of their policies.

Media’s Role in Shaping Debates The change in debate tone also marks a larger societal shift toward polarization and towardthe idea that our political beliefs are indicators of our personal values. The rise of social media has created a need for campaigns to increase post engagement to increase exposure and to reach new demographics through any means necessary. Instagram stories are filled with individuals equating who one votes for to a number of morals, or lack thereof. Facebook is full of people saying that they can’t understand how anyone could vote for the other party.

X, formerly Twitter, has been controversial in itself due to Elon Musk’s outspoken political opinions. We are also witnessing the advent of new social media platforms. For example, Donald Trump created a streamlined way to connect with supporters with the creation of his platform titled Truth Social.

The Psychology of Personal Attacks There is research to show that there is a psychological appeal to the use of personal attacks. Personal attacks often trigger

26

stronger and more memorable emotions. This is partly because they contain more emotional content than factual information does. Debates involving high level personal attacks can increase viewership and create a sense of excitement for viewers that can be compared to watching a sports game or reality show. However, these strong emotions and responses still take away from the initial purpose of the debates, which is to discuss policy proposals and give the public more information in order to make an informed political choice.

Due to personal attacks being more memorable than policy stances, they also provide candidates an opportunity to smear the character of another candidate in a way that will follow them throughout the campaign trail. It influences perceived trustworthiness from the public as well as perceived competence and likability.

Throughout the 2016 campaign season, Trump referred to Clinton as “crooked,” “unstable,” and a “weak person.”

These were all personal attacks meant to discourage people from voting for her based on character rather than policy. History now shows that this tactic was effective. This is not limited to one party with Clinton often referring to Trump as crooked, a liar, and a sexual predator.

Overall Impact The shift in debate focus from policy proposals to personal attacks has benefitted no one. Americans have reduced opportunities to hear from candidates about their policy proposals. Candidates’ stances on important issues are glossed over or completely forgotten. Voters make choices based on character impressions rather than thoughtful evaluations of qualifications and policy plans. It exacerbates polarization which goes on to discourage average citizens from engaging in dialogue about issues that affect us all. It reinforces the harmful narrative of the “us versus them” mentality that creates winners and losers in a situation in which there should not have to be any losers.

The degradation of debate quality hurts the democratic process. However, changes to the debate process can refocus the events and restore them to their original purpose: helping Americans make informed decisions when they vote. Moderators must be empowered to enforce the rules that candidates agreed upon. They must be able to shut off the microphones of candidates when they speak out of turn and be empowered to call out candidates who have strayed from discussion of policy to attacks of character. Nonpartisan commissions could be created to oversee debate rules and regulations as well as to approve all questions to ensure that both candidates are being asked equally difficult and valuable questions. Real-time fact checking can prevent candidates from lying about each other and ensure both candidates remain truthful. 

27

“With Fear for Our Democracy, I Dissent” When I woke up at 3:00 in the morning on November 6th, 2024, I had a terrible feeling in my gut. When I’d gone to bed, the results of the election had seemed promising: the battleground states hadn’t been called, the so-called red mirage still lingered. But then I saw the headline from The New York Times, posted just 20 minutes prior: “Trump Wins Pennsylvania.”

It was over then. I knew it. And fear— fear for the future, for my loved ones’ future, for my children’s future— settled deep into my heart.

In some ways, I am lucky that I procrastinated writing my article for Counterculture and had not, as of Election Day, written a single word. My original article aimed to focus on the idea of “the myth of the oppressed conservative,” or the idea falsely perpetuated on college campuses that conservative students in higher education are subject to persecution via “canceling” and DEI initiatives. But this election has proven that conservative power in this country is far from a marginalized group. As we have seen by Donald Trump’s definitive win over Kamala Harris, Trump’s unique brand of conservatism is no longer a weak ideology espoused by less than half of the electorate, as was the case in 2016. Right wing ideologies are growing in popularity across the board. The most popular podcasts in this country are The Joe Rogan Show, The Shawn Ryan Show, the Tucker Carlson Show and the Charlie Kirk Show, among others. There has been an exponential increase in “stay at home wife” and “trad wife” content which advocates for women to return to “traditional roots” (though, as a woman of color, I argue that this return to tradition only applies to one particular demographic). This magazine, across its six issues, has become a time capsule for the rise of the right wing during Joe Biden’s presidency.

Counterculture has diligently documented the rise in incel influencers like Andrew Tate, book bans, voter suppression, and “Don’t Say Gay” bills. We have already seen core tenets of fascism begin to emerge, and it seems like it is here to stay.

I do not plan to use the space I have been afforded in this magazine to talk about why Kamala Harris lost, because we know why she lost. In a blind poll voters were shown to more frequently agree with Harris’ policies, economists thought her plans were better, and women favored her pro-choice stance.

This election’s results are not a reflection of this country’s profound interest in Donald Trump’s policies, and to imply otherwise ignores the racism and sexism that is ingrained deep into the American electorate. Instead, I plan to talk about moving forward. Over the past several days, I have seen individuals on social media discuss how they plan to not have children, how this presidency will upend their future plans, and how it will ruin all chances of ever maintaining civil rights.

I want to push back against these notions. Do not get me wrong— I think that Trump’s presidency will be bad, and I think that any claims that it will not be “that bad” are ignorant and indicative of privilege. Instead, I want to present a plan for how we can move forward as readers and thinkers who stand firmly against fascism. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into despair.

To echo the words of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” I reject the notion that our voices will be silenced. I reject this administration and any attempts they will take to strip away my civil rights. And I especially reject the notion that they will steal my joy. We must express our dissent, boldly and with vindication. And this makes the existence of this magazine more important than ever. I want to present three key steps for pushing back against fascism.

28

considered impolite to do so. Donald Trump being acknowledged as a fascist must become a common fact, not something that has been embraced solely by the so-called “radical left.”

Furthermore, being anti-fascist means that we must resist fascism in all forms, and from all parties and politicians. In this past election cycle, Democrats seemed hesitant to criticize Trump’s language regarding immigrants and the border, and I believe that this presents a revealing idea of what we might witness over the next four years. Already, their refusal to stand up against his harmful rhetoric regarding immigrants— and, for the record, creating a scapegoat is a key tenet of fascism— shows that while they may not be as explicit as Trump, they are willing to stand by fascist ideas if it means appealing to moderate and undecided voters. The image of fascism that we have in our minds usually invokes images of white, European men. We must understand that in the 21st century, fascism will be multicultural and may even have women as its leaders. We must resist it even when it appears to us in a package that may seem like it is something we agree with or find favorable.

First, it is not enough to simply be against fascism, we must be explicitly anti-fascist. In using this phrase I echo the words of race scholar Ibram X. Kendi, who remarked the same ideas about racism in his book How to be an Antiracist. This sounds a lot more straightforward and simple than it often is in practice. During the first Trump presidency, there was often hesitation to label him as a fascist. A recent Atlantic article notes that Democrats have cycled through a litany of words to describe Trump, seeming more willing to label him as “weird” than what he really is: a fascist. This is a man who has threatened to hold on to power beyond his term limits, has denied the democratic process, led a violent attempted coup, and whose top advisors contributed to a plan which, among other things, will result in the removal of civil rights for nearly all protected minorities in this country. To call Donald Trump a fascist is not a bold declaration, it is a fact.

Thus in order to stand against his regime we cannot be afraid to call Trump and his actions fascist. We must remember that the modern Republican party is one that is obsessed with optics. It’s the reason Trump got so offended when Harris brought up the shrinking size of his rallies— he is someone who has been able to win based on the favor of the people, and any threat to that hurts him. Call out his ideas for exactly what they are, without shame.

Bring him up in conversations with others, even when it may be

This ability to recognize and call out fascism ties in directly with my second step: we must continue to write, read, and organize. A world of fascism depends on an uneducated electorate, and this is why I see it as no coincidence that Trump plans to gut the Department of Education. We must continue to educate ourselves on movements of populism and the far right, build multicultural coalitions, and emphasize the importance of community care. To do otherwise— to grow complacent and ignore the lessons learned from past activists who have fought against similar or worse movements— will result in a damning future for those of us committed to ending fascism.

I think that educating ourselves also ties into a piece of common rhetoric that I would like to acknowledge: the notion that we must “look out for ourselves” during this time period.

While we absolutely should prioritize our own needs and wellbeing, the idea that we must protect only ourselves and those closest to us against fascism does not work against it, but rather, feeds directly into the ideology. Fascism relies on practices which mean that individuals are willing to break diverse community ties in pursuit of their own identities and interests. When the conception of “our” is narrow, espousing this idea ignores protecting all individuals. Thus, our education and organizing must be a collective effort that aims to not only uplift ourselves, but our communities. It is not simply enough to read theory on your own or organize your family against causes. Share materials and ideas.

Expand your community past those related to you by blood. Build coalitions based not on shared identities but shared values and commitments.

You might be wondering: what do I read? Who do I write for? How do I organize? For starters, Counterculture is a great place if you are looking for an outlet which platforms college

29

students who are committed to social justice and anti-fascism. But in all seriousness, this is also where relying on the resources and guidance of the community can be helpful. Turn to professors, activists, and likeminded members of your community to find resources, materials, and local organizations to get involved with.

The Internet also is full of useful tools, particularly for what books to read to gain a deeper understanding of anti-fascism. Publishers like Haymarket Books, which markets itself as a “radical, independent bookseller” have a list of books concerning the resistance of fascism.

And, lastly, we must not allow fascism to steal our joy. I’d like to finish this piece with a quote from Assata Shakur, from her autobiography: "'I am about life,' I said to myself. 'I'm gonna live as hard as I can and as full as I can until I die. And I'm not letting these parasites, these oppressors, these greedy racist swine make me kill my children in my mind before they are even born. I'm going to live and I'm going to love Kamau, and, if a child comes from that union, I'm going to rejoice. Because our children are our futures and I believe in the future and in the strength and righteousness of our struggle.' I was ready for whatever happened. I relaxed and let nature take its course.“ I have thought about this quote often, these days. I think that it is tempting to allow ourselves to fall deep into despair. To allow ourselves to become caught up in the many possibilities that exist for the future of this country, most of which do not benefit historically oppressed groups. But this quote, I think, offers a reminder: that hope is our best form of resistance. They will want to steal our joy. They will want us to believe that this is the way that life will always be, and that we cannot aspire to anything better. We must not only be joyful, we must be hopeful, and we must be imaginative in our plans for the future beyond fascism. The old systems— the ones that have led us to this point— are no longer enough, and frankly, they have never been sufficient for liberation. We must be expansive, thoughtful, and purposeful.

I have left this as the last step because it is the most important. In a world that relies on the misery and destitution of the oppressed, we must remain radically joyful. We must continue to love, learn, and dance. And most of all, we must use the joy we see in each other as motivation to build a better, brighter, and liberated future. 

30