S10E2 Deportation Industrial Complex Goes Full DWOT

This. Is the Chris Abraham show.

This is the second try The Chris Abraham Show season 10 episode 2. First one didn't work out. I ended up not having any focus. I was not into it. I was not feeling the vibes man. We'll see if this one makes it through. If it does, Aloha.

Today I want to talk about the I've written a bunch of sub stacks about this with regards to the FDR New Deal and I was thinking that Donald Trump is extremely obsessed with not invading other countries. And invading other countries is the only reason America is so successful, right? The the best business plan ever is to build expensive consumables, and weapons are the best expensive consumables in the entire tea of the world for two reasons. 1 you get to build stuff, and then it explodes. It explodes intentionally as in bombs, or it explodes unintentionally as in being blown up. It also it's really great for development because you don't have to go through any red tape with regards to reclaiming land that you can then redevelop, right? So I mean, it's just all good.

The only cost is lives, but that seems to be acceptable for for the hegemon. So I was thinking since there isn't the ability to. Oh, by the way, the reason why I know this is true is because ICE is being so obstructed by activists that Trump needs to pivot to attacking other countries because he needs to keep the economy going. But before he started doing that, and he's going to do that in a big way, the more people defend illegal aliens from being deported through their bodies and their attacks and their protests, the more Donald Trump is going to invade Venezuela, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, etcetera. So Chad, it's Yemen, it's going to be awesome. And so, I mean, Donald Trump is really good at pivoting to make sure the economy works.

He's going to do it at any cost. There's two sides to the by any means necessary, right. The left is protecting against Trump by any means necessary. And Donald Trump won't be obstructed like he was in his first term by any means necessary. It's really fun to watch.

Anyway, my whole sub stack series was about the deportation industrial complex that I then expanded into the deportation or domestic War on Terror. I'm going to call it the domestic War on Terror versus the global War on Terror. And both things I believe are a spending the trillion dollars of defense budget, etcetera, somewhere, right? We can't invade Europe yet. We can't invade Russia yet.

We can't invade Taiwan yet. We can't invade China yet. So in the meanwhile we need to invade America, right? So it's pretty easy to do. A majority of Americans support it. They believe that 20 million undocumented between they believe that between 10 and 40 million undocumented people from around the world, mostly military age men have flooded into their country because of Biden's open border policy and that there's probably hundreds of cells, terror cells just waiting to pop up and take America hostage. And so basically the deportation industrial complex is a make war.

Sorry. That was what was it called A

that was a an intentional mistake. What is the term? Hey Google, who's the most famous psychoanalysis? Sigmund Freud. And I know it's psychoanalyst, not psychoanalysis, but anyway, it was a Freudian slip. But yeah.

So the deportation industrial complex is a, an FDR works style make work New Deal, but in kind of the what is the term in the bizarro mirror? You know what I mean? Like the New Deal actually was if, if you will, a gentrification project. I mean, I hate to say it, but FDR was doing a nationwide gentrification project. I'm sorry if it feels heterodox and insulting, but I actually need to write about that. That was.

Hey Google, what is the term for when you take over land? The government takes over land in order to do a big project on the. Website justice.gov, they say. Eminent eminent domain. So in many ways, FD Rs New Deal was a nationwide eminent domain project in the guise of, in the guise of of, of modernization and liberalization.

I bet you if I dug deep, I bet you if I dug deeper, it would come across as extremely authoritarian and despotic even. And a lot of people accused him of being that way in that the works program was Hitler Lite. It was this kind of American pride thing with with with with art and social realism and all kinds of kind of it was it was exactly the same time it was post World War One, pre World War 2. So it kind of, I mean, if we were to diagnose FD Rs New Deal, we would say that it was it was very Hitlerian just because it had everybody's buy in. I wonder if we'll ever get to the point where we talk about the people against which the New Deal was weaponized. Anyway, you can't touch the New Deal. The New Deal was is a sacred time in America's history. It is it is seen as effective and active socialism, but it was basically a make works program.

And my belief is that in a world where you can't really, Donald Trump is hesitant to invade other countries, he needs to engage the same number of soldiers and and military men and defenders of democracy, but not Democrat democracy, but defenders of democracy in terms of imperialism and adventurism. He needs to turn it inward. So the deportation industrial complexes is sort of an extension of the private prison system, right? Hey Google, how much money does the government spend on the private prison system in America? $3.9 billion On the website prisonpolicy.org they say total U.S. government expenses on public prisons and jail. Total U.S. government expenses on public prisons and jails 80.7 billion, plus on private prisons and jails 3.9 So public prisons and jails are $80.7 billion and private prisons and jails are 3.9 billion.

So the deportation industrial complex is just an extension of that, right? Where you can, if you need to deport 40,000,020 million, 5 million, whatever people believe the number to be, you need to create an entire nationwide infrastructure. You need to build an infinite number of detainment centers. You need to hire an infinite number of judges. You have to hire an infinite number of lawyers. You have to hire an infinite number of federal agents. You have to hire infinite number of FBI agents. You have to hire an infinite number of state police. You have to buy an infinite number of an infinite number of sidearms and battle rifles.

You need to buy an infinite number of black Suburbans. You have to buy infinite number of transfer vans and buses. You need to charter an infinite number of commercial airlines and commercial jets or private contract commercial airlines. You need to feed and you need to treat and you need to water and hydrate. You need to provide food and lodging. You need to provide medical care. You need to I mean, it's it's in in, in, in Infinity system. If you go to places like small prison towns, the entire environment, the entire town is in some way associated with the prison industrial complex.

So the deportation industrial complex is a perfect situation. And with this concept of Narco terrace and this concept of, of cartels and even the, the definition of Antifa as a terrorist organization is going to expand it into what I said earlier, which is D Watt instead of G Watt, which is global War on Terror, it'll become D Watt. Which is this idea that an infinite number of 9/11 type of terrorists have inculcated and infiltrated into American life and are staging some sort of terrorist event, multiple terrorist event, government takeover, American takeover. And so that was why, while people who wore red hats always knew that Trump wanted to deport all illegal aliens, he mostly spoke about it as in getting the big baddies, getting the criminals, getting. I mean, little did anybody know that when MAGA people say criminals, they mean anybody who's in breach of their legal residence, anybody who's illegal, even if it's administrative. And here's the goal.

If you if you totally militarize it and turn the people against you, you can very quickly start arresting people who are protesting the deportation missions. So you can start, you can start giving people misdemeanors and felonies or at least disrupting their lives completely, right? Like this. The entire thing is, is you know, is planned. I mean, it's all part of the counter disruption, right? It's taking, it's almost like aikido or judo or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

It's using the energy of defiance and protest and going ahead and, and, and destroying the lives of those people using their own of momentum. So here we go to the works program. Like I said it, it requires infinite resources to create an environment where you deport 50 million people who are here illegally. And it is a, an amazing works program because it's not just ICE people, it's not just detainment centers, It's, it's it's detainment center guards, it's security systems, it's building, it's contracting, it's security, it's it's HVAC, it's catering, it's bedding, it's shampoo and conditioner, it's everything. I mean, obviously if you want to deport 50 million people, there's got to be, you know, 500,000 detainment centers. I don't know, it seems almost almost incredible, right? So, and of course the intimidation, the trauma, the fear mongering, the wearing masks, the going in hot, the dressing in JSOC drag, all of that is intentional as well. The, the system wants to traumatize people who are here illegally so thoroughly that they consider America to be more of a untenable environment than actually where they're from, so that they will self deport, even if it's technically only temporary.

So all of the, all of the overreach, all of the, the flash bang grenades, all of the door kicking, all of the rappelling from helicopters, all of that is a, is a, a force multiplier. And all of that is, is intentionally traumatic

delivery. It's delivery of trauma in such a way that people cannot sleep through the night and they're like, screw it, I need to get out of here. And of course, secondarily the, the sanctuary cities are kind of like when the rules change, they are like the best fishing grounds in the entire world, right? Like that some it's like, it's like the, it's like all the criminals telling you where they're going, right? Like it's like back in the day there in Hawaii, there are these places called cities of refuge. And there was these places of refuge. And of course, in the old days, Catholic churches used to be places of refuge.

However, in the new in the new regime, those places, they were only, they were only social constructs. Nothing was really legal about any of them, right. In terms of federal government oversight of of, of mayors. I mean, mayors don't governors maybe, but mayors don't have any when it comes to playing Jung Jung Campeau, when it when it comes to when it comes to the force doctrine. There's no way that a a mayor can counteract a presidential decree. It it might look good for voting and it might end up turning the time of the American presidency in in 2026 for midterms and 2028.

But really all Donald Trump wants to do is to spend as much of his military industrial budget on internal make work projects so that he can make sure that everybody is going to survive probably what is going to be an economic downturn. And so if he can create New Deal style economies of people who make, you know, primary, secondary and tertiary money off of giant deportation programs, then there you go. And then of course, there's the, you know, domestic War on Terror. That is the next step, right? Those people are not going to deportation if you are.

That's The funny thing, right? We talk about deportation as an administrative thing, and that is just as simple as grabbing, detaining, deporting. However, if you're literally a member of a gang, if you're a member of a terrorist organization and if you're a member of a cartel, you're not going to be deported. You're going to be put in supermax. And supermax is going to be in

wherever, wherever that foreign prison is. And there's foreign prisons all over the world, right? I guarantee you. Like, I, I think one of like one person was sent to Africa. I don't know where in Africa, but I assume that these supermax prisons are kind of like boys club or whatever. Like there's it's totally NIMBY.

Like there's no place Americans don't want supermax prisons in their own country. I mean, honestly, if you think about it, these supermax prisons that are in other countries are similar to the penal colony idea, right? Out of sight, out of mind. If you make sure your supermax prisons aren't domestic, then you don't have to. Well, first of all. You don't get to go ahead and spend money in the country supporting that supermax prison, which is terrible for employment.

But like, there's the balance, right? You nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their in their district and nobody wants a supermax prison either. So it's a real NIMBY thing. America is a series of NIMBY. I mean, California has become the ultimate NIMBY state.

California has chased out it's oil refineries. It has chased out it's actually California. If you look at if you look at Gavin Newsom and then you think about the amazing story of oh, Dorian Gray, the Picture of Dorian Gray. If you think about Dorian Gray and you think about California, you think about Gavin Newsom. We can have a funny game here, which is Gavin Newsom is objectively a beautiful man. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful man. That head of hair I would die for. California is objectively a beautiful woman. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.

It's a beauty I would die for. However, that beauty is at a cost. Every single pollution, poison and political grenade that California used to be known for in terms of its industrial base has been outsourced to China, right? So the Dorian Gray painting is now in in not Beijing, wherever the industrial work is actually done in China, whoever makes the stuff incurs the carbon footprint and then removes all sin from it, puts it on a container and then sends it to California where it can be consumed without the carbon footprint. Right. So, so it's, it's a NIMBY project, but is it really NIMBY if it's not only not in your backyard, but not even on your continent, Right.

That is really what modern globalism is. It's it's NIMBY writ large. And NIMBY means not in my backyard. So, so, yeah, so, but the sad thing is the secondary effect is that California's driving everybody out, right? It's driving Anheuser Busch, it's driving in and out Burger HQ, it's driving out Oracle.

It it's driven out Tesla, it's driven out the oil refineries, it's driven out all kinds of stuff. So we'll see if, if and then there's issues with water and when it comes to things like almonds and so forth, We'll see if, if California will be a sustainable project. I hope it is. I mean, really, it's a it's a beautiful, beautiful place. And if I won the lottery, I'd probably move there. And, and so, yeah, so we'll see what happens. It'll be really interesting to see. Oh, and this goes back to another idea. Forget about.

So domestic War on Terror it is. So I wrote an article in Substack, chrisabraham.substack.com. You can look there. They're all like edited and expanded with help of ChatGPT. The images are ChatGPT prompts and all the articles are like 30 minutes of me prompting, prompting, prompting, prompting. But the results are all written for me by ChatGPT. And then I re edit it, re edit it, re edit it. And then those really cool podcasts are also super duper lazy.

No notebook LM Google products. So I mean, my ideas get across, but it's not me sitting at my typewriter, you know, for 35 hours to come up with a sub stack. I basically talk like this to ChatGPT and it comes up with something, which is what I'm going to do here. Like when I post this podcast, I'm going to upload it to

Microsoft Word Online. They have a transcript tool. I will upload this MP3 to the transcript tool. It'll transcribe everything I said. I will share it to a document. I will download it as PDF and then I will upload it to notebook LM and it'll just do a bunch of stuff for me. So they'll be charts, they'll be infographics, they'll be after this entire episode is done.

At the end, I'm going to append probably an hour's worth of notebook. LM like tomfoolery in terms of deep dives and stuff. Hang around if you're interested. And so domestic War on Terror, one of the things I wrote in Substack was that every single person we killed during the Global War on Terror was, and I'm not including, I'm not including, OK, let me do a carve out because the sentence was supposed to be bombastic. But I realized that when, when George W Bush and his his motley, his his motley fools conned America into invading Iraq, we did in fact fight actual Iraqi soldiers.

However, in general, the entire global War on Terror per SE was against civilians. And I, I, I shared this on to Facebook and man, I got so many responses because this idea of the hegemon imperialist superpower killing people who are basically freedom fighters who are taking up arms to defend against invaders is just a terrible narrative. It really throws people off the rail. But basically that's what it is. I mean, we were invading, invading, invading. We were radicalizing, radicalizing, radicalizing. We were calling freedom fighters terrorists and killing them. And people hate that.

But it's become a thing, right? It's become a thing. Global War on Terror says that anybody that we call a terrorist is a terrorist. And as a result, you can drone them. So it's just a little step between that and doing that domestically.

So the domestic War on Terror hasn't really taken off yet, but all you need to do is turn America into enough of an anti progressive, anti antifa, anti no kings, anti deportation pressure cooker to make people lose their stuff and start to Red Dawn against the government. Once they Red Dawn against their own government and it escalates into fisticuffs and small arms and you know, the equivalent of the 1970s with the Weather Underground and climate terrorism. Like the pressure, the pressure cooker can get to a point where all you need to do is fool the commies and the lefties and the

anarchists and the socialists and the social justice warriors and the climate activists and the academics and the free free Palestine people. All you need to do is get them to start firing and it'll cascade into, you know, into real world consequences. There's that's the scary thing about the right. The right really subscribes to the concept of don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. And so, so much trigger discipline. I'm always amazed when the when the ICE, when the ice people don't mow people down.

I'm always surprised and and amazed when National Guard guys don't mow people down. I mean, I assume in a world with anger, anger, anger and and partisism, partisanship, I assume that every day is exactly like Kent State. Every day ice is not like Kent State. I do a Hail Mary and I do it our Father. In fact, I should start doing 10 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers every time. A day does not end with the with with the Kent State. Considering the politics now, I think every day should be a Kent State.

I'm surprised I'm not going to be worried about our government until every day is a Kent State. I like to tell people that I don't worry about terrorism or America's safety until America feels like just like a normal day in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem. Harkening back to when I was 16 and I was 15 or 16, I was supposed to go do an entire summer trip to Barcelona with my high school as a an immersive Spanish program. And sometime in the mid 80s some radical organization decided to blow up discotheques and cafes. I don't remember the details, but until America becomes a place, I'm not even impressed by school shootings. I mean that's just, that's just cherry picking. I do think nobody in America cares at all about inner city black on black gun violence.

I mean, that's, those are literal numbers, but I mean the things that affect people on a daily basis. Someone was saying on Facebook that why do we care at all about impoverished criminals on the street when there are billionaires? It's not about the money. It's not about, it's about whether I feel safe, whether my shit is safe, whether I can put my car on, park my car on the road and whether or not on the street, I mean not on the road, If I can park my car on the street or in a parking lot and it won't be broken into. Nobody cares about the big crimes. People only care about the crimes that personally affect them.

If I go on holiday in two weeks, am I going to come home to a broken window and my TV gun? Am I going to come out to my car and my catalytic, my catalytic converter is gone. I wonder if, if, if, if a Cadillac has a catalytic converter and you know, whether or not I'm going to be mugged when I go out to dinner with my with my partner or whether or not I'm going to have start to have the European problem of pickpocketing. Or whether I'm going to have card when it, whether I'm going to be carjacked at A at a four way stop sign or whether when I use the Starbucks bathroom and I come out and if my laptop's gone. Like that's the only kind of crime that people care about.

I don't even think they care about, you know, assault or anything else like that. I mean, I'm talking about domestic assault and sexual violence. I don't think anybody really, I think people only care about smash and grab if they're a store owner, smash and grab or looting if they are work in retail.

I think that it really is just like quality of life. That's why people don't like homeless people, though they would never admit it. They don't like marijuana use because everything smells like stinky weed, right? Like, like people tolerate these things because we're all cowards. But at some point, if you can get away with something drastically monstrous by dark of night, that person's going to do it.

I remember I'm 6 foot 3 and 300 something pounds. So luckily I've never, oh, and generally armed, but luckily I've never been assaulted. But like throughout the the 2000s, every single one of my friends was, was what is it called, was mugged by a, a 1312 or 13 year old kid at the end of a, of a, of a cheap, like a cheap revolver, a a Saturday night special, right? That's, but that was when you are, when you are extremely liberal, you just think that's the cost of that's the cost of life. Like that's the that is in many ways the the sacrifice to to the sun God in order to keep in order to keep everything going.

So, but you know, I mean, we don't live in a proportional society, right? Like if you do that to someone who's armed, they're going to probably try to shoot you in center mass, right? So, I mean, it depends on where you live and so forth. But back to domestic War on Terror. That quite presumably might be a thing, but I'm not going to be impressed until every day is like Kent State. Until then, I'm super impressed as to the trigger discipline of these.

Like, for example, you know, there are, whenever I think about the relationship between American law and order enforcement and the people who are like, all cops are bastards, bootlicker, bootlicker, bootlicker, fascist, fascist. I think of the big yellow lab who is endlessly willing to suffer as all the babies of the family pull its ears, pull its tails, pull its, pull his tail, jumps on top of it, you know, and so forth. It's only the the irony in in America is the only reason Antifa and BLM and protesters and looters and so forth, the only reason they can act out mostly safely is because of the benevolence and restraint of a highly militarized and trained superior force. The ratio is not good. Hey Google, what is the ratio of Americans to law enforcement on the.

Website UCR dot. FBI In 2019, the average number of full time law enforcement officers in the nation's cities was 2.3 per 1000 residents. So there's only 2.3 all cops are bastards for every thousand residents. So I mean if you were to start shooting you could quickly be overwhelmed by superior numbers if not by superior superior weapons. I do not think you can call in air support if you are domestic. Domestic fascist brown shirt Jack booted thug ICE officer. I don't think you can get on to your prick 77 and call in a call in an F4 to do a strafing run or a a napalm drop. I don't think you can call in an A10 Warthog yet domestically. We'll see what happens.

And I also like to think in terms of restraint and benevolence. There are 400 + 1,000,000 mostly unused firearms in private hands every day. And that kind of goes to my the people who own those guns have a very strong trigger discipline that says don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Hey Google, how many rounds of ammunition are privately owned in the United States? On the website florida.com. They sell.

Americans buy between 8 and 15 billion rounds of ammunition annually. There are 80 to 100 million gun owners in the country. So if you assume possession based on sales alone, the average American possesses between 80 and 150 rounds each. That makes sense, but when I was going to the range, I would buy thousand rounds of of reloads off of the Internet routinely, right? Let's see, I have 1017 round magazines and 315 round magazines. So that would be 170, yeah, 200 rounds. I have 200 rounds of 9mm.

I have hundreds of rounds of 22. But yeah, I think I have about 200 rounds of jacquard hollow points in 1017 round magazines and 315 round magazines and that's it. I do not have thousands of rounds. So I'm perfectly, I'm a perfect exemplar of that anyway, domestic War on Terror, there probably are going to be loads of false flag that false flags, false flag events. Really, honestly, nobody actually does anything.

Nobody actually does anything. And if there is any big event like January 6? It's always going to be fomented by by a by a color revolution agenda outfit. It's either going to be fed or intelligence or foreign or

regime based. You know, at some point all those people are be going to be like, show me the whites of your eyes already. And and who knows? I mean, like I said, I'm pretty tolerant. If if if like there aren't multiple discos and cafes blown up in the United States on a weekly basis, I'm going to be like, OK, we're good. America's fine.

But we have such a low tolerance that we need to go out of our way to be like, Oh my God, look at all the gun deaths. I mean, if you take away, if you take away suicides, which are personal choice issues, you're left with. Hey Google, if you take away suicides, how many gun deaths are there a year? Sorry, I don't understand.

Let me see. Take your time.

If you take away all gun suicides, how many gun deaths are there a year? Sure thing. In a nutshell, if we look at the most recent numbers, around 2023, there were roughly 46,700 gun related deaths in the US, and about 58% of those were suicides. That means once you remove suicides from the inflation, the number of annual gun deaths drops significantly. Still, the exact 2024 figures are fully in yet, so it's a pretty big chunk of the total and it really changes the picture. Do the math for me.

Absolutely. Let's do a bit of number crunching alchemy. So if we take roughly 46,700 total gun deaths and remember about 58% are suicides, that's around 27,000 or so suicides. Subtract that from the total and you've got about 19,700 non suicide gun deaths per year, give or take. So that's the tally when you take suicides out of the equation.

All right. So reduce that into the whole concept of rate, because you can go ahead and hide a bunch of really awful numbers if you say what the rate is per our 400 million people in America, what is the rate of gun deaths in America? Absolutely. Let's put on our number Whisperer hat. If we're talking rates, you're right.

Looking at raw totals alone can hide the real stale. So let's take that roughly 19,700 non suicide gun deaths per year and divide by about 400 million people in the US. That gives you a rate of roughly 0.049% per year, or about 4.9 non suicide gun deaths per 100,000 people annually. In other words, when you put it in terms of population rate, it's a few per 100,000 people each year, which definitely paints a more nuanced picture than the big raw numbers alone. All right, out of that 19,700 non suicide gun deaths per year, how many were murder? In 2024, out of roughly 19,700 non suicide gun deaths, about 79% were homicides.

That works out to around 13,100 homicides for the year, which comes down to about 35 gun related murders each day on average. And what is the rate? All right, let's turn that into a nice Kitty rate. If we take those roughly 13,100 homicides and spread them over a population of about 400 million, you end up with the rate of about 3.3 gun homicides per 100,000 people per year. So that's the ballpark. A few homicides per 100,000 folks annually. All right, let's go even further and say how many of those were legal defensive gun related deaths versus illegal gun deaths with regards to killing.

So putting it all together, in 2024 the US saw about 19,700 non suicide gun deaths overall. Out of those roughly 79% were homicides. So about 15,600 gun related murders. In contrast, legally justified defensive gun uses or DG use are a much smaller slice of the pie. Estimates on defensive uses vary a lot, but they're significantly fewer than the number of illegal homicides.

Basically the vast majority of those non suicide gun deaths are indeed homicides rather than legally justify shootings. Fascinating. Thank you. Oh, by the way, you're on my season 10 episode 2 podcast of the Chris Abraham Show being AI guest a guest expert. Oh, it's fantastic. Well, I'm honored to be a guest star on Season 10, episode 2 of The Chris Abraham Show.

Sounds like a great season already. I'll do my best to keep it interesting and maybe sprinkle in a little verbal confetti along the way. Thanks for having me on the show. You're welcome, mahalo and Aloha. Mahalo and Aloha right back at you.

It's always a pleasure to ride the airwaves of The Chris Abraham Show. If you need more verbal surf sessions, just say the word. You are such a pantry cornball, it drives me nuts. Fair enough, I did promise you a triple helping of snark and wit. So let me doubt on the cornball factor and keep it more real. Thanks for the reminder.

I'll keep the fluff to a minimum and the edge at Max. Anyway, neither here nor there, but considering the 400 million firearms in America, it's still too many deaths, right? 12,700 a year, that's still too many. But that's a hell of a lot less than hey, will you let, will you help me? Are you there?

Hey, will you help me compare apples to oranges a little bit? Absolutely. I'm here and ready to do a little apples to oranges juggling act. Let's mix those metaphors and see what kind of fruit salad we end up with. So let's say, let's say there's 19,700 murders, gun murders a year.

And then we compare that like after you strip down all the suicides and all the negligent discharges and all the mistakes and all the etcetera, let's say it's 19,700 and 2024. Compare that to other similar things such as vehicular deaths or drownings or accidents or bicycle accidents or other kinds of things that apples and oranges kind of jerks like me like to make comparisons against because I think everybody forgets. Oh, and stabbings and blunt force trauma. And compare the 19,007, the 12,700, is it 12,700? Compare that to the other other kinds of homicides with other kinds of weapons, any other weapons like blunt force trauma or or stabbing or whatever.

And then, of course, compare it to just general the number of Americans who just die on their own every year, because I think people forget that humans are mortal. So I want you to make all kinds of absurd comparisons to things like, oh, and one thing that everybody forgets is that guns were designed to kill things, whereas probably all those other things were not designed to kill things. So the killing guns killing things is actually a design intention. All right, let's dive into the fruit bowl of comparisons and toss a few oranges at those apples. So if we're looking at about 19,700 gun homicides a year as our baseline apple, let's compare that to some other oranges that people often forget. For instance, there are monthly 40,000 or so total vehicle related deaths per year in the US. That's about twice the number of gun homicides. And nobody designed your car specifically to kill. Some might argue they're pretty good at it by accident. Now let's toss in drowning deaths. Those are around 4000 a year.

Bicycle accidents causing death are a few 100 per year, and other accidental deaths like foals or unintentional poisonings. Add 10s of thousands more and yes, humans are in deep mortal and we lose a couple million. People, no, no, you you missed out on the other types of homicides such as stabbings, etcetera that aren't gun deaths.

I got it. You want the whole homicide fruit basket and not just the gun variety. Let's peel that orange. So if we have about 19,700 gun homicides, let's compare that to the number of homicides by other means like stabbings, blunt force trauma, and so on. In a typical year you might see around 1500 to 1800 homicides by stabbing and a few 100 by blunt objects like bats or hammers.

All the non firearm homicides together add up to a few 1000 per year. Definitely smaller than the firearm slice of the pie, but still part of the overall picture. And you're absolutely right, guns have a unique design purpose that makes them a different category from say a kitchen eye for a car. So while we can compare numbers all day, it's always a bit of an apples to oranges scenario at heart.

Anyway, neither here nor there, so I guess I've really gotten off the reservation. But yeah, I think that the more dangerous the domestic environment gets through protests and anti fascist activity, the better it will be for the domestic War on Terror and the deportation industrial complex. Because the more it's kind of like Chinese fingers cuffs. Hey Gulu, what are Chinese finger cuffs according? To.

Wikipedia. A Chinese finger trap is a gag toy used to play a practical. Joke on unsuspecting children and adults. The finger trap is a simple puzzle that traps the victims fingers in both ends of a small cylinder woven from bamboo. The initial reaction of the victim is often to pull their fingers outward, but this only tightens the trap. Perfect analogy.

Perfect. Thank you. You're very welcome. Anyway, so it's a finger trap. It is. The more the the more the the the anarchists take to the street, the more protests that have any teeth to them, the better for the taking off of gloves. The domestic War on Terror and the deportation industrial complex can be.

It is a provocation environment. All of you know that. I believe that that the West provoked Russia into war, and that makes me really popular for being invited to Thanksgiving and dinner parties. But yeah, I think that Donald Trump and his administration is doing everything that they can to provoke more violence so that they can respond with more retaliation. It is a trap, and we'll see.

It hasn't sprung yet, but yeah, 11 U-Haul van driven onto 1 military base resulted in every single every single guard at the gate ripping that van with with with M4 automatic fire. So like there is a in in, in Infinity of tripwires and I am amazed. It proves that God exists and loves us in so far that every day isn't, you know, 10 to 20 Kent states. So on that note, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and I assume that you've completely and utterly regretted listening to season 10, episode 2 of The Chris Abraham Show. If you want, you can subscribe or you can unsubscribe. You can find me at an Infinity of places. I am Chris Abraham on Instagram.

I'm Chris Abraham on Twitter. I'm Chris Abraham on oh, here's some news that I don't think I've reported yet. PS After four years of my Chris Abraham YouTube channel being basically wiped off the mat map wiped off the map, I appealed. Now that Donald Trump is in office and the tech Bros are becoming emboldened, I appealed to YouTube and they restored my they restored my channel. So youtube.com slash at Chris Abraham is completely restored. And it goes all the way back, I think, to a video I uploaded in 2005 or 2007, something like that. I'm really glad that they didn't purge all of my videos. Like they didn't even give someone else my handle. It was like just restored as if by magic. I lost three years.

But I mean, I'm amazed. So kudos to YouTube. The next episode, I think I'm actually going to talk about Nick Fuentes. So if you're interested in that conversation, that should be a doozy. But for now, you can also reach me at Mastodon.

I have three accounts. I have I'm Sir Chris at no authority dot social, I'm Chris A at Macedon dot social and I'm Chris at Abraham dot SU. So Abraham dot SU is my TLD Soviet domain that I was able to get, which I think is awesome, but apparently the dot SUTLD is going bye bye in 20-30. So I was going to kill my Abraham dot SU Mastodon instance, but it's only four years left and I might as well just hold on to it for nostalgia and not just make it a throwaway like alias to my website, but just make it something special. So on that note, you can reach me at You can reach me via e-mail, Chris at Abraham dot SU works.

It's on my business card 'cause I think it's so cool. You can also reach me. I think Christopher Abraham is my TikTok and I am my micro.blogischrisa.org. My sub stack is Chris abraham.substack.com. I'd love to see you there. My threads is Chris Abraham.

My blue sky is I don't know how I did this, but my blue sky is Abraham dot SU. That's my handle there. I thought I was like getting the domain but in fact I gave up Chris Abraham there and got Abraham dot SU instead.

I'm on discord but I don't know how to share that. Oh well, you know I'm on mesh mesh tastic. I'm Abra if you can reach me in sexy S Arlington Heights, Virginia, DM me via via mesh tastic and maybe another episode I will talk about. I will talk about Pluribus as well, 'cause the last episode dropped a week ago or something. Anyway, please like, subscribe, unsubscribe, review and comment.

And be sure to block me everywhere because after saying things like this, I'm sure I'm going to be everybody's favorite Uncle Chris. This has been season 10, episode 2 of the Chris Abraham Show. Thank you for listening this far through. And after the outro, there's going to be an Infinity of notebook LM slop for you to enjoy. Bye bye.

Thank you for listening to The Chris Abraham Show. Make sure you subscribe so you don't miss any future episodes. Until next time. OK, let's just jump right in. We've got a really compelling set of sources in front of us today, and they force you to look at a few things together that you might not normally connect, right?

We're talking American military policy, our domestic economic structure, and immigration enforcement. The sources we've looked at draw a straight line through all three. A very Direct Line. So our mission for this deep dive is to, well, take a deep breath and wade into a single, highly provocative thesis that this material puts forward. And it is provocative.

The idea is that the shift from a global War on Terror, the GWAT as we all know it, to a domestic equivalent, what the sources are calling the DWAT or domestic War on Terror. It's not just a change in strategy, not at all. The argument here is that it's being framed and and actually executed as the massive modern job creation project. And here's the kicker. It has a disturbing functional resemblance to the New Deal. It's a shocking comparison.

And what's fascinating just looking at our prep is the sheer breadth of the materials we're synthesizing for you. I mean, it ranges from really speculative geopolitical commentary to, you know, deep historical critiques and then down to these very granular economic structures. And even hard data on violence statistics. Exactly. So our task is pretty complex.

We had to synthesize the sources central claim, which is that domestic conflict specifically through what they call the deportation industrial complex or DIC, is becoming the ultimate economic engine for the country. An economic engine. Yeah, a necessary 1. So we'll need to look at the three big pillars of this argument. First, the geopolitical reason for this pivot.

Second, the massive economic and logistical machine of the DIC itself. And third, these authoritarian comparisons the source uses to frame how the public is, you know, brought on board. And we absolutely have to hit that core argument right away because it really dictates everything else that follows it does. It's the assertion that the deportation industrial complex and this new domestic War on Terror are functionally and financially the new American make work projects. They're designed specifically to absorb all this military and defense spending that, well, can't say, easily be deployed abroad anymore. It completely reframes enforcement, not as a policy, but as essential infrastructure.

Let's start right there with the economic theory that the source says underpins this whole pivot because it's it's fundamentally cynical. It is, the source claims that foreign intervention, and they're blunt about it. Invading other countries isn't just a policy of the United States, they say. It's the primary reason for America's sustained economic success. The source literally calls it the best business plan ever.

The best business plan? So according to this analysis, why is foreign conflict considered so profitable? Well, the material lays out this very unsentimental view of war, right? It's all about industrial consumption and capital expenditure. The source gives 2 main reasons. The 1st is you could call it Inventory Management I. Guess inventory management.

Yeah, it identifies military hardware, especially weapons and bombs, as the best expensive consumables that the defense industry has. Consumables. That's the word to use for it like paper towels, not billion dollar fighter jets. Exactly. But in the defense context that the source describes, the consumption is absolutely guaranteed.

Weapons are intentionally destroyed. You know when you fire a missile or drop a bomb, or they're unintentionally destroyed When the tank or the ship they're attached to gets blown up by the enemy? So either way, it's gone. It's gone. This deliberate, high value destruction creates A continuous, absolutely endless demand for replacement.

It's a perfect feedback loop. It ensures manufacturing lines keep running. Defense contractors have guaranteed orders, and the trillion dollar budget is, you know, perpetually justified. It's consumption that's designed to require more consumption. That's the model.

That sets a really dark tone for this whole discussion. So continuous destruction equals continuous economic health. What about the second rationale you mentioned? It deals with real estate and infrastructure, which that seems a little counterintuitive when you're talking about war. It is, but it's the second part of the engine development and construction, or more accurately, the destruction, that's necessary for rapid reconstruction.

The source argues that foreign conflict avoids all the usual red tape you'd get if you were reclaiming land or doing a massive retirement project at home. So no zoning boards? Exactly. When infrastructure or, you know, entire city blocks are destroyed in a conflict zone, the rebuilding effort that follows, often funded by international aid or US contractors, is a huge, rapid economic driver. And crucially, that effort bypasses all the complex domestic hurdles like environmental reviews or, you know, local political fights that slow down big projects here. So conflict literally and administratively clears the ground for rapid capital injection and of course reconstruction profits.

And the material is pretty stark about what the actual cost of this is. Oh, it is. The source suggests that the only real cost is lives, which it implies is just an acceptable externalized cost for a global hegemon when you weigh it against the continuous economic benefits. But this model, this whole engine of constant foreign capital consumption, is now supposedly running into some problems. Right, some obstructions. According to the sources, how is it being obstructed? The source points to two specific political constraints. 1st, it's the stated position of a prominent political figure, Donald Trump, who was allegedly extremely obsessed with not invading other countries.

So a non interventionist stance. Exactly. And if you take that stance seriously, it represents a major threat to the established military industrial economic engine, which absolutely relies on continuous foreign engagement to move capital. OK, so a shift in political will from the top. What's the second obstruction?

The second is a constraint from legal visibility and activism. The source claims that international bodies, specifically the International Criminal Court, the ICC, are being so obstructed by activists the traditional large scale military adventures are just becoming more complicated. Riskier. Maybe riskier or at least politically unpalatable for the US in the short term, the source suggests that the visibility of potential war crimes or just the difficulty of operating without intense public scrutiny, is forcing A strategic rethink. And this is where the material pivots so dramatically because the source posits this, this terrifying, almost transactional big invasion plan as a possible reaction to domestic opposition against this internal pivot we're talking. About Yeah, this part is pretty wild. The analysis claims that the more activists protest deportation missions and border enforcement, the more likely it is that the US will pivot back to massive resource heavy foreign interventions.

It even names countries. It does. Venezuela, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, Chad, Yemen. The material frames this as a kind of coercive political economics. It's like if the domestic solution, the DIC is too difficult to implement because of protests, then the established system will just revert to its preferred model, massive foreign wars to keep the economy going. It's presented as a strategic lever, like accept the internal enforcement or we'll be forced to go back to global war. That's viewing foreign policy purely through the lens of economic necessity and not geopolitics. But since these truly massive foreign invasions, you know, against powers like Europe, Russia, China, are not feasible yet, the immediate solution, according to the source, is to invade America internally.

And that sets the stage. This is the entire context for the domestic war and the massive internal spending that comes with. It that's the critical link, the trillion dollar defense budget, it has to be spent somewhere. The personnel, the soldiers and defenders of democracy, used in that imperialistic sense, they have to be engaged. So if you can't deploy them to fight and rebuild abroad.

You deploy them internally to fight and control threats, or at least perceive threats at home. Which brings us to the sources most shocking comparison, the deportation industrial complex as the bizarro mirror New Deal. That analogy is central. We really need to unpack what the source means by that. It describes the DIC as an FDR work style make work New Deal, but you know, twisted into this authoritarian inverted project.

So the original New Deal in the 30s was this massive federal spending program, you know, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration, designed to give people jobs and build physical infrastructure during the Great Depression. Roads, dams, parks, public buildings. So functionally, they both exist to absorb massive amounts of federal money and employ huge numbers of people. How does the source see the DIC accomplishing that same goal? Well, the modern version, this DIC and what it serves the exact same economic function. It engages massive resources, employs countless people across federal, state and private contracts, but its purpose is inverted.

Inverted how? Instead of building public goods for the unemployed, it builds detention infrastructure for a targeted population. It substitutes traditional infrastructure like roads and bridges for enforcement infrastructure, prisons, vans, logistics systems. It's still capital expenditure, but it's aimed at internal control, not civic uplift. That contrast the function being the same but the moral purpose being the opposite.

That's the heart of the argument, and the source implies that this massive domestic spending actually has a lot of support from Americans. Correct. The source says public buy in is absolutely essential, just like it was for the original New Deal. The material claims this is widely supported because a significant chunk of Americans believe that, you know, somewhere between 10 and 40 million undocumented people, often framed as mostly military age men, have flooded the country. And that narrative is amplified by another fear. Right, the belief that hundreds of terror cells are embedded and just waiting to execute a massive coordinated attack or even a government takeover.

So the perception of an existential internal threat, the terror cells, the scale of the undocumented population, that's what grants the political permission for the enormous spending needed to run this so-called Make Work project. Exactly. It's a self justifying cycle of fear and spending. The source argues that if you can convince the public that the threat level demands spending on par with a trillion dollar defense budget, then the morality of what you're spending it on becomes secondary to the perceived need for action. So the New Deal comparison isn't just about the economics of job creation.

No, it's also about the political framework, creating a program that the public accepts as absolutely necessary for national security and stability. That thesis that the DIC is basically an inverted New Deal, It demands that we look at the legit logistics of it, because this is where the make work part really translates into contracts and jobs. The source frames the DIC as this huge nationwide infrastructure project. An extension, and really a dramatic expansion of the existing prison system. So we need to establish a scale here first.

The source gives some data on current prison spending right to show what's already being spent on detention. It does. Total U.S. government expenses on public prisons and jails is cited at around $80.7 billion a year. Private prisons add another what, 3.9 billion? But the deportation industrial complex, according to this analysis, doesn't just tap into that stream. It has a completely new layer that is exponentially larger just given the sheer scope of the target population they're talking about.

And the size of this new layer is described in almost unbelievable terms. The source talks about the infinite resources required for mass deportation, right. If the political goal is actually to deport 5 million, 20 million or God forbid, 50 million people, the source says the inner structure required is just immense. Nationwide, it would require infinite resources. In that term, infinite Resources, it's used specifically to emphasize the scale of employment, not just the cost of materials. The source argues that this task requires mobilizing the entire logistical and legal apparatus of the federal government, plus endless private sector contracts. It's the sheer complexity of moving housing and processing that many people that guarantees the continuous spending. Let's get into that resource list. This is the operational blueprint for the Make Work project.

What does the source claim is needed to keep this economic engine humming? OK, so you start with physical containment. If you're targeting 50 million people, the source estimates you'd need something like 500,000 detainment centers, half a million, or at least a rapid expansion into temporary facilities. On that scale, this means massive immediate construction contracts building, securing and maintaining half a million sites, even if they're temporary. That's the physical infrastructure.

What about the people needed to run it all? Well, that's the real job creation part. The source is you'd need an infinite number of judges, lawyers and federal agents, including FBI just to handle the process accessing and the legal challenges. So it's a boom for the legal and law enforcement sectors. A massive 1. You're creating entire new career tracks, new training programs, expanding federal agencies exponentially. On top of that, you'd need state police and National Guard units to help with logistics and security, pulling them onto the federal payroll for these missions. And what about the material goods, the consumables for this internal conflict?

That goes right back to the economic engine we talked about at the start. The source predicts A continuous need to buy an infinite number of ammunition, an infinite number of sidearms and battle rifles for all these newly expanded agencies. And the vehicles to move people. Oh yeah, the whole logistics chain, the continuous buying and maintaining of specialty vehicles, black Suburbans, transfer vans, buses, and then, crucially, chartering infinite commercial airlines or setting up these lucrative private air contracts to actually move millions of people across continents. The scale of that logistics chain by itself is just staggering, But the source says the recurring money really flows from the soft infrastructure, the daily support services. Absolutely.

The support services create this vast network of secondary and tertiary jobs. I mean think about feeding, watering, lodging and providing medical care for potentially 10s of millions of people who are constantly cycling through detention. So. Massive federal contract. For catering companies, for pharmaceutical suppliers, medical staffing agencies, it goes on and on. And the source gets even more granular than that, right, To show how deep the spending goes into the economy. Precisely.

We're talking about the infrastructure. Just to run the centers you need guards, security systems, building contractors, HVAC, maintenance and then the basic supply. The source mentions catering, bedding, shampoo and conditioning. Shampoo and conditioning. Yeah, these mundane items, when you're buying them in quantities to supply half a million facilities housing millions of people, that represents multibillion dollar recurring federal contracts for everyday goods. So the argument is that the DIC replicates the economic impact of small prison towns where the whole local economy depends on the prison, but it does it on a nationwide scale. That's the mechanism.

The DIC model creates a massive number of primary jobs agents, guards, judges and secondary jobs suppliers, contractors, builders, and they are all reliant on the sustained guaranteed funding of the federal deportation budget. It absorbs unemployment and defense spending at the same time. Which is why the source calls it the new Make work program. The infrastructure being created is well, it's a detention state. Right, but the source also claims that the system is designed to avoid ever reaching that maximum scale through the intentional mechanics of enforcement, specifically through the deliberate militarization and the delivery of trauma.

Trauma delivery. That's a chilling phrase. It is, the source says. This is the resource saving aspect of the plan. It highlights the intentional use of intimidation and fear mongering tactics designed to cut down on the number of people you have to physically detain and process long term. So what does that look like in practice? It involves highly militarized appearances, wearing masks, going in hot and aggressive tactical gear, using things like flash bangs, door kicking, even rappelling from helicopters for these highly visible traumatic raids. Why the theatrics?

Why this hyper aggressive deployment? How does the source define this intentionally traumatic delivery? It's. Defined as a force multiplier, If you're an enforcement agency trying to affect millions of people with, you know, finite resources, you need to maximize the psychological impact of every single encounter. And the goal?

The goal, according to the source, is to traumatize illegal residents so thoroughly that they consider America an untenable environment and choose to self deport. Even if it's just temporary. Right, it's about delivering fear and disruption. So trauma becomes a logistical tool. It's exactly it's psychological warfare to reduce the need for physical infrastructure.

If 10 people self deport out of fear, for every one person you physically detain and process, you dramatically decrease the number of judges and supermax beds and long term contracts you need. The speed and intensity of the operation saves resources while still achieving the political goal. This focus on massive, federally funded enforcement brings us to a really challenging part of the sources the authoritarian comparisons, starting with the New Deal itself. For most Americans, the New Deal is this untouchable sacred cow. Right.

It's seen as the gold standard of effective and active socialism that saved the country. But the source presents a completely different, very critical view a. Heterodox view for sure. It claims the New Deal was in many ways a nationwide gentrification project, a massive federally backed eminent domain project disguised as modernization. So while it provided relief and built infrastructure, the source is saying the process involved the federal government seizing private land for huge projects. That's the critique, the idea that by concentrating so much power and bypassing local ownership, the New Deal had this inherent, maybe subtle, authoritarian streak despite its benevolent goals.

And the source draws a really startling historical parallel to emphasize this point about scale and public buy in. It does. It compares the works program to Hitler Lite and Hitlerian. Whoa. OK, we need to be very, very clear here.

The source isn't equating the New Deals ideology with Nazism. No, absolutely not. We have to stress this is the sources extreme claim. The comparison focuses purely on the shared historical context of massive, rapid state mobilization in response to a national crisis. A crisis which required citizens to accept enormous government power and sweeping federal intervention.

Exactly. And the source then asks rhetorically about the history that's often omitted. The people against which the New Deal was weaponized, the communities whose land or livelihoods were just steep, enrolled by these nationally mandated projects. And if we connect that back to the deportation industrial complex today, the source is arguing the DIC achieves a similar public buy in by targeting A perceived threat, undocumented immigrants and terror cells. Right, thereby justifying authoritarian methods under the guise of national necessity and economic stabilization.

It's the core claim of inversion. The New Deal built infrastructure for the citizens. The DIC builds infrastructure to contain and expel A targeted population. But both are state mandates that require wide public acceptance to succeed. And Speaking of targets, the source is very clear about who gets labeled a criminal in this context, which is crucial for maximizing the stale of the make work project.

Yeah, this is a key point. The source notes that when supporters of this effort, specifically the Mangia supporters mentioned in the source, say criminals, they often mean anyone who is in breach of their legal residence. So not just violent felons. No, anyone who is illegal, even if the breach is purely administrative, like an overstayed visa or a documentation error. This massively expands the target pool, providing, you know, endless work for the DIC. And the militarization of these deportations then feeds into a counter disruption strategy designed to handle the inevitable backlash from activists and protesters. Those who protest the missions get them tangled up in misdemeanors, felonies, or just completely disrupt their lives with costly legal fees and constant harassment. So it's less about conviction and more about just immobilization.

That's it, and the source uses this striking analogy for that strategy. Judo or Aikido to describe how they handle defiance. Yeah, it's a powerful analogy in. Judo or Aikido, you use your opponent. 'S own energy and momentum against them. The source suggests the DIC is designed to use the protesters energy of defiance to destroy their own lives. Their resistance becomes the fuel for their own legal entanglement and demoralization.

It's a planned counter disruption strategy where the opposition's activism. Becomes self-destructive. Then there's the. Specific strategy for sanctuary jurisdictions, which are the. Biggest political obstacle to this The source calls sanctuary cities ideal fishing grounds, right? The material analyzes the practical limits of that sanctuary status.

While it acknowledges these protections are important social constructs for local safety, the core assertion is that mayor's just can't counteract a presidential decree when it comes to the force doctrine. So when federal agencies like ICE are operating. Under a mandate, local political optics might get damaged, but federal force is legally. And logistically, superior sanctuary cities just offer a high density of the target population. That's the fishing grounds metaphor with very limited local capacity to actually stop federal operations, that distinction between local political resistance and federal kinetic force. Is key.

OK, So what about the actual big baddies? The literal members of gangs, terrorist organizations, the cartels? Who are the political justification for all of this? The source makes a crucial practical distinction here. If an individual is.

Genuinely a high value member of a cartel or a terrorist group, they will not be deported. Why not? Because deportation is an administrative action. You just remove someone. These individuals need a different kind of processing, a judicial punitive process.

Exactly. They will instead be put. Into supermax prisons. And this is where the source introduces the idea of outsourcing the problem. These supermax prisons, the source suggests, will be located in foreign prisons all over the world.

A penal colony, the modern version of it. Out of sight, out of mind. The high risk detainees aren't deported. They're perpetually contained. Just not on American soil. And that concept, exporting the physical consequence of detention, is a perfect.

Segue into the sources analysis of modern globalism. It is the idea of locating supermax prisons abroad connects directly. To the concept. Of NIMBY not in my backyard. The source defines this global outsourcing of consequence as NIMBY writ large, and it uses California as the paradigm, the ultimate NIMB state.

It claims the state has meticulously driven out its industrial base, oil refineries, corporate headquarters like in out, Oracle, Tesla because the economic and environmental impact of industrial production is just too. Messy for the pristine progressive image the state wants to maintain, right? But the consumption continues. Which is where that famous Dorian Gray painting? Analogy comes in. This is a powerful metaphor for global embryism. The.

Source claims that California's pollution and industrial work have been outsourced. Primarily to China. China incurs the carbon footprint, operates the factories, deals with The Dirty labor, the sin, and then puts the finished goods on a container and ships them to California for consumption. Without the carbon footprint. So California remains beautiful and green like the unblemished.

Portrait of Dorian Gray while the moral and environmental cost of its consumption is borne by the. Painting itself, which is hidden away in this base China or other developing nations. So the argument is that modern globalism is just NIMBY writ. Large not just not in your backyard, but not even on your continent. That's the definition the source uses.

It's the outsourcing of undesirable. Social, economic and environmental costs to maintain domestic comfort and this provides the perfect context for understanding the shift from GWAT to DWAT right if the global War on Terror was about outsourcing. Violence and death to foreign lands, making conflict happen somewhere else, then the domestic War on Terror. The DWAT is the logical reversal. You bring the force doctrine home because the economic engine demands it. Precisely.

So what does the source claim is the transition and what's the expanded target list for the SWAT? Well, the source says the GWAT targeted civilians abroad often. Labeling legitimate freedom fighters as terrorists and using remote force like drone warfare. The DWAT is the domestic application of that exact logic and force doctrine. But to justify that apparatus you need a massive expanded target list. You do.

And the list, according to the material, relies on expanding the definition. To include groups that blur the line between criminal and political action, narco terrorists, cartels. And this is crucial for the political dimension, the formal definition of Antifa as a terrorist organization. And that terrorist label is key. It's essential because. Applying that label allows the US to. Apply drought.

Style surveillance force doctrines and indefinite detention capabilities right here at home, justifying the massive internal security state created by the DIC. The ultimate goal, then, is to establish the idea that the country is. So infiltrated that an infinite number of 9/11 type of Paris's have infiltrated American life, that they're staging multiple terrorist events or preparing for a government takeover. That perception is what justifies the authoritarian spending absolutely, the perception of an invisible, ubiquitous enemy operating internally. Is what provides the political oxygen for the dwat. And this strategy of internal targeting leads directly to what the source calls the Chinese finger trap approach, a strategy of intentional provocation against activist groups. Right, Let's talk about this.

Pressure cooker analogy The source claims the administration's alleged goal is to turn America into an anti progressive, anti antifa, anti deportation pressure cooker. Why would they do that? The objective is psychological and strategic. It's to make people lose their stuff and to use the sources colorful phrase Red Dawn against the government. The administration is allegedly seeking an internal flashpoint, a violent reaction.

Exactly. The source suggests that if lefties. Anarchist Climate. Activists and Free Palestine protesters are fooled into escalating their actions, transitioning from protest to actual physical violent confrontation. It will quickly cascade into real world consequences, gisticuffs, small arms conflict, or even a return to something like. 1970s Weather Underground style terrorism, right?

And the Chinese finger trap analogy perfectly describes the mechanism. Of this provocation so, well, the analogy is stark. The more anarchists and protesters struggle and defy the government's deployment, the tighter the trap gets. The resistance provides the documented justification for taking off of gloves and the full heavy-handed deployment of the DWAT and DIC. So the source explicitly claims the provocation is intentional, yes. The resistance itself is strategically channelled and. Used as the moral justification for the counter response, tightening the trap around civil liberties and protest movements. So the stability of this whole make work apparatus depends on the.

Government either fabricating or successfully provoking genuine violence from its domestic opposition. That's it. That violence is the ultimate justification for the trillion dollar. Expenditure. If the state can document genuine organized violence from the opposition, the massive new security infrastructure will be retroactively justified in the eyes of a public that's already been primed to fear those hundreds of terror cells. This whole aggressive pivot seems motivated by an intense fear.

Of widespread violence. And yet the source offers this fascinating analysis of what Americans actually worry about versus the objective statistical risk. Yeah, this part is really interesting. The claim is that people don't really care about big. Crimes like billionaire corruption.

Or large scale inner city violence, but only the crimes that personally affect their daily lives. Quality of life crimes. This is a crucial political distinction the source makes. It argues that. While macro level issues like white collar crime are objectively more damaging to the economy, they don't drive political demand for massive enforcement spending.

What drives the demand for the dwat is the perceived breakdown of daily. Order exactly, and the source lists those specific immediate. Quality of life concerns. What are they? Highly visible crimes?

Car break insurance, Stolen catalytic converters. Personal muggings. Pickpocketing, which the source calls the European problem, suggesting it's something Americans find especially intolerable. Carjacking. Smash and grabs, right?

Especially if you're a store owner. And maybe most relevant to the. Political mood, the visible disorder of homelessness and drug use, even down to just the smell of stinky weed and the source claims America has such a low tolerance for danger and this. Kind of visible disorder that people have to actively go out of their way to highlight statistical anomalies like overall gun deaths. The argument is that for the average American, the baseline level of public.

Order is so high that any visible disruption, like a stolen catalytic converter, creates this intense demand for intervention. So the the political necessity of the DWAT in DIC isn't really rooted in stopping terrorism, but in restoring the perception of total order and safety in daily life. And this low tolerance for danger makes it essential that we actually review. The statistical data cited in the source about gun deaths, which they use to frame the real risk environment in the US. Let's slow down and walk through the numbers the source provides, starting with the baseline cited for 2023.

OK, the baseline total annual gun related deaths cited in the material. Is around 46,700. This is the big number you often hear reported, but the source immediately strips out a massive component to frame the issue differently. It does. It removes suicides, and it notes that they account for a staggering. 58% of that total, that's approximately 27,000 deaths. And the source categorizes these as personal choice issues or mental.

Health crises arguing they should be statistically separate from homicides when you're talking about external threats to public safety, right so by stripping out suicides, the source dramatically lowers the baseline for. Comparison, you're left with approximately 19,700 non suicide gun deaths per year. OK, so just under 20,000 and the source then translates this into a. Rate for the 400 million estimated. Population which comes out to roughly 4.9 non suicide gun deaths per 100,000 people annually.

The first notes this paints a more nuanced picture of external risk than the raw totals, and if we dig deeper into that non suicide total, the source is about 79. Percent of those deaths are homicides. That's the next critical breakdown. So 79% of that 19,007. 100 gives you approximately 15,600 gun related murders. This is the vast majority of non suicide deaths, which translates to a rate of about 3.3 gun homicides per 100,000. People per year.

The source also notes that legal defense of gun uses are a much smaller slice of the pie. Right. And the material emphasizes that while every homicide is a tragedy. Putting this number in context is essential when you're evaluating the public's acceptance of a massive domestic War on Terror. The fear level that's being promoted needs to be way out of proportion to the actual statistical reality for the strategy to work. Which brings us to the famous apples to oranges juggling act. That the source material performs comparing these gun homicide totals to other, less politically charged causes of death, this comparison highlights a real societal paradox, the source notes.

That there are roughly 43,000 vehicular deaths per year in the US. That's about twice the number of gun homicides exactly. Yet vehicular deaths are. Generally tolerated as an unavoidable risk of. Modern life while gun violence is treated as this existential threat that demands a massive military response.

And the comparison goes, it does. Drowning deaths are around 4000 a year. Other accidental deaths. Like falls or unintentional poisonings are in the 10s of thousands and then you have non firearm homicide stabbings which are between 1500 and 1800 and blunt objects only a few 100. So guns are clearly the most common murder weapon by far. The gun homicide total is significantly larger. Than all other forms of homicide combined. But the source notes that guns were well designed to kill things, making that comparison inherently skewed in terms of efficacy.

This whole data deep dive sets the stage for the sources final observation. Which is maybe the most surprising part of this whole thing, The paradox of American restraint. Yeah, despite the pressure cooker environment and the political narrative of. Internal chaos. The source expresses genuine shock and notes the benevolence and restraint of what it calls the highly militarized and trained superior force, which includes IC and the National Guard.

The source finds it remarkable that every protest, every deployment, doesn't just escalate. Into a total catastrophe. Precisely. They say they're super impressed that every day is not a Kent State. A mass shooting incident involving the National Guard and protesters.

The material points to the high training and superior armament of law enforcement, whose ratio is 2.3 officers per 1000 residents. And yet they exhibit this incredible operational restraint even when provoked, the source jokingly says. This daily lack of violence proves. That God exists and loves us. It does, and this restraint is mirrored by the American populace itself. Who possess an unprecedented amount of private firepower. That's the other side of the paradox. The source notes the existence of over 400. Million mostly unused firearms.

In private hands, it suggests the civilian population also demonstrates a very strong trigger discipline, that old principle of don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. So despite the polarization and the vast arsenal, the system remains. Surprisingly stable, right? And the numbers back up the scale of that arsenal, the source estimates. Americans by between 8 and 15 billion rounds of ammo every year. The average possession is 80 to 150 rounds per gun owner. Wow.

So the existence of this vast unused domestic firepower coupled with the restraint of militarized government forces highlights this core, almost miraculous tension in the American system. But the source as one final warning that big disruptive events like January 6th or outright false flag events are often fermented by intelligence agencies or what they call color revolution agenda outfits rather than organic citizen action. It suggests external manipulation is needed to truly break that internal restraint. So we've taken a comprehensive look at the sources, complex and frankly, extremely. Provocative claim that American economic success is fundamentally tied to conflict and that current geopolitical constraints are forcing this pivot inward right, and this pivot embodied by the deportation industrial complex. And the domestic War on Terror is framed as this modern authoritarian take on the FBR New Deal, a strategic mechanism designed to absorb the defense budget and create internal employment through perpetual enforcement and detention. We've detailed how this economic necessity, according to the source, relies on.

Intentional trauma as a force multiplier, how concepts like NMBY are used globally to outsource moral and environmental costs, and how statistical data can be manipulated to frame the perception of safety. Or danger, which then justifies these immense expenditures. And we covered that terrifying strategy of intentional revocation. The Chinese finger trap, where the defiance of activists against the DIC is allegedly used to justify escalating the dwat, turning that resistance energy back against itself. The source ultimately closes on this observation that the simple lack.

Of daily violent escalation. The fact that there aren't multiple Kent states or bombings every single day is this almost miraculous indicator of a deep seated restraint from both the superior militarized force and the heavily armed citizenry. Right. So considering the sources ultimate claim the violence is being. Intentionally provoked to justify retaliation and the necessary expansion of this deportation industrial complex.

What is the extreme trigger discipline and surprising operational restraint of both sides? Tell you about the current stability or maybe the inherent fragility of the American system, especially if the source is correct. The defiance only serves to tighten this intentional Chinese finger trap. Our discussion today focuses on the conceptual framework. Of what's being called the Deportation Industrial complex, or DIC. Now, this term describes the massive nationwide infrastructure designed to conduct and manage the mass removal of undocumented individuals. The critical question that really comes out of our source material.

Is this? What is the primary function of this colossal apparatus? Is it, at its core a modern internal works program aimed at economic stability, Something similar in, let's say, structural necessity and scale to the role the FDR New Deal played? And I'll be presenting the alternative perspective here. I maintain that. While the spending footprint is, of course, enormous, the DIIC is fundamentally defined by its methods. It's explicit reliance on trauma, on intimidation, and frankly on punitive militarization. This makes it an instrument of social control and conflict generation.

It's it's structurally distinct from any historical works project. I would argue the methodology completely supersedes the economics, and I'm going to argue that the economic mechanism is in fact. Primary The DIC is the internal spending vehicle that is required to maintain the economy. It fills a role that, you know, has traditionally been occupied by large scale military engagement abroad position statements. So my core thesis is based on the structural logic of the modern defense state, historically foreign military adventurism, which the source material a bit provocatively calls the best business plan ever because it relies on expensive, intentionally consumed weapons. That has been the engine for trillions in federal spending. When a political administration is constrained, for whatever reason in overseas interventions, that massive budget still exists.

It has to be directed internally to prevent a domestic economic collapse. The DIC therefore becomes the necessary replacement. You're framing this purely as an economic imperative, then A. Straightforward spending funnel. Precisely. It's the bizarro mirror New Deal a make. War or make work program that's been turned inward. I mean, if we seriously consider the scale required for the mass deportation of what, 20 to 50 million people, the required infrastructure is effectively infinite. You're talking about building and maintaining detainment centers, mass hiring of judges, lawyers, and federal agents, procuring specialized vehicles like black Suburbans and transfer vans, and then contracting commercial airlines. And this scale requires massive tertiary support, food services, medical care, HVAC, catering.

This investment is massive enough to act as a recession proofing economic engine, engaging the same volume of personnel that would be required for a military engagement abroad. OK, well, while I can concede the spending footprint is vast. I really have to challenge the structural comparison to the New Deal. I come in it from a different angle. The DIC is, I believe, fundamentally extinct because it's design is not constructive or modernizing.

It is explicitly A punitive and psychologically damaging security apparatus, what we're calling the Domestic War on Terror or DWAT. And even if we admit the New Deal was, you know, an authoritarian project focused on modernization, the DIC operates purely on the basis of trauma delivery. But even that violence has an economic cost that translates directly into spending it. Does but look at the operational goal, the. Intent is to achieve mass removals not just through logistics but through psychological force.

The overreach, you know, the flash bangs, the door kicking, the display of heavily armed federal agents, That's all. What the material cause intentionally traumatic delivery. The goal is to traumatize people so thoroughly that they self deport this focus on fear, on expulsion. That defines. The system and makes a parallel to works programs, which are traditionally about national reconstruction really insufficient. And furthermore, if the economic argument holds, the system would need to maximize long term infrastructure. But the private prison component often cited as a key part of the deck, it accounts for a relatively small portion of correctional spending compared to public facilities. This suggests the projected infinite scale needed for long term detention.

May be, you know, conceptually rhetorical, which questions the enduring economic equivalence. I have to reiterate that the structural logic still dictates. That the economic function takes precedence. The system is designed to create a New Deal style economy off of these giant deportation programs to ensure economic survival during a downturn. The punitive elements, They're secondary.

They are merely the most efficient way to deliver the primary objective, which is a funded, sustained internal operation. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that the economics supersede. The stated operational intent. If the explicit primary goal is traumatic self deportation, then your long term demand for infrastructure, the works component you mentioned, will actually decrease drastically as people leave. This seems to prove the system is optimized for enforcement and violence delivery in the short term, not long term infrastructural employment.

The spending is concentrated on militarized personnel and equipment to manage conflict, which immediately transforms a mission into a domestic War on Terror. That's an interesting challenge that operational success undermines. The economic structure, however, I'd say the D Wat itself is the works program in a modern context. So even if the target population shrinks, the target list expands. The D Wat requires the system to pivot, labeling other domestic groups, protesters, political opponents as narco terrorists or cartels to justify the continued massive budget for agents and equipment. The expenditure remains.

It's simply redirected toward internal security mobilization rather than just immigration logistics. The structure finds a new crisis to monetize, so the core function of the DIC isn't stable employment. But perpetual conflict generation just to maintain funding, that is a crucial distinction from the New Deal, which aim to create stable long term employment through constructive projects. Let's let's delve into the authoritarian nature of both projects. You noted that the New Deal involved authoritarian elements, displacement through eminent domain, but the DIC is built on outright deliberate provocation to justify its own size.

I'd like to clarify the mechanism we mentioned earlier, the Chinese finger cuffs analogy, right? That analogy refers to the system strategy of escalation. The federal forces conduct these highly visible, highly traumatic enforcement actions. Raids, arrests, neighborhood sweeps. This is designed to provoke a guaranteed, often violent response from targeted communities or activist groups like anarchists.

The ensuing resistance then provides the political and legal momentum for the superior state force to respond with more retaliation and thus use the energy of the protest to further destroy the lives of those people. That mechanism of self generating conflict is when I think. Fundamentally. Separates the two historical projects. While the New Deal used authoritarian control and displacement for the purpose of national modernization, building dams, roads, power grids, the DIC uses authoritarian control for destabilization and the creation of a self feeding conflict loop. So the New Deals violence was the cost of construction. The DI CS violence is the primary operational input. The system is designed to consume human conflict in fear, not simply to pave roads.

I'm just not convinced that the difference in methodology negates. The. Shared structural outcome. The violence you're describing, while calculated, is structurally analogous to the necessary overhead for any large scale governmental project involving internal military deployment. The source material often notes that in foreign adventurism, lives are the only acceptable cost for the hegemon.

If you turn that spending inward, the resulting domestic violence and social disruption, they become the politically acceptable overhead for achieving the larger defining goal, the creation of a massive funded internal structure that stabilizes the flow of military industrial spending domestically. Let me introduce another structural element that I think reinforces the equivalence the not in my backyard or NIMBY framework. The DIC also facilitates the exportation of punitive measures which mirrors globalism strategy of you know, outsourcing undesirable effects like California sending its pollution offshore. The most genuinely high level security threats, terrorists and hardened gang members. They won't be deported to unstable nations, instead they'll be placed in supermax prisons abroad.

It's what the material calls the penal colony idea. The foreign supermax concept is. I agree, undoubtedly. Pure NIMBY. It's the outsourcing of undesirable citizens. Exactly.

And this aligns both the New Deal and the DIC. The New Deal used eminent domain for local dislocation, moving people out of the way of progress. The DIC simply pushes the truly undesirable further away, outside the continental borders. Yet it's still funded by the Internal Works Program. It's a strategy of displacement and spatial control common to both.

OK, but while I can see that the NIMBY mechanism applies. Perfectly to the foreign penal colony aspect if fails when applied to the core works program thesis For the deportation industrial complex to function as the necessary internal economic engine, the enforcement, the hiring, and the trauma delivery must take place domestically. It requires the invasion of America by its own federal forces. This domestic mobilization inherently creates instability, conflict, and fear, a situation that's contrary to the stabilization goals usually associated with massive government works, projects designed to restore public faith, as the New Deal was intended to do. But that instability is precisely the currency that justifies the continuous.

Funding of. The mobilization and that leads us directly back to the justification for the domestic War on Terror itself, and we have to question the genuine scale of the domestic threat used. To justify this mechanism, the political narrative focuses so heavily on quality of life crimes, catalytic converters, stolen smash and grab, the fear of mugging. Does this genuine, statistically verifiable threat level really warrant a works program of this immense scale and level of militarization? The statistical threat level is.

It's secondary to the. Political utility of the perception of threat. The political buy in is what funds the works program. We really have to use the source materials quantitative framing of societal instability, specifically gun violence, to understand this gap between reality and funding justification. All right, let's use the numbers to clarify this political distortion, OK? So total gun deaths in the US are approximately. 46,700 annually.

Crucially, 58% of those are suicides. If we remove those personal choice issues, we're left with around 19,700 non suicide gun deaths and specifically gun homicides, the number most often. Weaponized for security narratives, that stands at about 15,600. So that yields a rate of approximately 3.3 homicides per 100,000 people annually. The quantitative comparison is staggering.

This homicide. Rate is significantly lower than, say vehicular deaths, which hover around 43,000 annually if we proposed a trillion dollar internal mobilization to eliminate traffic deaths, it would be deemed absurd. But the perception of pervasive insecurity fueled by political rhetoric and media focus on those 15,600 homicides. It enables the government to state that the domestic environment is dangerous enough to warrant the massive, expensive, militarized internal mobilization the DWAT, which concurrently fulfills the economic need for a large scale internal spending project. The perception of pervasive insecurity the constant sense that the. Home front is a war zone is the necessary ingredient for politically sustaining the economic spending apparatus. I can accept that perception drives the currency, but I'd argue that because the statistical reality is so disproportionate to the scale of the W at response, it underscores that the system's primary goal is not economic stabilization, but the political utility of maintaining A perpetual state of internal emergency in control. My position remains rooted in structural economics. The.

Demands of maintaining economic hegemony require a massive internal spending mechanism. The deportation industrial complex fulfills this need by leveraging A perceived internal crisis, migration and terror to mobilize personnel and resources. And while the methodology is, yes, highly punitive and fear inducing, the fundamental structural role, the creation of a vast funded apparatus that keeps the military industrial complex alive domestically is analogous to the stabilizing function of the New Deals Works programs during the Great Depression. And I maintain the analogy fails due to critical differences in. Methodology and intent. The New Deal was at its core infrastructural and modernizing. It aimed to build and stabilize the nation physically. The DIC is structurally defined by the strategy of traumatic delivery and deliberate provocation, that self feeding conflict loop.

Its intent is to militarize internal policing and dismantle communities through fear, making it fundamentally an instrument of social control and calculated conflict rather than national reconstruction. The New Deal built dams, the DIC builds walls of fear. Yet both create a massive government funded apparatus that sustains. A. Significant portion of the workforce when other avenues of spending are constrained.

I think our discussion confirms the materials intellectual complexity. Large scale government action is rarely a simple choice. It often carries both economic imperatives and course of functions simultaneously. The central question remains, which function defines the structure? We must continue to analyze how the modern state prioritizes, so let's jump right in.

Our first point is really. About focus, the sheer breath of these high stakes, provocative concepts, it ultimately dilutes the singular compelling power of the central thesis, which is that deportation industrial complex, the DIC. As an economic stimulus, exactly the material is so ambitious it. Brings in the domestic War on Terror, or DWAT, which is great, but then it jumps to all these other complex analogies, right? And it's not that the ideas are bad.

They're profound. But they're treated, you know, associatively. They don't feel like they're structurally supporting the main economic argument. I see that you get that sudden shift to the Dorian Gray thing with. California outsourcing its carbon footprint, right? The NIMBY analogy.

And then from there we go into this. Really. Deep. Statistical breakdown of gun mortality rates and I can see that the authors point illustrating denial or. A low cultural risk tolerance, but you lose momentum.

You do. I think there's a real risk there. If your core argument is about building this new national spending machine, a works program needing, and I'm quoting infinite detainment centers, you have to keep that financial engine right up front, yes. But by spending all this time on, say, the California analogy, you get sidetracked. Suddenly the listener is debating environmental policy or gun statistics Exactly.

And they're not wrestling with the terrifying financial. Necessity of the DIC. Which is the whole point. That is the whole point. So the suggestion is really.

About editorial focus. Re center the entire thing around the economic case for the DIC and dwat. Make everything else serve that one idea, every single tangent. Has to justify why it's there it. Has to strengthen that central financial framework or, you know, it has to go. And to make that really actionable, you have to be ruthless.

That California section, is it truly essential? If not, I'd. Say cut it just. For velocity. But if you keep it, you have to reframe it completely. How so?

Don't let it be about Nimb yism in general. Frame it. As the perfect. Illustration of how the US manages negative externalities and then make the leap. The leap being that the DIC turns the undocumented. Population itself into that externality precisely. Now it's not a tangent anymore, it's integrated proof. It's.

Part of the core logic and you can do the same thing with the statistics. That whole section breaking down gun. Deaths, you know, taking it from the big number down to the homicide rate. So long aside right now, a very long aside. It needs to be transformed. Make it short.

Sharp and impactful. It should prove one thing and one thing only. The low cultural tolerance for risk. Yes, that's what the DWAT. Needs to get public support. Prove that.

And then immediately get back to the money, the economics of militarizing that response. The numbers have to serve the budget justification, not start a whole. Separate debate. I think if that happens, the thesis will. Just have so much more clarity and. Power right now it feels like 3 separate brilliant essays competing we just need them all marching in formation yeah OK so if the first point is.

About tightening the focus. The second is about, well, it's about giving that core historical analogy the steal it deserves, the New Deal comparison, the crucial comparison, it. Needs deeper historical texture. To be more than just a rhetorical provocation, it has to actually support the claim that the New Deal was an eminent domain project in the guise of modernization, which is a huge claim. A huge claim, the material calls. It an FDR work style make.

Work. Program, but in a bizarro mirror. It even uses the term Hitler Lite. OK, so that's a staggering thing to. Say about the new Deal, it is, and I wonder if we've really considered the immense.

I mean the immense. Burden of proof that comes with a claim like that, especially when the author themselves says the New Deal is in America's sacred. Time exactly to call it extremely authoritarian and. Despotic. And the script uses those exact words that requires just knockout counterintuitive evidence, or else it just sounds like noise, right?

It's an explosive comparison. But if it fails, it risks. Derailing the entire argument into just being contrarian for its own sake. And that's the weakness right now. The analysis just states the parallels works. Program national pride it doesn't give the specifics of who the New Deal was quote weaponized against appoint the author flag themselves as needing work so the gentrification claim it.

Just hangs there. It feels unsubstantiated. So the suggestion has to be to strengthen it with just one or two concrete evidence. Based examples Yes, examples of the New Deal's authoritarian side that directly mirror the. Human costs of the DIC. We need to see that dark reflection in the bizarro mirror.

OK, so for concrete examples we could. Pinpoint a specific program like the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, or the PWA right and you find documented systematic exclusionary practices. Or you find where federal eminent domain was used for land acquisition that led directly to displacement, and then you explicitly contrast that with the DI CS use of land for. An infinite number of detainment centers. You show the historical mechanism of control side by side. And the.

Money link is absolutely vital here. You have to define. The economic purpose of the DIC as an extension of the private prison system, which already costs billions, then show how the New Deal also monetized a national crisis. So you're linking the cost of trauma and displacement in the DIC to the? Unacknowledged socioeconomic cost of displacement and.

Control back in the New Deal If you can show how the New Deal controlled populations for national gain, the analogy is suddenly robust, defensible. It moves beyond rhetoric and into. Verifiable history. Which is what this audience will demand. They'll want that rigor without it, that.

Hitler like comparison is just a distraction. But with it, it grounds the sheer scale of the claim it validates. The insight? OK, let's move on. Our third and final critique.

This one is about. How the mechanism of trauma delivery connects back to the economics right. The analysis of intentional trauma and conflict needs. To be. Explicitly tied back to the core economic viability of the deportation industrial complex, OK. And the material is incredibly effective at detailing the aggression.

It talks about flash bang grenades, door kicking, the JSOC drag attire and it frames them as intentional tools to traumatize people into self deporting. Exactly. And it also suggests very astutely that. Protests are being provoked. It uses that great Chinese finger cuffs analogy to say that resistance is being used to justify more aggression and trigger the D Watt. That all makes sense.

You see the action, the trauma, and the desired. Psychological outcome? Self deportation. But here's the question I have. If the core thesis is that the DIC is a massive multibillion dollar economic works program meant to employ millions, wouldn't self deportation actually undermine that? How do you mean?

Well, why build infinite centers if people are leaving on? Their own before. You can process them. It seems like a paradox that the material introduces but doesn't quite resolve. Ah, and that's the beautiful, terrifying twist of it. The weakness here is that the discussion of provocation, waiting for the left to Red Dawn against their own government, it feels focused on conflict and it feels separate from the economics.

It feels political, not financial, right. We need to, clearly. Spell out why this expensive trauma. Delivery is a necessary part of the Bizarro Works program, so the suggestion is to frame the trauma and provocation as direct evidence. Of the DI CS superior operational efficiency making it financially irresistible exactly you articulate how.

Self deportation reduces the need for. All those centers, judges, charter flights, you'd need to deport 40 million people. The trauma becomes a cost saving measure, a force. Multiplier for the economic project it proves. Its own terrible rationality that framing changes everything. Trauma isn't just malice.

It's a budget optimization tool. It's terrifying. So for a concrete example, the. Author could explicitly link the success. Of traumatizing people who are here illegally to the reduced operational load on the DIAC infrastructure. Fewer apprehensions, fewer beds, less catering, less. Medical care reduced reliance on chartering an infinite number of commercial airlines.

The initial investment in trauma pays dividends by cutting long term bureaucratic overhead. And that's where the Chinese finger cuffs analogy becomes a financial. Mechanism the provocation guarantees the conflict you need to justify the spending. More protests mean more justification for militarized spending for federal. Jobs the works program the violence guarantees the necessity of the. DeWalt framework and its trillion. Dollar budget while the trauma it creates optimizes the deportation rate it's a self feeding financial loop it's brilliant and horrifying and we.

Can refine one last piece, the part about sanctuary. Cities being the best fishing grounds, we should detail how the federal power to override local decrees makes that local defiance a tool. It concentrates your enforcement resources so you focus your high cost, high visibility actions in specific. Areas maximizing efficiency and maximizing the public consumption of the DIAC in action. You turn political defiance into a centralized budget justification, turning defiance into a core argument for federal employment.

That's a. Powerful adjustment. It links the political reality straight to the economic model. The material is so strong, it's original and deeply provocative. But tightening that focus and really substantiating the New Deal analogy, that's what will make it robust enough to stand up to serious scrutiny. I genuinely believe this piece has explosive potential. We just want.

To help strengthen the internal structure to support the weight of these incredibly significant claims, the path forward is really clear. So, to quickly summarize the three big suggestions, first focus. The scope let the DIC economic thesis dominate and use those fascinating tangents only as tight supporting evidence. Second, deep in that historical comparison to the New Deal. Add specific critical evidence to really validate the bizarro mirror analogy. And third, make sure that the analysis of trauma and provocation.

Is explicitly tied back to the core economic and operational efficiency of the whole deportation industrial complex. It's impacted promises. We invite you to submit the revised material. Back in for another look on the. Deportation industrial complex and the domestic War on Terror so. This analysis looks at large scale security operations like mass deportations in a really different way. It suggests they're actually massive domestic jobs programs, kind of like a bizarre militarized mirror image of the New Deal.

OK, so first up is what's called the deportation industrial complex. The whole idea is that it's designed to create this huge internal economic stimulus. I mean, think about it. To deport millions of people, you'd need endless detention centers. You'd have to charter airlines and hire a massive number of federal agents, judges and lawyers.

It's a way to spend the military budget, but right here at home. Second, this whole thing expands into what's called the domestic War on Terror. The focus shifts from overseas threats to people right here. So you see domestic political groups like anti fascist or socialist getting labeled as terrorist organizations. The strategies described as a kind of jujitsu move. You basically provoke people to protest the deportations and then use that very protest against them to justify a much wider crackdown.

It's a trap. And finally there are the tactics. They call it intentional traumatic delivery. We're talking door kicking, raids, repelling from helicopters, flashbangs. It's all designed to be a massive show of force.

The whole point is to make life so psychologically unbearable the people here illegally will just self deport. So in the end, this strategy uses both immigration and protest as a dual excuse to militarize the economy and radically expand government power.