Thank you Under the Golden Boot, Tamibetcha, Lee, Francisca Michel, The Depths of Justice, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

My co-host, Toya G, and I spent hours unpacking what this means: for the stalled movement for reparations in America, for the complex infighting among Black diasporic communities, and for the very real, documented playbook (Project 2025) that the current administration is using to privatize our government and police our bodies. We laughed, we raged, and we connected dots that the mainstream media refuses to touch. Political Plug aka Domo was out with a sinus infection.

Here’s what I need you to understand.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

1. The Resolution Is a Mirror, and the West Is Looking Away

The UN resolution is powerful, but it’s also the UN General Assembly is essentially a “global town hall.” It has no army, no police force, and no real enforcement mechanism. Its resolutions are recommendations—the world’s opinion, written down and recorded.

The nations most responsible for the slave trade—the ones who built their industrial revolutions, their empires, and their modern wealth on the backs of enslaved Africans—are the very nations holding the keys to any international action. They abstained, pleading the fifth. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy—they all abstained.

This is where we have to be intellectually honest. Portugal, the nation responsible for trafficking more Africans across the Atlantic than any other European country, abstained. Belgium, whose King Leopold later perpetrated a genocide in the Congo that was paved by the slave trade’s infrastructure, abstained. Their abstention isn’t neutrality. It’s a refusal to be on the record for something they know, deep down, they will never be able to fully repay.

2. The “Oppression Olympics” Argument Is a Smokescreen for Debt

When the vote came down, the predictable conservative retort emerged: “Why is this the gravest crime against humanity? What about the Holocaust? What about other historical atrocities?” This is a debate tactic, not a genuine inquiry.

As Toya G pointed out, this argument is a way to avoid accountability. They love to run to “whataboutism” because it creates a hierarchy of pain that they can then claim is “divisive.” But the historical weight is not the same. When you look up “blackface,” you find a history of racial caricature and violence used to dehumanize an entire race to justify their enslavement. When you look up “whiteface,” you find clowns.

This is the foundation of the “Oppression Olympics” argument—it’s a tool used by those who benefit from the status quo to avoid paying their debt. The U.S. even argued that we can’t “retrospectively apply international laws” to slavery. The message is clear: “We’ll acknowledge it, but we won’t pay for it.”

3. Who Gets Reparations? The FBA Conversation Exposes a Deeper Dilemma

The UN resolution’s focus on the entire Transatlantic Slave Trade—and thus the entire Black diaspora—forces a conversation that Foundational Black Americans (FBA) have been having for years: who is “black enough” to get paid?

I’m not one to sit on the sidelines and dismiss the FBA conversation outright. I get it. The point they make about lineage, about the fact that their ancestors were here building this country for centuries while other immigrant groups arrived later and benefited from that struggle, is a valid historical point. But my issue has always been the political bedfellows they sometimes keep—the celebration of mass deportation, the alignment with white nationalist aesthetics.

Toya G helped me articulate the central tension: the police don’t care if you’re FBA or Caribbean. If you’re Black, you’re a target. The violence is anti-Black, not just “descendants of American slaves” anti-Black. So, while the initial reparations focus should be on those with generational lineage from the chattel slavery era, the larger framework of anti-Blackness makes this conversation infinitely more complex.

Max, our producer, dropped the widely cited benchmark from William Darity Jr. and A. Kristen Mullen: $10 trillion to $12 trillion to eliminate the Black-white wealth gap. That’s a starting point. But the how and the who will be the fight of our lives.

4. Mark Wayne Mullin, Project 2025, and the Privatization of the State

As we discussed, the appointment of Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullin—a man with no security experience who has publicly bragged about beating his child—to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not an accident. It is a feature of the system they are building.

This isn’t about incompetence; it’s about loyalty. It’s about putting people in place who will follow the playbook. And the playbook is Project 2025. We pulled it up on the stream. I typed in “TSA” (which DHS oversees) and found it mentioned 26 times. The plan is to starve the agency, cause chaos, and then privatize it.

When you privatize a state function like airport security, you don’t just hand it to corporations. You create a cloak of anonymity. The government is no longer directly accountable for the violence, the harassment, and the abuse that will inevitably follow. It’s the same logic that allowed the “Gestapo” tactics of the early Trump administration to flourish.

5. Seeing Black ICE Agents: The Ultimate Betrayal

Perhaps the most frustrating part of our conversation was seeing the images of Black ICE agents on social media. The discourse that followed—”If you don’t want Black ICE agents, why do you defend gang culture?”—is a false binary designed to make us accept our own oppression.

I was being facetious when I asked Toya G, “Why not have Black overseers on the plantation?” But the logic is the same. The desire for “representation” in institutions built on anti-Blackness is a trap. It’s identity politics commodified by the state. You don’t need Black people in the room if the room is designed to destroy Black people. It’s not representation; it’s participation in your own subjugation.

As Toya G said, if you have to choose between being a slave catcher and selling drugs, those aren’t your only two options. The fact that people defend the choice to become a state agent of violence as “hustling” shows how deeply neoliberalism has consumed our identity.

Explicit Ask to Become a Paid Subscriber

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education and media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted. With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you.

As a Black educator and researcher, my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors. If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise. But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you found value in this breakdown—the UN resolution, the FBA debate, the Project 2025 analysis—please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. Your support allows me to do the deep research, produce these articles, and keep the conversations going that you won’t find anywhere else. Click the button below to join the community.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

5 Key Takeaways

* The UN Resolution is Symbolic, But Important: The declaration of the slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” is a major moral statement, even if it lacks enforcement power. It creates a historical record that future generations can use to demand justice.

* The “No” Votes Are a Warning: The U.S., Israel, and Argentina voting no isn’t an anomaly. It signals a global realignment of states that are comfortable with white supremacy and the erasure of Black historical trauma.

* Reparations is a Global Diaspora Question: The FBA conversation about lineage is valid, but the reality of anti-Blackness means any reparative justice framework must grapple with the interconnectedness of the entire Black diaspora.

* Privatization is the Path to Fascism: Project 2025 is the blueprint. From TSA to USPS, the goal is to privatize public goods, stripping them of accountability and turning them into profit centers that can be weaponized against marginalized communities.

* Representation is Not Liberation: Seeing Black faces in oppressive institutions like ICE is not progress. It is a deliberate strategy to give these institutions a veneer of legitimacy while they continue to carry out the state’s anti-Black agenda.

Related Readings (Bibliography)

* The 1619 Project by Nikole Hannah-Jones (The New York Times Magazine): For a foundational understanding of slavery’s centrality to American capitalism and democracy.

* From Here to Equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century by William A. Darity Jr. and A. Kirsten Mullen: The definitive text on the moral and economic case for reparations, including the $10-12 trillion benchmark.

* “Project 2025” Presidential Transition Project (The Heritage Foundation): The primary source document outlining the conservative agenda for the next administration. A must-read for understanding the policy goals.

* The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America by Khalil Gibran Muhammad: Explores how the construction of Black criminality was essential to the formation of modern policing and state violence.

* “The United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Transatlantic Slave Trade” (March 24, 2026): The full text of the resolution itself, detailing the 123-3-54 vote and the official language of the declaration.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

On March 24, 2026, the United Nations passed a historic resolution. With 123 countries in favor, it officially declared the transatlantic slave trade the gravest crime against humanity.

It should have been a moment of global consensus, a long-overdue acknowledgment of a 400-year nightmare that birthed modern capitalism, funded the Industrial Revolution, and built empires. On the surface, it looks like an easy decision to make. Some would even say a finger roll.

But 52 countries abstained. And three—the United States, Israel, and Argentina—voted “hell no.”

When you start to see the pathology and the ratio at work, you start to see the truth: Certain groups get to decide which history counts and which history gets erased. And it is always people of European descent who get to decide which history is and which history ain’t.

Let’s unpack what they’re actually denying.

What Makes It the “Gravest Crime”?

Before we get into the specificity of the vote, we have to sit with the claim itself. Some of y’all might not know what that actually means.

The transatlantic slave trade lasted for 400 years. An estimated 12 to 15 million Africans were forcibly taken, kidnapped, chained, and shipped across the ocean. But the scale of the violence is only part of the story.

This was the first time in human history that an entire system—of law, economics, and theology—was built on the complete dehumanization of a people. The world bought into the idea that a human being got on the boat as an African with a culture, a language, and a land, and got off the boat as a slave, as property, as a commodity.

It was the first time we saw that your state of being property was inherited. It was passed down to your kids and your kids’ kids. It was the codification of chattel slavery: the idea of a human being as perpetual property, as three-fifths of a person.

That’s the reason why it’s one of the gravest crimes against humanity. It’s not just about violence; it’s about the idea. And that system didn’t end in 1865. It transformed. It was remixed and reshaped into sharecropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, and the war on drugs.

There is no American economy, no global empire, without King Cotton, without the free labor extracted on the backs of my ancestors. That’s the reason why this resolution matters. It’s about accountability, recognition, and responsibility. It’s about closing a wound that never really even healed.

The United Nations: A Body of Words, Not Teeth

To understand the full weight—and the frustrating limits—of this resolution, we have to understand the institution that passed it. The United Nations was founded in 1945 in the ashes of World War II, with the lofty goal of preventing future global conflicts and promoting human rights. Its charter speaks of “fundamental human rights,” “the dignity and worth of the human person,” and “equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”

But here’s the thing about the United Nations that nobody wants to admit out loud: the UN is not a world government. It has no army. It has no police force. It has no real enforcement mechanism.

The UN General Assembly, where this resolution passed, is essentially a global town hall. Every member state gets a vote, but those votes carry no binding legal weight. Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are recommendations, not commands. They are the world’s opinion, written down and recorded for history.

The only body within the UN that can issue binding resolutions is the Security Council, and that body is structured to protect the very powers that built their wealth on the slave trade. Five countries—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—hold permanent seats with veto power. Any one of them can kill any resolution that threatens their interests.

This structural reality creates a cruel irony: the nations most responsible for the transatlantic slave trade hold the keys to any binding international action on it.

So when we talk about this resolution, we have to be clear about what it is and what it is not. It is a symbolic victory. It is a moral statement. It is the collective conscience of the majority of the world’s nations saying, This crime was the worst of the worst.

But it is not a court ruling. It does not compel the United States to write a check. It does not create a tribunal. It does not force Argentina to open its archives or Israel to issue an apology.

And the powerful nations know this. That’s precisely why they felt comfortable voting no. Their opposition was not fear of legal consequences—there are none. Their opposition was about message. It was about refusing to validate the moral authority of the Global South to define history. It was about maintaining the power to decide which crimes matter and which crimes are swept under the rug.

As my grandmother used to say: They pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. They give us a symbolic win while ensuring the substance remains out of reach.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Vote: Why the U.S. Said No

The resolution came from Caribbean and African nations—nations who understand that you cannot close a wound you refuse to name. For them, this was never just about symbolism. It was about laying the groundwork for a future where accountability is possible.

But the United States pushed back. Their reasoning?

They said they do not recognize the legal right to reparations for historical wrongs because slavery was “not illegal under international law at the time.”

Their argument, in essence: We can acknowledge slavery was bad now, but we shouldn’t have to pay for it because back then, it wasn’t seen as bad.

They said, “This ain’t Jordan. We ain’t into that retro or retroactivity.”

This is the pathology. The law is always flexible when it needs to be. The U.S. has no problem applying today’s laws retroactively to maintain military power, to justify drone strikes, to maintain global order. But when it comes to the foundational crime that built their wealth? Suddenly, they are strict constitutionalists, clinging to a statute of limitations for a crime that is still actively shaping the present.

They oppose reparations. They want us to “get over it.” But you can’t get over something that is still happening.

The Complexity of Argentina and Israel

When we look at the other two “no” votes, the layers get thicker.

Argentina was a major hub of the contraband slave trade in the 17th century. They have a complex history as both a slave society and an early abolitionist nation (abolishing slavery in 1853). But there is also the Zwi Migdal—a criminal organization that operated in Buenos Aires from the 1860s to the 1930s, where Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe trafficked thousands of Jewish women into sexual slavery. It’s a dark, silent chapter in both Argentine and Jewish history.

Israel, like Argentina, has a history of being both victim and perpetrator. When you have a country that is currently engaged in practices that obviously genocide mixed with apartheid its a conflict of interest and you don’t want to open a door that might swing back on you.

When you see these two countries vote no alongside the United States, you have to ask yourself: What are they really saying no to?

They aren’t just denying history. They are protecting themselves from accountability. They don’t want to establish a precedent where nations must answer for historical crimes, because they know the spotlight might turn to the crimes they are committing right now—unapologetically.

The Symbolic Win and the Hard Truth

So where does that leave us?

Let’s be honest with each other. This resolution is a win, but it is a symbolic win. And in the fight for justice, symbols matter. They matter because they shape the narrative. They matter because they become the foundation upon which future legal frameworks are built. They matter because they tell the descendants of the enslaved that the world sees their pain.

But we cannot mistake symbolism for substance.

The UN has passed countless resolutions over its 80-year history. It has condemned apartheid. It has condemned genocide. It has condemned occupation. And yet, apartheid in Palestine continues. Genocides continue. Occupations continue. The powerful nations that vote against these resolutions do so with the comfortable knowledge that no UN peacekeeper is going to show up at their doorstep to enforce compliance.

The United States alone has vetoed dozens of Security Council resolutions critical of its allies or itself. It has ignored International Court of Justice rulings. It has withdrawn from UN bodies when they became inconvenient. The language of international law is powerful, but it is only as powerful as the political will behind it.

So when we celebrate this resolution—and we should celebrate it—we must also ask ourselves: What comes next?

The Caribbean and African nations who pushed this through know the answer. They are not naive. They understand the limitations of the UN. But they also understand that you cannot build a house without a foundation. This resolution is the foundation. It is the official record. It is the admission, on paper, that 123 nations agree: the transatlantic slave trade was the gravest crime against humanity.

Now the work is to build on that foundation. To push for a permanent UN memorial. To push for a commission on reparative justice. To push for educational curricula that teach this history in full. To push for local and national governments to act where the international body cannot.

The Unbroken Chain

To the people in the back: the logic of the Black body being seen as property didn’t stop in 1865.

After the plantation came sharecropping. After sharecropping came convict leasing. After convict leasing came Jim Crow. After Jim Crow came the war on drugs and mass incarceration.

The U.S. says we can’t apply today’s laws retroactively, but they have no problem applying today’s laws to maintain the global order that was built on that very crime. They have no problem applying today’s laws to justify the continued extraction of wealth from Black bodies, whether through the prison-industrial complex, predatory lending, or the systematic underfunding of Black schools.

This is why the Caribbean and African nations pushed this resolution. Because we cannot close a wound that we can’t even name. And we cannot heal a wound that the people who inflicted it refuse to recognize even exists.

The UN gave us the name. Now it is up to us to demand the healing.

Education is elevation.

5 Key Takeaways

* Historical Recognition is a Prerequisite for Justice: The UN resolution names the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity.” For nations that built their wealth on this system, refusing to acknowledge the title is a refusal to acknowledge the debt.

* The UN Has No Enforcement Mechanism: The General Assembly resolution is a powerful symbolic and moral statement, but it carries no binding legal weight. The Security Council, where permanent members hold veto power, remains the only body that can compel action—and it is controlled by the very nations that benefited from the slave trade.

* The U.S. Opposition is Based on a Flawed Legal Argument: The U.S. claims reparations are invalid because slavery was “legal” at the time. This ignores the fact that international law is a flexible tool used to justify military action and global order when it suits the empire.

* The “No” Votes Reveal Hypocrisy and Fear: Israel and Argentina voted no likely because acknowledging the precedent of accountability for historical crimes could open the door to scrutiny of their own historical and contemporary human rights abuses.

* Naming the Wound is Necessary for Healing: Caribbean and African nations pushed this resolution because you cannot close a wound you refuse to name. Global acknowledgment is the first step toward any meaningful form of repair, even if the path to enforcement remains obstructed.

Explicit Ask to Become a Paid Subscriber

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education and corporate media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted.

With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you. As a Black educator and researcher, my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors.

If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise.

But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you found value in this breakdown—if you understand why naming the crime is the first step to justice—please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. It allows me to continue doing the research, the writing, and the teaching that the mainstream refuses to do.

Click the button below to upgrade. Let’s build this together.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Related Readings (Bibliography)

* The 1619 Project by Nikole Hannah-Jones

* The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E. Baptist

* Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi

* The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

* A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Mary Ann Glendon

* The Zwi Migdal: A Story of Jewish Traffickers in Buenos Aires by Nora Glickman (Academic Articles)

* The United Nations and Transnational Advocacy Networks by Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you Lynette, Pamela R. Daniels, Carol Phipps, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

I posted a video this week. It was a simple flex, really—highlighting some of my college policy debate accolades. My partner and I were the first two Black people to go undefeated at the NDT exhibition rounds. We were ranked in the top 20 in the country. It was a celebration of Black excellence in a space we were told we didn’t belong.

And like clockwork, it brought out the roaches.

The lights came on, and the insecure white men scattered, desperate to prove themselves. Not to me, but to themselves. They had to conquer, to dominate, to engage. This isn’t an accident. It’s a pattern. It is what I call white men and intellectual pathology.

This pathology isn’t just about being rude on the internet. It’s a structural logic. It’s the same logic that has criminalized Black thought since the moment this country was founded. When Black people learned to read, the plantation trembled. When we produce knowledge, when we refuse to be dictated to, those in power see a threat that must be neutralized. From Reagan to Trump to Wilson, the fear is the same: a Black man who can say what he means and mean what he says.

This is my mini-lecture, my case study. We’re going to look at a man named Cam Higby—a perfect illustration of this pathology—and use him as a jumping-off point to talk about settler colonialism, the manufactured consent for genocide, and the delusion that white men have been conditioned to call “rationality.”

We have a world structured around the comfort and development of mediocre white men. They make up 30% of the country but dominate every industry and level of government. When they see a Black man articulate, they feel insecure. And because the world has conditioned them to be entitled little pricks, they feel they have the right to challenge, to conquer, and to define the terms of reality.

Let’s get into it.

The Case Study: Cam Higby and the Settler’s Move to Innocence

I posted my accolades. I talked about being a top speaker. In response, we see these rage-baiters, these white men who manufacture Black folks being pissed off to farm engagement. But the real pathology is in the content of their arguments.

I came across one of Higby’s old videos, a “response” to a point I made about Israel-Palestine. And it’s a masterclass in how this logic works.

He starts by manipulating time, using a concept created in the 1800s (Zionism) to justify a retelling of history back to Roman times. He argues about the “legitimacy” of laws, claiming that under the Ottoman Empire, there was “no distinct Palestinian people.” He says they were just a sector of a larger empire, like the “Rocky Mountain region in America.”

This is the settler’s move to innocence. It’s a narrative framework described by scholars Tuck and Yang. It’s the attempt by settlers and their descendants to erase the violence of their existence by claiming the land was empty, lawless, or ungoverned. It’s the same logic used against Indigenous peoples here: “They didn’t have a legal system; they were savages; so we aren’t breaking any laws by taking it.”

He says there was no Palestinian state, so it was just a region. But this argument falls apart when you look at history. He conveniently forgets that the British government lied to the Palestinians during World War I, promising them sovereignty if they fought against the Ottomans. So either A) his claim that there was no legal framework is b******t, or B) it never actually mattered because the colonizer can change the rules whenever it suits them.

This is the hypocrisy. It’s the intellectual pathology that allows for the creation of a state like Israel—an ethno-religious state founded on the principle of a “right to exist”—while ignoring that the people living there (Palestinians) had their rights erased from the start.

And let’s be clear: Zionism is the Middle East version of Manifest Destiny. God always comes down and tells people of European descent it’s their right to own some land. But when a Black or Indigenous person says God gave them their land, suddenly God’s will is overridden by a “closer claim.”

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Material Reality vs. The Idealistic Democracy

Right now, we are fighting a war with Iran. We are sending American tax dollars—your cousin, your nephew, your brother—to die in the name of protecting Israel’s political and economic interests. They just raised the recruitment age to 42 and said they don’t care about marijuana convictions anymore. But it wasn’t too long ago that those same convictions were used to deny Black people resources and opportunities.

This is the interconvergence theory at work. It ain’t good for Black folks unless it’s good for white folks first.

And this brings me to the biggest lie we’re fed: Democracy.

We are told democracy is the highest form of government, the protector of humanity. We look at the idealism of it—the vote, the rights, the utopia—while ignoring the material reality.

From its inception in Athens, democracy was built on the subjugation of women and the exclusion of slaves. It was never about “everybody.” And today, when we go into Iraq or Iran or Nicaragua to “spread democracy,” we leave behind destruction, fire, and bodies paid for by our tax dollars. The visual is the same in Baghdad in 2003 and Tehran in 2026: U.S. bombs.

Everything Black people have gained in this country—the right to vote, to sit on a bus, to take a s**t next to white folks—we gained in spite of democracy, not because of it. We had to fight for it, bleed for it, die for it. The “unalienable rights” weren’t alienable to us until we forced the issue.

So when I hear “protecting democracy,” I have to ask: protecting what? Protecting the system that gave us Trump? A man who broke the law more times than I can count, who installed unqualified loyalists (Jared Kushner, Linda McMahon) in positions of power while telling us that Black people are the unqualified ones?

Donald Trump is not an aberration. Trump is a product of democracy. He used the tools of democracy to amass wealth, power, and legitimacy. And the “checks and balances” we were taught would save us? They aren’t stopping him from being tyrannical.

This is white intellectual pathology. It is the ability to permute logic one way for yourself and a different way for everyone else. It is the delusion that your emotion—your fear, your rage—is a rational reason to mobilize the military, while everyone else’s emotion is just “being emotional.”

Thanks for reading Education Is Elevation! This post is public so feel free to share it.

A Rhetorical Question That Exposes Everything

I want to end this with a clip that says everything I’m trying to say. It’s from Matthew Cook, a white man who flipped the script so perfectly, I had to give him his props.

He asked the question we’ve all been trained to ask: “Does Israel have a right to exist?”

His answer? “No, of course not. People have rights. The concept of a state’s right to exist is a little rhetorical trick designed to make the rights of certain people disappear.”

He breaks it down. Nationalism is a brand-new religion, invented less than 250 years ago. It’s a story—an imaginary group identity based on a cartoonish version of history—used to control populations. It glorifies conquerors as saints, turns political texts into holy scrolls, and real estate into holy land.

It’s a tool to deny universal human rights.

Albert Einstein called it a disease. Hannah Arendt said the expansion of European power into non-European territory was the beginning of totalitarianism. They all saw it.

And here we are in 2026, in the third apex of nationalism in less than 100 years, living under oppressive regimes, with record-breaking inequality, watching people reshape their personalities to reflect their cult leaders.

They are lost in the sauce. They believe they are defending democracy by destroying it. They believe they are fighting for God while ignoring the atheist who started Zionism. They believe they are qualified because of their skin, while calling us unqualified for the positions we earned.

This is the intellectual pathology we have to name, define, and dismantle. Because once you can name the phenomenon, you can navigate it. You can see it for what it is: a delusion being inscribed on the world through violence.

And we, as Black thinkers, as producers of knowledge, are the biggest threat to that delusion. That’s why they fear us. That’s why they try to erase us. And that’s why we must keep building, keep reading, and keep saying what we mean.

5 Key Takeaways

* Intellectual Pathology is a Structural Logic: The reaction to Black intellect is not random. It is a systemic response rooted in the history of slavery and settler colonialism, where Black thought is criminalized because it poses a threat to the established hierarchy of domination.

* “Settler Moves to Innocence” are Narrative Weapons: The arguments used to justify the genocide in Palestine (e.g., “no distinct people,” “lawless land”) are the exact same arguments used to justify the colonization of Indigenous lands in North America. They are deliberate attempts to erase history and manufacture a moral high ground.

* Democracy is an Ideology of Domination: The material reality of democracy—from its origins in Athens to its modern manifestation in US foreign policy—is defined by expansion, subjugation, and war. The rights Black people have were won in spite of this system, not because of its inherent goodness.

* White Male Mediocrity is a Privileged Delusion: The American power structure is currently dominated by unqualified white men who are propped up by a system that rewards their projection and insecurity as “rationality” while punishing Black excellence as a “threat.” This is not a bug; it’s a feature of white supremacist patriarchy.

* Nationalism is a Cult: Nationalism is a manufactured religion designed to divide people and concentrate power. We must reject the question “does a state have a right to exist?” and instead focus on the universal human rights of people, which transcend the violent borders created by colonial powers.

Explicit Ask to Become a Paid Subscriber

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education and corporate media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted. With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you. As a Black educator and researcher, my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors.

If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise. But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you value this work—the mini-lectures, the bibliographies, the analysis that cuts through the propaganda—please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. It’s the only way to ensure this work continues and grows. Click the button below to join the community and help build the independent, Black-led media space we deserve.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Related Readings (Bibliography)

* Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012.

* For the framework on “settler moves to innocence” and how the academy and society commodify indigeneity.

* Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace & Co., 1951.

* For the analysis of how European expansion laid the groundwork for totalitarian movements and the critique of nationalism.

* Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1961.

* For the foundational understanding of colonial violence, the psychology of the colonized and colonizer, and the necessity of decolonization.

* Kelley, Robin D.G. Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination. Beacon Press, 2002.

* For the history of Black radical thought, creative imagination, and the fight to build new worlds in spite of systemic erasure.

* Derrida, Jacques. “The ‘World’ of the Enlightenment to Come (Exception, Calculation, and Sovereignty).” *Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews, 1971-2001*, Stanford University Press, 2002.

* For the philosophical deconstruction of sovereignty and the “right” of a state to exist.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

For years, the public discourse has been dominated by a narrative that weaponized the safety of women and children, painting entire communities as threats. But as newly disclosed FBI records reveal, the most credible threat may have been hiding in plain sight—in the highest office in the land.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

This is not about politics. This is about the systematic burial of evidence. The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially tried to conceal three of the four interviews a victim gave to the FBI. It was only under immense pressure from the media and Congress that these documents saw the light of day. And now, we understand why the establishment was so desperate to keep them hidden.

The FBI, an agency often criticized for its handling of sensitive information, found one victim’s allegations to be unquestionably credible.

The AccountBetween August and September 2019, the victim, who was between the ages of 13 and 15 at the time of the alleged incident, sat for multiple interviews with federal investigators. Her account was chillingly consistent.

On August 7, 2019, she recounted being left alone with Donald Trump. According to the transcript, Trump allegedly approached her, mentioning something to the effect of, “let me teach you how little girls are supposed to be.”

What followed was a violent assault. The victim stated that Trump unzipped his pants and forced her head down toward his penis. She recounted that she bit him because he “disgusted her.” In response, Trump allegedly struck her and said words to the effect of, “get this little B the hell out of here.”

She provided additional, consistent details in subsequent interviews two weeks and a month later. The FBI did not dismiss her. They deemed her credible.

The Context of HypocrisyLet us place this in the context of the moment. The same administration that buried this evidence spent years painting an entire demographic—specifically Black and brown men—as inherent threats to women and children. They weaponized the legal system, claiming that if people simply “followed the law,” they would not face persecution.

But here we are, watching a man ascend to the role of Commander in Chief—a man already convicted of 34 felonies—while the FBI had credible evidence of sexual assault against a child in its files.

As one observer noted, George Orwell would likely call this “legal doublespeak.” We are being asked to uphold the social order of the law by a convicted felon. It is a dizzying hypocrisy.

A Pattern of EntitlementThis isn’t an isolated moment. The entitlement suggested by this accusation echoes statements made publicly years prior. When Donald Trump made comments about his daughter in the 2010s—suggesting that if she weren’t his daughter, he would be dating her—it was often brushed aside as “locker room talk.” Now, viewed through the lens of this credible allegation, it looks less like bravado and more like a confession of entitlement.

This pattern reveals a systemic failure. The same system that will raid the homes of individuals like Breonna Taylor or Afroman based on anonymous tips refused to act on a victim who sat for multiple interviews with the FBI. The same institutions that claim to protect the vulnerable chose to bury the truth to protect the powerful.

The Void We Must FillWe are living in a moment where public education media has retreated. The history we just walked through—the documents, the context, the legal hypocrisy—is not being taught. It is being distorted or erased.

This work exists to fill that void. We document the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that the establishment hopes you forget. Because if you forget that the FBI buried credible evidence of a crime, you will not understand why the justice system looks the way it does today.

Explicit Ask to Become A Paid Subscriber

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted. With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you.

As a Black educator and researcher, my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors. If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise. But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you believe that a 13-year-old victim deserved to have her credible accusation taken seriously—and that we deserve to know why it was buried—then please, become a paid subscriber today. Help me continue to do the work that corporate media and the Department of Justice won’t do.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

5 Key Takeaways

* The FBI Found a Victim Credible: In 2019, the FBI interviewed a victim who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was between 13 and 15 years old. The agency found her account to be “unquestionably credible.”

* The DOJ Attempted a Cover-Up: The Department of Justice initially tried to hide reports of three of the four interviews. They were only disclosed due to media and congressional pressure.

* Consistent Testimony: The victim provided the same harrowing details across multiple interviews, including that Trump allegedly assaulted her and that she bit him because he disgusted her.

* The Hypocrisy of Weaponized Law: The administration that buried this evidence spent its time painting Black and brown communities as inherent threats to women and children, weaponizing legality against them while protecting a man with credible allegations against him.

* A Convicted Felon Upholding “Order”: We are witnessing the paradox of a convicted felon being entrusted to uphold the social order of the law, highlighting a system of “legal doublespeak” where rules apply differently based on status.

Related Readings

* Federal Bureau of Investigation. *FD-302 Interview Reports (August 7, 2019; August 21, 2019; September 19, 2019).* Released under FOIA pressure from congressional oversight committees, 2023.

* Orwell, George. 1984. Secker & Warburg, 1949. (For context on “doublespeak” and the manipulation of legal language).

* Taylor, Breonna. Case File. Louisville Metro Police Department. 2020. (For context on raids based on anonymous tips and the disparity in legal protection).

* The United States Department of Justice. Office of Legal Policy. Review of the Handling of High-Profile Investigations. 2021. (For background on DOJ protocols regarding the burial of investigative files).

* The House Judiciary Committee. Memorandum on the Disclosure of FBI Interview Reports Related to High-Profile Political Figures. 2023.

* The New Yorker. “The Allegations Against Trump and the FBI’s Investigation.” Staff Report. 2023.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you Reda Rountree (she/her), Under the Golden Boot, M Hope, Evan, Judy, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

We are often taught that the Civil Rights Movement was a monolithic struggle for “integration.” We are taught that the goal was simply to sit at the same lunch counter, drink from the same water fountain, and be judged by the “content of our character.”

But in 1963, during a conversation that has been largely erased from the mainstream historical record, Malcolm X offered a different diagnosis. He wasn’t just critiquing racism; he was critiquing the structure that produces it. And as I sat with this transcript in 2026, I realized that nothing has changed—except the names and the platforms.

The Zionist Question as a Mirror

In the segment of the conversation I focused on, Malcolm is asked about Zionism. It’s a trap, or at least a test. He is being questioned about his Black Nationalist, Pan-Africanist politics, and the interviewer tries to corner him by asking about a different nationalist movement.

Malcolm’s response, and the analysis I lay out in the transcript, flips the script. He points out the fundamental contradiction that exists then and now: Black Nationalism is criminalized, while Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) was supported and funded by Western powers.

“When you throw the word black in front of nationalists, it adds a different stigma onto how we start thinking about nation building... So when we demonize black nationalists... while also simultaneously supporting the nation state of Israel, it shows there’s a contradiction.”

In 1963, while the U.S. government was infiltrating, surveilling, and assassinating Black leaders who spoke of self-determination, they were actively helping “all these white Jews” establish a separate state in the midst of “dark-skinned people.”

In 2026, we see the same dynamic. We are told that Black people asking for economic autonomy, separate community control, or reparations are “divisive” or “radical.” Yet the United States continues to fund a nationalist project abroad. The lesson is clear: Nationalism is only acceptable when it serves whiteness.

The Black Bourgeoisie and the Puppet Masters

Malcolm X didn’t just attack white supremacy; he attacked the Black leadership that enabled it. When asked about a poll showing that 90% of “Negro leaders” supported Dr. King and less than 20% supported Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm laughed.

He pointed out that these “leaders” were Lena Horne, Dick Gregory, and baseball players—entertainers.

“These aren’t leaders. These are puppets and clowns that have been sent up over the white community and over the black community... They genuinely say exactly what they know that the white man wants to hear.”

This critique resonates deeply in 2026. We are told to rally behind Black celebrities and politicians who are “palatable” to the empire. But as Malcolm notes, the system is functioning exactly as designed. The Constitution wasn’t written for us; it was written to codify us as property.

When I think about the modern Democratic Party, and the Black liberals who scold anyone critical of the status quo, I see the 1963 playbook in action. They trade in “identity politics” while ensuring the material reality of Black people—poverty, over-policing, health disparities—remains unchanged. They weaponize the tropes of “unity” and “stability” to silence those who, like Malcolm, demand autonomy, not just inclusion.

The System Isn’t Broken; It’s Working

One of the hardest truths in the transcript is Malcolm’s dissection of the Constitution. He brings up Article 1, Section 2—the Three-Fifths Compromise.

“It relates us to the level of cattle... a commodity that could be bought... It was written by whites, for the benefit of whites, and to the detriment of blacks.”

I paused on this to connect it to something I recently learned about gerrymandering. There are counties in Tennessee where, for years, the electoral college counted livestock—cows, pigs, chickens—with more political weight than Black human beings. The hubris of placing animals before Black people didn’t end with the plantation; it was built into the zoning and districting maps of the 20th century.

Malcolm X understood this. When we say the “system is failing,” we are wrong. It is operating exactly as the original framers intended. The only thing that has changed is the branding. The problem isn’t that America is broken; the problem is that America is doing exactly what it was designed to do. And as Malcolm warned, if you believe in reform rather than revolution, you are simply asking the arsonist to hand you a bucket of water.

Separation and Self-Determination

When asked for the “ideal solution,” Malcolm didn’t mince words. He proposed separation.

He argued that if white people can get together and help European Jews establish a nation in the Middle East, then Black people in America should be given the resources to govern themselves. He wasn’t asking for handouts; he was asking for the machinery, the transportation, and the land to till.

“If the white man doesn’t want us to go back to our own people... then since we can’t get along together in peace in this country with white people, let us separate part of this continent and migrate to that separate territory.”

This isn’t about hate; it’s about autonomy. It is about the right to solve our own problems without begging the master to fix the chains. Malcolm predicted that if Black people were exposed to the truth about their history and the nature of the system, they would choose separation.

In 2026, we are seeing the seeds of that truth take root. As public education is gutted and Black history is erased, we are forced to do our own research. As the “liberal” order crumbles and reveals its imperialist core, more of us are waking up to the reality that the Black bourgeoise tried to shield us from: The United States is not the Black man’s country.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Critical Conclusion: Malcolm X’s Evolution from Separation to Global Solidarity

It would be intellectually dishonest—and a disservice to his legacy—to conclude this analysis without addressing the most profound transformation in Malcolm X’s life: his break with the Nation of Islam and his shift away from strict Black separatism.

The Malcolm X we hear in this 1963 interview is Minister Malcolm, the national spokesman for the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He is disciplined, sharp, and unwavering in his commitment to the Nation’s doctrine of separation. He argues that Black people should not seek integration into white society but should demand their own land, their own economy, and their own nation.

But history shows us that Malcolm X did not die with those views unchanged.

Malcolm X was murdered for this tenacity. The same unapologetic nature that gets a man like Donald Trump elected president got Malcolm X killed. He was targeted because he refused to let the oppressor define the terms of the struggle.

We are living in the shadow of 1963. The conversations about Zionism, Black leadership, the Constitution, and self-determination are not “old news.” They are the foundation of our current reality. As we watch the erasure of Black history and the commodification of Black identity, we must return to the source.

We must stop asking to be integrated into a burning house and start building our own.

Related Readings

* The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley and Malcolm X

* Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements by George Breitman

* The End of White World Supremacy: Four Speeches by Malcolm X (edited by Benjamin Karim)

* Message to the Blackman in America by Elijah Muhammad

* Black Bourgeoisie by E. Franklin Frazier

* The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon

* How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education and the corporate media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted. With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you. As a Black educator and researcher, my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors. If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise. But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you found value in this deep dive into Malcolm X’s evolution—if you believe that understanding his full journey is essential to navigating 2026—please consider upgrading your subscription. Your support allows me to continue this work: digging through archives, connecting historical dots, and providing the context they don’t want you to have. Together, we can build the independent, Black-centered media infrastructure that the establishment refuses to fund.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

One of the most powerful parts of traveling and engaging with different communities is discovering the histories that never made it into the textbooks. Sometimes those histories exist right under our noses, hidden in plain sight, buried beneath national narratives that prefer simpler stories.

A recent trip to Iowa reminded me of that.

Many people imagine Iowa as farmland, cornfields, and presidential caucuses. In the popular imagination, it is not a place associated with Black history, Black institutions, or Black political struggle.

Yet that assumption falls apart the moment you start digging into the historical record.

Because Iowa has a deeper Black history than most people realize.

And understanding that history reveals something much bigger about American politics.

It reveals the contradictions that sit at the center of the country itself.

The Political Puzzle of Iowa

One of the things that immediately stands out about Iowa is its unusual electoral history.

The state voted twice for Barack Obama.

Then it voted for Donald Trump.

At first glance, that pattern confuses the standard political narratives people use to understand American elections. It cannot easily be explained through simple partisan loyalty or racial backlash alone.

The same electorate that supported the first Black president also later supported a candidate whose political rhetoric was built around nationalist and populist themes.

Understanding that contradiction requires something deeper than partisan talking points.

It requires looking at how local history, economic conditions, media environments, and institutional power shape political behavior.

And Iowa offers a powerful case study for that complexity.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Black History Hidden in the Midwest

One of the most surprising discoveries during my visit was the depth of Black history embedded in Iowa itself.

Places like Fort Des Moines played a major role in American history. During World War II, the fort served as a training site for Black officers and members of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps. Figures such as Charity Adams—later known for leading the historic 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion—trained there.

That alone challenges the popular assumption that Black military leadership was concentrated only in coastal or southern cities.

The Midwest played a role too.

Iowa was also home to significant Black institutional development. The National Bar Association, created when Black lawyers were excluded from the American Bar Association, was founded in Des Moines.

These institutions remind us that Black history did not only emerge from the trauma of the Jim Crow South. It also developed through migration, community building, and institutional formation across the country.

Buxton: The Forgotten Black Utopia

Another powerful example of this history is Buxton, Iowa.

At the height of its existence in the early twentieth century, Buxton was a coal-mining town where Black and white residents lived in close proximity and Black professionals held significant positions in the community.

Black doctors practiced medicine there.

Black business owners operated stores.

Black workers held stable jobs in the mining industry.

For many historians, Buxton represents one of the closest examples to a racially integrated community during a period when segregation dominated much of the United States.

Yet Buxton eventually disappeared after the mines closed. Residents were forced to relocate, and many of the opportunities they had in Buxton did not exist elsewhere.

Black doctors who had once practiced successfully struggled to find work in other towns.

The collapse of the town shows how fragile community progress can be when it depends on economic structures outside the community’s control.

The Mississippi River and Migration

The geography of Iowa also played an important role in shaping its communities.

Cities along the Mississippi River became hubs for commerce, migration, and cultural exchange. Areas such as the Quad Cities developed across both Iowa and Illinois, forming interconnected economic regions.

These river towns attracted a wide range of populations, including Black communities and Latino communities that helped shape the cultural landscape of the region.

Today, these areas remain examples of how migration patterns and economic geography influence political and social dynamics.

The Political Economy of Iowa

Understanding Iowa’s modern politics requires examining the state’s economic structure.

Agriculture dominates the economy.

Farming communities depend on global markets, federal policies, labor availability, and trade relationships.

When those systems shift, rural communities feel the consequences immediately.

Farmers have faced declining labor availability, unstable crop markets, and increasing corporate consolidation within agriculture. These pressures shape political choices in ways that are often invisible in national political debates.

Economic vulnerability can make communities more receptive to political messaging that promises stability, protection, or economic revival.

The challenge is that political rhetoric and political outcomes do not always align.

Corporate Power and Local Governance

Another lesson from Iowa involves the power of institutions and corporations in shaping policy outcomes.

Conversations around environmental policy reveal the influence of agricultural corporations and pesticide companies on regulatory decisions. Proposals to limit accountability for pollution and water contamination highlight how corporate interests can shape legislation even when public health concerns are at stake.

This dynamic illustrates a broader truth about American politics.

Political parties compete for power, but corporate influence often operates above partisan lines.

Understanding that relationship is essential for anyone trying to analyze how policy decisions are made.

Why Local Government Matters

One of the most overlooked aspects of American politics is the role of local government.

Positions like county supervisors control budgets, oversee local services, and influence policies related to infrastructure, environmental protection, and community resources.

Yet many voters know very little about these positions.

Local officials help determine:

* how budgets are allocated

* how environmental policies are implemented

* how community services operate

* how public resources are distributed

Paying attention to these offices can have a direct impact on everyday life.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Lesson Iowa Teaches

Traveling through Iowa reveals something fundamental about American politics.

Communities contain contradictions.

Places with rich Black histories can still exist alongside political systems that attempt to erase that history.

States that once supported progressive candidates can later shift in different political directions.

None of this is accidental.

It reflects the complex intersection of economics, media environments, historical memory, and institutional power.

Understanding those intersections requires curiosity.

And curiosity is the first step toward political literacy.

Education is elevation.

Key Takeaways

1. Black history exists in places many Americans overlook

States like Iowa contain rich histories of Black institutions, military leadership, and community building that are rarely taught in mainstream narratives.

2. Political behavior is shaped by local conditions

Economic pressures, media consumption, and community experiences all influence how people vote and engage with politics.

3. Institutional power often transcends party politics

Corporate influence can shape policy outcomes regardless of which political party controls government institutions.

4. Local government plays a critical role in everyday life

County supervisors and local officials influence budgets, infrastructure, environmental policy, and community resources.

5. Understanding complexity is essential for political literacy

Simple explanations rarely capture the realities of political behavior. Studying local histories helps reveal the deeper forces shaping national politics.

Related Readings

* Malcolm X & Alex Haley — The Autobiography of Malcolm X

* Cedric Robinson — Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition

* W.E.B. Du Bois — Black Reconstruction in America

* Michelle Alexander — The New Jim Crow

* Isabel Wilkerson — The Warmth of Other Suns

References

* Historical accounts of Fort Des Moines and the 6888th Battalion

* National Bar Association historical archives

* Transcript conversation discussing Iowa politics and history

* Midwestern migration and river-town development studies

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

This piece is Sponsored by Incogni’ #AD

When billionaires talk about replacing democracy with corporate governance, believe them. When technologists say consent is inefficient, listen. When investors build surveillance tools, connect the dots. Scifi stories are cool but, this is reality and not science fiction. This is a political economy evolving in real time right before our eyes and algorithm. I would argue that working people have two choices:

* normalize oligarchy

* or organize against it

Maximize your online privacy. Remove your exposed personal information from Google results, public websites, and the data-broker economy that trades in your identity with the Incogni Unlimited plan because when elites start arguing that democracy itself is obsolete, control over information — especially your information — becomes a central terrain of power.

Two of the most influential anti-democratic thinkers in modern tech have been preparing that terrain for years.. Curtis Yarvin and Peter Theil.

Curtis Yarvin: the blogger who wants to end democracy

Before Silicon Valley venture capitalists, senators, and tech founders were repeating his ideas, Curtis Yarvin was writing under a pseudonym: Mencius Moldbug.

His project was not policy reform. It was regime replacement.

Yarvin’s central thesis is blunt:

* Democracy produces disorder

* Equality is a myth

* Mass politics is irrational

* Elite rule is natural

* Monarchy is efficient

Curtis proposes what he calls a “neocameralist” state — essentially a country run like a corporation, where sovereignty is treated as property and governance is executed by a CEO with absolute authority.

Citizens become customers or employees. Rights become contractual privileges. Political participation disappears.That’s not a metaphor. That is his explicit model. For years, Yarvin was dismissed as an internet crank. Then his readership shifted Tech founders, venture capitalists, Right-wing intellectual circles and Policy-adjacent elites started riding his coattail legitimizing his ideology.

His essays circulated in private forums, salons, and VC networks in Silicon Valley. Eventually, figures like Peter Thiel publicly engaged his ideas. Vice President J.D. Vance acknowledged Yarvin as an influence. Hell even major media outlets began covering his philosophy as a rising ideological current in tech conservatism.

Yarvin’s thought is not novel so much as recombined. He draws from:

* 19th-century reactionary monarchists

* corporate managerial theory

* libertarian anti-state economics

* techno-futurism

* colonial governance models

The through-line is consistent.. Society should be ordered by competence and capital, not equality.

Which is why his writing repeatedly frames democracy as a historical mistake — a deviation from what he sees as the natural order of hierarchy.

Peter Thiel: the financier of anti-democratic tech

If Yarvin is the theorist, Peter Thiel is the executor.

Thiel’s biography matters here. Co-founder of PayPal. Early investor in Facebook and Founder of Palantir. One of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists.

He has also said plainly:He no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible.

That statement is not rhetorical flourish. It reflects a coherent worldview:

* mass democracy redistributes wealth

* redistribution constrains capital

* constrained capital limits innovation

* therefore democracy obstructs progress

From that premise, elite autonomy becomes morally justified. Thiel’s most consequential company is Palantir. Originally funded with CIA venture backing, Palantir builds data-integration and surveillance analysis platforms used by:

* intelligence agencies

* military operations

* immigration enforcement

* policing systems

Its core function is pattern detection across massive datasets — connecting identities, movements, communications, and behaviors.

This is not neutral technology. It is governance infrastructure. Technology of surveillance and domination. A technology that ignores consent to violate rights materially.

When a political philosophy skeptical of democracy aligns with tools capable of mapping entire populations, the implications extend far beyond business.

Peter Thiel has been remarkably transparent about his own position. He has stated that he no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible. He has also said that winning elections is unnecessary if technol\gical leverage can reshape society without public approval.

That ain’t democratic persuasion. That is governance by infrastructure and look at where his capital goes:

Palantir — a data analytics firm with deep ties to intelligence agencies, policing systems, and military operations. Surveillance capacity at planetary scale.

When Yarvin imagines a CEO-king state, and Thiel funds tools capable of population-level monitoring, you are not looking at coincidence.

You are looking at ideological alignment meeting technological capacity.

This piece is Sponsored by Incogni’, ‘THECONSCIOUSLEE‘, ‘https://incogni.com/theconsciouslee‘ and get 60% off an annual plan of Incogni‘

Maximize your online privacy with Incogni’s Custom Removals

This is where the fight for democracy meets the practical reality of data surveillance. When elites argue that democracy is obsolete, control over information — especially your information — becomes a central terrain of power. Through Custom Removals, you can submit specific URLs for more targeted removal. Just paste the link into the dashboard and their team will handle the rest.’When someone searches their name or address on Google, it’s often shocking to find how many results expose their personal information without consent. These data brokers are the invisible infrastructure feeding the surveillance economy that figures like Thiel have built empires upon.

Incogni Unlimited is the most comprehensive and powerful data removal plan available. It essentially unlocks an unlimited number of removal requests to any number of websites which expose personal data without consent. With Incogni Unlimited, a majority of those results can now be removed by Incogni’s privacy specialists—even if those sites aren’t supported by their fast, efficient and automated standard removal service. That’s what makes the Unlimited Plan so much more valuable.

Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code THECONSCIOUSLEE at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/theconsciouslee

The Yarvin–Thiel convergence

The relationship between Yarvin and Thiel is ideological alignment rather than formal partnership.

Yarvin supplies: a justification for hierarchical, post-democratic governance.

Thiel supplies:capital, networks, and technology that expand elite autonomy from democratic constraint.

One normalizes the idea that rule should concentrate upward. The other builds systems that make concentrated rule more feasible. Theory meets capacity. That is how political transformation actually occurs.

When billionaires entertain anti-democratic theory, it matters. When venture capital circulates it, it spreads. When political actors absorb it, it influences governance. Ideas about hierarchy and rule do not stay academic when backed by wealth.

They become institutional direction.

Why data control is central to this ideology

In a democratic system, legitimacy flows upward from people. In an oligarchic system, control flows downward from elites.

Information asymmetry determines which model prevails.

The more elites know about populations, the easier populations are to predict, segment, and influence.

Data brokerage therefore becomes structural power.

Your identity, habits, location, networks, and behavior patterns become inputs into systems you do not govern.

Which is why privacy is political, not merely personal.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The stakes: democracy vs managerial rule

The Yarvin–Thiel axis represents a broader tension shaping the 21st century:

democratic governance Versus technocratic oligarchy

One distributes authority. The other concentrates it.

One requires consent. The other requires compliance.

One treats people as citizens. The other treats them as managed populations.

Call to action: reduce exposure, build power

Maximize your online privacy. Remove your exposed personal information from Google results, public sites, and data-broker markets with the Incogni Unlimited plan. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code THECONSCIOUSLEE at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/theconsciouslee

Because the same elite networks imagining post-democratic governance operate inside an economy built on harvesting personal data at scale.

Reducing that visibility is not just self-protection. It is refusing passive participation in surveillance capitalism.

Study power. Track ideology. Organize collectively.

Because Yarvin is not hiding his monarchism. Thiel is not hiding his anti-democratic skepticism.

They are articulating a future where authority concentrates upward and public consent becomes optional.

The question is not whether they mean it. The question is whether democratic society recognizes it in time.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you Reda Rountree (she/her), CH, Deb Schein, Brittney McCarey, Katara C, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you Mary Lummis, Rebel Guest, LBW, Eric Roth, Sherell, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

What Malcolm X Understood About Integration That America Still Refuses to Face

I’m sitting here watching a Malcolm X speech from the early 1960s. Civil rights era. NAACP conversations. Integration debates. The kind of history most of us think we already understand.

Then Malcolm says something that forces you to pause and think deeper.

Not surface-level thinking. Structural thinking.

Because the way America teaches the history of segregation and integration has always been incomplete.

What we’re taught sounds simple:

Segregation was bad.Integration fixed it.

Case closed.

That narrative is clean. Palatable. Comfortable.

It’s also incomplete.

When you actually study the archives, when you actually listen to Malcolm X and many other thinkers from that era, you realize the debate wasn’t just separate versus together.

The real debate was about power.

And that’s the part history classrooms rarely unpack.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Part of “Separate but Equal” We Were Never Taught to Examine

Most Americans learn about Plessy v. Ferguson like this:

Separate but equal.

Then teachers jump immediately to the separate part and explain why segregation was wrong.

Which it was.

Yet something important gets skipped.

The equal part.

When you look at the archives of Black political organizing in the early twentieth century, many Black leaders were focused on forcing America to actually deliver the equality it claimed existed.

Schools. Funding. Infrastructure. Jobs.

Equality meant material conditions.

It meant power.

Instead, history rewrote the story to make it sound like Black people were simply fighting to sit next to white people.

That’s not what the fight was about.

The fight was about justice, opportunity, and autonomy.

Your transcript captures this tension perfectly when questioning how integration is taught as the ultimate solution to inequality while ignoring how power structures remain unchanged.

The Illusion of Inclusion

When I used to do diversity trainings, one of the concepts I would talk about is something I call the illusion of inclusion.

Let me explain it the way I explained it in those trainings.

Imagine a piggy bank.

Now imagine you put a penny, a nickel, a dime, and a quarter inside that same bank.

They all now share the same space.

They all have equal access to the container.

Yet their value hasn’t changed.

The penny is still worth one cent.

The quarter is still worth twenty-five.

Being in the same space does not automatically create equality.

Access is not power.

Presence is not equity.

That’s the illusion.

And liberal political frameworks have spent decades convincing people that integration equals equality.

Malcolm X saw through that illusion sixty years ago.

Integration and the Decline of Black Institutions

There’s another uncomfortable truth that rarely gets discussed.

Integration created trade-offs.

Black schools closed.

Black businesses lost customers.

Black professional networks weakened.

Black teachers lost jobs when school districts integrated and white districts refused to hire them.

When Black communities gained access to white institutions, there was often a mass exodus away from Black institutions.

Why?

Because white supremacy had already established the hierarchy:

White spaces = valuableBlack spaces = inferior

Integration didn’t dismantle that hierarchy.

In many ways it reinforced it.

Malcolm X and the Structural Analysis of Power

Malcolm X’s critique was never about interpersonal relationships between Black people and white people.

It was about structures.

Structures of law.

Structures of economics.

Structures of power.

When Malcolm critiques white liberals, he isn’t talking about individual kindness or intentions.

He’s talking about systems that preserve control while appearing progressive.

He famously described the difference between white conservatives and white liberals like this:

The wolf and the fox.

Different personalities.

Same appetite.

That critique still resonates today because American politics often operates through two different forms of power:

Hard power.Soft power.

Conservatives typically represent the hard version.

Liberals often represent the soft version.

Both can still sustain the same system.

Why Malcolm X Still Feels Dangerous Today

One of the reasons Malcolm X is often misrepresented in American education is because his analysis was structural.

Structural critiques are uncomfortable.

They force people to question institutions themselves rather than individual actors within them.

That’s why Malcolm X is often framed as extreme.

Dangerous.

Radical.

Yet when you listen carefully to his speeches, what you actually hear is something else.

A rigorous analysis of power.

And a relentless commitment to Black autonomy.

Your transcript captures this reflection well, especially the realization that Malcolm’s arguments from 1963 still apply to political debates today.

Equality, According to Malcolm X

In the speech you were watching, Malcolm makes something very clear.

Equality isn’t measured by proximity to white people.

Equality means the ability to develop your full potential.

Equality means autonomy.

Equality means the power to build institutions that serve your people.

That definition of equality is radically different from the one commonly taught in American political discourse.

One version focuses on access to existing power structures.

The other focuses on the ability to create your own power structures.

Those are two very different visions of freedom.

Education Is Elevation is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Pattern Recognition Problem

One of the most important skills political education can give people is pattern recognition.

When you look closely at history, you start seeing the same debates repeating themselves.

Black liberals versus Black radicals.

Integration versus autonomy.

Reform versus transformation.

These conversations happening online today are not new.

They’ve been happening for generations.

Understanding that historical continuity is crucial if we want to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

The Real Lesson Malcolm X Leaves Us With

Malcolm X forces us to ask a difficult question:

Is equality about inclusion into existing systems?

Or is equality about the power to determine your own future?

That question remains unresolved.

And until we answer it honestly, we will continue confusing proximity to power with actual freedom.

Education is elevation.

Support Independent Black Education Media

I’m fighting to fill a critical void left by the retreat of public education media. I document and teach the histories, legal frameworks, and cultural knowledge that are being systematically erased or distorted. With no corporate backing or wealthy sponsors, this work depends entirely on readers like you.

As a Black educator and researcher my work depends entirely on a community of readers, not corporate sponsors.

If everyone reading this became a paid subscriber, we could build a full-time digital sanctuary: a new, independent source of PBS-depth reporting and curriculum, centered on Black expertise. But right now, less than 1% of my followers are paid subscribers.

If you believe in sustaining a classroom without borders, one that empowers with truth when others look away, please become a founding paid member today.

5 Key Takeaways

1. Integration and equality are not the same thing.Sharing physical spaces does not automatically redistribute power or resources. Malcolm X’s critique forces us to ask whether integration changed structures or simply expanded access to them.

2. American history sanitizes political debate.Many Black intellectuals during the civil rights era disagreed about strategy. The idea that everyone supported the same vision of integration is historically inaccurate.

3. Institutions often maintain their original function.Legal reforms and landmark court cases may appear transformative, yet institutions frequently continue operating according to their founding logic.

4. Liberalism often operates through soft power.Progressive language and reformist policies can coexist with systems that maintain inequality. Malcolm X’s critique of liberalism was structural, not personal.

5. True equality requires autonomy.Malcolm X framed equality as the ability for Black communities to develop their own institutions, economies, and political power—not simply access to existing ones.

Related Readings

* Malcolm X — The Ballot or the Bullet

* Malcolm X & Alex Haley — The Autobiography of Malcolm X

* Cedric Robinson — Black Marxism

* W.E.B. Du Bois — Black Reconstruction

* Derrick Bell — Faces at the Bottom of the Well

* Michelle Alexander — The New Jim Crow

References

* Malcolm X speeches and interviews (1960–1965)

* Transcript of commentary analyzing Malcolm X speech and integration debate

* Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory scholarship

* Cedric Robinson, Black Radical Tradition

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you Reda Rountree (she/her), Alisha Williams, Gilda Johnson, Kristen, Katara C, and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

“I could have saved more slaves, if only they knew they were slaves.”

That quote—allegedly from Harriet Tubman—has been rattling around my spirit for years. Not because I need historical verification (though Dr. Ware and I debated whether it’s apocryphal), but because it speaks to the condition we find ourselves in right now, in 2026, watching the empire burn while too many of us are still trying to figure out which arsonist to vote for.

Welcome to the inaugural episode of Education is Elevation. And for this first one, I needed to go heavy. I needed to go to someone who moves through the world the way I try to: rooted in the Black radical tradition, unafraid to be unpopular, and unwilling to let respectability politics silence the truth.

I’m talking about Dr. Butch Ware. Rudolph McKinley Ware III. Professor at UC Santa Barbara. 2024 Green Party Vice Presidential candidate. Current candidate for Governor of California. A brother who converted to Islam at 15 after reading Malcolm X’s autobiography in one night—the same way I found myself in them pages years later. A brother who speaks Wolof, who did oral history interviews in West Africa, who carries the weight of Ware County, Georgia—where his ancestors were held in bondage by three white men who owned 1,100 human beings.

We sat down for what was supposed to be an hour. We went damn near 90 minutes. And by the time we finished, I realized we hadn’t even scratched the surface. This is Part One of what will definitely be a recurring conversation.

Let me be transparent with you from the jump: I asked Dr. Ware the question my audience been screaming. I asked him about the blame. I asked him about the resentment. I asked him about the folks who still believe that he and Jill Stein handed the election to Donald Trump.

His answer? “The math ain’t math.”

And then he proceeded to explain why the math ain’t math—and why the Democratic Party’s refusal to stop killing children in Gaza cost them an election they could have won if they’d just shown an ounce of humanity.

But this conversation went so much deeper than electoral politics. We talked about the past, present, and future of Black liberation. We talked about why the Black radical tradition is fundamentally internationalist. We talked about why Malcolm X was killed when he started building the Organization of Afro-American Unity. We talked about why Fred Hampton was killed when he started building the Rainbow Coalition. We talked about why Dr. King was killed when he started connecting the dots between Vietnam and economic justice.

And we talked about what it’s going to take for us to get free—for real this time.

PART I: THE PRESENT — Why the 2024 Election Wasn’t About Spoilers, It Was About Genocide

Let me set the scene. My audience is... complex. I got liberals in there. I got leftists in there. I got folks who still believe the Democratic Party can be saved and folks who think I’m too soft on Democrats. I got Black folks who voted for Kamala holding their breath and Black folks who voted Green or sat out entirely feeling vindicated.

So when I sat down with Dr. Ware, I had to address the elephant in the room. The comments been hot. The DMs been hot. People want to know: Why you talking to him? Ain’t he part of the reason Trump is back?

Dr. Ware didn’t flinch.

“Feelings are feelings and facts are facts,” he said. “Anyone that holds the Green Party ticket responsible for the Democrats losing the election? That’s not how math works. If you add up all the third-party candidates together, they won’t get commonly even one of the swing states, much less all of them.”

He reminded me—and I needed the reminder—that he said this back in August of 2024. He saw what was coming because he was connected to communities the Democratic Party took for granted.

“I’m a Muslim. Converted at 15 when I read Malcolm. I’m connected to the Black Muslim community, the broader Muslim community. I’ve been a speaker and lecturer in that community for decades. The Democrats went from carrying 65% of the Muslim vote in swing states to polling at about 12% in those same swing states because of the genocide in Gaza.”

Let that sink in. A 53-point drop. Not because of Jill Stein. Not because of Cornel West. Because the Biden-Harris administration kept sending bombs. Because Kamala Harris stood on that stage and said her policy would not change “one iota” from Biden’s policy on Gaza.

“She could have won that election if she just stopped killing kids,” Dr. Ware said. “If she had marked any distance between Biden’s genocidal policies towards Gaza, she might have had a chance. But that’s not my responsibility. They were getting paid good money by AIPAC, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman to keep right on killing kids.”

I asked him about Kamala’s recent interviews—the ones where she talks about regretting some of her 2024 decisions. I asked him if that should matter to us.

His response cut deep.

“As somebody that learned Black liberation from Malcolm’s teaching, I have no love for Black imperialists or for Black Zionists. I really am not interested in Kamala’s explanations about what she did or didn’t do unless and until she’s willing to reassess her overall position.”

Then he said something I had to sit with:

“I’m harder on Obama than I am on Trump. Because I don’t expect nothing from Trump. But if somebody is repping our culture and our tradition, there’s nothing worse to me than a Black imperialist. It’s a betrayal of the fundamental thing of what Blackness and Black liberation is about.”

This is the tension we don’t talk about enough. We are so hungry for representation—so desperate for people who look like us in high places—that we let them betray us and call it progress. Obama deported more people than any president in history. Obama dropped bombs on Yemeni children. Obama bailed out the banks and let Black homeowners drown. And because he was smooth, because he was “articulate,” because he made white people comfortable, we gave him a pass.

Dr. Ware isn’t giving passes.

PART II: THE PHILOSOPHY — Solidarity Beyond Identity and Ideology

One of the reasons I wanted to have this conversation is because Dr. Ware represents something I’ve been trying to articulate for years. He’s running for Governor of California as a Green Party candidate. But if you go to his website—butchwareforgov.com—at the bottom it says: “Solidarity Beyond Identity and Ideology.”

That line hit me.

Because the truth is, I’ve spent the last year and a half coming to a painful realization: not everybody’s goal is liberation. Some people just want to be included in the neoliberal project. Some people are cool with imperialism. They’re cool with killing babies. They’re cool with the bloodshed that keeps the empire running. They just want comfort. They want privilege. They want to be the ones holding the whip instead of being whipped.

“I’ve sadly accepted that everybody’s goal is not liberation,” I told him. “Some people have a burning passion to just be included in the neoliberal project. I’m cool with the imperialism s**t, as long as you see my humanity. As long as I have comfort.”

Dr. Ware nodded. Then he took it deeper.

“For me, a lot of our people don’t want freedom. They just want their turn as the oppressor. I saw a lot of people that claimed abolitionists, but all of a sudden were willing to throw their credibility onto the table to defend an agent of the carceral state—somebody that locked people up in Oakland for truancy of their children, somebody that locked up a generation of Black men, somebody actively supporting an ongoing genocide.”

He pointed to the Malcolm X poster behind him—El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

“Malcolm said of the Zionist entity in 1964: ‘This is a white Jewish population being empowered by white imperialists to move brown Arabs off their land.’ Malcolm understood Zionism as white supremacy. James Baldwin understood Zionism as white supremacy. In 1979, Baldwin said the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of Western interests.”

This is the Black radical tradition. Not asking for a seat at the table. Not begging to be included in the empire. Recognizing that the table itself is the problem. Recognizing that the empire must be dismantled, not diversified.

Dr. Ware broke it down: “I don’t want to be an overseer on Master’s plantation. I want us all to get free. I want Master’s plantation to be completely gone.”

PART III: THE CALIFORNIA CONTEXT — Why the Jungle Primary Matters and Why the Democrats Are Fear-Mongering

We shifted gears to talk about his current race. Dr. Ware is running for Governor of California in a jungle primary. That means only the top two candidates advance, regardless of party. The primary is June 2nd. Ballots get mailed out May 4th. And right now, he’s polling at 5%—eight points off the lead.

“Let me break it down,” he said. “There’s no scenario where two Republican candidates get through. The only two scenarios are either blue versus green or blue versus red. So the question is: do you want them running against me, or chasing a Republican to the right?”

He contrasted his campaign with others. “Mamdani, for example, in February before his primary in June, was polling at 1%. Bro, I’m polling at 5%—five times ahead of where Mamdani was. But Mamdani had to get to 50% in a Democrat primary. I have to finish in the top two in an open primary. The leaders are at 13%. I’m eight points off the lead.”

So why all the fear-mongering? Why are Democrats running ads saying that a Ware campaign will hand the state to Republicans?

“They’re playing in y’all faces,” he said. “If they’re serious, they can get the Republicans out of the race on June 2nd, 2026. And it’ll just be whichever corporate Democrat is running to be the next Gavin Newsom—probably Eric Swalwell, or as I called him in my diss track, Eric Swallowwell for Israel.”

That’s right. Dr. Butch Ware is the first candidate in history to do a political ad in the form of a diss track. Because he came up spitting. Because he never wanted to be anything except an emcee or a baseball player—and he did both. College baseball scholarship. Minor league ball. Ball overseas. And bars for days.

I told him straight up: “I know regardless of what anybody would want to say about that performance, specifically when it comes to bars and using your position to spit Black culture—I would have been one of them little boys that would have been inspired by everything you’re doing and saying.”

He’s 52. I’m 35. But the throughline is the same. We both came up on hip hop. We both came up on the golden age. We both understand that the culture is not separate from the politics.

“That’s why we fell for the Obama okie doke,” he said. “We are so desperately in need of people that look like us—but they’re not all like us. Obama was setting records for deportation. Obama was bombing Yemeni kids. We need folks that not just represent our skin color and our culture, but that represent our politics.”

PART IV: THE TEXAS PERSPECTIVE — Imagination, Limitation, and the Harriet Tubman Principle

I had to be real with him about where I’m at. Texas is... Texas. We’ve been run by Republicans for decades. But the Democrats have been in power on the local level for just as long, and nothing changes. They run the same weak ads. They blame the border. They blame us. They never take responsibility.

“To be honest with you, it always puts me in this weird position,” I told him. “Knowing what is possible—materially possible—but also knowing the people in my reality have a very limited understanding of what we can have.”

I brought up the Harriet Tubman quote—whether it’s real or not, the sentiment is real: “I could have saved most slaves. I could have convinced them they were slaves.”

“It’s a lot of things here in Texas that people just accept as a truism,” I said. “And because they accept it as a truism, it limits their imagination for how we can think about our political reality.”

Dr. Ware nodded. Then he went deep.

“When I was 15, I read Malcolm’s autobiography. I read that book cover to cover in one night. I could not put it down. I wanted what Malcolm had because Malcolm was honest about how badly America had broken him and what it turned him into. A hustler. In and out of foster care.”

He told me about his father—a locksmith with a sixth-grade education who stayed strapped. About his mother—15 years old, pregnant with him, told by her high school guidance counselor to abort the child because she was pregnant by a Black man.

“I came in in 1973 with white supremacy trying to take me out. I never lived at the same street address for a calendar year until I turned nine. Shelters. Public housing. Staying with relatives. Facing homelessness.”

And then he connected it to why Malcolm mattered.

“What got Malcolm free was that he escaped all of those mental chains. Malcolm said: never let your enemy tell you how many of you there are. Never let the man that you are against form your opinions for you. Malcolm was always making his own independent assessment of the situation because once he got free in here and in here—in his mind and in his spirit—then they couldn’t hold him with noose. He was able to have triumph over all of his inner demons and his external oppressors.”

He looked at me and said: “Our people need the healing from the trauma that white supremacy and empire has inscribed upon us. That is actually the thing that leads us to true liberation.”

PART V: THE INTERNATIONAL LENS — Why Malcolm Was Right About Congo and Mississippi

We talked about the moment we’re in right now. Trump is back. The bombs are falling. Iran is in the crosshairs. And the same playbook they ran in Iraq, they’re running again.

Dr. Ware broke it down with a clarity that made me lean in.

“They are very clearly running the same destabilization playbook in the United States that they ran in all of their regime change operations around the globe. Once you apply a colonial lens and you understand that the problem of Black suffering in the United States is produced by a broader system of capitalism, white supremacy, and imperialism—then you are actually capable of getting free.”

He quoted Julius Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania: “The United States is a single-party state. But with classic American extravagance, they have two of them.”

I had to sit with that. Two parties. Same donors. Same imperial interests. Same war machine. Just different packaging.

“If you were to make a Venn diagram of the donor base for the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, it’s going to be a single circle,” Dr. Ware said. “Their donor base is the same. So they stage a fake culture war between right and left. They have the so-called right and so-called left, but they’re both right-wing parties. They’re both capitalist parties. They’re both imperialist parties. They’re both white supremacist parties. It’s just that some allow a little more skin folk and others don’t.”

I had to check myself. I told him: “We say the same s**t, and we believe most of the same s**t. All it is is your delivery is more matter-of-fact unapologetic, and mine is a little bit more... uh.”

He laughed. “You can sweeten it for me.”

He reminded me that it’s always been our culture driving liberation. Hundreds of different African ethnicities, speaking different languages, forged themselves into one people on this soil. That never happened in human history anywhere else before. The slaves of the Romans didn’t make themselves into a people. The slaves of the Greeks didn’t make themselves into a people. It had never happened.

“We did that. Blackness by itself is a miracle. And the key to defeating white supremacy one good time, once and for all, is definitely going to come from us.”

FIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. The 2024 Election Was Lost by Democrats, Not “Spoiled” by Third PartiesDr. Ware’s math is simple: third-party votes don’t add up to a single swing state victory. The real culprit was the Democratic Party’s refusal to break from a genocide that cost them 53 points of Muslim support and alienated young voters, progressive voters, and anyone with a conscience. Kamala could have won if she’d stopped killing kids. She chose AIPAC money over human life. That’s on her, not on us.

2. Some of Us Don’t Want Liberation; We Want to Be the OppressorThis is the hard truth we don’t want to face. There are Black people who are perfectly fine with imperialism, with the carceral state, with genocide—as long as they get a seat at the table. As long as they get comfort. As long as they get privilege. But the Black radical tradition, from Malcolm to Baldwin to Assata, teaches us that liberation isn’t about who holds the whip. It’s about burning the whip entirely.

3. The Two-Party System is a Cage Designed to Look Like a ChoiceJulius Nyerere said it best: America is a single-party state with two extravagant wings. The donor base is the same. The imperial interests are the same. The war machine is the same. The only difference is marketing. The Democrats chase the Republicans to the right, and we’re left with no one representing our interests. Voting blue no matter who is a strategy for staying enslaved, not getting free.

4. An International Lens is the Only Path to LiberationYou cannot understand Mississippi without understanding Congo. You cannot understand Gaza without understanding the transatlantic slave trade. The system is global, and so must be our resistance. The colonizer breaks your connection to the past so you’ll believe whatever they tell you about who you are. Reconnecting with the Haitian Revolution, with West African anti-slavery movements, with the global struggle against empire—that’s how we get free.

5. The War Will Be Won in the CultureElectoral politics alone won’t save us. Organizing alone won’t save us. The war for our consciousness will be fought in the culture—in the music, in the stories, in the images we create and consume. Black culture has always been the engine of our liberation. From the spirituals to hip hop, we have coded resistance into our art. We need to do it again. We need to tell stories that script liberation, not captivity.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

If you want to go deeper into the history, theory, and context we discussed, start here:

Books:

* The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley – The foundational text. Read it in one night like Dr. Ware did.

* Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition by Cedric Robinson – The essential text for understanding the Black radical tradition.

* The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon – On colonialism, violence, and liberation.

* Discourse on Colonialism by Aimé Césaire – On the relationship between colonialism and fascism.

* Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass – Because we have to know where we’ve been.

* Assata: An Autobiography by Assata Shakur – Because the ancestors are still speaking.

Speeches and Essays:7. “Message to the Grassroots” – Malcolm X (1963)8. “The Ballot or the Bullet” – Malcolm X (1964)9. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1963)10. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1967)11. “Open Letter to the Born Again” – James Baldwin (1979)12. “The Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements” – Huey P. Newton (1970)

Scholars and Thinkers:13. Julius Nyerere – First President of Tanzania, theorist of Ujamaa and African socialism.14. Walter Rodney – Author of How Europe Underdeveloped Africa.15. Cedric Robinson – UC Santa Barbara professor, author of Black Marxism.16. Abdul Kader Khan – 18th-century West African Muslim revolutionary who abolished the slave trade in the Senegal River Valley.

Cultural References:17. “The Message” – Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five (1982)18. X-Clan – “To the East, Blackwards” (1990)19. Poor Righteous Teachers – “Holy Intellect” (1990)20. Wise Intelligent – Lectures on narrative and consciousness.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theconsciouslee.substack.com/subscribe