The New Age Of Racism: Antiracism
8 Things I Learned From Reading How To Be An Antiracist: A Critical Review
[Writer’s Note: This was originally posted on my website on 11/23/2020. There is a full podcast in video and audio format covering this article.]
There is a fine line between curiosity and insanity. I learned this when I took up the task of doing a chapter-by-chapter review of Ibram X. Kendi’s book How To Be An Antiracist. I was told by some that I was doing a good service for diving into, summarizing, and critiquing material that so strongly opposed my morals and political views. It was curiosity that led me down this road. I was told by many more that I was insane for using my time reviewing and criticizing nonsense. I guess it is up to the reader to characterize my efforts to read and review this book. My original intentions were to read and review in a way that would help those who do not want to spend their time reading the book or give their money to people who push bad ideas, and that is still a main goal of mine for doing this, but there is another reason I find this experiment to be more important than insane.
I have more motivation than ever do dive into the source material and learn about racial dynamics in America because of a recent email I received from my children’s school. This followed the latest rash of police shootings that resulted in the deaths or injury of several black Americans. These shootings created a large social movement to highlight injustices between law enforcement and the black community. It is also important to note, context for these shootings have been largely ignored adding fuel to the flames of rage. The social pressure to educate others on perceived injustice has exponentially grown in the past few months, and it is making its way into our children’s schools. The email I received from the school addressed these injustices and made a promise to teach the kids about antiracism. To the average parent, this may seem like a sensible strategy to teach kids about how to stand up against racism. If that is what antiracism is really about, I would be all for it, but I know that is not the end goal of these antiracist programs.
Luckily, my children are too young to be take antiracism programs at their school. These programs start in fifth grade, but these programs teaching my kids bad ideas is not my main concern. Fortunately, I can teach my kids what is right and wrong at home and make sure they do not buy into bad ideas. Unfortunately, my kids are not who will be most negatively affected by antiracist programs. I guess we can mark that up to white privilege. The kids who will really be hurt by this are young black kids, or really any kids that will be seen as victims of a racist society. There is nothing more damaging to a child than telling them the world is out to get them. That the world is racist. That they can never get ahead. We as parents are taught that the best way to help your children grow is to encourage, not discourage. Antiracism programs teach discrimination, victimization, and fear. Advocates of antiracist education tell us admitting you are a member of an oppressed class is good, and admitting you have privileges that do not come at the expense of others is bad. Consequences as a result of your behavior are seen as a problem with society and not your actions. There is no such thing as a standard because that means people can fall short of it. This is what antiracism teaches. It creates a darker world for everyone.
Reading and understanding bad ideas like antiracism can help fight back against it. Brushing it off as nonsense and ignorance is not an effective strategy when pushing out bad ideas. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Convincing the thought leaders of the antiracist movement, like Kendi, is not a great strategy either. Convincing the people who sincerely want to fight racism, and therefore, are more open to antiracist ideology are the ones we need to help understand what antiracism really teaches and its roots. Learning the source material for antiracism and knowing it better than the people who push it is the best way to expose the flaws in the ideology and change minds. This is what I attempted to do with the chapter reviews. You can find these reviews in the Engineering Politics Locals Community below. [Note: Just create a username and password to become a member for free and view the posts at any time]
Chapter 2 Review: Dueling Consciousness
Chapter 12 Review: Class (Part 1)
Chapter 12 Review: Class (Part 2)
Each chapter has its own set of lessons and objectives, so if you want to do an even deeper dive into this work, check out each chapter review. If you want to spare yourself a little bit of headache, even though I cannot guarantee you will not get one at all from reading something like this, just read the top 8 things I learned from reading the book in its entirety listed out below:
1. The importance of setting up definitions that support the antiracist narrative.
The first step to understanding how any idea operates is understanding the definitions of the key terms. It is impossible to build an understanding if everyone is not using the same definitions, otherwise, you are basically speaking another language. Kendi starts out every chapter, for the exception of the last few, with definitions of key terms used throughout the chapter. This can be a useful exercise, but it can also help setup a narrative. Kendi uses this to his advantage by defining, or redefining in some cases, words to better fit the context and narrative of the chapter. Even though a single word can have multiple definitions, this raised a red flag for me right from the beginning. To quote the great Thomas Sowell, “You can make any claim true if you change the definition of just one word.” Kendi starts out the first chapter defining the most commonly used terms throughout the book, racist and antiracist.
“RACIST: One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. ANTIRACIST: One who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”
Right away I have a problem with these definitions, other than the obvious inaction claim. Maybe I am just a bit OCD or I have had good English teachers in the past, but you are not supposed to have the defining word in the definition of that word. That creates circular logic, although, I imagine Kendi did not do this out of ignorance. Kendi can now define anything as racist so as long as the idea supports a racist policy, but now how do we define a racist policy? The definitions above do not actually define anything but allows the enough wiggle room to claim everything can be racist if we think about it deeply enough.
Another important issue to highlight is Kendi’s attempt to manipulate language. He does not simply change the definition of the word racist, but he eliminates any neutral position adding the word antiracist. George Orwell does an amazing job at explaining this linguistic manipulation tactic in one of his most popular novels. In Orwell’s 1984, the appendix goes through the logic behind newspeak, the new language of 1984 put in place by Big Brother (the government), and Orwell gets very detailed as to why changes were made to language. It was not the words that were changing, or even the meaning of the words, but it was the elimination of words and their derivations that changed. This may not seem like a big change, but by eliminating certain words, the remaining word’s definitions inherently changed. For example, the word bad was eliminated because you can just say not good. The word good was still untouched and had its original definition, but eliminating its counterpart changed the spectrum of good to bad to the binary of good and not good. There was no kinda good or kinda bad, just good or not good. Kendi does the same thing here. There is racist and antiracist and nothing else.
2. Kendi’s idea of antiracism is his own, less sophisticated, brand of Critical Race Theory.
Kendi is not the first person to come up with this idea — the call to action to find racism in all human affairs — but an idea that is derived from Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic define CRT in their book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, “The critical race theory movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” CRT has its foundation based in Critical Legal Studies.
I am not going to dive any further into CRT here because Kendi does not call it out by name much in the book, but he does rely on accounts and writings from people who are very influential in the CRT movement like Kimberlé Crenshaw. To be honest, the ideas in CRT are much more coherent and persuasive than Kendi’s attempt at developing an antiracist narrative, but unfortunately, no less evil in its ideas. To be fair to Kendi, CRT has been around for much longer and is more developed under the Critical Theory umbrella. And to even be more honest, Kendi’s antiracist ideas are a more dumbed down version of CRT which is why it is easier for people to grasp and repeat. Another reason why I will not be explaining CRT here is it will take its own series of articles to unpack, but it is important to note the relationship with Kendi’s brand of antiracism and CRT.
3. The power of the almighty policy.
The term “policy” will appear around a hundred times throughout this book. This is because Kendi rejects the influences of culture and behavior to account for disparities in outcome among different racial groups, so government policy must be the problem and the answer. I often say in my reviews of each chapter that Kendi worships at the altar of the almighty ‘policy’ because he believes in what Thomas Sowell calls the unconstrained vision of human behavior. Sowell explains this idea in his books A Conflict of Visions and The Vision of the Anointed. Basically, there are people who hold an unconstrained vision of human behavior where we can completely change human behavior through sheer will and proper government policy, and then there is the constrained vision of human behavior where we cannot change human behavior through means other than organic cultural change or evolution. Because Kendi clearly views human behavior through the lens of the unconstrained vision, and therefore, believes there is a perfect set of policies that will result in perfect equity. He also believes that the racial inequities caused by policy, whether intentional or unintentional, are driven by racist power as he explains here.
“[P]olicies determine the success of groups. And it is racist power that creates the policies that cause racial inequities.”
It is almost like Kendi believes there is no such thing as human behavior, just behaviors dictated by policy. This does not mean there cannot be, or have not been, policies created for the explicit purpose of producing racial inequities, but inequities between groups are not solely caused by bad policy, and therefore, cannot just be fixed with good policy, nor should we use policy to build equality of outcome.
The other problem with believing that some policy can save human beings from their own nature and self-interest is who we deem as policy maker. Who is going to be the moral arbiter who guides the benighted people to an antiracist future? I guess Kendi is volunteering for this role, or at least putting the pieces together to establish the Department of Antiracism (DOA) in the future (per an article written by Kendi in Politico) so we can have another bureaucracy tell us how to live our lives.
4. Equity over equality.
There is a common sleight of hand used by people who dishonestly talk about race — swapping out the term equality for equity. People who stood for civil rights in the past always referred to equality between the races. This is a great idea that basically every American holds today, but recently ‘equality’ has changed to ‘equity’ by dishonest actors. Even though these two words sound similar, they are not synonyms. Equality is treating everyone fairly, and equity refers to equal or proportionate outcomes. We all want equality, but we know we should not force equality of outcome. The rebranding of equality to equity is a magician’s trick on those not paying close enough attention to see the sleight of hand. In order to reach equal outcomes among any groups as large and diverse as ‘black people’ and ‘white people’ is to control outcomes. There is a way to organically reach something closer to racial equity, which is to achieve complete cultural assimilation, but Kendi explicitly rejects that claim. Kendi wants to use the power of the policy to achieve equity, which also happens to be the primary goal of Communism using the same strategy and talking points. The problem with that strategy is there is always a ton of dead bodies along the way to utopia, and the means to destroying evil is using evil itself. Kendi perfectly exemplifies this strategy in the most immoral quote in the book.
“The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist… The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Kendi openly advocates for discrimination to fight discrimination. We must fight racism with more racism. That is like fighting cancer with more cancer. This is why antiracism just brings in a new age of racism.
5. There is no such thing as non-racist or a race neutral position. Neutral positions, or what we would call non-racist, are not acceptable in Kendi’s worldview as he explains here.
“[T]here is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas… There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.”
Here Kendi does what many progressive Left ideologs do today — he targets the non-political and people who would consider themselves allies who are not antiracist enough. It is not the openly racist or ethno-nationalists who are the worst racists, it is the store clerk who helps the white patron before the black patron because he clearly thinks the white patron should receive faster and better service. It is also the store clerk who helps the black patron before the white patron because he clearly wants the black patron to leave his store quicker. Either option that is not explicitly antiracist is to be considered racist. Much like what was said earlier in this article — we can claim everything can be racist if we think about it deeply enough — CRT types can define anything as racist if they think critically about it enough. Expelling race neutral positions and policies will create a world where race is the only characteristic to consider. This is not a world we want to create or live in.
6. Culture and behavior have no influence on each other when talking about inequitable outcomes.
This is a central lie you must believe if you are to be a proper antiracist. Kendi does everything he can to disassociate race and behavior. To this point, I do not disagree. We should never assume someone’s behavior or potential based on their skin color. We should also understand that culture is one of the strongest influences on our behavior. Kendi recognizes that there are differences between cultures but rejects the notion that one culture can be better than another.
“To be antiracist is to see all cultures in all their differences as on the same level, as equals. When we see cultural difference, we are seeing cultural difference — nothing more, nothing less.”
I do not necessarily disagree with the message above, although I would not use the word antiracist. Cultures have differences and we should treat them equally, as long as that culture does not advocate for violating individual rights, but that does not mean they will have equal outcomes. If my neighbor waves to me and I do not wave back — because the culture I subscribe to does not value a return of courtesy — I do not expect to be invited over for dinner any time soon. Kendi also seems to directly tie culture to race even though the last sentence in the quote above says otherwise. But here is the thing, race and culture are indirectly tied through tribalist tendencies built into our behavior. Tribalism, or the behavior of organizing with a tribe, is the link between culture and race. It is the behavior that causes me to love the Green Bay Packers and hate the Chicago Bears. It is also the behavior that causes real Jim Crow style racism. Tribalism is not always a bad thing, but it can lead to self-selection into groups based on the only characteristics we know about someone we have never met before — which is why we see large group adoption of certain cultures. An obvious example of this is rap and R&B being the music of choice for many, and maybe most, black Americans. This does not mean this is a strict rule, but we do see a disproportionate large scale adoption of this cultural tendency by one racial group.
And while we are on the subject of cultural differences and race, Kendi does not talk about cultural appropriation, or the adoption of cultural elements your subscribed culture does not own but going on the assumption culture is just culture and not directly tied to race, cultural appropriate should not be a problem. We are now seeing a major breakdown in logic, but it does not end there. Kendi must then separate culture and behavior to complete the lie.
“Antiracism means separating the idea of a culture from the idea of behavior. Culture defines a group tradition that a particular racial group might share but that is not shared among all individuals in that racial group or among all racial groups. Behavior defines the inherent human traits and potential that everyone shares.”
Separating culture from behavior goes against everything we know about human behavior and what influences it. “Culture defines a group tradition,” already debunks his previous sentence. Traditions, such as religious beliefs, are the strongest factors in influencing our behavior we have as human beings. Behavior defines the way in which we act or conduct ourselves. It does not define “inherent human traits” or “potential everyone shares” unless you are going to make some very loose connections with some mental gymnastics. This completely illuminates Kendi’s belief in the power of the policy. If culture, tradition, and belief have no relevant influence on our behavior, then making policy changes is the most obvious avenue for permanent behavioral change. Human beings are unconstrained by human behavior.
7. Capitalism is what stands between us and an antiracist utopia.
Economics does not tend to be a strong subject for most critical theorists, and they rely on the reader’s ignorance on the subject to play to their advantage. To be fair, economics is not the easiest subject to understand because it is not something you can hold in your hand, yet it has its own personality and a somewhat erratic behavior. But people who want to change the world understand that systems that allow people their own autonomy and give them the tools to make their own lives better do not need to rely on the saving graces of the intellectual elite. A free market is the most efficient and effective way to bring prosperity to the largest amount of people and is a system where to become powerful, you must provide more value to the general population. In a fixed market, or more socialist economic system, the powerful are the intellectual elite who claim they can run your life better than you can.
I will do my best to quickly summarize Kendi’s thoughts on capitalism’s role in racism, but there is a ton to unpack here. I will not be able to get to everything he covers, so I recommend you read the Chapter 12 review on Class, Part 1 and Part 2 (broken into 2 parts due to the volume of material I covered), for the full breakdown. If you are going to read any of my chapter reviews, I strongly recommend this one.
Kendi only covers economic systems in one chapter but fills that chapter with every dishonest argument against a free market you can think of. Right from the start, he defines terms that already form an Orwellian narrative.
“CLASS RACIST: One who is racializing the classes, supporting policies of racial capitalism against those race-classes, and justifying them by racist ideas about those race-classes. ANTIRACIST ANTICAPITALIST: One who is opposing racial capitalism.”
First, class racist is a real term that has nothing to do with racial capitalism but has to do with real racism. It is simply just breaking races into classes of people. Markets can be then fixed to benefit certain classes, as we have seen with economic fascist movements and communism, but free markets are not geared toward creating class. Class breakdown is a qualitative breakdown of groups based on relative wealth standing. Wealth is accumulated through the marketplace, but rigid class structures can only be dictated in a fixed market where inputs and outputs are regulated and controlled. A free market inherently has no control over inputs and outputs but rather puts that control into the hands of the consumer and producer. This does not mean a free market always acts morally or creates its own moral systems, something disputed by the more Ayn Randian school of economics, but it does not selectively create classes of people. Secondly, he defines the term antiracist anticapitalist without defining racial capitalist but defines it juxtaposed to class racist. This seems to imply antiracist anticapitalist is good and class racist is bad, something I would categorize as both being bad. He also leaves no room for an antiracist capitalist category, something I am sure he did on purpose to set the narrative. This follows the logic I described earlier in the article about the Orwellian newspeak strategy of changing language by reducing the dictionary down to the words only the ones in power want you to use.
Kendi also makes the popular claim that capitalism is what allowed slavery and racism to thrive in America. He explains how capitalism intersects with other oppression narratives.
“I saw poor Blacks as the product of racism and not capitalism, largely because I thought I knew racism but did not know capitalism. But it is impossible to know racism without understanding its intersection with capitalism… Capitalism emerged during the what world-systems theorists term the ‘long sixteenth century,’ a cradling period that begins around 1450 with Portugal (and Spain) sailing into the unknown Atlantic. Prince Henry’s Portugal birthed conjoined twins — capitalism and racism — when it initiated the transatlantic slave trade of African people. These newborns looked up with tender eyes to their ancient siblings of sexism, imperialism, ethnocentrism, and homophobia.”
Kendi defines the origins of capitalism through the lens of world-systems theory — which is “an approach to world history and social change that suggests there is a world economic system in which some countries benefit while others are exploited.” So, basically, Kendi starts out his understanding of the history of slavery the same way a Nazi would start out his understanding of the history of the Jews. If you start with the assumption that we are all playing a zero-sum game, and therefore, there must be someone taking advantage of someone else during every transaction, of course you will end up believing in some silly stuff. The upsetting part about this is Kendi is not alone in this deception. World-systems theory is being taught in many schools and higher education institutions, propagandizing kids and young adults before they enter the marketplace believing, no matter what they do, they are just being exploited for their labor.
Kendi continues his anticapitalist rant, citing Karl Marx and Howard Zinn several times, exposing his lack of knowledge of understanding the real role free markets took in ending slavery. Yes, capitalism was one of the leading ideas, along with Christianity, that lead to the end of slavery. I wrote a ton of information on this topic and will not restate it all here for the sake of length, but I would, again, strongly recommend you read the Chapter 12 review. But, real quick, I will give you two obvious reasons why we know free markets helped end slavery: (1) a worker who is paid no wage has no incentive to innovate, become more efficient, or have the means to purchase products he or she made or other slaves made, thus decreasing the pool of potential consumers and leads to inefficient production, and (2) almost every slaveholder in the American South was against free markets. Economic historian Phillip W. Magness of the American Institute for Economic Research, who I used as a source for much of my historical economic arguments against Kendi’s claims, said it best when describing the common ground between slaveholders and socialists stating, “the immiserating historical records of each reveal that the only remaining distinction between their political outcomes consists of the choice between the slavery of the plantation and the slavery of the gulag.”
8. If one oppression narrative is not strong enough, then combine several oppression narratives to build more oppression capital.
Kendi has several chapters in the latter third of his book that covers other oppression narratives not directly tied to race such as feminism, gender, and sexual orientation, but in the true tradition of someone who trades in oppression capital, Kendi will tie them all together anyways. He is even kind enough to give us more definitions to follow because keeping track of how these different narratives intersect can get kind of confusing, on purpose I expect.
“GENDER RACISM: A powerful collection of racist policies that lead to inequity between race-genders and are substantiated by racist ideas about race-genders. GENDER ANTIRACISM: A powerful collection of antiracist policies that lead to equity between race-genders and are substantiated by antiracist ideas about race-genders. QUEER RACISM: A powerful collection of racist policies that lead to inequity between race-sexualities and are substantiated by racist ideas about race-sexualities. QUEER ANTIRACISM: A powerful collection of antiracist policies that lead to equity between race-sexualities and are substantiated by antiracist ideas about race-sexualities.”
Per Kendi’s usual argument, there is a perfect set of policies that will balance equity between race-genders and race-sexualities. Do you know what that means? Neither do I, and I do not think Kendi really knows either. I will cite an example from his book of how crazy this logic gets.
“I am a cisgendered Black heterosexual male — “cisgender” meaning my gender identity corresponds to my birth sex, in contrast to transgender people, whose gender identity does not correspond to their birth sex. To be queer antiracist is to understand the privileges of my cisgender, of my masculinity, of my heterosexuality, of their intersections. To be queer antiracist is to serve as an ally to transgender people, to intersex people, to women, to the non-gender-conforming, to homosexuals, to their intersections, meaning listening, learning, and being led by their equalizing ideas, by their equalizing policy campaigns, by their power struggle for equal opportunity. To be queer antiracist is to see that policies protecting Black transgender women are as critically important as policies protecting the political ascendancy of queer White males. To be queer antiracist is to see the new wave of both religious-freedom laws and voter-ID laws in Republican states as taking away the rights of queer people. To be queer antiracist is to see homophobia, racism, and queer racism — not the queer person, not the queer space — as the problem, as abnormal, as unnatural.”
This pile of word salad is only useful in highlighting the profound insanity of critical theory and intersectionality. Dr. Jordan Peterson summarized it best, and I will paraphrase: These infinite intersections and identities become so unique that it splits every person into an individual with their own unique identity. This creates individuals, not groups, that the typical conservative and classical liberal stands up for. Using their own logic, we should all be on the same page, but that could not be further from the truth. Calling out religious freedom by name only serves in illuminating what really drives this movement: politics. This dishonest derivative of Marxist class struggle only separates us in order for the ideology to thrive. This ideology feeds on disorder and chaos.
Kendi finishes the idea above telling a story about a few radical black feminists he met in college who go out and attack anyone who does not conform to their rigid ideology. Kendi literally uses the word “attack” to describe what these oppression fighters do. Kendi writes, “I call them attacks, but in truth they were defenses, defending Black womanhood and the humanity of queer Blacks.” Sometimes the best defense is offense, so I get it, but when on the attack in an intellectual bout, we must agree to be substantive and not just attack character. This is not a rule critical theory agrees to. In fact, violating this rule is vital when defending the ideology. As Kendi continues to say, “But I call them attacks because I felt personally attacked.” This means, agree with me or you are evil and racist. Submit to my ideas or face my wrath. This is how you get cancel culture. This is how you destroy civilizations.
The main point here is these different oppression narratives will run side-by-side and combine when needed. This is a strategy that comes from critical theory and the different sub-theories that derive from it. These critical theory types reject capitalism and the idea of monetary capital but are accepting of fixed economic outcomes and social capital. Oppression capital is a type of social capital that is exchanged for power since monetary assets are not useful in a fixed market. You accumulate oppression capital by making claims you, or a group you are allied with, are oppressed. The greater the perceived oppression, the more oppression capital is accumulated. What this incentivizes is not solutions to fight oppression, but to find different ways to claim more oppression. Being black in America makes you part of a perceived oppressed class, but not as oppressed as a black woman, who is not as oppressed as a black transgender woman, who is not as oppressed as a black transgender lesbian woman, who is not as oppressed as a black transgender lesbian handicapped woman, and the list goes on and on. There is no future that we find solutions to end oppression because then the oppression gold mine will run dry. This is a game, not real life.
These are the main takeaways I gathered from reading How To Be An Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi, but to get a better idea of what the book is about, read my reviews. But the best way to understand Kendi’s ideas is to read the entire book yourself. I do not normally advocate for people to give their money to people who push evil ideas but knowing the source material of the thing you are fighting against better than the people fighting for it is the most effective strategy in winning the battle of ideas.
The other important element in fighting against this style of racism is having the courage to call it out. If your children’s school is sending you emails about antiracism courses, send a kind and informed response letting them know you do not approve of this type of propaganda. If your work is asking you to take antiracist training, tell them you do not find this to be valuable or proper training for a professional workplace, or if you run the risk of suspension or termination if you reject the training, attend the training and ask tough questions. No matter how you push back, make sure you know the source material, preferably better than they do. Expose the logical errors and illiberal ideas needed to accept antiracist narratives.
Kendi wants to create an antiracist utopia where all we care about is race. People like Richard Spencer probably agree with much of Kendi’s ideas. This is because the radical Left and the radical Right are the same people. They share a common ideology. Trade individual liberty for collective security. Relieve yourself of the burden of accountability and allow a centralized power to run your life. Hierarchies should be built on characteristics like race rather than ability or competence. Every human interact is a struggle for power. This is the utopia they want. Do not give it to them.
P.S. If you are still reading, and I hope you are, I will be republishing my writing from my website on Medium so there may be some older stories I cover, although I do not often cover current events. I shut down my website because I have changed my main resource of communication and content hosting to Locals.com. Although I will be publishing my long-form written content on Medium, you can find my more regular content, podcasts, and interactive community at engineeringpolitics.locals.com. Please feel free to join this growing community if you want to stay up to date and/or support this content. Thank you for your consideration!
Note: None of the persons, podcasts, or books referenced above reflect my ideas and personal beliefs, nor should they be held accountable for anything published on this site in the future.
