In medieval times, the wealthy and powerful were known as “blue bloods,” because they never intermarried with the invading Moors (early Muslims). Their blue veins were visible through pale skin, consequently. Today, those who wield wealth, influence, and power are not limited to knights, clergy, and politicians. The modern blue bloods still include politicians and preachers, but they also include entertainers, celebrities, professors, and mainstream journalists.
And the fabled knights of fairy tales did not really exist in medieval times. They were more like mafia criminals than heroes, and the Pope even sent them on the Crusades in part for ulterior motives - so that they may cause trouble somewhere else. Modern organized crime likewise joins the modern blue bloods; they have taken the baton from the knights of yore, using intimidation, coercion, and pilfering to grab $2.2 trillion per year for themselves. They launder some of those $trillions into PACs, municipal authorities, and nonprofits so that they can buy policies favorable to their revenues.
It doesn’t mean that all blue bloods are criminals, but they all wield power. As it was in medieval times, the blue bloods of today are the ones who define laws and influence public opinion, attitudes, tastes, visions, and beliefs. Anticompetitive market, technological, and political forces have ensured that whatever “market democracy” that could have emerged from information technology, was snuffed out in its infancy with algorithms and alliances between media conglomerates, elite academia, and politicians. They ensure that the limelight in our zeitgeist is occupied by “approved” news producers, entertainers under the same corporate umbrella, businesses that do not conflict with their interests, and politicians who agree with their visions of the future.
While the blue bloods of medieval times may have influenced some great things - artistic wonders of the world, scientific discovery, evolution of political science, logistics, and economy - they also influenced horrific things such as arbitrary laws, wars, selective law enforcement, and criminal violence. What caused the COVID violence wave? A number of specific things contributed to this violence. But ultimately, as it was in medieval times, so it is today - the power and influence of blue bloods created the conditions for increased violence. They passed the laws, they selectively enforced the laws, they preached the ideas, and they made backroom deals to finance the candidates and lobby for the policies they wanted. Simultaneously, the criminal blue bloods exploited the pandemic.
It does not mean that our celebrities, politicians, professors, and mainstream journalists are all sadistic conspirators. A person of power need not conspire to have common interests with others. Nor do they have to wittingly do harm to people; in fact the majority of foolish blue bloods chanting “Black Lives Matter,” actually believed their own fiction and looked at themselves like heroic little Atticus Finch emulators. But whether witting or unwitting, through a series of visions, values, habits, communications, policies, and misuse of their power and influence, the modern “blue blood” elites unleashed a latent impulse for American violence. This extensive Alvarism series will describe how that happened, and help readers to hold the blue bloods accountable, while preventing such predictable catastrophe in the future.
The Violence Tsunami
Nobody can argue over the fact that serious crime has spiked during the pandemic in the United States. In Los Angeles, when compared to pre-COVID 2019 data, shootings are up 51.4%, and property crime is down 6.6% except for car break-ins, which are up 53%. National trends mimic Los Angeles across America:
Murder rate up 30%
Aggravated assault up 12%
Robbery down slightly
Property crimes down by 8%
Car break-ins up substantially
There are many politicians and journalists spreading misinformation about the cause of the violence, that are biased towards their interests.
Common Sense is Insufficient
Please prepare your mind for this knowledge. We must think flexibly, with nuance and tolerance for ambiguity. Many news-talkers proffer explanations that seem like common sense. They say police were taken off the street to deal with the protests, so they can’t be patrolling to deter crime. But there are many criminals who rarely think about police presence, and commit their violence in the heat of the moment, or under the influence of drugs. Police deployments are irrelevant to their choice to violate.
While logic should be used in analysis, without historical records, conceptual facts, and data, “common sense” explanations are insufficient. In a multivariate problem like crime trends, there are many factors at play, and there is not one single explanation for the reality, as you will see when we expose you to the substance of criminology journals, rather than the news-talkers. Our minds are wired to oversimplify, because keeping open threads to complexities requires more cognitive energy. But we must be comfortable with ambiguity and multiple answers to accurately assess crime trends. We must keep all of the factors in mind.
We should start with the President’s response to the violence wave. The Biden administration blamed it on the pandemic and guns. On December 2nd, 2021, Ms. Psaki spoke tersely and inarticulately about the topic, during her press conference. Her comments reflected a propagandistic thrust to deflect blame onto “pandemic restlessness,” and away from experimental policy changes, and blame for failing to pre-empt the violence surge.
Similarly, New York City democrat mayor Bill de Blasio suggested that “people couped up” contributed to the violence wave. His “pandemic restlessness” theory is suspicious because across the world, many societies have been “couped up” to an even greater extent, without an ensuing violence wave. The Atlantic recently dug deeply into the political risks of honesty: if democrats are honest about the violence wave, their political capital is threatened. Their experimental policies have contributed to the problems, including:
The rehabilitative justice agenda. The idea is to give preference towards the lives of the criminals, their communities, their families, and racial egotism, rather than preference towards the victims, and the future victims of likely recidivism
The “Rogue prosecutor” movement in which attorney campaigns are financed by progressive PACs willing to usurp legislative functions by selectively enforcing the law for social engineering agendas. Heritage chronicled the details recently. Legislators can put fair laws on the books. But if those laws are arbitrarily enforced, there is no law and order (see rule of law).
“Defund the police,” which has bled resources for enforcement, and redirected funds towards social worker tasks, by the $billions
Organized crime exploiting democrat “protest” mobs to burn and steal. Say an organized crime cartel had purchased ownership of some retirement homes in the city. A new retirement home is built that will compete with their revenues. It only takes a few gang members to infiltrate the thousands of democrat protestors, and burn the new retirement home down. A person might ask why the BLM protest of Baltimore burned down a new retirement home. It could have been a coincidence. It could be that the “social justice” fanatics don’t care about their elders. Or it could be a criminal market manipulation. Who is investigating corporate and cartel motives for the hundreds of major arson attacks by Antifa/BLM?
The decarceration movement, which seeks to reduce incarceration and convictions
Easy bail, which puts criminals right back onto the streets. The likelihood of new offenses while awaiting trial is low, but the consequences can be severe. The Thanksgiving Parade black nationalist massacre in Waukesha would not have happened without easy bail policies.
All of these ideas were advanced irresponsibly by Black Lives Matter, and PACs and nonprofits associated with the democratic party. Libertarians have also pursued decarceration. For those with a memory that extends beyond six months, it was Obama who lent credibility to BLM when he hosted them at the White House in 2016, after garnering racial animus numerous times in response to justice controversies.
While there is much more to the violence spike than the democrats’ naive justice experiments and racial opportunism, it should be noted that Ms. Psaki at least disclosed that the Biden administration is on the wrong track. Increased funding for local police was Biden’s answer, with an irrelevant push for gun control as a side note. Rep Mary Gay Scanlon, a democrat who was recently carjacked in Philadelphia, offered no remorse for bleeding Philadelphia police of $33.3 million in tune with her “defund the police,” position. Instead she coyly deflected to gun control and the NRA in relation to her carjacking, as if the underage thugs were beneficiaries of the NRA, rather than her anti-police messaging and defunding.
While reversing “defund the police” could possibly help, money alone is not the answer. Per the criminologists that we will cite in this report, throwing more peanuts at local police and mythologizing guns does not strike at the root of the problem. Much like American public education largesse has not yielded a more erudite, intellectual, and cognitively sound population, increased security funding does not necessarily translate to more effective law enforcement and lower crime rates. The funds can easily be misappropriated within the local precincts. It’s a problem of ideas and visions, more than finance, just like education.
In the next article, we will show you what caused a thousand years of murderous violence in Europe to erode, and cite the best studies available in order to relate the concepts to the current problem in our justice system.