Americans Do Not Need a Left or Right Revolution
They Need to Recognize Who the System Is Actually Against
1) The Minnesota Lesson
Months ago, I argued that Americans need a revolution. Not an ideological one. Not a left-wing or right-wing fantasy. A reality-based one. What happened in Minnesota forces an update to that argument, because it stripped away the last remaining illusions.
A US citizen, Renee Nicole Good, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The federal response was not humility, transparency, or accountability. It was defense, narrative control, and a push to keep the investigation under federal control while blocking state access to evidence.
2) The Trap: Left vs Right
This is not a partisan controversy. It is not a debate between Democrats and Republicans. It is the state, through its enforcement arm, killing a citizen and then trying to control the story and the process.
Notice what comes next every time: “radical left,” culture war framing, moral panic. That language is not decoration. It is a containment strategy. If people are pushed into left versus right, they stop asking the only question that matters: why does the government feel comfortable using lethal force on a citizen in public and expecting the system to shield the shooter?
When an armed agent confronts someone on the street, political identity is irrelevant. Voting history does not matter. Media preferences do not matter. In that moment, the individual is not a liberal or a conservative. They are a civilian in front of authority.
3) The Same Machine Abroad and At Home
Here is the part many people miss: this is not only happening domestically.
A government that openly talks about invading other countries, threatens foreign leaders, and normalizes cross-border seizure or removal of heads of state is running the same play abroad that it runs at home: rule by fear.
Outside the country, it is coercion dressed up as “security.”
Inside the country, it is coercion dressed up as “law enforcement.”
Different slogans. Same machinery.
So when the state kills a citizen, excuses it as “legal,” and demands the public accept it as normal, that is not democracy. It is authority training people to obey. It is the same logic used to intimidate foreign governments: compliance through fear.
4) The “Absolute Immunity” Line and Why It Matters
Multiple reports today quote JD Vance using the phrase “absolute immunity” when discussing the ICE agent involved in the Minneapolis shooting.
That matters, because rhetorically it sounds like a license to kill. It tells the public: don’t expect accountability, and don’t bother asking.
But fact-checking the legal claim is important too. ICE agents do not have unlimited, blanket “absolute immunity” in general. Like other officers, they can have significant protections, and prosecutions can be difficult, but it is not accurate to say they are automatically untouchable for anything they do.
Even if the phrase is politically sloppy or legally wrong, the effect is real: it terrifies citizens. It signals a state posture of impunity.
5) Why the Word Matters
When a government kills its own citizens and calls it legal, that is not democracy. By definition, it is a tyrannical government.
And it gets worse because it is not only internal. A state that intimidates foreign governments with threats and force, while intimidating its own population with armed enforcement and impunity, is operating on the same principle in two directions: fear as governance.
This term is not a vibe. It is not a partisan insult. It is a structural description.
6) What “Revolution” Means Here
When the word “revolution” is used here, it does not mean chaos or violence. It means a shift in awareness, organization, and discipline.
It means refusing to fight neighbors while power consolidates above. It means recognizing the real line of conflict.
There are only two sides that matter: the people, and the government.
7) The Question
If this happened to your family, your city, or your political tribe, would it still be dismissed as politics? Or would it finally be called what it is?
More stories you might missed…
They're trying to say that any speech they deem inappropriate, qualifies labeling a person a "domestic terrorist". That's blatantly illegal on its face, but they're going to drag people through the process of suing or whatever, so they can beat their chest and pretend any utterance they make is law.
Who knows, answering your question might become a felonious offense now. 🤷♂️
One thing is it takes a murder and war to drive Epstein off the news cycle and out of the average Joe's mind.