Arkansas Police Beating: Hegemony and the Shape of Things to Come

Who are these officers? Who is the suspect? What are the police doing to the suspect? What did the suspect do to incur police awareness? Where did this happen? When did this happen? Why did this happen? To what extent should we be concerned?

Your friendly neighborhood Tired Blogger is gonna open the can of worms wide on this one. My birthday is tomorrow, and I figure what better way to celebrate than to bring the wrath of the Hegemony down on me. Oh, and shout out to the NSA agent monitoring this blog post. I hope you are wearing high heels today. Remember darling, my safeword is “Maralago.”

I’m not a journalist (but I play one on tv), I’m simply a tired blogger. It would be so easy to take the coward’s way out on this one. I could write about the ten best ties worn by Klaus Schwab, or the top five groups conspiracy theorists love to hate. But to me, this story, even more than all the shit show that is the Trump FBI debacle, is the ultimate symbol of what our society is devolving into.

An Orwellian dystopia of the powerful pounding a boot into the face of the powerless. Let’s dive in.

I can hear this friendly officer now. “Turn the camera OFF and wait your turn!” In fairness, I think most small towns in the south are this welcoming to outsiders. “Southern hospitality” means “we’ll hospitalize you.” Right?

I think by now most of us who even passingly watch the news have heard of this incident. So let’s do a journalist’s job (God forbid the journalists do it). For those who didn’t take Journalism 101 (most of us), the journalist’s job is to report the news to us, answering the five famous questions for the reader/viewer. “Who, what, when, where, to what extent.” I know…I know…you thought their job was to tell you what to think.

Wrong.

Who we have here are three Arkansas police. They are Crawford County deputies Zack King and Levi White and Mulberry police officer Thell Riddle, according to Crawford County Sheriff’s Office. Who is being apprehended is Randle Ray Worcester.

What is going on here is an arrest. “The officers were responding to a report of a man making threats outside a convenience store Sunday in the small town of Mulberry, about 140 miles (220 kilometers) northwest of Little Rock, near the border with Oklahoma, authorities said.” This is according to a US News Report on the event.

Worcester reportedly spat in a convenience store clerk’s face and threatened to cut off their face with a knife. Understandably enough, the police were called.

While I know it is not a laughing matter…you know this is likely the way the accused cops see this.

So why did this happen? Partly this happened because someone with psychological problems was off his meds and was roaming the streets unsupervised. Partly this happened (let’s call a spade a spade) because he pissed off these cops. Let’s be grown-ups here. While it is true that “we don’t know the whole story” unless Worcester has a knife or gun in his hand and is threatening to kill someone, there is no justification for three trained uniform police to be bashing Worcester’s head into the ground. They were pissed off. He hurt one of them, and it pissed them off. Simple.

To what extent does this happen? Let’s take a look at three sources: Amnesty International, Brittanica.com, and nature.com.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/police-brutality/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/police-brutality

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

Amnesty.org and nature.com both agree there are roughly 1000 people killed in the US every year by law enforcement. Amnesty.org goes into quite a lot of detail explaining what is going on in other countries, and points out that police brutality need not be a killing: “The term “police brutality” is sometimes used to refer to various human rights violations by police. This might include beatings, racial abuse, unlawful killings, torture, or indiscriminate use of riot control agents at protests.”

“So if I ask your cousin for a bill of sale for that droid, will he be able to provide that?” More and more these guys are starting to look like models of restraint. Maybe we should elect Palpitine our emperor…

Honestly, as much as we complain about the police in the US, there are profoundly worse places to have police interactions. I know Tatooine can be rough, but honestly, as long as you have a powerful Jedi with you, or provide a bill of sale for your droids, there is no reason we can’t just all get along.

The definition from Brittanica is “the unwarranted or excessive and often illegal use of force against civilians by…police officers. Forms of police brutality have ranged from assault and battery (e.g., beatings) to mayhemtorture, and murder. Some broader definitions of police brutality also encompass harassment (including false arrest), intimidation, and verbal abuse, among other forms of mistreatment.” It gives no concrete numbers but does give a moderately detailed history of US police brutality, including the government war against the mafia, the Zoot Suit Riots, (here I thought it was just a great 90s tune), and quite a detailed narration of discrimination against blacks, especially after WWII.

One of the earliest images of police brutality. The Boston Massacre was one of the causes of the American Revolution. Our nation was founded on the principles of liberty, that we would not be a police state, and that the government should use restraint in the use of violence. I guess this is an inconvenient truth…

Nature.com goes on to tell us “The data are still limited, which makes crafting policy difficult. A national data set established by the FBI in 2019, for example, contains data from only about 40% of US law-enforcement officers. Data submission by officers and agencies is voluntary, which many researchers see as part of the problem.” While the police state is busy using Orwellian methods of surveillance on the citizenry, the police don’t deem it relevant for data to be shared with anyone. I hinted in a previous post that maybe there were some gaps in the information. Doesn’t this statement more or less prove my point? Or at least it supports it.

I envision a future where we live in a police state. If we are not already there. I’m going about it very roundabout, but this is the point I meant to make in this post. To quote the last point from my last post that I saved for this one: “The Hegemony does not care about women’s rights any more than they do men’s rights. All they care about is amassing more wealth and power for themselves.”

How, you ask, does all this tie in together?

I know most folks no longer care what the Founding Fathers thought, but they were terrified of a “standing army.” This baffles the modern mind, we think (and look, I’m a conservative, I think in most cases it is right to think) of the military (at least the American) as protectors, disciplined warriors who sacrifice their free time, their liberties, and often their very lives to protect our liberties and our lives. But IMHO, this is very much a modern thing. You study history and very rarely do standing armies live up to this standard.

“Look dudes, we tried to tell you.” I’m pretty sure that is a direct quote from Washington’s inaugural address. Image from the blog tenthamendmentcenter.com.

Our nation has a two hundred and fifty-year history of building militaries on the ideals of freedom, liberty, bravery, and sacrifice. While there are definitely glaring examples of failure (mostly at the top), when you study US history you find a lot more of a “kinder and gentler” military than you find say, in Roman history, German history, or Russian history. As examples. My fear is that that is the very thing that is dying.

The American military has been blamed for foolish chivalry in nearly every war (we’ll try to pretend the Mexican War and the wars against the Native Americans never happened, sorry Marlon Brando, that was the last post, not this one) we ever fought in. There were honest-to-God proposals in the Civil War of arming cavalry soldiers with lances. The Communists during both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars would in one breath denounce our warmongering and terrorism, and in the next would mock us for being too weak-hearted to kill civilians. And how many of us have felt impatience with our nation rebuilding the very nations that sought to destroy us, when we all know that if the situation were reversed, we would be shown no mercy from our enemies?

Maybe I am not doing a great job with my logic here. But this is my last note on feminism, and for now on police brutality. We’ve allowed the brutal to run roughshod over us for so long. We’ve turned a blind eye to gaslighting in our personal lives and on an international scale. Do we honestly think the abusers will suddenly grow a conscience, and repent of their sins because of our meek examples?

I went off on a rant there. Here was the point I meant to make, written more cogently from Teachinghistory.org: “Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”

It goes on to state: “Experiences in the decades before the Constitutional Convention in 1787 reinforced colonists’ negative ideas about standing armies. Colonials who fought victoriously alongside British redcoats in the Seven Years’ War concluded that the ranks of British redcoats were generally filled with coarse, profane drunkards; even the successful conclusion of that conflict served to confirm colonists’ starkly negative attitudes towards the institution of a standing army. “

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671

You see…the Founding Fathers had personal experience of being ruled by bullies. You cannot be free if you are ruled by bullies, or if the bullies are used to enforce the laws.

For another viewpoint on it, from a more libertarian perspective, I share with you https://fee.org/articles/why-the-founding-fathers-feared-a-standing-army/

The World Trade Center south tower (L) burst into flames after being struck by hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 as the north tower burns following an earlier attack by a hijacked airliner in New York, September 11, 2001 file photo. REUTERS/Sean Adair PP03080044 GAC

I know it is bad form to point out a problem and then suggest no solutions. I’m not suggesting violence or revolution. Even if I did, I am not made of the stuff to lead or fight in such a conflagration. The bad guys seem to have won the war. My fellow Americans, how do we turn this around?

Honestly! Please send comments. Please share this post. Please discuss how we can prevent or end the tyranny we all fear. While I propose no violence, I do believe that there needs to be action taken. If we lie passively, I don’t think the beatings will stop.

Do we comply? Do we give up our liberties? Do we decide the struggle is not worth the effort? Do we give in to the despair? Do we allow this present darkness to become the status quo? Who are we anymore, after all? Are we slaves? Are we the dead? What happened to our spirit? Did it die on 9/11? Will our children and grandchildren know even a tithe of the liberties we once took for granted?

I turned 51 writing this post. I endured the greatest insult of my life from a governing body. My struggle before was to free my son from an abusive mother. I don’t know what direction to turn my energies toward now.

If anyone would care to lift a glass, and drink a toast, to the American Dream. May she rest in peace.

The arrested man’s white privilege protected him from being shot, but I can tell you from personal experience, that a concussion (which he suffered) is no fun. There were three officers here. Three. Why is nobody trying to cuff the perpetrator? Why are they punching him in the face when he is down? What if that were me, or my nephew, in that town? Was this necessary to keep someone safe?

Hegemony: Marlon Brando Has an Offer You Can’t Refuse

Marlon Brando won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role in The Godfather. But when his name was announced, instead of the handsome actor accepting the award, an Apache woman in traditional native garb approached the podium and began to give a polite refusal speech on his behalf, protesting the recent violence at Wounded Knee. Her name is Sacheen Littlefeather, and she is in the news again.

Your friendly neighborhood Tired Blogger has been railing and ranting on a four-post discussion of modern romance: how the struggle between the Radical Feminists and the Men’s Rights activists has caused a divide that is destroying America. And I promised in my last post I would discuss the Hegemony, what it is, how it amasses power, and how it is using the division of our peoples to strengthen its own power base. So what do Marlon Brando and Sacheen Littlefeather have to do with this?

Read on to find out.

I didn’t write about these fellows in my post about who “they” are, not so much because I don’t think the society exists, but rather, because there are too many groups claiming the designation for me to be able to intelligibly write about them at this time. Still, this image does resonate…

I’ll explain that at the end of the post, but in the meanwhile, I’m going to write about the Hegemony. I’m going to discuss three things (I know, I know, I keep saying that and then only discussing one or two of the items).

  • 1) What the heck is a hegemony, anyway?
  • 2) The Hegemony has managed to concentrate enormous power in the hands of a few thousand wealthy people.
  • 3) The Hegemony does not care about women’s rights any more than they do men’s rights. All they care about is amassing more wealth and power for themselves.

Why do I find the best quotes from the ideologies I disagree with…?

According to the online dictionary, hegemony is “leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.” While this is clearly adequate for our purposes, I want to be clear on a few points.

I chose the term “hegemony” because I wanted to discuss “the Powers That Be,” but I don’t like most of the labels applied. “Patriarchy” denotes that the hierarchy is male-dominated and while at the very top that is true, the hegemons have allowed a few women through the gates to mollify the Feminist masses. So they allowed Hillary to run for President (odd that she didn’t win), they allow Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House, and it is no skin off their noses that Queen Elizabeth has ruled the British Empire for seventy years. More than this though, I don’t like the word “Patriarchy” to denote our Masters because in no way can I see them as “fathers” to us. Yes, I know the Radical Feminists hate fathers, and honestly, that is not the point I wish to debater. I know there are tons of terrible fathers out there. But in honor of the good fathers I know…I can’t label these monsters as fathers.

Marlon Brando in his iconic role as The Godfather. Radical Feminists may have this image in mind when they discuss the “patriarchy.” IMHO, I would take this guy any day as a father or a boss as opposed to the standard corporate hack. The Hegemon makes a Mafia Don look warm and fuzzy.

I’ve talked very vaguely in previous posts about who belongs in the Hegemon. I’ll leave a link here if you wish to read or review who these fine folks are.

https://wordpress.com/post/tiredmidnightblogger.com/2025

I make the claim that “The Hegemony has managed to concentrate enormous power in the hands of a few thousand wealthy people.” Am I able to back up this claim?

Working under the assumption that the Hegemony is roughly correspondent to the membership of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergs, and the World Economic Forum, that leaves us with 400 people in the Commission, 120 in the Bilderbergs, and 3000 in Davos. While I don’t think these 3000 or more folks truly run the world, I think they are representative of the most powerful people on the planet. This doesn’t mean they are evil (or at least, I hope not all of them are). But I’ve always felt that the more power you collect in fewer people’s hands, the closer to tyranny we are. Let’s take a closer look at these fellows.

Here we have Henry Kissinger at the 1972 premier of The Godfather. While this is an interesting connection, this is not the connection I mean between Marlin Brando and the Hegemony.

The simplest way I can think of to demonstrate the power of these organizations is simply to focus on the largest, and because largest I would say the most likely to be egalitarian, organization on the list, the WEF. I will send a link to a website that claims it has all the names of the paying members of 2020, “submitted to us anonymously through our Secure Drop portal.” The site also has a search engine where you can look up members, so far it is, if accurate, the most helpful site I have found on this topic.

https://qz.com/1787763/the-list-of-delegates-to-the-2020-world-economic-forum-in-davos/

Their list has 2784 names. I looked up “Chief Executive Officer” in the databank, and the number of representatives came up to 729. So very roughly a quarter of these folks are CEO status and while some are likely more fortunate than others, I remember the list of Fortune 500 Companies seemed to have their share of delegates. To compare, the percentage of CEO status folks in the US legislature was 21.2 percent, so closer to a fifth. Does this mean that the US legislature is just small potatoes compared to Davos?

My numbers for congressional CEOs is from https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/truth-tracker-analyzing-the-world-economic-forum-great-reset-conspiracy-theory-1.5922314

Some of the board members for the WEF. I only recognize two faces. Klaus Schwab, the Director, and the Chinese super Billionaire Jack Ma. They are the gentlemen on the bottom row, bookending the other board members. Image from http://davosclass.tni.org/

But there is enormous debate (amongst those who even know about this organization) about how powerful the WEF is. Speculation ranges from wild conspiracy theories that, if believed, would make one despair for the future of humanity, to the testimony of George Soros (the big baddy hated by most conservatives, in part because he has been a long-standing attendee of Davos, where the Forum has its annual conference) that the meetings are merely a “big cocktail party.” But with tickets commanding $40,000 a person, it is out of the range of most middle-class folks. How powerful are these folks really?

I hate to turn to Wikipedia, but I’m afraid I can’t find a better source for what I am looking for. Turns out the WEF trains young people to be tomorrow’s leaders. Sure that does not mean anything…but take a look at some of these quotes:

In a 2017 interview, Klaus Schwab said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been recognized as a Young Global Leader, and also mentioned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”[12] Klaus has mentioned Putin a second time as shown in the documentary Das Forum, which goes into behind the scenes footage of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. In the clip Klaus states “Mrs. Merkel, Tony Blair, even Putin, they were all Young Global Leaders before.”

Hate to tell you Feminists this, but Davos board is only 16% women. Likely Schwab thinks this very generous…image from http://davosclass.tni.org/

“So what Curtis? Klaus made an offhand sexual remark that he has “penetrated” the Canadian cabinet. You are telling me that the Globalists master plan begins with the conquest of Canada? For crying out loud Curtis, give me a break!”

Fair enough. We have only one nation with an executive branch dominated by this organization, right? It the Vatican and the State of Palestine are included, there are 195 nations on the planet, and while Canada may be ranked #1 in a poll by US News and World Reports as the greatest place on Earth to live, surely this one nation being dominated by the WEF is no big deal. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/canada

This is the list of the board of trustees, as per wikipedia: The WEF is chaired by founder and executive chairman Professor Klaus Schwab and is guided by a board of trustees that is made up of leaders from business, politics, academia and civil society. In 2010 the board was composed of: Josef AckermannPeter Brabeck-LetmatheKofi AnnanVictor L. L. ChuTony BlairMichael S. DellNiall FitzGeraldSusan HockfieldOrit GadieshChristine LagardeCarlos GhosnMaurice LévyRajat GuptaIndra NooyiPeter D. SutherlandIvan PictetHeizo TakenakaErnesto Zedillo Ponce de LeonJoseph P. SchoendorfH.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah.[13] Members of the board of trustees (past or present) include: Mukesh AmbaniMarc BenioffPeter Brabeck-LetmatheMark CarneyLaurence D. FinkChrystia FreelandOrit GadieshFabiola GianottiAl GoreHerman GrefJosé Ángel GurríaAndré HoffmannChristine LagardeUrsula von der LeyenJack MaYo-Yo MaPeter MaurerLuis Alberto MorenoMuriel PénicaudH.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of JordanL. Rafael ReifDavid M. RubensteinMark SchneiderKlaus SchwabTharman ShanmugaratnamJim Hagemann SnabeFeike SijbesmaHeizo TakenakaZhu Min.[45][46]

Are these powerful people? Let’s do a cursory examination. We have a former executive of Goldman Sachs, who’s 2021 letter to investors claimed “Net revenues were $59.34 billion, net earnings were $21.64 billion and diluted earnings per common share was $59.45 — all records. Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) was 23.0 percent, the highest since 2007, and return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity (ROTE)1 was 24.3 percent.” While the pandemic bankrupted you, they saw 23 percent return on investment.

Honestly, most of the big organizations are in bed with each other. A CEO, a board member there, a second cousin over here. You really have to look harder to see someone different, than you do to see the similarities.

Their total assets according to their 2021 anual report to investors was a trillion. It is hard to say how much money there is in the entire world. This is a great website for information about how much money exists: https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/economy/how-much-money-is-in-the-world/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20world’s%20total,to%20%241%2C540%20trillion%20in%202020.

The largest estimation it discusses is as follows: “Money is also present in the form of investments and derivatives. This figure can even touch a quadrillion if we include all of them. It looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000. This amount even surpasses the total market capitalization of the U.S. stock market, which is $48,264,353.4 million, as of March 31, 2022.”

That is a shit ton of money. Goldman Sachs has an influence over one thousandth of all the worlds money by that estimation.

What about the Bank of England? We are talking substantially less money, but substantially more history. The money involved is evidently just a shade over a hundred billion, but the bank itself was established in 1694. One of the not often discussed causes of the American Revolution was Parliament’s insistence that American colonists borrow their money exclusively from the Bank of England, which of course reounded to increased English profits, but a resession that hit Americans hard. Fortunately, all of that stuff is past us now.

https://www.blufftontoday.com/story/entertainment/local/2017/07/11/paper-money-and-american-revolution/14103886007/

I’m showing too much of my bias here. Like all human endeavors, I don’t beleive Klaus Schwab to be Dr. Evil. This quote by him is actually a profound truth.

Let me relist the member organizations that frightened me in a previous post:

https://wordpress.com/post/tiredmidnightblogger.com/2025

The Bank of China, China Construction Bank, China Energy Investment, GE, Apple, Goldman Sachs, Nestle, PB, Walmart, Microsoft, China Bohai Bank, Johnson & Johnson, J P Morgan Chase Bank, Pepsi Co, Coca-Cola, Dow Jones & Company, Dow Chemical, Bayer, Phizer, Visa, Lockheed Martin, Google.

And what the hell, for grins and giggles, let’s add on the Royal Bank of Canada. I went through each company listed above, adding their assest where I could easily find them, when I could not I added their revenues. Take it with a grain of salt, since these are apples and oranges being compared, but the money just these companies (never mind the other partners and however many millions and billions they have) control equals 14 trillion 963 billion 402 million dollars. I remember in the 80s a lot of fuss and bother was given to how much the US defense budget was, and how all that money could instead be used to help the poor. Whether or not that is a fair point, the US military budget for 2021 was 801 billion. In other words, these organizations command resources well over 18 times the biggest national defense budget the world has ever seen. A quick survey of sites purporting to estimate the cost of ending world hunger gives a high end estimate of 265 billion a year.

Pulitzer Prize winning photo of a vulture patiently waiting for a starving African child to die of hunger. As a conservative I’ve been told all my life that we just don’t have the money to stop this. “Somebody has to pay for it.” After writing this article, I may never listen to that argument again…

I’m at 2301 words, so I will continue with my last point in the next post. But I have not forgotten. All of this started with a dramatic claim that Marlin Brando and Sacheen Littlefeather had something to do with the hegemony that I have been portraying the power of. Marlon Brando had his faults, I won’t claim he was any kind of saint. But he did see some of the truth of how the Hegemony was oppressing the poor. The community he decided to make his stand for was the Native Americans. The first Acadamy Award Ceremony of my life was the scene of his protest. Rather than walking onstage to obtain the acclaim of Hegemony, a lovely young woman in traditional Apache garb approached both podiam and Roger Moore, and began a speech about how the native American had been badly oppressed by the American government and by the film industry. Littlefeather was blacklisted from Holliwood. She later worked at Mother Theresa AIDS hospice in San Francisco. The President of the Acadamy formally apologized to Littlefeather in recent weeks. It is slow to happen, but some are coming around. I don’t mean to paint it all black and white. Marlon Brando has his very dark side, I see some site that criticize Littlefeather. And the WEF does do some good work.

But in my next post I will demonstrate how this powerful Hegemony does not care about women’s rights any more than they do men’s rights. All they care about is amassing more wealth and power for themselves.

I wish I remembered this. I wish I’d known about it before.