This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
There are no non-radical futures
We are in global ecological overshoot. Collectively, we use more of Earth’s resources than our living systems can generate. That means erosion of ecosystem, loss of species, climate disruptions, rising ocean levels, toxins in our bodies, and much more. It can’t last.
The problem is not something we can fix by tweaking our systems here and there. The problem is at the core of our civilization. It’s the idea of separation and infinite Earth.
Our civilization operates on the essential assumption that we are separate from ecosystems and Earth, and that Earth has infinite capacity to supply us with what we need and infinite capacity to absorb our waste. Rationally, we know that’s not true. But viscerally and in how our systems work, that’s what we operate on.
That means there are no non-radical futures. Realistically, we have two futures.
One is where we continue on our path which leads to continued unraveling of the living systems we are part of. If we collectively don’t learn and change, most humans will die.
Another is where we collectively decide to profoundly change our civilization to operate on ecologically informed assumptions – of interconnectedness and a finite Earth. This will change how we organize ourselves in all areas of life. It may also require us to take a more conscious role as temporary expressions of this living and evolving system we call Earth.
Both of these are radical. One is radical unraveling. The other is radical transformation.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
IRAN WAR
The US and Israel has started an illegal war against Iran. It’s illegal according to international law, and also US law. It cannot in any way be justified as self-defense.
As usual, they get away with it because of the US position in the world, and Israel still riding a wave of sympathy from the horrors of WW2 – in spite of years and decades of genocidal actions from their side.
Most commentators leave out that the Iranian regime came about through another US intervention, aimed at toppling the Iranian democratic government. The reason was that this democratic government wanted to nationalize the oil industry, to the benefit of the Iranian people.
These kinds of interventions have inherently unpredictable consequences. Iran got a strongly authoritarian anti-Western government following the US intervention decades ago. And who knows what this current war may lead to. It can go in a large number of very different directions. The wast majority of these are not good for the people in Iran, neighboring countries, or the world.
History shows that these kinds of interventions and wars rarely go to plan. It risks destabilizing the country and the region for years and decades. There is also a risk that any future governments may be worse than the previous/current one.
In this case, Iran has prepared for this war for decades. They have plans in place to replace killed leaders, and it will likely be someone more extreme. They have warned about making the war regional. Iran is a notoriously difficult country to invade, purely based on geography. (It’s huge and mountainous.)
Also, air wars don’t lead to regime change. (Other than making the regimes more extreme.) Any ground war will easily become yet another quagmire. And these kinds of interventions only create more hatred towards the aggressor, in this case the US and Israel.
Of the many possibilities for how this unfolds, let’s look at two extremes.
One is that it’s a brief war. Trump pulls out relatively quickly and declares victory. Most goes back to how it was, apart from increased repression and entrenchment from the Iranian regime. Trump seems to receive his orders from Israel in this situation, and a brief war that maintains status quo is not in Israel’s interest. Still, Trump may eventually – within weeks or a few months – decide to declare victory and leave devastation in his wake.
The other is a long war. If the US and Israel want regime change, it has to be a land war. And it has to, eventually, involve US and Israeli troops on the ground. This can last for a very long time, considering the geography of Iran. It will involve neighboring countries. And it will be accompanied by Iranian terrorism around the world. There is no guarantee that even this will lead to a regime change, or that a future regime will be any more democratic or friendly towards Israel and the West. There is also the possibility of an eventual civil war within Iran.
Trump in his hubris likely assumes the situation is simple and will go according to plan. (If he has one, which it doesn’t look like he has apart from a vague idea of “success”.) And just about everyone else in the world knows it very likely won’t. We know that life is far more complex, and people have their own minds. (In this case, Iran has prepared for decades for this war, the opposition is weak and disorganized, air strikes alone will not lead to regime change, and Iran has the means to drag it out indefinitely.)
Although Trump didn’t start any big wars during his first period, his rhetoric and orientation changed dramatically before the second period, so what we are seeing now is no surprise.
The name of this war, “Epic Fury”, sounds like it was created by someone with the emotional maturity of a five year old, and little to no empathy or understanding of the seriousness and tragedy or war.
Of course, these kinds of unnecessary and optional wars is what empires do. In this case, it’s a way for Trump to distract from poor ratings, terrible predictions for Republicans for the midterm elections this fall, and the Epstein files. In his deluded mind, the war may also appear as an easy win.
To me, right now, this looks like Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin thought it would be easy, just like Trump likely sees this war as easy. In each case, it will be anything but.
Also, in both cases, informed ordinary people – at least in Norway and Europe in general – seem to have a more accurate picture of the situation than the leaders. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was seen as meaningless and unnecessary, and an inevitable quagmire for Russia no matter how the war itself went. (The Ukrainians would never stop fighting an occupation, and they would eventually win even if it would take decades.) Trump’s invasion of Iran is seen as an equally meaningless and unnecessary war. If he persists, it will very likely be another quagmire.
To some extent, some leaders may want a quagmire since it gives a lasting external enemy and distraction, but it leads to nowhere good in the long run. In some cases, it leads to the end of the attacking empire. Quagmire wars drains huge amounts of resources, leads to internal unrest and dissatisfaction, makes them lose sympathy and support internationally, and is often both an expression of declining empires and contributing cause of their disintegration.
All of this is an expression of a strong domination orientation and culture. The unnecessary wars. The assumptions that it will go according to plan and be easy. The want to dominate. The assumption you have the right to decide the internal affairs of other countries. The desire for control.
From a legal point of view, the war is unjustified and illegal. From a practical point of view, it’s profoundly misguided. From a distraction point of view, it works.
P.S. When it comes to Israel, initiating this war seems like a trauma response, just like their ongoing genocide. They choose strategies that increase regional hatred against them, make them lose international sympathy, and ultimately make them less safe.
UPDATES / ADDITIONS
MARCH 2026
The US/Israel killed the previous head of state in Iran, and he is now – some days later – replaced by his son. He is likely to be more extreme than his father, not the least because most of his close family was killed in the attack. He has nothing to lose. That he would be replaced by someone as or more extreme was predicted and close to inevitable.
Iran is using relatively inexpensive drones to attack US bases and US allies in the region. This drains the US anti-missile/anti-drone rocket supply, and is an excellent tactic to eventually bring the US into a situation where they have to pull out. (Or escalate, which would create a long and terrible war.)
A few more days in, and Iran has now made the Hormuz strait unsafe for tankers. This was also predicted and close to inevitable. It means higher oil prices in the world and a huge boost for the Russian economy. As usual, Trump seems to intentionally and sometimes unintentionally (?) act in ways that benefit Putin. He also clearly doesn’t care about the finances and well being of ordinary people, including the citizens of the US.
The media is largely ignoring the main issue of this war – that it’s clearly illegal according to international law. If I was an editor or journalist, that’s something I would put at the forefront of most or all reporting on this war.
Who benefits from this war? Putin, obviously, since it drains US resources and improves Russian economy. Also, it benefits China. They may be a ruthless authoritarian regime, but they are at least smart about it. They focus on what matters, not unneccesary wars. So they will continue to strengthen, while the US weakens itself and continues to erode its empire.
Over two weeks in, and we are in a current energy crisis that was avoidable. Most countries in the world have chosen – and it is a choice – to continue to rely on fossil fuels. That makes them and their energy situation very vulnerable. If we collectively had transitioned to renewable energy, we would not have an energy crisis now.
It’s now three weeks since the war started. It seems increasingly likely that this will be a long war with a ground invasion, which means likely disaster for just about everyone involved and for the global economy. Trump is in the predicted and forecasted escalation trap.
Mainstream Western media, including CNN and BBC, now seem to blame Iran for fighting back. Who started this war? Are they not allowed to defend themselves?
Someone commented that authoritarians don’t understand that people have agency. They surround themselves with people who fear speaking up to them, and assume the rest of the world is like that too. Putin thought Ukrainians would welcome the Russian invasion and occupation. Trump thought the Iranian government would fold. Just about everyone else knows that the world is not that simple and people have their own mind and motivations.
I AM BAFFLED, AND NOT
As so often, I am partly baffled by this. History shows that these kinds of operations rarely if ever go to plan. An air war won’t give regime change. The opposition in Iran is weak and disorganized and will not be able to create a regime change. A ground war will be an immensely costly and drawn out quagmire. (Because of the mountainous geography and huge distances, the huge number of US/Israeli soldiers required to fight and win over a million Iranian soldiers, and a regime fighting a religious war and for their survival.)
So why does anyone think this is a good idea? Why do 40 percent of the population in the US still support it? Are they complete idiots? The answer is likely and sadly “yes”, in the sense that they are uninformed and easily misled.
APRIL 2026 – ILLEGAL, MISGUIDED, COSTLY
It’s now the first week of April, one month after the initial attacks by the US and Israel on Iran. I see that European media overwhelmingly (?) and accurately depict this war as illegal, misguided, and profoundly costly for the Iranian people, West Asia, and the world. And the mainstream US media, for whatever reason and in their usual lack of integrity, tend to lean more towards the Trump view.
I also notice that the US media seem to focus on the handful of US citizens killed so far, and much less on the thousands of Iranian killed. That is an expression of the dehumanization of empire, and I am surprised that editors and reporters go along with it. Are they in service of empire, or humanity? I guess the answer is, as it usually is, empire.
In terms of the Hormuz strait, Trump seems to want NATO countries to clean up his mess. Having someone clean up his mess is what he is used to, and he again brings his personal life to the world stage.
Also, I see Trump and others in the US advocate for a ground invasion of Kharg island, which also seems profoundly misguided. It can easily become a death trap, and it won’t impact Iran that much. (See, for instance, this video from CBC.)
PURGING OF THE US MILITARY
The Trump administration are firing competent top military leaders to replace them with less competent loyalists, and are gradually weeding out black and female leaders. This is obviously a recipe for disaster. Replacing people with less competent yes-men does not end well.
US MILITARY IS COMPLICIT IN ILLEGAL ACTIONS
It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of the US military – from top to bottom – go along with this war. They do so knowing it’s illegal, that they are actively taking part in a crime, that it’s profoundly misguided, and that a ground invasion will be a costly death trap. Why? Are they not trained to set international law and ethics above orders? My guess is they are not. They are trained in an authoritarian system that sets loyalty above anything else. (As far as I understand, in the Norwegian military, they are trained and encouraged to disobey clearly illegal and unethical orders.)
WITHDRAWING FROM NATO
The Trump administration is getting closer to withdrawing from NATO. That has been Trump’s inclination and aim for years now, and it’s is yet another reason why Europe and European countries cannot rely on the US. They need to forge strong alliances among themselves and with other countries around the world, and detach from reliance on US military support, technology, and so on. Even if Trump will be gone, the dynamics that brought him to power will not. The US cannot be relied on anymore.
THE DYNAMICS THAT LED TO TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY
The Iran debacle is not really about Trump. It’s about the many in the US population who voted for him, knowing very well he is a con man and has no real interest in the well-being of the US population or anyone besides himself. He is a symptom of much deeper dynamics and problems in the US, created by decades of neo-liberal policies aimed at funneling money and resources to the already very wealthy and away from the general population. This has created an understandable and profound mistrust in mainstream politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Combine this with poor education, a flawed two-party system, and an empire in decline, and you get trouble.
NO REGIME CHANGE THROUGH AIR STRIKES ALONE
Back to the Iran situation, anyone with a basic knowledge of history and the situation would know that… (a) You can’t get regime change through air strikes, it has never happened. (b) The Iranian regime has prepared for this for decades and have a large number of people ready to take over if or when leaders are taken out. (c) Iran can easily make the Hormuz Strait unsafe for traffic and effectively control it. (d) It’s almost impossible to make passage through the Hormuz Strait safe if Iran decides to make it unsafe. (e) This situation gives Iran a massive advantage and leverage. (f) A regime change requires ground invasion, which will be disastrous and immensely costly in terms of lives and resources. (g) There is no simple win here for the US. (h) Which is why no previous US president has been misguided enough to try it.
PAINTED HIMSELF INTO A CORNER
Still in the first week of April, it seems clear that Trump has painted himself into a corner, against the advice of just about anyone who knows the situation. There are no easy solutions. He may well choose a ground invasion, another step of the escalation trap, and this too has no simple or easy resolution. They will face a million soldiers, a country that has prepared for such an invasion for decades, and a massive and challenging geography. History shows that it’s not a good idea to invade Persia or Iran. It rarely if ever goes well for those who try to do so.
GENOCIDAL INTENT
It’s April 7, and Trump is threatening massive attacks on Iranian infrastructure. That is clearly illegal according to international law. It’s a war crime. By saying he will destroy the Iranian/Persian civilization, he displays genocidal intent, which is also a crime. Anyone who participates in this is a war criminal (the Rome Statute), including the soldiers. As so often, much of mainstream media ignores that side of it. For instance, Michael Clarke in this Sky News commentary only focuses on the feasibility of this war crime.
THE OUTCOME SO FAR
April 9 with a tenuous ceasefire and clearly different views of what it entails. What’s clear is the outcome so far: (a) Iran has a more extreme leadership, and one that’s more likely to want nuclear weapons. (The former leaders were far less inclined to want it.) (b) Iran has played their Strait of Hormuz card, which everyone knew they had, and has control over a significant part of the world economy. (c) The US and Israel has weakened support internationally, and deepened the (understandable) hatred many in the region has towards them. (d) Iran is more motivated to seek and deepen alliances with other enemies of the US and/or Israel. And, as we also knew before this started, (e) regime change cannot happen through air strikes alone, and (f) a ground invasion will be enormously costly in terms of resources, human lives, and damage to the US/Israeli international relations.
NO EASY WINS
April 11. Trump has and will continue to fail in Iran. There are no easy ways out for him. So he needs – psychologically and politically – an easy win somewhere else. That makes him even more dangerous on the international scene. He may, in his derangement, take it out on Greenland, Cuba, or another country he thinks he can easily dominate.
IRAN GAINS STRENGTH AND MONEY
April 12. Predictably, the negotiations failed. Iran is in a much stronger position now than before the war, largely through demonstrating that they can easily close the Strait of Hormuz. That means they can demand more, and that’s not acceptable for Trump’s ego. Trump has now closed the strait (!), which seems another childish move. “You are not closing it, I am closing it!”. As before, there is no easy way out of this for Trump and the US. That’s why no previous US president has been stupid enough to go to war against Iran. It’s a losing proposition no matter how you look at it.
As a reminder, beforethe US/Israeli war against Iran, Iran… Was not interested in developing nuclear weapons, for religious reasons. (Now, they are far more motivated to develop nuclear weapons.) Was open for nuclear inspectors. Did not block the Strait of Hormuz. Had more moderate politicians at the top. (Now killed by the US/Israel.) Had agreed to a plan with Biden, which Trump tore up.
In short, this debacle is all created by Trump and Netanyahu. It has worsened the situation dramatically for all parties and the world in general, and there is no easy way out. Both were predicted, and has been predicted for years and even decades. Trump finds himself in the escalation trap. Even if he somehow would declare victory and pull out, the situation will be worse than before. In either case, he may be motivated to seek a more easy “win” somewhere else – for instance, by invading Cuba.
THE ESCALATION TRAP
It’s April 15, and Robert Pape again speaks about the escalation trap based on his three decades of studies. Iran is only getting stronger (they have shown they can block the Strait of Hormuz), more motivated to have nuclear weapons (the moderates were killed), and is deepening its ties with China, Russia, and other enemies of the US. Trump has a choice between (a) making concessions and allowing Iran to become a stronger power in the world, and (b) tanking the world economy through continued blockades. (Short term.)
OBAMA’S AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
Obama’s agreement with Iran could have and did prevent all this. Trump tore it up (his fragile sense of self-worth was too threatened by a smart black man) and instead started a doomed war which will either (a) make Iran far more powerful or (b) lead to an immensely costly and drawn out ground war with no guaranteed outcomes. (Long term.)
A LARGE SCALE GROUND WAR WILL BE IMMENSELY COSTLY
When it comes to a large scale ground war, Iran has roughly 1 million soldiers, which means a successful large scale successful ground invasion will require a huge number of US/Israeli soldiers. (Likely at least the same number, ideally 3-4 times that.) That seems unlikely, so a ground war will probably be smaller scale and won’t achieve much.
THE US CANNOT BE TRUSTED
Another long term outcome of this is that the world sees two things. (a) The US cannot be trusted. Nobody can trust the US, not even its traditional allies. Trump is not the problem here, deeper dynamics in the US are and they won’t go away. (b) If you have nuclear weapons, you are relatively safe. If you don’t – like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland/Denmark, and so on – you are not safe. By tearing up agreements and starting unprovoked wars, the US has shown it cannot be trusted, and nuclear weapons is the way to go if you want to prevent an attack.
ISRAEL LOSES ALLIES AND CREATES ENEMIES
When it comes to Israel, it’s difficult to understand how (a) an ongoing UN defined genocide and (b) an unprovoked, illegal, and doomed attack on Iran are going to help them. It will only turn the international community away from and against them. As described above, this attack on Iran will only strengthen Iran and encourage them to develop nuclear weapons. The alternative is an enormously costly and drawn out ground invasion, which may even fail – or lead to a further destabilized West Asia.
Before this war, the leadership in Iran was against developing nuclear weapons for religious and practical reasons. Now, they have every incentive to develop nuclear weapons. How is that going to help Israel? It seems suicidal, and it seems like a misguided and harmful trauma response. Hurt people (sometimes) hurt people, and in the process hurt themselves.
WIN-WIN VS ZERO-SUM
April 19. In general, all of this – the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – seems profoundly misguided to most Europeans and many around the world. There main reason may be a difference between a win-win versus zero-sum mindset.
Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin all come from a zero-sum and authoritarian mindset. They see alliances as weak. They want sole power. They want yes-men around them. They don’t listen to actual experts. That’s the reason for their decisions and behavior, and it leads to misguided actions – including the Iran war, Israel’s genocide, the Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe in general has more of a win-win mindset. We seek alliances. We know we are stronger together. We seek to strengthen bonds and ties. We seek diplomatic solutions.
To be fair, we have to seek alliances since we are small alone. That’s the gift in being relatively small. The curse of large countries is that the leaders, and sometimes the population, can get into the illusion that they are more powerful than they are. They think they can go alone and others will fold. And that’s not how the world works.
WITH TRUMP, WE ALL LOSE
Trump likely wants to get out of the Iran war, although it’s difficult to see how he can get out of it. Iran can demand far more than they could before this war, and that may be difficult for Trump to swallow.
If Trump can get out while maintaining the illusion of victory and control, he will leave Iran in a much stronger position. Also, it may lead to Trump wanting an “easy” win somewhere else – likely Cuba first, then possibly Greenland, or other countries. In any case, the world loses.
NUANCE
This writing is in the form of journal entries. I don’t try to make it very nuanced, and I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything. It’s more just how it comes out at a very human and personal level, and it reflects my own background, views, and biases. At the same time, I think that much, if not most, will hold up in hindsight.
THE WAR PRESIDENT
Trump 1.0 wasn’t exactly a peace president, but he didn’t start foreign wars. Trump 2.0 was always going to be different. He changed a lot in the years between. In November 2024, after he was elected and before he started his second term, I wrote this in Trump’s victory: the empire strikes back:
“We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.”
The likelihood of Trump-initiated wars was clear during his campaign for the second term, so I don’t know why some still saw him as a peace president, or now seem surprised by the Iran war and his threats against traditional allies like Canada and Greenland/Denmark. I guess they haven’t paid attention.
INSIDER TRADING
April 20. There has been a pretty clear pattern of insider trading over the last few weeks. Minutes before Trump announces yet another reversal, there is a flurry of trade in petroleum stocks and someone makes a windfall. It is mentioned in mainstream media, as in the BBC story I linked to above. At the same time, it’s not getting the attention it deserves, likely because it’s just one more example of systematic corruption and crimes committed by Trump and his associates. It’s what we have come to expect.
SANEWASHING
I have been slightly baffled by the sanewashing of Trump by mainstream media, especially during his first term. He is clearly unhinged and has major mental problems, and the media seems to have seen it as their job to make him look more coherent and sane than he is.
I am not sure why. If I was a reporter, I would make it my job to present it clearly since it is a major public concern, both within the US and for the rest of the world. It impacts all of us.
That mostly continued for the first year of his second term (last year), and now, there seems to be more stories in mainstream media calling out his unhinged behavior. For instance, ABC News (Australia) has this story: Trump’s erratic actions spark speculation on cognitive decline.
What’s slightly odd about this is that his bizarre behavior has been on display the whole time, and now they are talking about cognitive decline, as if that’s the main story.
OPPOSED TO THE US – OR EMPIRE, AUTHORITARIANISM, AND OLIGARCHY?
I see that more people seem to side with Iran and China over the last few weeks. That’s also slightly baffling to me. Yes, Trump and the US are committing crimes, Trump has stated genocidal intent, the war is profoundly misguided even from a practical point of view, Israel is committing systematic genocide and very likely convinced Trump to start the Iran war, and so on. That’s all terrible.
That doesn’t make Iran or China the “good guys” or someone to side with. They are doing much of the same, and sometimes worse. They are oppressive regimes with a history of major human rights violations, and they are both far more undemocratic than the US currently is. (Of course, Trump would like the US to be more authoritarian.)
Personally, I am for democracy, human rights, social justice, and so on. And I don’t care much for oligarchies, authoritarian regimes, human rights violations, and similar.
If you side with Iran and China (or Putin’s Russia), you are in effect saying: I am fine with human rights violations and authoritarian and oppressive regimes, as long as it’s not the US. That doesn’t make much sense to me.
*** MY OWN BIAS & THE BIGGER PICTURE ***
I am acutely aware that all of this reflects my own bias and my own culture. I am typical Norwegian in these views – at least, typical for a university educated Norwegian who cares about people and the world. My views are typical for an educated liberal person alive in the late 1900s and early 2000s.
I have intentionally written this from my more unfiltered humanity, to acknowledge that side of me too.
And I also know that this – what I write about – is all part of the human experiment. It’s part of the unfolding of this living planet. It’s an expression of Existence as a whole. These too are local and temporary expressions of the dynamics of the whole of Existence. It’s all life, the universe, existence, the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
It’s one chapter in the unfolding of humanity and this living planet. Humanity itself is one chapter of the unfolding of this seamless living system we call Earth. Earth itself is one chapter in the unfolding of this seamless system we call the Universe.
THE UPSIDES & FUNCTION OF DOMINATION CULTURE
In the bigger picture, there is clearly a function to domination culture and empire. The dominance of domination culture is a phase in the unfolding of human culture. It comes with many downsides, and also many upsides – in terms of developing art, science, technology, philosophy, and so on.
Is this the chapter that brings about the end of human culture or humanity itself? If so, it’s just still one of many chapters in the history of this living planet, and there will be many more chapters to come – likely with amazing things we cannot even begin to imagine.
Or will there be more chapters in human civilization? If so, will the next be more of a balance between partnership and domination orientation? Will it be one of a deep partnership with life, and with our past history of partnership and domination – taking the best from both and creating something new?
MAY
It’s now May, and the situation is unfolding much as experts predicted. Iran has prepared for this for decades. That means they have people ready to replace leaders, they are able to secure weapons and nuclear production from strikes, and they are able to strike back at US bases in the region. The US rapidly depleted their weapons supply. A large scale ground war is doomed to fail and/or become a long and terrible quagmire. The Hormuz Strait has become a Mexican standoff with no solution in sight.
From all of this, Iran is emerging stronger, and the shortcomings of military might in complex situations is becoming evident. Trump is flailing since there are no good solutions for him.
This is still the essence of the situation: (a) Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and, with it, petroleum-derived chemicals needed for artificial fertilizers (which impacts the world’s food production since it’s made dependent on those fertilizers) and 20% of the world’s petroleum. (b) There is no reason to assume that will change. The US does not have the capacity to prevent Iran from attacking ships in the strait. (c) Iran sits with the strongest hand at the negotiating table, and even if the demands they make are reasonable, Trump’s fragile ego is unable to accept it. (d) Even if Trump pulled out while declaring victory, this will not change Iran’s control of the strait. (e) Only a massive ground invasion will have a chance of stopping Iran’s control of the strait, and it will be immensely costly and drawn out, and not even be certain to succeed. (f) This was all known and predicted before the war, which is why no US president has done it before.
VIDEOS
These videos are obviously biased against the war. At the same time, they are grounded in an understanding of history and social dynamics. I am mostly including them to show that what likely happens in the coming weeks, months, and years was predicted at the beginning of this war, and even before. Some are interviews with Robert Pape who has studied the escalation trap for three decades.
This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well.Click “read more” to see all the entries.
TRUMP, GREENLAND, ETC.
I have taken a break from these posts, but thought I would add something brief about the Trump situation.
They are a reminder of how we are living in media and information bubbles, and how it can make others seem like idiots, crazy, or at the very least misguided and out of touch.
BUBBLES
In one sense, we always and inevitably live in our own bubble. I live in my world, you live in yours. Each being is their own world.
Also, we have always lived in some kinds of social and cultural bubbles. There has always been other groups of people with very different cultures, experiences, and worldviews. The further away, then often the greater the difference between the bubbles.
And yet, today’s media world is creating a different kind of information fragmentation.
Just a few decades ago, most people received information from the same sources. That had its downsides since the information is always filtered and presented with an agenda, from a bias, and for a certain purpose. Although it did also create some kind of social cohesion. At the very least, we were familiar with the same information, and we could – I imagine – more easily understand where the others were coming from.
Today, we can choose to live in very insulated media bubbles. We seek out certain information online and perhaps watch just one or a few TV channels. Social media algorithms present to us what we seem to like and be interested in, what’s profitable for the social media company, and also – in some cases – what the social media owners want us to see for political or other reasons.
Very few seek out media and information from “the other side”, and those who do tend to already be interested in understanding the other side.
ACTING ON THE INFORMATION WORLD WE LIVE IN
When we perceive, speak, and act on the information in our bubble, and others do the same within their bubble, there is no wonder we have increasing polarization in politics and society in general.
We may have the similar values and want the same for society, but we have very different ways of going about it, and our approach is largely based on the information we have.
I imagine many Trump supporters see him as a good person doing good things for the country. He is making cities safe again by mobilizing the National Guard and the military. He is getting rid of dangerous immigrants. He is bringing jobs back to the US. He goes after those who wants to destroy the country.
Others, who know a different side of the situation, see him as dangerous, undermining democracy, engaging in a politics of cruelty, wanting to create a fascist regime, and so on.
Most of us want the same. We want a well functioning society. We want jobs. We want safety.
And yet, and largely because of the information bubbles we live in, we see very different ways to go about achieving it.
HOW WE SEE THE OTHERS
If we are mostly unaware of these information bubbles, and what they do to us, it’s easy to be baffled by the others. We may see them as idiots, crazy and delusional, as cruel. Or, at least, as misguided and out of touch.
I know I am often baffled by other groups in society today. I am baffled by Trump supporters, because I am not familiar with the information bubbles they live within. I am equally baffled by those who vote FrP in Norway, which are somewhat aligned with the Trump world.
The more I set out to learn about their information bubbles, the more their views and actions make sense to me. I may still not agree. I may still see it as uninformed, misguided, and dangerous. But at the very least, I understand them a little more. I am less likely to see them as idiots, delusional, or cruel1.
In short, I am more likely to assume they are essentially well-meaning, and that their views would have been different if they lived in another kind of information bubble.
NOT ALL BUBBLES ARE EQUAL
This is not to say that all bubbles are created equal. Not all views and sets of information are equally grounded in reality.
Some is easily fact-checked. For instance, two Democrat politicians were assassinated this summer, and Trump and the Republicans largely dismissed it. Trump has bankrupted several businesses, including casinos, and he is a convicted felon.
Some is grounded in history and science. For instance, vaccines work and are largely safe. (In some cases, people’s bodies have a strong reaction to the vaccine, as they possibly would have to the actual disease, although that is – in the big picture – less of a problem than the disease itself.) Fascism doesn’t work for anyone, eats its own, and fails catastrophically. You may be upset about your challenging life situation – and seeing increasing wealth disparity, working poor, failing social safety nets, and so on. If so, blame the decades of neoliberal policies that brought it about, not the immigrants who suffer from the same system as you.
NOTES
Although I still think there is sometimes an element of idiocy and cruelty there…! (a) If you support cruelty towards others because you think it won’t happen to you, that’s both cruel and stupid. It’s not less cruel because it happens to others, and it very well may happen to you. (b) If you think you know more about medicine and epidemiology than those who have spent decades studying it, that’s pretty stupid. If you distrust experts in some areas of life – like medicine, epidemiology, and history – and trust experts in technology and car repair, what are you doing?
This is an example of the success paradox – also known as the prevention paradox or historical amnesia.
It’s a common and serious problem in our society.
WHAT IT IS?
The success paradox happens when we have succeeded reducing or eliminating a social problem, we forget about the problem and why it’s gone, and set out to dismantle the social systems and institutions that eliminated the problem, allowing the problem to return.
We see this today with vaccines, democracy, taxes, unions, pandemic measures, inclusivity policies, and much more.
WHY DOES IT HAPPEN?
I suspect it happens for several reasons.
The problems are no longer in living memory. If those who experienced it are no longer alive, they can’t warn us.
There is a lack of knowledge of history. Some see history as irrelevant or boring, so they didn’t pay attention in school, and don’t set out to educate themselves.
Some act out of narrow self-interest. This may be because of a challenging life situation, or reactivity from wounding, so they seek scapegoats, the promise of simple solutions, and so on.
This is all fueled by social media and sometimes media figures and politicians. In some cases, the dis- and misinformation is financed and fueled by Big Money.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
For ourselves, we can educate ourselves about past problems, how they were lessened or solved, and what in our systems today prevent them from returning. There is no lack of information out there in the form of articles, books, historical fiction movies, documentaries, and so on. Just make sure it comes from reliable sources, including serious historians.
It’s obviously more tricky to resolve it at a social level.
Media literacy and critical thinking needs to be emphasized in schools, by responsible media, and needs to be part of the public discourse.
Good social safety nets helps people feel more safe, trust society more, and be less reactive.
Social media can have, as they sometimes do, automatic comments on content that’s misleading or on an often misrepresented issue.
It also helps to point out the real causes of people’s problems, which are often systemic and because Big Money benefit from it. (It’s almost never because of some minority group, or scientists, or experts of any kind, or even politicians.)
SOME EXAMPLES
Vaccines are an obvious example. Many diseases are eradicated or rare today because of vaccines, so most have no personal experience with them, don’t realize how terrible they were, and think eliminating vaccines is a good idea. If they had more personal experience with the diseases, they would probably see it differently.
In the Western world, almost everyone alive today have only lived in a democracy. It’s all we have personally known. It’s easy to take it for granted, and be seduced by authoritarian politicians who promise simple solutions to complex problems. If democracy is dismantled in the process, it may – to some – seem a small price to pay. They would likely see it very differently if they had known authoritarian and totalitarian regimes from their own experience. Even if you think you are in the “safe” group in such a society, you can easily find yourself among the targeted. Fascism eats its own.
In the US, there is a strong movement to undermine and dismantle unions, and to prevent new ones from forming. This comes from Big Money, although many in society in general seems to support it. They may not know that much of what we enjoy in our work-life today comes directly from the work of unions, and that it may never have happened without unions: The eight-hour workday, the weekend, overtime pay, safer workplaces, child labor laws, higher wages, health insurance and pensions, paid leave, protection against unfair firing and discrimination, and much more.
Some seem to dislike taxes, perhaps without realizing their many benefits to society as a whole and for us as individuals. Without taxes, there would be no functional society. We may not agree with how the money is distributed, or what exactly is taxed, but it’s important to remember that this society would not be here without taxes. It’s how we pay for everything we collectively benefit from, including a relatively well-functioning and safe society.
These days, there is also an anti-woke movement. I wonder if these people know how important it is for society as a whole to make inclusivity structural. Again, we may not agree with all the details, but the general movement in that direction is essential for a well-functioning society that works for all of us.
What do Germans think about the current situation in the US? A German YouTuber living in the US asked her audience. Her videos are typically a-political (on language and culture), so it’s interesting to see what her likely quite general audience says.
In my experience, the comments reflect what most Europeans think about what’s happening in the US.
To me, it’s also a reminder of what I noticed when I moved to the US in the ’90s. Most Europeans seem far better informed about what’s happening in the US than most people living in the US.
The old left–right political map grew out of 18th-century France and no longer captures the challenges of our time. Today, two dimensions matter more: whether policies are green, aligning with ecological realities in the face of global overshoot, and whether they are inclusive, expanding the circle of who is cared for and who has a voice, from marginalized people to non-human beings and future generations. These axes reveal four broad orientations — inclusive but extractive, exclusive and extractive, exclusive but green, and inclusive and green — with the last offering the only truly sustainable, win-win path forward. By adopting this updated map, we can better see through superficial politics, focus on what matters, and orient ourselves toward futures where both people and the Earth can thrive.
We all use mental maps to think about political parties and their policies.
I like to ask myself some important questions about these maps.
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS
What mental models do I use to organize political parties and their policies?
What do these mental maps say about me? How do they shape my views and behavior? What do I see because of them? What do they hide?
Are they aligned with what I really value? Are there models that better fit what’s important to me?
THE LEFT-RIGHT AXIS
For a couple of hundred years now, we have used a left-right axis to understand politics.
This comes from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly after the 1789 storming of the Bastille at the beginning of the French Revolution. Those who defended the monarchy, church, and aristocracy sat on the right. Those who wanted radical change sat on the left.
This was more broadly adopted in Europe in the 1800s, when right came to mean defense of privilege, and left meant reform, redistribution, and often a more inclusive democracy.
THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE LEFT-RIGHT AXIS
As with any map, the left-right axis has shortcomings.
It reflects the political situation of France in the late 1700s where the focus was on tradition versus revolution, and the social distribution of money and resources.
That’s why others have used other axes, often in addition to the left-right one. For instance, progressive-conservative (more about openness to change), urban-rural, secular-religious, globalist-nationalist, libertarian-authoritarian (the Political Compass), and so on.
So the question is: What’s different today from revolutionary France? What’s important to us in our world?
GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT
These days, our overarching crisis comes from global ecological overshoot. We are spending far more natural resources than this living planet can replenish. Our collective ecological footprint is larger than this planet. That means unraveling of ecological systems and eventual ecological collapse, and with it, civilizational collapse. We are on a path that’s ecocidal and suicidal.
So shouldn’t our political maps reflect that urgency?
THE GREEN AXIS
In my mental maps, the green axis is essential.
Do the policies take our ecological reality into account?
Do they come from an understanding of the urgency of our situation?
Do they reflect the understanding of a need for a profound transformation of our civilization?
Are they regenerative?
THE INCLUSIVITY AXIS
I also use another mental dimension, the inclusivity axis.
How inclusive are the policies? How wide is the circle of WE?
How wide is the circle of those we aim to benefit through the policies? A segment of our own society? All of our society? Everyone globally? Non-human beings and species? Ecosystems? Rivers? Future generations? Who are harmed by our policies? Who is left out?
How wide is the circle of those that have a voice in the forming and implementation of these policies? How deep is our democracy? Do we include all of society? Passively, by allowing them to vote? Actively, by seeking out the voices that are often quiet, including of those who are marginalized? Do we give a voice to non-human beings, rivers, and mountains? Do we give a voice to future generations?
This dimension is perhaps most similar to the partnership-domination spectrum from Rianne Eisler, rephrased as power-with and power-over by Starhawk.
Unlike the libertarian–authoritarian axis, inclusivity is not primarily about state control vs. personal freedom. It’s about who is included in our circle of concern and who has a voice.
IT MAY SEEM NAIVE
As I write this, I have a mental image of people dismissing this as naive.
And yet, is it naive?
To me, it seems more naive to use political maps that belong to the 1700s and a very different world than the one we live in. It seems naive to ignore Earth’s limits and pretend it has infinite resources for us to use, and infinite capacity to absorb the waste of civilization. And it seems naive to continue on a path we know leads to ecological and civilizational collapse.
As I and many others see it, we have two main tasks ahead of us:
Reducing our collective ecological footprint, which means a thorough redesign of our civilization – from our basic assumptions about the world (separation vs interconnectedness) to education, technology, energy production and use, and every other aspect.
Creating a deeper democracy. One that actively seeks win-win solutions that benefit as many as possible, including non-human beings and species, ecosystems, and future generations. And one that actively seeks input from as many voices as possible, including the same.
And those two go hand-in-hand. We cannot have one without the other. To gain support for regenerative policies, we need the support of the people. They need to know it benefits them as well. They need to be heard and included.
GREEN-INCLUSIVITY MODEL
I made a simple diagram of the green-inclusivity map of politics and policies.
It doesn’t cover everything that’s important, of course, but it does cover two essential dimensions.
The horizontal/green axis shows how green a policy is, or how green a political party tends to be. At the far left is explicitly anti-green policies. To the far right, deeply regenerative policies.
The vertical/inclusive axis shows how inclusive it is. At the bottom are strongly exclusive (authoritarian) policies. At the top are deep democracy policies.
That gives us the following quadrants:
A. Inclusive but extractive
B. Exclusive & extractive
C. Exclusive but green
D. Inclusive & green
FAMILIAR POLITICAL PARTIES
I’ll take some examples to see where they fall in this map. First, some familiar political parties.
In the U.S., Democrats are moderately inclusive within the human sphere, although still in the pockets of Big Money and only marginally green. Trump Republicans would be quite far down on both dimensions. They want to exclude minorities from voting through gerrymandering and other policies, and their policies are often explicitly anti-green.
In Norway, the Green Party are somewhere in the top right quadrant. They are averagely democratic, and somewhat include the imagined views of non-human beings and species and future generations. They are about as green as any political party can be in our society. In both areas, I imagine they would go much further towards the top right if it was realistic in our society. Most other parties are middling in terms of democracy, and somewhere on the left side on the green axis.
EXAMPLES BY QUADRANT
And then, some examples of each quadrant, including some especially clear ones.
A. Inclusive but extractive. In this quadrant, we find 20th-century welfare states, or liberal parties that champion human rights but rely on extractive growth. This liberal orientation can be strongly inclusive within the human sphere, which brings them somewhat into the inclusivity side of the map.
That said, it’s difficult to imagine an orientation that’s deeply inclusive while also strongly extractive. In this map, if you are highly inclusive, it means you bring in the voices of the non-human and future generations, and that means you’ll have to be at least somewhat green.
B. Exclusive & extractive. Authoritarian regimes are often also extractive. As mentioned above, the Trump Republicans unfortunately fall into this category. Historical fascist regimes, under Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, and others, were even lower on the inclusivity scale and equally extractive.
C. Exclusive but green. Ecofascism is an interesting example of a dangerous orientation that’s at the low extreme of one axis and the high extreme of the other. We’ve seen only hints of this so far, which is for the best, though the risk may grow as ecological collapse deepens. We may, for instance, see forms of ecofascism emerge among some of the super-wealthy. Among existing ecofacists, for instance in Eastern Europe, I get the impression that they claim to be green without actually being very green.
Some forms of fortress conservation is another example for this quadrant, where nature is preserved at the expense of the indigenous population.
D. Inclusive & green. Green parties are mainly in this quadrant, as mentioned earlier, although they can typically go much further on both dimensions. They are limited by the realities of our current society, culture, and civilization. Bhutan is likely here too, reasonably green and inclusive, a somewhat flawed democracy although young and aspiring.
The imagined future society in my own Long Journey Home project would be in this top right quadrant, and further along than just about any political party today. They strive to be deeply democratic and actively engage marginalized people and include the voices of non-human beings and species, rivers, mountains, oceans, and future generations (they give voice to them, as best as they can, in councils, community decisions, and the law and legal system). This society is also regenerative and deeply green.
REFLECTIONS ON THE QUADRANTS
The top left (inclusive/extractive) and bottom right (exclusive/green) are, in some ways, mirror images of each other. They are both high in one dimension and low at the other. As I see it, they are both self-contradictory. One cares for people but not so much for the living systems we are part of or future generations. The other cares for our living systems, but less for (other) people.
Both come from a zero-sum orientation. To make life better for people today, we need to extract natural resources. To protect our living systems, we need to oppress people.
The bottom left (exclusive/extractive) and top right (inclusive/green) quadrants are, at least, more internally consistent.
The exclusive/extractive quadrant is a kind of lose-lose quadrant. Most people lose, and our living systems lose. Just a very few benefit from it, and only in a narrow sense and in the short term.
The inclusive/green quadrant is a win-win quadrant. Since it’s inclusive, it does depend on people wanting it and that’s its weakness. If people want it, that’s also its strength. It’s the only one that’s sustainable both socially and ecologically, as long as people want it.
Looking at the few examples I placed in the diagram, I wonder if more examples would create a pattern similar to a Hertzsprung–Russell diagram for stars (!) – a diagonal band across the chart, with a few outliers.
THE TOP SECTION OF THE DIAGRAM
I mentioned briefly that it’s difficult for me to find examples for the top of the diagram from current politics, whether for the left or right side of the diagram.
On the left side, it’s because none are as inclusive as they can be in terms of including voices for non-human beings, ecosystems, and future generations. (In practice, it would be someone speaking for them, and their rights embedded in enforced law.) Current parties and policies are, at most, inclusive within the human realm, and that brings them only up to the middle or just above.
On the right side, it’s because none are as green as they can be in terms of working for a thorough transformation of our society, culture and civilization, and creating deeply regenerative versions of these. I assume many Greens want this and have it as a vision, but it’s not yet realistic in our society and culture.
Some do write, speak, and do work on these topics, and live it in their own lives and in smaller groups. They fit higher up. Some examples are Arne Næss with his Deep Ecology, Joanna Macy, ecovillages, people working with deep democracy models, and so on.
A FEW MORE THOUGHTS
I first called this article A politics of oneness. That’s what it is, of course. A wish to create a regenerative and inclusive society grows out of recognizing our interconnectedness. We are all local and temporary expressions of the living system we call Earth. Our own health and well-being, and even our existence, depends on a thriving social and ecological whole.
Our old maps were useful, and now they hide what matters most. A politics that ignores ecology and excludes voices drives us toward collapse. A politics that is both green and inclusive gives us a chance to thrive. Our political maps need to reflect this reality.
These dimensions don’t capture everything, but they highlight what matters most in our time. They show us whether our politics align with the living systems we depend on, and how wide our circle of concern reaches. They help us cut through superficial politics, focus on what truly matters, and create a future where life can thrive.
WHO IS THIS FOR?
Who are these kinds of updated political maps for?
I imagine some groups will resonate with it, especially people who are into sustainability, systems views, and so on. They will at least understand it, although I am sure they have their own views and see inevitable shortcomings of this and similar models. (Spiral Dynamics Green and second tier.)
People who have a modern mainstream mindset may not see the need for such a model. It may seem naive, hippieish, idealistic, and so on. To speak to this group, emphasizing the science and the pragmatics of it may be important. We are in ecological overshoot, which has dramatic consequences, and this is a framework we need to include to understand politics, society, and our economy. By exploring these kinds of maps, and taking these kinds of concerns into account, you can be ahead of the competition. (Spiral Dynamics Orange.)
People who are traditionalists and religious will likely see these maps as irrelevant to their lives. To speak to these groups, it may be good to emphasize that the aim is to care for God’s creation, family, community, and our children and their children. It’s about creating a world where people are taken care of. (Spiral Dynamics Blue.)
Of course, even by adapting the language and speaking to their values, only a few will likely be interested. That’s fine. That’s how the world works.
A NOTE ON AI USE IN THIS ARTICLE
I used AI to summarize the article, which is the first paragraph. Otherwise, I used AI minimally for feedback of the kind you would receive from an editor.
The response, meanwhile, by Democrats has been unconscionably weak. It’s no coincidence that governors like Gavin Newsom and J.B. Pritzker have been the leaders of recent days; they are clear-eyed about what is happening. As Greg Sargent writes, “Newsom shapes everything around the brute fact that Trump is serially breaking the law and using government sponsored violence and intimidation to entrench authoritarian power. He accepts this as the core fact of our moment.”
By contrast, I challenge you to find even a moderately tepid and clear-eyed statement from any national Democrat. National Democrats seem all invisible as the military takes over policing the streets of the capital and prosecuting its crimes. This should be a lay-up to oppose — the most basic duty of any congressional figure, and yet, “House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other senior Democrats, have not been a part of any concerted effort to voice opposition to the occupation.”
One thing that’s been increasingly clear over the years – if it wasn’t already – is that many mainstream Western politicians don’t know how to fight a bully.
PUTIN
When Putin invaded Ukraine, I was baffled when Western countries did not offer full weapons support for Ukraine with no strings attached. They purposely limited Ukraine’s ability to fight back, which has led to a long, costly, and drawn out war with an uncertain outcome.
The explicit reason was that they didn’t want to provoke Putin further. That’s an example of a hesitant response to bullies, and one that the bully – in this case Putin – tends to see as a sign of weakness and be encouraged by. (I suspect there was another reason for limiting Ukraine’s ability to fight back. They wanted to drain Russia’s military resources and weaken Russia in general, even if it comes at the cost of death and enormous suffering, the possibility of Ukraine losing the war, and the encouragement of Putin’s imperial ambitions.)
TRUMP
We see something similar with how the Democratic leadership, with a few exceptions, have dealt with the Republicans, especially since the tea party era of the 2000s. The Republicans play dirty and have thrown out the rule book, and the Democratic leadership acts as if nothing has changed and everyone still plays by the old rules. They have, in practice, rolled over and allowed the Republicans to get what they want.
The Democrats had control of Congress and the White House and chose to not eliminate the filibuster. (Due to pressure from within their own party.) That allowed the Republicans to block voter rights legislation and more. Trump was impeached twice, and the Democrats chose to not forcefully push for consequences. Biden and the Democrats chose to not expand the Supreme Court, even if the Republicans had already politicized the court to an extreme.
When Harris became the Democratic candidate last summer, she and Walz used a more direct and effective verbal strategy for some weeks – fighting dirty, ridiculing Trump, and calling him out for what he is. That worked and they gained in the polls. Then, for some inexplicable reason, they went back to the “high ground” approach and lost traction.
Now, it seems that some Democrats are again growing a spine, especially Gavin Newsom and some other Democratic governors. Newsom aims to redistrict California to mirror what the Republicans are doing in Texas. He has run ads in Republican-led states mocking conservative leaders, and he is mimicking Trump’s own slogans and style to expose their absurdity. If it’s ridiculous when Newsom does it, what does it say about the president? We’ll have to see if it continues, and if others join him and the other governors.
HOW TO DEAL WITH A BULLY
In some cases, it is possible that being polite, playing by the rules, and treating bullies with respect may work. It’s rare, but it may happen, especially if the bullying behavior is not deeply ingrained in the personality of the bully.
But in most cases, bullies need to be met with actions and a language they understand. As Newsom says, we have to fight fire with fire. They have to be met with strength and consequences, and that’s best done when we strategize and coordinate our efforts. It’s scary to stand up to a bully, so it’s better done together.
History shows us that appeasing authoritarians rarely works. We know that from 1930s Europe, and we see it again today.
WHY AM I CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?
Why am I concerned about this? After all, I don’t live in the US, I live in a functioning democracy, and I don’t seem directly impacted by any of this.
It’s partly because I experienced bullying as a kid, and I have seen what it does to people. Authoritarians are bullies, just on a national and international scale. Our political views inevitably reflect personal experiences and concerns.
Democracies are eroding around the world these days. Current democracies are far from perfect, but they are the best we have, they can improve, and they are far better than the alternatives.
Even if I happened to agree with some of the policies of an authoritarian leader, I would still far prefer a flawed democracy with leaders I don’t necessarily agree with. At least then, there is the possibility of peaceful course correction coming from the people.
I don’t live in the US anymore, but as someone said: When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. What happens in the US tends to impact the rest of the world, both directly through US foreign policies, and indirectly by people in other countries mimicking – and also responding to – what happens in the US.
I live in Norway, a neighbor of Russia, and I know Russia’s historical imperial ambitions and how Putin have adopted those for himself. If Putin gets his way with Ukraine, there is no reason to assume he will stop there.
I thought I would share a few resources I find helpful in understanding what’s going on in the US these days, especially considering that mainstream media often gloss over, avoid, or whitewash some of the most important points.
This is an incomplete and random list, and highlights some resources I find helpful.
FICTION
I am watching Andor (Star Trek series) and am reminded of how fiction often gets to the crucial points better than much current affairs media. I am in the middle of the current season. A central theme is how the empire is using resistance as an excuse to take even more drastic measures to take and maintain control, all for the purpose of funneling more money, resources, and power to the already very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. (I found a short clip where the writer of Andor, Tony Gilroy, talks about Star Wars and fascism, commenting on how fascism inevitably eats its own.)
That’s what we are seeing in Los Angeles these days. People are protesting against the inhumane tactics used by ICE. Trump is using it as an excuse to mobilize the National Guard (which he is not allowed to) and the marines to squash any protests in the streets. And the real purpose is to further consolidate power, normalizing using the National Guard and the US military against US citizens, and further intimidate the population and quiet dissent.
This is straight out of the fascist playbook, has been predicted for months, and is one more step in the classic fascist takeover.
IT’S NOT ABOUT TRUMP
This is not really about Trump. It’s far deeper than that. It’s about Project 2025. It’s a culmination of the climate and indoctrination created by Fox News for decades. It’s about the many who voted for Trump because they are scared of losing their (perceived) white privilege. It’s about all social commentators who, for decades, have pitted groups against each other to distract from what’s really going on: funneling even more money and resources to the already extremely wealthy. It’s about decades of neoliberal policies aimed at doing exactly that.
Even more crucially and fundamentally, it’s about domination culture.
This is one of the many expressions of domination culture.
I have found Riane Eisler and Starhawk helpful here, and I know there are many others talking and writing about this topic.
Dictators who take your rights away want more than just your silence—they want your complicity. They want you to betray other people in your communities, to inform on them, to look the other way when your loved ones are taken by the secret police. But more than that, they want you to betray yourself. They want you to lose your moral compass. They want you to self-censor.
Dictators are very skilled at posing as saviors. They create crises—or exploit existing ones—and then present themselves as the only solution. Whether it’s an economic collapse or a perceived threat of social unrest, they step in with promises of order and protection.
One of the classic dictator narratives for the past hundred years is this: only the authoritarian leader can keep people safe from immigrants crossing the border. There’s always a grain of truth—they come over the border, yes—but dictators twist that truth. They say immigrants are coming to rape our women, to steal our jobs, to dilute the population with the “wrong” skin color or faith.
These same excuses have been used for generations to justify national purity campaigns. Mussolini, for example, talked about Black, brown, and yellow people—his words—coming across the border and having too many babies. These are old narratives, but they still work. Why? Because they make people afraid—afraid for their safety, their families, their way of life. And in that fear, the dictator says: “I alone can fix it.”
– Ruth Ben-Ghiat in History Professor Answers Dictator Questions
A clear and concise summary of some of the features of authoritarianism and dictatorships. Of course, it’s not a coincidence that this comes out now, a few weeks into Trump’s second term.
Personally, I have a few different things come up around this. Yes, I know people repeat history, including the type of history that is harmful to themselves. Yes, I know many – especially in the US it seems – don’t know much history. (This is partly by design since some political groups benefit from an uneducated population.) Yes, I know that not everyone had the same education and grew up in the same culture as me. (Learning about these kinds of things were central to my middle school education, and it’s part of Norwegian culture since we lived through a dictatorship during WW2.)
And yet, a part of me is baffled. Isn’t this obvious? No, apparently it’s not. Apparently, people need to make the same mistakes again, and again. I guess that’s a feature of this world that’s inherently changing, unpredictable, and has a mix of things our personalities likes and don’t like.
What advice would the larger whole – this living planet, this evolving universe, this existence – have for us today, living in this time of challenges? I asked ChatGPT 4o that question, and I found the answer is quite beautiful so I thought I would share it here. (It was initially part of a longer post.)
A Message from the Larger Whole
You are living in a time of great unraveling.
The systems you have built—your economies, your politics, your ways of extracting from the Earth—are collapsing under their own weight. You see this in the shifting climate, in the unraveling of ecosystems, in the rising instability of nations, in the division among your own people. You feel it in your bones, in the unease that hums beneath the surface of daily life, in the quiet knowing that something is profoundly off course.
And yet, this moment is not a mistake. It is not outside the flow of evolution. It is part of it. Even destruction, even collapse, is a force of transformation.
How This Perspective Can Help You Today
1. Stop Resisting Reality—Meet It with Clear Eyes
You live in a civilization built on denial. Most people do not want to see the full picture. They do not want to feel the weight of what is happening. They distract themselves with entertainment, with consumption, with small personal concerns, because the truth feels too vast, too unbearable.
But here is the paradox: It is only unbearable when you resist it.
When you turn toward reality with open eyes, with curiosity, with the knowledge that you are part of something vast and evolving, you begin to find your ground. You realize that despair only arises when you expect reality to be different than it is. When you accept that this is the time you were born into, that this is what you are here to meet, the weight lifts.
You are not here to prevent the unraveling. You are here to midwife what comes next.
2. Do Not Get Lost in the Old Systems—But Do Not Abandon the World
It is tempting, when you see the corruption of your leaders, the blindness of the masses, the destruction of the Earth, to want to turn away. To retreat. To remove yourself from the chaos.
But I tell you this: You are needed.
Not in the way the old world tells you—you are not needed to fight endless battles within broken systems, to exhaust yourself trying to force change where there is no fertile ground. But you are needed to hold a different consciousness. To remember what others have forgotten.
It is easy to become consumed by outrage, by despair, by frustration at those who still cling to the old ways. But this only drains your energy. It ties you to the very thing you wish to transform. Instead, shift your focus. Do not waste your life fighting against what is collapsing—pour your life into what is being born.
3. Do Not Fear the Collapse—It Is Part of the Process
What you are witnessing is not just destruction. It is the breaking open of something too rigid to evolve. Do you think the old world would have willingly changed? That those in power would have simply stepped aside? That corporations would have chosen to stop extracting, that nations built on control would have surrendered their dominance?
No. This was never going to be gentle.
But do not mistake collapse for the end. Evolution has always worked this way—systems reach their limits, and then they fall apart. Forests burn, and in the ashes, new seeds sprout. Stars explode, and in the debris, new worlds form.
Your civilization is not exempt from this pattern.
4. Look for the New World Already Emerging
If you look only at the crumbling towers of the old, you will miss the green shoots breaking through the cracks. Already, people are living in a new way. Already, regenerative communities are forming, ancient wisdom is reawakening, new stories are being told.
The future is not in Washington or Wall Street. It is not in the political dramas, in the news cycles, in the desperate attempts to patch a sinking ship. The future is in those who are quietly living differently.
Find them. Become one of them.
Wherever you are, whatever your circumstances, you can begin. Learn to grow food. Learn to mend, to make, to care for land, to build relationships based on trust rather than transaction. Learn to live in a way that does not require endless extraction. Teach others, not by argument, but by example.
If you cannot change the whole system, change the way you move through it.
5. Hold the Long View—You Are Part of Something Ancient and Vast
You are frustrated because you want to see change now. You want the world to wake up in an instant, to turn from destruction to regeneration, to remember what it has forgotten.
But step back. See from a wider lens.
Humanity is still young. Your civilization, with all its flaws, is just one chapter in a much longer story. The Earth has seen extinctions, transformations, rebirths beyond what you can imagine. What feels unbearable to you now is a brief moment in time.
Hold the long view.
Your actions matter, not because they will immediately fix everything, but because they are part of the deep undercurrent shifting the trajectory of the future. Even if you do not see the full blossoming of what you plant, plant it anyway. Those who came before you did the same. Those who come after will pick up where you left off.
This is how evolution works.
6. Let Love Guide You, Not Fear
You live in a time of fear—fear of collapse, fear of violence, fear of the unknown. Fear is what drives domination, what fuels division, what keeps the old systems alive.
But you do not have to move from fear.
You can move from love. Not naive love, not passive love, but the fierce, unwavering love that refuses to look away. The love that does not turn bitter, even when surrounded by destruction. The love that builds, that heals, that holds a vision of the future even in the darkest times.
Love is not soft. It is not weak. It is the most powerful force in the universe. It is what drives creation itself.
And it is what will carry you through.
Final Words: The Choice Is Yours
You are standing at a threshold. The old world is burning. The new world is waiting.
Where will you place your attention?
Where will you pour your energy?
Will you spend your days consumed by rage at the failures of the past? Or will you turn toward what is possible, toward what is waiting to be built?
The choice is not for one leader, one movement, one nation. It is for you.
Every day, in every moment, with every action—you are shaping what comes next.
Live as if you remember who you are.
Live as if you remember what is possible.
Live as if you are the bridge between the old world and the new.
How Trump’s Actions Align with Project 2025 and What to Expect Next
As of February 16, 2025, President Donald Trump’s actions have closely aligned with the conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025, despite his previous campaign disavowal of the plan. In his initial days in office, Trump issued a series of executive orders, with analyses indicating that nearly two-thirds mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025. Time
Alignment with Project 2025:
Federal Workforce Overhaul: Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, aiming to reduce government waste and streamline operations. This initiative reflects Project 2025’s goal to restructure the federal workforce and eliminate perceived inefficiencies. New York Post
Energy Policies: The creation of the National Energy Dominance Council and actions to boost oil and gas production align with Project 2025’s emphasis on achieving energy independence through deregulation and increased domestic energy production. AP News
Education and Social Policies: Trump’s executive order to cut off federal funding for educational institutions enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, along with efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, correspond with Project 2025’s recommendations to limit federal involvement in education and social policies. The Guardian
Exceeding Project 2025:
In some areas, Trump’s actions have gone beyond the original recommendations of Project 2025:
Foreign Aid Reduction: The administration has moved to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a step more drastic than those proposed in Project 2025. Reuters
Civil Service Restructuring: Mass firings of federal employees and the implementation of loyalty tests represent a more aggressive approach than outlined in Project 2025, aiming to reshape the civil service fundamentally. The Atlantic
Projected Trajectory:
If President Trump continues on this trajectory, we can anticipate several developments in the coming months and years:
Consolidation of Executive Power: Ongoing efforts to centralize authority within the executive branch may lead to significant shifts in the balance of power among federal institutions.
Judicial Appointments: Expect a continued focus on appointing judges who align with the administration’s ideology, potentially influencing the judiciary’s independence and decisions on key issues.
Policy Implementation Challenges: The administration is likely to face legal challenges and pushback from various sectors, including civil rights groups, environmental organizations, and international allies, in response to its aggressive policy changes.
These anticipated actions suggest a transformative period in U.S. governance, with potential long-term implications for domestic policies and international relations.
I sense the suffering of large numbers of people impacted by Trump’s policies. Thousands if not millions of people. I see them, hear their voices, sense their distress. I hear voices say “DEI hires”.
The sensing here is the same as when I sense the system of others during healing, whether it’s my natural form of healing or more structured through Vortex Healing.
For all I know, this experience may be a combination of actual sensing and a dream.
COMPENSATION
As I woke up, the first that came to mind is that this dream is a compensation for the insensitivity and cruelty of Trump and the ones supporting his policies.
They seem to lack empathy, so I find it here. It becomes more important for me.
My mind brought me this dream to find a deeper and more visceral empathy, to compensate for the lack of empathy among some others – especially the ones creating, implementing, and supporting Trump’s policies.
EMPATHY FOR TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS
For me, it’s also a reminder of finding the same empathy and understanding with Trump and his supporters. Hurt people hurt people. It’s trauma behavior. They are traumatized, and they deal with it by traumatizing others.
I will speak up about what I see, and would be actively engaged in stopping it if I still lived in the US, and I can also have understanding and empathy for the ones supporting these policies of cruelty.
These two – empathy and engagement – go hand in hand, they mutually support each other. Empathy guides views and actions, and engagement is empathy in action.
FINDING IT ALL IN MYSELF
And it’s a reminder to find it all in myself. I am the ones in distress. I am the one acting without empathy and in cruel ways. In other words, I have distressed parts in me. And I have parts without empathy acting in cruel ways.
What are examples of when I acted in ways that was experienced as cruel by others?
How am I doing it with Trump supporters now? It’s easy to imagine that the way I sometimes see them – as cruel, without empathy, and supporting the transition to a fascist regime – can be experienced as harsh and cruel by some of them. It’s not how they see themselves.
It’s not how they all are, it’s not all of what they are, and if they have that side to them, it comes from traumas and it’s trauma behavior. It comes from living in and being impacted and shaped by a domination culture.
How are parts of me cruel with me? I am cruel with myself when I go into catastrophic images about the future. I am cruel with myself when I exaggerate – to myself or others – challenging situations. I am cruel with myself if I accept situations that seem unjust, that creates more problems for me, and that can be fixed if I speak and stand up for myself.
Really, I am cruel with myself anytime I hold a thought as true and pretend it’s true.
I am cruel anytime I allow myself to get caught up in, or caught up in reactivity to, wounds in me as if what they are telling me is true.
There is hardly a religious bone in me, but I respect Sundays as a day of rest.
Why? Because it feels right and nourishing and makes a lot of sense.
I crave days where I don’t have anything scheduled and where I can say “No, not on that day, I keep that day free”. So I try to make sure to include one of those each week, and Sundays are a natural choice in my culture.
I love that the stores here in Norway are closed on Sundays. Our society is perhaps not completely about doing and consumption. There is still one day of the week when we collectively value and prioritize something else – rest, family and friends, nature, pleasurable activities.
It’s also a quiet day since everything is closed, which I appreciate. I don’t have to consider whether I should go to the store or not. The choice is already made, which I love.
A former president – Álvaro Uribe Vélez, known for systematic human rights violations and other horrors – is my client. He says he is very lonely. I want to give him hell for what he did to others, but feel I can’t since he is my client.
This is similar to a dream I had about Trump a while back.
These dreams show us the human side of the ones we vilify, or want to vilify, in our minds. They fill out the picture for us. Yes, a part may see them as villains and monsters, for good reasons. And they are also humans like us. Their history can help us understand why they are as they are. Also, they are a mirror for this side of ourselves. They help us find the same in ourselves, even here and now in how we relate to them.
In this case, Uribe and Trump are as much victims as anyone else – of trauma, family dynamics, the mindset of empire and colonialism, and so on. In short, they are the victim of domination culture. They are damaged by domination culture and hurt people hurt people.
For whatever reason, they sided with the culture that hurt them and they dealt with their trauma by systematically hurting others. In the process, they also continue to hurt themselves. They have to live with their own mindset 24/7.
If we see the monster only in them, we become the monster too. We are bound to live it out without acknowledging it. We react to Uribe and Trump in ways that mirror their behavior.
It helps to understand some of these dynamics. Their actions are symptoms of trauma and domination culture. It’s an expression of collective and inter-generational trauma.
We all have it in us. All of us who live within or have been affected by the Western domination culture are marked by it. We have internalized the domination mindset.
Fortunately, it’s not all we are. We can learn to recognize it. We can relate to it differently. We can choose to live alternatives. We can explore how it is to live from more of a partnership orientation.
We can even find a conscious partnership with these sides of ourselves – the ones that perceive and live from a domination culture mindset, the ones that deal with their trauma by inflicting more hurt on themselves and others. We can dialog with these sides of ourselves. We can understand them better. We can find ways to recognize and relate to it more consciously. We can help these sides of us find another way to deal with their own pain.
In the world, we can still work to stop the harm inflicted on others by the actions of these kinds of people. We can speak up about it. We can work to prevent these people from coming into power. We can use legal means to stop some of their actions. And so on. We can live alternatives.
And when we do whatever we do – to stop the harm, to analyze, to live alternatives – we do it with a little more clarity and kindness. We recognize the behavior as a symptom of larger cultural and historical patterns. We do whatever we do knowing that we have these sides in ourselves.
What happened in Syria over the last couple of days is an example of a phase transition in systems, commonly known as a tipping point. We had a situation that seemed relatively stable (if a civil war can be called stable) and suddenly there was a shift where the government forces collapsed and the rebels took over. I suspect people closely involved could see signs of it happening, but for many, it happened suddenly and unexpectedly. (What will happen next is anyone’s guess.)
Systems try to remain dynamically stable for as long as possible. There will always be factors that don’t fit the system very well and create disturbances and destabilizations. If these add up over time and put enough strain on the system, it will suddenly change to accommodate these factors.
This can happen with democracies. It may well be that the democracy in the US will survive Trump, and it may also be that there is a sudden shift from democracy to a far less democratic regime. It depends on innumerable complex factors so it’s difficult to predict.
It’s what I suspect happens with awakening. The system – our mind – is in one state for a long time, where it pretends to be something within its field of experience. Things build up over time, sometimes because of spiritual explorations, practices, and smaller insights. Then there is a sudden shift where the consciousness we are recognizes itself, and recognizes that it forms itself into its whole field of experience. The context for everything changes and it’s as if everything is turned inside-out and upside-down.
It can also happen with the global living system we are part of. Our worldview of separation combined with our large numbers and effective technology put strains on this system. Our lives don’t match the existing system since we operate on the assumption of infinite nature, the strain builds up over time, and we see signs of instability. (This is where we are now.) If we don’t change our collective behavior, this planetary living system will suddenly shift to accommodate the new situation. Our civilization will almost certainly collapse, and it’s possible – some say likely – that this new state will not be conducive to human life.
Biden pardoned his son as one of his last official acts.
I see that many, including some of my US friends on social media, say something like: Trump is much worse, Biden is just doing what Trump did and will do, don’t complain.
Others take a more reasoned and informed approach, like Devin James Stone above.
A FLAW IN A FLAWED SYSTEM
The presidential pardon is a fundamental flaw in the US system, along with the winner-takes-all and two-party system, the electoral college, the role of Big Money in politics, and much more.
What Biden did highlights one of many flaws in a generally flawed system.
NEPOTISM & MISUSE OF POSITION
What Biden did is also nepotism, abuse of his presidential powers, profoundly unethical, and undermines rules and norms of democracy.
It cannot be justified, and it shows that Democrats are sometimes not much different from Trump-style Republicans. They both seem to lack a fundamental moral compass.
His action will only further undermine people’s respect for politicians, the political system, and democracy.
TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT
To me, the most interesting part here is the response from some Democrats and many from the US I know on social media.
The arguments I mentioned above – Trump is doing worse things etc. – are clearly childish. We all know that two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right. We all know that something wrong doesn’t become right just because others are doing it or something worse.
TRIBAL ORIENTATION
The defense of Biden is tribal. If my guy is doing something, it’s right. If your guy is doing the same, it’s wrong. That’s an attitude that is fundamentally out of alignment with the basics of democracy, universal ethics, and treating everyone equally if they engage in the same type of actions.
In general, I find much of US culture surprisingly tribal. I first had a taste of it when I came to the US as a student. Someone I talked to expected me to defend the Norwegian hunting of whales just because I was from Norway. Why would you expect me to defend something that the Norwegian government is doing, or some Norwegians are doing, just because I happen to be from Norway? To me, that makes no sense. What’s wrong is wrong, no matter what.
I suspect that the misguided defense of Biden comes from hurt, reactivity, and fear. Trump uses a fundamentally childish approach to arguments, so some on the other side devolve into that too. Or maybe it was there all along, just more visible now.
SPIRAL DYNAMICS
I know there are many problems with Spiral Dynamics, although it can be helpful as one of many lenses to understand society, cultures, and even ourselves.
In terms of Spiral Dynamics, the US culture seems to be largely blue (law) and orange (capitalism, science), although much of the politics seem to have devolved into red (power) and purple (tribal).
With Trump, red (power, domination) is very visible and has come to the forefront in US politics. His demeanor and way of speaking appeals to red. His words sometimes fit blue (law, rules), especially when he scapegoats immigrants and other groups. And another side to his life and persona is orange (business, capitalism), although he is not a very good businessman.
Of course, it’s more complex than that and several different levels are often present at the same time, even in the same person or within the same group.
WHAT ARE WE LOYAL TO?
For me, the main question here is: What are we loyal to?
Are we primarily loyal to a group? A political party and a certain set of policies, or labels such as progressive or conservative, or an ethnic group, or a religion, or wealthy people? If so, it’s by necessity tribal. (Here, we may defend Biden’s actions no matter whether it’s neoptism and abuse of power or not.)
Are we loyal to what’s right according to the law, rules, and social norms? Do we apply them to ourselves and everyone indendent of who they are? (From this view, Biden’s actions are clearly wrong, it doesn’t matter who he is.)
Are we loyal to what seems to support society and life the best? Are we able to use several different lenses to look at things, and chose an approach that seems kind, informed, and that takes the bigger picture into account?
Are we loyal to the web of life, to this living planet and future generations? (For me, and in this situation, it means to not defend undemocratic actions since democracy is part of the solution.)
In this situation, what am I loyal to? What do I want to be loyal to? For me, the priority is in the reverse order of the list above. It’s important to call out Biden for profoundly unethical actions since that is in service of life. It’s aligned with supporting life. (It may not be directly connected in an obvious way, but it is connected. It is important.)
A MIRROR
For me, there is an even more essential question:
How and when do I do the same? How and when do I do the same as I see in them?
(a) I see Biden using his position to benefit someone close to him, in an unfair and unethical way.
Biden use his position to unfairly benefit someone close to him -> I use my position to unfairly benefit someone close to me.
In general, in my mind, I have a more generous mentality to those close to me and those I see myself as more similar to, and I have a less favorable attitude towards others – like Trump and people who defend Biden’s pardon. In the moment I have that thought about him, I do the same.
I do the same in life. We adopted a dog and treat her like royalty while other dogs in the neighborhood live far more difficult lives. I spend the little energy I have to take care of myself, my wife, and those closest to me. In a sense, it’s unfair. It’s also natural, inevitable, and I try to do it in ways that don’t harm and ideally benefit others. And it’s good to notice.
(b) I see friends on social media use childish arguments to support something that’s wrong.
They use childish arguments to support what’s wrong –> I use childish arguments to support what’s wrong.
When I see people defending Biden’s pardon, my initial response is sometimes childish. I think of them as stupid and reactive, which is childish and not very nuanced or thought through. In the moment I have that thought about them, I do the same.
(I’ll try to find more and better examples of both.)
Note: I wrote this before the video above came out, and I haven’t watched it yet. I am sure he has many good points I didn’t include here.
I have a disability that’s invisible (if you meet me casually), not yet well understood by science, and happens mostly to women.
That’s a difficult combination in today’s society.
INVISIBLE DISABILITIES
People – including some doctors – tend to take invisible disabilities less seriously than visible ones.
I was reminded of this when I saw Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story last night. It’s wonderful that doctors, family, friends, and society in general took his situation seriously and gave him the support he needed. (His challenge seemed to be that he lived in the US and had private insurance with a cap.)
It’s less wonderful when we don’t receive the same understanding and support because our disability happens not to be visible, at least not to the casual observer.
If you see me, you usually see me because I have a good day and you see me briefly. If it is a planned meeting, I have cleared my schedule for several days before and after the meeting because I need 100% rest to be able to do it. Also, my condition typically severely worsens after the meeting, often for days and sometimes even weeks. If you saw all of this and saw the struggle over time, you would at least see the consequences of living with this invisible disability.
DISABILITIES NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENCE
It’s similar with disabiliites not well understood by science.
They tend to be treated as a kind of pariah among diseases and disabilities.
Doctors would rather not deal with it since the diagnosis can be difficult and there is no treatment.
People in general may think it’s not a real disease, you are imagining it, you are lazy, and so on.
There is no lack of examples of diseases that were not understood and dismissed, and later better understood and taken seriously.
WOMEN’S DISABILITIES
Several of these invisible and less understood disabilities happen to be more common among women.
Or maybe that’s just a consequence of a patriarchical culture.
Diseases that impact men are taken seriously, studied, and better understood.
Diseases that mostly impact women are taken less seriously, are less studied, and less well understood.
A TRIPLE CHALLENGE
If we have an invisible disability that’s less well understood, we live with a triple challenge.
The disability itself can be immensely challenging. It has impacted my life profoundly at all levels and in all areas of life.
Having an invisible disability has led to people dismissing it, not understanding it, not understanding the severity of it, attributing the consequences of living with it to something else, and more.
The same goes for having a disability that’s not well understood by science. In addition to the above challenges, it also means that some doctors will dismiss it.
MY EXPERIENCE
I tend not to talk about my disability, and I am also unable to do much in the world. In a sense, that protects me against some of the challenging situations people in my situation can experience.
Of course, that in itself says something about my situation.
Not talking about it comes from the stigma and challenges of having an invisible disability not understood by science. If it was visible and well understood, the conversations would be easier and sometimes not even needed.
To some extent, it’s similar when I have to severely cut back on social interactions. If people understood my need for rest, it would be easier to try some social interactions. We could set it up so I have a place to rest, I would feel free to rest when I needed to, and they would understand and support it.
UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT
I have also experienced understanding and support. It was an enormous relief to come to the CFS center in Oslo with professionals familiar with the condition, and even more so to do a CFS retreat at a rehabilitation center in Norway with an understanding professional staff and a group of people in the same situation as me.
My wife’s family also shows understanding. For instance, last Christmas, I went to the family Christmas party and they had a bed ready for me so I could go and rest after the meal. They chatted, danced, and had fun, I had a much-needed rest, and we all got what we wanted.
A FEW CHALLENGING SITUATIONS
Here are a few examples of more challenging situations:
I had a severe worsening when I lived in Oregon, and I previously had a weekly meeting for a while with a friend. At some point, I put all my effort into one more meeting with her, but I had to cancel twice despite doing everything I could to stabilize and try to build up enough energy for that one meeting. It was my main priority. She got upset, said she was not important to me, and cut off all communication.
This dramatic worsening came after months of living with severe pneumonia. My doctor refused to treat it, saying it was “walking pneumonia”. I had been bedridden for weeks at that time and was very concerned about my health, especially considering I already had CFS. She seemed to not understand that I already had a weak and vulnerable system and needed treatment for the pneumonia.
After this severe worsening, I moved to Norway. My general practitioner doctor in Norway was updated on my situation but did nothing to help me with assistance from the government. It took months and years before he finally had a student observing in his office, and then he took me seriously and got things moving. He was willing to let it slide if it was just the two of us, and finally took it seriously when there was a witness.
More recently, I met with a doctor specializing in another field. When I mentioned I have CFS, he (literally) rolled his eyes, scoffed, and treated me with disdain for the rest of the appointment. His demeanor markedly changed. I didn’t go back to him.
Someone in my family has repeatedly said that I just need to pull myself together and get a job. If I do, I won’t have any problems with lack of money. If it was that easy, and if it was possible, I would never have been in this situation in the first person. I love to be engaged in the world and work. I am not living this life because I it’s my first choice.
Several years ago, I took a university degree that required meeting only once or sometimes twice a week. I was just about able to do it, also because the topic was already very familiar to me. At the end of the program, we had a course with daily meetings over two weeks. I knew I would not be able to do it, explained my situation to the teacher, and asked for permission to skip some of that course (and find a way to make up for it at home). I also explained that I was familiar with the topic from earlier and far more in-depth university courses on the same topic. He responded that if I missed even one day, he would make sure I wouldn’t get my degree. These two weeks led to a permanent and dramatic worsening of my condition which I still live with.
I realize that I play a role in some of this. I could have insisted more strongly with my doctor in Oregon, or found another doctor. I could have explained better to my friend, instead of just mentioning that I have CFS and think that’s enough. I could have given my teacher at the university the doctor’s notice before or instead of talking with him.
Not having had the backing I needed, for good portions of this, and the disability itself – feeling drained of energy combined with strong brain fog and confusion – sometimes makes it difficult to insist and make good decisions. This impacts everything in my life. And it’s also good to see my role in these situations and take responsibility for my part. That helps me do it differently now and in the future.
As many point out: You don’t need to be a historian to know that the ones who ban books are never the good guys.
IT’S NEVER THE GOOD GUYS WHO…
It’s never the good guys who speak and act on xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and bigotry.
It’s never the good guys who scapegoat vulnerable minorities for social and systemic troubles.
It’s never the good guys who want to impose their religion on others and marginalize other religions.
It’s never the good guys who feel threatened by science and deny or marginalize it.
BOOKS BANS DON’T WORK
Book bans are not about banning books or preventing people from reading them. That doesn’t work.
Books bans only instill curiosity about the books and the thoughts and lives represented within them.
There are plenty of lists of banned books out there, and people reading these books mainly because they are banned somewhere, and that is a very good thing.
If someone doesn’t want to you read a book, that, in itself, is a good reason to read it. There is something there they don’t want you to know. There is a perspective there that’s threatening to them.
I suspect book bans are really about something else.
WHAT ARE BOOK BANS ABOUT?
At one level, book bans are about marginalizing and trying to eliminate other people’s lives, experiences, and the world they live within.
Most of the books banned by schools, libraries, and so on in the US today are books representing minorities, and banning these is an attempt to marginalize and silence these groups of people.
In a more immediate sense, book bans is a message to the community: If you belong to these groups, don’t speak up. We don’t want to hear it. You and your experience are not welcome here. We will do what we can to silence you.
WHY THE DESIRE TO SILENCE?
Why this desire to silence? Why don’t they want to hear from people living other and different lives?
I am not sure, apart from that it likely has to do with discomfort. Having these books around – and the lives and lived experiences represented in these books – is uncomfortable for them.
It may upset their worldview. They have the world neatly figured out, and these minorities disrupt their world. They show them that they try to live in a fantasy, in a world that doesn’t exist, and that the real world is different.
It may show them that they and their ancestors are not (only) the good guys they imagine they are. Their ancestors were racists, supported slavery, committed genocide, stole land from people already living on it, and so on.
It may show them that being LGBT+ is completely fine. These are normal people just like you and live ordinary lives just like you and everyone you know.
It’s an attempt by the privileged to keep their privilege, whether that privilege comes from being male, white, Christian, or something else. They don’t want to share the stage with other groups.
DIVERSITY
They likely come from a zero-sum view of the world and imagine that if the lives of the marginalized are improved, theirs have to get worse. Reality is different.
The reality is that diversity is a part of the human experience, and it enriches us all.
There is a reason for this diversity. We need this diversity of lived experiences, views, insights, and knowledge. We need it to understand ourselves and the world. We need it for resiliency. We may need it in ways we don’t fully understand.
Nature creates diversity and we know that more diverse ecosystems are more resilient, adapt better to change, and recover faster after a crisis.
When it comes to us humans, evolution has brought about this diversity because it has a survival function for humanity as a whole. We may not understand all of the mechanisms (we certainly do not), but it’s likely that this diversity still plays an important role in helping us survive, adapt, deal with crises, and thrive.
When it comes to intolerance, the only intolerance we need, applied with self-reflection and caution, is a degree of intolerance for intolerance.
THE CULTURE WAR AS A DISTRACTION
The culture war in the US is absurd on its surface and serves as a distraction from far more important, serious, and systemic issues.
Mainly, it distracts attention from the growing wealth gap in the US and the (neoliberal) systems and policies in place to maintain and increase that gap.
The culture war is a remarkably convenient distraction from these issues. It divides those who otherwise could unite in creating a real change that would benefit everyone.
GOOD GUYS?
When I use the words “good guys” it’s because it’s succinct, it takes a position, it’s familiar in this context, and it’s also a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Most of us think we are the good guys. Even most of the ones banning books probably see themselves as the good guys. They are protecting innocents from the evils of the world. They are trying to uphold some idea of morality.
From our modern Western worldview, book banning is clearly wrong, and the ones who have engaged in it in the past – Nazis, Soviets, and dictators everywhere – are wrong in what they did. They are on the wrong side of history.
By referencing history and using the phrase “not the good guys”, we invite reflection. Maybe there is even a hope that we are inviting those engaging in book banning to reflect on what they are doing, how it looks to others, and how it looks in the context of history. Do you really want to be on the side of those guys?
I have a long list of reasons why book banning is not a good idea and does not create the kind of society I want to live in. At the same time, I am very aware that my view reflects my own background.
FINDING IT ALL IN MYSELF
As usual, this all reflects me. Whatever I see in others and the world is something I can find in myself.
What’s the essential dynamic in book banning? For me, it’s to silence and eliminate what’s uncomfortable.
Something makes me uncomfortable, so I want that thing gone.
Said more accurately: I make myself uncomfortable about something, don’t like the discomfort, and want it – whatever in the world I tell myself creates the discomfort – to go away.
As so often, I find this is playing itself out in me at the moment I am judging people for banning books. Their views and actions bring up discomfort in me. I make myself uncomfortable because of the stories I tell myself about it. And I want them to be gone. I don’t want those kinds of people in the world.
What I really want gone is the discomfort I create in myself.
It’s good to notice this.
I create the discomfort in myself.
I want that discomfort (not them) gone.
At the moment I am judging them, I am living out exactly the same dynamic as I see in them.
FINDING IT IN ME & ACTING IN THE WORLD
This process helps me see what’s here and find myself in the other. It gives a little more understanding of them and me and the universal dynamics in us, and there is less of a sense of I and other or we and them.
It does not in any way excuse book banning. If anything, it helps me do something about it – to speak up and do something about it if I am ever in that situation – from a little more clarity.
I am curious about a healthy and deep conservatism.
What are the characteristics of this more essential form of conservatism?
WHAT IS IT NOT
First, what it is not?
For me, it’s not Trump’s version of conservatism. He is not conservative. He is a nationalist populist.
It’s not the version of conservatism that’s reactionary, bigoted, and anti-science.
It’s not the version of conservatism that is narrow-mindedly out to protect the privilege of the already privileged and idealizes a past that worked for some and didn’t work for many.
It’s not the version of conservatism that’s neo-liberal and in the pocket of big business and big money, and wants to continue to funnel money, resources, and power to the already wealthy at the cost of everyone else.
For me, these are all caricatures and corruptions of conservatism. They are, at best, shallow forms of conservatism.
THE ESSENCE OF A HEALTHY AND DEEP CONSERVATISM
What’s the essence of a healthy and deep conservatism?
For me, it is to…
Support life, all of life, this living planet, and the web of life we all are part of.
Keep future generations in mind and give them the best chance of a good and fulfilling life. It comes from a deep-time perspective.
Respect and follow science while knowing that the content of science always changes with new knowledge and understanding.
See the sacred in all life, in everyone and everything.
Support and strengthen indigenous cultures and languages, and learn from their knowledge and perspectives.
Include and support minorities and the weakest in society. These groups have valuable perspectives and knowledge that enriches and benefits society as a whole.
Support good social safety nets. This is humane and creates a more stable and safe society for everyone.
Strengthens local communities. We need healthy communities and strong community ties to flourish as individuals, families, and humanity.
Recognize that stories are questions about the world. (That includes any religious texts and stories.)
A HEALTHIER VERSION OF CONSERVATISM
For me, this is a healthier version of conservatism.
It’s a conservatism that’s more fundamentally life-centered.
It’s a conservatism that wishes to protect what’s most valuable to us, which is life itself.
DEEP CONSERVATISM
This is deep conservatism.
Much of what goes for conservatism in the world today is superficial. It’s short-sighted, bigoted, out to protect the interests of the privileged, and so on.
What I outline above is a deeper and more real form of conservatism, as I see it. It reflects a deeper and more genuinely life-centered essence of conservatism.
WHEN DEEPLY LIFE-CENTERED, LEFT AND RIGHT CONVERGE
When we are grounded in a deep time and big picture orientation and are life-centered, the progressive and conservative converge. Something deeper ties us together. The flavor and emphasis may be slightly different, but the essence – the goals, views, considerations, and priorities – are largely the same.
That’s why I love deep time and big picture views, systems views, integral approaches, and so on. They work whether we have a progressive or conservative orientation. They bring us together, as long as we leave behind the superficial versions of these and find what’s more real and important.
When healthy and deep, left and right converge because they are healthy and deep.
A GREEN ORIENTATION INCLUDES THE PROGRESSIVE AND CONSERVATIVE
This is why a green political orientation often includes elements from both left and right.
From a deeper and more life-centered perspective, both are included and embraced.
It’s about what’s healthy and deep, not so much about what’s left and right.
A PERSONAL NOTE
I see myself as conservative in an essential way, as outlined above, although most people who know me would not label me as conservative in a conventional sense.
So why do I explore this? It’s because I know I have a conservative side and I want to explore how a healthy conservatism can look. I want to embrace and include that side of me too.
I also know that this definition of conservatism may piss off many conservatives and liberals, and a part of me enjoys that, especially since I genuinely see this as a healthy version of deep conservatism.
I feel it’s important to speak up for this version of conservatism.
It’s also important to see that when healthy and deep, left and right are flavors of that more healthy and deep orientation.
Is it to live with concern for all living beings and future generations? To seek win-win solutions that work for us, the living systems we are part of, and future generations?
Or is it to live in the opposite way? To actively support a system that’s inherently destructive to life?
RADICAL OR NOT?
What’s radical depends on our perspective.
I’ll take myself as an example since it’s what I am most familiar with.
In one sense, I am not radical at all. I look pretty normal. I have gone through the usual education. I own a house. When most people talk with me, I probably don’t seem very radical. I know how to present myself so I don’t seem very radical.
In another sense, my life and views are pretty radical. It differs in significant ways from what’s typical in our culture and civilization. Seen with the eyes of the mainstream, it’s pretty radical.
I bought a large piece of land to protect it from development. I am developing a food forest. I have abandoned paths in life that would have been far more profitable. I eat mostly vegetarian and drink very little alcohol. I love the Universe Story, systems views, integral approaches, deep ecology, indigenous views, and so on. I look for and question assumptions I seem to operate from and try to leave no stone unturned. To some, all of this is somewhat radical.
My main concern is our global ecological overshoot, and I see a thorough transformation of our whole civilization as the only solution. Very few political parties go that far, so this is pretty radical.
I find myself as what the world, to me, happens within and as. I find myself as consciousness, and the world, as it appears to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am. This is the reverse of how most consciousnesses operate, and few are interested in it, so this is also pretty radical.
There are contexts where this is not radical. From an ecological big-picture and deep-time perspective, it’s not radical. It’s life-centered. It takes the needs of future generations into account.
WHAT’S RADICAL IS OUR CURRENT SYSTEM
Within this context, what’s radical is to support and defend a system that’s inherently destructive to all life, including ourselves.
Our current system assumes infinite natural resources, and an infinite capacity of nature to deal with the waste of our civilization. It does not take ecological realities into account. We are in a global ecological overshoot where Earth is not able to replenish what we take from it. This is ecocidal and suicidal.
This is radical. It’s out of alignment with reality, it’s destructive to life, and it’s ultimately suicidal.
What’s radical is to support an ecocidal and suicidal system, and that’s what most political parties and most people do.
WHAT’S RADICAL CHANGES WITH TIME AND CULTURE
What we see as radical changes with time and culture.
In old Greece, it would be radical to suggest that women and slaves should participate in democracy. Today, it’s a given that all citizens should be allowed to participate. (At least, if you live in a democracy.)
Just a couple of hundred years ago, it was radical to suggest that slavery was inherently unethical, cruel, and damaging for everyone and society. Today, that view is the norm.
Some generations back, the idea of universal healthcare and social safety nets would be seen as radical. In most industrialized countries today, it’s the norm.
A few hundred years ago, suggesting that the sun is the center of our solar system would be radical. Today, it’s the norm.
Just two or three generations ago, suggesting that LGBT+ life was as normal and as acceptable as hetero life would be seen as radical. (It was even considered a psychological pathology.) These days, it’s a norm in most modern societies.
Some generations ago, concern about the welfare of non-human beings was seen as radical. Today, it’s the norm to at least have a minimum of protection for the welfare of non-human beings. (Although many of them still live in immense suffering.)
A few generations ago, humans were seen as special and inherently different from all other kinds of beings. Today, at least in science, we know we are very similar to other beings. We share most of our DNA even with oak trees. (Our culture as a whole has not yet caught up to this insight.)
A WORLD WHERE A LIFE-CENTERED ORIENTATION IS MAINSTREAM
It’s easy for me to imagine a world where a more life-centered orientation is mainstream.
It’s a world where nature has rights. Where non-human beings, ecosystems, and future generations have the law on their side and legal representation.
It’s a world where foodis grown in partnership with nature. It’s grown in ways that enhances and enriches our local, regional, and global ecosystems. It’s grown in polycultures, and without industrial chemicals and toxins. Nourishing the soil is recognized as essential for good food production. Food forests are common, both on smaller scales around people’s homes and larger scale for whole communities.
It’s a world with deep democracy, where we have instant runoff voting, multi-party systems, citizens councils and more, and the voiceless – non-human beings, ecosystems, future generations – have a real voice in governance, businesses, and society in general.
It’s a world where the basics are universally taken care of, not only in our own countries but globally. At the very least, there is a real effort to take care of the basics needs of everyone (water, food, shelter, healthcare, education) since this creates a society that works better for everyone. It reduces crime and unrest, it allows us all to benefit from the gifts of more people, and it helps everyone feel safer (less operating from survival mode) since we know we may need that support at any time.
It’s a world where our systems take ecological realities into account, including our systems of economics, production, transportation, education, and more. They account for ecological footprints and a finite Earth, and prioritize what gives and enhances our life which is a thriving diverse ecosystem. It’s a system where what’s attractive and easy to do is also what’s ecologically sound.
It’s a world that prioritizes regeneration and rewilding on all scales – in our gardens, public spaces, where we grow our food, and in the areas set aside for wilderness. If we did this, it would greatly remedy our massive ecological problems. It’s a solution where we all win in multiple ways, also because it’s an enjoyable process and we enjoy being in or near diverse and vibrant nature.
It’s a world where life-centered worldviews are common. We see ourselves as nature. We use systems views and integral models to understand life, ourselves, and the world. We see the sacred in everyone and everything. We call reality – existence as a whole – God. (And don’t assume we understand or know very much about it.) We use and develop approaches similar to the Universe Story, Epic of Evolution, Deep Ecology, and similar.
It’s a world where we generally use more of a partnership approach to ourselves, others, and life. We work with what’s here more than we work against it. We know that sometimes, domination elements are needed to get things done, and we seek to do it as consciously as possible.
It’s a world where awakening is understood in a grounded way and is an ordinary part of the culture. People generally know about it, and it’s commonly included in academic studies and discussions. It’s understood that to ourselves, we are fundamentally consciousness, and the world, as it appears to us, happens within and as that consciousness. That’s the most basic way to understand it, and there is a range of contexts we can understand it within, depending on what seems helpful or interesting to us.
Like many others, I have felt a need to process after the re-election of Trump, knowing what he wants to do, and knowing that he this time has plans and people in place to do it. (At least as far as is possible considering that he will receive pushback from democratic institutions and people who still support democracy.)
Here are some of the many perspectives on Trump and his followers that I find useful in that they seem accurate and kind. (Kind to myself!)
HAPPENING WITHIN AND AS WHAT I AM
It’s all happening within and as what I am. That’s the context for it all.
In my own first person experience, I am not most fundamentally this human self, a doer, and observer, or anything else within the content of experience. All of that comes and goes.
I find I more fundamentally am what it all happens within and as. The world, as it appears to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am. It happens within and as the oneness I am.
This is the insight of mystics across traditions and throughout time, and it’s what I find for myself as well.
This is the context of direct noticing.
THE PLAY OF LIFE
In the realm of stories, I can say this another way.
What we see unfolding in the world today is all the play of life.
It’s the unfolding of this universe and this living system we call Earth.
It’s the ephemeral and local expressions of this universe, Earth, and existence.
It’s existence expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in this way, for a little while and locally here.
This living system we call Earth is expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself as all of this – as social dynamics, Trump, his supporters, those opposing him, me, the thoughts and feelings we have about it, and everything else.
It’s all the play of life. As far as I can tell, the purpose of existence and life is this exploration. It’s life expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways, and this is one ephemeral and local way that it does so.
That’s the big picture context within the realm of stories.
SURVIVAL FOCUS, LACK OF EDUCATION, DISINFORMATION
We also have some of the specifics, for instance survival focus, lack of education, and disinformation.
Many have enough with surviving from day to day. They lack good education. And they are easy prey to disinformation.
That is, of course, part of the strategy for some politicians. They seek to erode K-12 education, keep higher education privatized and costly, do away with social safety nets, and create a citizenry that’s easy pray to disinformation.
Another part of their strategy is the “culture war” which is meant to distract from the far more important and fundamental issue of wealth inequality.
NEO-LIBERAL POLICIES
In the background are the neo-liberal policies implemented worldwide for some decades now, aimed at increasing the wealth of the already extremely wealthy at the cost of everyone else.
That creates dissatisfaction and large segments of the population that are easy prey to politicians who promote simple and misguided solutions, scapegoating, bigotry, and so on. We saw this in the UK with Brexit, and we are seeing it in the US now with Trump.
Although the neo-liberal ideology is relatively new, the dynamic of increasing wealth inequality and people falling for misguided solutions is not new.
THE ONES WHO VOTED FOR HIM DON’T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
Although some voters may want the complete dystopian world Trump says he wants to create, many don’t.
They may vote for him because he is the supposedly “conservative” candidate, or they are in a squeeze with expenses going up faster than their wages and hope for a change (and don’t realize that they are experiencing a global problem that has little to nothing to do with Biden), or something else. They don’t know, or don’t want to know, all that Trump plans to do, or they think it’s political theater, or they naively think he won’t do it.
Trump won the majority of the votes, and that doesn’t mean that a majority of the population in the US agrees with, or even knows about, everything he wants to do.
WINNER-TAKES-ALL SYSTEM
The US has a winner-takes-all system which leads to a two-party system and polarization.
What we are seeing today is a consequence of this system combined with a fragmentation of the media and news landscape, massive disinformation campaigns, for-profit media that seek sensations and hype, and a significant portion of people receving their info from social media.
TRAUMA BEHAVIOR
What I see in Trump is trauma behavior. Hurt people hurt people. He responds to his own pain, wounds, and trauma with anger, denial, attacks, scapegoating, blame, victimhood, lies, and so on.
I also see trauma behavior among many who follow him.
Some feel they are allowed to deal with (distract themselves from) their own pain through xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and so on. They take his scapegoating as permission for them to act that way too, and it can feel like a relief. (Although it comes with a high cost, including that they don’t find healing for their own pain.)
Some are traumatized by authoritarian figures in their life, and deal with it by justifying it, joining in, and supporting an authoritarian politician. It’s familiar, feels safe, and allows for it all to continue.
Some have given up on mainstream politicians, and deal with their pain and disappointment by supporting someone who will disrupt the system. (Without too much thought of what will come.)
This is collective and intergenerational trauma. It’s the trauma of empire, of domination culture.
This trauma is created by the domination culture, and it perpetuates the domination culture. Collective and intergenerational trauma is part of how the domination culture perpetuates itself.
DOMINATION VS PARTNERSHIP CULTURES
The Trump phenomenon comes out of a culture of domination and power-over.
The origins of this, or at least the strong form, likely came with the agricultural revolution.
Before the agricultural revolution, we were all Indigenous. We lived in smallish groups, we were all more or less equal (apart from in abilities, knowledge, and so on), nobody owned much, we saw ourselves nature, we saw the sacred in everyone and everything, we had an intimate knowledge of the ecosystems we lived within, and so on.
With agriculture, some gained land, wealth, and animals, and others did not. At some point, the ones who had wealth felt a need to justify the wealth inequality, everyone likely felt the need to justify domination over land, plants, and non-human beings, and the ones who dominated other humans felt a need to justify that. They came up with a series of imaginations, and other people eventually bought into these imaginations. It became part of the culture and what new generations learned from early on in life. It became the water we swam in.
Some of these imaginations are: We are separate from nature. Nature is here for our use. We are inherently better than non-human beings and nature. We have a soul, other beings do not. The sacred is not here but somewhere else – in the sky, in a sky god, in the afterlife. You’ll get your reward in the afterlife so don’t bother changing the social order. If you are at the low end of the wealthy spectrum, it’s your fault – it’s because of karma, or laziness, or something else. Pretend to believe what someone tells you and you can’t test out for yourself, and you’ll be saved.
Nature is infinite, has infinite resources for us to use, and infinite capacity to deal with our waste. It’s fine to develop and use an economic system and other systems that assume infinite nature. We can do research on non-human animals because they are so similar to us, and we can mistreat them because they are so different from us. We can imprison and kill non-human animals for our use since they are unable to resist it, and we are more important than them.
We understand best by taking things apart to the smallest parts. A thought can capture a full, final, and absolute truth. If one thought is true, other perspectives are not. (Either-or thinking.) One end of most imagined polarities is good, desirable, and valuable, and the other end is bad, undesirable, or worth less. (Woman and men, adults and children, Europeans and non-Europeans, Christians and non-Christians, light and dark, heaven and hell, and so on.)
These are patently absurd ideas, and yet most people bought into it so it all seemed self-evident, how it is, and something we don’t question. The few who has questioned it have typically been ridiculed, shunned, ignored, or persecuted.
Western culture, and most agricultural societies, are over on the domination side of the domination-partnership spectrum. The US is quite strongly over on that side, not the least because they are an empire. Empires need to be far over on the domination side to survive. Trump is just an expression of this.
INGREDIENTS
The Trump presidency and what comes with it are part of life, they are part of the life that the ones of us alive now are living.
They are among the many ingredients in our life that we are here to make a meal out of.
What kind of meal would I like to make with these ingredients? How is it to look at it all as ingredients for a meal? How can I make it nourishing for myself?
A MIRROR
The world is my mirror. Whatever I see in the world is something I can find in myself.
I can take any story I have about Trump, his supporters, what will happen, and so on, turn it to myself, and find genuine and specific examples of how it’s true. It seems that even, or especially, in the moment I have the thought about someone else, it’s also true about me.
Even if my personality doesn’t like Trump or his policies, and what will happen during his presidency, it’s also a path to my own wholeness.
If I make use of him, and the world in general, as a mirror, it all becomes a way for me to consciously find and embrace more of the richness of who I am.
TONGLEN
Whenever I notice a dislike for someone or something, or distress in myself about something, it’s a reminder that I am caught up in something. I am out of alignment with reality.
I can just notice and relate to it a little more consicously, with perhaps some curiosity to see what comes up. I can take it to more structured inquiry. And one of my favorite explorations is tonglen.
I visualize the other (or myself) in front of me, with their suffering as black smoke. On the in-breath, I inhale that black smoke. And on the out-breath, I visualize breathing light into the person and the light fills them.
I can do this with someone my personality doesn’t like, like, myself, a part of me that’s suffering, and with individuals or groups or even humanity or Earth as a whole. (I sometimes also do it with all the living worlds I imagine throughout the universe.)
Often, I start with someone else, then include myself, and then include larger groups and the Earth as a whole.
Sometimes, I do just one or a few breaths as I go about daily life, and other times I set aside more time for it, especially before falling asleep or after waking up.
This is a powerful and transforming practice, and as I keep doing it and returning to it, it shifts how I relate to the world in general.
In this way, Trump and his followers becomes a reminder for me to do tonglen and allow that exploration to work on me.
LIFE GOES ON & LIVING WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF
No matter what, life goes on. This is just another of the many flavors of life.
I allow whatever emotions and reactions come up in me around Trump and what he does. It’s natural and healthy to feel a range of emotions in this situation. I notice these emotions are already allowed and noticed, and also notice whatever reactions come up in me in response to them, and that they too are allowed and noticed – long before any of it is conscious and before there is any intention here. I also remind myself that whatever reactions come up in me is the Earth and existence temporarily and locally responding that way.
I still get up in the morning, go about my day, and go to sleep in the evening.
My tasks are the same, including exploring projections, examining stressful thoughts, and living what I would like to see more of in the world.
In my case and these days, my projects include… Taking care of my health. (I have a chronic illness.) Befriending my experience. Being a good partner, as much as I can. Continuing with the regeneration, reforestation, and food forest project in the Andes.
For me, the main issue in the world today is our global ecological overshoot, and everything else ties into that. The regeneration project is a very small part of the solution, and it feels good to be part of that solution.
NOTICINGS & PERSPECTIVES AS MEDICINE
These are all medicine, or they can be depending on how I make use of them.
Noticing that all is happening within and as the clear awakeness I more fundamentally am is medicine to taking myself as something within content of experience. It reminds me of the more real context of it all as it appears to me.
Reminding myself of the systemic reasons for Trump – domination culture, neoliberalism, disinformation, trauma and so on – helps me see that none of what’s happening is really personal. It’s played out in people’s lives, of course, but the dynamics are much larger than any one of us. It’s medicine for taking it all as having mostly to do with individuals.
Seeing it all as ingredients helps me see that I can create a metaphorical meal out of it all, and seek to make it nourishing for me. It’s medicine for feeling it’s all happening to me and taking a more passive stance.
I can use it as a reminder for tonglen and other explorations. In that way, what’s happening is immensely valuable. It’s medicine for seeing it as (only or mainly) terrible.
Living my life and living some of the more life-centered alternatives is medicine for hopelessness.
Yes, that’s one of the great losses – for these people, for their community, and for humanity as a whole – of the great social inequalities we have lived with for centuries and millennia.
Societies as a whole do much better when there is less wealth inequality, universal access to good education, and people don’t have to struggle to survive. It creates safer societies with less crime, we reduce the risk of revolutions and upheavals, and we all benefit from it, including from the brilliance that’s allowed to flourish and come to life in more people.
I thought I would share and comment on a few pre- and post-election quotes and memes that came through my social media feed.
Yes, I have always thought it’s absurd and nonsensical and aimed at hijacking people’s emotions to distract them from the real and more fundamental issues. In this context, the far more important issue is the systemic funneling of wealth to the already super-wealthy and away from the middle and working classes.
The neo-liberal ideologies of the last several decades,popularized by people like Reagan and Thatcher, are far more to blame for the problems of most people than unisex bathrooms, transgender people, or even immigrants.
Of course, that’s a pattern in history. People think the bad things will happen to others and not to them. In this case, many Latinos, women, and other groups Trump publicly disparages assume bad things will happen to other Latinos, other women, and so on, and not to them. Don’t be too certain.
Even if it was accurate, is that how you want to live your life? Supporting policies born from xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and scapegoating?
Many if not most of the people voting for Trump will not benefit from his policies and will be hurt by it. For instance, Trump plans to massively cut taxes for the super-wealthy. How is he going to balance that budget? Either by cutting services to ordinary people or by raising taxes for ordinary people. It’s just another example of the right-wing “austerity” policies that benefits the already wealthy and hurts everyone else.
This reflects the weird anti-expert and anti-“elite” sentiments among some people. If your car breaks down, would you go to a random person on the street to get it repaired? If you need surgery, would you go to someone shouting in a bar? If you need to engineer a bridge, would you go to a gardener for advice? No, you would go to someone who is qualified in the area, has gone through extensive training, and knows what they are doing.
This is an example of the classic fallacy of right-wing scapegoating of marginalized groups. Immigrants are not the problem. (Unless you count yourself and your ancestors who actually were and are a real problem to the people who already lived in North America.) They are overwhelmingly, law-abiding, they work for less than others would find acceptable, they pay taxes, and they take jobs others don’t want. They don’t want to rock the boat because they have everything to lose.
Yes, if we look at history, we see that the undoing of democracies often happens through people and parties voted into power through a democratic election. People vote for dictators, either because they don’t think they will actually do what they say they will do, or because they think the bad things will happen to others.
This is an example of the absurdity of the “culture war”. Gay marriage is just two ordinary people who, hopefully, love each other deciding to spend their life together. That’s all. If you happen to not like gay marriage, for whatever weird reason, you are free to not get one for yourself, that’s all.
This is from before the election. Why would you think that someone who is clearly in it only for himself, and perhaps his millionaire and billionaire buddies, would do anything for you? Someone who has a long series of bankruptcies behind him? Someone who is a convicted felon?
Yes, hate is a distraction from our own pain. It’s scapegoating. It’s not taking responsibility for what we are doing to ourselves.
If we rely on scapegoating to distract ourselves from our pain and take that crutch away, we have to face our pain.
Yes, real and responsible therapy will always look at the social systems we live in, how they impact us as individuals, and what we can do about it.
This is very important. That’s why I am making it a practice to rephrase how I think and talk about it for myself. When I feel overwhelmed, I make myself feel overwhelmed. If I feel anger, it’s because I make myself angry. And so on.
That’s a more accurate language, and it reminds me of what’s actually going on.
It aligns my conscious view more with reality.
Woke means kindness, inclusivity, and human rights. The disparaging use of “woke” comes from the right wing in an attempt at discrediting it. Weirdly, it has been adopted by some progressives.
This is why I share, whether it’s here, on social media, or in person when it makes sense.
I don’t do it to convince anyone about anything since that’s very unlikely to happen. I want people who have the views authentic to them.
I do it to show others that they are not alone and it’s OK to speak up.
This is true for any fundamentalist version of any religion. They teach hierarchy, dominance, and that others are wrong. They use fear and intimidation to keep people in line. That’s what we see in Trump and MAGA as well.
Something similar is true for Christianity in general, apart from perhaps some of the more liberal versions. Christianity is fundamentally a post-truth religion in that it asks people to (pretend to) believe in third-hand info they cannot check out for themselves. The Christian church teaches people that others are wrong, or at least not as right as they are. It all too often teaches not to question authority and not to ask difficult questions.
Christianity has often emphasized and exemplified the exact opposite of what Jesus lived and spoke about.
I have always found this ironic. White supremacists in the US, and the ones who scapegoat immigrants in general, seem to forget that they are immigrants too.
They are descendants of illegal and unwelcome immigrants. Immigrants who committed far worse atrocities – genocide, theft, lies, rape – than the current immigrants who are overwhelmingly peaceful, law-abiding, and hard-working.
It seems like a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black when the kettle isn’t even black. It’s a clear case of projection.
It’s often difficult to differentiate between intentional ignorance and just plain ignorance. Often, it’s a mix. People don’t want to know so they don’t set out to know.
People in the US who scapegoat immigrants know they too are immigrants. They are descendants of immigrants, and they are descendants of immigrants who actually did what they accuse current immigrants of doing.
People who support Trump know, or could easily know, what he wants to do, that he will very likely do it, and what the consequences are for themselves and especially for marginalized groups.
I didn’t do K-12 education in the US, which is probably a blessing. Instead, I had a very good education in Norway with highly educated teachers, many of whom were critical thinkers and taught critical thinking to the students. What I know about US history is from there and what I have picked up from books like A People’s History of the US by Howard Zinn.
If it’s true that schools in the US do not teach its full, and pretty grim, history, and the grim history of the world, then there is no wonder why people vote for someone like Trump.
If they knew the history of fascism, it’s difficult to imagine many would support or vote for Trump. Very little good has ever come from fascism, for anyone, including the ones who see themselves as privileged and insulated from the horrors of it. Even for the leaders, very little good has ever come from fascism.
If they knew the ugly history of scapegoating, it’s unlikely that many would vote for Trump. They would see through his cheap tactics of scapegoating to blame vulnerable minorities for systemic problems.
If they knew about the history of tariffs, it’s similarly difficult to understand why someone would vote for Trump. If he imposes the tariffs he promises, which he likely will do, the cost is passed on to the consumers, to the ones voting for him.
Also, if they had taken five minutes to learn about his tax plans and his plans to dismantle social safety nets (including the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare), not many would have voted for him. Why would they vote for someone who will cut taxes for the super-wealthy and increase it for the rest? Why would they vote for someone who will remove the few social safety nets they or someone they love depend on?
It takes just a few minutes to learn about this, although if they never learned the importance of gathering information before making important decisions, that may be why they didn’t do it.
Also very true. The apocalypse is already lived by many beings. It’s lived by the billions of non-human beings imprisoned and living in horrible suffering so we can make clothes out of them, eat them, or do something else to them for our own benefit. It’s lived by the billions living in poverty, hunger, and with treatable illnesses. It’s lived by those severely impacted by our ecological crisis, which is often the already poor. It’s lived by the ecosystems unraveling because of human activity.
This is likely not from Ram Dass but it’s certainly a good pointer.
The pasty white guy rolling his eyes, representing colonialism and the descendants of colonialists still benefiting from the original theft of land and natural resources.
The Indigenous using the power of their tradition to stand up for themselves and what’s important to them.
Theunimaginable horrors inflicted on the indigenous around the world, mainly by white Europeans, and the immense suffering that came from it. The theft, lies, rape, destruction of nature, and much more.
Colonialism is still going on, often through multinational corporations with the support of governments and the neo-liberal ideology, and the descendants of colonialists holding onto their privilege.
DOMINATION AND PARTNERSHIP CULTURES
Before the agricultural revolution, we were all indigenous. We lived in small egalitarian groups and from what nature provided. The global ecological crisis we find ourselves in today is an outcome of the agricultural revolution, including the worldview and mindset that came with it.
This is a worldview of separation and domination, imagined, promoted, and developed to justify the new gap between the wealthy and the rest, and the domination inherent in agriculture, husbandry, and having people working for you.
All cultures, worldviews, and mindsets have a mix of partnership and domination orientations. That said, and in general, agricultural cultures are on the domination side. Indigenous cultures are on the partnership side, although the ones with agriculture tend to a little in the direction of domination. Empires tend to be further over on the domination side. (We see that in the US today.) And some modern agricultural cultures, like the Nordic countries, tend to be a little more over on the partnership side.
The agricultural worldview of separation and domination, combined with our explosion in numbers and technology, has created the global ecological crisis we now find ourselves in.
THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
That’s one of many reasons it’s important with Indigenous rights.
They are human as anyone else and deserve it.
They have been marginalized, suppressed, killed, and more for centuries. It’s time to right that wrong, as much as is possible.
They were here first. They were first everywhere.
They are often far down on the list of marginalized groups to be included and given a voice in society. To me, it seems they are often prioritized near the bottom.
They have insights, knowledge, and perspectives crucial for us today. They are medicine for many of the problems inherent in the Western culture, which is now – to a large extent – a global culture.
WHY ARE THEY STILL MARGINALIZED?
Why are the Indigenous still marginalized?
There are many answers.
In most places, the Indigenous are not as many as the colonizers and other immigrants.
They have fewer resources because their land was stolen from them, their culture was suppressed, they have experienced centuries of racism, and they live with intergenerational trauma.
Acknowledging their rights brings up profound questions of reparation, returning tribal lands, the dark history of colonization, the continued privilege of the descendants of the initial colonies, and more.
Giving the Indigenous a real voice in society will shed light on the colonizer culture and its brutality, shortcomings, and ecocidal and suicidal characteristics.
Almost all historically marginalized groups are still marginalized. The system – the social system, the culture, and the mind – has inertia. Even the ones that portions of society actively strive to include are still marginalized in many ways.
THE VALUE IN THE INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES
I am not indigenous so I can’t speak with any authority on any of this. Even if I was, I could only speak about my own culture since Indigenous cultures are diverse. So I am sure much of this is missing the mark. But I can guess, and I can also make some guesses about the value in the indigenous perspectives.
They may reflect pre-agricultural views, so they serve as a correction to the post-agricultural worldviews most of us in the world today are familiar with and have internalized.
They often come from more of a partnership orientation – to others, ourselves, nature – instead of a domination orientation. This is what we need to find solutions to our challenges today.
They often see the sacred in everyone and everything. The sacred is here, not out there in the heaven, or the afterlife, or a sky-god.
They often have reverence for nature and the gifts of nature.
They look at wholes as much as the parts, while our Western culture traditionally has focused more on parts and has operated from a fragmented understanding and view.
They know we are nature. We are nature taking these local and temporary forms. What happens with the web of life happens to us.
They may have more of a big picture and deep time perspective. Some may think over generations and at ecosystem and global levels. This is in contrast to the typical small picture and short-term thinking of Western civilization including businesses, politicians, and most organizations.
They have experience with decolonizing the mind and seeing through the ideologies of domination cultures. That’s valuable for all of us doing the same.
These are just some of the ways Indigenous perspectives can be medicine for our Western and now largely global worldview.
The US society has allowed open xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and general bigotry. They have allowed systematic scapegoating, disinformation, and lies. They have allowed open authoritarianism and fascist tendencies. They have allowed all of this in Trump and his followers. They have done very little to stop it.
The media has given Trump the spotlight. The courts have allowed him to get away with just about everything. The law either allows it or is not implemented.
They have allowed all of this to happen for years, to the point where he now will be president again, this time with more experience, a clear plan (Project 2025), and people ready to take crucial positions.
The US tolerance of intolerance has allowed someone who admires Hitler to become president. It has set the stage for authoritarianism to erode and destroy tolerance if Trump gets his way.
If applied too broadly, tolerance destroys itself, as Karl Popper pointed out decades ago.
TOLERANCE OF INTOLERANCE IN OURSELVES
This also applies to my inner society, to how we relate to the different parts of myself.
If I indulge in the different parts of me, it harms my life and my psyche. I am at the whim of any and all parts of me that happen to be activated.
It’s better to relate to the different parts of me with some discernment and avoid indulging in them if they can harm me or my life.
For instance, a part of me tells me something clearly not true. I recognize it’s not true. I know where it comes from. (E.g. childhood experiences, family patterns.) I tell myself what’s genuinely as or more true.
A part of me is deeply sad and has stories to go with it. I allow the sadness and stories. I notice the stories are not true, where they come from, and what’s more true for me. I notice that this is a part of me and far from all of what I am. I notice it’s happening within and as the consciousness I am.
A part of me is strongly reactive. I recognize the signs. I step back. I remove myself from the triggering situation, if possible. I may tell someone what’s going on, to have a witness besides myself. (Helps with accountability.) I allow it to relax and subside. If appropriate, I can then act from a more calm place.
A part of me wants to blame someone or make them into a baddie or a scapegoat. I notice the signs. I notice the fear in me behind it. I take a breath. I find how I am responsible in the situation, if I am directly involved. I find in myself what I see in the other. What story do I have about the person? What do I find when I turn that story to myself? Can I find genuine and specific examples of how I do the same? Maybe even in this situation?
Of course, it’s not always that easy, but it’s a helpful guideline, intention, and ongoing exploration.
After Trump was elected last week, I have seen people discussing how this fits into a larger trend and says something about the future.
Some think we are headed into an age of sustainability, inclusivity, and progressive values, and Trump is part of the backlash from a dying and losing mindset.
Some think Trump is a sign of the erosion and dying of democracies, and that the age of democracies was a brief blip in history.
Some think we’ll continue much as before with the usual cycles between right and left.
Some see it as part of a divergence in the US and the world, with some states and countries moving in a progressive direction and some in a more authoritarian and regressive direction. That’s how the world has been for a long time, and it may be even more so with the internet’s echo chambers.
It’s interesting and perhaps even helpful to explore and be aware of these different scenarios. And that’s what they are. They are imaginations about the future, nothing else. They may be more or less rooted in studies, analysis, historical patterns, and so on, and they are still imaginations.
They are not the future. We can’t know anything for certain about the future.
We may invest energy into one of these scenarios and fuel our hopes or fears that way, and that’s a way to find an illusion of safety. We tell ourselves we know how it’s going to be, and that may seem more comfortable than acknowledging that we cannot know.
In my experience, it’s far more comfortable to (a) recognize these scenarios as imaginations, (b) acknowledge that I cannot know, and (c) stay receptive and curious.
What I know is that I can imagine the world I want to live in and live that in my own life.
I am doing it in my own very small way with the food forest and the regeneration and reforestation project, building with local materials and traditional methods, exploring and living from more life-centered worldviews, and so on. And there is always further to go.
It’s always about what I can do and what I am living here and now.
Historian Alan Lichtman has used his 13 Keys to the White House to correctly predict the presidential election for forty years, until now. His model predicted Harris, and Trump won.
He will release a video later today with his thoughts about why the model got it wrong this time.
I thought I would explore it here too.
A MAP IS A MAP
First, a map is a map. It’s a simplification of some of the immensely (infinitely) complex dynamics of the world.
Any model will be wrong at some point. Reality will always show up differently from our ideas about it.
It can be quite accurate and work most of the time, and sometimes, it won’t.
That’s inherent in any model and map.
INPUT CRITERIA & PERCEPTION
Another side of this is that Lichtman’s model requires input, and different people will use different kinds of input.
For instance, when he talked about the keys for this election, I was wondering about the economy key.
In Lichtman’s mind, the US economy is good which favors the incumbent party (Democrats and Harris).
To me, it didn’t seem quite that straightforward. Yes, the US economy is solid when you use the economic indicators that economists often use, but that’s not the whole picture.
People’s experience is different, and especially so for those with low income. They experience that their cost of living has gone up while their income has largely stayed the same. They are in an economic squeeze and to them, the economy is not going well.
To them, that key favors Trump. They want a change.
Of course, the increased cost of living has little to nothing to do with Biden and the Democrats. It’s been going up in the whole world through a complex set of factors involving the recent pandemic, the war in Ukraine, shipping troubles, and more. But that doesn’t change the perception of many, especially those who may not be aware of the global situation.
DISINFORMATION
Another side of the perception question is the massive disinformation campaign from Trump, many Republicans, the right-wing media in the US, and large parts of social media.
Looking from a dispassionate perspective, we may see it one way. Experts, historians, economists, social scientists, and so on may largely agree that the key goes in one direction.
And those who consume the disinformation may have a completely different perspective. They live in a different world. For them, the key goes in the opposite direction.
INPUT PROBLEM
If this is why his model didn’t get it right this time, it may be an input problem more than a problem with the model itself.
It may well be that the model is still largely accurate, it’s just that Licthman was a bit out of touch when he decided on the keys for this election.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 7
It’s now Thursday and Alan Lichtman did a live stream on why the model didn’t predict the correct winner of the presidential election. He points to several factors:
The Democrats publicly trashed Biden during the election campaign, tainting Harris. (I agree that it seemed obviously unwise and misguided to do it in public, although am not sure if it impacted the result that much.)
More to the point, there has been a massive disinformation campaign from Trump, Republicans in general, right-wing media, and on social media. (Lichtman didn’t mention social media, although quite a few people only get their info there.)
People live in different worlds these days. In the recent past, most people got their info from the same sources. With the internet and social media, it’s not like that anymore.
Trump and his supporters tap into and make use of xenophobia, misogyny, and racism, and that unfortunately resonates with a lot of people in the US.
As Lichtman said, the model assumes that the voters are largely rational and pragmatic, and that’s not always the case, perhaps especially in this election.
Most economic indicators are very strong, and yet many people saw the US economy as a disaster. The increased cost of living is worldwide and came out of a complex set of factors (the pandemic, the Ukraine war, and global shipping problems), and many in the US blamed Biden for it. Undocumented immigrants is the most law-abiding segment of the US population (for good reasons), and many see them as vicious criminals and killers.
There is a major point that he downplays, and that is the increased cost of living. When he filled in his model for this election, he saw the economy as strong (since most economic indicators are strongly favorable). I think many voters saw it differently because of the increased cost of living.
Another side of this is an oddity in the election result. Harris received 13 million fewer votes than Biden in the previous election, which is a 19% decrease in votes. Trump did about the same as in that election. Why did Harris receive so many fever votes?
The Democrats had a large turnout in the mid-term elections and other elections up to this one, which is typically a pretty good indicator for the coming presidential election. Democrats had several big incentives to vote. (Trump’s support of the January 6 insurrection, Trump being a convicted felon and rapist, Trump setting the stage for continued and further abortion restrictions and bans, and Trump saying explicitly he wants to erode democracy. Also, nothing obvious happened between the mid-term elections and the presidential election to explain this massive reduction in votes.
Also, in some states, a clear majority voted against abortion bans and also voted for Trump who is the reason why they have to vote on abortion bans.
I would think that one reason some who would not vote for Trump also did not vote for Harris was her unwavering support for Israel, their systematic decades-long violations of human rights, and their horrific year-long genocide in Gaza. I would find it difficult to vote for her for that reason, and I agree with Anton Treuer’s simple and clear analysis here. It’s not the whole picture, but it seems an important piece of the answer.
To me, it’s an example of the empire striking back.
People who have internalized the mindset of dominationand power-over voted for him and want that culture strengthened, even if it doesn’t seem to be in their interest.
A CULTURE OF DOMINATION
They seem to want a culture of domination and all that comes with it: A zero-sum mindset. Xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and bigotry. Continued destruction of nature. Continued marginalization of the already marginalized.
Why? Because they identify with the values of empire, with the mindset of separation, domination, and power-over.
They know what they are doing. They know what he wants to do. He has said it very clearly. They know he wants to consolidate power, be a dictator from day one, replace civil servants with loyalists, persecute his political opponents, use the military against his own citizens, and in general undermine and attack democratic institutions and principles.
They know he adores Hitler and read Hitler’s speeches to his ex-wife as bedtime stories. They know that the ones who worked most closely with him, including conservative generals, say he ticks all the boxes of fascism. (If they don’t, it’s because of willful ignorance since the info is easily available.)
They may not agree with everything he says or does, or with everything in Project 2025, but they are certainly OK with it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have voted for him.
THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
It’s easy to think that this domination mindset has always been here. It’s just part of human life.
In reality, it very likely came with the agricultural revolution.
Before, we were all indigenous. We lived in more egalitarian groups, although obviously with leaders and the higher status of elders with wisdom and practical experience. We saw ourselves as part of the web of life. We saw the sacred in everyone and everything.
With agriculture came the accumulation of wealth, domestication of land, plants, and animals, and social and economic inequality.
How could the wealthy justify this new social order? Why was it OK for them to accumulate while others went without?
To justify this, they created the mindset of empire: We are separate from nature. Nature is here for our use. Nature is infinite. We are better and more important than the rest of what’s living. The sacred is out there in the sky and in a sky god. There is a social hierarchy which is good and divinely prescribed. You will reap your reward in the afterlife. (So don’t bother trying to change anything now.) If you don’t behave, you’ll go to hell. It’s good and honorable to respect those higher up in the hierarchy and uphold the hierarchy itself. If you (pretend to) believe something weird others tell you, and you can’t check out for yourself, you’ll be saved. Thoughts can tell us a final, full, and absolute truth. If one thought is true, alternative ones are wrong. In most polarities, one end is good and the other is less good, bad, or evil. (Men vs women, mind vs body, humans vs non-humans, humans vs nature, our religion vs other religions, European vs non-European, civilization vs savagery, good and bad emotions, and so on.)
Don’t question or challenge any of this, or live alternatives. If you do, you will go to hell, you’ll be ignored, ostracised, ridiculed, marginalized, put in prison, or something else unpleasant.
I imagine that this mindset seemed strange at first and an underhanded way to justify social inequality. It likely came gradually and stepwise, and the specifics have changed over time, although the essence is to justify domination and a few living in luxury while others lived in poverty.
Over time, this mindset became the new normal. New generations grew up with it, internalized it, and most didn’t question it or realize that other worldviews are possible.
TRUMP AND THE MINDSET OF EMPIRE
It was so successful that we now have Trump, and half of the US population wants him to run their country.
The irony is that the alternative, Harris and the Democrats, is also an expression of empire, it’s just a gentler and more compassionate expression of empire. It’s empire with softer edges. (Unless you look at their support for Israel’s decades-long violation of human rights and year-long genocide in Gaza. They seem happy to do their domination abroad.)
It seems that was not enough for many people. They want the more extreme version of it. They want to live in a culture of even stronger domination and marginalization.
DOMINATION AND TRAUMA
Trauma is an important part of this.
A culture and family that operates largely on domination is traumatizing for its citizens and children, and this collective trauma is passed on through the generations.
Hurt people hurt people. If we are hurt, a common way to respond to that hurt is to continue to hurt ourselves and to also hurt others. That’s one way the domination culture continues.
Trump’s behavior is trauma behavior. Bigotry, anger, defensiveness, scapegoating, lies, and so on are all classic, and somewhat extreme, examples of trauma behavior. It’s one of the ways we deal with our own hurt and pain.
I suspect the same is the case for many of those who support and vote for him. Much of that too looks like trauma behavior.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
Of course, we don’t know what will happen in the next four years.
We don’t know if or to what degree the US democratic institutions will be able to resist and stay intact.
We don’t know what the consequences will be for what little nature is left.
We don’t know how much suffering women and minorities will have to endure.
We don’t know to what extent far-right bigots around the world will be emboldened by Trump and what they see in the US.
We don’t know how far his MAGA followers in the US will take it in terms of intimidation and even violence against minorities and political opponents.
We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.
We also know very well what he wants to do, and some of the things he can do relatively quickly and easily. He clearly wants to deepen our already massive global ecological crisis and hasten a possible end to civilization. (That’s not hyperbole. It’s inevitable with his policies. We are already using far more natural resources than planet Earth can replenish.)
Whatever he does – with the support of Congress and the Supreme Court – can and likely will take decades to correct.
PEOPLE VOTING AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS
To me, there are many ironies in this situation.
One is the many people who seem to vote against their own interests. Why do they vote for someone who has promised to make their lives worse?
For instance, why do Latinos and Hispanics vote for someone who is publicly racist, bigoted, and has nothing but disdain for them? One answer is that they are conservative because of Catholicism, and they mistakenly see him as conservative. Some may want to join the ranks of the oppressor since it seems safer, and they think that voting for Trump and joining the Republicans will do that. Some may assume that when he disparages Latinos, he means the others, not them. Some may think that when he talks about deporting immigrants, he doesn’t mean it (he does) or it will impact others and not them (how do you know?).
Why do some Christians support him? He is clearly not a Christian. In his life, he is the polar opposite of the example set by Jesus in the New Testament. His policies of cruelty are the most un-Christian imaginable. The answer is likely that some brands of conservative Christianity, especially in the US, represent a very distorted form of Christianity, one that’s far from the original principles laid out by Jesus.
Why do women vote for someone who is a misogynist and rapist and wants to allow states to ban abortion? (Likely because they buy into patriarchy, other things matter more, or they think abortion is something others will need and not them.)
Why do minorities and vulnerable groups vote for Trump when they know his presidency will embolden bigots worldwide? Why do women support Trump when they know his presidency will cause an upsurge in misogyny and misogynist behavior that may even impact them directly? Why do ethnic minorities, like Latinos, vote for a racist who will invite openly racist behavior among many, when they may be the target of it? (A large percentage of Latinos voted for Trump, while few Blacks did – likely because they know what may and will happen based on their history.)
Why do workers vote for someone who wants to do away with unions? (Likely because they think he is anti-elite, while he really is in it for himself and his rich buddies.)
Why do working and middle-class people vote for someone who wants to cut taxes for the super-rich and increase taxes for everyone else? Why do they vote for someone who wants to impose tarrifs when it’s the ordinary people that will have to pay for it? (Likely because they are unaware of it, or other things matter more for them.)
Why do people who depend on the Affordable Care Act (ACA, PPACA, ObamaCare) vote for someone who wants to do away with it? (Likely because they don’t realize what will happen and the impact it will have on their lives.)
Why do people who depend on the (already imperfect) social safety net in the US, or who may depend on it in the future, vote for someone who wants to erode and – if he can – remove it? (Do they think this too is about others, not them?)
Why do people who want to shake things up and try something different choose an openly fascist felon, rapist, and con man like Trump? He is very unlikely to give them what they want, and far more likely to give them what they don’t want. From history, we know what authoritarianism and fascism lead to, and he is a textbook authoritarian and fascist.
Why would anyone vote for someone who wants to expand our collective ecological footprint when it’s already larger than this planet? Our planet cannot replenish natural resources at the rate we use them. We are living on a savings account that’s rapidly going down. This is ecocidal and suicidal.
BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO OTHERS, NOT ME
The ones supporting Trump know he wants to do terrible things to several groups in society, including migrants, women, LGBT+ people, and his political critics and opponents.
They must be OK with it.
Why? Perhaps because of dehumanization. They don’t see these people as real people. They don’t see them as deserving to be treated humanely and with respect and understanding.
Equally important, they likely think that bad things will happen to other people, not themselves.
History tells us a different story.
PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE
The “bad things will happen to others” attitude has another aspect, and that’s privilege.
White people think the bad will happen to non-whites. Christians think the bad things will happen to the non-Christians. Born citizens think bad things will happen (only) to immigrants. Men think the bad things will happen to women. Republicans (including Latinos etc.) think the bad things will happen to non-Republicans.
They all feel protected by privilege. They are protected because they belong to a privileged group.
That’s not how this works.
THOSE WHO GET INTO HIS ORBIT
I am also surprised by those who willingly join his orbit. (Elon Musk is one of them.)
Have they not seen what tends to happen to those who do?
Do they think this too will happen to others and not them?
BLAME & SCAPEGOATING
The first chapter in the authoritarian playbook is blame and scapegoating, which Trump masters.
When things inevitably go haywire during his presidency, he will continue to blame and scapegoate. It’s not his actions and policies that are the problem, it’s all the other people.
Many of his followers will do this as well. When things get worse for them during his presidency – prices go up because of tariffs, they lose social safety nets, public programs they depend on are cut, people they know are deported, they find themselves in a more harsh and unforgiving society – they will overlook that this is the predictable and predicted outcome of Trump’s policies and instead continue to blame the same groups.
THE US HISTORY OF OVERTHROWING DEMOCRACIES
Another irony is that the US has a history of undermining and overthrowing democracies and installing far-right dictatorships. They have done so across the world for decades.
Now, they are installing someone as president who (a) openly admires dictators, (b) explicitly says he wants to create a dictatorship and be a dictator, and (c) has a plan (project 2025) and people in place to do exactly that.
Again, we don’t know exactly what will happen and how it will unfold. There are institutions and people who will resist. But we know that’s what he wants.
THE LARGER TRENDS
It’s always tempting to look at how these events fit into larger trends, although it’s by necessity speculation.
Some think the world is moving in a more progressive direction, focused on sustainability, inclusivity, and so on. Trump and his followers represent a backlash from the dying mindset of empire. I would like that to be true. The history of the West, at least, has been a slow movement of widening circles of inclusivity and who we see as “us”. It’s a projection into the future and it’s easy to see it as wishful thinking.
Some see liberal democracies as a historical aberration. They are a recent innovation, had their peak for a few decades after WW2, and are now on the decline in the world. Maybe we won’t see that many healthy liberal democracies in the future, and Trump and his movement are a part of the overall decline of democracies.
It’s also possible that this election is just part of the usual fluctuations between progressive and regressive tendencies, and it will be a blip in the larger history of a flawed democracy. It won’t be as bad as some think, or as good as his followers assume. (Personally, I think it will be pretty bad and it will take decades to undo and correct.)
If I were to guess, I imagine we’ll see a continued divergence in the US and the world. Some countries, states, and regions will move in a more partnership-oriented direction, and others will move in a more domination-oriented direction.
THE OVERARCHING ISSUE: GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT
One thing we know for certain is that we are in a massive global ecological crisis.
We are in a global ecological overshoot where we use far more resources than Earth can generate. That can’t last, and it will get much worse before it gets better if it gets better while we are around.
This is the context for our civilization today and it’s by far the most important issue, although it seems quite far down on the list of priorities for most people. (Understandably so since most people have enough with daily tasks and challenges and surviving.)
Will we find the collective will to make the necessary and thorough changes to all the systems of our civilization? How many will die before this happens? Will we be able to correctly identify the problem? Will we be able to focus on and implement the solutions, many of which we already have?
How will we deal with the consequences of the breakdown of our local, regional, and global ecosystems? The inevitable mass migrations? The loss of infrastructure? The food shortages? The lack of clean drinking water? Not having enough resources to repair and fix all the damage? Will large parts of humanity decent into infighting instead of focusing on the real solutions?
Will we see a world where some regions and countries take this seriously and do most of the heavy lifting, while other parts of the world continue much as before?
If we don’t find the collective will in time, there is only one outcome and that’s the unraveling of our civilization and huge loss of human life. (Along with an even more enormous loss of individuals of other species, and whole species.)
WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE US?
It’s tempting to look at what may happen with the US in the coming decades, although that too is obvisouly speculation.
One thing that may happen is a shift from federal to state control and power. That’s what the Republicans want, and I imagine many in the more liberal states may eventually want it as well to avoid laws and regulations dictated by votes of conservatives in other states.
It will also indirectly reduce the problem with the electoral college which may be difficult to impossible to correct in itself.
In that case, we’ll see largely conservative states move further in a conservative direction, and liberal states move further in a liberal direction. We’ll also likely see more people moving to the states where they feel more at home.
It will also be a large scale experiment. We’ll get to see the effects of the different policies. Of course, the world is already that experiment. It doesn’t seem that countries often look to other countries for good solutions. (If they did, and they looked at what actually works in terms of the well being of the citizens, most would want to adopt a model similar to the Nordic countries.)
Several years ago, I started on a fiction story set a few decades in the future on the US West Coast. It’s set in that type of system where the states and local government decides most things, many states and regions have moved further in a conservative direction, and the West Coast has moved further in a progressive and sustainable direction.
I don’t know how that kind of process would unfold. What I know is that if it happens, it will come with its own drawbacks, many of which it’s difficult for us to foresee.
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD
Whether this is the first day of the Apocalypse or the first day of the Golden Age, the work remains the same…to love each other and ease as much suffering as possible. – often attributed to Ram Dass
No matter what happens, we know what to do. As Joanna Macy says, there are (a) stopping actions to reduce the harm, (b) engaging in developing and living from more life-centered and partnership-oriented worldviews, and (c) developing and living practical solutions.
CONSERVATIVE PARTNERSHIP MINDSET
I know it’s unfair to real conservatives to call Trump a conservative. Other labels would be more fitting, like populist, nationalist, authoritarian, oligarch, fascist, reactionary, demagogue, or isolationist.
It’s also unfair to assume that a progressive orientation is always a partnership orientation, or that conservatism means domination.
There is always elements of both domination and partnership in all movements, cultures, and subcultures. It’s not possible to have just one.
It’s not difficult to find examples of domination elements in progressive politics. Sometimes, they are necessary since we live in that kind of system. Other times, they are excessive, misguided, and alienating.
It’s also easy to imagine conservatism with a partnership mindset. A conservative orientation can very well come with a genuine care of nature and creation, a genuine wish for deep democracy, a genuine desire to take care of those least fortunate in society, and so on.
I love that kind of conservatism. It may not be exactly how I see it in every way, but I love it and feel aligned with it.
WHAT I CAN DO
I lived in the US for about two decades, love the nature and the progressive subculture, and still feel quite connected, also because many of my friends are there. That’s why I still have some emotional investment in what’s happening in the US. Right now, immediately after this election, I make myself sad and angry over what I see happening there.
So what can I do?
I remind myself that about half of the people in the US didn’t want Trump. Many feel the way I feel now.
A lot of good things are happening in the world. Many people worldwide are working for a more inclusive and sustainable society. Many are developing and living the solutions.
In the bigger picture, it’s likely a blip. (Unless something catastrophic happens, but something catastrophic can happen anyway.) In five years, it may well belong to the past and the US is onto something quite different.
I am grateful for my friends and communities who tend to have more of a partnership orientation, and maybe especially the permaculture community these days.
I spend time in nature and work in the food forest. It’s nourishing and feels good.
I did tonglen yesterday – with Trump, his followers, and myself. I will do it again today and plan to continue. It feels good and softens a sense of I and Other.
I keep exploring projections, including Trump in myself. What stories do I have about him and his followers? What do I find when I turn those stories to myself? Can I find specific and genuine examples of doing the same? (Including right now, in how I see them?)
I use the natural stress-releasing processes of the body to release tension and find more resilience. (Tension and Trauma Release Exercises / TRE.)
I notice how the consciousness I am forms itself into my experience of all of it – this human self, Trump, the US, this world.
I remind myself that we are local and temporary expressions of the unfolding dynamics of the universe and this living planet. All f this is existence – the universe, this planet, consciousness – expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
I will be even more conscious of my news diet. I also read rather than watch, which makes it easier.
I will speak up about and live what I want to see more of in the world.
I keep living my life. My daily life consists of the same as before. Life goes on.
I remind myself that this too will pass. Authoritarian leaders are a natural outcome of the civilization we have (domination mindset), and they come and go.
Yes, the ones speaking up on behalf of nature and future generations do it for all of us.
We are nature. We are temporary and local expressions of the living systems of this planet and depend on the health of these systems. It’s not a luxury, it’s the foundation for our life.
Systems naturally want to stay stable, and so also our social systems. That’s why the ones speaking up are often met with indifference, ridicule, or resistance. And yet, the ones speaking up and working on behalf of nature do it for all of us, for all of humanity and life.
So far, we are collectively doing very little about our ecological crisis, and the election in the US yesterday shows that a large portion of the population is happy to continue and even double down on the destruction of nature.
That’s why it’s even more important to remind ourselves that when we do something that’s life-centered, we are doing it on behalf of life. (Whether it’s voting for more life-centered policies, buying local and organic food, eating low on the food chain, choosing to repair instead of buying new, working to stop harmful actions, learning about and living alternatives to our system, or learning and living more life-centered worldviews.) We are doing it on behalf of future generations. We are doing it on behalf of nature, which includes ourselves. We are doing it on behalf of the voiceless.
Almost against my will, I find myself fascinated by why so many support Trump’s policies (and Project 2025), even if it will very likely hurt them1.
WE ARE NOT ALWAYS RATIONAL
Why do some support Trump and his policies even if it will likely hurt them?
The short answer is likely that these things are not completely, or even mostly, rational. Or it’s rational in a way I am not aware of or wouldn’t call rational.
I tend to investigate, learn, and think through these things, and support and vote for the one(s) who seem to have the best policies for society as a whole, for ecology, and for future generations. So I – unconsciously and viscerally – assume it must be like that for others too, even if I know it’s not always that way. It’s not always that way for me, in other areas of life.
Why did many in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s support Hitler even if they (somewhere in them) must have known that his ideology – based on misinformation, hatred, and division – would lead them into dictatorship and disaster? It was certainly not just for rational reasons, or for reasons that fit my kind of rationality.
A GUESS: IGNORED BY THE POLITICIANS AND THE “ELITE”
Why do some support Trump even if his policies will likely hurt them?
The main reason may be that many feel let downby politicians and the “elite”. They feel overlooked, ignored, and left to fend for themselves. They don’t have good social safety nets. Their income may be below the poverty line even if they work two jobs. They see a few others earning huge amounts of money. They may see their bosses earning tens or hundreds or more times as much as they do, and apparently do less for it. They are aware of the enormous and increasing gap in income and wealth between the few wealthy and the many poor.
They know that mainstream politicians have done little to help them. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have taken this seriously, prioritized it, and done much about it. They know that policies often follow the interests of Big Money and that politicians are in the pockets of corporations and the super-wealthy. (Of course, there are politicians who take this seriously, but it’s limited what they can do because of the system they function within.)
This is nothing new, of course. This inequality and ideologies to justify it came with the agricultural revolution. It’s inherent in our system. The most recent form is the neo-liberalism made popular in the 1980s (Reagan, Thatcher) and continued until now. I have seen statistics saying that the wealth inequality in the US these days is similar to France before the French Revolution, and although there are several ways to calculate these things, I wouldn’t be surprised. They had their revolution, and the US has Trump.
I completely agree and sympathize with the frustration that inevitably comes with this dramatic inequality. At the same time, I don’t understand how Trump can be the solution (if anything, he is this problem on steroids), but I understand the desperation, frustration, anger, and despair that can lead someone to support a candidate who seems different and outside of the mainstream.
This also points to a solution to the Trump and emerging fascism problem in the US: Create good social safety nets. Tax the super-wealthy and use the money for the benefit of everyone. Make higher education tax-sponsored and free to the students. Implement good universal healthcare. (Far less expensive than the current system.) Encourage strong unions. Take the concerns of the working class seriously. Of course, this is easier said than done. Strong forces oppose this, and many ordinary citizens have been brainwashed to reject these solutions.
MORE GUESSES
What are some more specific reasons? Why do some support Trump even if his policies may hurt them?
Some may be guided by misinformation. They assume his economic policies will be good for them, and don’t realize that tariffs are ultimately paid by ordinary people and that the tax cuts go to the already extremely wealthy, not to them (their taxes are likely to go up).
Some may be seduced by his cheap scapegoating of minority groups. Instead of going into a real analysis of the problem, Trump blames immigrants and foreigners for the problems in the US. (A classic leaf out of the fascist playbook.)
Some know that he has a dislike or hatred for their group – women, people of color, immigrants, LGBT+ – but other things take priority for them. They may be loyal to the Republican party. They may be misled to think his economic policies will be good for them. Maybe they think his policies targeting these groups won’t affect them.
Some may assume that much of his rhetoric is political theater. He says a lot of weird things, and he won’t actually do it. They ignore Project 2025 and that he has a system, people, and plan in place to do exactly what he says he will do.
He says he will use the military against US citizens, he will persecute his political enemies, he will be a dictator from day one, he will consolidate power in the presidency, he will undo the normal checks and balances of democracy, he will limit the freedom of the press, he will replace civil servants with loyalists, and so on, and he won’t actually do it, in their mind. (Or maybe they naively assume it won’t matter that much.)
Some may see him as a strong leader or successful businessman and the right person to lead the country and don’t care much about his specific policies. Of course, he is not a strong leader. He is far too volatile, irrational, and egocentric to be a good leader. He is also far too enamored with authoritarian leaders abroad to be able to stand up to them.
He is also clearly not a successful businessman. Would a successful businessman have time or interest in signing on to a TV show? (The Apprentice.) Would a successful businessman have six bankruptcies?
Would a capable businessman have such a huge string of past and current lawsuits against him? Would a good leader have so many people from his previous administration go against him in public, calling him dangerous, unhinged, and fascist?
A few extremely wealthy may benefit from his economic policies, at least in the short term. It comes with a huge cost to the rest of society, and especially several minority groups, and they don’t seem to care enough about that to not support him.
They also don’t seem to care that his policies will very likely be damaging to the US – and US economy – in the long run. He alienates former allies, he loves tarrifs, he doesn’t support research or higher education, he wants to undo the fabric of society that makes the US work as well as it does.
Some may be contrarians. Most media, experts, and well-educated liberal people see Trump as deranged, unhinged, and fascist, so they want to support him just to poke the liberal elite in the eye. They prioritize this over supporting someone who, by all normal criteria, actually is a fascist.
Some may see someone who mirrors their own pain and hatred. He hates women, people of color, LGBT+, immigrants, and so on, and they do too. They are happy that he seems to validate their own hatred and don’t care much about anything else. Some within these groups may have internalized this hatred, even if they are the target. Some may also see themselves as the exception: Yes, I am a woman, person of color, immigrant, LGBT+, but I am not like others in that group.
Said another way, some may resonate with his trauma behavior. Trump is a living ball of trauma behavior. They too have trauma and choose to deal with it through going into anger, bigotry, us vs them thinking, blame, scapegoating, and so on, so they resonate with it in him. He is one of them. They don’t care so much about the rest.
Some may not know enough about history to realize that this is exactly how democracy dies. Trump’s approach fits all the hallmarks of fascism, and the shift into a dictatorship has often looked just like the Trump movement looks now.
Some, about half of us, have a genetic predisposition for conservatism. Some of these may lean towards supporting any conservative candidate independent of specifics.
Some say they want change just of the sake of change. They don’t care so much what kind of change. To me, this seems profoundly misguided.
Some may think that anything is better than what they have now. To me, that’s a clear trauma response. They don’t realize what they have and how much worse it can get. They likely don’t know enough history to understand, or they assume it won’t be that bad or that they won’t be affected.
Some see him as the Great Disruptor that will usher in something new. Yes, he will. At least, he will try, although the changes may not be what you wish to see or experience. His dystopian world may not be as amazing as you think or lead to the changes you wish to see.
Some see their privilege fading, as white Christians in an increasingly more diverse society. They are so attached to being on top of the hierarchy that they cannot bear being just one group of many. This is so important to them that they don’t care if they lose democracy, if large groups of innocent people are made to suffer, if their economy worsens, and so on.
Some may have a zero-sum mindset. They assume, perhaps based on personal painful experience, that if you win, I lose, and for me to win, you must lose. Trump embodies that zero-sum mindset. They overlook that the world is full of examples of win-win solutions where we all benefit. (The social safety net in the Nordic countries is one of many examples.)
WHAT’S RATIONAL TO ME MAY NOT BE RATIONAL TO YOU
I have my own ideas of what’s rational, and these reflect my own background and biases.
To me, it’s rational to find solutions – and support policies – that seem good for society as a whole, for the living systems we are part of, and for future generations. I support democracy since, although it’s a flawed system, it’s the best we have. I seek win-win-win solutions since they are better for all of us. I support inclusivity since a more inclusive society is better for all of us.
What’s rational for someone else may be different. As mentioned above, they may operate on misinformation. They may prioritize one or a few things, and ignore or be OK with the rest that comes with it. For them, that’s rational.
THE WORLD IS MY MIRROR
The world is my mirror, also here.
I can take any one of the stories I have about Trump or his supporters, turn it to myself, and find genuine and specific examples of how it’s true. Most likely, I can even find it in the moment I have these thoughts about them. I do what I see in them, at this moment.
That’s humbling, and it’s also amazing, liberating, and enlivening. It helps me find more of my own richness. It helps me relate to these sides of me with a little more awareness. It helps me see myself in them and erode my imagination of me versus them.
This is an ongoing process. My fascination, which I started with in this article, is a clear sign that there is more for me to explore and discover here. The fascination is a sign that I see something in them I am not so aware of in myself yet.
Also, all of this is happening within and as what I am. The consciousness I am forms itself into all of it.
THE UPSIDE OF TRUMP
What are some upsides of Trump?
He highlights the frustration among many about the growing inequality coming from decades of neo-liberal policies. He highlights how the working class feels left behind.
He highlights the weirdness of the US political system where one candidate wins the popular vote, and the other becomes president. (Because of the arcane, outdated, and essentially meaningless electoral college.)
He mirrors what’s in all of us. He shows us our shadow. (Whether we consciously notice, embrace, and make use of it is another matter.)
A Trump presidency will fuel a lot of effort to create a more life-centered and kind society. Many of us will channel our frustration into this kind of work. (I know it’s that for me.) It will create even more of a sense of urgency.
Who knows what social dynamics will be set in motion from a Trump presidency? In a slightly larger historical picture, it’s a blip, and we may see it as a transition leading into something more life-centered. (The question is if we have time for this now, considering we are in the middle of a global ecological crisis.)
We will still live our daily lives. Life moves on. Whatever he represents and creates will not last. There have been many like him throughout history, and they are soon left in the dust of history after some years or decades.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
There is a bigger picture here too.
The Universe forms itself into this living planet and us, including our politics and social dynamics.
It’s all part of existence expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.
It seems that the exploration is the point, not any particular outcome.
From another angle, we can say that this is Spirit taking all of these forms. It’s Spirit expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in all of these ways.
It’s the play of existence. And just like a theater play, it’s the experience that’s the point.
NOTES
How may those voting for him be hurt by his policies? What are some examples of how they are voting against their interests? (a) Latinos may be deported or have friends or family deported, even if they are legally in the US. Trump will seek to find ways to remove the protection even of many who are in the US legally, so they can be deported. This, of course, goes for all immigrants. (b) Trump will find ways to erode the already weak social safety nets in the US. If you benefit from the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care), Medicaid, or similar, you may find you suddenly lost it. (c) In general, Trump’s aim is to funnel money to the already super wealthy and away from everyone else. If you are not super wealthy, you will likely find you are in a worse financial situation. (d) He is unhinged, and unhinged policies are generally not good for the society or economy. (e) Although he seemed war-averse during his first term, that may change. Trump 2.0 will likely be quite different from Trump 1.0. (f) If you live in the US, you’ll find that society becomes increasingly more polarized. That’s not good for anyone. (If you are bigoted, you may think so, but it’s not true.) (g) If you are a worker, expect your worker rights to be eroded. (h) If you have a child in school, or work in the public school system, expect the school system to be further weakened. (i) If you like democracy, or the ability to speak up without fear of the consequences, or free press, expect all of that to get worse. (j) Expect the US economy and position in the world to worsen over the coming years and decades through the gutting of science and education. (k) Expect the US position in the world in general to worsen, through Trump’s bullying and mafia tactics in terms of international relations. (l) Don’t expect much of a boost in terms of foreign students and visitors to the US. Most people around the world don’t like facism or countries that elect facist leaders.
These are just a few examples, and none of it is very difficult to predict. It comes naturally from his words, actions, and generally inclinations. It’s also a part of his playbook, Project 2025.
NOTE ON ELECTION DAY
It’s the morning of the election day in the US (November 5, 2024). The ones I follow predict (a) a clear win of the popular vote for Harris which doesn’t matter, and otherwise (b) a very close election that (c) can lead to a landslide in either direction because of the winner-takes-all system in the US, (d) and likely a very messy situation if Harris wins. How that messiness unfolds is anyone’s guess, although it will likely involve many legal cases, a politicized legal system, intimidation, possible violence, and so on.
Trump has, of course, set the stage by repeating that the previous election was stolen and that the only way he can lose this time is if they steal it again. This is another example of his habitual projections. He says that others are doing, or will do, what he is planning to do or are already doing.
I am also reminded that the US has a long history of undermining and overthrowing democracies and installing right-wing governments. Now, they may be doing it to themselves. I guess that’s a kind of karma. They are finally applying their habit to themselves.
UPDATE JULY 2025
It’s now July 5, 2025, and the “big bill” has been approved by congress. This bill is explicitly designed to fullen money to the already extremely wealthy (tax cuts for the rich) and cut programs that benefit everyone else, including the most poor.
There is nothing new here. This is what we knew Trump wanted to do, and what he had everything in place to do, long before the election. This is what Project 2025 is about.
Still, more than half of the voters in the US voted for him and these policies, and these changes that directly hurt most of them.
I haven’t written follow-ups to my 2024 posts about Trump because there isn’t much to say. What’s unfolding is what we knew would unfold, unless a miracle happened.
The ones who voted for him are hurt by his policies. It’s what we knew would happen.
Of course, we see that in many other areas of life. Daily, the vast majority of people vote for “business as usual” – with their lives, priorities, money, and in elections. They want us to go further into global ecological overshoot. They want the collapse of our civilization. That’s what they vote for through how they live.
They can’t say they didn’t know, because this information is widely available. They can’t say they thought someone else would take care of it, because that obviously isn’t happening. They can’t say they thought we had more time, because we are already in the middle of it.
From the moment Trump entered the presidential race in 2015, I have said that the most dangerous consequence is the erosion of democracy. That seems even more clear now when he is becoming more openly fascist and has a system, plan, and people ready if he is re-elected next week.
In Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, people largely took democracy for granted. This unhinged guy Hitler won’t actually do what he says he will do, it‘s just political theater. These days, many people in the US say the same about Trump. He is obviously bigoted and unhinged, but he is not actually going to do what he says he’ll do.
To me, that seems naive. He’ll most likely do, or try to do, exactly what he says he will do. He has a plan to follow (project 2025), he has people ready to enter crucial positions, and he is not going to repeat the same “mistake” he made when he first became president, which was to appoint people who didn’t back up his every whim and wish.
The erosion of democracyhistorically looks exactly like what we are seeing in the US today, and what we have seen over the last many years starting with the Tea Party, which paved the way for Trump and MAGA.
The undoing of democracy historically looks exactly like what we are seeing in the US today, and what we will see unfold if Trump is re-elected. Of course, there are institutions that will oppose it, but Trump has a plan in place to undo that opposition. He wants to consolidate power in the presidency and replace everyone in government, at all levels, who oppose him with loyal followers. That’s his explicit plan and there is no reason to doubt that he will do everything he can to implement it.
It may not happen for any number of reasons, but it’s important to take the situation as seriously as it deserves. Without a functioning democracy, it’s difficult to get anything done with the many changes the world asks of us today.
That’s a common observation, and it seems largely true.
THE WAYS IT’S TRUE
People who support fascism don’t see themselves as a villain. They see themselves as good people and good citizens. They see it as supporting and upholding tradition and what’s good about their country. They turn a blind eye to the horrors they know come with it because they think it won’t impact them.
In general, when we react to our trauma in ways that hurt others and ourselves, we also don’t see ourselves as a villain. We know we act on our own hurt. We know our own history and what led to it. We may distract ourselves from what we know – that we hurt others and ourselves because of our own hurt – through engaging in stories that apparently justify and rationalize it.
NOT COMPLETELY TRUE
Of course, it’s also not entirely true.
People who support fascism know the horrors that come with it. They know they support it, or at least are OK with it. They know how that looks, and that it fits the image of a villain.
When we act on our reaction to trauma and hurt others and ourselves, we know what we are doing. In spite of whatever we may tell ourselves about it, we know what’s happening. We know we fit the image of someone hurting others and ourselves, and we likely don’t like it. That may lead us to fuel the behavior and justifications, or it can make us pause and take a closer look.
We can also fully embrace the villain identity in two very different ways. We can embrace it in the sense of consciously identifying with it and living from and as it. (Happens in some cases of strong trauma.) We can also embrace it as one of many parts of us, and relate to it with more awareness and kindness. (Happens when we have a more healthy and mature orientation.)
MORE WAYS TO DISTRACT OURSELVES
There are often more dynamics going on here, including projections.
If we fit the image of a villain and know it and don’t want to see it, we may put it on others. We make others into the villain. That way, we can distract ourselves from seeing it in ourselves.
Someone is a villain – someone is a bad person doing bad things – and it’s that guy, not me.
More generally, everything I see in the world is also here in me. I can take any story I have about anyone or anything, turn it around to myself, and find specific and genuine examples of how it’s true. I can find it in myself.
THE UNITED STATES TODAY
We are one week from the US presidential election, which is why I am revisiting this familiar topic.
It’s playing itself out in one of the largest and most influential countries in the world.
People who see themselves as good people support and vote for a fascist. They support someone who is fascinated by and admires Hitler. Someone who read Hitler’s speeches to his former wife as bedtime stories. Someone who, among many other things, wants to persecute and prosecute his political enemies just because they oppose his policies. Someone who wants to use the military against people of his own country. Someone who wants to centralize power and do away with the basics of democracy.
Someone who has as a motto: Attack attack attack. Admit nothing, deny everything. Always claim victory.
Someone who is unashamedly sexist, racist, and bigoted and is using the old and tired (and unfortunately successful) strategy of scapegoating the already least fortunate in society.
They see it as upholding and protecting what’s good about their country. They turn a blind eye to the horrors that come with it. They do it because they think nothing bad will happen to them, only to others.
I am from a conservative family, and I am in many ways very conservative.
WHAT DOES CONSERVATIVE MEAN?
First, what does it mean to have a conservative orientation? What’s the essence of it?
For me, it’s to preserve what’s valuable, meaningful, and essential for us collectively.
How am I conservative in that essential meaning?
MY FORM OF CONSERVATISM
I can find many things I see as important to conserve, preserve, and protect.
I wholeheartedly support preserving cultures, especially marginalized and indigenous cultures. I want to see them alive and thriving.
I am all for preserving languages, especially small or indigenous languages.
I love traditional knowledge and wisdom, especially from indigenous cultures.
I am all for taking care of nature and our local, regional, and global ecosystems. We are nature, so taking care of nature is to take care of ourselves and future generations.
I love science. I love the methods of science. (Of course, I also know that the content of science is always up for revision and always changing. What’s mainstream science today is outdated tomorrow.)
I love history. I love how history changes when we change. I love the lessons that can be learned from history. (For instance, when the pandemic happened, I was not surprised it happened, or the measures put in place, or the conspiracy theories that flourished. I knew it was roughly time for the next one. I also know the history of medicine and epidemiology and what works when we have pandemics, so I was not surprised by the common-sense measures that most governments put in place. They are what history shows us works. And pandemics and other times of crisis tend to fuel conspiracy theories. That’s how some people deal with their fear.)
I support giving a voice to the voiceless – to future generations, nature, and non-human species. I support strong laws protecting these. I support appointing people to speak for them, and who have real power and are backed by the law. This may help them in the future, and it will certainly help us now by giving us a more sound guide than many of the ones we are currently using.
I want to preserve humanity and our civilization, which is why I support a profound transformation of all aspects of our civilization. Our current civilization is ecocidal and suicidal since it assumes nature is infinite. A sustainable civilization takes the limits of nature into account so what’s easy and attractive to do is also ecologically sound. This has to happen if we are to preserve humanity and our culture.
Even if I want a profound transformation of our civilization, I want it partly so we can preserve all the beautiful and wonderful things in our civilization. I don’t want it to be lost quite yet. I want more generations to be able to enjoy it.
I also want a transformation that comes from our collective will. A good portion of us need to be on board with it for it to happen.
TRANSFORMATION IS SOMETIMES REQUIRED FOR PRESERVATION
These days, with our global ecological crisis, transformation is essential for preservation.
We have a civilization that assumes nature is infinite and disregards ecological realities. That’s an ecocidal and suicidal civilization. To preserve humanity, culture, and life as we know it, we need a profound transformation of all aspects of our civilization. We need to create a more life-centered and ecologically sound civilization.
In this case, preserving what’s most important to us means we need a thorough transformation.
IN A MORE CONVENTIONAL SENSE
In a more conventional sense, and as how most people would label it, I am not very conservative.
I am liberal and progressive in my views on society. (I love Woke and see it as essential to creating a society that works better for everyone.) Green when it comes to politics. (I am a member of the Green Party in Norway). Radical in that I see a profound transformation of our civilization as necessary for our survival. And conservative in the essential ways described above.
All of it is true and more.
ALL IS PART OF ME
In terms of my conscious orientation, and in a conventional sense, I am not conservative.
At the same time, the world is my mirror and I have what I see in conservatives in myself.
Many views and orientations are conventionally labeled conservatism. Often, it has to do with preserving privilege – white privilege, male privilege, the privilege of mainstream culture, the privilege of money and status, and so on. To me, this is a less savory expression of conservatism.
Whatever it is, it’s something I can find in myself. Whatever story I have about conservatives in the world – Trump, Thatcher, Milei – I can turn it to myself and find specific and genuine examples of how it’s true, including in the moment I have these stories about someone else.
TOUNGE-IN-CHEEK?
The initial description of how I am conservative is slightly tongue-in-cheek, and it’s also not.
I am fully aware that the list I gave above goes counter to most forms of conservatism. If conservatism often is about preserving privilege, what I listed is far more oriented toward supporting the marginalized and voiceless. (I also love to redefine common words and labels so they go more to their essence and require a second or third look.)
At the same time, I do see it as aligned with the essence of real conservatism: preserving what’s most important to us.
And I know I have it all in me, all forms of conservatism and more.
The Trump movement is afascist movement. It fits most if not all of the hallmarks of historical fascism.
Even his former chief of staff, John Kelly, who knows him better than most, says he is a fascist, someone fascinated by, admiring of, and wanting to emulate Hitler.
Some say that Trump is the Great Disruptor, the one who will shake things up. If you are unhappy with some of the systemic problems in the world today, he offers an opportunity to change all that.
Compare that with reality: He scapegoats the weakest groups in society (immigrants), wants to cut taxes for the super-wealthy and put the burden on the rest, plans to persecute his political opponents, will increase the power of the president, wants to replace civil servants with loyalists, is itching to use the military against protesters, and so on. (See, for instance, If Trump Wins from the New York Times.)
To me, it seems incredibly naive to see him as someone who will bring about any kind of desired change. You would have to know very little about history to assume that.
We know what he wants to do, and few of us would enjoy living in the dystopian world he wants to create.
Yes, we need a profound transformation of our civilization. No, it will not happen because of Trump.
If anything, the mindset of Trump and his supporters is an example of what needs to go. They represent the mindset of colonialism, patriarchy, strict social hierarchies, sexism, racism, and so on. The white supremacist in him and the ones who support him is scared of the changes happening in the US now. They are scared of being in the minority, and they assume they will be treated as they historically have treated minorities. That seems to be the essence of the Trump movement and the Trump Republicans.
Of course, people support him for a range of reasons. Some are cynical and think they may personally benefit from his policies. Some want a strong leader, or at least someone who fits their distorted image of what strength is. Some want to find scapegoats. Some want to ban abortion and don’t care about the rest of him and his policies. I would assume many don’t know much about history. (Republicans generally try to reduce the quality of the educational system in the US, partly or mainly because they know that uneducated people are more likely to be seduced by their rhetoric.) Some want to disrupt the system and see him as the person to do that, without considering history and the likely outcome of his particular brand of disruption.
It’s unfortunately unsurprising that we see the rise of fascism in the US now. They never had real fascism on their soil, and the generations that saw how it unfolded in Europe and the horrors it brought are mostly gone now. Also, both parties in the US have largely failed the working class so they are turning to something different in desperation.
I see much of the support behind Trump as a trauma reaction. For many, it may come out of financial insecurity, lack of good social safety nets, and feeling let down by the “elite” – regular politicians and policymakers. I completely agree. Politicians in the US, whether Democrats or Republicans, are largely in the pocket of Big Money, and the policies are often aimed at lining the pockets of those who already have much at the expense of everyone else. Although Trump sells himself as something different, he is more of the same only to an even more extreme degree.
Some may feel let down by mainstream politicians in other ways, see Trump as the Great Disruptor, and hope something desirable will come out of his chaos. That too seems like a trauma reaction to me. It looks like someone hurt, and acting in extreme ways to deal with – and distract themselves from – that hurt.
Harris and the Democrats don’t have the real solutions to the challenges that face us today. They don’t want to deal with the profound systemic changes required for us to transition into a more ecologically sound civilization (a less ecocidal and suicidal one). But they are a step in that direction compared with Trump and the Republicans.
If Harris wins, it will not be the end of Trump and his supporters. They will do whatever they can to disrupt. Some of them even want some kind of civil war and may start waging it on their own, in whatever form that takes. Most likely violence against election officials, minorities, and political opponents.
There is another side to this, and that is finding all this in myself. How am I like Trump and his supporters? What stories do I have about them? What do I find when I turn these stories to myself? Can I find genuine and specific examples of how it’s true?
What happens when I do tonglen with Trump and his supporters, and with myself distressed by it?
Also, all of it is happening within and as the consciousness I am. To me, the consciousness I am forms itself into all of it.
Also, this living system we call Earth has formed itself into all of it – our civilization, Democrats, Republicans, and so on. These dynamics all happen within and as this living system. It’s a temporary and local expression of the dynamics of this living system. This doesn’t change what we need to do to try to steer society in a better direction, but it does provide a different context for understanding it.
UPDATE OCTOBER 29, 2024
It’s now a few days later, and I thought I would add this video that outlines reasons from a purely legal perspective to keep Trump out of office. This election is, as many point out, an election between maintaining or eroding the democracy in the US. (Which is, of course, already flawed and eroded.) It’s a simple choice.
I also see that Trump said, “I am not a Nazi“. This is a rare true statement from him. Nobody said he was a Nazi. He is not a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) in Germany in the 1920s-1945. He fits the characteristics of a fascist, which is a broader and more general term.
It’s tempting to make excuses for the people supporting Trump: They are bamboozled by his lies. They have watched too much Fox News. They don’t believe he will do what he says he will do. They think someone will stop him from engaging in the worst atrocities. They assume fascism and the end of democracy can’t happen in the US. They don’t realize that his words and actions fit closely the definition of fascist. They don’t know enough history to know what happens in countries that elect leaders that bring them into fascism. They are good people who support just a few of his policies. They are traumatized and choose a leader who feeds into their trauma
That may all be true, and those are also no excuses. If they wanted to know, they would know.
Also, they very likely know several things, even if they get their info from Fox News: They know how he scapegoats the already marginalized. They know that his policies will amplify the suffering of groups that already suffer immensely. They know he wants to remove fundamental rights from women. They know he will cut the taxes of the already super-wealthy at the cost of everyone else. They know he wants to erode democracy in innumerable ways. They know he wants to persecute his political opponents. They know he wants to use the military against US citizens. They know he mocks those in the military. They know that many of those who worked with him when he was president have distanced themselves from him and say he is dangerous, unhinged, and even a fascist.
The people who support him and vote for him support those policies or are OK with it, and that says a lot about them.
I’ll include this too about Trump’s fascist language, sometimes lifted directly from Mussolini and others.
One of the strategies of Trump, and fascists in general, is to use dehumanizing language. He thrives on creating out-groups and dehumanizing them so they can be scapegoats. He also uses dehumanizing language to describe his political opponents.
The question for me is: How do I do the same?
Am I doing it in my mind with Trump and his followers? Do I dehumanize them? Do I make them into caricatures in my mind?
Do I sometimes forget they are humans like me? With an equally rich inner life as me? With fears, hopes, dreams, hurts, wounds? Wanting to be free of suffering?
Do I sometimes forget they love and express kindness in other areas of life?
Yes, when I get caught up in my own scary stories about them, I temporarily do. I make them into caricatures. I dehumanize them.
And when I notice, I remind myself that these are real and full human beings with as rich inner life as me.
Their dehumanization and scapegoating is an expression of their pain and hurt. Hurt people hurt people.
That doesn’t make it any more acceptable, but it helps me understand them better and see them as humans first and foremost.
It also reminds me that they more essentially are consciousness, just like me. In their case, expressed through that particular body and psyche, with all its history, pain, and trauma.
We share collective trauma, just from living in this civilization. I can definitely relate to that.
We are all temporary and local expressions of this amazing living system we call planet Earth. We are the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the universe.
When I dehumanize them, I dehumanize the parts of me they mirror. I marginalize these parts of me. I deepen their hurt. Instead, I can notice and embrace these parts of me. I have hurt in me. I sometimes respond to that hurt by scapegoating and dehumanizing. How is it to notice? To meet it with kindness? How is it to notice and allow? To ask these parts of me what they want, and give it to them? (Acceptance, noticing, kindness, love, support.)
I lived in the US for about two decades, and love many sides of the US: nature, many of the people, the leading-edge culture, the ease of finding organic food, and so on. I would have become a citizen if Norway allowed dual citizenship. (They allowed it at exactly the moment I had left the US.)
Predictably, there are also things I find problematic about the US: historic and current interference in the internal affairs of other countries (including overthrowing democratically elected governments), terrible health-care system, poor social safety nets, bad public transportation, the influence of Big Money in politics, increasing political polarization, the number of people that seem to support an obvious con-man like Trump, and more.
Why is the US so polarized? Why is it so behind in some many areas compared to other industrialized countries?
It’s obviously a complex issue and I am no expert, but some things stand out.
A main reason for the polarization may be the winner-takes-all electoral system. This encourages a two-party system, and if you only have two parties, you set the stage for polarization. It’s not inevitable, but it can easily happen and get out of hand as we see today’s US political climate. (It’s made worse by the weird electoral college system, gerrymandering, and so on.)
According to Barbara Walter, who has studied what leads to civil wars, the US now has all the ingredients ready for a civil war. Not the old-fashioned one, but one where far-right groups target minorities, political opponents, and civil servants.
In a parliamentary system, as we have in Norway and most democratic countries, parties typically have to work together in a coalition, and the makeup of the coalition changes from time to time, so there is even more incentive to partner across party lines. Also, if you want to get things done, you sometimes need to work with parties outside of your coalition which encourages maintaining a good working relationship with all parties. You never know who your next partner on an issue or project is going to be.
The US has a long history of racism and white privilege. Those who identify as white are used to being top dog and now, with an increasingly diverse population, they have to share the stage with others. If you have a fragile sense of self-worth and you live in a culture of racism, that can feel threatening. As many point out, having a black president (Obama) may have frightened fragile whites into voting for a bigot and racist (Trump). (According to Barbara Walter, it’s typically the groups that fear losing historical privilege that start a civil war.)
Then there is the influence of Big Money in politics, the old media that thrives on sensationalism, drama, and polarization, and social media which is a hotbed of misinformation.
Finally, there is the internal cost of empire. Being an empire comes with a cost for the population, some that are tangible and with an easy-to-understand causality, and some that are less tangible although perhaps no less real.
The most tangible example may be that the US spends about $877 billion on its military. This is more than the next 10 countries combined, nearly 3 times more than China, and 12 times more than Russia. The US spending accounts for 39% of global military spending, with every American contributing about $2,600 per year, vastly outpacing spending on education, healthcare, and social programs.
I have followed Alan Licthman for some years now and I like his approach.
PATTERNS THAT CORRELATE WITH ELECTION OUTCOMES
He is looking at patterns that correlate with the outcome of presidential elections in the US, for instance, incumbency, midterm election outcomes, charisma (once-in-a-generation broad appeal charisma), long and short-term economy trends, foreign policy and military outcomes, and so on. Using these keys, he has correctly predicted the outcome of the US presidential elections since he started in the 1980s.
I like his system not only because it looks at patterns but also because it has a good track record. I like it because these descriptive and predictive systems say something important about society in general. They can identify the patterns that actually influence who people think should lead the country.
THE FASCINATION WITH PREDICTING THE OUTCOME
That’s far more important than predicting the outcome of an election.
The fascination with predicting the outcome of elections in the media seems a bit odd. Why not (a) encourage people to vote, and (b) just wait and see? We’ll know the outcome soon enough.
That said, the media relies on an audience, and the easiest way to draw in an audience is drama, so it’s in their interest to focus on predictions and the always-changing polls.
THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF MAPS
It’s important to keep in mind that Alan Licthman’s Keys to the White House is a map.
It may be quite accurate, informative, and useful, and it may be more accurate than other systems. Still, reality is always different from and more than any map. Given enough elections, his system will eventually get it wrong. That doesn’t mean that it’s not accurate and useful. It just means that it’s a map with the inherent limitations of all maps.
Also, situations can fall into a grey zone allowing room for interpretation so the experience and understanding of the one doing the scoring plays an important role.
HIS PREDICTION THIS TIME
The slightly goofy packaging aside, in the video above, Alan Licthman briefly goes through the thirteen keys and finds that Kamala Harris is in a good position to win the election this fall. As he often says, a lot has to go wrong for her to lose. The polls are about 50-50 while his system shows a win for Harris.
His prediction is not important because it’s important to predict. It’s important because it tests his system, and his system is important because it points to patterns in society, human behavior, and psychology.
A WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD
The Keys to the White House is an example of looking for patterns to understand the world and creating a scoring system based on it.
Others have done something similar. For instance, Johan Galtung looked at patterns preceding the fall of empires, and in the early 1980s predicted the imminent fall of the Soviet Union even if most historians and other experts saw it as very unlikely. One or two decades later, he predicted the fall of the US empire within a few decades, hastened by GW Bush. (It doesn’t mean the US will fall apart, just that its global reach and empire will eventually crumble and that it may happen sooner than many assume.)
NOTE
It’s now a few days later and Trump and Harris had their first – and only? – debate a couple of days ago. I didn’t watch it since I value my sanity (I don’t watch news or politics in video form in general), but I have read about it. As several points out, it’s a bit shocking that a fascist who systematically spreads and relies on lies is treated as equal to a far more serious and grounded politician. It’s even more shocking that so many still seem to support him. Of course, Harris is not the solution to the deeper problems in the US (including the polarizing two-party system) and the world, but she is less disastrous than Trump. Sometimes, disasters eventually lead to welcome changes but that’s not a reason to seek it out.
Yes, politics is about gaining power, not following scientists and research.
There is no lack of examples of where many politicians go one way while scientists and research show us a better way.
Why? It’s likely a range of different reasons or combination of reasons. Sometimes, it’s because of puritanical feelings, as the quote suggests. They know what will appeal to their likely voters. They are aligned with money interests that want something else. Most political systems reward immediate results and not long-term or big-picture projects and planning. In our system, there is not much in place to (a) encourage policies grounded in research, (b) encourage long-term and big-picture thinking, and (c) reward what actually gives results. The system is set up so effective or grounded policies are not necessarily rewarded with votes.
The problem is not with the politicians. It’s with the system, and it’s with the people voting for these politicians.
A FEW EXAMPLES AND LOW-HANGING FRUITS
What are some examples of politicians being out of tune with the science community and research?
The two examples in the quote are a good place to start.
Work. Innumerable studies have, for decades, shown that a four-day workweek helps people be more productive, reduces sick leave, improves well-being, and so on. People get as much done in four days as they do in five when they have a four-day workweek. The same with vacations and shorter shifts. So why do we not implement a shorter work week when research and real-life examples show us it’s effective?
Schools. The same goes for schools. Homework is shown to not be a very effective way to help students learn. Also, teenagers especially benefit from a later start on the school day. It’s more aligned with their biological rhythms which helps them learn more effectively and improves well-being.
Drug policies I. Innumerable studies have for decades mapped out the dangers of different drugs. Marijuana is among the least dangerous and least addictive drugs, while, for instance, alcohol is both dangerous (people injure themselves and others when intoxicated) and highly addictive. So why is alcohol still allowed in most countries while the far less dangerous marijuana is not? (Several states in the US have followed the research and decriminalized marijuana.)
Drug policies II: Research and real-life examples show that harm-reduction strategies, like needle exchange programs and supervised injection sites, reduce crime while not increasing drug use. Why isn’t there widespread use of safe zones for drug addicts – or even decriminalization of most or all drugs – so it can be better regulated and addicts can receive better help?
Drug policies III: Research and real-life examples show that some drugs are effective for therapeutic use. For instance, patients who cannot be helped with pharmaceuticals or therapy show a significant improvement from using some of these in a supervised and therapeutic setting. So why are they not more universally decriminalized for therapeutic use?
Health-care. Almost all developed countries have universal healthcare and decades of experience show it has innumerable benefits, including reduced spending. Why does one country – the US – not have it yet? Likely because the current system is hugely inefficient, and that inefficiency lines the pockets of health insurance companies, private hospitals, and others.
Criminal justice. Research and real-life examples show that focusing on rehabilitation is more effective and less expensive than a punitive approach with longer prison sentences. Again, to take the US as an example: Why are so many in prison there compared to other developed countries? Why do some receive long prison sentences for relatively minor infractions? Here too, it’s because the inefficiency in the system is highly profitable to the prison industry, and money dictates policies more than research, especially when they can also tap into the puritanical feelings of the public combined with their relative lack of education.
GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT
There is also one that’s far more important than any of these:
We are in a global ecological overshoot. Our collective ecological footprint is so large that we need more than one planet Earth to support it, and we don’t have a second planet. We are spending more from our metaphorical ecological savings account than comes in. We are using more resources than Earth can replenish, especially with the massive loss of healthy ecosystems. Just like spending from our savings account, it looks fine for a while until we reach the bottom, our lifestyle cannot be supported anymore, and it all comes crashing down.
This too has been known for decades, at least since the 70s. It’s well-documented. So why don’t most politicians take this seriously? Why do the ones who appear to take it seriously mostly focus on peripheral issues and solutions?
It’s likely because it requires long-term and big-picture planning, a thorough transformation of all aspects of society, and the support of the public. Our current political system rewards short-term projects and discourages long-term and big-picture projects. Similarly, most people are focused on their day-to-day life.
Mainly, any system tries to stay in equilibrium and so also our current civilization. There are innumerable mechanisms in place aimed at ensuring a dynamic status quo.
Our civilization is embedded in our larger ecological systems, and they provide the massive encouragement for change that we need. They are unraveling. They are full of toxins that also go into us. They bring about massive shifts in our climate and ocean currents.
Their unraveling is our unraveling, and that is what can bring us to our senses.
Our civilization is causing this massive ecological destruction, we are receiving feedback since we are embedded in these ecological systems, and we may or may not be receptive enough to make the necessary changes in time.
WHAT CAN I DO?
What can we do about all of this?
I make some effort to stay up-to-date with real-life examples and studies on these and other topics.
I also look at which political parties seem to have policies most grounded in research, and which ones are most grounded on the issues that seem most important. (For me, in Norway, it’s the Green Party. They recently suggested decriminalizing marijuana which was met with scorn and ridicule from other parties less grounded in science.)
It’s important to set aside superficial personal preferences here. I may have voted for another party in the past. I may have family and friends who vote for other parties. My conscious identity may be more aligned with another party. All of that is less important. (In my case, I did vote for another party in the past since the Green Party was so small, although that party does have similar policies. My family are all far more conservative than me. My friends are probably all over the place, with few of them prioritizing reducing our global ecological footprint. My conscious identity fits nicely with the Green Party, although they are more conservative than me on social issues. A similar party with a more integral orientation could fit even better.)
I have educated myself on our ecological footprint, why we are in our current situation, and what we can collectively and individually do about it. I sometimes bring it up in conversation with others, to plant a seed. I eat local and organic when I can. I limit driving and flying to essentials. (Although what’s essential is always something I question.) I am a member of and vote for the Green Party. I am involved in a reforestation and regeneration project in the Andes. And so on.
I do what I can to provide little nudges for the larger system.
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ESSENTIALS
What are the essentials of our ecological footprint?
More than one Earth. The essence is that we would need two Earths to support our current global ecological footprint, and several Earths if everyone lived as we do in industrialized countries.
Systems. We are in this situation because of our economic and other human-made systems. These systems came in place at a time when Earth, for all practical purposes, was infinite so we didn’t take ecological limits into account. Over the last few decades, with a huge increase in population and far more effective technology, we have quickly run up against these ecological limits.
Systems change. The solution is a thorough system change. We need to change our economic and other systems (transportation, energy, water, waste, education) to take ecological realities into account. We need to create systems where what’s easy and attractive to do, collectively and individually, is also what’s good for our ecological systems.
It’s possible. That’s more than possible. There is no lack of solutions, good small-scale examples, and brilliant people working in this field. We can have a civilization that operates within the limits of our ecological systems, and where people live full, rich, and rewarding lives.
Collective will. To make those changes, we need to find our collective will. Enough of us need to realize that these changes are required – not only for our survival but for having a thriving civilization.
A NOTE ON SCIENCE
Science has two aspects: the methods and the findings.
The methods are mainly common sense put in a system. They reflect methods we all use to figure out how the world works.
The content changes over time, as does how it’s understood and the worldview it is understood within.
Some content of science has been thoroughly researched by many scientists over decades and sometimes centuries. The findings are solid, although the finer points may be open for discussion.
Some content of science has a less rigorous history, and – as they say – we need more research.
In general, the findings of science are far more solid and far more likely to be aligned with reality than the opinion of you or me or anyone else.
In the absence of something better, like the science in one or two hundred years, we have to settle for the best we have which is the science of today.
Synchronicity: After posting this article, I received an email from the Green Party asking for my signature in support of a four-day workweek in Norway. Specifically, to test it out with some among a couple of groups of workers that have an especially hard workload, like nurses. I signed, of course.
Robert Reich’s video on the difference between authoritarianism and fascism, and the question of whether Donald Trump is a fascist. (Spoiler: He ticks all the boxes.)
The last generation that experienced fascism in Europe before and during WW2 is now on the way out. They saw and experienced the horrors unleashed by fascism, while most people alive today have not experienced fascism. I can’t help to think that’s why some – even many – these days seem drawn to fascism, both in the US and Europe. They don’t know its horrors.
In addition, they don’t seem to be able – or willing – to learn from history. If they did, if they set out to learn about and from history, I can’t imagine they would want to try it again. It’s an experiment we know the conclusion to.
Not to speak of the utter idiocy of spending time creating yet another distraction from the single most important issue in our time, and perhaps in the history of humanity: our global ecological overshoot and ecological crisis.
