In the wake of the 2024 US presidential election, the “will of the people” becomes a curious concept when considering that 81 million eligible voters, out of 240 million, chose not to cast a ballot in 2020. Yet, Pew Research Center data offers a glimpse into prevailing public opinions that transcend the electoral silence:

• Gun Safety: A robust majority supports more stringent gun control measures. 61% of Americans say it’s too easy to obtain a gun, 58% favor stricter laws, and there’s significant backing for a federal gun sale database (66%), banning high-capacity magazines (64%), and assault-style weapons (63%).
• Women’s Reproductive Rights: Around 63% believe abortion should be legal in most cases, with strong support among Democrats and younger demographics.
• Immigration Policy Reform: Despite partisan divides, 59% support allowing undocumented immigrants to stay legally, with pathways to citizenship or permanent residency.

These insights reveal a public leaning towards progressive changes, even amid deep political divides. It’s a reminder that the collective voice, though sometimes unheard in elections, speaks volumes through research and public sentiment.

---

Approximately 240 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 presidential election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots, totaling 158,427,986 votes. Roughly 81 million eligible voters did not cast a ballot.

-Summarized by Wikipedia from
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2020.pdf

Sources:

• Wikipedia: Voter Turnout in United States Presidential Elections
• The American Presidency Project: Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections

---

The traditional method of calculating voter turnout uses the voting-age population (VAP) as the denominator. This includes all individuals of voting age, regardless of their eligibility to vote.  

However, a more accurate measure of voter turnout would use the voting-eligible population (VEP) as the denominator. Since the first U.S. election in 1789, various groups have been disenfranchised or excluded from voting at different times.

1. Early Restrictions (1789): Initially, voting was largely restricted to white male property owners. This excluded women, people of color, and men without property.
2. African Americans: Enslaved individuals were not allowed to vote. Even after the Civil War, discriminatory practices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses were used to disenfranchise Black voters, particularly in the South, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
3. Women: Women were generally denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, granting women’s suffrage.
4. Native Americans: Native Americans were not considered U.S. citizens and thus could not vote until 1924, when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. However, some states continued to restrict their voting rights for decades.
5. Asian Americans: Various laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prevented Asian immigrants from becoming citizens and voting. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that these restrictions were lifted.
6. Young People: The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 with the 26th Amendment in 1971, largely in response to arguments that those old enough to be drafted for military service should be able to vote.
7. Felons: Many states have laws that disenfranchise individuals with felony convictions, either temporarily or permanently, depending on the state.
8. Noncitizens: Noncitizens, including legal residents, have generally been excluded from voting in federal elections, although some local jurisdictions have allowed noncitizen voting in local elections.

Felony disenfranchisement policies have a disproportionate impact on people of color, particularly African Americans, in the United States. This disparity is rooted in a combination of factors, including systemic racial biases in the criminal justice system, which result in higher rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration for African Americans compared to other racial groups.

---

Since 1980, a higher proportion of women have voted than men in each of the last nine presidential elections. The reversal of the voting gender gap since 1980 is a significant trend in U.S. electoral politics.

1. Higher Female Voter Turnout: Since 1980, a higher proportion of eligible women have voted compared to eligible men in every presidential election. This marks a shift from earlier trends where men had higher voter turnout rates.
2. Historical Context: Before 1980, men generally had higher voter turnout rates than women. This change reflects broader social and political shifts, including increased political engagement and advocacy for women’s rights.
3. Number of Voters: The number of female voters has surpassed the number of male voters in every presidential election since 1969. This is partly due to demographic factors, as women make up a slightly larger portion of the population, and partly due to their higher turnout rates.
4. Factors Contributing to the Shift: Several factors have contributed to this trend, including greater political mobilization among women, increased educational attainment, and targeted outreach by political parties and candidates.
5. Impact on Elections: The increased participation of women in elections has had significant implications for political campaigns and policy priorities, as candidates and parties seek to address issues that resonate with female voters.

---

Which begs the question, what is the “will of the people” represented by an election outcome in which roughly 81 million people out of 240 million eligible voters did not cast a ballot in 2020?

Regardless of the 2024 US presidential election outcome, and according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, registered voters favor:

Gun Safety:

1. Ease of Obtaining Guns: A majority of Americans (61%) believe it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in the U.S.
2. Stricter Gun Laws: About 58% of U.S. adults are in favor of implementing stricter gun laws.
3. Impact of More Guns: More than half of Americans feel that an increase in the number of guns is detrimental to society.
4. Support for Specific Measures: There is significant support for specific gun control measures, with 66% supporting a federal database to track all gun sales, 64% favoring bans on high-capacity magazines, and 63% supporting bans on assault-style weapons.

These statistics indicate a strong public inclination towards more stringent gun control measures, despite the divisive nature of gun policy debates in the U.S.

Women’s Reproductive Rights:

Approximately 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Support varies by religious affiliation, political party, and demographics, with higher support among Democrats and younger adults.

Immigration Policy Reform:

About 59% of registered voters in the U.S. support allowing undocumented immigrants currently living in the country to stay legally. This includes 36% who believe they should be able to apply for citizenship and 22% who think they should be able to apply for permanent residency. This indicates a majority of the electorate supports some form of legislative reform to address immigration policies, despite the partisan divides on specific approaches.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlights that U.S. immigration policy is often seen as chaotic and resistant to reform, with a significant portion of the public desiring decreased immigration levels. However, there is a growing focus on innovative solutions to improve immigration processes, such as algorithmic tools for refugee placement and expanded labor pathways. Despite the challenges, these innovations aim to demonstrate the benefits of immigration and address labor market needs, suggesting a complex landscape where public opinion may support specific reforms even amid broader calls for reduced immigration.

---

The concept of the “will of the people” in an election where a significant portion of eligible voters do not participate is complex and multifaceted. Here are some considerations:

1. Voter Turnout: In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, about 159 million people voted, which was a record turnout but still left a substantial number of eligible voters who did not participate. This raises questions about how representative the election results are of the entire population’s preferences.
2. Reasons for Non-Participation: People may choose not to vote for various reasons, including disillusionment with the political system (e.g., Gerrymandering, Electoral College vs. popular vote, unregulated PAC funding), feeling that their vote doesn’t matter, barriers to voting, or simply a lack of interest. The overwhelming presence of PAC-funded advertisements can both mobilize and demobilize voters. While some voters may be motivated by the issues highlighted in these campaigns, others may feel disillusioned by the perceived influence of money in politics, potentially reducing voter turnout. Understanding these reasons is crucial to interpreting the election outcome.
3. Majority Rule: Elections are typically decided by those who do vote, meaning the “will of the people” is expressed through the majority of participating voters. However, this does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire eligible population.
4. Implications for Democracy: High levels of non-participation can indicate challenges within the democratic system, such as voter suppression, lack of engagement, or dissatisfaction with available choices. It suggests a need for efforts to increase voter participation and address barriers to voting.
5. Policy and Representation: Elected officials are tasked with representing all constituents, not just those who voted for them. This means they must consider the needs and preferences of the broader population, including non-voters, in their policymaking.

Ultimately, while the election results reflect the choices of those who voted, they may not fully capture the broader “will of the people” if a large segment of the population remains unengaged or unable to participate.

Current public sentiment on critical issues such as gun safety, women’s reproductive rights, and immigration policy reform offers a compelling narrative of the national mood despite the electoral silence of a significant segment of the vote-eligible population in the United States.

In embracing these perspectives, the U.S. can move towards a more inclusive and responsive political system. The challenge lies in translating public sentiment into actionable policy, bridging the divide between political rhetoric and the genuine needs of the American people. As the country looks ahead, understanding and integrating the voices of the unheard majority will be crucial in shaping a future that reflects the “will of the people.”

---

Post Script

Super PACs can influence election outcomes by strategically targeting non-representative segments of the vote-eligible but regularly non-voting population in several ways:

1. Micro-Targeting: Using sophisticated data analytics, Super PACs can identify specific demographics or communities that typically do not vote but might be swayed by particular issues. By tailoring messages that resonate with these groups, they can mobilize them to vote in a way that aligns with the Super PAC’s agenda.
2. Issue-Based Campaigns: By focusing on niche issues that are highly relevant to certain non-voting segments, Super PACs can create a sense of urgency or importance around voting. This might involve highlighting local concerns or specific policy changes that directly impact these communities.
3. Emotional Appeals: Super PACs can use emotionally charged advertisements to evoke strong reactions, such as fear or hope, which can motivate previously apathetic voters to participate. These ads often focus on controversial or polarizing topics to drive engagement.
4. Disinformation Campaigns: In some cases, Super PACs might spread misleading or false information to confuse or mislead certain voter segments. This can either mobilize them to vote based on incorrect information or demobilize them by creating distrust in the electoral process.
5. Voter Suppression Tactics: While not directly a method of mobilizing non-voters, Super PACs might support efforts that indirectly suppress the vote of opposing demographics, thereby amplifying the impact of newly mobilized voters.

By focusing on these strategies, money (Super PACs) can skew election outcomes by activating specific segments of the population that do not typically participate, thereby altering the representative nature of the election results.

---

Yes, the most regressive and racist elements of the MAGA ideology are indeed Deplorable Fascist Garbage (DFG). The DFG virus infiltrates vulnerable minds, cultivating fear, anger, and hatred—amplified by echo chambers—resulting in societal chaos. However, it is the ideology, not the individuals, that lies at the root of the problem.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama pleaded with activists during the Democratic National Convention to take the political fight to Trump but not to disrespect his voters.

“Meet people where they are. I urge you not to demean them … treat them with respect, just the way you’d like them to treat you,” Clinton said, urging delegates to make the case for the vice president with their neighbors carefully.

Obama addressed the risk that name calling could cause available voters to conclude that all politicians are the same. “A sense of mutual respect has to be part of our message. Our politics has become so polarized these days that all of us, across the political spectrum, seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue,” he said. “We start thinking that the only way to win is to scold and shame and out yell the other side. And after a while, regular folks just tune out, or don’t bother to vote at all.”

–CNN

Why sowing fear, anger and hatred to produce societal chaos? Because the Old WASP Order is crumbling.

According to various demographic studies, 2042 is the year when the U.S. is expected to become a “majority-minority” nation. This means that non-Hispanic whites will no longer make up the majority of the population, with minority groups collectively becoming the majority.

This demographic shift is crucial because it challenges the existing social and racial hierarchies that have historically been dominated by a WASP majority. The shift would lead to significant changes in political, social, and economic dynamics, prompting a reevaluation of power structures and cultural norms.

This milestone is both a challenge and an opportunity. It challenges the nation to address systemic inequalities and adapt to a more diverse society. At the same time, it offers the opportunity to build a more inclusive and equitable society that recognizes and values the contributions of all its members, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The 2016 US presidential election highlighted a critical issue that remains relevant in this and all future elections amid the demographic transition of the United States: the need to overcome WASP supremacy and foster the development of a new national identity. So may it be.

---

World Goodwill

The spreading of the DFG virus can be prevented by immunizing human hearts and minds with the spirit of goodwill. Goodwill fosters right human relations, an essential element to create a lasting peace in every community and, eventually, on Earth.

Goodwill is one of the most basic spiritual qualities of the human being and the great untapped resource at the heart of every human community.

Harnessing the Power of Goodwill:
World Goodwill’s Mission for Global Change

In an age where global challenges loom large, the need for transformative forces that foster unity and understanding is more crucial than ever. World Goodwill, an initiative of the Lucis Trust, stands at the forefront of this movement, championing goodwill as a powerful catalyst for social transformation.

A Vision of Goodwill

At its core, World Goodwill seeks to mobilize the energy of goodwill—a fundamental spiritual quality that resides within every person. This untapped potential can drive significant social change, addressing problems like poverty, environmental destruction, and social inequalities. By nurturing a universal spiritual perspective, World Goodwill envisions an era of peace and justice, guided by a spiritual plan orchestrated by enlightened beings.

Fostering Education and Cooperation

Education and cooperation lie at the heart of World Goodwill’s endeavors. By providing resources and organizing seminars, the initiative aids individuals and groups in understanding and applying the principles of goodwill. This focus on education empowers people to engage constructively with pressing world issues, fostering a spirit of sharing and cooperation.

Building a New Civilization

World Goodwill calls for a new civilization where goodwill is the guiding principle. This vision involves reshaping societal values towards non-separateness, cooperation, and mutual respect. By advocating for right human relations, the initiative encourages individuals to rise above separative thinking and contribute to a more harmonious world.

---

Values to Live By

• A Love of Truth—essential for a just, inclusive and progressive society;
• A Sense of Justice—recognition of the rights and needs, of all.
• Spirit of Cooperation—based on active goodwill and the principle of right human relationships;
• A Sense of Personal Responsibility—for group, community and national affairs;
• Serving the Common Good—through the sacrifice of selfishness. Only what is good for all is good for each one.

These are spiritual values, inspiring the conscience and the consciousness of those who serve to create a better way of life.

Source: Lucis Trust

---

Despite the proven unfitness to govern of one of the two main contenders for office in the 2024 US presidential election, polls are very close. This may be due to severe non-response bias and biased statistical adjustments. However, if they do represent the actual will of the people, factors like demagoguery and the spread of misinformation should be considered as significant confounders. Other major weaknesses that democracies can face are:

1. Polarization: Intense political polarization can lead to cult-like closed-mindedness and gridlock, where opposing parties cannot agree on the facts. This can also stall legislative processes and hinder effective governance.
2. Short-term Focus: Democracies often operate on election cycles, which can lead to a focus on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Politicians may prioritize policies that yield immediate benefits to secure re-election, potentially neglecting necessary but less popular long-term strategies. Disengaged, “low propensity” voters are more likely to support short-term gains.
3. Influence of Money in Politics: The role of money in political campaigns can lead to unequal influence, where wealthy individuals or organizations have more sway over political outcomes than the average voter. This can result in policies that favor special interests over the public good.
4. Voter Apathy: Low voter turnout and apathy, particularly among segments of the electorate, can undermine the democratic process, as decisions are made by a smaller, potentially unrepresentative segment of the population. This can lead to governance that does not reflect the will of the majority.
5. Complexity and Bureaucracy: The complexity of democratic systems and bureaucratic processes can frustrate citizens and lead to disillusionment with the democratic process. For instance, the “winner-takes-all” US Electoral College is biased in favor of a minority ruling over the majority.  Also, gerrymandering affects elections by manipulating district boundaries to favor specific political interests, often leading to skewed representation in legislative bodies. 
6. Populism: Populist movements can exploit public discontent, often oversimplifying complex issues and promising easy solutions. While they can bring attention to neglected issues, they may also undermine democratic norms and institutions.
7. Policy over character: While policies are crucial for addressing societal issues, the character of political leaders plays a vital role in maintaining the ethical foundation and stability of democratic systems. Balancing both aspects is essential for a thriving democracy.

---

Focusing solely on policies over the character of political leaders can undermine democracies in several ways:

1. Erosion of Trust: Character is closely tied to trustworthiness and integrity. When voters overlook character flaws in favor of policy promises, they may elect leaders who are more likely to engage in unethical or corrupt behavior, eroding public trust in government.
2. Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Stability: Policies can change with each election cycle, but the character of leaders affects the long-term health of democratic institutions. Leaders with questionable character may prioritize short-term policy wins over the long-term stability and integrity of democratic systems.
3. Accountability Issues: Leaders with strong character are more likely to hold themselves accountable and be transparent with the public. When character is sidelined, there may be less accountability, leading to unchecked power and potential abuses.
4. Polarization and Division: Leaders who lack character may resort to divisive rhetoric and tactics to achieve policy goals, exacerbating polarization and undermining social cohesion, which are essential for a healthy democracy.
5. Undermining Democratic Norms: Democratic norms, such as respect for the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power, rely on leaders with strong character. When character is ignored, these norms can be weakened, threatening the democratic process itself.
6. Public Cynicism: When voters perceive that character doesn’t matter, it can lead to cynicism and disengagement from the political process, reducing civic participation and weakening the democratic fabric.
7. International Reputation: The character of political leaders also affects a country’s international standing. Leaders who lack integrity can damage diplomatic relationships and reduce a nation’s influence on the global stage.

---

The Influence of Demagoguery

Demagoguery represents a significant threat to the integrity of the electoral process by distorting the will of the people. Charismatic leaders who exploit emotions and prejudices can sway segments of the electorate, particularly those with less developed critical thinking skills, away from rational decision-making. This manipulation often leads to biased electoral outcomes that deviate from the public’s true interests, further complicating the task of accurately capturing the people’s will.

Misinformation and Electoral Chaos

In the digital age, misinformation poses a formidable challenge to discerning true signals from the noise. The proliferation of false information can create chaos and confusion, making it difficult for voters to make informed decisions. This muddling of the truth not only clouds individual judgment but also undermines the overall integrity of the electoral process, as voters struggle to separate fact from fiction.

---

When demagoguery undermines efforts to build consensus and protect democracy, it’s crucial to rely on foundational elements and strategies that can help safeguard democratic principles. Some key approaches are:

1. Strong Institutions: Ensure that democratic institutions, such as the judiciary, electoral systems, and free press, remain independent and robust. These institutions can act as checks and balances against the influence of demagoguery.
2. Civic Education: Invest in comprehensive civic education to empower citizens with the knowledge and skills needed to critically evaluate political rhetoric and participate effectively in democratic processes.
3. Media Literacy: Promote media literacy to help individuals discern credible information from misinformation, reducing the impact of demagogic tactics that rely on spreading falsehoods.
4. Active Civil Society: Support a vibrant civil society that includes non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, and community organizations. These entities can mobilize citizens, advocate for democratic values, and hold leaders accountable.
5. Legal Safeguards: Implement and enforce laws that protect against abuses of power, such as anti-corruption measures and regulations on campaign financing, to limit the influence of demagogues.
6. Engaged Citizenry: Encourage active citizen participation in democratic processes, from voting to community organizing. An engaged populace is less susceptible to manipulation and more likely to demand accountability.
7. International Support: Leverage international alliances and organizations that promote democratic norms and can provide support or pressure when democratic principles are threatened.
8. Resilient Leadership: Cultivate leaders who are committed to democratic values and willing to stand up against demagoguery, even when it is politically challenging.

By reinforcing these elements, democracies can build resilience against the destabilizing effects of demagoguery and continue to uphold the principles of freedom, equality, and justice.

---

Combating misinformation requires a multifaceted approach that involves individuals, organizations, and governments working together. Some effective strategies are:

1. Promote Media Literacy: Educate the public on how to critically evaluate information sources, recognize bias, and verify facts. Media literacy programs can empower individuals to discern credible information from falsehoods.
2. Fact-Checking Initiatives: Support and promote independent fact-checking organizations that can quickly debunk false claims and provide accurate information to the public.
3. Transparent Communication: Encourage transparency from governments and organizations in their communications. Providing clear, accurate, and timely information can help build trust and counteract misinformation.
4. Engage Social Media Platforms: Work with social media companies to develop and enforce policies that limit the spread of misinformation, such as flagging false content, reducing its visibility, and promoting reliable sources.
5. Community Engagement: Involve community leaders and local organizations in spreading accurate information and countering false narratives within their communities.
6. Encourage Critical Thinking: Foster a culture of critical thinking and skepticism, where individuals are encouraged to question and verify information before accepting it as true.
7. Use Technology: Leverage technology and artificial intelligence to detect and mitigate the spread of misinformation online, such as algorithms that identify and flag false content.
8. Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch campaigns to raise awareness about the dangers of misinformation and the importance of verifying information before sharing it.
9. Collaborate Internationally: Work with international partners to share best practices and strategies for combating misinformation, as it often crosses borders and requires a coordinated response.

By implementing these strategies, societies can create a more informed public and reduce the impact of misinformation on democratic processes and public discourse.

---

Seeking consensus on contentious issues in a politically polarized environment can be challenging, but it’s not impossible. Some strategies that might help bridge divides and foster agreement are:

1. Focus on Common Values: Identify and emphasize shared values and goals, such as improving quality of life, ensuring fairness, and promoting economic stability. Highlighting common ground can help shift the focus from divisive rhetoric to mutual interests.
2. Encourage Open Dialogue: Create spaces for open, respectful conversations where individuals from different perspectives can share their views and listen to others. Facilitated discussions can help reduce misunderstandings and build empathy.
3. Use Data and Evidence: Presenting clear, non-partisan data and evidence can help ground discussions in facts rather than opinions. This approach can clarify the potential impacts of policies and encourage informed decision-making.
4. Promote Bipartisan Solutions: Encourage collaboration between political parties to develop solutions that incorporate diverse viewpoints. Bipartisan efforts can lead to more balanced and widely accepted outcomes.
5. Engage Community Leaders: Involve respected community leaders and organizations in the conversation. Their influence can help build trust and encourage broader community engagement.
6. Highlight Success Stories: Share examples of successful policies or initiatives from other regions or countries that have achieved similar goals. Demonstrating real-world effectiveness can help overcome skepticism.
7. Incremental Change: Propose gradual, step-by-step changes rather than sweeping reforms. Incremental approaches can be less intimidating and more palatable to those wary of drastic shifts.
8. Educate and Inform: Invest in public education campaigns to inform citizens about the issues at hand, the potential benefits of proposed solutions, and the importance of civic engagement.

By focusing on these strategies, it’s possible to create a more constructive environment for dialogue and decision-making, even in the face of political polarization.

Let’s explore examples of how each strategy might be applied to the US immigration policies:

1. Focus on Common Values:
   • Example: A bipartisan group of lawmakers and community leaders come together to draft immigration reform that emphasizes economic contributions of immigrants, such as filling labor shortages and boosting local economies. They highlight shared values like fairness and opportunity, aiming to create policies that benefit both immigrants and native citizens.
2. Encourage Open Dialogue:
   • Example: A city council organizes a series of town hall meetings where residents can voice their concerns and suggestions about local immigration policies. These meetings are facilitated by neutral moderators who ensure that all voices are heard and respected, fostering a community-wide understanding and empathy.
3. Use Data and Evidence:
   • Example: A non-partisan research organization publishes a comprehensive report on the economic and social impacts of immigration, using clear data and case studies. Policymakers use this report to inform their decisions, ensuring that policies are based on factual evidence rather than political rhetoric.
4. Promote Bipartisan Solutions:
   • Example: A coalition of Democrats and Republicans in Congress works together to propose a new immigration bill that includes elements from both parties’ platforms, such as enhanced border security and pathways to citizenship. This collaborative effort aims to create a balanced approach that can gain broad support.
5. Engage Community Leaders:
   • Example: Local government partners with community organizations and leaders from immigrant communities to develop programs that support integration and cultural exchange. These leaders help bridge gaps between different groups, fostering trust and cooperation.
6. Highlight Success Stories:
   • Example: A national campaign showcases successful immigrant entrepreneurs who have started businesses and created jobs in their communities. These stories are used to illustrate the positive contributions of immigrants and counter negative stereotypes.
7. Incremental Change:
   • Example: Instead of overhauling the entire immigration system at once, a government implements small, targeted reforms, such as improving visa processing times or expanding work permits for specific industries. These incremental changes are easier to implement and adjust based on feedback.
8. Educate and Inform:
   • Example: A public education initiative is launched to inform citizens about the realities of immigration, including legal processes and the benefits of diversity. This campaign uses social media, workshops, and informational brochures to reach a wide audience and encourage informed civic engagement.

These examples illustrate how each strategy can be applied to create more effective and inclusive immigration policies, even in a politically polarized environment.

---

Several key issues related to political polarization and its impact on democratic institutions, particularly within the Republican Party.

1. Polarization and Republican Strategy:
   • Example: Because Republicans can win control of the Senate and presidency without needing to appeal to voters in heavily Democratic states, they often focus on energizing their base rather than appealing to the center. This can lead to primary contests where candidates compete to adopt more extreme positions, moving further to the right.
2. Media Influence:
   • Example: Right-wing media outlets often provide coverage that aligns with partisan views, similar to state-controlled media in less free countries. This creates an echo chamber where Republican voters are less exposed to criticism of their leaders, reinforcing partisan divides.
3. Institutional Weakness:
   • Example: The Republican Party, as an institution, struggles to discipline members who undermine democratic norms. This can be seen in the lack of consequences for politicians who challenge election results or engage in undemocratic behavior.
4. Checks and Balances:
   • Example: While the U.S. Constitution provides robust checks and balances, the polarization and partisanship have weakened these mechanisms. For instance, impeachment has become more about partisan advantage than upholding democratic norms.
5. Trump’s Influence:
   • Example: Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results has contributed to a broader trend of delegitimizing election outcomes within the Republican Party. This has further eroded trust in democratic processes and institutions.
6. Judicial Impact:
   • Example: The appointment of judges based on partisan loyalty can influence how laws are interpreted, potentially skewing the rule of law in favor of partisan interests.

These examples illustrate how polarization and partisanship can undermine democratic institutions and norms, leading to a more divided and less functional political system.

---

---

1939 Nazi Rally at Madison Square Garden

In a political context, a “Bund” typically refers to a federation or league, often used in German-speaking countries. For example, “Bund” is part of the official name of Germany, “Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” meaning the Federal Republic of Germany. It can also refer to various organizations or groups, such as the “Bund” in Jewish history, which was a Jewish socialist party in Eastern Europe.

On February 20, 1939, a Nazi rally took place at Madison Square Garden, organized by the German American Bund. More than 20,000 people attended, and Fritz Julius Kuhn was a featured speaker. The Bund billed the event, which took place two days before George Washington’s Birthday, as a pro-“Americanism” rally; the stage at the event featured a huge Washington portrait with swastikas on each side. Approximately 100,000 anti-Nazi counter-protesters gathered outside, attempting to break through lines of police officers guarding the rally on three occasions. The Bund rapidly declined in the aftermath of the rally, with Kuhn being imprisoned for embezzlement by the end of the year.

-Wikipedia: 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden

The German American Bund was an American Nazi organization that operated in the United States in the 1930s. It was established to promote Nazi ideology and foster a positive image of Nazi Germany among Americans of German descent. The Bund organized rallies, parades, and events that often featured Nazi symbols and rhetoric, aiming to build support for Adolf Hitler’s regime.

The organization was led by Fritz Julius Kuhn and reached its peak in the late 1930s, with a membership that included several thousand people. However, its activities and pro-Nazi stance led to significant public backlash and government scrutiny. The Bund’s influence waned as the U.S. entered World War II, and it was eventually disbanded following the war.

---

2024 MAGA Rally at Madison Square Garden

The ex-president’s rhetoric ranks alongside the most flagrant demagoguery by a major figure in any Western nation since World War II

“The United States is an occupied country,” Trump said, as Democrats projected messages on the exterior of the storied New York City arena, reading “Trump is Unhinged” and “Trump praised Hitler.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/politics/trump-extreme-closing-argument/index.html

---

Echoes of the Past: Parallels Between the 1939 Nazi Rally
and the 2024 MAGA Gathering at Madison Square Garden

In the heart of New York City, Madison Square Garden has long been a stage for pivotal moments in history. Two such moments, separated by 85 years, offer stark reminders of the perilous power of rhetoric and the recurring nature of authoritarianism. The infamous 1939 Nazi rally, organized by the German American Bund, and the 2024 MAGA rally, led by Donald Trump, both serve as poignant reflections of their respective eras’ political climates.

The 1939 Nazi Rally: A Chilling Display of Fascism

On February 20, 1939, Madison Square Garden was transformed into a platform for the German American Bund to espouse Nazi ideology under the guise of American nationalism. With more than 20,000 attendees, the rally was an unsettling blend of Nazi symbols and patriotic imagery. The event was billed as a “pro-Americanism” gathering, yet its core was deeply rooted in anti-Semitic and pro-fascist sentiments.

The public reaction was one of outrage and resistance. Outside the arena, approximately 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters gathered, demonstrating a collective stand against the hatred being propagated within. The rally was heavily policed to prevent violence, yet the sheer number of protesters highlighted the societal rejection of such extremist views. Ultimately, the rally marked the beginning of the end for the Bund, as its leader, Fritz Kuhn, faced legal repercussions, and public opinion turned decisively against them.

The 2024 MAGA Rally: Rhymes of History

Fast forward to October 2024, and Madison Square Garden once again became a focal point of political fervor. Donald Trump’s rally, part of his bid to regain the presidency, echoed with rhetoric that many have compared to the authoritarian and divisive language of past demagogues. The rally was marked by a strong anti-migrant stance and inflammatory remarks, aiming to galvanize a base through fear and division.

The parallels between the 1939 and 2024 rallies are striking. Both events used powerful venues to disseminate ideologies that challenged the democratic fabric of society. While the German American Bund sought to align American nationalism with Nazi ideology, the MAGA rally capitalized on modern fears, painting a picture of an “immigrant invasion” and promising radical measures that resonate with authoritarian undertones.

Implications for Democracy and Lessons from History

The recurrence of such rhetoric at Madison Square Garden serves as a cautionary tale. History has shown that unchecked power and demagoguery can lead to the erosion of democratic values. The 1939 rally, despite its initial impact, ultimately led to a public backlash that helped reaffirm democratic principles. Similarly, the 2024 rally challenges us to reflect on the lessons of the past and the importance of safeguarding democracy.

In these turbulent times, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the seductive allure of extreme rhetoric. The echoes of history remind us that democracy is not guaranteed; it must be actively protected and nurtured. By learning from the past, we can work toward a future that values unity, inclusivity, and the enduring strength of democratic ideals.

The 2024 US presidential election transcends a simple partisan divide between bona fide conservatives and progressive liberals. This election represents a critical juncture for safeguarding constitutional democratic governance, which is under threat from a resurgent fascism. We must confront and defeat latent fascism in all its forms.

As we navigate the complexities of today’s political landscape, let us remember Madison Square Garden’s lessons and commit to a future where history’s mistakes are not repeated, but rather, serve as stepping stones toward a more equitable and just society.

---

Let LIGHT and LOVE and POWER restore the Plan on Earth

---

---

Let’s Make America ENLIGHTENED Again

The Enlightenment, spanning the late 17th to the 18th century, was an intellectual and cultural movement emphasizing reason, science, and individualism over tradition and religious authority. It sought to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method.

Key Philosophical Themes:

1. Reason and Rationality: Enlightenment thinkers believed in the power of human reason to understand and shape the world, advocating for rational thought as the primary source of authority and legitimacy.
2. Empiricism and Science: The movement emphasized empirical evidence and the scientific method as means to acquire knowledge, leading to significant advancements in science and technology.
3. Individualism: Enlightenment philosophy championed individual rights and freedoms, laying the groundwork for modern democratic and human rights principles.
4. Skepticism of Authority: Enlightenment thinkers often critiqued established institutions, including the monarchy and the church, advocating for separation of church and state and questioning traditional power structures.
5. Progress and Optimism: There was a strong belief in progress and the potential for human improvement through education and reform.

Historical Impact:

The Enlightenment significantly influenced political thought, contributing to revolutions such as the American and French Revolutions. It inspired the development of modern democracies, emphasizing constitutional government, separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights. Key figures include philosophers like John Locke, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose ideas continue to shape contemporary thought.

---

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss-born philosopher, writer, and political theorist, born on June 28, 1712, in Geneva, Switzerland. He became one of the most influential thinkers of the 18th century, inspiring leaders of the French Revolution and the Romantic generation. Rousseau’s major works include “The Social Contract,” “Émile,” and “Confessions.” He is renowned for his ideas on the social contract and the belief that humans are naturally good but corrupted by society. His thoughts on education, politics, and the arts significantly impacted European culture and philosophy. Rousseau passed away on July 2, 1778, in Ermenonville, France.

Rousseau’s belief that humans are naturally good but corrupted by society is a central theme in his philosophy. He argued that people are born with an inherent sense of goodness and compassion, but societal structures and institutions, such as property, government, and social norms, lead to inequality, competition, and moral decay. This idea is prominently featured in his works like “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.”

In his work “The Social Contract,” he explores the idea that legitimate political authority relies on a social contract agreed upon by all citizens for their mutual benefit. Rousseau argued that society should be organized in a way that reflects the general will, or the collective interest of the people, rather than individual interests. Rousseau believed that a return to simpler, more natural ways of living could help restore human goodness and promote genuine freedom and equality.

---

Index of Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” along with key points from each chapter:

Book I

1. Subject of the First Book: Introduction to the concept of social contracts.
2. The First Societies: Discussion on the formation of early societies.
3. The Right of the Strongest: Critique of the idea that might makes right.
4. Slavery: Argument against the legitimacy of slavery.
5. That We Must Always Go Back to a First Convention: Importance of the original social contract.
6. The Social Compact: Explanation of the social contract as a foundation of society.
7. The Sovereign: Definition and role of the sovereign in society.
8. The Civil State: Transition from natural liberty to civil liberty.
9. Real Property: Examination of property rights within the social contract.

Book II

1. That Sovereignty is Inalienable: Sovereignty cannot be transferred.
2. That Sovereignty is Indivisible: Sovereignty must remain whole.
3. Whether the General Will is Fallible: Exploration of the infallibility of the general will.
4. The Limits of the Sovereign Power: Boundaries of sovereign authority.
5. The Right of Life and Death: Discussion on the sovereign’s power over life and death.
6. Law: The role and nature of laws in society.
7. The Legislator: The function and importance of the legislator. 8-10. The People: Examination of the people’s role in the social contract.
8. The Various Systems of Legislation: Different legislative systems.
9. The Division of the Laws: Classification of laws.

Book III

1. Government in General: Overview of government functions.
2. The Constituent Principle in the Various Forms of Government: Principles underlying different governments.
3. The Division of Governments: Types of government.
4. Democracy: Analysis of democratic systems.
5. Aristocracy: Examination of aristocratic governance.
6. Monarchy: Discussion on monarchy.
7. Mixed Governments: Mixed forms of government.
8. That All Forms of Government Do Not Suit All Countries: Suitability of government forms.
9. The Marks of a Good Government: Characteristics of effective governance.
10. The Abuse of Government and Its Tendency to Degenerate: Government corruption and decline.
11. The Death of the Body Politic: Signs of political decay.
    12-14. How the Sovereign Authority Maintains Itself: Maintenance of sovereign power.
12. Deputies or Representatives: Role of representatives.
13. That the Institution of Government is not a Contract: Government as a non-contractual institution.
14. The Institution of Government: Establishment of government.
15. How to Check the Usurpations of Government: Preventing government overreach.

Book IV

1. That the General Will is Indestructible: Endurance of the general will.
2. Voting: Importance and process of voting.
3. Elections: Role of elections in governance.
4. The Roman Comitia: Historical example of Roman assemblies.
5. The Tribunate: Function of the tribunate.
6. The Dictatorship: Examination of dictatorship.
7. The Censorship: Role of censorship in society.
8. Civil Religion: Concept of civil religion.
9. Conclusion: Final thoughts on the social contract.

---

Rousseau’s philosophy, particularly his ideas on the social contract, had a notable influence on the political thought surrounding the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Some ways in which Rousseau’s ideas resonated with the framers are:

1. Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau’s concept of the general will and popular sovereignty influenced the framers’ belief that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. This principle is foundational to the U.S. Constitution, emphasizing that power ultimately rests with the people.
2. Social Contract: While Rousseau’s vision of a direct democracy was not fully realized in the U.S. system, the idea of a social contract—where individuals agree to form a government that represents their collective interests—parallels the Constitution’s establishment of a government designed to serve and protect the rights of its citizens.
3. Equality and Liberty: Rousseau’s emphasis on equality and liberty as essential components of a just society influenced Enlightenment thinkers, including those who shaped American political thought. These ideals are reflected in the Constitution’s focus on individual rights and the pursuit of liberty.
4. Checks and Balances: Although Rousseau did not specifically advocate for a system of checks and balances, his concerns about the concentration of power and the potential for corruption align with the framers’ implementation of a government structure designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

While Rousseau’s influence was more philosophical, his ideas contributed to the broader Enlightenment context that shaped the thinking of the Constitution’s framers, alongside other philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu.

---

In light of recent events, the resilience and adaptability of U.S. democracy, as well as its alignment with Rousseau’s principles, is being compromised.

1. Partisan Supreme Court (SCOTUS): The perception of the Supreme Court as partisan challenges the idea of a balanced system designed to protect individual rights. Decisions perceived as politically motivated undermine public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality, which is crucial for maintaining the checks and balances Rousseau would advocate for in a fair society.
2. Corruption of Power in Congress (Lobbyists): The influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Congress skews legislative priorities away from the general will. This leads to policies that favor specific groups (National Rife Association) over the common good (gun safety laws) , challenging the democratic ideal of equal representation and participation, as Rousseau envisioned.
3. Imperial Presidency and Fascist Tendencies: Concerns about the SCOTUS advocating an “imperial presidency” and some emerging authoritarian tendencies, as noted by historians like Robert Paxton and figures like John Kelly, highlight potential deviations from democratic norms. Rousseau’s social contract emphasizes the sovereignty of the people and the importance of leaders reflecting the general will, which can be threatened by excessive executive power and undemocratic movements.

These issues suggest that, while U.S. democracy has mechanisms intended to balance power and protect rights, there are significant challenges that can undermine these principles. Addressing these concerns is crucial for aligning more closely with Rousseau’s vision of a society governed by the general will and committed to equality and civic virtue.

---

The Role of Men and Women of Goodwill in Promoting Good and Ethical Governance

In an era marked by political turmoil and ethical challenges, the pursuit of good governance stands as a beacon for men and women of goodwill. This post explores the dual pathways—material and spiritual—through which individuals can contribute to the establishment of ethical governance. By examining the tangible actions of civic engagement and the intangible influences of spiritual practice, we can better understand the multifaceted approach required to foster a just society.

---

The Role of Men and Women of Goodwill in Promoting Good and Ethical Governance

In an era marked by political turmoil and ethical challenges, the pursuit of good governance stands as a beacon for men and women of goodwill. This post explores the dual pathways—material and spiritual—through which individuals can contribute to the establishment of ethical governance. By examining the tangible actions of civic engagement and the intangible influences of spiritual practice, we can better understand the multifaceted approach required to foster a just society.

Material Actions: The Power of Civic Engagement

The most immediate and impactful material action individuals can take is to participate in the electoral process. Voting is not merely a right but a responsibility that shapes the governance framework. Voter turnout is a critical determinant of election outcomes, underscoring the importance of mobilizing the electorate. Encouraging and assisting others to vote amplifies the collective voice, ensuring diverse representation and accountability in governance.

Beyond voting, individuals can contribute to the creation of an enlightened public opinion on political, religious, and economic issues. This involves engaging in informed discussions, challenging misinformation, and promoting critical thinking. A well-informed populace is better equipped to hold leaders accountable and advocate for policies that reflect ethical principles and societal welfare. Through education and dialogue, individuals can cultivate a political culture that values transparency, equity, and justice.

Spiritual Actions: Harnessing the Power of Scientific Magic

While material actions are vital, spiritual practices offer an additional dimension in the quest for good governance. One such practice involves “scientific magic,” as discussed in Dean Radin’s book Real Magic from the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Radin suggests that human consciousness can influence reality, bridging the gap between science and spirituality. This notion invites individuals, in group formation, to explore the potential of their inner capabilities to effect change.

Rethinking meditation as a technique of invocation and evocation further expands the spiritual approach for ethical governance. Groups engaged in meditation can invoke the spiritual realm, calling forth guidance and support for ethical leadership. By viewing meditation as a dynamic process, groups can align their intentions with a higher purpose, contributing to the manifestation of goodwill in governance.

Let us consider these working hypotheses: First, there is a benevolent spiritual Hierarchy guiding human affairs, acting without infringing on human free will. This Hierarchy, composed of Masters of Wisdom and Compassion, is overseeing the ethical development of humanity. Second, there exists a Plan to establish governance based on right human relations, enabled by goodwill and resulting in lasting peace. This Plan is opposed by malevolent Forces of Darkness, which distort the true nature of hierarchical democracy as fascism. Third, the source of spiritual power on Earth, known as the Will of the Father invoked in the Lord’s Prayer in the West, while in the East, it is known as the Purpose of the Lord of the World in Shamballa, provides the dynamic foundation for this transformative process.

What if men and women of goodwill chose to act as if these hypotheses were true? We are told that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. History shows us that faith can metaphorically move mountains, achieving what once seemed impossible in critical moments like those we face today. So, what do we stand to lose by embracing these beliefs as working hypotheses? Imagine that another world is possible, born from a faith in the spiritual power of meditation and the science of invocation, paving the way for ethical governance led by spiritually advanced individuals dedicated to the common good, aligned with the Will of God as known in Shamballa.

Shamballa is described as a mystical and spiritual center of great significance. Here are some key aspects:

1. Spiritual Center: Shamballa is considered the spiritual center of the world, often described as a hidden or etheric city. It is believed to be the seat of the spiritual hierarchy governing the evolution of humanity and the planet.
2. Location: While its exact location is often depicted as hidden or non-physical, some traditions place Shamballa in the Gobi Desert or in a remote, inaccessible region of the Himalayas. It is sometimes described as existing on a higher plane of reality.
3. Role and Function: Shamballa is the dwelling place of the “Lord of the World,” identified as Sanat Kumara, who oversees the spiritual progress of the Earth. It serves as a focal point for divine energies and guidance.
4. Symbolism: Shamballa symbolizes the ultimate goal of spiritual attainment and enlightenment. It represents the ideal of a harmonious and enlightened society, guiding humanity towards higher consciousness.
5. Connection to Masters: It is the headquarters of the Masters of Wisdom, advanced spiritual beings who assist in the evolution of humanity by imparting wisdom and guidance. Shamballa holds a central place as a source of spiritual power and enlightenment, influencing the spiritual evolution of the planet.
   
   Source: Chapter 2 Shamballa | Sanat Kumara

---

Let us attempt a first approximation in defining the spiritual concept of a Hierarchical Democracy.

A Hierarchical Democracy is a form of constitutional government (of the enlightened people, by the enlightened people, for the enlightenment of the people) in which political power is exercised by consent of the governed, as a result of consensus between an enlightened meritocracy of servant leaders qualified by spiritual training and experience, and the free and fully informed (good) will of an enlightened public, adept in self-rule and right human relations. This system operates with full transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness, upholding civil liberties, protecting human rights, and ensuring equal representation. It features a robust separation of powers and impartial judicial oversight to maintain a balanced and fair governance structure.

---

The pursuit of good and ethical governance requires a holistic approach that integrates both material and spiritual actions. By actively participating in the democratic process and fostering informed public opinion, individuals can materially influence the structures of governance. Simultaneously, by engaging with spiritual practices such as meditation, and reimagining the current state of world affairs, they can invoke higher guidance and align with a greater ethical vision. Together, these efforts form a comprehensive strategy for men and women of goodwill to contribute to the realization of a just and harmonious world.

Men and women of goodwill are not alone in their plight for good and ethical governance. Spiritual forces of Light, Love and Power are available, but we need to invoke these planetary (and extra-planetary) forces in group formation and with “massed intent.” Another world is possible and can be constructed by human feet and human hands.

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.

From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills –
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the center which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

---

A visualization to dissipate the threat of fascism

Promoting goodwill and right human relations is a powerful strategy to dissipate the threat of fascism by addressing both its spread and underlying causes.

1. Immunizing Society with Goodwill: To prevent the societal “pandemic” of fascism, fostering goodwill acts as a “vaccine.” This begins with education that emphasizes critical thinking, empathy, and an appreciation for diversity. Schools can play a crucial role by teaching history and social studies in a way that highlights the dangers of authoritarianism and the value of democratic principles. Community engagement initiatives that encourage interaction among diverse groups can build mutual respect and understanding, reducing the fear and mistrust that fascist ideologies exploit. Encouraging dialogue and collaboration on shared goals creates a sense of unity and resilience against divisive narratives.
   
2. Addressing Root Causes of Fascist Movements: Goodwill directly tackles the grievances that often fuel fascism, such as economic inequality, social alienation, and political disenfranchisement. By building inclusive communities where all members feel valued and heard, we can mitigate feelings of isolation and resentment. Economic policies that aim for equitable growth and provide opportunities for all can reduce the desperation that makes radical solutions appear attractive. Promoting open and honest dialogue about grievances allows for peaceful and constructive solutions, diminishing the appeal of extremist ideologies. By addressing these root causes, goodwill fosters a more just and harmonious society that is less susceptible to the allure of fascism.

The struggle between “spiritual forces of light” and “material forces of darkness” may well describe the current point of inflection determining positive or negative outcomes in society.

1. Spiritual Forces of Light: These are the positive influences that encourage goodwill, compassion, and unity among people. The Shamballa Forces are present in various spiritual, religious, or philosophical movements that emphasize love, empathy, and the interconnectedness of humanity. Many spiritual traditions advocate for values like kindness, peace, and cooperation, which can inspire individuals and communities to work towards harmonious and just societies.
   
2. Material Forces of Darkness: These are the negative influences that lead to division, chaos, and authoritarianism, such as fascism. These dark forces can stem from societal issues like greed, fear, and ignorance, which can be exacerbated by economic inequality, political corruption, and social injustice. The “darkness” can also be seen in ideologies or movements that exploit these issues to gain power and control, often through manipulation and fear-mongering.

While the “forces of light” are nurtured through education, community building, and spiritual or moral teachings, the “forces of darkness” often thrive from systemic problems and the exploitation of human vulnerabilities. Addressing these forces involves both personal growth and collective action to create a more balanced and equitable world.

Men and women of goodwill are not alone in this struggle. Although the sources of these forces are not readily recognized by academic scholars, the reality of these spiritual sources has been attested by many advanced members of the human family represented in the New Group of World Servers.

---

Let the Lord of Liberation issue forth.
Let Him bring succor to the sons of men.
Let the Rider from the Secret Place come forth,
And coming, save.

Come forth, O Mighty One.
Let the souls of men awaken to the Light,
And may they stand with massed intent.
Let the fiat of the Lord go forth:
The end of woe has come!

Come forth, O Mighty One.
The hour of service of the saving force has now arrived.
Let it be spread abroad, O Mighty One.

Let Light and Love and Power and Death [of the Old Order]
Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One.
The WILL to save is here.
The LOVE to carry forth the work is widely spread abroad.
The ACTIVE AID of all who know the truth is also here.

Come forth, O Mighty One, and blend these three.
Construct a great defending wall.
The rule of evil now must end.

---

Values to Live By

• A Love of Truth—essential for a just, inclusive and progressive society;
• A Sense of Justice—recognition of the rights and needs, of all.
• Spirit of Cooperation—based on active goodwill and the principle of right human relationships;
• A Sense of Personal Responsibility—for group, community and national affairs;
• Serving the Common Good—through the sacrifice of selfishness. Only what is good for all is good for each one.

These are spiritual values, inspiring the conscience and the consciousness of those who serve to create a better way of life.

Source: Lucis Trust

---

---

A new book, The Centennial Conclave: SHAMBALLA 2025, may serve as introductory material for the concepts explored in this post.

---

Yes, we are facing the threat of fascism in the United States of America.

We have reputable academic historians alongside the most trusted senior military and political leaders in the country, from both Republican and Democratic parties, warning of a catastrophic political tsunami that would threaten US democracy if Trumpism prevails in the 2024 presidential election.

When the National Weather Service issues alerts and advisories regarding an impending catastrophic event, is it wise to ignore them? Why should we treat political situations any differently?

It is important to note that figures like Hitler and Mussolini were appointed, rather than elected, as dictators. This raises a crucial question: why would the American electorate consider establishing such a disgraceful historical precedent?

---

Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic political movement characterized by dictatorial power and centralized control, often accompanied by aggressive nationalism and racism. It typically entails the suppression of dissent, strict regulation of society and the economy, and the use of violence and propaganda to maintain control and promote its ideals.

Two credible sources substantiate the thesis that the United States is confronting the threat of fascism in this critical presidential election: academic historians and primary historical sources.

Academic historians

Robert Paxton is an American political scientist and historian, renowned for his expertise in the history of Vichy France, fascism, and Europe during the World War II era. He is Professor Emeritus of Modern European History at Columbia University and is considered one of the foremost American experts on fascism. Paxton’s influential work, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” examines the practical actions of fascist regimes, particularly those led by Hitler and Mussolini. His research has significantly contributed to the understanding of fascism and its impact on 20th-century Europe.

Paxton has argued that fascism is not primarily an ideology, but a political movement. He has suggested that fascism is driven more by emotions and social dynamics than by a coherent set of ideas or intellectual positions. This perspective challenges the notion of fascism as a traditional “ism” or ideology, highlighting its reliance on feelings and the socio-political context in which it arises, particularly in times when liberal democracy is perceived as failing.

Throughout his career, Professor Paxton has argued that the word fascism has been debased into epithet, an overuse and misapplication of the term in modern political discourse. The term is frequently wielded as a broad and pejorative label to describe a wide range of behaviors or policies that individuals find objectionable, regardless of whether they truly align with historical fascism.

According to Paxton, when “fascism” becomes an indiscriminate insult it loses its value as a diagnostic tool for identifying genuine fascist movements or tendencies. This misuse obscures the nuanced understanding necessary to recognize the conditions that foster real fascist ideologies, thus hindering effective responses to such threats.

Paxton has emphasized the importance of preserving the analytical rigor of the term to ensure that it remains a valuable framework for understanding specific political dynamics. He argues that by maintaining its precise definition, scholars and analysts can better discern and address the complex realities of political movements, particularly those that might genuinely echo the dangerous patterns of historical fascism.

Until January 6, 2021, Paxton had refused to apply the term fascism to Trumpism. While initially hesitant to use the label, Paxton reconsidered when the Capitol was stormed. He stated that Trump’s encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crossed a critical line, making the use of the term “fascism” not only acceptable but necessary. By 2024, while remaining cautious about the political utility of the term, Paxton acknowledges that the characteristics of Trumpism resemble those of original fascist movements.

Robert Paxton explains that fascism can evolve in one of two main directions: entropy or radicalization. When a fascist movement faces entropy, it gradually loses momentum and coherence, often due to internal divisions, lack of clear leadership, or diminishing popular support. This process can be accelerated by external pressures, such as strong opposition from democratic institutions or international condemnation, which can weaken the movement’s appeal and destabilize its structure.

On the other hand, radicalization occurs when a fascist movement becomes more extreme and intense. This path is often fueled by a combination of internal factors, such as charismatic leadership and a devoted base, and external conditions, like socio-economic crises or perceived threats from political adversaries. In such environments, the movement may double down on its authoritarian and nationalistic rhetoric, intensifying its actions to secure power and influence.

Paxton’s analysis of historical fascist movements reveals these patterns, as seen in the rise and fall of regimes like those in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He notes that contemporary movements can also exhibit these tendencies, where the initial appeal can either dissipate over time or escalate into more aggressive tactics. Understanding these evolutionary paths provides insight into the dynamics of fascism and the conditions that either mitigate or amplify its impact in society.

Primary sources

Primary sources in the academic discipline of history are original, firsthand evidence created or used during the time under study. They provide direct, firsthand testimony of historical events, offering valuable insights into the past. Some examples of primary sources are:

1. Documents: Letters, diaries, official records, speeches, and manuscripts that were written during the period being studied.
2. Visual Materials: Photographs, paintings, maps, and films that capture moments or aspects of the time.
3. Artifacts: Physical objects like tools, clothing, and buildings that were used or made during the historical period.
4. Audio and Video Recordings: Interviews, music, and broadcasts that were recorded at the time.
5. Newspapers and Magazines: Articles and advertisements published during the period, providing contemporary accounts and perspectives.
6. Oral Histories: Interviews and testimonies from people who experienced the events firsthand.

Primary sources are essential for historians, offering genuine insights and evidence that enable researchers to craft narratives and analyses grounded in actual materials from the past. Official statements shared widely on social media, audio and video recordings, and political rhetoric published in newspapers all serve as substantial evidence of the fascist threat posed by Trumpism. However, the most compelling evidence comes from oral histories provided by credible witnesses, which directly substantiate the threat of fascism in the United States.

Recent comments from retired military officers, including John Kelly, highlight concerns about the threat of fascism in the U.S. Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff, has publicly stated that Trump fits the definition of a fascist, citing his authoritarian tendencies and admiration for dictatorial figures like Hitler. These statements underscore concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for authoritarian governance. Such warnings from high-ranking former military officials emphasize the seriousness of these concerns, especially as they relate to the use of military power and the undermining of constitutional principles.

Furthermore, senior military officials, including former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, have expressed similar concerns about Trump’s leadership style and its implications for democracy. These concerns often focus on authoritarian tendencies and the intended misuse of military power. Senior Republican leaders, like Liz Cheney, have researched and substantiated these concerns through formal and public legislative inquiries.

---

When the National Weather Service issues alerts and advisories about an impending catastrophic event, it is wise to take them seriously. We have received warnings from respected academic historians, as well as trusted senior military and political leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties, about a potential political tsunami that would jeopardize US democracy if Trumpism triumphs in the 2024 presidential election. Therefore, we must respond with urgency and purpose.

If the polls are to be trusted, based as they are in less than one percent of respondents, why is the outcome of this presidential election so closely contested? Are economic concerns really worth jeopardizing the most ambitious democratic experiment in human history?

Arguably, approximately one-third of the U.S. population is deeply entrenched in the Trump cult, primarily consisting of Evangelical Christians and Nativists. However, the conservative core of rural America is resilient and attentive to warnings about catastrophic tornadoes. As true American conservatives, rural America and US veterans should remain steadfast in their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, not personalities. This is both my hope and my prayer.

In the upcoming article of this series, I will explore how men and women of goodwill can become catalysts, both in the United States and globally, in addressing the “process of entropy” to dissolve the threat of fascism, as described by Professor Paxton.

---

The 2024 presidential election in the United States transcends mere policy; it fundamentally revolves around character. Voter preferences should be influenced by policy differences only when presidential candidates exhibit comparable levels of honesty and competence.

The election of corrupt officials poses significant risks to the democratic fabric and societal well-being. Corruption undermines public trust, distorts policy decisions, and often leads to inequitable distribution of resources. The consequences can be severe, as seen in countries plagued by chronic corruption, where economic development is stunted, and social injustice is rampant. Corrupt leaders prioritize personal gain over public good, leading to policy decisions that may align with ideological preferences but ultimately betray ethical responsibilities. This betrayal erodes the foundational trust required for effective governance and civic engagement.
–https://hierarchicaldemocracy.wordpress.com/2024/10/05/integrity-over-ideology/

In this presidential election, integrity in political leadership must take precedence over ideological considerations, underscoring the notion that trustworthy governance is rooted in moral fortitude rather than mere policy alignment. This emphasis on character should shape any debate around the Four Freedoms, challenging both conservatives and liberals to reflect on how these ideals can be safeguarded and advanced within a democratic framework of ethical leadership.

---

The Four Freedoms:

A Conservative and Liberal Perspective

In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated a vision of a world founded upon four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom of worship. These freedoms have since become a cornerstone of American political discourse, symbolizing the ideals of democracy and human rights. However, conservatives and liberals in the United States often diverge in their interpretation and prioritization of these freedoms, reflecting broader ideological differences.

Freedom of Speech

Historically rooted in the First Amendment, freedom of speech is a fundamental American value, championed by both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives typically emphasize the importance of free speech as an essential component of individual liberty and self-expression, often advocating against government regulations that might curtail speech, particularly in the realms of political discourse and media. From a conservative standpoint, free speech is sacred, with restrictions viewed as a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

Liberals also advocate for freedom of speech but often stress the need for this freedom to be balanced with protection against hate speech and misinformation. They may support regulations that limit speech deemed harmful or misleading when it risks inciting violence or spreading falsehoods. This perspective reflects a commitment to ensuring that speech contributes to informed and respectful public discourse, fostering an environment where all voices can be heard without fear of intimidation or harm.

---

Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism

The landscape of freedom of speech on college campuses is particularly complex when it comes to student protests against Zionism, a topic that often intersects with debates on anti-Semitism. Navigating these issues requires a nuanced understanding of the distinctions between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, as well as the broader implications for free speech and hate speech.

Anti-Semitism is widely recognized as hate speech due to its inherently discriminatory nature against Jewish individuals. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes and biases, contributing to a climate of hostility and exclusion. Universities are tasked with the challenge of identifying and addressing anti-Semitic expressions, ensuring that such rhetoric does not foster an environment of fear or discrimination for Jewish students and faculty.

On the other hand, anti-Zionism is political opposition to the policies and practices of the state of Israel, rather than an attack on Jewish identity. Criticism of a nation’s politics is a legitimate exercise of free speech, rooted in political discourse rather than ethnic or religious animus. This view maintains that individuals should have the freedom to express dissent regarding governmental actions, including those of Israel, without being labeled as engaging in hate speech.

Balancing these perspectives presents a significant challenge for universities. They must uphold principles of free speech, allowing for a vibrant exchange of ideas and political debate while simultaneously ensuring that expressions do not cross into hate speech that targets individuals based on their identity. This dual obligation can lead to contentious debates over campus policies, with administrations often caught between protecting students’ right to free expression and safeguarding against speech that may incite hate or violence.

The impact of these debates is profound, influencing not only university policies but also the nature of student activism. Students engaged in these discussions and protests must navigate the fine line between advocating for political change and respecting the boundaries established to protect all members of the campus community from discrimination. As universities strive to foster inclusive environments, they must continue to grapple with these complex issues, working to define clear guidelines that respect both freedom of speech and the imperative to prevent hate speech.

---

Freedom from Fear

Freedom from fear, as envisioned by FDR, was primarily concerned with global peace and security, envisioning a world where nations disarm and engage cooperatively. Conservatives may interpret this freedom through the lens of national security, emphasizing a strong military presence and robust defense measures as essential to protecting American citizens from external threats. They might argue that a powerful military deters aggression and ensures domestic tranquility.

On the other hand, liberals might focus on diplomatic efforts, arms control, and international cooperation as means to achieve freedom from fear. They often advocate for policies that address the root causes of conflict, such as poverty and injustice, viewing these as critical to achieving sustainable peace. This interpretation aligns with a broader liberal emphasis on multilateralism and global governance as pathways to security.

---

The right to bear arms

The right to bear arms, enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is a pivotal element in the American discourse on freedom from fear, viewed distinctly through conservative and liberal lenses.

From a conservative perspective, the right to bear arms is seen as a fundamental means of ensuring personal security and reducing fear. Many conservatives argue that the ability to possess firearms empowers individuals to protect themselves and their families from threats, thereby directly contributing to a sense of safety and freedom from fear. This view posits that an armed populace deters crime and tyranny, fostering a secure environment where people can exercise their freedoms without fear of oppression or violence.

In contrast, liberals often contend that the widespread ownership of guns can increase fear and insecurity, advocating for stricter gun control laws to enhance public safety. From this perspective, the prevalence of firearms is linked to higher rates of gun violence and mass shootings, which can instill fear in communities. Liberals argue that by implementing regulations such as background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms, society can reduce the potential for gun-related incidents, thus promoting a broader sense of security and freedom from fear.

These ideological differences highlight how conservatives and liberals perceive the relationship between gun rights and freedom from fear. While conservatives emphasize individual empowerment and deterrence through self-defense, liberals focus on collective safety and the reduction of gun-related dangers through regulation. This ongoing debate underscores the divergent philosophies on how best to achieve a society free from fear.

---

Freedom from Want

Freedom from want reflects the aspiration for economic security and the right to an adequate standard of living. Conservatives might view this freedom through the prism of economic opportunity and personal responsibility, advocating for a free-market economy that rewards hard work and innovation. They may argue that government intervention should be minimal, emphasizing the role of private enterprise and individual initiative in alleviating poverty.

Conversely, liberals often argue that the government has a vital role in ensuring economic security, supporting policies that provide a social safety net, such as healthcare, education, and welfare programs. They believe that addressing systemic inequalities and providing for those in need are essential to ensuring freedom from want and view government action as necessary to achieve social justice and economic fairness.

---

Compassionate Conservatism

The concept of compassionate conservatism, prominently advocated by figures such as former President George W. Bush, provides a distinct approach to addressing economic insecurity compared to the more expansive governmental role envisioned by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s freedom from want. This essay explores the philosophical underpinnings of both ideologies, highlighting their differences and areas of potential overlap.

Compassionate conservatism is rooted in the belief that addressing economic insecurity requires a combination of personal responsibility, community involvement, and a restrained role for government. This approach emphasizes the need for individuals to take charge of their own economic destinies, supported by community-based initiatives and private charities. Government, in this view, should act as a facilitator rather than a provider, creating an environment where individuals and communities can thrive through their own efforts.

The compassionate conservative philosophy suggests that solutions to poverty and economic insecurity are best found within local communities and faith-based organizations, which can offer personalized and direct assistance. For example, Bush’s policies often highlighted the role of faith-based initiatives and private charities in delivering social services, arguing that these entities are better equipped to understand and meet the needs of the underprivileged.

In contrast, FDR’s freedom from want, as articulated in his 1941 State of the Union address, envisions a more active role for government in ensuring economic security. This freedom is part of Roosevelt’s broader Four Freedoms, which sought to establish a world where individuals are free from fear, want, speech suppression, and religious persecution. Freedom from want specifically calls for a robust social safety net, including employment opportunities, social security, and welfare programs to ensure a basic standard of living for all citizens.

Roosevelt’s approach places significant emphasis on government intervention to rectify economic inequities and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. This perspective views economic security as a fundamental right, with the federal government responsible for creating policies that guarantee this right.

The primary philosophical difference between compassionate conservatism and FDR’s freedom from want lies in their views on the role of government. Compassionate conservatism favors a limited government, emphasizing personal responsibility and local solutions, while FDR’s vision advocates for substantial government involvement to achieve economic security for all.

However, there are areas of potential overlap. Both ideologies recognize the importance of community and the need for policies that empower individuals. Compassionate conservatism’s focus on local initiatives and faith-based organizations could complement FDR’s vision by providing the immediate, ground-level support that governmental programs might miss. Conversely, the infrastructure and funding provided by government programs under FDR’s model could enhance the reach and effectiveness of community-based efforts promoted by compassionate conservatives.

While compassionate conservatism and FDR’s freedom from want present differing paths to economic security, their shared goal of alleviating poverty and ensuring a decent quality of life for all citizens offers opportunities for dialogue and cooperation. By acknowledging the strengths and limitations of each approach, policymakers can craft more comprehensive strategies that leverage both community engagement and government support to address the complex challenges of economic insecurity.

---

Freedom of Worship

Freedom of worship, historically rooted in the principle of religious liberty, is a value upheld by both conservatives and liberals, though their interpretations may differ. Conservatives generally advocate for the protection of religious expression in public life, arguing against policies they perceive as infringing on religious freedoms, such as mandates that conflict with religious beliefs. Specifically, the would promote Christian Nationalism as a reflection of the cultural heritage of a predominantly Christian nation.

Liberals, while equally supportive of religious freedom, often emphasize the importance of maintaining a separation between church and state, advocating for policies that ensure religious neutrality in public institutions. They support the right to worship freely while also ensuring that religious beliefs do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Specifically, Christian Nationalism is seen as an infringement on the freedom of worship, prioritizing orthodox Christianity over other religions in public and political life. 

---

Christian Nationalism in the United States

Christian Nationalism in the United States has significant implications for religious freedom and democracy.

1. Threat to Religious Freedom: Christian Nationalism often merges religious identity with national identity, suggesting that America is fundamentally a Christian nation. This ideology can undermine the principle of religious freedom by marginalizing non-Christian faiths and promoting policies that favor Christianity, potentially infringing on the rights of religious minorities.
2. Political Influence: The movement has been linked to efforts to integrate religious beliefs into government policies, challenging the separation of church and state. This can lead to legislation that reflects specific religious values, affecting issues like education and human rights.
3. Social Division: By promoting a singular religious identity as central to American identity, Christian Nationalism can exacerbate social divisions, fostering an environment of exclusion and discrimination against those who do not conform to its ideals.
4. Democratic Concerns: The ideology has been associated with authoritarian tendencies, as it often supports the idea of a divinely ordained leadership. This can threaten democratic principles by prioritizing religious conformity over pluralism and open discourse.

Overall, Christian Nationalism poses challenges to the foundational American values of religious freedom and democratic governance, raising concerns about its influence on both policy and societal cohesion.

---

Conclusion

The Four Freedoms articulated by FDR remain a guiding beacon for American democracy, reflecting enduring principles that conservatives and liberals interpret through their respective ideological lenses. While both perspectives value these freedoms, their approaches to implementing and prioritizing them reflect broader debates about the role of government, the balance of individual rights and communal responsibilities, and the pursuit of justice and equality. Understanding these ideological nuances is critical to navigating contemporary political discourse and fostering a society where all citizens can enjoy the freedoms of speech, fear, want, and worship.

The discourse between conservatives and liberals regarding FDR’s Four Freedoms serves as a vital exercise in a democratic society. A two-party system fosters robust debates around policy. However, such discussions can only thrive in a democracy upheld by the Four Freedoms. Any authoritarian encroachment on these freedoms would stifle the free exchange of ideas necessary for a balanced exploration of these important issues.

---

A dark cloud looms over the United States in these final days of the 2024 presidential election—an ominous shadow of SQUARES imprisoning the nation’s spirit. Squares are symbols of conflict.

As in all prisons of the lowest desires, these walls of darkness are made up of four sides:

• Fear,
• Anger,
• Hatred and
• Violence.

Nearly half of the US electorate has confined themselves within walls of darkness, in echo chambers shutting out the light of reason. Their anger and fear fuel hostility towards fellow Americans, casting blame on others—citizens and immigrants alike—as adversaries, the “enemy within,” they believe must be confronted.

But, as in Leonard Cohen’s Anthem,

“There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.”

How can we crack these square clouds of darkness? How can we ring the “bells of freedom?”

Within every square of conflict lies the promise of triangles of harmony. From each side of the square, eight equilateral triangles can emerge — four above, four below — forming octahedral diamonds of light, love and power. Diamonds are symbols of the unconquerable nature of goodness spearheaded by the spiritual will.

We must cultivate a genuine will for peace, the peace resulting from right human relations. It’s crucial to recognize the significant difference between desire and spiritual will. While desire seeks peace and stability through appeasement and submission, it lacks the profound, transformative power that spiritual will embodies. Spiritual will — the will-to-good — is essential for overcoming evil. In contrast to desire, which operates from the material realm upward, spiritual will flows from a higher plane downward, shaping reality to align with divine purpose.

Wiser minds aligned with divine purpose have provided an INVOCATION to achieve true and lasting peace on Earth. In essence, it states:

LIGHT + LOVE + WILL = GOOD + PEACE

We are told that “evil and good are reverse aspects of the same one reality, and evil is that good which we should have left behind, passing on to greater and more inclusive good.” We must move forward, choosing country over party and light over darkness.

We must rent the veils of darkness with the spiritual will of our diamond hearts by creating invocative TRIANGLES of Light to disperse the clouds of darkness in these final days of the 2024 presidential election.

Will you join others in invoking Light, Love, and POWER to safeguard the United States and the entire world from fear, anger, hatred, and violence? Together, let us pierce the clouds of darkness with our diamond hearts and illuminate the path of reason for our fellow Americans.

---

Defeating the MAGA ideology

May the Power of our united LIGHT

PREVENT, NEGATE, and DESTROY

the glamour of the MAGA ideology

in the United States and throughout the world.

It is not the people but the regressive Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology that must be targeted as the evil to be prevented, negated, and destroyed by the Forces of Light.

The forthcoming 2024 presidential election transcends a mere partisan rivalry between Democrats and Republicans, as the insightful Republican Liz Cheney has boldly asserted. It represents a fundamental struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

The Tibetan Master, speaking on behalf of the spiritual Hierarchy, has urged us to combat the menace of totalitarianism. A dark cloud of fascism is being cast throughout the world, We must rent this veil.

Renting the veils

---

---