Thank you 🙏 One of the few voices left I care to listen to above the fray. I feel the same. I am called to patience in this time, and in this case silence is not violence, despite the easy way the phrase rolls off the tongue. There’s just nothing left to say. The momentum is going where it’s leading and my path seems to be to keep my own light bright and connect with others when they are tending theirs.
Charles, thank you so much for always putting yourself out there and teaching. You have been a shining light, and the saving grace for me every since Covid. You bring brilliance to something that has become daunting – and I’m aghast that more people don’t understand the logic of what you’re saying.
I could go on, but I’m simply going to say thank you, thank you.
Thank you, Charles! Once again your writing calls me to a higher ideal and a commitment to end/resolve my own inner conflicts so that I may be a peaceful presence in the world, regardless of what transpires around me.
thanks for writing Charles and appreciate the subtle nod to OB as a mentor. He has spoken to my core more than once! You inoculate yourself against the charge of both-sides-ism or fence sitting, but at some point, we're on Howard Zinn's "you can't be neutral on a moving train." Or more appropriately, "you can't be a non-dual conscientious objector on a moving train." You wrote: "If you are fully convinced either (1) that Trump represents a fascist oligarchic takeover of democracy drawing on the worst racist, misogynistic, xenophobic elements of the American psyche to destroy everything good and humane about America, or (2) that the MAGA revolution will restore freedom and sanity to a system that had been taken over by a deep state that used environmentalism and social justice as excuses to implement a totalitarian control system". Doesn't Option B only exist on X and Fox? And isn't Option A spelled out clearly in Miller and Vought's writings and speeches (minus the Russell Conjugating) For sure, the far Left massively overplayed their SJW agenda, and the governing Left has been fully captured by neolib GloboCapitalism since Clinton. But the only group actively dismantling our system of gov't and the American Peace are the ones complaining most loudly they're the ones saving it. To point out the firefighters are arsonists isn't to give up one's enlightened neutrality. It's to take a stand for the institutions and values of the Infinite Game this imperfect country was founded upon.
I'm certain CE has specific and personal opinions on the American politic. That's not the reason he writes these essays however. Much or his writings are about putting opinion aside, or rather broadening the scope of the issue and zooming out, to pose more important and fundamental questions.
There's tons of political opinion pieces out there that can validate your perspectives if you wish. It's all an echo chamber.
Hey Jamie. I feel your comment embodies a furthering of the broad point of Charles essay - war mentality. By quoting the most politically specific words he wrote, identifying the two warring tribes in those words, and declaring that he must be of one and not the other, and that one is less evil and malignant to democracy than the other.
I hear in Charles piece his belief that there is no “them”. Only us. That does not make you neutral on a moving train. That is an understanding that we are all on the same train- headed to the same destination, together. Why does someone different than us have to be identified and thrown off the train? And why does asking that humanitarian question make one neutral?
As soon as we can end the eternal thirst for being at war with ourselves, there may be an era of reconciliation and mutual respect available to us. I do hear the support for tribalism, othering, and war in the subtle positioning in much of your work lately.
I can see you rolling your eyes at what I imagine you perceive as my naïveté. And I respect and trust you as a brilliant mind and friend who does not want to witness or encourage this car crash Charles sees as inevitable. I would love to hear you speak more about all of us and less about the pariah classes atrocities.
dude. been speaking about "all of us or none of us" for a looong time and still 100% committed to it! (and no eye rolls. happy to discuss) but have also pointed out bad faith actors who are not on that program at all, and are mortal threats to common decency, humanity, democracy, etc. Non violence is amazing (have written all about Gandhi, King, etc) but it only worked in the US and the UK. Try that against Hitler and he would've gladly run everyone marching in the streets down with Panzers. I am all in on Team Human and in live and let live ideological diversity, up to, but not beyond the point where one tribe's strategy hinges on suppressing/attacking/dehumanizing another. Sadly, it seems that we are accelerating into that terrain more and more, and even if you're 100% stanning for Bobby, Elon and DJT,–Stephen Miller, Russel Vought and Curtis Yarvin are different creatures with growing influence and I take a stand against what they are trying to do to this country. I am for the Infinite Game where everyone regardless of race color or creed is entitled to a fair shot at the good life. I am against tribal finite games (of far right or left) that seek to smash the Enlightenment Experiment and grab what's "theirs" regardless of the consequences to people and planet. Call me old fashioned...
As far as my own experience with “neutral enlightenment” around social issues, within nondual traditions, none of my teachers in India and South Africa behave this way. It seems pretty western as a brand, specifically American, and it seems new and trendy. Also seems like laziness and maybe even fear of the peers, disguised as a flex. As for this being the opening crack to a “consciousness evolution” that actually helps life, where’d all the thought leaders get that idea? Not from any actual adaptation process here on earth. Shit irks me. Thanks Jamie for being a grown up in the room.
They sure are cuddle buddies these days! 🤣 kinda wonder what Ram Dass and Alan Watts would say, they were doing their thing during some epic kerfuffles.
Jamie: i’m finding myself in an increasing number of frustrating conversations with intelligent, wonderful human beings who are choosing to stay neutral in these crazy times. I find your words here and in your “homegrown humans“ newsletter extremely helpful in clarifying my own thinking and in crafting useful responses in those conversations. Thanks so much for all you do.
yeah. me too. best I can figure is that motivated reasoning comes for all of us. If adopting a certain set of assumptions about our tribe, or even our personal identities (like "I'm too sophisticated to fall for politics" or "I'm a rebel and will always doubt the Establishment" or "my guy must be playing 5D chess and not a total buffoon" seems insidious and powerful. Sometimes Emperors are buck naked, and spades are spades
Fantastic! I love the way you think. Yesterday I went to a protest, invited to go watch by the opposing side lol. Instead of getting into it, which all seems futile, as you mentioned, I made a FREE HUGS sign and hugged a bunch of people I disagree with. A lot of people requested hugs and happily received them and gave them to me (even the times I told them we disagreed about stuff). It was wonderful! Afterwards, no anger...and instead, my heart felt full and open. Interesting experience.
What a wonderful response to the situation at hand. Your "free hugs" sign was definitely in the path of negating war mentality. I too agree with Jamie that sometimes the emperor is naked, but I also agree with Charles that the war mentality has completely taken us over. I have friends/family on both sides of the "war" and try to hug as often as I can to remember we are both/all humans and on same train.
I consider myself a Global Citizen rather than a citizen of any tribe or nation. As a Global Citizen, part of my "creed" states that "there is no 'them'".
When someone says they identify as a “global citizen” and claim they don’t see anyone as a “them,” I can’t help but wonder what that really means in practice. Is it truly possible to identify equally with every country, regardless of how its society is structured or how its people are treated?
For instance, do you identify just as comfortably with nations where religious persecution is enshrined in law and where homosexuality or adultery can result in execution, as you do with countries where personal freedom is protected, homosexuality is normalized, and adultery—while perhaps frowned upon—is handled through civil divorce, not criminal punishment?
The reality is, the world is full of societies with radically incompatible values. In some places, human rights are foundational. In others, they’re actively suppressed. These aren’t small differences. They go to the heart of what it means to live with dignity, safety, and freedom.
So when someone claims to feel equally at home in all cultures, no matter how oppressive or unjust, it’s hard not to be skeptical. That stance either requires a chameleon-like ability to conform to any environment, no matter how cruel—or it suggests a refusal to take a moral stand at all. In the name of tolerance, one risks tolerating the intolerable.
True empathy and moral clarity don’t require us to condemn entire nations wholesale—but neither should they blind us to injustice in the name of universal belonging. To claim a global identity is noble only if it’s anchored in a principled commitment to human dignity, not a vague sense of boundaryless goodwill. Without that, “global citizenship” becomes a platitude—comfortable, inclusive, and ultimately empty.
When one says “There is no ‘them’” they do not mean that they agree on and identify with everything and with everyone. It should mean that there are no Groups with a label that I consider “other”. I cannot say that the “Russians are my enemy” as there is no one who fits the label of “Russian”. People are unique and not subject to being objectified by a label. There may be certain Russians that I don’t agree with, but they would be individuals who happen to be Russian – not the whole group with the label of “Russian”.
I don’t want to be identified as “American” as that word means so many different things to everyone that it means nothing to anyone. I grew up during the Viet Nam War where the motto for many was “My country – right or wrong”. I do not subscribe to that. I don’t want to identify (or be identified with) the “wrong” of my country. I don’t want to label a person a “Frenchman” and think that that will define him sufficiently. It isn’t enough to identify anyone with a label – even identifying a person as a “child molester” is putting a label on someone else that is a false, or insufficient label. Labels do not identify or describe anyone sufficiently.
When we label a person, we de-humanize them and consider them as “other”. We form this in-group and out-group (others) and form this barrier between us and “them”. By identifying an “other” with a label, we deliberately draw assumptions that are not warranted. That is why, in this essay, he mentions that governments try to de-humanize other people under other governments as being “other” as a beginning of the journey from “murder with language” to “murder by bullets or bombs”.
Even though I'm not familiar with the term "Global Citizen" I can relate to not identifying with any tribe or team or other. We're not really separate even though it appears so.
Deborah, The fact that you cannot "relate" to "the term 'Global Citizen'" is exactly why I use it. No one knows what that means. If say "Russian", or "French" or "American", people have their own subjective ideas of what that means but it is insufficient. By using a term that no one understands, I am allowed to define it for them rather than relying on their preconceptions.
Oh good. I'm smiling. Oftentimes these days I don't understand what's really going on, yet it feels like a whole lot of unearthing (OK, I think I made that word up, or maybe the use of it?). I recently had to look up "Overton Window" because it's used A LOT. But back to 'Global Citizen," I experienced what I call a felt-sense that you were wanting the term to be open and more inclusive rather than boxed in as "this" or "that." At least that's what I felt resonance with. I don't want to be boxed in either. And I don't want to think of others as simply "this" or "that." Thanks for the reply back ;)
This is very thoughtful, but also a tricky piece. Not everyone is in the us vs. them demonization thinking. As a proud progressive lefty, I do not resonate with the vitriol many that also lean that way can far to often express and live into (myself included when I drift from my core values at times). If we look only at mainstream politicians or pundits, it can be predominantly true. And I think it's true that this "war thinking" as you describe it can dominate much thinking and discourse. But the heartfelt and tender sides to our humanity can rise up when called out, and I think there is where most of our attention needs to lie. Anger in the face of injustice is not inherently bad or unloving, but living there can of course be. When it motivates responsible action, it is a useful part of the human condition. To say each of these "sides" are equally causing this decline you speak of I think is naive. But regardless, we peacemakers need to keep our eye on building up the foundations for a new way. I'm still giving my all to that. In fact, I was surprised how easily you discounted US Institute of Peace and USAID, you, maybe unwittingly, discounted the work of millions of peacebuilders doing profound, live-saving, restorative work under their umbrellas. These are the very people doing the wor that could save us. The institutions are for sure imperfect and too often damaging agencies, but they also do incredibly important work as well. (Our military industrial complex and "Defense" Dept. is a far more damaging.) Fror this administration to destroy them outright is an abomination that I think is worthy or righteous anger, and for me to move that into action that is not of the war-making mentality, but definitly fiercly loving action. I hope your readers might read about why my org and work are trying to save US Institute of Peace right now. An article I wrote entitled "A Nation at War with Peace: What the raid on and takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace reveals about who we really are." on Substack: https://matthewalbracht.substack.com/p/a-nation-at-war-with-peace "This militarized takeover of USIP — and now, the near-total elimination of the agency through mass firings — are real-world acts with chilling metaphorical clarity, laying bare what this country truly values, and what it so easily discards.
The raid on USIP is shocking, but it’s not just about one agency. It’s a flashpoint — a darkly symbolic moment that makes unmistakably clear our skewed national priorities. We fund the tools of war as if they’re sacred. We treat the tools of peace as expendable afterthoughts."
There are many directions from which one could critique the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), but for now, I’ll focus on just one: the qualifications of the individuals appointed to its board. Under the USIP Act, board appointees are required to have “appropriate practical or academic experience in peace and conflict resolution efforts of the United States.” That’s a clear and deliberate standard—not a vague suggestion.
Let’s examine how this principle is being applied in practice by looking at a few recent Democratic appointees to the USIP Board:
Joseph L. Falk is best known as a prominent LGBTQ political activist and board member of the Victory Fund. Between 2019 and 2022, he donated over $610,000 to Democratic candidates and causes. While he’s undoubtedly influential in political circles, there’s no clear record of any practical or academic experience in peacebuilding or conflict resolution.
Edward M. Gabriel served as a political appointee during the Clinton administration and worked as a lobbyist. He gave nearly $68,000 to Democratic causes in the same time frame. Again, his background suggests political networking, not expertise in international conflict mediation or diplomacy.
Nathalie Rayes, President and CEO of the Latino Victory Project, contributed over $33,000 to Democratic campaigns during the 2020 and 2022 cycles. Like the others, her qualifications in peace and conflict resolution are difficult to identify. (She recently stepped down after being appointed Ambassador to Croatia.)
Mary Green Swig, founder of a luxury lingerie brand, donated $67,000 personally while her husband gave over $670,000 to Democratic campaigns during the same period—including over $136,000 to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I ask sincerely: does a background in high-end retail qualify someone for a board dedicated to global peace strategy?
Each of these individuals may be accomplished in their own spheres, but their appointments to a board that is supposed to advance the cause of peace around the world appear to be based less on expertise and more on political connections and donor activity.
If USIP is truly as important as its defenders claim—a national resource for advancing peace, reducing violent conflict, and helping shape U.S. foreign policy—then shouldn’t we take more seriously who is chosen to guide it? Shouldn’t the qualifications involve more than a willingness to cut campaign checks?
When an institution dedicated to peacebuilding starts looking more like a landing pad for political patrons, it’s fair to question whether it is being run with integrity—or simply being used as a reward system for party loyalty. The real issue isn’t partisanship, per se. It’s the casual disregard for the organization’s mission, as if peace and conflict resolution were just empty labels rather than disciplines that require skill, study, and experience.
If we’re serious about peace, we ought to be just as serious about who we trust to promote it.
These are fair critiques. And the same held true during Republican administrations. But the board isn't actually doing the work. It's the staff and contractors out in the field doing the work. Boards certainly steer the broad agenda, but directors implement and by and large there was much good work. Not all of it for sure. USIP had a $55ish million budget. Not much compared to say our "defense/military" budget at $900 billion. So the list of achievements from USIP had limits, but if the site hadn't been removed, you might have seen some compelling work nevertheless. What's striking is the the Trump administration raised military spending, which has levels of corruption eclipsing anything you mentioned, and that seems to be ok with so many. We give not even penny's on the dollar to peacebuilding. That is the thing that should make people cry out for change. hre are some examples of the kinds of work USIP did:
1. Facilitating Dialogue in Nigeria:
USIP has been instrumental in fostering dialogue among diverse religious and ethnic communities in Nigeria, a country often challenged by intercommunal tensions. By partnering with local leaders and organizations, USIP has helped to mediate conflicts, promote mutual understanding, and support initiatives aimed at building sustainable peace across various regions.
2. Mediating Peace in Iraq's "Triangle of Death":
In 2007, USIP played a pivotal role in brokering a peace agreement in Mahmoudiya, a region in Iraq notoriously known as the "Triangle of Death" due to intense sectarian violence. USIP experts acted as neutral facilitators, bringing together Sunni tribal leaders, Shiite government officials, and U.S. military representatives. This intervention led to a significant reduction in attacks and casualties, allowing for a substantial decrease in U.S. military presence—from approximately 3,500 soldiers to about 650. General David Petraeus described the turnaround as "striking," highlighting USIP's critical role in the process.
3. Empowering Youth Through Media in South Sudan:
Recognizing the influential role of media in peacebuilding, USIP supported the creation of "Sawa Shabab" (Youth Together), a radio drama series in South Sudan. This program engages young listeners by addressing critical social issues and promoting messages of peace, unity, and reconciliation, thereby contributing to the nation's peacebuilding efforts.
Thanks for taking time to craft a thoughtful reply. I think success stories are the most useful way to show value. Hopefully, whatever comes out of all this increases transparency and accountability while preserving the useful missions of USIP.
Thank you. The work I've chosen to do is to make sure I'm anchored in to Love at the start of every day, and to watch for examples of it as I go about my day. I'm living The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, as an example to others. I'm so grateful to you for planting that seed and giving me the language to express my Truth. Stay strong.
Charles expresses exactly where I'm at as an in-betweener, not belonging to either the Republican or Democrat party, to the right or the left. I've felt all these things he expresses here, but lack the skill and time investment to put it into words.
So I have shared this long but profound piece with those I care about, in the hopes that they will resonate with it. And if they are not already in-betweeners, I hope that they will join those of us who are envisioning the coming together of the people to create a more beautiful world in the future - the New Earth, the New World, the Golden Age - a time of peace and prosperity for all, where humans recognize their interdependence with each other and with nature.
Yes, I'm having to wait now too, so I'm glad Charles is suggesting it. I'm going within and clearing all the war vibes and patterns out of my own consciousness.
Yes! All of this is just reminding me of my own journey- it doesn’t require anything from the outside world (as the outer world is simply a reflection of my inner self). I have allowed myself all too often to get pulled into fear, anger and anxiety. It is my choice to feel into the deeper possibility and shine love (which I believe is the ultimate truth )❤️. Thank you!
"Wait" is exactly what my inner self said when I asked about vaccination. Wait is also paired with patience and knowing, trusting in the Divine, and rising above the fear and anger. Being Spiritual, I'm told, isn't mucked in with the physical, mental or emotional. Be in the world, not of it, someone said.
Thank you for naming the war mentality. I believe that due to the lack of emotional understanding of the role of families and communities in creating mature human beings, we have parts of ourselves stuck in immaturity. And historically we have come to this present moment where it’s time to grow our adult selves up regarding just the issues you have pointed out. Ideally from 0-7 years of age the foundations for maturation can be set up, for example having mixed feelings. But if we have too many adverse childhood experiences we can get stuck in a survival and alarm state. Preschoolers don’t have mixed feelings. They are one thing or the other not both. They believe in Santa, magical thinking, they can kick, bite and express frustration violently. Toddlers are designed to be in close proximity with the people in charge of them. They become extremely alarmed when pushed into separation by wayward caregivers who want compliance. Yes they comply with this threat of separation but we need attuned caregiving that is attachment informed.
Alarm that takes us over as adults is a sure sign we have uninished maturation and attachment issues.
Another core indicator is the pursuit of proximity… perhaps emerging in an adult self with feelings of isolation despite a crowd of people around us .
Frustration or ‘seeing red’ with no restraint on violent actions is a sure sign of missed emotional maturation opportunities in early life. Adults who didn’t know better, were not able to provide the safe space for the 0-5 year olds frustration…. And when that frustration is not met with the skills to listen through angry emotions the frustration turns foul. The core of bullying, of violence.
The good news is small groups can grow us up, groups where there is emotional understanding.
I work with hard to house youth whose early hurts or “adverse childhood experiences “ are way over the top…. and I am part of small groups. Sometimes I’m the initiator, then there develops a connection, a little safety, even maturation, and as each of us have gifts, we are all learning … how to feel and heal and how to meet our small group, or organizational challenges in teams with increasing levels of emotional understanding and resulting maturity.
Once we get that triumvirate of
- Understanding pursuit of proximity to people who regulate us well
- Frustration and how, if left unexpressed, can turn to various forms of foul frustration ie war.
- and Alarm, such a key visceral state that so needs to be met with close emotional connectedness, and through therapeutic touch, be it yoga or somatic experiencing kinds of approaches.
Once these three states can be met carefully then we can proceed to build mature working relationships that include moments of pause, to feel what is coming up, and returning to the grand emotional project that is before us: are we going to recreate war again and again? Or can we slow this urgent money hungry “it’s never enough” crazy machine down?
Let’s develop the maturation to slow down, feel and pause and create the conditions for emotional maturity for humanity whose preeminent need is for close long lasting relationships and friendships with enjoyment of diversity, in the people we know, in the food we eat, the music we make, then rest and sleep and dream new dreams. Supporting differentness, uniqueness, creativity and play.
Human connectedness is the primary social determinant of health in every country, some things are that irreducible. When nation states fail its families that start over and create “the economy”.
Resonating with you here Shannon. Small groups are a practical way to regulate and align. I'd like some of them to name the problem of reactivity and deliberately work to hold the tension, feeling the underlying connection that's already present. Could this be a thing I wonder? Planting seeds . . .
YES 🙌🏼 this is exactly why I’m doing what I’m doing - teaching folks to facilitate grief ritual & grief tending in their communities and organizations. When we can have these spaces everywhere that repair the early and ongoing relational harm, our whole society will shift. 💛
Greetings from Finland. I have spent the last 6 months or so reading most everything I've gotten my hands on by (or about) a man called Yrjö Kallinen (1886-1976) (which btw is plenty, thanks to the well-stacked public libraries that we still have the luxury of enjoying here).
I came across a short quote by him in a book I browsed through last year, and this was enough to spark my curiosity. He's obviously been quite a visible figure in his time, and still I cannot recall him being generally mentioned or referred to in ANY schoolbooks during my entire education (all the way up to a Master's Degree).
Surprise, surprise: Kallinen was a self-educated pacifist who vehemently spoke of the sacredness of life, questioned polarization, worried about third world war, capitalism and general destruction of both minds, nature and the planet. He lived through the Finnish independence struggle, civil war (+ 4 death sentences related to it), two world wars, and was a very prominent public speaker. He served two years as the minister of defense (after negotiating some non-negotiable terms regarding which part/s of the job he was going to be involved in) and then returned to his previous engagement in the field of co-op and worker's rights. He was also into for instance theosophy, but bowed to no -isms at all; always willing and able to consider the whole and all complexities this includes (also failing at times, and admitting this).
All this just to say, that the echo of Kallinen's voice carrying through time and reaching me in the current moment PLUS your essays, Charles, are some of the factors that have been, and are, contributing greatly to my sanity lately, and I thank you (and Yrjö) deeply for that. I have no need to place either of you on a pedestal, but you both do serve as some kind of lighthouses, reassuring me that it is not completely outrageously detached to think that it is peace that supports peace; that questioning the regarding of/referring to economy, politics, (e.g. medical) science, technology and so forth as natural laws, instead of the (hu)man-made decisions and developments they are, is completely valid. Thank you.
As a final touch, a poem by Larson Langston:
I don’t want to kill any dragons.
I don’t want to fight demons.
Let them breathe fire elsewhere.
Let them roar down empty roads.
I’ve set my sword down.
I’d rather have tea under the tilting willow tree,
watching the wind stir its long green fingers,
listening for whatever truth the leaves remember.
I don’t want to do more damage—
not to the shadows I carry,
not to the soil I’ve scarred just by walking.
No more battles inside my chest.
No more betrayals in the name of becoming.
There’s already too much wreckage in the world—
why should I add my own smoke to it?
I want to sit.
To stay still enough that even the shyest wonders
crawl out of the cracks and speak.
Not to be heroic.
Not to be healed.
Just to be here.
And let the world tell me something true.
Let the thunder pass without my name in its mouth.
Let the storm forget me.
I have no need to raise my voice above the rain—
I’ve found shelter in the quiet.
The earth hums beneath bare feet,
a language older than war.
It tells me I am enough, even in pieces.
So I stay,
cup in hand,
watching the steam rise like prayers I no longer have to speak.
Some cases against Trump have more merit than others, but that is a normal part of the legal process, not "lawfare." Trump is not a victim, but he is a master at playing the victim in order to justify victimizing others. He really did try to stage a self-coup in order to stay in power and really did mobilize a mob of his supporters to try to accomplish that. He really did try to lean on state officials like Brad Raffensberger to fraudulently "find the votes" to keep himself in office. These are very serious crimes, and other democracies (most recently, South Korea, in ousting its president for declaring martial law in order to seize authoritarian power) recognize them as such and remove such individuals from office. Again, we don't have to "hate" or "other" Trump or his supporters in order to speak the truth on this point, or believe that some kind of accountability is necessary to protect the people of America from being ruled over by criminal elements.
"Narcissists' compulsion to frame their experience as unjust and take the victim stance stems from their underlying instability and compensatory grandiosity. But playing up the part of the tragically wronged victim is also a manipulative strategy that serves their desire to control others and sidestep accountability for their opportunistic and abusive behavior."
Can you please expound on the definition of "lawfare"? Does it always mean a weaponization of the law? Disappointing if Charles used it in this way, since many of the lawsuits against Trump seemed justified.
I'm not sure what Charles' intention is, but "lawfare" is a combination of the words "law" and "warfare." Basically, it's the notion of going to war against one's political opponents through frivolous lawsuits and bogus criminal cases. It's especially rich coming from Trump, since this is exactly what he's doing, and what he's done his whole life before politics.
Thank you 🙏 One of the few voices left I care to listen to above the fray. I feel the same. I am called to patience in this time, and in this case silence is not violence, despite the easy way the phrase rolls off the tongue. There’s just nothing left to say. The momentum is going where it’s leading and my path seems to be to keep my own light bright and connect with others when they are tending theirs.
Blessings 🌺
yes! i so agree
Me three!!!
"There's just nothing left to say." Too right.
Wait, for now.
Distrust everything if you have to.
But trust the hours. Haven’t they
carried you everywhere, up to now?
Personal events will become interesting again.
Hair will become interesting.
Pain will become interesting.
Buds that open out of season will become interesting.
Second-hand gloves will become lovely again;
their memories are what give them
the need for other hands. The desolation
of lovers is the same: that enormous emptiness
carved out of such tiny beings as we are
asks to be filled; the need
for the new love is faithfulness to the old.
Wait.
Don’t go too early.
You’re tired. But everyone’s tired.
But no one is tired enough.
Only wait a little and listen:
music of hair,
music of pain,
music of looms weaving our loves again.
Be there to hear it, it will be the only time,
most of all to hear your whole existence,
rehearsed by the sorrows, play itself into total exhaustion.
Copyright © 1980 by Galway Kinnell
very kind and true
Thank you for sharing that poem!
Charles, thank you so much for always putting yourself out there and teaching. You have been a shining light, and the saving grace for me every since Covid. You bring brilliance to something that has become daunting – and I’m aghast that more people don’t understand the logic of what you’re saying.
I could go on, but I’m simply going to say thank you, thank you.
May the universe always have your back. KP ❤️
Thank you, Charles! Once again your writing calls me to a higher ideal and a commitment to end/resolve my own inner conflicts so that I may be a peaceful presence in the world, regardless of what transpires around me.
Same
thanks for writing Charles and appreciate the subtle nod to OB as a mentor. He has spoken to my core more than once! You inoculate yourself against the charge of both-sides-ism or fence sitting, but at some point, we're on Howard Zinn's "you can't be neutral on a moving train." Or more appropriately, "you can't be a non-dual conscientious objector on a moving train." You wrote: "If you are fully convinced either (1) that Trump represents a fascist oligarchic takeover of democracy drawing on the worst racist, misogynistic, xenophobic elements of the American psyche to destroy everything good and humane about America, or (2) that the MAGA revolution will restore freedom and sanity to a system that had been taken over by a deep state that used environmentalism and social justice as excuses to implement a totalitarian control system". Doesn't Option B only exist on X and Fox? And isn't Option A spelled out clearly in Miller and Vought's writings and speeches (minus the Russell Conjugating) For sure, the far Left massively overplayed their SJW agenda, and the governing Left has been fully captured by neolib GloboCapitalism since Clinton. But the only group actively dismantling our system of gov't and the American Peace are the ones complaining most loudly they're the ones saving it. To point out the firefighters are arsonists isn't to give up one's enlightened neutrality. It's to take a stand for the institutions and values of the Infinite Game this imperfect country was founded upon.
I'm certain CE has specific and personal opinions on the American politic. That's not the reason he writes these essays however. Much or his writings are about putting opinion aside, or rather broadening the scope of the issue and zooming out, to pose more important and fundamental questions.
There's tons of political opinion pieces out there that can validate your perspectives if you wish. It's all an echo chamber.
Thank you Jamie. I hope Charles responds as these are my questions too
Hey Jamie. I feel your comment embodies a furthering of the broad point of Charles essay - war mentality. By quoting the most politically specific words he wrote, identifying the two warring tribes in those words, and declaring that he must be of one and not the other, and that one is less evil and malignant to democracy than the other.
I hear in Charles piece his belief that there is no “them”. Only us. That does not make you neutral on a moving train. That is an understanding that we are all on the same train- headed to the same destination, together. Why does someone different than us have to be identified and thrown off the train? And why does asking that humanitarian question make one neutral?
As soon as we can end the eternal thirst for being at war with ourselves, there may be an era of reconciliation and mutual respect available to us. I do hear the support for tribalism, othering, and war in the subtle positioning in much of your work lately.
I can see you rolling your eyes at what I imagine you perceive as my naïveté. And I respect and trust you as a brilliant mind and friend who does not want to witness or encourage this car crash Charles sees as inevitable. I would love to hear you speak more about all of us and less about the pariah classes atrocities.
dude. been speaking about "all of us or none of us" for a looong time and still 100% committed to it! (and no eye rolls. happy to discuss) but have also pointed out bad faith actors who are not on that program at all, and are mortal threats to common decency, humanity, democracy, etc. Non violence is amazing (have written all about Gandhi, King, etc) but it only worked in the US and the UK. Try that against Hitler and he would've gladly run everyone marching in the streets down with Panzers. I am all in on Team Human and in live and let live ideological diversity, up to, but not beyond the point where one tribe's strategy hinges on suppressing/attacking/dehumanizing another. Sadly, it seems that we are accelerating into that terrain more and more, and even if you're 100% stanning for Bobby, Elon and DJT,–Stephen Miller, Russel Vought and Curtis Yarvin are different creatures with growing influence and I take a stand against what they are trying to do to this country. I am for the Infinite Game where everyone regardless of race color or creed is entitled to a fair shot at the good life. I am against tribal finite games (of far right or left) that seek to smash the Enlightenment Experiment and grab what's "theirs" regardless of the consequences to people and planet. Call me old fashioned...
As far as my own experience with “neutral enlightenment” around social issues, within nondual traditions, none of my teachers in India and South Africa behave this way. It seems pretty western as a brand, specifically American, and it seems new and trendy. Also seems like laziness and maybe even fear of the peers, disguised as a flex. As for this being the opening crack to a “consciousness evolution” that actually helps life, where’d all the thought leaders get that idea? Not from any actual adaptation process here on earth. Shit irks me. Thanks Jamie for being a grown up in the room.
NeoVedanta and NeoLiberalism don't exactly rhyme, but...
They sure are cuddle buddies these days! 🤣 kinda wonder what Ram Dass and Alan Watts would say, they were doing their thing during some epic kerfuffles.
Jamie: i’m finding myself in an increasing number of frustrating conversations with intelligent, wonderful human beings who are choosing to stay neutral in these crazy times. I find your words here and in your “homegrown humans“ newsletter extremely helpful in clarifying my own thinking and in crafting useful responses in those conversations. Thanks so much for all you do.
yeah. me too. best I can figure is that motivated reasoning comes for all of us. If adopting a certain set of assumptions about our tribe, or even our personal identities (like "I'm too sophisticated to fall for politics" or "I'm a rebel and will always doubt the Establishment" or "my guy must be playing 5D chess and not a total buffoon" seems insidious and powerful. Sometimes Emperors are buck naked, and spades are spades
yes cant be neutral on a moving train. there is a way beyond..... and it is beautiful, clear and enlivening, inspiring.....
I also love these two wise men (OB) and C get together, lifts my heart.
Fantastic! I love the way you think. Yesterday I went to a protest, invited to go watch by the opposing side lol. Instead of getting into it, which all seems futile, as you mentioned, I made a FREE HUGS sign and hugged a bunch of people I disagree with. A lot of people requested hugs and happily received them and gave them to me (even the times I told them we disagreed about stuff). It was wonderful! Afterwards, no anger...and instead, my heart felt full and open. Interesting experience.
loved reading this! healing the divide, hug by hug.
What a wonderful response to the situation at hand. Your "free hugs" sign was definitely in the path of negating war mentality. I too agree with Jamie that sometimes the emperor is naked, but I also agree with Charles that the war mentality has completely taken us over. I have friends/family on both sides of the "war" and try to hug as often as I can to remember we are both/all humans and on same train.
yay1 yes! :)
I consider myself a Global Citizen rather than a citizen of any tribe or nation. As a Global Citizen, part of my "creed" states that "there is no 'them'".
When someone says they identify as a “global citizen” and claim they don’t see anyone as a “them,” I can’t help but wonder what that really means in practice. Is it truly possible to identify equally with every country, regardless of how its society is structured or how its people are treated?
For instance, do you identify just as comfortably with nations where religious persecution is enshrined in law and where homosexuality or adultery can result in execution, as you do with countries where personal freedom is protected, homosexuality is normalized, and adultery—while perhaps frowned upon—is handled through civil divorce, not criminal punishment?
The reality is, the world is full of societies with radically incompatible values. In some places, human rights are foundational. In others, they’re actively suppressed. These aren’t small differences. They go to the heart of what it means to live with dignity, safety, and freedom.
So when someone claims to feel equally at home in all cultures, no matter how oppressive or unjust, it’s hard not to be skeptical. That stance either requires a chameleon-like ability to conform to any environment, no matter how cruel—or it suggests a refusal to take a moral stand at all. In the name of tolerance, one risks tolerating the intolerable.
True empathy and moral clarity don’t require us to condemn entire nations wholesale—but neither should they blind us to injustice in the name of universal belonging. To claim a global identity is noble only if it’s anchored in a principled commitment to human dignity, not a vague sense of boundaryless goodwill. Without that, “global citizenship” becomes a platitude—comfortable, inclusive, and ultimately empty.
When one says “There is no ‘them’” they do not mean that they agree on and identify with everything and with everyone. It should mean that there are no Groups with a label that I consider “other”. I cannot say that the “Russians are my enemy” as there is no one who fits the label of “Russian”. People are unique and not subject to being objectified by a label. There may be certain Russians that I don’t agree with, but they would be individuals who happen to be Russian – not the whole group with the label of “Russian”.
I don’t want to be identified as “American” as that word means so many different things to everyone that it means nothing to anyone. I grew up during the Viet Nam War where the motto for many was “My country – right or wrong”. I do not subscribe to that. I don’t want to identify (or be identified with) the “wrong” of my country. I don’t want to label a person a “Frenchman” and think that that will define him sufficiently. It isn’t enough to identify anyone with a label – even identifying a person as a “child molester” is putting a label on someone else that is a false, or insufficient label. Labels do not identify or describe anyone sufficiently.
When we label a person, we de-humanize them and consider them as “other”. We form this in-group and out-group (others) and form this barrier between us and “them”. By identifying an “other” with a label, we deliberately draw assumptions that are not warranted. That is why, in this essay, he mentions that governments try to de-humanize other people under other governments as being “other” as a beginning of the journey from “murder with language” to “murder by bullets or bombs”.
Even though I'm not familiar with the term "Global Citizen" I can relate to not identifying with any tribe or team or other. We're not really separate even though it appears so.
Deborah, The fact that you cannot "relate" to "the term 'Global Citizen'" is exactly why I use it. No one knows what that means. If say "Russian", or "French" or "American", people have their own subjective ideas of what that means but it is insufficient. By using a term that no one understands, I am allowed to define it for them rather than relying on their preconceptions.
Oh good. I'm smiling. Oftentimes these days I don't understand what's really going on, yet it feels like a whole lot of unearthing (OK, I think I made that word up, or maybe the use of it?). I recently had to look up "Overton Window" because it's used A LOT. But back to 'Global Citizen," I experienced what I call a felt-sense that you were wanting the term to be open and more inclusive rather than boxed in as "this" or "that." At least that's what I felt resonance with. I don't want to be boxed in either. And I don't want to think of others as simply "this" or "that." Thanks for the reply back ;)
"Unearthing" may be a "made up" word, but it communicates. And it communicates better than labels do. (Smile)
”The Times are Urgent: Let us Slow Down”, as Bayo Akomolafe quoted
that's my quote Alexander! yes
This is very thoughtful, but also a tricky piece. Not everyone is in the us vs. them demonization thinking. As a proud progressive lefty, I do not resonate with the vitriol many that also lean that way can far to often express and live into (myself included when I drift from my core values at times). If we look only at mainstream politicians or pundits, it can be predominantly true. And I think it's true that this "war thinking" as you describe it can dominate much thinking and discourse. But the heartfelt and tender sides to our humanity can rise up when called out, and I think there is where most of our attention needs to lie. Anger in the face of injustice is not inherently bad or unloving, but living there can of course be. When it motivates responsible action, it is a useful part of the human condition. To say each of these "sides" are equally causing this decline you speak of I think is naive. But regardless, we peacemakers need to keep our eye on building up the foundations for a new way. I'm still giving my all to that. In fact, I was surprised how easily you discounted US Institute of Peace and USAID, you, maybe unwittingly, discounted the work of millions of peacebuilders doing profound, live-saving, restorative work under their umbrellas. These are the very people doing the wor that could save us. The institutions are for sure imperfect and too often damaging agencies, but they also do incredibly important work as well. (Our military industrial complex and "Defense" Dept. is a far more damaging.) Fror this administration to destroy them outright is an abomination that I think is worthy or righteous anger, and for me to move that into action that is not of the war-making mentality, but definitly fiercly loving action. I hope your readers might read about why my org and work are trying to save US Institute of Peace right now. An article I wrote entitled "A Nation at War with Peace: What the raid on and takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace reveals about who we really are." on Substack: https://matthewalbracht.substack.com/p/a-nation-at-war-with-peace "This militarized takeover of USIP — and now, the near-total elimination of the agency through mass firings — are real-world acts with chilling metaphorical clarity, laying bare what this country truly values, and what it so easily discards.
The raid on USIP is shocking, but it’s not just about one agency. It’s a flashpoint — a darkly symbolic moment that makes unmistakably clear our skewed national priorities. We fund the tools of war as if they’re sacred. We treat the tools of peace as expendable afterthoughts."
There are many directions from which one could critique the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), but for now, I’ll focus on just one: the qualifications of the individuals appointed to its board. Under the USIP Act, board appointees are required to have “appropriate practical or academic experience in peace and conflict resolution efforts of the United States.” That’s a clear and deliberate standard—not a vague suggestion.
Let’s examine how this principle is being applied in practice by looking at a few recent Democratic appointees to the USIP Board:
Joseph L. Falk is best known as a prominent LGBTQ political activist and board member of the Victory Fund. Between 2019 and 2022, he donated over $610,000 to Democratic candidates and causes. While he’s undoubtedly influential in political circles, there’s no clear record of any practical or academic experience in peacebuilding or conflict resolution.
Edward M. Gabriel served as a political appointee during the Clinton administration and worked as a lobbyist. He gave nearly $68,000 to Democratic causes in the same time frame. Again, his background suggests political networking, not expertise in international conflict mediation or diplomacy.
Nathalie Rayes, President and CEO of the Latino Victory Project, contributed over $33,000 to Democratic campaigns during the 2020 and 2022 cycles. Like the others, her qualifications in peace and conflict resolution are difficult to identify. (She recently stepped down after being appointed Ambassador to Croatia.)
Mary Green Swig, founder of a luxury lingerie brand, donated $67,000 personally while her husband gave over $670,000 to Democratic campaigns during the same period—including over $136,000 to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I ask sincerely: does a background in high-end retail qualify someone for a board dedicated to global peace strategy?
Each of these individuals may be accomplished in their own spheres, but their appointments to a board that is supposed to advance the cause of peace around the world appear to be based less on expertise and more on political connections and donor activity.
If USIP is truly as important as its defenders claim—a national resource for advancing peace, reducing violent conflict, and helping shape U.S. foreign policy—then shouldn’t we take more seriously who is chosen to guide it? Shouldn’t the qualifications involve more than a willingness to cut campaign checks?
When an institution dedicated to peacebuilding starts looking more like a landing pad for political patrons, it’s fair to question whether it is being run with integrity—or simply being used as a reward system for party loyalty. The real issue isn’t partisanship, per se. It’s the casual disregard for the organization’s mission, as if peace and conflict resolution were just empty labels rather than disciplines that require skill, study, and experience.
If we’re serious about peace, we ought to be just as serious about who we trust to promote it.
These are fair critiques. And the same held true during Republican administrations. But the board isn't actually doing the work. It's the staff and contractors out in the field doing the work. Boards certainly steer the broad agenda, but directors implement and by and large there was much good work. Not all of it for sure. USIP had a $55ish million budget. Not much compared to say our "defense/military" budget at $900 billion. So the list of achievements from USIP had limits, but if the site hadn't been removed, you might have seen some compelling work nevertheless. What's striking is the the Trump administration raised military spending, which has levels of corruption eclipsing anything you mentioned, and that seems to be ok with so many. We give not even penny's on the dollar to peacebuilding. That is the thing that should make people cry out for change. hre are some examples of the kinds of work USIP did:
1. Facilitating Dialogue in Nigeria:
USIP has been instrumental in fostering dialogue among diverse religious and ethnic communities in Nigeria, a country often challenged by intercommunal tensions. By partnering with local leaders and organizations, USIP has helped to mediate conflicts, promote mutual understanding, and support initiatives aimed at building sustainable peace across various regions.
2. Mediating Peace in Iraq's "Triangle of Death":
In 2007, USIP played a pivotal role in brokering a peace agreement in Mahmoudiya, a region in Iraq notoriously known as the "Triangle of Death" due to intense sectarian violence. USIP experts acted as neutral facilitators, bringing together Sunni tribal leaders, Shiite government officials, and U.S. military representatives. This intervention led to a significant reduction in attacks and casualties, allowing for a substantial decrease in U.S. military presence—from approximately 3,500 soldiers to about 650. General David Petraeus described the turnaround as "striking," highlighting USIP's critical role in the process.
3. Empowering Youth Through Media in South Sudan:
Recognizing the influential role of media in peacebuilding, USIP supported the creation of "Sawa Shabab" (Youth Together), a radio drama series in South Sudan. This program engages young listeners by addressing critical social issues and promoting messages of peace, unity, and reconciliation, thereby contributing to the nation's peacebuilding efforts.
Thanks for taking time to craft a thoughtful reply. I think success stories are the most useful way to show value. Hopefully, whatever comes out of all this increases transparency and accountability while preserving the useful missions of USIP.
Thanks again.
Thank you. The work I've chosen to do is to make sure I'm anchored in to Love at the start of every day, and to watch for examples of it as I go about my day. I'm living The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, as an example to others. I'm so grateful to you for planting that seed and giving me the language to express my Truth. Stay strong.
oh how beautiful Christine@
Charles expresses exactly where I'm at as an in-betweener, not belonging to either the Republican or Democrat party, to the right or the left. I've felt all these things he expresses here, but lack the skill and time investment to put it into words.
So I have shared this long but profound piece with those I care about, in the hopes that they will resonate with it. And if they are not already in-betweeners, I hope that they will join those of us who are envisioning the coming together of the people to create a more beautiful world in the future - the New Earth, the New World, the Golden Age - a time of peace and prosperity for all, where humans recognize their interdependence with each other and with nature.
Yes, I'm having to wait now too, so I'm glad Charles is suggesting it. I'm going within and clearing all the war vibes and patterns out of my own consciousness.
Yes! All of this is just reminding me of my own journey- it doesn’t require anything from the outside world (as the outer world is simply a reflection of my inner self). I have allowed myself all too often to get pulled into fear, anger and anxiety. It is my choice to feel into the deeper possibility and shine love (which I believe is the ultimate truth )❤️. Thank you!
Ginger - Yes and Yes! And also yes to "there is no neutrality on a moving train." A million blessings to you!
"Wait" is exactly what my inner self said when I asked about vaccination. Wait is also paired with patience and knowing, trusting in the Divine, and rising above the fear and anger. Being Spiritual, I'm told, isn't mucked in with the physical, mental or emotional. Be in the world, not of it, someone said.
Dear Charles
Thank you for naming the war mentality. I believe that due to the lack of emotional understanding of the role of families and communities in creating mature human beings, we have parts of ourselves stuck in immaturity. And historically we have come to this present moment where it’s time to grow our adult selves up regarding just the issues you have pointed out. Ideally from 0-7 years of age the foundations for maturation can be set up, for example having mixed feelings. But if we have too many adverse childhood experiences we can get stuck in a survival and alarm state. Preschoolers don’t have mixed feelings. They are one thing or the other not both. They believe in Santa, magical thinking, they can kick, bite and express frustration violently. Toddlers are designed to be in close proximity with the people in charge of them. They become extremely alarmed when pushed into separation by wayward caregivers who want compliance. Yes they comply with this threat of separation but we need attuned caregiving that is attachment informed.
Alarm that takes us over as adults is a sure sign we have uninished maturation and attachment issues.
Another core indicator is the pursuit of proximity… perhaps emerging in an adult self with feelings of isolation despite a crowd of people around us .
Frustration or ‘seeing red’ with no restraint on violent actions is a sure sign of missed emotional maturation opportunities in early life. Adults who didn’t know better, were not able to provide the safe space for the 0-5 year olds frustration…. And when that frustration is not met with the skills to listen through angry emotions the frustration turns foul. The core of bullying, of violence.
The good news is small groups can grow us up, groups where there is emotional understanding.
I work with hard to house youth whose early hurts or “adverse childhood experiences “ are way over the top…. and I am part of small groups. Sometimes I’m the initiator, then there develops a connection, a little safety, even maturation, and as each of us have gifts, we are all learning … how to feel and heal and how to meet our small group, or organizational challenges in teams with increasing levels of emotional understanding and resulting maturity.
Once we get that triumvirate of
- Understanding pursuit of proximity to people who regulate us well
- Frustration and how, if left unexpressed, can turn to various forms of foul frustration ie war.
- and Alarm, such a key visceral state that so needs to be met with close emotional connectedness, and through therapeutic touch, be it yoga or somatic experiencing kinds of approaches.
Once these three states can be met carefully then we can proceed to build mature working relationships that include moments of pause, to feel what is coming up, and returning to the grand emotional project that is before us: are we going to recreate war again and again? Or can we slow this urgent money hungry “it’s never enough” crazy machine down?
Let’s develop the maturation to slow down, feel and pause and create the conditions for emotional maturity for humanity whose preeminent need is for close long lasting relationships and friendships with enjoyment of diversity, in the people we know, in the food we eat, the music we make, then rest and sleep and dream new dreams. Supporting differentness, uniqueness, creativity and play.
Human connectedness is the primary social determinant of health in every country, some things are that irreducible. When nation states fail its families that start over and create “the economy”.
Resonating with you here Shannon. Small groups are a practical way to regulate and align. I'd like some of them to name the problem of reactivity and deliberately work to hold the tension, feeling the underlying connection that's already present. Could this be a thing I wonder? Planting seeds . . .
Loving this too Shannon, my work is in early childhood and I support your thoughts on those 3 critical needs. Blessings on your work ( :
YES 🙌🏼 this is exactly why I’m doing what I’m doing - teaching folks to facilitate grief ritual & grief tending in their communities and organizations. When we can have these spaces everywhere that repair the early and ongoing relational harm, our whole society will shift. 💛
So appreciating the invitation to wait.
Solutions are so often born of the same logic that got us into this giant tangle to begin with -- tight thinking, fast fixes, the illusion of control.
When we pause, even for a moment, we have the opportunity to feel the web of life for what it is:
Not an ideology, not a metaphor,
but the truth of who we are --
interconnected, interwoven,
already held.
In that stillness, a different kind of knowing emerges.
Not a prediction, born of linear logic.
but a quiet prophecy
that hums through the threads
imaging something new into being.
Greetings from Finland. I have spent the last 6 months or so reading most everything I've gotten my hands on by (or about) a man called Yrjö Kallinen (1886-1976) (which btw is plenty, thanks to the well-stacked public libraries that we still have the luxury of enjoying here).
I came across a short quote by him in a book I browsed through last year, and this was enough to spark my curiosity. He's obviously been quite a visible figure in his time, and still I cannot recall him being generally mentioned or referred to in ANY schoolbooks during my entire education (all the way up to a Master's Degree).
Surprise, surprise: Kallinen was a self-educated pacifist who vehemently spoke of the sacredness of life, questioned polarization, worried about third world war, capitalism and general destruction of both minds, nature and the planet. He lived through the Finnish independence struggle, civil war (+ 4 death sentences related to it), two world wars, and was a very prominent public speaker. He served two years as the minister of defense (after negotiating some non-negotiable terms regarding which part/s of the job he was going to be involved in) and then returned to his previous engagement in the field of co-op and worker's rights. He was also into for instance theosophy, but bowed to no -isms at all; always willing and able to consider the whole and all complexities this includes (also failing at times, and admitting this).
All this just to say, that the echo of Kallinen's voice carrying through time and reaching me in the current moment PLUS your essays, Charles, are some of the factors that have been, and are, contributing greatly to my sanity lately, and I thank you (and Yrjö) deeply for that. I have no need to place either of you on a pedestal, but you both do serve as some kind of lighthouses, reassuring me that it is not completely outrageously detached to think that it is peace that supports peace; that questioning the regarding of/referring to economy, politics, (e.g. medical) science, technology and so forth as natural laws, instead of the (hu)man-made decisions and developments they are, is completely valid. Thank you.
As a final touch, a poem by Larson Langston:
I don’t want to kill any dragons.
I don’t want to fight demons.
Let them breathe fire elsewhere.
Let them roar down empty roads.
I’ve set my sword down.
I’d rather have tea under the tilting willow tree,
watching the wind stir its long green fingers,
listening for whatever truth the leaves remember.
I don’t want to do more damage—
not to the shadows I carry,
not to the soil I’ve scarred just by walking.
No more battles inside my chest.
No more betrayals in the name of becoming.
There’s already too much wreckage in the world—
why should I add my own smoke to it?
I want to sit.
To stay still enough that even the shyest wonders
crawl out of the cracks and speak.
Not to be heroic.
Not to be healed.
Just to be here.
And let the world tell me something true.
Let the thunder pass without my name in its mouth.
Let the storm forget me.
I have no need to raise my voice above the rain—
I’ve found shelter in the quiet.
The earth hums beneath bare feet,
a language older than war.
It tells me I am enough, even in pieces.
So I stay,
cup in hand,
watching the steam rise like prayers I no longer have to speak.
If peace is a rebellion,
then let this be mine.
Appreciate your thoughts and I'm loving the poem, thank you!
Some cases against Trump have more merit than others, but that is a normal part of the legal process, not "lawfare." Trump is not a victim, but he is a master at playing the victim in order to justify victimizing others. He really did try to stage a self-coup in order to stay in power and really did mobilize a mob of his supporters to try to accomplish that. He really did try to lean on state officials like Brad Raffensberger to fraudulently "find the votes" to keep himself in office. These are very serious crimes, and other democracies (most recently, South Korea, in ousting its president for declaring martial law in order to seize authoritarian power) recognize them as such and remove such individuals from office. Again, we don't have to "hate" or "other" Trump or his supporters in order to speak the truth on this point, or believe that some kind of accountability is necessary to protect the people of America from being ruled over by criminal elements.
How Narcissists Play the Victim: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-narcissist-in-your-life/202303/the-narcissists-airtight-victim-narrative
"Narcissists' compulsion to frame their experience as unjust and take the victim stance stems from their underlying instability and compensatory grandiosity. But playing up the part of the tragically wronged victim is also a manipulative strategy that serves their desire to control others and sidestep accountability for their opportunistic and abusive behavior."
Can you please expound on the definition of "lawfare"? Does it always mean a weaponization of the law? Disappointing if Charles used it in this way, since many of the lawsuits against Trump seemed justified.
I'm not sure what Charles' intention is, but "lawfare" is a combination of the words "law" and "warfare." Basically, it's the notion of going to war against one's political opponents through frivolous lawsuits and bogus criminal cases. It's especially rich coming from Trump, since this is exactly what he's doing, and what he's done his whole life before politics.
Exactly! It's Trump's M.O. Thanks for taking the time to clarify, appreciate it.