Why I'm 100% Voting Harris
Despite Issues with the Democratic Party and Them Not Advocating for a Ceasefire
Sometimes, I find myself scrolling on any social media outlet only to see horrific posts, a barrage of conflicting information, disturbing images, scary ideas, or angles of complex topics–and want to run away from it all, stick my head in the sand and not know what to believe.
I wonder if you feel this, too?
There are so many conflicting narratives, political interests, and issues, including witnessing a genocide and the possibility of facing mass deaths and destruction caused by climate change, and it’s easy to want to check out and not want to deal with any of it.
Yet, I also have a seemingly unquenchable thirst for understanding us humans and have a deep desire to find a narrative that at least somewhat helps me process this world and what’s going on.
Over the past few years, I have spent countless hours reading and listening to various people who share different viewpoints on our life together here on Earth, and I’d like to share some of what I found with you.
One reason for writing this is that I’m seeing people who, for the most part, have identified as Democrats feel hesitant about voting for Kamala Harris and feel disillusioned and like the Democratic party isn’t doing anything about important issues for them, like the war in Gaza and Israel, fueling the international war-machine, speaking out enough about climate change, and around the American food and health crisis.
TL;DR and Why to Spend Your Precious Time Reading This Article
Since this is quite a long read, I’d like to offer my intention in writing this commentary and explaining how to approach it.
Imagine that you and everyone else have been pushed into looking at the world through a hyper-focused lens. I’m inviting you to zoom out and consider this larger perspective:
This election marks a culmination of five thousand years of living in a man-made (literally) construct one could call a capitalist, white supremacist, colonialist, monotheistic, hetero-patriarchy. Wow, that’s a mouthful!
In this article, I aim to orient us in history and see how this construct pertains to the “United” States. I’ll discuss what was lost to us, how it came to be, why electing a female president is a big deal, the dangers of Christian Nationalism, and how it relates to the very real plan they have to take over the government called Project 2025, why Feminist isn’t about hating men and what it’s actually about, some thoughts about the rise of culture wars against trans people, and the role of the Supreme Court in this mess.
I’ll also touch on the genocide in Palestine briefly and offer some thoughts about why, despite it being a horrifying reality, it isn’t enough to make me not vote at all and not vote for Harris.
I’m sure I’m leaving out some important angles. I’m sure it’s imperfect. And I’m sending it out anyway, with the hopes that the passionate hours this poured out of me will somehow shine a light on a path forward forged in Love and Humanity.
A note to the reader: While reading this, some people might want to put me in the camp of angry feminists who want to wear a pantsuit, who don’t shave (that’s accurate at this moment,) want to put my man in place while eating conventional food, and have an antibiotic IV attached to my arm as a symbol of my submission to Big Pharma. When in reality, I have birthed my children at home, I eat mostly organic and local foods the best I can. I love my masculine (and deeply empathetic) husband, and we have pretty traditional gender roles at home. I commune with God and Jesus daily and can often be found (poorly) quoting the Bible. I am also learning about being in right relationship with my ancestors and the Earth.
While I advocate feminism, I see myself as part of a much larger fabric and believe in solidarity with the most marginalized and vulnerable among us. For now, my privilege protects me from many of the challenges plaguing many Americans and beyond, but I know they are not guaranteed, and I know I am not free as long as my fellow human siblings are not free. My love for humanity shapes my beliefs, and I perpetually live in the nuances, paradoxes, and gray zones of life.
Note: There are also Key Takeaways at the end of the article!
☀️ Let’s dive into all these topics together! Buckle up! ☀️
Some backstory on humanity and us cohabitating together for the last few thousand years
What’s so unique about us humans is the ability to believe in and organize around abstract ideas like religion and ideology. In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes, “You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.” Humans are a different story.
Over the past five thousand years, since most of the world had transitioned to agriculture, we have been busy making up systems, ideologies, and narratives—whether it’s religion, nations, or economic frameworks—that unite millions of people in shared goals. These abstract ideas have enabled large-scale cooperation among strangers, which no other species on Earth has achieved on such a scale. Humans are able to invent concepts like money, laws, and human rights, and use these inventions to attempt to create functioning societies and global systems.
We are making all this up as we go. And by we, I primarily mean men in positions of power.
When We Became Civilized, We Lost Our Humanity
We’ve then made other significant leaps like learning to write, forming empires, the scientific and industrial revolution, and now, most painfully notable, the information age is upon us. In this process, we came up with ways to be human together that centralized power, severing our deep connection to the land and each other—replacing kinship systems, communal responsibility, and reciprocity with more rigid hierarchies and individualism, leading to a disconnection from the wisdom and balance that Indigenous cultures have long maintained. As Tyson Yunkaporta writes in Sand Talk, ‘When you disconnect people from land, you get individualism, collapse, and the unraveling of societies.’ This seems to have led to a loss of identity, meaning, belonging, and trust in ourselves and each other.
In America, where I now live, it appears as if humans have attempted to fill that void with belief in the ‘American dream,’ Christianity, consumerism, entertainment, and, lately, social media. However, what also fills this void is an intense focus on individualism and the pursuit of personal success, which often leads to isolation and disconnection from the community. The emphasis on self-reliance and the idea that one's worth is tied to material wealth have overshadowed more relational and spiritual ways of finding meaning. Capitalism, with its demand for perpetual growth and productivity obsession, has further deepened this void, as success has been measured in economic terms rather than through a balance with nature or communal well-being. Have you noticed?
A Herstory of Women: From Central Figures in the Community Wellbeing to Being Property and Back Again
As we discussed, humanity transitioned to patriarchal societies, and with that, the female gender (and all other genders) became ‘less than.” Let’s take a little historical tour to see what happened throughout history.
Prehistoric Societies (Before 10,000 BCE)
Before the rise of agriculture, many human societies were hunter-gatherer communities, and there is evidence that men and women often had more egalitarian roles. Both sexes contributed significantly to survival: men typically hunted, while women gathered food, though this division wasn’t rigid. Anthropologists suggest that in these societies, women’s contributions were as valued as men’s because survival depended on the collective effort of the group.
The Agricultural Revolution (Circa 10,000 BCE)
The shift to agriculture marked a turning point. As humans settled in permanent communities, land ownership and the accumulation of resources became central to survival. This change led to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of men, who controlled both land and livestock, which were essential for wealth and social status. Women's roles became more confined to domestic spaces like child-rearing and managing the household, which were increasingly seen as less valuable than men’s roles in agriculture, warfare, and governance. This period saw the development of more rigid patriarchal structures, where men became the primary figures of authority, and women were often subordinated.
The Rise of Early Civilizations (3000 BCE onward)
With the rise of large-scale civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and Greece, societal roles became even more hierarchical. Written laws and religious codes, such as Hammurabi’s Code in Babylon and religious texts in ancient India and the Middle East, often institutionalized women’s subordination. For instance, women in ancient Mesopotamia were legally subordinate to men, and their rights were limited, particularly in marriage and property ownership. Ancient Greece further cemented these roles, as women were largely confined to domestic spaces, while men participated in public life, politics, and intellectual pursuits. Aristotle, one of the most influential Greek philosophers, argued that women were "naturally" inferior to men, and this idea became deeply embedded in Western thought.
Religion and Gender Inequality
In many early religions, patriarchy was further reinforced. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for example, women were often seen as subordinate to men based on religious teachings that placed men in leadership roles within the family and society. However, interpretations varied, and some religious texts also offered protections or valued women in certain contexts (e.g., mothers, caregivers). Still, the overall structure tended to be patriarchal, with men holding religious and societal power.
The Legal and Social Codification of Inequality
By the time large-scale empires like Rome and China developed, women's lower status had been largely codified into law. In Roman law, women were considered under the authority of their father or husband, lacking legal autonomy. Similarly, in Confucian China, women were subject to the "three obediences" (to father, husband, and son) and had limited public roles.
Modern Influence
The Enlightenment and the rise of capitalism in Europe, while promoting ideas of equality and rights, did not initially challenge the entrenched gender inequalities. It wasn’t until the 19th and 20th centuries, with the rise of feminist movements, that significant challenges to patriarchy began to emerge. Feminists fought for women's right to vote, access to education, and the ability to own property and participate in public life.
“The system of patriarchy is a historic construct; it has a beginning; it will have an end.” - Gerda Lerner
Helpful Books and Links:
Heavier read: The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner
Easier read: On Our Best Behavior by Elise Loehenen
The Distortion of Feminism and How an Egalitarian Society Will Benefit All Genders
Can we take a moment and breathe together as we realize that women (and other genders) have been brutally oppressed? And can we agree that the grueling work of Feminist women (and a few men, and of course, many trans people) has been instrumental in creating a more equitable society?
Today’s fourth-wave feminism is dynamic and not as singular. There are different groups within the feminist movement who argue for different directions, but one thing is clear:
FEMINISM ISN’T ABOUT HATING MEN!
Do people honestly think one can spend TEN THOUSAND YEARS oppressing women, but we “fixed” those pesky imbalances in a hundred years? That math should not make sense to anyone, in my not-so-humble opinion. (Or does that qualify as partiarchy-math?)
We are still very much back to fighting second-wave rights like abortion. This is exhausting and very painful for many women. And it’s equaling death for others. The tragic cases of women dying due to lack of abortion access, such as Amber Nicole Thurman in Georgia, should remind us that reproductive rights are not just a matter of choice but survival.
“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.“ - bell hooks, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love
When traversing the endless plains of Instagram, I’ve stumbled upon content that’s highly critical of feminism and concerned with men’s rights. Another aspect of this is an increased interest in Feminine and Masculine dynamics.
Of course, patriarchy is deeply harmful, not only to women but to men (and other genders) as well. Women still earn less than men for the same work across industries, with the gender wage gap being particularly severe for women of color. Men commit the overwhelming majority of gender-based violence, from domestic abuse to sexual assault to femicide. Globally, 35% of women have experienced physical or sexual violence–myself included–most often at the hands of an intimate partner. (And those numbers are probably on the low side because of hesitancy to report and not being believed or well-treated by authorities–which I can attest to firsthand.)
And It’s Not Just the Material Inequality—The Rise of “Toxic Masculinity”
Toxic masculinity, or as I like to call it, distorted masculinity, reinforces damaging stereotypes that equate being masculine with being Alpha, AKA, bad “code” for being dominant, possessive, and emotionally unavailable. Many men do not fit into or want these roles, yet societal pressure makes them feel as though they must conform to outdated ideals of "manliness." Similarly, rigid expectations for women to be submissive or overly nurturing continue to limit women’s potential (#tradwives).
Video with my guy Will Hitchins stitching a video with an “King” /”Alpha male…
While some people are comfortable with these traditional gender roles, many are not. The truth is that we all have both masculine and feminine (and gender-neutral) energies within us, and I believe the path forward is not about forcing people back into traditional roles that don’t serve them. Instead, I believe it's about creating a more inclusive, fluid approach to gender—where all humans are free to express the full spectrum of human emotion and capability.
True feminism isn't just about freeing women from oppression but also about liberating boys and men from the harmful impacts of patriarchy.
It’s painful to witness that formerly progressive and feminist men are being pulled by the narrative that the issues they are experiencing are due to women abandoning their traditional roles and not being “feminine enough.” It is even MORE painful to witness former Feminists embrace these same ideas. (See video below.)
Links:
Why Individual Solutions Are Not Enough
I understand the pull from women to say fuck this; I don’t want to “do or have it all.” Give me that soft life! Take away my “masculine responsibilities,” so I have the freaking bandwidth to “be in my feminine!” But I don’t believe that reverting to old gender stereotypes is the path forward. I think some changes that will make a difference are:
Free healthcare: Ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all, especially reproductive and mental health services.
Access to abortions: Protecting reproductive rights so that women have autonomy over their bodies and health decisions.
Paid parental leave: Supporting both men and women in their roles as parents, ensuring that caregiving responsibilities can be shared without penalizing careers.
Flexible work environments: Encouraging policies that allow both men and women to balance professional and personal lives without the pressure to conform to rigid gender roles.
Universal childcare: Making childcare affordable and accessible, so women are not disproportionately burdened with caregiving responsibilities.
Education reform: Changing the way we educate children about gender roles, emotional expression, and mutual respect, so future generations aren’t trapped in outdated expectations.
(And the Democratic party is the one that aligns most closely with these societal changes.)
And if, after that, you want to have traditional roles at home and play that polarity play - HAVE AT IT, Tradies!
Parallel to the changes in public life comes the importance of doing the INNER WORK required to un-domesticate, un-shame, and de-colonize our own minds and hearts - and learn how to advocate for this new way of being in every area of our lives. Essentially, that’s what my whole Substack (Unfolding) is about.
A Note to Men Who Feel Scared About Everything That’s Changing
I understand that all this change can feel deeply unsettling. It must be overwhelming to watch society shift so quickly, and I can see why it might feel safer to ask women to return to more "traditional" feminine roles. The narrative that the reason things are problematic today is because women have become "too masculine" is comforting in its simplicity, but it's not the real issue.
I want to invite you to consider that the changes we're fighting for are not meant to hurt men. Women, and marginalized people in general, are asking for acknowledgment of the harm that has been done, repair for those wrongs, and a deeper understanding of how hard it is—and has been—to be a woman in a system that has devalued and oppressed us for so long. Feminism isn't the villain here. The real culprits are patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism, systems that have inflicted harm not just on women but on men as well.
For centuries, men have been conditioned into roles that involved torture, slavery, war, and violence, often commanded to kill, control, and oppress others. These systems have harmed men deeply, forcing them into narrow definitions of masculinity that suppress emotional vulnerability and empathy. It’s easier to blame feminism for our struggles than to reckon with the brutal realities of history—what men have been forced to do to women, children, and each other, and what still happens today. But shifting the blame to feminism avoids the real conversation: how patriarchy has harmed everyone.
The goal of feminism isn't to take anything away from men. It's to liberate everyone from these harmful systems so that we can all experience more joy, connection, and freedom. We aren’t looking to overpower men—we’re looking to break free from the chains that hold us all back. I invite you to see these changes as an opportunity to evolve together, not to pull away in fear.
Support for Men Links:
Hoffman Institute (My husband went here and it was powerful!)
Men’s Wisdom Work (I have no direct experience with this organization.)
A Note to Women Who Are Tired and Feel Like Abandoning Feminism and Letting Men Take Control
I see you, and I understand why you might feel like blaming feminism and wanting to return to traditional roles where men lead and take charge. We have been asked to do so much—balancing careers, family, and home—and it's exhausting. The "have it all" mentality has left many of us overwhelmed, and it's natural to crave a softer life, to feel the desire to relinquish some control, and to step into more nurturing spaces. We deserve more softness and rest, and our current path of overwork and constant pressure isn’t sustainable. But while I completely understand the desire for change, we need to be cautious about what that change looks like.
Returning to traditional roles should not be about forcing everyone back into rigid boxes. The way forward might look different for each of us, and that’s okay. But what’s important is that we advocate for societal reform—for rebuilding the community that supports all of us, for creating systems that allow us to set boundaries, and for ensuring that traditional "women’s work," like teaching, nursing, and child-rearing, is truly valued and paid more. These roles are the backbone of society, yet they are often underpaid or unpaid entirely.
We cannot allow ourselves to become vulnerable by stepping back into traditional roles without the security and recognition that should come with them. Many women who return to the home end up financially insecure, especially later in life when divorce, widowhood, or abandonment can leave them with no safety net.
That's why we need to rethink how we support those who choose to work in the home. There should be systems in place that offer financial security and benefits for women doing this crucial labor, like paid parental leave or compensation for homemaking.
It’s not about rejecting the desire for softness or rejecting femininity. It’s about building a future where we have the choice to embrace these things without sacrificing our autonomy, financial security, or sense of worth.
Some sources:
Helpful links:
Helpful Book: Burnout by Emily and Amelia Nagoski
Helpul Book: Rage Becomes Her by Soraya Chemaly
What Does Christian Nationalism Have to Do with It?
Do you know that the Republican Party hasn’t always been against abortion?
The evolution of its anti-abortion stance is largely a political and religious shift that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Initially, many Republicans, including prominent figures like Nelson Rockefeller and even Ronald Reagan, who, as governor of California, signed a liberal abortion law in 1967, were more neutral or supportive of abortion rights.
Early Views on Abortion
After the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which legalized abortion nationwide, the Republican Party did not have a unified position on the issue. In fact, support for a woman’s right to choose was relatively common among moderate and liberal Republicans, particularly those from the Northeast. Barry Goldwater, a conservative leader, also supported abortion rights, illustrating the party’s initial diversity of opinion.
The Rise of the Religious Right and Christian Nationalism
The shift towards the Republican Party's strong anti-abortion stance is closely tied to the rise of Christian nationalism and the Religious Right in the late 1970s. Influential evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, began to view abortion as a central issue to mobilize conservative Christians. This marked a critical shift, as evangelical Christians had previously not been as politically active or focused on abortion. However, Christian leaders saw the Roe v. Wade ruling as symbolic of a broader moral decline in America, and they aimed to reverse it by aligning with the Republican Party.
Christian nationalism, which seeks to unite American national identity with Christian values, played a significant role in driving this political realignment (note there that technically this is very UN-American, which is supposed to be built on religious freedom!). This ideology promotes the belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws should reflect biblical principles. Anti-abortion activism became one of the key issues around which the Christian nationalist movement rallied. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other evangelical leaders framed the abortion debate as not just a moral issue, but a matter of national salvation, arguing that legalizing abortion was a betrayal of Christian values and America’s divine purpose.
Political Realignment in the 1970s and 1980s
Around the same time, Republicans were seeking to broaden their base and secure support in the Southern states, many of which were previously Democratic strongholds. This was part of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, which aimed to attract socially conservative white voters in the South who were disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s support of civil rights. Abortion became a powerful issue to draw these voters, particularly when framed in the context of Christian moral values.
By 1980, the Republican Party officially adopted an anti-abortion stance in its platform, advocating for the overturn of Roe v. Wade and supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign in 1980 further solidified this stance. Although Reagan had previously signed one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws in California, by the time of his presidential run, he had fully embraced the anti-abortion movement. His presidency marked the beginning of a deep and enduring alliance between the Republican Party and evangelical Christians, which has lasted to this day.
Christian Nationalism's Role in Shaping the Party
The influence of Christian nationalism not only pushed the Republican Party towards a more stringent anti-abortion stance but also integrated broader goals of making American law reflect Christian values. This alignment transformed abortion from a personal or medical issue into a symbolic moral crusade, where the legality of abortion was portrayed as a battle for the soul of America.
Christian nationalists view the fight against abortion as part of a larger struggle to maintain a Christian identity in the U.S., often believing that America’s prosperity and divine favor depend on upholding Christian moral standards. This has led to the framing of abortion bans as a necessary step in returning the nation to its perceived Christian roots, and it is a central theme in modern Republican politics, particularly among its most conservative wings.
The Modern Anti-Abortion Movement
Since the 1980s, opposition to abortion has remained a cornerstone of the Republican Party’s platform. The party's strong anti-abortion stance has been reinforced by its alignment with Christian nationalism and the Religious Right, culminating in significant victories like the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, following decades of efforts to reshape the judiciary by appointing conservative, anti-abortion judges.
Today, Republican lawmakers frequently invoke Christian values to justify anti-abortion legislation, and the issue continues to play a significant role in galvanizing their base. The influence of Christian nationalist ideologies ensures that abortion remains framed as not just a matter of legal rights, but as a profound moral issue tied to the identity and future of the United States.
While the Republican Party was once more divided on abortion, the rise of the Religious Right and the increasing influence of Christian nationalism led to a significant shift in the party’s platform during the 1970s and 1980s. Today, the party's opposition to abortion is deeply entrenched, driven by a mix of political strategy and religious conviction, with Christian nationalist ideologies playing a key role in shaping the contemporary anti-abortion movement.
Sources:
Let’s Not Forget About How This Also Playing Into the Right’s Obsession with Sex and Gender
Let’s start with some foundational concepts about sex and gender:
Sex refers to biological attributes, while gender relates to identity, social roles, and self-expression. Sex is often viewed as fixed, though intersex variations challenge this idea.
Gender, on the other hand, is understood as a more fluid spectrum that individuals experience and express in diverse ways.
While Christian cultures have long promoted the idea that gender is binary and sexuality is fixed, many cultures throughout history have recognized and celebrated more than two sexes or genders. For instance, Indigenous cultures in North America honor Two-Spirit individuals, who embody both masculine and feminine qualities and often hold spiritual roles. In South Asia, the Hijra community is legally recognized as a third gender, with a history of spiritual significance. Similarly, the Fa'afafine in Samoa and the Bugis in Indonesia, who recognize five distinct genders, embrace non-binary identities.
But here in the U.S., the Right has turned issues of gender identity into political battlegrounds, especially focusing on sports and bathrooms. These debates have been inflated into existential threats, portraying transgender people as dangerous or a threat to societal norms. The fixation on controlling gender spaces—like who gets to use which bathroom or participate in which sport—is eerily reminiscent of the tactics used during the Civil Rights Movement, when Black Americans were demonized and barred from sharing public facilities with white people.
The obsession today with transgender individuals in bathrooms and sports follows the same fear-driven playbook. Just as Black Americans were once depicted as threats to white women in restrooms or as unfair competitors in education and sports, transgender individuals are being framed as threats to "fairness" and safety. These aren't only genuine concerns about safety or fairness; they are also about maintaining control over who is allowed to freely exist in public spaces. Whether it’s racial integration in the past or gender identity today, the strategy remains the same: dehumanizing and othering those who don’t fit the majority’s narrative of who should have rights and visibility.
(And let’s remember that this hyper-fixation on transgender people allows for ample opportunities to create “culture wars” but make up a tiny part of the population. As of the latest estimates, approximately 1.6 million people in the United States ages 13 and older identify as transgender, representing about 0.6% of the population. This includes around 1.3 million adults and 300,000 youth between 13 and 17.)
While many on the right focus on these issues, the arguments echo an old strategy—fear-mongering that ultimately serves to limit the rights and freedoms of marginalized groups. Just as with the fight for racial equality, the struggle for gender inclusivity is about more than access to bathrooms or sports; it’s about basic human rights and the freedom to live authentically. We’ve seen this narrative play out before, and it’s important to recognize that history is repeating itself under a new guise and the way forward isn’t vilification, it’s curiosity, more funding to research and equal rights for all humans (and not buying into participating in the endless Facebook posting insanity).
Some Sources:
Two-Spirit People via The Indigenous Foundation (has additional links)
Beyond Gender: Indigenous Perspectives, Fa’afafine and Fa’afatama
A history of bathroom battles in the U.S.: Racism, sexism, transphobia via Penn Live
How the Republican Party has shifted against transgender rights via Washinton Post
What’s at Stake in This Election? Project 2025 - Let’s Talk About It!
Are you still reading? I am shook and impressed! We’ve covered broad topics such as human history, feminism, Christian Nationalism, and gender. Let’s move into something more specific: how this election is related to Project 2025 and what it is.
If you don’t feel like reading more you can watch this nifty little video:
Project 2025 is a political initiative created by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, with the goal of reshaping the U.S. federal government if a Republican candidate, like Donald Trump, wins the 2024 presidential election. The project provides a detailed policy agenda and a blueprint for restructuring the executive branch, focusing on consolidating power under the president. It promotes a significant rollback of federal regulations, with proposals aimed at reversing abortion access, limiting LGBTQ+ rights, and weakening environmental and climate change policies.
A key aspect of Project 2025 is…you guessed it! Emphasizing Christian nationalist values, seeking to infuse government policies with conservative Christian principles. The plan also advocates for significant changes to agencies like the Department of Justice, Department of Education, and National Institutes of Health, seeking to limit their independence and align them with conservative goals. Additionally, it proposes mass changes in civil service, allowing the president to replace tens of thousands of federal employees with politically loyal appointees.
Critics argue that the project would undermine the rule of law, civil liberties, and the separation of powers, with many characterizing it as an authoritarian move to reshape the U.S. government in a way that could erode democratic checks and balances.
For more detailed information, you can check out the ACLU's summary and The Heritage Foundation's official project website:
More Helpful Videos:
Black Men Read "Project 2025" And Share Their Unfiltered Reactions
Project 2025 is Already Here
Robert Reich - Trump Is Project 2025
Brief Interlude: How the Cool Kids of This Movement Look - Rescue the Republic
Before I move on, I want you to take in what the “rebels” and leaders of this movement look like.
This is the header image of an event called The Rescue the Republic. This event, held on September 29, 2024, aimed to rally support for conservative values and address concerns about the future of the U.S. and Western civilization.
It featured speakers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Jordan Peterson, and Russell Brand. However, as you can see, the header image also included Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
The rally was intended to bring attention to issues like free speech, censorship, and concerns over government overreach, with a focus on reclaiming traditional values and promoting a vision of "family sovereignty." It also touched on critiques of media control, border policies, health in America, and the erosion of what the organizers view as fundamental freedoms. The event mixed political discourse with entertainment, blending speeches, comedy, and live music to engage a broad audience.
This is the full lineup with videos.
It is a nightmare for us who care about marginalized communities, diversity, science, and democracy beyond Christianity.
It’s not lost on me that these white men, Kennedy, Brand, Musk, and Trump, all have allegations of sexual (and other) misconduct toward women, and Peterson is always harping on about the natural superiority of men and wanting women to return to traditional gender roles.
Spotting a pattern here, anyone?
It Didn’t Start with Project 2025 - It Actually Started in the 70s: Welcome to the “Master Plan”
Let’s dive into how we got here regarding Project 2025 and why you should care about it.
As I learned more about Project 2025, I discovered “The Master Plan” podcast (by David Sirota and The Lever) and began listening to it on my runs. I cannot overstate how well-researched and robust this podcast is, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to dive deep into this topic.
It reveals how corporate elites and conservative think tanks have spent decades shaping U.S. politics to benefit wealthy interests. If you don’t want to take 10 hours and listen to it, you can get the gist from the summary below.
The Backstory of Project 2025
Starting with the Powell Memorandum in the 1970s, a blueprint was created to increase corporate influence over government, ultimately culminating in key legal rulings that transformed campaign finance and allowed money to dominate American politics.
Here are some of the key court rulings that helped fuel corporate interests in politics:
Buckley v. Valeo (1976): This decision equated money with free speech, ruling that spending money on political campaigns is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. This made it harder to limit campaign contributions, allowing wealthier individuals and organizations to have more influence on elections.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978): The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the right to spend money on political issues, setting the stage for increased corporate influence on public policy and electoral issues.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This landmark decision further expanded corporate power, ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures. This gave rise to Super PACs, allowing vast sums to be funneled into elections.
Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010): A follow-up to Citizens United, this ruling enabled the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds on elections, as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): This case removed the aggregate limits on how much an individual could donate to political campaigns, further amplifying the influence of wealthy donors in U.S. politics.
These rulings have led to a significant increase in election spending, with total spending surpassing $14 billion in 2020. The deregulation of campaign finance has allowed corporations, wealthy individuals, and special interest groups to shape policies in their favor, often at the expense of ordinary citizens.
For more details, check out:
How the Supreme Court Fits Into the Master Plan
A crucial part of Project 2025 and the conservative strategy it represents is stacking the courts—especially the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court plays a critical role in interpreting laws that affect every aspect of American life, from reproductive rights to campaign finance and beyond. By appointing conservative, often Christian nationalist-aligned judges, the plan ensures that the legal framework supports the agenda laid out in Project 2025.
Why Stacking the Courts Matters
For decades, conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, have pushed for appointing justices who align with their goals of reducing government regulation, limiting civil rights, and advancing corporate and religious interests. These courts can uphold or overturn critical laws that affect the balance of power in the country.
As discussed above, several major court rulings have already laid the groundwork for this. Cases like Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money in elections, and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which removed aggregate donation limits, have given wealthy interests and corporations immense political influence. These decisions were made possible by stacking the courts with justices who favor deregulation and corporate influence over politics.
Why the Supreme Court Is Key to Project 2025
If a future Republican president, like Donald Trump, were to implement Project 2025, the Supreme Court would play a pivotal role in deciding the constitutionality of sweeping changes proposed by the initiative. These changes include:
Rolling back abortion rights and potentially banning abortions nationwide.
Limiting LGBTQ+ rights, including same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination protections.
Weakening federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice, allowing for greater deregulation and reduced oversight of businesses.
By controlling the Supreme Court, the right ensures that any legal challenges to Project 2025—whether related to civil rights, reproductive rights, or environmental policies—are ruled in their favor.
Christian Nationalism and Judicial Appointments
Part of the broader strategy is to appoint judges who align with Christian nationalist values, aiming to reshape the legal system to reflect conservative Christian beliefs. This means that the courts could potentially uphold laws that promote Christian values in schools, healthcare, and public spaces while undermining the separation of church and state.
Why This Matters Now
The 2024 election could determine the future of the Supreme Court. With conservative justices already holding a majority, additional appointments could secure conservative dominance of the Court for decades. This would ensure that any administration following Project 2025 would have the legal backing to carry out its agenda without major legal obstacles.
Stacking the courts is a crucial piece of the puzzle. It’s not just about who wins the presidency—it’s about who gets to shape the laws and values that govern everyday life in America. And with Project 2025 on the horizon, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
List of “Christian” people who want Trump to win. It’s SCARY!
Helpful links:
The Republican Christian Nationalist Trojan Horse
When figures like Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and others within the Republican Party speak publicly, they often present themselves as champions of economic growth, job creation, and national security. However, beneath this public image lies a deeper agenda driven by Christian nationalism and corporate interests—one that seeks to reshape America according to ultra-conservative values. And often, they don't mind obscuring their true intentions to achieve these goals.
Take Chief Justice John Roberts (a prominent figure in the Master Plan), for example. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts famously portrayed himself as an impartial "umpire," claiming that his role would be to call "balls and strikes" rather than make policy. Yet, in practice, Roberts has been anything but neutral. He has consistently sided with corporations and capitalist interests, helping pave the way for decisions like Citizens United, which allowed for unlimited corporate spending in elections. While presenting himself as an impartial observer, Roberts has helped to shape a judiciary that favors business interests over individual rights—a key element of the conservative agenda.
This kind of strategic presentation is also evident in figures like J.D. Vance and Donald Trump, who have publicly claimed ignorance about Project 2025. Their public dismissal of this plan as something they "don’t know about" is misleading. While downplaying the plan, they are more than willing to implement its policies if given the chance.
Project 2025 is not just a policy guide—it represents a roadmap for embedding Christian nationalist values into government institutions and consolidating power under conservative leadership. Much like the quiet but deliberate actions of John Roberts in shaping the judicial landscape, Trump and his allies are positioning themselves to enact sweeping changes, under the guise of normal political discourse.
Remember the Trojan Horse? The outward image—whether it's Trump's populism or Roberts' supposed neutrality—serves as a distraction. Inside, however, the real agenda lies: a movement that seeks to enforce Christian values, deregulate corporate interests, and reshape the judiciary to ensure these changes endure for generations. Once they are in power, the mask of moderation will drop, and the true impact of these plans will come to light. I believe Trump is just a puppet for these much smarter and calculated people to be able to make this country into a Christian Nationalist state.
The fact that Project 2025 exists is evidence of a long-term strategy that has been decades in the making, one that seeks to align government policies with conservative and corporate interests.
In essence, the Republican Party and its leaders are the carriers of this Trojan horse, with Christian nationalism and corporate power hidden inside. And once in power, they will have the ability to implement these radical changes—whether they publicly admit to it or not.
Can you see why I think it’s so important to vote for Harris?
What Else Is On the Line: Climate Change
From my perspective, what I’ve shared should be enough to make every single human who cares about the future of this democracy vote Democratic, but as your trusty nerd friend, I will keep going.
One of the biggest issues we're facing is climate change and the severe natural disasters that are becoming more frequent and destructive because of it. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods—it’s all getting worse, and much of it is linked to the warming planet. But the Republican Party often downplay or outright deny the seriousness of climate change, preferring to focus on short-term economic gains and corporate profits.
And here's another place where Project 2025 comes in. This initiative includes plans to dismantle environmental regulations and weaken agencies like the EPA. As we’ve discussed, it prioritizes corporate interests over environmental protection, allowing industries like oil and gas to expand with fewer restrictions. The result? A government that ignores the looming climate crisis in favor of profits, leaving us all vulnerable to the intensifying effects of climate change.
If we don’t take this issue seriously now, the consequences will be catastrophic—not just for the environment but for our future as a whole. Climate action is essential, and we need to vote for the party that will prioritize it.
(I spoke to a friend in Asheville a few days ago, and I am OUTRAGED to here that Trump’s conspiracy BS is making people attack members of FEMA trying to assess property damage.)
Let’s Talk About the Elephant in the Room: The US’ Support Of Israel’s Genocide
I am far from qualified to speak to this issue. After absorbing information about the situation in Israel/Palestine since my teens and spending hours this week trying to gain some understanding of what’s really happening there, I have to admit that in many ways, I am even more confused than when I started.
I wish more people would acknowledge how little we understand this complex conflict before speaking out about it.
Here’s what I DO KNOW.
Israel and the Jewish People:
Historical Persecution: For thousands of years, Jewish people have faced relentless persecution, from forced exile and oppression under empires like the Romans and Babylonians to antisemitic laws and massacres throughout medieval Europe.
The Holocaust: During World War II, 6 million Jews were systematically murdered in the Holocaust.
The Creation of Israel: After the Holocaust, the establishment of Israel in 1948 was seen as a refuge for Jewish people. However, its founding displaced many Palestinians, leading to long-standing tensions and conflict in the region.
Wars and Survival: Israel has faced multiple wars (1948, 1967, 1973) and continuous threats to its existence from neighboring countries, many of which did not recognize its right to exist. These constant threats shaped a national psyche focused on survival and defense.
Global Anti-Semitism: Even today, Jewish people continue to face significant discrimination and violence worldwide, with antisemitic attacks on the rise, making the need for a safe Jewish state still very real in the eyes of many Israelis. The Jewish people are often also the supposed villains in many conspiracy theories.
Rocket Attacks and Fear of Violence: The ongoing conflict with groups like Hamas has resulted in years of rocket attacks and suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians, leaving many in Israel living under the constant threat of violence.
Global Criticism and Isolation: Israel's policies, especially regarding Palestine, have led to harsh international criticism and debates about its actions. Some question its methods, while others support its need for self-defense, leaving Israel diplomatically isolated at times.
Palestine and the Palestinian People:
Displacement Since 1948: When Israel was created in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes, becoming refugees in surrounding countries. This event, known as the Nakba (catastrophe), left generations of Palestinians stateless and displaced.
Occupation and Settlements: Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ongoing Israeli settlements in these areas are seen by many as illegal under international law and have further displaced Palestinians from their land.
Restricted Freedom of Movement: Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza face severe restrictions on movement due to Israeli checkpoints, barriers, and blockades. This has severely impacted daily life, access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.
Gaza Blockade and Humanitarian Crisis: The blockade of Gaza has created dire humanitarian conditions, with limited access to basic necessities like clean water, electricity, and medical supplies. Gaza is often referred to as an "open-air prison" by critics due to its isolation and lack of resources.
Military Occupation and Violence: Palestinians regularly experience military actions from Israel, including airstrikes, raids, and surveillance. This leads to significant civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.
Generational Trauma and Conflict: Palestinian families have experienced decades of conflict, violence, and trauma, passing the psychological toll from one generation to the next, with many Palestinians losing hope for a peaceful resolution.
Lack of a State: Despite international efforts, Palestinians remain stateless, with no recognized sovereign country of their own. Peace talks have repeatedly failed, and Palestinians continue to live under occupation without the promise of self-determination.
Here’s a map of Area A, B and C in the West Bank if that’s of interest to you.
After understanding some of the basics, I’m forced to conclude that I really don’t know what the path forward should look like.
What I DO know:
According to Aljazeera the latest death toll stands at 43,362 Palestinians and 1,139 people killed in Israel since October 7, 2023. Including nearly 16,765 children.
This is a genocide in the the making and my understanding is that many of the bombs used by Israel in Gaza are American-made. According to reports, a significant portion of the weaponry utilized by the Israeli military, including 2,000-pound bombs and precision-guided munitions like the GBU-39, is supplied by the United States. These bombs have been involved in some of the deadliest attacks during the ongoing conflict, often leading to high civilian casualties. For instance, American-made bombs were used in the heavily populated Jabalia refugee camp, causing significant destruction and loss of civilian life.
The U.S. provides approximately $3.8 billion in military assistance to Israel annually, and this aid includes munitions, fighter jets, and other weapons used in Gaza. Despite concerns from human rights organizations about the indiscriminate use of these weapons in densely populated areas, the U.S. continues to supply these arms to Israel.
As of recent polling, about 67% of American voters support the U.S. calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a de-escalation of violence. This includes majorities across political lines, with 83% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans in favor of a ceasefire. This shows a noticeable increase in support compared to earlier polling, as the conflict has continued to escalate.
These numbers show that a broad majority of the American public is calling for diplomatic efforts to halt the violence, despite the U.S. government's significant military support for Israel. The issue of U.S. involvement, both in terms of military aid and diplomatic pressure, is a major concern for many Americans, especially in light of the humanitarian crises in Gaza.
I agree that the US government should do what they can to deescalate the increased antisemitism that is happening in this country. AND, most importantly, the Biden/Harris administration is not listening to the American people and are using taxpayers money to murder children and people. It’s fucking insane.
However, I don’t place the whole burden of where we are as a country on them since this is a systemic issue with deeper roots than the last four years.
I also don’t think we would see a better outcome in this war with Donald Trump as President. I can see no viable options. I hear the calls for Jill Stein, but I believe there is too much at stake to vote for Stein. This is one reason I am choosing to vote for Harris, at this time, she is the only viable option I have.
What about MAHA?
Recently I came across this post on Facebook by women’s empowerment public figure KC Baker.
KC Baker said:
“If you are shocked that so many people are willing to vote for Trump after all these years, after all these convictions, after all these crazy narcissistic antics, then I don’t think you are paying attention or getting curious enough.
People are sick and tired to the point of being willing to forgo their own deep reserves about his character and his threats to undermine democracy in order to create change. It’s that bad.
They are sick and tired of our money going to fund wars across the world that rip their hearts out from what they see every day on the news.
They are sick and tired of government spending going completely a-wall and of a debt burden for our country that has gone beyond our wildest imaginations and into the realm of nightmare.
They are sick and tired of our food system being turned into an absolute toxic cess pool that has made us the sickest developed country in the entire world, and so would be willing to vote for someone they hate for the promise of someone coming into his administration to make a dent in addressing this catastrophe (RFK, who is the only candidate addressing this tremendous crisis).
The Democrats stand a very good chance of losing because generally they are standing around being condescending about others who don’t see things the way they do and therefore cannot see how that attitude has just so completely alienated so many people and thrust them into other places where their concerns are actually being addressed.
I don’t know any Democrats seriously willing to talk about the deeply entrenched military industrial crisis or pathological healthcare system that funds the engine of our political system, and that is literally killing us and others.
People are not dumb. They want change and the Democrats are not speaking to these concerns powerfully enough.”
Added: KC has since publicly posted that she’s voting for Kamala Harris.
MAHA Is Yet Another Way to Pretend That “Fixing” America is an Individual Job
I read this post and want to speak to the broken food system part and RFK Jr being a viable option, on his own or as part of Trump's administration.
RFK Jr. has proposed various solutions, including his "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative. A central theme of his approach is organic food as a cornerstone of health, along with eliminating what he claims are harmful toxins in the food supply.
While promoting organic food sounds good, it’s not a practical solution for everyone because it’s expensive to produce and not affordable for many people, especially those in low-income communities. Experts suggest that methods like regenerative farming and improving soil health are more realistic and can boost food production without the need for everything to be labeled "organic."
What is MAHA?
MAHA stands for Make America Healthy Again, and it is a Super PAC (Political Action Committee) formed by former staffers from RFK Jr.'s presidential campaign. The group aims to promote RFK Jr.’s health policies, which include a focus on organic food, wellness, and health freedom. In addition, the MAHA Super PAC has aligned itself with Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, encouraging RFK Jr.'s supporters to vote for Trump. MAHA advocates for systemic changes in the U.S. healthcare system but has been criticized for promoting fringe health ideas and lacking input from reputable scientists and experts.
Concerns About the MAHA Panel
A recent panel called "American Health and Nutrition: A Second Opinion," sponsored by Republican Senator Ron Johnson (who has repeatedly voted against The Affordable Care Act and Medicaid) and featuring figures like Jordan Peterson and Vani Hari (The Food Babe), has drawn significant criticism. The panel, which included several people aligned with fringe health ideas, lacked credible scientists, bioengineers, or experts in mainstream health sciences. Some of the participants promoted diets like the all-meat diet or sold supplements they themselves endorse, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the reliability of their claims. In my opinion, this has weakened the credibility of RFK Jr.'s proposed solutions, as the panel appears to support biased, unscientific approaches to health reform.
While it’s important to address how big corporations like Big Ag and Big Dairy impact health, RFK Jr.’s focus on organic food as the answer overlooks larger problems, like food deserts, income inequality, and the need for universal healthcare to ensure everyone has access to good health services.
(Also, while Donald Trump has echoed RFK Jr.'s concerns about the health system, his track-record makes it hard to believe he’s serious about health reform. Trump’s history of firing people in his administration raises doubts about how long RFK Jr. would last if they teamed up.)
I agree that RFK Jr. points out real issues with the health system, yet his ideas are overly simple and not backed by strong science. More effective solutions, like universal healthcare and sustainable farming, would benefit everyone, especially those in marginalized communities, and again, the Democratic Party aligns more with these values.
Helpful links:
Here are some links that my friend Vanessa Barg shared on FB that illustrate some of Trump’s positions on public health.
Siding with Monsanto/Bayer, Trump EPA Once Again Greenlights
How US chemical industry lobbying and cash defeated regulation in Trump era
Trump vows to ‘save’ vaping after private meeting with vaping lobbyist
Donald Trump Freed a Convicted Medicare Fraudster. The Justice Department Wants Him Back
The Path Forward
Let’s be honest: we don’t know as much as we think we do. The rise of the “do your own research” culture has convinced many people that they can form solid, informed decisions by Googling and reading a few websites. But the truth is, the internet is full of misinformation. Relying on scattered research without expertise is like trying to perform surgery after watching a few YouTube videos—it’s risky, and the outcomes can be dangerous. Real knowledge comes from years of study, collaboration, and understanding nuance. This is why we need experts, scientists, and intellectuals to do their jobs without being undermined by conspiracy theories or political agendas.
The Time Came When Capitalism, Trickle Down Economics, and the “Free Market” Didn’t Deliver On Their Promises
The system we live in creates systemic suffering on a massive scale. From healthcare that bankrupts people to an education system that’s becoming increasingly tied to Christian nationalist ideals, the problems are far-reaching. But the solutions cannot come from simply dismantling everything—we need systematic solutions. I’m a proponent of democratic socialism, which means I believe the path forward includes free healthcare, strong public schools free of religious influence, and affordable or free higher education for everyone.
Yes, bureaucracies are often frustrating—we’ve all had bad experiences with slow-moving systems. However, in a country of over 345 million people, we need some levels of bureaucracy to function properly. Small, fragmented institutions could create more inefficiency, not less.
Intellectuals and Scientists Are Not the Enemy
Just as American’s love to rally around sports teams and celebrate athletes with superior physical skills, we should also value and trust the experts who dedicate their lives to understanding complex issues (can we form a League of Scientists or some kind? The NSL?) We need scientists to give us facts, journalists to uncover the truth without trying to sell us something, and reality based on consensus rather than individual opinions. It’s easy to feel lost when AI algorithms and social media filter the information we see, creating seemingly unbiased echo chambers. We need education reform to teach critical thinking and how to source reliable information so we don’t get trapped in misinformation cycles.
Accountability Culture Over Cancel Culture
Cancel culture is a hot topic for the right to condemn the left (fun fact, some argue that the right is the real cancel-culture proponents!), but I believe what we really need is an accountability culture. Let’s normalize having open conversations, making mistakes, and growing from them. Inclusion and awareness are important, but less policing of each other’s words and actions would create more space for genuine learning.
The Idea of the Alpha Male (Even the Guy Who Came Up With It Refutes It Now!) and Traditionally “Feminine Women” Are Outdated - Time to Move On
These stereotypes harm everyone by creating impossible and uniform standards for men as “alpha” and forces women into submissive roles. Most women don’t want to go back into stereotypical boxes, but we also want our roles—especially caregiving and community-building—to be valued. The toxic idea of “power-over” masculinity and the pressure to dominate needs to be replaced with more nurturing, balanced roles for everyone, while making space for individual expression.
Make It Cool Not to Know Again!
Scientists and intellectuals have shortcomings, too—and that’s okay. Part of science is admitting when we’re wrong. Part of growth is being willing to say, “I don’t know,” or, “I was wrong.” That humility should be celebrated, not seen as a weakness. We need our inner knowing and intuition, but we also need people with a deep understanding of specific things. I am a firm believer in both/and, not either/or. We should work hard to discern which aspect to lean into.
We’re In a Battle for the Soul of Humanity
People are voting for figures like Trump and RFK Jr. because they want change, and I get it—I want change, too. But these men are not the answer. Their ideas lack depth, and their actions—especially when it comes to women’s rights and personal accountability—are deeply troubling. I cannot stand behind men who have histories of sexual misconduct, and you shouldn’t settle for that either, because we deserve better than that. FUCK THAT NOISE!!!!!
A New MAGA – Make America GRIEVE Again
We need to learn how to grieve again because, as a society, we've lost touch with this essential process of healing. Grieving allows us to process not just personal loss but also the collective pain of witnessing the world’s suffering—be it climate change, systemic injustice, or the challenges facing humanity. Without grief, we numb ourselves, detach from our emotions, and often miss the opportunity for deep transformation.
In an ‘overculture’ that emphasizes productivity, success, and moving on quickly, we often avoid or suppress grief, which can lead to unresolved emotions and burnout. By re-learning how to grieve, we create space to honor what has been lost, whether it's a loved one, a way of life, or our connection to the earth. Grieving is not a weakness, but rather a profound act of strength and love. It acknowledges the depth of our connections and helps us recalibrate, so we can re-engage with the world in a more grounded and compassionate way.
By embracing grief, we also pave the way for deeper empathy, clearer vision, and the courage to take meaningful action. It’s my experience that, as we grieve together, we can find solidarity in our shared humanity, creating the opportunity for collective healing and transformation. It’s through grief that we can reconnect to nature, each other, and the wisdom of the past to build a more just and compassionate future.
Look to Nature So We Can Remember How to Belong to Each Other Again
At the end of the day, we are all interdependent. The idea that any of us can exist separately from each other or that some people are "self-made" without needing others is a fallacy. We need each other—our communities, our ecosystems, and our planet.
The path forward requires a shift in thinking, returning to Indigenous, regenerative wisdom, as thinkers like Tyson Yunkaporta and Carol Sanford show us though their works, and recognizing our interconnectedness with the earth. We must move away from the exploitative systems of capitalism and fossil fuels, and start embracing more sustainable and just–right relationships–ways of living.
There Is No Change “Out There” Without Change “In Here”
It’s time for us to do the inner work. To decolonize our minds from the ideologies of hetero-patriarchal religions, colonization, slavery, and capitalism. We need to break free from these systems, not just for ourselves but for the future of humanity and the planet we all share. And takes real work. (I should know, I’ve spent the last twenty years in this process…)
But let’s not stop there. We need our own “Master Plan” (But we’re not calling it that! We should call it a Regenerative Collective Weaving Project or the like)—one that doesn’t just react to the problems but proactively builds a better future.
But We Also Need Change “Out There”
This plan should include removing the Electoral College, which no longer serves a democracy with such diversity and population size. And while we’re at it, moving away from a two-party system would give people more options and create a political environment that truly reflects this country's wide range of voices and needs. Oh, and campaign fincance reform for sure.
The upcoming election isn’t just about policies—it’s about redefining the world we want to live in. Let’s create a future that values all people, all genders, and all life on earth. That’s the change I’m orienting toward.
Thanks For Reading This Passion Project I Started a Week Ago
I hope this helped! I know it sure helped me organize my thoughts.
Yes, I know you are a sovereign being, and I’m told by fancy spiritual people that “I shouldn’t tell you what to do.” But you know what, I don’t care!
If I see a friend who is about to walk off a fucking cliff, you bet your cute little butt that I will run up and yank them to safety. Because I think that’s the loving thing to do.
Love,
Karna
P.S. Before I go, I need to acknowledge two things. 1. I am not an expert on any of these topics. Yet, I hope my desire to take somewhat complex topics and make some sense will help someone even one person. Maybe that’s you? 2. This article is written with the extensive use of ChatGPT. Normally, I don’t do this on Substack, but because I don’t have the time to write it all in my own words, I have decided it’s worth it this time. I have used my own understanding to verify what I have included, but if you see a fact that’s wrong - please let me know, and I will correct it. I have read the sources myself, and chosen ones I think are verified enough to the best of my ability.
Key Takeaways
Social Media and Information Overload
Social media often bombards us with conflicting information, disturbing images, and complex issues.
It’s easy to want to check out and avoid processing everything, but understanding the world requires deeper exploration.
The rise of "do your own research" culture is flawed, as Googling alone does not provide a full understanding of complex issues.
Real knowledge comes from years of study and collaboration with experts, not piecing together bits of scattered information.
The Human Capacity for Abstract Belief
Humans have a unique ability to organize around abstract ideas like religion, ideology, and capitalism, which shape our societies.
Systems such as patriarchy and capitalism have led to a disconnection from nature, community, and each other.
Tyson Yunkaporta’s Sand Talk explains how disconnection from the land breeds individualism and societal collapse.
In America, capitalism, consumerism, and the "American dream" have filled the void left by the loss of kinship and community.
The Role of Patriarchy and Feminism
Patriarchy has historically oppressed women, and feminism has fought to challenge these systems.
Despite progress, women are still being pushed into traditional roles, but the way forward is not about returning to rigid gender boxes.
Toxic masculinity harms men by pressuring them to dominate and suppress emotions, while also forcing women into submissive roles.
Systemic solutions like free healthcare, universal childcare, paid parental leave, and better education are needed to support all genders.
Accountability Culture Over Cancel Culture
Cancel culture should evolve into accountability culture, allowing space for genuine conversations and growth.
People need to make mistakes and learn from them, rather than being constantly policed for their words or actions.
Conspiritualists use claims of being silenced to gain sympathy and money, turning “silencing” into a badge of honor.
The Need for Scientists, Intellectuals, and Experts
Experts and intellectuals are not the enemy—just as we admire athletes, we should respect and trust those who dedicate their lives to understanding complex topics.
Science is about admitting when we’re wrong and growing from it; intellectual humility should be celebrated.
We need to rely on facts, consensus reality, and well-researched information instead of conspiracy theories or social media echo chambers.
Interconnectedness and Indigenous Wisdom
We are all interdependent, and the idea that any of us can thrive in isolation is a fallacy.
Returning to indigenous wisdom, as emphasized by Tyson Yunkaporta and Carol Sanford, helps us recognize our connection to the earth and each other.
Moving away from exploitative systems like capitalism and fossil fuel reliance is essential for sustainability.
Election Stakes and Systemic Change
The upcoming election is crucial, and leaders like Kamala Harris represent integrity and hope for a better future.
Removing the Electoral College, reforming campaign financing, and eliminating a two-party system are necessary steps to create a more democratic political environment.
The path forward includes systemic change, not just individual solutions, like universal healthcare, education reform, and a shift toward more equitable systems.
These are challenging times, and I've never been more involved in the election process than I am this year. I've donated more money and time than I ever thought I would—not because I’m 100% aligned with the Democratic party, but because I personally know who Donald Trump is, and that scares me. Yes, I said personally. I used to manage a high-end catering company in NYC, and I had the "privilege" of running a series of events for him in his golden Trump Tower Penthouse apartment.
I understand the system is broken, but I refuse to sit back and do nothing. So, I ask you one simple question: Who would you want teaching your children and future grandchildren how to be in this world? Someone who’s made mistakes, acknowledges them, and strives to do better, while fighting to protect their community? Or someone who breaks laws, blames others, cheats, steals, lies, and will say anything just to win?
This isn't about a single issue—this is about the future of our country. I urge you to vote, not for a specific party, but with both your heart and your mind. The future of this country is at stake. Trump and his cronies don’t care what happens to us; to them, we’re just ants to step on.
Karna lays out some important points—take a little time to read them, and share with others who could benefit from real facts and truth about our country and its history.
And Vote! Urge others to Vote.
I wish you the best. With Love and compassion.
KB Nau
I love your passion projects. I know you have a lot of different "people" in you but it's certainly fun to see the History Teacher come out and demonstrate your gift for researching-integrating-and-distilling.
Also, thank you for putting brilliant words to this. "Do people honestly think one can spend TEN THOUSAND YEARS oppressing women, but we “fixed” those pesky imbalances in a hundred years? That math should not make sense to anyone, in my not-so-humble opinion. (Or does that qualify as partiarchy-math?)"
It really is amazing how that history has blinded us to our own experience and how little most people grock how profoundly patriarchal our society still is, let alone the impact of thousands of years. Hello, ERA...the US still hasn't gotten around to giving women equal rights at the federal level. Hmmm. Wonder why we still haven't pulled that off??
I know we're on the other side of the election by the time I could read this. I also know you'll keep on with your "passion project", investigating, speaking up, and being love in these crazy times we're living in. I'm voting for us, sister.