No matter who wins among the two major candidates in November, the United States is on track for a major existential crisis with Russia in Europe sometime in 2026.
Nuclear weapon test Dakota, June 26, 1956. (U.S. Dept. of Energy/Wikimedia Commons)
As America wrestles with the question of who will emerge victorious from the three-ring circus that is the 2024 Presidential election, there is increasing talk about the existential nature of this election and the role played by the two primary candidates — the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, and her challenger, the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump — in taking the nation to the brink when it comes to the future of American democracy as an institution.
The choices couldn’t be starker — the living embodiment of “DEI establishment politician” (Harris) versus the textbook definition of a “populist political outsider” (Trump).
In many ways, the rhetoric about the critical nature of the 2024 Presidential race isn’t exaggerated — in terms of sustained political viability, the stakes couldn’t get any higher.
A Harris victory would effectively end the MAGA movement, since it is largely a populist exercise built around the cult of personality that has surrounded Donald Trump, whom most people agree is running his last political race.
A Trump victory, however, would project into the political mainstream his running mate, J.D. Vance, who would be given the opportunity to claim the MAGA throne in 2028, setting up the potential for a 12-year MAGA run which could very well spell the end of establishment politics in America as we know it.
America has gone through numerous presidential contests in its 248-year history in which the essence of the nation could be said to be at stake.
The first of these took place in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in a race that literally decided the future of the United States by ending the conservative Federalist hold on political power and replacing it with the more progressive Democrat-Republican party.
Andrew Jackson’s 1824 victory over John Quincy Adams saw the reemergence of the Federalist ideology in the form of the new Democratic Party prevail over Adams and the Republicans in an election that served as the foundation for the emergence of the two-party system that dominates American politics until today.
And the 1860 election, won by Abraham Lincoln, literally carried with it life or death decisions which propelled America into a Civil War. It is the only American election which can genuinely be described as existential in terms of its consequences.
The point to be made here is that no matter what anyone says about 2024, while the future direction of American politics, and the societal issues thus manifested, will be decided in November, the existential fate of the United States is not on the line.
Neither is the fate of “American democracy.”
All Existence Is at Stake
The 2024 presidential race, however, does directly impact the existential survival of the United States, the American people, and indeed the entire world, but not because of its outcome.
The harsh reality is that regardless of who among the two major candidates wins in November, American policy vis-à-vis Russia, especially when it comes to nuclear posture and arms control, is hard-wired to achieve the same result.
And it is this result that seals the fate of all humanity unless a way can be found to prompt a critical re-think of the underlying policies that produce the anticipated outcome.
A future Harris administration is on track to continue a policy which commits to the strategic defeat of Russia, the lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, the termination of the last remaining arms control treaty (New START) in February 2026, and the re-deployment of intermediate-range missiles into Europe, also in 2026.
Trump, meanwhile, has proffered rhetoric which has led many to believe he would end the conflict in Ukraine, and thereby open the door for better relations with Russia.
The ‘Perfect Call’
Putin and Trump (President of Russia)
But this policy is predicated on the concept of the “perfect phone call” between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader accedes to American-dictated terms regarding Ukraine which would fall far short of Russia’s stated goals.
Trump has made it clear that if Putin fails to bend the knee on Ukraine, he will then flood Ukraine with weapons —basically the Biden policy of strategically defeating the Russians on steroids. It was Trump who pulled out of the INF treaty in 2019, and as such put in motion the policy direction which has U.S. INF weapons returning to Europe in 2026.
And Trump is not a fan of arms control treaties, so the notion that he would save New START or replace it with a new treaty vehicle is mooted by reality.
No matter who wins among the two major candidates in November, the United States is on track for a major existential crisis with Russia in Europe sometime in 2026. The re-introduction of INF-capable systems by the U.S. will trigger a similar deployment by Russia of nuclear-capable INF systems targeting Europe.
Back in the 1980’s, the deployment of INF systems by the U.S. and Russia had created an inherently destabilizing situation where one mistake could have set off a nuclear war.
The experience of Able Archer ’83, a NATO command and control exercise that took place in the fall of 1983, bears witness to this reality. The Soviets interpreted the exercise as being a cover for a nuclear first-strike by NATO and put its nuclear forces on high alert.
There was no room for error — one miscalculation or misjudgment could have led to a Soviet decision to pre-empt what it believed to be an imminent NATO nuclear attack, thereby triggering a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
The INF treaty, signed in 1987, removed these destabilizing weapons from Europe. But now that treaty is no more, and the weapons that brought Europe and the world to the brink of destruction in the 1980’s are returning to a European continent where notions of peaceful coexistence with Russia have been replaced with rhetoric promoting the inevitability of conflict.
When one combines the existence of a policy objective (the strategic defeat of Russia) which, when coupled with a policy of supporting a Ukrainian victory over Russia predicated on Ukraine regaining physical control over Crimea and the four territories of Novorossiya (New Russia — Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk), one already has a recipe for disaster.
This policy, if successful, would automatically trigger a Russian nuclear response, since doctrinally nuclear weapons would be used to respond to any non-nuclear scenario where the existential survival of Russia is at stake. (The loss of Crimea and the New Territories is like the United States losing Texas, California, or New York — a literal existential situation.)
Add to this the end of arms control as we know it come February 2026, when the New START treaty expires. The Biden administration has declared that it will seek to add new nuclear weapons “without limitation” once the New START caps on deployed weapons expires — the literal definition of an arms race out of control.
One can only imagine that Russia would be compelled to match this rearmament activity.
INFs Again in Europe
Anti-Pershing 2 Soviet Poster, c. 1985. (Reddit)
And finally, the recent agreement by the U.S. and Germany to redeploy intermediate-range missiles on European soil in 2026, and Russia’s decision to match this action by building and deploying its own intermediate-range missiles, recreates the very situational instability which threatened regional and world security back in the 1980’s.
When one examines these factors in their aggregate, the inescapable conclusion is that Europe will be faced with an existential crisis which could come to a head as early as the summer of 2026.
The potential for the use of nuclear weapons, either by design or accident, is real, creating a situation that exceeds the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the risk of a nuclear war by an order of magnitude or more.
While a future nuclear conflict would very likely start in Europe, it will be virtually impossible to contain the use of nuclear weapons on the European continent. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russian soil, or the territory of its ally, Belarus, would trigger a general Russian nuclear response which would lead to a general, global-killing nuclear war.
The question Americans confront today is what to do about this existential threat to their very survival.
The answer put forward here is to empower your vote in the coming presidential election by tying it not to a person or party, but rather a policy.
West German anti-Pershing 2 poster.
In short, empower your vote by pledging it to the candidate who will commit to prioritizing peace over war, and who pledges to make the prevention of nuclear war, not the promotion of nuclear weapons, the cornerstone of his or her national security policy.
Don’t give your vote away by committing to a candidate at this early stage — when you do this, you no longer matter, as the candidates will simply turn their attention to those uncommitted voters in an effort to win them over.
Make the candidates earn your vote by linking it to a policy posture that reflects your core values.
And this election, your core value should be exclusively centered on promoting peace and preventing nuclear war.
Such a policy posture would be built upon four basic pillars.
1. Immediately end the current declaratory policy of the United States which articulates the strategic defeat of Russia as a primary U.S. objective and replace it with a policy statement which makes peaceful coexistence with Russia the strategic goal of U.S. foreign and national security policy.
Such a policy redirection would include, by necessity, the goal of rethinking European security frameworks which respect the legitimate national security concerns of Russia and Europe, and would incorporate the necessity of a neutral Ukraine.
2. A freeze on the re-deployment of INF-capable weapons systems into Europe, matched by a Russian agreement not to re-introduce INF-capable weapons into its arsenal, with the goal of turning this freeze into a formal agreement that would be finalized in treaty form.
3. A commitment to engage with Russia on the negotiation and implementation of a new strategic arms control treaty which seeks equitable cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both nations, a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons each side can retain in storage, and which incorporates limits on ballistic missile defense.
4. A general commitment to work with Russia to pursue verifiable and sustainable nuclear arms reduction globally using multi-lateral negotiations.
I will be working with Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Garland Nixon, Wilmur Leon, Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil, Jeff Norman, Danny Haiphong, and many others to put together an event, Operation DAWN, on September 28, 2024.
The goal of this event will be to get as many American citizens as possible to tie their vote to the policy posture spelled out above, and then to leverage these commitments in a way that compels all candidates for the presidency to articulate policies that meet this criterion.
In doing so, the voter would be fighting for a chance to save democracy by making his or her vote count, save America and the world by creating the possibility to avert nuclear conflict, all by making the candidates for presidency earn their vote, as opposed to simply giving it away.
Operation DAWN is still in the preliminary planning stages. More details will be published here as the planning progresses.
Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
I hate to say it but this seems Pollyanna about the possibility of exercising this kind of leverage on either side of the duopoly.
The Biden administration got off to a good start with its decision to take up the extension option in the START treaty for 5 years. Trump would not have done this. In addition, the danger of a resumption of nuclear testing would have been very real in a Trump second term.
But after that positive start, there was no progress and things started to deteriorate. Indeed, the Biden administration decided not to stick with the INF treaty restrictions after the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the treaty. And so, we now find ourselves in a very dangerous situation indeed.
I welcome the author’s efforts to organise voting on the issue of preventing nuclear war. A similar campaign, on the question of Gaza, was organised during the recent UK general election. It did achieve some notable success. A number of ‘safe’ Labour seats were lost and there were serious problems in a number of others.
The main missing piece in this “Dawn” strategy is that by far the majority of people are not aware of the nature and magnitude and immediacy of this mortal danger to humanity.
I hope that you are developing the mass messaging necessary to make this strategy effective. Such a short time and so many people to reach! You need some way of catalyzing the message through us and in other ways so that it turns into an avalanche.
Please keep us posted on how each of can help, including resources we can use.
Thank you Scott for leading this initiative! I too am in and will support any way possible!
Even if a genuinely anti-war candidate were elected, they would be up against a very deeply entrenched ‘deep state’ that is arguably behind the warmongering polices of both mainstream parties. Remember what happened to JFK?
Scott is right, but doesn’t go far enough into the underlying problem of the US’ desire to dominate globally, and makes no mention of the looming conflict with China, which it sees as ultimately even a bigger threat than Russia.
As a nation, it is caught up in the false, or should I say delusional, notion of being exceptional and indispensable that gives it the right to rule the world!
Until such time as the US deep state and political establishment accept multipolarity and start working with, rather than against, the rest of the world, there will be no lasting peace.
Thank you for giving me a articulate, detailed cause to get behind, with specific people and yourself supporting it. I have been waiting for this a long time.
Right on!
I am not voting for Kamala. Or Trump. But I was disappointed to see that Scott Ritter referred to her as the DEI candidate. That is a code word that is increasingly being used against minorities, especially women of color, to try to discredit them in professional settings across the country right now. The underlining message behind the word is that the person was hired because of their skin color/gender instead of their qualifications. May I remind you that Trump didn’t have a career in politics before he was elected but no one would have ever called him a DEI candidate even if I am sure some people voted for him because he was a white man. I agree with much of what Scott Ritter said but he unfortunately he revealed his own biases by using that terminology.
Do you want to know how to NOT have people talking about how you might be a DEI hire? Be competent at your job. Then nobody will insinuate such a thing.
Maybe don’t do boneheaded things like telling refugees “do not come” to the United States when you’re trying to make people see you and the Democratic Party as a whole as a friend to refugees.
Maybe when Stephen Colbert asks you how you could attack Biden as a racist in the debate only to happily join his ticket and seemingly be the best of friends later on, you should give a better answer than doing your cringy laugh and repeating “It was a debate! It was a debate! It was literally a debate!” as if that’s some kind of explanation. Especially when Colbert follows up by asking “So you didn’t mean [what you said about Biden in the debate]?” and you simply keep on laughing and repeating that it was a debate.
There’s more, of course, but if you’re reading Consortium News, then I doubt I need to explain to you how Harris hasn’t shown much in the way of competence at all. Or basic ethics.
On top of that, Harris has been the ultimate DEI hire, because when Biden was still in the process of picking his running mate, he vowed that whoever he picked would be a black woman. If the most qualified person for the job had been a black MAN, he was shit out of luck. Or an Asian woman. Or a white woman. Qualifications and track record were taking a back seat to perception, to identity politics. The field of possible veeps got narrowed a lot, and may very well have excluded the best person for the job simply because Biden and/or his team wanted to prove he wasn’t racist.
Of the possible candidates in that narrowed field, Harris had done miserably in the primary. She got zero delegates. She was unable to defend her record after Tulsi Gabbard brought it up, and more tellingly she did not even DENY any of the accusations. A more skilled politician would been able to think on her feet quickly enough to say something like “First of all, Congresswoman Gabbard is taking liberties with the facts of my record…” but that’s not what Harris did. She gave a pitiful response, which I’ll paraphrase: “I’m proud of my record, and even though I locked lots of people up for carrying a little weed I want to legalize it NOW cross my heart, and I’ve been a prosecutor serving the people which is more than you ever did for them by making little speeches on the floor of the house, Tulsi.”
As Russell Dobular of Due Dissidence said recently: not a fan of Tulsi’s work in the last few years, but that was great.
So Kamala tried to run for POTUS, she had the mainstream media on her side, and she failed. She was a failure, a loser, reviled by voters. And yet, despite all of that, she was chosen to become the second most powerful person in the world. (Assuming, of course, that the president is the most powerful person in the world and not just a figurehead with the three letter agencies pulling their strings, but never mind that right now.) She got picked for two reasons: first, that Wall Street and other special interests made it clear to Biden that she was who they wanted, and second, yes, that she was a black woman.
Nothing could be more dangerous than a preemptive war strategic policy and nuclear weapons. But economic sanction and cyber and space warfare is a close second in a world system already being plagued by our own actions.
I’m in.
I must ask: Why is it that only the 2 ‘major’ and ‘controlling’ Political Parties and their proposed nominees are the focus of every political commentary I have read recently? Why is it that Jill Stein and the platform of the Green Party are not mentioned or worthy of consideration or discussion? As part of her Peace Platform: Reform of the UN – abolish the Security Council, abolish the VETO. Her advisor in this: Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Does no one understand the significance of this? Reforming the UN alone has, probably, the greatest possibility of not only significantly diminishing US influence, ability to bribe and threaten countries, and lead us to a more peaceful and equitable world. Focusing, as Amy Goodman did this morning, on Trump’s VP, Harris, etc. is, in my view, a disgraceful use of opportunity. We will never have decent and qualified humans as candidates from either party. Let’s broaden our perspective.
@deborah:
please don’t leave professor cornel west out.
i know, people say jill stein is all over the US
and has much better chances to gain votes,
but west deserves to be put on the map, too.
“When one combines the existence of a policy objective (the strategic defeat of Russia) which, when coupled with a policy of supporting a Ukrainian victory over Russia predicated on Ukraine regaining physical control over Crimea and the four territories of Novorossiya (New Russia — Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk), one already has a recipe for disaster.”
If THIS is what Trump plans for his “perfect call” and ending the conflict in 24 hours, the man is even more seriously ignorant than ever. This is of course utterly ridiculous as a goal to negotiate a peace with. It is absurd and delusional to posit it as the US or Trump position on the matter. I would like to see a more substantial analysis on what Trump means when saying he will bring the conflict to an end in 24 hours.
You nailed it Scott as always.
Never in my lifetime ..and I’m not young, has it been this frightening.
This election cycle is more than Red vs Blue..so much more.
WWIII is looming..
consider that when they listen, they might be using this movement to achieve the opposite. but it must be tried anyways.
Love Scott Ritter, but his statement that “a Harris victory would effectively end the MAGA movement” is utterly absurd and fundamentally misunderstands what has been fueling the Trump phenomenon since he rode down that Trump Tower escalator in 2015. “Reaganomics” and neoliberal hypercapitalism, which created our unprecedented wealth gap and culminated in the spectacle of Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama bailing out Wall Street at taxpayer expense after the 2008 financial collapse while punishing no one, are what created our current profound cynicism and division — not Donald Trump, who has merely used that to his advantage. The very real crisis of non-college-educated Americans in rural regions and post-industrial towns, communities destroyed by job loss, family dysfunction, and epidemics of drug and alcohol addiction, has been completely ignored by policy makers both Democratic and Republican for decades. These abandoned “deplorables” were smart enough to see that the cultural and political elites who disdain them had allowed most of the economy’s gains to be captured by special interests, leaving them with nothing.
Donald Trump. of all people, was able to capitalize on their well-earned distrust of government by focusing their ire on racist tropes of brown “others” taking their jobs and their culture and on Q-Anon conspiracy theories portraying Trump as a bold, competent leader locked in struggle with child-devouring, Satan-worshiping Democrats, rather than on the wealth inequality, decline of workers’ rights and the growing power of Wall Street which were the actual causes of their distress and which the Democrats had only claimed to be addressing while they were actually busy advancing the agendas of those same rich megadonors. That betrayal of the working and middle classes by Democrats, their jettisoning of the New Deal for neoliberalism and the corporate donation dollar, is why heavily unionized states like West Virginia are so ruby red today. That is not going to change when Trump finally departs from the scene — there are Trumps aplenty, many far worse than he, ready and eager to take his place.
I agree. Thank you for correcting that important error
Thanks to Jamie Alipertie:
One is reluctant to pull people away from the political process even if it doesn’t “work”. Our objectives must instead
be to get as much as we can from whomever is elected and from whomever is deciding. We know that to
get views through we must get those with whom we disagree to support us.
Analysis is one thing. The diagnosis! On to the cure which takes work. The remedy!
This is not compromise or “betrayal” but facing reality the reality that someone will indeed win.
We know that claims on a campaign trail are often not indicative of the result. (Did Trump “drain the swamp”? Did
Biden “build back better?” Etc.
As a Marxist, I support the Socialist Equality Party and always will. I refuse to vote for any capitalist candidate, full stop. The SEP is anti war and always has been. The SEP reflects my interests and my desire to see capitalism overthrown, to see NATO dismantled, to see the Ukraine war and the Gaza genocide end and the perpetrators tried for war crimes and put in prison. I will NOT vote for any other party. You’re a good man, Scott, but you are supporting the continuation of what is anathema to me and many others like me. And just a note about Garland Nixon. I used to like him a lot until he started featuring the Stalinist Joti Brar on his show. The two of them smeared the SEP, and I no longer support him or his show.
“What is the essence of Trotskyism? It’s that when Lenin developed his theory’s, he said that the main danger to humanity is Imperialism. Is capitalism has become Imperialism. A global system of monopoly capitalism that is holding back development and impoverishing people all over the world. And the duty of revolutionaries is to oppose Imperialism. And Trotskyism, all of it’s different manifestations and interpretations is always an attempt to say, no, no, it’s not about fighting the Imperialists..”
“…Trotskyism is a way that you can claim to be a Marxist or a Socialist or a Revolutionary but not focus on fighting the Imperialists. Fight some other battle, but not against Imperialism. That is the essence of what Trotskyism is.”
-Caleb Maupin
The equivalent of a 12 year NAZI reign is terrifying.
At the close of it, Atomic weapons were used for the first time, on human beings, annihilating these masses of people, in one fell swoop, as warning of what was to come.
And here we are, at an equivalent precipice – of unleashing
The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Willam Butler Yeats, born June 13th 1865, died January 28th 1939.
“….The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…”
Says. it all as we slouch towards the nuclear end.
A sensible plan. Let hope someone who can act on it, listens.
Well written Scott. Much of what you said should be applied to a new American approach to China as well. Our true enemies are within. We need a new sense of purpose. A simpler concept of why we are alive. We are following false messengers that are leading us over the edge. More Americans should be listening to you.
This is an excellent proposal. Thank you
I like the idea of this Operation DAWN, but I’m afraid there is not a critical mass of citizens who can be found. I was at a party last weekend, and 2 women there are thrilled with Harris being the nominee. Why? Solely because she’s a woman. One rolled her eyes when I brought up the Genocide that Harris is facilitating and will continue to do so; they simply didn’t want to be let down by any criticisms which would depress them. (!)
Also, if Operation DAWN gets any traction whatsoever, it will be ruthlessly throttled by both Parties. I remain optimistic, but I expect the worst from the stupid lunatics who run things.
The two women at the party must love slavery as well! What’s wrong with America? Stupid, mindless Americans’ refusal to look at reality.
An eminently sensible plan.
As long as “lesser evil” voting rules, things will get worse.
It is scary, frightening to see so much stupidity and inflated egos for which all of us might end up paying the ultimate price.
My simple question to the presidential candidates: will you commit to exclude any and all Neocons from your cabinet and other appointments?
Amen! It is the presence of the war mongering neocons in every administration since George W. Bush’s two terms that has brought us to the brink of nuclear war. The neocons are the most dangerous people in the world. Their war mongering and “doubling down” continuously on the extremely dangerous policy of trying to surround and “weaken” Russia is the most foolhardy and I must say downright evil policy I have ever seen. I am 80 years old. And I lived through the Cold War. During those years (about 1946 to 1991) U.S. presidents and foreign policy teams regularly met with and talked to their Soviet/Russian counterparts. Now, especially since the ascent of the neocons, virtually no negotiations or regular summit conferences between the U.S. and Russia, or between the U.S. and Russia’s great power ally, China have taken place. Instead, our neocon foreign policy establishment has returned to the arms race, forcing Russia and China to do the same. This policy comes as close to guaranteeing nuclear war than any foreign policy position taken by the U.S. since the end of World War Two. I am emeritus professor of U.S. history, Cal.State Long Beach. Among other courses I regularly taught U.S. Since 1945, which focused on the Cold War. Because of presently established neocon war mongering, especially against Russia, all progress we were making in the second half of the twentieth century in relations with the Soviet Union (Russia) have gravely deteriorated. Our sponsoring war on the Russian border has brought about a much closer alliance between Russia and economic and nuclear armed giant, China. Henry Kissinger, Nixon administration foreign policy adviser and secretary of state, did a great deal to create detente with both Russia and China. An astute diplomat, Kissinger did a great deal to lessen tensions with both Russia and China. He also was able to keep both those countries from allying against the United States. And he did so by negotiating with them and reducing the nuclear arms race. These policies continued through the Reagan and Bush I administration. They began to deteriorate under Bush II, who first brought in the neocons. I agree with senior weapons inspector, Scott Ritter that we are now in the most dangerous position we have been in regarding nuclear war since the end of World War Two. I strongly support Ritter’s Operation Dawn initiative, which will publicly challenge entrenched neocon policies that have put us on the track to nuclear war.
It must be lonely in the University circles. Hopefully you may reach a few receptive heads. It makes me ill to see the talking “loser generals” every morning preaching war. Having lost every war since 1945, they all claim to know the path to destruction. The neocons have to go. George Washington and Ike were right!
Simple and accurate proposal. Send the Neocons to their “chosen” destination! Let’s make the world a safer place for all lifeforms.
Ha! That’s a good one, but the neocons are inevitable. Stupidity and moral degradation are their stock in trade, and they fit right in to the current political hellscape.
Thank you, Scott. Clear thinking that the regular US elections spectacle is meant to obscure. Much success. I will be following and supporting your efforts. As I have been saying, even bellowing, since around 2016, the current status quo, more of the same in the US, is suicide both for America and for our species on this planet.