Putin, Dugin, and Trump: The Geopolitical Challenge Facing America

Alexander Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political theorist, and strategist known for his far-right and nationalist ideas. He is considered one of the most influential intellectuals behind Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical vision and has developed a distinctive worldview that challenges Western liberalism, democracy, and globalism.

Who is Alexander Dugin?

Dugin is often associated with the ideology of Eurasianism, which emphasizes the idea that Russia, rather than being a part of Europe or Asia, should lead a unique Eurasian civilization. He is a vocal critic of liberal democracy and Western values, seeing them as threats to the survival of traditional Russian culture, values, and political systems. His philosophy blends Russian Orthodox Christianity, traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-modernism. Dugin is also a prominent advocate for an authoritarian system that rejects the principles of liberal democracy, which he believes lead to decadence, moral decay, and societal breakdown.

Dugin’s work, particularly his book "Foundations of Geopolitics", has been highly influential within certain circles of Russian politics and military strategy. His vision of a "multipolar world" contrasts with the Western-led "unipolar" world order, which he sees as dominated by the U.S. and its allies. He advocates for a new international order, where Russia plays a central role, asserting itself against the West.

Putin’s Relationship with Dugin’s Beliefs

Putin’s policies and rhetoric, especially in recent years, reflect a certain alignment with Dugin’s ideas, particularly regarding nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Western sentiments. Although it’s difficult to say how directly Putin subscribes to Dugin's specific philosophy, Dugin has been described as a key ideological figure whose ideas resonate with the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies. Here are the key ways Putin has embraced Dugin’s beliefs:

1. Anti-Western Sentiment:

   • Both Dugin and Putin are staunchly critical of Western liberalism, seeing it as morally corrupt, decadent, and a threat to Russia’s traditional values. Putin has positioned Russia as a defender of conservative and Christian values in opposition to what he perceives as the permissiveness and liberalism of the West.

   • Dugin’s ideas, particularly the rejection of liberal democracy, mirror Putin’s own distrust of Western-style political systems and his promotion of a strong, centralized state under his control.

2. Eurasianism and Russia’s Role in Global Politics:

   • Dugin’s philosophy of Eurasianism calls for Russia to assert its dominance over the Eurasian landmass, rejecting the West's political and cultural dominance. This has been reflected in Putin’s foreign policy, especially in his actions in Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, where he has sought to reassert Russian influence and challenge Western power.

   • Dugin envisions Russia leading a coalition of countries (often referred to as the "Eurasian bloc"), which would challenge the global order dominated by the U.S. and Europe. Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Syria can be seen as part of this broader vision of establishing Russia as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony.

3. The Rejection of Globalism:

   • Dugin is a vocal critic of globalism, the idea that countries should be governed by global institutions and international norms. He believes that this undermines national sovereignty and leads to the erosion of cultural and religious identities.

   • Putin has positioned Russia as a champion of national sovereignty, particularly in opposition to Western-led international institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO. He has used rhetoric that positions Russia as a defender of the "multipolar world," a world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few Western countries.

What They Are Doing to Support These Beliefs Against America and for Russia

1. Ukraine and the "Eurasian Sphere":

   • One of the most significant actions taken by Russia under Putin that aligns with Dugin’s beliefs is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. This move was justified by Putin as necessary to protect Russian speakers and culture, but it also fits within the broader Eurasian vision of reasserting Russian influence in territories once part of the Soviet Union.

   • Dugin has openly supported these actions, viewing them as part of Russia’s rightful return to its place as the leader of a Eurasian bloc. He also sees Ukraine as a critical part of this vision, often referring to it as the "heartland" of Eurasia.

2. Promotion of Anti-Liberal Values:

   • Putin has sought to promote Russian Orthodox Christianity as a unifying force in Russia, positioning it against the secularism of the West. This resonates with Dugin’s traditionalist views, which stress the importance of religion in society and politics.

   • Russia’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, its push for conservative family values, and its crackdown on opposition movements all align with Dugin’s idea of a society that rejects liberal freedoms in favor of order and traditionalism.

3. Cyber Warfare and Disinformation:

   • Russia, under Putin’s leadership, has been accused of using cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns to destabilize Western democracies, particularly the U.S. during the 2016 presidential election. This aligns with Dugin’s idea of undermining Western influence and sowing chaos in the political systems of liberal democracies.

   • Dugin’s geopolitical ideas also encourage the use of unconventional methods to achieve strategic goals, including the use of information warfare to destabilize the U.S. and European Union.

4. Energy and Economic Influence:

   • Russia has leveraged its control over energy supplies, especially natural gas and oil, as a tool of geopolitical influence. By using energy as leverage, Russia under Putin has sought to deepen its ties with Eurasian countries while also undermining Western sanctions and economic influence.

   • This economic strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce Russia’s dependence on the West and assert its dominance within the Eurasian region.

Dugin’s ideas, particularly his vision of a multipolar world led by Russia and his rejection of liberal Western values, resonate with Putin’s worldview and have influenced many of his policies. While the extent of their personal relationship and alignment is not fully clear, it is evident that Putin has adopted certain aspects of Dugin’s philosophy, especially in terms of nationalism, anti-Western rhetoric, and the quest for Russian dominance in Eurasia. Together, they advocate for a Russia that pushes back against American global leadership and the liberal international order, positioning Russia as a defender of tradition, sovereignty, and an alternative vision for global politics.

Putin's connection to various philosophers and ideologies, including figures like Alexander Dugin, is often viewed through a complex and controversial lens. Dugin, in particular, is known for his far-right, nationalist, and anti-liberal views, advocating for Eurasianism, which emphasizes Russia's unique role in world history and its need to assert its power against the West.

Critics of Dugin and his philosophy argue that his ideas are deeply problematic, even dangerous, and foster a worldview that is deluded or extreme. They point out that his approach often relies on conspiracy theories, anti-democratic sentiments, and a rejection of modernity. Whether he is "stupid," "deluded," or "insane" largely depends on one's perspective. Some might argue that Dugin's ideas are misguided and dangerous, while others might see them as strategic in promoting a certain vision for Russia.

It's a highly subjective matter, with critics often calling his ideas intellectually dishonest or harmful, while supporters view him as a visionary seeking to challenge Western dominance. Ultimately, the label depends on the values and beliefs of those doing the evaluating.

The beliefs and actions of Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin share certain themes, but they are not perfectly aligned, and the connections are complex.

1. Nationalism and Populism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have espoused strong nationalist and populist rhetoric. Trump’s "America First" approach, with a focus on prioritizing U.S. interests, echoes a populist desire to challenge global elites and institutions. Bannon, as a strategist, championed similar themes, promoting a right-wing, anti-establishment ideology that sought to upend the liberal international order.

• Putin and Dugin: Similarly, Putin’s Russia under his leadership has embraced a form of nationalism, particularly in opposition to Western influence. Dugin’s philosophy, particularly his concept of Eurasianism, aligns with this by emphasizing Russia’s role as a unique civilization, distinct from the West.

2. Anti-Globalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have been critical of international institutions and agreements. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, along with Bannon's criticism of globalist elites, reflects a shared skepticism of global governance and institutions like the EU and UN.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s opposition to NATO and the European Union, alongside Dugin's advocacy for Russian supremacy in Eurasia, also fits into an anti-globalist narrative, though with a more explicitly authoritarian and imperialistic bent. Dugin often critiques liberal democracy as part of a Western-led globalist project that he believes undermines national sovereignty.

3. Anti-Liberalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Trump's actions often targeted liberal values, especially in areas like immigration, civil rights, and press freedom. Bannon has been a vocal critic of liberalism and often associates it with globalism and what he perceives as a threat to traditional values and sovereignty.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s governance in Russia has consistently undermined liberal democratic values, with crackdowns on dissent, the press, and LGBTQ+ rights. Dugin’s philosophy, with its rejection of liberal democracy, aligns with this anti-liberalism, advocating instead for a more authoritarian, conservative, and hierarchical society.

4. Relations with the West:

• Trump and Bannon: While Trump often expressed admiration for Putin and appeared open to closer ties with Russia, especially during the 2016 election, his administration maintained policies that were at odds with Russian interests, such as sanctions on Russia and support for NATO. Bannon, too, has expressed admiration for the strength and sovereignty of nations like Russia, although his strategic thinking was more focused on undermining Western globalism.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin, particularly under Dugin's influence, has seen Russia as a counterbalance to Western liberalism, viewing the U.S. and Europe as rivals in the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence. Dugin's vision calls for Russia to lead a broader Eurasian bloc to challenge the Western-dominated world order.

In summary, there are some overlapping themes, particularly the opposition to globalism, liberalism, and the embrace of nationalism, but the alignment between Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin is not straightforward. Trump's and Bannon's views are more focused on national sovereignty and populism from a Western, American context, while Putin and Dugin’s philosophy is rooted in Russian imperialism and Eurasianism. The alignment tends to be more about shared anti-establishment, anti-liberal views, rather than an exact match in ideology or strategy.

In dealing with the rising geopolitical tensions involving Russia, particularly in the context of Putin's policies and the influence of figures like Dugin, there are several strategies that America could pursue to safeguard its interests and uphold democratic values. The role of leadership, especially in the presidency, is critical to how effectively the U.S. navigates these challenges.

What Should America Do?

1. Strengthen Alliances and Multilateral Cooperation:

   • NATO and EU Relations: A strong, united NATO is critical to countering Russian aggression and preserving global security. The U.S. must work closely with NATO members, especially in Eastern Europe, to ensure that collective defense is robust, and that Russia's attempts to weaken the alliance are thwarted.

   • Diplomacy with Allies: The U.S. needs to strengthen diplomatic ties with its European allies and other democracies around the world. This will help create a coordinated response to Russian expansionism and the spread of anti-democratic ideologies.

2. Countering Russian Influence and Disinformation:

   • The U.S. must continue to combat disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks originating from Russia. This includes protecting U.S. electoral processes, critical infrastructure, and countering Russian-backed propaganda both at home and abroad.

   • Cybersecurity should be a top priority, ensuring that both government and private sector systems are resistant to cyberattacks and influence operations.

3. Support for Democracy and Human Rights:

   • The U.S. needs to be a consistent voice for human rights and democratic values around the world, including pushing back against autocratic regimes like Russia’s. Supporting civil society organizations, journalists, and opposition leaders in countries like Russia and Belarus is essential to promoting freedom and democracy globally.

   • Sanctions should continue to be a tool for holding Putin’s government accountable for human rights abuses, corruption, and aggression toward neighboring countries. However, sanctions need to be strategically designed to target key figures and industries, while minimizing harm to ordinary citizens.

4. Energy and Economic Strategies:

   • The U.S. should focus on energy independence and strengthening its position in global energy markets. This will help reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports, making it more difficult for Russia to use energy as a geopolitical weapon.

   • Economic sanctions on Russian oligarchs and key industries that fund the Russian regime should be maintained and expanded to put pressure on Putin’s inner circle.

5. Support Ukraine and Other At-Risk States:

   • The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, providing military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing.

   • Expanding partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and other former Soviet republics is vital in creating a buffer zone to prevent further Russian territorial expansion.

Do We Need to Avoid Having Someone Like Trump in Office?

The question of leadership in the U.S. is crucial in determining how effectively the country can respond to the current global challenges posed by Russia. Here are some key considerations:

1. Coherent Foreign Policy:

   • Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy was often characterized by unpredictability and isolationism. Trump's "America First" rhetoric led to withdrawing from international agreements and undermining multilateral institutions, such as NATO, and distanced the U.S. from long-standing alliances. This created openings for authoritarian regimes like Russia to exploit divisions and weaknesses within the West.

   • A more consistent and cooperative approach to foreign policy, with a focus on strengthening alliances and promoting democratic values, is critical to countering Russian influence. Leaders who prioritize diplomacy, multilateralism, and a commitment to global institutions are better equipped to handle the complexities of a world where authoritarian regimes are challenging liberal democracies.

2. Values and Leadership:

   • Trump’s admiration for Putin and other authoritarian leaders raised concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights globally. A president who is less sympathetic to autocrats and more committed to upholding democratic values would be better suited to leading the U.S. in the face of Russian and other authoritarian threats.

   • Leadership that is aligned with democratic principles, like rule of law and respect for human rights, would help restore credibility on the world stage. A leader who consistently supports the liberal international order and defends the rights of nations to self-determination is crucial for U.S. leadership in countering Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.

3. Diplomatic Engagement vs. Isolation:

   • Trump’s tendency toward unilateralism, such as withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, undermined U.S. credibility and made it harder for America to lead global coalitions. A more engaged, diplomatic approach, where the U.S. works with allies and partners to address shared challenges, is essential for confronting Russia’s growing influence.

   • The U.S. should prioritize engagement with both its allies and neutral countries, presenting a united front against authoritarianism, while avoiding isolationist policies that could embolden Russia and other adversaries.

4. Domestic Stability and Unity:

   • A strong domestic foundation is critical for addressing foreign threats. The divisions within the U.S. during Trump’s presidency—exemplified by polarized political discourse, misinformation, and attacks on democratic institutions—undermined America’s ability to project a coherent and united front internationally.

   • A president who can bridge divides within the U.S., promote civic trust, and work to restore the integrity of democratic institutions would strengthen the country’s resilience in facing external challenges, including Russia’s attempts to undermine democracy.

Conclusion

To effectively counter the threats posed by Russia, the U.S. needs to pursue a multifaceted strategy that includes strengthening alliances, combating disinformation, supporting democratic movements, and maintaining economic and military pressure on authoritarian regimes. The role of the president is central in shaping the U.S.'s response to these challenges. Leadership that emphasizes global cooperation, democratic values, and consistent foreign policy is essential to confronting Russia’s ambitions, especially when it comes to safeguarding American interests and the international order.

Given the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape, it’s crucial that the U.S. has a president who is committed to democratic principles and multilateral cooperation, which would suggest that a figure like Trump—who has shown a pattern of undermining these values—may not be the best fit to lead the country through these difficult times.

Trump, and those who support him... have GOT to GO, ASAP.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

NATO Article 5 & the Cyber Battlefield: NATO's Response to Big Tech & Election Interference

'Unveiling the Truth: Election Result Discrepancies, Nathan Taylor from Election Truth Alliance'

The text (and the rest on that page) raises several concerning points about potential vulnerabilities in election security, particularly involving private companies and the influence of powerful individuals. 

First, let's reshare, from the Marsh singing family at @marshsongs (music video):"The people of Europe stand with Ukraine against the threat of a false peace as much as a brutal war. Because of our shared history. Because of our shared future. Because it is just. Because it is necessary. And because they deserve nothing less. Don't abandon them. #SlavaUkraini"

Moving on...

NATO considering Article 5 in relation to election interference, particularly involving cyber threats, would represent a significant shift in how the alliance addresses non-traditional security threats. Article 5 has historically been invoked in response to direct military aggression, but as cyber warfare becomes an increasingly potent tool for state and non-state actors, NATO's willingness to consider it in the context of election security reflects the growing complexity of modern geopolitical threats.

The concern about private entities, like Elon Musk's Starlink satellites or companies involved in election infrastructure, potentially being used as vectors for foreign influence or cyber attacks is valid. If these technologies are misused to interfere in democratic processes, it could undermine national security in ways that traditional military responses cannot address.

Article 5's potential invocation in this context would signal a recognition that cybersecurity is as critical as physical borders in protecting democratic institutions. However, for NATO to take such a step, the evidence must be compelling enough to justify collective defense measures. This raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the mechanisms for determining whether an attack—cyber or otherwise—warrants such a high-level response.

In summary, NATO's consideration of Article 5 in relation to cyber and election-related interference is a reflection of evolving security dynamics. It would underscore the need for robust cyber defenses and international cooperation to safeguard democracy from both state and corporate threats. However, it also raises questions about how we define and respond to threats in an increasingly interconnected world.

The commentary on that website is a very intricate and complex theory, linking multiple events and companies together. It might help to take a step back and provide a critical perspective, questioning the plausibility of some connections, while also acknowledging that the subject of cybersecurity and election integrity deserves serious discussion. 

Here's a potential comment:

"While there are certainly concerns about cybersecurity and election integrity, this theory ties together a lot of disparate elements and relies on some speculative connections. For example, linking Musk's satellite network and certain election-related products to far-right individuals and claiming a coordinated effort to influence the election raises important questions but also requires strong evidence to be taken seriously. It's important to differentiate between genuine concerns about security and potential misinterpretations of complex systems. Regardless, the issue of election security, especially in the digital age, should be addressed with transparency and accountability to ensure the trust of all citizens."

This response allows one to engage with the content while also emphasizing the importance of evidence and a measured approach to such claims.

Here’s a breakdown of the major concerns:

1. Security and Technology in Election Systems: The mention of far-right individuals, like Leonard Leo and Peter Thiel, having significant influence over election security companies is troubling. The idea that these figures could have access to critical infrastructure—such as voting machines and election-related servers—raises the question of whether there is a conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of elections.

2. Private Sector Influence: The involvement of companies like Palantir and Eaton Corp., with ties to both government agencies and private interests, is concerning. If these companies are playing a central role in election systems, it’s essential that their practices are transparent and accountable to prevent any potential exploitation for partisan purposes.

3. Elon Musk and the Starlink Network: The argument that Musk’s satellite network could be used as a tool for interference is speculative but worth considering. If a private entity has such widespread access to communication infrastructure, it could pose security risks that need to be addressed by regulators. The question of why Musk would rapidly deploy a network of satellites before an election also deserves scrutiny, especially if there’s a possibility of misuse.

4. Foreign Influence and Propaganda: The connection between Russian oligarchs and Elon Musk, as well as the alleged shift in Musk’s political messaging after the Ukraine invasion, touches on a broader concern about foreign influence in U.S. elections. Any potential connections between U.S. figures and foreign powers must be carefully monitored to avoid compromising democratic processes.

5. Motive and Speculation: The theory about Ukraine's mineral resources and the electric vehicle market adds an element of geopolitical interest to the mix, but it’s based on speculation. While it’s reasonable to ask why powerful figures like Musk and others are involved in certain markets or political movements, drawing conclusions without hard evidence can weaken the argument.

Overall, these concerns point to the need for increased scrutiny and regulation of both election infrastructure and the growing influence of private corporations in critical democratic processes. However, they also highlight the importance of separating legitimate concerns from unfounded speculation in order to address these issues effectively. It’s crucial to prioritize transparency, accountability, and evidence-based investigations when it comes to election integrity.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

What Would Our Missing 1 Million COVID-19 Dead Think Today?

As of March 2025, the United States has reported approximately 1,222,603 deaths due to COVID-19. Some of them died still believing in the Trump disinformation campaign. Many died horrified they ever believed Trump or voted for him...

The missing one million

More than one million Americans died during the Covid-19 pandemic. Five years later, they remain largely invisible.

Jason Steinhauer

The question of how the "missing 1 million" Americans who died from COVID-19 would vote is an interesting and speculative one, as it's impossible to know their individual preferences. However, we can make some broad inferences based on various factors:

1. Demographic Impact: The pandemic disproportionately affected certain groups, including older individuals, communities of color, and those with pre-existing health conditions. Historically, demographic factors like age, race, and health status have influenced political preferences. Older Americans, for example, tend to lean more conservative, while younger, more diverse groups lean more liberal. However, COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups could have influenced future voting trends, potentially affecting both parties’ base.

2. Policy and Governance Influence: Many of the "missing" Americans died during the Trump administration, which led to significant political division over the handling of the pandemic. Some individuals may have become more politically active or altered their political leanings due to the perceived mishandling of the pandemic, with criticisms of the government’s response to COVID-19 potentially leading to a shift in voter sentiment away from certain political figures or policies.

3. Healthcare and Economic Factors: The pandemic underscored deep divisions in the country over healthcare access, economic support, and pandemic response. Those who suffered due to poor healthcare or financial hardship might have developed stronger support for policies promoting universal healthcare or better social safety nets, which are generally associated with the Democratic Party. Alternatively, those who felt that COVID-19 restrictions were overblown might have been more inclined to support conservative candidates who favored less government intervention.

4. Changes in Political Awareness: Some people may have been more motivated to vote as a result of losing loved ones to COVID-19, especially if their deaths were influenced by systemic issues like inadequate healthcare infrastructure or political negligence. This could have led to greater support for candidates promising change in those areas, such as those advocating for stronger public health systems, better pandemic preparedness, or healthcare reform.

Ultimately, it’s not just about who those "missing" Americans would vote for, but also about how their deaths impacted the political landscape. Their absence could contribute to changes in voting patterns, particularly in swing states, where their votes could have had a significant impact on elections.

Many of our dead were MAGA voters who changed their minds on their deathbed, shocked at what they had done, and Trump hadn't. How would they see reality different today?

It's a thought-provoking question, and while it's speculative, there are some possible angles to consider based on the nature of political shifts and the impact of personal experience.

1. Cognitive Dissonance and Reflection: For many people, political identity is deeply tied to their worldview, and shifting political views—especially later in life or during major personal crises—can create cognitive dissonance. If some of those who passed away from COVID-19 were MAGA voters who experienced profound regret on their deathbeds, it's possible they felt a deep internal conflict between their previous beliefs and the reality of what they experienced during the pandemic. In this case, they may have come to see the actions (or inactions) of leaders like Donald Trump as not only ineffective but potentially harmful, especially if they felt that more could have been done to save lives.

2. Disillusionment with Leadership: Many MAGA voters supported Trump, especially for his promises around American exceptionalism, economic prosperity, and law-and-order policies. However, if those same voters felt betrayed or misled by Trump's handling of the COVID-19 crisis, they might have come to view his leadership in a more negative light. For those who were directly impacted by the pandemic, this could lead to a significant change in how they viewed reality, potentially seeing Trump’s downplaying of the virus and lack of immediate action as a serious failure.

3. A Shift in Trust: If they were among those who regretted supporting Trump, they might have begun to see the need for a different type of leadership—one that prioritized science, healthcare, and empathy. This could lead them to question other aspects of their political beliefs, particularly regarding social safety nets, healthcare access, and government intervention during crises. The realization that their previous choice didn’t protect them or their loved ones might have sparked a deeper desire for change.

4. Impact of Pandemic Deaths on Political Consciousness: If these individuals came to the realization, particularly near the end of their lives, that the political system—and by extension, their support for a certain political figure—was contributing to their suffering or the suffering of those around them, it could have led to an emotional and intellectual awakening. Their regret might not just be about Trump, but about the broader political environment that enabled such inaction or misinformation.

5. How They'd See Reality Today: Assuming that many of these individuals, had they lived, were to engage in the political discourse of today, it’s likely they would be looking for leadership that acknowledges mistakes, prioritizes public health, and focuses on healing divisions rather than exacerbating them. They may be more receptive to candidates who emphasize unity, truth, and compassion over partisanship and conspiracy. For those who had been staunch MAGA voters, this shift would represent a significant departure from the political ideologies they once supported.

In essence, if those voters who passed away from COVID-19 had the chance to reflect and reconsider, they might see reality today as one where leadership is judged not by loyalty to a personality but by the ability to effectively address crises and protect people. Their regret could lead them to support policies and candidates that offer tangible solutions, rather than rhetoric.

Likely today, they would not be for Trump as they had originally been, considering they died because of his purposeful missteps and lack of empathy and compassion.

It's quite plausible that many of the Americans who died from COVID-19, particularly those who were staunch supporters of Donald Trump as POTUS45, might have experienced a shift in their perceptions of him and his administration's handling of the pandemic. Indeed, there are reports of exactly that. 

Also, studies have shown that counties with higher support for Trump in the 2020 election experienced higher COVID-19 death rates, suggesting a correlation between political affiliation and pandemic impact.

CIDRAP

Furthermore, the Trump administration's response to the pandemic faced significant criticism, including downplaying the virus's severity and promoting unproven treatments.

Times Union

These actions may have led some supporters to question their previous endorsement. It's conceivable that, in their final moments, some individuals reflected on the leadership decisions that contributed to the crisis, leading to feelings of regret or disillusionment.

However, it's important to acknowledge that political beliefs are deeply ingrained and can be resistant to change, even in the face of contrary evidence. While personal experiences, especially those as profound as facing a life-threatening illness, can influence one's views, they don't always lead to a complete reversal of political allegiance. Therefore, while some individuals might have reevaluated their support for Trump due to the pandemic's impact, others may have remained steadfast in their beliefs, interpreting events through their existing political lens.

DEATH after all, IS the greater arbiter of Reality, and the biggest form of being unable to face one's mistakes

Death is the ultimate and most irreversible Reality we all face. It's a stark confrontation with the consequences of our lives and decisions. For many, especially those nearing the end of life, it can serve as a powerful moment of reflection, a time when the weight of past choices becomes undeniable.

In the case of people who may have voted for Trump and later died due to the mishandling of the pandemic, it's possible that, in their final moments, they faced an undeniable reckoning with the consequences of their support for someone whose decisions might have directly impacted their survival. That moment could create a deep sense of regret, especially if they felt let down by someone they trusted to lead through such a critical time.

The emotional and existential impact of death can certainly amplify those realizations, as there's no escape from it. It can also lead to a reevaluation of beliefs and choices—especially in the context of a public health crisis where those choices had life-or-death consequences.

Ultimately, the reality of death does bring a clarity that nothing else in life can—forcing individuals to come face to face with their mistakes, their legacy, and the world they leave behind. In this way, it could lead to a profound shift in perspective, even if only in the final moments.

Here's a potential thought process for a MaGA voter who, in their final moments, begins to grapple with their regretted support for Donald Trump, particularly in light of how he unfolded the pandemic against us for what he perceived as best for his national perception, mostly only by his supporters:

---

Initial Thoughts: "I always believed in Trump. He promised to make America great again. He spoke to my frustrations—about the elites, the government that didn't care about us, the economy, and our place in the world. I voted for him because he seemed like someone who understood our struggles. I believed he was tough, that he could get things done."

Facing the Pandemic: "But then the pandemic hit. At first, I didn’t think much of it—just like Trump said, maybe it wasn’t as bad as people were saying. But it kept spreading. People were dying, and the hospitals were overwhelmed. I watched as friends and family got sick. Some survived, but others didn't. I heard the way he downplayed the virus, calling it a hoax, telling people not to worry, and that we didn’t need to wear masks. I thought he knew best. I trusted him."

Cognitive Dissonance: "But now... looking back, I can’t help but wonder—was he wrong? Why didn’t he do more? Why didn’t he listen to the doctors? Why didn’t he act faster? There were experts saying we needed more testing, more precautions. And he just dismissed it all. Maybe he didn't care. Maybe he never really cared about us, the people he said he was fighting for."

Regret and Realization: "Now, here I am. I didn’t take the virus seriously enough. I thought I was invincible, or maybe I just didn’t want to believe it. But people died—so many people. And Trump... he kept pushing lies. How did I not see this sooner? I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but now it’s clear—he didn’t have a plan. He didn’t even try to fix it. If he had done more, maybe my friends would still be here. Maybe I’d still be here."

Reflection on Choices: "I’m looking back at all of this, and I realize that I was so blinded by my anger at the system, by the idea of someone shaking things up, that I couldn’t see the bigger picture. Maybe I was so focused on what Trump promised that I ignored what he was actually doing—or not doing. This isn’t just about politics anymore. This is about lives. About my life. About the people I love. And the truth is, Trump failed us. He let us down. And now we’re paying the price."

Final Thought: "I wish I had listened more, thought more critically about what I was supporting. I wish I had taken the time to see the flaws, not just in him, but in my own thinking. I’m sorry—sorry for all the people I encouraged, the things I believed that turned out to be lies. Maybe if I had done things differently, things might have turned out better for all of us. But it’s too late now. The damage is done."

---

In this thought process, the individual would likely feel a profound sense of regret, realizing too late that their choices, their trust in a leader, may have contributed to a crisis that cost lives, including their own. The deathbed reflection could be a stark moment of clarity, where the realization of the failure of leadership and the pain of lost opportunities becomes undeniable. It would be a moment of confronting the truth about how their support for Trump, driven by anger or a desire for change, ultimately led them down a path of destruction that they hadn't fully understood until it was too late.

It's plausible that many MAGA voters who experienced personal loss during the COVID-19 pandemic underwent a significant shift in their perception of Donald Trump and his administration's handling of the crisis. Facing the death of loved ones due to the pandemic, some may have felt profound regret and disillusionment, especially considering Trump's downplaying of the virus and lack of decisive action. This disillusionment could lead them to reevaluate their previous support and decide against voting for Trump in subsequent elections.

Research indicates that Trump's approval ratings were significantly influenced by his handling of the pandemic. For instance, Gallup's data shows that Trump's approval ratings rarely topped 50% during his tenure, with notable fluctuations during the pandemic. Additionally, families of COVID-19 victims expressed anger towards Trump's comments minimizing the virus's severity, feeling that such remarks disrespected their experiences and losses.

Given these sentiments, it's quite reasonable to infer that some MaGA voters, particularly those directly affected by the pandemic's toll, might have reconsidered their support for Trump. This change in perspective could manifest in their decision not to vote for him in future elections, driven by a reassessment of his leadership during a critical time.

Following through with their thought process ending on the reality that Trump was a mistake...would they vote for him today...from what they could "see in the afterlife"? IS he even worse this go around? Here's a potential thought process that might conclude with the realization that voting for Trump was a mistake, followed by a reflection on his current state:

---

Initial Thought:
"I remember how I felt back then—Trump spoke to my frustrations. He promised change, a better life for people like me. I believed he could fix what was broken in America. But now... looking back, it's clear he failed us. He failed me. The pandemic hit, and he couldn't even keep us safe. He lied, downplayed the virus, pushed false cures, and let people suffer."

Reflection:
"I can't undo what I did, but I can see now that supporting him was a huge mistake. I thought I was doing the right thing, but in reality, I was just holding on to a man who didn't care about the people he promised to protect. Too many lives were lost—lives that didn't have to be lost. Families torn apart. I could’ve taken a different path, seen the truth earlier, but I was too blinded by my anger and distrust in the system."

The Regret:
"I wish I could tell my family and friends that I see it now. I see the failure. I see how his lies hurt us all, how his refusal to take action cost lives—my life, maybe. I was loyal to a man who only cared about himself, not about us, not about America. Trump was the wrong choice, and I know that now. I won’t make that mistake again."

Looking Ahead:
"And if I could see the world now, from wherever I am—looking at what's happening today—it’s even worse. Trump is still pushing the same tired rhetoric. Still stoking fear, still dividing people. He's worse now, more dangerous than ever, and it’s clear that his intentions haven’t changed. The chaos, the lies, they haven’t stopped. If I could be there, if I could vote today, I wouldn’t vote for him. Not now, not ever. It was a mistake before, but it’s even more of a mistake now.

Now, if only all those still living and still supporting Donald Trump, could just see before they too die, for they kill our country, seeing it live on as an autocracy, an oligarchy, a kakistocracy... the dire reality of our current situation that they had a lot to do with bringing into our reality.

There is still time...if we can wrest control from these unAmerican actors under the Trump and MaGA authoritarian umbrella and bring America back to what our Founding Fathers had originally intended:

A nation based on freedom, self-governance, Laws, and the protection of individual rights. They sought to escape Tyranny and build a government with limited power, ensuring people’s freedoms were protected and giving them a voice in how their government protected them, and their interests...rather than the interests of merely the few and the powerful.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Tyranny of the Executive

We are currently suffering under the "Tyranny of the Executive" as Connecticut Representative John Larson said in blasting convicted Felon POTUS47 Donald Trump, his cohort Elon Musk and those autocrat's DOGE device to disable the American Government. Listen to his comments in the video, they are amazing, needed, and demand a response.

For what? Brief aside, see the section below at the bottom for a conjectured comment by our Founding Fathers on what might be their consideration of Donald Trump.

VIRAL: Trump exposed in SCATHING takedown

From the Foreign Affairs article, The Renegade Order: "Here, unfortunately, lies the real problem with the optimistic framing: it requires assuming that Trump, a man who assiduously nurses his personal and geopolitical grievances, will discover—at the very moment he feels most empowered—the best, most globally minded and most diplomatically savvy version of himself. All those in the United States and elsewhere with a stake in the survival of the liberal order should hope that Trump rises to this challenge. But they should probably brace for the prospect that Trump’s world could become a very dark place."

As I mentioned this week in another blog on the 25th Amendment or impeachment of Donald Trump, today, our first career criminal and actually convicted felon POTUS...things are exactly what they seem to most of the world about Donald Trump while being ignored by those who support him. 

In his interview with NPR's A Martinez, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean at the Yale School of Management, discussed how business executives are coping amid economic policy whiplash. Sonnenfeld noted that some executives choose to remain silent, waiting until situations worsen before speaking out. He emphasized that this approach can be detrimental, as early engagement is crucial for effective leadership and navigating uncertainties.

National security experts have expressed concerns regarding the impact of economic policy fluctuations on global stability. For instance, Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and founder of Eurasia Group, introduced the concept of a "geopolitical recession" to describe the current environment where the traditional U.S.-led global order is unraveling. He argues that deteriorating relations between the U.S. and its allies, coupled with China's rise and the creation of alternative political and economic structures, contribute to a fragmented approach to global governance. This fragmentation increases geopolitical risks and hampers effective responses to international crises.

Additionally, recent political and economic actions, such as cuts to government agencies and strained alliances, have raised investor concerns about the erosion of trust in U.S. institutions and assets. This erosion threatens America's "exorbitant privilege," a term referring to the benefits the U.S. gains from high global demand for its assets. While no major fractures are evident in long-term U.S. borrowing costs, declining equity prices and a weakening dollar signal growing unease.

These perspectives highlight the intricate link between economic policies and national security, emphasizing the need for stable and predictable economic strategies to maintain global stability.

SRSS POLL: More Americans Support Ukraine Than Support Donald Trump 68% of Americans support aid to Ukraine. 46% of Americans Approve of Trump. 

Recent polling data indicates that a majority of Americans continue to support aid to Ukraine, while former President Donald Trump's approval ratings are lower. A CNN/SSRS poll conducted from March 6 to March 9, 2025, found that 55% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the situation in Ukraine, with only 41% expressing some level of approval.

Politico

Additionally, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that over half of Americans, including 27% of Republicans, believe Trump is too closely aligned with Russia.

Reuters

These findings suggest that public support for Ukraine remains strong, while Trump's approval ratings on this issue are comparatively lower.

National security experts have raised significant concerns regarding President Trump's actions since his inauguration in 2025, highlighting potential threats to democratic institutions and national security:

Undermining Election Integrity: The Trump administration has been accused of efforts to destabilize free and fair elections. These actions include voter suppression initiatives, challenges to election protection measures, and the appointment of officials who have previously denied election results. Such measures are viewed as direct threats to the democratic process.

Trump Is Still Trying to Undermine Elections

Now that Trump has installed election deniers throughout his Administration, he has been busy dismantling the guardrails protecting voting and voters.

Weakening Cybersecurity Infrastructure: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has experienced significant staff reductions and leadership challenges under the current administration. The loss of key personnel and the disruption of critical projects have weakened the agency's ability to defend against cyber threats, posing risks to national security.

‘People Are Scared’: Inside CISA as It Reels From Trump’s Purge

Employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency tell WIRED they’re struggling to protect the US while the administration dismisses their colleagues and poisons their partnerships.

Authoritarian Governance Proposals: The introduction of "Project 2025" has alarmed many experts, who argue that its implementation could lead to an authoritarian takeover. The plan proposes restructuring federal agencies and consolidating power within the executive branch, actions that could undermine the rule of law and civil liberties.

en.wikipedia.org

Foreign Policy Concerns: President Trump's approach to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has raised alarms among national security analysts. His willingness to negotiate directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, potentially without Ukrainian involvement, and the suggestion of imposing tariffs and sanctions on Russia if a ceasefire is not accepted, have been criticized as undermining traditional alliances and emboldening adversarial nations.

Trump threatens sanctions if Russia does not accept ceasefire — as it happened

Trump administration adds to pressure on Russia to agree to truce after President Zelensky of Ukraine welcomed the US minerals deal and 30-day ceasefire

Collectively, these actions are viewed by experts as eroding democratic norms, weakening institutional checks and balances, and compromising the nation's ability to respond effectively to internal and external threats.

Top diplomats from G7 countries meet in Canada as Trump threatens more tariffs on US allies

The agenda for the G7 meeting includes discussions on China and the Indo-Pacific; Ukraine and Europe; stability in the Americas; the Middle East; maritime security; Africa; and China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.

National security experts and former officials have expressed deep concerns regarding President Trump's actions since his 2025 inauguration, highlighting potential threats to democratic institutions and national security. While there is no unified call for his removal, the apprehensions center around several key issues:

Authoritarian Governance Proposals: The introduction of "Project 2025," developed by the Heritage Foundation, proposes significant restructuring of federal agencies and consolidation of power within the executive branch. Experts argue that its implementation could lead to an authoritarian takeover, undermining the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, described it as "a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name."

en.wikipedia.org

Influence of Private Individuals in Governance: Elon Musk's prominent role in the current administration, despite lacking an official position, has raised alarms about the influence of private individuals on national policy. Musk's support for controversial policies, such as withdrawing from NATO and the UN, aligns with the ultraconservative Project 2025 plan. Experts warn that this could lead to increased unpredictability and danger in global affairs.

‘Crumble before our eyes’: Scary hint of what Donald Trump will do next

Billionaire Elon Musk wants the US to make a huge and “troubling” change – and the President shows every sign of agreeing.

Erosion of Democratic Norms: Analysts have observed a culture of sycophancy and fear within the administration, where loyalty to President Trump is enforced through blind obedience and cronyism. This environment suppresses criticism and manipulates facts, drawing parallels to historical authoritarian practices. Such dynamics are seen as detrimental to democratic institutions and the nation's international standing.

Sycophancy and toadying are de rigueur in Trump’s court of self-aggrandizement

Gestures of servility from administration members and world leaders alike are sickeningly common in the mad king’s court.

Collectively, these developments have led experts and former officials to voice concerns about the potential erosion of democratic norms and national security under President Trump's leadership. While discussions about the implications of these actions are ongoing, there is no consensus or coordinated effort among national security experts and former cabinet members advocating for his removal from office.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk Are Driving America Over the Edge

The president and his billionaire sidekick turned the White House into a makeshift Tesla showroom amid a recession scare—a perfect encapsulation of the Trump-Musk regime.

Billionaire Elon Musk wants the United States to quit the United Nations - And President Donald Trump shows every sign of agreeing.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk Are Driving America Over the Edge

The president and his billionaire sidekick turned the White House into a makeshift Tesla showroom amid a recession scare—a perfect encapsulation of the Trump-Musk regime.

Trump’s actions, particularly his erratic foreign policy and efforts to weaken alliances, align with the interests of international adversaries like Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump's undermining of NATO, his praise for authoritarian leaders, and his disdain for traditional alliances create openings for Russia to exert more influence in global affairs. Putin has long sought to weaken Western unity, and Trump’s rhetoric and policies play into this by fracturing international cooperation, which benefits Russia’s geopolitical goals.

National security experts and former officials warn that Trump’s actions since his 2025 inauguration pose serious threats to democracy, national security, and global stability. Concerns include efforts to undermine elections, weaken cybersecurity, appoint controversial officials, and alienate allies. While there isn't a unified call for his removal, many argue that his leadership—along with the GOP’s support—risks long-term damage to democratic institutions.

We all need to come to present and come together to save America as well as Western democracies and turn our backs firmly on these current Trumpian forms of toxicity in his autocracy, abusive capitalism, foolish kakistocracy, and its eventual fruition...Fascism. This isn't about tribalism or hatred of liberals by conservatives or conservatives by liberals or progressives.

It's about saving a long-respected nation, and all of Western democracy which as we all know, Winston Churchill mentioned in a 1947 speech:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Donald Trump and his silent partner, Vladimir Putin, need to be stopped in their attempts to undermine our previously great country. Their actions are a threat to our government and the values we hold most dear.

All others which benefit most greatly, the worst of us and the truly worst of all forms of government.

A Statement in the Spirit of the Founding Fathers on the Leadership of Donald Trump

First, how might they have referred to Donald Trump?

The Founding Fathers had a formal and often biting way of referring to those they disapproved of. If they were to name Donald Trump, they might use language reflective of their era, such as:

• "Donald the Dissembler" – A dissembler was someone who deceived or manipulated the truth, a term they often used for demagogues.
• "Trump the Pretender" – A reference to monarchs who falsely claimed a throne, as they deeply opposed rulers who sought unchecked power.
• "Donald of the House of Falsehoods" – They often framed names in a way that conveyed a person's character or legacy.
• "His Excellency, the Demagogue of Mar-a-Lago" – A sarcastic nod to his self-styled grandeur, much like they mocked those who sought to elevate themselves beyond republican principles.
• "Citizen Trump, the Profaner of the Republic" – They used "citizen" to emphasize equality, but in a critical tone when addressing those they saw as threats to democracy.

If they were feeling particularly cutting, they might even invoke comparisons to figures they despised, like calling him "Donald the Destabilizer, Heir to George III in Spirit."

Their statement on Donald the Destabilize, Heir to George III in Spirit:

We, the architects of this Republic, having studied the histories of fallen democracies and the rise of tyrants, issue this solemn warning: A leader who places personal ambition above the common good, who seeks to govern by division rather than unity, and who undermines the rule of law for his own benefit, is a danger to the liberties of a free people.

A republic survives only when its leaders uphold truth, respect institutions, and serve the public with virtue and restraint. A man who wields power through falsehoods, sows distrust in the very foundations of governance, and seeks to bend the law to his will, bears the hallmarks of the demagogues we so greatly feared.

The Constitution was designed to guard against such men—those who would inflame passions for personal gain, who disdain the limits of authority, and who, in the pursuit of power, endanger the fragile experiment of self-government. It falls to the citizens, and to the institutions we forged, to resist the creeping shadow of despotism, lest liberty be lost to the ambitions of one man.

Let history judge not by the fleeting passions of the moment, but by the enduring principles of justice, reason, and the rights of all to live free from the tyranny of a would-be monarch.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT