Author: DickinsonWrites (Page 1 of 5)

A message from Attorney James Dickinson, originally shared with friends on his private Facebook page:

“In the LA detention center, a 2-year-old boy cried out to his father on Friday, both having been detained by ICE. My heart aches.

My heart aches for these precious people, yes, of course. [Let them go, leave them alone.]

If I’m honest, my heart also aches because I know that there is more that I could have done as a lawyer, as a citizen, as a human, to have prevented such a horrible thing from ever occurring in my Country, my State.

I am responsible for what is happening in my Country now. I am to blame.

I went to an event yesterday morning in Redlands, connecting with persons who are involved in justice work, and everyone, mostly middle-class white people, acted like everything is fine.

But…things are not fine.

I’m tired of asking fellows Christians, including pastors and religious leaders, to start caring. I’m tired of church and the performance.

We need to see people in the streets. We need to measure success by the risks we take for those we pretend to care about.

We need to throw our all into this work. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

I’m asking those who’ll do nothing and sit by to unfriend me now, for I’m going to seek to [continue to] provoke you to action.

I will not, by what power is in me or graced to me, allow another young child to cry for his father or mother, not in my Country and not in my name.

I pray that your heart aches, and that your soul has no rest until you finally do something.”

The intersection of religion and politics has long shaped national identities and public policy across the globe. In the United States and other Western democracies, one of the most significant manifestations of this intersection is the emergence and consolidation of the religious right—a political movement rooted in conservative evangelical Christianity. While the religious right has often presented itself as a moral and cultural bulwark against secularism and liberalism, critics argue that it also shares foundational assumptions with authoritarian and even fascist ideologies.

This post explores how the religious right has supported or perpetuated fascist assumptions, drawing on historical, ideological, and sociopolitical evidence. It argues that while not all members of the religious right are fascists, and not all fascists are religious, the movement has, in key ways, bolstered authoritarianism, nationalism, anti-pluralism, and theocratic tendencies that mirror classical fascism. Understanding this alignment is critical to assessing the threats posed to liberal democracy and secular governance.

Understanding the Religious Right

The religious right refers to a coalition of politically conservative Christian groups—primarily evangelical Protestants, but also including conservative Catholics and other denominations—who advocate for a political agenda grounded in what they describe as “biblical values.” Emerging prominently in the late 20th century, particularly in the United States, the religious right coalesced in response to perceived threats to traditional morality, such as the sexual revolution, abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, and secularization in public life.

Organizations such as the Moral Majority (founded in 1979 by Jerry Falwell), Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and later figures like Pat Robertson and James Dobson were instrumental in mobilizing evangelical Christians into a potent political force. They supported conservative candidates, lobbied for legislation based on Christian moral teachings, and cultivated a belief in America’s divine destiny.

While their stated aims often revolved around “family values” and the preservation of religious liberty, their broader impact on democratic society has raised concerns, particularly as their rhetoric and strategies have echoed or enabled authoritarian, anti-democratic, and even fascist themes.

Fascism: A Working Definition

To explore the relationship between the religious right and fascism, we must first define fascism. Political theorists generally agree that fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology characterized by:

• Centralized autocratic government led by a dictatorial leader
• Suppression of opposition and dissent
• Strong regimentation of society and economy
• Militarism and glorification of violence
• Cult of tradition and revivalism
• A belief in national or cultural purity
• Anti-intellectualism and disdain for liberal democracy
• Scapegoating of minorities and outsiders

Though rooted in the early 20th century (notably in Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany), fascism is not confined to that era. Political philosophers such as Umberto Eco have argued that fascism can manifest in modern, often subtler forms—what Eco termed “Ur-Fascism” or “eternal fascism.” In this context, the behaviors and ideologies of the religious right can be critically examined.

Authoritarianism and the Worship of Power

One of the defining features of fascism is a reverence for strong, centralized authority, often embodied in a singular leader. Many factions of the religious right have shown a tendency to support authoritarian figures who promise to restore a moral or Christian nation.

For example, the overwhelming support for Donald Trump among white evangelical voters—despite his personal life and behavior being starkly at odds with Christian teachings—reveals a preference for power and victory over principle. Trump’s projection of strength, his anti-immigrant rhetoric, and his commitment to appointing conservative judges aligned with religious right priorities made him a messianic figure to many. Religious leaders compared him to biblical figures like Cyrus or David—flawed men used by God to fulfill divine purposes.

This alignment is not unique to the U.S. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro enjoyed enthusiastic support from conservative evangelicals, who praised his strongman tactics, nationalist agenda, and anti-communist stance. The religious right’s support for such leaders reflects a willingness to sacrifice democratic norms for the promise of moral restoration and cultural dominance.

Nationalism and the Fusion of Religion and State

Fascism thrives on a mythologized national identity that elevates one culture, religion, or ethnicity as the rightful foundation of the nation. The religious right frequently engages in this kind of mythmaking by claiming that America (or other nations) was founded as a Christian nation, and that returning to this religious foundation is essential for national salvation.

This fusion of religion and nationalism leads to the exclusion of religious minorities, immigrants, and secular citizens. Policies are framed not in terms of universal human rights, but in terms of divine destiny and cultural preservation. When laws or cultural practices deviate from their interpretation of Christianity, the religious right often interprets this as persecution or an attack on the nation itself.

This perspective justifies aggressive action—cultural, political, and sometimes physical—to “take back” the country. The January 6th Capitol insurrection illustrated this mindset, with rioters waving Christian flags, holding Bibles, and praying on the Senate floor while engaging in violence. The fusion of religious zeal with nationalist fervor bears unmistakable resemblance to fascist mobilization.

Anti-Pluralism and the Rejection of Democratic Norms

Fascism rejects pluralism in favor of uniformity and ideological purity. Similarly, the religious right often views cultural and religious diversity as a threat. There is little room in their vision of society for Muslims, atheists, LGBTQ+ people, feminists, or even progressive Christians. This exclusionary mindset creates an “us versus them” mentality, dividing society into the saved and the damned, the righteous and the corrupt.

Religious right leaders frequently frame political compromise and democratic debate as moral failures. This undermines the democratic process, which depends on tolerance, negotiation, and mutual respect. Instead, the religious right often promotes a Manichean worldview, where political opponents are not merely wrong but evil—agents of Satan, enemies of God, or part of a “deep state” conspiracy.

Such rhetoric delegitimizes opposition and justifies authoritarian tactics, including voter suppression, gerrymandering, and judicial overreach. It echoes fascist strategies that dismantle democratic institutions in the name of moral or national renewal.

Gender, Patriarchy, and Control of the Private Sphere

Fascism often idealizes a patriarchal family structure and rigid gender roles, viewing women primarily as mothers and reproducers of the nation. The religious right mirrors this emphasis on traditional gender norms, opposing reproductive rights, feminism, and LGBTQ+ rights. They champion a vision of the nuclear family where the man is the head, the woman is submissive, and children are raised within strict moral boundaries.

This control over the private sphere is a hallmark of both fascism and theocratic movements. The religious right’s campaigns against comprehensive sex education, gender-affirming care, and secular public schools reflect a desire to control not only public policy but private life. Such control ensures ideological conformity from a young age and perpetuates a culture of obedience and moral absolutism.

Scapegoating and the Politics of Fear

Fascist regimes often scapegoat minorities or marginalized groups as responsible for social decline. The religious right employs similar strategies, blaming societal problems on LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, Muslims, secularists, or feminists. By constructing these groups as existential threats, they create moral panics that justify repressive policies.

For instance, the “groomer” rhetoric used by some religious right figures to describe LGBTQ+ people mirrors classic fascist propaganda about moral corruption and the endangerment of children. Similarly, framing immigrants as invaders or criminals stokes xenophobic sentiment and normalizes militarized borders and family separation.

This politics of fear is effective because it simplifies complex problems into moral binaries and directs public frustration toward convenient enemies. It prepares the ground for authoritarian solutions.

Anti-Intellectualism and Disdain for Critical Thought

Fascism is often anti-intellectual, portraying academics, journalists, and artists as decadent elites who undermine tradition. The religious right shares this disdain, frequently accusing universities, scientists, and the media of promoting secularism, moral relativism, and anti-Christian bias.

The rejection of climate science reflects a broader suspicion of expertise that challenges religious doctrine or conservative orthodoxy. This anti-intellectualism is reinforced through alternative media ecosystems—Christian radio, conservative social media—that insulate followers from dissenting views.

By undermining trust in knowledge-producing institutions, the religious right fosters a culture of obedience to religious and political authorities, a condition conducive to fascist governance.

The Theocratic Impulse and Dominionism

Some strands of the religious right go beyond conservative policy advocacy and embrace Dominionism—the belief that Christians should govern all aspects of society according to biblical law. This explicitly anti-democratic ideology rejects the separation of church and state and envisions a society where religious law overrides secular governance.

While not all evangelicals are Dominionists, the influence of Dominionist thinking within the religious right has grown, particularly through the New Apostolic Reformation and leaders like Lance Wallnau and Paula White. They argue that Christians must take control of the “Seven Mountains” of society—government, education, media, arts, business, family, and religion—to usher in God’s kingdom.

This vision is functionally theocratic and structurally authoritarian. It parallels the fascist desire to unify church, state, and culture under a singular, unquestioned authority.

Conclusion

The religious right is not a monolith, and it includes many believers who sincerely advocate for morality, charity, and justice within a democratic framework. However, when viewed as a political movement, it has consistently supported or enabled ideologies and policies that resonate with fascist assumptions: authoritarianism, nationalism, anti-pluralism, patriarchal control, anti-intellectualism, and scapegoating of minorities.

These tendencies threaten liberal democracy by undermining its foundational commitments to equality, diversity, individual rights, and secular governance. By sacralizing political power and pursuing cultural dominance under the guise of moral restoration, the religious right can serve as a vehicle for authoritarian and even fascist resurgence.

Understanding this relationship is not an attack on faith itself but a call to vigilance. Democracies must ensure that religious belief does not become a justification for repression, and that faith communities are not co-opted by forces that seek to dismantle the very freedoms they claim to defend.

Fascist regimes, throughout history and in various national contexts, have consistently targeted intellectuals as part of broader strategies to consolidate power, enforce ideological purity, and eliminate dissent. Whether in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain, or other authoritarian contexts, intellectuals have often been vilified, censored, imprisoned, exiled, or executed. This hostility is not incidental; rather, it reflects the fundamental ideological, psychological, and political structures of fascism.

To understand why fascists target intellectuals, we must examine the ideological underpinnings of fascism, the role of intellectuals in society, and the threat that intellectual discourse poses to authoritarian regimes. Through this lens, it becomes evident that the targeting of intellectuals is a strategic imperative for fascist systems seeking to create obedient, homogenous societies bound by myth, emotion, and loyalty, rather than critical thought or empirical truth.

Fascism is an authoritarian and ultranationalist ideology characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. It glorifies the nation-state, often defined in racial or ethnic terms, and promotes myths of historical greatness, decline, and national rebirth. Fascists frame society as being under siege by internal and external enemies—be they ethnic minorities, political dissidents, or foreign powers—and offer a singular vision of unity, strength, and purification through struggle.

Importantly, fascism is anti-intellectual at its core. Unlike ideologies rooted in Enlightenment principles such as liberalism or socialism, fascism rejects rationalism, debate, and scientific objectivity in favor of instinct, willpower, and faith in the leader. It thrives on emotional resonance, myth-making, and propaganda. As Benito Mussolini declared, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In such a worldview, independent thinking is inherently subversive.

Intellectuals—writers, educators, scientists, philosophers, artists, and journalists—serve a critical function in modern societies. They interrogate dominant narratives, question established norms, advocate for marginalized voices, and promote rational discourse. Intellectuals are often agents of change, introducing new ideas that challenge power structures. They inhabit universities, publish books and articles, speak at forums, and shape public opinion.

Because of their training and role, intellectuals are uniquely equipped to identify and critique the contradictions, hypocrisies, and abuses inherent in fascist ideologies. They may question the historical accuracy of fascist myths, expose the dangers of scapegoating, or denounce the erosion of civil liberties. As such, intellectuals are seen not merely as dissenters but as existential threats to fascist rule.

In Nazi Germany, intellectuals who refused to conform to Nazi ideology were swiftly marginalized, imprisoned, or forced into exile. The regime conducted public book burnings in 1933, targeting works by Jewish authors, Marxists, pacifists, and others deemed “un-German.” Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, and Bertolt Brecht were among the many intellectuals who fled Germany.

Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, spearheaded these cultural purges, stating, “Jewish intellectualism is dead.” The Nazis viewed intellectuals, especially those of Jewish heritage or leftist orientation, as bearers of a cosmopolitan, rational, and humanistic tradition antithetical to the racialized, militarized, and anti-modernist vision of National Socialism.

In Italy, Mussolini’s regime co-opted some intellectuals while punishing others. Mussolini himself was once a socialist journalist, which gave him insight into the power of the written word. His government promoted a fascist cultural apparatus, using state-sponsored media and education to instill nationalist and militarist values.

At the same time, dissenting intellectuals were arrested, exiled, or silenced. Philosopher Benedetto Croce, for example, publicly opposed Mussolini and faced censorship and surveillance. Mussolini’s regime established the “Minculpop” (Ministry of Popular Culture) to strictly control cultural production and suppress intellectual opposition.

Under Francisco Franco, Spain experienced brutal repression of intellectual life. The regime systematically purged universities, executed teachers and writers aligned with the Republic, and imposed strict censorship on literature, philosophy, and the arts. Catalan, Basque, and Galician languages—associated with regional intellectual and cultural movements—were banned from public life.

The regime’s motto, “¡Una, grande y libre!” (One, great, and free), encapsulated a homogenizing vision that left no room for the pluralism that intellectuals often champion. Those who resisted were executed or driven into exile, including the famous poet Federico García Lorca, who was murdered in 1936.

Fascist regimes seek to monopolize truth and control historical memory. Intellectuals threaten this monopoly by offering alternative perspectives rooted in evidence, reason, and ethical reflection. A historian might challenge the glorified national past. A philosopher might critique the regime’s values. A scientist might debunk pseudoscientific racial theories. This diversity of thought undermines the fascist claim to absolute authority.

Fascist rhetoric is often riddled with contradictions: it may claim to restore traditional values while glorifying violence; promote national unity while scapegoating minorities; assert law and order while engaging in arbitrary violence. Intellectuals have the tools to expose these contradictions, making them dangerous to regimes reliant on propaganda and emotional manipulation.

Culture can be a powerful form of resistance. Writers, playwrights, filmmakers, and artists often encode dissent in their work, inspiring resistance or preserving memory in times of oppression. For fascists, controlling the cultural narrative is as important as controlling the political apparatus. Intellectuals who resist these efforts are seen as cultural saboteurs.

Intellectuals often have platforms beyond national borders. When persecuted, they may become international symbols of resistance and human rights, drawing unwanted attention to the regime’s abuses. Exiled intellectuals like Albert Einstein and George Orwell helped shape global perceptions of fascism and totalitarianism.

Targeting intellectuals is not just about suppressing dissent—it’s also about shaping a compliant citizenry. Fascists seek to cultivate a society that is emotionally mobilized but intellectually passive. Anti-intellectualism serves this purpose in several ways:

Fascists present the world in stark binaries: good vs. evil, patriot vs. traitor, purity vs. corruption. Intellectuals complicate these narratives by introducing nuance, ambiguity, and context. By eliminating or discrediting intellectuals, regimes simplify reality to more easily manipulate the masses.

Fascist leaders often style themselves as figures of passion, instinct, and action, in contrast to the “effete” or “aloof” intellectual. This dichotomy casts the intellectual as out of touch, elitist, or even treacherous. By discrediting intellectualism, fascists encourage emotional loyalty to the leader over rational consideration of policy or justice.

Intellectuals are frequently cast as scapegoats for national decline. They may be portrayed as decadent, foreign, immoral, or subversive. In Nazi Germany, the notion of “Jewish intellectualism” became a stand-in for a range of perceived social ills. In Mussolini’s Italy, Marxist professors were blamed for corrupting youth. In each case, targeting intellectuals helps divert attention from structural problems and concentrate hatred on a visible, often marginalized group.

Not all intellectuals are persecuted under fascism—some are co-opted. Fascist regimes often cultivate loyal intellectuals who support the regime’s goals. These collaborators write nationalistic histories, compose celebratory art, or develop pseudo-scientific theories justifying racism and hierarchy.

This divide-and-conquer strategy creates an intellectual caste system: the “good” intellectuals who serve the state are elevated, while the “bad” intellectuals are purged. The aim is not to eliminate thinking entirely but to monopolize the production of thought in service of power.

Despite repression, many intellectuals resist fascism in courageous and creative ways. Underground publications, clandestine lectures, exilic writings, and dissident art have preserved humanistic values during times of darkness. These intellectuals often pay a high price, but their work endures, shaping post-fascist societies and warning future generations.

For instance, the writings of Antonio Gramsci, imprisoned by Mussolini, have become foundational texts in political theory. The works of German-Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Theodor Adorno have profoundly influenced how we understand totalitarianism. Their survival and insights testify to the power of critical thought even under extreme duress.

Though classical fascist regimes were largely defeated in the mid-20th century, fascist ideologies and tactics continue to resurface in various forms. Contemporary authoritarian and populist movements often adopt anti-intellectual rhetoric, discrediting universities, scientists, and journalists as part of a “liberal elite” out of touch with “the people.”

Nationalism

One of the most immediate signs of fascism is a hyperbolic, emotionally charged nationalism. Fascist movements elevate the nation to a mythical status, portraying it as the pinnacle of civilization and purity. National identity is emphasized as superior, and the “nation” becomes almost sacred.

This form of nationalism is not merely pride in one’s country; it is a militant, exclusionary form that justifies xenophobia, imperialism, and aggression. In Nazi Germany, this took the form of “Aryan” supremacy; in Fascist Italy, it included ideas of Roman revivalism and colonial conquest.

Disdain for Human Rights

Fascist regimes typically dismiss the concept of universal human rights. Rights are conditional, granted by the state to the “worthy” and stripped from the “undeserving.” This disdain often manifests in:

• Arbitrary arrests
• Torture
• Censorship
• Mass surveillance

These violations are justified under the guise of national security or racial purification. Anyone opposing the regime or not fitting the ideal citizen profile may be excluded from legal protections.

Identification of Enemies and Scapegoats

To galvanize public support, fascist regimes create a common enemy. These scapegoats—whether ethnic, religious, or political—are blamed for the nation’s problems. Jews in Nazi Germany, communists in Francoist Spain, or socialists in Fascist Italy were labeled as threats.

This constant vilification fosters unity among the in-group while legitimizing state violence against the out-group. Propaganda becomes a key tool in painting these groups as existential threats.

Rampant Sexism

Fascist regimes generally promote rigid gender roles and patriarchal authority. Women are relegated to domestic roles as mothers and caretakers, seen as bearers of the next generation of national citizens. Feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are usually suppressed as threats to social order.

In Nazi Germany, for example, women were awarded medals for bearing multiple children, while gay people were persecuted and sent to concentration camps.

Obsession with National Security

Fear is a powerful tool in fascist politics. Governments use the threat of external or internal enemies to justify invasive security measures. Citizens are encouraged to report on one another, and surveillance becomes normalized.

In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo had vast powers to investigate, arrest, and eliminate perceived threats. In Fascist Italy, a secret police force known as the OVRA performed similar functions.

Religion and Government Intertwined

Fascist regimes co-opt religion to validate their authority. Religious symbols, rituals, and leaders are used to sanctify political power. Opposing the regime can be framed as heretical, not just unpatriotic.

Franco’s Spain, for instance, had strong ties to the Catholic Church, which helped legitimize the regime’s authoritarian rule.

Protection of Corporate Power

Fascist regimes often ally with industrial and corporate elites. While fascism is opposed to both socialism and liberal capitalism, it permits private enterprise—so long as it serves the national interest. Workers’ rights are suppressed, and unions are banned or absorbed into state-controlled entities.

This arrangement creates a mutually beneficial relationship where business leaders support the regime in exchange for favorable policies and labor control.

Suppression of Labor Power

Independent labor movements are seen as subversive and are quickly dismantled. Strikes are outlawed, and dissenting workers are often arrested or disappeared. The state may create “corporatist” unions that appear to represent labor but are controlled by the regime.

This consolidation ensures economic stability for elites while eliminating worker resistance.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Anti-intellectualism is a key feature of fascism. Scholars, artists and educators who challenge the status quo are targeted. Complex or critical ideas are dismissed as unpatriotic, and culture is co-opted to serve state propaganda.

Book burnings, banned publications and purged academic institutions are common in fascist regimes. Art must glorify the nation, the leader, or traditional values.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Fascist regimes tend to implement draconian legal systems that favor punishment over rehabilitation. Prisons are filled with political prisoners, and public executions or harsh sentencing serve as deterrents.

Law enforcement is militarized, and judicial independence is usually non-existent. The regime decides guilt or innocence based on loyalty, not justice.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Because power is concentrated and unchecked, fascist regimes are rife with cronyism. Leadership positions are filled based on loyalty rather than competence. Corruption is overlooked if it benefits the regime.

In Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, friends and loyalists were rewarded with lucrative posts, regardless of qualifications. This often led to economic mismanagement and inefficiency.

Fraudulent Elections

Fascist regimes may hold elections, but they are neither free nor fair. Opposition parties are banned or heavily restricted, voters are intimidated and ballot counting is manipulated. The illusion of democracy is maintained while the outcomes are predetermined.

In some cases, fascist leaders seize power entirely without electoral legitimacy, using coups, emergency decrees or political violence.

The Role of Charismatic Leadership

A central figure often unites fascist movements: the charismatic, authoritarian leader. This leader is portrayed as the embodiment of the nation’s will, a messiah-like figure who alone can restore greatness. Criticism of the leader becomes tantamount to treason.

Whether Mussolini’s dramatic speeches or Hitler’s emotional rallies, the fascist leader cultivates a cult of personality that discourages dissent and encourages blind loyalty.

Today [MAGA]

Warning signs in contemporary politics include:

• Attacks on the press
• Demonization of immigrants and minorities
• Undermining of judicial independence
• Militarization of police
• Efforts to delegitimize elections

Resist

A vigilant citizenry, an independent press, a strong civil society and democratic institutions are the best defenses against fascism. Learning from history is not enough—we must actively apply those lessons in the present to protect the future.

At a recent address at the Capitol, Melanie Stansbury, a Democratic Representative from New Mexico, held up a sign that read, “This is not normal,” as the president entered the Congress chamber.

Moments later, Lance Gooden, an ardent supporter of the president and Republican representative from Texas, forcefully yanked the sign from Ms. Stansbury’s hands. Mr. Gooden apparently did not want the president to be bothered by such a message or have the theatrics interfered with.

Mr. Gooden’s actions however had the opposite effect, for they helped us realize in real-time that we were witnessing a sort of coronation for the would-be king who had, following the previous election, attempted to overthrow our government by gathering a bloodthirsty mob and unleashing them on this same Capitol, on January 6, 2021.

This was not normal. [I won’t here detail the many abnormal, evil or mentally ill things this president has done in the past, such as: 1] His repeatedly downplaying the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly early-on in 2020, even suggesting the virus would “disappear” on its own and promoting unproven treatments, like hydroxychloroquine; 2] His making lewd and degrading comments about women, including saying, “Grab them by the pussy,” which caused widespread backlash- he dismissed this statement as mere “locker room talk” [he would later be found civilly liable for sexual assault]; 3] His refusing to release his tax returns- it has been reported that Trump paid very little in federal income taxes in the years leading up to his presidency; 4] His creating derogatory nicknames for his political opponents- he called Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary,” Joe Biden “Sleepy Joe,” and referred to various Republican rivals as “Lyin’ Ted” [Ted Cruz] and “Little Marco” [Marco Rubio]; 5] After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, he made false claims that the election had been “stolen” from him, promoting the idea of widespread voter fraud without evidence, which culminated, as stated above, in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot; 6] His making frequent statements that contradict established facts, such as when he claimed that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history, despite photographic evidence to the contrary, and his claim that wind turbines cause cancer; 7] His admiring authoritarian leaders, such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and others, and repeatedly downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses by these leaders; 8] His attempting to change the projected path of a hurricane with a sharpie pen; 9] His frequently attacking media outlets, calling them “fake news” and labeling specific reporters and outlets as “enemies of the people”- these attacks on the press were [and are] obvious attempt to undermine trust in the media and limit free speech; & 10] His multiple indictments and impeachments.]

What we are now seeing/experiencing is not normal.

The president is apparently controlled or at least greatly influenced by a would-be oligarch, who has been recently quoted as influencing or directing the president to “go after” those saying things about him and his companies he does not like. Government is now being weaponized by this, our de facto president.

It was recently publicly reported that said would-be oligarch is a ketamine user. The effects of ketamine were recently reported in an article by the Atlantic, entitled, “What Ketamine Does to the Human Brain.” The article states, in part, “Excessive use of the drug [ketamine] can make anyone feel like they rule the world.” The article continues, “Musk has said he uses ketamine regularly, so for the past couple of years, public speculation has persisted about how much he takes, whether he’s currently high, or how it might affect his behavior.” The article also states [quoting from a prior article in the New Yorker], “Musk’s ‘associates’ worried that ketamine, ‘alongside his isolation and his increasingly embattled relationship with the press, might contribute to his tendency to make chaotic and impulsive statements and decisions.'” The article highlights that “[k]etamine is called a dissociative drug because during a high . . . people might feel detached from their body, their emotions, or the passage of time. Frequent, heavy recreational use . . . has been linked to cognitive effects that last beyond the high, including impaired memory, delusional thinking, superstitious beliefs, and a sense of specialness and importance.”

A survey of the scientific literature reveals that ketamine can induce vivid sensory experiences, including visual and auditory distortions or even full-blown hallucinations. Ketamine can induce euphoria at lower doses and, at higher doses, it can impair memory, concentration and overall cognitive function, leading to confusion or difficulty processing thoughts. Ketamine can also make users feel anxious, paranoid or frightened. In persons who’ve taken high doses, ketamine can lead to irritability and aggression.

Nothing about the behavior of the persons now in charge of the United States is normal. And we must not “sane-wash” any of it or pretend that persons so clearly affected, even controlled, by their inner demons and/or drugs are acting in anyone’s interests, and that, somehow, something good or constructive will come from the chaos.

Representative Stansbury was right. This is not normal.