Integral Panel: Post-Election Wrap-Up

Originally published at:

Join Corey deVos, Jeff Salzman, Cindy Wigglesworth, Ryan Oelke, and Mark Fischler as we explore some of the deeper implications of the 2020 election results through a more integral lens.

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. And she hasn’t arrived at the studio yet.

The question that we should be asking is, which is worse to have in power? A megalomaniac or a corrupt, single-party, DeepState oligarchy? At least with Trump in power and the constitutional protections afforded in the separation of powers, he is limited in how far he can take any megalomaniacal aspirations.

Also, strategically, it seems that Trump is not very astute. He failed to respect the loyalties of those on whom he relied, and he failed to reign in the BigTech censorship monstrosity while he had the opportunity. His priorities in construction and real-estate, which he learned throughout the greater part of his life, don’t translate seamlessly to the nuances of politics, reading the big picture, and reading between the lines. Now this might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the context. Fortunately, the aforementioned constitutional protections will ensure, I believe, to contain his inexperience, and he won’t easily get away with any tyrannical aspirations… unless the American people allow it. If America were a third-world tinpot regime, however, the outcome would likely be very different.

Regardless of whether one loves Trump or hates him, he has been an essential antidote to the relentless shaming narrative coming from the scolding, virtue-signaling far-Left* and their masquerade of fake moral superiority. With bigots masquerading as anti-bigots, anti-white racists masquerading for diversity, anti-male sexists masquerading for equality, and fascists masquerading as anti-fascists, the cognitive dissonance escapes them. And the truth that might now threaten them, they call “hate speech”. And instead of violent thugs threatening with guns and violence, all that’s needed is the threat of mean names, to have opponents of the far-Left cower in submission. Nazi! Fascist! - will achieve more than water-boarding or crucifixion. But not Trump, and that’s one of the main reasons why he is despised by the far-Left… and the moderate Left who don’t get it yet.

Much more frightening is the Harris-Biden oligarchy. It seems remarkable to me that a candidate indicating clear signs of dementia is allowed to run for the presidency. It suggests an agenda allowing for his early retirement and replacement by someone from within the oligarchy. Aren’t there constitutional protections in place that might anticipate such shenanigans?

Democrats showed the lengths to which they were prepared to go, to do whatever it takes. From police stand-downs during riots and their impeachment circus, to the Russia hoax and BigTech censorship, it became obvious what they stood for. This sent a clear message to their troops on the ground: “Do whatever you can to ‘fix’ things”. The do-whatever-it-takes Democrats had set the example. The troops on the ground knew what was expected of them, and they imitated the “do-whatever-it-takes”. It’s their culture. It’s just how they roll. Under these circumstances, we should anticipate widespread systemic electoral fraud. Everyone, including the strategically inastute Team Trump, should have anticipated systemic electoral fraud and done something about it. But they did very little, until it became too late.

Where a Team Trump with megalomaniacal aspirations can be easily contained under a vigilant American constitution, a DeepState Harris-Biden oligarchy can dump the constitution and insert in its place an entirely revised new one that bears no resemblance to the former. From FakeNews to BigTech, the Democrats now control the cultural narrative. It is the Democrats, I believe, that pose by far the greater threat to democracy. Love Trump or hate him, this is the one time we should all be praying that he comes through, otherwise America, and the rest of the world connected by BigTech, is finished.

But who am I to talk? I now live in what was a former satellite state of the soviet union. My family ancestry has seen all this before. We remember. And as in Germany, where good Germans were often complicit, so too, today, good people are complicit in the bs that is unfolding before our very eyes. History does repeat, and we need to pay attention.

  • I make a clear distinction between Left and far-Left. There are good people among the moderate Left, and Brandon Straka’s walkaway movement is a reflection of this.

I posted my comment before having listened through the conversation. I did this deliberately, so as to avoid prejudicing my thoughts.

Having now listened through most of the conversation, I appreciate that perhaps my views are a bit more of an outlier than I had anticipated. So what do I do? Delete my post? No. My opinions are sincerely held, they come from the heart.

I agree that Trump is problematic and abrasive. It annoys me, for example, when he refers to Biden as “sleepy Joe”. There’s no justification for that. How about a bit of respect? But I still think that the threat from the Harris-Biden oligarchy is far, far greater. They are the precursor to a new, unprecedented dark age. I’d rather see a clumsy Trump in power, bound by constitutional constraints and separation of powers, than an unleashed oligarchy, with its grip on media, BigTech and an eagerness to rewrite the Constitution. There has been no greater threat to liberty and freedom of speech.

With respect.

1 Like

No need whatsoever to delete your post! :slight_smile: As I tried to make very clear in the episode, there is plenty of space for good-faith disagreements here, and that is exactly what you presented. So thank you for the reflections, and for being civil! I don’t agree with several of your points, and in fact some I strongly disagree with – but that’s okay, because no one’s political views can be expected to be 100% complete. As long as we find a way to keep coming back to the well of shared values, our conflicting views will work themselves out eventually.

Thanks for the comments!

1 Like

Corey, there is a theoretical framework that supports my thinking. It relates to my article that I got published in a peer-reviewed journal about two or three weeks ago on the topic of “imitation, the neglected axiom.” If you or anyone else is interested, ask and I’ll forward a pdf.

Incidentally, this is classically integral thinking… it revolves around how we (and every other living entity) know how to be (also relates to Heidegger’s Dasein).


The concept of imitation has been around for a very long time, and many conversations have been had about it, from Plato and Aristotle to Piaget and Freud. Yet despite this pervasive acknowledgement of its relevance in areas as diverse as memetics, culture, child development and language, there exists little appreciation of its relevance as a fundamental principle in the semiotic and life sciences. Reframing imitation in the context of knowing how to be, within the framework of semiotic theory, can change this, thus providing an interpretation of paradigmatic significance. However, given the difficulty of establishing imitation as a fundamental principle after all these centuries since Plato, I turn the question around and approach it from a different angle. If imitation is to be incorporated into semiotic theory and the Peircean categories as axiomatic, then what pathologies manifest when imitation is disabled or compromised? I begin by reviewing the reasons for regarding imitation as a fundamental principle. I then review the evidence with respect to autism and schizophrenia as imitation deficit. I am thus able to consolidate my position that imitation and knowing how to be are integral to agency and pragmatism (semiotic theory), and should be embraced within an axiomatic framework for the semiotic and life sciences.

Keywords: autism; biosemiotics; imitation; neural plasticity; Peirce; pragmatism

I thought this Post-Election Wrap-Up program was great! It was lucky in its timing in the sense that, with the breakneck speed of events unfolding and “breaking” news, it was not yet outdated! That’s something…

It also had a superb group of panelists, well-informed, politically and culturally aware, and each bringing a unique integral flavor to the conversation. Seeing a conscious heart paired with a legal mind in Mark Fischler was buoying, and his take on his college students not having learned much about empathy, morality, or civics supports my own view regarding a National Service for high school graduates that focuses, at least in part, on some of these “soft(er)” but so needed developmental subjects. Cindy’s comments on relational connections needing to precede the exchange of logic and ideas, and her knowledge in general of (UR) brain function as relevant to (UL) empathic responses is something I’ve also been tuning in to. Thank you!

Ryan exudes such warmth and calm and goodness, and made a good point, or one that I resonate with at least, about the green/left receiving any criticism about strategy as an attack on values. And Jeff rarely fails to attend to both sides of any polarity, much appreciated! Corey of course held the whole thing together with a well-framed agenda, deft facilitation, a broad grasp of all the issues, and a few arcane points of interest: I knew about Charles Curtis, but not that 57% of the GOP believes in Q-Anon. Wow.

Something I’ve been thinking about, stimulated by an article I read, is how culture’s “psychic function” itself seems divided and parceled, with, in Freud’s terms, Trump and supporters holding the libidinous/id aspects, and the left holding the superego functions. Here’s hoping a Biden-Harris administration can bring a healthy ego to mediate between the two.

Thanks to everyone, a really satisfying program.

1 Like