The Case for Progressive Party Reform (And Why I Didn't Vote)

Beyond Lesser-Evil Politics: A Systems Approach to Democratic Renewal

My apologies to my subscribers for the extended silence. In my defense I will cite Hofstadter’s Law, which states "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law." Please know that I’ve been working hard on my next book, the follow up to The Romance of Reality, titled Our Cosmic Purpose: A Practical Guide to Waking up the Universe. Pretty snazzy name, don’t ya think?

While it’s been quiet around here, I'm excited to share my new article for Big Think that presents the “New Stoned Ape Theory,” a spin on Terrence McKenna’s hypothesis about how we became human through the use of psychedelics. The theory presented in the article is even more ambitious than McKenna’s original theory, in that it presents a new evolutionary theory, and a new theory of life and consciousness (based on the concept of phase transitions) — so check it out and let me know what you think. A video version will be coming out later this month on the Road to Omega Youtube channel.

Speaking of psychedelics, journalist Rav Avora has just launched a "Citizens' Call for Psychedelic Policy Reform," an initiative laid out on his Substack The Illusion of Consensus that advocates for the removal of psychedelics from the Controlled Substances Act. This initiative, aimed at influencing the policy decisions of the next U.S. president, aligns with Road to Omega's mission, so please consider supporting and sharing this important cause.

Before turning to today's main topic, a final update: I recently had the pleasure of discussing overlapping "theories of everything" with psychologist Gregg Henriques, comparing my Unifying Theory of Reality (UTOR) with his Unified Theory of Knowledge (UTOK), which is outlined in his brilliant new book UTOK: The Unified Theory of Knowledge. Our conversation revealed how our frameworks, though developed independently, converge on similar insights about evolution, complexity, and the nature of reality itself.

Now on to today’s topic, which is the topic of who I voted for!

The answer? I didn’t!

I had intended to get this post published this morning, in order to influence others to do the same, but perhaps it’s better that it is coming out on election night, just before the stroke of midnight, such that my “non-vote” is maximally symbolic of an inaction that is also an action. So let this article serve as a tool not for what to do today — that choice has already been made freely by you — but what to do tomorrow. That is, this post represents a plan for Progressive Party Reform, regardless of the outcome, because no matter who wins, they will be targets of influence for the Omega Project (aka Project Omega), which will outline a political platform that is consistent with the Road to Omega worldview. The official Project Omega “white paper” will be published on the first day of the new year: January 1st, 2025.

As a self-described progressive — after all, Road to Omega is based on the idea that human evolution is fundamentally a process of progress — I am expected to vote for Kamala Harris, specifically because I’m supposed to be against Donald Trump. That is, liberals don’t care if I don’t love Kamala, or even if I hate Kamala, as long as I hate Donald Trump more, and demonstrate that loyalty to the progressive party in tangible form, in the form of a vote, and not a pro-Kamala vote per se, but an anti-Trump vote that happens to be pro-Kamala.

But I am bothered by this idea; this concept that the right move for the future of the nation is to vote for the Democratic candidate, because there is a “lesser of two evils” logic that mandates that I fall in line behind the Democratic establishment.

As a symbol of protest specifically against this idea, I am choosing not to vote for Kamala Harris. However, I make this choice while also choosing to not vote for Trump, because I already expect him to win. This prediction is crucial to understanding the significance of my non-vote. There is a fundamental difference between not voting for Harris while expecting her to win versus not voting for her while expecting her to lose. The meaning of a non-vote changes dramatically based on one's prediction of the outcome. Let me explain.

My choice to not vote for Harris while expecting Trump's victory actually functions as a qualified endorsement of Trump — more supportive than if I had made the same choice while expecting a Harris victory, yet less supportive than casting an actual vote for Trump. This nuanced position makes my non-vote both a gift and a warning to Trump, a sentiment shared by others who made the same strategic choice based on the same prediction (a number that could theoretically be quantified through polling and statistical analysis). This 'Game Play' (a term we will use throughout this essay) serves two purposes: it delivers a clear reprimand to the Democratic establishment while simultaneously pressuring Trump to resist authoritarian impulses and remain aligned with the populist movement that I believe will secure his victory.

This decision might come as a surprise to those readers who are familiar with my political journalism, which has extensively analyzed the psychology and neuroscience of the Trump phenomenon — both his psychology and that of his supporters — for publications like Psychology Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Alternet, Raw Story, Salon, and Fox News Radio. To those who found this Substack through my interviews on progressive media like the David Pakman Show and The Young Turks, please know that I remain acutely aware of the potential dangers Trump presents. My concerns about the threat he poses to a free and open society haven't changed. I’m still worried about a post-truth world ruled by "alternative facts," policies that could threaten women's rights (abortion laws), inhumane immigration practices (including separating families), and more tax breaks for billionaires, among other issues.

That being said, I ask you to ask yourself, “Is there any possible future scenario where a catastrophic event occurs such that collectively choosing Donald Trump over Kamala Harris would have actually been the best move (the optimal Game Play)?” This is an exercise in counterfactual reasoning, a kind of reasoning that will be foundational to Project Omega.

I’ll play this game first, but I hope you will try the same exercise yourself. Immediately, I can imagine a future catastrophe that I believe is not only possible, but statistically likely if we don’t seriously course correct as a nation right now, and as a species. That expected (predicted) catastrophe is WWIII, and I believe that with the foreign policy of Kamala Harris, which we have every reason to believe is essentially the same foreign policy as the current administration, we are inevitably headed towards this outcome (it is an “attractor” in the language of dynamical systems theory). If the current state of turbulence indicates an emerging societal phase transition, a critical period of either collapse or leap to higher order, then WWIII represents one outcome corresponding to collapse. This is the future we want to avoid, though it takes intentional collective steering to avert.

Using counterfactual reasoning to inform my decision by taking into account consequences of species-level significance that I would not have otherwise factored into my choice, I calculate that the future trajectory that is most likely to avoid this otherwise inevitable outcome is the path consistent with a Donald Trump victory.

That is, my Game Play isn't just about liking or disliking a particular candidate on a personal level — it's about using my non-vote as a form of progressive protest against a Democratic Party that has strayed so far from its progressive roots that it needs to lose to trigger a necessary restructuring.

So, let this essay serve as an explanation and motivation for specifically why we need a new progressive party, and that is because the old one is fundamentally broken. This is not to say that the old leaders are corrupt, but that they’ve been corrupted, by a system with a structure that naturally and inevitably leads to conflicts of interest which essentially force politicians to participate in a corrupt system — to play in a game where no one fights fair, because the game is controlled by the very people who determine its rules. This leads to the Project Omega Hypothesis, a theory that explains why there will always be cycles of a phenomenon we may call Revolutions Against Centralized Control (RACCs), otherwise known as populist movements:

Any system lacking an adaptive, self-correcting democratic architecture will inevitably succumb to authoritarian control, as the fundamental tension between self-interest (Game A: individual survival) and collective good (Game B: collective survival) corrupts centralized power.

This article will develop this thesis using the modern Democratic party as an example. The major issues with the current Left-wing political establishment are:

1) The party has lost its democratic nature (it is no longer truly controlled by the "will of the people")

2) The party has no mechanism for error-correction (it cannot evolve because it is no longer *adaptive*)

3) The party demonstrates fundamental contradictions between its stated values and actual behavior (it preaches progressive principles while operating in an increasingly regressive manner)

I want to emphasize that my stance stems not from opposition to progressive values, but from the conviction that true progressivism must be built on systems-based principles, specifically the evolutionary-cybernetic principles of nature that enable genuine adaptation and growth.

The Democratic Party is No Longer “Democratic”

What we're seeing in the Democratic Party today represents a profound irony: an organization with "Democratic" in its name has become increasingly anti-democratic in its practices. We're now witnessing the third consecutive election cycle where the will of the progressive and liberal voting base has been systematically overridden. In each case, the DNC's chosen nominee emerged not through fair democratic processes, but through a series of calculated moves orchestrated by party insiders and elites that violated both established rules and long-standing democratic norms. To see this problematic pattern, let's begin with the pivotal 2016 election, which set the stage for everything that followed.

Remember the big Bernie-Hillary showdown? While the Left-wing mainstream narrative dismissed "Hillary's emails" as a big fat nothing burger, reality proved the story was serious. Leaked emails published at Wikileaks revealed a coordinated DNC effort to undermine Sander's campaign — the kind of scandal that would have dominated CNN headlines for months if the Republicans were the perpetrators. Take the debate schedule, for instance: what on the surface may have looked like random scheduling was actually an orchestrated strategy to minimize Bernie's exposure to voters. Additionally, debate questions had been given to Hillary in advance by DNC vice chair Donna Brazille, also a CNN Pundit at the time. We know this wasn't just a ‘conspiracy theory’ because the story led to the forced resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the firing of Donna Brazille by CNN. Such shake ups don’t happen over nothing.

You might be thinking, “Well, that’s your “error correction” in action, so the DNC and CNN did good.”

Well, this is where things get interesting. Let’s look at the timeline of events. On July 24th, 2016, the day before the DNC convention, news outlets like the Guardian publish the story “Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats.” Who was her replacement? None other than Donna Brazille! This makes it look like she was promoted by her tribe rather than punished.

An inspection of the timeline shows that the story about Donna Brazille’s unethical actions (giving Clinton the debate questions) didn’t become an official news story until October 31st, as we can see with the CNN article headline, “Donna Brazille Out at CNN Amid Leaks to the Clinton Campaign.” The article reveals that the scandal came to light a couple weeks earlier: “Brazile resigned from the network on October 14, three days after Wikileaks released an email in which Brazile says she got advance questions before a town hall event.”

But the strange thing is that there is a CNN article from July 24th, the same day Debbie Wasserman Schulz resigned and Brazille replaced her, with the headline “CNN, ABC cut ties with Donna Brazile, freeing her up for DNC job”.

Well that’s interesting. Donna Brazille’s “punishment” for her participation in a corrupt scheme to help one party candidate over another is a forced resignation from a job that she technically wasn’t even supposed to have, since CNN supposedly cut ties with her three months earlier as to prevent precisely the kind of corruption the scandals revealed. Not only that, Brazille remained as Interim DNC Chair until February 25th, 2017, when Tom Perez was elected. This means there was no “punishment" at all, no consequences for her actions, no type of error correction, a point we will come back to in the next section.

She also kept her career as a media pundit by simply switching teams, ultimately becoming a talking head for the enemy, Fox News, in 2019, revealing just how game-like the Game that is politics really is. Brazille is still a major contributor for ABC, and speaks regularly during coverage of the most high profile events, such as the Democratic National Convention and the Kamala-Trump debate. The point here is not to bash Brazille — I assume she’s a decent woman overall, but to expose the kinds of conflicts of interests that lead to unethical behavior due to a corrupted systemic structure.

Fast forward to 2020, and an even more sophisticated pattern of establishment manipulation emerged. Bernie Sanders had built an even stronger movement, leading the polls with such commanding numbers that his nomination was all but clinched. The Left-wing populist movement that had been gaining momentum at the grassroots level since 2016 seemed unstoppable, like nature was taking its course against an unhealthy level of centralized control in government. But then came what I call the "Buttigieg Gambit" — a masterclass in political chess.

Pete Buttigieg, the DNC's most promising new star, suddenly dropped out of the race at a crucial moment, despite his second-place position. This wasn't just a campaign ending — it was a strategic sacrifice, the political equivalent of a Queen's Gambit in chess. The timing and coordination suggested careful calculation rather than mere campaign fatigue, revealing the establishment’s hand.  This play, coming when Buttigieg still had significant support, helped consolidate the moderate vote behind Biden. Other candidates quickly followed suit, creating a rapid coalescence of establishment support behind Biden, reminiscent of how the party had unified behind Clinton in the previous cycle — including even those believed to be Sanders’ strongest allies, like Elizabeth Warren, who proved to be ultimately on Team Establishment.

The end result? Biden, who had previously been far behind Bernie, secured the nomination, and Kamala Harris, who was the least popular Democratic candidate of all, ended up as Vice President. Buttigieg's reward was a cabinet position, Secretary of Transportation, completing the quid pro quo, an implicitly understood but not explicitly stated deal, a technically-legal but unethical Game Play — an unofficial conspiracy emerging out of an unspoken but implicit alliance in the Game of Politics. The will of the progressive base had been thwarted once again, through another elaborate coordination of establishment forces, which had successfully redirected the party's trajectory away from its progressive wing.

The 2024 election cycle has revealed an even starker departure from democratic principles. When Biden stepped aside, the DNC had a perfect opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to actual democratic process — to finally let the people's voice be heard. This could have meant meaningful debates between candidates like Jill Stein, whose outspoken opposition to the war in Palestine represented a popular progressive position that was being ignored by the establishment, and RFK Jr., an environmental advocate known for challenging political corruption and corporate capture. Instead, what we witnessed was the opposite of democracy in action.

The DNC's bias became impossible to ignore: they didn't just prefer one candidate over others — they actively worked to suppress any challenge to their chosen successor. Their treatment of Kennedy was particularly telling. They blocked him from debates, fought to keep him off ballots, used media channels to marginalize his message, and employed legal maneuvers to restrict his campaign's reach. Not to mention running a media-supported smear campaign that tried to paint him as a crazy “anti-vaxxer” over a 2005 Rolling Stone article that actually was not against vaccines at all, but against a mercury-based preservative ingredient in vaccines called thimerosal, which had already been removed from most (but not all) vaccines as a precautionary measure by pharmaceutical companies who were aware of the literature that suggested that thimerosal could be a neurotoxin. In fact, if you Google “thimerosal,” the first result will be the FDA website, with the first “key point” being “All vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger in the U.S. are available in formulations that do not contain thimerosal.” This subject deserves an article of its own (coming soon), because a systematic review of the literature clearly shows that there’s enough empirical evidence from reputable peer-reviewed journals to at the very least warrant Kennedy’s article.

RFK Jr., bearing one of the most iconic names in Democratic Party history, was effectively pushed into Trump's camp not by choice, but by the systematic efforts of his own party to silence him. This wasn't just politics as usual — it was the final confirmation that the Democratic Party had abandoned any pretense of being actually democratic.

The Democratic Party's departure from democratic principles is compounded by a crucial structural flaw that has already been mentioned: the absence of any meaningful error-correction mechanism, a topic we will now revisit.

The Democratic Party's Missing Error-Correction Mechanism

Consider the continued prominence of Bill and Hillary Clinton at DNC conventions and high-level party functions, where they remain celebrated figures despite a legacy that raises serious concerns for progressives. These skilled political gameplayers, whose careers mirror the kind of political maneuvering seen in "House of Cards," have a record that should give pause to any Democrat committed to principled politics. Their history is complex and troubling: from the coordinated media campaigns against Bill Clinton's accusers (which stands in stark contrast to today's "Me Too" movement), the more-than-casual connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and a concerning foreign policy record documented by leading liberal thinkers like Noam Chomsky, all while maintaining a progressive public image.

Yet the Democratic establishment continues to present the Clintons as party elder statespeople, suggesting either a troubling blindness to past issues or a choice to prioritize political expedience over principle — a perfect illustration of the party's broken ability to learn from its mistakes.

Perhaps most telling is the Harris campaign's acceptance of Dick Cheney's endorsement — a strategic alliance that reveals the establishment's true nature. The irony is stark: Cheney's legacy includes orchestrating the Iraq War based on fabricated WMD claims, leading to regional destabilization that gave rise to ISIS and made the world demonstrably more dangerous. He also championed and defended the use of torture through "enhanced interrogation techniques" that included waterboarding (simulated drowning), sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours, confining prisoners in tiny boxes, subjecting them to extreme temperatures, and "rectal rehydration" - practices that read more like medieval torture or horror movie scenarios than legitimate intelligence gathering methods. That the Democratic establishment would embrace such a figure speaks volumes about their true values versus their stated principles. Accepting Cheney’s endorsement represents a “deal with the devil” that represents a wholly un-progressive progressive establishment.

That the Democratic establishment would embrace such a figure while portraying Trump as an existential threat to democracy — who, despite all his flaws, initiated no new military conflicts — reveals the true game-like dynamics at play. When faced with populist challenges, the Left-Right establishment closes ranks, demonstrating that maintaining power takes precedence over ideological consistency or democratic principles.

Harris's position within the Democratic power structure exposes a troubling reality: she functions not as an autonomous political leader, but as a conduit for unaccountable establishment forces who maintain their grip on party machinery while avoiding public scrutiny and accountability.

The Cheney-Harris alliance provides a perfect segway into the final point, which is the hypocritical nature of the current so-called “progressive party,” a party whose ethics and actions are inconsistent with the process of progress.

Why the Progressive Party is No Longer “Progressive”

The current Democratic party exhibits a disconnect between its proclaimed progressive values and its internal practices, by maintaining power structures that prevent both progress and peaceful co-existence. The hypocritical, self-contradictory nature of the “progressive platform” proposed by Harris is best illustrated by her position regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Progressive voters have been warned not to vote for Donald Trump because he is racist, xenophobic, and bigoted — with the Left-wing establishment and media reinforcing this message through constant Hitler analogies. But the Democratic establishment's Hitler comparisons become particularly problematic when contrasted with their own policy positions, especially regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The current administration's unwavering support for Netanyahu’s military operations that have resulted in over 40,000 civilian casualties in response to approximately 1,000 Israeli civilian deaths represents a staggering moral inconsistency. This ratio of civilian casualties, combined with the displacement of more than a million people from their homes, would be considered catastrophically disproportionate in any other context. The hypocrisy is stark: while denouncing Trump as a potential authoritarian threat, the Democratic establishment supports actions that demonstrate a troubling disregard for civilian life. If similar casualty ratios occurred within Israel or U.S. borders during a counter-terrorism operation, it would be considered an unprecedented disaster, not a defensive success. This disparity in how human life is valued reveals the hollow nature of much moral posturing in current political discourse.

While Trump's rhetoric on immigration undeniably exploited fear for political gain — often using inflammatory language and emotionally charged statements that heightened anxieties about immigrants, minorities, and Muslims — the potential danger of this rhetoric must be measured against the global consequences of a Harris-Waltz regime that is not only supportive of an extremist-Zionist agenda, but the primary financial enabler.

Despite his problematic rhetoric, Trump's actual positions on topics like immigration show more complexity than his critics admit. His speeches routinely infuse positive statements about legal immigrants and their contributions to America, balanced against his harsh criticism of illegal immigration. It’s certainly a game-like strategy, but it is an important distinction to make in light of the Hitler-comparisons coming from the Left. If Trump truly harbored white nationalist ambitions, his messiah-like influence over the conservative movement would have provided ample opportunity to advance such an agenda explicitly. If anything, Trump’s rhetoric has become more measured, even moderate, this time around, breaking the Hitler narrative that has already been undermined by the Biden-Harris foreign policy that is supporting what amounts to an ethnic cleansing campaign — a religiously motivated land grab disguised as a morally-justified military defense operation.

Another factor that plays into how we judge Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the topic of immigration is the changing reality on the ground, which is revealing a completely broken immigration system with dysfunction that goes beyond mere policy inefficiency. In 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported over 2.4 million crossings at the southern border — the highest number ever recorded, representing a population comparable to some U.S. states. These patterns, along with evidence of organized transportation networks funded by advocacy organizations like the Open Society Foundation (aka the Soros Foundation), reveal coordinated efforts rather than spontaneous migration. The political implications are significant. While Republicans have traditionally used tactics like gerrymandering to maintain electoral advantage, it seems clear that Democrats are trying to expand their voter base through immigration policy. This represents a different but equally concerning form of electoral manipulation that any fair and unbiased observer will recognize.

A New Anti-Establishment Coalition?

The emerging Trump coalition of 2024 bears little resemblance to his first administration's cabinet of establishment figures and corporate interests that flooded the swamp he claimed to want to drain. Where his first term featured toxic Republicans like Neocon war-hawk John Bolton, far-Right nationalist ideologue Stephen Miller, and Wall Street insider Steve Mnuchin, just to name a few of the swamp creatures, his new alliance includes unexpected voices like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard — former Democrats who've broken ranks over issues like war, civil liberties, and corporate capture of government institutions. They are joined by massively influential people like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, who are not Right-wing by any measure, though they’ve been pushed in that direction by the culture of the current political estblashiment. This coalition, despite its contradictions, represents a broader anti-establishment movement focused on resisting increased surveillance, opposing censorship aimed at silencing dissent, and preventing further military escalation toward global conflict.

To be crystal clear — my political position isn't “pro-Trump”: it's more accurately an anti-establishment, pro-populist, pro-progressive stance that views the current Democratic Party leadership as fundamentally compromised, and essentially aligned with the same corporate and international interests as their supposed Republican opponents. The seemingly unlikely symbolic alliance that is the Harris-Cheney coalition, which has been cheered on by progressives under the unity-promoting motto “Country over party,” actually represents an older but hidden alliance between the Bush-Cheney “New World Order” ideology and a WEF-globalist “Great Reset” worldview, brought together by a desire for centralized control over humanity. While such a coalition is seemingly aligned with the globally-unifying paradigm of progress underlying the Road to Omega project, it is actually in direct opposition to the sort of decentralized global control architecture that the paradigm promotes. So, even if you are not disturbed by the concept of the Great Global Establishment Alliance that this essay attempts to make salient, because you’ve been sold on the idea that U.S. foreign policy is a “necessary evil” for the “greater good,” I would just like to remind you of the saying, “The path to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The fundamental conflict between self-interest (Game A goals) and the greater good (Game B goals) means that in any societal system that lacks an adaptive architecture — a structure that is specifically a self-correcting democracy — power will inevitably corrupt that system, leading toward authoritarian control. History shows that excessive centralization of power invariably results in an Orwellian surveillance state with censorship and social control mechanisms that squash any and all forms of ideological dissent. This is precisely the structure that is emerging in China, where a technology-enabled “social credit system” entails unprecedented state-controlled monitoring and mental manipulation, all justified in the name of “the Greater Good.” The road to dystopia begins with good intentions but ends in technological totalitarianism.

By withholding my vote from Harris, I'm employing a strategic form of symbolic protest aimed at motivating necessary reform within the Democratic Party. This approach draws from the concept of creative destruction that is intrinsic to complex systems theory — the idea that calcified (overly rigid) systems sometimes require partial collapse to enable meaningful reconstruction. When a supposedly progressive party aligns itself with architects of endless war and corporate dominance, it reveals a deep systemic corruption. The Harris-Clinton-Cheney alliance proves that progressive principles have been abandoned in the pursuit of power.

The aim of the Omega Project (Road to Omega’s plan for 2024, to be published at midnight on NYE) is to help catalyze a phase transition that brings about a new social order, one structured according to an optimal architecture built on an evolutionary-cybernetic framework with a systems-thinking lens and a meta-perspective. In complex systems theory, phase transitions represent fundamental reorganizations where new properties emerge. Just as water must reach a critical temperature to become solid ice, political systems sometimes require reaching critical thresholds to enable structural transformation. By strategically withdrawing support from a corrupted establishment, R2O’s objective is to play a small but significant role in such a transition, by planting the intellectual seeds for this event specifically by being a theory of social phase transitions.

A Trump victory would serve as an “entropy injection” that introduces sufficient flexibility for a national and even global phase transition. Should Trump succeed, part of the Omega Project would be to publish content and raise awareness that pressures Trump away from his fascist tendencies and toward the Unity Party that was described by RFK Jr. and allies at The Rescue the Republic Rally last month, organized by some of the same people who set up the Rage Against the War Machine Rally a year before in Washington. This rally featured an alliance of politicians, journalists, scientists, and celebrities that couldn’t be neatly categorized as conservative or progressive without being wildly inaccurate.

Though it did certainly lack representation of contemporary Left-wing leaders, probably because their participation would have been seen as an endorsement of Trump, a sure career-ender. However, once the election is over, it is easy to imagine a Unity Party coalition that is joined by forward-thinking progressives like Jill Stein, Andrew Yang, and Marianne Williamson, just to name three politicians who were recent presidential candidates representing the Democratic Party. One could conceive of a new progressive plan that is so logical, and so structurally elegant in terms of its fundamental practical and ethical principles, that the leaders of today’s progressive party, like Barack and Michelle Obama, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, can’t not embrace it without seeming fundamentally opposed to progressive principles. I believe the Paradigm of Emergence that underlies R2O has such design power.

A new Trump presidency could present concerning challenges to the progressive agenda, but the greater risk lies in perpetuating a system that has abandoned its democratic principles. This is the larger game being played — not the tactical chess of electoral politics, but the Game of Human Progress, and it is my belief that the Trump card is the play that is the move most likely to change the trajectory away from the seemingly inevitable dystopian conclusion that is World War III. If Kamala Harris does win, that is okay to, because it means America voted for the very progressivism that underlies the Road to Omega worldview. Either way, there is much work to be done.

If you think this sounds like a good plan for Team Humanity, and you are interested in helping design Project Omega, then you can join the meta-movement by subscribing, commenting, and sharing this article. By doing so, you will be joining a decentralized network of new progressives, the Neu Progressives, who are also the Neuromantics described elsewhere on this Substack.

The Neu Progressives tentative motto is “Progress through Problem-Solving,” and our tentative slogan is “We are many, and we are one.”

That is, we are individual nodes in an emerging planetary intelligence, each unique yet interconnected, working together to guide humanity through its greatest evolutionary transition. The next chapter in the human story awaits — and you are called to be an author.