Category Archives: The Everyman Chronicles

The Great Uncoupling


On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court told us what 2025 would look like: Trump would return to office, with unlimited freedom and power.

Its presidential immunity ruling — ironically entitled Trump v. United States — ended the American experiment and set into motion the only sane response to the pending insanity from the Christian Right.

I call it The Great Uncoupling.

Not from reality: I’ll leave that to the religious. No, an uncoupling from The Great American Din: the 24/7 news; social media idiots selling “their best selves;” conspiracy podcasters; clickbait.

In short, the taproot of our national cortisol addiction. And while it’s impossible to go cold turkey, we can begin a gradual withdrawal.

The sentinel for this shift must be none other than the god of Evidentialism, Marcus Aurelius. His Meditations offers wisdom not just for emperors, but for anyone about to enter the Trumpisphere. Here’s the blueprint he provides:

sagely Power Over Mind

“You have power over your mind—not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

What It Means: This principle is at the core of Stoic philosophy. Marcus reminds us that while we can’t control the rise of Trumpism or the chaos it brings, we can control our reactions.

How to Apply It: Focus exclusively on your sphere of influence. Direct your energy toward tangible local impact through community service, mutual aid, and practical support for those in need, while maintaining enough awareness to stay informed without becoming consumed.

Action Over Debate

“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

What It Means: Aurelius warns against fruitless debates and performative virtue. Being “good” isn’t about perfection; it’s about consistent, meaningful actions.

How to Apply It: Transform online energy into real-world impact. Replace social media debates with direct community action, whether through local volunteering, supporting justice organizations, or creating neighborhood support networks. Stop doomscrolling.

Truth and Integrity

“If it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.”

What It Means: Integrity is non-negotiable, even in the face of widespread dishonesty and manipulation. Stay rooted in truth and morality, no matter how tempting shortcuts may be.

How to Apply It: Break the outrage cycle. Fact-check rigorously before sharing information and respond to inflammatory content with thoughtful action rather than reactive anger. Beware any corporate media.

Rising Above

”The best revenge is to not be like your enemy.”

What It Means: While it’s easy to mirror the tactics of those we oppose, true victory lies in maintaining humanity despite provocation.

How to Apply It: Channel anger into creation. Transform reactive energy into building new systems, support networks, and community structures that make the old ones obsolete.

Quality of Thought

“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”

What It Means: Happiness stems not from external circumstances but from cultivating a disciplined and constructive mindset.

How to Apply It: Curate your mental diet. Ruthlessly eliminate sources of outrage and replace them with inputs that inform, inspire, and enable practical action.

The Balance of Civic Duty

“That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it good for the bee.”

What It Means: The Great Uncoupling isn’t about abandoning civic responsibilities—it’s about engaging more effectively while maintaining mental sovereignty.

How to Apply It: Build wisdom networks. Create or join spaces for thoughtful dialogue where people can process events, share resources, and coordinate meaningful action without feeding the outrage machine.

Marcus teaches that strength comes not from hiding from the storm, but from the inner resilience that manifests by helping others weather it. The Great Uncoupling is our strategic repositioning: stepping back from chaos to engage more effectively with challenges that truly matter.

Let The Great Uncoupling begin—not as retreat, but as revolution in how we engage with truth, our world and each other.

‘The Post’ Bungles Another Manifesto


I used to work at The Washington Post. I was there when Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, sent his manifesto to the Post and The New York Times. The decision to publish it was a mistake.

Now, decades later, I’m watching The Post make a different, but equally flawed, decision with Luigi Mangione’s manifesto. Mangione sent his 262-word note to several outlets. The Post obtained it. But they didn’t run it. Instead, they selectively quoted from it, releasing only the parts that aligned with the narrative law enforcement wanted to push.

Why? Because this is what The Post does now. The publication that once prided itself on holding the powerful accountable has become an adjunct of law enforcement.

They’ll never say it outright, of course. They’ll cite ethics, public safety, or journalistic discretion. But I know better. I was there when it started.

I was a cop reporter then in 1995, when Kaczynski demanded his manifesto be published. We didn’t take the decision lightly. It involved heated debates, moral agonizing, and, ultimately, a deference to the FBI.

They wanted us to run it. They believed someone might recognize his ideas, his writing, his voice. We published, telling ourselves we were saving lives. And he was caught — by a brother who read the screed against industrialized society.

But in truth, we crossed a line. It wasn’t our job to help catch Kaczynski. That’s the FBI’s job. Ours was to inform the public, to ask hard questions, to remain independent. Instead, we became a tool. And once you allow that, it’s hard to go back.

I argued we should charge the FBI the cost of a full-page ad, with, at most, a slight discount. But what about when they ask again, I argued.

I was told to go pound sand.

That decision set a precedent, and the Mangione case shows how far we’ve slid. Mangione’s manifesto is no more dangerous than Kaczynski’s was. It’s a critique of the U.S. healthcare system and an admission of guilt. That’s it.

But the public hasn’t seen it in full. Why? Because the FBI doesn’t want it out there, and the Post doesn’t want to anger the FBI.

It’s an unspoken bargain. Journalists need access to investigations to break stories. Law enforcement needs favorable coverage to control the narrative. And so the press, afraid of being cut off, obliges.

The Post isn’t alone in this. Other outlets had the manifesto too, and none published it in full. Ken Klippenstein, an independent journalist, eventually leaked it on his Substack. But by then, the damage was done.

Screenshot

The Post, CNN, The New York Times and others had already framed the story the way authorities wanted.

This isn’t journalism. It’s public relations for the state. When you withhold information, you erode trust. When you selectively quote, you skew the truth. When you defer to the government, you abdicate your responsibility.

The Post I worked for would have published Mangione’s manifesto in full. Not because it’s sensational or because Mangione deserves a platform, but because the public deserves the truth.

Instead, the Post of today carefully curates what it shares, tailoring its coverage to maintain access to the powerful.

Access journalism has hollowed out investigative reporting. It’s not about holding power to account anymore. It’s about keeping your seat at the table.

And law enforcement knows this. Why spend money on ads or press releases when you can use the nation’s most trusted outlets to deliver your message? The Post and others will do it for free.

They’ve forgotten that journalism isn’t supposed to be easy. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable. It’s supposed to challenge, provoke, and question. Instead, they’ve settled for complicity.

This is about more than Mangione. It’s about what happens when the press stops being independent. When we stop asking questions, the public stops getting answers.

And that’s the real danger. The Post I worked for made a mistake in publishing Kaczynski’s manifesto, but at least we acted boldly. Today’s Post plays it safe. They don’t challenge the powerful. They placate them.

And that’s a tragedy—not just for journalism, but for democracy itself.