Originally written in response to the civil unrest of 2020; revised in 2026.
Anarchy, hatred, and divisiveness appear to be sweeping our country. Where or when will it end? Who or what is ultimately responsible for these events?
Author’s Note: In May 2020, the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody triggered an extraordinary wave of demonstrations across the United States. Derek Chauvin, the police officer who restrained Floyd for more than nine minutes, was later convicted of second-degree murder and pleaded guilty to federal civil-rights charges.
The demonstrations spread to thousands of communities in all fifty states. Most were peaceful, although some cities experienced serious rioting, looting, arson, vandalism, injuries, and destruction of businesses and property. Subsequent analysis found that approximately 94 percent of demonstrations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement involved no violence or destructive activity. In the minority of events in which violence occurred, responsibility varied and sometimes involved protesters, looters, counterprotesters, extremist groups, individual attackers, or confrontations with law enforcement.
The events of 2020 did not end America’s political turmoil. The attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, political threats against public officials, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign, and targeted attacks against elected officials in Minnesota in 2025 demonstrated that political violence cannot reasonably be assigned to only one political philosophy or one segment of society.
By 2025, Americans themselves overwhelmingly believed that politically motivated violence was increasing. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of public demonstrations continued to occur without violence. These two facts should remind us that protest and violence are not the same thing, and that disagreement does not have to become hatred.
You have summoned one of the deepest problems of the human condition.
Chaos often precedes calm. Ignorance is the antithesis of enlightenment. During critical events, human beings may reveal both their worst impulses and their highest capacity for harmless service. The division between constructive and destructive forces reminds us of the duality that struggles for resolution within humanity itself.
Our collective responsibility is not merely to defend our own interests, but to nurture, serve, and seek justice for our fellow human beings.
One should be concerned about injustice. But justice loses its meaning when compassion is extended only to those with whom we identify while the suffering of others is ignored. The death of one person through injustice deserves our concern. So do the innocent people whose businesses, homes, livelihoods, safety, or lives are destroyed in retaliation.
Compassion cannot be selective.
This does not mean that peaceful protest is lawlessness. The right to protest injustice is fundamental to a free society. Nor does concern for injustice justify looting, arson, assault, intimidation, or destruction. A society governed by law must be capable of recognizing both truths simultaneously.
The question therefore remains: Are we a nation governed by law and ethical responsibility, or will grievance increasingly excuse whatever conduct is committed in its name?
The seeds of agitation have existed throughout human history. Wars once provided the great outlet for collective hatred, anger, envy, domination, territorial ambition, religious fanaticism, and revenge. Today some of these same forces can appear within civilian society, amplified by political rhetoric, mass communication, social media, misinformation, and the extraordinary speed with which anger can be transmitted from one person to millions.
Civil conflict no longer necessarily requires two organized armies facing one another across a battlefield. It can arise when neighbors begin to view neighbors as enemies, when political affiliation becomes more important than human identity, and when disagreement becomes justification for contempt.
There are no simple lines dividing the righteous from the unrighteous.
In the spiritual terminology I use, Light and Darkness refer to states of consciousness—wisdom or ignorance, compassion or hatred, creation or destruction. They have nothing whatsoever to do with race, ethnicity, skin color, nationality, or political party.
The United States has not experienced a conventional Civil War within its borders since the nineteenth century, yet history throughout the world demonstrates what happens when political division becomes dehumanization. Civil conflict has produced genocide, assassination, starvation, forced migration, disease, ruined economies, devastated landscapes, and generations of trauma.
War destroys far more than armies.
It destroys homes, institutions, trust, cultural inheritance, natural resources, and the belief that one’s neighbor belongs to the same human family.
And yet there is an integrity within life. Humanity survives catastrophe. Nature regenerates after destruction. Individuals can learn after terrible mistakes. Even suffering may become a severe teacher when it awakens consciousness rather than producing further hatred.
The blame for social disorder cannot always be laid at the feet of one political leader, one political party, one movement, or one generation. Leaders certainly bear responsibility when they deliberately incite hatred, encourage violence, abuse their authority, or knowingly deceive the people they serve. But citizens also possess responsibility for what they accept, repeat, encourage, and eventually act upon.
Those who possess power have an especially great obligation.
Governments can manipulate.
Political movements can manipulate.
Corporations can manipulate.
Media can manipulate.
Social media can manipulate.
And individuals can willingly manipulate one another.
The means differ, but the underlying temptation is the same: to gain power by exploiting fear, resentment, anger, prejudice, or insecurity.
Modern technology has greatly increased this possibility. Opinion can be transmitted instantaneously, repeated endlessly, stripped of context, and directed toward audiences already inclined to believe it. People increasingly inhabit separate informational worlds in which each side can become convinced that the other represents an existential threat.
When people cease listening to one another, polarization becomes self-perpetuating.
Where there is power without accountability, abuse follows. Where there is grievance without responsibility, destruction follows. Neither principle belongs exclusively to the political Left or Right.
The COVID-19 pandemic further intensified many of the pressures already dividing society. It caused enormous loss of life, economic disruption, isolation, fear, disagreement over public policy, and mistrust of institutions. Worldwide, the World Health Organization estimated approximately 14.9 million excess deaths associated directly or indirectly with the pandemic during 2020 and 2021 alone.
When I originally wrote this article, I viewed the pandemic symbolically as an enforced period of cessation—a moment in which much of humanity was compelled to stop its ordinary movement and confront itself. I still believe that such a spiritual interpretation can have meaning, but it should not obscure the immense suffering the pandemic caused.
A spiritual interpretation is not the same as a scientific explanation.
The pandemic was not harmless. For millions of families, it brought death, grief, illness, isolation, economic hardship, and permanent change.
Yet human beings may still choose what they learn from suffering.
The deeper question is whether crisis increases consciousness or merely creates another opportunity for division.
Since 2020, the United States has continued to experience intense disagreement and enormous public demonstrations. In 2025, demonstration activity rose dramatically, reaching its highest level since 2020. Yet approximately 97 percent of demonstrations involved neither violence nor police intervention. This is important. Large numbers of people expressing disagreement do not constitute anarchy. Violence, intimidation, and the abandonment of lawful democratic processes are different matters.
At the same time, concern about politically motivated violence has become widespread. A 2025 national survey found that 85 percent of Americans believed such violence was increasing. Republicans and Democrats agreed on that point in almost identical proportions. Americans disagreed greatly about who was responsible, however—a revealing demonstration of the very polarization at issue.
Perhaps we spend too much time asking which side created the darkness and too little time asking what within human consciousness allows hatred to flourish.
The work of a relatively small portion of spiritually conscious humanity can still be great. Those individuals can help turn the tide away from selfish ambition, retaliation, fear, and domination.
We should therefore reflect upon the endless divisiveness produced when every event is immediately interpreted through political allegiance.
Justice without compassion becomes vengeance.
Authority without accountability becomes oppression.
Freedom without responsibility becomes disorder.
Conviction without humility becomes fanaticism.
And disagreement without recognition of our common humanity becomes hatred.
The remedy is not uniformity of thought. A free people must disagree. The remedy is the ability to disagree without destroying one another.
There must be room for protest and law, justice and restraint, freedom and responsibility, individual conscience and collective obligation.
The ultimate battle between Light and Darkness does not occur between political parties, races, religions, generations, or nations.
It occurs within human consciousness.
Every individual decides which force to nourish.
Leave a Reply