Trail West Dispatch #6

Trail West Dispatch #6                                                                          October 11, 2025

Be wary of paramilitaries.  When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh.  When the pro-leader paramilitary and official police and military intermingle, the end has come.        --Timothy Snyder

When I read this, I thought immediately of the events of January 6, 2021, when paramilitary groups who had been told earlier to “stand back and stand by” went with others to the US Capitol at the president’s bidding, and participated in staging an insurrection.  The paramilitary groups had names like “Proud Boys” and “Oath Keepers.”  On Jan. 6, official police forces withstood the attack and some of them suffered injury and death in the process. The Capitol building itself was damaged, and Congress members fled to hide in a safe place while the crowd outside engaged in death chants for Vice President Mike Pence and called for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to be brought out. The crowd was intent on preventing the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden, who had been lawfully elected as president.

On his first day in office earlier this year, the leader of the present regime pardoned nearly 1600 people who had been charged and, in many cases, already sentenced because of their participation in the insurrection.  Nevertheless, the last sentence in Snyder’s warning was not fully realized in 2021, since only two of the three entities were aligned. 

Today, the official police forces largely still stand apart from the pro-leader paramilitaries.  That can hardly be said about the US military, however, since the commander in chief of the military (the president) and the one to whom the paramilitaries are increasingly beholden are the same person.  In other words, the official military and the pro-leader paramilitary are, to some degree, intermingled.  Please note that in Snyder’s calculations, the end comes when all three (police, military, and para-military) join forces.

Admittedly, we do not always know who is responsible when violence occurs.  False flag operations have been a favorite tactic of authoritarians in the past.  In such a scenario, the government itself carries out violent acts in hopes that people will resist, after which the government uses the resistance as a pretext for responding with more force, and taking away more freedoms.    At other times, a para-military may be involved in fomenting violence.  In some rare cases, it might even involve corrupt police forces.  While I cannot fit everything that I see into Snyder’s framework, I believe that what is shaping up currently is that the Insurrection Act will be invoked, and martial law will be declared—unless an intervention occurs.  It will be justified based on legitimate pushback against outrageous government acts and messaging (many of them unlawful or unethical) in relation to immigration, crime in cities, and drug traffic.  

Closer home, a related issue bears careful examination.  Snyder’s phrase “men with guns” clearly could describe many among us.  When gun ownership for valid reasons crosses over into vociferous defense of gun rights, we have strayed from a nonresistant stance, and entered the territory of political partisanship where the strongest defenders of gun rights can be found in far-right para-military groups.   Beware of alignment with such folks and do not believe it if you hear that anyone is advocating that all guns be taken away from all citizens.

While we do not always know exactly what goes on behind the scenes, we must not willfully ignore what occurs in plain sight, and we should stay curious about what happens out of sight.  We must avoid alliances with those who cling to gun rights while justifying violence against other human beings.  Beyond this, we must look to God to show us what we need to know to respond rightly in every case.                                                                                                                                  –Miriam Iwashige 

Trail West Dispatch #5

 

Trail West Dispatch #5                                                                             October 4, 2025

“Remember professional ethics.  When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important.  It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges.  Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.”                   –Timothy Snyder

Several weeks ago, the US president asked Todd Arrington, the director of the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene, KS to surrender a sword that had been given to the former president.  The sword was to be a gift to King Charles of England.  The director refused, explaining that the artifacts in the museum’s possession belonged to the American people, and he had no authority to give them away.  This week the director resigned, after being given the ultimatum of resigning or being fired by order of “higher ups,” * despite having had many commendations for his outstanding work performance in the past.  I see the director’s actions as being consistent with remembering the importance of professional ethics and just practice.    

In the past, if Arrington had given away the sword, he might have been “punished” by someone answering to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the body charged with coordinating oversight of federal agencies. ** This Council helped ensure that civil servants obey the law.  This week, however, the Council had its Congress-approved funding cut off, forcing its closure.  This is a negative example being set by political leaders in the regime, and no amount of professional ethics practiced by agency personnel can compensate for it.  Dilemmas like this play out repeatedly for civil servants, of late. 

Snyder especially notes the important role played by people in the legal profession.  In doing so, he names one of the three kinds of work that originally made up the “professions:” law, medicine, and theology.  The list has grown over time, and today it normally includes other kinds of work that require extensive training, hands-on or in a classroom.  Snyder mentions civil servants and businessmen. Law enforcement, the military, journalism, and education could be added.  Together with occupations that are common in our brotherhood--trades, services, agriculture, and technology--professional ethics matter in every case. 

Ideally, each of us is guided first by our faith commitments, and second by established ethics for our chosen “profession.”  To some extent, we should also familiarize ourselves with the ethics that apply in realms of activity outside of our own.  Without this awareness, we are too easily deceived, and we may believe, act on, and pass on deceptions.  Ethics are particularly relevant in the media world, in which many of us participate as consumers.  Painstaking accuracy in reporting is called for—with data gleaned from and confirmed by multiple sources (or objective proof is available), where uncertainties are acknowledged as such, and where opinions are clearly separated from reporting.  Errors are promptly acknowledged and corrected, and ethics are not compromised, even under direct threats or other pressure.

For the TWD, I am purposely not representing it as a news reporting effort because I cannot meet the exacting journalism profession standards of reporting, although I typically honor the “multiple source” standard.  The opinions expressed grow out of who I am, who and what I care about and what I have learned.  They are aligned with my faith profession and the expectations within our brotherhood. No other “profession” is claimed, but ethics are always prioritized because being faithful to Jesus requires it.

Today I am grateful for each person who stands against tyranny by honoring professional ethics. I pray that all of us find grace to go beyond professional ethics to bring Christian virtue and the way of Jesus to every attitude, every encounter, and every task of life, especially in our occupations.     –Miriam Iwashige

The first two links are related to events at the Eisenhower Library and Museum:

*https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/military-history/2025/10/03/head-of-eisenhower-library-forced-out-after-sword-spat-with-trump/

**https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2025/10/government-watchdog-websites-go-dark-omb-withholds-funds-ig-committee/408524/

This link refers to a recent event in Chicago which involved many violations of law enforcement ethics:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-border-patrol-raid-sweeps-citizens-families-chicago-crackdown-intensifies-2025-10-04/

This is an article about “bright lines.”  It was written by a Christian writer and researcher whom I appreciate, Robert P. Jones.

https://open.substack.com/pub/robertpjones/p/all-the-bright-lines-behind-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Trail West Dispatch #4

Trail West Dispatch #4                                                                      September 27, 2025

“Take responsibility for the face of the world.  The symbols today enable the reality of tomorrow.  Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate.  Do not look away, and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself, and set an example for others to do so.”                                                    --Timothy Snyder

Making sense of these instructions for our time is challenging, even if we understand the two examples that Snyder used:  1.  On the way to collectivizing all farm property, Stalin’s government posters depicted wealthy farmers as pigs (thus destined for slaughter). 2.  On the way to having Jews sent to gas chambers, Hitler first imposed a label on all Jewish-owned businesses.  But what parallels do we have now in America?  Which faces of today’s world should we take responsibility for?

We find some help when we realize that the word “labels” could likely replace “symbols” as “signs of hate” in Snyder’s writing.  I remembered Arthur’s sentiments, when he said in church several years ago that he and others were trying hard to avoid using the term “homeless” when speaking of those they hoped to serve at the Coffee Corner. This serves as an example of what it means to take responsibility for the face of the world as it relates to people who lack housing. To some, “homeless” means “evil or unworthy.”

Consider these recent events as an illustration of the harm that can come to people who have been indicted by their “homeless” label.  In Washington, D. C. in August 2025, it began in earnest with words like this, coming from the chief executive of the US: "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY." "We will use every tool... to get the homeless off our streets." He called the city a "wasteland" of "tents, squalor, filth, and Crime". He linked the homeless to disorder by lumping them in with “drugged-out maniacs.”  After this, signs went up, and the National Guard and the bulldozers and garbage trucks went to work.  The White House now boasts of having “already purged roughly 70 tent encampments from the Washington area,” adding the warning that those who do not go to shelters “will face punishment in the form of fines and jail time.”  Jails and shelters are already overcrowded, and basic living expenses cannot be covered with funds from a fulltime minimum-wage job.  When we use the word “homeless” carelessly, some people will mentally connect the term with what has happened in D. C. and assume that we approve. 

The inhumane process that begins with labeling has been going on in the US far too long.  Examples:  Label immigrants as criminals, rapists, gang members, and vermin, and thus any brown or black person who speaks with an accent can be abducted without warrants—by people wearing masks and no identification, incarcerated in inhumane conditions with no access to legal counsel or the courts and no contact with their families, and finally, be disappeared or deported to unknown destinations.  Label occupants of small fishing boats as drug smugglers (Venezuelans), and the US miliary can destroy them with missiles, leaving no evidence behind.  Label comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show as making "a major illegal campaign contribution" and his media host faces a lawsuit and threats of having their FCC license revoked.  Label a former FBI chief (James Comey) a “dirty cop” because he uncovered evidence of Russian campaign interference, and an indictment follows, along with “I hope there will be many others.” Label any person or group as a criminal or terrorist or being guilty of defamation--if they are perceived as an enemy, and the force of law (or at least an executive order) can be brought down on that person or group.  Antifa (anti-fascist) is the latest example, despite no organized group like that existing. 

Christians know that love is paramount, and using labels that intend harm is not loving.  Furthermore, when we internalize dehumanizing labels, our conscience is damaged, and Jesus’ name suffers reproach.

Page 2

Note:  I am not committed to making a second page a regular feature of this column, but I didn’t want anyone to miss out on the article linked here, written by a member of our church’s leadership team.  Feel free to alert me if you’d like to highlight your own writing or you’d like to elevate the writing of someone else.

***********

Here is a recent article written by Ellis Miller, shared here by permission.  https://tinyurl.com/MourningKirkAndAnabaptists

Trail West Dispatch #3

 

Trail West Dispatch #3                                                                     September 20, 2025

“Beware the one-party state.  The parties that remade states and suppressed rivals were not omnipotent from the start.  They exploited a historic moment to make political life impossible for their opponents.  So support the multi-party system and defend the rules of democratic elections. . ..”             –Timothy Snyder

How can people who eschew partisan politics support the multi-party system?  How can they defend the rules of democratic elections?  What does it look like for political life to become “impossible?”  Perhaps a needful first step is to understand how a one-party state looks and what is at stake when one party in a nation controls all the major levers of power.  Consider that many authoritarian states have come into being via elections resulting in one-party control of the government. In the absence of a moral compass, many checks and balances can fall. I believe this is the reason for Snyder’s caution. 

In the US, a one-party state might look exactly like what we have now since the president’s party has a majority in both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court.  The Judicial Branch has historically not been included when the US has been described as temporarily being a one-party state—because it was believed to be largely non-partisan.  That assumption probably needs to change, however, because of a significant ruling issued on July 1, 2024 about the January 6 insurrection, which gave the president immunity from criminal prosecution for most actions taken while in office. Among those who lamented this decision which seemed to suggest that the president can commit crimes with impunity were some of the most respected conservative lawyers in the country.  For this ruling and for other reasons (e. g. partisan manipulation of the appointment process), the Supreme Court is widely regarded as having lost its non-partisan characteristic.  The nine members of the court are made up of a 6-3 conservative majority.

While one-party control of the executive and legislative branches is not a new phenomenon, partisan divisions have sharpened markedly in the 21^st Century.  I concur with others who see that bipartisan support for congressional action is increasingly rare, as are decisions made with moral clarity to benefit the common good. Party loyalty too often reigns supreme. Also, under this regime, many government servants formerly considered non-partisan because they served administrations from both major parties (ambassadors, for example) have been replaced by loyalists.  This extends the reach of the party in power.

Every political figure is created in the image of God, and is thus deserving of respect, but remember that the entire political arena has minimal overlap with the Kingdom of God. While a political entity might at times do the right thing, none can consistently do God’s will. Unwavering loyalty to it is thus a mistake. 

Instead, keep on showing up on the side of right conduct, even when it antagonizes the party in power, praying for courage to do this. Never justify hatred or violence or consider anyone deserving of them.

Be a discerning witness.  Are the rules of democratic elections being defended?  Is political life becoming impossible for one party?  Observe carefully, document data if necessary, compare observations with Scriptural imperatives and Jesus’ example, praying as Jesus taught us to pray.  If you speak about what you see, do so honestly, even if it means naming wrongdoing in people who are part of the party with which you identify most readily—and sometimes even if it means kindly countering your friends and family.  Being peaceable is important, but saying “peace, peace when there is no peace” is neither righteous nor just—two concepts that are often paired in Scripture.

“. . . Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. . ..”                  --Miriam Iwashige

Trail West Dispatch #2

 

Trail West Dispatch #2                                                                       September 13, 2025

“Defend Institutions.  It is institutions that help us to preserve decency.  They need our help as well. . .. Institutions do not protect themselves.  They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning.  So choose an institution you care about . . . and take its side.”           --Timothy Snyder                                                                                                         

Churches, marriages, families, banks, courts, and media outlets all either represent organizations or long-standing established practices and traditions, thus fitting the definition of “institution.”  None of us could thrive in a society without institutions because chaos would prevail.  What happens after they have already failed is a topic for another column, but keeping institutions alive is today’s focus.

At the behest of the US government, many institutions are currently under attack.  Media outlets and universities that are critical of the regime are sued, and often the target settles out of court by capitulating.  Private companies that want government contracts have been asked to sign over a percentage of the company’s ownership under the terms of the contract.  Government-run agencies like prisons and social services are increasingly placed into the hands of for-profit companies.  Election interferences and gerrymandering are stripping away power from large groups of citizens.  Entire government departments and agencies are eliminated, and others are diminished to the point of being ineffective. The promised cost savings have yet to materialize.  In some cities in Democratic states, local law enforcement officials are being pushed aside by federal military personnel who take charge. 

If any of these attacks on institutions ever provoke a violent confrontation, almost certainly the federal government will use it as a pretext for a major crackdown.  This pattern of humbling or smacking down institutions reflects what has arguably happened in every nation that has descended into tyranny.  For that reason alone, this trend should concern us, but the bigger reason for concern is the suffering that is inflicted on innocent people when these institutions no longer function to serve the common good.

Snyder apparently believes that seeking justice through the courts is necessary if institutions are to be defended.  This is likely consistent with his Quaker upbringing, but less so for us.  Indeed, judicial institutions are often cited currently as the best hope for stemming the tide of an authoritarian takeover, but court action is usually slow, and the outcome is uncertain.  Lawmaking bodies like Congress could help hold back the downhill slide, but the will of the majority in Congress to do so is lacking. 

“We the people” is frequently cited as another hope for stemming the march toward authoritarianism. Many of us, however, look at the enormity of the task of defending institutions and feel that our efforts will make no difference.  Paralysis can set in.  A better way is to do whatever small thing that is in our power to do.  Coupled with prayer and great faith, these acts can bring about significant change.  Start close to home, in families, churches, and communities. Pay for subscriptions to the work of truth tellers and buy from local farms and businesses.  Visit public parks and thank everyone who serves the public.

Most importantly, pray. Atypical prayers won’t shock our Heavenly Father.  Sample: “Lord, please seal our lips if we are ever tempted to justify the destruction of good institutions.  Please keep the US Postal Service and the National Weather Service afloat, and help the government to be able to keep people safe and to protect public health.  We pray that roads would be repaired when needed and that the electricity would stay on.  Keep safeguards in place to keep the country from going to war or from attacking its own people.  Help the government to prioritize good stewardship of natural resources—above short-term financial gain for powerful business interests. We pray that small hospitals could stay open and that everyone who works hard could make a decent living, especially those who provide food, clothing, or shelter for others.  We pray that social services would function well to provide aid to those in need, both here and abroad.  Please make decent housing affordable.  Protect people of faith from interference with the free exercise of it.  In every place, in the media, in universities, in museums and libraries, in independent journalism, allow truth and righteousness to prevail over lies and evil.”   –Miriam Iwashige

Trail West Dispatch #1

Here is the first column in the Trail West Dispatch series.  The target audience is people who attend the same church as I do.  I just sent out the fifth column, and am posting previous columns here in case late subscribers wish to read columns they missed when they were initially published.  

In an introductory letter to people at church, I wrote that the first number of columns will draw writing prompts from chapter titles in Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny.  New columns typically publish on Saturday evening.

*************

Trail West Dispatch #1                                                                       September 6, 2025

“Do not obey in advance.  Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.  In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.” -Timothy Snyder

Most of us understand that a Democracy or a Republic is a government that differs from Communism (Russia), pre-WW2 Fascism (Italy), Nazism (Germany) and Imperialism (Japan).  “Tyranny” is a feature of every government system in the second list.  It is a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.  None of us idealizes tyrannical forms of government.  They violate Christian norms on every hand, and often cause great suffering.  Yet, the United States looks less and less like the Democratic Republic envisioned and installed by the founders; and it has a growing number of tyrannical features. Timothy Snyder wants us to resist this trend, which he summarizes under the term “authoritarianism.”

“Do not obey in advance” sounds like good advice, and certainly seems like a better option than resisting the trend by breaking existing laws.   Acting on several related imperatives seems even better–all of which can be pursued outside of any kind of government structures without breaking laws.  
1.  Decide in advance that only God will have your absolute loyalty and obedience.  
2.  Do not try to ingratiate yourselves in any way with a corrupt ruler, including by obeying in advance.
3.  Never excuse or justify evil, especially when it occurs in the pursuit of power.  
4.  Seek to bring about change by loving and serving the people around you, as Jesus did.  
5.  Guard against “the deceitfulness of riches.”
6.  Pray.

The historical record from 1933-1945 does not cast the German Mennonites in a favorable light, partly because of how they failed in some of the above areas.  They chose loyalty to and complicity with Hitler, whose evil cruelty is legendary.  As Aryans (white non-Jewish), Mennonites were not in danger of being dehumanized and targeted for extermination.  Perhaps this favored racial identity gave them an inflated sense of their own virtue and entitlement, completely clouding their vision.

Germany had been humiliated and impoverished by being forced to pay steep reparations (for wartime destruction) after they were defeated in WW1.  Hitler was lawfully elected, promising to make the country prosperous and powerful again.  This appealed to the Mennonites, as it did to many other Germans.  Things fell apart swiftly, or came together beautifully, depending on one’s perspective. “[T]hrough constitutional means. . . Hitler systematically disabled and then dismantled his country’s democratic structures and processes” within 53 days. 

A group of Mennonites wrote a letter to Hitler in 1933, thanking him “for the powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy, and [they promised] joyful cooperation in the upbuilding of our Fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the motto of our forefathers: No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.”  

Hitler wrote back and thanked them “For your loyalty and your readiness to cooperate in the upbuilding of the German nation . . .”

Other Christians, Hutterites among them, did not fare well under Hitler.  Many of them fled Germany, and most of those left behind were persecuted.  I am not aware that Mennonites ever used their voice to reprove Hitler or to defend the Jews, some of whom died near the homes and fields of German Mennonites, either in concentration camps or in portable gas chamber vans that traveled throughout the countryside.  This sobering record of complicity with an evil ruler, which was fueled by a desire for prosperity, prominence, and power should prompt deep reflection and humility for the American Mennonites of 2025.