The Pyramid Must Fall


On Politics, Micro-Politics, and Internal Politics
January 17, 2011, 8:06 pm
Filed under: revolution | Tags: , ,

This is in response to a post called “On Changing Our World: Affective Activism Means Understanding the Nature of Our Many Problems” by Jeremy Weiland. I suggest you go over there and read that and then coming back, so that this makes some modicum of sense to you.

internal

 

I started this off as a comment response on your blog, but your blog hates me, for one, and it obviously quickly grew too long to post there anyway. So, I’m posting it here, independently, so others can read it and so that you can read it more easily. So, here goes…

You’re casting non-violent sanctions as something aggressive and, in a certain sense, violent. A truly non-violent sanction one has against the beliefs of another is education. When you educate someone as to the flaws of a certain belief, they are more prone to no longer believing it. That, more than anything, is the left’s non-violent sanction. More than non-violent, it is good-natured. Education is an altruistic thing to do for somebody. It makes them more knowledgeable, their quality of life better, and the same for those around them.

I also disagree with your description of politics. Some left political activism may orient itself toward institutions, but mainly for the purpose of ending institutional discrimination. Notice, I didn’t say ending discrimination. I said ending institutional discrimination; making institutions more universal, as opposed to favoring and disfavoring certain groups. The same cannot be said for right-wing political activism, which most often has the goal of increasing institutional discrimination.

It’s important to be able to see what role discrimination plays in economics. For example, you’re a lowly employee; therefore you’re not an owner. That’s discrimination as it provides special privileges to entrepreneur-labor/capital and investor-capital that it doesn’t provide to worker labor/capital. In other words, worker-labor doesn’t go toward buying anything; it just goes toward the “owner’s” pockets. Ending these special privileges in government is tantamount to ending special privileges once bestowed to whites, or men, or property owners. So, one must ask why certain activists orient themselves toward institutions. It’s not always about harnessing power; sometimes it’s about dismantling power.

Also, remember, I started that last paragraph off with a correction. I said some left political activism is oriented toward institutions; not all. Some is actually directed toward individuals. That may seem counter-intuitive to some, but it’s true. What discrimination exists not on the institutional level must be combated somehow, right? This is called micro-politics. It was established long ago in the essay “The Personal is Political” by Carol Hanisch.

The culture is a kind of informal institution itself, is it not? It’s a kind of exo-institution that exists only in our collective minds and behaviors. That can be changed, too, through non-violence. Carol defines politics as “having to do with power relationships” in that essay, and that is what politics is to me.

I think our main disagreement is our differing definitions of politics. I don’t see it as being so narrow and specific as you do. I see it in the broad context of power relationships. Nazis represent a certain threat to society. They seek to use force on the general population to establish and maintain their preferred society. So is this not a political issue? Certain people want to seize power and change society in ways the populace wouldn’t of its own free accord. They feel powerless to make the populace adopt their values and opinions, but that can be seen as their values and opinions having flaws that only they cannot see. I think this is the situation Marxists are in. Maybe even anarchists. Although, sometimes it’s just a situation of having no exposure. And I think this is even something the worst fascists tell themselves; it’s just a lack of exposure, not repudiation. With hierarchy comes exposure but with exposure doesn’t always come hierarchy, if you get what I mean.

That’s not to say that minorities are never right and majorities are never wrong. It’s not about that. It’s about values and, like you said, there is more informing their values than rationality. There is subconscious conceptions of freedom, self-interest, abstract or philosophical ideas about the direction civilization, history, culture, humankind is supposed to go in, etc.

It may sound weird, but even individuals can be seen as institutions. They’re institutions on the micro-level. Their whole philosophy is an institution in their mind. But removing the discrimination from the institution of a person’s mind is not the same as removing it from the institution of an IRL government. You have to rally the left political forces in their minds to go up into their moral-legal “system” and change the rules that govern them. This is starting to sound a bit like the movie Inception, but it should be less deceptive than what they did in that movie, and of course less literal. You don’t have to go into their subconscious with a machine. You just have to appeal socially to the left political forces inside of them. Some people are right-wing dictatorships in their minds, brutalizing every internal occurrence of anti-discriminatory politics/values. That is, admittedly, a problem, but it is in the nature of hierarchy that the minority is ruling. So one can assume there is a leftist revolutionary class in their minds, waiting to overthrow the totalitarian governing them. For some, internal violent conflict is the only option and we have to spark that unrest/strife.

I agree with you that it’s a slow, hard process. But when you reject assuming hierarchy as an option, you take on this reality. You choose to affect people only so far as they choose to be affected. That is not to say that your endeavor will not be popular, though. It may indeed go viral and change the culture and individuals that way. But hierarchy is when violence is used to establish and/or maintain relevance in a culture. More than being open and honest and using a light touch, we must have the skills for it; which is why we must learn how our language sabotages us at every turn.



Conservative Mysticism, the Market Gods, and the Ownership Club
September 27, 2010, 11:18 am
Filed under: America, socialism | Tags: , , , , ,

I’m tired of modern conservative language passing as acceptable in the political conversation.

Terms like “big government” and “the size of government” have no place in an honest political discussion. It has been tolerated for much too long. It’s a con contrived by conservative strategists to tilt the table in their favor. This language goes under the radar. No one questions it. No one calls it for what it is, so it’s allowed to pollute the discourse and infect people with conservative ideas without them realizing it. This language is the agent that transmits the virus.

George Orwell, in his essay Why I Write, eviscerated the political language of his day, among other things. He stated that his main reasons for writing were to further the cause of democratic socialism and to halt the decay of our language; our political language in particular. Perhaps the most famous quote from the essay was this:

” Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

How is that not what modern conservative political language does? Conservatives engage in a kind of mysticism where they talk about government as though it’s some kind of substance; some kind of solid or liquid. They’ve made a metaphor into something to be taken literally. What is government made out of? What does it look like? What is its consistency? Where is it located? How do you measure its size? What’s the unit of measurement? Can we measure it scientifically? If not, how do we know when it’s too big? When our politicians say so on the campaign stump? Are they our only source of knowledge about “government’s size”? If so, then conservatism is a religion and they are the holy men speaking on behalf of the Market Gods.

Who are the Market Gods, you ask? The Market Gods are the people who tell the conservative  pundits and politicians that the Devil is too powerful; the government is too “Big”. In truth, they’re not gods at all, though they may act like they are. This process is otherwise known as corruption.

When pundits and politicians get out there and start talking about “the size of big government”, they’re acting as the delegates of business owners. Why this should be so scary is because business owners, through this process of sending out representatives, take this country away from regular, non-business owning Americans. They trick people into equating their interests and our interests; the company’s interests and the employee’s interests. And that’s dangerous because the interests of the haves and the have nots are not the same and never have been. Ownership is not something people share. It’s not a club they want more people in. The less people in the club, the better, as far as they’re concerned. Less people in the Ownership Club means more for them to own.

“Big” is an umbrella term for everything about the current laws that they dislike; most of which should not scare regular Americans one bit. All kinds of things could be considered “Big Government” to them; anti-slavery laws, anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, zoning laws, the tax code. The Market Gods are not citizens, you see. They’re super-citizens. They’re more important than non-business owning Americans because they’re more powerful than non-business owning Americans. They have private power whereas we only have public power.

People who speak on their behalf will continue to market themselves as closer to God than the rest of us; so we should trust them. When they say that government is too “Big”, we should trust them. When it’s infringing on (corporate non-) “personal liberty”, we should trust them, because that’s what the Market Gods are telling them; these pundits; these clerics in the church of conservatism. And if we don’t listen, they’ll punish us by intentionally sabotaging the national market, which they control. Their political language is nothing more than a coded system of threats, you see. We acquiesce because we’re scared, not because America’s owners are morally right. Their stranglehold is the result of coercion.

To the rest of us, the government infringes on our liberty when it limits us as non-business owners; when it stifles our humanity. Being a business owner should not be seen as the objective of citizenship. Citizenship is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The government should not be seen as a vehicle for accumulating private power. Citizenship, with everything it entails, should be seen as the only kind of power there is. It’s the only kind of just power in existence; designed to be equal, secular, participative, and public.

Humanity has spent centuries trying to define justice. Americans need to rededicate themselves to this pursuit. Modernism is a neatly packaged coup d’état we were hit with sometime in the last century when the Market Gods started accumulating all of their power. Postmodernism and neotraditionalism are deeply anti-conservative ideologies that eschew the abandonment of the pursuit of defining and securing justice. One can think of Modernism as an intense Americanization. Connection with the Old World, and thus history, fades. All of the Old World’s anti-authoritarian struggles are abandoned. The American right is born. It has formed it’s own identity, it’s own method of sustaining itself. The American people are not accustomed to fighting authority inside their own society. They’re not familiar with the idea that American society isn’t homogeneous and undivided; with a singular interest. They’re not conditioned to sniff out political language that manipulates public perception in order to consolidate private power. Conservative mysticism is contaminating our minds; even those on the left.

We’ve yet to declare sovereignty from the Market Gods and abandon business ownership as the objective of citizenship. We’re not a libertarian people. Authoritarianism has been made synonymous with the American identity. This century will be spent rediscovering the anti-authoritarianism inherent in being human and clashing with perhaps the most powerful authority in the history of the world; the American Ownership Club.



We’re Not Radicals
May 14, 2010, 1:19 pm
Filed under: revolution | Tags: , , ,

If we buy into how we’re portrayed, then we’ll just become stereotypes of how the people that hate us see us. We’ll become the anarchist equivalent of the n-word; offensive, prejudiced caricatures. We might embrace this image just because we hate them back and it feels good to be something so loathed by them, but what it does is allow them to dictate our image; our nature. It makes what we’re doing feel less real, less practical, less of a serious threat to their order.

We shouldn’t let them cast us as Molotov-throwing hooligan clowns. We’re not a joke. We’re not joking. We’re sober intellectuals. We’re adults. We’re the responsible, civilized contingent of society. They are the criminals. They are the troublemakers, not us. We’re the ones who care about maintaining a respectful, sane, orderly, mature society. They support slavery.

Don’t be ashamed to claim what is rightfully ours; the role of responsible adults. They are the children, we are the parents. All of the paraphernalia, the propaganda, the art, the style of dress, the anarchist “culture”, the anarchist “aesthetic theory”, the rebel persona… all of that is just tinsel. It has very little to do with actual anarchism. It’s probably all the product of marketing anyway.

Anarchism is something any responsible adult should be able to embrace. The only reason anarchist society is radicalized is because we are occupied by a hostile force. They refuse to stop exploiting us. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be, because, underneath it all, we’re not radicals. We’re not shock jocks. We just want people to be able to live their lives freely, peacefully, and equally. Fascists are the ones killing all our buzzes; unwanted; trolling humanity like an occupier, then marginalizing us when we get sick of it.

I guess my point is this: don’t embrace the image you’re portrayed as. Don’t expect others to do so and don’t feel any pressure to do so. I’m a normal-looking guy who wears normal-looking clothes. I don’t have any peircings or tattoos. My haircut is completely regular. I’m a normal person. I just happen to be an anarchist.



De-centralize the State!
November 10, 2009, 11:56 am
Filed under: America, revolution | Tags: , , , , , ,

photo-post-21

No one can be expected to see it all. No one can be expected to see how far we’ve come in such a short amount of time, but one can be expected to see the direction we are going in. Wealthy white male privilege is being challenged. We’ve been challenging it for years, decades, centuries… and one should expect we will continue to challenge it. Now, what does this mean?

Grab your remote control and switch on your television. Most likely the news shows you see will be about wealthy white male rule. If not, then about wealthy white rule. If not, then about wealthy rule. Or maybe they’ll avoid the topic altogether, which just tells you something about the nature of the channel you’re watching. We’re challenging each and every property of that description — wealth, race, and sex — and replacing it with the idea that neither of those deserve the kind of privilege afforded it by our society today. This is a thoroughly dangerous idea, for the group of individuals which fit that description have been in the driver’s seat of our civilization for as long as any of us can remember. They’ve responded violently in order to suppress any dissent. High-power water hoses and white hoods come to mind. But those actions have only backfired. It has only served to whittle away at their legitimacy in the public mind. So they have to pretend that they’re not in control. That’s how they maintain it now.

But we’re smarter than that. They try to drug us with soma; plant seeds of escapism in our minds. It’s tantamount to a burglar waving a chew toy to distract a guard dog whose hair is standing up on his back and whose teeth and gums are showing. We’re not going to let their entertainment distract us. We’re not going to let them convince us they’re not still in charge. It’s not hard to see that they are.

So, the challenge now is to detect their chew toys, and to re-focus our eyes on the burglar in the house. What is he doing now? Waging wars for oil, natural gas pipelines and poppies? You bet. Cheering the fastest drop in “labor costs” since 1948? You bet. The veins of the poor are still open and the rich are still sucking every ounce of blood they can from them. They pit the poor against the poor for the benefit of the rich through concepts like terrorism. What did they call the Cuban or Brazilian peasants who revolted against enslavement and sugar monoculture? Terrorists or communists, I suppose. Then they commenced to hunt them down and decapitate them, or cut pregnant women’s bellies open, or skewer their children on their bayonets only to return to the wealthy white male/s who had ordered it with bags of severed ears as proof that they did what they were told. They followed the orders. No doubt that soldier had a hard time making ends meet himself.

Enough. We need to take our eyes off the things that are keeping us distracted and finally recognize the truly radical nature of the doctrine that all humans are created equal and that political legitimacy is truly dependent upon the consent of the governed. And manufactured consent is no consent at all.

To see the arch of history is to see a continual progression toward the de-centralization of illegitimate power.  Whatever takes us even further in this direction should be seen as a positive development. As a writer for the upcoming political documentary Dear America: From Patriotism to Participation, I see the arch of history like never before. Illegitimate authority has taken some hard hits to the face thus far. What we have is a woozy opponent. We shouldn’t let his erratic dancing in the ring fool us into thinking he’s still the all-powerful opponent he was when we began this fight. And we must snap out of the hypnosis he has put us in and realize that we are — this generation is — still locked in a fight with this entity. Our tag team partners (the generations before us) threw punches that were hard and true. A few more blows, and he could be on the mat, down for the count, forever.

The National Initiative for Democracy represents the hardest, most accurate and true punch we can possibly throw at this point. A law-making populace — rather than a vulnerable group of his law-making buddies — neutralizes what flimsy power of his remains.

That is why I beg that you see things in the larger perspective, see the National Initiative as it relates to the rest of history, overcome the mentality that benefits them most, and contribute to the making of an explanatory documentary about the National Initiative for Democracy. Whether or not we pass it into law or not doesn’t matter so much. This documentary seeks to explain to people the arch of history — that we are still battling this illegitimate authority — and that’s something that could overflow into all other areas of life, and possibly spur the greatest mass movement in the history of humanity; the final overthrow of wealthy white male privilege.

We’re going to do this fucking thing. I want to hit him so hard, but I need you. Please, help us in this effort. Go to our website and there you can read more about this documentary and contribute. Freedom is defined as “participation in power”. So, ask yourself, are you free? Wake up, slave. Escape.



On the Demonization and the Misuse of Testosterone
October 7, 2009, 8:34 am
Filed under: masculinity | Tags: , , ,

hubschrauberg

Encountering an individual with high levels of testosterone may make you slump down in your chair or slink away slowly or recoil a bit mentally or emotionally. It’s a “fight or flight” response by our bodies and minds to what we may perceive as an increasingly dangerous situation. The supposition is that testosterone is the cause of violence. While this is warranted, it’s also slightly unfair. That is, if those two conditions aren’t contradictory. Testosterone is a hormone. It’s the hormone that creates maleness. We’re all, in fact, female before it’s introduction. Often its overabundance results in irrationality and savagery, but it doesn’t have to. Nor is the existence of testosterone a bad thing. It pains me greatly that I even have to say that.

What would art be if we didn’t come at it with a fire and ferocity and an inebriated zeal? What else allows us to achieve that creative richness and intensity? Oftentimes, a wealth of testosterone manifests itself in the form of meticulousness or dedication. And this isn’t only in the arts, but in the sciences, too. Testosterone is in many ways responsible for the beauty and richness of our culture today.

OK, maybe testosterone and estrogen aren’t each one half of some universal cosmic duality. Maybe they’re just two specific Earthly hormones developed to aid in our survival, but they’re both useful and beautiful. Testosterone is all too often used incorrectly. It manifests itself destructively instead of constructively. We fail to see that one is linked to the other. After all, what is creation but destruction of non-creation? Horror vacui, right? Nature abhors a vacuum. What’s wrong with aggression toward a dearth of beauty?

Just like people have different things they consider their anti-drug (which are really just non-harmful substitute drugs/addictions), people need things they consider their anti-violence. As a male with increased levels of testosterone, art is my anti-violence. It’s really just a non-harmful substitute violence. It’s a place for me to direct my aggression. I direct my aggression toward non-creation, in consideration for the creation that exists to date.

This realization acts as an emancipation of testosterone.

submit to reddit



Yellow is the New Red
September 30, 2009, 10:43 pm
Filed under: America | Tags: , , , , , , ,

World_Yellow

Perhaps this is long overdue. Perhaps the timing is just right. There is a group of people who have conspired since time immemorial; conspired against all of us. They walk amongst us in our communities. They smile at us and shake our hands. But in reality, they live sick double lives. Their plots are some of the most wretched and ruthless ever to be hatched. The number of lives they’ve claimed is astronomical. But who these actors are is still poorly understood. There’s nothing to differentiate them from the regular population. They want to take down the U.S. government and they’ve nearly succeeded before, as they have with others. They’re as strong now as they’ve ever been, and their numbers rank in the millions. If the fabric of society does not hold and unite against this threat, they could win. They’ve made incredible gains thus far and they won’t rest until their goals are achieved.

The good news is that we’ve beaten them before. History is riddled with instances of us beating them. The number of forms this threat comes in is many. Their aim, though, remains the same: the overthrow of governments and concentration of power in their hands. I talk, of course, of free market libertarians.

The name is intentionally misleading. Calling the unregulated market “free” is a misnomer. It shouldn’t be called that. The freedom to exploit and enslave is not just freedom. It’s also exploitation and slavery. It would be more accurate to call it the slave market; for that’s what it contains, without exception. But history is against these people. Generations upon generations of human beings have fought and died in the war against them. There is no Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the world they seek to create. Such a document is seen, by them, as an impediment to freedom, rather than a guarantor of it. That really says it all, does it not?

What they’ve done is, for the umpteenth time, re-invented a maligned ideology and rebranded it, giving it a veneer of moral importance. What they’ve done is shoved an army into a wooden horse, slipped a razor blade into a piece of candy. They’ll tell you it’s just a horse, it’s just a piece of candy, but it’s not. It’s really just an army, just a razor blade. The veneer doesn’t matter. It’s what’s inside that counts, for what’s inside is most impactful.

Regular twenty-first century people see there being no valid reason to ever eliminate the law prohibiting discrimination, or assault, or rape, or slavery, or murder. We’re not concerned with discriminator’s rights, or slave-owner’s rights because we have an accurately ethical understanding of the concept of human rights. Yours end where someone else’s begin, and no matter how convincing you are, that doesn’t give you the right to mistreat someone. No matter how gullible, unintelligent, or unassuming someone may be, that doesn’t give you the right to do them harm.

Free market libertarians are people who wish to do away with every law passed by every public institution in the world. They’re internationalists, in this regard. To them, the only valid laws are those passed by contractual agreement in the private sector. Who would enforce these contracts, or enforce the contract with the contract enforcer, no one knows, and they hardly care. As I said before, this is a plot; a conspiracy. They continue to believe they will find some ultimate kernel of logic in this illogical theory of human interaction that will negate and justify the cornucopia of injustice that will follow as a result of the application of their suggestions.

Slavery is implied any time they use the word liberty. Don’t be fooled. They are against the public institution itself. They are enemies of the United States government, and of every government. They are against the justice we know is a result of it, and not just the injustice. They would throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get a perfectly empty tub.

Of course, government is a medium of human interaction that can be used for great ills and to the great detriment of others and, on occasion, we may see fit to eliminate it in favor of another, better one. But we do not see good reason to eliminate government without replacing it with another. They do.

They see the will of the people as interference into their private matters, no matter what their private matters are. They openly ask what right the government has to tax them; a direct challenge of the government’s jurisdiction and legitimacy and we should treat it as such instead of calling it something it’s not; patriotic.

For the longest time, God has been the missing kernel of logic necessary for their theory to work, but as of late, this insurgence has become secularized, and differentiated from the political right wing. Still, the truth is that the right wing in American politics is nothing more than an infiltration; a plot to destroy the government. They use phrases like “small government” as way to appease those who wish for the complete abolishment of the United States itself in favor of something else or nothing at all. That we have tolerated their incursion is a failure as a nation.

They pervert the Constitution and reject most Supreme Court rulings. They state that most U.S. laws are unconstitutional and advocate for the complete dismantling of all governmental agencies. What is this but a plot? What is this but a conspiracy? They don’t use bombs and they don’t use guns (though this is debatable), but haven’t they threatened to? Don’t they do so on a daily basis?

I call this threat “the yellow scare”.

An unfortunate reality is that there has been a sort of unofficial alliance with these people on the part of those with a little black on their red flag, thinking the black unites them in a common cause. It doesn’t. Nor is the all-black flag an identifiable entity unto itself. It’s only coherent in conjunction with another color. The accompanying color changes the nature of that black. These bi-colored flags are not the merger of anarchism and something else. They are differing forms of anarchism. Note, I didn’t say ‘antistatism’, I said ‘anarchism’, which means “no-leader-ism”. Not having leaders is doable under the American system. Anti-statism, on the other hand, is anti-American by definition.

The yellow and black flag aims to eliminate leaders through competition. The red and black flag aims to eliminate leaders through cooperation; presumably democratically. The arch of history favors the red and black flag, seeing it as the most pure and moral. On this flag, the black exists for the right reasons; not the elimination of authority due to that authority being a competitor, but because authoritarianism is seen as unnecessary in the operation of a harmonious society.

In broad terms, the red and black flag, used to designate libertarian* socialism, symbolizes the ethic of minimizing government’s leverage while maximizing its function. The yellow and black flag, used to designate free market libertarianism, symbolizes the ethic of maximizing government’s leverage while minimizing its function, likely eliminating it as a public entity. Either way, free market libertarians stand for increased militarization in order to defend the liberated against the oppressed. In other words, their conception of the state is the man with the gun who makes sure there’s no slave revolt and fends off any outside attempt to liberate the slaves (which they call “defending liberty”). Metaphorically speaking, the state’s job, in their eyes, is to execute Harriet Tubman. They invoke militarization in the name of the divine right of capital.

The yellow and black flag and the red and black flag have nothing in common. They are, in fact, polar opposites.

The cappies, the yellows, say that America is what was omitted from the Constitution; that, they feel, is its “spirit”. Most people, on the other hand, see the “spirit” of America as being what was included in the Constitution.

The cappies, the yellows, say the “spirit” of the institution is self-hate whereas the rest of us see the “spirit” of America as self-love; love of its preoccupation with justice and morality. Differently put, they see America as a guarantor of non-intervention even in the face of injustice whereas we see America as a guarantor of intervention in the face of injustice. So, which one is it? Which one is America’s spirit? Which one does history support?

I see more evidence for the latter conception. One need look no further than the ultimate gauge of this character, the Civil War.

Should we really be so surprised that this country is so polarized? Should we really be so surprised that our disagreement wasn’t so superficial so as to disappear over a span of 150 years? Is that really that long? We went to war. We were killing each other. And then, suddenly, it was over, and we were supposed to be able to live together after that.

In keeping with their ideology, these people would have you believe (at the same time) that the Union conquered the Confederacy strictly for economic reasons, and also not for economic reasons, because they would like you to believe that the North and South had the same political and economic philosophy. That’s very untrue, and the Union won.

If their flag is a yellow flag with a rattlesnake and the motto “don’t tread on me”, then our flag is a red flag with a mongoose and the motto “don’t tread on them”. Some people would prefer to ignore this American duality and refrain from using the language of “us and them” no matter how practical it is, but that’s ignoring the reality, and that’s never constructive. The facts must be faced. The Civil War never ended. It just came to Washington.

There is a rising yellow tide in this country, despite our victory in the Civil War. History has shown that America’s spirit is the red and black flag, not the yellow and black flag. We’ve already shown that that’s impossible. America’s flag is the red flag with the mongoose and the motto “don’t tread on them”. Perhaps the occupant of the White House is the best evidence of that. The yellow flag is the flag of insurrection. Perhaps Joe Wilson, U.S. Representative from South Carolina, having infiltrated the party of Lincoln**, the commander in chief during the Civil War, yelling out that the black president is a liar is the best evidence of that.

The spirit of America is socialist.

The yellow flag isn’t American, it’s Confederate.

The yellow scare is upon us.

There is reason to go on the offensive again. There are many they are treading on, still.

*This word, in this context, designates a logical conception of liberty; that being a balance of positive and negative rights.

** They killed Lincoln.

submit to reddit