I just want women to feel happy and realized without fear of oppression or the need to partake in political violence, but what the fuck do I know.
I feel that way about everyone.
Yep
Unfortunately we don’t get to live in that reality
I just want my “Thoughts and Prayers” to materialize without any effort.
On Monday, I was a liberal. On Wednesday, I became a leftist. I will not let my country slide into fascism without fighting back. I have a 73 year old mom who’s married to a woman. That woman is one of the most important people in my life. I’m 51 and have known her since I was 19. If anyone comes for them, there will be bloodshed.
Since you’re a new Leftist, I think you might be interested in my Read Theory, Darn it! introduction to Marxism reading list targeting new leftists. Let me know what you think if you check it out!
Solidarity, comrade.
❤️
Subscribe to this channel and join us!
welcome welcome.
Same here. I have a lot of people I care about in my life in the LGBTQ+ community. I’m armed and ready.
Since you’re a new Leftist, I think you might be interested in my Read Theory, Darn it! introduction to Marxism reading list targeting new leftists. Let me know what you think if you check it out! Getting armed is a good first step, the next is to read theory and get organized with your fellow comrades!
Not a new leftist myself, but I very much appreciate the post, and love what you’re doing. Plus, that gives me a couple more books to read. Cheers!
Ah, gotcha! You said “same” so I assumed that included the “new leftist” bit, my bad. Thanks for the kind words! Please feel free to leave any feedback you want on the post itself, it’s a living document that I intend on updating and tweaking as an easy-share link.
It’s both. Most people have no appetite or aptitude for political violence.
That’s just a difference in material conditions. We aren’t all at the same level of danger.
Until they eventually do
Aptitude is only discovered by doing, and most people don’t do a violence. So who knows how many savants are out there.
Who knows! But I do reject the claim that you can’t be a leftist unless you engage in political violence.
This is a very old controversy in Marxist circles, and it has been known to result in people getting shot. Make of that what you will.
As a Redneck who pulls most of his ideology from pre Marxism labor movements I propose we have those who do not fight smuggle, craft, feed, and heal.
Leftists are deluding themselves.
Just like I deluded myself that there was no way Trump could win a second term.
The second amendment was to defend Americans from tyranny. Trump is that. Use of force in self defense is justified.
“The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box. Use them in that order.”
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment
Tl;Dr the Constitutional Congress didn’t really believe in citizen militias providing a sufficient check on federal power. Some power, sure, but by and large the British armies destroyed the militias in the field, with only a few notable successes.
They did, however, recognize that they could serve as a rapid reaction force for wars against natives and putting down slave revolts until the real army showed up. And, of course, militias could be rolled into a professional army and retrained, like what happened with the Civil War.
That isn’t to say a genuinely popular revolt wouldn’t work, it’s just not what the 2nd was really about.
I am saving this.
It’s going to be less of an argument after the US readopts slave labor but knock yourself out!
For the US to readopt slavery, wouldn’t it have to give slavery up first? The thirteenth amendment specifically allows for the enslavement of prisoners. That’s a big part of the reason we put so many blacks in prison.
They’ll just make a whole lot of stuff illegal, selectively enforce those laws, and BOOM increase the prison slave population. Hell, the South did it after the Civil War to get it’s slave labor back, how hard would it be to do nationwide now.
… you’ve just described America as it is. The legal concept of loitering is exactly what you described and it’s so old you thought it was always around.
The US has openly practiced slavery for its entire history. Private slavery at that. Nationwide, with full support from all political parties in power.
The US has the largest slave population in the world. One of the largest in world history. That was before Trump.
That’s fair, but there’s at least some difference between chattel slavery and the prison industrial complex. If the traditionally inclined right wing “libertarian” voices that are the sorts of folks the Heritage Foundation hires have their way chattel slavery is back on the menu.
Oh I know, but I just want Trump and his fascists dead.
The second amendment was to defend Americans from tyranny.
Oh, give it a break.
2A legalized colonialist white supremacist violence against slave rebellions and native peoples. That’s it.
If it actually happened, I would happily support it. The system is working as it is intended by those with the money to manipulate it. It needs to come down.
I just don’t believe enough people really give a shit anymore.
They fucking re-elected him. We know who he is, what the GoP really is. And they still fucking elected him.
Because there wasn’t a real difference between trump and Harris. Those excited for Harris just voted for Trump.
Deluding themselves about what exactly?
Yes. Make them explain their words. Deluding how, exactly? Deluded that women would fight for their bodily autonomy? That doesn’t seem very delusional to me.
The percentage of white women voting for Trump says otherwise.
This may not come as a shock, but not all women are white women. Even they would come around eventually.
(this is only directed at the people who seem to have wanted Trump to win to “accelerate” the ushering in of a socialist society):
Deluding themselves about how often there isn’t a glorious revolution, and ongoing, armed resistance by the oppressed isn’t guaranteed.
Accelerationists have a weird hard-on for revolution, as if it’s easy-peasy to dismantle and replace all institutions all at once.
This socialist thinks we ought to fight tooth and nail via disruption/extra legal actions, implied threats of the power of the masses (in the same mould that workers won rights by threat), AND ideally within the system itself.
Because revolution is a roll of the dice.
leftists very much believed trump could win a second term primarily because neoliberals would drop the ball during the election. we were warning liberals all year.
Sounds like projection, doesn’t it?
Deluded ourselves that Americans have a spine?
You might be right, but I think better of my countrymen.
ITT: People who think “liberal” means any one single thing.
ITT: People who think “leftist” means any one single thing.
I mostly upvoted the meme for the energy.
“Liberal” can mean centrism, capitalism with a human face, capitalism with some socially progressive elements, etc.
“Leftist” can be anything from “liberal” (as the far-right likes to pretend left=evil), to any form of actual leftism, which also can range from libertarians to authoritarians, with the latter sometimes weirdly being pushed a lot by the right (Fidesz, the Hungarian far-right party masquerading as “moderate, center-right, christian democrats”, have paid off the election debts of Munkáspárt 2006, and now they’re one of their satellites).
I agree that women are not going back “into the bottle” as it were. There definitely are females out there opposed to women’s rights (especially reproductive and career rights). They will be opposed by a greater number of women + the men who want women to meaningfully participate in society. A nation that refuses to take women seriously ends up cutting their potential leadership, ideas, production, and so on basically in half. Already we see women planning how they are going to resist misogynistic policies, and maybe they don’t need my support as a Canadian man but they’ve got it.
FEEEEEEMALES!!!
? Is that a trigger word for you or something?
Dude, like. No. Stop digging.
I have no idea what’s going on with either of your responses (digging into what exactly?), but ok.
There definitely are females out there
The use of “females” here is objectifying, and generally frowned upon. Here’s a way to avoid this mistake in the future: replace “females” with the word “people” and if it works grammatically and in the context of what you’re saying (eg, you’re not talking about animals) then you should be using “women” instead of “females.”
Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. I didn’t know that, but I’m not going to stop using the word “female” for reasons I put in another post just above.
“Thanks for explaining why using this word in that way is problematic and makes the people it is attempting to describe uncomfortable, but I don’t actually give a shit and will continue to use it regardless” 🙄
I’m not telling you to stop using the word altogether, just trying to help you understand why some uses are inappropriate and will garner ire from others. It’s fine if you want to say “well that’s their problem” but alternatively you could try to have some empathy. Broadly speaking, being considerate of others rarely requires anything of you, and helps make the world a better place.
But if that’s asking too much, I understand.
Edit to add: this applies to the usage of “males” and “females” equally. By continuing to use this terms inappropriately, you’re not somehow promoting equality, you’re just being stubborn about using hurtful language.
I’ll bite. Referring to women as “females” is usually used by incels. Women, ladies, those are your safer bets.
Well, thank you for clarifying at least. I’m not changing the wording. Let me be clear, I’m definitely not blaming you for being helpful - I appreciate at least knowing. However, if someone reads my post supporting and valuing women and the thing they comment on is the word “female” as if that makes me an incel misogynist, then I don’t really care. I wrote a post in this thread about the radicalization of men, and I used the word “male” 4 times. 31 upvotes, no downvotes (at time of posting) and no one had issue with “male”.
I support women and I never ever use the actually pejorative terms, but I’m not stopping using the word female. Incels use the word “women” too all the time btw. There’s even the famous coffee meme that uses the word “women” and I hate it because I’m a gamer and it’s always used in gamer communities to mock women.
Edit: After thought and given how people seem upset, I won’t post on this forum anymore. I’m sure there are some who will think “Bye - no loss” and it’s their right to do so and tell me so if they want. I don’t like that my obvious intent was overridden by the use of a very common word and it feels like a minefield I’m not interested in navigating. That “female” is an ok adjective but a really offensive noun just seems odd, especially when the equally-misused “woman” is fine. Hateful people say words hatefully and if you let them claim words there won’t be any left. I’d never hear something like “males are being pulled to the extreme right” and wonder if they mean humans (aka dehumanizing). In a lifetime spent with female friends and decades on boards like Reddit and Lemmy this is the very first time it’s been an issue. I have other thoughts but they’re not helpful so I’ll just say adios.
P.S. I’ll keep on supporting women in other places. I believe strongly that the only ethical position is that a person be judged by their character, and determined fit for any role by their capabilities as opposed to genitalia, ethnicity, preferred sexuality, etc. Regardless of people telling me they know my beliefs better than I do, I actually know what I believe - biases of all kinds must be fought, especially now.
I’m a gamer
Yeah, saw that one coming.
Anyway, you can say “female” as an adjective all day. It’s the noun that has really icky nonhuman connotations.
coffee meme?
Your moral high ground eroded when you vociferously said it was everyone else who was wrong about the current connotation of the word.
Both can exist.
Yeah that’s the point - the two pictures show two types of people who both exist.
Yeah, and isn’t the series as a whole about her trying to go from A to B?
To me this is the right answer. Both always exist. I think people’s propensity to believe the oppressed will definitely pick up arms in the face of oppression are kidding themselves.
I I’m not sure why you felt that need to be said, it was the point wasn’t it?
40% of voting women support trump
Y’all are delusional
40% of voting women support trump
Necessarily that means most voting women did not vote Trump.
Except the fact that the women supporting maga is more likely to be gun nuts than the women supporting harris. They also have the military in control once Jan 20 comes.
We ain’t winning. They will massacre us. The US will have its own Tiannamen Square.
That’s a great point, women go by guns. An unarmed leftist is a vulnerable leftist.
Liberal and leftist are both very vague terms with several definitions that place them both in very different places in the political spectrum.
You should just use other, clearer terms.
These terms are rather well understood by leftists, it’s only liberals who think they mean the same thing.
No, conservatives think that. Liberal doesn’t mean what leftists desperately want it to mean; neoliberal
Conservatives, liberals, and neoliberals are all just subtypes of the classical liberal.
You forgot progressives, too.
I see leftist as Revolutionary. The resistance. Quite honestly, I loved nazi hunter stories growing up and stories of the resistance movements and operations to smuggle the vulnerable to safety. I will be a part of it this time around.
What is so vague about them?
They seem perfectly clear-cut to me.
Some people think liberal is right-wing, just not extreme (for example, liberal party of Quebec)
Some people think liberal is centrist. (For example, liberal party of Canada)
Some people think liberal is some sort of wide category including everyone left of center.
As for leftist, some people think it means anything left of center.
Others think it means left-wing, but more so than center-left.
Others yet think it refers only to the most left-wing of political opinions, including communists, anarcho-communists, and adjacent ideologies.
And even “center” is a vague term to begin with. What passes as center in the US is decidedly right-wing in other countries.
Some people think liberal is right-wing, just not extreme
What can possibly be more extreme than being pro-capitalist? Even a fascist can be made to admit that there is more to water than merely it’s market value.
And even “center” is a vague term to begin with.
That’s the whole point of “centrism” - vagueness. You can hide all kinds of right-wing garbage under “centrism.”
I guess I have trouble groking the difference between “liberal” and “leftist”.
Could someone summarize?
Leftists HATE capitalism. They want to replace it altogether with some alternative economic system (market socialism, planned economy or a combination of the two) depending upon the type of leftist. Differences in leftists also exist based on the HOW of replacing capitalism (violent revolution, democratic reformation and so on).
Liberals ARE NOT leftists. Liberals believe that capitalism, with all its flaws is still the least bad economic system. They recognise some flaws of the free market and think that capitalism must be regulated to a certain extent by the government.
So again, all leftists HATE capitalism. Liberals dislike a free market, but think that regulated capitalism is the least bad form of governance.
Note: I know you didn’t ask this, but just wanted to clarify - capitalism ≠ market. There’s a large group of leftists called “market socialists” who want a market without the means of production owned privately.
So which ones don’t want abortions to be banned because Romans nailed a guy to a cross?
Liberals and leftists both don’t want encroachment of the state into personal matters. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.
Now, what we refer to as the “far right” wish for expansion of the state for “moral policing”, to conserve traditional values and so on. That includes banning abortions.
Yup. While left and right are vastly different, one thing that’s consistent between them is “[whatever] is not evil when WE do it.”
You find hypocrites in all groups. That’s what I meant when I referred to exceptions. However, if u look at raw ideology, liberals and leftists don’t want to encroach in personal matters, while conservatives most definitely do.
That’s not my experience at all - I see freedom-loving conservatives constantly propose to restrict freedoms, and liberals constantly criticize the imperfections in each other’s liberalness. “Live and let live” is a very rare attitude.
That’s kinda iffy. Liberals are still on the left, why should leftist be delegated only to democracy haters? It’s basically making a special definition that isn’t used on any common level
That’s a horrible misunderstanding of liberalism and leftism. Socialism is more democratic than Capitalism because it extends democratic control to production itself.
Ronald Reagan was a neo liberal. Would you consider him a leftist?
Also, leftists are not democracy haters. Different groups of leftists have different stances on democracy. Anarchists for example, hate the idea of a state altogether (doesn’t matter if it’s democratic or not). Market socialists want to expand democracy in the economic sphere as well, with the help of cooperatives (be it worker, consumer, hybrid and so on).
Marxist Leninists are a group of leftists that you could say are anti democracy (in the context that you are referring to). MLs believe that a revolution must be led by a vanguard party, i.e., a group of intellectuals, and smart people who truly understand Marxist theory. This vanguard party would form a state, create material conditions for democracy (educate the uneducated, or people brainwashed by capitalists). After the material conditions are created, you can achieve democracy and all associated nice things. Remember, this is in the context of violent revolutions, like the ones that took place in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and so on.
NOW, I am NOT a Marxist Leninist. I do not condone their ideas. I will not expand upon my own ideas, as that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is, not all leftists are anti-democracy. Most leftists active politically at least in the west are incredibly pro-democracy, want to expand democracy or are anti state altogether (democratic or otherwise).
A bit of a correction regarding Marxist-Leninists: they support democracy the whole way through, not just after the entire economy has been folded into the public sector and thus classes and therefore the State cease to exist. A good article on the subject of AES and Democracy is Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?”
I have a “Read Theory, Darn it!” introduction to Marxism-Leninism post if you want to glance over it, questions on democratic structures and how to achieve them are answered.
The left starts at anti capitalism.
Beyond that, for this meme, liberals are guilty capitalists the same way a Catholic porn addict is a guilty Catholic. They’ll feel bad about homelessness, and spend billions “fixing” homelessness but never address the root cause… As that would interfere with their addiction. They’ll feel terrible about drug addicts existing and spend billions “fixing” it by selling them different drugs and for profit rehab… But will never address the root of the problem. Liberals feel awful about x, but will never solve x of it interferes with capital. It’s why they love rainbow capitalism, they get to feel good about finally doing the right thing… While making profit.
Leftists want to solve the problem, no matter the cause. They don’t support gay people because it’s cheap, easy, and allows for profit; they do it because all people have inherent rights. They don’t want to build all inclusive, hyper expensive, heavily monitored and limited access housing for the homeless, they just want to build homes and ensure those effected have food and water.
Liberals are not left wing. Socially they only hold a vague mirage of left wing ideals as long as it doesn’t harm capitalism. Economically, they’re as right wing as any conservative or fascist. Fun fact fascism has only ever sprung from liberals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
It has its up and downs as an accusation but ask Eastern Europe if they agree with the broad concept.
None of the answers you’ve received are really correct.
Liberalism has a specific meaning in political science. Modern Liberals support market economies, strong individual rights, and the right to own private property (not personal property like your house, car, or toothbrush - private property means capital).
I’m going to use socialism as a proxy for Leftism broadly because Socialism + Anarchism is too broad. Socialism is a political philosophy characterized by public ownership of capital (aka the means of production). That is the primary thing that binds leftists together.
Leftists view Liberalism as an improvement over feudalism, the system that it replaced, but criticize Liberals for protecting the status quo of neoliberal capitalism and the injustices, inequities, and evils it has perpetuated (slavery, colonialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, labor exploitation, etc.). They also assert that any Social Democratic reforms Liberals champion are ineffectual at addressing the core problems of capitalism.
The reason that the leftists in the meme have guns is because Leftists have historically been violently opposed to fascism and have engaged in revolutions to overthrow feudal, liberal, and fascist regimes.
Modern Liberals support market economies,
Only partly true. Liberals support capitalist markets, but not worker owned markets (worker co-ops, market socialism.)
Yeah that’s a fair point
Modern Liberals support market economies,
That’s a very diplomatic way of saying liberals are pro-capitalism and pro-imperialism.
After the French Revolution, they arranged the seats in the legislature with the most progressive on the left, and the most conservative on the right.
This left-right axis is often still used in modern politics.
On the American politics version of this spectrum, “liberal” defines those in the center who are in the middle and who accept whatever they are given. Leftist progressives fight for a better future.
Okay liberal
Not a visual learner eh.
Liberal plays by the established rules.
Leftist revolts and fights back.
No because a lot of it is bullshit people just drawing lines in the sand of an already silly way to plot political stances.
The truth is all liberals should be leftists. Politics leans left and right and people are broken down from there.
Currently people use the term “leftist” in too many ways but generally it suggests being against the system or capitalism. A liberal or liberalism is easy to Google but usually people mean it as left leaning folk who buy into the system, capitalism or neoliberal politics.
Just because you don’t know what words mean doesn’t mean no one does.
Lmfao it’s literally in the names but okay.
A Liberal was a supporter of laise faire capitalism, currently a Liberal is more of a socially minded progressive. The term changed and will continue to change.
Leftist is literally a left leaning individual that’s it. People use it a word to lump together a lot of groups especially those with a more socialist or anarchist sort of mindset. The term changed and will continue to change.
So no, they really don’t mean anything exactly and people use them different and unclearly all the time. A liberal is a leftist, even if individuals out there reject that. Politically speaking you’re either right or left leaning, are you thinking liberals are right leaning? No. Then they’re leftists lol.
The worst thing for the socialist movement are other socialists. This probably can be said about any left leaning group. Everyone has to have a different title to differentiate their leftism from other leftists
Dumb people, lol
Liberals die on their knees, leftists die standing.
To me, a leftist is someone who looks at the status quo and goes this is fucked up. We need to fix it.
A liberal looks at the status quo and goes “this isn’t this bad.” Think Bill Clinton or Tony Blair. Politicans who continued to maintain the status quo after their conservative predecessors.
If a leftist politician served after a conservative politician. The leftist politician would be like “fuck this” and upend the status quo.
What you are saying is only applicable for North America/ Europe. Liberalism is already the status quo there, which is why liberals defend it. However what is liberalism in the first place?
Liberalism: “Regulated capitalism is the least bad economic system. Also, the state shouldn’t encroach upon the personal matters of an individual.”
Leftists: “Capitalism is the cause of all problems. Fuck capitalism. The eventual goal should be to have a stateless, classless society. However, we disagree quite a lot on how to achieve this goal. This goal is called communism. Some of us say that we should do a violent revolution. Some of us believe that we can abolish capitalism using democratic processes. Some of us believe that to achieve communism, we need a temporary powerful state led by smart people, intellectuals, etc. to achieve material conditions necessary for communism. Some of us believe that the previous idea is absolute dog shit, and instead, we can achieve communism slowly, using non state actors like cooperatives, unions, syndicates and so on.”
Conservatives: “Capitalism is good. The morals and traditions of our ancestors were better than the ones coming up now, and deviating from them would cause a lot of harm. We need to take steps to conserve these ideas.”
Fascists: “All problems in society are because of group X. We need to get rid of group X by either converting them to our ways (if possible), deporting them from our borders, or cleansing our country of them entirely by killing them. Democracy is a slow and inefficient process. We should give power to a strong, smart leader who can get things done a lot more efficiently.”
Sounds like conservatism in the US needs to be relabeled as regressivism.
I thought liberalism literrally meant that personal freedoms are the most important thing to that person and the belief is the government should not restrict them and needs to actively protect them.
That’s one of their beliefs, sure. However, their economic beliefs are still kinda pro capitalism.
Fair, I’m just curious why ShaggySnacks mentioned the status quo thing when personal freedoms are being encroached on and revoked.
Leftists want full auto space communism.
Liberals want rights and liberties for all.
Both can overlap or not depending.
Liberals want rights and liberties for all except for the impoverished and repressed labour that makes liberalism possible.
FTFY.
Neolibs maybe. Not typical libs
Liberal is the opposite of authoritarianism. Left politicies are less capitalism and more socialism. What America calls Liberal is more authoritative than what should be considered central party. Like in the political compass “Liberals” are middle middle top right, while “conservatives” are upper middle top right.
deleted by creator
Short answer liberals are the leftmost of the centrists,
Liberals are not “centrists.” They are right-wingers. If you are pro-capitalism, you are a right-winger. It doesn’t matter how “nice” liberals try to pretend to be about it.
No ifs, ands or buts.
I’m the good kind and those idiots are the bad kind.
The majority of women are libs. It was the majority of women that voted Trump. They’re not going to do anything.
To be clear: The majority of women voted for Harris. The majority of white women voted for trump. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
Fair enough but 45% is nearly half. It my not be the majority but my point is Trump is WIDELY supported by women.
Yes, women didn’t show up for Harris to the expected degree. It’s really disappointing, especially considering the abortion issue. They voted for the abortion protection measures for their states (e.g. Missouri), and voted for trump at the same time. Idiots, thinking they would have their cake and eat it too, believing trump won’t sign a nation-wide ban. FAFO
- A lot of them abstained due to the dems failing to do anything on the state level.
- A lot of them who voted just thought the Project 2025 was there to make the libs cry, and no human would be evil enough to execute them all.
Also a lot of Trump voters in the swing states are already regretting, if it continues, it can very well lead to a civil war, especially if Project 2025 will be executed. Who knows, maybe even the military will have issues with it.
maybe even the military will have issues with it.
As individuals that can vote, sure.
As a whole-ass army… maybe? They’ll have an issue with it if ordered to do anything unconstitutional. The tricky bit is what the individual leader(s) in the military think about any such order. An additional complication is how the Supreme Court may or may not weigh in, as their responsibility is to interpret the constitution.
Good point. It’s like keyboard justice warriors ranting about racism compared to actual BLM marchers.
BLM marches and activism happened all over the world because of “keyboard warriors” spreading the word.
srsly taking credit? wow
So headscarves no matter what. Got it.
The difference is, they choose the balaclava.
I think the balaclava chooses them.
Sooooo… better start learning the words to Bella Ciao huh?
No, the Internationale!
With respect to The Internationale, that’s just not a banger like Bella Ciao is. If I’m thinking of ‘let’s oppose a fascist regime and/or do some Operation Gladio shit in 1970’s Italy while carrying submachineguns, dressed in leather jackets and balaclavas’, Bella Ciao is a much more appropriate choice for a modern era.
A lot of the versions of The Internationale that I’ve heard sound more like school plays. It’s not something one would describe as ‘rousing’.
Disagree. Watch Reds.
Did you say “do Gladio shit”? Like enlist fascists, virulent anti-communists that they are, to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian populations to then blame on communists in order to crush the influence of socialists in government and justify purges of socialists and communists from every sphere of life? That gladio shit?
The revolution will not be won by beautiful dead, tears in their eyes, clutching their rifles. It will be won by a political revolution of the working class for the benefit of all. There will certainly be fighting, of which the internationale sings about explicitly:
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we’ll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They’ll break ranks and fight no more.
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We’ll shoot the generals on our own side.Re: Gladio: no, not the bad bits that cropped up eventually, but the original purpose of fighting an oppressive regime that’s taken hold within your own borders. Don’t take it TOO seriously :D
I’d love to see a bloodless political revolution. But past history leads me to believe there’s gonna be guns involved somewhere down the line for there to be actual change.
Once more into the breach
