Category: Uncategorized

As part of my exploration into anarchist spaces, I became interested in Burning Man. For decades, I knew Burning Man only as many of you probably know it: a week-long hedonistic party in the middle of the desert, accompanied by some artwork and “rituals” to give the whole thing some sense of purpose. But more recently, I encountered the Ten Principles put forth by the Burning Man organizational body, which have been pushed as the guiding principles for the “movement” and the many regional burns that happen annually in addition to the “big burn” in Black Rock City.

The Ten Principles essentially combine elements of anarchism (specifically, anarcho-communism), anticapitalism, and Buddhism into a tidy little package:

Anarchism	Anticapitalism	Buddhism
1 – Radical Inclusion Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger… 4 – Radical Self-reliance Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on their inner resources. 5 – Radical Self-expression Radical self-expression arises from the unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a collaborating group can determine its content… 7 – Communal Effort Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication that support such interaction. 8 – Civic Responsibility …Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants.	2 – Gifting Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an exchange for something of equal value. 3 – Decommodification …Create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising.	8 – Leaving No Trace …We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them. 9 – Participation …We achieve being through doing… We make the world real through actions that open the heart. 10 – Immediacy …We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers…

This intrigued me. I knew that Burning Man bills itself as a “city”, replete with all types of people and their various goals and motivations; many that attend may be indifferent to the principles and may simply be there for the hedonism or the dance parties. Still, I was curious to see it for myself and try to find how strong the undercurrent of these principles remained after nearly forty yearsTo be clear, the principles were established by the two original founders in 2004, although they began Burning Man in 1986. of this obscure, local celebration transforming into what is often called the “biggest party on the planet.”

To prepare, I attended a small “regional burn” in the spring to understand the spirit of the event. The long-weekend event was attended by about 800 people, a mere 1% of Black Rock City. What I saw at the burn was largely true to the principles: art for art’s sake, cooperation and volunteerism, free-flowing gifting, and all-night music and dancing. Nearly everyone was tent camping and, other than the pyrotechnics and the burning of the effigy and temple, the event felt relatively eco-conscious. Everyone was friendly and welcoming to me and to everyone else, and there was seemed to be a strong diversity of subcultures represented. Many of the regional attendees said that they hadn’t been (or no longer go) to Black Rock City, but most said that it was worth attending at least once if you can.

Encouraged by this experience, I decided to plunge into the “Big Burn” and see what this looked like at a massive scale. I spent several months and a couple thousand dollars preparing for this event; I didn’t do much research because I wanted to have an “organic” experience. The financial cost was painful, but it ultimately seemed justified in preparing for a 10-day experience in a harsh, inhospitable desert.

This isn’t meant to be a chronicle of my personal experience at Burning Man, so I will spare the details of my “journey” or some of the specific challenges of this year’s event. In short: I decided to join a well-established camp rather than solo-camp, I volunteered as a medic for nearly half my time on the playa as a way to contribute to the community, and, as mentioned, I did virtually no research or planning beyond figuring out what gear and supplies were needed. These choices certainly contributed to the experience and impression that I had at Burning Man; I will try to maintain perspective as I discuss my lasting thoughts on the event.

Even before I attended, I considered the environmental impact of such an event. Having 70,000 people travel to and survive in the middle of a harsh desert environment incurs a tremendous carbon footprint. At its most absolute fundamental level, the event requires a bare minimum of a million gallons of water trucked into the event, and untold tons of bio-waste trucked out. Then there’s tens of thousands of gallons of fuel for the generators that power every camp. Then there’s people traveling to the event from across the planet. Then the fact that many thousands of these people come in RVs and campers, and even many of the tent campers now bring portable A/C units for their tents. Then there’s the thousands of single-use costumes– including countless LEDs and batteries, bargain-basementWhich is virtually synonymous with appalling labor practices and ecological harm. camping equipment intended to be disposable, single-use plastic and packaging material for food and equipment both on- and off-playa, useless trinkets and baubles and stickers and other things for the “gifting economy”… it truly becomes staggering when you think of the consumption at scale.

Most participants take the “Leave No Trace” principle very seriously– and groups of volunteers stay long after the event to collect every scrap of trash– but the event exemplifies greenwashing and “offshoring misery” to keep it out of sight and out of mind. Although the event takes pains to leave no trace on the physical playa space that it occupies, there is a collosal trace left in the CO² emissions and trash generated by the event.

Simiarly, the principle of “decommodification” certainly applies on-playa… with the exception of self-promoting podcasters and wannabe influencers, and multimillion-dollar music camps (yes, really), the space is devoid of branding, advertising, or commerce. But, like the environmental impact, the burn simply would not exist without millions of dollars of commerce occurring before arriving on playa. This include entry tickets that average about $750, along with the hundreds or thousands of dollars that people spend on supplies and travel. Perhaps it is like Marx’s communism, which intrinsically requires the existence of capitalism to be used as a foundational stepping stone; more likely, though, is that people are meant to accept the transgressions against the principles made in the “default world” in order to support this idealistic “real world” on the playa.

To its credit, the only other abundant violation of the principles that I observed would be “radical self-expression.” Most participantsWell, many participants. I won’t pretend that I accurately surveyed the entire event. adorned themselves in one of two basic outfits: boho Bedouin or day-glo rave kiddie. Beyond the art projects and art cars– which were genuinely impressive– most attendees donned similar rainbow lights and “festival clothesAs so labeled by Etsy.” as they raced from camp to camp in pursuit of free food or some world-famous DJ performing at a music camp that was indistinguishable from any nightclub in Miami.

All of this felt empty and alienating. Perhaps there really was a heyday of Burning Man, when it was a transcendental, counter-culture experience. And certainly there are still traces of those things in the burners that exist on the fringes of the event. But at this point, they seemed to be there in spite of the event, not because of it.

I may return to a regional burn, which seem far less “spectacular” and much more aligned with the Ten Principles. But Burning Man was largely as disappointing as many told me it would be, and it did ultimately seem like a week-long hedonistic party acommpanied by some artwork and spirituality to give it some sense of purpose. There may still be an “authentic” experience to be had there, but you’d really have to go deep playa to find it.

Back in 2018, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt released The Coddling of the American Mind, an examination of the increasing “censorship” on college campuses by– in their estimation– Gen-Z liberals. The book– and corresponding website and interviews given by the authors– decries the rise of “safe spaces”, the “weaponization of language”, the de-platforming of controversial figures, and the general hostility towards ideas and ideologies that the so-called liberal youth find “dangerous.”

NOTE: In this essay, I occasionally differentiate between “big C” Conservatives to represent the new far-right versus “little c” conservatives of a more centrist disposition. However, “big L” Liberals are the centrists (or really, center-right), whereas “little l” liberals represent the broader spectrum of progressives and further leftists. The distinctions are generally minimal, but in some cases may be useful to distinguish each group’s centrist faction from its more radical one.

The writers describe themselves as generally centrist with a liberal lean, and so their critique is meant to be a good-faith attempt at course-correction for what they seem to at least imply is exclusively a left-wing problem. Predictably, the book fueled the already-raging fire of conservative accusations that liberals are snowflakes and Gen-Z youth are fundamentally incapable of handling the basic pressures of the “real world.”

The book was generally received well by the public, as it provides a somewhat compelling narrative for its assertions (referred to grandiosely as the “Three Great Untruths”), and focuses on a few high-profile news stories of college campus incidents and a smattering of related anecdotes to generalize this behavior of, essentially, hypersensitivity as a nationwide epidemic of a chronically crippled generation and an overall weakening of civilization. Society was just beginning to encounter “wokeness,” and the book only helped to solidify the notion that this was some deeply troubling indoctrination by Marxist professors on college campuses nationwide.

It was, in essence, an insidious rebuke of “political correctness,” that tired trope of conservative ideology that society’s tendency towards compassion is some great blasphemy against the natural order of savagery and barbarism. Lukianoff and Haidt made a point to tout their centrist stances and support for free-speech absolutism, but in the political climate of the day– increasing anti-intellectualism and a resurgence of conservative backlash to social progress– it provided perfect confirmation bias for the right’s accusations against liberals.

The narrative continued to gain momentum in the wake of the #MeToo movement, where “traditional” masculine culture was threatened, and a great many white men felt that their last remaining privilege– to be a rapey asshole– was being unjustly torn away from them.

The narrative was further amplified by the rise of what is now called the “manosphere,” the podcasts and social media of pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Myron Gaines, and to some extent, Joe Rogan and his more general “bro-culture” ilk. These losers all preached some variation of “Alpha/Sigma” male ideology to millions of young men who were attempting to navigate this terrifying new landscape of having to actually consider women as equal human beings, and who were further terrorized by increased representation of trans and queer folk in society, surely the greatest affronts to their sacred maleness. Throw in a few years of COVID isolation and its subsequent anti-government conspiracies, and you suddenly have half of Gen-Z believing that they are the last line of defense against the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of liberals and communists and all the other tired shit that we all thought would die off with the Boomers.

As we have discussed before, there is a very well-established pipeline from online communities where incels and other disaffected young men stew in nihilism to the radical, far-right ideologies of white supremacy and extreme male chauvinism. Yesterday’s aimless young men are today’s masked ICE thugs ushering in a new era of white nationalist fascism in America.

Of course, I am not laying the blame of America’s descent into a fascist hellscape at the feet of this book or its authors. The book is not without merits, and even while reading it in 2025, I found myself agreeing with some of its basic gripes but, upon reflection and with the luxury of hindsight, fundamentally disagreeing with its conclusions. Let’s explore a few different topics.

Compassion Isn’t Weak

Coddling’s basic argument was that “Gen-Z” constructs such as safe spaces and trigger warnings are creating intellectually weak denizens that can’t handle being confronted with “uncomfortable” ideas. This recategorization of “everything is trauma” was, arguably, a real phenomenon, as popular discourse began to re-shape around the idea that everyone’s personal history was rife with long-lasting trauma that might “trigger” an emotional response. Comedians were “canceled” because of insensitive jokes, online forums were littered with pointless self-censorship like “r*pe” or “s***ide”, as if not seeing the full word somehow prevented the concept from being just as painful for someone with unresolved trauma.

These efforts were conflated throughout the media– both “conservative” and “mainstream”, if such distinctions really mean anything anymore– with the dissolution of traditional gender norms (“pronoun wars”), the continued fallout of the #MeToo movement, and even with absurd misinformation about children identifying as cats and being permitted to use litterboxes in schools. All of this painted a picture of a society on the brink of collapse at the hands of some undefined “Marxist” ideology being perpetuated by *checks notes* the Democratic party led by corporatist apologists like Nancy Pelosi. That anyone could believe a fraction of this narrative is tragic.

But believe it they did. And as additional bad actors piled on stories about “transgender grooming,” “soy-boy chemical castration,” and other hysterical nonsense, the line between valid concerns about intellectual rigor and fringe misinformation campaigns was completely erased, until anyone that defended one was accused of defending the other. Liberals retreated either into centrist assent or “radical” groupthink; the former group remained silent for fear of being labeled either a closet conservative or a radical liberal, while the latter dug in and refused to yield any ground in any part of the argument, for fear of invalidating the legitimate defense of trans/queer rights or of being ostracized by their own group for ideological impurity… which, I suppose, sort of validates Coddling’s concerns, but it most certainly is not confined only to the Left.

All of this hysteria is rooted in the Conservative backlash against compassion and empathy. The notions that we should be empathetic to people with real trauma, be accepting of people that reject traditional norms, and be mindful of the pop-culture we produce because it shapes societal attitudes… these are the hallmarks of a mature civilization, not its downfall.

These ideas are offensive to conservatives that continue to believe that “might makes right,” that survival is only for the strongest, and that strength is selfishness and savagery. That is the way of life that they claim is under attack when they “defend whiteness.” Nevermind that most of them are so far below the benchmark of the ubermensch they envision themselves to be that they would be the first against the wall if it weren’t for the institutional power of the elites that manipulate them; that is a topic for another day.

Professors Aren’t At Fault

Generally speaking, the arc of human history bends towards compassion and unity. Yes, it is a very long arc with a lot of appalling setbacks, but every advancing step in civilization has resulted in (or because of!) greater compassion, cooperation, and equality. To pretend that this is at risk now is founded on precisely zero evidence.

And so every generation naturally becomes more compassionate than the last, as some of the larger injustices are corrected and they then seek to address the remaining transgressions that affect smaller populations or that have simply been ignored.

This is not a species growing weak, it is a civilization eliminating savagery. This is the natural result of intellectual progress and has been happening cyclically throughout recorded history, and although it is often the result of higher education and the increased critical thinking that accompanies it, it is absurd to act as though this is some new wave of “Marxist” indoctrination by radical professors at colleges.

For one, most evidence suggests that “Gen Z” has been fostering these attitudes before most of them were of college age. Thus, most of these sensibilities were ingrained in them by social factors established by the previous generations.

Those previous generations are the parents and elders– Boomers and Xers, if we want to keep using the somewhat useless generalization by generations– that are also largely the ones decrying the very ideals they instilled in their children. They are the hippies and the punk rockers who promoted free love and non-conformity and then raised children with similar values.

The ones who were assholes back then and continue to be assholes now, but whose children fortunately still developed greater compassion, are the ones that feel alienated and chastised and therefore lash out at “wokeness” and the general softening of society. But history is a spectrum, and those same generations lived in the brief window of the greatest prosperity, security, and comfort in modern history. They benefited from all the privileges of worker protections, high wages, health and environmental regulations, and so many other things that made them far “weaker” than the generations before them. Yet they perpetuate the same, tired, hypocritical accusations against the next generation.

And anyway, most social progress starts as a “radical overcorrection” and eventually scales back to a more mainstream compromise. It is because of this expected downscaling that the initial correction must be radical, so that it can settle into something acceptable. If #MeToo had only targeted instances of, say, violent rape, perhaps the backlash to it may have been less, but so many of the other horrible transgressions that occur against women in our society would not have been addressed. So the movement initially made space for everyone who felt exploited or abused, but once the movement began to attack people because of what would reasonably be considered an awkward handling of consent, or some implicit power imbalance rather than any overt coercion, society collectively began to push back, leaving some of the most heinous behavior exposed while dialing back the persecution of mild inappropriateness.

So it goes with everything. Progressives and leftists are willing to tolerate these extreme overcorrections for a while to see whether they make sense and whether they actually impact any transgressions before they begin pushing back at the fringe cases and establishing a “generally accepted” baseline. But conservatives will attack this open-minded as wholehearted endorsement, and then will continue to portray those “rejected” fringe cases as being legitimate parts of the ideology. Thus, the conversation is skewed from the start, and centrists and liberals have to cede ground for fear of looking like the “crazy radicals” that the right accuses them of being.

Real Coddling is De-Skilling

The real coddling of the American mind is the continued decline of critical thinking, intellectual rigor, and practical skills proficiency. It is not conspiratorial to observe that primary education was in steady decline for at least the past 50 years, well before the alarmingly-sharp dropoff in the last two decades that is largely attributed to cell phones, social media, and COVID. Every year brings increased reports of high school students– or graduates!– that struggle with 5th-grade reading and mathematics. There is no push for curriculum around logic, debate, media literacy, or any of the truly necessary skills to navigate the modern world.

Concurrent to this, they are also victims of the profit-driven motivation to de-skill everyone in every way. Everything is a subscription, and a shit-paying “gig economy” solution is available to address your every need or want. Don’t cook, use Postmates. Don’t hang a shelf, use Taskrabbit. Take your car to a mechanic for basic maintenance. Buy another pair of fast-fashion pants instead of mending a small hole. Become a content creator; that’s the only skill that still pays… until AI kills that in a year or two.

That modern world is also increasingly shoveling “brainrot” content into our collective maws. Faced with a seemingly-inevitable ecological collapse, ever-worsening economic prospects, and a generally bleaker future, people of all ages are doomscrolling or distracting themselves into a stupor, stripped of agency and feeling powerless to affect the horrors they encounter daily. We are all riddled with anxiety and depression, chronically-elevated cortisol levels, unhealthy lifestyles, no community, no spiritual fulfillment, minimal interpersonal relationships, commodified intimacy, and a barrage of AI-generated misinformation and propaganda… it’s no fucking wonder that our youth feels timid and ill-equipped to handle the stresses of everyday life.

Yet despite this, a large swathUnfortunately, the other swath has been poached by religious and conservative fundamentalism to fill the spiritual vacuum created by our aimless consumer culture. of Gen-Z continues to forge a path of greater social justice, anticapitalism, anticonformity, and freedom of self-expression. And that, to me, does not feel all that coddled.

There is a hierarchy to racist ideology. The lower tiers are things like unconscious bias and the tacit acceptance of (or indifference towards) systemically-racist laws and policies. The higher tiers progress through stereotypes and tropes, active enforcement of (or support for) systemic racism, belief in physiological pseudoscience, and, ultimately, the overt promotion of cultural or genetic supremacy.

Every tier is obviously harmful, and the higher tiers are obviously built on the foundations of the lower tiers… there is a well-documented recruitment pipeline for disaffected youth from goofy edgelord memes to extremist ideology. But much of the “justification” for the lower tiers can be tied to an immediacy of material conditions… people are made to believe that their own poverty or lack of opportunity is caused by minorities on welfare, or “affirmative action” or DEI, or the buzzword du jour. These people will generally argue that “they’re not racist, buuuuut” they are against any group getting an unfair advantage, while remaining ignorant to the countless advantages afforded to them by their own ethnicity or nationalityAnd of course, having some privilege or advantage does not negate their own oppression. We are all subjugated by the ruling class, just in slightly different ways and degrees.. The argument that racism is a tool of the capitalist to keep the lower classes fighting amongst ourselves is as true as ever.

Again, this is obviously wrong and harmful, but it is at least understandable. However misguided and misinformedDue to deliberate propaganda from the ruling class, the impulse to provide for and to protect yourself and your immediate community against some invading “other” is a coherent and logical stance. If you believe immigrants are stealing your jobsThey’re not. Except maybe skilled workers on H1Bs that displace high-paying workers, but no one seems very mad about them for whatever reason. or are making neighborhoods unsafeThey’re not., or that minorities are getting opportunities while being less qualifiedThey absolutely are not., it makes sense that you’d harbor resentment or even hate against those groups.

Similarly, if you benefit from the institutional racism that provides you with less fear of law enforcement and more chances of getting a bank loan, it’s not surprising that you don’t feel passionately about these grave injustices or feel compelled to act against your own interests in our ruthless, competitive society.

But as you move up this pyramid of hate, the motivation becomes increasingly absurd. To be actively racist at an ideological level is a pitiful way to live your life. To think that there actually even is some coherent lineage of race or culture is pure fantasy. Even if there is such a thing (and I will reiterate: there isn’t), to devote your life to feeling hatred and anger towards people with slightly different cosmetic morphology is such a waste of energy, especially when their existence doesn’t materially impact you. If you’re some middle-class dipshit throwing sig heils on social media as some form of “virtue” signaling or “pick me” pandering… what are you trying to accomplish? I’ve honestly tried but I just cannot imagine how miserable your existence must be, to be so filled with hate and anger that you try to celebrate it and make it your identity and your tribe.

You fancy yourself a warrior, but you’re fighting a war of your own creation. There is no culture to be preserved, no genetic purity that is meaningfully superior in any measurable way. You can logically choose to concern yourself with the future fate of your nuclear family– your children and grandchildren– as some biological imperitive to propagate your genes, or with humanity as a whole– the health and prosperity of the human race– as a gesture of love and connectedness; anything in between makes absolutely zero sense. You’re picking an arbitrary side in a meaningless war and fighting for something that has no measurable consequence to you.

What does it matter to you what the dominant culture or “ethnicity” is in two hundred years? You’ll be long dead, and your descendants will be subject to so many unforeseeable variables that you’re doing nothing to ensure their success; if anything, you’re perpetuating a war that they will have to continue to fight. Wouldn’t you be serving them better if you fought to stop the war completely? Wouldn’t you be ensuring greater long-term genetic success if you left them a habitable and healthy planet, rather than worrying about *checks notes* what skin color the ruling class has?

We live in a world of endless possibilities, and as far as we know we only get this single, brief period of time on this planet. How tragic it is that some of us choose to spend this time in a state of constant anger and manufactured hate.

Although the Savior Self has avowed to remain “apolitical” in our discussions, politics are an inescapable part of life. We are currently watching numerous atrocities unfold around the world, from ongoing genocides to bloody wars, to the de facto rise of overt fascism in the United States. Of course, the United States has played a role in these other worldwide atrocities for countless years, long before the current regime. We have inflicted immeasurable pain, suffering, and devastation across foreign lands since before we were even a country, from slave trades to indigenous genocides to military imperialism to economic imperialism to CIA coups to wars of terror and drone strikes.

America has, since its inception, been a shameful country that falls far short of the lofty rhetoric of the Founding Fathers. That our heinous crimes have been tolerated by more civilized countries (many of whom have blood on their own hands, make no mistake) is equally shameful.

Now, we are once again watching the atrocities unfold on our own soil. No longer are these crimes against humanity being perpetrated in faraway lands with plausible deniability or limited media coverage. They are happening here, every day, with multiple camera angles capturing the complete descent into a police state where masked, armed thugs kidnap people— including American citizens— and disappear them with no due process and no consequences. It is not one or two; it is now easily hundreds of these occurrences and the pace of these events is increasing every day. They can no longer claim that it is an accident; this is by design.

Every single day that this is allowed to continue is another step towards the same evil that occurred in Nazi Germany. What could once be dismissed as alarmist overreaction is now happening, and it is indisputable for anyone that cares to look for it.

As we wrote in On Pacifism, Passivism, and Militancy, it is no longer enough to abandon this system, if abandonment is even possible anymore. Fascists do not leave much space for anarchists, after all.

But even if it was possible to ignore these horrors and exclude ourselves from the system, it is not enough to do so. By whatever definition of morality you have, we must directly oppose what is happening now:

• If you believe in democracy, you must stand up and defend the rule of law and due process
• If you believe in liberty, you cannot allow this militarized police state to grow
• If you believe in America’s superiority, you must oppose these Gestapo-like tactics
• If you are Christian… hoo boy, you should be against everything that is happening right now
• If you are a humanist, you must fight to reduce the needless human suffering that is being perpetrated
• If you only care about yourself and/or your loved ones, you must still fight what is happening because you will not be spared. History has shown, time and again, that even those on the side of fascism are eventually exterminated out of paranoia, purity tests, or any of a dozen other reasons.

Morality demands this. Any morality. What is happening now cannot be tolerated. Every day that we go about our lives and gasp in horror, the horror only grows. Every day that we plot to leave this country and seek asylum elsewhere, the moral strength of this country shrinks. Every day that we look to our feckless elected officials to magically fix this for us, they remain complicit and more and more people have their lives ruined, their children traumatized.

It is no longer enough to abandon this system. It is not enough to condone it while remaining uninvolved. We must tear it down. By any means necessary.

Buddhism’s ultimate goal is the dissolution of self; enlightenment is achieved when we realize that we are nothing and everything at the same time, a fragment of the infinite that is temporarily having a subjective experience in linear time before shedding our flawed meat husks and returning to the æther.

In practice, this means devoting our full attention to the present moment rather than reminiscing or dwelling on the past or planning for the future. Meditation is the purest expression of this; a meditator attempts to silence their mind and simply exist, either free of thought or at least focused on a single thought or prayer. It is the elimination of the unnecessary.

If you have ever tried to meditate, you know that this is a dreadfully difficult task. Even in the most serene surroundings it is seemingly impossible to quiet our minds for any meaningful period of time, let alone trying to do it against the backdrop of our societal ADHD. But if you perservere, you will likely find that it gets easier over time, and that the quieting of the mind bleeds into your waking life and seems to mellow out the ever-present chaos of existence.

The true purpose of meditation is to attain this bleeding over, to bring peace and contentment to our everyday lives rather than just during the times that we sit to meditate. Once you learn to stop reacting to everything– to your emotions and your fleeting desires, to external forces that demand your attention and energy, to information that is irrelevant and inconsequential– you find that existence itself becomes much more focused and tranquil.

But what does this actually mean, exactly? How does one shed their ego and their self, to exist in a state of contentment in defiance of dukkhaDukkha is the ‘fundamental dissatisfaction’ that humans experience as a consequence of existence. It is the idea that the human condition is inherently conflict and struggle. while still living a “productive” and meaningful life? Obviously, there is no simple answer to this question, if there is any answer at all.

Shedding our egos does not mean giving up our individual identities, at least not in any meaningful sense. When we stop reacting to our every desire, we can instead reflect on the source of those desires and make a mindful, conscious decision as to whether satisfying the desire will meaningfully enrich our lives (or the lives of those around us). We can examine our sense of identity itself, and slowly shed the parts that have been sold to us by capitalism, tribalism, or mindless mimicry. We can reclaim the time and energy that we used to put into projecting a particular image of ourselves into the world around us, and we can simply be who and how we are. We can accept that this iteration of ourselves will inevitably die someday, and that most of us will die without having “accomplished” everything that we hoped to do, but it’s ok because those things didn’t really matter all that much anyway.

Perhaps this is still too conceptual, so let’s be more specific. Take a few moments to build a mental “dating app profile” of yourself. Think about what you would put on that profile. Think about the photos you’d post, the words and phrases you’d choose, the memes or fads you’d reference. Conisder all of the parts of you that you would carefully curate to try to present an “authentic” picture of yourself. Then, think about the 3-5 word label that you would apply to that persona: earthy, spirtual hippie; broody punk anarchist; clean-cut intellectual; rural good ol’ boy… whatever.

Now think about how many things you didn’t post because they didn’t fit that image… The band you left off your list of favorites because they’re too mainstream, the number of firearms you own despite being a progressive, your love of figure skating because it makes you seem effette. Think about how many experiences and ideas you’ve rejected outright because your perception of them didn’t conform to this image of who or what you should be. How much of the richness of life have you missed because you filtered it on your preconceived notions?

Now, think about how many things that you did post could be removed while still presenting a “genuine” image of yourself. Are you the lifted truck you drive? Are you the poignant quote by Goethe you have tattooed on your bicep? Does your weekly volunteering define you? Does that meme accurately capture the nuance of your beliefs? Who are you, and why do you feel so intimately connected to these little trinkets and symbols?

This is the beginning of unraveling your ego. Identifying these things doesn’t mean getting rid of them; you can still drive your lifted truck, you can still tirelessly quote movies in every conversation, you can still be whomever you want. But you should do and be these things consciously, and you should not feel the need to define yourself by them. As you truly learn to let go, you’ll find that you want these things less, because they no longer seem so integral to your sense of identity.

Once you feel unshackled from your manufactured self-image, turn your attention to your attention. Where does it go? Does it dwell on missteps you’ve taken in the past? Do you relive your failures or foibles ceaselessly? Why? Does it focus on the thing you have to do next week, or the thing you want to do next month? How much attention do those things really deserve? Give them just that much and not a moment more. Do you doomscroll and lament the tragic state of the world? Are you going to do anything about it? If you are not (or cannot), be informed but do not dwell.

Killing our ego is a radical act of self-liberation. The ego is the driving force for wanting more, consuming more, and still remaining eternally dissatisfied. It is the scared, angry voice in our head that interferes with our attempts to connect to other people, to cooperate and share and achieve great things for their own sake, rather than for the sake of recognition. It is our ticking countdown timer to annihilation, because it is terrified of no longer being an individual “I” when we die and it re-merges with the universe in some form or another.

We are all slaves to our egos, and even lifelong practitioners of Buddhism admit that it remains a constant struggle after decades of practice. Few of us are able to kill it completely, but we can tame it. The relationship between Buddhism and anarchy may not be immediately obvious, but these ideologies are deeply intertwined. Taming the ego is essential to living harmoniously and sustainably. Every time that we pause and reflect on a thought, impulse, desire or an action, we can understand ourselves and our motivations more clearly and we can consciously decide how to proceed, to be truly autonomous rather than simply automatous.

We have been conditioned by liberalism to be fiercely individualistic, and capitalism has arranged tidy little “identity buckets” to put us into so that it can market to us better. If you’re queer, you must proclaim it loudly; here, let us help you do that with a nice pride flag for only $9.99! If you’re a conservative, by golly you have to listen to this mindless stadium-pop country music; if you’re black, no you’re not if you don’t like lifestyle-obsessed rap. The conditioning is so insidious and so pervasive that most of us simply cannot recognize it; we regard this commerce as culture and think these are “conscious” decisions we make rather than preprogrammed feedback loops that we can’t break out of.

Liberate yourself.

Let us re-focus on our core values. I recently had some personal exposure to the modern healthcare system, and as I witnessed the system in action I reflected on the sixth tenant of the Church: human life is not inherently sacred or special. I still feel uncomfortable discussing this tenet because it is so “taboo” and “radical” in modern society that it certainly makes the Church a monster in the eyes of most people.

And yet…

As I observed these dedicated hospital workers using the marvels of modern technology to treat an elderly patient– one who is very closely related to me, I might add, lest you think I am some apathetic hypocrite that would sing a different tune if it affected me personally — I couldn’t help but also consider the sheer amount of physical waste that is produced, the tremendous effort and energy that is expended, and the ultimate financial cost that is incurred.

It is no secret that the healthcare system is tragically broken in the United StatesAs with most of our writing, we will focus on our home country of the United States. However, most of the ideas apply universally, even if other countries are (far) better at handling the practicalities.. People will lay the blame on for-profit insurance (rightfully so) or on the absurdly astronomical prices of healthcare goods and services (also very much to blame). But as with most of society’s ills, if we are to look at this dispassionately and rationally, perhaps we will realize that the underlying issue stems from our own personal behaviors and is simply excacerbated by a perverse capitalist system.

Our societies– and Western societies in particular– are taught to believe that human life is the most precious thing there is. Outside of martyrdom, every major religion and philosophy asserts that human life is sacred. So that we can move past it, let me quickly point out the glaring hyprocrisy of our indifference to gun violence, poverty and famine, pollution, climate change, genocide, and the countless other preventable causes of death on massive scales… Let’s just focus on their stated ideals.

Between these deep-seated beliefs and our own physiological survival instinct, we demand that medical science preserve our life (or the life of our loved one) at any cost and consequence… ventilators, feeding tubes, catheters, advanced dementia or vegetative, most of us will continue to prolong a life far beyond what is rational or compassionate. It’s not even the hope of a miraculous recovery in many cases, it is simply the stance that existence in any level of abject misery is still somehow preferable to non-existence. And so medicine has no choice but to oblige, and devises new pharmaceuticals and operations that will buy a few more heartbeats at ever-increasing cost.

People aged 55 or older account for more than half of all health expenditures while being less than one-third of the population^[source]; that ratio continues to increase as people get older or nearer to their end of life. Most studies peg costs for the final year of patients’ lives at around 20% of Medicare spending^[source].

Insurance, whether privatized or public, is a type of socialized risk management. Everyone pays into the system a little bit, so that when one person needs a lot, the system can use the collective funds to cover the expenses for that person. This is a sound strategy, but only when the use of insurance resources is lower than the amount that is paid in. However, as the population gets more unhealthy while also demanding increasing longevity of life, this creates a problem of solvency. Private health insurance rations care by denying claims or refusing coverage, whereas public insurance (Medicare) rations only by availability but ultimately passes on the rising costs to taxpayers.

Now of course, insurance companies continue to post record profits, which indicates that even with the burden of increased demand, they are still exploiting the system to their advantage. UnitedHealthcare reported $14 billion in profit in 2024, so maybe discussing this in terms of financial burden is undue. Luigi did nothing wrong.

Putting aside monetary cost, the healthcare industry is also grossly wasteful in terms of resources. Everything is disposable, everything comes in layers of packaging to maintain sanitation, things must be kept at specific temperatures during global transport and storage, items have exceedingly short shelf-lives for fear of denaturing, things are disinfected and laundered regularly… the list goes on. To try and estimate the carbon footprint of even a single overnight hospital stay would be staggering; estimates say the healthcare industry is responsible for 4-5% of global greenhouse emissions annually.

Then there is the intangible cost of human dignity and comfort. Modern medicine is dedicated to “fixing” bio-technical problems and preserving life, with little regard for the quality of that life. It is only very recently that this has begun to change, with slightly more attention being given to what a “life worth living” means to each person. Atul Gawande’s Being Mortal is a beautiful exploration of the topic, discussing in very compassionate and personal terms the difficulties we all face as we (and our loved ones) near their end of life.

To be clear, the Church recognizes that mortality is a difficult subject, and that our innate survival instinct and preservation of life are valid impulses. There is no clear answer to the question of the worth of a human life, nor do I even have a clear thesis to my thoughts on this matter. But reflecting on the amount of effort we exert and the amount of resources that we expend to potentially save even a single human life is remarkable… and very possibly unsustainable.

There is an anger within me. It’s an anger that seems like it can never be abated. It is an anger that is not only directed at the injustice of the current system, or even to the human condition, but at the sheer absurdity of existence itself. It is beyond dukkha, the fundamental suffering of existence; rather, it is an anger at dukkha, at the fundamental construct that this existence is suffering.

It is an anger that I do not know how to overcome. In my decades of seeking answers all across the planet, I don’t understand how this rage does not consume everyone. On some level, I have assumed that we all must feel this way, and that we all find ways to cope through religion or spiritual practice or disassociation or willful ignorance. But the anger tinges everything that I see, and I have spent a lifetime teetering on the brink of breakdown regardless of what I have tried. It unravels every attempt I make to feel connected to the universe, to believe in the oneness of everything, to convince myself that there is a purpose to all of this.

How can we find solace in any belief structure, whether it is an Abrahamic religion with the contrived promise of eternal salvation, or an Eastern spirituality or philosophy that portrays life as a temporary facet of an endless existence, or a modern simulation theory or even the scientific materialist notion that consciousness is an emergent abberation that means nothing and disappears when our brains decay?

Every belief structure is fabricated and manmade, all the mythology and sacredness is borne of human invention, all defined by our limited sensory experience and our rudimentary grasp of the world. And all of these beliefs are created to salve the bitter truth of mortality, to give some sense of purpose to the purposelessness, some nobility to our suffering, some hope to our eventual disappearance.

But what solace is there when we know that it’s all a lie? A placebo is useless when the patient discovers that it’s not actually medicine; how can any rational human continue to uphold their belief in anything, when even the slightest comtemplation reveals that they are simply fantastical stories concocted by other hairless apes, either to help soothe others’ mortal anxieties or, far more often, to control the weak and vulnerable?

How do we cope? How do we witness the brutality of this world, the injustice, the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on others, the merciless slaughter of millions of living creatures every single day while we await our own inevitable and unpredictable death?

How do we tolerate the most sociopathic ascending to power, while we submit ourselves to subjugation? How can we hold compassion in our hearts when we see that theirs are full of hatred? How do we convince ourselves that it is “righteous” to tolerate their injustices, that the noble path is to radiate love even to those who actively seek to harm us for their own benefit?

How do we believe in a loving god when we see so much suffering in the innocent? How do we find strength to carry the burden of our own suffering through this cold and uncaring universe, when we know that oblivion is all that awaits us regardless of what we do?

This is despair. The loss of hope and purpose. If one does not regain at least one or the other, the despair can become literally unbearable and lead one to end their life.

I wish I had an answer, my brothers and sisters. I wish I could deliver you from despair, to strike it from your hearts. The truth is that I continue to struggle with this despair– and the anger it creates– virtually every day. My coping mechanism is a cycle of all of the above: focusing on spiritual practice until it no longer works, then distracting and numbing myself until I no longer can, then attempting to simply “accept” it and compartmentalize it to make it through the rote mechanics of existence until that, too, is no longer sufficient.

I can tell you with honesty that the times I feel most unburdened are the times that I am charitable. Helping others seems to short-circuit the brain and delivers a genuine abatement of existential suffering; whether that’s some evolutionary dopamine response to elevate our social standing and make us desirable mating partners, or it’s the finger of God rubbing our bellies for a job well done, I neither know nor care. It works.

The other times I feel unshackled are the times that I am actively defying death. For all his many flaws, Nietzsche’s proclamation to “live dangerouslyDon’t… don’t Google the full quote. Even that is problematic. Seriously, Neitzsche kinda sucks.” is perhaps his most cogent argument. There is simply nothing more life-affirming than fighting for survival, knowing that any misstep atop some dangerous crag or miscalculation in some perilous activity means an abrupt end to it all. It is a reminder of the fragility of this existence, and to live truly dangerously requires an acceptance that you may die at any moment, and you must be OK with that even as you fight with every morsel in your body to survive.

Either way, we must cope. Because the alternative is oblivion, and we’re all headed there anyway for all of eternity, so why not experience this brief flicker of mortal existence for as long as we can? And why not try to do some good in the face of crushing despair, just as a sort of “fuck you” to the cold, indifferent universe and the cruel, uncaring god?

Fuck you, universe. I’m radiating positivity.

NOTE: Except in rare circumstances, the Church will not discuss or comment on current affairs or politics. The Savior Self is committed to personal evolution and spiritual revolution. For more topical discussions, please check out Slay Your Masters.

This essay sheds the pretense of the Church and speaks directly to the people of the United States, and anywhere else that far-right populism is rising. But mostly the United States.

Watching in bemused disbelief is not enough. Name-calling is not enough. Waiting for the system for magically fix itself is not enough. Late-night talk show barbs are not enough. Calm, centrist pontificating is not enough.

The time to act is now.

It doesn’t matter if he’s trolling. It doesn’t matter if he’s incompetant and may not be able to fulfill his agenda. It doesn’t matter than there’s in-fighting and fragmentation in MAGA-land. They will fall in line. They will see our tolerance as weakness and seize upon it. This is not a time for compassion.

News organizations are complicit. Social media is complicit. Corporations are complicit. The corporatist left is complicit. We are at a point where it is nearly impossible to list all the avenues of attack on our freedom, our rights, and our basic human decency.

This is not a drill. It is not alarmist overreaction. It is not 2017, with an unprepared buffoon fumbling around. It is 2025, and the ultra-rich psychopaths are tired of maintaing any facade of humanity. They have closed ranks and pledged fealty to a madman and his puppeteers, if only to watch the world burn because they are bored and they think they are immune to the consequences. We are frogs in the pot, and we have very little time left before the flames are cranked up.

It is time to sacrifice. Sacrifice your comfort. Sacrifice what little safety you may have. Sacifice your job. Stand up for what is right.

Organize now and get in the streets. And don’t get out of the streets until things change.

Shut it down. Tear it down. Become ungovernable. Become threats. We have very little left to lose, and everything to gain.

They cannot be immune.

In its most simplified version, the one-dimensional political spectrum spans from individualism on the right to collectivism on the left. For now, let’s ignore the horseshoe modelThe horseshoe model suggests that the furthest ends of the spectrum (libertarianism and anarchism) actually begin to converge towards each other, creating more of a horseshoe shape than a straight line. and various two- and three-dimensional models that add much-needed nuance to real-world ideologies. Let us also certainly ignore party labels, because those are largely irrelevant to the current discussion; we will, however, refer to right-wing ideology as conservative and left-wing ideology as progressive, and the reasons for maintaining this distinction will hopefully become clear.

Right-wing ideology champions the individual above all else. In its lofty rhetoric, “the individual” represents each and every person; conservatives proclaim to want liberty for everyone. However, this is achieved by each person prioritizing their own liberty above all others’; this then ostensibly results in everyone being “free.”

Of course, everyone being free also means that weaker people– for whatever definition of weakness– are free to be subjugated, since they are “free” to accumulate strength (physical, monetary, socially) in order to defend or retaliate, but if they do notOr more often, cannot then they are freely choosing their subjugation. Hierarchy is liberty.

This is not a misrepresentation of the ideology, although it is a simplification. In its purest form, conservatism is about preservation and ascension of the self. The individual is the ultimate subject, and the “me” is the ultimate ultimate subject. This is Neitzsche’s will to power, and Rand’s objectivism, and modern Libertarianism, and virtually every other right-wing philosophy.

This is why right-wing ideologies view compassion and cooperation as weakness. It is why they choose to represent nature only as inherently savage– which it is, but that’s not all that it is.

This, of course, creates tremendous contradictions in the proclaimed ideologies of “religious” conservatives. Despite its overt patriarchal and hierarchical structures, Christianity preaches compassion and unity and love of one’s fellow men. But right-wing sociopolitical ideology demands ruthlessness and selfishness, not only as necessities but as virtues. Christianity– as all Abrahamic religions– is inherently a “slave” ideology, where humans are meant to be servants of god. Conservative ideologies extol “master” ideologies, with oneself at the top of the pyramid. But this contradiction is never acknowledged, and conservatives resolve their cognitive dissonance by simply tokenizing their religion and ignoring its actual beliefs.

Through this lens, conservatism makes sense, at least for those at (or near) the top of the hierarchy. Wealthy men percieve themselves as “alphas” or, at the least, prospective alphas. Insofar as it exists, “community” is transactional; interpersonal relationships are structured to maximize one’s own benefit, and any act of generosity or compassion is typically calculated with a selfish motiveOf course, this is not unique to conservatism, but it is one of its fundamental tenets.. Women are objects of conquest, a testament to the man’s supremacy in securing a desireable mate; they are also servants, kept safe and provided for by the man in exchange for their submissiveness. Racism, ethnocentrism, and nationalism are largely just convenient tools for manipulating weaker individuals to consolidate power under the alpha.

Why these ideologies appeal to those who are not wealthy men near the upper strata is a complicated mix of indoctrination and self-delusion.

Empathy is often associated with mirror neurons, which are specific cortical brain cells that are thought to be responsible for processing the emotions and behaviors exhibited by other people into feelings and concepts to which we can relate. Since conservatism generally discourages empathy, it seems plausible that these neurons remain underutilized, which might explain why conservatives are generally more susceptible to lies, misinformation, conmen, and grifters, because they physiologically cannot determine the trustworthiness of the source. This could also explain why the most successful right-wing grifters are media personalities rather than authors, since audio-visual emotional manipulation is far easier and more effective than the written word, and since the targets are unable to recognize what others would consider blatantly obvious disingenuousness on the part of the con. These are merely hypotheses; I can offer no scientific evidence to support it.

It should be noted that this is not a blanket indictment of everyone that may identify as conservative. This is an analysis of fundamental right-wing ideology, which is generally labeled “far-right” or “right-wing extremism.” As with everything, there are gradients and nuances, as well as misrepresentations and co-optation that conflates all religiousness or patriotism with conservatism in order to make right-wing ideology seem more mainstream; similarly, there is misrepresentation from the left that paints any degree of right-wing alignment with far-right extremism, and vice-versa on the right.

As one drifts further left on the spectrum, this belief in “self above all” becomes increasingly diluted as more and more consideration is given to others. Center-right and center-left ideologies may disagree on the balance of individualism and collectivism, but they generally agree that some level of both is needed. But left-wing ideology ultimately reflects that the good of the collective– whether that’s a community, a society, mankind, or all living creatures– is more important than any one individual, even the self.

This is the crux of the label of progressivism in contrast to conservatism. Right-wing ideology champions the individual human as the peak of “evolution” (or divine creation); any attempt to suppress unbridled individualism is against the natural order (or divine law, even though as we discussed, this is a glaring contradiction). Thus, the aim is to conserve traditional ways of life, which are percieved as more natural or more aligned with divine ordinance; this means rejecting modern globalism, multiculturalism, “manmade” equality through protection and assistance of the oppressed and underprivileged, and the tyranny of government that attempts to perform these actions by regulating our increasingly-complex world.

Left-wing ideology aims to impel our species beyond the natural order, towards a post-individual future where human intellect has conquered the savagery of nature and we can choose compassion for our fellow beings. This is the choice to supress our more base instincts and the selfish aspects of human nature in order to work together as part of a larger organism, to sacrifice some degree of ourselves– our liberties, our labor– for the well-being of others, with the understanding that they will do the same for us. By choosing cooperation and love over competition and selfishness, we reduce conflict and struggle and radiate a positive energy into the universe.

Choosing compassion is not weakness; it is a deliberate action that overcomes our nature and takes far greater strength than succumbing to fear or anger.

The Savior Self was born of a time when the tide of fascism appeared to be ebbing and liberal democracy was once again the order of the day. Thus, the Church adopted a stance of passive exclusion against the current order; that is, rejecting or ignoring the current system as much as possible and focusing energy on building parallel structures of governance.

But the ebb did not last long, and once again the global threat of fascism is fast on the rise. Far-right groups have recently made huge electoral gains in Germany, Austria, France, the Netherlands, and Romania, and the United States has also ceded all three branches of government to far-right extremists with an overtly fascist agenda.

So perhaps it is time to reconsider the stance of passivity.

A passivistTo clarify the usage of these terms: Passivism refers to the ideology of not responding or reacting to events or actions, regardless of their consequence. Pacifism is the ideology that harmful acts can be resisted or counter-acted, but only through non-violent means. Militancy refers to achieving ones goals through any means necessary. may choose to ignore these threats and their unquestionable consequences, and an accelerationist will, by definition, be pleased with these events, as they misguidedly believe that once conditions get to some undetermined level of awfulness, the masses will suddenly self-liberate and an anarchist utopia will last forevermore.

The passivist stance of “deliberate uninvolvement” will surely result in tremendous harm happening to people and to the planet. Autonomy is also the precise antonym of fascism, so efforts to establish parallel structures of self-determination will almost certainly be met “unfavorably” by fascist regimes. It is simply not an option to “tune out” for the next four years and hope that things will get better on their own. This is unequivocally irrational.

If we wish to secure a better future– even only for ourselves and our “opt-in” intentional communities, if not for the world at large– we must actively oppose the rise of fascism. This is particularly true since fascism and nativism will only continue to rise as climate change creates scarcity and instability.

In considering our opposition, we must then decide how we wish to engage the fascists. The Democratic Party has proven itself to be staggeringly useless, time and time again. They have failed the American people for decades, but their gross incompetence over the past decade appears almost deliberate. We simply cannot believe that they, along with a few remaining “moderate” Republicans, can thwart even the most extreme goals of the far-right at this point. Their self-labeling as “The Resistance” during Trump’s first term was farcical, to say the least. The respectable people in suits will not protect us.

This is to say nothing of how the “political left” has allowed the American people to become so uneducated, misinformed, and indoctrinated over the last half-century. Two-thirds of the country either actively voted for fascism, or felt so alienated that they took the passivist stance and chose not to vote at all. But that is ultimately a topic for another time.

Relying on our established system of government, with its vaunted checks and balances, is also a losing strategy. Totalitarian regimes do not care about rules, and they most certainly do not respect norms or traditions. It is now far too late to rely on established rules and precedents to prevent the rise of fascists to power.

They already have the power.

In fact, they have all the power across all three branches of government. Any opposition that could be mounted is ineffective, as they are intent to dismantle the government as fully as possible, and to do so at such a rapid and chaotic rate that attempting to use the “system” to prevent or undo the damage will take far too long, and the damage will be done. We saw this during Trump’s first term, but now they have had nearly a decade to plan and prepare for this.

Protests are ineffective, even where they are not already being criminalized. Organizing a group of well-intentioned Liberals to try to make clever posters, go chant at a building for a few hours, pat themselves on the back, and then go home accomplishes precisely nothing.

Public protest serves two key purposes: to shame the offending parties, and to energize your base to promote further action. But shame wields absolutely no power in modern politics, or really in modern society in general. And the Left has consistently failed to capture their base’s energy for anything other than fundraising.

Even sustained, large-scale movements repeatedly fail the Left, although they do produce results for the Right:

• The Iraq/Afghanistan protests saw continued escalations of those conflicts and did very little to sway public opinion outside of liberal circles
• The Tea Party movement was coopted by the Republicans and resulted in a surge of electoral wins of farther-right candidates
• The Occupy movement was ignored and then ridiculed until it fizzled
• Trump’s candidacy was itself just a performative protest against status quo politics until it, too, was embraced by the Republicans and led to the enduring MAGA cult
• The Women’s March achieved a temporary fashion trend and nothing else
• The BLM protests and their escalating civil disobedience did ultimately achieve some short-term concessions and reform, but most of those have been rolled back (or will be very soon as authoritarianism goose-steps back in)

Time has run out for the Left to learn how to abandon purity tests and identity politics and to translate grassroots movements into meaningful electoral victories. With the legal and less-than-legal suppression of public protests and the continued inefficacy of the “free press,” there is even less chance of peaceful protests having any impact on policy or public sentiment.

Certainly, there must be some threshold that impels the centrists and the moderates to abandon their steadfast faith in the “system,” to admit that sticking to high roads will not save us from savagery, and that gentle rebukes and thinkpieces about the parallels to historical fascists are not enough to stop the barbarians who are now well past the gates.

What option then remains? The resolve to become truly ungovernable? Widespread civil unrest? Sacrifice of what little comfort and security we have? Political violence?

Yes.

If the threat to our democracyNo matter how flawed it is. How very, very flawed. is this dire, we must all fight back accordingly. We must meet savagery with force. If the nationalists intend to imprison and deport millions of people, we cannot stand by and watch in silent horror. If the oligarchs plan to fully take us back to a feudal state, they must be stopped. If the theocrats want to strip us of our bodily autonomy, they must be neutralized. If the tyrants are moving to oppress us further, we must cut them down.

There is no more time for inaction. No more time for civility. No more wringing of our hands and hoping that some vestige of the establishment will stand up and save us. Extremism must be met with extremism.

This is far from virtuousness, but it is necessary.