To clarify the concept of misplaced kindness I am going to start with an analogy. Imagine a person who feeds a pet dog on chocolate. The person does it out of kindness and love for the pet, but chocolate can be poisonous for a dog. The giving of the chocolate is not a ‘false’ kindness or an ‘unkindness’ as the person does it with a generous and sincere desire to be kind. However the outcome for the recipient is bad.
Misplaced kindness can be a very serious problem in education. Ultimately it can lead to school standards collapsing to the point that a school can become a ‘failing school.’
Fear pushes people to adopt a defensive posture. When people feel anxious, they’re less open to diverse ideas and opinions, and less forgiving and tolerant of those they disagree with. When people are afraid, they cling to the certainty of the world they know and avoid taking physical, emotional and intellectual risks. In short, fear causes people to privilege psychological security over liberty.
On with the dance-but it must be danced according to the rules. And the strange thing is that the crowd will accept the rules as a crowd, while at the same time the individuals composing the crowd may be unanimous in hating the rules.
To me a London ballroom symbolizes what England is. Dancing which should be an individual and creative pleasure, it reduced to a stiff walk. One couple dances just like another couple. Crowd conservatism prevents most dancers from being original. Yet the joy of dancing is the joy of invention. When invention is left out, dancing becomes mechanical and dull. English dancing fully expresses the English fear of emotion and originality.
If there is no room for freedom in such a pleasure as dancing how can we expect to find it in the more serious aspects of life? If one dare not invent his own dance steps, it is unlikely that he will be tolerated if he dares to invent his own religious educational or political steps !
There should be an equal opportunity for all. Each and every person should have as great or as small an opportunity as the next one. There should not be the unfair, unequal, superior opportunity of one individual over another.
WordPress is an open source software. It is free in the sense of freedom not in the sense of free beer. You may ask what is the difference between these two? Open Source software comes with freedom for you to use, modify, build upon, and redistribute the software in any way you like. However, there might be costs involved somewhere.
Le Strasbourgeois Muammar Yilmaz et son compère berlinois Milan Bihlmann ont décidé de partir sur les traces du héro de Jules Verne Phileas Fogg, mais sans un sou en poche. Ils vivent de la générosité des personnes qu’ils rencontrent sur leur chemin.
Ils ont quitté la France le 9 Septembre dernier et ont depuis déjà parcouru onze pays. Les aventuriers sont actuellement en route pour Singapour.
Bavaria has cleared the way for Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf to be published in Germany for the first time since the Second World War.
The state owns the copyright for the book and had blocked all attempts to publish a new German language edition because of fears that it would encourage a resurgence of the far right. However, the copyright, which transferred to the state of Bavaria after the Nazi party’s publishing house Eher Verlag was liquidated in 1945, expires next year.
Plans to republish the book with an academic commentary early in 2016 were approved in 2012, but last December the idea was blocked following complaints from Holocaust survivors. Bavaria then declared that the book was “seditious” and should never appear in print in German.
However, the state has now revised its ruling. “We have changed our minds,” said Ludwig Spaenle, the Bavarian Minister of Culture, on Wednesday. He said Bavaria would not oppose the project because it was in the interests of “freedom of science”.
Stefan Kramer, the council’s general secretary, said the internet had made him change his views.
Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance, nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.
Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity.
… all that is needed is freedom.
One should distinguish between the terms “freedom” and “liberty.” Speaking generally, Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, although both refer to the quality or state of being free. Jefferson’s use of the terms almost always reflected those meanings. Thus, he never spoke of freedom as a right, though liberty is listed in the Declaration as one of our inalienable rights. It is safe to say that whenever Jefferson spoke of freedom, he referred to that state that is free from despotic oppression. The thought of “limitations to freedom” in its general sense was never addressed as such because freedom was not used in the sense of our being free to do anything we want. Consequently, when he spoke of freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom, he was always referring to the release from despotic restraints; nevertheless, one might always assume that there were limitations of one sort or another. But it was not the limitations he was addressing, rather the release from oppressive restriction. All laws can be viewed as a restrictions on freedom, and such restrictions are proper in any well-regulated society.
How much evil throughout history could have been avoided had people exercised their moral acuity with convictional courage and said to the powers that be, “No, I will not. This is wrong, and I don’t care if you fire me, shoot me, pass me over for promotion, or call my mother, I will not participate in this unsavory activity.” Wouldn’t world history be rewritten if just a few people had actually acted like individual free agents rather than mindless lemmings?
On a grander scale, when a society segregates itself, the consequences affect the economy, the emotions, and the ecology. That’s one reason why it’s easy for pro-lifers to eat factory-raised animals that disrespect everything sacred about creation. And that is why it’s easy for rabid environmentalists to hate chainsaws even though they snuggle into a mattress supported by a black walnut bedstead.
All things are born into this world… and eventually they die. That is the pure and simple truth.
A path not chosen is the same as a path that never existed.
No matter how much we look back at the past, we never go back. We can not change what has already happened.
People like you walk a path thinking something you desire is waiting for you. I walk to confirm there is nothing there.
But then what is hope? That all of your wishes and all of your dreams come true? To have your prayers answered? To turn back time because things weren’t supposed to happen like that? Could you say with absolute certainty that you would not make the same mistake again? Who decided all this, and what’s been decided?
Legislators in Mexico City, the largest city in North America, are preparing to push through certain measures that would decriminalize and regulate the consumption of marijuana in the Mexican capital, a move that may speed up pot legalization elsewhere on the continent.
Government programs that involuntarily transfer or redistribute wealth are immoral because they violate the individual’s natural right to order his own actions and possessions. Theft is immoral. Likewise, theft via the government is immoral.
Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson highlight the differences between collectivism and individualism. The philosophy of collectivism regards the individual as a means to society’s ends and is thus immoral, whereas individualism respects the freedom and autonomy of each member of society.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx, 1875
“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1801
«Ребята, это вы сделали так, что я один» Алексей Навальный и Юрий Сапрыкин спорят о праве на нейтралитет
Сегодня Кировский суд признал Алексея Навального виновным в хищении леса — и приговорил его к пяти годам тюрьмы. Для номера «Афиши», который выйдет через неделю и будет посвящен дискуссиям вокруг самых насущных вопросов российской современности, редакция попросила Навального пополемизировать о том, действительно ли у жителей России сегодня нет права на политический нейтралитет, с Юрием Сапрыкиным. Мы считаем необходимым опубликовать этот разговор уже сегодня.
Good bye, totalitarian Facebook
I tried a six-week long break in communication with the people I used to chat almost daily since 2009. Now I realized that I am not willing to work for people who can block my page because my thoughts are different from theirs. I am not going to let some Facebook employees hired by a certain Katya Skorobogatova (who is she anyway?) to tell me what I can and what I cannot post on my account in the literary Russian language? ! 🙂
I have three kids and I do not want any social network as part of their totalitarian “tolerance” prohibit heterosexuals from not just expressing an opinion, but simply defending it, eating antonyms of the insults they were insulted with, and dictating what should a “tolerant “community” be like. I, unlike Zuckerberg and Skorobogatova, want to have grandchildren. I want to give them the love that parents do not have a chance to give their children…
I understand that FB, through the hands of their moderators hired by Skorobogatova, does not let me share with you my thoughts as a father of three … If so – why don’t they get lost?
All I want to write will be publish by Pravda.Ru or VKontakte where I’ve moved for now.
We live in a world that is subjectively open. And we are designed by evolution to be “informavores”, epistemically hungry seekers of information, in an endless quest to improve our purchase on the world, the better to make decisions about our subjectively open future.
When the Tor Project was announced a decade ago, Google was still largely seen as fulfilling its corporate motto, “Don’t be evil,” and Twitter didn’t even exist. But researchers Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson could already see trouble on the horizon. Created in a U.S. naval lab to safeguard government communications, their brainchild the Tor Project is designed to protect anyone and everyone from the dangers of Big Brother. The free software, now relied on by hundreds of thousands of users daily, bounces information through the computers of 3,000 volunteers around the world, hiding the identity of the original user.
to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information’s unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech…
anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation– and their ideas from suppression– at the hand of an intolerant society.
the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
– mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority
though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn’t.
We perform simply because we love our jobs in the theater. It’s a life that we choose to lead, to be able to say what we think.
We’re on a wanted list — we’re public enemies.
Much of the oppression Belarusians are subjected to is comparable to that in Egypt and Libya. The only difference is that Belarus doesn’t generate great geopolitical interest. We don’t have gas or oil, we just have a lot of people.
We are not politicians. We believe it’s necessary — whether you’re a businessman, a doctor, an actor or anything else — to tell the truth. We are very interested in the lives of people…we speak about very, very personal issues, and everyone who attends should find a connection in our work to their own lives.
In an interview yesterday for Al-Jazeera, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) could not treat Al-Aqsa TV employees as “legitimate journalists” like BBC or Al-Jazeera English journalists.
Reporters Without Borders condemns Regev’s position and points out that news media enjoy the same rights as civilians under humanitarian law and their offices cannot be regarded as military targets.
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire yesterday said that support for Hamas could not be used as grounds for attacking a news organization. “Attacks on civilian targets are war crimes and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions,” Deloire said. “Those responsible must be identified.”
Christjan Bee, 36, of Monett, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. England to possessing obscenity.
On Aug. 8, 2011, Bee’s wife contacted the Monett Police Department and reported that she had found files she believed to be child pornography on a computer used by her husband. Police officers executed a search warrant at Bee’s residence and seized his computer.
During the forensic examination of Bee’s computer, a collection of electronic comics, entitled “incest comics,” were discovered on the computer. These comics contained multiple images of minors engaging in graphic sexual intercourse with adults and other minors. The depictions clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Under the terms of today’s plea agreement, the government will recommend a sentence of three years in federal prison without parole. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
European nations and the US, as well as some celebrities, voiced sharp criticism of Russia on Friday over jail sentences handed to three members of the punk band Pussy Riot who protested against President Vladimir Putin in a church.
I’m writing to show my support for you at this difficult time. I would like you to know that I very much hope the Russian authorities would support the principle of free speech for all their citizens and not feel that they have to punish you for your protest. Many people in the civilized world are allowed to voice their opinions and as long as they do not hurt anyone in doing so I believe this is the best way forward for all societies. I hope you can stay strong and believe that I and many others like me who believe in free speech will do everything in our power to support you and the idea of artistic freedom.
Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.
>We define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in struggle against, the things our significant others want to see in us. Even after we outgrow some of these others—our parents, for instance—and they disappear from our lives, the conversation with them continues within us as long as we live.
I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me.
One great thing about getting old is that you can get out of all sorts of social obligations just by saying you’re tired.
When it comes to God’s existence, I’m not an atheist and I’m not an agnostic- I’m an acrostic, the whole thing puzzles me.
Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.
Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilization, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations. In this sense, only liberty can truly ward off tyranny, the great and eternal foe of mankind.
To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.
Chaotic neutral is the philosophy that the pursuit of liberty and freedom is a desirable end in and of itself. It is a philosophy of pure equitistic individualism. This philosophy holds that the best way for all beings to pursue a rational self-interest is in a society devoid of social order. By putting the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the state or social order, each being can advance its own self-interest with a minimum of interference from others.
The ideal government for this alignment is an minimalist state or anarchy supporting a social order in which they are allowed maximum freedom. Whether the social order supports altruistic actions or egoistic actions is of no concern to the followers of this alignment. Chaotic neutral beings want the power of the state to be as weak as possible, or preferably, non-existent. Chaotic neutrals generally support justice systems that allow maximum freedom for individuals to pursue their own personal agendas.
Among many companions;whether one rests, stand, sit, or walk; there are endless requests from others …; having respect for and appreciation of Freeing Independence …; which is not liked by any other; one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn.
… Chomsky is not inconsistent … when he claims to be both a libertarian and a socialist. His socialism poses no particular problems: it is about the need for and the way in which humans organise and live together collectively as individuals. The values of freedom and equality are not mutually exclusive. Chomsky’s views on human nature lend his particular position on libertarian socialism greater authority. Liberty and equality are not only interdependent and progressive values, since, in Chomsky’s view, they are also necessary to or preferable for the healthy development of the human condition. Chomsky’s evidence for such a necessity is far from concrete, as he admits. However, his work in linguistics is certainly suggestive of such a claim. Further it has been argued that for Chomsky freedom and equality are not absolute concepts but are not absolute concepts but are always relative to objective reality. As such Chomsky cannot be accused of teleologucal thinking. By this view then, there is no ‘end’ to history. But there can nevertheless be progress.
The liberal individual is autonomous, rational, self-interested and self-determining. These characteristics are a priori given, and as such are not influenced by the nature and character of the society in which individuals co-exist.
Pascal raised the question: How do you know whether God exists? He said, if I assume that he exists and he does, I’ll make out OK. If he doesn’t, I won’t lose anything. If he does exist and I assume he doesn’t I may be in trouble. That’s basically the logic. On this issue of human freedom, if you assume that there’s no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, etc., there’s a chance you may contribute to making a better world. That’s your choice.
The 1999 and 2001 data provided evidence that approximately 50 per cent of ethnic Kyrgyz marriages were the result of kidnappings. These data provided evidence that as many as 66 per cent of these marriages were non-consensual. The first two studies concluded that approximately 33 per cent of ethnic Kyrgyz women were married against their will as a result of bride kidnapping. The 2004 data show that 80 per cent of Kyrgyz marriages in this village are the result of kidnappings. These data illustrate that 57 per cent of these marriages are non-consensual. The 2004 village study suggests that 45 per cent of the ethnic Kyrgyz women are married against their will as a result of bride kidnapping. Based on the cumulated data from the three studies, we estimate that approximate 35–45 per cent of married ethnic Kyrgyz women are married against their will as a result of bride kidnapping.
The evidence from the 2004 village study suggests the rate of kidnapping and the rate of non-consent have been increasing for the last 40–50 years. The percentage of women kidnapped has increased from 64 per cent to over 85 per cent and the percentage of women kidnapped without consent from 43 per cent to 75 per cent for the 16–25 year-old age group. The weight of the evidence here points to an increase in male dominance rather than to a practice that counters arranged marriages and affirms a lover’s option. If it were primarily a lover’s option, a much higher percentage of the kidnap-marriages would be consensual.
“The chief division of the rights of persons is this: men are all either free or slaves.”
Slavery has been an institution throughout the history of the human race. What about today? In America and no doubt in other countries of the world, people are told from childhood that they are free. But just because something has been drummed into your head all of your life mean that what you have been mentally conditioned to believe is true? … There is nothing new about religion and politics combining forces to make people conform to a certain way of thinking. Power and truth have collided throughout history. Today is no different.
There are now several books and magazines devoted to what is called the “voluntary simplicity” movement. Its core idea is that we have too many choices, too many decisions, too little time to do what is really important.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure that people attracted to this movement think about “simplicity” in the same way I do. Recently I opened a magazine called Real Simple to ﬁnd something of a simplicity credo. It said that “at the end of the day, we’re so caught up in doing, there’s no time to stop and think. Or to take care of our own wants and needs.” Real Simple, it is claimed, “offers actionable solutions to simplify your life, eliminate clutter, and help you focus on what you want to do, not what you have to do.” Taking care of our own “wants” and focusing on what we “want” to do does not strike me as a solution to the problem of too much choice. It is precisely so that we can, each of us, focus on our own wants that all of these choices emerged in the ﬁrst place.
For better or worse, 401(k) plans represent the future of retirement in this country. Yet the design of these plans leaves the critical investment decisions to emotion-driven, novice investors who are typically uneducated and uninterested when it comes to properly managing an investment portfolio. As a result, this “freedom of choice” be comes the “tyranny of choice,” and a vast number of American workers face an uncertain future in retirement.
Qui ne connaît pas Brassens ? Tout le monde a chantonné un jour l’une de ses chansons. L’homme est installé dans la mémoire collective avec l’image parfois consensuelle du père tranquille que l’on chante en famille au coin du feu, celle de l’ami qui nous rassure parce qu’il nous parle d’un monde où les amoureux se bécotent sur les bancs publics, où les croquants vont en ville à cheval, où Margot dégrafe son corsage pour donner la gougoutte à son chat… Quand les chansons sont restées, l’image de l’homme s’est brouillée, adoucie, comme ternie. Il est temps de découvrir que derrière la figure fleurant bon la France d’antan, se cache un individu rare, hautement lettré, fin connaisseur de la poésie française, un grand timide mal à l’aise sur scène, un formidable musicien pétri du swing et amoureux de Charles Trenet, un libertaire qui choisira une voie individuelle plutôt que les combats collectifs, sans renier ses convictions, s’opposant à la guerre, à la morale bien-pensante ou à l’arbitraire de la justice et de la police, une force tranquille, inébranlable dans le tourbillon du succès, qui n’a jamais suivi que sa petite musique intérieure.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.
… liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state.
The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security. This liberal conception won, in a sense, its greatest triumph in the election of 1952 when the Republican party, as the party of conservatism, accepted as permanent the changes brought in the American scene by a generation of liberal reform.
… to use this Fund to the end that some hopeful contribution may be made to the preservation, restoration, and development of individual liberty through investigation, research, and educational activity.
I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name. It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think.
I don’t believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics.
I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
There is a hurricane ablowing and just by knowing what you know, you have an advantage to the blind morons that surround you everyday. However not everyone can be saved. Ancient proverb: don’t bother telling the truth to your friend because he already knows and don’t bother telling the truth to your enemy because he won’t believe you. Civilize those you can and fuck the rest. There are too many people in this world. It is not our responsibility to be constantly cleaning up after the weak-minded. Nature will eventually run its course and those too stupid to live will fortunately be crushed beneath the wheels of our progress. Assume your individuality. Culture can rob you of your uniqueness. That’s how stereotypes exist, and not without reason. Anyone too wrapped up in the sheep mentality of their ethnicity can never truely express themselves as individuals. Read, watch, listen, do what you want. But be warned! You cannot have this freedom at no cost. You must pay in responsibility. If you listen to Marilyn Manson and murder your family then you will go to jail. That’s reality. If you decide to commit suicide for a song – so long sucker! That kind of thinking has no place in our movement. Right now as a family, as an army we are limited as a minority. Laws bind us. But it is important to remember the law is only what is popular. Not whats right or wrong. Marilyn Manson rejects conventional morality and society’s self-serving standards. When we become the majority, we will decide who doesn’t belong. As misanthropes and throw-away lods we will not submit to the mainstream. You will become it. And America should be very, very afraid. I am you.
What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.