[begin transmission]

What do I fear?

Nothing. Except...

It took a few conversations with a professor of mine and a late-night discussion with someone exceptionally special to me to determine that one of my greatest fears is that of being forgotten. I don't think this fear of mine is particularly unique to me or even uncommon; I think most people should like to be remembered--and it need not be so grandiose as say, remembered by history, but as ordinary as being remembered by loved ones. Unfortunately for myself, I've been struck with the double-whammy fear of being forgotten on both fronts.

I want to be remembered fondly by those dearest to me. For all of the love that I had to give.

I want to be remembered with reverence by history. For my contributions and achievements towards the glory of mankind.

So that's some of it; the negative feedback that partially informs my motivations. Why do I do the things that I do? Because I'm afraid of being forgotten. That ought to clear up a little bit of ambiguity. Fear can be a powerful motivator; afterall, that's the basis for punishment. To motivate someone to behave well--whether that be a small child to obey her parents' directives, or a citizen observing and obeying the law--there necessarily has to be the threat of punishment to ensure proper behavior, and that punishment must instill adequate fear into the heart of the motivated agent in order to guarantee cooperation.

I think the punishment suits me extremely well, and I'm sure my enemies would find glee in the fact that--should I not operate at my best, should I not love appropriately, should I not strive, should I not work to achieve, should I not be virtuous--I will be forgotten. That is my personal Hell that I can bring upon myself if I fail to fulfill any of those aforementioned conditions. If I decide to slack off, stop learning, become bitter, accept complacency, carry scorn...that would be my justly deserved punishment. Rendered personally for me, and all culpability crushingly lies on me.

It's a demoralizing situation to find oneself in, certainly.

Sometimes I hate people. I see how ungrateful and dishonest people can be in the news and around me.

Sometimes I don't feel good. I don't want to work, I don't want to study, I don't want to exercise.

Sometimes I get tired. I don't want to struggle anymore, I want to settle, I want to be 'done'.

But I can't stop, or else my fears will come true. Fortunately, there is something to counterbalance this fear. Maybe it can rally some morale for you as well?

For this, let's turn to the wisdom of the Greeks. To think that they developed ideas about the world that had intimations towards our modern theories of evolution, astrophysics, atomics...it's truly astonishing and a testament to how great their thinkers were. Of those thinkers and of those ideas that have captured my interest are Plato and Aristotle's conceptualizations of the soul. Full disclosure: things that confuse me, contradict me, or otherwise unsettle me capture most of my attention. I never really understood these conceptualizations until recently, so they've taken residence in my mind for some time now. Now that things have 'clicked'...well, let's say that this particular set of ideas are especially moving. We'll leave it at that.

Right. So, Aristotle, in his endlessly empirical and curious disposition, noted that there were essentially three orders of animate organisms. Plants, animals, and humans. All of these creatures contained some fundamental nature to them--this fundamental nature was thought to be their soul. These souls were arranged in a hierarchical structure. At the bottom, the soul of a plant is said to be nutritive in nature: capable only of growth and reproduction. In the middle tier, the soul of an animal is said to be nutritive plus sensual in nature: capable not only of growth and reproduction, but also capable of sensation and locomotion. Finally, at the top of the hierarchy lies the human soul: nutritive, sensual, plus rational. Humans are capable of growth, reproduction, sensation, locomotion, and uniquely, rationality.

"Okay, who cares? That's obvious."

It's necessary to point out that human beings are unique in that rationality is intrinsic to their very nature, to their soul. Why? Because it's instrumental in understanding Aristotle's teacher--Plato's--theory on the immortality of the soul. Plato posited that the human soul is separable from the body, and thus it endures after death. Contrast this to Aristotle, who, being quite the contrarian, posited that the body and soul are inseparable--this sort of suggests that the soul is not immortal. What's surprising to me is how both of them, while adopting opposing viewpoints on the matter, are both right in a certain sense.

On the Platonic side of things, he is correct. When he is speaking of the human soul, he is speaking of the rationalistic 'power' of thought; the product of which are thoughts, ideas, mental constructions...whatever you'd like to call them. The highlighting point here is that these entities, as well as the capacity that produces them, are immaterial. Hence they are indestructable; they are immortal. Your own capacity for thought, as well as the ideas you generate are enduring, ad infinitum.

Incorporating the Aristotelian take on the matter, thoughts and ideas cannot manifest in the world, nor can the rationalistic 'power' of thought exist without a physical agent possessing it (and being possessed by the thoughts and ideas themselves) i.e. the mind. In this way, body and soul are inseparable, but it can still be argued that the soul itself is immortal. I find it absolutely stunning that this ancient theory of the soul is incredibly relevant today, as modern AI theorists posit that AI necessarily has to be embodied if it is ever to be remotely human-like. Digressions aside, the take-away here is that your thoughts and ideas can be propagated throughout time as they are assimilated by others' minds.

Incorporating these two arguments concerning the immortality of the soul...I find a great deal of beauty that puts that aforementioned fear of mine to rest. I will never be forgotten, and my soul will live on into eternity, so long as men continue to express their fundamental nature that includes reasoning, and so long as they acquire, embody, and propagate good ideas far into the future. The reason why I say 'good' ideas here is because it is very well possible to propagate 'bad' ideas into the future, and those ideas are just as indestructible as the good ones. However, I believe that there is a kind of goodness in truth; the truth is enduring because it is aligned with goodness. Good ideas persist because they are true; bad ones 'die' off (they are no longer embodied) because they are not true. 

In my mind, this reiterates the importance of behaving in accordance to what is right, what is true, and what is good: to comport oneself towards virtue. So long as one exercises virtue, they cannot be forgotten--not by their loved ones, not by their community, and if exercised with sincere care and enough steadfast diligence, not by mankind at large. 

[end transmission]

7H: Hmm? What's this?

(raises a tattered piece of cloth between pinched fingers from the corpse of a machine turning to show it to her companion)

6S: (looking up from the console he's preoccupied himself with, squinting slightly)

That is...a flag. The flag of the United States of America, to be specific. A human nation that existed approximately 9,915 years ago. Where did you find it?

(walks over to 7H)

7H: This little guy here was wrapped up in it, as if it were a blanket.

(she collapses from a squatting position to sitting, her legs childishly splayed to each side as 6S kneels beside her)

These colors, they're pretty! Just slightly below garish--kind of an odd color combination too, right? Red, grey, and blue?

6S: (smiles at his endearingly absent-minded partner)

Red, white, and blue. I think it only appears grey because it's been thoroughly soaked with machine grease. 

(his gaze scans the horizon: dozens of broken machine corpses and casings litter the scene, the pavement thoroughly saturated in machine oil and hydraulic fluid)

7H: (tracing over the patterns embroidered on the fabric with a finger, muttering to herself)

50... There are 50 stars on this flag...

(knits her eyebrows into a frown, thrusting the flag into 6S's face)

6S, what's the significance? Explain it to me. Why are there 50 stars on this flag?!

6S: (knocked onto his rear by the sudden display of enthusiasm)

W-well, you see, the 50 stars represent the 50 states in the United States of America. This particular nation was subdivided into smaller units called 'states', each of which contained its own respective judicial and legislative bodies, its own local Command structure.

7H: (tilts her head, still wearing a frown)

Ah... So these states, they are the same as countries?

6S: (chuckles lightly as he hugs his knees to his chest)

No, not exactly. States are smaller than countries; they're subdivisions of countries.

7H: ...That makes no sense. Why wouldn't the United States of America be one monolithic entity? Or why couldn't each state be its own country? You said that each state had its own Command structure, right? Why have two? That seems unnecessary to me.

6S: (shrugs)

Who knows why humans did what they did? But that unnecessary part you're referring to is known as 'federalism'. Apparently it was one of the crowning achievements of the United States of America, among others.

7H: (quizzically)

Ohh? Hmm... Why is that an achievement? It doesn't seem so impressive to implement a redundant, cumbersome form of Command structure.

6S: (pensively gazes up at the leaking ceiling as he accesses his memory blocks)

In order to better appreciate the accomplishment, greater historical context must be taken into consideration. See, the United States of America wasn't founded like a typical country. Throughout humanity's history, countries were usually built around ethnic identity, common history, or localized geographical conditions...that kind of thing. This nation in particular was unique in that it's founding wasn't based on any of that, but rather an ideology. So here you have this nascent country of disparate groups of pioneering people, no grand, cohesive, cultural identity, all united under a set of ideas.

7H: Those being?

6S: All men are created equal and are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The cumbersome Command structure you referred to only exists to protect those rights.

7H: (incredulously)
Huuuh?! But 6S, humanity was NOT created equal. Some people were smart compared to others, some were dumb; why, physically quite a few were fat while others were thin...As such some are better equipped to live, to exert their will, to secure material. How could you make a blatant lie the foundation for a new country?

6S: (chews on his thumbnail in uncertainty)

I might be reading into it too much, but I think they meant not equal in capacity. It's sorta hard to understand why, but United States of America humans thought that all humans should be treated equitably. There is no rational basis for this belief, it was just something they accepted axiomatically.

7H: (scoffs as she tosses the tattered flag to her companion)

That is outright nonsensical. Tsk. What became of this country anyway? I imagine it didn't last long?

6S: (catches the flag, inspecting it)

No, not at all. After it was founded, it was embroiled in civil war a few decades later, enjoyed relative peace and prosperity thereafter, achieved superpower status, participated in five massive wars, and ultimately came to an abrupt end in 2028.

7H: Six major conflicts in the span of 250 or so years? They sure were fond of fighting.

(groans lightly as she stands to her feet, smoothing her dress)

Yeah, I'm not surprised at all that they eventually got their butts handed to them. As humanity used to say, 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail'.

6S: (looking up from his investigation)

Er, I think the expression you're looking for is 'the nail that sticks out g'--

7H: (shoots a poisonous glance at her know-it-all companion)

6S: (hurriedly refocuses)

I-I mean...seven! Seven major conflicts. They weren't conquered either, but fractured. This division was precipitated by a second civil war that began in 2020.

7H: (her eyes light up in awe)

Oh! So they turned on each other once more? The blood-thirsty lot of them! 

6S: Yep. The 2010s were characterized by the white chlorination syndrome pandemic and sociopolitical unrest, which came to a head with mass riots spreading across the country.

7H: You've gotta be kidding me. Social issues is what did them in? You'd think that in a society based on the foundational idea of 'all men are created equal' there'd be very little reason to complain. Was there a shortage of material resources at the time?

6S: As far as I can tell, no. If anything, this particular time period in human history was quite prosperous.

7H: Hmm...United States of America humans seem like an inefficient as well as unreasonable bunch. Why didn't the Command units use force to stop the riots?

6S: It went against the ideology. Rebelling against their Command units was something that was protected in the United States of America's national ethos, and was a large part of the culture.

7H: (throws her hands up in despair, bringing them to rest as she crosses her arms)

I dunno then 6S, it seems like these humans got what they deserved, having built a nation on outright lies and naivete while encouraging dissent within their very ranks!

6S: Hey, I agree with you! Why are you getting mad at me for? It was an interesting experiment for humanity to try; I'm surprised it lasted so long. I guess the laws of nature ultimately win out in the end, huh? 

(begins to neatly fold the ragged flag, tucking it into his breast pocket)

7H: That's right. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Humanity learned this lesson, the machines know this, and us YoRHa have embodied this truth.

6S: That...hey! Have you been raiding my literature repos again?!

7H: (impishly smiles and puts a finger to her lips)

[begin transmission]

But...

...

...

...

Fine. I'll do it.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

If justice is being given what is deserved,

And justice is believed to exist in the world,

And sin is believed to be intrinsic to the human condition,

Then maybe the question isn't so much 'why do bad things happen?'

The question rather, is 'why does any good occur at all?'.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Black Lives Matter. What a troublesome name for a movement.

Semantically, I agree with the phrase, as do most Americans. The lives of black people do matter, just as much as the lives of any other race, really. What I dislike about the name is its intentionally divisive nature; it is meant to imply that the people that may not agree with the movement on an ideological level do not agree with the phrase semantically. They do not think black lives matter and are therefore obviously racist. I think it's such a nasty, dishonest tactic that spoils the chance for any intelligent discourse on the matters in consideration from the get-go, and is part of the reason why we seem to be stuck spinning our wheels on the race issue in this country. Every other discussion we have seems to be held in bad faith and we're too busy attacking each other rather than trying to formulate solutions.

Now, it is said that is the mission of the protesters and rioters: to bring resolution to the race issue in the U.S. Regarding the protesters, that position can be addressed and I will address it here shortly. Though, the rioters? That one is easy. Anyone that has not condemned the rioters yet, or views their anger as 'justified' in any way are NOT seeking resolution. You do not combat violence with more violence outside of the rubric of self-defense, and you do not address bigotry with more bigotry. 

It is my wish not to get too hung-up on names, polemics, and the obvious, contemptible violence of the rioters. Right then, so why is it that I cannot support a movement such as Black Lives Matter, even if they were to consist of entirely peaceful protesters? My main contention with the movement is their view that the United States of America is so horribly racist to such an extent that 'systemic racism' is endemic, and that the U.S. justice system is one of such systems corrupted by racial bias.

First, I'd like to say that the incident that sparked all of the recent protests, the killing of George Floyd, has yet to be determined to be a racially motivated crime. At face value the video footage unquestionably shows an instance of police brutality, as several officers and law enforcement experts have testified and disavowed such actions--namely that of kneeling on the neck in order to apprehend a perpetrator. However, nowhere in the footage is any indication of overt racism present, nor has any evidence turned up that Officer Chauvin is indeed a racist. So then, why are people protesting this on racism rather than police brutality?

I think it might be because they've bought into the ideology of BLM without giving it much thought. Every instance of something negative happening to a black person--especially at the hands of a white person--is attributable to endemic racism. I want to believe that some of the BLM supporters are doing it partially out of ignorance; they do not know exactly what it is that they're supporting. Were they better informed, they would withdraw their support immediately. Others, I believe are supporting it out of optics; it's fashionable to be an activist these days for some marginalized group, and the opportunity to virtue-signal and appear as one of the moral betters among your peers is far too good to pass up. Companies have certainly parroted support for the movement for similar reasons to maintain profit. But the rest? I believe that they are in it because they truly believe in the narrative that BLM pushes. It is my intention to challenge that narrative, so let's get to it.

------- BLM Myth 01: The police specifically targets blacks -------

If one were to tune into and unquestionably hang off of every word of the liberal news media, it would be fairly easy to be convinced that this myth were true. Cherry picking select cases, such as those of Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, and Michael Brown (there's about ~30 cases often mentioned by BLM activists but these are by far the most often cited) and reporting only on them might give one the false impression that it is open season on blacks. After all, in the wake of George Floyd's death, the mayor of Minneapolis went on television to solemnly say "Being black in America should not be a death sentence.". The implication here being that it is a death sentence to be black in America. All the while people wonder why racial tensions seem to be worsening in this country: it's because the media are painting a biased picture by honing in on the most controversial, most inflammatory, most suggestive of racially-motivated violence of cases.

Towards maintaining a healthy amount of perspective, I ask that you keep the following figure in mind: 1.2 million. That is the number of violent crimes committed in the U.S. in 2018, according to FBI crime statistics. Now tell me, out of this vast sea of instances--numbering in the millions--is it wise to try and characterize the entirety of the U.S. justice system based off a few select cases--numbering in the tens? It hardly seems reasonable to me.

But this figure alone doesn't address the reason why blacks are disproportionately killed by the police. I'm astonished at how many times in the past week I've had to explain conditional probability to people to get a point across. Right, so, according to FBI crime statistics, in 2016 blacks committed 37% of violent crime in the U.S., whilst only comprising of 13% of the U.S. population. Thus blacks commit far more violent crime than any other racial group in the U.S. on a per capita basis. This is a sad truth, that is probably has a very nuanced and complex reason behind it, and it is certainly worth exploring. However, it is a simple statistical consequence that, if there are more instances of people of a particular racial group committing violent crime, then it is likely that when the police shoot and kill a person committing a violent crime, that person will belong to the aforementioned racial group. This does not necessarily mean that the police are racist--it is simply a matter of exposure and probability. If you want less black people dying at the hands of the police, then black people should stop committing the majority of violent crime.

This isn't by my own logic either. Study after study (even this recent study) has demonstrated as much as well.

------- BLM Myth 02: The U.S. was founded on and perpetuates a culture of racism -------

I find this myth in particular to be very telling of the education level and all around historical awareness that a person possesses. No one that is even basically familiar with world history would agree with this statement. The fact of the matter is that yes, the U.S. was founded and flourished in part due to the utilization of slave labor. This is hardly remarkable considering several civilizations practiced slavery. Even those that are more broadly anti-Western would be shocked to find their beloved 'noble savages' of Africa and pre-Colombian Americas frequently enslaved their weaker neighbors. To try and frame slavery as a sin that is uniquely American is to be so painfully unaware or willfully blind towards humanity's history. Whatever it takes to be part of the anti-American "it crowd' I guess.

No, what makes the United States amazing are the facts that yes, we practiced slavery and yes, it made us extremely prosperous as a nation; despite this we chose to be one of the first countries to abolish the practice and form a country on the ideological basis that every man is free. The U.S. had literally every reason to maintain slavery because of how profitable it was in the South. We went into a civil war over the issue that risked tearing the young, developing country into two, potentially ending everything that had been accomplished up until then. Critics of this notion would often point to the fact that the France was the first to formally abolish the practice and that the U.S. didn't formally abolish until the 1860s, it is noteworthy to point out that it was certainly in the first 20. Maybe this isn't particularly good enough for some, maybe their criteria for being great liberators would hold that a country has to be first 15 or 10 or 5. Fair enough. Though, I'd advise that it be recognized there are ~195 countries in the world; being in the first ~10% isn't bad at all. Even conceding that there were only ~80 countries in the world by 1900, being in the first quarter of those countries to abolish isn't too shabby, particularly when the relatively young lifespan of the U.S. is taken into consideration and that movements towards abolition began as early as 1775.

An attack on America's history wouldn't be complete with the attack on America's ideological foundation. How is it that the founding fathers such as Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin proclaim to believe that all men are created equal and possess inalienable rights while holding slaves? This is blatant hypocrisy. I will admit that this fact is troublesome and it certainly puts a damper on the admiration one may hold for these men and their ideas. I take great comfort in knowing that the founding fathers, although slaveholders themselves, at the very least knew intellectually that slavery was morally unjustifiable. To anyone that might idolize these men as heroes, or condemn them as villains, it is important to keep in mind that they were merely men living among men, at their particular point in history. As such their worldviews were shaped by whatever philosophy, science, or pervading cultural ethos was present at the time. It's all too easy for us as modern people to look back into the past and read-in mal intent, to self-righteously judge the 'backwardness' of earlier people with 240+ years of collective wisdom and knowledge under our belts that we did not earn ourselves but inherited. It's intellectual self-indulgence and arrogance of the worst kind.

Eventually, albeit ever-so gradually, the founding ideology was realized in the 1860s. Sort of. Kind of. Not really. Following the American Civil War, the U.S. suffered through Jim Crow laws for a little more than a century, Admittedly this is a blight on America's history, as there were state laws that promoted outright racial segregation, only being overturned completely with the Civil Rights Act in 1964; 56 years ago. I make a point of mentioning this, as I want to make it expressly clear that racism was a real, tangible, and commonplace problem in the United States at one time. Things have improved so much since then, but critical theory cynicism and general historical ignorance have made many of those among us unappreciative of that reality. In fact, it's so much of a non-issue that people must resort to invoking the miasma of 'systemic racism' or the spectre of 'implicit bias' in order to implicate any sort of large-scale racial issue in the U.S. We'll address that one in a bit.

As far as I can tell, the most conspicuous outcroppings of American-based, modern day racism are the KKK (all whopping 3000 klansmen) and the BLM movement. Both groups would be perfectly happy to return to Jim Crow-esque segregation of the races.

------- BLM Myth 03: Systemic racism is what's keeping blacks from flourishing -------

'Systemic racism' and 'implicit bias'; a couple buzzwords in the social sciences that have not only considerably lowered the quality of academic research in the field, but have also served as excuses for poor outcomes in black communities. Immediately out of hand, it's easy to see that systemic racism--that is racism that is baked into the legislative, judicial, and financial systems of the U.S.--is simply not a thing. And if it were a thing, sheesh...we're pretty bad at being racist. Were our country so hopelessly racist that even its institutional inner-workings were corrupt, I don't think we'd have black millionaires or billionaires. We wouldn't have blacks as cultural leaders, or even political leaders for that matter. Why, just before Trump did we not have eight years of Obama? Only in America can an idiot like Colin Kapernick make $18.5 million between 2017 and 2018 and proclaim that the U.S. keeps black people down.

When I ask BLM supporters to provide explicit examples of policy (whether that be legislative, economic, or civic) indicative of systemic racism, I can never really get a straight answer. The most often cited example is what's known as redlining; essentially banks carving out sections of major cities such as Tampa, Atlanta, and Chicago and only providing mortgages to whites while rejecting credit-worthy minorities. Many Democrats and liberals would be shocked to find out that this practice began in the 1930s as part of FDR's New Deal, but we don't talk about that part because it goes against the popular narrative. At any rate, redlining is a perfect example of systemic racism...good thing it was made illegal 52 years ago in 1968 under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. An analysis of the Boston metropolitan area banking data demonstrates that by 1990, banks were pretty much lending mortgages to black and white applicants at nearly the same rate; the remaining difference could be accounted by the propensity of blacks having higher loan-to-value ratios and poorer credit histories. These two variables are intimately connected to household income. We'll address household income in a bit.

Now, there is a case being made that although the redlining was done away with so long ago, current-generation blacks are still feeling the repercussions of it today. Anecdotally, the claim appears to have some validity. An impoverished black person can say that their life began well behind the starting point compared to other races. Their parents who were restricted to the projects couldn't get a good education, hamstringing their earning potential, and thus forcing them to grow up in a similarly impoverished neighborhood where the cycle will repeat itself. This is known as intergenerational poverty. According to the Brookings Institute following three simple rules will break the cycle for 75% of Americans and put them into the middle class: 01.) Graduate high school. 02.) Get any job at all. 03.) Don't have children out of wedlock.

79% of blacks are graduating high school, the lowest second only to Native Americans.

The unemployment rate for blacks in U.S. is 6.1%, 1.6 times the national average.

50% of unmarried couples w/ children will break up before the child is nine.

The first two factors and their relationship to income make immediate sense, with the third one requiring a little more elaboration; first, if you graduate high school, your chances of securing a job is increased, as is your potential to continue to higher education and in turn increase your earning potential. Secondly, if you have a job you're going to be making an income, obviously. For the third: having a child out of wedlock increases the likelihood that the couple will split before the child is nine years old; a household where there is only one parent typically means that there is only one income earner leading to a markedly less total income compared to a two-parent household.

These are the factors that lead to poorer outcomes across all races in general, the last factor is I think the most detrimental for black youth. By 1990 64% of black children were born to single mothers. Aside from the impact on household income described above, fatherlessness negatively affects the development of children in a multitude of ways. The absence of fatherhood results in poorer academic performance, increased behavioral issues, increased drug use, increased association with deviants, increased propensity towards criminal behavior, greater and earlier engagement in sexual activity, and, surprise surprise, poverty. Fatherlessness accounts for nearly all the troubles that are plaguing black communities. And yet, Black Lives Matter will maintain a position that calls to "...disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure..." on their very own mission statement. 

------- Conclusion -------

It's been about two weeks since I've started writing this post, and in that span of time more people have been injured or killed, more people have begun to kowtow to the activists, monuments have been toppled or vandalized. A good police officer faces either lifetime imprisonment or death row for stopping a dangerous criminal, all because of a DA that is giving into the pressure exerted by the mobs. Police in major metropolitan areas are calling out sick or not responding to calls because of the strong anti-police sentiment in the air. Crime in these areas is now on the rise. Statues of Jefferson, Washington, and Grant have been torn down or vandalized as an attempt to re-write history is being made. Why? Because these figures of the past fail to meet our self-righteous modern standards of virtue. A six block radius in downtown Seattle has been captured and occupied by activists and the cowardly mayor of Seattle and governor of Washington refuse to reclaim their city out of fear of the mobs. Moreover, they're reluctant to accept help from the President and the National Guard to restore order simply because of petty partisan politics.

Recently, I've purchased my first firearm. I've never been one for guns, they simply never interested me all too much. From a safety standpoint I figured that, should it ever come to it, I could always rely on the police to respond to my calls for help. After the ready willingness for the general public to relinquish constitutional rights to the government with the COVID-19 lockdown, after the failure of state officials to quash rioting in their own cities, and now that defunding police departments across the nation is on the table, it has become strikingly clear to me that owning a firearm is no longer a luxury but essential. Self-defense is my responsibility; no one will come to my rescue during my time of need. 

Hobbes wrote that a leviathan is necessary to exercise sovereign authority, to keep man safe not only from foreign conquers but also from his fellow compatriots--this is part of the social contract and an essential feature of government. These days I can't help but feel that someone's end of the contract was not upheld, and we seem closer to a state of nature more than ever before. All because of some unproven, nebulous claims of racism...Christ, I can't believe it. This lamentable fact I lay full responsibility squarely at the feet of identitarian Leftist movements such as Black Lives Matter, and anyone that has the gall to uncritically support such an appalling cause.

[end transmission]

China's crimes to be held accountable for:

-US intellectual property theft.
-Unjust claims of maritime territory in the South China Sea, according to international law.
-Mass persecution of Uyghrs.
-Violation of Hong Kong's judicial independence.
-Exportation of COVID-19 from Wuhan.
-Nuclear weapons testing, in violation of international law.