Tag Archives: essays

Destroying Tomorrow

“Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today” – Ayn Rand.

First off, let me say that I’m glad to be back with bae (Rand). I constantly return to the words written by the philosophizing, Russian born, American bred author, Ayn Rand; I believe her moral views on the world to be similar to my own. But this quote struck me as I was reading the introduction to her work, “The Romantic Manifesto”, and I find myself pondering a recurring question…what is the future? Does it even exist? In my honest opinion, I want to destroy the future, because it is a fortified construct that men place their dreams, aspirations, and desires within, just to let them die. We all imagine the future as a vast horizon that resembles the sky at the end of the day, vibrant with warm shades of the unknown, but that is not what it really is. The future is a bleak prison cell, lined with bars constructed by cast iron and diamond, it is unbreakable. I do not like the future for it is man’s greatest excuse for inaction.

How many times must we hear, “I’ll handle that later,” “We can wait until tomorrow”, “Why not wait until there’s more time,”? All these confessions are empty, devoid of any honest truth, just the hollow ramblings of spineless individuals. If you encourage future action, then be adamant about it and set it in your brain that you will see it through, it not then you add to the list. The future is not real, and if it is, it does not abide within tomorrow. It is here, sharing this exact moment with us, for the future is a direct, and possibly the only, substantial result of the present. The future exists due to the present, and if one happens to reserve decisions until tomorrow, then they are not waiting for the future. They are only prolonging the inevitable choice, to act or not to act. If man does not act then how does he project his will, his being, into the world? He doesn’t. Instead, he pushes his self into a limbo, straddling the same fence that his desires are caged within. By putting so much emphasis on tomorrow we have systematically killed the now, and the now is one of our sacred treasures. God has bestowed us with the moment, a single, desolate fraction of infinite time, and we have taken it for granted. Because the moments given have been weaved together like a patched quilt, we automatically assume there will be another moment. And another, for when we look behind us, we see a string of moment, a red yarn that has stretched across the temporal dimension from birth to this instant; yet are we confident enough that another will always be coming? When we are young and naïve to time, we acted in the now, for it was all we knew. After enough actions, we became lazy, less confident, and sluggish, simply because we relied on the approaching day; but once that day comes, there will always be another to take its place, leaving us with another missed chance to act. If we miss too many chances to act then what will that do to us? Maybe our mindset will alter, or maybe we will turn our backs to choice and continue living without a why. I do not know for certain what would happen to an individual, and I am afraid to find out that answer, simply because that requires inaction today, and indecision is the enemy of the virtuous. If we have values, beliefs, opinions, etc. then we should showcase them at any given moment, why wait until another instance (as if we are even graced with a second)? Tomorrow is one of the most dangerous words a man can utter to both himself, and the world. Unless he can say it will full confidence, then do not believe in his tomorrow, for it is an illusion. He does not believe in his own tomorrow, but he will grant you the opportunity to do so for this gives him another opportunity to not act, and if he is afraid to act then he could very well be afraid of himself. Would you want to be known by someone like that? Could you see yourself in his shoes? I fear that we are all this person, at some point in our lives, but we must steel ourselves and destroy tomorrow for it will leave us incomplete today.



Existential Expression

Text: Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre

“Prior to that projection of self, nothing exists…and man shall attain existence only when he is what he projects himself to be-not what he would like to be” (Sartre, 23).

  • The main and only difference between existing and not is being who you project yourself to be. A book cannot be a book if it is just pages, nor can a heart be that if it is incapable of beating like one. Existence depends on action but the action must be to be. If one is powerless to be, then how can they know they truly exist?

“Will is a conscious decision that most of us undertake after we have made ourselves hat we are” (Sartre, 23).

  • In order for ust to have a will, we must first be. That means there is some significance behind being, and will is a direct result of it. One that is able to be are also able to will; if they cannot will then, they are not yet a mature being. Maybe there is a distinction between those who will and those who have yet to discover their will; but ultimately, if one is unable to utilize will then their existence is limited, for they have yet to make a conscious decision based on their being. Incomplete wills are just wishes.
  • Going back to “what’s”, if man’s obligation to himself is to be conscious of what he is” then that means he must be ready to ask why he must do so. He must understand the logic behind him choosing to become conscious of himself, he must acknowledge that lack of knowledge pertaining to an action does not create a skill, it only creates a reflex.

“Choosing himself he is choosing for all men”

  • When we choose to define ourselves we inevitably begin to create our own nature, this nature is our understanding of all men. For example, if I choose to be a man of justice, then I expect all men to share my ideals of justice, for my viewpoint of men is based on my definite self. If may be there reason that I believe that everybody is capable of doing something, meaning that I match up with my nature if I expect it to be applied to others (even if this is false, which it often proves to be). The main principle to take away from this is that I believe that my being has a relationship to all men, and more importantly that being is mine. In the end, I choose for all men, because I choose for myself.


  • Anguish – a man who commits himself, but then realizes that he is not the individual that he chooses to be. “What would happen if everyone did what I am doing? (Sartre, 25)”. You must ask yourself if your actions could represent the entire human race.
  •  Abandonment- God does not exist, this was a debated topic among the existentialist. Without the existence of God, then some aspect regarding existence will left to be forever unsolved, this ruling this notion improbable. The tools for consciousness and thought were not arbitrarily created, rather they were purposefully given to humans to utilize; so then who is capable of giving us such a gift, but God?

Leviathan Logic

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

Sense is the original teacher of man. How else were we able to obtain teaching from nature except without our eyes, ears, etc..  In reality senses are responses of our organs to “motions of external things” (Hobbes 49). What does this mean to man? To understand-which is man’s desire-he must have certain objects “move” against his senses. That motion from an external object has the same power to illicit an internal response from the man.

What is imagination? It is the projection of an image that was once in motion, but now has stopped. Motion can only be stopped when there is a force to oppose it (Newton’s law supports this); imagination is the mind trying to recreate that motion that may have been stopped in the external world. It is known as the “decay of sense” (Hobbes 50). Senses are the body’s way of deducing the nature of external objects, and imagination is a fragmented version of this understanding.  Imagination is “weaker” than true sensibility, but where it excels is that it has been polymerized with our memories and ideas; becoming a new creation altogether. Compare it to the sun’s light versus the stars, the sun’s light is the senses and it is able to illuminate virtually everywhere. The stars have only limited light, but they provide us with more in the darkness. When we wake our senses rule-for our body is relying on physical receptors- but upon dreaming they are decayed and we are met with the projection of an external object within our internal realm. The imagination is stemmed from our senses, does that mean the more I sense, the greater my imagination? I must allow my senses to carry me far, for the more they are used, the better my imagination will become, if this hastily stated hypothesis were proven to be true. Imagination and memory are both considered decaying, but what separates the two from each other? I do not known, but memory is more specific to the individual and the experience surrounding a sense, whereas imagination is just general sensation. By utilizing specific senses, we can remember a moment; but when we combine the varying aspects of multiple senses, we can create a moment.

Ayn’s Axiom

Text: Journals of Ayn Rand by Ayn Rand, Edited by David Harriman

“The moral law of man must be based on his nature as man” (Rand 251). We come back to morality, which is a set of principles concerning what is right and wrong. If this doctrine is based on man, then the questioned presented by Rand is “what is man’s nature?” (251). If we examine the moral law, we find that good and evil are disproportionate, goodness is greatly overshadowed by evil. What does this say about our nature? That we are evil? This is doubtful. All living creatures have an aspect of their nature that aids them in survival, Rand believes that man’s attribute is reason. “His brain is his only weapon” (251). Just like any other tool, one must use it in order to improve its level of proficiency. Man has tapped into his tool of survival and created a world. Sartre believed that a man must exist before his purpose and Rand has stated something similar; we are given our mind, but without any instruction on how to utilize it. We must be the ones to discover how to use it, and then shape ourselves with this tool. This is how we discover our being, by crafting it with what we have been given a mind born as a tool from our nature. “Man’s life ultimately depends upon every conclusion within his brain” (252). It is stated that conclusion is the final step in the process of discovery, then how does one reach a true conclusion? I believe it is by placing an action towards the thought. Simply put, it is not enough for the brain to think, it must do. In order to do, we must choose an appropriate action, which leads us to, as Rand says, “the ultimatum of man’s existence” We were created to choose, to utilize a force other than instinct and primal logic in order to survive. Choice is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to decided that a particular person or thing is the one you want.” Want. What then is the importance of want? We want, that is what defines us, all other creatures have needs but only man understands want. There is proof in all of us: we seek, we hope, we dream, we wish. All of these have one fundamental quality in common and that is want. It is what drives us to do the things that are against our universal nature, in an effort to choose something, even if it is against his survival. “He [the animal] enjoys a safety that man can never have” (253). Our true nature isn’t based on survival, it is based on want; and oftentimes that want will overshadow our survival. Just as the birds learn to flap their fragile wings before flight, so to must man utilize his tool for survival before entering the world. Then how does one test his brain? By choosing the need over the want, by focusing on survival and rationality, but can this truly be obtained? Is man capable of always choosing survival? No, because the want that resides within him is too great. The want is what separates us from each other, and by watching others “deducing” we have learned to choose wants over needs. What this entails is that if men, unanimously, choose want then that is the fundamental principle of mankind. From a moral standpoint, want is neither good nor evil. Exactly what happens when man does not behave like a man and misuses his process of thought, his tool, to seek something other than survival? “There is no proper name for that thing which he becomes (253)”. In the end we are not men, but a new form altogether with a nature that was dismantled and reshaped with want at the core.

Before I continue I am inclined to explore this concept of want. By determining it’s origin we have found some understanding of it, but why is it such a dominant force in our lives? What is inside us that would force individuals to pursue an object that is within direct conflict with our nature. It is a blessing, for it provides us with something more than a survival; but alternatively doubles as a curse and removes and hope of safety from our minds. For this I will examine two types of individuals, the laborer and the liberal (in the sense of the man free from work). The laborer is exactly what a man is supposed to be, a creature who acts and chooses that will enhance his survival. He chooses to awake and enter the greasy factor, or the claustrophobic cubicle and he does so without question. The reason he does not ponder his decisions (or even acknowledge the possibility of choice) is because it benefits his chances of extending his brief stint of life. He is acting in accordance with his given nature. But the liberal has erased any notion or idea of survival, no longer fitting his form. Instead, he does whatever he desires with or without question, by utilizing the three steps of discovery (deduction, observation, conclusion) in order to choose; but more often than not, he chooses his want over need. This is a “dangerous” choice because it puts “survival” at risk, but this also yields a new alternative to solely existing. The liberal who pursues this adjunct to life discards his title-and his pre-determined nature-as a man in an attempt to become a new being. This being is then “nature-less” which ultimately means that he he is now capable of authentically defining himself, in other words, becoming an existentialist.

An existentialist is a being who has cast away the definitive, and original, nature of man in order to chase desire. It is this new adventure that will give one an opportunity to define his self. “Man is the only being that is capable of being something that it is not.” (253) Does our “responsibility to remain” men help or hinder us, especially in this digital age? The choice is yours may be the most damning statement I have ever heard. If man’s nature is capable of transforming, then we cannot expect a moral code to exist, because it is based on a transformative foundation. If the tides of life continue to wreck the sandcastle, how can we expect to have any fundamental foundations? Morality is based on an individuals own desire and choice. Think of how quick we are to condemn an act evil, contingent upon the scenario. The classic example is murder. It is immoral for a man to take a life, yet it is justified for a man to take a life; then it is either both good and evil, or neither, to take a life. How can we expect morality to truly exist for man, when he is constantly revamping his original nature into his own authentic definition, and one that isn’t shared amongst his neighbors. The modern man is moral-less, he is constantly defining his nature, constantly choosing options other than survival. Drinking liquor, smoking tobacco, practicing monogamy, all of these are “irrational” options and yet each day, millions of humans will choose to follow them. Does that make them less of a man? Negative, it makes them their own man for they are out actively seeking their wants. The world we live in has forced men to do something more than simply survive. We no longer exist to survive instead we are here to choose, and more importantly, choose our desires, our intentions, our wants. If this is to be our existence then we are no longer the same men as before, even though we’ve retained the same look.

The moral code cannot be shared, yet there is a universal ideal that can be applied to each of us. “Am I right? (254) is the “first, most crucial question a man asks of himself.” Why do we seek to be right? We don’t, we only want to choose what’s right. If one has done that then they have fallen within their personal moral code, and they have done good. If this is the case then can a man truly consider himself evil? Possibly, but he is only evil if he cannot answer the question. Society may view him as evil-based on that universal morality that has been generated by the collective-but the individual will not consider themselves to be evil, so long as they believe they made “the right choice.”. That is the true danger of a nature-less nature; “the right choice” may in fact be pure evil, but he may not consider it that because it was his want. It is vital that we utilize logic and weigh out the consequences of each choice before taking them, it is this rationality that ultimately aids in strategizing to survive the modern world. A man is able to define his nature, thereby defining his morality. This principle is the sharpening stone for the brain, if one is able to make moral choices, then they are good. However, are moral choices morally correct? Social media has given way to a brand new nature, a collective an individual nature that spans the globe. The platform has increased the desire for want, and has significantly aided in the discovery process. We are now able to observe others discard their nature, and don an entirely new one (the creation of an avatar/profile/esse) ; witnessing this process surely must have an effect on us, but to what extent? Did it increase our desire or did it affect our choices, or must we have patience giving the results time to be analyzed? This demands further reviewing. Our world may very well be becoming what it is because so few of us are acting as original men, and instead pursing the wants of our lives, regardless of the moral compass that was originally thought to drive us. “Man exists and must survive as men, the axiom of the only morality proper to man” (254).

Mourning with Marcus

Text: Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

“we are what we think and desire (Aurelius 10)”

  • Freedom begins in our thinking not doing. How can a man act freely if, within his mind, he is a captive? Actions that are undertaken are merely projections from a consciousness, so the action serves as a physical representation of what is within the mind. In order for us to seek and use freedom, we must believe that we are free. By granting us a hint of political freedom (freedom used loosely), we accept that we are not bound; but in truth we cannot allow the unwanted external factors deter us. In order to be truly free, one must constantly be vigilant within their own mind.

“Stoic: Indifferent to pleasure and pain, unafraid of death, resigned to fate, welcomes adversary as an ally (Aurelius 11)”

“None of them can harm me, for none can force me to do wrong against my will” 2:1

  •  It is willpower that reigns supreme within our lives. With a wavering will, we can be damaged; but one that is stalwart can not be broken. Will is a direct result of being, so if it is damaged, then so is the being. That is why it is dangerous for one to go against their will.

“Now it is change that sustains the universe” 2:3

  • Once again, change is the only truth on Earth. When it comes to man’s nature, he creates his own when he decides to change. If a man does not change, then how can he be?

“Use them [your days] to throw open the windows of your soul to the sun” 2:4

  • God gave us time, time he didn’t have to lend. But he did, why would we waste it by doing things that go against us? We will wake up on our death bed one day, and realize that our soul was never given the time it deserved. What a horrible fate.

“This is possible, if you perform each act as if it were your last” 2:5

  • When you do something, do not be afraid to give it your all. Your energy can be replaced, the opportunity to commit an act to an idea may not, so do not falter.

“You have made your happiness subject to others opinions” 2:6

  • This goes back to true freedom, if we allow ourselves to be swayed by individuals, then what are we? We are not us, nor are we happy, for our being has become contingent upon others (the collective), and not of our own.

“Take time to concentrate your mind…In order to combat anxiety one must focus on something beneficial.” 2:7

  • Allowing our brains to run free will only make it weary, and it will always evade our control. It begins with focus, learn your own mind and you will not be anxious.

“No one can ever prevent me from saying and doing what is in complete conformity with the whole of which I am.” 2:8

  • Be true to your nature. Outside influences cannot dictate who you are, only you and your decision have that power. It is vital to understand our nature, in order to know its limitations.

“How swiftly everything disappears” 2:12

  • In the end, what we do may or may not matter in one thousand years, but it will today, and tomorrow, and so on. These are the times we must consider, not the intangible and unwritten future, it begins today!

“A man can lose on the life is he is living/can only be deprived of the present moment.” 2:14

  • One life to live, and in this life, the only amount of time we truly own is the present. The past is time rented and thus returned, and the future is an insurance policy that we may never obtain. If that is the case, then why should man put his faith in yesterday or tomorrow?

“Complaining against nature is a revolt against nature” 2:16

  • We must do well not do ruin our souls by doing things against our will. Our existence depends upon it. Complaining will only yield more trouble than triumph.

“What then can guide us through life? Philosophy.” 2:17

  • Philosophy in the sense of thought and exploration of knowledge. Only this will grant our minds a purpose; God has bestowed us with the mind, a gift for us to use.

Bodily Curses

Text: Black Skin, White Mask by Frantz  Fanon

I pose a question that may be considered dangerous if truly studied. Does the black (read oppressed) individual have a being, or is this philosophical entity solely for white (read oppressive) individuals. Think, a being is an individual that is birthed from nothing, and exists for itself. Through generational colonization, the black man was brought into “existence”-according to their values-from the white man, his original being died the minute the rusted shackles touched his skin. “Not only must the black man be black; he must also be black in relation to the white man” (Fanon, 90). What is it about the white world that makes us live the way we do? Our original beings are no longer alive, what’s left of our former selves are fragments that have been glued together by their world’s ideas of humanity. While living in the black world, we see glimpses of our beings trying to reconnect with us within this safety net. We become one with our essence, and come to appreciate the nature that thrives within our own realm; however, once we exit this illusion, we are cast back into reality. “The man of color encounters difficulties in elaborating his body sclera.” Truthfully I do not have a full understanding of this topic, but I shall nonetheless attempt to decipher the meaning. To be black means that you have a “bodily curse”, it is something that is forever evident to us. We are told truths about our skin, that they eventually pile up and interferes with our creation of a being, and in turn altering our relation to the world. “Now, they were beginning to be scared of me.” This “fear” is a penetrating force. When you are an agent of fear, it can dramatically alter your perception of the self. Along with this, another major factor is the belief that we are “responsible…for my race and ancestors. (Fanon, 92)”. A rather disheartening reality to accept but think how many times we are grouped into a category, deemed dangerous, and then treated with an appropriate manner? The white man is capable of dividing himself from other whites, thereby establishing his individuality, however, since black is already separated from the white, he must automatically exist as a collective. This “collective” has been exploited by all institutions of the system, but it also affects our chances of securing authenticity. In their eyes, we are all the same. Not only are we grouped with our brothers and sisters, but also with our ancestors. This is both problematic and beneficial for us. The white man fails to see our worth, for he still latches onto the being known as a slave: the lazy, uneducated, poor, expendable laborer that is completely dependent upon white salvation. We must seek a way to separate ourselves from the false stereotype. On the other hand, having a background to base our existence off of may provide us with a sense of purpose. Black’s may never have the opportunity to create a being from nothing, so we must find a way to create one from something, and even though it may have been given to us, it is up to the individual to determine how much of their essence they wish to extract from this “something”. We hail from some of the most resilient individuals, but resilience alone will not win a revolution, only radical action will. Knowing that we share the same blood with these “warriors” should give us an edge on those who define themselves based on material wealth. As we prepare the future generation, we must educate them on the being that they are capable of becoming, based on their skin. Creating goals, values, and desires that match up with the “something” that they were birthed from, as well as the ideal that rest within their own individual. There is a clear misrepresentation of blacks by the white man, and often this leads to severe consequences for the former, why? Because the black man does not hold the power of decision-a power granted only to being that have will. When the black man has the freedom (and free will) to choose and to decide, without interference from the white world, he will discover his being and his power.

Black Power: It’s Need and Substance

Text: Black Power by Stokley Carmichael & Charles Hamilton.

“A new group may have to fight for reorientation of many of the values of the old order.” V.O. Key, Jr.

Since society was not created for us we must ask the questions, they cannot ask, only answer.

Redefine Ourselves

  • Reclaim history + identity
    • This gives us a starting point for our place.
    • We can then create terms for our society, once we understand what it was.

The oppressor forces his world upon us, and we, the oppressed, have to accept it; in return, losing grip of our own. It begins with wordings.

Ex. English:Victory::Indian:Massacre or White:Celebration::Black:Riot

Labeling the fight is half of the battle.

WE must define our image and destroy the stereotype. If we conform to what the oppressor wants us to do, then we have failed ourselves. We must know our roots and culture, beginning in Africa.

As black Americans, we are able to sympathize with other colored races. We can serve as the bridge between others, since we all have similar backstories. Does it make immigration a black issue? Yes! Does it make unfair labor a black issue? Yes! Does it make xenophobia and religious prejudice a black issue? Yes! We have the ability to unite the other races, because we understand, to a degree, their struggles as oppressed individuals.

Political Modernization:

  1. Questioning old values and institutions.
  2. Searching for new forms of political structure.
  3. Broadening the base to include more, politically.

Why the middle class won’t work for blacks? It is only a mindset without the true values of the aristocrats. People hope to achieve a life based on the material goods they possess, and the closed communities that they inhabit. They’d rather live isolated than exposed to the truth, trading their right to “true liberation” for “safety and false comfort”.

Why we must question the middle class? Because it has become the backbone of the institutions.


System: The entire American complex of basic institutions.

Structure: Specific institutions which exist to conduct the system.

“We must devise new structures, new institutions to replace these forms. ” (Carmichael, 42.)

A Cause Worth Every Life

Imagine as you awoke to the sun’s gentle light, that you were unable to access knowledge of yesterday, being irreversibly bound to the moment. History ceased to exist as the dawn broke over the horizon; all the stories of the world vanishing like the low-hanging fog, leaving you only with the “now”.

Close your eyes.

Now open them and take a good look at the world, today’s world. As you stare out the cracked window, what is the first thought that enters your head, that you are willing to fight for and defend? This is the mindset that the modern activist must adopt if they plan to act in this world. We need a cause worth every life, meaning that every life must create a cause. This stresses the importance of a universal cause that all individuals can find comfort in joining. Our movement, our revolution, our destiny begins when this is no longer an ideal; but rather a manifesto of the movement, a doctrine with details of today’s world.

The harsh reality many activists must come to accept is that we cannot call others to action, based solely on sympathy for the past. Slavery happened nearly four hundred years ago, our lives are both reminiscent and removed from this act. I am not downplaying this tragedy because it inevitably shaped our entire world and existence, but we can no longer utilize this as the driving force of our cause. The argument “reparations for slavery” did not work during the post-Civil War era and it most certainly will fail in today’s times. We must imagine the oppressor as a moral-less being, for if they possessed even an ounce of it, then something would have already been done. Their inaction is the only proof we need to end this charade. By closing this door, we increase the necessity of seeking a new cause; the one’s from yesterday will not work, why? Because they were the reasons they fought in their present, and time-as it always does-has altered the elements, including the objectives of the activist. Whatever we choose to be our cause, needs to be something we can fight for today.

There is no past or future in a revolution, only now. There is no future because it is the actions of the day that will give definition to this nonexistent reality; there is no past, there are only blueprints of successes and failures and both are valuable instructions.What we are left with is the moment, a droplet of times ever-flowing river, and within this moment we are granted a choice: to stay silent and ignorant, or to be vocal and subject ourselves to the life of an activist. Every individual born under the sun has been granted the ability to choose; it is the byproduct of the mind, the gift of God. We must avoid forcing individuals to choose or else they will mindlessly join the collective, rather than the cause. They must decide upon their own accord, and the human mind-the tool for crafting our existence-will play a major role in the fight. Then what must be our cause?

Our cause should be an ideal that all choose to follow. If a man can choose his actions, then he willing to choose his future, and his world. Our cause ends and begins with freedom. The freedom to choose will ultimately yield the freedom that we all desire, for, whether we know it or not, we are mental slaves to society. By liberating the mind we can hope to discover the foundation and expound upon this cause. The man with closed eyes cannot hope to aim, it is first our duty to grant sight to those who have been blinded, including ourselves.

The revolutionaries greatest weapon is their words, and not just any form. Words that are able to remove the barriers placed on our brain, and jailbreak the cognitive prison system. Give your being to the chaos, allow the unknown to strip us bare, and then invigorate our spirit. Only chaos can best order, and what is a system but a set of reinforced orders. The chaos I’m calling for isn’t catastrophic or violent, in fact it does not exist within the physical realm. It is the chaos of the mind, the ability to let our beings be crafted by the ebony quill pen dipped in cosmic ink; it is up to us to determine what we write.

Everything we know about our world is a set of conditions that were placed on us from the day we were snatched from the soggy womb of our mothers. We are taught to be everything they want us to be; no one is born a citizen, they are created. In this society an acceptable citizen is nothing but a drone who operates based on the wills of another, an authoritative force who utilize fear and intimidation to conduct their bidding. How is it, then, that those individuals who are willing to create their own will are written off as “outcast”, “radical”, or “lost”? Simple, because the system was not built for the free thinker, which is born out of chaos. Don’t you see, this is the first step of the revolution. A single free mind is a greater threat to an empire than a thousand drawn weapons.

We are taught that our mind is a terrible thing to waste, which means that it is a fantastic thing to use. If humanity spent more time in their thoughts, rather than succumbing to materialism and greed, we would be free. Only when the mind is free can we hope to even understand the principles of the freedom we seek. When, then, is a mind liberated? This act can be done at any given time during an individual’s brief existence, however, history proves that universal enlightenment happens when society is plagued with corruption, government sanctioned violence, tyranny, lack of proper education and healthcare, and other failing elements (see: The French Revolution, American Revolution, Nat Turner’s Revolt etc.). All of these factors are examples of order being abused, and the best way to counteract this is with the chaos within our consciousness. We cannot be afraid of the cosmos inside our skull, the constellations within our eyes, and the black holes within our breasts. When we are able to come to terms with this, then we can begin to ignite the same pursuit in others, which is where art comes into play. How else, but art, can you aid in unlocking the mind of another?

By showing others what the unlocked mind is capable of can easily inspire others to attempt jailbreaking their own, and starting the process of defining their self. Once a self has been established then they are able to wholly fight for freedom. The collective, the mass of sightless gunmen, is a danger to the free mind; for they are a unit focused on one ideal. Oftentimes this noble ideal, as Ayn Rand describes, is the greatest lie disguised as the absolute truth. We must create our own ideal, our own values, and then connect with other like-minded idealists to develop the cause worth every life.

This will be my goal as an artivist; not only will I create works, but I will craft a cause, one that is rooted in freedom.

“Fist Up”

Text: Black Power by Stokley Carmichael & Charles Hamilton


“Political relations are based on self interest”

  • We cannot expect political parties to believe in something such as “good for the people,” “morally correct” or even “justice”. These qualities may hinder the party, and they are not in a position to want to lose any additional power.

“Conflict of interest, not conscious.”

  • Morals do not determine political motivation, in fact, many will use the concept of morality to enact certain policies. If morality was truly a major factor, then we would have no business protesting the system. The morality of politicans and their parties is selective, choosing to express it when it has been deemed “profitable.” We as activists cannot depend on the moral compass of these individuals to sway their decisions.

“They simply do not want their peace disrupted and their businesses hurt.”

  • A true political does not care for the well being of the people, he only cares for the power amassed from them. We cannot expect the oppressor to feel guilty for the transgressions or suffering of others; they do not operate on the same moral code as us.

“There is little time to reflect on creeds.”

  • We allow the materialism of society to blind ourselves from the truth. The constant production of luxury goods and labor prevent the everyday American from understanding and examining, in detail, the doctrines that gave birth to our society. Without an understanding of the creed, how can an individual know what is written in it, and when they have broken that law?

“Building of an independent force is necessary.”

  • With our own power, we may one day seek the change we do, but change is impossible without obtaining power.  Our “concepts of advancement” have been mostly political strategies used by the oppressed to blindinly win our favor; we think we’ve made major transformations, but we have only done what they allowed us to do. I think back to the march on Bank of America Stadium, and how we did not go anywhere we “weren’t supposed to go.” Why not? Because master (read:  police chief) said not to.

“Limited coalitions may be harmful”

  • Why? By focusing solely on smaller issues, one group may believe they can tackle larger ones without realizing that they will be in direct conflict with their self interests, eventually causing allies to turn on one another.


A few thoughts on allies, what must be done to make a truly lasting alliance? The bond must go deeper than merely benefitting one another, an ally not only operates on a similar system of values, but a system of power and objectives as well. There is no such thing as “good will” because nine out of ten times, the person who utters this phrase will turn their back if a “conflict of interest” arises. For us, it is the issue of the individual’s values versus the community’s value; we are quick to aid our brothers and sisters so long as our family and loved ones are unaffected by our decisions. If potential harm to these parties presents itself, then most individuals will choose them over the alliance. I cannot fault a person who would choose this option, but it will be difficult to classify them as an ally. I seek those who will put the alliance over their own goals, because if the alliance wins then we all do.

The American Creed , does not apply to the oppressed. We must acknowledge this with haste, for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were not drafted by black hands. We had no input in it’s creation, so how can we expect any positive output from these doctrines?

Now to form a coalition one must first have clearly defined objectives, not only for the party, but the ally as well. We cannot assume that “what is good for one, is automatically-without question-good for the other.” I think back to the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” this is an incorrect assumption. Although both may have a common goal, the enemy, one party may simply want them destroyed whereas the other seeks to conquer the land. Upon completion of their common goal (slaying the enemy),  what is stopping the temporary allies from turning on each other, especially if their self-interests come into conflict?

The acquisition of true power is the second factor to consider, without power their is no progress. The role of victimization is an outdated tool to recruit. They demand power without truly holding any so what happens then? As stated before we cannot expect others to hear us out, in relation to morality, they simply do not care. Instead, we must use what little power contained within us and begin disrupting their peace and pockets. Once enough power has been amassed, and tested, we can then join with other organizations that have similar power levels. I’m curious about this phrase “the concept of the civil rights movement as a liaison between the powerful white community and the dependent black community.” I’ve always revered the CRM as a major force of dramatic change, but as I’ve studied more, I’ve discovered the shortcomings. What if, in fact, they paved the way for the oppressed and oppressive to meet? I think back to Fanon’s idea of the interpreter, the individual who was a focal point in listening to the native people and sharing conversations with the colonizers. A liaison is a necessary unit, but if we are powerless then what is the point? Any discussions will be laughable.

Our problem lies in not creating our own. Most of what we do is created for us, but then taken by those at the top. We have no organized institutions or systems, because we were never granted the opportunity to create them when slaves were first released. Now, we could very well craft our own economy, agriculture, and education, yet the white system controls a great deal of commerce, which makes this task seem virtually impossible…but it is not! We just believe that because we are, collectively, afraid to face the impossible. After examining today’s reading (pgs 75-80), I am beginning to understand that we must seek independence, definite organization, tangible power, and then alliances.