“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed;
but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual;
and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true;
and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.
A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”-GW 1796
@jaywwalker1@mxtaliajane@peoplesmedianyc I find it absolutely telling that people who claim to be anti fascist in this city of all places are constantly calling anyone who doesn’t conform into what they deem as acceptable fascist, supremacists etc etc. Liberalism is messy and what the protests across *the world* were
@jaywwalker1@mxtaliajane@peoplesmedianyc about included the freedom of expression and assembly. You may take it for granted and look to belittle anything that you deem “problematic”, but it doesn’t make you right. It makes you exactly what you are claiming you stand against. NYC has always been a place full of weirdos
@jaywwalker1@mxtaliajane@peoplesmedianyc eccentrics, people on the fringe, the performative, the unusual, the uncomfortable and REAL diversity. The trend that seems to have overtaken our home may be loud, it may claim to value free expression, but I see only one thing repeated over and over again. You’ve made other
Or maybe it was that it should, but should never be shared, or maybe it was a bus timetable and fares – muddled became a story (as the mind is oft to do) of a graveyard, a mass grave with no markers or names where
people, piled twelve deep and miles across are splayed criss cross and tongue tied around each other.
There is quite a bit to understand about the Cultural Revolution and how much of it, as chaotic as it may seem, was not simply random or reactive or due to fractions with the party, but rather Mao’s vision.
Familiar echos included.
This book is taxing me a great deal but I’ll continue to share parts I think may be important/informative.
How can I explain
When there are few words I can choose
How can I explain
When words get broken
(love)
Do you remember
There was a time ahaha
When people on the streets
Were walking hand in hand in hand
They used to talk about the wheather
Making plans together
Days would last forever
Come to me, cover me, hold me
Together we'll break these chains of love
Don't give up
(Don't give)
And don't give up
(Up)
Together with me and my baby
Break the chains of love
Not only do we have our special jab’oliday inclusion and a portion of the Neo Gospel according to Jenna, the devoted @JennaPinkyPoo22, but also this *has* to be a good one, guys.
We have heard Xi stepped on a lego and is moody and not pleased with our insolence. He may do some zoom calls to lay down some extra smite. So with feeling now please. Show them all you mean it and keep the chairman in your joyful heart. Ya ready?
———
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏻So say we all...
I repent oh wise, Covidians.
See my shame and sincere wish to be cleansed of my unholy affliction.
Anoint my lips with sacred coverings.
Strike the cruel delusion of individualism from my mind and the self from my heart.
It is not trivial or selfish to say we must get back to the business of being human. It is a fact and necessary for survival and sanity. Those who claim that we are, and they have been doing all to protect the most vulnerable and preserve life now must, if they are sincere,
approach the future with a more rational and honest set of guidelines and not fear investigation or questions in the false justification of community over the individual. It is a false binary.
We must be allowed to choose and learn about what options are available to us other than standing in what are no more moral or well managed than Lysenko’s broken promises or Mao’s empty fields.