Without a doubt, police brutality is a serious issue that the country must grip. After all, in the United States, cops kill 10 times as many people as mass shooters do; even the FBI grants that more than half of those are unjustified. It doesn’t stop at murder, either. With nearly a quarter of the world’s prison population (despite having only 4% of the world’s overall population, the highest incarceration rate on Earth), the country has sent its police officers to arrest countless people. Many of these individuals have not committed a crime, and an astonishing 86% of prisoners did not commit a crime with a victim. But despite this, many will claim that the police are doing no wrong and should have no accountability, putting these people behind bars. After all, “they’re just doing their jobs”.
Daniel Szewc | Poland
One must understand the realities of Eastern Europe from 1945-1989 to understand Slavoj Žižek’s mentality. His embracement of the Marxist way of being is completely the result of his comparatively strong societal position in Slovenia before the fall of the Eastern Block. This was exemplified by the fact that this hierarchal position, created on the basis of being closer to the Marxist view of a perfected human than the average man, got even stronger after the acceptance of capitalism in his native country (for all intents and purposes, Slavoj Žižek is a celebrity in Slovenia). Of course, this brought to his subconscious the notion that being closer to Marx makes you a more efficient human in general, whilst in reality, it was just the manifestation of parts of the old, synthetic establishment, Žižek included, surviving into the new era, and adapting to the new circumstances.
As for his support of leftism, contrasted by his dislike of societal decay, it is comparable to liking uranium, yet disliking the particles that it emits. No matter how hard you try to keep society stable, without the philosophical absolute, you are unable to do so.
The Maintenence of the Hierarchy
Any hierarchy without an unreachable entity, whether it be a value or a being, that cannot be toppled from the bottom is doomed to fluctuate drastically, as well as to crash in a time proportionately short to the number of active members in the said structure. For example, the morally unthinkable happened in France, the regicide of the revolution, and the hierarchy’s immovable peak was shattered.
Soon after, the bloodshed flooded over to the initial instigators of the crime, causing the whole megastructure to topple. In the end, a new hierarchy arose, with Napoleon rising to its peak. He was able to justify his role sufficiently enough not to be toppled by power-hungry contestants for his position only because of his idealization and even stronger emancipation of the traditional role of emperor.
For such processes to not happen, equality, not hierarchy, would have to dominate throughout life forms- something that is mathematically ridiculous. To assume that the total sum capability of creatures as complex as us to have equal chances at maintaining our positions at a zero level hierarchy is simply improbable. Too many variables influence our lives on the daily for this to happen naturally, and for any individual even remotely knowledgeable about cybernetics, it is obvious that no circuit can encompass a circuit equally or more complicated than themselves, therefore the human mind may never manage to understand it’s own secrets (…and variables that make us so different in outcome).
Of course, #MeToo became dominated by empty media icons, because it’s the natural consequence of having a promiscuous society, something one can earn money off, and human nature. The last of the three implies inequality in intelligence and ability, whilst the first is implied by leftism. You cannot have all three and not get the result that #MeToo got.
In general, however, I personally like Žižek’s look on Buddhism, as well as I think that his views on love can be put to good use by any thoughtful person on any side of the political arena. Alas, 90%+ of what he says is based on some ridiculous imaginary plasticity of the human condition. For example, Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, if anyone, knows the most about empirically proving the aforementioned rationalist perspective of it being improbable.
Who will win the debate between the two? Well, the better question is whether the side that in fact loses will be able to comprehend it’s fallibility, or will it stay in its shell of Marxist presumptions.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
By Nickolas Roberson | United States
The individual has been prominent throughout the entirety of human history, both in reality and mythology. In almost every instance of ancient culture, and even modern culture, there is the story of the hero facing the dragon. The hero isn’t represented by any group or collective, he represents Himself, the Individual. He is the culmination of domination and human will, the innate force to strive for achievement. This achievement could be happiness, freedom, or any other personal means. This hero’s goal is to slay the dragon and retrieve the lost gold or save the princess and kingdom. The dragon obviously represents evil, but what kind of evil? The answer is incredibly subjective. The abomination that is said dragon could be the collective that wishes to extinguish the flame of individuality, and it could very well be the flaws of human nature; in the Christian world, the dragon represents Satan, wickedness, or sin.
Ancient, archetypal stories that provide symbols and guidelines to living life beg the question: why is the individual important? Why should I, an ordinary human being, care about individuality? Without individuality, the core foundations of your life fall apart and your life loses its meaning. You become a lost soul without any personal guiding force in your life. Unfortunately, this has happened to quite a number of people in society today. They begin to lose their individuality and sense of Self, and adopt disgusting and weak, yet tantalizing, views of nihilism—they deem that life is meaningless, the void will consume all, and the wild, passionate flame of the Individual has been extinguished with no hope of coming to light again. In their eyes life is only, and will ever be, suffering.
Indeed, life is suffering. It’s full of poverty, sickness, sorrow, tyranny, and death. Yet we, the human race, prevail; we’ve been doing so for over a millennium. How? Through determination, willpower, and individuality. We steeled and fortified ourselves against the howling winds of extreme chaos and suffering. Through innovation, order, and freedom we established a foothold and prosperous society in the world. That is what these followers of nihilistic principles need to realize: yes, life is suffering, but it is your responsibility to find meaning in life. That meaning is found in being an individual, being determined, having willpower and by allowing human nature to run its course.
Discover and establish a balance of chaos and order in your life; be innovative, free, and find happiness. Allow your individuality to burn bright and run free, like a stallion running through a dew-filled prairie in the early morn. Fight against the endless suffering of life and defeat the dragons of evil.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
By Joshua D. Glawson | United States
Throughout the political world, a lack of integrity is often fostered for particular party agendas and cronyism more than for the actual, or even perceived, betterment of their respective constituents. These ethical inconsistencies tend to serve companies via cronyism and coercive monopolies, fill the pockets of politicians, get politicians reelected, and help to raise more funding for the political parties-but they can also harm other people. Rather than staying true to a principled ideology such as a Non-Aggression Principle, many politicians do what is seen as best for themselves and those they work closely with rather than the people the politician is meant to be “working for.”
Just What Is Political Integrity?
‘Integrity’ is touted as a value everyone should have, especially a good politician, if they even exist. For some reason, the word ‘integrity’ has shifted in meaning to something more of a strong moral uprightness that never sways from its subjective stance. We typically say that someone has integrity when they tell the truth about something even when it could hurt them, or when someone treats everyone with respect and dignity. Is this correct?
The word ‘integrity’ originates from the Latin word ‘integritatem’ meaning “soundness, wholeness, completeness,” and figuratively it means “purity, correctness, and/or blamelessness.” However, there is more to the word than simply being whole, or pure, in only a circumstance or two, it suggests that the person is consistently integral. In this sense, when someone is consistent, they are said to be standing firm after taking a position, while not ceasing or bending. The word ‘integrity’ has the same core meaning as ‘integer,’ meaning “intact, whole, and/or complete,” while figuratively it means “untainted, and/or upright.”
A Need for Consistency
Therefore, in order to have integrity, one must be consistent in their actions, not compartmentalized or fractioned, while appealing to a higher, nobler, moral standard or ethic. A person with integrity acts in respect to these principles equally throughout their personal life with everyone. So, can a politician have integrity?
In short, yes, a politician can have integrity, but it is much more difficult than what the mass public would like to impart. For a politician to be integral, they must be consistent in their higher moral or ethical stance and not differentiate or sway on that standing depending on the situation. Unfortunately, many people who claim the title of being politically-minded, whether layman or politician, will vary on their so-called principled stance depending on the situation they find themselves in.
Uncommon in American Politics
For example, an American politician will go to great lengths when speaking out against innocent lives being lost within the US, but when it comes to other deaths in other countries they remain silent. Better yet, many help to pass bills that just further the military complex. The same figurative politician may even explicitly state that they do not believe in war or the military industrial complex, while simultaneously implicitly helping to pass bills that provide more benefits for soldiers and military personnel, which in turn incentivizes perpetual growth of the military and the supposedly disdained war hawk behavior.
Even more commonly, the same politician will speak against theft between citizens, yet also advocate for government laws that coerce businesses and individuals, in general, to give to others as a form of “redistribution,” making it plunder of the highest degree. In each of these, the politician is not being consistent in their self-professed ideology, thusly contradicting and fractioned, making the politician lack integrity.
A Universal Ideal
Of course, the concept of ‘integrity’ applies to all people within each of our lives, not just in politics. The best way to self-assess whether you are being integral is to not only consider the consequences of your actions, but also the process by which you came to the consequence. It is also beneficial to discuss your ideologies and philosophy with others that can challenge or help to strengthen your understanding. Consider these ideas and ask yourself the following:
- Am I harming or threatening to harm myself or others with my actions?
- Do I appeal to a moral or ethical standard that does not infringe on the negative rights of others?
- Am I consistent in how I treat people in a moral or ethical manner?
- Do I act completely different around various people in order for them to like me, approve of me, or to not witness my alternate characteristics?
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
By Ian Brzeski | United States
On July 28th a group of riders rode out from Mankato, Minnesota, planning to arrive at Coleman prison in Coleman, Florida on September 22nd. Coleman prison is where Leonard Peltier is currently being held on a double life sentence for the murder of two FBI agents. They plan on making many stops along the way and need all the support they can get. Leonard Peltier is believed by many to be wrongfully imprisoned. That’s why Ken Fourcloud, a Crow Creek Sioux Tribe citizen, organized this freedom ride in the hopes of President Trump granting Peltier his release.
Peltier, suffering from serious health issues, is 73 years old and has spent the last 41 years of his life in prison. He has been denied parole a multitude of times and hopes to be set free so he can spend his final moments with his family. It is highly believed that the prosecutors and federal agents:
- planted his murder weapon as well as other evidence against him.
- hid evidence that proved his innocence.
- used torture methods to produce a false testimony out of Peltier.
- ignored court orders.
- lied to the jury.
On June 26th, 1975 two federal agents went onto private property on the Pine Ridge Reservation, the Jumping Bull Ranch. The agents did nothing to identify themselves. They were in a normal civilian car, had normal clothes, and didn’t mention to anybody that they were federal agents. All of a sudden, a shootout started for unknown reasons. A family with children were caught in the cross-fire. Fearing for their lives, many of the men on the reservation returned fire.
The two federal agents died in the shooting along with a 30-year-old Native American man who went by the name Joe Stuntz. The investigation of the killings of these two federal agents went into full throttle by the United States government, however, the killing of Joe Stuntz was never investigated. Immediately after the shooting took place, government forces swarmed the area and began harassing the people on the reservation. Forces shot up the Jumping Bull home (not killing anybody, but just shooting at the portraits in the house) and intimidated the people with assault rifles to issue warrantless intrusions on the homes of these individuals.
Manipulation of the media is nothing new by the United States government and it is not new in this case. FBI reports claimed that the agents were set up in an ambush by trained guerilla warfare and even went on to say that one of the agents begged for their lives for the sake of the other agent’s family. More reports stated that the agents were “riddled with bullets.” That statement had to be taken back by the FBI director as many reporters who were digging around figured out that that wasn’t the case at all.
According to the government, the two agents were out to arrest a Native American man, Jimmy Eagle. They claim that the agents saw Eagle drive onto the Jumping Bull Ranch property in a red pick up truck. Coincidentally, members of the American Indian Movement were on the property at that time because they were seeking protection from all the violence on the reservation. Leonard Peltier was one of these members present and became the focus of the whole investigation.
Investigators would take the bits of evidence that they had on Peltier and manipulate it in a way to pin the whole shooting on him. They issued indictments on Peltier and two others who were present on the shooting. They charged Jimmy Eagle but later dropped those charges as prosecutors admitted that Eagle was not on the reservation on the day of the shooting. FBI documents support that the government dismissed charges on Eagle so they can put all their power on nailing Peltier for the shooting. Despite all the individuals who were present at the shooting, nobody received as much scrutiny as Peltier did and nobody else was charged for the killings. It was even made clear that the bullets that killed the agents weren’t even the bullets fired from Peltier’s weapon but it was never presented to the jury. To learn more about post-trial admissions, click here.
The freedom riders just want to seek justice for Leonard Peltier so he can spend his final moments with his family. They want to raise awareness on this issue and many other issues that are related to this manner. Please go and give them a donation on their GoFundMe page so the riders are able to afford everything they need to complete their journey. To track their progress, go to their Facebook page and give them your support.
“The only thing I am guilty of is struggling for my people.” -Leonard Peltier
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.