"WHY ARE YOU KILLING US?" - the Great Legacy of Socialism

Tomorrow marks the 20^th anniversary of the Tienanmen Square Massacre – that infamous morning when forces of collectivism and socialism brutally crushed the nonviolent Freedom movement of China, who asked for nothing more but free speech, free elections, free enterprise and the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Instead, they were slaughtered by the behemoth abomination of Central Government, the bodies of the innocent littering the square. Unbiased sources put the final death toll at around 5000, - all protesters butchered in the name of the collective good. Such is the terrible legacy of socialism.

And what of the legacy of those who made the most honorable of sacrifices, (what more honorable death is there but in the name of Liberty?), crushed under the treads of Soviet tanks as they screamed “Why are you killing us”? To us - They exposed the vile injustice of socialism for the entire world to see... a lesson which, I fear, we have been far too quick to forget.

 But what of China? Surely the Tienanmen Square Massacre must have had some influence? It did not. Those brave patriots have had every shred of their existences eviscerated from history. You might ask; How could they cover it up in this day and age, with the internet? Enter: the Great Firewall of China, denying Chinese citizens access to any sites that might contain information about the Massacre – the perfect example of why government should not be involved directly in any industries. And yet today, in America, we are doing the opposite of what History has told us. We have nationalized our lending industry, we are nationalizing our automotive industry, and proponents of socialism are even-now fighting for the nationalization of medicine, energy and the internet. That's right – we are on the verge of having a Great Firewall ourselves. And yet today, the Government already decides what books we can use in school, what we can and can't eat, what we should think, what we can and can't say in media (so much for free speech!), what we can and can't use as medicine... and with each new industry it consumes or possesses, Government gets larger, like a festering malignant tumor killing us slowly with ever-increasing regulations and bureaucracies, stifling the creativity and ingenuity and spirit of the people, slowing the gears of the machine that we call “progress”.

 Tomorrow - all socialists, consider what you're really advocating. Remember those who died in Tienanmen Square rebelling against many of the ideas that you want for America, and consider if that is really what's best for us. Consider that every industry that you nationalize, and every power delegated to the government can be abused, and when used together, that power could become Totalitarian. Consider that someday, a Tienanmen Square could happen here too.

  

I'd like to end this article with a request to all of you. Post references to Tienanmen Square in all of your social networking blogs and forums, and encourage others to do the same. Maybe – if we're lucky – some of them will get past the Great Firewall of China and into the hands of English-speaking Chinese so that they do not wallow in ignorance of their criminal leaders. They deserve to know the evils of socialist national collectivism. Perhaps someday they will break free of their big-government oppressors and join the Free World. At the very least, spreading the word of Tienanmen Square will remind us of the virtues of a Free Society, and why we must defend it – capitalism, hard work, saving, prosperity, speaking freely without fear, freedom from persecution, the right to face your accuser, a jury of peers, and a speedy trial. Innocence until proven guilty and humane treatment even if proven guilty (and so on), and give us the conviction to protect our liberties from any who wish to compromise them.

I'm sure many of you do not know this, but being from Massachusetts, the state the started the American War for Independence, I am required to know that today is Patriot's Day (we actually get Monday off!). That is, on this day in 1775, American minutemen on their own initiative, told the British Empire – the most powerful nation on Earth, to fuck off... and that Americans would not sit by and let their Rights be trampled upon. This ragtag bunch of farmers and shopkeepers took up arms against the most powerful nation on Earth and shot their soldiers down in the street, and then chased them all the way back to Boston sniping at them as they retreated, leaving over 200 British dead or wounded on the street now called “Battle Road”.

First, I would like to comment in response to some of the liberal periodicals I've seen regarding this most recent “Tea Party.” I read one that said “Conservatives – Love it or Leave it. If you want low taxes and guns, move to Somalia”. To which I now respond, if you want European Socialism GO TO EUROPE. America went to war for independence for two primary reasons: Taxes (no taxation without representation!) and GUNS (Battle Road was fought because the British wanted to confiscate the Concord Armory). It's really stupid that any American would claim that low taxes and firearms are not acceptable in AMERICA. Those are the causes that gave birth to America! That's why the Founding Father's made THIS country the country where owning Firearms is a RIGHT, and that the people would protected from direct apportioned taxation (later overturned in the 16^th Amendment) in it's founding document!

Battle Road, or “the Battles of Lexington and Concord”, were fought to stand up against arbitrary power, and so on Patriot's Day, I urge you to make a tradition - do something in your life to fight against arbitrary power. Read up on your rights. Read the Constitution. Encrypt your e-mails and IM – not because there's anything sensitive in them, but because authorities are not supposed to be reading them. Write your congressmen. Buy a gun. Register to Vote, and when elections come around – VOTE. Volunteer for a pro-liberty political movement. Read a book on Laissez-faire Economics or detailed event in US History. Help arrange a protest against an infringement of your rights, or plan to attend one.

Patriot's Day is the day that the “little guys” come together to stand up against the bullies – and Concord shows us that sometimes the little guys even win! Sometimes a little act of rebellion can even set in motion a chain of events that will free a nation, and change the world forever. Let's not forget where we came from.

-j

Tea Parties?

A few months ago, I started reading about plans for “tea parties” to take place on April 15 2009, to protest the Federal Income Tax, and the waste projects of the Obama administration from it's various bailout and loan initiatives proposed since his inauguration, including the monstrosity known casually as the “stimulus package”, among other government abuses. But it seems insulting to me that we're calling it a “tea party”. While it's symbolism is obvious, it isn't really convincing. Whatever our point is, as a movement, I hardly think we're getting it across...

Let me put it into context for one moment. Living in Boston itself, I have a keen understanding of the history surrounding the Boston Tea Party, since I regularly see surviving testaments to the American War for Independence in my everyday life. The Boston Tea Party was a response to British interventions in colonial economics. It was not directed at the tea tax per-se, but instead at taxes in general. You see, most of the taxes that were forced upon the colonies were taxes upon goods that colonists could not do without – articles like sugar, glass, textiles, and paper. Tea was one of the items that the colonists felt that they could give up.

Why did Americans want to give up tea? It is important to understand that the tea aboard the cargo ships did NOT belong to Britain. It belonged to the British East India Company – a private corporation which had provided the British government with generous cash revenue, both through taxes and by improving the national economy, with its nearly-monopolistic control of tea imports to Europe and the Americas. However, taxation upon tea in the Townshend Act sharply increased the cost of tea in America, thus driving down demand, and (like all prohibitions/regulations) began a Black Market in Tea. This drove demand down further, taking profitability down with it, and causing the British East India Company to lose money in America. With such loyalties to the industry that gave Britain much of the wealth that allowed her to become the world's most powerful nation, Britain came to the aid of the East India Company to solve its profitability problem in America. In short, the Tea Act of 1773 was a GOVERNMENT BAILOUT of the Tea Industry.

The response to this was the historic Boston Tea Party. Now, lets assume that the Boston Tea Party were to take place today – what would it look like? It certainly wouldn't be people standing around in front of post offices throwing teabags (that they paid for) on the ground and handing out literature. (What sort of pathetic tepid rebels are we, anyway?) The appropriate response is not to have a Tea Party at all, but rather, to emulate the Sons of Liberty in their deeds rather than just paying homage. The Sons of Liberty targeted a corporation that received a government bailout at their expense, and systematically destroyed their goods. Thus, the appropriate response for a new Boston Tea Party would be to destroy the property of recipients of these most recent bailouts – foreclosed homes owned by banks and lenders that took part in the bailout. That's not to say I am encouraging people to do this, I am merely pointing out that when one considers the Boston Tea Party and the reason why it occurred, and apply it to life today, such would be the response - And short of this I believe is an offense to the legacy of the Boston Tea Party itself.

So what was America's beef with the East India Company anyway? Other than being government-supported (uncompetitive business practices), the colonists did not dislike the East India Company. Their qualms were with Britain herself and laws that were passed at the expense of the colonies – namely the Townshend Acts, which taxed goods that colonists could not do without. The Founding generations felt that all taxation should be voluntary. IE – taxation should not be imposed on items that cannot be circumvented. For example, a tax on vices (alcohol, tobacco, pornography today) would be a fair tax, since one can go without such things. A tax on luxuries is similarly acceptable. A tax on electricity and gasoline however, is completely unacceptable. A modern Sons of Liberty might dump taxed gasoline into the harbor (without paying for it, of course)! They would likely get “off the grid” and perhaps cut off power to sections of Boston.

If you really want a revolution, you might read up on our own Independence. Find out what the American Rebels really were like... burning down the houses of tax collectors, lynching effigies of governors outside their homes, starting fights with law enforcement, and eventually killing soldiers. Remember that the historic “shot heard 'round the world” was not a bureaucratic decision. No committees were formed to debate whether to shoot and when. There were no orders given. It was a single person, or more accurately, a group of citizens, who took it upon their own initiative to challenge the British Empire. It was an act of lawlessness – anarchy. If you want to start a revolution, you must be willing to break the law. Short of that, there is no way to hurt the establishment. Furthermore, disregard for the law, especially on a large scale (such as dumping 350 heads of tea into Boston Harbor, or shooting 200 British Regulars) is newsworthy, and draws notice. Further still - if you are Just in thwarting the law, you gather support. Justice in breaking the law is something that people admire – ala Robin Hood.

So, best of luck on April 15. I am going to be attending a rally, but I don't expect anything to come of it. On that day, consider how you might convince media to our broadcast our message. Convince people to speak openly about it. Start discussing forming Committees of Correspondence – and for God's sake, don't correspond via the internet or telecomm.

Today is Valentine's Day - the day where you must give your loved-one cards, gifts, and take them out to overcrowded restaurants, because if you don't, then you don't love them; or so implies many companies like Hallmark, Nestle, and of course the infamous world diamond cartel and associated jewelers.

The history of Valentine's Day is fairly straightforward. Most Saints have a day dedicated to their honor. Saint Valentine is no different. There was no association between Valentine's Day and lovers until a poem was written in 1382 by Geoffrey Chaucer that mentions in a single line that a pair of lovers exchange love letters on that day. In England, admirers of Chaucer's work began to emulate the lovers' practice but it didn't catch on widely until the 19th century, and eventually, around 1840, it was commercialized when paper companies began to print cards. (Before this, cards were hand-made.)

Today, we are guilted into following Valentine's Day traditions. We're bombarded by commercials that say "Show him/her how much you love them with X". Since when did we become so shallow that we measure degrees of love in terms physical gifts, anyway? And yet, it is part of our collective unconscious. If you forget Valentine's Day, you are an uncaring lover. Why? Mostly because those paper companies, and chocolate companies, and lingerie companies, have been stuffing it down our throats for 150 years, and the sad part is that some of us actually believe it.

It is probably too late for many of you, since I'm sure most of you have plans already for tonight, and I'm sure even more of you won't read this article until tomorrow or later, but consider what the corporations have done - they've injected themselves into your personal life, and not for the better. If you don't buy their products and into their schemes, you may damage your relationship with the one you love if s/he has bought into this scam.

So if Valentine's Day just a scam to milk money out of the masses, why have so many people bought into it? Because of the glam-appeal, mostly. It's romantic. But I ask you - what is more romantic? Taking your lover out because corporate America tells you that on this day, you must, or its a sight that you don't love them? ...or surprising him/her by taking him/her out on a day of YOUR choosing and giving gifts and showering them with affection? I'd argue that this is no-contest. Obviously the second option is more romantic, and shows more love and deeper commitment, because there's nobody on your back guilting you into buying things and dressing up, while coercing you with your own relationship.

So I urge you all: don't celebrate Valentine's Day. You're just letting corporate America into your bedroom. If you think your lover is open-minded, explain to them why you don't wish to celebrate Valentine's Day, and take him/her out because YOU want to, on a day of YOUR choosing. Show them that you love them, not because Hallmark says you should, but because who YOU are and because of who S/HE is.

If your lover is "blue-pill" trapped by the matrix, it is still easy to boycott Valentines Day.

• Don't buy any Valentine's-branded products. It's easier to do this if you buy your gifts in advance, during a season that isn't Valentine's Day. Clothes, Chocolate, and Jewelry don't expire (at least not very quickly). This would be the same as buying presents for a special day of your own choosing, and at least it wouldn't show up in Hallmark's profits for Valentine's Day.
  
• Eat-In. What's really more romantic? Going out to some fancy restaurant that's packed shoulder-to-shoulder because everybody is going out on the same night, or cooking your partner a wonderful meal of their choosing, and eating together alone, bathed in candle-light?
• Do things for eachother. Learn sensual massage or otherwise pamper your partner rather than going out dancing. (Bubblebath and champaigne has always been a good combination in my experience)
  
• Hand-made cards are considerably more romantic and worthwhile than those bought in stores.
• Make these things a tradition! That way, you never have to explain why you're not going out, and you can keep doing it.

If you reject corporate intrusions into your life, there are alternatives like these! One just needs to be imaginative to think of them. However, Valentines Day is just the start. There are more overtly "Hallmark" holidays like Mother's Day, Father's Day, and all the ridiculous ones like Boss's Day, Secretary's Day, Teacher's Day... let them all go. Instead, just be a kind person, and be mischevious with your kindness. Buy your parents a gift and hide it someplace where they will find it. Take them out to dinner for no reason. Take your boss out for coffee as a treat, or let your secretary have the afternoon off on a slow day a couple times a year.

We don't need corporations to tell us how and when to be nice or to love, and we should be insulted at their presumptuousness. Reject them. Say: "Thanks but no-thanks - I can be nice on my own. I can fall in love on my own. And I can do both on my own terms, without Hallmark's help, and my way will be better."

Happy Valentine's Day, readers!         :)

Last month, I found myself bombarded with blog comments around my notion to boycott Starbucks. I found it shocking and depressing that many of the comments were downright idiotic. There was also a lot of resistance to a very simple concept (to which, I don't blame; you are entitled to have your opinion provided that you recognize that I am entitled to have my own...) which makes me wonder if our movement is actually ready to do anything. I mean, it's an extremely minor, if not entirely meaningless battle in a very large war, but if "patriots" aren't willing to sacrifice their stupid overpriced lattes to make a statement, our movement is already over.

However, I also got a lot of comments from the Conspiracy-types talking about Palestine and Jews, and Illuminati and New World Order, fighting eachother over semantics, and going on-and-on about things that weren't even related to my extremely down-to-earth article. It left me with the impression that as a group we are extremely divided, and far too Fringe.

My first blog-post was about the End the Fed rallies and how they're unlikely to help us. But they actually do accomplish something - they bring us together. We need some common ground, so that we can get this movement to GO somewhere, and we can get that common ground by creating solidarity through mass demonstrations. As such, I think that we need to look into annualizing some events - because without periodic events to stir the fervor and stay active, this movement will END. First off, I think we should have a Revolution March 2 - perhaps not this year (its getting pretty late to start considering it now!) and perhaps another Rally for the Republic as well. We do not want to lose momentum.

I'm sure that other bloggers have stated similar views already, but in case they haven't, consider this a proposal. If you like the idea, please mention it to fellow patriots so that we can get a support base for the continuation of highly-visible events - and let the establishment know that we're still strong.

While leaving my local Starbucks today, I was surprised to notice a new little table set beside the door with an Obama-inspired banner reading "YES WE CAN" draped from it. I went to investigate the table and found it to be recruitment for a "National Service Drive". This, coupled with the obvious Obama-plug, reminded me of Obama's speech promising to form a Civilian National Security Force.

I happen to like Starbucks, and I happen to like Barack Obama (at least, more than McCain), but that particular speech had made me uneasy. A Civilian National Security Force? Don't we already have like 50 of those? What is the Police? The National Guard? The FBI? The CIA? The Department of Homeland Security? All of these are civilian organizations, and all of them are for security. That speech immediately conjured stories of the nazi brownshirts in my mind, as well as in the minds of probably thousands of other Americans. But to his credit, Obama dropped this message from his platform later in the campaign, probably due to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to it.

So, when I saw this table at Starbucks, that "supports the call for National Service", I got chills. I took one of the cards that were provided, and read it over. It seemed to be a deal that provided free coffee to costumers who spend time doing chartitable service... (walkathons,  food drives, blood donations, etc.) which is okay with me. But I left Starbucks today with a nagging feeling that something was terribly wrong. Since when did we allow corporations to tell us how to spend our free time? Aren't they overstepping their bounds just a little? And does this mean that Starbacks will be recruiting for Obama's Security Force when he implements it? It seems that Starbucks tows the Democrat party line. After all - who is their target demographic? The snotty liberal artsy Macintosh coffee-shop type, of course, and this is really just an extention of their original marketing strategy; selling mediocre coffee at premium prices. After all - they get their coffee from places that are not renowned for quality beans; places like Paraguay and Puerto Rico. Starbucks claims that good coffee comes from the "coffee belt" - counrties a specific distance from the equaitor, but this isn't actually true. A coffee connoisseurs know that soil conditions and altitude are more important, which is why some of the world's best coffee comes from places like Scandinavia - extremely far from the "coffee belt".

So if Starbucks makes marginal coffee, and charges premium prices for it, why is it so popular? It's popular because you're not buying coffee when you go to Starbucks - you're buying atmosphere, and the experience of participating in some collective snobby high-brow posturing. They have done such a good job at marketing and creating an image that people have convinced themselves that it really is good coffee, because it's clientele; trendy young worldly people. But a coffee connoisseur wouldn't be caught dead in a Starbucks, nor would someone who's truely worldly. The truth is that Starbuck has a list of ethical, environmental, and antitrust violations as long as my arm. To their credit, they HAVE been good at fixing these problems when word leaks out, but the problem is that they don't seem to care about immoral practices until there's some public outcry. In summary: Starbucks doesn't care, and if you thought they did, you've been suckered. They pretend to care because that is part of the image that continues to bring in the ignorant art crowd who believes that they're well-informed, so that they can perpetuate themselves as a status symbol, while raking in the proits. (For other corporations that due this: see: Apple Computers)

So they're taking advantage of an opportunity to make money, what's wrong with that? Here's what's wrong with it: they are pushing ideas with their coffee, and labelling it as the posh, artsy, informed, worldly position, while ignoring reality. First off, these people are so high on their horse that they don't realize that America is in decline. "Let them eat cake"-anyone?. Why are we contributing 5 cents per bottle of Ethos water to Africa when there are places in America that need it just as bad? 10-cents percup of Project Red coffee leaves the country too. Why should we do this when America is in decline?

Each time someone enters a Starbucks, they are subtly bombarded with a bunch of messages: globalism is among the forefront, environmental alarmism, and elitism. They are guilted into believing that charity is their duty, and can't opt out of it, and now they are pushing that corporate America has the authority to suggest what we should do with our free time. Thanks, but no-thanks, I'm boycotting Starbucks, effective immediately, and going to buy my coffee at a far-less presumptious Dunkin Doughnuts. With added benefits, no less: cleaner record, and less expensive drinks.

On Friday, November 21, the Obama campaign announced that it would nominate Eric Holder as US Attourney General. While Holder has affirmed that Gun Control will not be primary focus of his new role (they cited abolishing Gitmo and revoking the Patriot Act as primary goals), Holder does have a lengthy and dubious history of fighting to remove American's second amendment rights, and once his his primary goals are complete, he will most likely persue his own personal crusades.

However, the desire for gun control is not supported by the facts. The facts are that, the #1 and #2 states that have the least incidence of violent crime (per capita) are the states with the #1 and #3 least restrictive gun laws (per 2006 crime census). While I brought this up at work to a Democrat, who is pro gun-control, he pointed out that correlation does not imply causality, which is unfortunately true. We cannot say with certainty that laxed gun laws prevent crime. However there is correlation, and so we can say with complete certainty that laxed gun laws do not encourage crime.

Conversely some of the cities with the most restrictive gun laws - Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans - have among the highest rates of violent crime in the country.


Any claim that gun restriction will promote general safety is whats called in philosophy a LOGICAL FALLACY. An entirely incorrect and inappropriate conclusion has been drawn from the facts that exist, or the facts were not consulted and the conclusion was based on heresey, personal bias, or faulty information.


Learn all that you can. There will be a fight against national gun restrictions in the next 4 years, despite President-Elect Obama's pro-gun stance, because many of the people who he is considering for cabinet positions and appointments, and in favor of firearm control. When the national debate comes, we need to have rational, fact-based arguments prepared so that we can deflate their positions and convince mainstream America that firearm control will not change the crime rate, and that it will probably go up. That firearms are an equalizer against strong opponants for people who can't physically defend themselves (like women). That knowledge or suspicion of firearms is often enough to prevent crimes such as burglery... etc.

Meanwhile, buy unregistered weapons, so that if and when they come to collect your guns, you will have some that they do not know about, and that you will not have to turn in.

Over the weekend, ministers and leaders from the countries with the 20 largest economies met, along with the leaders of the largest 8 central banks, and the world financial apparatus (WTO, IMF, WB, etc) to discuss the world financial crisis, how to fix it, and how to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Of course, the conventional wisdom of these individuals is that nothing should be left to chance - people cannot be trusted with their own money, because they are scared, self-interested, and short-sighted - and thus, Central Economic Planning was born in this country, currently in the form of the Federal Reserve, which was proven to create the boom-bust cycle, and inflate the economy to make the busts worse, which ultimately created the crisis that we are currently in. However, when Central Economic Planners and politicians who believe in the status-quo get together to talk financial issues, only one thing can result : Regulation, more stifling control, and more Centralization. Since there is nothing more Central than the Federal Reserve, the G20 summit can result in only one thing - a World Central Bank.

... and of course, that's precisely what they did - or at least precisely what they STARTED.

The world economy was hurt by two things - the dollar's status as the world reserve currency, and the self-destruction of the mortgage and loan industry. Either one would have been irrelevent without the other (except to the people in America, of course!) Ultimately this will open the global eyes to the realization that their well-being is tied to America's, and they will seek to leave the dollar for a global monetary standard, thus ending the "dollar hegemony". To have a world currency, issued by the world for the world, there must be a world body that provides that currency - and thus, a World Reserve Bank would have to be established.

The G20 took the first step this weekend by appointing the IMF (that's right - the same group that's responsible for bankrupting 3rd World Countries to enslave them with perpetual debt, and therefore make them pliable to the will of the West (Perkins :: Confessions of an Economic Hitman))... the same multinational body that is the single largest holder of Gold in the world... to act as the world's lender, by infusing their bank account with $100 bil in Japanese Yen - one of the economies least affected by the global recession. In effect, this means we currently have a World Central Bank, run by people who we already know are crooked, and who are unelected, and unaccoutable to the people. The only power that they do not have is to coin new money. But don't think for a moment that they couldn't get that power! Europe was gung-ho for creating a true World Central Bank, but even though they didn't get it, there will be another meeting of G20 in April 2009. The erosion of civil liberty tends to be just that - erosion - slow, and hardly noticable, but over time it can carve a canyon. The same may be true for FINANCIAL liberty. Europe will push for a World Central Bank again, and the Democrat Obama, wet behind the ears and looking to make friends, will not oppose them. They'll say "Just look at how good the IMF did in helping us through our troubles! We should do something like this all the time." And PRESTO, we have a World Reserve Bank.

So my question is... Is there any point to ending the Federal Reserve, if a World Reserve begins?

A second question... the IMF is conglomorated by appointments from governments, as opposed to the private Federal Reserve. Do you think that's better or worse? Or do you think that they'll just create a new entity altogether and reset the IMF to its original role?



Comments are welcome! Lets start some dialog.

Showing our frustration and willingness to act against the Federal Reserve is all well and good, but I can't help but feel we're going about it the wrong way. It's like the Revolution March. We hike down the street on a balmy Saturday, and what did we change? Nothing. We got a better feeling of solidarity, we annoyed some motorists by holding up traffic, some tourists saw us, and we got a police detail watching over us. Really, it was more of a Rally. It did nothing beneficial but heighten our spirits. The greatest moment for me, other than hearing THE MAN speak in person, was walking by the IRS and feeling... not just hearing (it was so loud!) ... the resounding "BOOOO" of the crowd. I thought to myself, "What gall we have!"

But upon reflection, I realized that we didn't really accomplish anything, and the gall - while genuine - was an exercise in futility. Why? Because nobody heard us. Government bureaucrats do not go above and beyond the call of duty. They do not work on weekends. We booed NOBODY. We yelled at a building... an inanimate object... sure the symbolism is there, but we were the only ones present to witness it, and therefore we were the only ones likely to be affected by it.

So what good is it to protest the Federal Reserve on a Saturday? We might scare the janitor or the security guard, but what will we accomplish? Nothing.

What we need is to have real activists, and disruptive, but peaceful, events. What if we did the Revolution March at NOON on say, a Wednesday? Hold up traffic on a workday, where IRS employees would have to walk past us to go to and from lunch and see us, and hear us. We need to protest the Fed at 8:30 am and 4:30 pm on WEEKDAYS, so we're not just shouting at empty buildings.


The only thing that this could possibly accomplish is the distribution of literature: IE - Republic Magazine, but once again, we're doing it wrong. While the articles are good, the advertisments need to GO. They're all fringe whack-job homeopathic remedies and survival ware. They may work - but that's beside the point. It has a negative impact on the legitimacy of the whole periodical. We might not mind - those ads target people in our audience - but as long as they are in there, we will not reach the broader audience... IE - Everybody else. And without a broad base and momentum, we will never end the fed!

-jas