Nothing contradicts the free will of a species more than its individual members abstaining from both the natural and ethical imperatives to survive, and there is no greater indictment against the notion of innocence than when innocence passively allows mass murder and invasions.
The greatest tool of oppression is the construct of civilization, for never is nor was there need of “civilization”, even as a concept, save to distinguish that deemed “civilized” from that which is “uncivilized”, and “that” can only furthermore be presumed as “whom”.
Alas, for such a concept to possess any value and, therefore, literary force, it must be a thing conceived in addition to being merely perceived; ergo, if the concept of “uncivilized” is fully understood by those accused of such a thing, then they are, in fact, not this at all.
Per se civilization as a theory insofar as praxis will only ever inevitably result in two things: interspecies racism, and extraspecies oppression, invariably two sides of the same coin, whereof it can only ever be this to a superiority complex such as “civilization”, and I dare say this was understood from the time it was conceived.
I claim this was understood because it is a thing necessarily understood for “civilization” to be a concept, as conceptualization precludes identification, whereof both entail the distinguishing of a thing insofar as what of it ‘is’ apart from what of it ‘is not’.
In fact, this is the entire epistemological matrix of the human species, and, seemingly, that of existence, itself, as the Conceptual is predicated on an ontological edifice of ‘is’ versus ‘is not’ (i.e. truth value), whereof “1” and “0” are truly the only necessary representations of this.
Everything between this whole value and that which is non-value is only ever a matter of degrees (un)becoming, and therefore everything and everyone you have ever known of this reality is known to you only as cognitive representation—informally, initially; then, as time goes on, humanity organizes such representations into formal systems.
The formal system with which everyone is most familiar is undoubtedly that respective native tongue of oneself, but one must understand that such an amalgam of conceptual representations as spoken language is primitive, for it is messy and gives one the impression truth is subjective.
However, the truth is not subjective, lest language would cease as a construct, as would conceptual reality. But while the spoken tongue itself a messy form of communication, for all of its imprecisions and capacity for miscommunication, it implies necessarily that which is absolutely essential to any species and society.
The inference follows, thusly:
that there must indeed exist that which is the fundamental truth of our reality, for this is reality none other, and it is this in actuality to which we refer as “truth”, for this can only ever be that which is truth, per the concept of truth to have any value or meaning.
Furthermore, for language to conceptually exist and, further still, as construct, and even further still, as social construct—one of innumerable constructs thereby serving as the foundation of all human knowledge and, as an extension, society—said truth must be perceived by the Many as it is indeed perceived by the One.
“Universality”, as it were, for anything less with respect to “truth” cannot be said to be the truth but that of a warped version of the truth via the human perspective; and then, furthermore, whatever distortions our limited individual perspective imposes upon the truth.
However, it certainly does not follow from this that truth itself is subjective, though for all intents and purposes, each perspective in relation to truth is but subjective in that it is subject to its relation to reality, and all things within said reality, whence necessarily arises the need of formal language.
Realizing the inefficiency of the spoken tongue, we, Homo sapiens, also developed the language of mathematics upon the edifice of logic, whereof ironically most of logic has come to be expressed mathematically, but all are essentially expressions of the same objective reality, and only ever.
Whereas, one could consider logic and mathematics one in the same, though to excel at one and not the other is not indicative of any intellectual deficiency, neither at all, nor simply speaking insofar as the purview of either is concerned; and again, likewise, insofar as spoken language vis-a-vis the maths and sciences. They are simply different approaches, but ultimately the distinction between them is an illusory one. All rely on the same synaptic connections.
If you ask me, these dogmatic distinctions have everything to do with human education refusing a complete overall in the wake of many a revelation, i.e. a full epistemological revolution, in as much the same way society is refusing a complete social revolution, and for very much the same reasons—ignorance, apathy, and selfishness.
Apropos revolution, no shit: revolution is painfully and deadly inconvenient for life in the present, most of all for those pathetic egos who benefit the most from it, whereof, ignorance, apathy, and selfishness are but a function of the ego. However, dare I say the greatest evolutionary value to the gift of consciousness is none other than the capacity to defy that of our destructive instincts.
And, make no mistake, ego is foremost driven by instinct, whereof most of you will always inevitably fail both yourselves, your communities, and your society, because ever was nature taking a gamble at the inception of ego within nature, for little did nature have any apparent choice in the matter per the natural unfolding of evolution in response to its environment.
The notion of the One and the Many represents that of ego vis-a-vis life itself within nature, albeit from two opposing perspectives: the will of the One, and the will of the Many—though, ever interchangeable, expressible via language, such that this careful balancing act enable all life everywhere to survive and flourish.
Ergo, the value of virtue, for what is virtue but the act of moderation? However, do note that this is to say “moderation” irrespective the notion of the morally deplorable political moderate, or liberal, of United States politics, for moderation is not the rejection of extremes, but knowing damn well when to employ them.
And, therefore, anyone who removes violence, and, realistically, anyone who is so willfully ignorant as to conceive of the political reality as always one of the lesser of two evils—Democrats vs Republicans—and, as well, any media company, social or otherwise, that censors those organizings of direct action to oppose such a system—necessarily are opposed to the oppressed. In other words, these are no different and none other than the oppressor.
Stated unequivocally, anyone who levels accusations of “incivility” toward those employing direct action—indeed, whatever the form—to oppose miserable conditions imposed onto the oppressed, i.e., oppression, are, by necessity, the oppressor—regardless of race, gender, creed, etc., and foremost of themselves deserving of the very violence they condemn.
Conclusively, no government anywhere on the face of this Earth—no constitutions; no original opining documents; no individual; no group of individuals, regardless of contribution; nor that of any so-called “Founding Fathers”; nor any false courts predicated on the lie of progress deeming itself “supreme”, so as to eternally deny Blackness equality under the law—may at any time dictate the means and form of protestation—at all, what-so-fucking-ever: period.
The form of protestation is but a thing of necessity for the discerning individual, to take whatever form by any means necessary, as for one to protest is to take control of the existence of oneself and remove all pretense in every defiance of those powers that would impose upon the will. And, therefore, to protest is ultimately none other than an existential manifestation of truth.
So it is, and forever has been, that the act of protesting is the denial of all authority, by that of a will otherwise pure and free within nature—unbroken and unbowed by any threats of force, pretensions of “civilization”, or immoral corrosions of wealth—alas, the will of the One against the Many, standing loudly and proclaiming, “Not here, not now, not ever—for it is I, and I exist.”