Logan for Liberty

The anti-gun advocate is a fox. For far too long, the anti-gun lobby has been putting the pro-gun crowd on the defense. And this is on purpose. And let’s clarify this bold dichotomy, I present those who proclaim to only support “common sense gun legislation” as anti-gun, because they are. They are anti-gun at the root and they show their true colors over and over again. No pro-gun person, or someone who is indifferent to gun ownership is going to praise gun buybacks, or support magazine capacity limits to only 5 rounds. That is inherently anti-gun. The average anti-gun advocate is sly, and when arguing for gun rights, they should be watched closely. _______________________ https://twitter.com/loganforliberty https://www.facebook.com/LoganForLiberty/ Artist of The Data Renegade Avatar https://fridlearts.wordpress.com/ Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvj9n8lD__bx7MJoISK3c4w/featured

1917, directed by Sam Mendes, has everything I want from a film. Characters I can relate to or at least care about. A motive or objective that I can understand. It needs to have believability or at least be competent enough that it makes suspension of disbelief easy. Good storytelling. 1917, is about two soldiers who are sent on foot to relay orders to colonel Mackenzie to stop an attack about to be carried about by 1,600 British soldiers against a seemingly retreating German Army. Early on in the film, we learn that the German’s aren’t capitulating in the trenches in which they were dug in, rather they are baiting the British into a trap. The initial soldier chosen, Lance Corporal Thomas Blake, played by Dean-Charles Chapman, was specifically chosen because he is good with maps therefore he can be trusted to navigate through no man’s land, and his brother is part of the 1,600 multi-wave British attack that is about to charge straight into a one sided slaughter. Lance Corporal Thomas Blake is chosen in the opening scene of the movie and is told to pick a man to go with him; he picks Lance Corporal William Schofield who is played by George MacKay. Along the way, they encounter several instances of hardship and a little bit of tragedy. Over the course of the first quarter to a half of the film via the events of the film, we learn quite a bit about the two main characters all the while not learning everything about them. Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield have developed a bit of camaraderie. This of course isn’t unusual to see in a war film; it’s always implied there is a brotherhood between comrades considering not only the amount of time they spend together, but the very nature of what they go through with each other. However, we get a little glimpse into another reality; just because you work together doesn’t mean you like each other or that you won’t come into conflict with each other. But enough of that digression. Blake is a proud soldier who takes pride in his military achievements. A medal and ribbon means a lot to him. Schofield reveals that he doesn’t have his medal anymore. Blake assumes he lost it. While at first glance, this seems as if it is just dialogue to pass the time and maybe develop characters, and it accomplishes that very well, it eventually pays off in a satisfying way. We even get a bit of dialogue from Lieutenant Leslie played by Andrew Scott who cogitates that the German’s are baiting the British into a trap and who gives credence to those who feel the way that Schofield does about the conflict. “We fought and died over every inch of this fucking place. Now they suddenly give us miles? It’s a trap. But chin up. There’s a medal in it, for sure. Nothing like a scrap of ribbon to cheer up a widow.” After navigating through No Man’s Land they arrive at the German’s abandoned trenches. They go through a sleeping quarters and quasi-bunker built by the German’s where Schofield sees a photograph of a family left behind on one of the bunks. This is important. After nearly being blown to bits by a sprung trip wire and being trapped under the rubble, Schofield asks Blake why he had to choose him. He says this while ambiguously looking into a blue container that he carries. Even though Schofield is unhappy with the predicament he’s in, we learn very quickly that he’s not a coward. Schofield doesn’t capitulate to his unhappiness and honors his orders and agrees to keep helping his friend when offered the chance to go back. 1917 is not only one of the best war films, but one of the best films I have ever seen. It is spectacular in concept, in execution, and visually. It analyzes many nuances of war subtly through a very simple and tense story. This film deserves more praise than it got, because it didn’t get enough. _______________________ https://twitter.com/loganforliberty https://www.facebook.com/LoganForLiberty/ Artist of The Data Renegade Avatar https://fridlearts.wordpress.com/ Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvj9n8lD__bx7MJoISK3c4w/featured

We must first identify what Marxism is. Marxism is simply the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. I know the title of this video is “These Protests are Innately Communist,” but in reality, it is more specific than that. Communism existed at least several hundred years before Karl Marx. The idea of a classless and egalitarian society is said to have emerged in Ancient Greece, and Communist thought is said to be traceable back to Thomas More’s 1516 treatise “Utopia.” However, fast forward to 1848 with the revised interpretation of communist thought with The Communist Manifesto authored by Karl Marx and his associate. In short, it’s possible to be a communist and not be a Marxist. What makes Karl Marx’s iteration of communism so pervasive is by the very tactics he uses in an attempt to bolster his politics. He offers a very revisionist and bizarre interpretation of society. In the first line of the first chapter of the Communist manifesto, a very bold claim is made. “The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles.” Meaning that all of history up to the point of this declaration is a history of class struggles. Making class struggle the sole principle by how you view politics undermines every single tribulation humanity has gone through at this point. He continues “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome, we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. ” Owning a business, leading an organization, owning property, in the eyes of a Marxist is equivalent to being a slave master, dictator, or oppressor. Any hierarchical structure that you see is simply just oppressor vs oppressed. Your success is built by the exploitation of subordinates under you. According to Marx and his associate “The immediate aim of the Communists is the… the overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” This line doubles down on the Marxist view that the world is defined by class struggles thus divided by oppressor vs oppressed. It also makes it clear that their goal is to dismantle and replace what they perceive as the status quo. Very interestingly, Marx and his associate write “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.” which is an admission that their focus is not going to property owners of who they perceive to be oppressed. It’s going after the oppressors. Its end goal is certainly the abolition of private property, but until they supplant the powerful and wealthy, they won’t move to abolition the entirety of private property. This is about giving the proletariat an advantage. It’s important to highlight that Marx viewed property as “...the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.” Wealth, capital, and property is viewed by the Marxists to be a social power. _______________________ https://twitter.com/loganforliberty https://www.facebook.com/LoganForLiberty/ Artist of The Data Renegade Avatar https://fridlearts.wordpress.com/ Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvj9n8lD__bx7MJoISK3c4w/featured

28 Days Later is a masterpiece of cinema. I can't wait to talk about why. This is going to be divided into two parts. Part 1, this video, is going to be a general review that will lay the groundwork for what part 2 will eventually be. Part 2, the next video, will be a more in-depth dissection about the cinematic brilliance of 28 Days Later and the philosophical themes that it touches. ___ https://twitter.com/loganforliberty https://www.facebook.com/LoganForLiberty/ Artist of The Data Renegade Avatar https://fridlearts.wordpress.com/ Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvj9n8lD__bx7MJoISK3c4w/featured