The Opposition Identity of the Anti-Tribe

I’ve long been skeptical of the negation crew, the “anti” crowd, those individuals or groups who when asked who they are and what they stand for reply, “I am against X!” There are the “skeptics” who are wholly against all and any religions; the SJWs who are wholly against anything that they perceive as masculine, aggressive, racist or sexist; there are the puritanical religious – the deniers of the body – who gasp and flail at the faintest stirring of erotic passion; then there are the “new ageists” who are perhaps the epitome of the skeptic foil, those who languish in a jellied slush of “mystical” half-measures, neither a creature of faith nor truly one of hard verticality. There are also the anti-statist who, like Rousseau, seek to see man placed outside the grasp of “The Tyrants,” who pervert his very nature by their iron programs and thus stymie his ability to live in the rightful state of peace and freedom. Then there is the ironycel, who wages total war on forthright meaning and serious (“I was just joking – don’t take everything so seriously, bro…”) and also the hedonist who stands in total opposition to any and all impulse restraint. The list could go on and on; reams upon reams, enough to fill up the center of the earth, with enough left over to blot out the sun.

It is not for our purposes to trace the origins nor map the structures of any of the aforementioned groups – rather it is to remark upon the one thing they all share – they are all, without exception, defined either largely or entirely by what they oppose. Theirs is a identity of opposition. They are reactive, rather than proactive. Defined by circumstance rather than defining it. For stable construction, in any serious political sense, such tribes can offer one nothing, for they have nothing but derisive jeers – hardly the solid stuff one should be seeking. They have not the glue to hold a body politic together for they do not themselves know who they are nor what they stand for all that they know is that they are not what they oppose. They are NOT X, but not necessarily Y or Z.

What defines a body politic is its identity, this also drives such entities to oppose others; that is to say, when tribe X’s culture (the manifestation of their identity) finds itself incongruent with tribe Y, it behooves tribe Y to push back against it and make X conform (at least to some more desirable degree) to their outward expression of collective self. Failing this, there can be naught but war. But the anti-collective – the group who knows not who they are, nor what they stand for, nor where they are going – can not take the path of reprisal for they can not form a coherent political body (and even if they could they could only keep it so long as “the other” whom they opposed remained a active and present force, whether actually or mythically). The ephemeral formalism of the anti-tribes, useful for short-span guerrilla combat of the mind, is wholly useless for times of peace (and there should be little distinction made between peace from real-world combat and combat of a more ideological persuasion) as they do not have internal structure to their various, tangentially related collectives (often they have no reason for being a collective at all once their “threat,” their pet-problem, is removed). Due to the fact that the anti-tribes persist only so that X,Y & Z shall not, when another problem arises that is falls not within the purview of their own problem-set, they are like to ignore it or sublimate themselves to it (the case of the modern American Christian who constantly wails about Muslim “invaders,” but shows little to no concern about Zionist radicals destabilizing his nation).

It is, for all these aforementioned reasons, pertinent for those who are seeking a more stable ordering to things to treat the anti-tribes with the greatest of caution. For, as the old adage goes, it takes but one rotten apple to ruin the entire barrel.

American Deathscape: The Drug Scourge; Sources & Solutions

There is seldom anything more tragic than a 20 year old with a family, a lover and a bright and promising future being discovered face down in some filthy alley, spittle on the lips, needle in the arm. Yet this is precisely the way that a ever-growing share of America’s youth, the lifeblood of our great nation, are ending up. According to the CDCP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) in the past 16 years over 183,000 Americans have died from overdoses related to proscription opioids – and that is only those that are tied to legally traded drugs obtained from pharmacies and doctors; it does not account from those deaths related to illegally traded drugs on the blackmarket or those that are stolen. The opioid crisis is now being called the worst drug epidemic in US history. This is not hyperbole, drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death in the US and are responsible for the majority of all deaths for Americans under the age of 50. More people have now died from opioids than died during the AIDs crisis of the 1990s. The scourge is so monumental that is has now been estimated that more have died from opioid overdoses in the last 10 years than died during 20 years of of military engagement in Vietnam.

There are a great deal of opioids on the market, both the legal market and the underground bazaars, and even more names from them, including: Captain Cody, Cody, Schoolboy, Doors & Fours, Pancakes & Syrup, Loads, M, Miss Emma, Monkey, White Stuff, Demmies, Pain killer, Apache, China girl, Dance fever, Goodfella, Murder 8, Tango and Cash, China-white, Friend, Jackpot, TNT, Oxy 80, Oxycat, Hillbilly heroin, Percs, Perks, Juice as well as Dillies. However, a couple names stand out from the rest. The proscription pain-killers Vicodin, Oxycotin and Percocet as well as the drug, diamorphine (Heroin) all have had majors roles to play in the drug epidemic but they are not currently the leading cause of death from opioids. That “honor” goes to the high-potency pain-reliever Fetanyl.

Fetanyl is a opiate that is far, far more potent than Heroin – it is 50 times more potent than Heroin and 100 times more toxic than morphine – which is generally used during medical operations that would cause intense pain as a numbing agent as it binds to receptors in the brain and nullifies unpleasant sensation. However, just like with the aforementioned trio of Vicodin, Oxycotin and Percocet, it is also highly addictive. The prevalence of proscription drugs like Oxycotin has led to a vicious cycle of dependency and primal-brain reward-seeking whereby a individual will utilize a drug like Oxycotin or Vicodin, become addicted, find that they cannot afford to fuel their habit legally and then turn to Heroin or black market Fetanyl cut with other substances (often nearly, or just as dangerous substances), because it is much, much cheaper.

Some of the states most hard-hit by the drug-plague include Appalachia, pro-drug Vermont and Washington D.C.

In tandem with the $ 800 billion cut-back to Medicaid proposed by the Trump Administration, the increasing death-toll from the drug crisis has re-ignited a nationwide debate about how often doctor erronously write subscriptions, how often normal people are using and abusing and the extent of various blackmarket and cartel influences as well as what should be done about it all. There has not been much in the way of a coherent answer but several things are imminently clear; firstly, this is a tremendous problem and it certainly is not garnering the attention it so rightly deserves. Additionally, any and all talk of regulations or laws should only ever be a secondary consideration for the core issue here is, initially, personal responsibility. Whilst many conservatives do not do the subject just when they say things like, “Its just a question of willpower,” there is much to this, especially if this is applied to situations where a individual is yet to become an addict. This is axiomatic: if you have not taken or are not yet “hook” on hard-drugs then it is, in no uncertain wise, incumbent, primarily, upon the individual to extricate themselves from the situation and not bow out to hedonism, thrill-seeking or peer pressure. After a given individual has become addicted the equation changes markedly, especially when one is discussion opioids which attach themselves to the pleasure-reward centers of the brain (opioid centers, hence the name) associated with sex, water and food and magnify the pleasure as well as the pleasure-seeking incentive. Physical dependence can theoretically become with sheer willpower but it is so rare that it is irrational for most common people to be expected to accomplish this titian task for it is like asking them to completely cease drinking water or eating food or having a compulsion to copulate only magnified several fold. Therefore, as they say, the best strategy or solution to the problem is prevention but that leaves out all of the individuals scattered across these many United States who are currently addicted to opioids; who are suffering and dejected and hopeless. So what of them? My answer would be either take the government out of it entirely and let the individual communities handle it or have the government take complete control over the situation via a country-wide task-force and a rehabilitation and reintegration program. No half-measures.

Whilst we have here covered the internal national problem of over-subscription of pain-killers there is another worm in the apple which must be discussed; the Cartels. The Mexican Drug Cartels are a huge source of numerous illegal narcotics that are killing our citizenry in record number at record rates. The cartels have a very diverse ranger of goods and services but, to the U.S., they primarily supply: heroin, cocaine and Fentanyl. According to former FBI Director, James Comey, the cartels have increased their production of heroin in Mexico which greatly decreases their reliance on their previous source for the deadly opiate, South America. This greatly reduces the cost incurred to the cartels from shipping which means they can now sell heroin at a much, much cheaper price and devote a greater deal of manpower and resources to primary market distribution. Good news for them, bad news for us. Politicians such as William Brownfield, the current U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs, has stated that a solution to the cartel problem will be complex and require extensive cooperation with Mexico. Whilst I would heartily agree that it would be immensely preferable to acquire extensive aid from Mexico to help stop the cartel’s drugs from flowing into our borders they are basically a failed state that is run by the very people we should be seeking out and destroying. Regardless of whether or not the U.S. can bring on-board whatever fragment of law and order that remains in Mexico, the Cartels must be destroyed, all of them, and the border secured.

If you think such a declaration to be a touch too melodramatic for your liking consider the fact that the Mexican drug cartels kill over 20,000 per year – and that is only through direct violence, it says nothing of the droves of people who have been killed because of the filth which they peddle. Rates of violence in Mexico are currently so high that they well surpass many conflict zones in which the United States is or has been embroiled, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The phrase, “War on drugs,” has always irked me. It is like declaring a, “War on food,” drugs will always be around and in some cases (such as the use of opioids and opiates in the treatment of chronic pain), they should be. But a war must be waged, not on “drugs” but on those who do willfully and maliciously propagate them, on those who push them and those who encourage their use and thereby pollute and corrode the very fabric of our esteemed Republic. It is a war which must be total and absolute.

Kaiter Enless is a novelist, artist and contributing writer for New Media Central and Thermidor Magazine. He is also the founder & chief-editor of The Logos Club. Follow him online here.

Value Ordination: Political Paradigm as Argumentation

Innumerable are the number of political compass tests which one can take online, from Playbuzz to PoliticalCompass.org to the 8 Values Github Test, all of which are sifted through and poured over, studied and analyzed by the takers thereof as if in the action of so doing they will confer some hidden and eldritch wisdom unto the reader. The popularity of political compass tests however, does not lie in their viewing by the takers thereof but in their viewing by everyone else. People that are likely to take political compass tests are also likely to be highly engaged in politics and thus are already well aware of their own political views and where they are likely to lie on any given political compass test (unless the given test happens to be poorly constructed, and thus, woefully inaccurate). They are not really seeking out what their ideological positions are but are rather looking for a shared visual platform where their ideological uniqueness can be shown to others. A narcissist’s past-time.

The fixation here is more upon the position of the individual along the political compass than upon the ideas which place them there. This is reflective of American political discourse more generally, where discussions are generally started with the prompt, “Well The Left,” or, “You see this is just what The Right has been trying to do for years now-”

Right and Left are, of a certainly, highly useful linguistic tools but there is here a problem which manifests itself whenever a particular political moniker becomes more important that being correct, that is to say, logically parsimonious (utilizing economy of explanation to arrive at a conclusion).

That may sound like a obvious truism; certainly it is true but it is far less discernible that it is readily obvious. Such is evidenced by popular internetisms like, “There is nothing to the Right of me but the wall.” Meaning, of course, that there is no one more Right-wing than the person whom is spouting the aforementioned phrase. This is only a positive however if the Right-wing views which the speaker holds are actually correct. That is to say, Right and Left are not arguments in and of themselves, nor is a statement of any ideological inclination. To say, “That is a Communist position!” is only a sufficient position in as far as it is actually wrong/illogical; it is not wrong merely by dint of being associated with Communism (which, by and large should be suspect for its historical record of death and intense political instability). Thus, for the previous example, it should, make the argument more suspect but it should not incline one to dismiss it out of hand.

Such is also true with rebuttals like, “But that is Authoritarian!” Well… why is that a bad thing? One should really be asked to explain.

In short, in the American context, the political Left and Right are all too often interjected in place of argumentation. Whenever the words Left-wing and Right-wing are utilized as a argument unto themselves, rather than as placeholders for extremely wide-ranging idea-sets, one knows that one’s opponent has woefully lost the plot.

Fractal America, Kodokushi-6771, Prt.2

In Japan sometime around the month of march, 2017, a employee named Takada from a Japanese company called Mind – which specializes in the removal of indelicate material (such as sex toys or sexually explicit manga) from the abodes of the freshly deceased – recounted to American scream-sheets a most peculiar tale. During one of Takada’s cleaning missions he had encountered the body of a single, 50 year old man named Joji whom had died of a heart attack whilst alone in his two-bedroom apartment. Joji was found lying in six metric tons of pornographic magazines which he had assiduously collected and stored in piles, overflowing in labyrinthine sprawl, all about his tiny house. He had laid there for more than a month; the room, filled with the noxious odor of decaying flesh, his selfsame flesh purple-green and liquefied. His eyeballs running from his sockets.

No one had noticed.

Joji’s peculiar and depressing death is part of a increasingly problematic trend of middle-aged to elderly individuals dying without notice in their homes, or else-wise secluded places, and there remaining for weeks, months or even longer. The problem has reached such a critical threshold of commonality that the Japanese have even given it a name.

Kodokushi.

The word roughly translates into English as, “Persons who [have] lived alone, die alone.” The primary causes for ghastly and seemingly ever increasing malady have been a source of much speculation and theorizing with the general consensus being due to social alienation. Japan has recently undergone demographic shift that has placed more elderly folk home alone than ever before without anyone to look after them and with the transformation of the traditional Japanese family, young people are no longer particularly keen to stay with their parents or grandparents and look after them – there are jobs and careers to be gotten into (a mindset, largely imported from America). This family breakdown and increase in the focus on endless careerism has also created another huge social problem for Japan: suicide.

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend

Japan currently ranks 26th (as of 2015) in total world suicide rates as aggregated by the WHO (World Health Organization), trailing Hungary and ahead of Togo (Togolese Republic). In 2014 alone it was estimated that around 70 nationals killed themselves every single day with the vast majority being men (males are highly over-represented in suicide, both in Japan and across the world).

Whilst Americans might find all of this, perhaps, grotesquely interesting they will likely fail to see the parallels to their own society. As was shown in my first installment in this series, America is far from being untouched by the vexing scourge of social deprivation. Just as a point of demonstration, whilst Japan ranks 26th in the world suicide index, The United States of America ranks 48th (as of 2015). Whilst this is significantly less suicides than Japan one should keep in mind that the WHO surveyed, aggregated and indexed 107 different countries; 48 out of 107 is nothing to brag home about. Nor is the United States exempt from the other strange and often harmful aberrations created by social deprivation which we shall examine in finer detail in part 3.

 


Sources:

RocketNews24: Kanagawa Man’s Body Found…

Robespierre, Absolute Idealism and the Nature of Man

“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”

Such were the words spoken by Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre and such are perhaps those that best encapsulate the essence of the man who would come to embody both moral incorruptibility and The Great Terror that stemmed from it.

In this piece I do not wish to critically examine the historical events surrounding Robespierre so much as the man himself, specifically his personal philosophy (which are, all to often, boiled down to mere catchphrases, cut-up from his speeches and collected writings). However, it is impossible to completely separate the man and his ideas from the events of the French Revolution and so, for those who are unfamiliar with all three – a brief primer.

Background.

Maximilien Robespierre, like many of the prominent members of the revolution, came from a middle class family. Born in Arras, Robespierre’s father was a lawyer, his mother, the daughter of a relatively successful town brewer and innskeeper. Young Maximilien’s early life was a comfortable and conventional one, though it was not without its difficulties. Chief among theses was the death of young Robespierre’s mother who, in 1764 perished giving birth to her fifth child. The child perished along with her. It was a event which had a tremendous effect upon Robespierre, filling the now disenchanted child with melancholy and sadness.

At the age of 11, Robespierre would demonstrate his burgeoning, yet already considerable, intellect by winning a scholarship to the Louis-le-Grand (a college which the famous geologist Élie de Beaumont would later described as being “-most fertile in great men-“). The boy from Arras exceeded all expectations and mastered all of his studies, especially Greek and Latin (he became so well known as a master of Latin that his colleges granted him the title “The Roman”). It was here that the child was introduced to the two major influence that would factor into his adult philosophy, Roman and Grecian Classicism and the collective works of The Enlightenment philosophers (namely J.J. Rousseau).

However, the most important event which young Robespierre would take part in at the school had little to do with academics; in 1775 King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie-Antoinette, briefly visited the school. As was custom, a poem was recited for His Majesty’s pleasure – a poem recited by none other than young Robespierre himself. The king paid little mind.

After graduating from the Louis-le-Grand, Robespierre set up a modest legal practice in Arras. As a lawyer he was quite skilled, often deploying the Enlightenment ideals he’d read in his numerous books during a trial, and developed from the trade the perfunctory eloquence he would become famous for later on in life. Whilst not working at his practice he wrote poetry decently well, if not with any particular originality, was respectable and sociable but aloof; serious but constantly fussy about his appearance and very caring towards his family. By all accounts, a slightly eccentric, well-read but rather unremarkable person.

All that changed with the fulminate chaos that was The French Revolution.

In 1788 Robespierre, who had become popular for his writings and oratory within the Rosati, Arras’ literary society, gave a speech about the Estates-General, the legislative body of France which was comprised of the three estates, those being the 1st Estate (Clergy), 2nd Estate (Nobility), 3rd Estate (All other members of the realm, primarily middle-class and commoners). Robespierre argued that the Estates-General did not represent “The People of France,” and thus pushed for reform.

In 1789 Robespierre, after numerous publications and reformist public speeches to rally support, was elected Fifth Deputy of the 3rd Estate of Artois to the Estates-General (which had not met formally since 1614). At the same time, King Louis XVI argued with the aristocracy over taxation with the latter refusing to provide money to the monarch and threatening to revolt if the heavy financial burdens were not lifted. But it was not just the aristocracy that threatened to cast off the yolk of the woefully inadequate king, but also the peasantry, who grew just as restless under the oppressive taxation system and growing dirth of food and water. To allay fears and prevent a two-tiered insurrection, Louis XVI, under advice of his council, convened the Estates-General at Versailles on May 5, 1789. However, things did not go smoothly; though the nobles and the commoners both agreed largely on fiscal reform they could not come to a agreement on the manner in which voting should be conducted. The commoners wanted “one man, one vote” whilst the nobles wished to maintain their veto powers which allowed them to always be able to out-vote the commoners (despite the fact that the 3rd Estate accounted for 98 percent of the total population). At an impasse the meeting devolved into a raucous shouting match. The 3rd Estate would eventually meet in secret and take a vow to never disband until a new constitution was created and enforced; to this end the group adopted a new title – The National Assembly.

Shortly after this turning point, violence began to erupt throughout the capital; the monarchs powers had been curtailed which made resentful peasants violent and thoughtful members of the middle-class paranoid over the possibility of a military intervention. Rumors of a military coup and popular disdain for the Royal Family (specifically Marie Antoinette who had earned the nickname “Madame Deficit” for her lavish, thoughtless spending), the Aristocracy, Clergy and old order in general as well as the dismissal of Jacques Necker, financial adviser to the king and a beloved man of the people, whipped the commoners into a frenzy and on 14 July 1789, the medieval fortress-prison of The Bastille was stormed by the peasant National Guard. The prison guards and officers were ruthlessly slaughtered in the violent siege, their heads raised up on pikes like gory trophies.

The revolution was well on its way but Maximilien Robespierre was just getting started. During the course of the revolution, Robespierre joined and ascended to the top of the anti-royalist social fraternity known as the Jacobin Club (aslo known as, Society of the Friends of the Constitution). He would use the club as a power base, garner the title of Incorruptible, for his sexual indifference, refusal and denouncement of bribe-taking and general purity of principal, establish a short-lived new state religion, create the fundamental architecture for The Great Terror that would claim the lives of thousands of French citizens and, for a brief period of time, reign over all of France in a near autocratic capacity until his fall from power and subsequent execution at the hands of his revolutionary colleagues.

Philosophy.

It is for the period known collectively as The Terror which the dainty, bespectacled Robespierre is most well known and it is this period which grants the most significant insight into his personal and political philosophy.

Though many modern critics of Robespierre have described him as a blood thirsty tyrant, this view of the man is historically inaccurate. Robespierre was not driven to execute thousands during The Terror due to some some sadistic pathology (like his contemporary, the bestial journalist and incendiary political radical, Jean-Paul Marat), rather Robespierre’s primary motivations seem to be duty to The People. However, The People, to whom Robespierre was not the French populace but rather a idealized populace utterly shorn of vice, violence and venality – this is one of the great through-lines of the man’s collective writings and speeches: the reference to X, not as X but rather, as X should be.

His fixation on The General Will can be starkly observed in much of his writing, such as his Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen (The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 21 April, 1793) where he writes,

“The principal human rights are those of providing for the preservation of existence and freedom.”

and,

“The object of all political association is the maintenance of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man, and the development of all his faculties.”

It is obvious from these passages (and the document as a whole) that Robespierre believes strongly in the idea of Natural Rights, that there is a immutable essence to Man which is fundamentally good and just which has been perverted by the tyranny of the royal line, the clergy and the aristocracy. Freedom, for Robespierre, is the chief principal, that is, freedom from the first and second estates of the realm – the Enlightenment idea of a return to Man in his Natural State. This is founded upon thinkers such as Rousseau who believed that man was a fundamentally different creature in “a state of nature” as opposed to someone such as Hobbes who believed that man in his natural state lived a short and brutish life. Robespierre’s overarching philosophical project then, can be said to be a extension of Rousseauian naturalism, that is, to create sufficient conditions for a return to the Natural State of Man.

Robespierre’s universalist principals – “By sealing our work with our blood, we may see at least the bright dawn of universal happiness.” (Speech to the National Convention, February 5th, 1794) regarding freedom and nature, however, are in sharp contrast to his fervent French Nationalism.

“We must smother the internal and external enemies of The Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people’s enemies by terror.” (Speech to the National Convention, February 5th, 1794)

Much like Stalin, Robespierre’s political philosophy is fraught with contradictions – he was against violence, yet for violence, he was for freedom, yet pushed for tyrannical show-trials, he was for naturalism, but forcefully attempted to artificially change the course of human nature. Perhaps most strikingly he equivocated virtue and terror as one in the same. Terror, in a time of societal upheaval, was virtue. Pity to traitors was treason itself.

Whilst he was correct that there is such a thing as human nature (most people, most of the time act in X way and behave in Y fashion to Z stimuli) and also correct that human nature could be (theoretically) changed, he failed to grasp the momentous undertaking such a feat would require for success. For instance, archaeological evidence provided via the Genographic Project suggests that Eurasian hunter-gatherers crossed over into the North Americas around  47,000–14,000 years ago – consider how little these groups changed after their resettlement! Up until the conquest of America the disparate descendants of these hunter-gathers had only the faintest glimmerings of civilization and thousands of years had to have passed to reach such a point and yet men such as Robspierre think that by sheer force of will, Man can collectively shred his innate and finely tuned biological impulses towards collective hierarchical cohesion – a total failure of biological-historical understanding.

Robspierre believed: Man is by nature good, but becomes corrupt through unjust institutions and laws; he is born free, but becomes a slave to injustice. All of society is merely a “social contract” and this contract may be changed, at any time, should the “General Will” deem it so. In essence, he unwittingly advocated for the absolute tyranny of the mob (a tyranny which characterized much of the Revolution). And how such lofty, egalitarian aspirations still echo in a nearly unaltered state, with the populist cries emanating from the modern world’s liberal democracies, words that Robspierre spake himself.

Despite his liberal and egalitarian trappings, Robspierre was not quite a populist in totality, for Rousseau’s dictum rang ever in his words and actions, “The spirit of the people may reside in an enlightened minority, who consequently have the right to act for the political advantage.” And who better to head up this “enlightened minority” than Robspierre himself – inheritor of Rousseau’s legacy? Thus, it was really “the spirit” of the people rather than the people themselves that was paramount, a sort of societal mysticism. Such beliefs follow naturally from his views on religion; he was not an atheist. He strongly believed that reason should ever be subordinate to faith (at all levels of The State) in some variation of a supreme-being as this belief was conducive to the good health of “The People.”

“[Robespierre remarking upon the goal of the revolution] What is the goal for which we strive? A peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality, the rule of that eternal justice whose laws are engraved, not upon marble or stone, but in the hearts of all men.”

Such is the philosophy of those who disregard the true Laws of Nature, those which are not subject to debate or contravention: inequality, brutal violence, suffering and death. Such is the philosophy and life of those who grant man some perfect placing in the ordering of the world, some immutable collective purity rather than acknowledging his proper place as a creature of adaptation and circumstance. Such is the philosophy of the transcendentalist-who-does-not-know-he-is-a-transcendentalist; who would gladly leave the earth in ashes to reach the glorious “moon.”


Sources:

  • The Life and Opinions of Maximilien Robespierre, by Norman Hampson (1974, Duckworth)
  • Robespierre, by Colin Haydon, William Doyle (1999, Cambridge)
  • Fatal Purity, by Ruth Scurr (2006, Macmillan)
  • Maximilien Robespierre, Master of The Terror by Scott McLetchie (1983-1984)
  • Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen by M. Robespierre (21 April, 1793)