Interview with House Vincent



The face of royalty.  Bow down.

Why should I write about my distant Internet friends who believe themselves to be royalty?  Well, why shouldn’t I?  I could make some argument that it’s relevant to Game of Thrones, which is in turn relevant to our contemporary society because of its increased feudal-esque brutality as well as the rise of a new enchantedness to life as the blooming of the Internet creates a new world of imaginativeness and creativity across society.  Or I could just paraphrase Nietzsche that no artist ever tolerates reality, and while I don’t pretend to be an artist, perhaps I am one of those troublesome individuals of artistic temperament.

Without further ado, House Vincent.


How should I address you?

Duke Vincent: Grand Duke and Duchess.  Historically the title of King could only be granted by a high religious authority, as Kingdoms could only be created with the permission of God’s servants on Earth.

What is House Vincent?  What lands does House Vincent hold?

DV: We claim overlordship from the tallest mount to the final shore.

How does House Vincent function?  What would the rule of the Vincents look like in politico-economic terms?

DV: Anyone who fights to overthrow the masters will receive a parcel of their conquered land to administer in common.  We’re basically Nestor Makhno in that the army is the state and the state is the army.  Royal communism is underrated.

When did House Vincent begin?

So like most developments in history the ‘duchy’ thing started as a joke after I introduced some friends to Dune.  At the scene where Paul Atreides dons his father’s ring and announces himself as Duke of Arrakis de jure to his fanatical Fremen zealots, everyone looked at me like “that’s Tyler.”  So Duke became one of my nicknames, with my buds becoming my sworn swords.  That also developed from (what I thought) were my ancestral ties to Lithuania, once a Grand Duchy. Duchies, unlike Kingdoms, were usually de facto warlord territories that strongarmed the Catholics into recognizing their legal overlordship, circumventing the usual King nonsense.

Dukes also hold more theoretical control over those sworn to them; each individual Count, Baron, and Lord swears fealty to them, without a duchal middle man between.

Lady Vincent: And following suit with his title, I earned mine when we started courting.  As a whole, I prefer the Duke/Duchess to King/Queen pairing more seeing as I personally prefer to be second in command. Leave the blame to fall to the head of the empire, leave me as first to be promoted once they’re beheaded.


Greatness is as greatness does, truly.  On these notes, (1) care to describe your sworn swords? (2) Over what lands does House Vincent claim dominion?

DV: 1. We create friendships based on a system of merit. The only brand of loyalty we’re interested in is unconditional. We don’t fool around with people whose self-interest comes into natural conflict with our own, and we only put our trust into people who have a vested interest in permanent bonds.  So the sworn swords are any of those who, if society collapses, we will call upon to defend the House.

  1. Part of the original plan was to purchase land in Scotland and start a commune there. Landowners in Scotland are technically nobility according to Scottish law and custom, and can assume the legal title of Laird. It’s a silly money grabbing scheme, but getting out of the country and becoming communal laird and ladies was the hope.

LV: Still is the hope.  Lexington is our current domain, but other places of possible conquest include Seattle, Canada, North Ireland, and Scotland.

DV: But the wider idea is to simply claim whatever land we are standing on, and everyone with it. Our philosophy is to immediately establish ourselves as the dominant social force in every situation, with the same goals and interests, and to subsume everyone else into our schemes. Generally we consider everyone else to be prone to weakness and without direction, and need our benevolence to guide them to a higher purpose.


Truly it is so.

So the concept of the House is really as a philosophy: the strong lead the weak. In a monarchy, in a democracy, in communism, whoever shows up to do the work is the leader.

This is slightly even more unsettling than our usual sinister air.  How long ago did House Vincent begin?

DV: The moment we met. It was in a silly chatroom we were passing time in. I opened a new chatroom and invited her in because I recognized she had assimilated her own darkness.  We started courting – it was really old fashioned, actually, love letters and poetry and all thanks to the distance – and our relationship was founded on our mutual feeling of isolation/boredom.

How long ago exactly was that?

DV: Three years ago.


Lady Vincent, what was the moment which caused you to decide, this is the young man for me?

LV:  He sent me a lot of poetry. And there was this one particular one that’s probably long lost to the void now that spoke of a world where chaos reigned alongside us. It was probably the thing that triggered the realization that he actually understood what I was talking about the entire time and the things I wanted.  Doubtful that the poem was written with us in mind, but the fact that it existed because of him was enough to prove that he knew about the trapdoors.  There were a lot of long nights in The Bastille.

Pardon me, the trapdoors? [shudders]

Sort of an inside joke. Around the time we met I was really into absurdist theatre, and my favorite piece was “Jacques ou la Soumission” by Eugene Ionesco. It’s the coming of age story of a man born into a world he knows is wrong for him, but has learned how to manipulate it well enough to get by. And once he tires of the game he realizes that others have finally caught on to his scheme, and trap him in a family and marriage and all these things. And upon rejecting the woman who is supposed to be his beloved Roberta, a homely girl with not enough noses, she tells him of her dreams of fire scorched towns and clay brick roads on the other side of the world. He, in turn, admits he never felt right in the world and that he’s been trapped his entire life, and all the ways he used to escape from his reality have been taken away spare one remaining trapdoor in the cellar. The Trapdoor in the cellar is how Roberta got into his life, and when it comes to light, he realizes that she will be his greatest escape from reality.  The trapdoors I mentioned are just a symbol of the things he and I need to believe in in order to continue on in this hellscape.

I am touched to the quick.  How should aristocracy conduct itself in matters of etiquette, pastime, way of life, and general bearing?

DV: The first task of the aristocracy, of course, is to abolish itself.

The siege mentality of class division weighs heavily on those of high breeding and forces them into conflict with those whose labor they exploit. Their precarious position also forces them into conflict with other sections of their own peers, to further cement their position and keep from falling down into the lower class. Or be destroyed.

Of those with a merely aristocratic worldview, or with a self-aware position in a great game, this is also true. Being better is useless if great works can’t be achieved for want of a great society. Creating more nobles from peasants and raising them to higher things ultimately eases the emotional toil of the superior.

So the aristocracy, in bearing, should pursue whatever seems proper, or good, or heroic, or virtuous. And it should make it easier for others to do the same.

Stirring.  A matter of procedure — may I use dignified images of the Duke and Duchess in the article resulting from this dialogue?  I’ll fetch the appropriate ones


What would be the fate of the capitalists under the rule of House Vincent?

LV: Let the fires consume everything.

DV: Bourgeois institutions are inherently parasitic and hold the toiling classes from rising from alienation. So I concur with my Lady.

Is your monarchy the rock of stability upon which the future revolutionary society’s viability rests?

DV: As for stability, we predicate our sovereignty on the dynamics of crisis. Chaos to the fly, order to the spider, etc.

What are the Duke and Duchess’ feelings toward immigrants?

LV: So long as you’re loyal to the House and don’t work as an active force against it. Let them come.

DV: It is not possible to immigrate into a universal sovereignty. We claim dominion over all who dwell between the waves and there is no distinction between them.

Permit an admirer to ramble: For a long time many weirdos on the Left like myself have longed for a Left with aesthetics and an ethos that are more hardcore than the usual hippie and hipster variety.  People influenced by black metal, for example, with its whole associational axis of Satanism, Odinism, fascism, and general brutality.  What is House Vincent’s relationship to this yearning?  What should we do about it generally?

DV: You said once upon a time that radical socialism appeals to the entire spectrum of human emotion. We are not the spiritual starvelings who step over their own apologies when faced with the option of heroism or greatness.

We both know that we are very dark creatures. We delight in awful things. We look up to awful people. We recognize that the entirety of human history has predicated itself on carving a bloody path through the nightmare of survival. When the light of the campire has expanded so far that people no longer fear the edge of the forest, they still fear the darkness itself. We assimilated our fears into our desire. Pain is an expression of crisis, and crisis is the engine driving the entire human narrative.

We also feel that leftism lacks the desire for strength, power, and darkness, and because of this it attracts of the most craven soldiers to its banners. Accepting that many people feel a compulsion toward domination is a prerequisite for channeling that compulsion into subjugating the bourgeois antagonist. Order demands violence.

Tl;dr: Bird-boned, noodle-armed hipsters armed with weed, trigger warnings and warped acoustic guitars are no match for cyberpunk dystopia.

LV: Basically, we feel nothing will be won with words and complaints alone. We need blood to the horses brow to take what is ours and nothing less should be tolerated.

DV: Woe to those who cannot swim.

What should I do about the West Philadelphian punks and metalheads who don’t mosh?
DV: Well, you can’t just start a new scene. And moshing by yourself wouldn’t be enough momentum to form a pit if too few others are down.  Loudly state “this fucking scene needs a pit” and see if someone agrees? I don’t know, Lexington never had that problem in the local metal scene.

LV: If not, Valar morghulis.

I have much to consider.

Many reactionary societies/ideologies, like Julius Evola (Evola on regality) drew an analogy between Platonic Idealism (concept descends into matter), or perhaps God’s creation of the world from his own conception, with the top-down nature of the feudal hierarchy.  This is counterposed to the Marxian idea of concepts arising from material conditions, which in turn perhaps correlates to a bottom-up political worldview.  So the model goes, philosophical orientation matches political orientation.

Do you subscribe to this analogy?  How does it affect the House Vincent concept?

DV: It’s difficult to articulate my thoughts on idealism, personally, other than to identify it as a primal feeling rather than philosophical stance. We do believe that concepts are primarily borne from circumstance, but that ultimately the material world is only understood through the distorted lens of the individual experience. We do not believe in ghostly Ideas that guide the world, but we do believe that nature of crisis (and moment-living) means that purely material calculations are only hypothetical.

I’ve not read Evola, only about him, and when it comes to Idealism I have to say I find the entire concept pretty absurd on its own. I also come from a primarily Marxian background philosophically, and am not well read on the Idealism vs. Materialism debate.

Are either of you familiar with neoreaction?  What do you think of it?

LV: No Comment

DV: The Lady doesn’t concern herself with the Dark Enlightenment. I think it’s a cute little club, kind of an analog to the left’s hyper-edgy tankies who dress up like Soviet commissars at pride parades. They put stock into long-failed, long obsolete social systems purely because they believe those systems were driven by ruthless, aristocratic pragmatism, and not simply the product of the times.

I have more to say about it but I don’t want to masturbate the topic when Aubree’ has so little interest in it.

LV: Feel free, love.

DV: I guess I’ll just say that I see neoreactionaries as feudalism-fetishists who have no concept of how often the peasants would erupt into massive murderfests against the aristocracy. Any ruling class that doesn’t ultimately wish to abolish itself is ultimately doomed to be abolished from the outside.


Verily, all that exists deserves to perish.  Lady Vincent, what is your favorite ficton/fantasy/insanity in which to dwell?

LV: This one.

DV: Tell him about Apocrypha.


DV: Lol, AMOR is probably more fitting, honestly.

LV: It’s wildly more fitting. But I don’t know how much I’m allowed to disclose, considering the nature.

DV: I mean, go for it.

LV: A Madame Of Rome is a novel(la?) he’s writing that started out as an erotica. It’s House Vincent in all it’s glory, running an intricate red light district in Italia. It’s power and lust and violence and everything the House was built on if only we had the means to execute it the way we wanted.

How far have you gotten?

LV: Not far enough.

DV: I think I recently breached 60,000 words. I have no idea how many chapters. It started as a gift for Aubree’, a guilty pleasure erotica full of corruption, decadence, and rape. It’s blossoming into something between House of Cards and Game of Thrones and set in the twilight years of the Roman Empire.

LV: In all honesty, if you wanted a perfect picture of us as who we see each other as, you should read that. Though it’s not the prettiest picture.

DV: I perhaps wouldn’t go that far. It’s who we are when we go to our dark places, without any restraint or regard for the wellbeing of our enemies or even those who have proven their worth. It’s pure Sith.

LV: It’s beautiful.

What have the Duke and Duchess been listening to lately?

LV: Lorde

DV: Lorde, Lana del Rey, Caro Emerald.

LV: Lorde has been a recent addition to the line up. Lana Del Rey, Caro Emerald

DV: The Lady drew our House’s name from St. Vincent.

LV: St Vincent has been on the backburner only because I can’t access her new album.

DV: Vincentine anthem lol, thank you Tears For Fears

Any magickal workings of late at which one is at liberty to speak?

LV: What do you consider ‘magickal’?

Something specifically intended as magickal as opposed to just, stuff you normally do with the consciousness of your essence running through it.  Feel free to correct my criterion.

LV: Apocrypha Tarot cards, Bleeding Candles, Amber Runes, and a newfound interest in witchy cocktails.


DV: While she submerges herself into tarot, I’ve been essentially channeling my inner class hatred into rising through the ranks at work. I’ve gone into trances ruminating over castings of the futhark and ordering my will to align for the long game. It’s been really illuminating.

LV: Without a witch on call anymore, I’ve felt the need to take on a bit of the responsibility.

What is Apocrypha?

DV: Our Terabithia, in a sense.  We keep it mostly to ourselves.  Apocrypha is a world based on three assumptions:

  1. Victorian inspired steampunk is the playground of pussies

Thank god, it seemed so effete.  I speak as an outsider.

DV: 2. pretty ladies in dresses can have people drowned in blood just as well as hyper masculine dudes

and 3. in a world where magic exists, its primary function would be to dominate others

Are we going to get into Kentucky leftist politics or is that a no-fun harumph fuggeddaboutit zone at the moment?

DV: There is a Kentucky left in the same sense there is an American left.


DV: It’s all the same shit. I do think that our biggest games – Louisville Socialists and Kentucky Workers League – are better than any of the national cliques besides maybe SAlt. But experiences with the local left soured Aubree’ so hard on Marxism that I basically had to let her pull out, where before I was pushing her to keep on it.

LV: It’s so weak and full of filthy people who just want to not look like assholes so they don’t get anything done.

DV: They’re fine being assholes to white Appalachians, of course. And whites in general. The usual shit.  Lots of egotistical posturing and apologism.

LV: It’s horrible to be around. People are dying and being crushed anyway. Do what you need to do now to get to the top so you can pull them up with you as soon as you’ve beheaded and bled the overlords.

At this very moment my heart brims with devotion to House Vincent, aye, it threatens overflowing.  What should I do?

DV: We’ll have to meet up so we can knight you into the Order of Apocryphars

LV: We have prophets of Vincent all over the country.

DV: The Order of Apocryphars is a chivalric/zealous order in Apocrypha

Last question: what is House Vincent’s next move?

DV: Every move we make right now is aimed at ensuring our own stability.  Anyway we’re raising money to maybe start a business to raise money and start investing in real power plays.

LV: Maybe start a business. We’re pretty content with making up jobs for ourselves.

DV: We’re extremely low on the wage worker scale of poverty.  We’re in the pre-Gaul phase of Caesar’s rise to power.

Any parting words?

DV: “If you must break the law, do so to seize power; in all other instances, observe it.”


the ring of solidarity


The working class doesn’t care about me.  That’s okay because maybe I don’t care about it either.  But none of this matters because we are stuck together (or maybe that means it matters all the more).  All pieces are key to the sum of the being.

The class struggle is an aggregated conglomerate of the conflicts of many individual social particles (people).  Often the people in the working class are colliding with each other more than with the ruling class (Brownian motion).  This is part of the process.  Through these collisions learning occurs over time, structure is found, and energies are redirected.  Eventually we end up aligning and pointing the right way, together, against the enemy.

Tolerate an astrological aside for a moment: Saturn is the planet of gravity.  Gravity can mean several things – it can mean hierarchical influence of one over others, of the planet’s invisible magnetic force arranging smaller particles around it into a ring.  Gravity can also mean severity or necessity.  Saturn is the planet of all things necessary, of the hardship of necessity, scarcity, and mutual incompatibility that compels us to choose one thing over another.  It also suggests the possibility that perhaps we must not simply choose all things that are necessary over those that seem not to be, but that all things are necessary.

How is that relevant?  It’s easy to think that you will have the biggest impact in the world by building up your personal profile, by becoming a “big” person, who is known, a star to whom all the other particles are connected, disregarding their connections to each other.

Perhaps the biggest way to have an impact is actually to be an equal.  Perhaps it’s not to be the planet in the center of the ring, but a particle in the ring itself.  Maybe the ring is a circular, mutually-reinforcing resonance of equals, all with their exact specific necessary place in the color wheel.  The ring is a defensive structure, drawing a line of what minimum we will tolerate, each of us guarding each other’s backs, facing out against a hostile world.  This is appropriate, because throughout history Saturn alignments have coincided both with historical events of authoritarian repression, and also moments of the repressed and underclasses finding the resolve to form a resistance, typically embattled and on the defensive as opposed to victorious.

The ring is imperfect, especially at this stage.  It is crooked, misshapen, bending, flexing, finding itself.  In fact the ring will always contain tensions – the circular shape of its resonance is held in place by repulsions as well as attractions.

Opposing Sides of the Ring?

The Left includes a wide array of personalities, many seemingly conflicting – and indeed conflicting in reality.  All of them are necessary.  You may be on opposite ends of the circle, and the tension may be real, but it is still a ring, and still connected by a solidarity, fraught with tensions though it may be.

Let’s take the tension between socialism and black nationalism, for example.  I think both socialists and black nationalists are necessary.  While I personally lean toward seeing seizing the means of production as the solution to black liberation and many other things, both are still necessary nonetheless.

You may critique black nationalism.  You may say it’s too narrow, misses the point sometimes.  But the hardliners of the black nationalist movement act as a pole of attraction for some of the more rightfully bitter and disaffected black people, who might be so sick of racism that they don’t even really feel like working with white people.  But they, in turn, act as a pole of attraction and activating force for more moderate black people, who may have a black power orientation while also seeing themselves as participants in the class struggle.  The black nationalists play a role of activating a community, and while collaboration with its hardline core may at times be impossible (or may at times be possible), the broader periphery around it is a population that is more relevant to other mass movements and class struggles.

The above example might not be perfect but you can extend it out to other things.  I enjoy having people both to the left of me and the right of me.  Ultralefts may often seem irrelevant or obscure but their critiques keep Leninists thinking and keep them sharp.  Leninists in turn criticize and test the Social Democrats, who are more relevant and popular at this time, activating larger layers of people, but also need to be challenged not to hollow themselves out into too much moderation.  The Social Democrats then influence and interact with garden-variety progressives.  The USA’s millions of progressives may not be radicals yet, but they act as a huge persuasive force interacting with the USA’s moderates, disseminating ideas and information which radicals might be too few in number to effectively convey, or too puritanical to stomach the conversation.  The moderates, a seemingly useless and neutral population, can then act as a check upon the conservatives, able to speak to conservatives in common language that progressives often don’t have.  Leftists may also underestimate the influence of moderate conservatives in acting as a pressure against the far right – the conflict between them is a real thing.  And the chain pulls the other way too – conservatives test us and check us, compelling us to submit our radical proposals to realism and be prepared for counter-arguments, at each stage along the spectrum.

We all form a great chain of being, each precise frequency in the spectrum necessary for communicating with its neighbor down the line.  Wherever we are on the chain, our challenge is to pull it left, while not losing touch with those to our right.  Sometimes we may end up oscillating between several roles at once, like an electron alternating between two different locations during its atomic orbit (or literally occupying both locations at once, according to some theories?).  I often find myself flipping between the roles of far leftist and broad leftist, between socialist unitarian and critic of sect bureaucracy.

A more relevant example to my own life is the tension between brocialists and feminists, or the tension between social progressivism and political incorrectness.  By “brocialist” I mean something a little more complex and nuanced than “leftist who doesn’t care about women’s issues,” who do exist (and who can be flipped through communication), but that does not seem to be the sole target to whom the term is applied.  Instead I refer to leftists who are irritated with the left’s atmosphere of moralism, call-out culture, humorlessness, and the sensation of walking on eggshells because you never know when you’ll make a mistake, say the wrong thing, and moralists will jump on your back and shout about how you’re a horrible person.  Indeed this phenomenon is not remotely limited to men (ladybros => ladybrocialists).

On opposite sides of the ring you have two counterposed populations.  You have feminists who have been so harassed or abused by men that they really don’t want to deal with them at all.  Speaking from my experience in West Philly, they literally form lesbian collectives, at the extreme end of the spectrum.  At least in my town they do not hesitate to convey to you that men are unwelcome if that is how they feel.  More common is the type of hostile conversational identity politics in which any man arguing with a woman often becomes accused of some kind of transgression.

The hardline feminists have a role in the ring.  For one, their hardline position doesn’t come from nowhere – it comes from a viciously sexist reality.  Secondly, they play a role similar to the black nationalist example above, in activating a community, which fights necessary struggles unto itself, and the more moderate periphery of which can act as a go-between among the opposite sides of the circle (moderate feminists can talk to moderate left dudes and often get along) or more mutual participant in other struggles.

As for me, while trying to recognize the necessity of all components in the ring, I seem to be occupying the opposite end of it.  (This type of contradiction is experienced by everyone in their unique role, both harmonies and tensions along the ring.)  It seems I have become some type of unapologetic brocialist.  I don’t think I even intended this in the beginning, and I haven’t always understood precisely what I was doing when I was doing it, but I have trusted my gut and followed it. Following my gut has often led me into conflicts, resulting in damaged or broken relationships with others on the ring, even getting me kicked out of various spaces.  Nonetheless I persist because being true to yourself is necessary, as every shade of the color wheel on the ring is necessary.

I have come to realize I play a hardline role on the ring (at least in terms of this particular issue), perhaps not the apex of it, but in that grouping.  I am one of the guys.  I’m a guy who other guys can vent to about their irritations with the left.  You’d be amazed how common this actually is, not in the sense of people needing to vent (lots of that obviously), but in the sense of just how many white or male or cis or hetero people are out there who have sincere good intentions, who are leaning toward socialist politics, who are socially progressive if sometimes a bit politically incorrect, who may even identify with feminism, but who just can’t handle being part of the organized left because the circular firing squad is too intense.  I am not speaking here of organized leftists, but the vast unorganized leftist majority whom the left must ultimately organize in order to win.  And it’s surprising how much even people who may be women, nonwhite, or queer also find themselves alienated by just how high-horse, moralistic, and guilt-tripping the organized left can be.  I find myself serving as a listener, and thus a gathering center, to their frustrations as well.

My role cuts me off from certain populations who find my nature offensive.  It also connects me with other populations who find my nature compatible, and then I can lend those networks to those elsewhere on the circle, or even trying connecting them with the other side.  The same thing applies to every role, including roles opposite my own.  The more uptight feminists and SJWs have their scene, and score points with certain women and leftists, but alienate many other people who I don’t.  Even the moderates alienate the hardliners, though they may get along with everyone else.

There is no simple answer here.  We actually do need the grim boundary-setting of political correctness, or human beings will not be treated with dignity.  And we also need to laugh at it and break it, because in a world that followed all the rules all the time, nothing would ever happen (certainly no one would ever fuck).  The politically incorrect crowd is fun, is able to get its hands dirty in the imperfections of the masses and socialize with them, and doesn’t cut itself off with an alienating mode of communication or puritanical intolerance.  And yet the political stances of the politically correct crowd are typically correct, and necessary.  We all take turns playing every role.

I’m not saying I’m right and the other side is wrong.  Hell, half the time I identify with the other side (being as I am a proper brocialist-feminist).  Sometimes both sides are right.  Sometimes both sides are wrong.  Sometimes it’s 50/50 on each end.  I don’t think this is a contradiction we can escape until capitalism is overthrown actually, or maybe ever.  Leftists must find their own place in the ring.  They must also learn to embrace and coexist with the Other on the opposite side of the ring from them, as we all try to support each other.  These can’t always be done successfully at the same time.

Be Yourself and/or Don’t

The universe is a totality.  It is a whole, but the whole consists of parts, and without each precise part, it would not be the same whole.  The parts exist not only in quantity, but in infinite rainbow variety of qualities.

This means that, among other things, one of your first duties to the universe is to tell the universe to fuck off and insist on being your absolute self-most self.  If you do not do this, you deprive the universe of your own personal quality which is a key component, along with all others, of constituting the whole sum of the universe, as the precise whole sum totality that the universe ought to be if all the parts are expressing their genuine natures.  By suppressing your own authenticity you damage the authenticity of all being.

The universe is a contradictory mishmash of pressures toward universal harmonious merging and distinct particles with boundaries that obstruct each other, collide, and refuse to combine.  Everyone wants unity, but everyone’s got their own idea of what kind of unity is right.  The others in the universe will pressure you to conform to their contours.  And yet you also find your own pressure, from within yourself, to be yourself, and disregard the pressures or even boundaries of others.  Life is all for one and one for all, and also all against all, simultaneously, not simply because of the structure of society, but I suspect also because of the structure of matter and consciousness themselves.  You may want to avoid conflict, you may want to not start drama, but given that drama is often the expression of genuine macro-political conflicts across the scale of individual particles, you really don’t have any choice if you are going to be yourself.  You may not want to be a compulsive shit-starter but may often find yourself dragged into or even initiating conflicts simply because your nature doesn’t allow you to remain silent before what you are witnessing.  Speak the truth even if, especially if your voices shakes.

We cannot be ourselves without possibly insisting on our own way and disregarding others.  And we cannot be ourselves without also regarding others, possibly disregarding ourselves.

Sometimes the two are mutually incompatible – often, actually.  The challenge is to struggle to find a way to be yourself while also living in harmony with others.  Most of us usually fall off onto one side or the other, compromising ourselves in the name of cooperation or breaking our relationships with others in the name of authenticity.

Rather than offer an answer, I offer a struggle.  The struggle is the answer.  The struggle to find a way to satisfy both conditions, self and other, is coterminous with your struggle to participate in the revolutionary process.  They are the same thing.  So keep struggling.  Insist on perfection ultimately, but accept and even celebrate increments of progress as they come.  Being part of the ring of solidarity means both finding your own place on it and also embracing the entire ring, at the same time.  This is the challenge.