To even my dad. And other Objectivist ramblings.

My dad is someone I respect immensely. Truly one of the only people I could call great in this world especially.

There are however a few things I’d like to say to him about the world before I die.

I’m not just talking to him I’m talking to all of us.

Dad we will always be in Iraq
Dad the object of state is power
Dad the object of a nation is control
Dad will they send me to room 101 if I’m poor enough
We never lived poor
Dad you never knew this level of media
Dad don’t worry I’m still a part of the last of the old order
I still care about money. While we can still touch it
Those promises on templates
Manufacturing pamphlets
Dad Altruism and Egoism
Could be resolved in our lifetime
But I have a feeling it will only
Take result in our lifetime
Dad you are ever patient
And I forever melodramatic
Just can’t shake the idea After mom That this isn’t all just a fiction
McLuhan Forever vindicated
And if it weren’t for two very invested college dropouts
One of them a real asshole
With whom in an elevator
You would either invariably
Be fired or promoted
On the spot
Indeed without them It would be a Blade Runner for sure
But that is happening anyway
Because MSNBC is really another Fox
Because Obama is really lying like all the rest
In a sense it’s like women. Ha. No I meant to say Whitman. I’m writing this on my android phone
Because maybe Obama is really just like Lincoln
And we romanticized both
They are both including Whitman nonetheless great men in their own sense
As we are great men
From our own senses


Aphoristic Futurist Thoughts: Asynchronous Messages to & from the Self

“Sat Night Live, SNL, reminds us that there is a center left in the world, with centralized cultural attitudes. Ex. Humor acts to curtail nonsense.”

– Diary Aug 2010

"You got a family!? Well I eat cottage fuckin' cheese for dinner every night mothafucka!"

“Looking at the fountains, she witnessed the possibility of not returning to an identical pattern. The water could not be predicted in specifics, only in general waves of where all the different drops would fall.”


“You really underplay how much Spatial recognition capabilities play into cognition – until I have an under hallucinatory experience.”

“The opinion today is that what’s really going on, the directly observed, as opposed to someone imagining it for you–innately has more authenticity to an relative ’empiric value.’ (Relative to our methods of data collection, today)

But as the result of what is really the evolution of the progressive sophistication of media and hence, storytelling, the stories will get realer and realer until they are no longer even slghtly inaccurate, because their content: people, will be nothing but reflexively obedient.

If we’re not conscious of this in an every day popularized way, this could create a cultural monster. And then the possibility of systematization of all this, when it’s packaged, bought and sold on the open market.

And so, there will come a point, a day where the layman’s ability to experiment with this reflection, to poke his finger not at, but into the mirror, then he will have superceded the former tools of science. And thus, a new scientific method will be bornm based off and inspearable from its technology, which are one in every reflexive sense.

– Diary Sept 2009

“The logic goes, that if you observe something in real life, it an has authenticity that writer’s and their media can’t allegedly convey in whatever medium.”

– Diary Sept 2009

If I were to tell you to listen, this would not work, so I must remove your latent inhibition by changing visual cu/lues.




22. Dara’s House

RD AUTO Message: CCCC, CCC 26, Octobre 2089 – Washington D.C.Main-Line USC-CAMBIAN City Territory: ‘CAMBIAN CITY’ |

The morning was still a bit nauseated and Camille’s eyes were trying to stay open.

Her body had collapsed on the dark wood booth seat, her head lay slapped atop folded arms.

“You okay girl?” This was the soft, deep voice of Dave, the head cook at Coswa’s.
“I said, are ya aight?”
Her face sprouted up for the briefest of moments through her eyes that looked punched shut.
David said nothing but looked over her with a fond smirk. At least he did at first, then seemed to be inspecting her with his eyes as his body gradually lunged over her back and head, as if he were about to pounce her. He quickly retreated when he heard a loud noise and figured the rest of the wait staff was probably at the door.

“Okay, yeah, I’m fine,” Camille said, finally.…Keep Reading…



– Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved –

Neal Cormier is an artist and writer originally from the Washington D.C. area.

– – His concentration is visual art–especially oil painting and graphic novel illustration.

He is also an up and coming fiction writer, of which Vesper Heliotropic is his first full length novel publication with Amazon, Barnes and Nobles (eBooks) and Lulu Inc. (for paperback & hardcover) Neal recently had a showing at National Airport in Arlington, VA (March 11 – June 25 in Terminal A). He also, and even more recently, had a first book signing for Vesper Heliotropic at The Midtown Scholar, a local hipster style bookstore in downtown Harrisburg, PA.

Neal has sold a variety of pieces to clients from around the world. His artwork has been shown in cafés, bars and galleries in New York City, Washington D.C., Paris and Alençon, France.

After high school, Neal attended the School of Visual Arts in New York City and spent four years living in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. He moved to France after this, and spent roughly about the same length of time in the region of Basse-Normandie, northern France. As a result, he speaks French and has a (tall) 9 year old daughter, Lili. He now resides back home in Crystal City, Virginia with his fiancé, Kristin.

List of Art & Media By Neal Cormier

Art & Blog

Web Design/Development Services

The Novel’s Website

– Vesper Heliotropic is a general teen/adult sci-fi ebook, paperback and hardcover, and is a Steampunk(ish) serial novel. The first written publication is OUT NOW VIA on PAPERBACK and SPECIAL-JACKETED HARDCOVER, and is available for THE AMAZON KINDLE as well as BARNES AND NOBLES NOOK EBOOKS. VESPER HELIOTROPIC, THE CRYSTAL TURBINES SERIES GRAPHIC NOVEL IS ALSO OUT NOW ON FULL COLOR GLOSSY PAPERBACK! 46 Pages Full Color Interior and Exterior – ONLY $19.99! –

88x31.pngVesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES by Neal Aaron Cormier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Vesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES © Copyright 2011 Neal Cormier All Rights Reserved Visit the Author’s Website – Neal Cormier Art


What is listening?

What does it mean when someone actually listens to another person?

How often does this actually happen?

In order to answer the last two questions, obviously you have answer the first one, first.

So what is listening?

“You know why I come here?


“Cause when people think your dying man, they really, really listen to you.”


“—Instead of waiting for their turn to speak.”

–Flight Club

Why does this have to be the case and what is meant in this instance about what listening is?

Imagine if you said something about your day that was really important to you, had an impact such as getting a promotion or making some new advance or innovation in what you do.

Wouldn’t you rather someone understand how and why it happened, as opposed to just that it happened?

And let’s say you then brought it up to someone equally important, like a friend or spouse, and in response they said something like: ‘Wow, yeah, that’s great!’ And left it at that.

And what if that’s pretty much the extent of all they said for anything that was important to you at all, whatsoever.

It amazes me how often I actually see just that between people who get away with doing it, and ‘leaving it at that.’

In this way relationships are less like relationships and more like two ships passing in the night.

Is that what a real relationship consists of?

Simultaneously, I see people give long-winded advice, stories, situations, etc., I see the other person sitting and ‘listening’ to them, and the one whose telling the story just keeps going while the other says things like…



“I get you”

“No, I know exactly what you mean.”

“Uh huh”



Beware of these, if a conversation or any verbal interaction of any length consists exclusively of these, and there is a theme resembling this in how someone interacts with you, odds are, they are humoring you more than they are listening.

Now contrast these with phrases like:

“What do you mean?”

“Can you give me an example?”

“What exactly does that imply?”

“Are you sure?”

“That doesn’t sound too healthy.”


“Then, that must be why.”

“That’s how that works.”

Then I wonder: How much of what people ‘hear,’ are they actually getting?

Now imagine if someone said in response to your accomplishment on your good day:

‘Wow, that’s really awesome, it’s going to enable you to do more work, and if you keep using the technique you’ve been trying, it will grow exponentially.

Isn’t that a bit better? Why?

Because: It is FEEDBACK.

The dictionary will tell you that feedback is…

‘the modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects’

I would say this means feedback is modifying what is said (the system or process) by means of how you react, whereas, in a conversation without feedback, no modification takes place.

Another part that seems vital to it is also the translation of an idea into another form as synthesized through another piece or set of data, ending in a new deduction, which in turn, furthers more and more feedback.

In other words, someone listens to you, and gives their opinion about it, and the original opinion, yours, has been transformed in some way that adds onto it. You then react to how they reacted.

I am astounded at how many people actually regard listening as merely being the recipient to information. The reason that I regard this as basically and often completely superfluous, is due to the fact that when I actually go back and see what the person retained from what I’m saying, I get either one of two responses:

Either, A, they can’t repeat anything back to me, or B, they repeat back what I said verbatim.

Of these two responses, I reveal that their difference Is an illusion by the mere fact that in suddenly asking what I meant by a given idea, people are not generally able to tell me, or (which happens more often than anything else) they save face by coming up with something right there on the spot, which is nice, but wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t called them out on it. And I don’t want to have to call people out on not listening to me all the time, its exhausting and I have better things to do.

All in all, this means that people are either completely zoning out or they take what I said as a memorized recitation, both of which tend to suck.

What people are not normalized to is the fact that neither of these is valid, because neither of these actually produces anything.

I want to say to all those friends and family members, all the people I see who think they are being listened to, to actually stop for a moment to test the person for comprehension. I think anyone would be astounded at how little of what we say is actually being processed.

So, does listening mean that someone is able to repeat back to you what you’ve said verbatim?

Does listening mean comprehending? What is comprehension? Why bring something up if nothing is generated from it?

Comprehension doesn’t mean memorizing. Most people take understanding something to mean a general regard for it. But what use is a ‘general understanding’ if it seldomly relates to action?

Comprehension is what produces feedback.

Take this exchange for example:

“I detest pornography, it’s demeaning to women.”

“I know, I hate porn, it’s cheap, smutty, full of images of people having sex with no love attached, and that’s what people learn when they watch it, to view sex without love.”

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

“Well, in any case, its demeaning, we have a whole genre of pornography devoted to each individual type of how a woman can be degraded.”

“There are so many examples of this, our world is becoming more and more removed from nature too, just look at how we’d rather watch TV and DVDs than play on a playground with other children.”

“I know, it’s getting crazy, I think that we could actually say porn is now totally mainstream too. It’s infecting how we talk and think about our world so much, look at how my daughter wants to dress, back in the day, she’d be considered a prostitute for what she wants to wear.”

“Something’s got to be done, before women are viewed solely as sex objects like they are in rap music today.”

“You know my mom was a feminist, hardcore one in the 60’s and 70’s, did a lot to speak out against the objectification of women.”

“Really, my family really didn’t, I have to admit, I’m pretty much the one who’s more adamant about philosophical or political issues.”

Are these two people ‘listening’ to each other? It may seem like they are since they say a lot of things like “Really?” “Something’s got to be done…” “I know,” or “I know, it’s getting crazy..” and stuff like that.

Wow, aren’t these, really similar to saying things like: “Right,” “Exactly,” “I get you,”  and “No, I know exactly what you mean,” “Uh huh,” “Continue…”  and “Sure.”

But if someone says:

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

To which the other responds with ‘feedback’ by saying…

“Well, in any case, its demeaning, we have a whole genre of pornography devoted to each individual type of how a woman can be degraded.”

This doesn’t mean they’ve heard you, it means they are changing the subject to say what they wanted to hear themselves say.

A proper response to:

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

…with actual feedback would have been:

“I think that’s true, just look at how porn portrays people making love: they’re not even face to face half the time.”

It would then have been valid to bring up a new idea, usually its better if it relates and personally, in polite decorum, one apologizes in a mild degree and asks if they can change the subject. This is not simply a matter of respect for the other person, it allows for there to be a change of pace and a line that is drawn between subjects makes for better clarity.

But in this example, as it is, what is being produced through their interaction aside from their original opinions?

How about these two people?

Bill and Jenny are entering a carnival; the entirety of their date takes place inside the small amusement park. They now stand outside its gates waiting in line before a huge crowd to get tickets.

Bill: “Look at these people, their all just like us aren’t they? And yet, we’re miles apart.”

Jenny: “What do you mean?”

Bill: “We’ll even though I hate to be condescending or sound like I’m on a high horse, it’s just that you always get this sort of run of the mill crowd, the rank and file of every town in America or in the world.”

Jenny: “We’ll that’s for sure, nothing new about that.”

Bill: “I know, I know, its just that I notice certain things about people in general wherever I go, I tend to see the same kind of groups emerging.”

Jenny: “And what groups would those be?”

Bill: “Well, you’ve got every hick and redneck going to carnivals and movie theaters these days, you don’t see too many well-to-do’s at a place like this.

Jenny: “Those are hardly more than vague categories, but I know what you mean, I wonder if that has anything to do with these being obsolete forms of entertainment, I mean, you have these huge sprawling amusement parks now, like Six Flags or Kings Dominion, and the movie’s are taken over by video, more specifically, DVD and even internet downloads now.”

Bill: “True, that’s probably the reason actually, I still think carnivals are a sort of weird place too, you know, sometimes I get the same sense at a movie theater, that ‘being-alone, but liking it’ feeling, you know?”

Notice something different with their interaction as opposed to the first one?

The difference in the second example, is that Bill and Jenny are COMMUNICATING.

Their original opinions are being altered through comprehension and feedback.

In communication theory, two people are said to have communicated if and when something is relayed, encoded, and then translated.

What good is it anyway to translate something in your head, and not tell the other person about it?

And that is what I’m saying: that at best, people are just getting a general understanding or even just a ‘feel’ for what you’re saying most of the time.

Ask them to tell you what they think you mean sometime out of the blue, and I almost guarantee you, you’ll catch em off guard.

And hence, most of the time, relationships between people resemble two people, living on two different islands, never having even interacted, though it might look like that’s what’s happening from afar.

I’ve come up with a list of principles, some of which have been covered here and others that are new. In any case, I think these embody the common denominators of all good, even minimal communication.

They can all be observed even in the two examples given, but I assure you if you look at your life, you will find them effective, and you will be astounded at how little you and other people are actually listening to each other at present.

They are the following:

Objectivity: Truth vs. Falsehood: If you aren’t trying to establish the truth of a matter in mutual agreement, what are you trying to do? A conversation cannot be generated without objectivity, since there would be nothing to debate or seek: This means that the primary focus is to establish whether said idea(s) are true or false by means of rational argument.

Rational Argument: What good is talking if nothing is resolved or furthered? The technique of rational argument is a ‘back and forth’ whereby premises are met with objection, and objection is resolved rather than left alone. The process of listening, processing, giving feedback or your opinion about something is unfortunately more often met with another statement. This hardly ever gets anybody anywhere. Ask a question, you will get an answer, this will then enable you grounds for your idea to be integrated into the other person idea, or at the very least, you will be able to pinpoint where disagreement that can’t be resolved, lies, and take action accordingly.

Comprehension & Feedback: Actually listen to what someone says by thinking about what you think it means, to you, to them, and in general. Don’t merely think about it on a superfluous level either, depth is required to really understand, generate possibilities about what you think they mean and ask them if that is the case. Then, give them an integration of your opinion on the matter with theirs. If you disagree tell them why. (If you don’t want to do this, well, then I’m sorry, but you’re fucked and I don’t care about you anyway)

Item for Item Responses: A real discussion is an exchange, an intersection, not a parallel highway; meaning that each and every statement or question is met with feedback to that item as a proposition. The earmark of bad communication is skipping a person’s statement, which only breeds the downward spiral of misunderstanding which usually leads to all things counterproductive, i.e. force.

Questions or Inquiry: My Dad always said that if you aren’t asking a question within at least every 30 seconds of a conversation or debate, you’re losing it. How can you understand what a person is actually saying to you without asking them? The primary way people miscommunicate is probably through lack of asking questions. What ends up happening is that you take what you thought the person means by a given idea, instead of what THEY mean, and since more often than not, it is not identical and most often, totally not what the person meant, you might as well be talking to a gerbil, cat, or horse–all of whom at least won’t scream at you out of misunderstanding.

Skepticism, Delimitation, and Divergence: What good are ideas if you aren’t seeing both sides of the argument? This is a more specific extension of objectivity. We only know something is true, by means of isolating that that idea is X, meaning that there is no other possibility within the realm of what we know. This is tricky because what we know is always limited. This is the reason is so important to always be expanding one’s knowledge, which leads to the next principle: divergence—the constant generation of as many multiple possibilities as you can. Delimitation in its etymology, means to ‘set boundaries around.’ In the realm of ideas, this means that one sets boundaries by understanding what’s outside as well as inside the concept, such as opposing views and why that answer and some other answer is the correct one.

Reason for Claims: Each proposition bears the burden of proof before the next is presented: that is, each new idea must prove itself as valid by gathering facts to back it up within the current frame-work, at which point it is debated and resolved, before continuing. This means in a more specific way that each claim is backed up with a reason for said claim. ‘You know what I mean,’ is not and should never be a sufficient basis for true understanding and communication.

Retrieval-Integration of Past Topics: Old ideas are retrieved upon being relevant, not forgotten, and synthesized or integrated with new ones.

Integration: Each proposition (concept) builds upon the last. That is, the goal of any conceptual conversation is to build a framework of new ideas, which builds from older ideas.

If you have ‘listened’ to this, and are able to master these principles, I assure you, your life and you’re entire understanding of people will be radically transformed into a progressive rather than stagnant or static relationship, into understanding rather than miscommunication, learning in place of ignorance.


Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved

–Neal Cormier is an artist and writer originally from the Washington D.C. area. His concentration is visual art–especially oil painting and graphic novel illustration. He is also an up and coming fiction writer, of whichVesper Heliotropic will be his first full length novel publication with Lulu Inc. Neal’s most current showing was at National Airport in Arlington, VA (March 11 – June 25 in Terminal A). He has sold a variety of pieces to clients from around the world. His artwork has been shown in cafes, bars and galleries in New York City, Washington D.C., Paris and Alençon, France. After high school, Neal attended the School of Visual Arts in New York City and spent four years living in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. He moved to France after this, and spent roughly about the same length of time in the region of Basse-Normandie, northern France. As a result, he speaks French and has a (tall) 9 year old daughter, Lili. He now resides back home in Crystal City, Virginia with his fiancé, Kristin.–

Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved

-Neal Cormier



Web Services

The Careerist

Goals are the concretization of ideals, and ideals are inseparable from the self. The result of any separation of these two results in either extreme of a broken person: pragmatism or so-called) idealism as an either-or.

The profit motive is therefore, wrong for the sake of pleasure or aims apart from rational ideals. Survival for one’s own sake, divorced from objectively derived principles which uphold a larger span of life and existence, is a contradiction in terms and can only be attributed to the life and existence of a lower animal.

A Careerist is someone who has chosen both to trump higher ideals, has chosen to be a chicken without a head. Ideals that act apart from the mere lifespan of oneself but do not necessarily act against the self are the only rational course of action to a human life. The abdictation of selfishness in the proper degree, would also be a contradiction to the properly appropriated, enlightened selfish nature of a human being. i.e. Man does not and should not act without pleasure, so long as pleasure or joy does not trump ideals.

So what of the many many situations that naturally and inevtibly arise in life where one can’t have both?

Aside from this and my main point is that both the profit motive as well as one’s own survival for its own sake is what has made the Careerist forsake all else.

It is important to split hairs to a great degree and not give in to the extremist mistakes of the past, i.e. capitalism vs. communism–in that money qua money as an organizational tool, and a tool that grants pleasure to fuel ideals is not wrong and in fact may be very ethically right.
If you doubt that the life of a Careerist is improper to man’s life—observe the modern effects on those individuals that have chosen such a path:

So what are higher ideals and what delimits them against every form of vague and contrite supposition?


The Profit Motive is Not Capitalism

Another very real equivocation that we deal with on a daily basis is the confounding of the profit motive with personally or collectively held values.

They are two different things.

The profit motive is also not always capitalism.

For instance in Ayn Rand’s view, (as this distinction tends to be absent from conservatism and even society at large) the profit motive and the motive to create and sustain one’s product or service are treated as one in the same. Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged even states that all he’s out for is to make money at one point. When, this is wholly incompatible with the rest of his actions which do things very often at ‘sacrifice’ of money for more spiritual and mental gains. This can be viewed in Wall Street 2, where Gordon Gekko realizes the values of human mutual aid in a very interestingly selfish way I think. Funny enough, even in the first one, Gekko’s values do indeed seem to be at one with his primary purpose: making money. But even he contradicts this in illustrating that “You don’t understand, its not the money, its the game.”

A show like Six Feet Under, on the other hand, is set in a philosophical landscape where individuals believe and know that the profit motive is not a valid primary aim for human life and hence this distinction is very well illustrated. The story is set from a small family owned funeral home business that’s struggling against their corporate competitor that is naturally only out to make money.

Very often the profit motive is one in the same with all one’s other values. Very often, it is not. In the times when it is not, one must never sacrifice the mind to the body. In order not to do this, one must understand this distinction. But in order to be a good objectivist in my own sense, one must act at a default that two are one, but at appropriate times when the spiritual and the material conflict, concrete particulars are to be expendable and not the tenets or desires of the mind.

(TANGENT: This is not to be misunderstood to mean that there are no materials that represent the mind’s work in terms of the object of what’s being valued. i.e. A painting purchased for one’s home reflects the conformity of the material with the mind in that one possesses it for spiritual reasons. If one’s painting is threatened to be burned or stolen, one might consider this a horrible thing in that they would not necessarily be able to replace that ‘mental-state,’ they can witness merely by looking above their couch. There are many other materials that do not possess the same congruence of the mental and the physical. These would include creature comforts and things built for more utilitarian use.

So when is it true that one is simply trying to ‘make money’ and living an absent life of hedonistic vacuousness? What drives them really, if I am asserting this to be incompatible to a rational mind? Who am I to say they aren’t living the most ideal life they’ve ever wanted?

Whether or not they are happy in this instance, is not in my view of objective concern since an organism can only value and be happy in terms of what it knows, and hence, happiness in the immediate sense is relative to what we know and are used to, and this is what makes the issue of personal happiness more complex. One is not happy in the higher overarching sense of a rational person if one is consistently limited to one domain. this is too large a subject to go on with here, but I should hyper link this later on and make another blog out of the subject of the margin of relativity in ethics.)

This was certainly true of Howard Roark, in The Fountainhead who would never divided his spiritual and material values.

Another example is in how society has fallen into the same equivocation as Karl Marx in believing that the only alternative to capitalism, is communism when had he had made a distinction between the profit motive and (ethics) values. It didn’t occur to me for instance that a revisionism of capitalism is even possible. i.e. a capitalism where good work is valued above financial gain.

Since we live in a society that is wholesale about the abdication and surrender of all values to the profit motive, it is hence, very easy I think if one tries to know this distinction well.

This is all coming out of my former view that the profit motive is always in some way at one with one’s values since making money is linked directly to survival. What we forget is that there are different kinds of survival. And that there is mental-spiritual survival as well as physical. I offer as evidence to my argument all of the daily teen suicides in which the mental-spiritual mechanism (philosophy) has been abandoned and in its place, now rests the sole reason for living: to make money. And since this is (I think) invalid to human existence being logical and volitional based, the profit motive cannot be the overriding priority of life, merely one of them.

The same alleged dichotomy is said to exist between selfish and selflessness. When, how can anything chosen by the self, be selfless if it is or has been indeed chosen by oneself? Indeed I hold this to be true. However, I believe that altruism as a component to philosophy is a value. That being established, selflessness does not exist, only two different kinds of values and two different resulting kinds of people with different ways of life.

Unlike the Objectivist view and very much like the generic view of objective philosophy and what I think it would hold true in terms of it, I believe that true altruists are people that derive most of their values and existence from social interaction. That being said, I think that altruism as a philosophy for man, is bunk. That is, altruism unlike perhaps republican democracy, cannot possible act as an all-encompassing philosophy. Notice however, that neither can egoism, only objectivism in this general sense.

I therfore believe that altruism is not the most efficient form of human existence when it is treated as the primary arbiter of one’s ethics. I therefore believe that though altruism is and must be a component of a rational enlightened selfishness, it is a disaster as the pilot being that social interaction is merely one dimension of a complete and therefore rational existence.

Inverted Fascism: Democracy Doesn’t Work

How many lives is it costing us to live the way we live?

If it were certain or even reasonable to think that a more efficient way of life could save those lives, and if certain people are preventing that way of life from emerging, aren’t they then, murderers?

By eliminating the opposition of these people, through whatever means, are we not then acting in self-defense?

Read More…