america wakiewakie


(Follow AmericaWakieWakie)

Editor’s Note: People have misinterpreted this post as a criticism of individual recruiters when it is meant to highlight the predatory nature of recruitment in general. It’s the difference between institutional function and the “few bad apples” kind of myth. The function of recruiters, especially in high schools, is predatory – making all who do it culpable. 

Seeing as this is the start of a new year and we got the news that NBC Hannibal won’t be airing until this summer, I figured now is the best time to shower your blogs with recommendations to hold you over! This list consists of fannibal blogs, Hugh Dancy blogs, Mads Mikkelsen blogs, and a few odd balls such as food blogs and political blogs. Thank you all for giving me such fantastic content! 

Have fun diving in:


a1snickerafter-the-ellipsis america-wakiewakie anslogarrick arbr artalisist attheexactlyrighttimeandplace bakeddd bansheegrahamtao beatrivex bon-appetit-a-la-hannibal bonearenaofmyskull brownberrypie cancanfannibal cannibalbananibal cannibalscepter carnal-carrion cheesenotes chesapeake-cannibal ciorane costanza-is-a-cannibal crazyinformant


damnyougraham dancydaily dansteevens ddncy dinojay dolarhyds doomed-in-life downeybrownie drchiltons dr-hannibal-lecter drlectertho epcnine everythinghughdancy everythingwillana existingcharactersdiehorribly


faabyy21 fancythedancy fanndamnedibals fannibalecter fannibals-dot-com foroakenshield fringeofmadness fuckinghannibal fuckyeahannibal fuckyeahchilton gayhams goldilocksandtheclibears goodbyewill grahamnlecter graham-unhinged granpappy-winchester grey-so-little


hannebal-lecter hannibaalecter hannibalcannibaldancy hannibalmorelikecannibal hannibalplease hannibalrepostpolice hannibalsbasement hannibals-design hannibal-tangerine hannibal-the-cannibal-fannibals hannibooby hannibuddy hannigraams hannigrahmy hannigram hannigramtastic hanniwillecter hannnibae harpsichordian hauntingass heroes-get-made hisroyaltrash hpfan8 hughdancible hugh-dancy hughdancyfans hughdancynews hughdancysmiles huuuuughdancy


i-finally-find-you-interesting illusion-dreamus idontfindyouthatinteresting ixilecter jackpotgirl jenkotsu jukugo justcannibals justcannibalthings kawaiimochi kingbrownham ksafania lastcellontheleft lectersdesign lectertrash letsobjectifyhughdancy licensetocannibalize littlegreypuppy lynzunknown madmikkelsens marthadelaurentiis masonverjerk maxiemumoverdrive michmemoirs mikkelsendancy mindlesslly mo0nwalk morbid-daydream mtzgtz mytvhannibal


nbchannibal nightmare-ravenstag nom-food nowwheresmynut ohshutupitsquick olfactorer overactiveimaginings pathonous pencilpushingenthusiast pistol-finch queenstilinskis renlybaratheon ribbityfrog riley-coyote saimonmonroe sartorialcannibal sexyhugh shooting-up-pie-in-the-sky skyy-freezerloki somelazypsychiatry somesickcat songsofdurin staff sunandrainfic sungl0ry suntosirius swiggty-swag-the-nightmare-stag


tastyasianfoods teacuppiggy theatropath thedreamersdust thefannibalfeed themirrorsinyourmind thesilenceofthefannibals thesofenist thetuxedos the-white-diamondd thischarmingdevil this-is-mydesign this-is-my-desjgn throatcellos totallynotmadeofpeople totally-relatable twerkinghannibal unsolvedminds unstableandcutewillgraham


warrioromen watson-sighs-and-tuts weartherude whatkindofcrazy whenfandomplaysnice whodamncy willgrahamismyidealman willgrahamjournals willgrahamlookinguncomfortable willgrahamneedsahug will-grahams-straitjacket willinterrupted willliamgraham willskissograham wqlker

*Special thanks to a1snicker for helping me to compile this list in alphabetical order with links!

A Very Selective Outrage

Many people are saying that Charlie Hebdo was a left wing anti-racist, ‘anti-clerical’ publication that was an equal opportunities offender to all religions.

My sense right now is that it is better characterised as a self proclaimed 'radical’ or 'progressive’ European left publication that had not decolonised itself, was rampantly racist and biogted in its so called 'atheism’ and perpetuated a largely bourgeois, self-satisfied, egotistic, faux-intellectual, orientalist, white saviour mentality that made it, intended or otherwise, an enabler or apologist of imperialism even as it claimed to stand against the War on Terror economy etc

It went out of its way to continually provoke and antagonise a specific group of people in the name of defending freedom of speech all the whilst seemingly blithely unaware of how it was acting in the deepest hypocrisy and fueling Islamophobia in the process.

Furthermore, the media’s slavish hagiography of the slain staff fails to provide a wider context in which Islam has been consistently and systematically demonised all whilst European nations have been explicitly complicit in imperialist projects that have been directed at largely muslim countries.

When these projects are shown to cause the deaths of innocent people, whether at the hands of drone strikes or other fundamentalists (e.g. Pakistan) the West shrugs, barely apologises if at all, claims colateral damage, provides next to no compensation, and moves on.  Torture, rape, murder, extra-judicial assassination, bombings - do we really expect the families and relatives of the victims not to be radicalised by over a hundred years of prejudicial stereotyping (Reel Bad Arabs), divide and rule funding and arming of despotic ruling juntas, cliques, & sects as part of a geopolitical 'grand chess board strategy’, coup d'etats that unseat legitimately elected leaders, support for violent occupation of Palestine, and now twenty six years of almost continual war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many Europeans have long been 'radicalised’ against Jews and Roma people and yet we’ve not even been under attack from these groups.  Their mere existence was seen as a threat.  Now Muslims have been added to the list.

And when some fight back and say enough is enough, we fall into collective amnesia, our 'analysis’ refuses to incorporate a wider political and historical context (for that would be regarded as apologising for terrorism’ and 'weakness’) and we wring our hands about freedom of speech and democracy - all the while as yet more innocent people are killed by drone strikes that miss their targets or simply don’t mind how many innocent people get killed for every suspected 'terrorist’.

We wage war and assume a moral superiority that says 'they deserve to die but we have the right to live in peace’. And then we are shocked when that war comes home.

It won’t take an end to bombing to stop this war and its vicious and horrible repercussions, it will take a collective re-examination of our colonial, racist, misogynist, white supremacist mentality and culture.  We need to decolonise our minds, our media, our schools, and our States, and stop manipulating and militarily coercing other countries for our own profit.  Then, maybe, we won’t create the backlash we find so intolerable.

The Charlie Hebdo staff were victims of prejudice and extremism, but those forces didn’t grow out of a vacuum.  They have specific, varied, and complex roots and unless we have an honest discussion about those roots, we can only expect this War Economy to produce nothing except body bags.

cutehomosexual  asked:

Time heals everything because ignorance slowly dies and doesn't get passed down to the younger generations

Don’t remember the racist chant from a University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) chapter? Where do you think they learned it? These young people are the future judges, lawyers, doctors, and educators of white America and they are perfectly comfortable with white supremacy. 

Of course this doesn’t even touch the surface of black, brown, yellow, and red face on university campuses (and elsewhere) across America. Young white people love to appropriate cultures they know nothing about because white supremacy is, in part, about entitlement.

Remember this guy, Darren Wilson, the killer cop who killed 18 year old Mike Brown? Wilson is in his twenties, even younger at the time he decided to unload six rounds into a black child. Wilson is just one cop of tens of thousands of cops out there enforcing a system of white supremacy, being taught to shoot now and deal with court later. Might I remind you of how many black, brown, and indigenous people police kill.

To top it off, Brown was portrayed as anything but an innocent child. Which brings me to this guy:

Dylann Roof, the 21 year old who murdered nine black people at a South Carolina church on June 17th, 2015. Roof entered the church and sat through a whole portion of the service before getting up and gunning down six black women and three black men. Where do you think he got the motivation to commit mass murder? 

And even with his monstrous acts the media still treated Roof more kindly than it did Mike Brown. And then there is this case:

Three white teens from Brandon, MS, including Deryl Dedmon (pictured above), went “hunting for black people” in Jackson, MS. They found 49 year old James Craig Anderson and subsequently ran him over, then repeatedly backed over him to ensure he was dead. Where – no, from WHO – do you think these teens developed the hatred in their hearts to carry out such an odious act against another human being? 

It is dangerously naive to believe that simply letting time pass somehow will rectify racism in America. It’s been 500 years already! Yet the genocide of indigenous peoples continues, the brutalization, marginalization, and dehumanization of black and brown people continues, and the tokenizing, appropriation, and subjugation of nonwhite people shows little sign of slowing down or halting. 

Only active resistance can bring an end to white supremacy – and its co-habiting systems of oppression. This requires understanding its resilience and scope while waging war against it at every possible juncture. I asked over and over from where, and from who, did these young white people learn their hatred. The answer is they learned it from other white people, their elders, and their history. I want to see that history interrupted, constantly, because as Cutcha Risling Baldy recently wrote:

“[H]istory is about power. The ability to tell the story is a very powerful thing. And the history we have learned in the west, is about justifying, maintaining and supporting the illusion that western civilization, western control of, western ownership of this land was inevitable, beneficial, and destined (manifestly).

From a different perspective, history is not so benign. In fact, it is a constant presence meant to deny Native people’s very existence. Because if Native people exist, then all that history comes in to question. Who we will be, it’s not so set. And we are a country, not so settled.”

I don’t want to passively wait for history happen to us. I want to be in it, changing it, and creating it in a way that embodies liberation and justice.

Herein lies another problem. When conversations are dominated by those who have obtained large followings, the creation and enforcement of hierarchy emerges. This hierarchy revolves around not just competition for followers, but for credibility among those followers. Activists with large online audiences are thought to already have established their credibility — especially among the newly politicized — by showcasing their intellect. All too often, however, this showcasing takes the form of shutting down and/or delegitimizing other users’ ideas and lived experiences. To admit one might potentially be wrong, or even inaccurate, is to lose credibility and access to followers (social currency).

Preventing this loss of currency can become incredibly vindictive. People start treating each other like ruthless transactions, carcasses to step over rather than human beings actively engaged in dialogue or disagreement. After a while it can feel like survival of the fittest. Sometimes it is. Just as billionaires have enormous resources at their disposal to manipulate the flow of power and preserve market dominance, social currency enables popular web-based activists to maintain dominance over online discourses. So while the visibility social media enables can be a valuable tool for the proliferation of alternative media, marginalized voices, and radical re-education, how that visibility is obtained and maintained can be painfully problematic.

[…] It is also important to note that living within these power systems… we are forced to carry our personal and generational trauma everywhere we go. In the arena of social media this carryover has a cannibalistic quality. Without time and space to suture our wounds the blood loss never stops. Heated disagreements between oppressed people take on the tone and feel of an attack, until finally, when all hope for reconciliation has evaporated, we devour one another. At such a point we have fallen back on dominant mechanisms of power, onto its value system, not only because of our own exhaustion, but also convenience and expedience. It may not be in our nature, but it certainly is second nature.

stolentreetwoone-deactivated201  asked:

But can any system create a just society? Does human nature allow for that? Because communist systems seem far more susceptible to corruption than representative democracies

Proclamations about the “truth” of “human nature” as evidence that communism cannot work are the most boring and intellectually lazy arguments a person can make. They are expedient though – and almost intuitive – given the constant bombardment of capitalist propaganda. But consider, when you place a caring and cooperative individual in a cage with people who have been conditioned to survive through competition, it is exceedingly difficult for the individual to elicit from their fellow imprisoned the cooperative momentum necessary to achieve freedom. From the outside looking in, it appears to the bystander that indeed, human nature must be beastly. Such a view is inherently skewed though, because it erases that cooperation never stood a chance in an environment specifically bred to crush it.

In short, if this were an actual experiment it would have been rigged from the start because both individual and group potentialities cannot exist independent of their environments. In some ways the Stanford study, a study conducted by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo on the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard, proved this. Wikipedia notes that by day four of what would be a six day experiment, “Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had internalized their roles, since some had stated they would accept “parole” even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, despite the fact that quitting would have achieved the same result without the delay involved in waiting for their parole requests to be granted or denied. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity.“ The same could be concluded for the cruelty of the guards too.

The results of the experiment favored situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution (a result caused by internal characteristics). In other words, it seemed that the environment, rather than their individual personalities, or any particular predisposed nature, caused the participants’ behavior. We would have a disturbingly flawed understanding of humanity to export from that study the notion that humans are innately one way or another. The Stanford study further proved that when we fail to contextual human behavior within its environment we create sinister deceptions about the idea of our nature, if it exists at all.

As another example, let us revisit how our society has structured its inquiry of drug addiction. Johann Hari, in “Does Capitalism Drive Drug Addiction?”, writes:

“Get a rat and put it in a cage and give it two water bottles. One is just water, and one is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drugged water and almost always kill itself very quickly, right, within a couple of weeks. So there you go. It’s our theory of addiction.

Bruce comes along in the ’70s and said, “Well, hang on a minute. We’re putting the rat in an empty cage. It’s got nothing to do. Let’s try this a little bit differently.” So Bruce built Rat Park, and Rat Park is like heaven for rats. Everything your rat about town could want, it’s got in Rat Park. It’s got lovely food. It’s got sex. It’s got loads of other rats to be friends with. It’s got loads of colored balls. Everything your rat could want. And they’ve got both the water bottles. They’ve got the drugged water and the normal water. But here’s the fascinating thing. In Rat Park, they don’t like the drugged water. They hardly use any of it. None of them ever overdose. None of them ever use in a way that looks like compulsion or addiction… Bruce says is that shows that both the right-wing and left-wing theories of addiction are wrong. So the right-wing theory is it’s a moral failing, you’re a hedonist, you party too hard. The left-wing theory is it takes you over, your brain is hijacked. Bruce says it’s not your morality, it’s not your brain; it’s your cage. Addiction is largely an adaptation to your environment.

[…] We’ve created a society where significant numbers of our fellow citizens cannot bear to be present in their lives without being drugged, right? We’ve created a hyperconsumerist, hyperindividualist, isolated world that is, for a lot of people, much more like that first cage than it is like the bonded, connected cages that we need. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection.”

Just as important as environment was for contextualizing and understanding the prisoners’, guards’, and rats’ behaviors to their respective circumstances, so is it important for us to understand our environment under capitalism, to contextualize why so many people believe communism is impossible. Capitalism’s culture of competition conditions us to think of working with each other outside a profit motive or government mandate as an impossibility. In turn, our inability to imagine it crushes it. Such a cycle is purposefully enforced to maintain the status quo, but we need only revisit our evolutionary history to see the fundamentals of communism at work.

As Darwin pointed out in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears where cooperation becomes a necessity for survival. Indeed, it is an evolutionary fact that without cooperation, the most fundamental tenant of communism, our species would have succumbed to its inferior physicality among other predators long ago. Stated differently, the substitution of competition with cooperation resulted in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secured to our species thousands of years of civilization.

I will end this post with this quote by Jason Godesky and the final thought that yes, communism is possible, if we can first remember where we come from and be willing to imagine where we want to go:

“Our culture denigrates sharing. The recent innovations in “intellectual property” especially have tried to make sharing illegal, and induce in us all a feeling of shame when we share with others. Yet we still believe sharing to be a virtue. In our evolution as band-animals, sharing was not simply nice, it was the cornerstone of survival. The Ju/’Hoansi have no word for “thank you”; to thank someone suggests that their actions were out of the ordinary. Caring for others in band-level society was the expected norm; it was the most selfish act one could come up with. The most effective way to serve oneself was to serve others. Bands very effectively defeated violence, cheating, and other “immorality” not nearly so much by condemning it, as by removing the incentive.

Compare this to our own, hierarchical “Cheating Culture.” Our survival does not depend on sharing with our small, close-knit community. Not only do the people around us no longer register as “people,” beyond our 150-person neurological capacity, neither does their survival affect us in any way. In short, there is great incentive to steal, cheat, lie or commit any of the other “immoral” acts which small, egalitarian groups need not concern themselves with. As a result, we must impose laws, to create artificial disincentives against what is otherwise a very clear endorsement of “immorality.” Yet this is an artificial disincentive – laws can be gotten around, police eluded, and so forth. There is no disincentive in the act itself; only in being caught.

Most of our problems today can easily be traced to some manner in which we remain maladapted to our present life – to the struggle of a Pleistocene animal, to adapt to the bizarre, Holocene nightmare we have created. Our social structure is one such example. We evolved as band-animals. Our egalitarianism defines us; it is probably the single most defining trait in humanity. We evolved as egalitarian band-animals in the Pleistocene. Egalitarianism is our natural state, and our birthright. It is what we expect, down to our very bones. Yet today, it has become so rare that many humans doubt its very possibility. We have accepted the evils of hierarchy — the trauma of an animal maladapted to its current environment — as inevitable.

Humans are best adapted to small, egalitarian bands, in the same way that wolves are adapted to packs or bees to hives. Humans flourish in such a social structure, providing us not only with our material needs, but also our universal psychological needs of belonging to such a group, of personal freedom, and of acceptance for ourselves as individuals. Hierarchical society is a social structure we left behind when we became human. It may provide for our material needs, but it fails utterly to provide for any of our psychological needs. So, we invent small, band-like societies — social circles, clubs and the like — to compensate for all the failings of hierarchy. In short, egalitarianism is an essential requirement for healthy human life; hierarchy is an utter rejection of everything that makes us human.”

brittanyliah  asked:

I'm asking this from a genuine curious mind, I like to further my education in moral topics such as these. I saw your post against Pacifism & wanted to ask why it is you believe violence is necessary to help those in need. I agree with your statement that if action isn't taken people can be hurt but in reality in most situations the option of violence is taken advantage of. In the thousands of millions of wars in human history I only know a handful that have been just. I don't mean to offend you

Well, first, you cannot equate war and violence as the same thing for the simple fact that while all war is violent, all violence is not war. But my opposition to pacifism is rooted squarely in its poor pragmatism and immorality. Once again I’m going to pull from an article I wrote in 2014 to demonstrate the first half of my opposition:  

““In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”— Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)

Nonviolence played a significant role in Indian independence, absolutely; but the premise that under the tutelage of Gandhi it was the premier force driving the nation toward liberation is a cherry-picked version of history. It downplays into nothingness the fact that the post-WWII crown could no longer maintain the brute force and financial obligation needed to run a global empire. Indigenous American scholar Ward Churchill in Pacifism as Pathology dismantled the myth that nonviolence effectively acted alone or in a vacuum unto itself:

“…Gandhian success must be viewed in the context of a general decline in British power brought about by two world wars within a thirty-year period. Prior to the decimation of British troop strength and the virtual bankruptcy of the Imperial treasury during World War II, Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history, the first locale in which the Gandhian recipe for liberation struck the reef of reality. Hence, while the Mahatma and his followers were able to remain “pure,” their victory was contingent upon others physically gutting their opponents for them.”

At best Gandhi worship ignores — at worst it erases — the revolutionary actions of people like Bhagat Singh and others who galvanized the resistance movement in colonial India. It removes the context of fear created by armed struggle, a reversal of the fear that underpinned British control of a country where Brits were enormously outnumbered. George Orwell, the famous author of 1984, as a former officer in the Indian police noted:

“Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men… It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience, and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force” and more in bombs.”

The material and philosophical reality of nonviolence is one of insufficient means dictating for itself an impossible end. The sectarian nature by which many proponents of Gandhian doctrine preclude or lambaste the use of armed resistance only helps doom a people’s fight for liberation because it effectively counteracts any positive gain they together might achieve. A truly encompassing liberatory praxis must recognize the use of armed resistance as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the Gandhi myth is therefore of primary importance in attaining such a praxis.”

To clarify, all nonviolence should not be mistaken for strict pacifism. Some nonviolence, indeed, can be militant and useful, but we should not be foolish enough to believe it, much less strict pacifism, alone could ever be sufficient enough to achieve liberation.

On the whole we have a severely underdeveloped conceptual understanding of violence. All violence is NOT the same. Violence wielded by an oppressor class can NEVER be equivocated with violence used in struggle toward liberation. Failure to differentiate between oppressive violence, passive and active force, and resistance is all too common though. They all get lumped together and treated as equal. This is a great disservice to the oppressed and our oppressors know it. They purposefully conflate oppressive violence with resistance in an effort (quite effectively) to decouple the oppressed’s natural right to self defense from the conditions which incubate militancy.

Violence is inherently neither good nor bad. It is all around us, but who uses it and for what purpose, i.e., the purposes of oppression, the purposes of survival, or the purposes of liberation, all must be contextualized in any discussion of it. Consider that self-defense is not necessarily violent, but oftentimes it is. When self-defense is violent, I submit that if such defense is in the pursuit of liberation, or is requisite to a person or community’s survival, especially when faced with an oppressor, then it is not only essential, it is morally justified. 

Violence is a tool, and like any tool it can be used in a variety of ways. Strict pacifism is the ideology of the fool who watches a cop beat a man to death. To quote Malcolm X, “it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”

Here’s a disgustingly innocuous sounding phrase: ethnic cleansing. How’d that happen, “cleansing”? Cleansing is something you do for a piss test to get a job after your friends convinced you to take a hit the week before your interview, not the unmitigated murder of an ethnically unique population. If it’s genocide, call it genocide.

Course, the word genocide is probably the whole reason somebody thought up the phrase “ethnic cleansing” in the first place. They wanted to preserve the severity of the word genocide, to associate it with only certain instances throughout history so that every time we use that word we have to look back at those instances and match present manifestations of oppression to the past. If current oppression of an ethnic population draws enough likeness to those people commonly accepted as past victims of genocide then they can rightfully use the word. If not, however, and this is most often the case because it suits the mechanisms of power to never indict itself with a word as powerful as genocide, then new victims are denied access to language which accurately would paint their circumstance. 

This is why the Israeli government is not charged in the mainstream with the genocide of Palestinians. It is why the centuries long struggle against colonization is not historically characterized as a struggle against genocide. And it is also why after decades upon decades of black Americans’ fighting against police terrorism we do not understand it too as a struggle against genocide. In reality genocide has always taken many forms, the oppressed simply are not allowed to name and define it.

Liberals politicizing mass shootings for gun control agendas to garner votes by demonizing their electoral cousins the Republicans are disgusting. But that’s easier than naming the problem – white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal terrorism. And it’s easier than problematizing how to end it – the destruction of the very same political charade that grants them power, the very same system built on white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy, the very same system that without there would be no political football to divert attention from how they themselves are as much a part of keeping racism alive and well in America as the people they like to point the finger at. Paradox is how we are expected to solve structural problems though, with policy goals. But policy goals in America dictate the election of politicians, whom live largely beyond our lived experiences and beyond our needs, to somehow act on our behalf; which then dictates choosing between two political parties vested in the status quo, a status that cannot exist while legitimizing our lived experiences and meeting our needs – so shit stays the same.

Most of us… have power enough to make immediate change to our communities through direct action, because we have far more flexibility to create change than the state itself is capable of, or allows. This flexibility stems from the fact that direct action does not ask us to delegate our power, or to defer it to a set of unjust laws and corrupt institutions. Instead of getting someone else to act for us, we act for ourselves. And by acting for ourselves we are expressing the ability to govern ourselves, to take control of our own lives in the pursuit of liberation. In other words, we stop waiting for a better world to happen to us and begin doing the work of creating it, for it is through acting and learning to act, not voting, that we will open the path to a world free of oppression.