AnarchyBoard

News Service of The Leftist Assembly Vol. 11· Iss. 2

I no longer subscribe to the anarchist ideology but Makhno and his ideas remain high in my mind. This article will not deal with the debated nature of Makhno and his army. Instead, it will discuss the merits of the ideology he and other anarchists developed in exile: the ideology of Platformism.

The ideology of Platformism was first laid out in a document known as the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft). The General Union of Anarchists itself never came to fruition, and the document remains to this day a draft. The draft rejected the idea of a union of “anarchists without adjectives”, as advocated by Voline, and instead called for homogeneous programme to solve the problem of anarchism remaining a “fringe phenomenon” on the outskirts of working-class movements.

The platform accepts the concept of class conflict, as most anarchists do, as being between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (“in the broadest sense of the word”). The platform makes an odd distinction: that of the “proletariat in the broadest sense of the word”. The platform later speaks of both a “rural” and “urban” proletariat. It leads one to believe that the authors believed the peasantry to also be proletariat and rejected the Marxist distinction between the two.

The platform endorses the necessity and inevitably of violent revolution, saying: “Analysis of contemporary society shows that there is no other way to achieve a transformation of capitalist society into a society of free workers except through violent social revolution.” The platform espouses the objective of anarchism to be “anarchist communism” and explicitly rejects the concept of “abstract ‘individuality’”.

The platform rejects the idea of the state to be a tool of oppression of a specific class by another. Instead, they believed the state to be only the tool of bourgeoisie in oppressing the working class and that it could not be used to further the ends of the working class, asserting a new system of classes had already redeveloped in the USSR by 1926, before the end of the NEP policy or the Left Opposition’s expulsion. Specifically, the platform states: “The State, supposedly created initially for the purposes of defending the revolution, inevitably accumulates its own specific needs and becomes an end in itself, spawning privileged social castes upon which it relies, and it forcibly subjugates the masses to its needs and those of the privileged castes, thus restoring the basis of capitalist authority and the capitalist State.”

The platform demands the establishment of an anarchist organization to prepare and lead the working class in fomenting social revolution, and then ensure the revolution holds to the “path and objective”, defend the revolution, and ensure the establishment of the new system of production, distribution, and consumption. The Marxist transitional period is flatly rejected, and it is demanded and the control of the means of production and other aspects be handed over to the working class immediately, with the General Union ensuring this occurs and defending those gains.

The contrast between “anarchist communism” and “syndicalism” is rejected, and instead syndicalism is declared to be a method of revolutionary class struggle. The anarchists are to involve themselves in and direct the revolutionary syndicalist movement, but that movement must be left to the direction of the anarchist organization to ensure it is properly utilized in pursuit of anarchist communism.

The platform then lists the problems that must be solved upon “day one” of the revolution: production, consumption, ‘the land’, and defense of the revolution. In the matter of production, “workers' councils, workplace committees or workers' administrations of factories and plants” shall control the new system of production. Unified production and the abolition of wage slavery are the issues which these councils and the anarchist organizations must ensure are taken care of. Upon the issue of consumption, worker-peasant cooperatives and councils will be responsible for the fulfillment of food and economic requirements across the area of revolution.

The question of ‘the land’ is really the question of the peasantry. The platform considers the peasantry to be part of the proletariat and no coercion can be used to compel the peasantry to act for collective good. Instead, the platform calls for the establishment of an anarchist peasant union that will conduct intensive propaganda that calls for “communist land tenure and communist cultivation of the soil”. In the United States, only 5% of farmland is corporate farmland (and thus not controlled by the ‘peasantry’, and thus this question and issue still hold great relevance today.)

In the question of the defense of the revolution, the organization must ensure the creation of revolutionary defense organization by workers and the establishment of an army based upon the working class, voluntary military service, ‘revolutionary self-discipline’, and ‘total subordination of the revolutionary army to the worker and peasant masses’.

The platform ends with an outline of the organizational principles of the general anarchist union. Unity of theory, which by all activity of the union must fall within the objectives of anarchist communism; collective action and unity of tactics, in which the revolutionary tactics of the union must be consistent across the whole of the union; collective responsibility, in which “the union as a whole is answerable for the revolutionary and political activity of each member of the union; likewise, each of its members is answerable for the revolutionary and political activity of the union as a whole”; and federalism, which is defined as “acknowledging the right of every member of the organization to independence, freedom of opinion, personal initiative and individual liberty, entrusts each member with specific organizational duties, requiring that these be duly performed and that decisions jointly made also be put into effect.”

Today, many anarchist organizations follow the principles of Platformism, or a similar Latin America ideology known as Especifismo. It is with this ideology, with a kind of anarchist “vanguard”, pushing forward the revolution, that anarchism is at its most viable and realistic.

“A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.” – Schopenhauer Parega und Paralipomena

In Evangelion, the Porcupine’s Dilemma is known as the Hedgehog’s Dilemma.
The argument is a dialectical one.

1. The hedgehogs are cold, they must huddle together for warmth.
2. The hedgehogs are covered in spines, they must not huddle close lest they are hurt.
3. The hedgehogs sacrifice warmth for lack of pain, but the lack of warmth is also harmful.

In Evangelion, this means that people who are in pain require others to make them feel better, and yet they push them away lest they get hurt again. This turns into people needing to be close and loved by others, yet they keep them at arm’s length.

In the case of Misato, she has sex with Kaji, but she does not allow herself to love him as much as she feels inside.

For Shinji, he wants to be loved, and yet he has never experienced it ever in his life as he was abandoned as a child, and so he pushes others away because he feels unworthy of love and does not want to be abandoned again.

Human Instrumentality is the removal of barriers of human hearts from one another, everyone simultaneously becomes one being. There are no barriers to keep others away, everyone becomes one. This is a dialectical synthesis of the Hedgehog’s Dilemma, although not in the way Schopenhauer initially theorised.
During Instrumentality, all humans on Earth are brought into a bonding of a giant Rei Ayanami, who in turn is bonded by Adam and Lilith. All humans are turned into the primordial soup of life, known as LCL, and are absorbed into Rei.

When Shinji is absorbed into Rei, he maintains consciousness for reasons I will not discuss here. He starts a dialogue with the other main characters of the show. Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that he has the choice to keep Human Instrumentality or reject it. Shinji is finally with other people, he believes that this will mean that he is not alone, but he is proven wrong. He ultimately is alone as he is still emotionally apart from everyone else. His perception of those around him clouded his judgment. He thought he could finally be accepted for who he is, but it was not the case. This sends him further into despair as he realises that even during Human Instrumentality, he will still be depressed and alone. Shinji wishes to be recognised by others in a true Hegelian fashion. Without the recognition of others, he does not exist, he doesn’t matter, he may as well not be alive. His individuality isn’t what makes him real, as Descartes thought when he wrote: “I think, therefore I am.” As Hegel argued that others must perceive you to exist, otherwise you do not. Those who are alone do not exist as no one knows they exist.

During this pain, Shinji is given the option to make it all stop, to become one with everyone else. He is given the choice to complete Human Instrumentality and solve the Hedgehog’s Dilemma.
He ultimately decides, that even though living is painful and lonely, that there is a chance that he may not be lonely and in pain, if he forms real bonds, real relationships with other people. He rejects the Human Instrumentality Project.

Shinji decides that the dilemma is necessary and if it comes to its dialectical synthesis as it is done in the show, then being alive would not be living at all. Living, and existence requires other people to live and exist with. To be alone in a vacuum is worthless. You may as well not exist at all. It is to be ultimately alone. Is it not better to be alone with others? At least you have the chance to not be alone.

After Instrumentality is rejected, Shinji ends up on a beach with another character, Asuka Soryu. From his extreme mental stress, Shinji begins to choke Asuka, angry that despite doing what he believed was the right thing to do, he will still be alone. Asuka raises her hand to caress his cheek, giving him the touch, the closeness that he desperately desires. This causes Shinji to stop as he begins to weep. One day, he may not be lonely.
Ultimately, the ending of Evangelion dives much into philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis, mental health, teenagehood and so on and so on. This small slice at one part of the series cannot do it justice. Many theses have been written, and people have spent countless hours looking over and debating the franchise. In my opinion, this small part is very crucial to understand the mentality of the main characters of the franchise.

The Red + Black: News from the NationStates Left
Hi everyone! The NSLeft Regional Representatives have been hard at work trying to revitalize the pact, and we're proud to announce that one of our first initiatives has come to fruition!

After a long hiatus, The Red + Black, NSLeft's official news outlet, is back in production for its 3rd volume!

While we do have staff writers, we'd like most of our stories to come from the people that power NSLeft: you!
To submit an article to TR+B, go to the NSLeft forum (https://theredand.black/) and, on the menu, click "R+B" followed by "Submit an Article!" (alternatively, just click this link: https://theredand.black/forums/forum/21-newsroom/). Read our short guidelines, and then write away!

We hope to bring you the 1st issue of the 3rd volume of The Red + Black very soon!

Howie Hawkins: “The Original Green New Dealer”

Howie Hawkins is a former drafted US Marine, member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a member of the Socialist Party USA, co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance, and a member of the Teamster Union. He regularly contributes to organs such as CounterPunch, International Socialist Review, and Against the Current.

Hawkins proposes a Green New Deal through an “Economic Bill of Rights” and a “Green Economy Reconstruction Program.” His Economic Bill of Rights will “enact federal programs” to guarantee:

Living-wage job to all able and willing to work

A minimum above poverty income

Expanded public housing and rent control

Universal healthcare

Free college tuition

Guaranteed Retirement accounts

The Green Energy Reconstruction Program will start an emergency program to build a “100% clean energy system by 2030.” It “requires social ownership of key means of production and finance and a bottom-up system of democratic planning in order to coordinate the reconstruction of all production systems for sustainability.”

Hawkins’ five key positions are “Climate Action” by banning fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure and 100% clean energy and zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; “Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Action” through unilateral nuclear disarmament “to a minimum credible deterrence”, advocating for global nuclear disarmament, bringing all US troops home, a 75% cut in the military budget with a “Peace Dividend” to aid “poor countries” development; “Economic Justice” through the Economic Bill of Rights; “Racial Justice” through reparations, federal action against white nationalists, and federal intervention against local police misconduct; and “Ecosocialism” through “Social ownership and democratic planning of key industries and banks for sustainable production of basic needs for all within ecological limits. Public monetary authority. Worker and consumer co-ops in commercial markets.”

What worries me most about Hawkins’ propositions are the “minimum credible deterrence” clause of his nuclear disarmament plan and his reliance on the federal government, not grassroots action, to implement his plans.

Dario Hunter: A History of Building Bridges and Breaking Barriers

https://youtu.be/ujNlyAO3D3w

Dario Hunter is a former high school English teacher, K-8 administrator, and college instructor. He is currently serving on the Youngstown, OH Board of Education and holds religious services in Youngstown as a rabbi.

Hunter’s most interesting proposal is that of a PoC Bill of Rights. Hunter advocates for a UBI, guaranteed employment, a transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030, free college and a fight against education privatization, universal healthcare, an affirmation of tribal sovereignty, support for cooperatives and ecosocialism, ranked-choice/proportional representation voting, closing 700 military bases abroad, and an end to the war on drugs.

Hunter’s proposal are not as fleshed out as Hawkins’, but his PoC Bill of Rights is an interesting proposal to be looked at and finds merit.

Roland Aranjo: Peace, Liberty, and Justice for All

The first of the unofficial candidates, Aranjo is currently the third Green Party candidate to raise funds, but he has garnered the 2nd least signatures of support.

Aranjo advocates for:

Grassroots Democracy through new political organizations that “expand the process of participatory democracy.”

Non-violence through demilitarization and disarmament of WMDs. He does, however, “recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in dangerognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in danger,” which worries me as a loophole for continued American imperialism.

Social Justice and Equal Opportunity through confronting “in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, any discrimination by race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religion, or physical or mental ability that denies fair treatment and equal justice under the law.”

Decentralization of social, political, and economic institutions

Feminism and Gender Equity

Future Focus and Sustainability

Aranjo’s campaign is the weakest viable candidate for the nomination, in my opinion, as his position leave imperialist loopholes, are often undefined, and seem to be weak in their proposed implementation.

Dennis Lambert: “Poor Peoples Candidate”

Lambert is the self-described “Poor Peoples Candidate.” His ‘core message’ is “Our nation must rebuild our infrastructure in a more democratic way that works toward a healthier environment and provides well paying jobs. We must make sure that the government levels the playing field for the working poor, minorities, and other marginalized communities so that we can build a successful nation that hopefully the rest of the world can look to for guidance into the future.”

He advocates for the rebuilding of national and local infrastructures “using renewable energy as a blueprint for the democratization of wealth,”; the establishment of “medicare for all”; $25 per hour minimum wage, and “ending all wars.”

While I think Lambert has good intentions, his candidacy is almost same as Aranjo’s: a poorly defined, progressive-but-not-radical campaign that would do well just absorbing itself into Sanders’ democratic campaign instead of diluting the Green primary with non-PoC, non-radical candidacies.

Sedinam Moyowasifza-Curry

Sedinam, as her campaign uses her first name, is a woman of color seeking nomination for the Green Party. She has been a Green Party member since 2001, unsuccessfully sought various offices, and is a member of several party committees.

Unfortunately, the Sedinam campaign currently lacks a working website and thus it is hard to get a full view of her positions, but her PCSC Questionnaire establishes her five core policies

Ecological Economics working towards attaining zero waste, 100% organic food, and 100% renewable energy. This is her alternative position to the Green New Deal.

Immigration policies opposing inequality through wider social policy. In 2016 she promoted a policy to encourage all citizens to be fluent in two languages.

"Ending all wars"

A 1% wealth tax on top 0.1%

“Reparations”

David Rolde: Anti-Imperialist, Anti-War

Rolde is a “protest candidate” against the “phoney U.S. Presidential Election.” He is a revolutionary Communist activist from Massachusetts consistently active in anti-Zionist and anti-imperialist organizations.

Rolde advocates for
The complete abolition of the US military, anti-imperialism, and “the covert warfare of arming mercenaries and terrorists to invade these countries.”

“Oppose Malthusian population control and eugenics programs. Stop corporations from poisoning humans and the environment with geoengineering / chemtrails /weather warfare, genetically modified food, glyphosate, fluoridated water, other chemicals in our water / air / soil / crops, toxic vaccines and other pharmaceuticals produced for profit rather than for health, 5G and other electromagnetic radiation, nuclear waste, fracking, euthanasia, etc.”

Socialism with economic human rights

A “Green Revolution”, not New Deal.

9/11 Truth and Justice. Rolde believes the attacks were false flags.

Rolde also advocates for decolonization, reparations, and self-determination for Africans, Indigenous people, and all oppressed peoples.

You will notice my bolding of certain policies: these are Rolde’s policies that I regard as simply inane and nonsensical. Rolde is a 9/11 Truther and believes in the 5G health hazard, among others. GMOs, geoengineering, etc. are all causes that should be steered by a socialist government with the people at heart to ensure the welfare of the people, not opposed. Rolde would be my pick for candidate if his platform did not include such putrid nonsense.

Ian Schlakman: Millennial, Socialist, and Futurist

Schlakman’s campaign is interesting in that it is open: anyone can contribute an “idea” on his website, those dimensions divided between domestic and foreign policy. Ian himself seeks an end to imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism. He also seeks to use his candidacy to focus on building up the Green Party.

In his press kit, Ian’s campaign is for:

A Commission pardoning all for cannabis-related crimes

A National Emergency over the Opioid Crisis

A National Humanitarian Emergency for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers

Focus on small green businesses and workers’ co-ops

A Department of Justice Commission investigating police crimes/misconduct

Implement the Original Green New Deal Program

Guarantee Employment for every citizen

End private health insurance and implement socialized healthcare for all.

Create a Technology and Science Ethics Board to engage the public in a structured discussion about the largest ethical questions that we face in our modern society.

Create a Federal Library Program to buy “X amount of media” from all types of creators to ensure access without piracy

Create a legal path for workers to democratic their workplace, especially in the face of a permanent closure

Ian is easily my favorite candidate aside from Hawkins and I would encourage you to go to his website and contribute ideas to his platform.

Chad Wilson: The Weed Guy

Where would we be if we didn’t a guy claiming weed connects us on all issues running for President? That’s Chad Wilson. He’s actually pretty neat, but his focus on weed turns me off of his candidacy. For example: “Cannabis connects us all through several issues. If we focus on cannabis then it will act as a butterfly effect for change.” Apparently, a focus on weed will lead to healthcare reform, criminal justice reform, law agency reform, and community relations. Criminal justice and law reform I see, but weed isn’t gonna make it perfect.

Wilson seeks to overturn Citizens’ United, reinstate Glass-Steagall, break up the media corporations, implement direct democracy, implement term limits, and stop political dynasties.

He also has a “Green Guarantee”:

“Reclaim, Reuse, Repurpose, Renew” all renewable material

Make the agricultural industry co-op based

Digitize all public records

Transition to 100% renewable energy

“Municipal Internet”

“Healthcare at wholesale”

Infrastructure upgrade

Technological innovation

I dislike Wilson’s candidacy for his focus on weed, his overall non-radical positions, the vagueness of his platform, and his “healthcare at wholesale” policy: people should be guaranteed a good medical treatment, not administer their own (unless this policy means something else, which simply goes back to vagueness).

Conclusion
There are this year’s current United States Green Party Presidential candidates. Many have a radical, leftist, and anti-imperialist platform, while others fall short of radical positions, or their positions are simply not detailed.

In 2016, PSL caught the Peace and Freedom Party’s nomination and received over 74,000 votes: the most for a socialist party since the 80s (Sonia Johnson garnered 72,000 on the SPUSA ticket in 1984). Peltier running as a prisoner conjures up the memory of Eugene Debs, who ran for President in 1920 while a political prisoner for opposing the draft: he garnered 919,799. It sure would be something if PSL did the same.

The comment announcing the campaign said this:

“The greatest threats confronting the working class and humanity worldwide include the growing danger of new and wider wars, catastrophic climate change, and the corporate destruction of stable employment — which will have even more devastating consequences in the looming economic crisis.”

“How long should a system endure if its ‘boom time’ keeps 40 percent of the population in or near poverty? How long should a system endure if its main way of increasing profit margins is to strip vital environmental protections, to loot the government resources with giveaways to the rich, to attack labor unions and other social protections? How long should a system endure if it sustains itself only through the war economy, military mobilization and foreign intervention?
Over 140 million people are now dealing with unstable work, unaffordable housing, no savings, no health care, no retirement — and no sign that the future will be any different.

“As the system plunges deeper into these crises, all in search of the almighty dollar, the question for the ruling class becomes how to maintain social control. Demagogues like Donald Trump scapegoat immigrants and launch new crusades against the women’s and LGBTQ movements. Both parties drain city and state budgets by investing in militarized police and racist mass incarceration — the world’s largest prison system. Both parties expand the enormous Surveillance State that keeps watch on the entire population’s every move, every email, text, click and purchase — hand in hand with the telecommunications monopolies.

“The ruling class is curtailing the right to protest and dissent, while turning heroic actions like Standing Rock are turned into felonies. Meanwhile, fascistic and white supremacists movements are encouraged to grow. The Wall Street bankers who committed widespread fraud and foreclosed on millions of families’ homes and the pharmaceutical executives whose massive opioid drug dealing has left hundreds of thousands dead, walk free.

“People who want to change this state of affairs cannot rely on the Democratic Party leadership, which has put up no real resistance to the very real imminent threats, choosing instead to focus on the lie that Russia is responsible for Trump and his victory. This narrative completely hijacked the massive grassroots resistance to Trump in the months after his election, and sapped the energy of so many people who wanted to fight his atrocious attacks on immigrants, refugees, women, workers and the environment.

“When the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency from 2009-11, they did nothing to provide for the legalization of millions of undocumented workers. Today, the Democratic leaders criticize the criminal treatment of refugees by the Republican administration, without mentioning their own culpability in militarizing the border and expanding the deportation machine. Today they present no ‘path to citizenship’ or amnesty for the undocumented, and instead use their suffering for political grandstanding.

“On the vital issues of foreign policy, almost the entire Democratic Party applauded Trump’s bombing of Syria. Very few call to reverse his outrageous recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. They attacked him for being too soft on North Korea and not carrying through his threat to bomb Iran. They support the militarization of the Asia Pacific, preparing for future conflicts against nuclear-armed China.”

“Our campaign supports all reforms which benefit working class and poor people. But reforms by themselves are not enough and important reforms that were hard won by the working class are being wiped out.

“Capitalism is a corrupt, bankrupt system that is destroying the environment and the lives of countless millions, while the super-rich accrue obscene wealth. Its driving force is not just profit, but the maximization of profit, so resolving the rapidly accelerating climate crisis under capitalism is not possible. The whole military-industrial complex and bipartisan foreign policy establishment is willing to wage never-ending and larger wars just to preserve U.S. imperial power that is rapidly in decline.

“Socialism is a system where the wealth of society, created by the labor of working people, is used to create a sustainable environment while providing every person with a decent job or an income for those who can’t work, free education and affordable housing.”

“Socialism does not mean greater taxes on the tiny class of corporate owners who control so much wealth and decision-making over the rest of society. It means removing them from power entirely, and creating new, truly democratic institutions in our neighborhoods and workplaces, at the city, state and national level.

“A socialist system would make the highest priority eliminating institutionalized racism, bigotry and inequalities. Police brutality and mass incarceration would be ended. Native treaties must be honored. Immediate right to citizenship must be granted to all people living in the United States.

“Socialism means making health care truly affordable by making it free for all people. The military-industrial complex and the Pentagon war machine, with its almost 1,000 bases around the world, are not for ‘defense’ but for Wall Street’s global empire. It should be dismantled. The blockades against Cuba, Venezuela and the sanctions against all the other countries, an expanding form of economic warfare, should be lifted..

“Access to contraception and abortion must be guaranteed to all women. Equality in every area of life must be realized for women and LGBTQ people.”

In 2016, La Riva and PSL gained the dual Presidential nomination from the socialist-feminist Peace and Freedom Party; Peltier received it in 2004. I assume they will seek it again this year. Good luck to PSL and all our PSL comrades in their activism!

I’m so sorry that I couldn’t make it to the art gala last week, Parliament has been even more demanding as of late and we are struggling to form a governing coalition. The Socialist Republicans are gaining more traction and I fear they may soon attain enough influence to call upon a snap election, relieving the Prime Minister of his position and the Socialist Commonwealth Party from power. The Libertarian Socialists and the Party of the Worker’s Unions have promised to support us but I fear it may not be enough to stop the Socialist Republicans from tipping the scales in their favor should they opt to garner support from among the right-wing parties. President Raven Twigsworth -- who is the Chair of the Socialist Republicans -- has assured us he will continue to support the PM, but with talks of potential impeachment for embezzlement, I fear the President may be too preoccupied in securing his political future.

Some of my fellow MPs have talked about potentially nominating me in place of Prime Minister Luke Rodriguez, but I would hasten to presume that I have earned enough experience to hold such a high office of prestige and honor. Alternatively, if President Twigsworth faces impeachment and subsequent removal from office, the next election season is approaching, so I could potentially seek a place in his current Vice President’s administration, assuming she too doesn’t face an impeachment proceeding. These are unsettling times in the Commonwealth of Solidad, that much is clear. If I seek the office of Prime Minister, am I betraying PM Rodriguez who has been a mentor to me for the past two years? What do you think, Benny? Should I go for it?

Yours forever,
Grey.

Dear Grey,

From what you said in your last letter, it does sound like the government is sailing through some turbulent waters at the moment. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that you always find a way through and I believe that this is just a speed bump and things will return to normal soon. Whatever happens, I love you so much and I believe in you. If you want to be Prime Minister, I say go for it. If the current PM is really as much of a mentor as you say, he’ll be happy to see his protege take on the mantle. It’s a huge undertaking, I won’t lie. But I know you’ve got big things in store for your career as a politician. I just know one day we’ll be posing for pictures inside the Executive Mansion.
Or if you want to be in the executive’s cabinet, even better. Whatever your heart desires, seize the day, as they say.

Until we see each other again,
Benny