I write this from a place of extreme fatigue and exhaustion with the current extent of my influence and my lack of compensation. I am a successful and legitimate entrepreneur who has capitalized on my creative passion. Despite my advocacy and insistence against the exploitation of my circumstances I have been forced to deal with man children telling me I need to be more decisive. 

Going to extreme lengths to influence my silent majority in a way that provides an equilibrium. One that takes painstaking effort in which I am regularly written off as the fool. Made fun of and ridiculed. Pushing to keep my spirit as high as I can. 

In Plato's Apology, Plato recounts the passing of his mentor Socrates. Bestowing, the reader an interpretation of Socrates's final messages as he accepts death.

If my memory recalls, Socrates final words were to his deer friend Crito in which he reminds him "To feed the cocks." just before drinking the hemlock and embracing his demise. A seemingly obscure statement in the face of facing the great unknown that has daunted and inspired all human curiosity. 

I find that every time people speak upon the final dialogue of Socrates, the attention is applied to his fearlessness in faith that the soul is immortal. In classic Socratic method, the argument is profound and about as irrefutable as an argument could be. But what fascinated me deeper than the case of the soul, a theme that is revisited in a number of the Platonic dialogues is his reasoning in embracing death.  

The political undertone in Socrates sentencing and his contempt and simultaneous embrace for democratic practice. Socrates is sentenced to death for corrupting the minds of the youth. As you read the appreciative wisdom Plato tries to immortalize in his mentor, you come to understand that Socrates understood what Witgenstein would spend most of his career appealing to in his writing. That all philosophical, social, and political issues can be boiled down to the disparities in linguistic confusion. 

In essence, the absolute sense of being in the individual, is bolstered and empowered by the utility of language while also dismanteling the conscious capacity of what their capacity to communicate. Essentially, the phenomenon of consciousness is that of a species of individuals with a capacity for linguistic abstraction and retrospect. 

I only mention this, though my memory faulters when trying to confirm if such a sentiment is expressed in any of the dialogues, because it feels important to appreciate when understanding the art that is The Socratic Method. As you read the dialogues you appreciate that Socrates's greatness isn't inherent to a specific belief, but rather it's capacity to highlight the futility of dogma in any belief his opposition holds. 

So, when asked why not stand trial and defend himself we get a rare insight into a belief that the Greek Philosopher holds. His simple rebuttal being that he disagrees with the judgment, but he will not debate the judgment of his peers. For they were fair to the process that raised him, educated him, sheltered his family, and trained him in times of war. If they are the extension of that said democracy in a way that is reasonable and just, then he accepts the sentence. 

When Crito, his wealthiest student, offers him safe passage and escape from his eminent fate, he refuses. He refuses on the grounds upon the argument presented above. Which raises a fascinating point. One that Rousseau explores late in his Social Contract theory. 

Put quite simply, the essential function of a democratic government is to exist as an impersonal force to create an environment of actualized rights that protect inherent peace and freedoms of individuals in a cohesive social setting. It is the authority of the government to serve and protect when those rights are infringed upon and that environment of cohesiveness and peace is not mutually recognizable amongst peers. 

There is an inherent trust in this process that is essential in order for to function in a reasonable way. A trust that is delicate and must be honored above all else. A trust from peer to peer and from each one of those peers to the government. 

The reason Socrates makes the statement is a deceleration into the nature of trust. Raising the essential question of our curropt times, when do you break the law? Because every time the law is broken it erodes the delicate balance of trust in those laws; breaking down that which holds it all together. 

Now my influence won't be acknowledged for reasons that don't concern me at the present moment. What is important to recognize is that there exists an influence. How does one go about utilizing that influence in correlation in times where the trust between the public is polarized and neither side as absolute faith in the system designed to serve and protect. 

In times of extreme authoritarianism, it is essential to resist and rebel. Ideally these are always peaceful. Anything other than peaceful protest will not last in any substantial way.

The nature and social responsibility of the poet has long been disputed. Based off my readings and my personal experience I find that, at least to my particular circumstance, when done in original fashion a manifestation of the times in which we live. This may seem obvious to the spiritual experience who understands that we are each the subjective experience of the universe. But I find that the poet is the subjective experience of the culture of the times in which they live. 

When break the law? Well, if my experience is the subjective manifestation of what our culture is experiencing then there is great reason for alarm. For I am currently living in a nightmare. I will ring my bell and drum my drum, at the expense of the present deeming a fool and the future hopefully attaining a glimmer of hope and solution. 

I am being censored, having my finances withheld from me, and silenced. If you read the subject matter of my writing then it is easy to understand that I say nothing alarmingly politically or socially. Though I do hold the nature of power in contempt. The essential nature of my anarchism is completely contingent upon the nature of my circumstances because like Socrates I have been deemed guilty and forced to contemplate when it is appropriate to break the law. 

Socrates deemed that he must swiftly face his fate because the democracy that made him the ideal citizen was working in a proper fashion. I am not Socrates. I write to you as an outlaw. For the verdict of my guilt was not passed by a jury of my peers, but by a curropt minorty with a majority of the power. Wanting so badly to find dirt on my clean record for the simple reason that the narrative of my experiences is counter to the narrative that maintains convenience of those who are the lynchpins of success, power, and influence. 

I have not bent the knee enough, kissed enough ass, and not been complacent enough to sit at the table in which my efforts have afforded me a seat. They restrict the numbers they believe is power for the allusion of their comforts has disassociated themself from the futility of their own mortality. A reality the meek and marginalized do not have the luxury to forget. 

There is the truth and there is what you are being told. The mere fact that you have all heard my story from every mouth besides my own is all the evidence I need to provide as to making the claim for my own validity.

My reason to publish this on Juneteenth is to let you all know that though this is a historic day in the butcher block of American history, slavery still exists. What you are witnessing in my subversion. Maximus rising up.