Trump's disintegrating coalition — His policies have pushed up the prices of the goods that young and minority voters spend the most on, including food and energy. Tariffs, in particular, have become a source of resentment https://t.co/q5V8Eli4YL #Trump #Economy #Tariffs #Nospecificcountriesarementionedinthetweet.
ExBRICS now. The world will be better, freer and richer without a geopolitical bloc built around authoritarian power, anti-Western resentment and the illusion that dictatorships can design a more prosperous global order. I want a world of open economies, free nations, democratic https://t.co/xJH8DykqdZ #ExBRICS #OpenEconomies #FreeNations #BR #RU #CN
Can You Resist Tyranny? The average person today is incapable of governing themselves, which is why so many yearn for a new “system.” They desire an external imposition of control to order their lives in a way they feel incapable of doing for themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts their resentment as righteousness. Loneliness drives them to find a herd to become one with. Internal chaos creates a demand for imposed order. When you tell people that the answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction, they often mistake this for rolling over and accepting defeat. But chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out, “Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think about every hero story you’ve ever admired. The hero doesn’t take to the streets and try to convince everyone of his cause. Rather, he confronts evil head-on and puts himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. A single competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and value than a mob of NPCs. As Carl Jung said, “a million zeros do not add up to one.” Nor does being well ordered mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. Such a person must possess strength, aggression, ambition, judgement, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and the desire for achievement. The question is what these qualities serve. Money, power, and lust, or love, family, and God? If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or State will fill the vacuum externally. No one looking for a solution to increasing social insanity can afford to overlook it. All others are contingent on it. The answer is not to dissociate from the world and simply pull yourself together. It is that a disordered individual cannot possibly bring order to his environment. By becoming a man of virtue, he can then carry that order into the roles individuals occupy: father, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbour, police officer, and citizen.
“Socialism Was Good in Theory” That assumes socialism’s theory was never seriously challenged. It was—long before the Soviet Union, Lenin, or any national-scale experiment. Five thinkers attacked its foundations from different directions. Tocqueville: Equality Can Become Servitude In 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished democracy from socialism. Both pursued equality, but democracy sought it while preserving individual freedom. Socialism risked achieving equality by expanding state power. Equality, he warned, is not automatically liberty. Bastiat: Redistribution Can Become Plunder In 1850, Frédéric Bastiat examined what happens when the state takes from some to give to others in the name of justice. He called this “legal plunder.” His concern was that politics could become a permanent struggle to control redistribution. Nietzsche: Equality Can Become Resentment Nietzsche attacked socialism psychologically. He saw egalitarianism as potentially rooted in resentment toward exceptional individuals, ambition, strength, and hierarchy. The danger was a culture that treated excellence as morally suspect—not lifting people upward, but bringing the exceptional downward. Böhm-Bawerk: Challenge the Economics In 1896, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk attacked Marx’s economic theory, arguing that Marx’s labor theory of value could not adequately explain the relationship between labor values and actual prices. He challenged socialism’s claim to a scientific economic foundation. Mises: The Calculation Problem In 1920, Ludwig von Mises asked a devastating question: even if socialism is morally desirable, how would planners know what to produce? The sequence is clear: Tocqueville challenged the political premise. Bastiat challenged redistribution. Nietzsche challenged egalitarian psychology. Böhm-Bawerk challenged Marxian economics. Mises challenged central planning. All of them preceded the Soviet experiment. So “socialism was good in theory, but bad in practice” is not an argument. It is a historical claim that requires explaining why these objections were wrong.
The Individual as an Antidote to Tyranny The average person today is incapable of governing himself, which is why so many yearn for a new system. They desire external control to order their lives in ways they feel unable to manage themselves. Riddled with fear, they trade liberty for protection. Ideology recasts resentment as righteousness, while loneliness drives them to join a herd. The answer to collective madness is not collective action in the opposite direction. Chaos does not defeat chaos. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “Madness is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.” Think of every hero story you admire. The hero does not retreat from danger or surrender to evil. He confronts it directly and places himself in the line of fire. A well-ordered individual is not harmless or ineffectual. One competent, strong, and courageous person can carry more weight and provide more value than a mob. As Carl Jung said, “A million zeros do not add up to one.” Being well-ordered does not mean being harmless or indiscriminately nice. It means possessing judgment, competitive instinct, the capacity for force, and a desire for achievement. The question is what those qualities serve: money, power, and lust—or love, family, and God? This kind of person is an antidote to tyranny. If no strong internal ordering principle exists, a movement, leader, ideology, or state will fill the vacuum from the outside. The well-ordered individual is not incapable of rage, vanity, resentment, cowardice, or cruelty. Awareness of these shadow aspects helps prevent ideological capture and frees him from the seductive belief that “they are evil and we are good.” Anyone seeking a solution to increasing social insanity must recognize that a disordered individual cannot bring order to his environment. By becoming a person of virtue, he can carry that order into every role he occupies—as a parent, teacher, pastor, judge, journalist, leader, neighbor, police officer, or citizen.
It turned out the greatest vice of the last man isn't excessive desire for powe but an obstinate refusal to be in charge of outcomes and a deep resentment of anyone who makes them to do so, even in face of death. #PowerStruggle #HumanNature #Resentment #Nospecificcountrycodesarepresentinthetweetprovided.
Crying ''antisemitism'' whenever int'l law is enforced makes no one safer. Singling Jews out for special protection while a state commits crimes in their name, casts them as privileged, fuels resentment, and weakens the fight against real antisemitism -and racism- everywhere. #Antisemitism #InternationalLaw #Racism #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.
“Socialism Was Good in Theory” That sentence assumes the theory was never seriously challenged. It was. Long before the Soviet Union existed, before Lenin seized power, and before socialism had been tested on a national scale, major thinkers were already attacking its foundations—from very different directions. Five of them stand out. Tocqueville: Equality Can Become Servitude In 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville drew a sharp distinction between democracy and socialism. Both spoke about equality. But Tocqueville believed they pursued it in fundamentally different ways. Democracy, in his view, sought equality while preserving individual freedom. Socialism risked achieving equality by expanding the power of the state over the individual. His warning was essentially this: equality is not automatically liberty. A society can pursue equality so aggressively that it begins sacrificing the independence that makes political freedom meaningful. Bastiat: Follow Where Redistribution Leads Two years later, Frédéric Bastiat attacked socialism from a different direction. His question was deceptively simple: What happens when the state acquires the authority to take from some people and give to others in the name of justice? Bastiat called this “legal plunder.” His concern was not merely that redistribution might be expensive. It was that once government becomes the instrument through which competing groups obtain benefits from one another, politics can turn into a permanent struggle over who controls the machinery of redistribution. The problem, therefore, wasn’t simply how much the state redistributed. It was the principle that made redistribution legitimate in the first place. (bastiat.org) Nietzsche: Equality Can Become Resentment Nietzsche approached socialism neither as an economist nor as a constitutional theorist. He attacked its psychology. He saw modern egalitarian movements as part of a much older moral impulse: resentment toward exceptional individuals and suspicion of strength, ambition and hierarchy. For Nietzsche, the danger was not simply that everyone might become economically equal. It was that a culture could begin treating excellence itself as something morally suspect. The goal would cease to be lifting people upward. It would become bringing the exceptional downward. Böhm-Bawerk: Challenge the Economics Then came Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. In 1896, he turned his attention specifically toward Marx’s economic system. His criticism was not primarily moral or political. It was technical. Böhm-Bawerk argued that Marx’s theory of value did not adequately explain how the labor values developed in Capital could be reconciled with the actual prices Marx subsequently needed to explain. In other words, he attacked socialism where it claimed to possess a scientific economic foundation. The argument became one of the central criticisms of Marxian economics and helped launch a debate that would continue for generations. Mises: The Calculation Problem Then, in 1920, Ludwig von Mises attacked an even more fundamental question: Even if socialism is morally desirable, how would a socialist economy actually know what to produce? A functioning economy has millions of competing uses for scarce resources. Build a bridge or a hospital? Use steel here or there? Produce more machinery or more consumer goods? Under private ownership and markets, prices for capital goods provide information about relative scarcity and opportunity costs. Mises argued that abolishing private ownership of the means of production also removes the genuine market prices necessary for rational economic calculation. The problem wasn’t simply that socialist planners might make bad decisions. It was that the system deprived them of the very economic signals required to systematically compare those decisions. (Mises Institute) And that was the sequence. Tocqueville challenged the political premise. Bastiat challenged the moral and legal mechanism of redistribution. Nietzsche challenged the psychology behind egalitarianism. Böhm-Bawerk challenged Marx’s economic theory. Mises challenged the possibility of rational central economic calculation. Five different thinkers. Five different objections. And all of them came before the Soviet Union had demonstrated what large-scale socialist government would actually look like. So “socialism was good in theory, but bad in practice” is not an argument. It is a historical claim that requires you to explain why these theoretical objections were wrong. The interesting question isn’t whether socialism had critics. It did. The interesting question is whether socialism ever adequately answered them” - ChatGPT
From Powerlessness to Collective Madness The world has gone crazy, but there is a pattern behind it. More people seem to be losing their grip on reality, swept up in ideological movements that demand conformity and punish dissent. This progression begins with powerlessness, continues with possession, and ends in resentment disguised as justice. The first stage is the breakdown of what can be called the power process. Human beings need to set goals, work toward them, and achieve them in order to feel whole. Once, daily life revolved around hunting, farming, building, and creating. Today, survival and progress are often managed by vast systems and institutions. As a result, many people feel alienated and powerless. They turn to movements for a sense of purpose, drawing progress not from their personal lives, but from the causes they embrace. Carl Jung described what happens next. Inside a movement, individuals can become possessed by collective identities. Those who refuse the difficult task of becoming themselves may dissolve into the group mind. This is why ideologies such as communism, nationalism, feminism, socialism, and environmentalism can exert such power: they offer ready-made identities and moral clarity. Individuals gradually stop thinking for themselves and become mouthpieces for the collective identity that has seized them. Nietzsche revealed the final stage: resentment. In *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*, he described the “tarantulas”—moral preachers who spin ideological webs in the name of justice. They claim to champion the weak, but their motivation may be envy and revenge, cloaked in noble language. Their goal is not always to uplift, but to tear down the strong. When the world seems to have gone mad, the pattern is clear: people lose the power process in their own lives, surrender themselves to ideologies, and then act out their resentment as justice. The cure is not another movement, but the difficult task of reclaiming individuality in an age of collective madness.
The Three Roads to Evil We live in an age of unlimited access to information. Most of it is a gift, but it also gives us an unbroken view into horror—images on screens, the Epstein files, and constant stories once confined to nightmares. Some shut it off; others stare until it stares back, leaving them cynical. But it has always been this way. Long before Epstein, there was Caligula—years of sadism and cruelty on Capri. In every era, there have been people whose evil makes rationality struggle to explain it. I see three roads to evil: worshipping the wrong things, succumbing to ideology, and becoming so bitter you resent life itself. First: worshipping wrong values. Some make wealth, lust, power, or status their highest good. They lie, cheat, and steal to obtain it, then declare morality and law for the weak. Everyone else becomes an instrument. Second: ideology. When someone abandons a religious worldview, they may fill the vacuum with an ideology that claims to explain everything and promise a perfect world. Communists reduce history to class struggle; Nazis to racial struggle. The ideologue believes society can be remade by controlling causes and effects—people become cogs, sacrificed for utopia. Third: resentment. Those who see themselves as helpless victims can come to hate life itself. They treat hardship as injustice and life as something done to them. Their values invert: strength becomes evil, weakness virtue; love is attacked while lust is celebrated; wealth is theft—and criminals become victims while their victims are the privileged. These roads always exist, and always will. You can’t stop others from walking them. But it’s your responsibility not to.
The Deadly Seduction of Democratic Socialism Young people are being urged to support “democratic” socialism—ideas blamed for tens of millions of deaths in the last century—promising that consent will make it work this time. But consent cannot make an economic system wise. A ballot cannot set the right prices for wages, goods, or services, nor prevent shortages, repression, or famine. This isn’t fringe. New York elected Zohran Mamdani, who says there should be no billionaires and backs rent freezes, state-run grocery stores, free CUNY, and higher taxes. Polling shows strong support for socialism and communism among Americans under 30. The core error is believing resources can be taken from creators and transferred without losing the knowledge that made them productive. Mao’s China illustrates the outcome: land reform dispossessed and killed landowners, production collapsed as local expertise was treated as an enemy, and grain seizures during the Great Leap Forward worsened a catastrophic famine. The lesson: destroying incentives, property rights, and local knowledge destroys production itself. Envy is often disguised as justice. Communist regimes cultivated resentment and turned grievance into political energy, making societies less focused on creating wealth and more focused on making others lose it. Even when central planners tried to subordinate families to the state, people preserved knowledge through markets, private plots, and community practice. Civilization isn’t a machine bureaucrats can redesign. Take away property and you don’t automatically transfer knowledge—abundance can vanish with it. Redistribution may promise equality, but if it destroys the people, incentives, and knowledge that produce abundance, the result is a hungry one.
The Psychology Behind Political Violence Political life carries an appetite for violence beneath the surface. A shooter leaves a manifesto; supporters celebrate; online strangers justify killing over insults, misgendering, and fantasies of execution. We’re told these are separate phenomena—different ideologies, grievances, causes—but they’re deeply connected. The murderer, the celebrant, and the online fantasist share one conviction: blood will build a better world. We often assume ideology comes first, violence second—radicalization infecting an otherwise ordinary person. But corrupted people may seek ideologies that rationalize what they already want to believe. Feeling comes first; philosophy follows. Nietzsche called this *ressentiment*: not ordinary anger, but enduring resentment rooted in surrendered agency and perpetual victimhood. Ressentiment is creative: it turns grievance into virtue and revenge into justice. That’s why movements can sound humanitarian while obsessing over enemies. They promise liberation but focus on who must be eliminated; they call violence self-defense while celebrating destruction. Notice the imbalance: energy goes to identifying who deserves punishment, not to explaining how their better society would work. This is the difference between genuine grievance and pathological ressentiment. Genuine grievance seeks repair; ressentiment seeks subtraction. Its “solutions” are fantasies of punishment—heads cut off, privilege liquidated, wrong pronouns punished. These aren’t coherent doctrines of stability; they’re rationalizations for resentment. Ressentiment also despises self-improvement because it requires admitting agency. Its worldview depends on locating suffering outside oneself. The deepest enemy of these movements, then, is not any specific ideology. It is agency itself.
Leftist “Empathy” Is Actually Narcissism Leftist “empathy” is often narcissism, not real compassion. Over the past decade, Western politics has debated whether empathy is the highest value—yet many policies justified in its name have produced serious unintended consequences: safe-supply programs, lenient bail, mass migration, identity-based social policy, and gender medicine for minors. Hannah Arendt helps explain why. In *On Revolution*, she contrasted the American Revolution’s focus on institutions and limits on power with the French Revolution’s “politics of pity,” an effort to eliminate suffering through political action. Robespierre’s compassion for the masses helped justify terror. Pity isn’t compassion: it creates a hierarchy between the person who pities and the person pitied. Once you claim to represent “the oppressed,” you can stop listening to real people. Much progressive “empathy” projects idealized versions of others, erasing cultural differences and treating disagreement as ignorance or prejudice. Adam Smith warned about the “man of system,” who thinks society can be rearranged like chess pieces, ignoring human wills. Dostoevsky argued abstract love is easy; loving real people is hard. Nietzsche described a morality that flatters weakness and condemns what rises above the herd, while Orwell questioned whether some socialist intellectuals truly loved workers or simply used them to vent resentment. Rob Henderson calls these “luxury beliefs”: status-providing ideas for elites that impose costs on those below them. The moral prestige is immediate; the damage unfolds over decades. So “suicidal narcissism” may fit better than “suicidal empathy”: projection, superiority, and power disguised as compassion.
Why Therapy Culture Is Making Us Weak Why, despite unprecedented mental-health awareness and therapy language, does mental health seem to worsen? If both “the cure” and “the disease” expand together, we should ask what culture produces them. Modern therapy culture often teaches us to prioritize feelings, explain flaws through trauma, and treat negative emotions as reactions to others. Carl Jung proposed a different order: consciousness—judgment, values, and will—should govern the unconscious, including instincts and emotions. Health means understanding these forces without letting them rule. Today that hierarchy is frequently reversed: emotion outranks reason, and “lived experience” can outrank evidence. Jung warned this resembles “psychological Bolshevism,” where lower impulses overthrow higher faculties in the name of freedom. Nietzsche cautioned that “for every drive wants to be master.” The key question isn’t only where feelings come from, but whether we govern them. Therapy culture can also weaken self-criticism, treating conscience, guilt, and shame as oppressive rather than corrective. With “concept creep” (trauma/harm expanding to cover normal discomfort), personal agency can shrink: if everything is done to us, responsibility becomes harder to exercise. This can spread socially: victim identities bond through grievance, replacing judgment with collective resentment. History shows where that leads. The defense is older than therapy: govern yourself before demanding the world be changed.
The Psychology of the Modern Leftist Once you understand the psychology of the modern leftist, the last decade of the woke revolution makes more sense. The endless outrage, hypersensitivity, and rejection of rational debate may reflect something deeper than ideology: a crisis of self-worth expressed as a moral crusade. “Leftist” is a broad term, but here it refers to socialists, collectivists, LGBTQ activists, and similar movements. What unites them may be more than politics; it may also be a psychological orientation. Modern leftism can be associated with feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, guilt, self-hatred, and resentment. These feelings may be repressed while still influencing behavior. The hypersensitivity to language illustrates this. Words once used without negative intent can become symbols of oppression through activist campaigns. Ironically, those most offended are sometimes privileged academics rather than the minorities they claim to defend. Many leftists identify with groups perceived as weak or disadvantaged. This may reflect genuine compassion, but it can also involve projecting personal feelings of weakness onto others. Strength, success, competition, and rationality can consequently become objects of suspicion. Western civilization, America, and other symbols of power may be treated similarly. The criticism can also be inconsistent. Flaws condemned in Western societies may be excused when found in socialist regimes or traditional cultures. This suggests that resentment may sometimes play a role alongside genuine moral concerns. Self-reliance, personal responsibility, and merit are often viewed skeptically, while collectivism is favored. Objective truth can also become threatening because it creates distinctions: some arguments are better than others, and some people succeed while others fail. When equality of outcome becomes the moral standard, truth, merit, and individualism may be attacked—not necessarily to uplift the oppressed, but to reduce psychological discomfort. When victimhood becomes central to identity, problems may no longer simply be discovered; they can become necessary to sustain that identity.
A Manifesto Written Like Scripture** Marxism is not merely an economic theory; it resembles a religion for those filled with resentment. The Communist Manifesto opens with spiritual language, declaring that “a spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism,” indicating a spiritual war rather than an economic agenda. While supporters claim it seeks to redistribute wealth for equity, the text itself lacks words like “neighbor” or “love” in a positive context. Instead, it frequently uses terms like “violence,” “overthrow,” and “abolish,” emphasizing destruction rather than construction. Marx's concrete proposals focus on seizure and confiscation, with little mention of a classless utopia. He advocated for the “ruthless criticism of all that exists,” suggesting a totalizing worldview that dismisses the possibility of reform. Marxists often argue that true communism has never been realized, yet historical figures like Stalin and Mao embodied the totalitarian ambitions outlined in the Manifesto. Bertrand Russell noted that Bolsheviks resembled religious fanatics, quoting Marx like scripture. He drew parallels between Marxism and religion, with Marx as a Messiah and the Communist Party as a Church. The Manifesto states that its goals can only be achieved through the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” indicating a desire to destroy the current world. Interestingly, many Marxist leaders, including Marx himself, came from privileged backgrounds, contradicting the narrative that Marxism serves the oppressed. This pattern continues today, with Marxism appealing primarily to educated individuals from affluent families who face financial stress for the first time. Marxism shifts the concept of sin from individuals to the bourgeoisie, absolving its followers from personal accountability. This doctrine promotes pride, envy, and resentment, elevating hatred of the wealthy as a virtue. It lacks a pathway to forgiveness, viewing class origin as a crime inherited from ancestors. Ultimately, Marxism is not an economic theory but a destructive religion that justifies violence against entire classes in the pursuit of a misguided salvation.
Marxism: A Religion of Destruction and Resentment Marxism is not an economic theory. It is a religion for destructive and resentful losers. The *Communist Manifesto* opens with spiritual language. Marx and Engels declare that “a specter is haunting Europe—the specter of communism”—and that “all the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance” to exercise this specter. Academics and useful idiots claim that the doctrine aims to redistribute wealth in order to create a more equitable world, erasing the distinction between the haves and the have-nots. It is all about love and compassion, guys. Yet, in the roughly 12,000 words of the authorized *Communist Manifesto*, Marx does not use these words of positive affirmation. “Neighbor” is not mentioned, “redistribute” does not appear, and “love” is used twice—but not in reference to loving anybody else. Now consider the opposite. “Violent” or “violence” is used seven times; “overthrow,” nine times; “radical,” fifteen times; “force,” “forced,” or “forcible,” forty-seven times; and “abolish” or “abolition,” sixty-one times. The doctrine is presented as something achieved through violence, revolution, and theft. The one place Marx gets concrete is in his list of ten measures, and every one of them involves a seizure, a confiscation, or an abolition. Of the classless heaven that is supposedly meant to follow, he says almost nothing. Rather, writing to Arnold Ruge in September 1843, Marx claims that his program is “the ruthless criticism of all that exists”—that everything is worthy of criticism—and builds his work from there. Perhaps he was echoing a line from Goethe’s *Faust* that had caught his attention: “All that exists deserves to perish,” a line spoken by a devil. This is another pattern in Marx’s thought. He is not a reformer aiming to make a tweak here or there. His language is totalizing: all, every, everything. Marxists constantly claim that real communism has never been tried. They argue that totalitarian psychopaths such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were merely defects or deviations. Yet their attempts to control everything, down to thought itself, echo the dogma of the *Communist Manifesto*.
Marxism as a Secular Religion A traditionally religious person accepts that they inhabit a world of scarcity and suffering, finding peace through belief in salvation from God. The affluent atheist, encountering hardship and personal responsibility for the first time, may instead become overwhelmed by anxiety. Marxism, disguised as economic theory, promises to relieve individuals of responsibility by transferring it to the system. It offers the religious concepts of a fallen world, a chosen people, certainty, and moral status, while removing Christianity’s most difficult demands: repentance and forgiveness. Rather than locating sin within each individual, Marxism assigns it to a class: the bourgeoisie. Salvation is no longer a process of personal transformation but something achieved by acting against others. The individual is not asked to examine himself, because guilt is always assigned to another class. This helps explain why Marxist revolutions so often end in mass graves. If evil is viewed as a property of a class, then eliminating that class becomes an act of purification. Mass murder is not treated as a betrayal of the doctrine but as its ultimate fulfillment. Marxism elevates resentment to a virtue. It portrays inequality as a cosmic injustice and suggests that hatred of those who possess more is morally justified. Ironically, although it rejects God, it borrows religious language. In a purely material world of atoms colliding randomly, no arrangement of matter can be inherently unjust. Class origin becomes a crime inherited from one’s ancestors, and forgiveness has no meaningful place. When salvation is promised through the violent removal of an entire class, the result is tragically predictable. Marxism is not merely an economic theory; it is a secular religion of resentment and destruction.
The $20 burrito question is a crossroads. Democratic path: address the affordability crisis, end the war & deliver an economy that works for all. Authoritarian path: downplay material grievances, mobilize through culture war and resentment, & rely on intimidation and coercion. https://t.co/6WwJANZZQw #AffordabilityCrisis #EconomyForAll #CultureWar #Nospecificcountrycodescanbeidentifiedfromthetweet.
In an interview, Leopoldo Lopez, a prominent Venezuelan opposition figure living in exile, reflects on his enduring hope for a free Venezuela despite the challenges posed by the regime, emphasizing that maintaining optimism is crucial to moving forward rather than succumbing to anger and resentment. #Venezuela #PoliticalChange #Freedom #VE #ES #US
