Even if you wanted to break him out, he's here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Detention_Center,_Brooklyn

Good fucking luck.

There's simply nothing to do but wait for his case.

Nothing to do but get the prisons blueprints, have said blueprints tattooed onto body but covertly hidden within a being design. Then commit a serious but non violent crime to land yourself in the prison and then prison break

Won't matter.

He's up against the state who have shown that I f they have to break their own laws they will

I have found that ML's tend to refuse to accept alternative views when supported by similar sources. Almost as if they are not interested in political philosophy or discussion but rather have just memorised doga and get worked up when you push passed their talking points.

But is human nature not more acutely observed within the view of coercion, control and oppression? Marx says himself that the human history is defined by class wars between the haves and the have nots, with or without capitalism we will have a system that expresses control and oppression.

Nah the government would love for nobody to have access to the internet lol

Not really. I mean yes Anarchists believe that the state inherently breeds authoritarianism and should not be seized but abolished. However, most Anarchists believe in horizontal systems of governance with no centralisation of power, which is different to communism.

Anarchists believe and they are correct, that Marxism, M-L ect are authoritarian and violent.

I don't think any both siders are around right now in America that aren't right wing.

In saying that, this post and your comment are examples of the left today being excessively socially authoritarian which labels anyone who doesn't completely conform the enemy.

This is where i struggle agreeing with Marx, i find him to be selectively pragmatic and idealistic whenever the former or latter is convenient.

He acknowledges human nature is to oppress or be oppressed, as even in prehistoric human groups leaders would have formed and social rules enforced, we can assume this from our experiences in social groups. Yet does not believe that communism would lead to centralised oppression despite his historical studies, to me its either he chooses to ignore this factor or people misinterpret his writing and they cannot be applied in a post industrial capitalism society.

Non anglo-saxons

So everyone? Ain't any Anglo Saxon around since that little old conquest of 1066

In my opinion and view of it all is that of violence being intrinsic to human nature. I mean we come into this world through pain and blood. Nature itself is violent, a rule of biological life is that it must consume other life to sustain its own, we may be intelligent but we are still products of nuture and also its subjects. We exist wihthin a universe where violence and life are directly linked.

I dont think that means you shouldnt strive for what you are striving for, but its also about probable change as much as its about possible change and in my view all change requires a degree of violence.

But doesn't that just affect his state charges? Aren't his federal charges the one that are the real issue?

I agree that neither party is preferable in the sense that the democrats should be praised or idealised and i definitely agree that the democrats and in my opinion "modern progressives" have no ability to combat facism. As they are both the product of eating with a silver spoon for too long and both dont want to change the system of power, they just want to seize control of it and weild for themselves.

The left today is just too scattered to compete with facism. Either you're a social authoritarain who seeks power but cannot take any tangile steps like facism or you are leftist like many people on this plastform and get stuck in semanticallyu intel;ectualising bygon theories and hyper spefici idealogical labels

The left hand always been authoritarian, far left marxist-Leninist believe in authoritarianism, just their style compared to the rights fascist style.

Modern progressivism is the left being socially authoritarian. People who identify with a political ideal or side typically don't care for objective truths.

Yeah sorry i didnt intent for any of that to come accross like it was targetted at you.

To clarify i dont mean authoritarian socialists - i mean modern progressives who focus on social issues (not socialism) being overtly authoritarian within the realm of social dynamics in society.

I do think you are naive, but i think its a comendable mindset and just because i think you are naive does not mean anything other than that i dont share the same faith in people as you do. Maybe im too nihilitistic.

But you'll believe USSR reports? To me, viewing your claims in this comment thread, you seem to dismiss anything that doesnt fit your narrative as baised or uninformed.

Im pretty sure its the exact opposite.

No actor is paid the same as any other actor wyd?

They each have an individual value in the industry. Like if the rock is acting alongside Jennifer Aniston then the rock is obviously going to be paid more.

"bothsides" is by the majority of people in reference to the two political parties (in reference to america), not left wing and right wing in a political ideological sense. As you said both political parties operate within a system of opperssion fighting for control of power. Neither side is good, but one could say that one side is definitley more damaghing than the other in a realist sense.

i think though from my experience, today the left, specifically, moderern progressisvism has become far too socially authoritarian, as an arnarchist type i cant abide by any authoritarianism and the left is no stranger to it.