Aren’t you conflating the act of communication with an attack on sovereignty. Nowhere in this article did I find a communication among peers to be outlined as an attack on sovereignty. I thought it was clear that the attack on sovereignty in this article was by a coercive stronger person/party on another. This is made clear in the examples given. You have chosen to take a sound bite out of context and created an entire argument/rant against the person who tries to communicate while not offering any backing to your own assertions.

Most of your rant centers on the assumption you actually have a clear construct of Caitlin Johnstone’s mind. We were never given any backing to this construct other than the aforementioned weak assertion. You then go on and on in what amounts to a personal attack on your construct of the author. I personally find this type of fallacy based attacks distasteful.

You seem to find anything associated with socialism, in any form, to be abhorrent, yet, nowhere do you show which or what part of socialism is to be reviled. But that does not stop you from pairing up that word with the author and based on that continue your attack. You make the assertion that “socialism” in some way is anathema to sovereignty, yet, offer no objective argument to support this. I think that any of the terms “socialism”, “individualism “, “structuralism” and others are ideas in constant evolution. None of them are able to fully describe the complex world we have a brief span to experience. All these mental constructs are useful tools. Any serious student would not just assume that one tool is sufficient to make head way on personal understanding let alone fully reproduce reality in our minds. That would be like the carpenter having only a hammer. That poor carpenter certainly would make interesting furniture. Those that think any one of the “...ism”s does hold the absolute truth is a high priest of that “...ism”, and, in that case, should be well within their right to rant and rave for their congregation. I fully support that if done honestly and does not infringe on others that do not have faith in it (sovereignty).

You make the case that the author should reflect on accusations you have thrusted on her of which you do not want to hear. You might do some reflecting as well and if you have some substantive thoughts, I for one would listen.