The Second American Revolution : More Revolutionary Proverbs

If someone gets a life sentence for burning up a SUV as a protest action, then this suggests that this modern day capitalist system should receive a death sentence, for if burning an SUV gets a person life in the Soviet Gulag, then surely burning up an entire planet is a crime worthy of a sentence of death.

Let's discuss burning up an SUV so as to examine its value as a revolutionary strategy. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but such a strategy is useless because they can always make another SUV. The correct revolutionary strategy therefore, if you don't like them making more SUVs, is to burn down the system that manufactures such SUVs, which would then get rid of those SUVs once and for all, since they would not just be replacing those burned SUVs by making fresh new SUVs, while locking up angry young people for a life sentence.

If you burn down the system which makes SUVs then at least in the aftermath, under a new system where you have democracy in economics, instead of totalitarian fascism in economics like you have now, then you would have some say in what is going on in the world, instead of being expected to just obey orders. It is because people have very little say and very few actual rights when their economy is fascist that we find young people having their say another way, such as by burning up an SUV, which is symbolic gesture which indicates that they do not like the decisions being made by a tiny little cabal of elite have mores, those capitalists, who, even though that meat grinding gun slinging system of theirs is ruining the planet like some anarchic Frankenstein, still insist on brainwashing people into believing that this wonderful market of theirs represents ‘freedom'.

Capitalism we are told is a ‘free market' thus being the perfect match for Democracy, because like Democracy it represents ‘freedom'. However given that capitalism is actually a fascist system wherein all people are not created or treated equally, we find that Capitalism is incompatible with Democracy, which would then explain why Democracy is sliding into a state of ruinous collapse, and this total inequality and lack of equal rights would also explain why young people who burn SUVs go to jail while capitalists who preside over a discredited system that is destroying the planet go to the bank.

You cannot have capitalists without having lots of poverty, and this means that you cannot have capitalists and have the Declaration of Independence in the same country. No one can serve two opposing systems at the same time, for either they will love the one and hate the other, or vice versa. You cannot have equality and equal rights while having Capitalism at the same time, for when you have Capitalism you must have poverty, which is why capitalism produces poverty as one more of its manufactured products, for without poverty and a deliberate policy of unemployment you would have Capitalists begging for workers instead of workers begging for jobs. This would drain the capitalists wallet, for when someone takes power of you and is now in charge they can name their price and do what they want, because now they are the boss. In order to remain the boss the Capitalist must prevent this from happening, and since the Capitalist system is systemically flawed and poorly designed, the entire system must conspire together in a system of relentless oppression and brainwashing, since a capitalist without cash is a capitalist who does not invest, thus causing the whole system to fall to pieces.

Capitalism is a system based upon the notion of social inequality and as a system it is structured to create a deadly trap and a snare that cannot be escaped. It was a system designed just for the privileged elite, thus explaining its systemic flaws, and therein lies the trap. There is a fundamental moral corruption at the very central core of the Capitalist concept, which then explains why Capitalism is such a corrupt system that it produces nothing but sinners who keep on sinning all the time, who because they are trapped in an immoral and corrupt system, must become partakers of acts of immorality and cruel oppression.

No one with a brain supports capitalism. Only brainwashed people who don't know anything support Capitalism, and they blame the resulting flood tide of systemic immorality that must come pouring out of that immoral system upon ‘original sin', which is handy, because blame must be assigned somewhere, and the Capitalist system has never been fond of criticism, for obvious reasons.

The Capitalist system blames all the immorality that is the result of the natural day to day operation of that system of ruthless oppression upon ‘original sin'. No Capitalist invented that doctrine, since it predates Capitalism by many centuries. This religious doctrine has been at work propping up corrupt systems of domination since the day it was first invented for the purpose of hiding the truth about systems of oppressions, and so it is no surprise that this versatile doctrine has been employed to prop up capitalism just as it was used to prop up slave driving or the feudal landlord system, for like those systems Capitalism is a system of ruthless oppression and exploitation, and so Capitalism had no problem inheriting the religious doctrine of those previous systems.

The Capitalist system hated Marx they did not have a problem with Church. The reasons for this are obvious in that Church doctrine was a system of brainwashing designed to protect sinful systems of oppression from criticism by targeting such criticism at individual sinful pigs.

The Capitalist system hated Marx they did not have a problem with Church, which is damned strange, because we all know this Jesus, and we therefore all know just how much trouble rich capitalists would get into if they encountered Jesus. Fortunately for Capitalists and other powerful oppressors, they did not encounter Jesus and just met up with a church instead. This was a result they could live with as you can see just by surveying history and looking around the world today.

No one can accuse the capitalist system or some capitalist of manufacturing Church doctrine, because that product was manufactured long before Capitalism had need for it so as to hide the real reasons for all the sin in the world.

Capitalism is a system that eats human babies, digests them, and then shits monsters out of its ass end. This is just a natural process and the result of the way the enzymes work in the digestive tract of that particular predatory system.

Capitalism produces sinners, who are then judged and condemned for their sins by the wife of that system, The Church. This is strange because we all know what Jesus said about never judging and condemning, but it turns out when you analyze brainwashing propaganda intended to hide systems of ruthless oppression that you just cannot do that without judging and condemning people. This is true because if you did not judge and condemn people you would then still be looking for the reasons bad things happen and the next thing you know you would be judging and condemning systems of oppression. It is for this reason that our glorious ‘Church Fathers' and ‘theologians' decided just to nullify Jesus for the sake of their religious tradition they were cooking up, and they did many other things just like that.

After the ‘Church Fathers' figured out a good plot to be used to get rid of that Jesus whose revolutionary Marxist type doctrine was destroying Roman Imperialism, they then invented the perfect church system to go along with their doctrine, which took the form of an hierarchical authoritarian patriarchy. This was a logical outcome, because a brainwashing system that is designed from the word go to hide the truth about systems of oppression should be oppressive and authoritarian itself, or the structure would be an ideological mismatch for the ideology. Because structures are simply concrete manifestations of an ideology the structure became authoritarian because systems of oppression by the very nature are authoritarian.

The ‘Church Fathers' invented a religious institution which took the form of an hierarchical authoritarian patriarchy. This is strange because it was Jesus who said that you ‘must not call anyone on earth ‘Father' for you have only one Father in heaven, and you are all brothers and sisters.' Now if we were to obey the letter of the law, then no one should ever call the Pope ‘Holy Father', and perhaps we could call the Pope ‘your Honor' or ‘your Highness' instead. This would not be calling the Pope ‘Father', which was banned by Jesus, but then perhaps we shouldn't call a Pope ‘Your Royal Highness' either, for reasons that become obvious once that brainwashing system is fully exposed to daylight. If we were to obey the spirit of the law we would not recognize the authority of the Pope or any claim to earthly authority whatsoever, for claims to authority are merely demands for obedience to systems of ruthless oppression.

The Church Father's invented a system of domination and brainwashing and called that invention a church. The Vatican then become the holders of the Most Sacred Tweezers. This happened because, according to Vatican doctrine, it was the intention of Jesus to leave behind such a set of tweezers so that any time someone wanted to nullify his doctrines they could pull that doctrine out with the tweezers and just throw it away. However, because Jesus did not want just any ordinary average person screwing around with his doctrines with a pair of tweezers, he decided to grant the authority to use The Most Sacred Tweezers to the religious authorities in the Vatican, so that he could be confident that any time someone wanted to throw out one of his doctrines it would done properly and not in a mistaken way as might happen if it was done by anyone other than a trained professional who was also ordained by God to do the task.

Because this Jesus lost his chance to ruin Roman Imperialism and got stuck with a Church instead, he has decided to make up for lost opportunities by ruining Capitalism while getting rid of a church at the same time, for it turns out that the doctrines of Jesus are just as adaptable as the doctrine of churches, and therefore Jesus can ruin any system of oppression using his doctrines just as a church proved quite adaptable in supporting any system of oppression that came along.

According to the Doctrines of Revolution which were designed by this Jesus, ‘if you are blind you are not guilty of any sin.' If therefore follows that if you are not blind, and even though you can see what a bad oppressive system that is, and you can also see things like how it makes poverty on purpose and so on and so on, then, because you are not blind, it follows that you are guilty of a sin. Even though you should not judge and condemn blind people or helpless victims who are trapped in systems of oppression, you can however judge and condemn sinners with 20/20 vision and Jesus won't get mad at you for doing that.

Jesus also won't get mad at you if you judge blind people in churches, for as he put it, ‘if you are blind you are not guilty of any sin, but if you claim to see your sin remains.' He also said, ‘do not judge and condemn or you will be judged and condemned.' Therefore, because churches claim to see, and because a church doctrine judges and condemns as a form of supporting oppression by finding some scape goat to blame for system wide flaws, you can judge and condemn religious people all you want, and not have to worry about being judged by Jesus because you did a bad thing by judging religious people. That would get you a big fat reward and not a condemnation.

The whole purpose behind judging and condemning religious people is not to get religious people condemned, but to make it impossible for them to live with themselves. For you see, given how people must sin if they live under a sinful system of oppression, religious people will always be found with lots of sins that can be judged and condemned, because they live in that place and thus are partakers of the cup of sin themselves, which is handy when it comes time to judge and condemn them for their sins. Therefore you should find something that Jesus said not to do and then judge and condemn religious people because it wasn't getting done the right way, or you could try to pull stunts on them like blaming them for the starved babies of the world and then watch them run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to see if maybe they could do something about that sin of theirs, even though they can't do a damn thing themselves since they live under a system that produces and then ruthlessly maintains such poverty. Hopefully such treatment will eventually straighten out religious people and teach them a lesson they will not soon forget, thus causing them to no longer have theology and oppression, having traded it all in for revolution and Jesus instead.

If you live under a system where ruthless oppression is systemic and you rob someone, you cannot just simply give back the money without ruining the whole system and thus ruining yourself.

Burning the house down and bringing the roof caving in on those in the house is not a revolutionary strategy, but is a religious strategy intended to punish the sinful pigs in the house. A revolution could be a more orderly process than that.

According the Revolutionary Theory of that ‘Jesus', if you want to have a revolution against rich, strong oppressor, first you must disarm the oppressor and then use ropes to tie up to a chair. Once he has been well knotted you can then plunder his house, as revolutionaries are always wanting to do. Unfortunately Jesus was not able to tie up Caesar because the church unknotted him and let him go, but since his doctrine is versatile he has decided to tie up and rob capitalists instead. Hopefully they will stay knotted this time, or everyone will be real sorry just like they have always been for about two thousand years since the last time the oppressor was unknotted.

If anyone was wondering why churches are not found practicing knots but are instead having church, the problem seems to be that churches have something called ‘the canon of sacred scripture.' Now keep in mind here that the ‘sacred canon' was voted on in the fourth century by the same pricks who had used a knife to cut those knots and you can begin to see right away that we could very well have a problem with the canon. If you also keep in mind that they burned up lots of books then one can justifiably suspect that they canonized wrong books and burned up good books, and that most of the heretics in those days were probably not heretics at all but were the resistance movement, thus explaining how they got nailed with a charge of heresy.

The ‘Church Fathers' burned up every last copy of the Gospel of Thomas, which consists only of the parables of Jesus with no narrative story line. This is strange, because it means that the ‘Church Fathers' found the parables of Jesus to be heretical, thus explaining why they burned the book. They wanted to control the agenda by brainwashing everyone, which then explains why they wanted to write a narrative to go along with those parables since that would have to be how that was going to be done. Fortunately copies of the Gospel of Thomas were found in recent times and this allowed me to read the parables of Jesus without any narrative and thus figure out what he was talking about so that I could have a revolution instead of having something real worthless like ‘spirituality' instead.

I do not want to get into a long discussion concerning the flaws in the canon, because I am writing proverbs at the moment (or short parables). Let's just say that we got the Gospel of John so we could get spiritual and worship Jesus like a God so we could get away with not doing what he said and still make it look like we were extravagant in our piety. We got the Gospel of Mark, because we needed a narrative, and then we got the Gospel of Matthew, which is a recopied and slightly edited version of the Gospel of Mark, because The Gospel of Mark was against the infallibility of the Bible, attacking the Jewish Torah, which offended someone who therefore wrote a pro-Torah version of the same Gospel (from chapter six onward Matthew copies the Gospel of Mark, reinventing the wheel you might say, which was only required because it was an offensive wheel). As I pointed out previously, later on we got the Virgin Birth story added onto the Gospel of Matthew because it didn't have a Virgin Birth story and so therefore it needed one so that the church could be extravagantly pious and worship Jesus like a God so they could cover up for the fact that they hated his revolution.

Later on we got a third version of the Gospel, once again based on Mark, as well as some of Matthew, known as the Gospel of Luke, and while you might think that the third time making the same narrative wheel would be lucky (three on a match) this turned out to not be true as it was actually one time to many when it came to spinning more narratives. It has been said by the church that the Gospel of Luke was the very highest and best of those three redundant wheels, which should be taken as a pretty good indication that it is actually the worst of those triplets. This turns out to be exactly the case, for to give you the short version, Luke lectured people to get back to those Pharisee religious practices, which being religious mumbo jumbo were worthless (for example having Mary cut a pigeons throat to make up for the sin of giving birth to Jesus, and then go into solitary confinement for 30 days, which was the Pharisee custom for dealing with women every time someone got born). This was the opposite to the original teaching in the first of those wheels, where we are told that Jesus drove those pigeon peddlers out of the temple with a whip. Naturally in Luke's version he used a whip on people who selling house hold items in the temple, turning it into a wall mart, because you see, Luke supported that pigeon system, and therefore since it was the third turn of the wheel, and there was still offensive aspects of Jesus that needed to be purged, Luke picked up a pen.

Even worse than that is that Luke was offended by the revolutionary doctrine of Jesus and decided to not tie the oppressor to a chair but instead to appeal to his better reformist nature, and thus present polite policy papers to the oppressor, or invite oppressors to conferences, and so on. This was better than that knot tying business, according to Luke. This is why you see churches acting as they do, and collaborating politely with oppressors, and urging them to reform slightly and so on, without criticizing their oppressive system. Luke recommended they do that, since it was better than trying to disarm the oppressor, tie him to a chair, and then rob his house like Jesus told the church to do, and which the church did not want to do, so they listened to Luke instead. This shows why it is valuable to have a canon, for it turns out that if you have a canon you have an excuse.

Someone might say in defense of Luke that he left us with lovely leftism, but unfortunately that was Stalinism, wherein the role of Joe Stalin, the new boss, is played by Peter, the Pope, who was supposed to establish a bureaucracy and then run the entire economy like an authoritarian Stalinist communist system wherein all private property was abolished, since it was communism, but they actually gave all their property to Peter the Pope, so it was actually Stalinism being promoted by Luke. This form of ‘reformism' masquerading as leftism, is not a good form of leftism, since like Luke, it is just another form of domination, and therefore there is very little good leftism in Luke. You see Luke liked oppressors, as you can tell, but he frowned upon the unruly unwashed mob, as you can tell, and he also sympathized with oppressors and their difficulties in handling unwashed mobs of people, for heavy on the head lies the crown of the King. That the church did not set up Stalinism is one more example of why the church needed to keep hand the Divine Tweezers, because sometimes you had to tweeze something and then throw it in the garbage and it wasn't always just the teachings of Jesus that would get that treatment with the tweezers.

As Karl Marx noted, ‘spirituality' is the narcotic of the masses, and since you are going to need to shoot up on dope if you don't have a revolution and thus have to live in hellish times, you can see how the ‘Church Fathers' were capable of small acts of mercy and were not totally ruthless pricks, since they did leave behind a stash of dope, knowing full well as they did that people were going to be needing a fix now and then after they got through with that job of theirs.

Now Both Jesus and Karl Marx did not like rich ruthless oppressors and were thus both found to be plotting to find someway to disarm the bastards or leave them knotted to a chair. For this reason Jesus would not be found quarreling with Karl Marx like churches quarrel with Marxists. The only argument Jesus would have with Karl Marx is that Marx was proposing to shoot his way into the strong man's house. This would make Jesus start a quarrel with Marx over revolutionary theory. "Karl,' Jesus would say. ‘You weren't planning to invade the bastards house when he is fulling loaded and armed for bear hunting. You will have to shoot your way into his house and you wouldn't want that.' Jesus would then start a long revolutionary dialogue with Marx discussing the strategy of tying the oppressor to a chair and taking away all his guns first, and then robbing him, because that strategy would be a lot less messy as well as being a lot less risky, for as we know, well armed oppressors are notorious for shooting their way out of troubles if they can get away with it. Therefore, according to Jesus, getting rid of that option at the very start is the best and most orderly way to have a revolution. Should gun fire break out, it wouldn't last long, and would not turn out to be a long ordeal like the ordeal of the freedom fighters in Iraq, who are fighting an oppressor who is still fully armed, which takes a hell of a long time and is quite messy.

A poor old widow will give her last coin to some religious pharisee, because she doesn't know what she is doing. If you are blind you are not guilty of any sin, which explains why the oppressor insists on brainwashing people, for blind people will sin without knowing it was a sin.

If you are not blind, you are guilty of a sin, and therefore you become guilty of blowing people up in Iraq or shooting them, even if it wasn't you who were pulling the trigger.

Many church people are guilty of murder in Iraq even though they are blind, but because they claim to see, they are guilty of Imperialist Colonialist aggression in Iraq and therefore should be judged as though they were the devil incarnate, even though they are clueless and don't a clue in their head about what is really going on.

If you are not blind you should not sin by supporting sinful systems of oppression, for if you are not blind you are guilty of a sin and will be judged and condemned. The judgment and the condemnation you will receive is that you will perhaps get gunned down in the cross fire during a violent revolution, or perhaps blown up by a road side bomb, or maybe something even more atrocious might happen to you. Repent therefore, and become a revolutionary and turn from all sinful ways, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Now according to that other revolutionary much like Jesus, who also stood up against rich ruthless oppressors, Karl Marx, money is merely an ideological abstraction and it represents labor power. You could barter to exchange two objects. If one object takes eight hours to make and the other object takes four hours to make, if you exchanged two of the latter for one of the former that would be considered a fair trade. If you don't want to barter you could use an abstraction to represent labor power instead, such as money, and just trade around money, instead of bartering. This money system will work fine just as long as everyone is signed onto the social contract and thus agrees that instead of bartering for the labor power they will all agree to use an abstract symbol for labor power such as money.

When I was around 12 or 13 years old I had a flash of revolutionary insight when I realized that money was an abstraction for labor power. You see that Marxist idea is just stating the obvious and so then even a 12 year old wannabe revolutionary such as myself could figure that one out if enough effort was put into it. Now it turns out that the fact that money is an abstraction for labor power has revolutionary consequences, for what it means, as I realized when I was 12 or 13, is that the world is rich beyond belief in that there are all these billions of poor people without a dime, each of them a latent reservoir of labor power worth hundreds and hundreds of trillions of dollars. Therefore the logical conclusion to draw is that the reason that poor people are poor and can't get anywhere is not because we are short on cash, but rather because we are oppressed by ruthless oppressors.

This is an important point to make, because there are people who cry out that they would like to save the world but we are short on cash and thus cannot afford it. Such people do not know Marxism, and therefore they cannot think straight, and assume that they we need money, when actually we don't, since it is only an abstraction and a social convention.

Due to the cash shortage there are those who say we might end poverty in centuries of capitalist development, even though we have had centuries of capitalist development, giving us Imperialist Colonialism, which is a form of armed robbery, thus creating the so called ‘third world' and its miseries, and writing a prescription for a virus to cure the same virus is not a valid way to practice medicine.

Now there are also those who will say that even if we took every dime from the capitalists we might only be able to scrape up a small sum for each poor person in the world, thus making the Robin Hood theory worthless. They will then work sums to show you how little that might be. However what they forget is the principle known as leverage. When I was 12 years old and working on my revolutionary theory, I realized that I could rob every capitalist on the face of this planet and still not get enough money, but then I also knew that I had hundreds and hundreds of trillions of dollars of latent capital locked up in vault, waiting for someone to pick the lock and humiliate the entire planet by ending poverty by spending a fortune in latent capital, and so therefore I decided that the best strategy was to rob the capitalist and then use that smaller amount of money as leverage thus allowing me to pick the lock on that strong box. This became, and still remains, my revolutionary theory.

You would not want to rob a capitalist and then give poor people money as a donation. What you would want to do is invest that money in such a way that the hundreds of trillions in labor power can be released using that leverage. For this reason you would not want a capitalist investing money for a capitalist would be looking to pocket a profit and thus make wrong decisions and screw up the third world even more than its already been screwed up. You would want to set up a system that had a functioning brain, and that would make decisions not to make money but rather to develop the world, and no capitalist has ever done that.

The IMF proposes giving them a few more centuries to get around to starting, but I say to hell with that idea. After all, under the Capitalist system, when someone doesn't do their job right they get fired. Now I know what will happen. Whenever anyone proposes firing a capitalist for some damned reason that causes huge screaming, unlike when you fire tens of thousands of workers, which is reported on the same sports scores are reported, and seems to have about as much emotional impact.

Now according to some people, Jesus was the world's leading manufacturer of doormats. According to that misguided theory, according to Jesus, who was a lovely pacifist, whenever you are being oppressed you should just lie down like a doormat and take it. This is called ‘Christian Spirituality' and it is supposed to be just a lovely thing, because it is the pacifist strategy. For this reason people call pacifist strategy the most worthless thing they ever heard about and they consider that Jesus to be some kind of an idiot who just get us all killed or have the planet wrecked around us while we did nothing worthwhile to save ourselves, because taking action requires some aggressive moves and pacifists are supposed to lie down like doormats.

Now that Jesus was confused with a doormat manufacturer is no surprise when you consider that the leading manufacturers of doormats were those ‘Church Fathers' and that church they founded. For you see, sometimes you use tweezers on Jesus and just throw things into a garbage pail beside your desk if you are writing up theology, but on other occasions you do not need to be so brazen and can use brainwashing tactics on people instead. It is also better to avoid being brazen if you can possibly avoid it and so brainwashing is always to be considered the preferred strategy for that very reason.

Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the one cheek that you should turn the other cheek, and that if someone takes your cloak you should also let them take the rest of your clothes. According to doormat theology, what this means is that if a feudal landlord was oppressing a serf the serf should just lie down like a doormat and take it. Then later on that serf could show the muddy footprints on his back to other serfs who would admire him for his ‘Christian Spirituality'. How very ‘Christ like'.

What most people don't know is that in the culture of the time, slapping someone on the other cheek was socially unacceptable. An oppressor could slap the one cheek, and that would be fine, for people were conditioned to accept such acts, but to slap on the other cheek would be a scandal for the oppressor. Similarly, if an oppressor took your cloak, that was socially acceptable. People had normalized that act of oppression so that if they heard about it they would react the same way they might react if they were given the latest sports scores. Taking a cloak had about that much emotional impact, because it was an internalized system of oppression, which had become so normalized that people became used to the idea. However if an oppressor stripped you naked that would be going to far. If an oppressor took your cloak and then everything else, that was not yet normalized and so people would be scandalized with the oppressor, because the oppressor had not yet figured out a way to strip someone naked and get away with it by making everyone think it was normal, so he had to just take a cloak, because otherwise people would get mad. Similarly he could slap that other cheek or it would be scandal in that particular culture.

Someone might ask why slapping a cheek on the other side would be scandal, and I would reply, ‘does it matter.' In that culture it would be a scandal. In our culture perhaps you could slap any cheek or perhaps you could slap no cheek at all. That's not the point. The point is simply this. Oppressors oppress because they can get away with it. Therefore the doctrine of Jesus was, simply put, that if you want to struggle against systems of oppression you must make oppression social unacceptable. The first step in doing this is to notice how acts of oppression have become normalized. Perhaps it is not cheek slapping in your culture, but following the general principle you can always find some other normalized system of oppression once you know what to look for. The strategy then is when you are being oppressed Jesus recommends that try getting more oppressed than you already are, not to be a doormat, but to get people shocked and then to get them thinking.

So then, if you are fired in tens of thousands by a corporation, perhaps tens of thousands of people should show up en masse at corporate headquarters and throw their car keys, the deed to their house, and a big pile of household goods from their house onto the corporate yard. For you see if they are going to take your job then they might as well take everything else at the same time, and go the extra mile in being oppressive, because you are only going to be losing all that stuff in the long run in any case, because you live in that systemically flawed capitalist system, where its dog eat dog, and that capitalist is not going to stop firing people en masse because he does not want to get gunned to death in that perpetual gun fight at the OK Corral known as ‘capitalist economics'. Therefore the general strategy is this : if you are being oppressed then you should come up with a strategy not to stop oppression, which is the typical response, but to find a way to become even more oppressed than you already are. The purpose is not to stop oppression, but rather to expose the operations of systems of oppression which being systems, and not just individual acts of oppressors, facilitate and also even require such acts of oppression as part of their normal day to day operations.