This Revolutionary Moment
What does the history of revolutions teach us about our current moment in America? What does the current moment tell us about the future of our nation?
Imagine a country drowning in debt. A huge percentage of the nation’s GDP owned by foreign bankers and interests. Much of this debt is the result of foreign wars which ended badly for the nation. Interest payments are piling up and the economy is sputtering.
Imagine this country is ruled by a dictator surrounded by incompetent sycophants and wealthy, detached, selfish elites. This ruler is wholly over his head in addressing the crisis and, instead of surrounding himself with people who will give him sound advice, his advisors encourage him to do things that make everything worse.
The leader thus pursues policies that make the economy worse for everyone. When people protest, they are arrested. Deportations are ordered not just for those in opposition but anyone the leader deems unworthy of living in the country.
On top of all this, more foreign crises arise. As the temperature rises, the leader finds himself incapable of turning the temperature down, making the crises stack on top of one another and envelope each other. The debt crisis spirals into an economic crisis as the foreign policy crisis grows and threatens to drag the nation into war. This spirals into a political crisis as opposition rallies and grows and soon there is a legitimacy crisis as people stop trusting those in charge. As opposition continues to grow, its leaders are threatened and soon jailed, flooding the nation’s prisons with political activists who grow more determined to snuff out the leader. The military is sent into the streets. Civil disobedience and strife becomes violent and the leader, instead of trying to calm the streets, encourages more violence and rage. Political leaders are assassinated. The nation feels like it’s on the brink.
Sound familiar? It should. It’s France in 1789, before the French Revolution.
It is also the British Empire in 1769, before Americans decided enough.
It is also France again before the Revolution of 1830. And1848. Damn, France.
It is also Mexico in 1910.
It is also, as I’m sure you’ve now recognized, the United States today.
In 2001, just twenty-four years ago, the United States had a budget surplus. Following the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the economic crash of 2007-2010, Trump tax cuts of 2017, Covid, and another fresh round of tax cuts thanks Big Bastard’s Bill, the national debt is now pushing $38 Trillion dollars. With a “T” folks. Our debt to GDP ratio is now 124%. I am not a professional economist so will not spend time explaining all this but know that in Russia, comparable national debt was approximately 50% before the 1917 revolution, France on the eve of revolution it was 65% and in England before the American Revolution their debt was 100%. Our national debt has blown past that and will soon get worse.
On top of that, deportations and expulsions and political crackdowns are growing. Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice to pursue his personal political enemies, not just former FBI Director James Comey and John Bolton but also New York Attorney General Tish James, Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and the as-yet-elected mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani. On top of this are the elected officials arrested at ICE protests in New York City, New Jersey, Los Angeles, and others.
A few weeks ago, the host of the History of Rome and Revolutions podcasts, Mike Duncan, was interviewed by Rolling Stone and asked if America is facing its own Roman-style collapse or on the eve of a revolution. This question got me thinking about the current moment we are in and, after much debate and discussion, I have come to this conclusion:
The world is in a revolutionary moment. I believe the world is entering a Third Era of Revolutions. This essay seeks to explain what that means by putting the first two eras in a new context and then examining the United States from that context. My hope is by putting this into words and sharing some historical insights and my conclusions, we can all have a better understanding of what is happening, what might be coming down the road, and what should be done about it.
First, a little history. I’m going to run through a lot of historical information and encourage everyone to do their own research about the historical events below. Do not worry too much about specific details or people because, as you will soon see, this is a ten-thousand-foot view of modern-era revolutionary history and I’m just pulling the highlights to clarify how I see today and why I believe we are in this revolutionary moment and the dawn of what I call a Third Revolutionary Era.
The First Era runs roughly from 1770 to 1848. We will note here that this era, and the descriptions below, are western-focused and do not include developments or details of what happened outside the west until we get to the Second Era, where the forces of western-style revolution fully globalize. This essay is about the United States, talking about the United States, and so events across Japan, China, the Middle East, and Africa during this time period are mostly ignored, though this era does include the Wars for Mexican and South American independence because they were against the kingdom of Spain.
This First Era could be called the era of Liberal Revolutions, where Enlightenment thinking led to revolts against autocratic monarchies across Europe. Constitutions, not kings, became the foundations of government, alongside the consent of the governed. The idea that governing authority came from the people, not God or lineage or anything else, took root across the western world and changed it, irrevocably, forever.
These revolutions date back to the English Civil War of 1642-1651, where conflict between King Charles I and Parliament led to steady erosion of trust in the legitimacy of the government, particularly the spending power. The king believed he could spend whatever money he wanted without Parliament’s consent, while Parliament thought otherwise. Seem familiar? History is a wheel, not a ladder, and we are constantly circling the same damn spokes.
Anyway, during this period, a series of conflicts established Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector, a king in all but name eventually replaced by King Charles II and the foundation of the eventual parliamentary democracy that Britain would become. From these seeds, revolutions demanding citizen participation and challenging autocratic authority would spring all over the world, reshaping it irreversibly as the idea that “the people” should have a say in how they are governed now taken as almost a foregone conclusion. This era ended the dominance of “divine right” as the foundation for legitimate government and introduced the idea that the government’s power stems from the people. As Thomas Jefferson would so artfully put it, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Since the dawn of this Liberal Revolutionary era, the blood of tyrants and patriots have run freely and hundreds of millions have died, all in pursuit of a government led by the people against tyrannical, centralized power. It has not been easy and has not flowed in a simple through-line, but the tenet remains such that we now take for granted that the best form of government is that run by the governed, not by autocrats ordained by God through dynastic ties or violent repression. These types of revolutions continue to this day, most notably in the recent Syrian Revolution, the Arab Spring, and in nations across eastern Europe following the collapse of the USSR (more on that below).
In 1848, the Communist Manifesto was published at the same time as the Second Revolutionary Era kicked off: the Social Revolutions. Social revolutions sought not to overthrow kings or emperors in order to create a new form of government but rather overhaul society itself, sometimes via grassroots revolutionary organizing and sometimes via top-down authoritarian means. In 1848, the western world was in the throes of the Industrial Revolution and society was changing rapidly. Nation-states were moving from an era of agrarianism, mercantilism, and imperial natural resources exploitation for the good of the crown to centering themselves around economic hubs like large cities and ports, with international trade, military dominance, railroads, and factory production, among many other factors, dominating economic growth. In this period, decentralized capitalism replaced all other economic theories as the dominant driving force of economics and society, and it remains so to this day, despite the dreams of the social revolutionaries all those centuries ago.
Speaking of which, no force can rise without a counterforce and, as anyone with a basic high school education will tell you, that counterforce to capitalism was communism. There are excellent primers out there on the differences between the two systems so I’ll skip describing them for the purposes of this essay. Suffice it to say, the conflict between communism and capitalism would dominate much of the twentieth century. The origins of communism is rooted in the failures of the Revolutions of 1848, where for the first time people sought not just to change the structure of government through revolution but the structure of society itself.
Social Revolutions’ biggest precursors, in a way that the English Civil War was the primary precursor of the eventual Liberal Revolutions, are both rooted in France. The first is the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution of the 1790s, where for the first time social revolution was proposed as an end and the mass murders such a change might require were first introduced. The Terror failed and ultimately culminated, after much violence and changes in power, in the elevation of Napolean as Emperor. The second precursor was the short-lived and ill-fated Paris Commune in the 1870s, during the Franco-Prussian and subsequent French Civil War. Because we’re not a history Substack, and instead looking forward, we won’t get into the details here but please take a look if you are interested in learning more about this doomed experiment in true revolutionary social governance.
The Social Revolutions took off in the 20th century, beginning in Russia in the failed revolution of 1905 but spreading throughout the world following the Russian Revolution of 1917 in China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. This era, like the first, continues to this day, and a great example of a non-communist social revolution is the Iranian Revolution, where the goal was to not just overthrow the Shah remake all of society and not at all to introduce liberal democracy or communism. The vast majority of social revolutions are communist, but they need not be and have not been. This is important as we enter discussion about the Third Era.
Now, if we are entering a Third Revolutionary Era, when did the Second end? For the purposes of this essay and the general discussion of America today, we will put a pin on the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Soviet Union collapsed and many of its former republics joined the west (we’ll get to the exceptions in a second). China liberalized its economy following the aborted uprising at Tiananmen Square. Vietnam is now one of America’s great trading partners. Communism as a governing ideology fell by the wayside and left us with two children: Illiberal democracy and social democracy. It is these two ways of governing that dominate the major powers of the world, their seeds sown in the collapse of global communism, and it is these two that have created the current world at the dawn of a Third Era of Revolutions.
This is a bit of an oversimplification but world governments today, in the first week of October 2025, generally fall into three buckets: Autocracies, Drifting Democracies, and Democracies:
Democracies are those countries with robust democratic institutions, regular transparent “free and fair” elections, and strong government accountability. These include but are not limited to Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, the UK, Germany, Colombia, and Brazil. Hallmarks include competitive elections and respect of election results, including peaceful transitions of power.
Autocracies are the opposite of the above, those nations led by dictators where there is no accountability or free and fair elections, where political opposition is regularly jailed or killed, and where the mere mention of protesting the government or striving for different conditions is a life-threatening exercise. Here we have examples including not just dictatorships but illiberal democracies where the opposition has no chance to win future elections. This broad definition thus included countries like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Hungary, North Korea, Cuba, El Salvador, Venezuela, and others. Repression, secret police, and central control of most, if not all, aspects of society are the hallmarks of these countries.
Drifting Democracies are a combination of the two, though that combination is a river generally flowing in a single direction (from democracy to autocracy). A possible exception to this is Brazile, where under President Bolsanaro the nation moved toward illiberalism but he lost reelection and launched a failed coup. He now sits in jail and it is hopeful the slide does not revert and free democracy can ultimately triumph there. Besides this narrow example, however, the road from liberal to illiberal democracy does not so easily reverse. On this track are nations like the United States and Israel, where political leaders are doing their best to undermine democratic and constitutional principles to stay in power forever. I will not spend too much time talking about these specific examples or potential others (Italy, Argentina, and South Africa all seem to be on this path as well) but suffice it to say that, for now, lots of countries once thought to be in Bucket One are now in Bucket Three.
Seeing as we are in the United States, and discussing a potential revolution here, I will now focus on matters here at home and what they might mean in the grand scheme of things. America is in a dangerous moment in its history and where and how we get out of this will determine the course of generations.
Returning to the idea laid out above about the Third Revolutionary Era, if the First Era was about liberalism and ideals about human individual freedom and the Second Era about social change and the reshaping of human existence, what will the Third Era be about? What will people seek to create?
One historical revolution may hold the answer: The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920.
From 1876 until his overthrow in 1911, President Porfirio Diaz ruled Mexico as a dictator in a system we would now label “illiberal democracy.” Every four years like clockwork, Diaz would announce that he was considering retiring but then, “because the will of the people demanded it”, he would announce he was running for just one more term. This led to rigged elections where he would run up the score against nominal opposition and his absolutist rule would continue.
This continued through the election of 1910, which was preceded by an announcement in 1908 by Diaz that he, then 78 but turning 80 by the subsequent election, was considering retirement and “welcomed” opposition. This led Francisco Madero, the scion of a wealthy family in northern Mexico, to launch a quixotic campaign for president. He expected to lose and thought he was setting himself up for a run at leading the post-Diaz future sometime down the line. Just before the 1910 general election, Diaz got spooked by Madero’s campaign because it was gaining a lot of momentum thanks to the persistent economic crisis that erupted following the Panic of 1907. Even in a free and fair election, Madero was unlikely to defeat Diaz but Diaz took no chances. Shortly before election day, Madero and many of his supporters were jailed and they sat in prison until days after Diaz declared himself reelected. It was while imprisoned that Madero recognized that as long as Diaz was in charge, Mexico would never be free, and from that point forward dedicated himself to violent revolution to overthrow Diaz. His revolution was a liberal revolution launched with the explicit goal of establishing a constitutional democracy in Mexico.
Right around the same exact time, Emiliano Zapata was rising to prominence in the small, rural state of Morelos, just south of the nation’s capitol in Mexico City. His “Zapatero” revolution sought serious land reform that would take land from the government-backed landowners and return it to the people. While Madero rallied his armies in the north of Mexico, Zapata launched a decade-long guerrilla campaign to change Mexican economic policy. His was a social revolution, focused not on government reform but systemic changes in Mexican society. Indeed, he rejected centralized national government and pushed for an aggressively federalist system where states like his had the power to make much of their own rules.
Both of these revolutions happened at the same time and occasionally merged through the tumultuous decade that saw multiple assassinations and coups, though neither Madero nor Zapata would make it to the end of the decade alive. The revolution formally ended in 1920, with the adoption of a new constitution and a cessation of hostilities but the goals of the revolution would not be fully implemented until the next generation of leaders took over beginning with President Lazaro Cardenas in 1934, marrying the liberal goals of democratic republicanism with many of the social goals of land reform pushed by Zapata.
This revolution provides an example of a revolution that married liberal and social revolutions to give us something new that worked for the people of Mexico, not unlike how the English Civil War was a precursor to the liberal revolutions more than a century later, and how the failures of the French revolutions sowed the seeds of the social revolutions that would dominate the twentieth century.
Moving now to the United States today, we must ask: When does a revolution become inevitable? When is it “too late” for the government to stem the tide of civil conflict and revolutionary regime change?
As discussed above, history is no exact science and there is no way to tell if a revolution is coming until it begins. This moment is not entirely unpredictable and tends to come when three factors coincide:
The government and society are being crushed by the weight of the crises the national leaders caused and/or exacerbated.
Instead of holding themselves accountable and doing what needs to be done to address these crises, the government either ignores them or makes them worse, digging in on whatever failed strategy caused, or worsened, the problems in the first place.
The government will not peacefully yield and mobilizes security forces to crush challenges to its power, cutting off peaceful means of political change and forcing the population to either accept their lot or openly revolt.
I used the word “crises” up there and again, there are three crises that time and time again repeat themselves as immediate foundations of revolution:
Financial Crisis - An economic crisis or a debt crisis that is addressed incorrectly by the government, leading to even greater economic issues, especially mass unemployment.
Foreign Policy Crisis - A foreign alliance, a war, a threat, or pretty much any external physical threat to the regime that they cannot handle.
Political Legitimacy Crisis - The government has lost the faith of a majority of the population but cannot be peacefully removed, thus leading a small but dedicated faction to violence.
Before we get into it, I want to make clear that none of the rules listed are hard and fast. Sometimes revolutions erupt because of just one or two of the six above factors. Also, most revolutions fail, at least at first. The list of successful revolutions is dwarfed by the near-endless stream of unsuccessful attempts to transform a nation.
Regarding the United States today, there are no clean historical analogies. Trump is not King George III or even King Charles X in 1830, though there are similarities. Trump is not the Shah of Iran, he is not Tsar Nicholas II, or even Fulgencia Batista. He is a unique person in all of history, though his traits of malevolent narcissism and his complete disconnect from reality are not uncommon among historical leaders whose people decided to overthrow him.
Second, the United States is truly like no country on Earth. American “exceptionalism” is real, though not exactly in the way some people like to think of it. There is no country like the USA where, for example, there are more guns than people. In pretty much every other country on Earth that has dealt with revolution, arms had to flow from allies. France supplied the United States with guns in the 1770s and the United States supplied multiple sides of the revolution in Mexico through the 1910s. If a revolution or second civil war were to break out (more on this distinction below), every state has military bases, equipment, hidden underground nuclear missiles, and a virtually endless supply of guns and ammunition to support their cause. We also have millions of expertly-trained military veterans, national guardsmen, and police officers, among other security personnel, who know how to fight. If these millions were placed on opposite sides, who’s to say who would prevail?
Finally, Trump is incredibly unpopular. Barely 40% of the nation approves of what he is doing now, according to most opinion polls, and that number is sure to shrink if, say, the economy crashes and unemployment doubles or triples or maybe he sends troops into the streets to murder opposition politicians. Unlike other illiberal modern leaders who came to power via democratic elections and then used the instruments of power to eradicate their democracy (Orban in Hungary, Putin’s early-2000s Russia, Erdogan in Turkey, Bukkele in El Savador, Chavez in Venezuela, etc.), Trump has never been popular. He has never had a mandate for the kind of authoritarian change he seeks. Remember that in 2016 and 2020 he lost the popular vote and in 2024 he barely won it, though still failed to capture 50%. Despite what he tells himself and what the sycophants tell him, Trump is not a well-liked and trusted leader. This is obvious but must be stated: it is much more difficult to resist a popular leader and much easier to resist an unpopular one.
Now, just because Trump is the unpopular leader desperately seeking authoritarian power in a nation full of guns, a nation that has not ever had a dictator, does not mean that a revolution is inevitable. Are the other ingredients of the revolutionary cocktail present? Let’s take a look at where we are in the first week of October 2025:
Foreign Policy Crisis - Not there yet but coming quite close. Russia is threatening to expand the war in Ukraine to all of NATO. Israel has attacked every single one of its neighbors as it continues to wage the war on the people of Gaza, though a ceasefire may happen by the time you read this. Trump himself reportedly “determined” that America is at war with Venezuelan drug cartels and may soon begin a full-on regime change war in South America. He is also threatening war with Brazil over the treatment of the treasonous ex-president Jair Bolsanaro. China is watching this all with their eyes, as always, on Taiwan. North Korea remains unpredictable. India-Pakistan is a conflict that could flare up at any moment. Anything could happen today, tomorrow, or in the next month. On September 30, Defense Secretary Hegseth and President Trump gathered all the U.S. generals from around the world for what many thought could be an announcement of war. The speeches were pathetic displays of faux-manliness and an overt threat from the president to further invade American cities and turn them into “training grounds” for the troops, perhaps in preparation for an invasion of Greenland or Canada or to retake the Panama Canal. Regardless, the crisis is not here, but if you quint you can see it pretty clearly on the horizon.
Economic Crisis - Similarly, the ingredients are all here but the soup isn’t boiling yet. Federal job cuts have directly led to hundreds of thousands of new unemployed and grant cuts, especially in research and to universities around the country, will cost hundreds of thousands of more jobs, all of which will put a drag on the economy. Tariffs are already wrecking the economy, especially the agriculture sector which is being bailed out by the Trump administration in a manner similar to the first term. Trump and his advisors are also planning to use the (currently ongoing as of this writing) government shutdown to further cut hundreds of thousands of jobs and slash the government to the bone. The stock market, however, is paying no mind because tech companies are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars in AI development and data center construction. These data centers, by the way, are driving up the costs of energy and water all over the country, with minimal positive economic impact. A few hundred jobs for maintenance and construction all in support of creating computer programs that will potentially replace millions of jobs. Speaking of construction (and agriculture), deportations have removed thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people from the workforce, further dragging down potential economic growth. Moreover, we are seeing a collapse in international tourism and general economic investment because of Trump’s xenophobia. There’s also the risk of public health crises rising out of antivax beliefs causing outbreaks of diseases successfully eradicated with vaccines just decades ago. Finally, many revolutions are predated by famines (Russian and Mexican in particular) and despite the coming bailout, the agriculture industry cannot survive without the large immigrant workforce and we may soon see a lot of food rotting in the fields because no one is there to cultivate it, raising prices and creating an Irish Potato Famine scenario. Real horrible stew being brewed but, again, we’re not there yet as the first week of October 2025. Second week? Probably.
Political Crisis - This is the big one. This is Francisco Madero in prison declaring that Diaz has to go, one way or another. This is “the tsar must die”. This is China in 1925 following the death of Sun Yat-Sen. This is the moment when enough people say they have no choice but to fight. This is where “kill or be killed” becomes the dominant narrative among enough people that blood floods the streets. Fortunately, we are not there yet, but not for lack of trying on the part of the Trump administration. The murder of Charlie Kirk led a lot of MAGA people to let the truth spill out that they would love nothing more than to murder their political enemies. The Bloodthirsty Right is parched. In a saner world, cooler heads would prevail and the government would not engage in provocative acts like massive ICE raids and sending troops into US cities and threatening (and arresting) political rivals, but we are not in a sane world. We are in a mad world, run by a mad king. Still, we are not at the political crisis yet. Elections are still scheduled in a few weeks in New York City, New Jersey, Virginia, California, and in municipalities all over the country. If, however, they are canceled or the president tries to nullify them and take over the city, such as he has threatened with New York if Zohran Mamdani wins, then we’re pretty much there. If this happens, and people protest, and the president gives the order to shoot these peaceful protesters (as he wanted to do in 2020) and they follow the order? Well then, welcome to the brink. A monster will be unleashed and the president will ask the American people: will you cower in fear and bend to his violent will, or will you fight? We know what the rich people and the elites are going to do (they’ve already done it), but what about the rest of us?
In conclusion, we are not yet in a revolution, but we are damn close. Trump and his cohort seem to really, really want it. Political violence is never a good idea, never justified, and it always ends badly for all parties involved.
To wish for the death of people one disagrees with, and to make good on that desire, is to light a fire that will not only consume one’s enemies, but inevitably, oneself.
Revolutions also require true authoritarianism and autocracy. The fact that I am able to write and publish this essay that is extremely critical of Donald Trump without going to prison (yet) is proof that we are not at this particular point in our nation’s, or this regime’s, history. Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny lays out a list of ways in which ones know they are in a dictatorship, a situation necessary for a successful revolution. One of these necessary ingredients of a dictatorship is the use of secret police, which Trump is successfully building with ICE (unidentified officers in disguise kidnapping and disappearing people) but the process is not yet complete. We are still in the early stages and there is still time to stave off the need for violent civil conflict.
I want to end this essay by making clear that revolutions and civil wars are bad. They are not romantic. They are not a good opportunity to “clean house” or whatever sick justifications the provocateurs use to justify their lust for murder. Revolutions are a catastrophic response to an authoritarian catastrophe. They physically destroy whole swathes of a nation. They cripple the economy. They transform violence and murder into acceptable means of political coercion. They consume the soul of a nation and vomit out a rotted spirit. They create cycles of vengeance that end only when far too many innocent lives have been extinguished. They are cruel and ugly periods. We cannot, and must not, allow this government to drag us into a civil conflict that will only end when most of the active participants are dead.
That is what dictatorships, civil war, and revolution are: exercises in mass death. At least a million people died in the Russian Revolution. At least 500,000 people died in the Spanish Civil War. Over 100,000 people died in the French Revolution. The last time the United States went to war with itself, approximately 620,000 people died, or roughly 2% of the population. Applying that to today’s 340 million, that’s 7 million deaths.
Seven million American deaths. And for what?
Up to this point I’ve used “civil war” and “revolution” interchangeably and, in a way, they can be used as such because every revolution is, by its nature, a civil war. However, not every civil war is a revolution. The main difference is that a civil war entails factions competing violently for power within the same political framework whereas a revolution is where a faction seeks to overthrow the existing political framework.
But the difference can, and does, depend on who wins. The American Civil War is such because the government won and the “rebels” were defeated, though had they won we might be calling that period the time of the Confederate Revolution, especially if they seized control of Washington and decided to expand their slave-owning society across the north and the world, as in the amazing alt-history documentary CSA: The Confederate States of America.
I feel that I can safely conclude we are not currently at a place where we really have to worry about whether we are going to call this period of time “The Second American Civil War” or “The Second American Revolution.” It won’t be named until after it’s over, but we are not yet at the start. Revolutions are long, however, and we may in the early stages. The Seven Years War that was the precursor to the financial crisis that led to the imperial tax policies that sparked the American Revolution ended in 1763. The Boston Massacre was in 1770. The Declaration of Independence was in 1776 and the Articles of Confederation establishing the first independent US government ratified in 1781. Our formal constitution and the ascension of our first president did not happen until 1789. That’s 26 years, an entire generation, from the planting of the revolutionary seeds to the full achievement of the revolution’s aims. As I said above, the Mexican Revolution formally ended in 1920 but the period really began with the Panic of 1907 and did not formally end until the ascension of President Cardenas in 1934. The Chinese Revolution’s primary precursor, the collapse of the Qing dynasty, was in 1912 but Mao Zedong would not establish the People’s Republic of China until 1949. These are long, bumpy roads, and they are not roads we want to be one unless we absolutely, positively have to.
Thankfully, we are not yet on that road. We’ll keep considering what road we are on, exactly, here at The 13 Stripes, ideally at a more regular pace. The belief that we are in a Third Era of Revolutions remains strong here and what that means will be explored in depth in the near future.
Thank you for reading! Please follow exclusively on Bluesky @The13Stripes. Feedback? Email The13Stripes@gmail.com.