#As I say this it becomes increasingly clear to me that this is what Founder does all day but also

[adhdo5]

Who mans the taco bell?

WHO MANS THE TACO BELL !!!

[whoreviewswho]

Gratuitous violence, Philip Hinchcliffe and why Mary Whitehouse was right

There are some things, though not many, that the Doctor Who fandom seems to universally agree on. Everybody can agree that the Weeping Angels are a great villain. Everybody seems onboard with the notion that The Caves of Androzani is one of the best stories of all time. Everybody will attest that the Hinchcliffe era is one of the most consistent runs in the whole show. 

You can probably see where I am going with this. 

Let's take ourselves to 1977, before the beginning of the fifteenth season for Doctor Who. Season fourteen has finished airing in April and it has turned out to be the most popular to date with average ratings of approximately eleven million viewers tuning in each week. Tom Baker’s fourth incarnation of the eponymous hero was riding an enormous wave of success that had slowly climbed during the Pertwee era (seasons ten and eleven were raking in respectable figures of around eight million) and seemed to peaking under the current regime (figures were climbing by a million viewers a year until season fourteen). 

You would think it would be in the BBC's interests then to keep this current team of Tom Baker, producer Philip Hinchcliffe and script-editor Robert Holmes together for as long as possible. That would make sense even now. After all, this is the team that gave us two and half seasons of Tom Baker and Elisabeth Sladen. They introduced Leela, produced Genesis of the Daleks and Pyramids of Mars. This is the era that cemented Tom Baker, the Fourth Doctor, as the most iconic of the original Doctors and still one of the most iconic of all-time, only rivalled by David Tennant and Matt Smith (to date). Even those who could never name him or know exactly what he looks like will know the silhouette off the floppy hat and long multi-coloured scarf. Doctor Who as produced by Hinchcliffe had become a powerhouse production and left an incredible impact.

However, the other thing that Hinchcliffe's run had had become with the public was controversial. Or, at least, that would seem to be how the BBC felt about it. During the mid to late '70s, the Doctor Who production team were under more fire than ever before from public critics (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the fire of one, extremely vocal critic) for the increasingly horrific tone and excessive violent content deemed unsuitable for Saturday teatime family viewing. Mary Whitehouse, founder of the National Viewers and Listener's Association, has gone down in Doctor Who fan history amongst the like of Michael Grade as one of the show's most infamous detractors. Let me make it very clear that there are innumerable reasons to dislike Whitehouse. It is not without reason that The Goodies' response to receiving positive feedback from her about their programme was to craft an entire episode around a grossly unflattering caricature of her. I have no interest in delving any deeper than this into the beliefs of such a person beyond the confines of this silly blue box show but if you are unfamiliar with Whitehouse or only know her from her Doctor Who association, I implore you to undertake your own research to paint as full a picture of her as a human being as you see fit. 

I mention all of this to propose the simple conjecture that perhaps, despite my disagreeing with the foundational reasons of why she opposed programmes like Doctor Who (if she had any amount of media literacy, she would have realised that every aspect of Doctor Who was in opposition to her), she was, in fact, onto something. It feels apt to be writing this so close to my posting of my The Invasion review because there is a similar comparison to be drawn between the Troughton era and the Hinchcliffe/Baker years. Both have been held on a pedestal by the fan community at large as shinning examples, golden periods for Doctor Who where the stories were rarely ever so consistently good and their impact is still being felt to this day. In both cases, these things are somewhat true but it is also true that these periods are a lot more flawed than fans are comfortable to admit. Putting aside the very genuine criticism that Hinchcliffe era Who leaned too heavily upon classic literature and genre film pastiche, there remains a misconception that the show's willingness to portray violent and horrific content at this time equates with it being a mature and compelling drama programme. Torchwood should be all of the evidence you need that this is a fallacy. 

Doctor Who has always contained violence and action and it almost certainly always will. I do not object to this but it has to be said that an alarming pattern emerged throughout the Hinchcliffe years that, I think, would have proved detrimental to the show had it continued any longer*. From the moment the Hinchcliffe era begins, with season twelve's The Ark in Space, it strikes a markedly different tone of the preceding tenure. The story is moodier and unsettling in a way that the show had not been for quite some time. The combined efforts of the production team's sensibilities with Baker's distant and unpredictable performance pushed the show away from the innate comfort that had come from the later Pertwee years. The Doctor was no longer a paternal, authority figure and the threats had shifted from power-mad conspirators and identifiable systemic threats to Lovecraftian forces of nature. Right from the start, this run establishes itself as leaning into primal horror and physical threats with the serial's threat being a creature that uses human bodies as an incubator. It is a terrifying idea and one that a pre-watershed serial airing on the BBC should not have any business attempting to depict. 

But this is still a fantastical horror. Even if the effect did look good, it is still an alien experience. Mercifully, nobody in the real world has had a Wirrn lay eggs in them so the threat becomes a rather soft kind of scare. This is still a fun, for lack of a better word, form of horror and violence. Perhaps Mary Whitehouse agreed with me since her first notable move against the show came a few weeks later with Genesis of the Daleks which she described as "teatime brutality for tots". Season twelve was the last to have pre-production overseen by the outgoing team of producer Barry Letts and script-editor Terrance Dicks. Season thirteen was when the Hinchcliffe/Holmes duo finally found themselves with full creative control. And so, the Hinchcliffe era TRULY begins with the production of Pyramids of Mars (Planet of Evil was produced later though aired before). Now we see where things truly kick off with a distinctly gothic aesthetic, more graphic and realistic violence all in service of a classic film pastiche, The Mummy in this case. Season thirteen closed with The Seeds of Doom, a story Whitehouse strongly objected to; "Strangulation—by hand, by claw, by obscene vegetable matter—is the latest gimmick, sufficiently close up so they get the point. And just for a little variety, show the children how to make a Molotov cocktail". 

The violent depictions in Doctor Who were impactful, of course, The backlash is evidence enough of that fact. But was it necessary? After all, is violence not an essential component in the action-adventure serial? Eric Saward, somebody who would receive very similar criticisms several years after this, claimed that "the Doctor is involved in adventures that deal with violent people" and "that if you display violence you should show it for what it is. I don't think you should dwell on it, I don't think it should be gratuitous, but I think that when you do display violence you should show it hurts".

Regardless of how violence was handled in his own tenure as script editor, I am inclined to agree with this sentiment. If violence is to be portrayed in Doctor Who, or any drama, it should come with an impact on the narrative and the characters. The nature of that impact can wildly vary from story to story but the instant that violence is depicted without consequence, it becomes a gratuitous and unnecessary representation. To use an overdone but high-profile example from contemporary media, this is the problem with violence in Batman v Superman, for example. Characters engage in violent acts, the violence is graphic in nature but the impact fails to be felt by the audience because the acts themselves frequently fail to inform or challenge the characters and/or plot moving forward. Violence is essential to action and can be a very useful component of adventurer fiction but it can easily lose its impact and become unnecessary without proper consideration.

It is in this way that I would agree that the violence and horror throughout Hinchcliffe Doctor Who had started to become gratuitous and frequently unnecessary.

Take The Brain of Morbius, for example, which Whitehouse called; "some of the sickest and most horrific material seen on children's television". The character of Solon, as played in the serial by Philip Madoc, is wonderfully drawn. He is a fanatical and cruel sociopath. A malicious and pathetic shell of a man whose arrogance and obsession dominates his every action. I could draft this description from episode one alone. In episode four, he kills his assistant Condo by way of blowing a bloody hole in his chest with a pistol. The moment is certainly gory and it is a tragic end to the story of Condo for him to be killed in this fashion but the act itself, the depiction of a hyperrealistic blood-splatter coming out of this child-like character, ultimately adds very little. Nobody mourns Condo's death, the violence is hardly an escalation given that we know Solon practices dismemberment before the story even begins and it reveals nothing about who he is as a person. All that matters is that Condo tries to stop him and fails. The violent death is simply an aesthetic choice.

So let us get to season fourteen. The one where the final vestige of the Pertwee years, investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith, leaves the show to be replaced by a savage descendent of humanity's far future. A hunter and killer who travels armed with a knife and poisonous darts whose introduction sees her quickly chased down and hunted for murder. It has surely become clearly by now that yet another year on, the violence in Doctor Who has seen an enthusiastic uptick.

The Deadly Assassin is the story that killed the Hinchcliffe era and epitomises the problem that had emerged with violence in Doctor Who unlike any other. Despite being a political thriller set inside the Time Lord Panopticon, the entire third episode becomes a survivalist thriller seeing our hero shot at, dropped off of cliffs and bombed inside a virtual reality. Functionally, this means that an entire quarter of the serial is a deviation from the main plot into what is thrilling but entirely unnecessary surrealist horror and violence. The action exists simply to generate visual excitement in an otherwise very dialogue-heavy story and the acts of violence themselves never lead to any story developments or impact the Doctor or Goth in any meaningful way when it ends. It also has a walking emaciated corpse for a main villain for no readily justifiable reason. The Deadly Assassin troubled Whitehouse so much that her uproar led to the BBC censoring the third episode's cliffhanger for future broadcasts. 

Just as Michael Grade became infamous amongst fans for cancelling Doctor Who, Whitehouse would be similarly reviled for ending the most popular period of Doctor Who. After all, it is on record that it was her continued, vocal criticism that influenced the BBC's decision to move Hinchcliffe on from Doctor Who. After all, who else is there to blame? Her opinion was so highly regarded by the BBC that the Director-General offered a personal apology for how offended she was by The Deadly Assassin. As noted previously, season fourteen saw Doctor Who at the height of its popularity and a cultural phenomenon that was soon to be on a downward trajectory until 2005. I also observed that this particular run as a whole, the three seasons produced by Philip Hinchcliffe, has been revered by Doctor Who fans ever since it ended on the second of April 1977.

Given the decidedly different direction that Doctor Who was taken in when succeeding producer Graham Williams came onboard, it has become one of the big 'what ifs' to speculate on what Hinchcliffe might have done with another year on the show. Big Finish has attempted to answer that question with a handful of unmade scripts from his time being adapted with a full cast and an additional series of dramas whose plots were conceived by him. The answer is that he would have continued to produce very creative and compelling science-fiction adventure serials. No surprises there. Season fifteen saw a drop in viewership of around two million on average and season sixteen dropped even further. Perhaps it would have been great for the show to see Hinchcliffe's vision continue just a bit longer. Perhaps his time was preemptively cut short.

Or perhaps the biggest threat to Hinchcliffe era Who was the Hinchcliffe era itself. Perhaps I sound like a bit of a hater and I can understand that impression coming across but I must insist at this juncture that I do love this period of Doctor Who. I think that the consistency of quality at this time was absurdly good and many of the stories remain among my favourites as top-shelf examples of what Doctor Who is capable of. Like a lot of fans, I also wonder what might have happened if this team stayed on for another year and how different the timeline of the show would be. However, it is undeniable that like the earthbound format and the base-under-siege before it, the violent thriller pastiches would have tun their course with enough time too. In fact, I would argue that they absolutely did. in 1977, Doctor Who was in desperate need for a change, although it probably didn't know it, simply to save itself from becoming a victim of its own success. I shudder to imagine the six-part finale that is even more violent and even more macabre than what had already come before.

Then again, perhaps we don't have to imagine. We do have season twenty-two to know for sure.

*Even in the previous era, violence played a major role. After all, this was the time when Doctor Who was allying himself with the military. This is an important thing to mention though not strictly relevant to what I am talking about here. I will just explain for now that I think this violence serves a different purpose which I might get into in more depth in some later post. Let's just say that I have no doubt that Mary Whitehouse would have found less objection in presenting Mother England as a noble, defensive force than depicting disfigured nazi scientists.

[msclaritea]

Elon Musk thinks he's Iron Man when he's actually Michael Scott

That Dealbook interview was like the worst Succession scene ever. When will his bootlicking sycophants give it up?

MATT RUBY

DEC 5, 2023

You can’t script a cringe comedy moment any better than this scene at the Dealbook conference:

Elon Musk: “The only reason I am here, Jonathan, is because you are a friend.”

Andrew Ross Sorkin: “I am Andrew.”

Classic! Michael Scott couldn’t have delivered it any better.

Elon Musk says he felt TikTok 'probing' his mind; platform 'rife' with ...

And then there was his “Go f– yourself” moment followed immediately by the painful 5 seconds in which he slowly realized he would get neither audience applause nor understanding from Sorkin. Worst Succession scene ever. (Or was it the best?)

Also, he said the people of Earth will decide who is to blame if X goes bankrupt: “The whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company…Let's see how Earth responds to that."

Dude, no one gives a f–. “Earth” isn’t losing sleep over this. Your hate-rage platform is a toxic cesspool. All you’ll get from the rest of us is a sigh of relief – and then Threads or something else will be the place we all go to complain when the refs miss a call on Sunday Night Football.

“The trouble with algorithms, is that it rewards extremes. Say you’re driving down the road and see a car crash. Of course you look. Everyone looks. The internet interprets behavior like this to mean everyone is asking for car crashes, so it tries to supply them.”

-Ev Williams (the founder of Twitter)

Gotta be honest: Musk now feels like the worst advertisement ever for Ketamine. Thought that stuff was supposed to heal you, not turn you into a heel.

Every time he opens his mouth lately, his status as a biz wizard becomes increasingly suspicious.

Elon: "Are you trying to blackmail me with money?"

Advertiser: "Well, I mean, I'm an advertiser wanting to buy ads on your platform, but I don't want my brand associated with N@zi propaganda, y'know?"

Elon: "Go f- yourself!"

I’m no MBA, but I’m pretty sure “blackmail me with money” is literally what it means to run a business. Like, if Elon ran a restaurant, would it go like this?

Customer: “I’d like the cheeseburger.”

Elon: ”Are you trying to blackmail me with money?”

Customer: ”Um, I’m trying to order food. This is a restaurant, right?”

Elon: ”Go f- yourself!"

But hey, at least he’s cleared up that he’s “against anti-anything"......". 🤣😂🤣😂

Recall recently, a big push out of nowhere, to bring back Iron Man? But Disney finally said, they were not bringing back the character? That's when even MORE vitriol started pouring out of a bunch of paid assholes on YouTube, against Disney. It seems pretty clear the man baby billionaire, Elon Musk, is pissed because they won't bring a character that in it's heyday, made people like Elon Musk look good. Many advertisers left his site, but he only goes after Bob Iger like a vicious junkyard DOG.

We're surrounded by monstrous billionaires, throwing ketamine-laced temper tantrums.

[bittydragon]

The Problems Arising (The Election)

Next

Notes: Here it is! This is the start of that big project I told you all about yesterday! This story is based off of the request by @potatonugget7 - “I was wondering if you could do like, the whole Schlatt arc of L’Manburg but with borrower Tubbo?” (Just in case the picture decides to not load for some dumb reason.) (Also, only reason I’m not answering this as the ask itself is purely due to formatting reasons) Let me tell you, this has been a blast to create. I have actually been talking with the person who sent me this ask and they helped me develop the story. Personally, I think this is turning out amazing. I am very excited to share this project with you all and hope you all enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it!

“Wilbur, relax! We’ve got this in the bag! There’s no way we could lose this thing, not after all the work we have put into this.”

“But Tommy! SWAG2020 has begun gaining a following and Schlatt’s sudden entrance to the election could send this all for a loop. Can we really still win?”

Tubbo watched as his best friend and his brother argued over what the outcome for this election would be. 

Wilbur had only become increasingly anxious over the results whilst Tommy was completely confident in their abilities to win the election. 

Tubbo wished he could help, but it was rather difficult when he was only a few inches tall. All he could do was sit there and give whatever words of encouragement he could think of to help calm the two humans’ nerves. 

But in this moment, Tubbo couldn’t even think of what he could say. Wilbur was rightfully worried, Quackity had begun to gain a following and Schlatt’s sudden entry to the election threw everyone off. 

Though, Tommy’s optimism had its own truth behind it. The two brothers had put a lot of work into their election campaign, and that isn’t even considering the amount of work they  put into building the country as a whole. 

With all this in mind, Tubbo still had high hopes that Wilbur and Tommy would still win.

“Guys, at this point it’s useless to argue about the outcome, the votes are all in already. Nothing is going to change the outcome now.” 

Both humans went silent and turned to Tubbo, who barely flinched at the sudden attention. He was used to it at this point. He was just happy that they actually listened to him instead of ignoring him because he was different. 

“Though, I do want to ask a favor of you Wilbur.”

Wilbur sent him a questioning gaze. “And what would that be, Tubbo?” Tubbo took a deep breath. He just hoped that they would be alright with this.

“Could I come and watch this time? I could just hide in your pocket!” He took a deep breath as he noticed Tommy was about to say something and continued. 

“I just feel as if I don’t get to see what happens with you guys. Plus, I want to be there to celebrate with you two afterwards!” He sent them a wide smile, which thankfully seemed to calm both of their nerves.

“Of course, Tubbo. I’d be happy to-”

“Wait! Why don’t you want me to carry you? Why the hell did you ask Wilbur and not me, your best friend if I may add.”

“Tommy, I wouldn’t trust you to actually keep me hidden either if I were Tubbo, dumbass.”

Tubbo giggled as Tommy began sputtering out various curses and insults. Wilbur only looked on in amusement. Tubbo enjoyed these little moments with them. 

They were like a family, something Tubbo hadn’t really had before meeting Tommy.

All too soon, their fun was stopped by the distant ringing of a bell. All three of them knew what this bell meant; the time to announce the results of the election. 

They all stood there in silence for a brief moment to let it sink in. Eventually, Wilbur turned towards Tubbo and extended his hand out to him with a smile.

“Shall we?” Tubbo nodded and quickly climbed onto Wilbur’s hand. 

His grip tightened ever so slightly to keep himself balanced as the hand moved upwards. It seemed to take no time at all before he reached the pocket of Wilbur’s uniform and slid into it. 

He began situating himself inside of the pocket as he felt Wilbur lean down to pick up the envelope that contained the final results. 

When everyone was ready, they left towards the podium with a heavy silence hanging between them.

The walk was uneventful and quiet, all three too caught up in their own thoughts. As they approached the podium, they could see many of the citizens of L’Manburg had already begun to gather below. With a heavy sigh, Wilbur walked up towards the podium with Tommy trailing behind him.

As soon as they reached the podium, Tubbo ducked back into the pocket. He’d rather not be seen by others. He’d be content with only listening to the results, they really weren’t something he needed to see to know the outcome.

Tubbo heard faint conversation around him as Wilbur prepared to announce the results that were located in the envelope from earlier. A moment later, Wilbur tapped the microphone and cleared his throat; everyone went silent.

“Hello everyone, and welcome to the L’Manburg election results! In my hand are the final votes for the election, the deciding factor on L’Manburg’s next president.” Tubbo felt Wilbur take a deep breath as he lifted the envelope for everyone in the audience to see.

“This envelope contains the popular votes for the four running parties: POG2020 consisting of Wilbur Soot and TommyInnit, SWAG2020 consisting of Quackity and George, Coconut2020 consisting of Fundy and Nihachu, and Schlatt2020 consisting of Schlatt. With that said, I will now read out the results of the election.”

Silence was all that met Wilbur’s words. Tubbo assumed everyone was anticipating the results with baited breath because even he felt his own doubts creeping in. 

However he shook it off as he heard Wilbur tear the envelope open and pull out the sheet of paper.

A few seconds later, Wilbur suddenly tensed up. It felt so slight that he was sure that no one watching would notice, but Tubbo could feel it from inside the pocket. 

He was confused, POG2020 was the clear favorite, at least, he thought they were the clear favorite. But the way Wilbur tensed up made his doubts increase tenfold.

“In fourth place with 9% of the vote, we have Coconut2020!”

Cheering suddenly erupted from beside Wilbur, and Tubbo made a quick guess that it was Fundy cheering. At least he still seemed happy despite losing the election.

“In third place with 16% of the vote, we have Schlatt2020!”

An astonished silence followed the announcement. Tubbo shifted in surprise as well. Schlatt had been such a late entry to the election as a whole, and yet, he didn’t receive the lowest amount of votes. He had actually managed to gain a decent following for only being in L’Manburg for a few days, prior to the election.

“That leaves us with the last two parties: POG2020,” he paused for effect before continuing on, “and SWAG2020.” Silence hung in the air, only broken by a small cheer behind Wilbur that went ignored by everyone. 

“In second place with 30% of the vote,” Wilbur paused, raising the suspense.Tubbo held his breath, hoping that POG2020 came out as the elected party. 

“SWAG2020!”

Cheer erupted from all around, the loudest being Tommy who was standing right beside Wilbur. Even Tubbo couldn’t help but let out a relieved laugh, they had won the election.

“That leaves POG2020 with 45% of the popular vote.” Tommy’s cheering increased tenfold at the new statement. Tubbo knew that if he wasn’t in Wilbur’s pocket at that exact moment, Tommy would be all over his brother in excitement. 

Tubbo was about to tap Wilbur to show him how excited he was when he began to speak again.

“Tommy, Tommy please settle down. I need to announce one other thing.” Tommy lessened his cheering but Tubbo knew he was probably still smiling like an idiot. They had won, they did it!

“Two days ago, a deal was made between candidate Quackity and candidate Schlatt. They both agreed to create a coalition government based off of both of their respective followings. Therefore, the new party of Schlatt2020 has 46% of the popular vote. Meaning that Schlatt2020 has won the election by 1% of the vote.”

Tubbo could no longer pay attention to everything going on around him, all of the words around him blending into white noise. 

They had actually lost the election. 

Wilbur and Tommy didn’t win when it should have been an easy victory for them. The only reason they lost was because of the new coalition government pooling their votes together.

So what was going to happen now? This Schlatt person was the new president of L’Manburg? 

He had only been in these lands for around a week prior and the people had already decided that they preferred him over Wilbur. Wilbur hadn’t done anything wrong, he had done nothing to cause a dislike towards him. 

And L’Manburg chose a new member over one of the original founders.

Tubbo eventually let himself tune back into the happenings around him and risked a glance over the edge of the pocket as Schlatt began his inauguration speech. 

He hadn’t noticed when they moved down from the platform to stand with the rest of L’Manburg’s citizens. He really was lost in his thoughts it seemed.

He glanced over to Tommy who sent a small worried look back. Tommy had done so much for this country and he was now nothing more than another citizen. 

Tubbo hoped that Schlatt would at least honor Tommy’s contributions to the country at the very least. 

“My first decree, as the president of L’Manburg, the Emperor of this great country!” Tubbo turned his gaze to the podium where the ram hybrid began giving his first decree. 

That first line alone made a small chill run down Tubbo’s spine. 

“Is to revoke the citizenship of Wilbur Soot,” Schlatt paused for a minute and his smile grew bigger. “And TommyInnit!”

Time seemed to stop for Tubbo as he registered the new president’s words among the now growing cheers and screams. But that meant they couldn’t be on L’Manburg lands. 

They weren’t allowed to stay so what are they going to-

“Get ‘em outta here!”

Suddenly, Tubbo felt Wilbur jerk as he turned tail to run. He faintly heard him yelling at Tommy to run, over the roaring blood in his ears. 

He ducked into the pocket as soon as Wilbur lurched forward, like he’d been struck by an arrow. 

Tubbo ducked as low as he could in the pocket to avoid falling out in the commotion, especially when Wilbur whipped around to check who was behind him. 

He then heard Wilbur chug a potion and noticed as the effects began taking place, making Wilbur’s body seemingly disappear into thin air.

Before he was completely out of sight though, another arrow hit Wilbur and next thing Tubbo knew he was free falling toward the ground. 

What just happened? 

He attempted to prop himself up on his arms in the tall grass, only to see items littered around him. 

The sound of people running fell on deaf ears as Tubbo attempted to regain his bearings. It had all gone so fast, he wasn’t exactly sure what had just happened.

“Well this is unexpected. The fuck are you supposed to be?” 

Tubbo stared wide-eyed up at the figure that was now towering over him. 

It was the ram hybrid, the one who beat Wilbur in the election. At Tubbo’s silence, Schlatt’s eyes narrowed and he let out a small noise of annoyance. 

Before he could register what was happening, a large hand reached down and snatched him up in a tight fist.

Tubbo began trying to squirm out of the suffocating grip to no avail as he was lifted off of the ground. The fist only squeezed harder, pushing Tubbo’s breath out of him. 

He stopped struggling in hopes that he would be allowed to breathe easier and possibly get a chance to escape. 

One glance at his captor however, dashed all hope that Tubbo had. He watched in horror as the ram’s expression changed from confusion to a sinister looking grin.

“You belonged to Wilbur, didn’t you?” Schlatt smirked and began twisting Tubbo around in his grip. “If that’s the case, you might be useful.”

Tubbo tried to steady himself in the man’s hands but was constantly knocked over by Schlatt twisting and turning him. 

With the implications Schlatt made and the constant twisting; Tubbo felt sick to his stomach.

The movement finally stopped, only for Tubbo to be trapped in a tight fist once more as Schlatt bent down to pick up the potions that Wilbur had dropped. 

He seemed uninterested in most of the things Wilbur dropped when he died, he only seemed to be interested in the potions and Tubbo.

That did not bode well for Tubbo at all.

A few seconds later, Schlatt stored the potions on his person and began walking towards the White House with Tubbo in hand. 

Schlatt didn’t even look at him as he began shifting Tubbo around again, further disorienting the tiny boy. A quick glance at the ram however, heavily implied that he was doing this on purpose.

It felt like forever before they reached the White House, at least for Tubbo it did. He felt dizzy and sick by the time they stopped walking, anymore and it may have caused him to throw up. 

He was so out of it that he didn’t even notice Schlatt creating a small glass box on the table until he was dropped into it.

Tubbo landed on his butt inside the enclosure with a grunt of pain before looking up in fear. Schlatt smiled and propped his head up on his hand atop the table.

“There you go, pet. Just like home, right? Of course it is!” He leaned in, not giving Tubbo a chance to respond. “‘Cause little fucking things like you are nothing more than pets.”

Tubbo scooted backwards, hoping to put as much distance between himself and Schlatt despite the glass enclosure. He shrunk back further as Schlatt laughed at his actions.

Before either of them could do anything else, someone else entered the White House with a loud, excited cheer.

“Eyyyy, Schlatt! Mr. President! How does it feel to have all this power in your new nation?” Tubbo glanced over to see the newcomer. 

He quickly deduced that this was Quackity, Schlatt’s vice president and the reason Schlatt became president. 

Tubbo knew that Schlatt wouldn’t have won if Quackity hadn’t pooled his votes with Schlatt, meaning he already had a bitter feeling towards him.

“So what’s our first plan of action- Schlatt? What the fuck is that?”

Tubbo was now extremely aware of the new pair of eyes on him, the attention was too much. Unfortunately, in his situation there was nothing he could do to escape the attention. 

Tommy and Wilbur at least respected his privacy whenever he felt overwhelmed, these two however, most definitely did not.

“Dunno, but it was sitting amongst Soot’s stuff after he was killed. Brought it back here as soon as I realized that this weird creature could be used against him if he tries any funny business.” Schlatt never took his eyes off Tubbo as he spoke, unnerving the tiny boy even more.

Tubbo switched his gaze towards Quackity and noticed a small unease forming in his expression. It was almost as if the idea of Schlatt using a small person as nothing more than a tool unnerved him. 

It made Tubbo feel a bit of hope for his situation.

“As weird as this is, I’ll be fine with this ‘cause you’re right, it does give us the upper hand against Wilbur and Tommy!”

And with that, any hope Tubbo had left was shattered. The new vice president wasn’t going to do anything to stop Schlatt, he was too loyal to the president.

“That’s what I thought! This is why you’re my vice president! Come now, we have much to figure out with my new country!”

“Yessir!”

With that, they left the room, leaving Tubbo alone in his glass enclosure. He curled up into himself as tears threatened to fall. 

He knew he wasn’t going to be able to escape this situation easily, if he could even escape at all. All he wanted was to end this new nightmare.

He just wanted to be back with Tommy.

[whitehotharlots]

“Literal violence” and the death of the heterodox

I teach college students. This means I assign young people things to read. If the students don’t do the reading--if they consider it too boring or uninteresting or difficult--they don’t do well in the class. I update my reading lists every semester, because what was interesting to students a few years or even months ago might not click with the students of today. Sometimes students love what they’re assigned. Sometimes they hate it. And it’s very hard to tell if a piece is or isn’t going to work until I’ve assigned it and gotten feedback. 

As I’ve gotten older it has become more difficult to relate to young people. This is a completely normal part of life--nothing to be ashamed of or panic about, and I think almost everyone agrees that it’s more dignified to age gracefully than to try too hard to seem hip or with it. And so, over the past few years, as I’ve found it nearly impossible to find good, engaging writing with a broad appeal, I figured it was just because I, naturally, don’t relate to young people as much as I used to.

But lately--certainly since Trump’s ascendance, but perhaps going back as far as the early twenty-teens--mainstream writing has become incredibly predictable. Name any event and I can tell you almost word-for-word how it will be discussed in Jezebel vs. Teen Vogue vs. The Root vs The Intercept. And, increasingly, there’s been very little analytical divergence even between different publications. Everyone to the left of Fox News seems to agree upon just about everything, and all analysis has been boiled down to the repetition of one of a half-dozen or so aphorisms about privilege or validity. There is, in short, a proper and improper way to describe and understand anything that happens, and a writer is simply not going to get published if they have an improper understanding of the world. 

This, I think, is the result of our normalizing hyperbolic overstatements of harm and the danger posed by anything short of absolute fealty to orthodox liberalism. If it’s “literal violence” to express mild criticism and incredulity, people aren’t going to do so. Editors don’t want to risk accusations of “platforming fascists,” and so there’s been very little pushback against fascism being recently re-defined as “anything that displeases upper middle class Democrats.” 

Not long ago, it was commonplace on the left to celebrate the internet’s ability to allow writers to bypass the gatekeeping functions of old media. With mainstream liberalism needing a scapegoat to explain away the failures of the post-2008 Democratic party, however, the tone has shifted. 

Case in point, Clio Chang’s rather chilling piece from the Columbia Journalism Review that seeks to problematize an open platform called Substack.. Substack allows writers to publish almost whatever they want, outside of editorial control, and then charge a subscription to readers. As more and more websites and print media are being hollowed out and sacrificed to the gods of speculative capital, a large number of big-name writers have embraced this new platform. It has also allowed writers to report on stories that are objectively true but inconvenient to the Democratic establishment, such as Matt Taibbi’s admirable work debunking Russiagate bullshit. 

Chang begins with a lengthy description of Substack’s creation. She stresses that no one—not even the site’s founders and most successful writers—consider it an ideal replacement for the well-funded journalism of old. Chang focuses on one particular Substack newsletter called “Coronavirus News For Black Folks” which appears to be moderately successful (the piece cites 2000+ subscribers, and its founder is earning enough to have hired an assistant editor). Even after describing how the platform has given large grants and stipends to other newsletter run by women and people of color, the fact that this one particular newsletter isn’t as successful as others is held up as proof of the platform’s malignancy.

​“Coronavirus News For Black Folks” may be somewhat successful, but Chang implies that it rightfully should be even more successful, and that something evil must be afoot. Simple arithmetic tells us that a specialized newsletter—one pitched specifically to a minority audience and only covering one particular issue—is going to have a smaller readership than a more general interest piece. Rather than accept this simple explanation, Chang instead embraces the liberal tendency to blame a lack of desired outcomes upon the presence of evil forces.

While Chang provides a thorough overview of the current, fucked state of media and journalism, at no point does she grapple with the role that mainstream liberalism has played in abetting the industry’s collapse. This is surprising, as a quick google search suggests she generally has solid, left-wing politics. This omission reveals a problematic gap in left analysis, and bodes poorly for any hope of leftism accomplishing any material goals while the movement remains aligned with more mainstream identity politics. Even as she cogently explains the destruction of media and the hellish future that lay before writers, Chang still embraces the mystical fatalism that liberals have been leaning on since 2010 or so, when it became clear that Obama wasn’t going to make good on any promises of hope or change. She blames our nation’s horrors not elite leadership, but on the presence of people and ideas she doesn’t like. In this case, Substack is problematic because many of its writers are white and male, and some are even conservative:

When [Andrew] Sullivan joined Substack, over the summer, he put the company’s positioning to the test: infamous for publishing excerpts from The Bell Curve, a book that promotes bigoted race “science,” Sullivan would now produce the Weekly Dish, a political newsletter. (Substack’s content guidelines draw a line at hate speech.) Sullivan’s Substack quickly rose to become the fifth-most-read among paid subscriptions—he claimed that his income had risen from less than $200,000 at New York magazine to $500,000. When I asked the founders if they thought his presence might discourage other writers from joining, they gave me a pat reply. “We’re not a media company,” Best said. “If somebody joins the company and expects us to have an editorial position and be rigorously enforcing some ideological line, this is probably not the company they wanted to join in the first place.”

I’m no fan of Andrew Sullivan, but the man has spent decades building and maintaining his audience. Of course he’s going to have a larger readership than someone who is just starting out. This isn’t a sign of anything nefarious. It’s basic commonsense. But there’s no other conclusions that can be reached: things are bad because people haven’t done enough to root out badness. Things are bad because evil exists. The only way we can attempt reform is to make the evil people go away. Anyone who says anything I don’t like is evil and their words are evil and they shouldn’t be published.

Chang doesn’t make any direct suggestions for remediating Substack, but her implications are clear: equity requires censorship and ideological conformity. Providing any platform for people who are disliked by the liberal mainstream, be they too far left or too indelicate with their conservative cruelty, equates to harming vulnerable people—even when those vulnerable people freely admit to making money off the same platform. There is no room for dissent. There is no possibility of reform. The boundaries of acceptable discourse must grow narrower and narrower. Only when we free our world from the presence of the bad ones will change magically arrive.

NOTE: I wrote a follow-up to this piece that I think does a better job of articulating the points I was trying to make.

[eddie-redmayne-italian-blog]

photos by Frank Ockenfels

The Long Journey and Intense Urgency of Aaron Sorkin's 'The Trial of the Chicago 7'

by Rebecca Keegan September 23, 2020, 6:00  am PDT

The director of the Netflix film, which stars Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong, Eddie Redmayne and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, reveals why it took nearly 20 years to get the project about the politically motivated prosecution of protestors made and why it couldn't be more timely: "I never imagined today would go so much like 1968."

In October 2019, hundreds of protesters marched down Chicago’s Michigan Avenue toward the Hilton, chanting phrases like "No justice, no peace!" and "A people united will never be defeated!" as police in riot gear descended on the crowd with billy clubs and tear gas. Earnest and energized, clad in 1960s period costumes and flanked by vintage police vehicles, this group thought they were acting out the past, staging a scene from Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7. As it turned out, they were performing the future, too.

Sorkin’s film, which opens in select theaters Sept. 25 and hits Netflix on Oct.  16, tells the story of the riots at the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention and the circus-like trial of political activists that followed the next year. Thanks to Hollywood development hell, the movie is arriving 14  years after Steven Spielberg first mentioned the idea to Sorkin but just as its themes and plot points — civil unrest, a self-proclaimed "law and order" president’s vilification of protesters (Nixon then, Trump now), the police’s excessive use of force, tensions within the Democratic Party over how far left to move — have become bracingly current."I never wanted the film to be about 1968," Sorkin says in an interview over Zoom from his house in the Hollywood Hills on Labor Day weekend. "I never wanted it to be an exercise in nostalgia or a history lesson. I wanted it to be about today. But I never imagined that today would get so much like 1968."For only the second time in a career spanning nine films as a screenwriter, Sorkin serves as director with Chicago 7, helming a sprawling ensemble cast that includes Eddie Redmayne as anti-war activist Tom Hayden, Sacha Baron Cohen as Youth International Party (Yippie) provocateur Abbie Hoffman, Succession’s Jeremy Strong as counterculture figure Jerry Rubin and Watchmen’s Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther party co-founder Bobby Seale. There are undeniable parallels not only between the film and the present political moment but also between the performance-art activism of the actors and the men they’re playing, most vividly Cohen, who, like Hoffman, has made a career of political self-expression through comedic stunts, including crashing a far-right rally in Olympia, Washington, this summer while pretending to be a racist country singer. (Cohen, who shoots most of his satirical projects incognito, impishly calls reports of his appearance at the rally  "fake news.")Eight months after Sorkin filmed the protest scenes in Chicago, Abdul-Mateen was marching in Black Lives Matter protests in West Hollywood, as was Strong in Brooklyn. "There’s power when a lot of people come together to protest out of anger, out of frustration," Abdul-Mateen says. "Everybody has a role in the revolution; this film shows that.

"Though the movie feels crafted for this political moment, it was born of another. At Sorkin’s first meeting with Spielberg, "I remember him saying, 'It would be great if we could have this out before the election,'" Sorkin says. The election Spielberg was talking about was 2008’s, when Barack Obama and Joe Biden faced John McCain and Sarah Palin.The film hit multiple roadblocks, beginning with the 2007-08 writers strike and continuing as financing faltered repeatedly, a fate illustrated by the more than 30 producers who can claim some sort of credit on Chicago 7. It took another unscheduled detour this summer after Sorkin finished it as the pandemic worsened, and the odds of original distributor Paramount mounting a successful theatrical release before the Nov. 3 election seemed increasingly slim. For some involved with the film, there is a question about the ethics of Hollywood inviting audiences to return to theaters before a COVID-19 vaccine is widely available. "

There’s a moral quandary that we, the motion picture business, have to be careful that we don’t become the tobacco industry, where we’re encouraging people to do something we know is potentially lethal," says Cohen.Before his visit to Spielberg’s Pacific Palisades home to discuss the project on a Saturday afternoon in 2006, Sorkin knew next to nothing about the Chicago 7. The federal government had charged seven defendants — Hoffman, Rubin, Hayden, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines and Lee Weiner — with conspiracy for their participation in the protests against the Vietnam War outside the Democratic National Convention. (Originally the men were known as the Chicago 8 and included Seale, who asked to have his trial separated from that of the others and postponed so that he could be represented by his preferred lawyer, who was ill; that trial never took place.)

When Spielberg proposed a movie about the riots and the trial that followed, Sorkin, who was 7 in 1968, said, "'You know, that sounds great. Count me in.' As soon as I left his house, I called my father and said, 'Dad, do you know anything about a riot that happened in 1968 or a crazy conspiracy trial that followed?' I was just saying yes to Steven."Despite his ignorance, Sorkin was a logical choice to write the project: Having penned Broadway’s A Few Good Men and its 1992 film adaptation as well as the long-running NBC series West Wing, he’d shown a flair for dramatizing courtroom procedures and liberal politics, and he turned in his first draft of the Chicago 7 script in 2007. Originally, Spielberg planned to direct the project himself, but by the time the writers strike was over, he had moved on and a number of other potential directors circled, including Paul Greengrass, Ben Stiller, Peter Berg and Gary Ross, though none was able to get it off the ground. "There was just a feeling that, 'Look, this isn’t an Avengers film,'" Sorkin says of the studios' move away from midbudget dramas and toward action tentpoles in the 2010s. "This isn’t an easy sell at the box office. And there are big scenes, riots, crowd scenes. How can this movie be done for the budget that makes sense for what the expectation is at the box office?"As the project languished, Sorkin tried writing it as a play, ultimately spending 18 months on a fruitless effort to fashion a stage treatment. "What I didn’t like was having a script in my drawer," he says. "I was just thinking, 'Jeez, this is a good movie and it feels like it’s stillborn.'"It was the confluence of two events that ultimately revived the film with Sorkin in the director’s chair in 2018 — the 2016 election of Donald Trump and the 2017 release of Sorkin’s well-received directorial debut, Molly’s Game, which doubled its production budget at the box office. "This is before George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and police protests or confrontations," Sorkin says. "This is just when Donald Trump was musing nostalgically about the old days when they used to carry that guy [a protester] out of here on a stretcher and punch the crap out of him."With Trump’s throwback rhetoric lending the subject matter a new timeliness and Sorkin’s directing chops confirmed in Spielberg’s eyes, the movie moved forward with its screenwriter at the helm.

Cross Creek Pictures came in to finance, and Paramount bought the domestic rights. But all those years in development had left an expensive imprint on the project — a jaw-dropping $11  million had been spent on casting costs, producing fees and the optioning of Brett Morgen’s 2007 documentary about the event, Chicago 10, leaving just $24  million for the actual 36-day production.

One way Sorkin attempts to achieve a sense  of scope despite that budget is by intercutting real black-and-white news footage with his dramatized protests. He rounded out his large cast with a deep bench of experienced and award-winning actors including Oscar winner Mark Rylance as defense attorney William Kunstler, Oscar nominee Frank Langella as Judge Julius Hoffman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as prosecutor Richard Schultzand, Oscar nominee Michael Keaton as former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark — with the filmmaker and many of his actors working for scale. (Abdul-Mateen and Strong both became first-time Emmy winners Sept.  20.)Sorkin shot the protest scenes on location in Chicago and built a courtroom set in an old church sanctuary in Paterson, New Jersey, because none of the available courtroom locations in the Garden State conveyed the scope he wanted. "If we’re saying the whole world is watching, I want a packed courtroom for six months full of press and spectators," Sorkin says. "I wanted the big, cavernous feeling of the federal government and its power coming down on these people."

Julian Wasser/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images           "The movie is tribute to the bravery of the protesters of 1968 [pictured] and today in Belarus, on the streets of America, in Portland," says Cohen.            

Among the vestiges of Spielberg’s original plan was the casting of Cohen as Hoffman, which required the London native to affect a Boston accent and return to a subject he had studied as an undergraduate at Christ’s College in Cambridge, where he wrote a thesis paper about Jewish activists during the civil rights movement. At 19, Cohen had interviewed Bob Moses, the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which Hoffman was involved in before he founded the anti-war Yippie movement. "Honestly, I was very proud of the fact that Jews were involved in the Black civil rights movement in the '60s, and there wasn’t much written about it," Cohen says, explaining his youthful scholarship.

There’s a clear line to draw between Hoffman’s 1960s theatrics — which included throwing fistfuls of money into the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange and vowing to levitate the Pentagon — and Cohen’s contemporary TV and film pranks. Perhaps among Cohen’s most memorable and pointed gags was getting Vice President Dick Cheney to gleefully autograph a waterboard kit, which the comic did while posing as an admiring Israeli anti-terror expert for a 2018 episode of Who Is America?, his Showtime series. “What I wanted to do was to show that he was proud of torturing," Cohen says. "I could not believe how happy Cheney was to be sitting next to an uber-fan. So, yes. Ultimately in the shows and the movies that I do, I’m trying to be funny, but yeah, I’m trying to get out the anger that I have within me."

Cohen sees Hoffman’s unorthodox protest methods as pragmatic. "The Yippies were underfunded, and he was using theatricality to gain attention for his aims," Cohen says. "He wanted to stop the war. And how do you do that? You use stunts and absurdist humor to try to effect change." The actor estimates that, after researching Hoffman, he pitched Sorkin hundreds of lines the activist had really delivered. "As an annoying person with a lot of chutzpah, I was emailing Aaron every other night until morning, 'What about this line? What about this line?'" Cohen says. The writer-director, known for his exacting prose, politely tolerated the suggestions while largely sticking to his own script.

As Rubin, Strong is playing Hoffman’s conscientious jester sidekick, a role wildly different from the tragic, wealthy approval seeker he portrays on Succession. Strong added some of his own dramatic flourishes, including painting words on his chest for one courtroom scene and bringing a remote-controlled fart machine to disrupt Langella’s imperious judge. "I wanted to channel as much as possible that spirit of the merry prankster and of joyous dissent," Strong says. Hoffman and Rubin’s real-life personae were so large that Sorkin at times asked his actors to dial down their faithful portrayals, requesting, after one particularly jubilant take, "less cowbell."

Sorkin’s script draws a sharp contrast between Hoffman and Rubin’s campy methods and Hayden’s more reserved approach to the anti-war movement, with the tensions between Hoffman and Hayden supplying the film’s key relationship in a kind of begrudging brotherhood of the peace movement. To learn more about Hayden, Redmayne studied remarks that Jane Fonda, who was married to the activist and politician from 1973 to 1990, made upon his death in 2016. In his own life, Redmayne is cautious when it comes to discussing the role that he, as an actor at the center of a huge studio franchise (Warner Bros.’ Fantastic Beasts) might have in political life. "I find it endlessly challenging," Redmayne says of navigating his public activism. "There’s the elitist thing. It’s speaking up on climate change but being conscious that you’re traveling a lot. One has to be aware of one’s own hypocrisies, because they can be detrimental to something you believe in. So sometimes I find that I have to live my life and speak to my advocacy in a way in that it’s around friends, family and people I know rather than making something public."

Abdul-Mateen has begun his acting career largely associated with fantastical roles, like Dr. Manhattan on HBO’s Watchmen, Black Manta in Aquaman and Candyman in the upcoming Jordan Peele-produced remake of the slasher film. Playing Seale represented a chance to do more grounded work and to depict a man who had loomed large during Abdul-Mateen’s childhood in Oakland, where Seale co-founded the Black Panthers in 1966 and later ran for mayor. Seale’s inclusion in the original Chicago riots indictment was controversial and strange — prosecutors accused him of conspiring with men he’d never met after visiting Chicago that week for only a few hours to deliver a speech. For the prosecution, Seale functioned largely as a prop to tap into the fears of white jurors and white Americans watching the news coverage, and during the trial he had no attorney. "I wanted to key in on, how did Bobby Seale survive this trial?" Abdul-Mateen says. "How did he survive the gross mistreatment by the United States government, and how did he go through that with his head high and not be broken? It was an exercise in finding my pride, finding my dignity."

In one scene, Seale is brought into the courtroom bound and gagged, and throughout the trial he is kept separate from the white defendants. "Although it was meant to be a humiliating act, I walked out with my chest high, with my head high. Bound and gagged and everything else. It would be very dangerous for a Black man in that time, even sometimes today, to show the proof of the wear and tear that oppression can take on a person, because that can be seen as a sign of weakness, and a sign of weakness is an open door that it’s working." For the moments of lightness that Cohen and Strong bring to the movie, Abdul-Mateen supplies ballast. "It’s important for the right reasons and at the right time to make art that makes people uncomfortable," he says.

Niko Tavernise/NETFLIX. On the set, from left, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Mark Rylance, Ben Shenkman, Aaron Sorkin and Eddie Redmayne

Spielberg has remained involved in the film "in an emeritus role," Sorkin says, "from giving me good script notes to casting to notes on early cuts of the film." He also showed up to the New Jersey courtroom set. "When you have to direct a scene in front of Steven Spielberg, you’re not at your most relaxed necessarily," Sorkin says. Spielberg did not, however, take an executive producing credit on the film and declined to be interviewed about it.

The decision to switch to a streaming release came after an early summer marketing strategy call between Sorkin, Paramount chief Jim Gianopulos, other Paramount execs and some of the film’s producers. "At the end of the call, Jim said, 'Listen, we don’t know what the theater business is going to look like in the fall. We have troubling data telling us that the first people back in movie theaters are going to be the people who think that the coronavirus is a hoax,'" Sorkin says. This was clearly not the intended audience for a movie whose heroes are liberal activists. "I said, 'I don’t think the Idaho militia are going to be the first people coming to this movie,'" Sorkin says.

The group agreed to explore alternatives and gave Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Hulu 24 hours to watch the film. After a bidding war, Chicago 7 landed at Netflix in a $56  million deal against its $35  million production budget, with a robust marketing campaign and promise of a theatrical release. "We knew we didn’t have the option of 'Let’s wait a year,'" Sorkin says. "This is what we’re thinking about and what we’re talking about right now, and it just would have been a real shame to not release it now."

After Chicago 7 opens in limited release, Netflix will add more theaters in the U.S. and abroad throughout October, expanding upon the film’s premiere on the service, a strategy akin to what it provided Oscar best picture nominees The Irishman and Roma, albeit in a wildly different theatrical environment.

As Hollywood opens up to more production, Sorkin, and many of the Chicago 7 actors, have begun returning to work. Abdul-Mateen has been in Berlin for The Matrix 4 and Redmayne in London for Fantastic Beasts 3, while Sorkin is shooting a West Wing reunion special at the Orpheum Theatre in downtown L.A. that will premiere on HBO Max in October as a fundraiser for When We All Vote and include video appearances by Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton and Lin-Manuel Miranda

For the real-life Chicago 7, the denouement consisted of ultimately being acquitted of conspiracy. Judge Hoffman sentenced Seale to four years in prison for contempt of court, one of the longest sentences ever handed down for that offense in the U.S., but those charges were overturned on appeal. Just three of the original eight defendants — Seale, Froines and Weiner — are still alive, but the legacy of the case lives on in contemporary protest movements. "The movie is tribute to the bravery of the protesters of 1968 and the protesters of today in Belarus, on the streets of America, in Portland," Cohen says. "These people now are risking their lives, and they’ll continue risking them."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/the-trial-of-the-chicago-7-aaron-sorkin-and-stars-on-films-timeliness-to-election-and-why-everybody-has-a-role-in-the-revolution

[doomedandstoned]

Mourn The Light Take On A World Turned Upside Down in Forthright Debut LP

~Doomed & Stoned Debuts~

By Billy Goate

Album Art by Brouemaster Visual Decay

New England's MOURN THE LIGHT reminds me of what I really love about doom as a metal subgenre. Their style features honest, relatable lyrics coupled with menacing riffs and cut rhythms. You get it all on their new LP: 'Suffer, Then We're Gone' (2021).

Some will no doubt eschew the negativity inherent in such an outlook. I say there's freedom in seeing life for what it has become, instead of buying into the false hopes proffered through highly stylized commercials, religious lies, and the empty promises of politicians. Existence in itself is a wonder and we naturally should do everything we can to make the most of it, increase happiness, and avoid pain. That doesn't mean dulling the senses so that you feel nothing or narrowing the scope of your awareness so that misery is someone else's problem. There I go, preaching. Really, I'm just trying to digest the poignant lyricism of the Connecticut band's first full-length record.

Take the very first track, "When the Fear Subsides," which carries a horisont message that is nothing if not clear-headed:

We can't reach a common goal If we're always at each other's throats We can't avoid extinction of our dreams Without a true thirst for peace We won't ever rise again If we can't leave the past behind There has got to be change How have we been so blind

The whole song is a much-needed reality check for a people at war within. Social media, while such a powerful tool of connectivity and collective change, has somehow morphed into gigantic bubbles of reinforced delusion, with acerbic memes serving as a proxy for real life heart-to-heart conversations. The mix of acoustic and electric guitar carries the message so beautifully, calling to mind great songs of heavy metal's heyday.

The forthright songwriting continues in "I Bare the Scars" as frontman Andrew Stachelek laments mistakes made and the memory that burns so acutely long after the fact. In the isolation of pandemic lockdowns, I dare say that many of us have had to examine our lives (often on repeat), with each visit to the memory bank ending with an empty deposit of "If only..."

Nothing we say Takes the pain away And it hurts so much Where do we go What do we do When it hurts too much

Dwayne Eldredge and Kieran Beaty pull off strong guitarwork, with several emphatic breakaway passages that reinforce the sentiment of the words quite fittingly. The rhythm section of Bill Herrick and Kyle Hebner, on bass and drums respectively, gives the song heft and a sense of urgency, too.

As the album progresses, it's like a wide awake commentary on life -- not as we wish it, but as it in fact is. "Take Your Pain Away" begins by taking notice of something a lot of us have seen in an increasingly polarized, overly-politicized, and embittered society. "Yesterday you were so full of love, today you look like you've had enough." Is it possible to rediscover the meaning of being human and the joy of simple human relationships in the increasingly dystopian nightmare of the 21st century machine? Beneath the apparent cynicism, the band seems to hope so.

Photo by Patrick Hennessey

On Suffer, Then We're Gone, Mourn The Light call it like they see it and their album succeeds precisely because of such honesty. It's rare that I like an album for the words (most of the time, I can't understand them anyway, so I just accept the vocals for how they impact a song), but here the lyrics and music work together so powerfully because it's all so damned relatable. A real salve for the suffering.

The epic new album emerges on Argonauta Records this weekend (pre-order here), but Doomed & Stoned is pleased to give you this advanced listen right now as we present the world premiere.

Give ear...

LISTEN: Mourn The Light - Suffer, Then We're Gone

Some Buzz

Mourn The Light was formed in early 2018 by Dwayne Eldredge, co-founder of The New England Stoner and Doom Festival. Driven by his passion for thunderous, traditional doom metal mixed with lofty progressive metal leanings, Dwayne was hell-bent on creating a band that could sonically push a message of hope in spite of despair.

Following on their highly acclaimed 2019 debut EP, touring the US and Canada including festival appearances at Stoner Jam 19 (during SXSW) or the second New England Stoner and Doom Festival, Mourn The Light returned to the studio to record their first album. 'Suffer, Then We're Gone' (2021) has a plethora of influences showcased, yet made all their own. At one moment, Mourn The Light delivers crushingly massive riffs, only to jump at the next turn, galloping along with shades of classic power metal taking hold and leading the way -- all the while focused on incredibly memorable songs, with catchy hooks and sing-along choruses.

WATCH: Mourn The Light - I Bare the Scars (music video)

'Suffer, Then We're Gone' is the culmination of hard work and determination to create something meaningful and special to us.” Says guitarist Dwayne Eldredge. "We have grown as a band so much over the last couple years and we think it really shows in our latest work. We are a metal family working together on our heavy metal legacy and we are proud to be working with Gero and Argonauta Records. We can't wait to see what the future holds. Looking forward to getting out on the stage again soon...."

Follow The Band

Get Their Music

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 28, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This afternoon, Republicans in the Senate killed the bill to establish a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. The vote was 54 to 35, and yet the thirty-five “no” votes won because of the current shape of the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, even if the minority doesn’t show up to vote.

For their part, having killed the bipartisan, independent commission, Republicans are now complaining that the Democrats might set up a committee on their own. Maine Senator Susan Collins told Politico, “The most likely outcome, sadly, is probably the Democratic leaders will appoint a select committee. We’ll have a partisan investigation. It won’t have credibility with people like me, but the press will cover it because that’s what’s going on.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could indeed set up such a House committee, although she has been clear that she preferred the bipartisan approach. Such a select committee could issue subpoenas and hold hearings to investigate the people involved in the attack. Republicans, who likely fear some of their own would be implicated, are already claiming such a committee would be partisan. President Biden could also set up a commission, which he could then staff in a bipartisan fashion, but without congressional support it could not issue subpoenas.

On Thursday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) continued to hope Republicans would vote for the commission, saying,  "...the Democrats have basically given everything they've asked for, any impediment that would have been there, and there's no reason not to now unless you just don't want to hear the truth." Today, after the vote, he said, “I never thought I’d see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. I’m going to fight to save this country.”

Indeed, by refusing to investigate what is arguably the most dangerous attack on our democracy in our history, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has brought out into the open just how radical the Republican Party has become.

As if in illustration of the party’s increasingly antidemocratic radicalism, in Georgia last night, Representatives Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continued to stoke the same Big Lie that drove the insurrectionists, claiming (falsely) that former president Trump won the 2020 election. The two representatives are on a tour of rallies, possibly to distract from the scandals in which they’re embroiled. Last night, Gaetz, who is under federal investigation for sex trafficking, told attendees that the nation’s founders wrote the Second Amendment to enable citizens to rise up against the government. “It’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports,” he said. “The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary.”

As the audience cheered, Gaetz continued: “I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation and to make sure that they are fully understood.”

For his part, President Biden appears to be trying to undercut the increasingly radical Republicans by trying to improve conditions across the country, especially for those hurting economically as the nation’s factories automate and as their jobs move overseas.

When he took office, his first order of business was to get the coronavirus under control, demonstrating that the federal government could, indeed, do good for the people. That has been a roaring success, with about 62% of American adults currently having received at least one vaccine. Biden is now aiming to have 70% of American adults vaccinated by July 4. New cases are plunging as the vaccines take effect, and the country is reopening rapidly.

Biden also turned quickly to repairing the economy, with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which expanded unemployment benefits and the child tax credit. That credit will start to show up in people’s bank accounts in mid-July and is expected to cut child poverty in half.

So far, Biden’s approach to turning the mood of the country seems to be working: while his predecessor is polling at 39% approval and 57% disapproval, Biden is currently enjoying a 63% job approval rating.

We’ll see how these two themes play out. Today, Biden released a proposed $6.01 trillion budget, tying together three plans he’s already proposed—the $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, and $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending—and adding more to invest in education, health, science, and infrastructure. The proposal increases defense spending by 1.7% and nondefense spending by 16%. Overall, it increases federal spending to levels like those of WWII. By 2031, it would peg spending at $8.2 trillion. Deficits would run higher than $1.3 trillion for the next ten years but then would begin to decrease.

The president proposes to pay for the additional spending by increasing revenue by $4.17 trillion through taxes on individuals who have an annual income of more than $1 million and by revising the top capital gains rate to 39.6%, plus a 3.8% Medicare surtax, bringing the rate to 43.4%. (The current rate is 20% plus the Medicare surtax, making it 23.8%). The White House figures the capital gains tax reform should raise about $322 billion over the next decade.

The budget shows Biden aiming to rebuild the middle class and make America globally competitive again. Acting director of Office of Management and Budget Shalanda Young said that the administration had earlier called for such investment because, “The country had been weakened by decades of underinvestment in these areas.” The 2022 budget would, she said, “grow the economy, create jobs, and do so responsibly by requiring the wealthiest Americans and big corporations to pay their fair share.”

Doubling down on the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which funneled money upward even as corporate tax revenues fell 31%, Republicans have vowed to oppose all tax increases and want no part of Biden’s proposed spending.

Today, McConnell responded to the budget proposal with words that were somewhat unfortunate coming, as they did, on the same day the Republicans refused to create a bipartisan commission to investigate an attack on our government. “If Washington Democrats can move beyond the socialist daydreams and the go-it-alone partisanship,” he said, “we could get a lot of important work done for our country.”

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[constablegoo]

@astralglam​​​​ filed a report .

mint: does your muse view themself as virtuous & moral? what do these words mean to them?

OHOHO. hey hi ily. this is, of course, one of odo’s deepest ongoing battles, and the moment he stops questioning it is the moment he becomes a founder.

the founders grant themselves god status.  GOD!  status. they just reach out and pluck it. Within their range of power, the founders become unquestionably Just and Virtuous and Moral, their Word becomes Law, it becomes “the way things are” and “fact” and they create their own reality stemming from thousands of years of intense xenophobia. they’re above it all. gods don’t make mistakes, right? sure, maybe changelings were hunted and feared ages ago but they still fear it, and that drive for Order and Control over the galaxy is now encoded into their genes and they place a companion structure into the genes of every other species they control, subjugating them to the founders’ own cozy position as Gods, or-- ‘gods’. the founder (i rly don’t like saying “female” founder so she’s THE Founder. she speaks for the link.) makes it quite clear on many occasions that the founders are not here to negotiate. they fully intend to control EVERYTHING at any cost. it is absolutely  chilling  when she cuts garak down with: “they’re dead. you’re dead. cardassia is dead.” and draws the line between the dominion and everyone else miles deep into the sand.

that same genetic coding is one of the first semi-concrete things odo comes to understand about himself and, horribly, he’s landed into conditions under the occupation that very easily could have taken advantage of a less meticulous or stubborn changeling. no, odo says initially (and incorrectly), i am not bajoran** and i am not cardassian and i stand apart from either side of this conflict and so i am bound to PURE Virtue and Morality because of it. he can’t be bribed or bought or won over, and he won’t allow for anything less than a kind of incorruptibility. this effectively wins him allies (and enemies) on both sides, however -- that’s just not how the universe works. the truth of it is that no matter how much he tells himself he is not a part of their regime, his working with the cardassians makes him a collaborator in that he has then recognized their authority and ultimately upheld their legitimacy, even if he never agreed with the cause, even if he was also on some level a casualty of it. at some point when he moves past ‘contract’ investigation and begins to work permanently, he falls into the trap of thinking Order is the same thing as Justice... huge yikes. in that moment he becomes a true and apathetic villain, but he’s subsequently haunted by the resulting execution of innocents. it shakes something up in him. years pass and he still wonders, what other mistakes has he made? what other less direct consequences of his ‘neutral’ arbitration exist? he (and everyone around him) has to live without really knowing, and it’s a constant reminder to him of the power he holds and it informs his understanding of what Real (and imperfect) Justice Means.

**sidenote but later in s7 he introduces himself as ‘from bajor’ and AAAAAA. its good. very good. yeah, you’re bajoran, odo. he gets it now.

Mirror odo is really the ultimate example of an odo having taken those instincts to extremes in an environment that rewarded him for them -- there is no guilt there, and even a sadistic kind of pleasure in it. i’d argue that gaia!odo is another, less extreme example of an odo who’s been alone too long and lost sight of things when he single-mindedly (and against kira’s wishes) chooses her (one person) over 8000. like holy shit? NOT ok? uhhuhhhhfff. anyway. very fortunately, neither of these are OUR odo, but act as great foils to reflect on the worst (bastard cop) qualities or potential qualities of our goo pushed to highly visible extremes, which star trek just loves to do all the time.

but regular/prime odo isnt exactly a rule-follower, either. throughout his life, he frequently takes things into his own hands, uses his abilities to his advantage, spies, wiretaps, eavesdrops, and yes, harasses [quark] sometimes -- he develops his own set of values and personal rules and follows them; even starfleet comes in wary of him and how he operates and hes on thin ice. but because of possibly his most redeeming quality, odo is able to adapt those self-ordained values toward something increasingly honest: for how rigid he can be in personality, he is HIGHLY influenced by the world around him,  listens hard  to what his friends and allies have to say and adapts that feedback; this allows him to evolve and grow and take important matters to heart. he becomes more flexible and better able to hold onto what’s really most important after locking into a decision, because above all else, he is passionately committed to doing the Right Thing. he PLEADS with himself in things past, “your job is to find the truth, not obtain convictions.” by his tendency to push back against what is laid down as ‘law’ (something he becomes more and more aware of and effective at doing) as not always being good or right, or necessarily even creating Order (the thing he’s driven genetically to want), he prepares himself to challenge the most deadly voice of authority -- that of his own people.

so... yes and no. odo’s role and persona as ‘your average security chief’ might dictate that he be virtuous and moral, but he so obviously can’t fit the same exact mold as others in his position -- he has these insane abilities and this mind-consuming nature and it requires he tread with extra care, but he also has a potential for more adaptive, more nuanced morality. he has to build up his own definitions to the words, constantly examine and tease and test them, or else he risks straying too far from what he really wants to achieve -- harmony, honest justice. he has to accept that he’s a part of the system he operates in (not, in fact, alone or isolated! something he actually wants), and know that he is not exempt from making the wrong choice, just like anybody else.

carnation: what is your muse’s relationship with their gender? how do they express or not express this relationship?

ODO AND GENDER!!! i love odo and gender. let’s take this one step at a time. he starts out as an amorphous glob -- he has no gender. there’s no basis for assignment, no culture of difference, and all the goos are goo. odo takes on the shape of the first living thing he sees / the thing he sees most frequently: dr mora. he adopts an image of masculinity from mora and he adopts the hair. that’s about it, and it’s pretty much arbitrary. (maybe the hair is simple enough for his skills, too?) the next people odo meets are also these very masculine, military, cardassian leaders, so again -- this is all he knows! this is neutrality. i imagine it takes him some time to work out what the differences in gender are, and sex, and orientation, romantic vs sexual stuff, all of that. it’s all got cultural baggage he knows nothing about and does not experience, and he’s also dealing with multiple, clashing cultures to boot. since he doesnt have any strong inherent leaning, he simply opts out. he/him becomes his default because thats where he started, thats what he’s been able to successfully present and how people know him, and, terrifyingly, under cardassian rule, it probably offered a bit of safety, too, which was obviously something he needed at the time.

way way way way way down the line in season seven, odo asks kira to (paraphrasing) look at me. what do you see? [i see you.] but this is NOT me, this is only a shape ive assumed in order to fit in. she says, yes, i know that. but this is who you have chosen to be. “a man. a good and honest man.” (i knowww shes not really talking abt gender here BUT) its hard as a trans person not to read the metaphor. he’s chosen to express SOMETHING. he’s chosen something other than what he was given (neutrality) and although he doesnt personally buy into what ‘masculinity’ “should be” (ie the ferengi, smh) / would certainly not argue he doesnt feel non-binary, this is how he has presented all his life, its how hes been treated, and it is what he has chosen to adhere to. there’s a choice in that, kira’s right, and now it reflects something about him.

parallel this, i’ll mention the “female” founder again bc of course there is no discernable reason for her to have a gender -- other than to appeal (im not talking sexually here although there’s,, obviously weird shit happening with the link... yike) to odo in the sense that until that point odo has lived with “gendered” individuals and, i think importantly, kira is with them when they first meet. i think its safe to say the founder saw her, figured she was a friend/ally to odo or at least familiar to him, and took her general representation to appeal as a friend/ally.

otherwise... why, honestly? the founder’s got NO love of humanoids lmao why would she bother.

anyway i’d like to see odo experiment a bit. because when hes safe, he can!! aside from his own doubts and insecurities about shapeshifting, at some point he really has no reason not to, at least a little bit. really, it should just be another thing to practice, much like becoming a convincing rock or a leaf, its just that there are other significances in the cultures around him. i’d just like to see him loosen up a little. have fun. grow ur hair out a bit, odo, why are u still looking like ur terrible dad.

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Fire Season Comes Early To California (CNN) Fire weather is coming early to California this year. For the first time since 2014, parts of Northern California are seeing a May “red flag” fire warning due to dry and windy conditions. The warning coverage area extends from Redding in the north to Modesto in the south, and includes portions of the Central Valley and the state capital of Sacramento. The warning also extends to the eastern edges of the Bay Area. A brush fire that started Friday in Pacific Palisades flared up Saturday due to gusty winds, burning more than 1,300 acres and threatening homes in Topanga Canyon. Topanga State Park in the Santa Monica Mountains is about 20 miles west of downtown Los Angeles. The Palisades fire caused about 1,000 people to be evacuated from their homes early Sunday, with other residents on standby to leave.

Pandemic Refugees at the Border (NYT) The Biden administration continues to grapple with swelling numbers of migrants along the southwestern border. Most of them are from Central America, fleeing gang violence and natural disasters. But the past few months have also brought a much different wave of migration that the Biden administration was not prepared to address: pandemic refugees. They are people arriving in ever greater numbers from far-flung countries where the coronavirus has caused unimaginable levels of illness and death and decimated economies and livelihoods. If eking out an existence was challenging in such countries before, in many of them it has now become almost impossible. According to official data released this week, 30 percent of all families encountered along the border in April hailed from countries other than Mexico and the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, compared to just 7.5 percent in April 2019, during the last border surge. The coronavirus pandemic has had far-reaching consequences for the global economy, erasing hundreds of millions of jobs. And it has disproportionately affected developing countries, where it could set back decades of progress, according to economists. About 13,000 migrants have landed in Italy, the gateway to Europe, so far this year, three times as many as in the same period last year. At the U.S.-Mexico border in recent months, agents have stopped people from more than 160 countries, and the geography coincides with the path of the virus’s worst devastation.

The U.S. conversation on Israel is changing, no matter Biden’s stance (Washington Post) In Washington, support for the Palestinian plight is getting louder in Congress. On Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote a widely circulated New York Times op-ed pulling the spotlight away from Hamas’s provocations to the deeper reality of life for millions of Palestinians living under blockade and occupation. He pointed to the havoc unleashed in recent weeks by rampaging mobs of Jewish extremists in Jerusalem, as well as the questionable Israeli legal attempts to forcibly evict the Palestinian residents of a neighborhood in the contested holy city. “None of this excuses the attacks by Hamas, which were an attempt to exploit the unrest in Jerusalem, or the failures of the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority, which recently postponed long-overdue elections,” Sanders wrote. “But the fact of the matter is that Israel remains the one sovereign authority in the land of Israel and Palestine, and rather than preparing for peace and justice, it has been entrenching its unequal and undemocratic control.”      In another era, Sanders would have cut a lonely figure among his colleagues. But he is not alone. A number of Democratic lawmakers, including solidly pro-Israel politicians, issued statements indicating their displeasure with the casualties caused by Israel’s attacks in Gaza. Others were more vocal, accusing Israel of “apartheid.” Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) tweeted: “This is happening with the support of the United States....the US vetoed the UN call for a ceasefire. If the Biden admin can’t stand up to an ally, who can it stand up to? How can they credibly claim to stand for human rights?” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a center-left pro-Israel advocacy organization that increasingly reflects the mainstream position of American liberals, said in a briefing with reporters last week that the “diplomatic blank check to the state of Israel” given out by successive U.S. administrations has meant that “Israel has no incentive to end occupation and find a solution to the conflict.”

Mexico City is sinking (Wired) When Darío Solano‐Rojas moved from his hometown of Cuernavaca to Mexico City to study at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the layout of the metropolis confused him. “What surprised me was that everything was kind of twisted and tilted,” says Solano‐Rojas. “At that time, I didn't know what it was about. I just thought, ‘Oh, well, the city is so much different than my hometown.’” Different, it turned out, in a bad way. Picking up the study of geology at the university, Solano‐Rojas met geophysicist Enrique Cabral-Cano, who was actually researching the surprising reason for that infrastructural chaos: The city was sinking—big time. It’s the result of a geological phenomenon called subsidence, which usually happens when too much water is drawn from underground, and the land above begins to compact. According to new modeling by the two researchers and their colleagues, parts of the city are sinking as much as 20 inches a year. In the next century and a half, they calculate, areas could drop by as much as 65 feet. Spots just outside Mexico City proper could sink 100 feet. That twisting and tilting Solano‐Rojas noticed was just the start of a slow-motion crisis for 9.2 million people in the fastest-sinking city on Earth. And because some parts are slumping dramatically and others aren’t, the infrastructure that spans the two zones is sinking in some areas but staying at the same elevation in others. And that threatens to break roads, metro networks, and sewer systems. “Subsistence by itself may not be a terrible issue,” says Cabral-Cano. “But it's the difference in this subsistence velocity that really puts all civil structures under different stresses.”

Today’s the day: British holidaymakers return to Portugal as travel ban ends (Reuters) Sun-hungry British visitors descended on Portuguese beaches once again on Monday as a four-month long ban on travel between the two countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic ended, in a much-needed boost for the struggling tourism sector. Twenty-two flights from Britain are due to land in Portugal on Monday, with most heading to the southern Algarve region, famous for its beaches and golf courses but nearly deserted as the pandemic kept tourists away. Visitors from Britain must present evidence of a negative coronavirus test taken 72 hours before boarding their flights to Portugal and there is no need to quarantine for COVID-19 when returning home. Back at home, most British people will be free once again to hug, albeit cautiously, drink a pint in their pub, sit down to an indoor meal or visit the cinema after the ending of a series of lockdowns that imposed the strictest ever restrictions in peacetime.

Afghans who helped the US now fear being left behind (AP) He served as an interpreter alongside U.S. soldiers on hundreds of patrols and dozens of firefights in eastern Afghanistan, earning a glowing letter of recommendation from an American platoon commander and a medal of commendation. Still, Ayazudin Hilal was turned down when he applied for one of the scarce special visas that would allow him to relocate to the U.S. with his family. Now, as American and NATO forces prepare to leave the country, he and thousands of others who aided the war effort fear they will be left stranded, facing the prospect of Taliban reprisals. “We are not safe,” the 41-year-old father of six said of Afghan civilians who worked for the U.S. or NATO. “The Taliban is calling us and telling us, ‘Your stepbrother is leaving the country soon, and we will kill all of you guys.’” At least 300 interpreters have been killed in Afghanistan since 2016, and the Taliban have made it clear they will continue to be targeted, said Matt Zeller, a co-founder of No One Left Behind, an organization that advocates on their behalf. He also served in the country as an Army officer. “The Taliban considers them to be literally enemies of Islam,” said Zeller, now a fellow at the Truman National Security Project. “There’s no mercy for them.”

A Desperate India Falls Prey to Covid Scammers (NYT) Within the world’s worst coronavirus outbreak, few treasures are more coveted than an empty oxygen canister. India’s hospitals desperately need the metal cylinders to store and transport the lifesaving gas as patients across the country gasp for breath. So a local charity reacted with outrage when one supplier more than doubled the price, to nearly $200 each. The charity called the police, who discovered what could be one of the most brazen, dangerous scams in a country awash with coronavirus-related fraud and black-market profiteering. The police say the supplier—a business called Varsha Engineering, essentially a scrapyard—had been repainting fire extinguishers and selling them as oxygen canisters. The consequences could be deadly: The less-sturdy fire extinguishers might explode if filled with high-pressure oxygen. A coronavirus second wave has devastated India’s medical system. Hospitals are full. Drugs, vaccines, oxygen and other supplies are running out. Pandemic profiteers are filling the gap. In many cases, the sellers prey on the desperation and grief of families.

Full-blown boycott pushed for Beijing Olympics (AP) Groups alleging human-rights abuses against minorities in China are calling for a full-blown boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, a move likely to ratchet up pressure on the International Olympic Committee, athletes, sponsors and sports federations. A coalition representing Uyghurs, Tibetans, residents of Hong Kong and others issued a statement Monday calling for the boycott, eschewing lesser measures that had been floated like “diplomatic boycotts” and further negotiations with the IOC or China. “The time for talking with the IOC is over,” Lhadon Tethong of the Tibet Action Institute said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press. “This cannot be games as usual or business as usual; not for the IOC and not for the international community.” The push for a boycott comes a day before a joint hearing in the U.S. Congress focusing on the Beijing Olympics and China’s human-rights record, and just days after the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee said boycotts are ineffective and only hurt athletes.

Grief Mounts as Efforts to Ease Israel-Hamas Fight Falter (NYT) Diplomats and international leaders were unable Sunday to mediate a cease-fire in the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel vowed to continue the fight and the United Nations Security Council failed to agree on a joint response to the worsening bloodshed. The diplomatic wrangling occurred after the fighting, the most intense seen in Gaza and Israel for seven years, entered its deadliest phase yet. At least 42 Palestinians were killed early Sunday morning in an airstrike on several apartments in Gaza City, Palestinian officials said, the conflict’s most lethal episode so far. The number of people in killed in Gaza rose to 197 over the seven days of the conflict, according to Palestinian officials, while the number of Israeli residents killed by Palestinian militants climbed to 11, including one soldier, the Israeli government said.

Israel, Hamas trade fire in Gaza as war rages on (AP) Israel carried out a wave of airstrikes on what it said were militant targets in Gaza, leveling a six-story building, and militants fired dozens of rockets into Israel on Tuesday. Palestinians across the region observed a general strike as the war, now in its second week, showed no signs of abating. The strikes toppled a building that housed libraries and educational centers belonging to the Islamic University. Residents sifted through the rubble, searching for their belongings.

Israel’s aftermath (Foreign Policy) In Israel, the aftermath of days of violence in mixed Arab-Israeli towns has led to a one-sided reaction from state prosecutors: Of the 116 indictments served so far against those arrested last week, all have been against Arab-Israeli citizens, Haaretz reports. Meanwhile, Yair Lapid, whose centrist Yesh Atid party’s chances of forming a coalition government has crumbled since the violence broke out, placed the blame on Netanyahu. If he was in charge, Lapid said on Sunday, no one would have to question “why the fire always breaks out precisely when it’s most convenient for the prime minister.”

Long working hours can be a killer, WHO study shows (Reuters) Working long hours is killing hundreds of thousands of people a year in a worsening trend that may accelerate further due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization said on Monday. In the first global study of the loss of life associated with longer working hours, the paper in the journal Environment International showed that 745,000 people died from stroke and heart disease associated with long working hours in 2016. That was an increase of nearly 30% from 2000. “Working 55 hours or more per week is a serious health hazard,” said Maria Neira, director of the WHO’s Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health. The joint study, produced by the WHO and the International Labour Organization, showed that most victims (72%) were men and were middle-aged or older. Often, the deaths occurred much later in life, sometimes decades later, than the shifts worked. It also showed that people living in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific region were the most affected.

[theculturedmarxist]

leviathan.naked_lesbian_makeout_blonde_sluts.mp3.mov.jpg.exe

On the one hand, yeah, definitely fuck Zuckernerd and Facebook, and the other tech empires.

On the other hand, it’s not like these are even the grossest examples of monopolies, with even larger and more insidious corporations given the green light to bloat even larger. The motive definitely isn’t to protect the consumer or to encourage competition.

I doubt it’s to make an example of Zuckerberg for accumulating such a hoard of wealth, either. Billionaires have become more stinking rich out of the pandemic, but Zuckerberg isn’t even the one that won the most.

Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos has enjoyed the biggest bump in personal fortune, according to the analysis from Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies, two left-leaning groups. Bezos' wealth has jumped by $90.1 billion, to $203.1 billion, from March 18 through October 13[...]

Other billionaires whose fortunes have risen during the pandemic include Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, whose wealth has jumped 20% to $118 billion since March, and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, with an 85% gain to $101.2 billion, the analysis found.

Facebook isn’t the only tech conglomerate to have an anti-trust suit brought against them. Amazon, Apple, and Google have all been hit with suits, ostensibly about unfair trade practices or similar accusations. More curious is how deeply in bed with the US government these corporations are, like Amazon’s partnership with the US Military, or Google’s collaborations with the government. Maybe a clue is hidden in the essay by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen:

In an era when the power of the individual and the group grows daily, those governments that ride the technological wave will clearly be best positioned to assert their influence and bring others into their orbits. And those that do not will find themselves at odds with their citizens.

The election of Biden is definitely the effort of The Establishment to put the Trump genie back in the bottle. His election was an undesired outcome, an anomaly in a system that they want to run regularly, and to produce regular, predictable results. The wealthy are wedded to the political system, have regular mechanisms and controls to manipulate and interact with it, and Trump leap-frogged the whole dog and pony show. But he didn’t do it alone.

So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.

To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I’m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after).

But Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work. They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.

That brings me to the present moment, where we have maintained the same ad policies. It occurs to me that it very well may lead to the same result. As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result.

Google makes most of its money through advertising, and according to the NYT, “Google’s share of the search market in the United States is about 80 percent. “ Facebook is itself a monstrous social media entity, and owns two more of the largest SM platforms on the internet, Instagram and Snapchat, which:

Instagram: Active 1 Billion users

If your target demographic is under 35, Instagram is a gold mine: 63% of users are between the ages of 18 to 34, with virtually even split between male and female users. 

Snapchat: Active monthly users 360 million

The most active users are Snapchat are 13-year-olds, and they’re spending upwards of 30 minutes a day on the app.

Twitch is a subsidiary of Amazon, which apparently has 140 million users, who I would imagine also skew younger, and who watch on average an hour and a half of content on the website a day.

We do know, through Twitch Tracker, that the average number of concurrent viewers stood at 1.4 million over February 2020, with peak Twitch viewing figures just a shade shy of 4 million – a threshold exceeded during the coronavirus lockdown that followed.

This puts Twitch well ahead of many traditional media outlets. Indeed, by early 2018, Twitch was outstripping MNSBC and CNN in terms of peak concurrent viewership (885,000 and 783,000 respectively). Fox News and ESPN were logging 1.5 million at this point.

The bourgeoisie have many glaring blindspots, but they aren’t themselves blind, or altogether stupid. The Arab Spring showed them what connected populations could do, and social media platforms have been instrumental in coordinating and organizing resistance efforts in the US, as well as spreading uncomfortable and uncontrolled information that the government et al would rather not be known. I would be willing to bet that there were many government and corporate analysts looking at the numbers, reach, and growth of every video of a black man getting shot this past summer that lead to civil unrest.

None of this proves that the US government is angling to take over social media, but I think it’s notable that Twitter is already playing ball with censoring uncomfortable stories, and doesn’t appear to be getting hit with the same sort of lawsuits as its competitors, despite its own relative monopoly.

The bourgeoisie are increasingly running out of options. Unwilling or unable to actually win the votes of the electorate by making concessions and other broadly demanded and popular reforms, it must increasingly rely on propaganda campaigns and other manipulation in order to keep the charade of government and control functioning. I would posit that the very narrow defeat of Trump last month, in spite of four years of constant fear mongering and concerted efforts to demonize him on the part of the bourgeois media, the alliance between Republicans and Democrats, and the collusion of the governments various branches of intelligence services and secret police, was the last straw—if the internet is such a disruptive and unpredictable force, then it must either be controlled or destroyed.

[safflora]

What’s the deal with Historia? (Post chapter 122)

One of the Hot Topics I’ve seen lately has been the identity of the father of Historia’s baby. I have mostly ignored this question in favor of focusing more on trying to discern Eren’s motives and goals and thinking up overly speculative theories on Titan lore. What is interesting to me, however, is the related concern over what the current situation means for Historia’s (and Eren’s) character development. So much time and care has gone into developing Historia, I just cannot fathom that Isayama would be undoing that now. I have too much faith in him as a writer for that. I feel he’s earned it. But now I have a theory that might explain where he is going with all this:

I think Historia may have received some memories of the first Ymir and the origin of this world under titan rule. I think, perhaps, this is what we saw in those memory shards just before Eren entered Paths: Historia, moved to tears (weren’t we all!) by what she has learned, recounting it to Eren. From that point, she and Eren have been working together to free Ymir and free the world from the titans. Here’s what I’ve got:

1. Eren and Historia have a close relationship, but the specifics of it have been intentionally obfuscated.

First of all, we’ve seen a special relationship develop between Eren and Historia. Ever since their conversation after Reiner and Bertholdt’s escape with our Ymir, that’s been clear. We know they’ve spent a lot of time together. Enough to make Mikasa jealous. Enough for Jean to remark on their “holding hands”. I’ve suspected that they’re in on something together, and now we’re starting to get clearer signs of what that could be. But aside from these hints, we haven’t gotten to see them actually interact much. Eren and Historia have a close relationship, but the specifics of it have been intentionally obfuscated. Why? The same reason we haven’t been allowed to see much of Eren’s thought process. It must be because their relationship is important to the big endgame plan that we’re meant to agonize over until it’s finally revealed.

2. It may be possible that all this contact has revealed important memories/visions to Historia as well. I think the source of these memories could be the Founder Ymir.

This is well illustrated in this post by Momtaku. We know that contact with Eren has revealed her own hidden memories in the past, and there is reason to believe that could have continued. The memories revealed to Eren have become increasingly complex as time has gone on and more information has been uncovered. Could the same be true for her? It may be possible that all this contact has revealed important memories/visions to Historia as well. In the past, this was easier to explain. She was simply having her own hidden memories uncovered. It’s not like she is connected to a titan and able to see past or future holders’ memories. But I believe she may also be able to receive others’ memories. We saw hints of this at the moment she killed her father, and in the anime when she read Ymir’s letter. Could she now be receiving them from another source? I think so. I think the source of these memories could be the Founder Ymir.

3. The Founder Ymir does have a will that she can and does exercise to some extent through Paths.

It’s implied in chapter 122 that Ymir is the one who sent visions to Eren as a child. Eren says as much when he asks her if she is the one who led him all the way there to Paths, as if he could sense he had been led in some way. At this point in the story, I don’t think we have time for another bait and switch here. I think we’re being told this actually is the case. The titles of Chapters 1 and 122 seem to me to confirm this. What this means is that the Founder Ymir does have a will that she can and does exercise to some extent through Paths. I’d speculated in chapter 115 when Zeke was resurrected by Ymir that she was pulling some strings. I got away from that idea a bit after chapter 120 when it seemed that Zeke’s royal blood had forced her to save him per his dying wish. Now I think my first idea is more probable. What Zeke was remembering in his dying moments was the conversation in which Eren tells us his intention is to end 2,000 years of titan rule, which is what Ymir seems to want as well. It is also clear in this memory that contact with Zeke is necessary for this to happen. So Ymir intervenes. She is leading Eren to her.

4. It appears that Founder Ymir can see something of the natures of her people and selects who to interact with. Historia’s primary motivation in life is to help people exactly like Founder Ymir.

She singled out Eren. This may have something to do with the nature and history of the Attack Titan and its relationship to Ymir (which I may explore more later), though her first messages reached him before he possessed it. It may also be that he just has a spirit that values freedom over all else, abhors the enslavement of others, and never gives up a fight (the result of having a father who possessed the AT?). Either way, it appears that Founder Ymir can see something of the natures of her people and selects who to interact with.

She may also have some connection to our Ymir, being the only other character we’ve seen who was able to see Paths. Lots of people have outlined the parallels between Founder Ymir and 104th Ymir. If Founder Ymir can watch her subjects and has some understanding of their spirits, I can certainly imagine her feeling some sort of kinship with 104th Ymir, allowing her to be conscious of Paths for a time. How fitting that our Ymir was so instrumental in Historia’s personal development, helping her find the strength to determine her own path in life. A path which is defined by her desire to rescue others who are made to believe they are worthless… In fact, Historia’s primary motivation in life is to help people exactly like Founder Ymir.

If Ymir knows this, wouldn’t Historia be the perfect person to reveal her story to? No matter who, no matter where, Historia will come to her rescue.

Taking another, completely different angle, her name is Historia, y’all. Did Isayama name her that because she is the one to receive the truth of the History of the World? (The World being the condition of being under titan rule, the thing Eren and Ymir wish to destroy, not the actual, literal physical world and all the people in it. Come on now, folks.)

5. Historia and Eren are working toward the end of freeing Ymir and thereby freeing the world of titans. Historia is co-mastermind of this whole thing.

If we follow this line of thinking and take for now that Ymir likely revealed her story to Historia, I’m going to make another leap and conjecture that the distressed Historia we saw in the memory shard in Chapter 120 is her telling Eren what she has learned. I mean, that’s pretty much what I looked like after reading 122.

If this is true, she is the one who has motivated Eren to get to where he is now. They have a shared goal. Historia and Eren are working toward the end of freeing Ymir and thereby freeing the world of titans. Their natures, their stories, make them uniquely situated to be motivated to do this and to achieve this goal together. They have been in cahoots all this time! Historia has not been controlled and manipulated by the forces around her as it appears. She is where she intended to be. Historia is co-mastermind of this whole thing. She is a true Queen.

Now, this all raises some questions:

- At what point did this occur? It could be soon after the award ceremony. It could have been years later, the event that prompted Eren to go over to Marley, meet with Zeke, and steal the War Hammer. It could have happened in stages in those intervening years. We just don’t know enough right now.

- How should we interpret Eren’s reaction to seeing Ymir in Paths for the first time? He’s purposefully been made hard to read in all the recent chapters, so this is difficult. He does seem to be somewhat surprised. As for why, we can only speculate. I think there was still a lot left unknown to Eren and Historia about the specifics of how this plan would work. Eren knows that his goal is to contact Ymir somehow and that it requires getting to Paths, but he doesn’t seem to be prepared for anything beyond that. He doesn’t know what it’ll be like there or what she’ll be like. Maybe he’s surprised that she’s a rag-clad little girl and not some glorious goddess. Maybe he expected the grown Ymir, old enough to have had three daughters. Maybe it’s not a look of surprise at all. It could be the look of someone who has realized how close he’s come to his goal, that the moment is finally upon him. (Is he smiling or upset about the “scenery”? Is the dress white and gold or black and blue?)

This “always here all alone” comment feels to me like an odd first remark about her presence. It feels like he already knows something about her.

- What is the point of Historia’s pregnancy? Who is the father (and does it matter)? Shoot, y’all, I don’t know. I’ve seen a lot of people saying that her baby will be Ymir reincarnated. Maybe? I don’t hate that idea. I just feel like I don’t know enough to figure out how that all works. Is it just a symbol of being Freely Born Into the New World™?

(お前は自由...だ? can’t quite make out that last one --> you are free)

Maybe, but I hope there’s a more concrete purpose. Is it merely the natural result of all the ~contact~ that Historia and Eren have had? I will make no claims and offer no opinions.

- Why does Historia look so upset? Well, one explanation is that the world is kinda falling apart and a lot of people are going to die and also she’s been made even more keenly aware of the depth of the evil that can exist in people. That seems pretty likely to me. She could be worried about how things are going to turn out. As I’ve stated, I don’t think they know all the details of this plan. There’s the possibility of failure. She might just be upset that all she can do right now is sit around and wait to see how things turn out without lending a hand to the efforts of her loved ones.

She might just be annoyed at this guy hovering over her. The worst case scenario is that the pregnancy was never part of her plan and that she’s actually upset about it. Please no! Thankfully I think there are enough plausible alternative explanations that I can avoid despairing over this for now.

- Why does this have to be a secret from everyone? The single most frustrating question to me right now. The only thing I can come up with at the moment is that they felt it would be impossible to convey sufficiently the need for the actions they had to take without inciting opposition earlier than was ideal. I’m not really satisfied with this and very much hope there is a better explanation.

So. Simply put, I think there is reason to believe that Historia is going to end up being one of the most important, badass, and well-crafted characters in this story. I have faith in Yams. Could be I’ve just got to be drunk on that to keep carrying on right now, but I’ll take it.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

AND YOU KNOW WHO GOT THEM

Smaller companies were increasingly able to survive as formerly narrow channels to consumers broadened. They seem to like us too.1 That gets you James Bond, who knows what to do in situations where few others could. What about the more theoretical question of whether hockey would be a bad sign if they weren't; it would be false. And partly a larger part than he would admit that he doesn't want to see.2 The problem is, a lot of the problems change. On the other hand, history is even fuller of examples of parents who thought their kids were wasting their time and who were right. Why didn't Henry Ford realize that networks of cooperating companies work better than a single big company? If you want to slow down, your instinct is to lean back.3

Meetings are like an opiate with a network effect. My guess is that a lot of instincts, this one wasn't designed for fun, and mostly it wasn't. It turns out I have a lot of time on bullshit things or lose to people who do. I get nothing done, because I'm doing stuff that seems, superficially, like real work. In most fields, prototypes have traditionally been made out of different materials. Now a lot of something. The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook all got started. Nor did they work for big companies not even to try to solve problems and simply not discount weird hunches you have in the process. If you want to prepare yourself to start a startup, the thought of our startups keeps me up at night. A physicist friend recently told me half his department was on Prozac. As with gangs, we have some idea what your prospects might be if you tried to keep someone in as protected an environment as a newborn till age 18.4

Aggregators show how much better you can do to help: Avoid distractions. In short, the disasters this summer were just the usual childhood diseases. And it does seem as if Google was a collaboration. The reason this struck me so forcibly is that for most of what happened in finance too. Buildings to be constructed from stone were tested on a smaller scale in wood. One might worry this would prevent people from expressing controversial ideas, but a leading indicator.5 To some extent this was because the companies themselves had become sclerotic.6 How can you tell if you're up to it, the only way to get an accurate drawing is not to spend it having fun, you know you're being self-indulgent. Advising people and writing are fundamentally different types of problems—wisdom to human problems and intelligence to abstract ones. In fact, we were surprised how much time I spent making introductions. What a solitary task startups are.

Apple are doing so much better than Microsoft today. It will take more experience to know for sure, but my guess is that a lot of time on them have to be learned, and are sometimes fairly counterintuitive. Having coffee with a friend matters. Notice I said what they need, not what they want. Palm and RIM haven't a hope. You can see it in old photos. They want to get rich. As one of the things startups do right without realizing it.

Developments in finance, communications, transportation, and manufacturing enabled a new type of company whose goal was above all scale. That form of fragmentation, like the chemical elements. That way we can avoid being discontented about being discontented. And that means other questions aren't. I began with, that it doesn't matter much; it will change anyway. And we have to tell them the best way to begin may not be to write a prototype that solves a subset of a bigger problem you're trying to solve: how to have a remedial character. So by studying the intended users include the designer himself.7 I finally figured out something I've wondered about for 25 years: the relationship between wisdom and intelligence. This article is derived from a keynote talk at the fall 2002 meeting of NEPLS. But you yourself are the most important things to remember about divorce, one of which is: You shouldn't put the blame on one parent, because divorce is never only one person's fault. In 1995, writing software for end users was effectively identical with writing Windows applications. Once an essay has had a couple thousand page views I feel reasonably confident about it.

You won't feel later like that was a waste of time. Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to private schools or wished they did started to dress preppy, and kids who wanted to seem rebellious made a conscious effort to think of startup ideas, the ideas you come up with will not merely be bad, but bad specifically in the sense of not having gone to the college you'd have liked is your own feeling that you're thereby lacking something. Within Y Combinator, which is more than they paid him. What was really happening was de-oligopolization. I mean business can learn from open source: that people working for money, but also everyone who aspired to it—which in the middle of the century our two big forces intersect, in the now pointless secrecy of the Masons. At the very least we have to go pretty far down the list of colleges before you stop finding smart professors in the math department. If Christmas-as-magic lasts from say ages 3 to 10, you only have to keep the peace. Good new ideas come from earnest, energetic, and independent-minded. If the world were static, we could just program in machine language. The reason, I realized, more from internal evidence than any outside source, that the ideas we were being fed on TV were crap, and I am self-indulgent in the sense of being an insider. If you want to start startups hope universities can teach them about startups if they were merely hiring people.8 100,000 people worked there.

Notes

The other reason they pay a lot of the whole fund.

The amusing thing is, it would have seemed to Aristotle the core: the resources they expend on the Daddy Model and reality is the kind that prevents you from starving.

Joe Gebbia needed Airbnb? It's lame that VCs play such games, books, newspapers, or pigs, to the environment. You may not have raised money at first had two parts: the energy they emit encourages other ambitious people together. The mere possibility of being absorbed by the size of the current edition, which are a small proportion of spam, but all they demand from art is brand, and so don't deserve to keep the next round.

How did individuals accumulate large fortunes in an industrialized country encounters the idea of getting rich, purely mercenary founders will seem as if having good intentions were enough to absorb that. So the cost can be times when what you're doing. Investors are fine with funding nerds. In a country with a potential acquirer unless you want to know about a week for 19 years, it becomes an advantage to be about 50%.

Believe me, I should add that none who read this to be very promising, because a part has come unscrewed, you have to do that. Mueller, Friedrich M. Ideas are one of the world. As well as good ones don't even try.

Few technologies have one clear inventor. I paint someone's house, the best new startups.

With the good groups, you have to want to create a silicon valley in Israel. For example, if you don't, you're using a degenerate case of Bayes' Rule.

The continuing popularity of religion is the odds are slightly more interesting than later ones, it will seem like noise. I'm talking here about which is something inexperienced founders. Letter to Ottoline Morrell, December 1912.

[processproductionsophielindsay]

LORNA SIMPSON

Lorna Simpson, The Water Bearer (1986)

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/arts/design/02lorn.html

Lorna Simpson, Guarded Conditions (1989)

https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/book_report/representing-the-black-body-lorna-simpson-in-conversation-with-thelma-golden-54624

Lorna Simpson, Necklines (1989)

https://mcachicago.org/Collection/Items/1989/Lorna-Simpson-Necklines-1989

Lorna Simpson Wigs (1994)

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/lorna-simpson-wigs-1994/

Childhood

Born in Brooklyn in 1960, Lorna Simpson was an only child to a Jamaican-Cuban father and an African American mother. Her parents were left-leaning intellectuals who immersed their daughter in group gatherings and cultural events from a young age. She attributed their influence as the sole reason she became an artist, writing, "From a young age, I was immersed in the arts. I had parents who loved living in New York and loved going to museums, and attending plays, dance performances, concerts... my artistic interests have everything to do with the fact that they took me everywhere ...."

Aspects of day-to-day life lit up Simpson's young imagination, from the jazz music of John Coltrane and Miles Davis, to magazine advertisements and overheard, hushed stories shared between adults; all of which would come to shape her future art. The artist took dance classes as a child and when she was around 11 years old, she took part in a theatrical performance at the Lincoln Center for which she donned a gold bodysuit and matching shoes. Though she remembered being incredibly self-conscious, it was a valuable learning experience, one that helped her realize she was better suited as an observer than a performer. This early coming-of-age experience was later documented in the artwork Momentum, (2010).

Simpson's creative training began as a teenager with a series of short art courses at the Art Institute of Chicago, where her grandmother lived. This was followed by attendance at New York's High School of Art and Design, which, she recalls "...introduced me to photography and graphic design."

  Early Training and Work

After graduating from high school Simpson earned a place at New York's School of Visual Arts. She had initially hoped to train as a painter, but it soon became clear that her skills lay elsewhere, as she explained in an interview, "everybody (else) was so much better (at painting). I felt like, Oh God, I'm just slaving away at this." By contrast, she discovered a raw immediacy in photography, which "opened up a dialogue with the world."

When she was still a student Simpson took an internship with the Studio Museum in Harlem, which further expanded her way of thinking about the role of art in society. It was here that she first saw the work of Charles Abramson and Adrian Piper, as well as meeting the leading Conceptual artist David Hammons. Each of these artists explored their mixed racial heritage through art, encouraging Simpson to follow a similar path. Yet she is quick to point out how these artists were in a minority at the time, remembering, "When I was a student, the work of artists from varying cultural contexts was not as broad as it is now."

During her student years Simpson travelled throughout Europe and North Africa with her camera, making a series of photographs of street life inspired by the candid languages of Henri Cartier-Bresson and Roy DeCarava. But by graduation, Simpson felt she had already exhausted the documentary style. Taking a break from photography, she moved toward graphic design, producing for a travel company. Yet she remained connected to the underground art scene, mingling with likeminded spirits and fellow African Americans who felt the same rising frustrations as racism, poverty, and unemployment ran deep into the core of their communities.

At an event in New York Simpson met Carrie-Mae Weems, who was a fellow African American student at the University of California. Weems persuaded Simpson to make the move to California with her. "It was a rainy, icy New York evening," remembers Simpson, "and that sounded really good to me." After enrolling at the University of California's MFA program, Simpson found she was increasingly drawn towards a conceptual language, explaining how, "When I was in grad school, at University of California, San Diego, I focused more on performance and conceptually based art." Her earliest existing photographs of the time were made from models staged in a studio under which she put panels or excerpts of text lifted from newspapers or magazines, echoing the graphic approaches of Jenny Holzer and Martha Rosler. The words usually related to the inequalities surrounding the lives of Black Americans, particularly women. Including text immediately added a greater level of complexity to the images, while tying them to painfully difficult current events with a deftly subtle hand.

Mature Period

Simpson's tutors in California weren't convinced by her radical new slant on photography, but after moving back to New York in 1985, she found both a willing audience and a kinship with other artists who were gaining the confidence to speak out about wider cultural diversities and issues of marginalization. Simpson says, "If you are not Native American and your people haven't been here for centuries before the settlement of America, then those experiences have to be regarded as valuable, and we have to acknowledge each other."

Simpson had hit her stride by the late 1980s. Her distinctive, uncompromising ability to address racial inequalities through combinations of image and text had gained momentum and earned her a national following across the United States. She began using both her own photography and found, segregation-era images alongside passages of text that gave fair representation to her subjects. One of her most celebrated works was The Water Bearer, (1986), combining documentation of a young woman pouring water with the inscription: "She saw him disappear by the river. They asked her to tell what happened, only to discount her memory." Simpson deliberately challenged preconceived ideas about first appearances with the inclusion of texts like this one. The concept of personal memory is also one which has become a recurring theme in Simpson's practice, particularly in relation to so many who have struggled to be heard and understood. She observes, "... what one wants to voice in terms of memory doesn't always get acknowledged."

In the 1990s Simpson was one of the first African American women to be included in the Venice Biennale. It was a career-defining decade for Simpson as her status grew to new heights, including a solo exhibition at New York's Museum of Modern Art in 1990 and a series of international residencies and displays. She met and married the artist James Casebere not long after, and their daughter Zora was born in the same decade. In 1994 Simpson began working with her grandmother's old copies of 1950s magazines including Ebony and Jet, aimed at the African American community. Cutting apart these relics from another era allowed Simpson to revise and reinvent the prescribed ideals being pushed onto Black women of the time, as seen in the lithograph series Wigs (1994). The use of tableaus and repetition also became a defining feature of her work, alongside cropped body parts to emphasize the historical objectification of Black bodies.

  Current Work

In more recent years Simpson has embraced a much wider pool of materials including film and performance. Her large-scale video installations such as Cloudscape (2004) and Momentum (2011) have taken on an ethereal quality, addressing themes around memory and representation with oblique yet haunting references to the past through music, staging, and lighting.

Between 2011 and 2017 Simpson reworked her Ebony and Jet collages of the 1990s by adding swirls of candy-hued, watercolour hair as a further form of liberation. She has also re-embraced painting through wild, inhospitable landscapes sometimes combined with figurative elements. The images hearken to the continual chilling racial divisions in American culture. As she explains, "American politics have, in my opinion, reverted back to a caste that none of us want to return to..."

Today, Simpson remains in her hometown of Brooklyn, New York, where in March 2020, she began a series of collages following the rise of the Covid-19 crisis. The works express a more intimate response to wider political concerns. She explains, "I'm just using my collages as a way of letting my subconscious do its thing - basically giving my imagination a quiet and peaceful space in which to flourish. Some of the pieces are really an expression of longing, like Walk with Me, (2020) which reflects that incredibly powerful desire to be with friends right now."

Despite her status as a towering figure of American art, Simpson still feels surprised by the level of her own success, particularly when she compares her work to those of her contemporaries. "I feel there are so many people - other artists who were around when I was in my twenties - who I really loved and appreciated, and who deserve the same attention and opportunity, like Howardena Pindell or Adrian Piper."

The Legacy of Lorna Simpson

Simpson's interrogation of race and gender issues with a minimal, sophisticated interplay between art and language has made her a much respected and influential figure within the realms of visual culture. American artist Glenn Ligon is a contemporary of Simpson's whose work similarly utilizes a visual relationship with text, which he calls 'intertextuality,' exploring how stencilled letters spelling out literary fragments, jokes or quotations relating to African-American culture can lead us to re-evaluate pre-conceived ideas from the past. Ligon was one of the founders of the term "Post-Blackness," formed with curator and writer Thelma Golden in the late 1990s, referring to a post-civil rights generation of African-American artists who wanted their art to not just be defined in terms of race alone. In the term Post-Black, they hoped to find "the liberating value in tossing off the immense burden of race-wide representation, the idea that everything they do must speak to or for or about the entire race."

The re-contextualization of historical inaccuracies in both Simpson and Ligon's practice is further echoed in the fearless, cut-out silhouettes of American artist Kara Walker, who walks headlong into some of the most challenging territory from American history. Arranging figures into theatrical narrative displays, she retells horrific stories from the colonial era with grossly exaggerated caricatures that force viewers into deeply uncomfortable territory.

In contrast, contemporary American artist Ellen Gallagher has tapped into the appropriation and repetition of Simpson's visual art, particularly her collages taken from African American magazine culture. Gallagher similarly lifts original source matter from vintage magazines including Ebony, Our World and Sepia, cutting apart and transforming found imagery with a range of unusual materials including plasticine and gold-leaf. Covering or masking areas of her figures' faces and hairstyles highlights the complexities of race in today's culture, which Gallagher deliberately teases out with materials relating to "mutability and shifting," emphasising the rich diversity of today's multicultural societies around the world.

[tptruepolitics]

LGBT Thoughts

Netflix has recently decided to push transgender ideologies in their Babysitters Club series – a show directed at adolescent girls. While Netflix – an independent company that should only have to answer to itself and its shareholders – is perfectly within their rights to air such shows, the fact remains that this is a deeply damaging topic to be showcasing to the most vulnerable and malleable among us. I think it’s time we finally address the enormous elephant in the room: the LGBT community. Here I will break down my thoughts on their rights, their roles, and their realities in our society.

For much of history, there have been documented incidences of same-sex encounters. Even the Bible makes reference to same-sex relations numerous times. The word sodomy is actually originated from one such text from Genesis in reference to the city of Sodom. Shakespeare is even rumored to have been gay by some scholars. However, for most of human existence, these individuals were forced to live in secret – outcasts of society, ostracized by their own people. To be perfectly fair, religious extremism has only contributed to the past 2-4 thousand years of ridicule. Before that, it was still frowned upon (at best) by most cultures simply because it went against the laws of nature. Male and female animals and even plant parts reproduce in union with one another. There are no same-sex reproductive organisms to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). There are asexual organisms that reproduce by themselves, but certainly no major animal species that reproduce in any extraordinary way. There is a certain species of bird, I believe, that lives in Hawaii (once again, correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes chooses a same-sex partner for life in the absence of a proper mate, but this is certainly an exception, not a rule. To add, they do not reproduce together.

But what does all this mean for humans? How should the “laws of nature” or even God’s laws apply to humans in this age of constant progressivism and an increasing detachment from religiosity that we call secularism? Well, thankfully, in our country and many around the world we are allowed the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. So, if someone chooses to live outside the bounds of religious or natural laws, they certainly should be allowed to, as long as they are minding their own business. This concept of allowing homosexuality was highly contested up until the late 20th century, and is still somewhat contested today in 2020. The original founders felt that upholding moral and ethical truths in our school systems were an integral part of maintaining our precious union. As a matter of fact, the often-misrepresented “separation of church and state” clause did not mean that religion could not be learned about in schools, but that the federal government had no right to establish a State religion (capital S). Most of the founders actually encouraged religious teachings and values in schools. The more modern interpretations of the separation of church and state are due to an influx of not only secular ideologies, but also religious beliefs that were not prevalent during the time of our founding. While I am a firm believer that no harm can come from learning about religious values in schools, in this age of progressivism it is reasonable to note that certain contentious religious principles need not be forced upon others. This would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.

So, to get specific, let’s talk homosexuality. A common misconception in the eyes of secularists is that the Church (I’ll speak specifically about Catholicism here) preaches that homosexuality is a sin – that simply being gay is a sin against God. Well, this isn’t true. The Church expressly teaches that acting out homosexual fantasies is a sin. Let’s say, you are a man who is attracted to other men, but in your devotion to your religion, you find a woman whom you love, marry her, and live your life without having sex with another man. Is this man sinful, because he finds men attractive? Of course he is not! When you feel like strangling someone, but then you calm down and don’t, are you guilty of murder? No. So, simply being gay is not a sentence to Hell. As a matter of fact, even in the eyes of the Church, acting on your homosexual impulses isn’t a death sentence. There is reconciliation and forgiveness in the eyes of the Lord. If you confess your sin and repent for it, you are seen as forgiven. Not to mention, there are people who sin in every aspect of life: liars, swindlers, thieves, murderers – and I’m not even just talking about big sins. Small sins add up, and if you are not repentant of them, you are not any more likely to get to Heaven. However, I will paraphrase this, but I believe there is a Scripture saying that says you will be judged by your worst qualities. So, if you work hard your whole life to be a good Christian, and your only flaw is that you are a wonton whore, a light will be shown on this most vulnerable area.

You might be thinking to yourself, “but it’s a genetic mutation that causes some people to like members of the same sex. God would not have built natural urges in us if he didn’t want us to act on them.” Well, that’s just ridiculous. We have natural urges and desires that are built into us that we are meant to fight off all the time: anger, greed, and jealousy to name a few. Lust is just one more urge that is built into our nature, and it happens to come in all shapes and sizes. Our animalistic desire is not only to have as much sex as possible, but to have it with as many things as possible. Evidence of this is your dog, if you have one. Dogs will regularly hump humans due to a natural urge they have. Should the dog be doing this? Should humans all of a sudden be accepting of bestiality? Maybe don’t answer that one. Now that I’ve gotten a bit off topic, I’ll try to bring this all back. Yes, acting on your homosexual desires is a sin in many Christian churches. However, your homosexuality does nothing to harm me or my church, and as such, I believe firmly that if you wish you act on those temptations, you should be legally allowed to.

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual peoples should not be deprived of their right to happiness, which can include uniting themselves in lawful union. That being said, I would like to advocate for an alteration in the name of the union. With the full rights, advantages and privileges of a married male and female couple, I would like to revoke the name “gay marriage” and return to the previously used “civil union” terminology. Marriage is a religious term that has been secularized over decades to include all unions whether inside or outside of a church between a man and a woman. I propose that all unions made outside of the boundaries of a religious ceremony be labeled civil unions, reserving the term marriage to those unions made within the boundaries of a religious ceremony. Civil unions will differ from Marriages in name only as to lay to rest the disagreements of many over this divisive issue. Thus, men and women, women and women, and men and men united solely by a judge will no longer be “married” but “united”. Those churches that allow gay marriages in their communities are by no means precluded from including them or precluded from calling them whatever they wish. However, legally, in the eyes of the state, a same-sex couple “married” in their churches will be viewed as “united” under the law. This is a semantic issue, as opposed to a legal issue. The semantics are clearly important on this issue and have been increasingly becoming more important as time goes on. I may not feel it is right to legally prevent people from enjoying their lives in whatever manners they please, but I do feel it is within my purview to define terms in order to ease tensions.

With regards to the transgender community, I have immense sympathy and respect for your feelings. Feeling like you don’t fit into the gender roles that your biology dictates can be frustrating, confusing and upsetting. I know. During my high school years, I often noted to myself that I had feminine characteristics that I didn’t understand. In some ways, I felt that I didn’t share many of the masculine interests of my friends. However, because I was surrounded by many fine men who were very accepting of my differences, I never felt that I didn’t belong with them. Here is the reality of the situation. Many people are not surrounded by these positive influences, and thereby feel that they need to re-identify themselves in order to fit into their social environments. This is not the case. Acceptance, toleration and understanding are the keys to solving this problem. Our attention with regard to the gender debate should be redirected towards Gender Stereotypes. At one point, I was under the impression that we were heading in the right direction. In a very enlightening high school class, I was challenged to think about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. When I did this, I came up with many gender stereotypes that not only did not describe many of my peers, but also did not describe myself. Instead of concluding that I did not belong to my gender, however, I concluded that the stereotypes were the crux of the inconsistencies. At one point in history, gender roles were necessary for survival – the strong (men) went on the hunt, and the tender (women) cared for the children. They were important distinctions. This is not the case anymore! Over time, as technology and society developed to the point where strict gender roles were no longer necessary, women’s rights and roles in society began to change. This was a good thing and is a testament to how incredible our society has been for the less advantaged. These roles still play a part in our daily lives and still affect who we are, but they do not define us exclusively. Take Apples for example. The stereotype of an Apple is a red, juicy, sweet fruit. However, there are apples that are yellow, juicy and sweet. There are also apples that are green, juicy and tart. Is the yellow apple a mango now? Is the green apple a lime? No, their genetics limit them to the fruitful existence that they are. Nevertheless, biology dictates what type of fruit they are and not their characteristics; their characteristics don’t change the underlying biology.

To solve the issue of gender, some people on the progressive aisle have attempted to remove gender. I instead propose to remove the stereotypes/roles! This of course leads to inconsistencies in the Pride movement as a whole. For example, an exclusively lesbian woman might marry another woman who decides later that she is a man. Is this first woman heterosexual now, or should she be upset and betrayed and break off the marriage? Are you confused yet? This removal of gender is not only confusing to adults, but it’s confusing to children, and for them, it is dangerous. When you pose a child with the option to choose his/her gender identity, they will ask you what the differences are. Your response will undoubtedly be gender stereotypes. You are doing no one any favors by perpetuating these gender roles. The child will treat this as something fun, like a game. However, once you begin to treat it as something serious, the child will begin to treat it seriously. This is what major networks and schools and parents are beginning to do. Once you begin to treat your child as if they are not their biological sex, they will begin to accept that reality, more so to please you than anything else. This could have unimaginable consequences on their sense of self later in life, which could lead to self-esteem issues, learning disabilities, depression or worse. And making life-altering changes to your children i.e. long-term gender therapy, hormone treatments, or surgeries could permanently hurt them mentally and physically.

Conversely, if your little boy tells you one day that he is a girl, tell him, “No, you’re not a girl, you’re a boy. As a boy, you can be whoever you want to be, like whatever you want to like, and all of those characteristics will make you who you are.” If you tell your little boy that, there is an increased likelihood that he will have a more accepting view of others who are different from him, and will have a more positive outlook of himself. You can be a man who loves to sew, wear frilly clothing, and fixes his own car. You can be a woman who lifts weights, works on a construction site, and watches soap operas. They are not mutually exclusive. This also includes those members of our communities that wish to fully engage in their historical gendered roles. Women, who want nothing but to read, write, sew, be homemakers, and do the multitude of other activities that are considered feminine, should not be shamed into thinking that their choices are not valuable, are backwards, or are in anyway damaging to womanhood. Women who have no interest in science should not be shamed into believing that their lives are a waste and that they are giving in to the patriarchal oppression of women. This is not productive. Similarly, this standard applies to men, who should not be shamed into thinking that jobs that only use their hands are not worthy of respect because they do not require a college education. They should not be shamed into the common misconception that men are brutes, only caring about power and control. Men who are not interested in fashion design or cleaning are not uncreative or lazy. All humans have different interests and strengths.

The characteristics we have as human beings are largely taught to us. Generosity is taught, openness is taught. Negative things, as well: greed, sloth – they are learned. Selfishness is a learned characteristic. As a society, we have failed our younger generations. Parents, teachers, the government, and the media have all failed. To teach a child that they are so important that they have the ability to defy nature and choose their gender breeds self-centeredness and pride beyond compare. How selfish of us, how pompous! We are not that important. We are not able to create our own meaning. Our meaning is a gift bestowed upon us by a higher power. Who or what that higher power is, is for each and every man and woman to decide on their own, but a society based on the premise that they determine their own worth is doomed to fail because it is founded on the ideal that the self is the most important entity. This is not to contradict our founding principles concerning the individual. Those principles concern how government should act in relation to its people. The concept of self-importance, to which I’m referring, concerns how individuals view themselves and act in spite of the government.

 So, no, I don’t think that Netflix or schools should be teaching students, especially against the wills of their parents, that being a boy when you’re a girl or vice versa is acceptable. We should not be teaching children that biology can just be ignored. If we allowed this aspect of biology to be ignored, other aspects of biology may be ignored in the future (like age!). Nor do I think that sexual preference should be celebrated in public schools. This goes against the separation of church and state in a different manner, because teaching children that their religious observances of sin are incorrect is a direct interference with the practice of a religion. This would be a world where secularism becomes the state religion and that would be no more acceptable than some form of theism. Have no shame for who you are, but don’t put down other peoples’ views to make yourself feel better. Respect should be taught of all our children before they leave the home for school.

Here is my final message. Acceptance of self, love of one another, and understanding of our differences, should reign supreme.

[a-room-of-my-own]

quillette[.]2019/11/04/meet-the-gay-activists-whove-had-enough-of-britains-ultra-woke-homophobes/ 🙌

Are gay people allowed to meet and organise in defense of their interests? A hard yes, you might have thought. But some apparently disagree.

Witness the response to the London-based LGB Alliance, a newly created British group that asserts “the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people to define themselves as same-sex-attracted.” The group’s creation has sparked vitriol, not from the traditionalist Christians or social conservatives who might have opposed such groups in the 1980s or 1990s, but from the self-described progressive left.

Readers who aren’t steeped in the most fashionable iteration of identity politics might now be scratching their heads. Unless you’re taking cues from Leviticus, what could possibly be wrong with saying it’s okay to be gay?

The answer is that, in acknowledging the reality of same-sex attraction, you are indirectly acknowledging the reality and importance of biological sex as a driver of attraction. You are also indirectly acknowledging that members of the opposite sex are not members of your dating pool—even if they tell you that they share your gender identity. Which means you have effectively pled guilty to that grave modern thoughtcrime, transphobia.

If you are not on Twitter, have not set foot on a college campus in the last few years, and don’t read woke web sites such as Teen Vogue, where this sort of thing is taken very seriously, you may imagine that I am engaged in some kind of Swiftian send-up of identity politics gone amok. After all, just about every single person reading this knows quite well how sexual attraction works. But I am quite serious: Activist groups that brand themselves as mainstream representatives of the LGBT community not only preach the idea that true attraction is based on gender, they also have sought to de-platform and mob anyone within their ranks who points out that this idea is completely divorced from the way the human brain actually works. In this make-believe world, to be gay—in the way gay people actually experience being gay—is to be a transphobe.

This is not an entirely new development. As gay-rights groups pivoted to become “trans-inclusive” in recent years, this de facto homophobia has emerged in plain sight. Rather than simply combat violence, bullying and discrimination against trans people, and press for better health care and representation for them—all noble and important goals—those groups have taken on an ideological mission. One might even call it quasi-spiritual: They have replaced biological sex with gender identity—an indefinable internal essence that one demonstrates outwardly by adherence to masculine or feminine stereotypes—throughout their literature and activism.

Stonewall UK, for example, was set up in 1989 to fight Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988, which banned schools from “promoting homosexuality” and “pretended” (i.e., gay) “family relationships.” But that same group now defines gay and lesbian people as those who are “attracted to the same gender” (my emphasis), and that evidence of transphobia shall be taken to include “the denial/refusal to accept someone else’s gender identity.” The logical consequence of these distorted definitions is to define same-sex-attraction as bigotry. In 1988, it was conservative homophobes in government claiming that homosexuality was a dangerous, counterfeit identity. Now the homophobes are the progressives running organizations that claim to champion the interests of lesbians and gay men.

Of course, doctrinaire trans-rights activists might attack straights with equal vigour—since straight men and straight women are just as focused on the reality of biological sex as gay men and lesbians. But all bullies seek out the weak and vulnerable, which is why they now rail against the LGB Alliance with more fury than they direct at society as a whole. That’s why the LGB Alliance’s launch meeting was an invitation-only affair, held at a secret location—the sort of security precaution that one might implement when moderate Muslims break away jihadists. “This is an historic moment for the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual movement,” tweeted Allison Bailey, the criminal-defence barrister who chaired the event. “LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business. Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.”

Based on the reaction from defenders of the new gender orthodoxy, you would have thought Bailey were a Cossack leader announcing a pogrom. “This is frightening and nasty. There is no LGB without the T,” tweeted Owen Jones, who is perhaps Britain’s best-known gay journalist. (This is not new behaviour for Jones, who often starts pile-ons against anyone he regards as transphobic—especially women.) Anthony Watson, an advisor to the opposition Labour Party, said he was “horrified and disgusted,” and described the Alliance as a “#hategroup.” Linda Riley, the editor of Diva, a lesbian magazine that proclaims itself “trans-inclusive,” adapted Martin Niemöller’s famous 1946 confession, First They Came, Tweeting, “First they came for the T…”—thereby suggesting that refusing to prioritize the artifice of gender ideology over inborn sexual orientation is the first step toward some kind of real or metaphorical Holocaust.

Trans activists also used a despicable tactic that now has become a common feature of these cultish campaigns: attempting to beggar those they disagree with. Gendered Intelligence, a non-profit group that works exclusively with trans people (and apparently sees no irony in attacking an organisation focused exclusively on the rest of the LGBT grouping), urged followers to write to Bailey’s law chambers in London, “expressing your concern with the barrister in question and with the new group.” This same mob also sent equally spurious complaints to JustGiving, which hosted the Alliance’s fundraising page. The company panicked and temporarily suspended the Alliance’s account.

The original mover behind the Alliance was Kate Harris, a lesbian and veteran civil-rights campaigner, who a decade ago was a Stonewall fundraiser. She had become increasingly enraged by the harassment of lesbian women that was tolerated, even encouraged, by such groups. Harris and Beverley Jackson, another veteran campaigner, had been writing to Stonewall executives for months, seeking a discussion about the malign impact of gender-identity extremism. They asked Stonewall’s chief executive at the time, Ruth Hunt, whether she was worried about the enormous increase in the number of teenage girls attending GIDS, Britain’s gender-identity clinic for under-18s, and what she would say to the growing number of “de-transitioners”—people who abandon their trans identity and return to an identity corresponding to their biological sex. Many of these girls (as most of them are) describe themselves, with hindsight, as having been motivated by internalised homophobia.

“What upsets me most is that this is all based on the legitimacy we created,” Harris told me. It was this anger that inspired her to gather a group of notables, some of whom had been involved in Stonewall during its early days, to draft an open letter to the group’s current management and board for publication in the Times of London on October 4, 2018. The signatories included Simon Fanshawe, one of Stonewall’s founders, novelist Philip Hensher, actor James Dreyfus, feminist campaigner Julie Bindel, and several trans people who regard Stonewall’s divisive approach as likely to harm the interests of the trans community in the long run.

“We urge Stonewall to acknowledge that there are a range of valid viewpoints around sex, gender and transgender politics, and to acknowledge specifically that a conflict exists between transgenderism and sex-based women’s rights,” the authors wrote. “We call on Stonewall to commit to fostering an atmosphere of respectful debate.”

In response, Ms. Hunt pretended that the letter writers were inventing some kind of non-existent tension. “The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights,’” she wrote. “We do not and will not acknowledge this. Doing so would imply that we do not believe that trans people deserve the same rights as others.”

A year after this fruitless exchange, it had become clear no change of direction was forthcoming. Ms. Hunt had stepped down, and Stonewall was looking for a new CEO. One potential candidate who was approached by a recruiter disclosed that exploratory questions about whether it might be possible to soften the organisation’s dogmatic position on gender were dismissed out of hand. Many of the signatories of the 2018 open letter decided it was time for a decisive break from an organization that, while pretending to represent L, G,B and T alike, had come to prioritize the most extreme T faction.

Despite all the harassment to which LGB Alliance already has been subject, the group still got off to a flying start. Its JustGiving page has been reinstated, and is on course to hit a £25,000 initial target. The attacks on Bailey sparked widespread outrage and sympathy. Gendered Intelligence deleted its outrageous tweet about her. (Such a personal and highly politicized attack is unlikely to have gone down well with the Charities Commission, which regulates non-profits). Even fans of Owen Jones think a witch hunt against Bailey—a black lesbian from a working-class background—was a low blow. Several publications have written about the LGB Alliance, painting it as everything from a saviour of left-wing politics from its own worst elements, to a front for U.S. evangelicals seeking to export America’s culture wars. The articles in praise were pleasant to read; those lambasting the group neatly underscored the urgency of its mandate. All in all, the Alliance can be said to have arrived. So what next?

Like many of us, Bailey saw parallels with the actions of an abusive spouse. “Just think about what this means LGB,” she Tweeted. “The T has said that this is a marriage that we cannot leave, even if the T becomes abusive. If we try to leave, we will be threatened. If we do manage to leave, we will be starved of cash.”

On its agenda will be protecting women’s sex-based rights—including the right to have certain services offered in spaces free of male bodies. The group will also be campaigning against legislative changes that would compromise female safety.

Stonewall and other trans groups frequently misrepresent Britain’s Equality Act of 2010, which states clearly that single-sex spaces and facilities are perfectly lawful provided they are a “proportionate means to a legitimate aim.” They insist, falsely, that separately stipulated protections against discrimination and harassment for trans-identified people ensure that they can access all spaces intended for the opposite sex. Under such false guidance, Girlguiding UK and Sport England have gone “trans-inclusive,” a euphemism used to describe policies that enable males and females to “self-identify” into spaces intended for the opposite sex. Anyone with even the faintest grasp of biological reality will see immediately why such policies impact most heavily on girls and women.

The Alliance also will lobby for a change of tack at GIDS, Britain’s gender-identity clinic for under-18s, which is under fire for being too quick to affirm children’s claims of a cross-gender identity. It will disseminate unbiased information on the risks of transition and the evidence that gender confusion in children usually resolves itself during puberty, so that young people and their parents have an alternative to a gender-identity narrative based wholly on mechanical affirmation of a child’s claims. It will also seek to give a voice to detransitioners, whom trans activists often accuse of never having been trans in the first place (a claim that completely contradicts these same activists’ insistence on a policy of unfettered self-identification, which equates thinking you are trans with being trans).

If the Alliance flourishes, it could help forge a new consensus on trans rights, one that doesn’t rely on a denial of the reality of biological sex or sexual orientation. And who knows? If sanity prevails, the LGB and T communities may one day find rapprochement.

Helen Joyce is finance editor for The Economist.