#As again I believe the US is too large to effectively control as an authoritarian state

[delta-chan]

I have reached a zen state when it comes to the coming administration because I know that the majority did not vote for that motherfucker and when things get really bad a bunch of people that did--the low information ones who voted for him on looking "like you can sit down and have a beer with him" or what have you--are going to turn on him.

And taking a moment to really think about it, the US is too enormous to be ran effectively as an authoritarian state. There are far too many people, it's far too large, and making an enormous chunk of these people go hungry is calling for disaster. People can only take so much and when you anger and frustrate potentially hundreds of millions of people you are asking for their wrath to visit vengeance upon you. It doesn't matter if you control the military at that point--particularly if a large chunk of the military does not want anything to do with you and would rather not listen to the ridiculous and cruel orders you give them.

Rely on loyalists all you want. You are building an incredibly delicate thing that is fit to crumble under the weight of a space that's far too broad to manage at the level it needs to be for things to remain as you want them to. This place will collapse in upon itself as your administration cannibalizes one another. Whenever it will be you will fail--and you will get what you deserve, a vacuum left in your wake.

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

The New Nihilism

It feels increasingly difficult to tell the difference between—on one hand—being old, sick, and defeated, and—on the other hand—living in a time-&-place that is itself senile, tired, and defeated. Sometimes I think it’s just me—but then I find that some younger, healthier people seem to be undergoing similar sensations of ennui, despair, and impotent anger. Maybe it’s not just me.

A friend of mine attributed the turn to disillusion with “everything”, including old-fashioned radical/activist positions, to disappointment over the present political regime in the US, which was somehow expected to usher in a turn away from the reactionary decades since the 1980s, or even a “progress” toward some sort of democratic socialism. Although I myself didn’t share this optimism (I always assume that anyone who even wants to be President of the US must be a psychopathic murderer) I can see that “youth” suffered a powerful disillusionment at the utter failure of Liberalism to turn the tide against Capitalism Triumphalism. The disillusion gave rise to OCCUPY and the failure of OCCUPY led to a move toward sheer negation.

However I think this merely political analysis of the “new nothing” may be too two-dimensional to do justice to the extent to which all hope of “change” has died under Kognitive Kapital and the technopathocracy. Despite my remnant hippy flower- power sentiments I too feel this “terminal” condition (as Nietzsche called it), which I express by saying, only half-jokingly, that we have at last reached the Future, and that the truly horrible truth of the End of the World is that it doesn’t end.

One big J.G. Ballard/Philip K. Dick shopping mall from now till eternity, basically.

This IS the future—how do you like it so far? Life in the Ruins: not so bad for the bourgeoisie, the loyal servants of the One Percent. Air-conditioned ruins! No Ragnarok, no Rapture, no dramatic closure: just an endless re-run of reality TV cop shows. 2012 has come and gone, and we’re still in debt to some faceless bank, still chained to our screens.

Most people—in order to live at all—seem to need around themselves a penumbra of “illusion” (to quote Nietzsche again):—that the world is just rolling along as usual, some good days some bad, but in essence no different now than in 10000 BC or 1492 AD or next year. Some even need to believe in Progress, that the Future will solve all our problems, and even that life is much better for us now than for (say) people in the 5th century AD. We live longer thanx to Modern Science—of course our extra years are largely spent as “medical objects”—sick and worn out but kept ticking by Machines & Pills that spin huge profits for a few megacorporations & insurance companies. Nation of Struldbugs.

True, we’re suffocating in the mire generated by our rule of sick machines under the Numisphere of Money. At least ten times as much money now exists than it would take to buy the whole world—and yet species are vanishing space itself is vanishing, icecaps melting, air and water grown toxic, culture grown toxic, landscape sacrificed to fracking and megamalls, noise-fascism, etc, etc. But Science will cure all that ills that Science has created—in the Future (in the “long run”, when we’re all dead, as Lord Keynes put it); so meanwhile we’ll carry on consuming the world and shitting it out as waste—because it’s convenient & efficient & profitable to do so, and because we like it.

Well, this is all a bunch of whiney left-liberal cliches, no? Heard it before a million times. Yawn. How boring, how infantile, how useless. Even if it were all true... what can we do about it? If our Anointed Leaders can’t or won’t stop it, who will? God? Satan? The “People”?

All the fashionable “solutions” to the “crisis”, from electronic democracy to revolutionary violence, from locavorism to solar-powered dingbats, from financial market regulation to the General Strike—all of them, however ridiculous or sublime, depend on one preliminary radical change—a seismic shift in human consciousness. Without such a change all the hope of reform is futile. And if such a change were somehow to occur, no “reform” would be necessary. The world would simply change. The whales would be saved. War no more. And so on.

What force could (even in theory) bring about such a shift? Religion? In 6,000 years of organized religion matters have only gotten worse. Psychedelic drugs in the reservoirs? The Mayan calendar? Nostalgia? Terror?

If catastrophic disaster is now inevitable, perhaps the “Survivalist” scenario will ensue, and a few brave millions will create a green utopia in the smoking waste. But won’t Capitalism find a way to profit even from the End of the World? Some would claim that it’s doing so already. The true catastrophe may be the final apotheosis of commodity fetishism.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this paradise of power tools and back-up alarms is all we’ve got & all we’re going to get. Capitalism can deal with global warming—it can sell water-wings and disaster insurance. So it’s all over, let’s say—but we’ve still got television & Twitter. Childhood’s End—i.e. the child as ultimate consumer, eager for the brand. Terrorism or home shopping network—take yr pick (democracy means choice).

Since the death of the Historical Movement of the Social in 1989 (last gasp of the hideous “short” XXth century that started in 1914) the only “alternative” to Capitalist Neo-Liberal totalitarianism that seems to have emerged is religious neo-fascism. I understand why someone would want to be a violent fundamentalist bigot—I even sympathize—but just because I feel sorry for lepers doesn’t mean I want to be one.

When I attempt to retain some shreds of my former antipessimism I fantasize that History may not be over, that some sort of Populist Green Social Democracy might yet emerge to challenge the obscene smugness of “Money Interests”—something along the lines of 1970s Scandinavian monarcho-socialism—which in retrospect now looks the most humane form of the State ever to have emerged from the putrid suck-hole of Civilization. (Think of Amsterdam in its heyday.) Of course as an anarchist I’d still have to oppose it—but at least I’d have the luxury of believing that, in such a situation, anarchy might actually stand some chance of success. Even if such a movement were to emerge, however, we can rest damn-well assured it won’t happen in the USA. Or anywhere in the ghost-realm of dead Marxism, either. Maybe Scotland!

It would seem quite pointless to wait around for such a rebirth of the Social. Years ago many radicals gave up all hope of The Revolution, and the few who still adhere to it remind me of religious fanatics. It might be soothing to lapse into such doctrinaire revolutionism, just as it might be soothing to sink into mystical religion—but for me at least both options have lost their savor. Again, I sympathize with those true believers (although not so much when they lapse into authoritarian leftism or fascism)— nevertheless, frankly, I’m too depressed to embrace their Illusions.

If the End-Time scenario sketched above be considered actually true, what alternatives might exist besides suicidal despair? After much thought I’ve come up with three basic strategies.

1) Passive Escapism. Keep your head down, don’t make waves. Capitalism permits all sorts of “lifestyles” (I hate that word)—just pick one & try to enjoy it. You’re even allowed to live as a dirt farmer without electricity & infernal combustion, like a sort of secular Amish refusnik. Well, maybe not. But at least you could flirt with such a life. “Smoke Pot, Eat Chicken, Drink Tea,” as we used to say in the 60s in the Moorish Church of America, our psychedelic cult. Hope they don’t catch you. Fit yourself into some Permitted Category such as Neo-Hippy or even Anabaptist.

2) Active Escapism. In this scenario you attempt to create the optimal conditions for the emergence of Autonomous Zones, whether temporary, periodic or even (semi)permanent. In 1984 when I first coined the term Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ)

I envisioned it as a complement to The Revolution—although I was already, to be truthful, tired of waiting for a moment that seemed to have failed in 1968. The TAZ would give a taste or premonition of real liberties: in effect you would attempt to live as if the Revolution had already occurred, so as not to die without ever having experienced “free freedom” (as Rimbaud called it, liberte libre). Create your own pirate utopia.

Of course the TAZ can be as brief & simple as a really good dinner party, but the true autonomist will want to maximize the potential for longer & deeper experiences of authentic lived life. Almost inevitably this will involve crime, so it’s necessary to think like a criminal, not a victim. A “Johnson” as Burroughs used to say—not a “mark”. How else can one live (and live well) without Work. Work, the curse of the thinking class. Wage slavery. If you’re lucky enough to be a successful artist, you can perhaps achieve relative autonomy without breaking any obvious laws (except the laws of good taste, perhaps). Or you could inherit a million. (More than a million would be a curse.) Forget revolutionary morality—the question is, can you afford your taste of freedom? For most of us, crime will be not only a pleasure but a necessity. The old anarcho-Illegalists showed the way: individual expropriation. Getting caught of course spoils the whole thing—but risk is an aspect of self-authenticity.

One scenario I’ve imagined for active Escapism would be to move to a remote rural area along with several hundred other libertarian socialists—enough to take over the local government (municipal or even county) and elect or control the sheriffs & judges, the parent/teacher association, volunteer fire department and even the water authority. Fund the venture with cultivation of illegal phantastice and carry on a discreet trade. Organize as a “Union of Egoists” for mutual benefit & ecstatic pleasures—perhaps under the guise of “communes” or even monasteries, who cares. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.

I know for a fact that this plan is being worked on in several places in America—but of course I’m not going to say where.

Another possible model for individual escapists might be the nomadic adventurer. Given that the whole world seems to be turning into a giant parking lot or social network, I don’t know if this option remains open, but I suspect that it might. The trick would be to travel in places where tourists don’t—if such places still exist—and to involve oneself in fascinating and dangerous situations. For example if I were young and healthy I’d’ve gone to France to take part in the TAZ that grew around resistance to the new airport—or to Greece—or Mexico—wherever the perverse spirit of rebellion crops up. The problem here is of course funding. (Sending back statues stuffed with hash is no longer a good idea.) How to pay for yr life of adventure? Love will find a way. It doesn’t matter so much if one agrees with the ideals of Tahrir Square or Zucotti Park—the point is just to be there.

3. Revenge. I call it Zarathustra’s Revenge because as Nietzsche said, revenge may be second rate but it’s not nothing. One might enjoy the satisfaction of terrifying the bastards for at least a few moments. Formerly I advocated “Poetic Terrorism” rather than actual violence, the idea being that art could be wielded as a weapon. Now I’ve rather come to doubt it. But perhaps weapons might be wielded as art. From the sledgehammer of the Luddites to the black bomb of the attentat, destruction could serve as a form of creativity, for its own sake, or for purely aesthetic reasons, without any illusions about revolution. Oscar Wilde meets the acte gratuit: a dandyism of despair.

What troubles me about this idea is that it seems impossible to distinguish here between the action of post-leftist anarcho-nihilists and the action of post-rightist neo-traditionalist reactionaries. For that matter, a bomb may as well be detonated by fundamentalist fanatics—what difference would it make to the victims or the “innocent bystanders”? Blowing up a nanotechnology lab—why shouldn’t this be the act of a desperate monarchist as easily as that of a Nietzschean anarchist?

In a recent book by Tiqqun (Theory of Bloom), it was fascinating to come suddenly across the constellation of Nietzsche, Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, et al. as examples of a sharp and just critique of the Bloom syndrome—i.e., of progress-as-illusion. Of course the “beyond left and right” position has two sides—one approaching from the left, the other from the right. The European New Right (Alain de Benoist & his gang) are big admirers of Guy Debord, for a similar reason (his critique, not his proposals).

The post-left can now appreciate Traditionalism as a reaction against modernity just as the neo-traditionalists can appreciate Situationism. But this doesn’t mean that post-anarchist anarchists are identical with post-fascism fascists!

I’m reminded of the situation in fin-de-siecle France that gave rise to the strange alliance between anarchists and monarchists; for example the Cerce Proudhon. This surreal conjunction came about for two reasons: a) both factions hated liberal democracy, and b) the monarchists had money. The marriage gave birth to weird progeny, such as Georges Sorel. And Mussolini famously began his career as an Individualist anarchist!

Another link between left & right could be analyzed as a kind of existentialism; once again Nietzsche is the founding parent here, I think. On the left there were thinkers like Gide or Camus. On the right, that illuminated villain Baron Julius Evola used to tell his little ultra-right groupuscules in Rome to attack the Modern World—even though the restoraton of tradition was a hopeless dream—if only as an act of magical self-creation. Being trumps essence. One must cherish no attachment to mere results. Surely Tiqqun’s advocacy of the “perfect Surrealist act” (firing a revolver at random into a crowd of “innocent by-standers”) partakes of this form of action-as-despair. (Incidentally I have to confess that this is the sort of thing that has always—to my regret—prevented my embracing Surrealism: it’s just too cruel. I don’t admire de Sade, either.)

Of course, as we know, the problem with the Traditionalists is that they were never traditional enough. They looked back at a lost civilization as their “goal” (religion, mysticism, monarchism, arts-&-crafts, etc.) whereas they should have realized that the real tradition is the “primordial anarchy” of the Stone Age, tribalism, hunting/gathering, animism—what I call the Neanderthal Liberation Front. Paul Goodman used the term “Neolithic Conservatism” to describe his brand of anarchism—but “Paleolithic Reaction” might be more appropriate!

The other major problem with the Traditionalist Right is that the entire emotional tone of the movement is rooted in self-repression. Here a rough Reichean analysis suffices to demonstrate that the authoritarian body reflects a damaged soul, and that only anarchy is compatible with real self-realization.

The European New Right that arose in the 90s still carries on its propaganda—and these chaps are not just vulgar nationalist chauvenist anti-semitic homophobic thugs—they’re intellectuals & artists. I think they’re evil, but that doesn’t mean I find them boring. Or even wrong on certain points. They also hate the nanotechnologists!

Although I attempted to set off a few bombs back in the 1960s (against the war in Vietnam) I’m glad, on the whole, that they failed to detonate (technology was never my metier). It saves me from wondering if I would’ve experienced “moral qualms”. Instead I chose the path of the propagandist and remained an activist in anarchist media from 1984 to about 2004. I collaborated with the Autonomedia publishing collective, the IWW, the John Henry Mackay Society (Left Stirnerites) and the old NYC Libertarian Book Club (founded by comrades of Emma Goldman, some of whom I knew, & who are now all dead). I had a radio show on WBAI (Pacifica) for 18 years. I lectured all over Europe and East Europe in the 90s. I had a very nice time, thank you. But anarchism seems even farther off now than it looked in 1984, or indeed in 1958, when I first became an anarchist by reading George Harriman’s Krazy Kat. Well, being an existentialist means you never have to say you’re sorry.

In the last few years in anarchist circles there’s appeared a trend “back” to Stirner/Nietzsche Individualism—because after all, who can take revolutionary anarcho-communism or syndicalism seriously anymore? Since I’ve adhered to this Individualist position for decades (although tempered by admiration for Charles Fourier and certain “spiritual anarchists” like Gustave Landauer) I naturally find this trend agreeable.

“Green anarchists” & AntiCivilization Neo-primitivists seem (some of them) to be moving toward a new pole of attraction, nihilism. Perhaps neo-nihilism would serve as a better label, since this tendency is not simply replicating the nihilism of the Russian narodniks or the French attentatists of circa 1890 to 1912, however much the new nihilists look to the old ones as precursors. I share their critique—in fact I think I’ve been mirroring it to a large extent in this essay: creative despair, let’s call it. What I do not understand however is their proposal—if any. “What is to be done?” was originally a nihilist slogan, after all, before Lenin appropriated it. I presume that my option #1, passive escape, would not suit the agenda. As for Active Escapism, to use the suffix “ism” implies some form not only of ideology but also some action. What is the logical outcome of this train of thought?

As an animist I experience the world (outside Civilization) as essentially sentient. The death of God means the rebirth of the gods, as Nietzsche implied in his last “mad” letters from Turin— the resurrection of the great god PAN—chaos, Eros, Gaia, & Old Night, as Hesiod put it—Ontological anarchy, Desire, Life itself, & the Darkness of revolt & negation—all seem to me as real as they need to be.

I still adhere to a certain kind of spiritual anarchism—but only as heresy and paganism, not as orthodoxy and monotheism. I have great respect for Dorothy Day—her writing influenced me in the 60s—and Ivan Illich, whom I knew personally—but in the end I cannot deal with the cognitive dissonance between anarchism and the Pope! Nevertheless I can believe in the re-paganaziation of monotheism. I hold to this pagan tradition because I sense the universe as alive, not as “dead matter.” As a life-long psychedelicist I have always thought that matter & spirit are identical, and that this fact alone legitimizes what Theory calls “desire”.

From this p.o.v. the phrase “revolution of everyday life” still seems to have some validity—if only in terms of the second proposal, Active Escapism or the TAZ. As for the third possibility— Zarathustra’s Revenge—this seems like a possible path for the new nihilism, at least from a philosophical perspective. But since I am unable personally to advocate it, I leave the question open.

But here—I think—is the point at which I both meet with & diverge from the new nihilism. I too seem to believe that Predatory Capitalism has won and that no revolution is possible in the classical sense of that term. But somehow I can’t bring myself to be “against everything.” Within the Temporary Autonomous Zone there still seems to persist the possibility of “authentic life,” if only for a moment—and if this position amounts to mere Escapism, then let us become Houdini. The new surge of interest in Individualism is obviously a response to the Death of the Social. But does the new nihilism imply the death even of the individual and the “union of egoists” or Nietzschean free spirits? On my good days, I like to think not.

No matter which of the three paths one takes (or others I can’t yet imagine) it seems to me that the essential thing is not to collapse into mere apathy. Depression we may have to accept, impotent rage we may have to accept, revolutionary pessimism we may have to accept. But as e.e. cummings (anarchist poet) said, there is some shit we will not take, lest we simply become the enemy by default. Can’t go on, must go on. Cultivate rosebuds, even selfish pleasures, as long as a few birds & flowers still remain. Even love may not be impossible...

[johannas-motivational-insults]

Catra’s refusal to admit mistakes

Something that seems to baffle much of the SPOP fandom is why Catra can’t just admit her mistakes and try to do better instead of continuing to dig herself a deeper and deeper hole. To be fair, the situation is very baffling. It’s complex. There are a ton of psychological issues in play, and when they interact things can get very messy. I’m going to do my best to explain Catra’s thought processes and hang ups and hopefully not write a fucking novel in the process. (But if you do want a novel that analyzes these concepts in a lot of depth, go check out my fanfic Demons. Shameless self-promotion, whaaaaat?)

I have already gone into how Catra’s external locus of control comes into play, so I’m not going to break it down in as much detail here. To sum it up, though, Catra has an internalized belief that she can’t really control anything and isn’t responsible for her behavior since it’s not her fault she was put in a shitty situation in the first place. She doesn’t believe she had any choice but to be the villain. This is deeply rooted in her fearful and abusive upbringing where she had little to no control over what happened to her. A large part of that is how consequences didn’t match behavior, i.e. she wasn’t rewarded for being good and her punishments were overly harsh as well as inconsistent, affected by external factors.

There’s also the sunk cost fallacy to consider. That’s the idea that you have to get something out of your investments (of time, money, effort, etc.), even if the costs keep piling up. (In terms of money, think of people who gamble larger and larger sums of money out of determination to win back their initial bet.) For Catra, this fallacy has convinced her that if she changes course and gives up on her goals, then everything she suffered in the Horde and all the effort she put into moving up in the ranks would be for nothing. She thinks getting to the top and proving her worth/winning respect would be the ulitmate triumph. Of course, we see her struggle with disillusionment over this in season 4, which helps set the table for what we hope will be a redemption arc.

These are only two examples of the ways Catra’s abusive upbringing affected her ability to admit her mistakes. The effects of abuse (especially in one’s childhood) are pervasive, affecting your thought processes and perception of the world in a million little ways that are hard to undo. I’m going to dig deeper now into some of the other reasons Catra struggles with this. They include an authoritarian environment, scapegoating, toxic leadership, poor behavioral modelling, an exaggerated fear of punishment, and the resentment of injustice.

(Please note: in this meta I’m not trying to make excuses for Catra and say she should not have to accept responsibility for her mistakes because she was abused. My aim here is to explain why it’s so difficult for her to shoulder blame in hopes that people will better understand her.)

Also under the cut, I’m going to finish this meta by examining how Angella and Glimmer are foils to Shadow Weaver and Catra, how Glimmer had a better example set for her and has now set an example for Catra.

Authoritarianism, injustice, and fear

It’s important to understand that Catra was raised to believe that apologizing or changing course makes someone a weak person or, worse, a bad leader. As Adora says, displays of weakness are strongly discouraged in the Horde. And in an authoritarian, militarized environment like the Horde, admitting mistakes is seen as a sign of weakness. You will very rarely, if ever, see authority figures admit they were wrong, let alone try to make amends for it. And since rank/pecking order is so important in these environments, that behavior filters down because no one wants to be at the bottom.

Fact is, no one who was raised in the Horde is good at admitting they were wrong (except maybe Scorpia, but she’s Scorpia). Even Adora is bad at this. She takes on responsibility for everything and blames herself when things go wrong, but that self-flaggellating catastrophizing is not the same as critically evaluating one’s actions and their effects on other people. That in particular is something she struggles with.

This may be a problem in the Horde at large, but it’s even harder for Catra to admit her mistakes because she has been blamed for a lot of things unjustly, as well as bullied by her peers and abused by her superiors. Accepting blame for anything feels unfair because she has already suffered the consequences of many things she did not do. In her mind, hasn’t the world punished her enough already without humiliating her over the mistakes she has made? Her defensiveness makes sense, in this regard.

Not only do abuse survivors tend to be defensive and angry at the world for the unfair lot it gave us, we have a very hard time being vulnerable with anyone. Because what if they hurt us too? Admitting mistakes and accepting their consequences puts you in a very vulnerable position, and when you are used to being punished unnecessarily harshly and/or undeservingly, submitting yourself to someone else’s judgment is terrifying. These experiences (especially when they occur at a young age) wire people a certain way, make you constantly afraid even when there is no need.

Toxic leadership and poor behavioral modelling

Returning to the environment factor, where do you think Catra learned this behavior of shirking responsibility for her actions? Fact is, Catra never had anyone model to her how to say, “I was wrong, I’m sorry, and I will try to fix it.” Militarized environment or not, Shadow Weaver and Hordak aren’t the type of people who are willing to admit their own mistakes and failures. They come up with excuses or pass the blame off to other people, usually Catra. Whenever something goes wrong, Hordak blames it on Catra and all her “failings.” Whenever Adora disappointed, Shadow Weaver assumed it was because Catra was holding her back. Catra is their scapegoat. They do not apologize to her, acknowledge any harm they’ve done to her, or make any attempt to fix it.

This is especially true of Shadow Weaver, who raised Catra and was the main adult in her life throughout her childhood. Even when confronted with the damage she has done to Catra, she refuses to accept responsibility or acknowledge any wrongdoing. We have seen this in literally every season in which they interact. Catra is rightfully salty about her unjust treatment but Shadow Weaver brushes off her anger, making excuses or sidestepping the accusations.

In 1x10, Catra throws Shadow Weaver a bit of shade while comforting her after Hordak gives her a scathing lecture. Shadow Weaver immediately deflects with an insult before acknowledging her own behavior but not its detrimental effects or her responsibility for it.

Catra: Don’t worry about that thing with Hordak. I've got loads of experience being yelled at. Mostly by you, actually. You get used to it.

SW: I will not get used to mediocrity like you, and I certainly don’t need your pity! ...I was hard on you, I won't deny it, and I won't apologize. I just wanted to prepare you for the world. I wanted you to be strong.

In 2x06, Catra flat out confronts her about it, and she offers a justification for her behavior, still refusing to show any remorse. When Catra persists, she sidesteps it by responding to another part of her outburst.

Catra: Why did you treat me the way you did? Why was I never good enough for you? Really, I wanna know.

SW: Because you remind me of myself. You always have. Nothing was ever easy for me, either. I wasn’t born to power like Adora and... others. I had to earn my power, fight for it. Why should it be any different for you?

Catra: I was a child when you took me in! What could I have possibly done to deserve the way you treated me? I am nothing like you! You are old, and bitter, and weak!

SW: Ah, but you are like me. And just like me, you’re losing your position with Hordak, I can see that even from my cell.

In 3x04, Catra has all but lost hope, throwing shade and heavy accusations at Shadow Weaver. But she does make one last desperate plea for acknowledgment of the harm done to her, right before she’s hit by the crushing realization that she has once again been pushed aside for Adora. Here, Shadow Weaver doesn’t even react to the emotional content of Catra’s statement.

SW: Catra, there’s no need for us to be enemies. I can help you. I can offer you a way out.

Catra: So, what? You’re on the side of good now? You made me this way, and you get to be the good guy? Do you know what happened to me after you escaped? Do you even care? You couldn’t wait to get away from here, from me! ...But you came back for Adora.

SW: I came back to stop Hordak. I will make sure he’s destroyed. Don’t make me destroy you too.

Saying she came back to stop Hordak is sort of an excuse, but Shadow Weaver doesn’t say it like she’s trying to appeal to Catra, unlike the two earlier conversations. Once Catra rejects her offer (which we know is disengenuous, to boot) she doesn’t even bother pretending to care. Catra’s resisting her manipulation and is no longer someone she can use, so why bother?

Notably, this is right before Catra learns about the dangers of the portal (i.e. that she made a mistake when she resolved to open it) and tasers Entrapta for trying to stop her, then immediately doubles down on that mistake by sending her to Beast Island. She got one more example of refusing to acknowledge her mistakes or accept accountability right before she does it herself. The statement “Adora was right” definitely gets to her too, but she was already in an unhinged state after being tortured by Shadow Weaver, once again with no apologies. Just something to consider.

So, Catra came from this environment where she got blamed unfairly all the time yet never got any sign of remorse from the people who hurt her. As I alluded to above, in this kind of situation it’s really easy to slip into the mindset of “why should I apologize when no one ever apologized to me?” (Especially if you’ve been through a lot of forced apologies, which are always humiliating, but particularly so when you are being unfairly blamed.) This is not an easy cycle to break. When you have this constant sense of injustice weighing on you, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking the world owes you something as payback and therefore you shouldn’t have to try to better yourself or move past it.

This also ties into Catra’s obsession with getting a win when she is someone who seems fated to always lose, no matter what she does. It’s not just about getting back at Adora, it’s about settling her score with an unjust universe that has always given her the short end of the stick. It’s pride and indignation and pain all mixed up in one toxic soup that pollutes the minds of the abused, and it is not easy to get over. Watching Catra hopefully start to do that in the final 13 episodes is going to be incredibly cathartic.

Glimmer and Angella as foils and examples

Full disclosure, I am writing this meta partly in response to people shitting on Catra and acting like Glimmer is so much better than her after I made a gifset contrasting their reactions to realizing their mistakes. So, I want to finish by comparing all of these observations about Catra’s upbringing with Glimmer’s upbringing. Angella is by no means a perfect parent, but she loves her daughter and tries to do what’s best for her. Most relevant to this discussion, she’s willing to admit her mistakes or change her mind when presented with new information.

For instance, Angella flips at Glimmer over the invasion by the Horde soldier in 1x03, but once she learns said soldier is She-Ra she listens and puts faith in Glimmer’s judgment, despite her misgivings. In 1x10 (in a great parallel scene to the Catra/SW one mentioned above), Angella surprises Glimmer by caring more about her well-being than her mistakes, and she admits some of her own: she ordered the battle that got Micah ‘killed’, and she gave up on the first alliance. She literally says, “I am the one who failed.” And in 3x06, she sacrifices herself in an attempt to make up for all the times she failed to act and protect people she loves.

Angella has enough humility to admit her own flaws and consider other viewpoints, and she’s not afraid to change her mind or say she’s sorry. That set a much better example for Glimmer growing up than Shadow Weaver did for Catra and Adora. And now, Glimmer has set an example for Catra. When Catra is at her lowest in 4x13, drowning in her mistakes and self-hatred and wanting to die, Glimmer shows her that she too can change course and try to correct her mistakes.

Like, did you all see the look on Catra’s face when Glimmer says she can’t use the weapon and needs to try and stop it? When Glimmer gets up Catra follows her, because this is such a compelling sight to her, something she’s never seen before. It was almost like she was thinking, “Wait, you can do that? You don’t have to double down on your mistakes?”

This is something Catra has to see, not only for its novelty but because it could give her guidance, and hope. If Glimmer can change course and atone, maybe she can too.

[sarcastically-defensive17]

Vegas Lights - L. Hemmings Chapter 9: Sorry, didn’t know that my official title was ‘wife’ now.

This book is all of my own work. Please do not copy or steal. This is also posted on my personal Wattpad account @/defensive_sarcasm17.

"What's with your face?" Luke's brows were furrowed as he cast his eyes on the glassy eyes of the blonde woman. Her face was blotched in random spots and she looked no better than she had when he woke up in her room that morning.

He actually found her to look better with no clothes on.

He had spent his time since he left her room sitting at the bar, downing drink after drink. He had even snuck away with one of the waitresses for a moment only to return to find Carter standing like a deer in headlights with her earphones plugged in her oddly small ears.

She didn't have her glasses on, nor did she have a speck of makeup coating her face. Luke couldn't help but wonder if the cosmetics could even cover the tomato colored spots on her face.

He knew his words were rude, but the liquid courage sent his conscience away. Not that he had seen it in a while anyways.

"Excuse me?" She was annoyed. Anybody could tel that. "My face, thank you very much, is in recovery from a panic attack."

Her arms were crossed over her torso, and he shamelessly glanced at the way her breasts rose up.

He wasn't raised to think of women like this, but every time he had alcohol in his stomach he said goodbye to intelligent thought.

"Sorry," he grumbled, returning to his seat at the table a few feet away from Carter.

He looked up expectantly as his behind connected to the wooden stool, surprised that she didn't trail after him like most girls did.

Her eyes met his as he gazed at her with shock. Her brows were still pinched and she frowned at him. "What're you looking at?"

He wondered for a moment if she meant to snap at him, but he brushed it off as a side effect of the panic attack she experienced.

He didn't know much about mental health, and he was rather skeptical of if, himself, but he didn't necessarily care enough about the blonde woman to ask if she was okay.

Instead, he adopted a bored expression. "Aren't you going to sit?" He gestured to the seat across from him. "I figure we need to chat, yknow, man to wife."

"Sorry, I didn't know my official title was 'wife' now," she snapped once again. "What could you possibly have to say to me?"

For some reason, Luke found it hard to get along with the woman. He found her very bitchy, and in the small space of time he spent with her, she hadn't proved to be interesting. Not one bit.

In fact, he can't even understand how he managed to find her enough to marry in a drunken haze. Maybe drunk Luke just really wanted to get her in the sack.

She definitely seems like the 'no sex before marriage' type, he thought to himself.

"Is it wrong for me to want to talk to my wife? Or discuss an agreement with a possible business partner?" He smirked around the neck of his beer. He didn't miss how her eyes seemed to fire up as the words slipped past the confines of his lips.

"Call me that one more time and I will make you regret it," she hissed, begrudgingly taking a seat across from him.

Carter had always been the kind type. If somebody was nice to her, she was even nicer to them. But Luke, Luke was something else.

Every time he opened his mouth, she could hear the condescension fall from his lips. Almost as if he were patronizing her for merely existing.

He reminded her of her grandmother. And her elder sister.

She despised it.

"Look, Karen-"

"Carter," she hissed.

"Look, Carter, I don't know about you, but I don't exactly feel like dragging you around with me for the next six months-"

"The feeling is more than mutual," she fixed a strong glare onto him, and tried to ignore the overwhelming feeling of drowning that encompassed her body when she thought of her current situation.

"I doubt that," Luke smirked, blue eyes turned up as if he found the idea genuinely funny. "Who wouldn't want to marry me? I'm a rockstar." He ignited Carter's scoff. He had already discovered how to rile the woman up, and he was growing fond of it. "As I was saying, I don't want to be stuck with you, but, I spoke to the guys and they have a different idea."

Carter felt her stomach sink slightly.

"What do they think?" Her voice was softer, loose of the harsh tone she previously held.

Luke struggled to force the next words out. He hated to be reminded of his wrongdoings. "They think that I need to curb my bullshit. They think I need to allow myself time to 'heal'." He waves his long fingers in the air to signal quotation marks. "Mostly, they want me to stop sleeping with any girl that gives me attention, because it's giving us a bad rap."

Carter couldn't stop the sad feeling that bubbled in her throat. Luke was hurt. She had heard about his overexploited break up with his girlfriend, and she knew that he was, to a degree, out of control.

Binge drinking, assaulting bar staff, sleeping with countless women.

Reminded Carter of what her and Jo were like in their first year of college.

"So, they think that this agreement would be a great way to help shift my public image."

"Why can't you do it on your own?" Carter was genuinely curious. "Why do you feel the need to put yourself, and your band, in such a bad position? Wouldn't you want to set an example for you fans? A breakup can't have affected you that badly-"

"You know nothing about me." His jaw was clenched as the words slipping through clenched teeth. He hissed each syllable, allowing the blonde woman across from him to jump back slightly. "You don't know what happened in my fucking relationship. Who the fuck are you to question me? To question my choices?"

His voice was low. Menacing.

A chill went down Carter's spine and for a second, she felt as if she were a child standing under the harsh gaze of an authoritarian figure.

Luke was ranting, his eyes not meeting hers as he rambled about how little people like to comment on his life choices.

For a second, Carter let her eyes fall shut. This wasn't the first time she had been snapped at in such a way by an individual who believed themself to be above her. Nor will it be the last.

Nor was it the first time she was spoken to in degrading way. She had people she trusted more regard her as less, and she wouldn't let somebody with an ego as large as Luke Hemmings' speak to her like that.

Her eyes reopened. She set her jaw to match his, ignoring his words.

"Okay, I get it." She tried, only for him to continue rambling. She pushed a piece of hair away from her eyes, rolling the blue orbs within their flesh confines. She had enough, as Luke continued to rant, repeating his words as the alcohol overwhelmed him. "Will you shut the fuck up? Please?" She yelled, drawing attention from some of the staff.

The bar area was practically empty, as it was only 11:30 am, on a Saturday.

Luke's rant fell short, his mouth snapping shut at the outburst. He hadn't expected for her to snap at him. He was very used to being the dominant force in every relationship.

Every one apart from his relationship with Alexis.

The way Carter snapped reminded him of the woman, and his hands involuntarily began to shake.

He buried them underneath the table as soon as he felt the tremor.

"I'm sorry for snapping," Carter's for eyes watched him carefully, the guilt forming a glaze over the cerulean. "Look, I'm not pretending to know what you've been through, nor am I trying to tell you how to live your life. I'm trying to understand why you're in this position."

Her voice was soft. Calm. Comforting.

For a second, he was enveloped in the words that fell from her plump lips.

"I don't want to talk about it," Luke grumbled as he connected his hands underneath the table. Even thinking about his clusterfuck of a relationship and the effect it had on him was enough to bring up his desire to drink. Which is the reason he pushed it down so much.

Surprisingly, Carter didn't push him.

She pushed her chair out, placing her bare feet onto the ground. Luke felt relief at the thought of her leaving him alone.

"I'll be in contact with your manager soon," she nodded, turning on her bare heel and stalking away from the man.

Carter was well aware that she was possibly making a bad decision. She knew that it could be more damaging to her career than helpful if things went sour.

But she also knew, that her father raised her to help others out. She couldn't sit by and know that somebody could be damaging their career and drowning in their own depression when she could have helped them.

She couldn't do that to another person.

She had her limits, she knew that this could go wrong.

But more importantly, she knew that Luke, and his friends, needed the help.

She was too absorbed in her thoughts to take the elevator up to her floor. The sound of her feet tapping against the carpeted steps did nothing to fill her determination.

The door to room 304 flew open, and the three women inside turned their heads to their short friend.

Stephanie was the first to speak, growing tired of the silence as Carter stood against the closed wooden door.

"So are we doing this shit or not? I have a schedule to organize for when we get back to L.A."

Carter pushed out a deep breath, attempting to steel her nerves for the coming admission.

"Let's do this."

Josephine clapped, "great. Go shower, you look like you just ran ten laps."

[arcticdementor]

Well, it’s about to happen all over again. I’ve been wondering how soon a certain marriage of convenience in contemporary cultural politics would come messily apart, and now we’ve seen one of the typical warning signs of that impending breach. Those of my readers who are concerned about environmental issues—actually concerned, that is, and not simply using the environment as a convenient opportunity for class-conscious virtue signaling—may want to brace themselves for a shock.

The sign I have in mind is a recent flurry of articles in the leftward end of the mainstream media decrying the dangers of ecofascism. Ecofascism? That’s the term used for, and also generally by, that tiny subset of our society’s fascist fringe which likes to combine environmental concerns with the racial bigotries and authoritarian political daydreams more standard on that end of modern extremism. If you’ve never heard of it before, there’s good reason for that, but a significant section of the mainstream media seems to have taken quite an interest in making sure that you hear about it now.

…

The first thing I’d like to point out to my readers here is that, as already noted, ecofascism is a fringe of a fringe. In terms of numbers and cultural influence, it ranks well below the Flat Earth Society or the people who believe in all sincerity that Elvis Presley is a god. It’s one of those minute and self-marginalizing sub-sub-subcultures that a certain number of people find or make in order to act out their antinomian fantasies in comfortable obscurity, and enjoy the modest joys of being the biggest paramecium in a very, very small pond. It’s fair to say, in fact, that the chance that ecofascism will become a significant political or cultural force in your lifetime, dear reader, is right up there with the chance that the United Church of Bacon will become a major world religion.

So why is this submicroscopic fringe ideology suddenly on the receiving end of so many faux-worried essays in important liberal newspapers and magazines, and in the corresponding end of social media and the public blogosphere?  The reason, I’d argue, has to do with something else that’s been finally receiving its own share of media attention.

…

That is to say, counting up all its direct and indirect energy costs, this one conference had a carbon footprint rivaling the annual output of some Third World countries—and you guessed it, the point of the conference was to talk about the menace of anthropogenic climate change.

…

At this point, in fact, one of the current heartthrobs of climate change activism, Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, refuses to fly anywhere because of commercial air travel’s gargantuan carbon footprint. Sensibly enough, she travels through Europe by train, and her rich friends have lent her a sailboat to take her across the Atlantic for her upcoming North American tour. This would be bad enough if Thunberg was an ordinary citizen trying to raise awareness of anthropogenic climate change, but she’s not—she’s the darling of the Davos set, a child of privilege who’s managed to parlay the normal adolescent craving for attention into a sizable cultural presence.  Every time she takes the train, she adds to the number of people who look at the attendees at the Sicily conference mentioned above and say, “So what about your carbon footprint?”

That, in turn, is fatal to climate change activism as currently constituted. For years now, since that brief period when I was a very minor star in the peak oil movement, I’ve noted a curious dynamic in the climate change-centered end of environmentalism. Almost always, the people I met at peak oil events who were concerned about peak oil and the fate of industrial society more generally, rather than climate change or such other mediacentric causes as the plight of large cute animals, were ready and willing to make extensive changes in their own lives, in addition to whatever political activism they might engage in. Almost always, the people I met who were exclusively concerned with anthropogenic climate change were not.

…

To some extent this is common or garden variety hypocrisy, heavily larded with the odd conviction—on loan from the less honest end of liberal Christianity—that if you feel really bad about your sins, God will ignore the fact that you keep on committing them. Still, there’s more to it than that. Some of what else is going on came to the surface a few years ago in Washington State when a group of environmental activists launched an initiative that would have slapped a fee on carbon. As such things go, it was a well-designed initiative, and one of the best things about it was that it was revenue-neutral:  that is, the money taken in by the carbon fee flowed right back out through direct payments to citizens, so that rising energy prices due to the carbon fee wouldn’t clobber the economy or hurt the poor.

That, in turn, made it unacceptable to the Democratic Party in Washington State, and they refused to back the initiative, dooming it to defeat. Shortly thereafter they floated their own carbon fee initiative, which was anything but revenue neutral.  Rather, it was set up to funnel all the money from the carbon fee into a slush fund managed by a board the public wouldn’t get to elect, which would hand out the funds to support an assortment of social justice causes that were also helpfully sheltered from public oversight. Unsurprisingly, the second initiative also lost heavily—few Washington State voters were willing to trust their breathtakingly corrupt political establishment with yet another massive source of graft at public expense.

…

If you haven’t heard of these followup studies, dear reader, there’s good reason for that. They argued unconvincingly that everything would be just fine if only the nations of the world handed over control of the global economy to an unelected cadre of experts, under whom the institutions of democratic governance would be turned into powerless debating societies while the decisions that mattered would be made by corporate-bureaucratic committees conveniently sheltered from public oversight. (If this seems familiar to those of my readers who endure EU rule just now, there’s a reason for that:  the state of affairs just described has been the wet dream of Europe’s privileged classes and their tame intellectuals for quite a few decades now.)  That’s the usually unmentioned reason why The Limits to Growth fielded the savage resistance it did:  a good many people in 1972 recognized it as a stalking horse for a political agenda.

…

In the same way, the mere fact that certain people are trying to use climate change as a stalking horse for unrelated political agendas doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to dump trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or that doing so won’t cause epic disruptions to an already unstable global climate. Mind you, anthropogenic climate change isn’t the end of the world, not by a long shot; the Earth has been through sudden temperature shifts many times before in its long history, some of them due to large-scale releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—that’s one of the things really massive volcanic episodes can do, for example.

Attempts to dress up climate change in the borrowed finery of the Book of Revelations—sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia!—have more to do with our culture’s apocalyptic obsessions, and with the desires of ambitious people to scare others into signing on to their agenda, than with the realities of anthropogenic climate change. That said, we can expect a good solid helping of coastal flooding, weather-related disasters, crop failures, and other entertainments, which will take an increasingly severe economic toll as the years go on, and help drive the declines in population and economic output mentioned a few paragraphs back. Yes, this is one of the things The Limits to Growth was talking about when it predicted the long slow arc of decline ahead of us.

The problem faced by the people who have been pushing climate change activism is that their political enemies have found a very effective way to counter them:  they can point out that the people who babble by the hour about the apocalyptic future we face due to anthropogenic climate change don’t take their own claims seriously enough to walk their talk. Thus the attendees at the environmental conference on Sicily mentioned earlier can no longer count on having their planet and eating it too—or, more to the point, they can’t count on doing so while still convincing anyone that they ought to be taken seriously. This is hard on certain delicate egos, and it also makes it hard to keep pursuing the agenda mentioned above while continuing to lead absurdly extravagant lifestyles propped up by stunning levels of energy and resource waste.

There’s a simple solution to that difficulty, though:  the celebrities, their pet intellectuals, and the interests behind them can drop environmentalism like a hot rock.

That’s what happened, after all, in the early 1980s. Environmentalism up until that point had a huge cultural presence, supported by government-funded advertising campaigns—some of my readers, certainly, are old enough to recall Woodsy Owl and his iconic slogan, “Give a hoot, don’t pollute!”—and also supported by a galaxy of celebrities who mouthed pious sentiments about nature. Then, bam!  Ronald Reagan was in, Woodsy Owl was out, John-Boy Walton and John Denver gave way to Gordon “Greed is Good” Gekko and “material girl” Madonna, and the Sierra Club and the Friends of the Earth had corporate executives on their boards of directors, and did everything they could think of to deep-six the effective organizing tactics that got the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a galaxy of other environmental reforms enacted into law.

…

I think we’re about to see the same thing happen to climate change activism, and one of the symptoms of the approaching swerve is the sudden flurry of mass media publicity being given right now to the tiny fringe phenomenon of ecofascism. Over the months ahead, I expect to see many more stories along the same lines all over the leftward end of the media and its associated blogosphere, insisting in increasingly shrill terms that anyone who pays too much attention to the environment—and in particular, anyone who expects celebrity climate change activists to modify their lifestyles to match their loudly proclaimed ideals—is probably an ecofascist. In fact, I would be very surprised if we don’t see a series of earnest articles in the media claiming that believing in ecological limits is racist; such claims are already being made in the blogosphere, and their adoption by the mainstream left is, I suspect, merely a matter of time.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Collective Action: an interview with Cory Doctorow, author of ‘Radicalized’

A few weeks ago, we reviewed Radicalized, a fantastic collection of four stories from author Cory Doctorow about the extreme measures that people (or a certain Kryptonian) will take to push back against extreme forms of oppression or circumstance.  

Recently, I had the chance to speak with Mr. Doctorow about what inspired these tales as well as what some of the real world parallels they were inspired from.

There will also be spoilers for the various stories in Radicalized (especially Model Minority), so make sure you’ve already them first…which you really should have already.

AiPT!: Every story in Radicalized is great, but Model Minority really stood out to me, mostly because it was one of the best and most uniquely structured Superman stories I’ve ever read. What was your approach going into it to make Model Minority different than what has come before it?

Cory Doctorow: Humans have always been portrayed as his Achilles heel, but I think there’s an even deeper [issue] for Superman that goes back to his origins as a character. He was created by Jewish men in Brooklyn who were horrified about the rise of Nazism across the Atlantic. They wanted to build an immortal and unstoppable hero who could conceivably punch Nazis until they…well, stopped being Nazis!

But the actual answer to Nazis in Europe — although there were many brave individuals — was in no way an individual action. In fact, the answer was the largest collective action in the history of the world.

For reason both noble and base, I think we like to frame big fights as a struggle between individuals. The heroic individual who was at the right place at the right time and makes the sacrifice that makes things happen. Humanitarian movements definitely cultivate this.

Rosa Parks gets a lot of press as a solitary hero for her bus protest during the Civil Rights movement. But she was actually a community organizer who—along with her colleagues—planned out a strategy to get her arrested so that a case would be keyed up with a certain set of legal consequences that would be easier to argue in court and play into existing precedencies. If Rosa Parks had merely been a lone individual who was brave enough to refuse to give up her seat, she likely would have died in jail. It’s because she was part of a huge collective that she was able to have such a huge impact.

That’s what Model Minority really tries to dig into—the limits of individual action and the importance of collective action. Our perception of the individual as the driving force for change (rather than the collective) is something that still has a paralyzing effect on society’s willingness to confront its own issues. Look at climate change. It’s not happening because you didn’t recycle enough. But chances are (if you live in a city) that your biggest contribution to climate change is probably your commute. But you can’t dig a subway— Elon Musk can’t do that. And if even you could, you couldn’t rezone all the buildings for it to work. It would have to be a collective action.

AiPT!: Aside from Model Minority, the rest of the stories in Radicalized had a very near-future, Black Mirror-esque feel. Do you see the technology and events that took place as things we will see in the next few years?

Doctorow: I’m not a believer in the ability of science fiction to predict the future because I’m not a believer in predictable futures. That’s one of the big differences between an activist and a futurist. Activists believe that the future changes based on what we do. If the future were predictable, there’d be no reason to bring forth an event to create change.

The model of these stories is to show that the future can be great if we just don’t f*ck it up. The thing that drives a story like Unauthorized Bread is not merely that it shows how technological oppression takes place. It also shows how technical liberation takes place. People put a lot of emphasis on what technology does, but often overlook who it does those things for and who it does those things to. Often times that’s way more important.

Masque of Red Death was inspired in part by Doug Rushkoff’s story where he spoke to a bunch of hedge fund managers about their doomsday bunkers. They were trying to figure out how to make their bunkers sustainable after the apocalypse, but what worried them in particular was that their guards would kill them and take their food. One of the solutions they came up with were biometric food lockers that would only open for them. Once again, the issue isn’t what the technology does, but who has their finger on the button controlling it.

Going back to Model Minority, we have these predictive policing tools like the one Bruce sold to the NYPD. In reality, those tools are super racist. Patrick Ball, who runs the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, took PredPol (which is a major predictive policing tool) and gave it 2016 policing data from Oakland. He then asked it to provide where it predicted the most drug crime would be in 2017. He was then able to compare its predictions to the NIH survey about drug usage.

Predpol predicted that all of the drug crime was going to take place in black neighborhoods, which follows the police pattern that created its training data. If you’re only asking black people to turn out their pockets to look for drugs, then you all the drugs you find are going to be in black people’s pockets. According to the NIH data, however, illegal drug usage was pretty much even across the entire area among all demographics.

Now think about this: Instead of unfairly targeting a group of people, you could potentially use the exact same technology and data provided by PredPol (compared with the NIH data) to determine if policing patterns are racially biased. It’s all about whose finger is on the button.

AiPT!: Do you see the crisis on America’s southern border as a potential breaking point for people to become radicalized on both sides of the issue?

Doctorow: As a Canadian, I am somewhat baffled by both the American relationship to guns and the American relationship to healthcare. Every country has blind spots—when I lived in England, I couldn’t believe a country that managed to conquer the world still hadn’t figured out plumbing.

But America’s blind spots are pretty weird. The fact that they can’t do something every other country in the world has figured out is pretty baffling. It also spawns another weird question: Why is it that frustrated white dudes routinely shoot up mosques or kill their ex-wives, but don’t murder the healthcare executives who doom the people they love most in the world to die a slow, painful death? The pat answer would be that those executives are protected by a large amount of wealth and power. It’s much easier to punch down than punch up.

The other thing that Radicalized tries to do is to rebut our dominant model of radicalization, which is the contagion model. The idea with that model is there are a lot of people out there with very bad and dangerous ideas. If you get exposed to those ideas, then you will have the ideas too and go do bad and dangerous things.

But there’s not a lot of evidence to support that. Boston University did a study on the history of suicide bombers in the occupied territory in the West Bank. What they found was the biggest predictor of whether someone became radicalized was not ideology or a commitment to violence—it was if they were already suicidally depressed.

That trauma model—where people who are traumatized become much more susceptible/vulnerable to people with bad ideas—is a much truer account of what goes on in radicalization. It suggests that what we really need to be doing is reducing the amount of trauma as opposed to the exposure of people to bad ideas.

AiPT!: Where do you see that model at work in the current global landscape?

Doctorow: I feel like the people who are fighting it are being affected by racism that has been compounded by trauma. We’ve had 40 years of tightening belts and shifts in wealth from the middle to the wealthy. This has produced a large group of people who are traumatized and ready to be radicalized by difficult circumstances.

This about it this way: You think you have a secure chair at the table. Then someone announces “Actually, it’s not your chair. It’s musical chairs and at the end of the every turn, we’re going to decide whether or not you get one. Oh, and by the way, we’re going to let a bunch of people who have never had a chair compete for the chairs, as well…and we’re going to take away chairs at a faster than any in point in human history.”

When you consider that framework, it’s not a surprise that people can become racist, xenophobic a------s. It doesn’t exonerate or excuse them, obviously, but it does help explain it.

The arguments anti-vaxxers make today aren’t any better or more informed than they used to be. It was a stupid argument then and it’s a stupid argument now. Same with flat eartherism. What changes are the material circumstances of the people who believe the arguments. When you look at the rise of authoritarian movements throughout history, they almost always follow some sort of collective trauma.

Another source of trauma for people is that despite the wealth of information at our fingertips, there is a collective inability to trust it. There so many different sources of information that it becomes impossible to adjudicate them all, which forces you to defer to whomever is deemed the expert…or whoever shouts their information the loudest. That’s part of the reason you can have the FDA saying for 15 years that opioids were safe. Even the government can’t be trusted as a source. This leads to people often times finding someone who “feels” like someone they can trust whether they are credible or not—and you just believe whatever they tell you.

AiPT!: Moving onto something a little more light-hearted: Is Superman (or any other character in the DC Universe) someone you’d like to revisit in the future?

Doctorow: Honestly, I didn’t really always want to write Superman. In this instance, Superman was simply the right metaphor for the bigger question about individual and collective action and being an ally.

Speaking as someone whose father was a Jewish immigrant refugee to Canada, it was odd to see how he was initially treated as a racialized minority, but later “became” white. It showed me how whiteness is socially constructed—and how the last people on the whiteness boat are usually the first ones to get kicked off. In Charlotte, we had people chanting “Jews will not replace us,” but there are still conservative Jews (including within my own family) who treat white supremacy as a small price to pay as support for Israel and other portions of the GOP agenda.

One thing I wanted to draw attention to in Model Minority is that Superman’s whiteness (and humanity) is assigned to him as a courtesy. It is entirely contingent on his support of the establishment, who can withdraw it at a moment’s notice. It also shows the difficulty of allyship. No matter what you go through to help others, your struggle will pale in comparison to the ones without your privilege who you’re trying to help. Just like when Superman was asked “Where were you for the last 100 years,” you might have to confront the fact that you were previously a part of the problem.

That’s not to say we need to play oppression Olympics with everyone to compete for who has struggled the most in society. But I do think we need to acknowledge that the daily experience of different people in different experiences is something that we can’t fully comprehend.

AiPT!: This probably won’t be possible with Model Minority due to all the licensing red tape you’d have to jump through, but are there plans to make any of the other stories in Radicalized into other media properties?

Doctorow: Unauthorized Bread is currently in development as a television project. That’s all I can say for now

www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/2019/08/13/collective-action-an-interview-with-cory-doctorow-author-of-radicalized/

[the-mira-life-project-mtf]

LGBT - I AM MIRA

My Transgender Journey

   When approaching the discussion of what type of L.G.B.T.Q. individual I might be, I fall in-between Gender Nonconforming and Gender Nonbinary. Personally I call the label: Gender Neutral or Gender Fluid as I deny that I am either male or female...but more like both at once. The only time I will use gender codes is on legal or medical documentation for statue of my genetic sex. I will even refer to myself as male as physically, that is what I think I appear as. For many years I tried to understand this duality of my gender and the only way I could understand it was through the ancient arts of the Animus and Anima.

Animus (David) & Anima (Mira)

   In Carl Jung’s school of analytical psychology, he purposed that there are two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. The animus and anima are elements of the personal psyche that makes up the human gender.

   The anima is the unconscious female form of the male body whereas the animus is the unconscious male form of the female body. The anima and animus can be identified as the totality of the unconscious feminine psychological qualities that a man possesses and equal to that a woman possesses, meaning that there is no one gender, but a duel-gender.

   The matter is simplified due to the construction of the human right (female) and left (male) hemisphere lobes of the animalistic brain. Depending on sex, we depend on either the right or left side for critical thinking and this shapes our primary gender. It is not to say that women don’t use their left lobe and men their right. The brain naturally bridges and this forms a non-binary form of thinking. At any time, we think as male and female when we interact socially.

   As children, our animus and anima are quite visible as we try to grasp the existence of being human. This is why we dress, play and find fascination in the non-binary body. As we age, we condition as male or female due to peer pressure, expectations and/or biology. Most lose touch with their second gender and this leads to radical behavior like male aggression and female feminism.

   Depending on how well developed the second gender is...we begin to metamorphoses into becoming transgender.

   The effect of the animus and anima can have naturalizing biological effects on our body through an imbalance of hormones. This can cause a man to form breasts (and be comfortable with them) or female to form facial hair.

   It is my belief that the anima, Mira, is as real is the animus, David; and together they form one biological entity. The malfunction however occurs as the biological sex has given superiority to the animus with the formation of a male reproductive system, muscle strength, lack of breasts, body hair and inability to bear children. Since the anima is also active and has the ability to gain superiority, but compromised by genetics, this causes ‘undesired’ changes to the host body to balance between the two genders.

   The question that I cannot answer is which gender is actually the superior without the aid of DNA? I believe it is totally possible, as in my case, to have the second gender be superior over my sex and this has led me to modifications of my body to balance between the two sexes.

Gender Nonconforming & Gender Nonbinary

   Of all the Transgender communities, gender Nonconforming and Gender Nonbinary do not live within the binary gender narrative. Most transgender individuals gear for an MtF or an FtM with a full switch to the opposite gender giving that sex superiority over the other. Gender Nonconforming (GNC) & Gender Nonbinary (GNB) live in-between genders and can vary to either side of the binary gender, but not as far as giving that gender superiority over the second gender. This makes treating GNB quite difficult as they need to be certain on what their balance is.

So how do you know if you are GNC-GNB?

   First, these individuals may identify as being both male and female; neither male nor female; in-between genders; on the outside of the binary gender spectrum; not having a gender or being totally genderless.

   There are a few who use the term ‘Queer’, which has been reclaimed as a respectful umbrella term encompassing a broad range of gender identities, expressions, and sexual orientations. I however refuse to use this term as ‘Queer’ which carries much passive aggression.

   The art of being Nonbinary evolves and changes rapidly as this group of people are hard to understand and definitions try to express their conditions evolve. Here is a list of GNC-GNB names:

Gender Ambiguous, Pangender, Neutrois, Gender Bender, Gender Blender, Gender Smoothie, Gender Expansive, Masculine Of Center, Feminine Of Center, Androgyne, Gender Fluid and my personal definition: Gender Neutral.

   Another clear sign of being GNC-GNB is how they use their pronouns. People who are Gender Nonbinary may choose to use gender neutral pronouns such as we, us, they, them and their, or other gender neutral pronouns such as zie(ze) (masculine) and hir (feminine).

   So in regard to my own pronouns; an example of a conversation might sound like this:

   ‘Good morning doctor, we been waiting a long time...’ even though I am all alone.

   ‘It’s taken us a few days to recover, but we are doing much better...’ again, alone and speaking for one.

Complicated Process Of Transformation

   As we’ve discussed, transitioning from male to female is not a complete transformation of the sex. It is a balance of the outward gender and internal hormones that activate parts of the dormant brain to bridge both genders. If a GNC-GNB made a full switch MtF or FtM, it would have devastating results if they were truly nonbinary. It is possible for a GNC-GNB to actually be a Transgender without knowing it, further changing to balance the dysphoria.

   When it comes to balancing between David & Mira, this requires self-reflection to find what causes the gender dysphoria; the underlying root to gender transformation. It is rather hard as the goal is not to be male or female but to also have male and female body characteristics all at the same time.

   If you recall the mirror experiment in Article:

A Blind Procedure — A Guess Of Day 1

, the body of a GNC might be best described as how it is mentally seen.

   For example: When someone say, describe your ideal body; I usually revert to the mental image I see: A tall, stocky 6 foot 2 build with low muscle mass…

Face:

   Rounded, pronounced upper cheek bones and normal hairline for my age. Hair is short, cropped to the shoulders with blonde highlights of my youth mixed with brown of my adulthood. My lips are feminine, filled out, but not massive; whereas my nose is masculine in appearance. No facial hair.

Neck:

   Slender, the structure pretty much unaltered from the physical neck.

Shoulders:

   Masculine in shape.

Upper Arms:

   Feminine in shape, low muscle mass and no body hair.

Lower Arms:

   Feminine in shape, low muscle mass and no body hair.

Back:

   No body hair.

Chest:

   No chest hair. My chest is supported by two B-cup breasts, firm and dome-like in appearance. The mammary glands are in full activity (leading to a possibility of discharge and sensitive). Nipples are feminine in appearance with darkened (brown pigmentation) areolas about quarter in size and puffy. The skin is very clear and white which is true when I shave.

Belly & Waist:

   No body hair...belly is rounded, but fat is redistributed to the hips making only one belly roll. The waist is narrow in appearance, but normal for males. The illusion is caused by posture and hips.

Genitalia:

   Feminine pubic hair design with a small flaccid penis that is unable to erect on its own. The main purpose of the penis is for urination. With time and dedication, and erection is possible and sustained by the sensitive glans. The penis should be small enough that it can shrink down into a clitoris like structure, giving the appearance of a vagina...but not. Testicles are small (pre-pubescent).

Buttocks:

   Feminine in size. Rounded and firm, but not large. The buttocks should blend in with the hips.

Upper Thighs:

   Masculine in form, maintaining muscular mass. Body hair here is acceptable if it is light brown or blonde (blonde being ideal).

Lower Legs:

   Feminine in form, but retaining lean muscle mass, but not obvious (no body builder building calf’s). Body hair here is acceptable if it is light brown or blonde (blonde being ideal).

Feet:

   Masculine in form, size 13 as they are now with no different modifications.

   It is through the modifications of H.R.T. to slow down, decrease and stop body hair growth, develop breasts, redistribute fat, feminize the face and stop hair loss on scalp. A reduction in penis and testicular size is also desired and the loss of libido is desired.

   Gender affirming surgery has not been greatly considered and is avoided as it is too quick of a change and unable to adapt to the new form. I have however considered breast augmentation (if breasts get too big) and genital surgery to modify penis into a vagina-like structure as it would be the easiest to live with. I however elect not to go this direction due to cost and mental impact it might have.

The Role Of Mira

   Psychology speaking, the role of Mira is far more developed than previously thought. Mira is the artist, the caregiver and dreamer of my personality. Whereas David is the scientist, authoritarian and researcher of my personality.

   Over the years, Mira has been developing faster than David as seen in skills and career choices. At the beginning (Pre-TG ignorance), I was seen as a strict, orderly, authoritarian and calculating. Due to outward aggression and superior thoughts over females; my animus was trying to become conditioned for my sex. I did not like the person I was becoming and literally overnight, began to mentally change as I left my comfort for a world of community service and care-giving.

   I have never done this before and flourished. Ironically, my ideal image in control was the Gender Neutral appearance with Mira taking the superior role.

   I turned away from science and went into care giving and community service to help others who needed it more than me. My whole demeanor changed, the way I thought of others, the way I talked and even body posture began to change for the feminine side.

   By my late 20s, my gender was reassigned as I hybrid my new found love as a caregiver and scientist and taught children environmental education. It was easily noted by my peers that I was changing as my first year I was very soft spoken and womanly, second year soft spoken and compassionate...hardly showing any aggression. By the third year, openly spoken and orderly, but womanly at the same time. I was even considered by a few L.G.B.T. as being possibly gay.

   It is not to be considered that I wasn’t masculine during this time. I maintained my passive aggressiveness quite well and did not put up with disobedience. Ironically, I hardly participated in ‘male-centrist’ activities like sports, drinking or power posturing. I hardly participated in ‘female-centrist’ activities like maternity, arts and crafts, beauty. I tend to balance between the two.

Mira And Dating

   This part could be an article in its self, but decided to add it under Article: Mira as it seems appropriate.

   Dating as a Gender Neutral individual was not top priority. However, there was once a bond that lasted for ten years before it ended quite abruptly! I was typically attracted to woman (as I am still sexually attracted to women and not men) and found one beautiful woman that ironically fit my mental image of my anima.

   Her name was Ruth, she has beautiful blonde hair with a light red-brown highlights. Her face angular and cheeks pronounced. Nose slightly masculine and lips feminine. Gorgeous green eyes and the fairest skin you’d ever see.

   I could speak to her as if I was speaking to myself! Her body was curvaceous with B-cup breasts and a slender waist with large hips.

   She herself identified as bisexual and could swing either male or female for love interest. I, at the time, was just male...straight and concerned over her sexual preference. It was clear after five years of dating that we were trying to decide who was masculine and feminine in this relationship.

   Ruth certainly did not want to take on the masculine side, probably because she was worried it would offend me. But when it came to dating, she was masculine and even made it clear that she preferred my ‘feminine persona’ over my masculine persona.

   It did not take much work to change into the female in this relationship, it came naturally and I enjoyed it. It made me happy, I could be Mira hiding under the name David as we dated.

   By year 9, our relationship began to deteriorate as I was expecting Ruth to take on the male role. She either did not understand or could not comprehend and her libido got the best of her. I was confused, as Mira (David), I can’t be sexual with someone of my same gender and having a nonbinary female being romantic with a bi female was too much for me and a panic.

   By year 10, (just a year before interest in H.R.T. and accepting I am also Mira), Ruth and I went our separate ways in a way that devastated me! I honestly don’t know how it happened, but it did and it was bad! It was a ten day trip down the Oregon coastline...I thought it would be the perfect scene for a romantic getaway. Just the two of us. Like normal, I resumed being the female and hoped Ruth would take on the masculine role. The first two days were fine, but I began to fall apart. I wanted her to do more, I was driving, cooking, cleaning, paying and leading in this expedition and it wore me down!

   For a brief moment, Mira vanished and David snapped out in a way that was hurtful! My limits were broken and I had doubts about our relationship. But shock came to me when Ruth told me that there was no love between us and we’d never be a partnership...she wanted me to break up with her...she wanted another commitment to someone else. I think she expected me to argue, but I just got up and washed my dishes and put the food away and said “I think your right...we are not compatible!” and I left her to her own device as I showered and cried.

   The trip was cut short and the next day I drove all the way from the California state line to Ruth’s home...broken and hurt. I did not let it show. I was equally pissed how she so easily threw me out. Not even a ‘Love you’ slipped from my lips, she tried to say something, but I just said ‘Goodbye...’ the type of goodbye you say to a love one who has died.

Like Johnny Cash’s song:

She Use To Love Me A Lot...

   I saw her through the window today. She was sittin' in the Silver Spoon cafe. I started to keep going.    But something made me stop...She used to love me a lot.    She looked lonely and I knew the cure. Old memories would win her heart for sure. I thought I'd walk on in. And I give it my best shot...She used to love me a lot.    I sat down beside her and she smiled. She said where have you been it's been awhile. She was glad to see me. I could almost read her thoughts...She used to love me a lot.    She used to love me with a love that wouldn't die. Looking at her now I can't believe I said good-bye. It would only take a minute to turn back the clock...She used to love me a lot.    I remember how good it was back then. And I said it's not too late to start again. We could spend a night together. Take up where we left off...She used to love me a lot.    But I panicked as she turned to walk away. As she went out the door I heard her say. Yes I'm in need of something. But it's something you ain't got...But I used to love you a lot.    I thought she loved me with a love that wouldn't die. Looking at her now I can't believe she said good-bye...She just left me standing there, I never been so shocked...She used to love me a lot.

   Only difference here...I was the woman who got her heart broken and then walked away in the end. The song was bitter sweet when Ruth messaged me 4 months later and asked that we go out for a dinner or movie...to start over again...I never responded. How do you pick up the broken glass of a failure?

   I still loved her, with all my heart. I was a true Davy Jones...heartbroken and heartless. I waited to see the message come through Facebook that officially told the world we were no more. But it never came. I wondered: ‘Did she ever tell her mom and dad about our breakup?’ ‘Tell them about the sexist pig I was?’ I never told my family...it was none of their business, but I think they know as I removed Ruth’s stuff and asked they not ask about her.

   Four months went by and I reflected on the event, ‘Where was Mira?’ ‘Why did I behave like that?’ It was my animus...I know it was! I was aggressive, mean; unruly! And I hated it! I became the very thing that wasn’t me...all over politics, lack of partnership and exhaustion! Ruth was right, we were not made for one another...and if we got back together...what will happen if it happens again? Being hurt once was enough.

   I thought about all she said, tearing apart her words like a puzzle. It then was clear to me: Ruth is bi, but her dominate trait is her animus. Her actions were ‘male’, she was sexually aggressive, overbearing, manipulative, authoritarian and expected everything to be done for her.

   That is how the men in my household acted. She said to me on that fateful trip ‘I think I am attracted to women more than men...’ I think she was trying to either save face for breaking up or wanted to hurt me, I don’t know. ‘You’re taking this much easier than I thought!’ she commented, but she was wrong!

   I wondered, ‘What if I was less like David and more like Mira...if I changed myself...would it make her happier? I can’t live this lie!’ I then began searching for a way to deplete the chemical that ruined our love...testosterone! It was here that Mira took over completely and even to this day works to balance me to what I envisioned myself at age 7. ‘Reduce the testosterone, reduce the androgen...flood your body with estrogen and change!’ I thought. Mira’s thoughts were no longer outside...but now my own.

   Seven months into our breakup and I already tried to change myself using bovine ovaries, but failed as the taste was overwhelming! I feel sorry for the women who have to swallow these shitty pills! With my H.R.T. appointment in place...I thought of something dreadful! Ruth contacted me again, wanting to visit me and I had a change of heart...I said yes, but she never came.

   If there was even a remote possibility of us repairing the past, could she live with a man trying to turn into a half-man half-woman hybrid? Would she accept me for who I really am? Would she love Mira over David? I felt terrible...all I thought was about myself and not of others. 7 months and I wanted to make it better. If I can’t be the man she wants...maybe she can love a Gender Neutral? But how do you tell someone who could share this information with family? Trust? Trust was gone when she said she did not love me.

   ‘Why can’t I just man up and did what she wanted...have sex!’ she made it clear multiple times that I wasn’t satisfying her needs. Even though we were not married, she wanted the experience and I wanted commitment. I though billions of sex crazed men who would have been more than happy to lay with her and she found the only guy who won’t even touch her!

    Sadly, the answer is really simple...just tell her that you are Gender Neutral and about to undergo H.R.T. to become what you are supposed to be...let her decide...what do I have to lose, we are already nothing at this time.

[traitor-boyfriend]

why do you think kyman is so popular? (ew)

okay so this has been sitting in my inbox for about a week or so now and i really just need to answer it and get it over with. really i think this is the most i’m ever going to say at length about kyman so here we go. also i’ve been drinking a little so i apologize in advance if my thoughts aren’t as cohesive as they could be lmao

to answer the initial question, i honestly have no idea. i have a few theories, but no real concrete answer as to why kyman as a ship is so popular; i’m speaking as someone who has had an intimate awareness of this fandom from the time i was ten, which is literally half of my life. i can’t recall kyman being a big ship, or even one of the more common rare-pairs 10 years ago – back then the major ships were style, creek, and k2 (almost pretty much in that order). 

kyman, as i know it and have observed it since i’ve re-familiarized myself with the show and its fandom, is more a development that’s largely happened within the past five years and i think the main contributor to this is that, within that same time period, there’s been a noticeable shift with how kyle and cartman’s dynamic has been written; in the beginning seasons, kyle and cartman are shown to equally despise each other. the cartman of seasons 1-4 isn’t exactly the cartman we know now – he started off as kind of a stereotypical fat little neighborhood bully, but he’s always been narcissistic, racist, selfish etc. just not to the same extent he is now. and back then, kyle and cartman interact as enemies would; they argue and fight constantly, openly express their disdain for each other to anyone who will listen, and actively conspire against the other. kyle and cartman were direct foils to each other. 

this has changed in the recent past. cartman and kyle aren’t really considered enemies anymore, but instead as rivals which i think is an important thing to note. now, they’re even occasionally on the same side of a conflict or event (such as tfbw). there has been a lot of focus in the past five or six seasons in the ways kyle and cartman are similar; they’re both temperamental and very angry people, incredibly competitive, both very driven and committed when they set their mind to something. kyle, to a lesser degree, also shares one of cartman’s worst traits; they’re both over-reactive and allow themselves to think the world is out to get them. obviously – and i cannot stress this enough – kyle has in no way the victim complex cartman has, but it is there nonetheless. the running theme with season 21 has been self-victimization, and while i don’t entirely agree with their idea that the potential destructive effects of habitual othering and alienation is, like, a concept of personal responsibility or individual desire to be a victim, other than heidi, kyle is a great example of this. for the last three seasons kyle has been the whipping boy in that no one wants his speeches, no one wants his moral lesson; no one wants his opinion. and kyle indirectly and without meaning to spearheads canada being bombed because he allows his emotions to dictate his action. there’s too many instances of cartman doing this exact thing with obvious malicious intent, but “the list” is another notable episode where kyle does the same thing; he feels slighted and estranged when everyone thinks he’s ugly, and instead of listening to reason from either stan or abraham lincoln, he decides the best choice of action is to burn down the school. my point is, kyle and cartman share quite a few personality traits and their interactions in recent seasons tend to highlight and expand on this rather than to treat them as divisive, opposite characters.

they’ve done a lot more as well to show that kyle, unlike his very early characterization in-series where he couldn’t give less of a shit if cartman died, now cares for him on – at the very least– a humanistic level. whereas kenny and stan are still mostly indifferent to cartman and what happens to him, kyle now often objects to directly conspiring to hurt or let cartman put himself in danger, even if he still despises him as a person. this started around season 8 or so with “up the down steroid” and i think this quote from kyle when he goes to cartman’s house best sums up what i’m talking about:

“I know that I often have serious moral objections to the things that you do, but… this time I think you really need to reconsider. Because if you do this, I believe you will go to hell. So I feel it is my responsibility, as your friend, to tell people what you’re doing, and to put a stop to it.”

kyle’s constant drive to put a stop to cartman’s increasingly deranged and morally depraved antics are largely driven by a dedication to his ethics, yes, but this also shows that kyle does consider cartman a friend and objects to his behavior as such because he cares about what happens to him despite kyle routinely being repulsed and disgusted by who cartman is. he also is the only one to initially object to destroying cartman’s stuff in season 20, even though kyle is cartman’s most vocal and frequent critic, and is also shown to feel an inordinate amount of guilt than the other boys comparatively; this is a combination of kyle’s generally guilty personality as well as remorse for having done something to hurt a friend. there’s also the jewpacabra episode where, even after being pathologically belittled again for the millionth time on the basis of his being jewish by cartman, kyle still goes out in the middle of the night to unchain cartman, take him home, and put him in his bed. i worry this is beginning to sound like rationalization or even evidence on the kyman ship’s behalf that kyle has feelings for cartman in anyway, because it isn’t; it’s just elaboration on kyle’s character. kyle is a very sympathetic person, and that extends even to someone who he doesn’t like. there are plenty of examples of kyle being absolutely thrilled to see cartman be delivered a comeuppance or get the shit kicked out of him or be proven wrong, and more often than not, kyle genuinely hates cartman – there just are not as many recent examples, which is the time-frame i’m trying to stick to while talking about this ship.

there’s a lot to be said of cartman as a character. like, a lot. he’s incredibly complex, and while it makes him interesting as a character study, it makes him insufferable to watch. he’s always been terrible. that’s his appeal, i think, and what makes him so popular. cartman is the complete and utter embodiment of human id; he has no sense of the world outside himself, no remorse, and acts consistently in his own self-interest with little to deter him. and part of it is satisfying sometimes to see just how far cartman is willing to denigrate himself and others in pursuit of what he wants, because it’s that same morbid desire a normal person might occasionally feel but suppresses because of their conscience – something cartman does not have. 

i’d argue, given the inherent chaos and destruction and amorality the universe of south park exists in, that all of the main boys are traumatized to varying degrees. but i don’t think it’s all that controversial to say cartman exhibits the most outward signs of childhood trauma. plenty of people much more observant and intelligent than myself i’m sure have written about this before so i’m going to keep it brief, but a lot of cartman’s behavior can be explained this way. there’s been a few allusions to his having been sexually abused, inappropriate sexual contact with family members, the fact that he wets his bed or cries at night b/c he doesn’t have a dad are all things we learn when he can’t control what he says in “le petit tourette.” his physical and verbal aggression, emotionality, distrust of others, conniving behavior etc. are all common symptoms of adverse childhood experiences. he’s controlling and insecure, and cartman thrives off any and all attention – positive, which he often gets from his mother, or negative, which is usually provided by literally everyone else, especially kyle, which is what i think makes him so infatuated with kyle in that he’s an easy, reliable source to match his own aggression, to feed that desire for attention. unlike what a lot of kyman shippers think, it’s pretty obvious that this is why he goes to such lengths to save kyle in “smug alert”. butters doesn’t fight or push back against cartman the way he does, therefore cartman isn’t receiving the attention or reaction he wants.

there’s also the matter of cartman’s racism and anti-semitism. and to deny that cartman does not possess genuine confidence in his own deluded beliefs, or to excuse it b/c of his age is a major cop-out. he’s had moments where his racial hatred is founded in classic white-supremacist talking points, so he clearly espouses this shit of his own volition. because he’s attracted to power cartman idolizes conservative christian figureheads in pop culture (mel gibson ring a bell to anyone) and authoritarian dictators, of which racism is often a major component of such ideology, and this only emboldens his bigotry. there’s a couple instances in the very early seasons (i’m talking, like, pretty much exclusively 1 and 2) where cartman alludes to his racist tendencies stemming from liane, but i don’t really consider it fair to cling to that as a canonical source b/c one, it’s almost always for shock value as a quick joke, and two, they have since done a complete 180 on liane. they don’t harp on the joke about her being a whore the way they used to, and instead she’s shown to be a single mother who works two jobs and who loves her son unconditionally. but she’s also very lonely, and treats cartman as her friend instead of her son; she has no boundaries set with him and often entertains his schemes or delusions; she’s a classic over-indulging parent. which does a lot of harm without her meaning to. 

honestly, the entire relationship between cartman and his mother mostly just makes me sad, especially after the “tsst” episode; it’s the only time we see liane disciplining cartman in a firm but loving way, acting as a parent and not a hostage, and we see, in my opinion, what was the only instance wherein which cartman was capable of any meaningful or permanent change. and it’s all destroyed when liane realizes cesar and her’s relationship was purely professional and nothing more. even in group of moms, liane isn’t really considered one of them. her only friend is cartman, so she defaults to giving in to his every whim b/c she’s terrified of him resenting and leaving her as well. it’s like.. a really tragic situation. but that episode is important as it exemplifies the fact that, unlike the other boys, cartman incapable of change. his transformation is mostly superficial and incredibly short-lived. there’s a lot to be said of the nature of evil – whether some people are born that way, if it’s entirely nature vs. nurture – but cartman is obviously a combination of both; no one who doesn’t have some kind of genetic pre-dispostion to incalculable levels of cruelty and disregard for the suffering of others could plot to have someone’s parents killed, steal their bodies, grind them into chili and feed it to the child of those parents over sixteen dollars.

and this is what makes the cognitive dissonance that surrounds thinking kyman isn’t an abusive ship is astounding to me, because cartman is an inherently abusive person. he is incapable of the vulnerability or the selflessness or the compromise a relationship requires. i mean, christ, we just got an entire season that highlights how he acts within the confines of a romantic relationship with heidi – an entire season of cartman manipulating, gaslighting, and machinating events to have someone he supposedly loves killed or abducted. there’s an argument made pretty often among kyman fans that this wouldn’t happen to kyle, that kyle is capable of fighting back against cartman and would refuse to make himself vulnerable the way heidi did, but i have no idea how someone could says this after “ginger cow.”

kyle is by far the most frequent recipient of the proverbial short stick (passion of the jew, le petit tourette, tonsil trouble, pee, humancentipad, imaginationland, cartman’s incredible gift, etc b/c the list goes on and fucking on) and though cartman is not always the one directly spearheading the events that lead to kyle being put in those situations, he usually is. but the way he treats kyle in ginger cow differs so greatly from past events – a lot of cartman’s mistreatment of kyle can be viewed as him feeling he’s delivering punishment or retribution to a someone who he feels (wrongly) deserves it, but “ginger cow” just really epitomizes cartman’s complete and utter sociopathy. what he does to kyle in that episode is so far beyond mere humiliation; it’s dehumanization. cartman actively derives joy from breaking kyle down as a person, forcing him to be submissive, causing kyle to lose any sense of self. the kicker comes at the end of the episodes when stan’s misguided attempt to help ends up backfiring, but not really, because the prophecy of the red heifer had actually been true all along! yet cartman refuses to tell the truth; kyle’s suffering means nothing. and cartman, in true cartman fashion, makes a snide joke, farts into his hand, dollops whip cream in his palm and smears it in kyle’s face, walking off very satisfied with himself. even thinking about the episode makes me viscerally ill. 

i think just as troubling for me is the culture that surrounds people shipping the two of them; there is so, so, so much casual anti-semitism – people who think it’s cute when cartman accosts kyle for being jewish, people who use the word “jew” in a flippant, casual way as if it’s a term of endearment while completely ignoring the historical context of disparagement in a non-jewish person calling someone “a jew.” people who excuse cartman’s anti-semitism, who act like he hasn’t repeatedly been shown to adore hitler and emulate him, going as far as to rally the town behind him to lead in the effort to exterminate the jews and shouting nazi rallying cries. not to mention the fact that not only does there exist any one singular kyman fic centered around kyle being a holocaust victim during world war ii, there are a ton! which is so disgusting and disrespectful and so obviously amoral i can’t believe i just had to type that! and in the same line as fiction, it is so upsetting to me a prominent trend that occurs w kyman fics is cartman basically hatefucking kyle through the entire thing, physically and verbally abuses him and gets off on it, and kyle is this submissive, simpering slave to him – not to mention the plethora of straight up rape/non-con kyman fics. it a lot of either that, or kyle is some conduit for a shitty cartman redemption arc, and. ugh.

anyway, this is the most i’m ever going to say about kyman. the tl;dr version of this is that i think kyman is so popular b/c recent seasons have focused more on amplifying the ways in which kyle and cartman are similar as well as quite a few jokes being made about some weird sexual tension between the two of them. and not to harp on this, but i don’t ship kyman, and i don’t support it or even remotely tolerate it, really. the entire concept of those two together makes me quite literally physically ill lmao.

[maximuswolf]

A serious discussion about the future of the left. via /r/communism

A serious discussion about the future of the left.

Introduction:

Comrades who share this wonderful discussion forum of r/communism, I want you to take a moment to ask yourselves, what is it that we want? What are we fighting for? I imagine most of us are fighting for abolition of private property, collective ownership over the means of production and distribution, a dissolution of the state as an apparatus for control by the bourgeoisie, democratization of all parts of life, better healthcare and welfare for those who need it, and other such extremely noble aims. I myself believe in all of these very strongly. But I'm afraid that many on the left (unintentionally, I hope) are preventing us from achieving these aims, or even actively taking us backwards, towards fascism. So, in what I'm sure will turn out to be an extremely long essay, I want to take a while to discuss action that we all should be taking. I hope everyone reads this through to the end. If you dislike it, feel free to downvote, but please read till the end regardless.

Part I: The Current State of the Left

This might start out kinda rude, but we on the left really suck. A lot. We seem to view people with other beliefs as inferior, deluded, and misinformed idiots who are only capable of seeing just past the end of their noses and unable to view the big picture. And, on some level, I do understand the impulse. It can be hard to put up with their stupid arguments, blatant mistruths, and denial of facts. But a lot of leftists (I myself am also guilty of this) respond to these with insults, ad hominem and name-calling. This is not effective. As hard as it is to get this through our heads, we need more people. If you hang out only in far-left chatrooms, patting all your Marxist-Leninist comrades on the back at how great it feels to own liberals and progressives, you are the problem. The future of the left lies in those people. If you ask an average person off the road what they think about leftists, they’ll usually respond in one of three ways; They’ll either shrug and say they don’t care, call them whiny snowflakes who only complain, or call them belligerent pricks who won’t shut up. Across all my time on planet earth, even when I talk to people who I know hold similar values to my own, they all think of leftists as these 3 things. This isn’t a group that’s going to attract new people. If anything, they’ll be pushed further away. And we need these people. I know many like to talk about revolution like it’s an excuse for them to not have to engage with liberals and progressives, but you’re delusional if you think that. If today, a revolution began in The United States, do you think it has any chance of succeeding? Revolution can only occur with a large enough power base, either among the people or among armed forces. We don’t have any opportunity to raise forces like the red army, so our power base needs to come from people. Average, milk-toast liberals and progressives. That is where the future of the left is.

Part II: Liberalism and Marxism

Liberalism, that is, the philosophy of the enlightenment, is a philosophy that is incompatible with Marxism. Liberalism came about as a way to justify capitalism, and pushed faux progressivism to legitimise capitalism’s promise of a new, equal society. Hate liberalism as much as you want. But liberals, the people who believe in the ideology, are not incompatible with us. Many share similar ideals of a free and equal world, many do in fact support things like healthcare, women’s rights and greater equality of income. They’re just misinformed. They have been the target of misinformation and propaganda from the day they were born, and so are unable to believe in socialism. They view communism as some sort of demonic entity, trying to take over the foundations of society and enslave everyone. And you insulting them isn’t really helping matters. It’s a sad fact that far-left leaning people, and even socialists, are an extreme minority in most of the world. Most people are moderates. Its just that the people with the most extreme beliefs are also often the loudest, and so are disproportionately represented in media and online circles. This is also why neo-nazis seem so common on the internet-they’re just the ones who shout the most. This isn’t about who’s right or wrong, it’s just a fact that the vast majority of people in every country are moderates, neither far-right nor far-left. And so that’s why we need to go on a crusade against misinformation. Now, let’s go onto Marxism. I won’t demean you by defining Marxism, so let’s get to the point. Don’t. Call Yourself. A Marxist. 99% of the time, if you call yourself a Marxist, people will automatically stop listening. As hard as it is, call yourself a socialist (or some variation thereupon). People have been conditioned to associate Communism with authoritarianism, even though they aren’t at all related. Socialism, while still heavily bastardised, lacks that same association with the regimes of Stalin or Mao, so they’re more palatable to the general public. And again, our aim is to convert the people who are aligned with us socially into being aligned with us politically.

Part III: The Art of Proselytising

To convert the liberals is a difficult task. It can be hard, because a lot of leftists get very invested and personal in defence of their ideology, which can be a good thing in small doses. However, when a person listens to a debate or reads transcripts, do you think they will side with the one who shouts and talks incoherently, or the one who has complete control and is calm and confident? When talking with anyone about politics, stay calm. Calm and collected people are far more attractive to others than brash and loud ones. Even if the opponent’s points are patently bullshit, counter them in a way that doesn’t actively demean them. Wait for them to lost patience and get flustered. Your aim is to try and win over people who may have an open mind. So far has been advice pertaining to formal debate. But how do you chat with liberal friends just in general conversation? Very simple. Don’t demean them. If they talk to you about a liberal policy that they like, support them. Agree. As long as that policy isn’t actively harmful, there is no harm in saying that you like it too. Don’t respond by going, “Heh, this changes nothing. The problem is capitalism, and these policies are just to keep you content enough to stop asking questions.” This actively discourages them from your ideas by putting it in their head that the things they want are fundamentally different from the things you want. Instead you respond with, “yeah man, that’s really cool!” Agree, and then later bring it up how you think that we could expand on that idea and bring it into the realm of something more in line with actual socialism. And when they talk about a liberal policy they dislike, try and show them how a more left-leaning policy would be more in line with their ideal society. I know this is vague and unspecific, but I want this to be as universally applicable as possible. Lastly, know when to stop. If someone seems averse to your ideas, don’t push them into reading Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto. Just accept it and move along. After all, if you push too hard, they may give up on you completely and we don’t want that. Their will always be more chances in the future to try and convert.

Part IV: Choosing your Targets

This is a short section. Don’t bother trying to convince ethnic nationalists, neo-nazis or other members of the alt-right in informal forums. It’s a fruitless endeavour. You need to accept that they have committed themselves to a belief which holds no evidence to support it, and so no matter what evidence you bring up to dismiss their claims, it wont matter. In formal debates you can engage them and show how their beliefs are false, but just don’t bother otherwise. Anarcho-capitalists are generally beyond help, but not always. A good litmus test is to ask them if they think trans rights should be promoted. If yes, there is still hope. If not, give up. Ancaps take a lot of work to convert though, so you’ll be in for the long haul. Liberals are your prime targets. They have social values which align with our own, we only need them to realise that those social values would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism. Because one thing to remember is that when it comes to pure facts, logic and evidence, we have the right beaten hands down. Its not even a contest. We just need to make ourselves feel more appealing to the liberals.

Part V: Please, Think Realistically

Change will not happen just suddenly. It needs to be systematically created, and we are the ones who need to do it. It can be comforting to think that the revolution will come, it will be glorious and we will henceforth live in a communist utopia. That’s not going to happen. First off, we need enough people for a revolution. As someone who lives in India, I can tell you what the general reaction to the Naxalites is here- fear, paranoia and mistrust. I understand their goals, but unless more people support them, they will be able to do nothing. We need to plant seeds of this support ourselves. It really disturbed me to see leftists unironically planning to vote for Trump because it would show the Democrats that their model wasn’t working (or something like that) while forgetting that by doing so they would be giving power over to a far-right demagogue who would probably just directly execute you if he could. Us being correct doesn’t mean we are above the mundane conflicts of society. We are as much a part of it as anybody else and so we need to be able to put ideals on the backseat to pragmatism. So why do I bring this up? Because arguing for ideas like the abolition of private property will get you nowhere. Most people are going to frightened by such ideas, so instead we need to dial it back. We can still keep our ideals, but when converting people start small. “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if you could visit a hospital without going bankrupt? Or maybe if you had a say in the decisions at your company rather than just listening to your boss all the time? Or maybe if the people at the top weren’t so much richer than everyone else?” Such ideas will seem mundane to us. But to the average person they’re incredibly attractive. Don’t talk in terms of vague, high-minded ideals or all-encompassing social change. Focus on how their life would improve under socialism. The sad truth is, not many people care about the greater good. To get through to such people, you need to show them how they would be better off.

Conclusion: It’s 3:30 am here, I’m really sleepy

We need the support of more people. When talking to them, approach people with earnestness and respect. It leaves a better impression. Don’t be overly humble however. Talk about tangible change that the average person can clearly see would improve their lives. Stop insulting people, and get out there to start actively engaging with others. Lastly, know how to prioritize your enemies. Don’t treat fascists, liberals and soc-dems the same, they all warrant different reactions and by acting like they’re the same, you actively push them closer together.

Good Night Comrades.

Submitted November 13, 2020 at 02:26PM by ARandomAnimeFanNo16 via reddit https://ift.tt/3lumWG5

[specialchan]

A serious discussion about the future of the left. via /r/communism

A serious discussion about the future of the left.

Introduction:

Comrades who share this wonderful discussion forum of r/communism, I want you to take a moment to ask yourselves, what is it that we want? What are we fighting for? I imagine most of us are fighting for abolition of private property, collective ownership over the means of production and distribution, a dissolution of the state as an apparatus for control by the bourgeoisie, democratization of all parts of life, better healthcare and welfare for those who need it, and other such extremely noble aims. I myself believe in all of these very strongly. But I'm afraid that many on the left (unintentionally, I hope) are preventing us from achieving these aims, or even actively taking us backwards, towards fascism. So, in what I'm sure will turn out to be an extremely long essay, I want to take a while to discuss action that we all should be taking. I hope everyone reads this through to the end. If you dislike it, feel free to downvote, but please read till the end regardless.

Part I: The Current State of the Left

This might start out kinda rude, but we on the left really suck. A lot. We seem to view people with other beliefs as inferior, deluded, and misinformed idiots who are only capable of seeing just past the end of their noses and unable to view the big picture. And, on some level, I do understand the impulse. It can be hard to put up with their stupid arguments, blatant mistruths, and denial of facts. But a lot of leftists (I myself am also guilty of this) respond to these with insults, ad hominem and name-calling. This is not effective. As hard as it is to get this through our heads, we need more people. If you hang out only in far-left chatrooms, patting all your Marxist-Leninist comrades on the back at how great it feels to own liberals and progressives, you are the problem. The future of the left lies in those people. If you ask an average person off the road what they think about leftists, they’ll usually respond in one of three ways; They’ll either shrug and say they don’t care, call them whiny snowflakes who only complain, or call them belligerent pricks who won’t shut up. Across all my time on planet earth, even when I talk to people who I know hold similar values to my own, they all think of leftists as these 3 things. This isn’t a group that’s going to attract new people. If anything, they’ll be pushed further away. And we need these people. I know many like to talk about revolution like it’s an excuse for them to not have to engage with liberals and progressives, but you’re delusional if you think that. If today, a revolution began in The United States, do you think it has any chance of succeeding? Revolution can only occur with a large enough power base, either among the people or among armed forces. We don’t have any opportunity to raise forces like the red army, so our power base needs to come from people. Average, milk-toast liberals and progressives. That is where the future of the left is.

Part II: Liberalism and Marxism

Liberalism, that is, the philosophy of the enlightenment, is a philosophy that is incompatible with Marxism. Liberalism came about as a way to justify capitalism, and pushed faux progressivism to legitimise capitalism’s promise of a new, equal society. Hate liberalism as much as you want. But liberals, the people who believe in the ideology, are not incompatible with us. Many share similar ideals of a free and equal world, many do in fact support things like healthcare, women’s rights and greater equality of income. They’re just misinformed. They have been the target of misinformation and propaganda from the day they were born, and so are unable to believe in socialism. They view communism as some sort of demonic entity, trying to take over the foundations of society and enslave everyone. And you insulting them isn’t really helping matters. It’s a sad fact that far-left leaning people, and even socialists, are an extreme minority in most of the world. Most people are moderates. Its just that the people with the most extreme beliefs are also often the loudest, and so are disproportionately represented in media and online circles. This is also why neo-nazis seem so common on the internet-they’re just the ones who shout the most. This isn’t about who’s right or wrong, it’s just a fact that the vast majority of people in every country are moderates, neither far-right nor far-left. And so that’s why we need to go on a crusade against misinformation. Now, let’s go onto Marxism. I won’t demean you by defining Marxism, so let’s get to the point. Don’t. Call Yourself. A Marxist. 99% of the time, if you call yourself a Marxist, people will automatically stop listening. As hard as it is, call yourself a socialist (or some variation thereupon). People have been conditioned to associate Communism with authoritarianism, even though they aren’t at all related. Socialism, while still heavily bastardised, lacks that same association with the regimes of Stalin or Mao, so they’re more palatable to the general public. And again, our aim is to convert the people who are aligned with us socially into being aligned with us politically.

Part III: The Art of Proselytising

To convert the liberals is a difficult task. It can be hard, because a lot of leftists get very invested and personal in defence of their ideology, which can be a good thing in small doses. However, when a person listens to a debate or reads transcripts, do you think they will side with the one who shouts and talks incoherently, or the one who has complete control and is calm and confident? When talking with anyone about politics, stay calm. Calm and collected people are far more attractive to others than brash and loud ones. Even if the opponent’s points are patently bullshit, counter them in a way that doesn’t actively demean them. Wait for them to lost patience and get flustered. Your aim is to try and win over people who may have an open mind. So far has been advice pertaining to formal debate. But how do you chat with liberal friends just in general conversation? Very simple. Don’t demean them. If they talk to you about a liberal policy that they like, support them. Agree. As long as that policy isn’t actively harmful, there is no harm in saying that you like it too. Don’t respond by going, “Heh, this changes nothing. The problem is capitalism, and these policies are just to keep you content enough to stop asking questions.” This actively discourages them from your ideas by putting it in their head that the things they want are fundamentally different from the things you want. Instead you respond with, “yeah man, that’s really cool!” Agree, and then later bring it up how you think that we could expand on that idea and bring it into the realm of something more in line with actual socialism. And when they talk about a liberal policy they dislike, try and show them how a more left-leaning policy would be more in line with their ideal society. I know this is vague and unspecific, but I want this to be as universally applicable as possible. Lastly, know when to stop. If someone seems averse to your ideas, don’t push them into reading Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto. Just accept it and move along. After all, if you push too hard, they may give up on you completely and we don’t want that. Their will always be more chances in the future to try and convert.

Part IV: Choosing your Targets

This is a short section. Don’t bother trying to convince ethnic nationalists, neo-nazis or other members of the alt-right in informal forums. It’s a fruitless endeavour. You need to accept that they have committed themselves to a belief which holds no evidence to support it, and so no matter what evidence you bring up to dismiss their claims, it wont matter. In formal debates you can engage them and show how their beliefs are false, but just don’t bother otherwise. Anarcho-capitalists are generally beyond help, but not always. A good litmus test is to ask them if they think trans rights should be promoted. If yes, there is still hope. If not, give up. Ancaps take a lot of work to convert though, so you’ll be in for the long haul. Liberals are your prime targets. They have social values which align with our own, we only need them to realise that those social values would be best served under socialism rather than capitalism. Because one thing to remember is that when it comes to pure facts, logic and evidence, we have the right beaten hands down. Its not even a contest. We just need to make ourselves feel more appealing to the liberals.

Part V: Please, Think Realistically

Change will not happen just suddenly. It needs to be systematically created, and we are the ones who need to do it. It can be comforting to think that the revolution will come, it will be glorious and we will henceforth live in a communist utopia. That’s not going to happen. First off, we need enough people for a revolution. As someone who lives in India, I can tell you what the general reaction to the Naxalites is here- fear, paranoia and mistrust. I understand their goals, but unless more people support them, they will be able to do nothing. We need to plant seeds of this support ourselves. It really disturbed me to see leftists unironically planning to vote for Trump because it would show the Democrats that their model wasn’t working (or something like that) while forgetting that by doing so they would be giving power over to a far-right demagogue who would probably just directly execute you if he could. Us being correct doesn’t mean we are above the mundane conflicts of society. We are as much a part of it as anybody else and so we need to be able to put ideals on the backseat to pragmatism. So why do I bring this up? Because arguing for ideas like the abolition of private property will get you nowhere. Most people are going to frightened by such ideas, so instead we need to dial it back. We can still keep our ideals, but when converting people start small. “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if you could visit a hospital without going bankrupt? Or maybe if you had a say in the decisions at your company rather than just listening to your boss all the time? Or maybe if the people at the top weren’t so much richer than everyone else?” Such ideas will seem mundane to us. But to the average person they’re incredibly attractive. Don’t talk in terms of vague, high-minded ideals or all-encompassing social change. Focus on how their life would improve under socialism. The sad truth is, not many people care about the greater good. To get through to such people, you need to show them how they would be better off.

Conclusion: It’s 3:30 am here, I’m really sleepy

We need the support of more people. When talking to them, approach people with earnestness and respect. It leaves a better impression. Don’t be overly humble however. Talk about tangible change that the average person can clearly see would improve their lives. Stop insulting people, and get out there to start actively engaging with others. Lastly, know how to prioritize your enemies. Don’t treat fascists, liberals and soc-dems the same, they all warrant different reactions and by acting like they’re the same, you actively push them closer together.

Good Night Comrades.

Submitted November 13, 2020 at 02:26PM by ARandomAnimeFanNo16 via reddit https://ift.tt/3lumWG5

[compare-wp10]

Enough with the ‘saving lives’ lie – Thought Leader

During his reading of a speech to the people of South Africa on Wednesday May 13, President Cyril Ramaphosa referred again to the idea of saving lives. He has done so in every one of the addresses to the nation since the start of the Covid-19 fiasco. This is how it was worded on May 13: “By answering the call to stay at home and stay safe, you, the people of South Africa, have helped us to save many lives.” First, it’s not a call to stay at home, it’s a command, and in many places in South Africa, the command is being enforced by the police, the army and even by civilians. I live in a semi-rural area on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth and every day the cops pull people over at the T-junction where our gravel road meets a provincial road. The freeway route into PE is also throttled by a nearly permanent roadblock. On Sunday, I was confronted by an officious man for daring to venture out beyond the nonsensical exercise times mandated by the government. Second, it is unclear if one-size-fits-all, authoritarian lockdowns prevent the overall number of lives lost to a deadly virus compared with the numerous other options that are available for responding to a pandemic. The approaches of Sweden, Taiwan and South Korea are a few instances of what may be referred to as lenient responses to dealing with the spread of the virus. In various other countries, for example the United Kingdom, lockdowns are not enforced in any serious manner. There is no consensus among experts if lockdowns are the preferred route – see, for examples, the commentary provided by Professor Johan Giesecke, Nobel Prize winner Professor Michael Levitt, Professor John Ioannidis, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Knut Wittkowski, and Professor David Katz.                In response to my second point, I have often been told that South Africa is different and needs a heavy-handed approach. The reasoning here is that South Africans are, for various reasons, more likely to ignore the health and safety guidelines, so a heavy-handed enforced lockdown is the only option. The irony is that it is impossible to lock down a township. So proponents of the heavy-handed approach are really defending the ideal of a full lockdown. The reality is quite different. This is very difficult to stomach when being stopped by a cop who invariably and disrespectfully grunts, “Where is your permit?” Third, as should be well known by now, it is unclear if the deaths allegedly from Covid-19 will outweigh the long-term deaths caused by the lockdown.  I say allegedly not because I think the virus is harmless, but because — and this is point number four — in most instances of death there are either one or more underlying conditions that classify the victim as at-risk from dying with any additional illness, or they are well over the age of 60. This is not to devalue the lives of sick and older people. Rather, it is to highlight the importance of a political response that is proportionate to the risks posed by a threat. With most men in South Africa dying before the age of 60 in pre-Covid-19 conditions, and with only 3% of the population being over the age of 65, it is unclear if the ridiculously draconian lockdown was or is proportionate to the threat.      Fifth, the numbers. I have taken issue with reliance on “meaningless” numbers before, and the speech that Ramaphosa read on May 13 is another instance of relying on the numbers. In all the speeches, he has stated the alleged deaths from the virus (see point 3, above), he has stated the number of people who have been tested positive for the virus, and he has stated the total number of people tested. As John Ioannidis has stated, specifically in the context of the unknown extent of the real threat posed by the virus, the numbers are “meaningless” and “cause chaos”.  The number of positive tests divided by the total number of tests conducted does not provide an accurate death rate — only antibodies testing can provide a clearer picture of this. Testing statistics can only show if the virus is present in a given location, and overall results compared over time can provide some indication of whether the spread of the virus is accelerating or slowing. Nobody knows how many people have or have had the virus in South Africa. So Ramaphosa compared “meaningless” numbers with another “meaningless” number when he read the following: the “best current estimate is that, without the lockdown and the other measures we have taken, at least 80 000 South Africans could have been infected by now”.   Sixth, lockdowns may buy some time for hospitals to prepare for the worst-case scenario (even if it doesn’t occur), for extra emergency hospital centres to be organised and for a nationwide increase in hygiene measures to unroll. That’s why many of us thought we were going into lockdown in the first place: to buy time. It turns out that Ramaphosa agrees, but went an extra step towards the impossible: “We should never forget that the purpose of the lockdown was to delay the spread of the virus and prevent a huge surge of infections.” Does he really think that there will not be a surge of infections as the lockdown is lifted? If he were to believe this, he would be taking a different stance to Salim Abdool Karim, the public face of the Covid-19 scientific team, who “insists repeatedly that this country cannot avoid a ‘severe’ outbreak.”     Ramaphosa said in his May 13 speech that without “the lockdown the number of coronavirus infections would have soared uncontrollably, our health facilities would have been overwhelmed and many thousands more South Africans would have died”. This statement is full of half-truths, if not outright lies. Sure, without some kind of concerted action, infections would have soared, perhaps uncontrollably, but perhaps not. Concerted efforts did not have to entail one-size-fits-all lockdowns of any kind. It is unknown that health facilities would have been overwhelmed, because such a scenario only manifested in a few cities globally, largely because no action was taken before it was too late.  It is unknown if, under a more lenient national response to the virus, “many thousands more South Africans would have died”. Various countries where lenient measures were taken (and where the population is much older than in South Africa) saw no such increase in deaths in comparison to various other countries where harder lockdowns occurred (but not as hard as in South Africa). Even if early death rates are different between countries, longer-term death rates may show a balancing-out effect. To speak early of the success of the lockdown for saving lives is misleading.     Ramaphosa said that “from the very beginning, our response has been guided by advice from world-leading experts from our own country and across the globe”. Obviously the list of experts excludes those who cautioned against locking down — those who pointed out that the long-term costs of lock-down would outweigh its benefits, who pointed out that outbreaks cannot be prevented, and who spoke of early herd immunity being a more realistic route. Ramaphosa stated further that, “We have also benefited from the guidance from the World Health Organisation [WHO].” This should raise the alarm bells, because the WHO used the “meaningless” death-rate of 3.4% when it declared a pandemic at the end of January, and was also found guilty of several major misdemeanours by a European Council in its attempt to declare a pandemic in 2009.    Ramaphosa said the “experiences that other nations have been through have also given us invaluable insights”. Which other nations? What insights? What experiences? Are the experiences relevant for the South African context? Are they exceptions to the rule? Does Ramaphosa mean experiences of other nations as depicted in the mainstream news media? Is this reference to other nations a tactic that conjures in the minds of people who hear it a picture of the worst of the worst, like the exceptions to the rule that occurred in Italy and New York City?  After Ramaphosa read the half-truths, lies, and other rhetorical niceties fitting for a paternalistic authoritarian, he then read a major truth: “We have introduced several vital measures to support the companies, workers and households that have been severely affected by the lockdown.” Spot-on, Mr President. The mess was not created by a virus, but by various government responses to a virus. The responses were not guided by pandemic rules written in stone, waiting to be dragged out for when a pandemic hits. They were created, announced and enforced by powerful political entities that clearly have no problem in telling lies and half-truths to the public they control with increasing levels of intervention, interference and force.

[neptunecreek]

Speaking Freely: An Interview With Evan Greer

Evan Greer is many things: A musician, an activist for LGBTQ issues, the Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, and a true believer in the free and open internet. Evan is a longtime friend of EFF, and it was great to chat with her about the state of free expression, and what we should be doing to protect the internet for future activism.

Among the many topics we discussed was the tension that often arises between justice-oriented work and free expression activism, and how policies that promote censorship—no matter how well-intentioned—have historically benefited the powerful and harmed vulnerable or marginalized communities. This is something that we think about a lot in our work at EFF. Whether we’re talking about policies intended to curb online extremism or those meant to prevent sex trafficking, it’s important that we look at the potential collateral damage that will inevitably occur.  In this interview, Evan talks about what we as free expression activists should do to get at that tension and find solutions that work for everyone in society.

We also talked about something near and dear to both of us: The power that the Internet still has to connect people across borders, and to allow disparate groups to mobilize. We’ll hear from Evan about what the Internet has meant for her music and activism, and what we need to do to protect it for those who come next.

Jillian C. York: What does free speech mean to you?

To me, it’s about the ability to challenge authority and power and establish norms. One of the things I always try to remind people now who are pushing for more regulation of speech, censorship, control over the flow of information is how rapidly norms can change and how recently in our history it was considered a norm for homosexuality to be criminalized or stigmatized.

For me it’s about recognizing that ideas currently seen as fringe or controversial may be seen as totally mainstream in even a matter of decades. And if we prevent people from saying those things out loud because we don’t like them right now or because we think they’re controversial then we’re actually freezing society as a whole to progress. And so I think, to me, it’s the most fundamental issue of tension between authoritarian structures and institutions that, almost universally, tend to trend toward the status quo. Institutions have, sort of built into their DNA, the [desire] to continue to exist. And to do that, the institution needs to maintain or replicate the conditions in which it rose to power, whether that institution is a government, a company, a religious group, or even a popular subculture. And so, to me, free speech or expression is about the ability to challenge those accepted norms and institutionally-enforced norms toward building a better society where we can build norms based in people’s human need rather than just based on momentum or status quo.

York: Absolutely. I think what you said about the fact that ideas currently seen as fringe may become mainstream...the reverse may be true as well. So what would you say right now to the more progressive people that aren’t so keen on this idea of free speech?

I think it’s super important to look through history. I think Cindy Cohn had an op-ed in Wired that summarized this in a way that I’ve been dancing around...I think that if you just look throughout history, even going back to the times of kings, it’s pretty easy to draw a correlation that censorship, largely, has always benefited those in power at the expense of those who do not have power. And even when [censorship has] been explicitly marketed as, or genuinely intended to benefit marginalized people and communities and voices, in the end, the net effect always seems to be that it reinforces the status quo and props up existing power structures. And if those power structures are broken or unjust, then more censorship—even if it’s intended to help the people being hurt by those power structures—largely ends up codifying those power structures and exacerbating discrimination and injustice, and takes away one of the most powerful tools we have to disrupt, or undermine, or overthrow those power structures.

I think it’s super important too for people to look at the edges. We’ve also made a lot of progress [recently]. Ideas that were fringe not that long ago are becoming mainstream, and the opposite is also true. And that leads folks, I think, to believe that fringe ideas are bad ideas. But it’s important to remember that, on a concrete level, anyone who’s done support for US-held political prisoners is acutely aware of the ways the US government can dictate things as simple as how, if you express support for an organization not based in the US, it can land you in prison. Or how payment processors have kicked off people who are doing political prisoner organizing, or organizing to support activists on the ground in Palestine, or in other places where the US government has an imperial interest in preventing money from flowing.

And so it’s easy to look around and not see mainstream or larger organizations that represent marginalized communities being hurt by these policies, but if you look to the fringes, there’s already this long, documented history of harm.

There’s also a logical fallacy here: The argument goes that these big centralized platforms are already doing a terrible job of moderating content; therefore they should moderate more. I just don’t understand that. I think we can and should push them to do better with the moderation practices that they have, and to be more transparent about them so we can hold them accountable and show where they’re falling short. But I don’t get jumping to “let’s do more of the thing they’re doing a bad job at” when we haven’t even fixed the fact that they’re doing a bad job of it, and I think most of us agree that we’re not sure they can ever do a good job of it.

York: You know that I agree with this. So let me take this in a bit of a different direction and ask: Whether there’s a rise in hate speech, or an amplification of it, if we don’t see content moderation as the solution or at least the only solution, what do you believe we should do to counter it?

I think this is the fundamental question and I think it’s super important that those of us who fiercely believe in defending free expression ask ourselves this question, because it’s not acceptable at this point to be like “yeah, white supremacy on the internet is a problem, but is it really that big of a problem?” That’s not okay. It’s really that big of a problem, and it needs to be fought and addressed.

I think your question of whether there’s more of it or it’s just being amplified is a valid question to ask, but in the end, the net effect is the same. This corrosive ideology that’s harmful to human society and leads to actual acts of violence needs to be fought at every turn. I’m kind of old school about it, I’m more about punching Nazis than I am about getting [corporations] to censor them.

I think we need the internet, and we need an open Internet, in order to mobilize and organize against the systems and structures and underlying ideologies that lead to all of this. I think it’s super important too that we zoom out and think about this in a pretty critical way. I think if you ask yourself “Which is doing more harm to society: The prison-industrial complex, or a few pretty loud white supremacists on the Internet?” [you’ll see that] the prison-industrial complex as whole—which is an authoritarian white supremacist structure built into our society and largely accepted—is just in terms of numbers committing far more atrocities than these high-profile assholes on the Internet, but we’re spending tremendous amounts of time and energy dealing with them.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be dealing with them but we should think about what we really want to do and how we want to organize. I think that if the solution that we come up with to deal with those assholes on the internet kneecaps our ability to eventually overthrow and dismantle the prison-industrial complex, are we actually creating a net benefit for society and for the people most affected by this structural oppression? How do we address the underlying income inequality and gross lack of basic human rights and dignity that a huge number of people in [the US] and around the world have that fuels so much of this online nonsense?

Call me a radical, but I like the look at problems at their roots. We’ve seen this with respect to [media policy] over time, like video games are the culprit for school shootings or encryption is making people do bad things. We’ve smacked down these arguments again and again, but here we are again. Do we want to spend all of our time and energy trying to deal with the speech itself, or addressing the underlying systems of oppression that are actually doing the harm and that can only be confronted with meaningful, deep grassroots organizing and community building, and by listening to the people who are being most affected, and to the people at the fringes whose voices are most likely to be silenced by any scheme that we come up with to deal with a relatively small number of destructive and dangerous assholes who are sort of ruining the party for everyone on the Internet.

York: It’s funny, that reminds me of my conversation with Asta Helgadottir, who spoke about how the amount of money that goes toward copyright enforcement is so much bigger than that which goes toward countering child sexual abuse imagery.

Yeah, I can see that. It’s also really important that we as free speech defenders can’t be the party of do-nothing. We can’t just be like “yeah it’s working fine the way it is, just leave it alone” because it’s not working fine the way it is. We as Fight for the Future and me personally have been kicking around different possibilities, policy solutions—but short of fixing the underlying problems, I don’t think that anything solves the problem of hate speech on the Internet. There were always be people who use the Internet to amplify what they’re doing, and the internet will always amplify the mainstream. You can be a Republican politician basically calling for policies that amount to genocide and you’re not going to get wrapped up in Facebook’s hate speech algorithm because you’re using all the right words. That’s just another example of how these policies ethically fail.

But beyond that, there are other things worth looking at. The structural thing, in terms of the internet itself, and speech, is centralization. And so finding policies that address the fact that there are now basically three websites that matter where you can speak and be heard, and these websites control those inordinate amount of speech and people’s ability to hear it...that’s what creates the problem that makes these questions—like “should we ban Alex Jones?”—hard to answer. If there were twenty platforms, that becomes a pretty easy question. But the weight of those decisions is so much greater when there are so few platforms or places where people can speak, and where having your own website doesn’t matter anymore when it can’t be shared on those three platforms.

That’s the underlying problem, and so we should look at policies that address that. Antitrust is interesting to look at, but I don’t think it’s a silver bullet that’s going to solve all of this. I think algorithmic transparency, or moderation transparency is another one—Facebook should make it easy for us, or for journalists, to really get a sense of what they’re taking down and how they’re making those decisions, so we can see the collateral damage that’s happening and hold them accountable to make sure they’re enforcing their existing policies fairly. It doesn’t involve taking down more speech, it means figuring out what they’re taking down now before we ask them to take down more.

And then another thing that I’ve been toying with, and I’m not totally sure about—it’s almost in the realm of Twitter banning political ads—is a temporary moratorium on algorithmic amplification entirely. There’s a huge difference between “anyone can say what they want” and “anyone can say what they want and Facebook is going to put its thumb on the scale and amplify certain types of speech that it knows will generate controversy and clicks and comments” and that basically creates an incentive to amplify some of the worst kinds of speech. Or on YouTube, where a kid starts watching a video about gaming, and then three videos later is being recommended white supremacist content. There’s a big difference between that and  letting things go viral—like the internet used to be. I’m not going to pretend awful things don’t go viral, but it’s different from Facebook intentionally weighting the scales and pushing content that it knows is hateful but that makes it money.

I think that’s an interesting thing to look at: How much of the way we’re seeing the conversation being distorted right now is because of that amplification or because there’s an uptick in the number of assholes who believe in this ideology.

So I’m not sure about it, but the decisions we’re making about content moderation right now are arguably some of the most important decisions that humans are making right now, period, and they’re going to shape our civilization, so we need to make these decisions with that level of seriousness and thinking critically while we do it, and not just doing it on the news cycle or based on partisan winds or which way they’re blowing.

York: Absolutely—Okay, let me change directions and ask you my favorite question. Who’s your free speech hero?

I’d have to say Chelsea Manning. First of all, because she’s continuing to suffer at the hands of the US government for blowing the whistle and speaking out and fighting for what she believes in, but also because the conversations we’ve had over the years while she was incarcerated were so instrumental in me shaping my thoughts on this. She’s such a critical thinker and someone who’s directly experienced the ways in which government crackdowns on expression can go so horribly wrong. And so she has a very smart analysis on this. I really value our friendship and the ways she thinks about these issues and has acted on them.

York: I think that’s a great answer, and you’re not the only one who’s named her. She’s a hero for so many of us. Okay, so the one other thing I want to ask is to pull in the fact that you’re a musician and ask: Is there anything from that background that has inspired your work?

There’s two angles there that are really interesting. Just in general, my life as an independent musician in the early days of the Internet shaped why I care about this, and why I think it’s so crucial to defend a free and open internet.

And for me as a trans, independent artist who never had a record label and was writing songs about overthrowing capitalism and being queer, I was never going to find mainstream success in a world where the gatekeepers of the musical community were executives and mostly white male writers for Rolling Stone (although even that has shifted over the past decades).

So me and some of my compatriots were some of the first artists to put our music online for free download. We were putting our music on Archive.org before Napster was a thing. I instantly saw the huge potential of it. I’d show up at a show in Prague where I don’t speak the language and there are like, 200 punk kids who know all the words of my songs. I’d never been there or sold a CD in that area, but the Internet existed, and people were able to find this music they connected with and share it, and instantly, it felt like this is the most powerful force I’d ever seen for lifting up the voices that are so often left out of the conversation in our society, and I’ve never lost sight of that. More and more we see the downsides of it too, the ways in which it can be used to silence people and amplify existing forces of oppression but...I still believe in the Internet, and I still believe that it’s a net positive force for society, and that the fights we have over policy that surround it are so essential because of that revolutionary and transformative power that it still holds, even with all of the downsides.

But also, having kind of an understanding of the ways that people are used as pawns in policy. For example, I’m a member of BMI, I get their emails, and they’re constantly preying on the fears of artists and on our self-esteem and feelings of being screwed over by an unscrupulous industry and using that to convince people that copyright maximalist policies are awesome and what is needed to protect individual artists and creators when you and I both know that’s not true and in fact those policies largely line the pockets of executives and tech companies that are now the new gatekeepers of the music industry.

To me, that’s informed the way I think about all of these issues. I’m acutely aware of how policies that claim to do one thing can easily be used to do something much more nefarious. I think with copyright, that’s just such a clear example where none of these policies would have benefited me as an independent artist. That understanding has shaped the way I think about these things more broadly and always makes me question them, even when something is well-intentioned. There are just always ways they can backfire, and when they do, it hurts the weakest at the benefit of the most powerful.

from Deeplinks https://ift.tt/2RV7Pct

[coin-news-blog]

Activist Larken Rose Weighs In on Bitcoin, Anarchy, and the Importance of Permissionless Cash

New Post has been published on https://coinmakers.tech/news/activist-larken-rose-weighs-in-on-bitcoin-anarchy-and-the-importance-of-permissionless-cash

Activist Larken Rose Weighs In on Bitcoin, Anarchy, and the Importance of Permissionless Cash

Activist Larken Rose Weighs In on Bitcoin, Anarchy, and the Importance of Permissionless Cash

Though his latest project with partner and fellow activist Amanda Rose, Candles in the Dark, is a program helping people escape authoritarian programming through non-confrontational dialogue, there’s nothing meek and mild about Larken Rose’s stance when it comes to government. News.Bitcoin.com recently connected with the outspoken anarchist via Skype to talk about Bitcoin, the IRS, and the importance of permissionless money.

Bumping Into Crypto

News.Bitcoin.com (BC): How did you get into the crypto space?

Larken Rose (LR): I only accidentally crashed sideways into crypto stuff just because so many people who are into freedom and self-ownership got into it when it came along, realizing it could be a really useful tool to resist centralized control. I’m by no means any sort of expert on it. I was just sort of dragged along for the ride, because at this point it’s kind of hard to not be hearing about it and involved with it if you’re into freedom, because it’s such a useful tool for that.

BC: Do you remember when that was?

LR: It was a number of years ago, and I remember I heard the term a bunch of times before I had the foggiest idea what it meant, and what it referred to. It may have been at Porcfest in New Hampshire, where some of the guys promoting it early on actually gave me some of the physical Bitcoins, back when they were worth like a dollar each, and I think they gave me 20 of them.

And, I sold them at a sadly low rate, well before it went up. I accidentally held onto one of them, without knowing I still had it, but I eventually gave that one to my daughter and she ended up getting a car out of it, so I’m happy about that. But it was a number of years later before I really understood the beauty and the power of the concept of blockchain and decentralized, uncontrollable mediums of exchange.

Bitcoin and Voluntaryism

BC: You’re a voluntaryist. More people are learning what that word means lately, but most still don’t know. What’s it all about?

LR: In short, to be a voluntaryist means you advocate that all human interaction be voluntary, rather than by way of violence and coercion. And when you describe it that way, almost everybody initially reacts by saying, ‘Oh yeah, that’s me; I totally agree; that’s what I want too.’

But they don’t recognize that, even if they live that way in their daily lives — when it comes to politics, almost everybody has been taught that there’s an exception for the people who call themselves ‘government,’ and that it’s okay if they threaten violence and rob you by threats of force and boss you around and control you. A voluntaryist is basically somebody who realizes that the whole ‘live and let live’ and ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you,’ there’s not an exception for government.

BC: You’ve touched on this a little already, but where do you see crypto and voluntaryism intersecting?

LR: To me there are two very important pieces that have to go together to actually get a large number of people being able to be free, and eventually society being free. One is the mentality, and that’s what my main focus is on: having people stop believing that they’re obligated to obey a ruling class. But after that, then you need the tools necessary to be ungovernable. And some of those tools are, for example, guns. If you’re gonna resist oppression, if they have guns, it’s convenient if you do too.

But when it comes to currency and all the frauds and the tricks that governments have done by way of fiat currency and central banks and all that garbage, crypto is just a very powerful tool for those who are mentally ready to escape the controls of a ruling class, to be able to trade and basically have a complex international economy that doesn’t have the tentacles of the ruling class in it anywhere. And that’s huge.

BC: What would your response be to those people who say, ‘Yeah, these rules suck, the government’s terrible, but without it, it would be chaos’?

LR: People have been trained by the ruling class to imagine that, without the ruling class, we’d be these stupid, violent animals. And it’s already the case that the average person, all the things in his life that work, aren’t because he personally figured them out. The average person who buys a car doesn’t know how to build a car. The average person who goes grocery shopping doesn’t know how to grow all that food, and they don’t need to.

The order and the complexity and the cooperation and the productivity already comes from voluntary interaction. But it’s easy for politicians to scare most people into thinking, ‘Well if nobody’s in charge, if there isn’t a government bossing everyone around, then it will be this chaotic free-for-all.’ There’s no reason to actually believe that.

If you go to a supermarket—it’s one of my favorite examples of anarchy in action—yeah, it has government tentacles in there getting in the way and robbing people, but nobody’s forced to be involved, and you get an amazing level of complexity and organization and cooperation, and nobody’s being forced to do anything—not the people who work there and not the customers who go and buy stuff there.

IRS, Anarchy and Activism

BC: Speaking of governments and money, you had a run-in—well, a run-in is kind of a mild way to put it—but you had some trouble with the IRS. Could you tell us just a little bit about that, and what happened there?”

LR: My adventures with the federal extortion racket are something I don’t usually talk very much about these days, because it takes so much time and effort for people to actually get into it and to learn it. If anybody wants the full story for free, I now give away my book, Kicking the Dragon (Confessions of a Tax Heretic), for free as an e-book.

BC: Could you tell us about your activism? I know Candles in the Dark is going online on Thanksgiving, and you’re speaking at Anarchapulco again this year.

LR: Yep. Well I have a number of books, The Most Dangerous Superstition being the main one, and I’ve given a bunch of talks and I still do here and there. I don’t like to preach to the choir, so usually when I give talks it’s with the intention of it being recorded and ending up on YouTube or something, to talk to the rest of the world. I also just started doing my daily podcast again. But the two main things I’m working on now—one is the Candles in the Dark seminar, and the full online version will be up and running by Thanksgiving and we’re already taking pre-orders now.

What that does, for people who are already voluntaryists, is teach them a drastically more effective method of communicating with the rest of the world, that doesn’t just result in the usual stress and emotions and arguments and frustration, that normal debates almost always end in. It’s not at all what I do in public. When I publicly debate I’m blunt and totally in people’s faces, and that’s for a totally different purpose.

And then the other major—the biggest project I’m working on; probably the biggest project I will do in my whole life—is called The Mirror, which is basically an interactive program that does the whole process for us. So voluntaryists don’t even need to know how to do it; The Mirror will do it for them, all by itself.

BC: So just strap on the VR goggles and set them free from statism.

LR: Pretty much, because it does the conversation by itself. It asks them what they believe about things and their answers determine where it goes next. And that’s a monstrous project which is still many months away from being completed. But ultimately that will make it so we don’t even have to be good at communication, because it will do it for us. So hopefully I won’t get suicided before that’s done.

The Future of Crypto Freedom

BC: It seems like there’s a split in the cryptocurrency community at large, where you’ve got the more libertarian-minded crowd that’s saying, ‘We’ve got to use this privately, between ourselves, as peer-to-peer permissionless cash,’ and you’ve got this other group saying, ‘Well, it’s gotta be regulated, and we’ve gotta get the government in on this thing.’

LR: I want the government involved in absolutely nothing. It shouldn’t freaking exist. I’m kind of on that side of the spectrum.

BC: Yeah, I kind of figured.

LR: But what I love about the concept of blockchain and the concept of cryptocurrencies is that the ruling class can try with varying degrees of success to try to stick its nose into different kinds of trading and different cryptos, and it can try to regulate this and that and the other thing, but the thing it can’t ever do away with is the idea.

Now that the ideas of blockchain and cryptocurrencies are out there, there is nothing that will keep it down forever. It’s not like there’s some centralized place where, if they go and shut down that thing, it’s gone forever. Even if there was some magic button that would make Bitcoin disappear—and it doesn’t work that way—another one would appear. And then a hundred more would appear. The ideas are, to me, what is most powerful. It’s the evolution of ideas and technology and understanding that can’t be undone, and that can’t be regulated out of existence. That doesn’t mean they won’t try it, but in the long run they are doomed; they have no chance of squelching this permanently.

Source: news.bitcoin

[courtneyvbrooks87]

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin maximalists never give up. Bitcoin’s price has crashed from over $19,000 a year ago to under $4,000 today, and there are no signs that the price is going to rise again any time soon. But maximalists don’t care. They are in this for the long haul. Their belief? Eventually, Bitcoin will replace all government-issued money. So all they have to do is HODL on to large amounts of the future world currency, and they will become the next generation of fantastically rich elites. Or so they think.

A bitcoin token sits next to the image of George Washington on a U.S. one dollar bill.   Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg© 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP

Of course, what we mean by “Bitcoin” is disputed. The Bitcoin community resisted hard forks for a long time, but eventually Bitcoin was forked, creating Bitcoin Cash, whose advocates claimed that it was the “true Bitcoin” as defined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s original white paper. Bitcoiners who held to the “one true faith” firmly expected Bitcoin Cash to die. But if there is one thing that the cryptocurrency forkfest of the last two years has taught us, it is that old coins don’t die. Both the new chain and the old one continued to be mined, often by the same miners, who rather enjoyed the arbitrage opportunities that two versions of the same coin create. Exchanges eventually listed both versions of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash was never worth as much as Bitcoin, but it certainly didn’t die.

Old coins also keep forking on. Bitcoin has now forked multiple times. Hard forks don’t just create new coins, they also create new tribes: each version of Bitcoin has its tribe of fervent advocates. So, we now have proliferating tribes of ardent Bitcoiners, each claiming that its version of Bitcoin is the “true Bitcoin.” Some of them appear to be willing to fight to the death to defend their coins, too: recent price falls have been partly blamed on a “hash war” between two versions of Bitcoin Cash.

So what would replace government-issued currency is not exactly clear. However, most Bitcoin maximalists are supporters of the version of Bitcoin that remained after the first hard fork, now known as Bitcoin Core or simply “Bitcoin” (BTC). It is also sometimes called “digital gold.” It is this version that maximalists believe will become the base unit of account for a new worldwide payments system which will eventually replace all government-issued currencies.

Here is Bitcoin Magazine predicting what will be in the history books of the future:

Bitcoin Magazine tweetTwitter

Bitcoin maximalist philosophy in a single tweet. However, this is the last in a series of tweets, so to understand the context, we need to look at the other tweets.

The first tweet in the series is about this article from Time magazine. The article argues that for an estimated four billion people worldwide, Bitcoin could be a useful way of protecting their wealth from predatory governments and hyperinflation. “For people living under authoritarian governments,” it says, “Bitcoin can be a valuable financial tool as a censorship-resistant medium of exchange.” And it highlights four countries:

Venezuela, whose collapsing economy is overseen by an increasingly authoritarian government. Exchange rate controls have failed, which as I predicted four years ago, has triggered hyperinflation. Its currency, the bolivar, is currently hyperinflating at a rate of over one million percent per year;

Zimbabwe, which has a long history of political corruption, economic lunacy and hyperinflation. Its citizens will use any currency other than the country’s official currency, the Zimbabwean dollar;

Russia, which has a predatory government and is subject to international sanctions, both of which are making it difficult for people to remove their money from the country;

China, which has an authoritarian government and capital controls.

Time’s article is well-argued and reasonable. There are indeed very good reasons for people in these countries, and some others, to use Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currency, though personally I doubt that Bitcoin would become the main currency in any of these countries. But nowhere in the article does Time suggest that Bitcoin might replace government-issued currencies for anyone other than the four billion, who are slightly more than half the world’s population and disproportionately concentrated in China. So how did this lead to Bitcoin Magazine’s claim that all government-issued currencies would eventually disappear?

Tweeting the link to Time’s article, Adam Back said it discusses using Bitcoin to protect against government “cashless and negative rate policies”. But it doesn’t. Time’s article is about authoritarian governments and economic basket cases, not democratically-elected governments in stable developed countries using negative rates to counter deflation and recession. True, it warns against the dangers of a cashless society, and cites Sweden briefly in this context. But it doesn’t even mention negative rates, which are currently used not only by Sweden but also by the Eurozone, Switzerland and Japan.

It seems that Adam Back deliberately misrepresented Time’s article to promote Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currencies in stable Western democracies. Samson Mow, a paid apologist for Bitcoin Core, then went further. According to him, far more than four billion people can’t trust their governments:

The total population of the world is only about 7.7 billion. Mow is in effect saying that no government in the world can be trusted. This is full-on libertarian “destroy the State” thinking.

From here, it is only a short step to “all government-issued currencies will disappear.” It’s not just government-issued currencies that would disappear, though. After all, if no-one trusts government, democratic government can’t exist. In Bitcoin Magazine’s brave new world, therefore, democratically-elected governments would also disappear, presumably replaced with technological superstructures automatically executing code written by unaccountable elites, blind and deaf to the horrible consequences of applying rigid rules to the messy lives of real people. We have already gone too far down this road. The resurgence of nationalism around the world is a reaction to the dominance of unelected, unaccountable, supranational elites. Replacing one set of elites with another is no solution.

Fortunately, Bitcoin Magazine’s terrible forecast may never come to pass. History is littered with attempts to replace national currencies with undemocratic and unaccountable international currencies. They have all failed, except for (so far) the Euro and its African offshoot, the CFA franc (though the CFA franc is under growing political pressure because of its colonial origins.) There is no particular reason why Bitcoin should be different, or the Euro, for that matter. I predict that history books of the future will contain interesting discussions of the reasons why some crazy people thought they could replace government-issued currencies, and why they failed.

Sadly, though, this will not be the last such attempt. Humans have short memories and long beliefs; ideological belief in a single world currency has proved extraordinarily resilient despite overwhelming historical evidence that supranational currencies either become national currencies (e.g. U.S. dollar and British pound) or are eventually torn apart by massive political and economic forces.

But perhaps Bitcoin has something to teach us  – if we are able to listen. The forking of Bitcoin has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that a currency is fundamentally an expression of tribal identity. This is true regardless of who or what issues it. Just as the various versions of Bitcoin have their own “tribes,” so too do government-issued currencies. If a government issues a currency, and the people accept it, the currency expresses their national identity. History shows us that currencies issued by governments that have lost all credibility with their own people fail – indeed, Venezuela is showing us this right now. So too do currencies that are not anchored by a stable tribal identity; this is why the currencies of states that lose wars often hyperinflate. The reason why we have multiple versions of Bitcoin is that someone still believes in every single one of those versions. So Bitcoin does at least have a tribal identity or twenty. But it’s not exactly stable, is it?

If currencies are fundamentally tribal, how can Bitcoin possibly become the “new gold standard”, as maximalists dream? Humans don’t take kindly to attempts by other tribes to eliminate their tribal symbols and impose those of another tribe. They have to be persuaded, not coerced. Currently, Bitcoin maximalists can’t even persuade other Bitcoiners to support their coin. The idea that they could persuade all the people of the world to throw away their tribal currencies and adopt their version of Bitcoin is laughable. When’s the next fork, by the way?

Bitcoin has shown us the tribal nature of currencies. For that, we should be grateful. But Bitcoin becoming the One True Currency for the whole world? No, that is an impossible dream.

  Original Source http://bit.ly/2CFPIzM

[adrianjenkins952wblr]

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin maximalists never give up. Bitcoin’s price has crashed from over $19,000 a year ago to under $4,000 today, and there are no signs that the price is going to rise again any time soon. But maximalists don’t care. They are in this for the long haul. Their belief? Eventually, Bitcoin will replace all government-issued money. So all they have to do is HODL on to large amounts of the future world currency, and they will become the next generation of fantastically rich elites. Or so they think.

A bitcoin token sits next to the image of George Washington on a U.S. one dollar bill.   Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg© 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP

Of course, what we mean by “Bitcoin” is disputed. The Bitcoin community resisted hard forks for a long time, but eventually Bitcoin was forked, creating Bitcoin Cash, whose advocates claimed that it was the “true Bitcoin” as defined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s original white paper. Bitcoiners who held to the “one true faith” firmly expected Bitcoin Cash to die. But if there is one thing that the cryptocurrency forkfest of the last two years has taught us, it is that old coins don’t die. Both the new chain and the old one continued to be mined, often by the same miners, who rather enjoyed the arbitrage opportunities that two versions of the same coin create. Exchanges eventually listed both versions of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash was never worth as much as Bitcoin, but it certainly didn’t die.

Old coins also keep forking on. Bitcoin has now forked multiple times. Hard forks don’t just create new coins, they also create new tribes: each version of Bitcoin has its tribe of fervent advocates. So, we now have proliferating tribes of ardent Bitcoiners, each claiming that its version of Bitcoin is the “true Bitcoin.” Some of them appear to be willing to fight to the death to defend their coins, too: recent price falls have been partly blamed on a “hash war” between two versions of Bitcoin Cash.

So what would replace government-issued currency is not exactly clear. However, most Bitcoin maximalists are supporters of the version of Bitcoin that remained after the first hard fork, now known as Bitcoin Core or simply “Bitcoin” (BTC). It is also sometimes called “digital gold.” It is this version that maximalists believe will become the base unit of account for a new worldwide payments system which will eventually replace all government-issued currencies.

Here is Bitcoin Magazine predicting what will be in the history books of the future:

Bitcoin Magazine tweetTwitter

Bitcoin maximalist philosophy in a single tweet. However, this is the last in a series of tweets, so to understand the context, we need to look at the other tweets.

The first tweet in the series is about this article from Time magazine. The article argues that for an estimated four billion people worldwide, Bitcoin could be a useful way of protecting their wealth from predatory governments and hyperinflation. “For people living under authoritarian governments,” it says, “Bitcoin can be a valuable financial tool as a censorship-resistant medium of exchange.” And it highlights four countries:

Venezuela, whose collapsing economy is overseen by an increasingly authoritarian government. Exchange rate controls have failed, which as I predicted four years ago, has triggered hyperinflation. Its currency, the bolivar, is currently hyperinflating at a rate of over one million percent per year;

Zimbabwe, which has a long history of political corruption, economic lunacy and hyperinflation. Its citizens will use any currency other than the country’s official currency, the Zimbabwean dollar;

Russia, which has a predatory government and is subject to international sanctions, both of which are making it difficult for people to remove their money from the country;

China, which has an authoritarian government and capital controls.

Time’s article is well-argued and reasonable. There are indeed very good reasons for people in these countries, and some others, to use Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currency, though personally I doubt that Bitcoin would become the main currency in any of these countries. But nowhere in the article does Time suggest that Bitcoin might replace government-issued currencies for anyone other than the four billion, who are slightly more than half the world’s population and disproportionately concentrated in China. So how did this lead to Bitcoin Magazine’s claim that all government-issued currencies would eventually disappear?

Tweeting the link to Time’s article, Adam Back said it discusses using Bitcoin to protect against government “cashless and negative rate policies”. But it doesn’t. Time’s article is about authoritarian governments and economic basket cases, not democratically-elected governments in stable developed countries using negative rates to counter deflation and recession. True, it warns against the dangers of a cashless society, and cites Sweden briefly in this context. But it doesn’t even mention negative rates, which are currently used not only by Sweden but also by the Eurozone, Switzerland and Japan.

It seems that Adam Back deliberately misrepresented Time’s article to promote Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currencies in stable Western democracies. Samson Mow, a paid apologist for Bitcoin Core, then went further. According to him, far more than four billion people can’t trust their governments:

The total population of the world is only about 7.7 billion. Mow is in effect saying that no government in the world can be trusted. This is full-on libertarian “destroy the State” thinking.

From here, it is only a short step to “all government-issued currencies will disappear.” It’s not just government-issued currencies that would disappear, though. After all, if no-one trusts government, democratic government can’t exist. In Bitcoin Magazine’s brave new world, therefore, democratically-elected governments would also disappear, presumably replaced with technological superstructures automatically executing code written by unaccountable elites, blind and deaf to the horrible consequences of applying rigid rules to the messy lives of real people. We have already gone too far down this road. The resurgence of nationalism around the world is a reaction to the dominance of unelected, unaccountable, supranational elites. Replacing one set of elites with another is no solution.

Fortunately, Bitcoin Magazine’s terrible forecast may never come to pass. History is littered with attempts to replace national currencies with undemocratic and unaccountable international currencies. They have all failed, except for (so far) the Euro and its African offshoot, the CFA franc (though the CFA franc is under growing political pressure because of its colonial origins.) There is no particular reason why Bitcoin should be different, or the Euro, for that matter. I predict that history books of the future will contain interesting discussions of the reasons why some crazy people thought they could replace government-issued currencies, and why they failed.

Sadly, though, this will not be the last such attempt. Humans have short memories and long beliefs; ideological belief in a single world currency has proved extraordinarily resilient despite overwhelming historical evidence that supranational currencies either become national currencies (e.g. U.S. dollar and British pound) or are eventually torn apart by massive political and economic forces.

But perhaps Bitcoin has something to teach us  – if we are able to listen. The forking of Bitcoin has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that a currency is fundamentally an expression of tribal identity. This is true regardless of who or what issues it. Just as the various versions of Bitcoin have their own “tribes,” so too do government-issued currencies. If a government issues a currency, and the people accept it, the currency expresses their national identity. History shows us that currencies issued by governments that have lost all credibility with their own people fail – indeed, Venezuela is showing us this right now. So too do currencies that are not anchored by a stable tribal identity; this is why the currencies of states that lose wars often hyperinflate. The reason why we have multiple versions of Bitcoin is that someone still believes in every single one of those versions. So Bitcoin does at least have a tribal identity or twenty. But it’s not exactly stable, is it?

If currencies are fundamentally tribal, how can Bitcoin possibly become the “new gold standard”, as maximalists dream? Humans don’t take kindly to attempts by other tribes to eliminate their tribal symbols and impose those of another tribe. They have to be persuaded, not coerced. Currently, Bitcoin maximalists can’t even persuade other Bitcoiners to support their coin. The idea that they could persuade all the people of the world to throw away their tribal currencies and adopt their version of Bitcoin is laughable. When’s the next fork, by the way?

Bitcoin has shown us the tribal nature of currencies. For that, we should be grateful. But Bitcoin becoming the One True Currency for the whole world? No, that is an impossible dream.

  Original Source http://bit.ly/2CFPIzM

[mccartneynathxzw83]

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin Maximalists’ Impossible Dream

Bitcoin maximalists never give up. Bitcoin’s price has crashed from over $19,000 a year ago to under $4,000 today, and there are no signs that the price is going to rise again any time soon. But maximalists don’t care. They are in this for the long haul. Their belief? Eventually, Bitcoin will replace all government-issued money. So all they have to do is HODL on to large amounts of the future world currency, and they will become the next generation of fantastically rich elites. Or so they think.

A bitcoin token sits next to the image of George Washington on a U.S. one dollar bill.   Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg© 2018 Bloomberg Finance LP

Of course, what we mean by “Bitcoin” is disputed. The Bitcoin community resisted hard forks for a long time, but eventually Bitcoin was forked, creating Bitcoin Cash, whose advocates claimed that it was the “true Bitcoin” as defined in Satoshi Nakamoto’s original white paper. Bitcoiners who held to the “one true faith” firmly expected Bitcoin Cash to die. But if there is one thing that the cryptocurrency forkfest of the last two years has taught us, it is that old coins don’t die. Both the new chain and the old one continued to be mined, often by the same miners, who rather enjoyed the arbitrage opportunities that two versions of the same coin create. Exchanges eventually listed both versions of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash was never worth as much as Bitcoin, but it certainly didn’t die.

Old coins also keep forking on. Bitcoin has now forked multiple times. Hard forks don’t just create new coins, they also create new tribes: each version of Bitcoin has its tribe of fervent advocates. So, we now have proliferating tribes of ardent Bitcoiners, each claiming that its version of Bitcoin is the “true Bitcoin.” Some of them appear to be willing to fight to the death to defend their coins, too: recent price falls have been partly blamed on a “hash war” between two versions of Bitcoin Cash.

So what would replace government-issued currency is not exactly clear. However, most Bitcoin maximalists are supporters of the version of Bitcoin that remained after the first hard fork, now known as Bitcoin Core or simply “Bitcoin” (BTC). It is also sometimes called “digital gold.” It is this version that maximalists believe will become the base unit of account for a new worldwide payments system which will eventually replace all government-issued currencies.

Here is Bitcoin Magazine predicting what will be in the history books of the future:

Bitcoin Magazine tweetTwitter

Bitcoin maximalist philosophy in a single tweet. However, this is the last in a series of tweets, so to understand the context, we need to look at the other tweets.

The first tweet in the series is about this article from Time magazine. The article argues that for an estimated four billion people worldwide, Bitcoin could be a useful way of protecting their wealth from predatory governments and hyperinflation. “For people living under authoritarian governments,” it says, “Bitcoin can be a valuable financial tool as a censorship-resistant medium of exchange.” And it highlights four countries:

Venezuela, whose collapsing economy is overseen by an increasingly authoritarian government. Exchange rate controls have failed, which as I predicted four years ago, has triggered hyperinflation. Its currency, the bolivar, is currently hyperinflating at a rate of over one million percent per year;

Zimbabwe, which has a long history of political corruption, economic lunacy and hyperinflation. Its citizens will use any currency other than the country’s official currency, the Zimbabwean dollar;

Russia, which has a predatory government and is subject to international sanctions, both of which are making it difficult for people to remove their money from the country;

China, which has an authoritarian government and capital controls.

Time’s article is well-argued and reasonable. There are indeed very good reasons for people in these countries, and some others, to use Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currency, though personally I doubt that Bitcoin would become the main currency in any of these countries. But nowhere in the article does Time suggest that Bitcoin might replace government-issued currencies for anyone other than the four billion, who are slightly more than half the world’s population and disproportionately concentrated in China. So how did this lead to Bitcoin Magazine’s claim that all government-issued currencies would eventually disappear?

Tweeting the link to Time’s article, Adam Back said it discusses using Bitcoin to protect against government “cashless and negative rate policies”. But it doesn’t. Time’s article is about authoritarian governments and economic basket cases, not democratically-elected governments in stable developed countries using negative rates to counter deflation and recession. True, it warns against the dangers of a cashless society, and cites Sweden briefly in this context. But it doesn’t even mention negative rates, which are currently used not only by Sweden but also by the Eurozone, Switzerland and Japan.

It seems that Adam Back deliberately misrepresented Time’s article to promote Bitcoin as an alternative to government-issued currencies in stable Western democracies. Samson Mow, a paid apologist for Bitcoin Core, then went further. According to him, far more than four billion people can’t trust their governments:

The total population of the world is only about 7.7 billion. Mow is in effect saying that no government in the world can be trusted. This is full-on libertarian “destroy the State” thinking.

From here, it is only a short step to “all government-issued currencies will disappear.” It’s not just government-issued currencies that would disappear, though. After all, if no-one trusts government, democratic government can’t exist. In Bitcoin Magazine’s brave new world, therefore, democratically-elected governments would also disappear, presumably replaced with technological superstructures automatically executing code written by unaccountable elites, blind and deaf to the horrible consequences of applying rigid rules to the messy lives of real people. We have already gone too far down this road. The resurgence of nationalism around the world is a reaction to the dominance of unelected, unaccountable, supranational elites. Replacing one set of elites with another is no solution.

Fortunately, Bitcoin Magazine’s terrible forecast may never come to pass. History is littered with attempts to replace national currencies with undemocratic and unaccountable international currencies. They have all failed, except for (so far) the Euro and its African offshoot, the CFA franc (though the CFA franc is under growing political pressure because of its colonial origins.) There is no particular reason why Bitcoin should be different, or the Euro, for that matter. I predict that history books of the future will contain interesting discussions of the reasons why some crazy people thought they could replace government-issued currencies, and why they failed.

Sadly, though, this will not be the last such attempt. Humans have short memories and long beliefs; ideological belief in a single world currency has proved extraordinarily resilient despite overwhelming historical evidence that supranational currencies either become national currencies (e.g. U.S. dollar and British pound) or are eventually torn apart by massive political and economic forces.

But perhaps Bitcoin has something to teach us  – if we are able to listen. The forking of Bitcoin has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that a currency is fundamentally an expression of tribal identity. This is true regardless of who or what issues it. Just as the various versions of Bitcoin have their own “tribes,” so too do government-issued currencies. If a government issues a currency, and the people accept it, the currency expresses their national identity. History shows us that currencies issued by governments that have lost all credibility with their own people fail – indeed, Venezuela is showing us this right now. So too do currencies that are not anchored by a stable tribal identity; this is why the currencies of states that lose wars often hyperinflate. The reason why we have multiple versions of Bitcoin is that someone still believes in every single one of those versions. So Bitcoin does at least have a tribal identity or twenty. But it’s not exactly stable, is it?

If currencies are fundamentally tribal, how can Bitcoin possibly become the “new gold standard”, as maximalists dream? Humans don’t take kindly to attempts by other tribes to eliminate their tribal symbols and impose those of another tribe. They have to be persuaded, not coerced. Currently, Bitcoin maximalists can’t even persuade other Bitcoiners to support their coin. The idea that they could persuade all the people of the world to throw away their tribal currencies and adopt their version of Bitcoin is laughable. When’s the next fork, by the way?

Bitcoin has shown us the tribal nature of currencies. For that, we should be grateful. But Bitcoin becoming the One True Currency for the whole world? No, that is an impossible dream.

  Original Source http://bit.ly/2CFPIzM