#Because SOLIDARITY! IS! A! MYTH!

[bookishfeylin]

I—

How can you tell Black people to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and then get mad when we attempt to do just that? How can you tell Black people that our community needs to support itself and then sue when we try to???

[the-lesbian-orpheus]

so been thinking of life series a lot obviously and I was watching Jimmy streams earlier AND I was relistening to Hadestown this week and

Here me out Jim as Eurydice

Y’all can choose the Orpheus

Do we see the vision? (Please guys- I’ve seen multiple life series animatics and at least one fanart with Hadestown songs I know these have crossover fans)

Did this idea spawn because even tho I’ve heard this soundtrack many times and had life brainrot for months something pinged in my head when Hades mentioned a canary for the mine???

…maybeeee

Edit:

Okay I accidentally ended up going on a big ramble about ideas for this in the tags so I might have to make this an AU now

if I do I gotta think of a cool name

[palestinegenocide]

How you can help Palestine while being a minor/child

If you're someone who does not earn money or cannot donate because you're a child and you're under the care of a guardian but still want to help the suffering Palestinians this is a list that can help you

Educate yourself! I cannot stress how important this is. Stay up to date with the latest news and learn about the history of Palestine so you do not get confused by propaganda.

Boost posts about Palestine and spread awareness! Share posts about Palestine [make sure to fact check] and talk to your families and friends to do the same (it's understandable if you cannot talk about these things with your family and friends though). Follow Palestinian journalists and other people who are stuck in gaza. Boost their posts.

Do not engage with zionists! Troll bots are becoming more and more common and engaging with them will only benefit them. Ignore and move on. The world stands with Palestine and we do not need to prove that.

Save evidence! The governments WILL DENY the genocide they are committing and will try their best to remove evidence from all social media platforms. Save videos, articles, and pictures so that you have a strong evidence base to present when the time comes.

Show your solidarity! Put a watermelon in your bio, wear red green black and white colours, put a Palestinian flag on your schoolbag. Every little thing counts.

Boycott! Avoid McDonald's, Starbucks and other companies that support israel. Ask your parents to eat somewhere else if they suggest McDonald's, and ask your friends to choose a different cafe if they go to starbucks.

Email your representatives! Make some noise, demand a ceasefire

Do daily clicks! Any myth of this NOT going to Palestine has been debunked, and it doesn't take any time to simply click one button. It makes money through ad revenues

I will add links and update this list when I think of more. Add anything else you think should be included in the reblogs

[foldingfittedsheets]

hello just here in solidarity because i’m about the same shade as you and wanted to share things that have been said about my paleness, because i hear you, i understand, so amongst generally being asked if i’m anemic (i’m not, i’ve checked) these are some fun highlights:

• “oh fuck, you look like a porcelain doll… a haunted one” (why did they have to add haunted? ??)

• “your skin is like you’ve been dipped in milk (:” (said in the middle of a conversation about something else and then went right back to the other topic)

• “your legs physically hurt to look at, no i mean it the sun reflects on them and hurt my eyes why are they bright white like that?” (a general sentiment told to me by many people, wondering if vampire myths about them burning in the sun just comes from the pain of looking at sunlight reflect off of someone very pale)

all said in very lighthearted ways and this is all just funny to me so i wanted to share lol

Yeah, in all honesty I don’t mind being the color of a frog tummy. I’ve been pale my whole life and it just is what it is. Sometimes if we’re laying together in the sun my wife will start giggling while comparing our skin tones.

The only time I’ve been genuinely furious about a comment was when I was dealing with someone at the jewelry store who we exclusively called Creepy Sapphire Guy. The first time he saw me he gasped and demanded I look in his eyes. “Red hair. Green eyes. You’re like my kryptonite.”

I did not care for that. While I was gone to grab a sapphire for him to look at he told my manager I was “better than vodka.”

But the worst was when I was showing him a truly stunning purple sapphire he grabbed my hand and held the stone over me so he could, “see it against my alabaster skin.”

Hands down the only time I’ve wished violence on someone commenting on my skin tone.

[apollosgiftofprophecy]

God Games

I absolutely love this song. It’s fun, it’s catchy, and the visuals on the livestream were spectacular!

And speaking of the visuals, I have some thoughts to share that seized me just after the livestream.

Before we begin though, I do want to say that I do love the animated visuals we got in the stream! They are all so beautiful and I could NOT look away! Zeus going Beast Mode? Amazing. Athena fighting her way up the stairs? Aweing.

So this is in no way criticizing the visuals, or Jorge’s vision of them! I just want to share something I think is cool, and wanted to share :3

@gotstabbedbyapen i think you might like this too >:3

In short, I think it would have been cool if the other gods had been involved in the final part of God Games- but not in the way you think.

Hear me out.

Long version:

Let me set the scene. Let's see if I can explain the visuals in my head.

We're at the moment Zeus goes Beast Mode. He's going "THUN-DER, BRING. HER. THROUGH. THE. WRINNGEERRR" you know the part.

and as "SHOW HER I'M THE JUDGEMENT CALL, THE ONE WHO MAKES HER KINGDOM FALL" is said, we flash between Apollo, Hephaestus, Aphrodite, Ares, and Hera, before landing on Athena, all looking up at the thundering god, wind rushing around them.

They are all wearing various levels of worry/concern/"uh-oh", because Zeus has gone Beast Mode...and then Athena gets struck.

We cut to Ares saying, and looking distinctly concerned, "Is she dead?"

Camera pans out to show Athena lying on the ground, smoke coming off of her, deeply injured.

The slow Warrior of the Mind motif plays. Apollo's the first to move, checking on her, and we slowly zoom onto Athena's face as she blearily opens her eyes.

Camera change: we're now in Athena-vision. Everything is blurry. Then the faint outlines of Odysseus, Penelope, and baby Telemachus (like in the livestream) slowly come into focus. They get clearer, and towards the end of the slow motif, Athena blinks, blinks again, and we have a clear image of all five of the gods hovering over her.

The music swells. Apollo offers his hand out to her, and Athena grasps it. She clasps Hephaestus's next, and Aphrodite and Ares take her arms, while Hera does so from behind.

They help her up, Athena leaning a bit on the others as she stares at Zeus, who has calmed down, and looking at them.

Athena, bleeding heavily, still says; "Let him go, please. Let him go." And passes out.

End scene.

It's a lot more dramatic in my head (as all things are) but I hope this is all cohesive! XD

So why do I like this idea?

Because it shows that the gods have solidarity. As much as they hurt each other, they do, in fact, love each other too. The five gods in God Games know that Athena won fair and square, and that Zeus is being unreasonable. And let me be clear: Zeus is not a tyrant. The other gods keep him in check, which is what would be happening here. The five of them helping Athena would be enough to snap Zeus out of his rage and ego-trip.

Speaking of Zeus, this would also give him time to cool down and realize how rash he’s being, something he has done in the mythology! (ie, calming down before throwing Apollo into Tartarus) In fact, he's calmed down after the interference of other gods, so this would track well with the mythology too :3 (ie, Leto was the one who got him to rethink the Tartarus idea)

"But would the other gods even help Athena?" Some of you may be asking- I say yes. Apollo and Athena in the myths are actually very friendly with each other! Hephaestus and Athena were on the same side of the Trojan War! Aphrodite has no real beef with Athena, and while it's a popular idea that Ares and Athena hate each other, that's simply not true either. And Hera? She and Athena were practically besties in The Iliad. They all would help her, especially if it would temper Zeus's anger and stop him from causing too much damage.

Again, I loved the visuals on the livestream!! There is no doubt about that!!

It's just this juicy idea came to me after the live-listen and I've been stewing over it since :3

[margueritedaisies]

I just love drawing families of fictional characters, its interesting to think of how each sibling would look. I try to make them different from one another but at the same time maintain familial similarities.

Jinzha resembles their mom, Muzha their dad, and Nezha's a good mix of both.

Also get ready with some sibling dynamic rant, mostly relation HCs by me.

Enough with the parent child dynamic

I want sibling dynamic. Where these three come to terms on what happened between them. Specifically Muzha and Nezha's interaction is the one I want to see.

Tbh those two's fates in the myth reminded me of Hyakkimaru and Tahomaru in Dororo.

Like Nezha and Muzha had so much potential to gain solidarity with each other. Because Jinzha could never relate to them as the ignored or unwanted child. Muzha has that middle child stuggle fr.

Muzha is the one so eager to gain their fathers favor trying to meet Jinzha's level . Nezha wants nothing from his father so he makes himself worse.

Muzha's frustration with Nezha is that Nezha is rebellious, disrespectful of their dad

While Nezha's frustration to Muzha is that Muzha is so blinded and always struggling to achieve something so futile. Deep down he hates how Muzha is suffering this way but he wouldnt speak of it. This is why they always at odds.

They should make a movie focusin the Li brothers fr

Other than overusing the actual myths.

Fuck the ending from the original myth, they didnt even consider how the children felt from all the abuse. Not even mention of Muzha's death.

Enough Ao Bing, what about Muzha???

And the moral lesson is just about "respecting elders"?? The story still had so much to wrap up. How can you call this a family if there is some sort of hierarchal system. A family requires empathy to maintain that connection.

Tbh its kinda realistic

Families and siblings can still inflict trauma from each other .And a story based on reconcilation is a good way for this to be about family counselling.

I wanna see the "what ifs". It could be each brothers own story of self healing from the trauma caused on each other.

Maybe Im getting my hopes up too much, but it could be a development for them to forgive, start anew and an opportunity to connect and catch up on what they missed on each other.

Edit:

As for Jinzha he also has his own struggles as the eldest. Keeping up the station as the golden favored and perfect son. But its Asian family dynamics, which means hes in a lot of pressure. But he is mentally and emotionally strong. The brothers always busy on his studies ,future responsibilities and training to be able to spend time together. Their timetables seemed to be planned out to always not meet. Jinzha especially had less freetime. And if he ever came across any of his brothers, it was only one of them never both.

He doesnt mind being a buffer for the other two feuding but it does stress him out that it will never change. But he'll make sure to give time and attention to both of them as much as he can.

Other than keeping up his fathers expectations he also doesnt want to fail as a big brother to them🥺😭

Muzha and Nezha can see his efforts so they do not dare hold anything against him. Muzha still keeps his competitive attitude when Jinzha's around but accepts any offered kindness from Jinzha. While Nezha enjoys his company when he gets the chance.

Also because I tend to hold on to this little bit of bonding😭🥺🥺Jinzha trying to be the best big bro

Thinking of the contrast in the future where Jinzha was tasked to torture Nezha destroyed me😭😭😭What did Jinzha even feel while he had to do it??

Also here some Nezha with his hair down again

[ancientpersacom]

How I think a hypothetical zagnos route should go:

Once you max out the bonds to the point friendship starts to cross into relationship, Hypnos starts getting anxious which makes Zagreus worried. So he tries to find out what’s up. This leads him to ask Thanatos, who is quiet at first but once you max his bond, rather than a Than romance because you’re already on the Hypnos route, he reveals Hypnos has had his heart shattered before and basically tells Zagreus “if you hurt him I put you in the ground.”

This tells Zag two things: 1) Than DOES care for Hypnos he’s just really bad at showing it, so that can lead to the fixing the twins relationship storyline. And two 2) reveals some of the myths about Hypnos’ lovers (Pasathea and Endymion, who in this story are past lovers). He’s still friendly with Pasathea, the relationship only ended because she realised she likes girls or something like that, Hypnos wasn’t mad over it, he understood and they left on good terms (that also means a mlm wlw solidarity friendship). But Endymion left him for Selene which shattered him, and caused him to be very hesitant about relationships, he liked Zagreus but doesn’t want his heart broken again.

So Zagreus has to basically assure Hypnos he’ll never treat him like that. And that leads into zagnos romance and fixing the twins relationship storyline.

That way we can get some more insight into Hypnos’ myths and flesh him out some more. And have a twins making up storyline that’s basically a flipped version of the Than route.

[babblingeccentric]

Kinktober 7: Heat, Sabo x Reader

Look there's an elaborate backstory for this but I'm not going to explain it, maybe one day I'll write it all out. What you need to know is that Sabo is Ace's omega and Reader is an omega in love with Ace.

Contains: omega/omega, abo, heat, fingering, clitoral stimulation, crippling amounts of guilt on reader's part, nesting

Lying on his side, Sabo plasters himself to your back hooking his chin over your shoulder to nose at your scent glands

You shiver.

“C’mon. Let me help.”

His long fingered hand sneaks over your hip and begins gently stroking your swollen clit as you’re anxious and crying. You’re scared near witless of the first actual heat help you've ever had. You don’t know intimacy like this, can’t stop thinking of how you don’t really deserve it. About how Sabo would not offer this so freely if he knew you loved Ace, and maybe even loved him. 

You’re also scared because you know omega solidarity is a myth, that omegas are as dangerous to you as alphas.

But even still with this fear the endless waves of your heat have worn you down and when what you desire is practically in your cupped hands shouldn’t you at least enjoy it?

So you let Sabo tease and cajole you into your first satisfying orgasm of this heat. Then he’s piling on another and another until finally the stress takes its toll and you pass out in the haphazard nest.

[whereismywizardhat]

Saw Glass Onion, and I cannot help but think about what the movie is trying to say.

Spoilers Ahead, you have been warned

The most obvious (and considering how November went in the year 2022) is the dismantling of the myth of the Tech Billionaire.  Miles Bron is a obvious Musk/Zuckerburg stand-in, with the former’s charisma and energy industry connections and the later’s assorted former business partners.

Miles surrounds himself with “The Disrupters” aka the shitheads.  Lionel the engineer, Duke the alt-right troll, Claire the politician, and Birdie the fashion model.  Science, Media, Politics, and Entertainment, four pillars of society each dependent on the smooth talking grifter with the pile of money for their own continued success.  Like with Knives Out, the politics of the four doesn’t particularly matter: Claire is mentioned to be a liberal politician, while Duke’s MRA talking points barely can escape his garage without being called out by his mother and Birdie mindlessly repeats slurs on social media with such regularity her assistant micromanages her phone.  Class solidarity matters more, 5% will protect the 1%.

Miles surrounds himself with these people, but he has no loyalty to them.  He powers his home with an unstable energy source that his engineer is sure is dangerous (because it’s hydrogen, the most explosive element), he has already convinced the politician to back his dangerous energy source, he assists the far right media guy in getting a new platform but does not platform him on his own network, and he intends to allow the fashionista to take the fall for their sweatshops.  

Coming out in a year where we have watched billionaires throw good money after bad in such ventures as “Worse VR Chat” and “Let’s Burn the Bird Site to the Ground”, it has never been more obvious the mediocrity of tech billionaires.  And here comes Glass Onion, which presents it’s Ersatz Zucker-musk as the most mediocre of them all: seemingly only having the talent to steal ideas from others and force others to repackage them.  A man so utterly devoid of creativity or talent that naturally everyone thinks of him as a genius.  A Cave Johnson level Moron.

The fifth guest, Andi, Mile’s former partner, represents Business but she’s also a black woman who was the true brains behind the operation, and thus was first discredited then murdered.  The Andi we meet is actually her school teacher twin sister, Helen.  Education, another pillar, and notably the only one is not beholden to Miles.  Tech Billionaires aren’t even beholden to Capitalism, but they are beholden to people educated enough to see through their snake oil.

And finally there is Benoit Blanc, our beloved detective.  He represent justice (notably, not the police), and notably while he solves the crime he cannot touch Miles.  White Privileged Billionaires never have to worry about Justice reaching them, they are insulated from it.  The only thing he can do is encourage Helen.

And Helen burns it all down.  No justice can be extracted from Billionaires, but we can burn their houses down, their own hubris practically guarantees that they will have left fuel everywhere.  After all, they are morons.

[bookishfeylin]

Are you sure about that.

And:

In both Harvard ***and*** UNC there are more Asian Americans admitted than Black students and Latinos COMBINED what are you talking about

[sammywolfgirl]

Siren au doodles because I’m world building a bit while I figure out how the Ancients fit into this au.

Mostly specifying stuff about sealkie and adding a couple new fish species! Here’s what I got-

Sealkie have (at least) three variety,

Seal- so seals, sea lions, those sort of critters the classic sealkie

Canine - so fox, wolf, anything that would be classified as canine (I’ve seen a. Few myths of a fox skin sealkie)

Avian - so Swan, geese, any large bird really (think the stories of feather cloak ladies)

And then we have the new things.

Sea Dragon - a sentient species of large wyrm like dragon that lives in the ocean, they have a connection to an element but that’s the extent of their magic. They used to be hunted so they’re not common nowadays.

Sea serpent - beast like giant serpent creature. The classic sea monster. Biiiiiig worm fish.

False sea dragon - can be mistaken for a siren but is not a subspecies of siren. Like sea dragons they have a connection to an element and that’s their magic extent. More solidarity but have been seen joining siren pods on occasion.

False sea serpent - appears like a siren but isn’t. They’re sentient but more ‘feral’ and solidary compared to siren. No magical ability and have no moral qualms with hunting humans like they’d hunt fish. On rare occasion can join siren pods but most don’t.

Least that’s the idea details are still being ironed out. But I’ll get to that when I get to designs!

[blackgirlsuperherorants]

Anyway, other thoughts on this movie and the discourse surrounding it.

"M'Baku was emasculated" Nah, not at all. "Why didn't he take the throne from Ramonda?" Why would he do that? He's not a man spirited person and he doesn't hate T'Challa or his family, he just disagreed with T'Challa's leadership. At the time of the blip, when Ramonda probably first took over as queen, it was probably more necessary for M'Baku to stand in solidarity with the queen to support a grieving country who had literally lost millions of people. When everyone blipped back, T'Challa was king, again. Then, when T'Challa died, he probably didn't challenge anything out of respect for the dead. M'Baku is very traditional, and he would never want to disturb Wakanda by staging what would essentially be a coup. During challenge day, he knew he was within his rights to challenge for the throne. That's why he showed up at Shuri's challenge day (and she likely gave it over to him, anyway.)

"How am I supposed to believe a tiny, skinny girl can beat up a god/mutant" My bothers and sisters in Christ, Shuri is a superhero. Like, with powers. Did y'all forget Steve Rogers was a 98 pound weakling? And that Peter Parker was a skinny 14 year old boy? Neither of them got significant training on how to be a superhero, they just got enhanced. When Shuri takes the herb, she's enhanced. No training necessary.

And also, she's fought in battles before! She was fighting in Black Panther, and she fought in the final battle in Endgame. Girl can fight, even without the herb, but with it... she's stronger and faster than Captain America. Remember that the super soldier serum is an inferior copy of what the heart shaped herb can do.

Also, it seems like nobody is excited enough about Namor being a confirmed mutant and what that means for the X-gene! He's 500 years old, and was born a mutant. That means that the X-gene in the MCU has been around for at least that long, likely longer because he likely inherited it from one or both parents. That means ANY NUMBER OF MUTANTS ARE CURRENTLY ALIVE IN THE MAIN MCU! THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY MULTIVERSE MUMBO JUMBO! They can just say that the Mutants have been living under the radar, like Namor has been. They can have existed as urban legends, myths, rumors, like Namor was to the people in the Yucatan. Idk about y'all, but I'm so excited for the possibilities! And I hope we get a better cinematic version of Storm than we've gotten in a long time! (Still team DeWanda Wise!)

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.15 What about “human nature”?

Anarchists, far from ignoring “human nature,” have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, “human nature” is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant “what humans do,” it is obvious that human nature is contradictory — love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of “human nature.” Of course, what is considered “human nature” can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of “human nature” and “normal” for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of “human nature” once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

“Individuals are certainly capable of evil … But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they’d be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. “If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we’re going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you’ll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves.” [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what “human nature” is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a “human nature” radically different from a libertarian one. So “when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of “human nature” as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. “Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?” Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by “society” (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, “I don’t think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature.” [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not “innate.” All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn — that much is obvious, we feel — and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered ”the power to think and the desire to rebel” as “precious faculties.” [God and the State, p. 9]).

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people “savages” or “primitive” is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against “human nature”? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of “human nature,” it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For “while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth — the rulers, the employers, the leaders — who, happily enough, prevent those bad men — the ruled, the exploited, the led — from becoming still worse than they are” we anarchists “maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority” and ”both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.” So “there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers.” [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. “It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege,” argued Bakunin, “to kill the mind and heart of man … That is a social law which admits no exceptions … It is the law of equality and humanity.” [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) “human nature” it produces.

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of “sociobiology,” some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our “nature,” which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the “human nature” argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this “new” doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power — i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an “objective” and “scientific” basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, “the range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biology” and if this is what sociobiology means “by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree.” However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of “biological determinism” that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while ”[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviours” so are “peacefulness, equality, and kindness.” And so “we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish.” That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who “acknowledge diversity” in human cultures while “often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable ‘exceptions’ as temporary and unimportant aberrations.” This is surprising, for if you believe that “repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing.” [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both “normal” and “natural”). Bookchin refers to this as “the subtle projection of historically conditioned human values” onto nature rather than “scientific objectivity.” Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to “prove” that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! “What this procedure does accomplish,” notes Bookchin, “is reinforce human social hierarchies by justifying the command of men and women as innate features of the ‘natural order.’ Human domination is thereby transcribed into the genetic code as biologically immutable.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 95 and p. 92] Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

This can be seen when “hierarchies” in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a “weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an ‘alpha’ male, much less retain this highly ephemeral ‘status.’ By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history.” This “expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called ‘animal hierarchies’ where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about ‘alpha males’ or ‘queen bees.’” [“Sociobiology or Social Ecology”, Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.

The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to “human nature” (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power — be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong … until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to “human nature” and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn’t stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the “One True System” that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts — conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the “objective” scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin’s classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that “mutual aid” within a group or species played as important a role as “mutual struggle” between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gould’s essay “Kropotkin was no Crackpot” in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a “factor” in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as “natural” as competition so proving that “human nature” was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against “human nature” for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being “human nature” is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists “do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.” Secondly, change “seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence” so “who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities.” [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360–1 and p. 360]

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshall’s “Human nature and anarchism” [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127–149] and David Hartley’s “Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature”. [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145–164]

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

The Influences Of Ableism in Veganism: A Disabled Vegan Perspective

by Michele Sommerstein

I don't know about you, but for me between the multiple genocides, the rise in COVID cases, the massive COVID denial, the related rise in mask bans, the elections, police violence, the rising threat of fascism, climate change, and so many other issues – for fuck's sake! it's a lot. And so lately, I've been feeling like while I am doing what I can to be part of the collective effort for justice, (for another world is possible), I can't only make protest art. My heart also needs lighter projects.

[image description: a collage. background is a field with a blue sky and white clouds and a field of rows of flowers of various colors. standing in the field is a silhouette of a pig that takes up most of the art. their shape is filled with a photo of from the universe (space) there is a human eye on them that slightly blends in with the space pattern. lastly behind them but towards the right is a pink cosmo flower with an orange center. as if the pig is smelling the flower. ] And so recently I've returned to making vegan content. But not some call for intersectionality, articles discussing inner-movement issues, kill counter references, and environmental stats, as I had done in the past. Just lighter. And perhaps because it has been a while since I have made vegan content, I found myself unexpectedly reflecting on the intersections of my disability and vegan identity. Before my disability identity-themed YouTube show (Rebelwheels NYC), I had a short-lived vegan cooking show called My Easily Amused Kitchen.

[image description: video thumbnail. a screenshot from the video taken in my apartment. a white wall and a purple couch behind me. text reads MEAK ep 1 creamy pea soup of vast fantasticness! my easily amused kitchen. there is olive oil being poured onto a bowl of peas. and I am pointing with my finger up sitting next to a penguin stuffed animal. I have glasses, a black shirt, and longer hair with bangs] And looking back on that time, I realize that I really wasn't being fully authentic in the videos. Of course, it was done in my motorized wheelchair and there was some of my quirky humor, but I remember I often downplayed any kind of physical fatigue even though that is part of my disability.

You see, between my animal rights activism at the time and the vegan content that I watched on YouTube, I was very much familiar with the protein myth. The false idea that if you go vegan, that you will by default, be physically weak due to not being able to get enough protein on a vegan diet. Often I saw other (physically able-bodied) vegans whether in person or via YouTube videos who were very intentional about presenting veganism as part of an energetic lifestyle in an attempt to counteract said misinformation.

And there are many professional athletes who are vegan. I personally knew a guy (not professional) who was vegan, who lifted weights and ran marathons with ease.

[image description: The background is a colorful collage of blue, yellow, and pink. The main text reads pity is not compassion! The vibe is artsy and punk. There is smaller text on top that reads spare us your pity we want our rights! And then towards the lower left-hand corner, it reads intersectional disability solidarity. Lastly underneath the word compassion is the phrase unlearn ableism.]

And then there was me, a disabled vegan, and not Paralympic disabled, disabled with low spoons (slang term for energy), disabled with health problems, disabled where muscle weakness is literally part of my disability. And now I can type that and say “represent” with a sense of disability pride, but back then it almost felt like it was a hindrance to the cause. And to be clear, no one ever said to me “hide parts of your disability for the movement.” It was just the way it was presented that made me feel like I should. And it wasn't just the impression I got from a lot of people in the vegan community. I could sneeze and an omnivore would say “Is that because you're vegan?” (as if they themselves never sneezed?)

As a result, I was very aware of how my disability was somewhat being linked to the protein myth. As if I wouldn't be disabled if I wasn't vegan. As if people aren't born with disabilities. As if disability and veganism were somehow incompatible.

[image description: white background. black typewriter font. "Ableism is... (a form of) discrimination. The false idea that disabled people are by default, inferior. When in truth disability is just another way for a mind and/or body to be." ] And so part of me felt that to show my truth was feeding into that weakened stereotype, thus hurting the movement and thus hurting the animals, which obviously as a vegan and animal rights activist, you don't want to do.

Looking back, it was also a lot of internalized ableism on my part, for I had yet to be aware that ableism was even a word, let alone working to unlearn it, and certainly had not yet found my groove and voice in my disability identity.

That said, I now see how essential it is to have a variety of vegan representation in all areas but in this case, ability and health.

And so, in the name of creating something lighter, and because it just so happened that I needed a new vegan cheese (long story), I filmed a taste test where I was un-apologetically me. Full throttle neurodivergent, processing delays, immensely honest, not downplaying when I was physically fatigued or in pain nor the fact that while there are many vegan cheeses out there, I could not try a lot of them, due to dietary intolerances and ingredient sensitivities.

[image description: tumblr has cropped the video thumbnail. the full thumbnail is as follows. Background gold glitter. Over that rainbow stripes. Purple blue green yellow orange red and dark red. To the left a photo of myself wearing a silence equals death with a watermelon pink triangle symbol on it holding up a piece of vegan cheese. I have oversized black cat eye eyeglasses and my rainbow flower crown hair band is pushing back my dark hair. Next to me is a collage of various vegan cheeses. And over that is the text in a bold black font "disabled and neurodivergent vegan taste test vegan cheese." Every line has a white rectangle behind it and behind that is a black rectangle shadow. In white text with a black rectangle behind it. "Not sponsored. Very honest."] And as a result of being authentic and sharing my truth, I'm starting to come across other disabled vegans like me, chronically ill vegans, neurodivergent vegans, etc. and it's lovely Many years ago, I wrote an article entitled Is Veganism Ableist? A Disabled Vegan Perspective. And in regard to the ideas of veganism, the answer remains no. However, I do think in the wanting and sometimes desperation to do all we can to save the animals (and to a certain degree, the planet as animal agriculture is one of the larger contributors to climate change), a lot of us took action to dispel the protein myth, and while in ways it was good, some of our actions had consequences that also caused harm. It is a reminder that when we take action to fight misinformation, we must make sure that we are also not punching down in the process (whether intentionally or not.) This is something that goes far beyond veganism. In the end, us vegans from marginalized communities must represent with as much realness as possible, not only so people know that vegans vary, but so other marginalized people who are perhaps 'vegan-curious', will know that they too are welcomed in the movement. After all, the animals need as many allies as they can get. (Author's Note: In the past, I have written articles using my birth name Michele Kaplan. However, in the past year, I have decided to use my mother's maiden name, and thus why this article is by Michele Sommerstein, while past articles are by Michele Kaplan. Same person. I didn't get married. This just felt right to me for personal reasons)

[nascenta]

Caligula is a play written by Albert Camus, begun in 1938 (the date of the first manuscript is 1939) and published for the first time in May 1944. It premiered on 26 September 1945 at the Théâtre Hébertot in Paris.

It is part of what Camus called the "Cycle of the Absurd", together with the novel The Stranger (1942) and the essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942). A number of critics have reported the piece to be existentialist, though Camus always denied belonging to this philosophy. Its plot revolves around the historical figure of Caligula, a Roman Emperor famed for his cruelty and seemingly insane behavior.

***

Albert Camus wrote of his piece, "Caligula, a seemingly kind prince, realizes upon the death of Drusilla (his sister and his mistress) that men die and they are not happy. Obsessed by the quest for the Absolute and poisoned by contempt and horror, he tries to exercise through murder and systematic perversion of all values, a freedom, which he discovers in the end is not truly freedom. He rejects friendship and love, simple human solidarity, good and evil. He takes the word of those around him, he forces them to logic, he levels all around him by force of his refusal and by the rage of destruction which drives his passion for life."

He continues, "But if his truth is to rebel against fate, his faculty is to oppose, and deny other men. One cannot destroy, without destroying oneself. This is why Caligula depopulates the world around him and, true to his logic, makes arrangements to arm those who will eventually kill him. Caligula is the story of a superior suicide. It is the story of the most human and the most tragic of errors. Unfaithful to man, loyal to himself, Caligula consents to die for having understood that no one can save himself all alone and that one cannot be free in opposition to other men."

***

“It makes me laugh, Cæsonia, when I think how for years and years all Rome carefully avoided uttering Drusilla’s name. Well, all Rome was mistaken. Love isn’t enough for me; I realized it then. And I realize it again today, when I look at you. To love someone means that one’s willing to grow old beside that person. That sort of love is right outside my range. Drusilla old would have been far worse than Drusilla dead. Most people imagine that a man suffers because out of the blue death snatches away the woman he loves. But his real suffering is less futile; it comes from the discovery that grief, too, cannot last. Even grief is vanity.”

-- Caligula, Albert Camus

[aeithalian]

Light Bringer thoughts

spoilers below:

So the fact that Virginia disappeared from the narrative after the first half of the book kinda threw me for a loop, but I suppose if she had gotten a subplot of her own, it would have felt like we were getting pulled from the action too much… because the Darrow/Lyria/Lys*nder side of the story was all one cohesive plot, and Virginia’s POV, had it been maintained, would have added a certain level of unrelated chaos, with the audience getting jerked away to Mars every so often. So while I missed her, I can appreciate why Pierce didn’t include her as much. 

I LOVELOVELOVE getting outsider POVs of Darrow. Our only other one was from Lys*nder in Dark Age. When Lyria hung around and got to really know Darrow was when she was solidified as one of my favorite characters, for the pure merit that she was able to change her perspective from the myth to the man. It made me realize that more people would like Darrow if he wasn’t famous for war. That and I love the stark difference between how Darrow is in his own head and how he is to other people. It’s so much fun. Likewise, an outsider POV of Lyria was equally fun as well. 

Figment. It’s… I don’t know. I think I expected it to have a bigger payout? Or I expected Lyria to have it for longer. Figment was a really cool mystery that didn’t get fleshed out. But then I realized that the story didn’t really need another physically powerful female character. We have Virginia, Victra, and Volga for that. Aurae, Athena, Theodora (RIP), and now Lyria are a new brand of strong female characters that I’m really glad Pierce has gotten into a groove with - strong, empathetic women who don’t need to hold their own in a fight to be respected and awesome in their own rights. So no, I don’t think Lyria will ever be that ‘red god’ character people thought she might become, because that’s not where her strength lies. And who says Figment won’t return? (No, I don’t think Matteo left it in, but who knows)

I honestly wish Volsung Fá had been introduced earlier, I think it would have made him seem like a bigger threat. The fact that he was introduced as Atlas’ puppet, which was supposed to be this huge mystery to the Volk and the Ascommani, is something we knew the whole time, and decreases on the ‘drama’ of it, I think. I’m excited for an adaptation of him, though! The fear that he supposedly evokes is something that I was kinda missing, so I’d be excited to see it on a screen for a bigger effect. 

BREATH OF STONE HOLY SHIT this entire sequence was so good. I actually teared up. I was so excited. The ‘clang clang clang’ “confess”? Daddy Darrow. ohmygod. Darrow rediscovering his roots in the mines of Mars? A spiritual experience. AND he recreated the Trojan Horse moment from Red Rising and it was like a little part of me was healed. It was so good. That moment where he talks about the game he played with Eo as kids really got me because I think this is the first time in a while where he’s looked back on his memories of Eo and not thought about her death and her dream, but her life. I think he remembered why he loved her so much, and it made me like her a bit more too. But the power up moment. So good. Ugh. 

I’m gonna be honest. I saw Cassius’ death coming from a mile away. But it hit me WAY harder than I thought it would. I was never his biggest fan, even in Iron Gold, but I knew I was in for it when he rejected the ‘au’ honorific to Matteo, and I really started seeing his development. And his last words? Gut punch. I’ll never get over that. Formally rejecting Gold? Claiming Darrow as a brother in life and in oath? Declaring solidarity with the Republic? Yes, Cassius. Your honor does remain. 

The fact that Atlas died in this book kinda freaks me out, because I really thought he was going to be the big boss at the end of the story, because Atalantia doesn’t scare me enough just yet. But now that Lys*nder has the Eidmi, I’m getting a bit nervy. Lys*nder was fine before because he was never a real threat. But there’s nothing more terrifying than a man who has all the power in the world and doesn’t know what to do with it. 

My last thought: Fuck Lys*nder. This absolute pisspot. This pubic hair of a being. This man - no, *BOY* - is going to forever taint my idea of the word ‘honor’, not because he has any, but because he is a bastardization of everything honorable people stand for. He can say he has honor over and over again, but when it clashes with his reputation, he always fails to do the honorable thing. Killing your brother? Not honorable. Doing it for a weapon that will let you commit mass genocide? Hm….. not very honorable, methinks.

Predictions for Red God:

Red God is Darrow. No question. The term ‘red god’ has come up before, in direct reference to Darrow in Dark Age (someone was talking to Alexander) and I heard someone saying it might be Lyria, but honestly, I doubt it.

There are still a couple mysteries that didn’t get revealed that I was curious about: in Dark Age, Virginia says that the Pandemonium Chair was only ever used twice, once being on Lysander… so what was the other time? Similarly, when Atlas is getting un-carved from his Helios-doppleganger body, it’s mentioned that this isn’t his first time, and Lysander noted it as unusual. So what’s up?

I still really think that Lyria’s brothers were the snipers Darrow ordered to kill Lysander during the Long Night. We’ll have to see where that goes. 

Eidmi. It honestly feels too simple, and I’m worried that Atlas wasn’t telling the full truth. Bitch didn’t even have a plan for it, but the thing is, he was afraid of Atalantia having it, because he was afraid she would use it wrong. But oh honorable Lysander (please sense the sarcasm) I don’t really think you should be any less afraid of genocide just because you’re the one holding the trigger. I actually think he’ll try to use it on Luna first, but I don’t know if he’ll be able to get it that close to the planet itself. He probably won’t use it on Mercury, because that’s where he’s going to try his major rejuvenation efforts. And he’s more afraid of Atalantia than he is of the Republic, so Mars probably isn’t that high up on his priority list - remember, he thinks Darrow is dead, doesn’t know the Volk, Daughters, and Rim are all flying to protect Mars, and has wildly underestimated the power of the Republic. He might blame it on the Republic, in a last-ditch effort to get any Golds that haven’t claimed a side to do so. It's almost impossible to predict, because Pierce is inherently a very unpredictable author.

The Abomination is an interesting stone left unturned. The thing is, I thought Virginia might have had a chance to turn him good (?) before she tried to kill him, and I thought she actually could have done it if not for Lilath. Maybe she’ll use the PsychoSpike on him, and somehow implant memories of the real Adrius in him so she’ll have a chance to show him the love he didn’t have before. Because I saw someone say the same thing about wiping Lysander’s memories, but I really don’t think Lysander would take any chance he has for redemption, he’s already turned his back on ‘honor’ too many times. The Abomination, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t have done anything wrong had be been guided by a hand other than Lilath’s. I think there’s hope for him. 

I don’t think Rhonna is dead! No body, no death, especially with Pierce. In the Dramatis Personae, she’s described as ‘lost’, not dead. Chekov’s gun, and all that. 

Darrow better not die. Here’s the thing, though. If the Darrow we saw in Dark Age had carried over through Light Bringer, I think Pierce would be setting him up to die. But now that he’s got the Breath of Stone, the Path to the Vale, and the power given to him by letting go of his guilt and worry, it’s setting him up for a happy ending, moreso than I remember ever reading the rest of the series. I think LB!Darrow is the first time we’ve really seen him believe that he could also live. Remember, he’s always thought he’d end his story as a martyr for the Rising/Republic. But now I think he knows he can not just fight for more, but live for more too. Sevro said it well. We’re tired of this shit. Let’s band together so we can start living rather than surviving.