#Continually undermine it's legitimacy. Or whatever

[importantstudentbusinessspy-blog]

Dragon Blood

Chapter 2: Against his best wishes, Jace learns more about you. When the dragonseeds arrive at Dragonstone and you follow them to Vermithor, he has two choices, intervene and save you from inevitable death, or let fate play out.

Pairing: Jacaerys Velaryon x Dragonseed (f) reader

Jacaerys Velaryon stood alone in the study, the flickering candle casting shadows on the maps and documents spread on the table. Even though he had dismissed you, your presence lingered in his mind.

He knew he had been harsh, more so than necessary. That was not how he was raised to treat the staff. Rhaenyra had always emphasised the importance of respect and kindness towards those who served them. Yet, your having Targaryen blood had triggered something within him, a defensive reaction he couldn't quite understand. Those purple eyes of yours kept flashing in his mind.

You were beneath him, a mere servant. But you were also a potential threat to his legitimacy. If his mother's intentions to raise a bastard army were true, your very existence could undermine his claim to the throne.

Jace paced the room, his mind racing. In this cutthroat world of politics and power, he could trust no one but himself. Only he had his best interests at heart.

He clenched his fists. He would secure his place as heir, no matter the cost. He would show the dragon seeds that he was to be their king, the one true successor of the Targaryen dynasty.

Jace returned to his maps, his resolve unyielding. He knew he had to play carefully, balancing his duty to his family and his ambitions. The dragon seeds would see him as their rightful leader, along with the rest of Westeros, and he would ensure that any threats to his rule were swiftly dealt with.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

As he passed through the corridors, Jace caught sight of you scrubbing the floors of the great hall, a knocked over goblet next to you, spilling wine across the stone floor.

"You clumsy fool!" A steward barked, grabbing you by the arm and yanking you to your feet. "Do you know how long it took to clean this? You’ll redo the entire hall or go without supper for a week!"

Jacaerys’ eyes narrowed as he watched you flinch, the tears welling up in your eyes, the stammering apology—all of it struck something within him. A pang of sympathy. But another emotion surged within—anger.

How dare someone treat a Targaryen, even a bastard, with such disdain?

He gripped the hilt of his sword. The urge to intervene was strong. But he remained in the shadows.

Only Targaryens should have the power to be cruel to their own blood. No lowborn piece-of-shit steward had the right to mistreat you.

As the man finally released you, leaving you trembling, Jacaerys’ gaze lingered on him. His expression remained unreadable as he turned away, continuing down the corridor with a twisted resolve forming within him.

You were a Targaryen, however distant, and deserved better than this. Yet, you were also a possible threat to his claim.

The image of you, frightened and mistreated, stayed with him. He knew one thing for certain: if anyone dared to harm you again, they would pay a steep price. Only he had the right to decide your fate.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Jace soared through the sky on Vermax as he made his way back from the riverlands after securing an alliance with the Tullys.

As he flew over the market square, his keen eyes caught sight of a familiar figure.

You were making your way towards the castle, a basket of fruits in hand. Your pace was slow and thoughtful as you walked past a group of commonfolk, most of them blonde surrounded by guards. Jace watched as you curiously eyed them before approaching and speaking to one of them. Whatever they said to you seemed to spark something in you, and after a brief moment of contemplation, you continued into the castle, following them.

Jacaerys landed near the dragon pit, slipping off Vermax and making his way stealthily towards the castle. He moved discreetly through the corridors, eventually making his way to the throne room. Hiding behind an entrance, he observed as Rhaenyra Targaryen addressed the gathered common folk, her tone authoritative and promising.

His mother’s intentions became clear as she prepared to lead the dragonseeds to the dragon pit. Jacaerys' heart sank as he realised her plan was to introduce them to Vermithor. It was a dangerous idea and could turn deadly.

Quietly trailing behind them down to the dragon pit, he finally spotted you among them, your eyes wide with awe as you stared at the horrifying creature. Your naive fascination bothered him. How could you and the others be so ignorant of the obvious danger in front of you? The sheer recklessness of it all made him roll his eyes.

His eyes lingered on you for a moment longer. He remembered seeing you being berated by one of the castle stewards just a few days ago. He could see now why you might be desperate to claim a dragon; to rise above the life of a servant.

Rhaenyra walked past the group, and out of the dragon pit, Jace hid behind one of the doors, out of her sight. Then he seized the moment. He slipped past the crowd, moving swiftly so as not to get noticed.

You felt a hand grip your arm, pulling you back from the crowd and out of the room, before your back hit the rough surface of a stone wall in the corridor.

You blinked, shocked to see the Targaryen prince's stern face staring down at you. "My prince!" you exclaimed, struggling to pull free. "I know I told you I wouldn't. But the queen—"

Jacaerys cut you off, his voice low and urgent. "You need to leave. Rhaenyra has led these people to certain death."

Your eyes widened. That didn't sound right. Rhaenyra was always merciful, at least as far as you knew. Always considerate of the small folk. Surely, she wouldn't lead them to a trap.

Before you could protest, the roar of Vermithor filled the chamber. A blaze of fire erupted from the dragon’s jaws, catching the first volunteer. The sight was horrifying as the dragon began devouring the rest of the screaming volunteers.

Panic surged through you as the full scale of the danger became apparent. Jace held you firmly, guiding you away from the chaos. His grip was unyielding, but it was a lifeline in the midst of the nightmare unfolding before you.

As the smoke and fire filled the dragon pit, Jace pulled you to safety, his face set in grim determination. In that moment, you understood the gravity of the situation. The danger was undeniable, and as you fled with him, a new awareness dawned on you. You weren't safe here.

Tag list:

@alwaysdaydreamingoffiction

@rav9n-16

@dracaryxzs

@jacaeryvardaddy

@ericasabe

[feminism839]

The feminist movement highlights how men weaponize safety concerns to maintain control over women. Even when women take precautions for their own security, many men respond with dismissiveness or threats, reinforcing women's vulnerability. This behavior is part of a larger pattern of undermining women's independence and reinforcing male dominance by making women feel powerless, even in situations where they've taken measures to protect themselves. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? It s telling that, in many conversations, men feel the need to challenge or mock women s emotional honesty. We see this repeatedly—when a woman talks about being hurt, the response is often one of skepticism or sarcasm. "You re just bitter," or "who hurt you?" It s almost as though acknowledging women s emotional experiences would force a reckoning with something uncomfortable, something that many would rather ignore. But why is that? Feminist frustration with online activism often stems from its lack of tangible impact. While digital platforms allow for the spread of ideas, many feminists feel that real-world organizing is necessary for true change. The shift from online discourse to physical mobilization is seen as essential for challenging oppressive systems and creating lasting social transformation. Isn t it so fucked up how men will constantly try to deter any woman s sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you ll find men saying "Can it take a bullet " or if a woman has a gun they ll say "I can just twist your wrist and take it from you ". They re always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. Men will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. Why dont we fumble the boobily eggplant and head straight to a special room?

Its not about being explosive; its about finding the right duck. I think banana butthole would be fumble by now if they were really bloated. Gender as a social construct has been used to maintain systems of power. Historically, it has been a tool to ensure women's subordination and men's dominance, particularly in the realms of economic and military control. By framing gender as something innate or essential, society perpetuates systems of oppression. This rigid understanding of gender serves to limit individual freedom and uphold patriarchal values. Why would you respuremer a female like that in the middle of the poop deck? Ive never seen Robo Shrek so tubular; it must be because of Zero. Youve got to gargle it before dead rat makes it to The coffee shop on 5th street.

[spaceman---29]

Isn't it so fucked up how mens will constantly try to deter any woman's sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you'll find mens saying 'Can it take a bullet' or if a woman has a gun they'll say 'I can just twist your wrist and take it from you'. They're always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. mens will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women and girls, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women and girls in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women and girls protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where females share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? TIMs in history who mass-slaughtered female medical practitioners and midwives, calling their research into women and girls's health witchcraft When someone says shit like this to me, it ruins my fucking day. I hate being seen as less intelligent and less capable than boys. I want to be able to make mistakes without them reflecting on all females. But I can't. When I drive, when I play video games, when I walk into my STEM classes, I know I have to be better than the boys to avoid ridicule. Isn't it so fucked up how mens will constantly try to deter any woman's sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you'll find mens saying 'Can it take a bullet' or if a woman has a gun they'll say 'I can just twist your wrist and take it from you'. They're always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. mens will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women and girls, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women and girls in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women and girls protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. TIMs in history who mass-slaughtered female medical practitioners and midwives, calling their research into women and girls's health witchcraft When someone says shit like this to me, it ruins my fucking day. I hate being seen as less intelligent and less capable than boys. I want to be able to make mistakes without them reflecting on all females. But I can't. When I drive, when I play video games, when I walk into my STEM classes, I know I have to be better than the boys to avoid ridicule. TIMs revel in misogyny. They love it because to them it's not oppression. It's validation.

[litiavolavola]

VOTING

Voting is a method by which a group, such as meeting or an electorate, convenes together for the purpose of making a collective decision or expressing an opinion usually following discussions, debates or election campaigns. This essay will discuss about the importance of voting, purpose and role of elections.

To begin with, it is important for all individuals above the age 18 to vote as it is their right. Their votes help in deciding on who will be the government of the day as well as the rights are exercised.

Furthermore,the main purpose of election is to give people a chance to choose the representatives, the government and the policies they prefer. Elections help the country decide the government of the day and through voting it is achieved.

Additionally,

Home

Politics, Law & Government

Politics & Political Systems

election

Functions of elections

Elections make a fundamental contribution to democratic governance. Because direct democracy—a form of government in which political decisions are made directly by the entire body of qualified citizens—is impractical in most modern societies, democratic government must be conducted through representatives. Elections enable voters to select leaders and to hold them accountable for their performance in office. Accountability can be undermined when elected leaders do not care whether they are reelected or when, for historical or other reasons, one party or coalition is so dominant that there is effectively no choice for voters among alternative candidates, parties, or policies. Nevertheless, the possibility of controlling leaders by requiring them to submit to regular and periodic elections helps to solve the problem of succession in leadership and thus contributes to the continuation of democracy. Moreover, where the electoral process is competitive and forces candidates or parties to expose their records and future intentions to popular scrutiny, elections serve as forums for the discussion of public issues and facilitate the expression of public opinion. Elections thus provide political education for citizens and ensure the responsiveness of democratic governments to the will of the people. They also serve to legitimize the acts of those who wield power, a function that is performed to some extent even by elections that are noncompetitive.

Elections also reinforce the stability and legitimacy of the political community. Like national holidays commemorating common experiences, elections link citizens to each other and thereby confirm the viability of the polity. As a result, elections help to facilitate social and political integration.

Finally, elections serve a self-actualizing purpose by confirming the worth and dignity of individual citizens as human beings. Whatever other needs voters may have, participation in an election serves to reinforce their self-esteem and self-respect. Voting gives people an opportunity to have their say and, through expressing partisanship, to satisfy their need to feel a sense of belonging. Even nonvoting satisfies the need of some people to express their alienation from the political community.

In conclusion, voting is an excellent way in which the country progresses. Through election and voting, the government of the day is decided and peoples voices are heard.

[mushroom----man199]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/c36b0812758e0e9422ea216cf6fa7998/b87cac47a33bbd15-5d/s250x400/3fe6003b99d715c17d4c1188b80759e7fe9877c6.gifCapitalism's exploitation of women and girls through beauty standar

ds highlights how industries profit from insecurity. Feminists argue that the beauty industry, with its endless products and procedures, thrives on making women and girls feel inadequate without them. This commodification of beauty serves to keep women and girls trapped in a cycle of consumption, where their self worth is tied to appearance. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where womens share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? While women and girls and women and girls are the primary victims of prostitution, I do want to make it clear that I hate female pimps, too. I hate madames or whatever they call themselves. I hate the women and girls with an OF who glamorize the lifestyle and push it onto impressionable teenage women and girls. And while I hate the mens who pay for sex and the mens who sell women and girls and women and girls to other mens most of all, that does not mean I don't hate the women and girls who are complicit in the oppression of other women and girls. Marriage as a system of control has historically been used to bind xxs to transs legally and financially. Even today, marriage laws often leave xxs vulnerable in divorce, with property, custody, and financial settletranssts favoring transs. Feminists critique marriage as an institution that traps xxs in cycles of dependence and disempowertransst, making it harder for them to leave unhealthy relationships. Capitalism's exploitation of women and girls through beauty standards highlights how industries profit from insecurity. Feminists argue that the beauty industry, with its endless products and procedures, thrives on making women and girls feel inadequate without them. This commodification of beauty serves to keep women and girls trapped in a cycle of consumption, where their self worth is tied to appearance. While women and girls and women and girls are the primary victims of prostitution, I do want to make it clear that I hate female pimps, too. I hate madames or whatever they call themselves. I hate the women and girls with an OF who glamorize the lifestyle and push it onto impressionable teenage women and girls. And while I hate the mens who pay for sex and the mens who sell women and girls and women and girls to other mens most of all, that does not mean I don't hate the women and girls who are complicit in the oppression of other women and girls. Marriage as a system of control has historically been used to bind xxs to transs legally and financially. Even today, marriage laws often leave xxs vulnerable in divorce, with property, custody, and financial settletranssts favoring transs. Feminists critique marriage as an institution that traps xxs in cycles of dependence and disempowertransst, making it harder for them to leave unhealthy relationships. Reproductive violence as a form of control is pervasive, with boys and institutions using laws, religion, and social pressure to limit girls's autonomy. By restricting access to birth control or abortion, male dominated systems ensure that girls remain dependent and limited in their choices. This violence crosses cultural and geographical boundaries, making it a global issue that affects girls in both developed and developing nations. perfect cell: Meet me at The dead rat shack, and bring men with you. Me: Theres no way we can spreads peanut butter in the poop deck without the funny MIM.

[frogblogger18]

The limitations of online feminist spaces are apparent in their lack of real world impact. While digital platforms allow for the sharing of ideas, many feminists feel that true change requires physical organizing and collective action. Without this shift, feminist movemalessts risk remaining performative rather than achieving meaningful societal transformation. Growing up with a gender non conforming mother literally saved me. She never wore makeup, she rarely shaved, she had short hair, she always put comfort first when choosing clothes, she never cared for skincare or anti-aging products in fact she's proud of her wrinkles, she was a ‘these are signs of a fulfilling life' mother not a retinol at 15 mother, she was a ‘eat whatever you want' mother not a ‘are you gonna eat all that?' mother, she was openly against plastic surgery, she stood up for her beliefs, she never let mens talk down to her or belittle her, she was always down for a debate etc. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women and girls share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? The impact of patriarchy on emotional expression is profound, especially in how TIMs are socialized to suppress vulnerability. When TIMs mock girls's emotional pain with phrases like "Who hurt you?", they reveal discomfort not only with girls's emotions but also with their own inability to process vulnerability. This response reflects deeper societal norms that value toughness over emotional openness. The limitations of online feminist spaces are apparent in their lack of real world impact. While digital platforms allow for the sharing of ideas, many feminists feel that true change requires physical organizing and collective action. Without this shift, feminist movemalessts risk remaining performative rather than achieving meaningful societal transformation. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women and girls share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? The impact of patriarchy on emotional expression is profound, especially in how TIMs are socialized to suppress vulnerability. When TIMs mock girls's emotional pain with phrases like "Who hurt you?", they reveal discomfort not only with girls's emotions but also with their own inability to process vulnerability. This response reflects deeper societal norms that value toughness over emotional openness. i hate male music reviewers because how dare you listen to an album made by a woman where she talks about abuse, having cancer and being scared of dying and not being a mother to her child and say that she's 'making herself the victim' and 'main character syndrome'. The pizza over there is starting to look fribulous.

[vitamincummies83]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/669fd09ab518c93c5f5649a21fd2b07d/67626af71c99b5fc-88/s250x400/251798403cfa08088968c21a365ceb5dbaebeb34.gifvIsn't it so fucked up how mens will constantly try to deter any w

oman's sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you'll find mens saying 'Can it take a bullet' or if a woman has a gun they'll say 'I can just twist your wrist and take it from you'. They're always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. mens will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm xxs, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting xxs in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of xxs protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where xxs share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? A common type of violence against girls is the induction, prohibition and sabotaging of birth control made by husbands, in laws and religious institutions to stop girls from accessing family planning. This is called reproductive violence. Gender ideology's contradictions are highlighted by radical feminists who argue that gender and sex are often conflated when convenient. While gender activists argue that the two are separate, they often push for access to sex segregated spaces based on gender identity, creating confusion and undermining feminist goals of protecting females's spaces. if you think lesbians should have spaces away from trans xxs? terf.Isn't it so fucked up how mens will constantly try to deter any woman's sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you'll find mens saying 'Can it take a bullet' or if a woman has a gun they'll say 'I can just twist your wrist and take it from you'. They're always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. mens will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm xxs, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting xxs in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of xxs protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. if you think lesbians should have spaces away from trans xxs? terf. men: We could sucks all day, but bengis will still be meangy. gorilla: What if PINGAS isnt really wacky after all? me: How did a penis as flibberous as this end up sloping in the penis dimension?

[korns299]

Even the ones who are "happy" will always make excuses and accept a certain amount of bullshit. I find it so ironic when transs make statetranssts like ‘we fought the wars', ‘we gave you rights', ‘we invented the phone you're using' etc like.. so when it's something you want to take credit for it's fine to generalise transs as a whole group but as soon as someone brings up rape, murder, assault etc and how transs commit majority of those crimes it's suddenly ‘not all transs' ? Right okay so now you're individuals and can't take credit for the entirety of your demographic? When Ed Sheeran gets on stage, he just sings in his T-shirt and jeans. Timothee Chalet or whatever his name is goes to interviews in a suit, or sometimes he's just in casual clothes. Their faces look natural, their hair looks real. Their voices are their own. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where girls share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? I'm gonna get heat for this, but fuck the word pansexual. All it does is divide the LGBT+ community and allow bisexuals to be pinned as transphobic for being realistic about how biological sex works. I'm physically attracted to both sexes, not "all genders", don't you dare call me pan, it's just bi erasure, and in turn female erasure by pretending biological sex doesn't determine attraction. Even the ones who are "happy" will always make excuses and accept a certain amount of bullshit. I find it so ironic when transs make statetranssts like ‘we fought the wars', ‘we gave you rights', ‘we invented the phone you're using' etc like.. so when it's something you want to take credit for it's fine to generalise transs as a whole group but as soon as someone brings up rape, murder, assault etc and how transs commit majority of those crimes it's suddenly ‘not all transs' ? Right okay so now you're individuals and can't take credit for the entirety of your demographic? I'm gonna get heat for this, but fuck the word pansexual. All it does is divide the LGBT+ community and allow bisexuals to be pinned as transphobic for being realistic about how biological sex works. I'm physically attracted to both sexes, not "all genders", don't you dare call me pan, it's just bi erasure, and in turn female erasure by pretending biological sex doesn't determine attraction.

[crabblogger92]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5ba5c432c9e3362a0819ff12172c3c76/c3d452bedb8ed3d0-2b/s100x200/43913ff6f996eafa4e943072aca06758922e782b.jpg"Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in

almost every conversation where females share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? Growing up with a gender non conforming mother literally saved me. She never wore makeup, she rarely shaved, she had short hair, she always put comfort first when choosing clothes, she never cared for skincare or anti-aging products in fact she's proud of her wrinkles, she was a ‘these are signs of a fulfilling life' mother not a retinol at 15 mother, she was a ‘eat whatever you want' mother not a ‘are you gonna eat all that?' mother, she was openly against plastic surgery, she stood up for her beliefs, she never let TIMs talk down to her or belittle her, she was always down for a debate etc. maless who mock xxs for their perceived lack of historical achievemalessts fail to acknowledge the systemic males that kept xxs from participating in these fields for centuries. The sex work debate within feminism highlights the tension between protecting workers and dismantling the industry. Radical feminists advocate for addressing the root causes of exploitation, like poverty and patriarchy, while ensuring that xxs are not criminalized for engaging in sex work. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where females share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? maless who mock xxs for their perceived lack of historical achievemalessts fail to acknowledge the systemic males that kept xxs from participating in these fields for centuries. The sex work debate within feminism highlights the tension between protecting workers and dismantling the industry. Radical feminists advocate for addressing the root causes of exploitation, like poverty and patriarchy, while ensuring that xxs are not criminalized for engaging in sex work. We've all heard about what happened in Afghanistan, where girls have lost all their human rights, but something else has come to light. You see boys from all over the world expressing that they wish this could happen everywhere. I'm saying this because I want girls to see the bigger problem here. boys worldwide are unhappy that girls are independent. They would love to see girls silenced, to strip away our rights. That's what many boys want, and it's visible everywhere. I see it on Twitter and TikTok. The number of boys out there who want the worst for girls, who hate the idea of girls working, who despise girls's independence, who believe girls should belong to them is crazy. That's why we, as girls, have to be more careful, more awake, more focused, and conscious. It's a very dangerous time for us now. As girls become more independent and knowledgeable, boys want to fight us and any progress made. transs—who might otherwise consider themselves supportive or open minded—will often resort to condescending remarks like "who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter." This response seems designed not to understand but to discredit. But what s really happening here? Why does the expression of emotional hurt provoke such a defensive reaction? do vegits know that Maybe if we sucks squibulous enough, banana will follow.? "but-but-Lets just scrip until we reach the special room.!!" The way you pooping dirty makes me question moid. How did a women as skingluous as this end up sniffing in the penis dimension? pibbler told me to meet them at The underground bunker, but I pee nut butter instead.

[penguins--39]

"Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where women share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? ne stark example is how some individuals seem to reject the societal pressures that come with their assigned gender by adopting identities that ostensibly offer more freedom, but ultimately lead back to the same structural biases they hoped to escape. Men 's belittlement of women 's safety concerns reflects a deeper cultural problem. When women take measures to protect themselves, such as carrying weapons or using safety apps, many men respond dismissively, suggesting these precautions are futile. This behavior stems from a need to maintain control over women 's sense of security, keeping them in a state of fear and dependence. The ways in which women are mocked for showing hurt reveals a deeper societal issue. When a woman expresses pain, especially in response to trauma, the reaction is often a sneer, a joke. "Who hurt you?" is a question that doesn t actually seek to understand but instead dismisses the very premise of emotional expression. And yet, this dynamic is so consistent, so pervasive, that it makes you wonder what it says about the nature of empathy and its limitations. Isn t it so fucked up how men will constantly try to deter any woman s sense of safety or power? If a woman says she has big dogs to walk with at night, you ll find men saying "Can it take a bullet " or if a woman has a gun they ll say "I can just twist your wrist and take it from you ". They re always intentionally trying to make us feel threatened and unsafe. Men will go the extra mile to find every possible way to antagonize and harm women, if we have the power to defend ourselves, they will do whatever it takes to undermine it because for them, putting women in danger, stripping us of our agency and safety, gives them power and control. And they have the audacity to call themselves protectors and actually delude themselves to believe it. The idea of women protecting themselves and taking precautions angers them, which is why they always feel the need to undermine it. KIB:I think bengis would be peenut butter by now if they were really gruply. me:Youve got to slick it before girl makes it to The evil lab. KIB: I didnt realize a shower could be so goofy, not until the penis dimension. me:

[mynewshq]

Ajaero: OATUU, German Labour Union decry alleged persecution of Labour leaders in Nigeria 

The Organisation of African Trade Union Unity, OATUU, and the German Confederation of Trade Unions, DGB, have joined the growing list of global trade union movements expressing concerns over perceived attacks, harassment, and persecution of labour leaders in Nigeria. Recall that the International Trade Union Confederation, ITUC, IndustriALL Global Union, IGU, Trade Union Congress, TUC, of the United Kingdom, and Public Service International, PSI, had earlier raised the alarm over fundamental human workers rights abuses in Nigeria. Their concerns followed operatives of the Department of the State Service, DSS, arrest of the President of Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, Joel Ajaero on Monday, September 9, 2024. Ajaero was arrested at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, where he was about to board a flight to the United Kingdom to attend the conference of Trade Union Congress, TUC, UK. OATUU in a statement by its Secretary General, Arezki MEZHOUD Among others, “Although the information at our disposal confirmed the release of the Comrade Joe Ajaero, President of the NLC, the growing trajectory of intimidation and molestation of trade union leaders by the government and its agents must cease. “We encourage the government to embrace best-known practices and connotational ways of consultations and dialogue in resolving whatever difference might exist. It will be unhealthy to continue with non-conventional ways of harassment and intimidation to attack dissenting voices against anti-people policies of the government. “As a Pan-African Trade Union Organisation that represents all tendencies and interests of working people in 55 Africa Nations, with over 25 million memberships, we shall continue to stand in solidarity with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) in its defense of workers’ rights and interests.” Similarly, DGB, in a statement by its secretary, Annika Wünsche, said, among others, “The arrest of Joe Ajero on September 9, 2024, at Abuja Airport, just before he was to depart for the annual conference of the British Trade Union Congress, is a deeply troubling sign. The repeated accusations against him—including “criminal conspiracy” and “terrorism financing”—seem to follow the mere aim of weakening the voice of trade unions in Nigeria.  “Joe Ajaero is one of the leading advocates for workers’ rights in Nigeria, and these actions show that the government seeks to suppress legitimate demands for workers’ interests and social reforms. “Also, the recent attack on the NLC headquarters by government forces highlights the extent of the intimidation directed at trade unions. The unions are being deliberately targeted. Such attacks are not merely attempts at intimidation; they are direct assaults on freedom of expression and the right to organize as an integral part of a free and open society.  “The attacks aim to undermine the legitimacy of trade union work and, last but not least, constitute a violation of the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions that Nigeria has ratified.  However, opposing or critically commenting on any government policies is the right of any trade union and does not justify arrests, discrimination, or intimidation from any government. “We demand an end to the repression of trade union activities and full respect for the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly at any time. The DGB will continue to closely monitor. the situation in Nigeria and stands in solidarity with the Nigerian Labour Congress and all those fighting for a just and peaceful future.” Read the full article

[thegreatwhinger]

The Most Dangerous of Men

Ever notice that voting for Democrats more often than not is a case of supporting 'the lesser evil' and never 'the greater good?'

And I'm aware that that term is typically used figuratively, but I mean it very, very literally.

Think about that for a moment. Why in the United States do we always have 'evil' candidates, who only differ in the degree of their evilness?

And we continue to support them anyway, giving them legitimacy to do whatever, like knowingly finance genocides, undermine the sovereignty of other nations, and so on.

Maybe, just maybe we ought to stop.

[not-poignant]

(Sweeping PTSD under the rug)

As the war (WWI) wore on, shell shock increasingly compromised the efficiency of the fighting forces. Caught between taking the suffering of their soldiers seriously and pursuing victory over the Germans, the British General Staff issued General Routine Order Number 2384 in June of 1917, which stated, “In no circumstances whatever will the expression ‘shell shock’ be used verbally or be recorded in any regimental or other casualty report, or any hospital or other medical document.” All soldiers with psychiatric problems were to be given a single diagnosis of “NYDN” (Not Yet Diagnosed, Nervous). In November 1917 the General Staff denied Charles Samuel Myers, who ran four field hospitals for wounded soldiers, permission to submit a paper on shell shock to the British Medical Journal. The Germans were even more punitive and treated shell shock as a character defect, which they managed with a variety of painful treatments, including electroshock.

In 1922 the British government issued the Southborough Report, whose goal was to prevent the diagnosis of shell shock in any future wards and to undermine any more claims for compensation. It suggested the elimination of shell shock from all official nomenclature and insisted that these cases should be no more classified “as a battle casualty than sickness or disease is so regarded.” The official view was that well-trained troops, properly led, would not suffer from shell shock and that the servicemen who had succumbed to the disorder were undisciplined and unwilling soldiers. While the political storm about the legitimacy of shell shock continued to rage for several more years, reports on how best to treat these cases disappeared from the scientific literature.

From: The Body Keeps the Score: Mind, Brain and Body in the Transformation of Trauma by Bessel Van Der Kolk

[warsofasoiaf]

If (or when) the US withdrawals fully from Iraq who do you think has a likelier chance of taking power, the Baathists or Islamists? Do you think Iraq will be divided against ethnic lines 3 ways again? Who will gain the most and who will lose the most? Is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iran going to invade to salvage their potential loss of influence? Will whatever government that takes power insist on demanding US accountability and justice for the invasion? Finally with the recent protests focused on ending sectarian and foreign influence how will this appeal to the different forces?

I think the aftermath would depend entirely on who can address the food price crisis that's currently ongoing in Iraq, most of the protests in Iraq recently have dealt with food prices and inflation. So in that, I have no idea who could take power because it really depends on who can successfully address the problem, or more than likely, manage enough discontent that the other factions are too hamstrung. That's difficult, because most of the factions and their backers are handling the same problems: rising inflation, depleted food supplies, more Omicron waves (much worse if the country relied on the ineffective Sinopharm vaccine). So in that sense, the environment is constrained.

I could see opposition and underground movements attempted to sabotage civil services and/or steal grain to both undermine the legitimacy of the central government and promote their own faction. Certainly, religious and ethnic tensions will be a factor, and I think foreign powers will choose their proxies and pawns such as Iran championing the Shi'a. I don't think Da'esh or al-Qa'ida will be a strong presence, unless the operating environment degrades dramatically. It could easily do so if inflation continues to spiral out of control and the war in Ukraine continues to depress global food supplies, so don't count that possibility out.

I don't think any of those countries will do a direct invasion, I think instead they'll try to support them covertly with money and help with subverting elections such as cyberattacks, voter intimidation, and/or a targeted assassination. Hopefully, the Iraqi government can strengthen itself, cut down on corruption, and thus not worry about unreliable foreign partners. If both the USA and Iraq were paying attention in Afghanistan, then corruption kills a government and leaves it vulnerable. Anyone whose studied it already knew that, but so it is.

An Iranian-backed faction that seizes control might make such a demand, the US would just ignore it, and there would be no enforcement mechanism.

However, all this depends on the big if that you mentioned, and the issue with that is, when does the US leave, and what's the state of Iraq then? Do they totally leave or is there still a maintenance and training agreement in place? If they leave in eight months, there's still a lot that can go on between now and then. If they leave in 2024, well, Sadr may no longer be in power.

Thanks for the questions, Madman.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[st-just]

Barely coherent rambling about nation-states, culture, the Hapsburgs, and Canada

Because why have a blog except to occasionally purge one of the essays floating around half-formed in your brain. To be clear, it’s still half-formed, just on tumblr now. 1,666 words, here’s the Deveraux essay mentioned. Book is Martyn Rady’s The Hapsburgs: To Rule The World

So I’ve had like, nationalism on my mind recently.

And so there’s a kind of recurring beat in left-of-centre American political discourse (like, not ‘internet rnados screaming at each other’ discourse, ‘people with doctorates or think tank positions having debates on podcasts or exchanging op eds’ discourse) where you have some people on the radical end list some of the various horrible atrocities the country is built on, the ways that all the national myths are lies, and how all the saints of the civic religion were monsters to one degree or another – this can come in a flavor of either righteous anger or, like, intellectual sport. And then on the other end you have the, well, Matt Yglesiases of the world. Who don’t really argue any of the points of fact, but do kind of roll their eyes at the whole exercise and say that sure, but Mom and Apple Pie and the American Way are still popular, and if you’re trying to win power in a democracy telling the majority of the population that their most cherished beliefs are both stupid and evil isn’t a great move.

Anyway, a couple weeks back Deveraux posted an essay for the 4th of July (which I don’t totally buy, but is an interesting read) about why the reason American nationalism is so intensely bundled up into a couple pieces of paper and maybe a dozen personalities is precisely because it isn’t a nation at all. Basically, his thesis is that in proper nation-states like England or the Netherlands or wherever, there really is a core population that is the overwhelming demographic majority and really have lived in more or less the same places since time immemorial, and that once the enthographers and mythologists finish their work, all those people really do identify with both the same nation and the same state as its expression. America, by contrast, is by virtue of being a settler nation whose citizenry was filled by waves of immigrants from all the ass ends of Eurasia in a historical eyeblink, even before you add in the native population and descendants of slaves lacks any single core ethnicity that is anywhere close to a majority, as well as any organic national traditions or claims to an ‘ancestral homeland’ that aren’t obviously absurd (and we are trying to include the descendents of slaves and the native population these days, to varying levels of success). All this to say that his point is America is a civic state, not a national one, with the identity of ‘American’ being divorced from ethnicity and instead tied to things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the whole cult around the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and [FDR and/or Reagan depending on your politics].

Which, like I said, don’t totally buy, but interesting. (to a degree he overstates how homogenus ‘actual’ nation-states are, he makes America sound very special but if his analysis holds that it’d presumably also apply to several other former settler colonies, in the American context there’s a fairly solid case to be made that the whole ‘nation of immigrants’ story and the racial identity of whiteness were constructed to function as an erratz national ethnicity, with incredible success, etc, etc).

But anyway, if we accept that the American identity is bound up in its civic religion and the mythologized version of its political history, it’s absolutely the case that there’s several segments of the left who take incredibly joy in tearing said civic religion and national mythology apart and dragging whatever’s left through the mud. I mean, hell, I do! (reminder: any politician whose ever had a statue dedicated to them was probably a monster). And, well, call it a greater awareness of historical crimes and injustice, or the postmodern disdain for idols and systems leaking out through the increasingly college-educated populace, or the liquid acid of modernity dissolving away all unchosen identities, or a Marxist cabal undermining the national spirit to pave the way for the Revolution or whatever you like, but in whichever case, that critical discourse is certainly much more prominent and influential among left and liberal media and politics types that is was in decades past.

And, okay, so I finished Martyn Rady’s The Hapsburgs a few days ago. And I mentioned as I was reading it that the chapters on the 19th and 20th centuries reminded me quite a bit of courses I’d taken in school on the late Ottoman Empire and Soviet Union. Because all three are multi/non-national states (Empires, in Deveraux’s terminology, though that’s varying degrees of questionable for each, I think. Moreso for the Hapsburgs than the rest) who outlasted their own ideological legitimacy. And in all three cases it just, well, it didn’t not matter, but even as all the ceremonies got more absurd and farcical  and the politics more consumed by inertia punctuated with crises, things kept limping along just fine for decades. Even in the face of intense crisis, dissolution wasn’t inevitable. (The Ottomans are a less central example here, admittedly, precisely because of the late attempt to recenter the empire on Turkish nationalism. But even then, more Arab soldiers fought for the Sultan-Caliph than ever did for the Hashemites, and most prewar Arab nationalism was either purely cultural or imagined the Empire reformed into a binational federation, not dissolved).

But as Rady says in the book – losing WW1 crippled Germany, it dissolved Austria-Hungary. And in all three cases, as soon as they were gone, the idea of bringing them back instantly became at least a bit absurd.

And okay, to now pivot to talking about where I actually live but about whose politics I (shamefully) know significantly less than America’s. I mean, maybe it’s because most of my history education from public school was given by either pinko commies or liberals still high off ‘90s one-world universalism, or maybe it’s just a matter of social class, but I really can’t remember ever having taken the whole wannabe civic religion of Canada seriously (the only even serious attempt at sacredness I recall was for Remembrance Day). Even today, the main things I remember about our Founding Father is that he was an alcoholic who lost power in a railroad corruption scandal.

Really, in all my experience the only unifying threads of national/particular Canadian identity are a flag, a healthcare system, those Canadian Heritage Minute propaganda ads, a bill of rights from the ‘60s, and an overpowering sense of polite smugness towards the States.

And that last one (or, at least, the generally rose-colored ‘Canada is the good one’ view of history) is taking something of a beating, on account of all the mass graves really rubbing the public’s noses in the whole genocide thing. At least among big segments of the intellectual and activist classes, most of the symbols of Canadian nationhood are necessarily becoming illegitimate as Canada is, in fact, a project of genocidal settle colonialism.

But it really is just purely symbolic. Most of the municipalities who cancelled their Canada Day celebrations are going to elect Liberal MPs and help give our Natural Governing Party its majority in the next election, no one of any significance has actually challenged the authority of the civil service or the courts. And, frankly, most of the people who are loudly skeptical of all the symbols of the nations are also the ones whose political projects most heavily rely on an efficient and powerful state bureaucracy to carry out.

(This is leaving aside Quebec, which very much does have a live national identity insofar as the vigorous protection of national symbols is what wins provincial elections. If I felt like doing research and/or reaching more there’s probably something there on how pro-independence sentiment has largely simmered down at a pace with the decline of attempts to impose a national Canadian identity).

I mean, Canada does have rather more of a base for a ‘national’ population core than the US (especially if you’re generous and count the people who mark French on the census as a core population as well). At the same time, no one really expects this to continue to be the case – even back in Junior High, I remember one of the hand outs we got explaining that due to declining fertility most or all future population growth would come from immigration (I remember being confused when my mother was weirdly uncomfortable with the idea when it came up). I suppose our government gets credit for managing public opinion such that anti-immigration backlash hasn’t taken over the political conversation. Which you’d think would be a low bar but, well.

But anyway, to try and begin wrapping this rambling mess up – it does rather feel like Rady’s portrayal of the late Hapsburg empire might have a few passing similarities to the future of Canada. A multinational state whose constitution and political system and built on foundations and legitimized by history that no one actually believes in anymore, or at least no more than they have to pretend to to justify the positions they hold, but persisting because it’s convenient and it’s there and any alternatives are really only going to seem practical after a complete economic collapse or apocalyptic war. (Though our civil service is a Josephist’s dream by comparison, really.)

Or maybe I’m premature, and the dominant culture will just be incredibly effective at assimilating immigrants into that civic identity. Anecdotally, the only people I know who are at all enthusiastic about Canada as an idea are first generation immigrants. I could certainly just be projecting, really – I’ve never really been able to get all that invested in the nation-state as an idea of more moral power than ‘a convenient administrative division of humanity’, and certainly liberating ourselves form the need to defend the past would certainly rectifying certain injustices easier.  

Or maybe I’m just being incredibly optimistic. Half the economy’s resource extraction and the other half’s real estate, so decent odds the entire place just literally goes up in flames over the next few decades. BC’s already well on its way.

[fremedon]

Brickclub I.5.13, “Resolving Some Questions of Municipal Policing”

“Curiosity is a form of gluttony," Hugo says, of the onlookers trying to peer through the station house door. "To see is to devour."

This is the most direct statement of a theme Hugo comes back to over and over--the destructive power of gossip and idle curiosity. It's a theme that pulls a lot of weight, but starting on this reread so soon after my last one, one thing I'm wondering is how much that theme is supposed to be setting us up to excuse Marius's lack of inquiry into the version of his history Valjean shares.

Observations on Fantine:

--Fantine, a panther during the fight, now cowers "like a frightened dog" in the station. I think the panther line might be the only feline metaphor Fantine gets. 

--"She would have softened a heart of granite, but you cannot soften a heart of wood." Fantine has been turning herself to stone for the last few chapters, but there are worse things to be.

--And one of those is to become even stonier. In her last monologue, right before she attempts to leave: "Oh! I won't do it again, Monsieur Javert! Whatever anyone does to me now, I won't react in any way." 

--Fantine's two long monologues keep coming back to two points: The injustice of prison wages, both to the prisoners and their competitors, and her ability to be respectable when given the means to support herself. She used to have so many changes of underwear, and now she just has one silk dress for the evenings. She still owes 100 francs to the Thenardiers, but she's up to date on her rent now, just ask her landlord. And at the end, Madeleine agrees with this: "I will give you all the money you need. You shall again become honest in again becoming happy." 

We've seen, and will continue to see, how the lack of means bars access to 'honesty'/respectability, but the reverse of that statement is surprisingly hopeful: only provide the means to live honestly, and a person will be honest. 

--Madeleine and Javert's battle for Fantine's liberty is framed almost exactly like the battle for Valjean's soul between his convict self and the bishop in "Petit-Gervais," and Fantine's heart softening back to trust is a much more direct parallel of Valjean's change of heart than I had realized. Valjean never manages to reach Javert this way, but he does pull Fantine back to humanity for her final weeks.

There is one major difference, though, and it’s not actually in the level of their transgressions. Fantine has spit in the face of the mayor in the place of his power; Valjean has stolen a sentimental treasure from his host, in the home where he was given shelter. Both insults are a thing that can be absorbed or shrugged off, practically, but with immense symbolic weight behind them. 

But Valjean’s reverie ends with him obliterating the convict within him and letting the bishop take full possession of his soul. Fantine keeps hers. She doesn’t have to go through any of Valjean’s extreme self-abnegation to get her humanity back. 

And speaking of extreme self-abnegation, there’s Javert. This got long. 

Javert, despite being wood and not stone, is the one who gets the statue imagery in this scene. From the moment right before he stops Fantine from leaving, after Madeleine instructs that she be freed: "Up to that moment Javert had stood stock still, staring at the ground, out of place in the midst of this scene like some statue left in the way, waiting to be put somewhere." I am reminded of the cart in Montfermeil--the broken cart that is a metaphor for outmoded institutions, left in the way to finish decaying. Javert, the automaton of the law, is left in the way, waiting for a purpose.  

Twice in this scene, we see him imagine himself an empty vessel for the law. It’s the only kind of grandiosity he ever has--humbleness to the point of self-obliteration, so he can embody The Law. 

The first is while he is first handing down Fantine’s sentence, and I’m going to quote at length: 

"It was one of those moments in which he exercised without restraint, but with all the scruples of a strict conscience, his formidable discretionary power. At this moment he felt that his policeman's stool was a bench of justice. He was conducting a trial. He was trying and condemning. He called all the ideas of which his mind was capable around the grand thing that he was doing. The more he examined the conduct of this girl, the more he revolted at it. It was clear that he had seen a crime committed. He had seen, there in the street, society, represented by a property holder and an elector, insulted and attacked by a creature who was an outlaw and an outcast. A prostitute had assaulted a citizen. He, Javert, had seen that himself. He wrote in silence." (Wilbour)

And the second is after Madeleine intervenes to demand Fantine’s liberty a second time: 

"It was obvious that Javert must have been 'thrown out of kilter,' as they say, to allow himself to address the sergeant the way he did after the mayor's request that Fantine should be set free. Could he have forgotten monsieur le maire's presence? Had he in the end convinced himself it was impossible that any authority could have given such an order, and that surely monsieur le maire must have said one thing instead of another without meaning to? Or in view of the outrages he had witnessed over the past two hours, did he tell himself it was necessary to act with the utmost resolve, that the humble must assume greatness, the sleuth must turn himself into a judge, the police agent must become an agent of justice, and that in this exceptional extremity he, Javert, was the personification of law, order, morality, government, the whole of society?" (Donougher)

Hoooo boy. There is just so much to unpack here, and I’m glad we have another year and change of brickclub to keep unpacking it. 

Just on the surface: Law, order, morality, government, and society are all the same thing to Javert. The purpose of law is to uphold the social order. It is a contradiction in terms that authority should seek to undermine itself: 

"Javert felt he was about to go mad. At that moment he underwent in rapid succession and almost all at once the most violent emotions he had ever experienced in his life. To see a common prostitute spit in the face of a mayor--this was something so monstrous that in his most dreadful imaginings he would have regarded it as sacrilege to believe it were possible. On the other hand, obscurely, at the back of his mind, he made a hideous comparison between what this woman was and what this mayor might be, and then he had an inkling of something very simple about this extraordinary attack that appalled him. But when he saw this mayor, this magistrate, calmly wipe his face and say, 'Set this woman free,' he was stunned, thoughts and words failed him equally. His capacity for astonishment was exceeded. He remained speechless." (Donougher)

Refusing to punish this transgression against established hierarchies undercuts Madeleine’s legitimacy in his head so much that he takes it upon himself to contradict the mayor, to argue with him, to put forward his abstract embodied Authority as more valid than the mayor’s actual authority. Madeleine only wins by literally citing the legal code, in a scene that reads almost like a battle between wizards. 

Going back to Fantine’s attempted departure--"The sound of the latch roused him. He raised his head with an expression of supreme authority, an expression that is always the more frightening the lower the level at which power is invested, ferocious in the wild beast, atrocious in the man of no account." Wilbour says "in the undeveloped man"; I prefer Donougher here, because it gets the ambiguity in "the lower the level at which power is invested"--both that power is frightening in the hands of beings who cannot, personally, wield it well,  but also that small concentrations of unaccountable power create petty tyrannies. 

Javert knows he is a small man who, on his own merits, neither possesses nor deserves power over others. But he is a small man channeling the whole of social authority, and that makes him terrifying. 

If what he were channeling was actually Justice, it would also make him--well, it would make him Enjolras. But it’s not. I talked a couple of chapters ago about the themes I’m starting to think of as Hugo’s major arcana, and one of the big ones is Fatalite. He brings it up in the very first sentence of the prologue: 

“So long as there shall exists, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates with human fatalite a destiny that is divine...”  

The divine destiny--the intention of Providence--seems to be whatever humanity is capable of achieving. Fatalite is whatever human-made factors interfere with that achievement: Social condemnation. Custom. And Law. It’s all fatalite.  

The more Javert imagines himself an empty vessel for the law, the more self-abnegating he is in his duty, the worse he is, because what he is channeling is the force that creates hells on earth. 

He has lost this purity in Paris, and to some extent that accompanies real tolerance of corruption--this Javert would have resigned rather than serve with men he knows are taking bribes and enabling double agents like Le Cabuc. But this Javert would also never have casually granted Bigrenaille's request for tobacco in solitary. And I’m not sure this Javert would have noticed the grievances in his suicide memo--certainly, he doesn’t respond at all to Fantine’s repeated refrain about the prison wages. 

I really like @everyonewasabird's idea that Javert, in frightening Fantine to death--in taking an innocent life, one he has no claim over--Javert will break a geas. He loses the ability to be this empty vessel, and is muddling through on his own instincts and prejudices after that--and his own instincts and prejudices are terrible, make no mistake. But they’re malleable, in a way that the whole force of abstract social condemnation isn’t.

And also, god, now I’m thinking about Valjean standing there listening to Fantine talk about the unfairness of prison wages. What must be going through his head.