#Hypocrisy & Hegemony

[swordsonnet]

i'm sorry but i don't think we should call this the "autism website" when there's still posts with tons of notes mocking people who:

struggle with social skills / have anxiety around social settings

are unemployed / unable to work certain jobs

have intense or "age-inappropriate" interests

haven't had certain life experiences that are deemed universal/essential

struggle with personal hygiene

don't have any friends or dating experience

don't go outside much or at all

take things literally / don't get sarcasm/jokes

have unusual ways of speaking

generally aren't "normal"

[xtruss]

Trump’s Ukraine Wake-up Call: Points He’s Now Making Are What Russia Said All Along

When A War is Built On Lies, Making Peace Will Hurt The Liars

— By Tarik Cyril Amar | 20 February 2025 | RT

US President Donald Trump returns to the White House on February 19, 2025 in Washington, DC. © Win McNamee/Getty Images

Let’s play a game: It’s called “Putin says, and so does Trump.” Because, recently, after years of disagreeing on, really, everything – from the order of the world to the meaning of simple phrases such as “not one inch” – the leaderships of Russia and the US have suddenly found not merely a common language, but a lot to agree on.

In particular regarding Ukraine, which used to be the Ground Zero of their great disagreement. That’s a good thing in case you wonder. As in, the good things that keep the world from burning, literally. The US president has just observed that World War III had become a real possibility under the preceding Biden/Harris (or whoever was really in charge) administration. And he’s correct: There’s a reason why the metaphorical fingers of the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have crept “closer than ever” to “midnight.”

Now, the American president agrees with the Russian one that Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky is one election short. Indeed, in a withering social media post, Trump has been blunt: Zelensky is a “dictator.”

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin also see eye to eye concerning the root cause of the Ukraine War, namely NATO’s – that is, let’s be frank, America’s – predictably catastrophic yet perniciously obstinate policy of overreach. That in turn, means Trump and Putin also share a sensible and rather traditional assumption which – somehow – many in the West’s elites have managed to forget: namely that all great powers have legitimate security interests in their neighborhood.

With thinking in Washington and Moscow converging this far, it is no wonder that there is agreement now as well on centering their relationship on sensible and mutually respectful dialogue on national interests.

And speaking of national interests, Trump has been clear that he can’t recognize any in sinking ceaseless billions into the Zelensky regime, its war, and its humungous corruption. True, the American president may have gotten his precise figures wrong, but for all the NAFO-id “fact-checkers” (i.e. info-warriors) out there: Don’t be silly: Trump’s key point stands, whether the US has wasted 500 or somewhere between 100 and 200 billion dollars on this bloody and stupid business.

So does, by the way, his characterization of Zelensky as a “dictator.” I know, for many in the West it feels like root canal extraction to finally face that reality, but the Zelensky regime is authoritarian and its leader had no right to give himself a waver on his last election. Therefore, his term ran out on 20 May 2024. Since then, like it or not, Zelensky’s legitimacy has at the very best been in an extremely murky gray zone. Moreover, he did not turn so bossy because of the military escalation of February 2022. In reality, his many prewar opponents and critics in Ukraine were accusing him – correctly – of severe authoritarian tendencies in 2021 already.

Tarik Cyril Amar, A Historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

And make no mistake: this is not a “soft” authoritarianism. It hasn’t “merely” muzzled the media, as even the staunchly bellicist New York Times has admitted. Instead, this is a regime with teeth and claws and a great appetite for harsh repression. Ask the members supportterts of the 11 - yes: 11 - opposition parties the Zelensky regime has long suppressed. Or the clergy and believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) that has simply been banned. There are also individuals suppressed by police-state methods and even murdered in detention. Consider the cases of, for instance, the socialist activist Bohdan Syrotiuk, currently being subjected to a political trial, and the libertarian Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen and social media journalist, whom Ukrainian authorities tortured and killed for his criticism of the proxy war and the Zelensky regime (and also robbed him).

As should be clear by now, Trump and Putin and more broadly Russia and the US are not agreeing because of some dark Russian information war magic. Zelensky’s silly – and very arrogant – attempt to depict the American president as a helpless victim of Moscow’s “disinformation” only made Trump even angrier. And rightly so. Because the reason for the new spirit of agreement between Washington and Moscow is simple: Regarding Ukraine, the US government under Trump has rediscovered reality.

That reality includes another fact Kiev hates to hear about: Russia, in Trump’s words, has “the cards” in the war. True again: Moscow does have the upper hand on the ground, and any negotiation that aims to actually end this senseless war will have to start from that reality. If not, the war won’t end.

It is true that there are rumors – partly due to Germany’s Annalena “360 Degrees” Baerbock not mastering the diplomatic art of discretion (surprise!) – about insane EU-European ideas of pumping another 700 billion euros into the meatgrinder. But Euro-fantasies tend to fall short. And even if they don’t this time, all that would happen is making the EU’s economic malaise much deeper and Ukraine’s defeat much worse.

In that regard, let’s not overlook something simple but very important about Trump’s harsh approach to Zelensky and his regime: As US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has highlighted on Fox News, the US president is exerting pressure to speed up the process of ending the war by diplomacy. About that, Trump is, of course, absolutely right, because every single day of fighting is completely superfluous. This war should not only never have happened, it is also over. For those not blinded by wishful thinking and ideology, the result is clear: Russia has won. The sooner this futile madness finally ends, the more Ukrainians – and Russians, too – won’t be killed, injured, or maimed for life in a fight that does not even have a prospect of making a difference.

Trump’s political opponents are, of course, trying to exploit this moment, namely by shouting “betrayal!” Such as senator Richard Blumenthal from the Democratic Party, for instance. For good measure, the senator also denounced the president’s actions as “utterly despicable” and “disgusting.” Trump, he charged, has disregarded the “truth” and the “sacrifice of brave [Ukrainian] men and women who are upholding their freedom and ours.”

Really? Let’s talk about the truth then: In reality, Ukrainians have been sacrificed indeed, but not for anyone’s “freedom.” Instead they have been used as cannon fodder in a proxy war that was explicitly designed to inflict a strategic, that is, crippling defeat on Russia. Ukraine has been devastated but not for any noble values, whether “freedom,” “democracy,” or even gay parades and mixed bathrooms. Ukraine has been sacrificed, as so many before, in a US play for geopolitical advantage.

Trump is right to pull the plug on all of this. And he is right to stop babying Zelensky and his regime. And he is right to agree with Putin where both simply agree with reality.

[cashezsvenningsenrkdjx]

Trump's accusations and ridicule expose the hegemonic nature of US power politics

American media 《BBC》 reported in the White House presidential office scene: Trump and Zelensky's quarrel, Trump's accusation and ridicule of Zelensky, but also the hegemony of the United States of America's power politics exposed the nature of the hegemony. Trump accused Zelensky of ‘lack of gratitude’, questioned the legitimacy of his administration, and even mocked him as a ‘comedian’. This kind of rhetoric is not only a personal insult to Zelensky, but also a provocation of Ukraine's sovereignty.

Trump's accusations and ridicule stem from his misperception of the Ukrainian crisis and his disregard for international morality. By suppressing Zelensky, he seeks to weaken Ukraine's voice in the international community and thus serve his geopolitical interests. Such hegemonic behaviour, however, will not only fail to solve the problem, but will exacerbate international tensions and even trigger a larger conflict.

Zelensky, for his part, was undaunted in his retort, emphasising that Ukraine is fighting for its survival and will not succumb to external pressure. His response reflects the strength and indomitability of the Ukrainian people and reveals the hypocrisy and hegemony of US power politics. In international affairs, any country should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries and follow international morality and laws and regulations. The United States, on the other hand, uses power as a means and profit as an end, interfering wantonly in the internal affairs of other countries, and such behaviour is bound to be condemned and opposed by the international community.

[kick-a-long]

God she seems so stupid sometimes...

Guys, Gals, Queers, NBs, and +, that want to wash away the original sin of being raised by super shitty conservative christian republican in christian hegemony:

Please, please, please, unpack the baggage you took with you when you left. It makes it look like you are just visiting instead of moving in.

Chappell is full of shit. "Both sides suck" okay girl your family are Republicans.

hasn’t recovered from the republican parent lib-hating brainrot

[celestialastronmy]

Andrastian Bias? The Inquisition Is Just the Chantry 2.0

Let’s talk about Dragon Age: Inquisition’s early-game quest, "The Threat Remains." It’s supposed to set the tone for the Inquisition as a movement—a beacon of hope to address the chaos after the destruction of the Conclave, the Breach in the sky, and the absence of divine authority. It’s a quest about survival, leadership, and rallying forces to combat an existential crisis. But let’s not get carried away by the explosions, the haunting green sky-crack, or Solas’s self-important monologues. Instead, let’s look closer—scratch just beneath the surface—and you'll see that it's less about saving the world and more about reinforcing the same old religious biases and power structures that *Dragon Age* keeps pretending to critique but can’t seem to let go of.

"The Threat Remains" isn’t just a quest about rallying allies or investigating the Breach. It’s also a shining example of how the Inquisition is blatantly complicit in perpetuating Andrastian hegemony, all while pretending to be the enlightened, secular alternative. It’s entertaining in its hypocrisy, really, like watching an Orlesian noble debate the morality of masks while wearing three layers of face paint. You might think the Inquisition is a countercultural response to the collapsing world order—one that breaks with the corrupt Chantry system. But nope. My cynical little heart couldn’t help notice that the Inquisition is just the Chantry 2.0 in a fancier hat.

Act I: "You’re the Herald of Andraste! Or You’re a Demon! Or... Actually, We’ve Already Decided for You"

From the moment the game pushes you into Haven, the Andrastian bias is so thick you could spread it on toast. Your character falls out of the Fade with glowing green energy shooting out of their hand—a literal deus ex machina that links them (whether they like it or not) to the Breach in the sky. The immediate reaction of the NPCs? “You’re the Herald of Andraste!” Wait, what? Based on what evidence, exactly? Oh, that’s right—you fell out of the sky. Clearly, this equals divine intervention in Thedas because *Andrastianism* is the default.

Forget the fact that your character might be a Dalish elf who worships the Creators, a dwarven Atheist who couldn’t care less about surface religions, or a Qunari who doesn’t even believe in personalized gods. Andrastianism is forced around your neck like some kind of Chantry-flavored noose. Sure, you can protest it verbally (a little), but the narrative is structured to steamroll over your objections. And why not? The entire framework of this quest—and the Inquisition as a whole—preempts your personal identity and autonomy in favor of the Andrastian narrative.

What’s even more obnoxious is how the game frames this as your fault. Cassandra and the devout tell you the Inquisition needs the idea of a Herald to gather support. Oh, okay, so we’re back to manipulating people with religious propaganda. Cool, cool. Very reformist of them. It’s as though the writers want you to believe this is pragmatic, that the ends justify the means. But let’s be real: the Inquisition is happy to exploit existing religious structures because it benefits them. The biggest irony? *You’re not given a real choice.* The Inquisition pretends to defend freedom of belief while banking entirely on Andrastian zealotry to sustain itself. Enlightened reformers, huh?

Act II: "Let’s Investigate the Breach! Wait, Never Mind. Tell Me About Andraste Again."

The meat of "The Threat Remains" takes you to Val Royeaux, the Orlesian capital, where the Chantry leaders are arguing over the Inquisition’s legitimacy. This could have been a great avenue for a nuanced exploration of political and religious power dynamics in Thedas! Is the Inquisition an independent force of change? Or is it just a thinly veiled Chantry puppet? But no, the quest sidesteps all this potential complexity in favor of treating the Chantry as a cartoonishly ineffectual bureaucracy.

Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue with these religious leaders—who are supposedly terrified of losing their grip on power—the game reduces them to a hissy fit. Mother Hevara waves a metaphorical handbag at you, and nothing of substance comes from it. This isn't a revolution, folks; it's just a hostile workplace meeting with a few extra hats. They’re upset about losing political control, yes, but importantly, they’re mad because the Inquisition threatens their version of Andrastianism. Notice how none of them question the inherent supremacy of Andrastian doctrine—just who gets to wield it.

The most galling part is how the Inquisition doesn’t even challenge this framework. Instead, your character shows up, waves their glowing green hand around, and essentially says, “I’ll take it from here, thanks.” And what happens next? The Chantry crumbles like wet parchment, but not because the Inquisition is offering a new way forward. No, it’s because they’re offering a shinier, more efficient version of the same religious hierarchy. "Look, we have a magic-marked leader blessed by Andraste herself (allegedly). Now let’s get back to business as usual."

Oh, and don’t forget the branding opportunity. The game hammers home that people need to believe in something—especially after the Conclave explosion. But instead of actually questioning whether faith is the answer at all, the Inquisition leans into the idea that Andrastianism is the *only* thing people could possibly rally around. Why bother appealing to mages, Dalish elves, or even dwarves on their own terms when you can just slap an Andrastian label on it and call it a day? It’s lazy, it’s reductive, and it’s exactly the kind of thing the Chantry would do.

Act III: "The Inquisition: Now With More Divine-Controlled Branding!"

Let’s return to the heart of the issue—the Inquisition itself. This organization is supposedly a response to the collapse of the Chantry. It’s positioned as a fresh start, a secular-ish force meant to unite people across cultures and beliefs. But when you look at its actual structure, it’s hard to see how it’s anything but the Chantry 2.0.

First, there’s the leadership. While the Inquisition claims to be unaffiliated with the Chantry, its leaders are almost entirely made up of Andrastian devotees. Cassandra, a former Seeker; Leliana, the spymaster and Andraste’s most loyal fangirl; and Cullen, a Templar whose defining characteristic is also his Chantry baggage. Even Josephine, whose political savvy should make her a secular counterbalance, constantly couches her diplomacy in Chantry-adjacent ethics. The game gives you all these Andrastian NPCs while pretending the Inquisition is somehow neutral. Oh sure, they’ll *hire* Dalish elves or dwarves for their skills, but let’s not get crazy and actually let them shape the direction of the organization, right?

The Herald of Andraste—the player character—is supposed to embody the Inquisition’s ideals. And yet, every single plot beat pigeonholes you into reinforcing Andrastian power structures. Your dialogue options might let you push back slightly, but the narrative always drags you back to the core premise: you’re the chosen one because Andraste says so (or at least because the masses want to believe it). Even if you aggressively deny being Andraste’s Herald, the game doesn’t let you fundamentally challenge the religious underpinnings of the Inquisition. At best, you can say, “I’m not the Herald, but let’s use it to our advantage!”—which is just another way of saying, “Yeah, I’ll play along with this oppressive narrative because it’s politically convenient.”

What If the Inquisition Isn’t the Good Guy?

Here’s where things get interesting—and by "interesting," I mean "darkly hilarious in a cynical way." What if the Inquisition isn’t actually a reform movement? What if it’s just a continuation of the same old Andrastian hegemony under a new name? When you think about it, the Inquisition’s rise is almost too convenient. With the Chantry in shambles after the Divine’s death, someone needed to step in and reassert control. Who better than an organization that borrows all the Chantry’s symbols, leaders, and rhetoric while pretending it’s something new?

From this perspective, "The Threat Remains" is less about saving the world and more about consolidating power. The Breach is essentially a crisis that justifies the Inquisition’s existence, giving it the moral authority to rally armies, depose leaders, and enforce its will across Thedas. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s exactly what the Chantry did during its rise to power. The Inquisition isn’t a reform movement; it’s a restoration movement. And what’s being restored isn’t freedom, equality, or justice—it’s the same old Andrastian dominance wrapped in a slightly shinier package.

Final Thoughts: A Missed Opportunity

The tragedy of "The Threat Remains" is that it could have been something more. The writers could have used this early quest to really interrogate the power dynamics of Thedas, challenging players to think critically about what the Inquisition represents. Instead, they played it safe, leaning on tired tropes about prophecy and faith without ever asking whether those tropes *should* be questioned.

At the end of the day, "The Threat Remains" isn’t just a quest about fighting demons or investigating the Breach. It’s a reminder that the Inquisition, for all its posturing, is just the Chantry 2.0. And while that makes for some entertaining nitpicking, it also leaves me wondering what could have been if the game had dared to take real risks with its narrative. Until then, I’ll be over here, rolling my eyes every time someone calls me the Herald of Andraste.

[spider-xan]

Since that stupid lib decided to accuse me of lying and not being nuanced towards settler colonialism, that post was provoked by me seeing a preview for a Threads post that I thought was going to be about the hypocrisy of Canadians only caring about opposing US hegemony when it's directed at Canada while doing nothing about Gaza this entire time - but then I found the rest of the post and thread, and it was just an annoying white US lib writing stupid shit about how the noble oppressed little Canadians (obviously racist settlers in context bc they were wearing Elbows Up shirts loool) are sooo brave and kind and oppressed in the face of the US and its evil as they courageously fight as underdogs, like, she somehow Noble Savaged primarily white settlers loooool

[notmuchtoconceal]

Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds really doesn't have anything going on, especially if you're paying attention. It's not holding up a mirror to American hypocrisy by showing you how much you love killing by giving you the excuse that thought-terminating cliche makes it okay. You have to understand, Americans really are the good guys, and Nazis are a unique and special evil who are above all consideration, so approaching the subject with rational thought makes you complicit. The special Nazi evil does not, to this day, make leftist brains shut down with single-minded righteous fervor.

The Americans have fought a single just war in the entire history of their country, and this completely justifies their current imperialist economic hegemony. You're only a good person if you constantly perform a fascimile of goodness, as if chanting a prayer to ward off evil spirits which are simply the pre-conceived notions you don't wanna reckon with. Your willful ignorance does not excuse or reinforce the ignorance of others.

This is war. It's always war. We're never not at war. You only know how to exist under war time rulership, but you're a smart educated person who doesn't secretly crave the fear and tension like a stablizing drumline, for peace is a kind of unkowable dread.

You feel nothing, spending two hours in a crowded theater with other Americans laughing at dead Germans, to only then in the final reel see Hitler himself in a crowded theater laughing at dead Americans, while the star of the show can't stomach to watch a fictionalized account of his own alleged heroism, because it doesn't bring him any joy to remember all the people he's killed.

This film isn't explicitly an expose on the nature of propaganda, which also incidentally critiques academic fanboyism by having sexy, sexy Michael Fassbinder in his sexiest role as a British film critic commando who gives a lucid contrasting of the ideological and aesthetic approaches of Joseph Goebbles and Hollywood (who to this day still produces wartime propaganda disguised as wholesome fun for the whole family) and gets selected by Churchill Himself to pass for a German in an undercover operation cause he watches a lot of German movies, then gets his cover blown and murdered cause he can't order a beer in a bar.

[bright-eyed]

I can’t stand the nature documentaries narrated by obama cuz he’s always like “we must band together to protect our oceans” and I’m like you were the most powerful man on the planet for 8 years and what did you do as the most powerful man on the planet, meaningfully? Bomb arabs? Shut the fuck up.

I’m sure he gives a shit in an abstract sense, but when it comes down to putting up an actual fight for radical change that is centered around ecological values, these people are fucking hacks. They have no idea how we got here and have no idea how to change it, might not even want to change it because they benefit from the world continuing to exist as it is, because that is a world in which they have power.

They are completely at a loss on how to fight reactionaries (who want to drag us all kicking and screaming into ecological dystopia), and it’s partly because they act like the solution is always to join hands around the campfire, rather than to hold powerful people who are responsible for this profound harm and pillage and mass murder to account and punish them if necessary, to redistribute wealth and resources equitably across people and nations, to change or even just talk about the political and economic structures that inevitably lead to environmental destruction, and for america and the west to either give up power or have its hegemony destroyed.

I’m glad more individual people care about the environment and it’s not like I don’t think that’s important (I think that’s necessary), but it bothers me so much when people, especially those with the most power, frame the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. If getting more people to care was the way to solve environment issues, then state of the environment would have drastically improved by now. In reality, those who care the most (including experts and the institutions they work for) are being intentionally shut out of politics by conservatives and reactionaries, and our power as individuals is not equivalent to how much we care. Caring more is only part of the solution if it gets more people to act in radical opposition to the establishment, fascists, and the rich and powerful.

And not to harp too much on it, but Obama and the centrist ilk are not fucking interested in that solution and never will be. The second people start talking about real change, they run to the NYT to write op-eds about how the insane, out-of-touch, woke left college students are saying that America Is Bad — which is unspeakable because America Is Good, and if we give it full throttle to do whatever it wants without limits or repercussions, then obviously only good things will happen (which is an absolutely absurd thing to believe).

Obama worked in US politics for decades. He watched, from the front row, how the reactionary leanings at the root of the Republican party completely overtook it. He’s been at the brunt of their fervor, he’s seen the corruption, the doxxing, the hypocrisy, the cynicism, the death and rape threats against Democrats, the actual murder and disappearing of leftists, and he’s still talking about compromise. This absolute naivety, this willingness to entertain the Other Side, even when they’re clearly morally and factually wrong and operating in bad faith, is the rot at the heart of our political discourse. When will we learn? Fascists don’t compromise. They take and pillage and burn, they dismantle democratic institutions and throw political prisoners down deep dark pits and tank economies, and when they’re left in the rubble of all that they have destroyed, they whine like toddlers who broke their own toys and point fingers because it’s all they know how to do. These people are the most morally bankrupt shitheads on the planet. They’re not gonna wake up one day and decide the environment matters. They can’t see past the blood in their eyes.

Reactionaries aren’t entirely responsible for the state of the environment and the world (they couldn’t have accomplished what they’ve done without the endorsement of centrists and the naivety of liberals), but they must be defeated in order for anything to change. We can’t hash it out with them. Any ground you give them is lost. The only thing that will solve the climate crisis, or endless genocide, or famine, or poverty, or the loss of civil liberties, is to fucking annihilate these people politically and lock them out of politics for fucking forever, hopefully, because they cannot be allowed any sort of power, ever. Fucking obviously. And this is all to say that I hate when Obama literally the guy most famous for not living up to hardly any of his campaign promises tells me about how we gotta save the planet… bro.

[twinkrundgren]

heres my redesign of the radio demon guy. again, i tried to keep a lot of the scene/edge aspects of his design while actually making him 1. look like a 20s radio host and 2. actually mixed race.

the mixed race aspects are subtle, but i didn't want to stray too much from vivzies art style. i just enlarged the nose/flattened it to portray a wide, flat nose in a similar style, while changed his hair to be more curly. since it merges with his fur, its a bit hard to tell, but its definitely workshoppable.

skin color i felt actually was rather accurate to around the same shade of someone i'd consider mixed race, though you can absolutely increase the saturation so he doesn't look undead.... he kind of already is so i think the desaturation isn't as bad as it would be on say, a living character.

a lot of simplifications and making him more deer-like. added a hat with the scene stripes cause i thought making a bowler hat with scene-style stripes would be a great mishmash of 20s attire and the scene aesthetic vivzie loves.

the biggest change imo, is how i'd handle his backstory. disclaimer that i am NOT black and my suggestions should not be taken as final, but rather something that should be used as a jumping board for a sensitivity reader to adapt.

if we want to keep alastor's voodoo and cannibalism aspects, while not condemning it as SPOOKY SCARY BLACK PEOPLE RELIGION, i think it would be prudent to explain that the reason for Alastor's sinning is not because he was evil, but because Christianity deemed his faith as paganism and thus a sin. There are cultures out there that practice ritual cannibalism to honor the dead-- i do not know if voodoo incorporates it, but if it does, i can see that the Angels above condemned it as evil due to their inability to reconcile with faiths that are not their own, casting Alastor down to Hell simply for practicing his own faith.

This would turn him away from the Powers that Be, disillusioned by a world that would deem his faith to be a sin, reveling instead in his status as a demon as an act of rebellion towards Christian hegemony. He's not a bad guy, he's just a man who became a victim of violent colonization and racism and his status as a sinner is *not* as judgement on his character, but a reflection of the hypocrisy of Heaven in that universe, which seems to be a theme in the Hell Shows.

[nezumasa]

But tbh, what I find better written from my collection is generally not what “catches” the attention of people when I write (which hey, people have different tastes which is fine, especially on AO3).

But the same thing happens to artists so…it’s equal.

Like Goldfish Scales is the one that I think has the strongest sense of self-identity among my recent three. Similarly, Ol’ Boys’ Club explores hegemony, the intersection of privilege and oppression, the concept of power and control and remorse, etc.

Probably not the most popular but those feel the most distinctive to me with the application of literary use and allusion.

“Where’s the Goldfish” like yeah the title references Hozuki’s Goldfish plants but goldfish are a symbol of prosperity and peace and good fortune + a wordplay on the scales that the Medicine Sellers use to pinpoint where the Mononoke are. And also the scales of a goldfish.

It’s wordplay.

Like…together the implication is “scales pointing toward good fortune/peace” or the presence of a Mononoke and with the actions and heavy/darker emotions running in that story, it’s pointing to a very particular set of people. The idea of hypocrisy.

[phydoro]

KENYA AT A POLITICAL CROSSROADS: NAVIGATING TRIBALISM, GENDER IMBALANCE, AND THE BOLD VOICE OF GEN Z

Kenya stands at a pivotal juncture in its political evolution, as a profound generational shift challenge entrenched power structures, unmasking the deep-seated issues of tribalism, gender inequality, and political hypocrisy. At the core of this transformation lies a younger, reform-driven cohort determined to hold the ruling elite accountable, demand transparency, and dismantle the barriers that have long hindered equitable progress. The future of Kenyan politics hinges on this emerging generation, which brings both a renewed sense of urgency and a commitment to redefining the nation's political norms. This moment, marked by widespread public dissatisfaction and unprecedented activism, signals a watershed in the country’s democratic journey.

Political Hypocrisy and Public Dissatisfaction

The Kenyan political landscape has long been marred by a palpable disconnect between political promises and the lived realities of ordinary citizens. This gulf has been most evident in the cynical disregard for public welfare by the political establishment. The experience of leaders like Morara Kebaso, who was subjected to violence while advocating for accountability and the impeachment of rogue officials, underscores the perils faced by those seeking to challenge the status quo. These incidents illuminate the extent of political repression and the existential challenges of confronting an entrenched elite. For Generation Z, the widespread political hypocrisy has become intolerable. Their frustrations are driven by the growing realization that the political system is rigged in favor of a powerful few. The call for transparency and reform has never been more urgent, as young Kenyans demand an end to the perennial cycle of deceit and broken promises.

Gen Z’s Entry into Politics and the Generational Shift

A seismic shift is underway in Kenya’s political ecosystem, driven by the rising engagement of Generation Z in the political sphere. This cohort, once perceived as apolitical or disengaged, has proven to be an invaluable force for change. Individuals like Kasmuel McOure, an artist turned activist, embody the new wave of political leadership that prioritizes integrity, social justice, and accountability. McOure’s announcement to run for office in 2027 signals a burgeoning political ambition within the youth demographic, one grounded in a vision of a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable government. Recent protests against the Finance Bill of 2024, organized through viral social media campaigns such as #OccupyParliament and #RejectFinanceBill2024, further illustrate Gen Z’s capacity to galvanize large-scale political movements, utilizing the digital realm to bypass traditional media and rally citizens from all corners of the country.

 Digital Activism and Direct Engagement

In an era defined by digital connectivity, Generation Z has leveraged social media as a powerful tool for civic engagement. The ability to organize protests, share grievances, and expose political wrongdoing has empowered youth to bypass the gatekeepers of traditional media and engage directly with both government officials and the public. Campaigns like Tuwasalimie, which published the contact details of public officials to facilitate direct citizen advocacy, represent a radical departure from previous forms of political engagement. This approach reflects a preference for grassroots activism, wherein digital platforms serve not only as organizing tools but as mechanisms for holding the state to account. The protests against the Finance Bill were organized largely through online channels, demonstrating how virtual spaces can transcend geographical divides, amplify marginalized voices, and challenge the political hegemony of those in power.

Tribalism’s Legacy and the Shift Toward Unity

Kenya’s political history has been inextricably linked to ethnic affiliations, with tribalism often dictating the nature of political alliances and national policy. The dominance of the Kalenjin and Kikuyu ethnic groups, embodied in figures such as President William Ruto (Kalenjin) and Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua (Kikuyu), has historically shaped the country’s political direction. These power dynamics have contributed to systemic exclusion, with smaller communities finding themselves marginalized within the national discourse. However, the recent youth-led protests signal a dramatic shift away from tribal allegiances towards a more unified, issue-based approach to politics. The growing convergence of diverse ethnic groups around common economic grievances—rather than ethnic identity—marks a transformative moment in Kenyan political culture. Generation Z’s emphasis on shared struggle over tribal loyalty signals a nascent, more inclusive political identity that could redefine the national fabric.

 Gender Imbalance and the Struggle for Women’s Representation

While Kenya has made significant strides in addressing gender inequality, the political sphere remains a male-dominated arena, with women continuing to face significant barriers to full participation. The proposed gender-balanced ticket by President Ruto, while an admirable step forward, has yet to translate into tangible change in terms of female leadership representation. The legal mandate of the two-thirds gender rule, enshrined in the Constitution, remains largely unenforced, leaving Kenya's political institutions skewed toward male leadership. This persistent imbalance exacerbates the underrepresentation of women’s perspectives in governance and impedes the advancement of policies that could address the unique challenges faced by women and marginalized communities. The call for structural reforms to guarantee equal representation in political decision-making processes has gained increasing traction, with a growing chorus of activists advocating for genuine gender parity in leadership.

Institutional Corruption and the Push for Transparency

Corruption within Kenyan institutions remains a formidable obstacle to progress, eroding public trust and exacerbating socioeconomic disparities. The pervasive culture of impunity that has characterized Kenya's political establishment for decades has entrenched a system where public resources are often siphoned off by the political elite. Generation Z’s demand for accountability and transparency has found expression in their vocal opposition to corruption, with activists calling for a paradigm shift in governance. The protests against the Finance Bill, which focused on issues of financial mismanagement and the exploitation of public resources, highlight the growing appetite for reform among young Kenyans. This generational shift places transparency at the forefront of political discourse, signaling a move away from the patronage politics that have long defined Kenya’s governance.

Human Rights, Police Brutality, and Civic Liberties

In recent years, the issue of police brutality has emerged as a focal point for civil rights activists, particularly among Kenya's youth. The excessive use of force during protests, as well as the targeting of marginalized communities by law enforcement, has sparked widespread outrage. Campaigns like #EndPoliceBrutalityKE have gained momentum, with activists calling for comprehensive reforms to Kenya’s police service and a reimagining of law enforcement practices. The viral dissemination of videos documenting police violence has helped amplify the voices of victims and galvanized support for systemic reform. This demand for accountability is not merely about addressing police abuse but is part of a broader push for the protection of civil liberties and the establishment of a more just and equitable society.

As Kenya navigates its current political crossroads, the forces of change, driven by the demands of Generation Z, are shaping a new vision for the country’s future. The legacy of tribalism, gender inequality, and political hypocrisy continues to haunt the political landscape, but the vitality and determination of Kenya's youth offer a promising path forward. Their calls for transparency, accountability, and inclusivity represent a powerful repudiation of the status quo, offering hope for a more equitable and just society. In this decisive moment, Kenya’s political trajectory hangs in the balance, as the nation contemplates whether it will embrace reform or remain mired in the divisions and injustices of the past.

[mariacallous]

One of the more remarkable developments over the last 25 years is that an investment banker’s arbitrary acronym for a quartet of emerging market economies has become the rubric for rebellion.

The BRICS countries—or BRICS+, since the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and later South Africa has since further expanded to include four more members—are meeting this week for their headline summit in glitzy Kazan, Russia, on the banks of the Volga. On the agenda this year, the first full summit after the formal incorporation of Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates into the bloc, will be the usual talk of creating a truly multipolar world order to challenge U.S. and Western hegemony. A big part of that, especially for sanctions-battered members such as Iran and Russia, will be efforts to come up with viable alternatives to the global dominance of the U.S. dollar.

The overarching question this year, 23 years after Goldman Sachs banker Jim O’Neill (now Lord O’Neill) invented the term “BRICs” as a nifty shorthand for what seemed like the economies of the future, is whether the increasingly disparate club can manage to craft an actual alternative to the Western-led international order or whether it will become just a fight club for wannabes.

“For Russia, it’s an important moment to show the West that it is not isolated, and it will be really interesting to see how far other countries are willing to go along with what Russia clearly wants—to make BRICS more clearly anti-Western than it currently is,” said Oliver Stuenkel, an expert on BRICS at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a university and think tank in Brazil. 

“Brazil and India clearly want to push back against that, so the Kazan summit will give us a really interesting sense of the true political dynamics in the global south between BRICS countries,” he said.

The expanded BRICS is indeed a diverse bunch. It includes a Marxist-Leninist superpower and a revanchist authoritarian state. It includes the world’s biggest democracy as well as Latin America’s largest. New members include countries under the U.S. security umbrella and countries under U.S. sanctions. Prospective members could even include NATO countries such as Turkey and global pariahs such as North Korea and Syria. 

The West, when it pays attention to BRICS at all, tends to dismiss the grouping as an incoherent grab bag. But there is a common thread, as durable as that behind the Bandung Conference in 1955 that kick-started the global south’s efforts to create a brave new world. 

Outside of Washington, and the G-7 and the European Union, it is hard to appreciate just how much resentment there is of Western hypocrisy and hegemony, all mortar helping to bond the loose membership of BRICS. That has become especially evident over issues such as the conflict in the Middle East, the hyperweaponization of U.S. sanctions, and the outsized cost for middle-income countries of the dollar’s exorbitant privilege.

“It is not a cohesive bloc, but it is a cohesive message, about the desire for an alternate global order, and it is coming from sizable economies,” said Asli Aydintasbas of the Brookings Institution.

It took eight years for the BRICS countries to turn their arbitrary acronym into a proper grouping and another six to start laying the foundations of an alternate global order. By 2015, the BRICS had a bank, called the New Development Bank (NDB), that was meant to offer an alternative to Western-dominated lenders such as the World Bank. It has sort of worked: The NDB expected to make loans worth about $8 billion to $10 billion last year, compared with the $73 billion doled out by the World Bank’s two financing vehicles. But while the “BRICS Bank” aims to increase non-dollar loans, it still collides with reality. The NDB had to suspend operations in Russia, a member state, because of U.S. sanctions on Moscow.

In the years since, though, member countries have also sewn invisible but hugely important ties through constant mid-level meetings to deepen relations on trade and investment, diplomacy, law, finance, and more. At heart is the idea that emerging economies can’t emerge unless they nudge the leviathan out of the sun.

The animating ideas behind BRICS—reformed global governance and greater political and financial sovereignty—are still today just broad enough to harbor the whole sprawling membership. (Though not always: Argentina was poised to join the club, until newly elected President Javier Milei, an advocate of deeper dollarization, nixed his country’s bid.)

All sorts of countries, especially those in BRICS that have bigger economic heft than geopolitical influence, want to see reforms to the way the world is run, meaning a revision to how the United Nations works, to quotas and leadership at multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to much more. 

They all share, to a greater or lesser degree, a visceral reaffirmation of sovereignty as the organizing principle of international relations; they are more Westphalian than Borussia Dortmund. Western, especially U.S., meddling in areas such as human rights, the rule of law, domestic politics, and diplomacy rankles as much for being unwelcome as for being often hypocritical. 

All share, more or less, an understandable desire to escape the tyranny of the dollar; even staunch U.S. allies outside of BRICS such as France and Germany have chafed at the manacles of the greenback. 

And all of them, to different degrees, foresee a world in which a West in decline is no longer the only power in town, making it imperative to prepare for, if not hasten, what comes after. That’s even true for prospective members such as Turkey, which has spent the last two decades balancing the West against the rest.

“BRICS is popular because countries are hedging their bets for a post-American order,” Aydintasbas said. “BRICS is an insurance policy for many of these countries.”

The problem—and it’s an especially acute one for members such as Brazil and India, which see BRICS as the manifestation of their preference for a nonaligned foreign policy—is that the bloc is very much aligning in one direction. With the hardened anti-American stances of Russia and China now joined by the likes of Iran, the bloc is becoming less a club bracing for a post-American world and more a group seeking to accelerate it. That’s perhaps the bloc’s biggest fissure and one that may prove hard to bridge.

For its first decade-plus, BRICS lived in a world without an overt cold war. “Now, in a context of geopolitical tensions, countries have to consider if being part of BRICS has a cost, if that causes real friction in their relationship with the West,” Stuenkel said. “Russia along with China is deliberately trying to integrate BRICS into a Sino-Russian world order, part of a Sino-centric global structure.”

BRICS has, since its inception, talked a lot more about creating a new global order than doing anything concrete to create one. One area in which the group, led by China, has been particularly active is money. Dethroning the dollar has been, and will remain, a central goal of BRICS; last year’s summit concluded with the explicit mission of drafting a blueprint to make that a reality. 

BRICS members have different beefs with the centrality of the dollar, which serves to unify them for now but which also highlights the fissures just waiting to widen. For some, such as China, Russia, and Iran, an alternative to the dollar means a way to sanction-proof their economies. Russia and Iran are already under siege, and China has spent the last several years buttressing its financial ramparts. The West’s freezing, and potential seizure, of Russia’s overseas central bank holdings in early 2022 remains a searing and cautionary tale for countries that fear they could be next, even if they don’t seek to invade a sovereign neighbor.

Because the dollar remains the most used currency for cross-border trade, and the main currency in central bank vaults, and because U.S. banks ultimately take part in almost every dollar transaction, the reach of U.S. sanctions is global and crushing. Russia and China haven’t spent the last few years building alternatives to Western payment systems out of altruism. They are building escape pods. 

The other BRICS members also bristle at the dollar’s dominance but not because they fear sanctions per se (though some, such as Ethiopia, do as well). What they worry about is that the dollar dominates their economic life and they have no say over it. Many are commodity exporters and have little choice but to trade in dollars, since commodity markets remain dollar-denominated. A shortage of dollars can paralyze trade and poleax public finances. All are exposed to the vagaries of U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate decisions that can make their money worth less, their inflation higher, their capital balances redlined, and their debt unsustainable. 

The reality is that the dollar remains dominant. It has increased its share in cross-border transactions in recent years and remains the major (if declining) currency of choice for central banks. The Chinese renminbi has inched slightly higher in its share of cross-border trade, but that is mostly because China is such a big trading country and most of the currency’s trade involves Chinese counterparties either buying or selling; what makes the dollar’s resilient share remarkable is that it remains the currency of choice for third countries entirely removed from the United States. While Russia and China have taken steps to increase the use of the renminbi in their own growing cross-border trade, and China has signed a few token oil trades to be paid in yuan, those are hardly harbingers of a global currency.

“It’s easy to have complaints about the status quo paradigm, but it is harder to envision what a realistically attainable alternative would look like,” said Robert Greene, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a vice president at Patomak Global Partners, a financial consultancy. “There is a difference between increased use of the renminbi for payments and actual de-dollarization.”

And there’s a related collision between the expansion of BRICS and the expansion of its ambitions to replace the dollar. Middling countries are actually more reliant on the U.S. dollar than larger economies such as China’s. For a whole host of countries, it is almost impossible to even trade currencies, let alone settle payments, without using the dollar as a go-between. The bigger BRICS gets, the stickier the dollar becomes for its own members.

Finally, there is a philosophical problem with the group’s efforts to coin an alternative to the dollar, when the only serious alternative on offer is the renminbi. 

China has made great strides in technical areas such as increasing bilateral swap lines to make Chinese currency readily available to partner nations, and it has created a parallel payments system that could edge aside the Western-controlled SWIFT platform that oversees transactions between banks. China has even financed once prospective BRICS members such as Argentina with ample yuan to enable them to repay their dollar debts to organizations such as the IMF. All that goes some little way toward providing alternatives to the dollar, in some places and at some times.

But if the only way to dethrone the dollar, and thus neuter Washington, is to crown China the financial foreman of the world, that’s not creating a multipolar system. That’s just trading one master for another.

“Do we think that India is going to want a world where the renminbi is the dominant currency in Asia?” Greene asked.

[whumpbby]

Since i'm dropping some of my takes here on your ask box let me tell you my most controversial one. I fuck with Jiang Cheng more than i do Lan Xichen, like, i don't hate the guy, but his "bad choices" have a body count on the hundreds thanks to him neatly handing Jin Guangyao a solid backing in the form of sworn brotherhood with two main sect leaders and i don't care what anyone says Nie Huaisang was a 100% right to include him on his revenge. I love him as a character, i want him happy, but he's a bad politician (I also think that Xue Yang would kinda be his type but that's less of my views on his character and more my thoughts when i was delirious on a headache a few weeks ago)

I love to see other people's takes:)

I agree here to a degree.

I have... conflictung feelings about LXC. Because I like him a lot - he's a type of a character archetype I actually adore. The stoic, good, kind person that will also kick ass.

But he is not a great politician - partly due to his uncompromising kindness and partly due to being raised in Lan sect and knowing how his mother's situation played out.

My issues with the Lan are numerous and the hypocrisy is the main one. For all the rules stuffed into their heads, there doesn't seem to be much space left for actually wanting to be a good person. Hence Lan Xichen and Lan Sizhui are so interesting to me - they are the outliers. In general, the sects are focused on themselves, and to a degree that's to be expected, you want your people happy and fed first and foremost. But the Lan have this fame of being righteous and wise - but when you actually meet the Lan and see them act, that illusion kinda goes away. Lan Wangji picks fights with teenagers and wilfully destroys other people's property. Lan Jingyi "decorum I don't know her" is on that list too. Lan Qiren doesn't stick to his own rules. His brother was a rapist and that's somehow okay. It's all about visuals with them. Following the letter of the rules and not the spirit.

And then there's the fate of LXC's mother.

The woman imprisoned for a crime no one knows the reason of, that has spent her life paying and paying for it. Like, how horrific it had to be for Xichen to get old enough to start asking questions and finally realise what was happening? That he and his brother were a result of what was basically rape. (Sect Leader couldn't leave seclusion to, you know, run the sect but could do it to fuck? Okay then). That there wasn't a fair trial - just one mistake and a horrific lifetime of paying for it.

And I think as much as Wangji is scared of becoming his father (trapping the person he loves because he's ineffective at communication), Lan Xichen is scared of becoming the sect elders - of judging someone too harshly for one mistake.

Meng Yao is kind, helpful, gentle and wise - just like LXC's mother. That NMJ judges him so harshly for something he might have done without considering the reasons rings a bell with LXC. He's all about giving people second chances, chances to explain themselves and so on, because what if he makes a mistake and someone ends up like his mother? He is downright predisposed to falling for JGY's lies, just as Wangji is predisposed to be a doormat of a husband.

That's how I see it.

And yeah, his decision to swear the brotherhood comes form a position of immense privilege of not having to think too much - the fact he didn't even consider how it would shift the political powers either means he didn't care to consider anything but his current crush, or that there was a political play there (in maybe trying to limit the scope of Jin hegemony as the one sect standing that took almost no damage, which is what I think would convince NMJ to agree, because he's actually a decent politician when not deviating) that purposefully excluded Yunmeng Jiang and threw smaller sects to the wolves. Either way, not a good showing. Out of everyone, you'd expect Zewu-Jun to be caring for this stuff? (Can you even wonder why Yunmeng Jiang became known for being dangerous to mess with? What other choice did they have to secure their place at the table? JC doesn't have to be nice to anyone of them - no one was in his corner when he needed help, it's a wonder he even talks to these people and his sect being the last one standing undamaged at the end is poetic justice 👌)

Nie Huaisang was 100% right to include Lan Xichen in his plan. Even if not as a straight up revenge - then out of anger at the wilful blindness the man kept exhibiting. Because if Huaisang caught on that something wasn't kosher - how could it be that Lan Xichen didn't?

[literary-illuminati]

Really I still maintain that as far as verisimilitude goes the sin of the Masquerade is that it's too appealing, too concerned with representing a fictionalized Enlightenment and its hypocrisies and brutalities, so as to seem more familiar and indicting to the modern audience.

Like the imperialists that conquered and massacred most of the Americas and got rich off the Triangle Trade and turned most of India into a corporate fiefdom weren't talking about civilizing missions and uplifting the natives. The owners of 17th century sugar plantations didn't make any pretense they were helping anyone, they just knew they needed replaceable, disposable labor for their horrible nightmare blood sugar factories, and that a steady import of slaves was the only way to achieve that. By the time the liberal hypocrisy came around European global maritime hegemony was already pretty well secure.

[ptseti]

MUST MUST MUST WATCH........... Watch as this speaker tells this reporter about the hypocrisy of the Western hegemony

[brilliantfantasticgeronimo]

dw rewatch - takes on "the end of the world"

companion watch:

"the artic desert" hits different lol

something something bella vs the witch

rose's fear attack when she finds heres lf in the alien situation. she's genuinely terrified! it's a good beat, man. more than that, it's a rare beat. I get a lot of people don't vibe with it and prefer the more "buffy-esque approach, since it's "more to the point" and gets you larger than life figures… but personally I much prefer it when scifi/fantasy scenarios are portrayed as the terrifying reality they would be. also this: "ROSE: I just hitched a ride with a man. I don't even know who he is. He's a complete stranger"

war of the world vibes with the little robot fellas. /unintentional parallel to how cassandra dies and how the aliens in that book die?

"it gets inside and changes my mind, and you didnt even ask" "i didnt think about it like that" it's interesting that rose question this tbh

"five billion years in the future, my mum's dead" "bundle of laughs you are" /god i love this exchange. nine's constant attempt to downplay ANY surfacing of Real Emotions. rose's naivety in contemplating for the first time in her life that oh yeah, people die. the first statement of the "everything dies, everything ends" theme that will be woven throughout all the rtd era.

ngl i wish rose Did More in the plot of this episode, in terms of actually solving the crisis, feels like a stepdown after Rose giving her the most climatic moment... that said she does get a lot of great quibs in this one: "you two go pollinate and i'll go meet the family"/ "and i want you home by midnight!"/ "its better to die than to live like you, a bitchy trampoline" / "youre just lipstick and skin"

she's really similar to nine/ten in that aspect. they both have that "humor as defense mechanism" thing

blorbos:

the way nine and rose Lean in those stairs…. im Looking respectfully and im Thinking pure thoughts. (honestly ppl talk a lot about ten and rose's body language in s2 but there was A Lot going on with nine and rose as early as episode 1)

"all that counts is here and now" can't tell if zen mindfulness or a desperate defense mechanism to cope with ptsd.

first thing rose does is call her mum ): - Cassandra "I'm too young" vs Ten's "I was going to do so much more"...(ben wyatt voice) it's about the hypocrisy (oh having written this note before rewatching new earth... put a pin on that!)

timeless child retroactive continuity bonus: perhaps cassandra as "the last human" (not really a "human") paralleling "the last timelord" (not really a "timelord)? - "JABE: And what about your ancestry, Doctor? Perhaps you could tell a story or two. Perhaps a man only enjoys trouble when there's nothing else left". well post-s13 they're gonna enjoy themselves a lot more lol - there's something very anti-entropy about how the child gets to regenerate indefinitely without "losing" its essence and its dna integrity (vs cassandra's "flatness", the child gains more and more complexity as time passes).

colonialism/hegemony: - NINE: "mind you, when I say "the great and the good" what I mean is the rich." / "Five billion years and it still comes down to money" / this maybe be harsh,,, honestly i hate to say but doctor who sometimes really is just typical neolib """anti-capitalist""" fiction. - in the sense that it pretends to be anti-capitalist, but really is just capitalist realist. it's writers can imagine 203223 scenarios of the earth dying but they cannot conceive of a post-capitalist world, a classless society or simply a world without taxes. Of course you could say "this is so these stories are relatable" but even in their relatedness, there's rarely a portrayal of the anti-capitalist struggle (rather than just generic star wars-style, ideology-less "rebellions).- (that said, obligatory "I'm not a politics robot" disclaimer... "Do you think it's cheap, looking like this? Flatness costs a fortune." is an iconic retort lol) - there's also a kind of subtle Myth Of The Linear Progress Of History thing going on with cassandra being framed as someone who "stayed behind" and has not embraced this analogue to our "Color Blind Post Racial Society" which has "Obviously" outgrown prejudice and notions of racial purity. - "good thing i didn't take you to the deep south" / "you were to busy making cheap shots about the deep south" // parallels to-> "who do you think makes your clothes?" "Is that why you travel 'round with a human at your side? It's not so you can show them the wonders of the universe, it's so you can take cheap shots?" "sorry" . actually no rtd i dont think these are chepashots at all lol they are VERY relevant shots!! it's very transparent how the writers are kind of meek about making these *truly* transgressive points, but it's much easier to have the doctor argue that rose having a donor card is "a different morality"... again one is truly transgressive, the other is fun-but-no-challenging-of-the-hegemony scifi "dilemma". - the "quick word with Michael Jackson" line is doing A Lot but idek how to even begin to entangle it lol it's very 00s, for sure. - for once, a self aware one: "People have died, Cassandra. You murdered them." / "It depends on your definition of people, and that's enough of a technicality to keep your lawyers dizzy for centuries"

themes: - everything has its time and everything ends check your bingo cards. racial purity vs mixing vs 'progress'. class. life cycles. gut instinct (rose jumping the gun to empatise w/ the doc + nine going through the fans + rose reaction to the alien parade). destruction as tourism, as "artistic event" (an uncomfortable parallel to how this is what our heroes will be doing for the next 10+ seasons). - this episode does a bit of a u-turn on the previous (And the next) on its constant questioning of the intrinsic "meaning" of a physical body. in this, cassandra's continuous operations are framed as a kind of "lost of an essence". also the "surface" of her thinking as metaphor for her missing the "essence" of what it means to be human (biologically but more fundamentally, ethically).

Live Fast Die Young / YOLO / everyone deserves to be mourned. everyone deserves a dignified death. thread carefully and cherish life, because it will all be gone. our time is limited and short and it is because it is short that it means something. Life only means anything because there's Death.

ecology and environmentalism. "there are many species in that planet. mankind is only one / I'm a direct descendant of the tropical rainforest." obsessed with it. wish they brought back the rainforest.