#I have more questions than answers

[valentineshearts]

Finally finished Arcane (I had finals and was using literally all of my mental energy I could not watch a show where I needed to think) and JESUS CHRIST

JESUS MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST

[f0point5]

Hold on a minute.

Are Apex GP or whatever going to win the championship? Because in what world does a car “built for combat” win over straight line speed over 24 races when the cars are so big that on half the tracks combat isn’t even possible?

And Sonny Hayes is like 60.

So…where are we actually going with this?

[the-summ0ning]

I’m gonna be goodbye friend by the time bad omens says whatever they need to say atp

[ceciliajay]

I dreamed that Jim was pregnant and running away from someone. Sherlock found him on a snowy mountain and helped him and took care of him. Now I want to know who Jim was running from, who is the father of that son?

[dragonsfromthemoon]

Disclaimer 1: This is a book (Fire & Blood) discussion only. I am not taking into account House of the Dragon and its portrayal of Daemon. Disclaimer 2: Do not accuse me of trying to whitewash Daemon’s actions or whatever nonsense antis might come up with. My goal here will be to have a nuanced discussion about his character and his mindset, considering his in-universe context and reality. Disclaimer 3: This is a follow up of Disclaimer 2. Do not screech about Blood and Cheese, your reblog/comment will be deleted and you will be promptly blocked. Why? Am I a tyrant, after all? No, I just do not wish to engage with people incapable of having a nuanced approach to a character. And here I do not really want to discuss B&C; it is not the objective of the post.

That being said, there has been something on my mind. Everyone can agree Daemon was an ambitious man. He is not different from princes and lords that came before and after him in that regard; it would be unwise and illiterate of me to think otherwise. To sum it up, Daemon did wish to amass power and wealth. However, I feel obligated to question his supposed lust for the Iron Throne. Both in-universe sources and fans take that for granted. After all, would it be realistic he even entertain the idea of one day being the king? First. He was a second son. That alone would put him behind any of Viserys I’s heirs. Second. Viserys I was a young and jovial man. As he had had Rhaenyra, no one could argue Aemma and he could not conceive. It was natural to believe he would have a heir sooner or later. Third. When Aemma died, Viserys I was only 28. Sooner or later, he, as the king, would be pressured into another marriage for political gains and heirs. Well, that did happen when he married Alicent (though she was his bride of choice). And they proved to be a fertile couple.

Unless Daemon 1) planned to get rid of his nephews or 2) was extremely delusional, to the point of not believing Viserys I would have a heir of his own; I cannot take as granted he lusted for the Iron Throne. It would be nonsensical of him, quite out of touch with his reality. By the way, 1) is highly unlikely. Kinslaying and kingslaying are the greatest Westerosi taboos. In normal circumstances, he already had his political rivals, such as Otto Hightower. I do not believe a kinslayer would have gathered much support to be the Prince of Dragonstone and the next king. B&C happened under a specific context of war, so I do not take it as a measure of how far Daemon would be willing to go under normal circumstances.

Here I am making questions, but there is not a right answer. You could very well claim Daemon luster after the Iron Throne and I would have to accept it, for we do not have his POV to dissect and discuss in depth; we only have third-party accounts of his character. I am merely approaching a new perspective on the subject.

[carrsuniverse]

It's not a cult. It's the baby stages of a revolution. I know the person behind that blog and I'm looking for people in some of the relevant tags that might be interested. Your recent post popped up when I was under the most recent posts for "#trans genocide" and the way you spoke made me think you might be interested. Even if all you do is get eyes on the blog.

@toolsforfreedom

This is cult behavior 👀 I'm intrigued...

[hergan416]

Trafalgar Square, Bloody Sunday, Rebellion, Moriarty the Patriot, and The Phantom of Whitechapel

Ok. I think I have finally figured out Bloody Sunday. The wikipedia article is honestly kind of atrocious. I want to update it to be honest. Maybe I'll try when I get done with this 🤷‍♂️

(Long post, etc)

Part 1: Historical Context & Sources

The good source is JSTOR (not the one by Theresa Moriarty, that ended up only really mentioning Bloody Sunday in passing as it related to someone's biography, although I will add it to the list.) Here... have MLA I don't care, you probably really want the link.

Andy Love. “Centenary of Bloody Sunday.” History Workshop, no. 26, 1988, pp. 211–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288877. Accessed 12 Mar. 2023.

If you don't have access to JSTOR this website says similar things, and also claims to cite primary sources. I'm not familiar with the domain though, so take that as you will: https://spartacus-educational.com/TUbloody.htm

Moriarty, Theresa. “Labour Lives, No. 13: May (Abraham) Tennant, 1869-1946.” Saothar, vol. 36, 2011, pp. 99–101. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23200051. Accessed 12 Mar. 2023.

Alright, that out of the way, basically, Bloody Sunday and Trafalgar Square refer to a mass protest by laborers that was met with (brutal) police and military suppression, resulting in continued protests. A group of aligned labor groups had chosen the square, symbolic of the meeting of London's East and West Ends, as a place to protest poor working conditions and low wages.

In addition to the Socialist Democratic Federation, which is discussed at length in (2), the following organizations were present/organizing the attendees at the square: The Socialist League and the unemployed, the Trade Union, and "radical groups." (1) A march was planned, where speakers would address the crowd, and they would make demands. The crowd instead was met by both the military and the police, who fought back brutally, at least according to one of the leaders of the movement, Williams Morris.

Following the events in the square, another prominent leader of the labor rights movement that hadn't been present at the march was run down and killed, sparking further protest over his funeral.

Finally, I want to quote this paragraph from (3) about Bloody Sunday, tying the Jack the Ripper murders to a larger sociopolitical labor rights movement:

"Police brutality in Trafalgar Square in November 1887 brought out thousands to the funeral parades that followed, and embedded 'Bloody Sunday' into the language of public political protest. In the summer of 1888, young Bryant & May women match workers in east London brought their defiant solidarity against their low pay and their hazardous work to the pavements of Westminster. By autumn Whitechapel women walked their neighborhood in fear and public fascination, when 'Jack the Ripper' exposed the lives of their sisters in poverty. London's political culture was being transformed through social concern and sensation..." (3)

Essentially, because of the Jack the Ripper killings, prostitutes now had a reason to join with other women laborers in solidarity-- or at least their concerns have academically been connected; I'm definitely not an expert and I feel like I've done more than enough academic research for someone who is months away from having graduated college 10 years ago and works in fucking retail.

Hopefully that's enough context.

Now, how does this inform my reading of The Phantom of Whitechapel and Moriarty the Patriot?

Part 2: Moriarty the Patriot's Plot

So, remember, in Moriarty the Patriot, the Jack the Ripper killings were being done by organized criminals to spur on a revolution. They want the proletariat to rise up and they aren't afraid to use people they view as inhuman to trigger it.

William sees this right away. After all, other than the fact that he (mostly) doesn't use the underprivileged as bait and pawns, he's doing the same thing. The sensational murders are just somebody else's play.

But, what's truly interesting is the bottom panel, where William brings up something that the Yard had been concerned about earlier:

The Yard might think the Vigilance Committee is the mastermind, instead of this unnamed criminal force, but regardless, William and the Yard are indeed thinking along the same lines. The clash between poor citizens and the police is bringing back memories of another recent clash. It's happening again.

Clearly, the Yard doesn't want to deal with armed rebellion. Their job is to stop it. And the politicians of the time (real life too...(1) and (2)) are exactly with the Yard. They don't want to make concessions or make leeway for commoners, they don't care if conditions improve, and they don't care if they prevent the right to protest in the meanwhile.

Lestrade is right about there being forces above the Yard breathing down the commissioner's neck.

But William... what he's looking at is the way the agitation is taking place. The murders are public, with letters to the press, etc, to create hysteria, and to create the conditions where the people of Whitechapel are confronted with the fact that the people in power are not caring for them. The Yard doesn't care how many prostitutes die. How many citizens in Whitechapel die. They've specifically made disarming the Vigilance Committee their goal.

That's true regardless, and by killing people that are powerless, it becomes exceptionally clear to the populace. They will rise up against the police that fight them instead of protecting them. The revolution will happen.

I want to claim that this cell of agitators is acting disingenuously, but it's only apparent from the text that they don't value all people evenly.

Whatever reason it is they seek proletariat revolution, it's clear they are not ideologically Marxists.

"Dregs of society" "All we did was eliminate some whores." "Society's rubbish." "With coin they'll follow you anywhere." "Worthless." "Meager."

How can anyone leading a proletariat revolution say or believe these things?

"The strong devour the weak" is Machiavellian, not Marxist.

To make it even more personal, William and Louis grew up in Whitechapel. The abandoned library has been taken down, but it was fucking RIGHT HERE.

This group must be culled.

Part 3: My Conclusions

Personally, I read that these men are trying to stir up revolution as a way to gain power. Right now they don't have a lot, and if they control when and how a revolution happens, they can come out on top in the end.

it's clear that they aren't interested in actually changing the status quo, with the strong on top and the weak on bottom. They also aren't actually interested in people's fates.

What does that mean for the plotline and what is being said about Bloody Sunday?

So, obviously this isn't in alignment to the Moriarty Plan, because outside of the one man that Lord Enders murdered and ended up being the centerfold of the act on the Noahtic, we don't really see William using anyone who hasn't already pledged their life to his ideals (and he even tries to respect the dead bodies he uses to the best of his ability). We get a strong stance against it, while having a more "pure" movement being put forward by William et al.

The differences I see are namely: a) consent: most people dying for William's plan have chosen to give their lives to the cause b) respect: William views all people as people and c) punching up instead of down: the people who don't consent to dying for William's plan deserved it. They weren't just stupid, or worthless, or the dredges of society. They were committing crimes against humanity and getting away with it.

But... if these people did do this, and it did incite revolution, and William hadn't stopped it... would it be so bad?

William wouldn't join hands with them. But in a thought experiment where he did, or he didn't exist, what would happen?

A story on NPR recently was talking about how to predict when a populist uprising will happen, and how to tell how successful it will be. This kind of cell, the kind of cell that will gain power from the revolt, the kind of politicians that are the voices of protest, regardless of how corrupt they are... the positioning of these people is basically the strongest predictor of a revolt's success.

So sure, these guys are assholes. But they probably would have succeeded. They would have used the few to create revolution, just as Moriarty does.

To what extent would our world care about the methodology used? To what extent do those differences make a difference? Are the few still not sacrificed for the many? Are the remaining people not better off in the end?

The most informative article about Bloody Sunday was a commemoration of the centennial of the protest. Nothing in the sources I found looked back poorly upon the agitators fighting for labor rights at the time.

I don't think that would change even if these events actually had happened.

And, since William plans to die at the end, take his whole cell with him... what is to say that that someone like this group couldn't still take advantage of his plan to gain power?

Sure, these guys are dead now. But surely they aren't the only ones?

[ryctone]

Sometimes I forget Espresso is from the Lower City of the Creme Republic because I'm more focused on the Coffee Tribe in the Cacao Kingdom and how Espresso interacts with the remains if you have him on your party and like-

What's the truth Devs? Where was he born??

[uglypastels]

are they gay

Why woukd you ask me, a narnia blog, this

[dollysdaggers]

i know that I’ll never get the answers I want but I have to ask

where are angelica and vittorio’s parent?

[fallintomyeyes]

Read about half a Wikipedia article before realizing it wasn’t in English. Which explains why there were so many typos. My apologies to the Scots language Wikipedia editors. You’re doing a great job. I think. Idk I don’t speak Scots.

[rottackk]

Is her mom okay, though..?

[letmetellyouaboutmyfeels]

I am incredibly serious right now when I beg you all, please, and if you have Twitter or Tiktok or whatever to please spread the word: click on an author's profile on Ao3.

You want to know if an author has written more? Want to know if they're still writing? Want to see more from them? Want to know if they've written a trope or kink or sex scenario you enjoy?

Click on their name. And look at their profile.

I cannot tell you how many times in the last six months someone has read a new or newer fic of mine and said they (a new reader who has read nothing else I've done) "can't wait to see what you do next!" I've written 50+ fics and over a million words already.

"I don't know if you're still writing..." click on my profile. I am. I literally wrote a 128k+ fic for that ship last month.

"Would you ever do X?" "Please do Y!" I already did. Click on my name and look at my works.

Archive of our Own is a library. It's an archive. Not social media. It is your responsibility to fight back against the laziness that corporate algorithms have trained into you.

Click my author name. Just click it. Just click it.

Before you demand more, or ask if a writer will do XYZ, or wonder if the author still writing, or anything - click on their profile. Click on the author's profile.

I'm not trying to be mean or condescending or anything like that. I'm just exhausted. It's disheartening and frustrating to repeat myself ad nauseam, because someone couldn't take thirty seconds to do the tiniest bit of work to see if I've written lately, if I've written more for their ship, or scan my works to see if I've written what they're asking for. Please. Please. I'm begging.

Click the author's name, and explore before you ask.

[uncanny-tranny]

The leftism/anticapitalism leaving people's bodies the zeptosecond you imply that disabled people who aren't "productive" still matter in society and need to be treated like intrinsic equals who have a place in this world:

[cherryfennec]

Summer Times

Hi! I'm finally back from my two week abroad trip!

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Out of sight, out of - wait.

[First] Prev <–-> Next