#Regardless of the truth of that claim or not it is one that is weaponised in the same way

[brick-van-dyke]

Gonna review all the sources I've been provided with (they're damning for the zio so rip to them but thanks for the sources lmao), and been searching through more sources from the time periods in question and, well, basically I started a thing.

(sorry for the blurriness) An overall essay going through the evidence and providing a small splash of input as someone noticing a lot of discord in said evidence, which isn't surprising but still it is telling how zionists cherry pick.

Anyway, the more I learn, the more I realise that there's a lot of political and nationalistic push to emit details in some papers, while pushing for certain conclusions based on the framing of the research for others. I think this is legitimately just unproductive when acknowledging the subjectivity of history as a study and the way certain overlap may point to a conclusion that isn't preferable by a variety of people, from researchers to the intuitions that may use or pay for the research to begin with. I find this in studies that delve into contentious topics in general. It's why it's so important to note the overlap and notice the inevitability of bias in understanding these topics.

As far as the history the Middle East goes and who colonised who, I think many disregard the simple theory that, perhaps, colonisation itself can be something inflicted by the post-colonised and equally be something done to a group with connections to conquest, ultimately making both the same in terms of land rights and the concept of legal ownership. Or, more specifically, that Zionists' attempts to become conquests have since reduced their claim, just as it would reduce a Babylonian, despite their deep links to the land and, arguably, being one of the first social groups before or at the same time as the Israelites.

History and Carbon Dating specifically become difficult to assign moral value of land rights to when cultures blossom and change in such extreme ways (to the point of being unrelated or unrecognisable with those from ancient eras) with the passing of time. The racial blame placed by Israel is thus shown to be one of mistaken vengeance and generally racial profiling of modern Arabs, just as the Persian, Turkish, Roman and British empires showed signs of racist attitudes to employ totalitarian tactics of rule over the peasantry. Being the colonised when one is willing to colonise with the same means reduces the ethical claims and, meanwhile, the history itself reflects greater nuance than political nationalists may desire of it.

Ultimately, as I search further and further, I find that the claim of nationalism and identity is a mere shared ideal of all empires formed through conquest and the desire for ownership of abundant resources. Meanwhile, I find that the idea of an ancient homeland to reclaim is obsolete when the people in question do not resemble those they wish to avenge. Culture evolves with geography and time, a constant for every country's history. Religion, culture and the concept of a homeland forms where the resources are abundant, rather than any legitimate greater or lesser claim from neighbouring tribes and civilisations. The wish of a Promised Land is a logical conclusion for any group seeking refuge from the elements; a moral argument filled with human necessity and a shared common ground if faced with an open mind and a willingness to review the past, while simultaneously moving on from it. The complexity becomes simple when it is understood that only the present can take responsibility for the present; and choose a better path than those who horde resources in the modern age of globalised colonialism.

[thoughts-on-bangtan]

BTS can finally come out now that being gay is legal in SK. Actually they better do. I won’t stop telling that on Twitter until they see it. Enough w the drama and gay baiting for years now. ALL 7 of them.

Out of all the asks we've received over the years, this one truly takes the crown as the most disgusting and entitled one. Are you out of your mind? No, like, I mean that seriously, because not only did you completely misunderstand what happened but you are also trying to force people who owe you nothing except for new music eventually, at their own pace, into outing themselves for no reason other than because you want them to. Do you see how entirely fucked that is? Like pardon my language but I'm so pissed off, especially after the news about Namjoon earlier today, that I really don't feel like being polite at all.

South Korea did not legalise same-sex marriage, they didn't pass a law to recognise same-sex couples the way they do with straight couples. What they did was grant a same-sex couple equal rights to healthcare as those given to straight couples, which in the context of the LGBT community and South Korea is a major step that hopefully one day will lead to a better future for the queer community over there. You can read a more detailed articles about it here.

It is entirely fucked to think that the hard work of queer activists who are risking their lives to fight for a better future for their fellow queers has anything to do with idols, and the fact that your first thought is how BTS have to do this or that because of it merely shows how disconnected you are from reality. Regardless of the law, BTS could come out if they wanted to, if they saw a reason or need to, but they did not and chances are they will not. And you know why? Because of entitled people like you. And because they are humans just like us who deserve their privacy and live their lives in peace without the whole world looking down upon them like they're specimens being studied or animals in a zoo.

Even if all seven were truly queer, there is no law or reason why any of them would have to or should come out. It's an extremely personal matter and one that has nothing to do with their occupation, being idols and musicians. What does their sexuality have to do with their music? Nothing.

As for drama, you know who causes that? Toxic and delulu shippers, most of whom are straight themselves, fighting about things they've mostly made up in their heads themselves and convinced each other of it. Sure, maybe this is a case of pot calling cattle black, but I've never claimed to know anything for certain and I would never, ever, think I have any right to know the truth, let alone feel entitled to it or want to fight people over it. But there are people who feel entitled to outing their ship, to forcing them into admitting something that likely isn't true, and are willing to wage war against anyone who disagrees and even throw members of their ship under the bus if they act differently than what shippers want. Those people are the problem. But those people have nothing to do with the reality of queer people. If anything those are the people that show the queer community that we are nothing but a gimmick to them, a toy to play with and punish if we don't act right. And things will never change if people continue acting that way.

What Korea did is a great thing, a beginning especially during the time of an administration that is completely disconnected from reality and pushing agendas that are truly baffling at the best of times, so instead of trying to weaponise the results of brave queer activist in a country hellbent on shunning them, sit you ass down, shut up, and stop conflating real life issues and happenings with fantasies of delulu shippers and lives of people we have no right to.

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

The moral fraudulence of the current brand of leftism has been laid bare since October 7 @inklingm8, but some of us, like myself, are not surprised by this hypocrisy.

There was a time when many left-wingers were pro-Israel. In fact, Israel's kibbutz system is an idealised form of the very kind of socialism that represented the traditional left of the 20th century. Many of Israel's founders were socialists.

I would argue that the current weaponisation of group identity politics and glorification of anyone and anything that is contrary to the West, which they have deemed "oppressive", has spawned the poisonous antisemitism that runs through the political left today.

I would suggest that the whole idea that because someone is from an ethnic minority, they somehow have "unique"/"special" knowledge that must be prioritised over those said to be "privileged" and "oppressors" is corrupt from its inception.

Regardless of one's personal experiences, there is still truth. And one's personal claims must still be assessed against the truth.

It is this very subjugation of the truth to one's personal opinion and subjective identification with a group that is weaponised against the Jews, ironically in the opposite way to what leftists claim they want.

If we take the leftists at their untrustworthy word, then one should listen to the Jews' perspective because they are an oppressed people.

Now personally, I would prefer to say that one should stand with the Jews by opposing antisemitism because antisemitism is the most dangerous and terroristic form of hatred known to man, which has a consistent track record of being accompanied by tyranny and genocide.

But say you want to listen to the voices of the oppressed Jews.

Well, this isn't enough. Because the current leftist dogma has created a hierarchy of oppression, and this is where a potentially noble idea has become corrupt and pernicious. This hierarchy of oppression has bypassed the complexity of history and become a narrow-minded, black-and-white (pun intended) means of forcing people into boxes. It has become a way of judging how people should be treated, based on if they are deemed to be "privileged" and "oppressors".

The idea that everyone should be treated equally must therefore be abandoned. If I, according to my subjective view, say I am harmed by "you" and/or "your people", then I can therefore be excused for my angry, prejudiced opinions and discriminatory behaviour.

Does that sound right? Does that sound logical? Does it accord with truth?

No. But these ideas are incredibly fashionable and have consumed entire institutions with very little resistance.

According to this logic, yes, the Jews have been oppressed. Yes, the Holocaust was bad (but they often refrain from acknowledging the unique anti-Jewish hatred that spawned the Holocaust). But the Jews are also white and European. Ergo, they are oppressors. Oh, and a group of people with darker skin, the Palestinians, accuse the Jewish state of oppression. An even bigger strike!

And just like that, the Jews become the "enemy" to leftists.

The truth, especially that the Jews have a lawful entitlement to live in the former British Mandate, and that the Palestinian cause has never been about acquiring a state, but about erasing Jewish land rights, history, and the right to live, period, is ignored. It has to be ignored, because this complex reality doesn't fit the received hierarchy of oppression. Dark skin equals the oppressed. Light skin equals oppression. Middle Eastern equals oppressed. European equals oppressor.

Sounds an awful lot like "four legs good, two legs bad" from Animal Farm. Is that just a coincidence?

So these are the mental gymnastics that make people who claim that they "listen" to ethnic minorities suddenly turn around and behave the very way they claim other oppressors behave.

In truth, many of those claiming to fight oppression are the oppressors themselves. Their iconoclastic attack on fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech, leading to the harassment, abuse, and persecution of others, is a complete affront to the dignity of every human being and a threat to a free society.

Their segmenting of society into "good" and "bad" groups sows division and bitterness, undermining community cohesion and is an affront to the principle that people ought to be judged based on their actions. It also ignores the multiple sufferings that different groups have experienced regardless of historic wrongdoing.

Their habit of engaging in bad faith arguments, such as accusing critics of being bigots, like racial bigots, is emotional blackmail that denigrates and silences debate-- entirely by design. Their encouragement of bigoted statements and behaviour towards entire groups, claiming this is a "reaction" to oppression, only empowers other bigots, and further divides society.

Their demand that any culture be treated in a non-judgemental fashion encourages backwards and oppressive behaviour that keeps the genuinely vulnerable trapped. Likewise, their demands for special treatment for any preferred victim group undermines the genuine equality created by meritocracy and diminishes the agency and humanity of the individual.

Their habit of making excuses for wicked conduct by those they insist are "oppressed" is a total affront to decency, humanity, and civilisation itself. It is an incentive for criminality and shows these people to be totally unfit to lecture others about equality and human rights.

It's time these people spent less time accusing others of bigotry and more time considering the harm caused by aggressive, dogmatic identity politics. They should also consider why, since October 7, their movement has alienated large numbers of left-wing Jews.

The leftists who were saying how they’d listen to a member of a minority if something they said was offensive are the people who are shouting at Jews that they’re overreacting, that they control the world, and that we weaponise antisemitism.

[bouncehousedemons]

For months I have ignored this near constant defamation in hopes that this person would eventually get bored and stop. They have not. It will never cease to amaze me how, when left unchecked, people can just do and say anything with absolutely no consequences. Now I’m going to share my side.

I don’t know this person. I don’t know their friends. I really have no personal issue with them whatsoever. On my old Tumblr account I blocked them because I did not care for the content they created. When another person I followed posted to complain about this person’s content being all over their dash, myself and a couple of others suggested that they block them too. This triggered a lot of unnecessary drama and I am unsure why.

I think the issue lies with the misconception of the block functionality - it’s not weaponised as a tool of hatred (at least not in my case), it should be used as a mature means of curating your fandom experience. I’m sure most will agree that it is preferable to quietly remove someone from your sphere than to comment “I do not enjoy this” on each of their posts that pop up onto your dashboard.

Regardless, my actions were construed as hatred and I have been accused of some incredibly heinous, triggering things. None of which are true.

The only grain of truth in the screen capped post above is how exceptionally talented my friends are (no quotations needed for friends, we’re solid!) They’ve stuck by me throughout all of this, sending me screenshots of the libellous claims being made against me.

This person has found and combed through all of my social media profiles. Posted about my wedding and honeymoon. Attempted to doxx me. Tweeted my employer. Emailed my employer. And continues to post about me on a near constant basis. All of it is libel. I have deleted several of my socials (my previous Tumblr included) as the magnitude of the stalking was truly terrifying to me. Still, that wasn’t a deterrent for them.

I have enough for a defamation case at this point, at the very least a cease and desist. I haven’t acted upon it thus far as I am simply hoping they will get bored one day and stop. It seems petty to let things go this far over a stupid Tumblr blocking.

I know that this person believes that my friends and I sit around our collective cauldron all day speaking ill of them and plotting their downfall. We don’t. We chat about our days. We share our creations. We spit ball ideas. We poke fun at each other. Most importantly, we support each other.

I am now addressing you personally, Bragis: I don’t look at your content (besides the multitude of screenshots of posts that are inexplicably about me). I don’t visit your socials. I have no desire to. I wish no ill to you or anyone you’re friends with. Any perceived drama between any other Tumblr users and I is nothing to do with you. In all honesty, I don’t have any genuine issues with anyone. I just woke up one day and had been blocked by a bunch of people, with a defamatory post about me and my friends doing the rounds. I am happy to have an adult conversation about any of this. I don’t really understand why that step was skipped in the first place? I’m happy to leave the past where it is though. I simply want to be left alone. Consider this post a white flag. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

[banshee-in-velvet]

As human-caused climate change becomes an increasingly tangible and impactful part of our lives, climate change deniers are being forced into obscurity. The same political groups, mostly right-wing, who historically discredited the veracity of climate science, are now faced with overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and serious. But these groups are still here, as are their ideologies; they have simply adjusted their messaging. Climate denialism is a dangerous ideology, but the way these groups have appropriated climate change and environmental concerns in the modern age is subtler and even more insidious, shedding light on a resurgent dark legacy of environmentalism that must be confronted and eradicated, called eco-fascism. How do we tackle it?

—

In terms of its political and economic implications, the challenge of climate change is incompatible with the precepts of traditionally right-wing political groups, who are traditionally married to the ideologies of expanded individual liberties, free markets and small government. Climate change inevitably requires governments to spend and regulate more, and for political parties more dogmatically opposed to such action, like the Republican Party in the US, denying that climate change is a problem worth intervening for becomes a convenient and attractive weapon of choice.

Today, the irrefutable evidence of climate change has made climate denialism redundant in most of the world. Climate deniers have very little to stand on anymore, and most major political parties in the world have abandoned denial rhetoric.

But the political precepts of these groups have not changed, and as climate change becomes a larger part of our lives, far-right politicians and groups have started to appropriate environmental narratives to further their goals in other areas. There is growing interest among political scientists in the emergence of what is being termed eco-fascism, an ideology that marries environmentalism with more extreme right-wing social and political trends.

Eco-fascism is not a new phenomenon, but as lawmakers from across the political spectrum begin to internalise the reality of climate change, environmental policy considerations will take on much more prominent roles in legislation. There is a real threat that far-right political parties and extremist groups and individuals could weaponise climate change and environmental concerns to fuel and justify their own social and political vision of the world. This could be in the form of bolder anti-immigration laws, more stringent population control measures or even outright violence and oppression.

Twisting environmental narratives to validate far-right ideologies and violence sounds dystopian, but it is already happening. Often, these justifications are based on inaccurate or nonexistent science, and only serve to satisfy the grievances of unscrupulous leaders or unstable individuals. As climate change begins to take hold of our lives in ever-more intricate ways, a new type of environmentalism could emerge, one that is marked by hatred or distrust of outsiders, tribalism and violence. This brand of environmentalism is dangerous, and it needs to be stamped out early by politicians and public institutions.

Eco-Fascism: The Far-Right & The Environment

In April 2021, the Attorney General of the US state of Arizona sued the Biden administration for failing in its duty to protect the environment. The lawsuit was based on one grievance in particular that the Attorney General’s office had with federal policy: immigration laws.

Biden has made efforts to overturn his predecessor Donald Trump’s regressive immigration policies, including suspending a controversial ruling that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearings. These policies have increased the number of migrants being legally allowed into the US through the southern border, creating some concern amongst Republican politicians traditionally opposed to expanding legal immigration.

As part of his office’s lawsuit, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich insisted that Biden’s new policies neglected an environmental review on how more immigration could increase pollution and emissions, saying: “Migrants need housing, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. They drive cars, purchase goods and use public parks and other facilities. Their actions also directly result in the release of pollutants, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which directly affects air quality.”

Brnovich, who has in the past publicly misrepresented established climate science, is tapping into a common grievance that populist and right-wing leaders commonly rely on: anti-immigration sentiments among the public. By expressing worries over pollution and overpopulation however, the lawsuit essentially weaponises environmental narratives as tools for political gain.

Environmental concerns have been appropriated by far-right political groups for a long time. The Nazi party famously considered conservation a policy priority, and was among the first political parties in history to champion renewable energy. But the environmentalism that Hitler and his political adherents exhibited was not born out of genuine concern for the Earth and its inhabitants, rather it was employed as a justification behind the party’s racially-motivated Holocaust campaign, citing concerns over the dangers of overpopulation and resource depletion.

The Nazi party used environmentalism as a propaganda tool to recruit more members and improve their public standing, but quickly abandoned any ambition concerning environmental legislation as soon as the war started. Since the days of Nazi Germany, this faux environmentalism has been continuously recycled by far-right and extremist groups as a justification for unjustifiable beliefs.

In more modern times, far-right neo-Nazi groups and radicalised individuals have cloaked themselves in environmental and ecological rhetoric to validate their stances. These groups cite concerns over overpopulation, immigration and multiculturalism as certifiable reasons behind their supremacist views.

In the manifesto of a white supremacist who fatally shot 51 people in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019, the killer identified himself as an eco-fascist and an ethno-nationalist in the same breath. He also equated immigration to ‘environmental warfare.’ That same year, another lone gunman shot and killed 23 people in a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas. The gunman claimed to have been inspired by the Christchurch shooter, and he had posted his own manifesto before the attack. The manifesto (named ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ after Al Gore’s environmental documentary) exhibited strong concerns over unabated population growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation, stating that he was attempting to stop a ‘Hispanic invasion of Texas.’

Members of the alt-right are not the only ones who have co-opted environmental concerns to justify their beliefs and actions. Extremist terrorist groups have utilised environmentalism for years as a recruitment and propaganda tool, with some jihadist groups in Eastern Africa and the Middle East banning single-use plastics, providing rations and stipends to farmers suffering from water scarcity and organising reforestation and public cleanup initiatives for local youth.

This, of course, happens against the backdrop of other, less altruistic activities of terrorist groups. In addition to the environmental impact and loss of livelihoods wrought by driving the global arms trade and initiating conflict, a substantial part of global terror groups’ funding comes from the illicit wildlife and charcoal black market, which in 2014 accounted for over USD$200 billion a year.

A Malthusian Trap?

Right-wing political concerns over immigration and further straining of resources are rooted in the more apolitical fear of what overpopulation could entail. These concerns have been around since 18th century British scholar and economist Thomas Malthus proposed his Malthusian mathematical theory of population growth. In Malthus’ view, populations grow exponentially, while sustenance, including food and other basic resources, grow linearly. This would mean that, in the absence of a cataclysmic event that forcefully stops growth or more draconian population control policy, overpopulation will eventually outpace the availability of basic resources needed to survive.

Malthus’ predictions have been proven wrong several times, and his views have been criticised from across the political spectrum as overly pessimistic and even inhumane. Malthusianism becomes dangerous when its questionable science is taken seriously by lawmakers. In the mid-19th century, the British government scrapped many welfare programmes designed to provide food to the poor, basing this decision on a Malthusian argument that helping the poor only leads to these groups having more children and thereby increasing poverty.

Human populations have almost never behaved in the way theorised by Malthus. As a country’s wealth increases and total fertility rates decrease, societies have an overwhelming tendency to reach a new replacement level; it might take some time for fertility rates to readjust, but they are regardless overwhelmingly inclined to do so. This is evident in the world today, where the wealthiest nations with more food security have the lowest fertility rates, and poorer countries with higher food insecurity possess the highest fertility rates. For countries that have implemented forceful population control measures, such as the one-child policy in China, the result has been a looming demographic crisis.

You might also like: Opinion: Getting Real About Net Zero by Jonathon Porritt

Figure 1: World population growth 1700-2100; Our World In Data. Data by United Nations; 2019.

The UN expects the world’s population to grow until around 2100 where it will peak and stabilise at around 11.2 billion. While this is certainly high, it does not spell our inevitable doom. A world with a population of around 11 billion would put very little extra strain on the Earth’s capacity to provide, as long as we humans are able to change our patterns of high consumption and waste, without necessarily having to sacrifice quality of life. For instance, the Earth would be able to carry a much larger population if all of its inhabitants received their electricity from renewable sources, but would not be able to handle nearly as many if that population was entirely reliant on fossil fuels. The effects of climate change will play a much larger role in determining whether the Earth is able to provide for its inhabitants, but population control measures have very little to do with countering climate change. The only way we can really do that is by ending our relationship with fossil fuels.

When Malthusianism intersects with political ideologies rooted in racial or social biases, ideas are proposed that may appear sensible on the surface, but the actual policy that accompanies them is nearly always based on a racialised approach to population control. These efforts generally seek to decrease population numbers of oppressed and poor groups in order to maintain the living standards and safety of wealthier groups.

These views were surprisingly common as recently as the 1960s and 70s, when the world was swept by a wave of overpopulation scares. American ecologist Garrett Hardin, who popularised the concept of the tragedy of the commons in 1968, also introduced the highly controversial idea of lifeboat ethics, which laid out a belief that it was morally excusable to “let struggling nations drown.”

Cloaking themselves in a perceived environmentalism and pragmatism, the policies that these ideas have historically led to have validated twisted and racially-motivated population control campaigns, not far removed from eugenics movements. In the wake of the 1960s overpopulation scare, forced sterilisation campaigns were waged against women of colour in the US and Puerto Rico. In the 1970s, the Indian government forced millions of men from lower castes to participate in compulsory sterilisation programmes. If they did not comply, all social safety nets and government-assured rights were essentially gutted.

While these dark legacies are not all tied to far-right political groups, they are tied to eco-fascism, and the twisted brand of eco-fascism that is resurging today is most definitely aligned with the alt-right. In the manifesto of the Christchurch shooter, Malthusian fears of overpopulation were directly addressed: “There is no green future with never-ending population growth, the ideal green world cannot exist in a world of 100 billion, 50 billion or even 10 billion people.” The El Paso shooter stated in his own manifesto that: “Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. […] So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources,” explicitly referring to non-white immigrants.

While it might seem harmless for political figures and other leaders to sound the alarm about overpopulation’s impact on the environment, these concerns can not only be wildly overblown, but can excuse and validate racist policies and unjustifiable acts of violence.

Eco-Fascism: What Next?

How do we minimise the voices of these resurgent fascist ideologies, while also combating climate change? The answer to this challenge is as complex as the reasons that caused it to emerge in the first place. Countless factors of our modern world- social media and the ubiquity of alternative facts chief among them- have led to the formation of echo chambers online and in real life that only reinforce and embolden these dangerous ideologies, a trend that may have been exacerbated by the induced lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eradicating these ideologies will take time and effort.

But climate change does not care about your political leanings. Or your class, race, gender, nationality or religion. You could not believe in climate change at all, but it would still affect you. To counter these divisive and dangerous ideologies, we must first separate the truths from the untruths, especially online where misinformation can spread like wildfire. We must then ensure that our institutions are bound to facts and are trusted by the public to act as educators. Extreme ideological positioning has no place in the fight against climate change, and the energies and passions of people who fall victim to alt-right messaging need to be redirected towards real environmentalism.

To counter the dangerous rhetoric of these groups, we need to respond with action that proves them wrong. When right-leaning politicians lament increased rates of poverty and joblessness, they often blame overpopulation and immigration. People need to know that it is market failures and runaway capitalism that creates inequality, not too few resources for too many people. It is a mismanagement of natural capital that leads to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, not immigration. And it is empowering women and supporting democratic governance in poor countries that stabilises population growth, not forceful population control measures.

As climate change creates increased scarcity over the coming decades, it is unknown whether wealthy countries will choose to hoard their resources or share them with the developing world. Will nations with high resilience lock out everybody else, or will they recognise that doing so would only reinforce these abhorrent and extreme ideologies that never really went away? Accepting climate migrants and investing more in improving resilience in developing countries will be important acts of solidarity that not only acknowledge the past responsibilities of wealthy nations, but also work towards building a future more equipped to counter climate change.

What eco-fascism and other extreme environmentalist ideologies fail to understand is that there is no rational argument for isolationism in the face of climate change. Even if a wealthy country is able to reduce its own emissions, climate change will still affect it if it does not assist countries with fewer resources in doing the same.

There is some good news. People, especially young people, are increasingly inclined to band together in the understanding that climate change transcends boundaries. Today’s youth, and all the potential that it represents, cares deeply about climate change and the environment, more than anything else in fact. Youth climate activism is global, and possesses one of the loudest voices. If people, especially the youth, can be swayed from extremism and find a sense of purpose in burgeoning activist movements that are helping to save the world, these dangerous ideologies can be stripped of their fuel: susceptible young minds.

Mobilising public and popular support to counter climate change is crucial to motivating legislators to do what has to be done, but they can also save imperiled youth from dangerous ideological positioning. This is only possible if governments ensure climate change messaging is clear and transparent. Shifting to a low-carbon economy is what will allow population growth to continue and eventually stabilise at a point where a much lower percentage of the world is living in poverty. Giving credence to unfounded overpopulation concerns and magnifying the grievances of extreme political ideologies gets us nowhere closer to solving our problems.

Featured image by: Flickr

[stonebreakerseries]

Aftermath (Adiran and Riin)

So this started as a sappy meme prompt about two people touching forward and the stubborn one whispering ‘I missed you’, then turned into a 2200 word monster. Because apparently I have no chill. Who knew.

This is quite spoilery, so if anyone cares about that, read at your own risk!

                                    -------------------

Everything had happened too quickly. Too quickly for Adiran to pause and think. Too quickly for his mind to catch up with what he was seeing, yet alone what he was doing. Now, as waves beat against the ship’s hull, the lights of Vetrose grew smaller and smaller until they were no more than pinpricks on the horizon. Hundreds of tiny, earth-bound stars. All his life, Adiran had never seen those lights slip into the distance like that. It had always been the other way around; always been the lights of Talvera’s capital rising to meet him as he returned from a day on the road, lanterns bleeding life into streets and windows.  

Would he ever see those lights again?

Movement to his right caught his attention. Riin was sweating, his skin ashen, his body wracked with tremors. He was trying to heal. Or at least, that’s what Adiran assumed was happening. He didn’t know enough about the Kyriin, yet alone the black-eyed krea morei, to say for certain. All he knew was that Riin had burned through what little strength he had left during their escape from the palace. Divider, just thinking about how close they had come to being caught sent a chill down Adiran’s spine. If he hadn’t called in his favour with Crosus - if the Northerner hadn’t come through for them and carried Riin from the upper city to the docks - they might not have made it at all. 

A familiar sensation, like a hand closing around his throat, sent his heart into a stammer. With a shaky gasp, Adiran reached up, knotting his fingers in his sweat-damp hair. Stop it. You idiot. You’re out. No one caught you. Everything is fine. Everything will be fine.

For now.

Deep down, Adiran knew that the King and Queen would hunt for them. Try to spin their escape as some kind of kidnapping; anything not to lose face in the spiteful eye of the court. But there was more to it than that. A missing prince warranted a bitter, desperate search - one that wouldn’t raise any suspicions. The fact that they were actually after Riin didn’t matter. All Talvera would see were two panicked parents. Not monsters chasing what he had stolen from them. 

No. 

The thought - that single word - arrived so hard and so bitter that Adiran could taste it on his tongue. No. He hadn’t stolen a damn thing. They had no contract. No claim. No right to Riin, as man or soldier or prisoner. No one did. 

I should have seen him off. I should have insisted. Made sure he...

Guilt, like a restless snake, twisted inside Adiran, hollowing out a pit in his stomach. Divider, he’d let a full season pass in a self-absorbed haze, barely looking up from his own loneliness. If he’d just been paying attention, he might have realised something wasn’t right. He might have been able to...

A soft groan, lower than the protests of the ship’s aging wood, pulled Adiran from his thoughts. He looked up, heart stammering to a near-halt as he leaned over the makeshift bed. Hope, like baited breath, knotted at the back of his throat. 

“Riin?”

The Kyriin’s brow was tense; a furrowed echo of a deeper pain. Agony was etched in every line of his face; every clenched muscle. In any other moment, Adiran might have taken him for having a bad dream. A true, burning nightmare. 

Maybe he was. Certainly no one would blame him. 

“Hey…” Adiran hated the way he sounded. Hated the way his voice felt so hollow. Uncertain. Afraid. Weak. But instead of flinching from it like a hand from a flame, he forced himself to move closer. To reach out and rest his hand over Riin’s. “Can you hear me?”

Adiran knew it was a long-shot. Even before, back in the palace undercroft, Riin’s lucidity had been a short-lived, flickering thing, erratic as a candle on a windowsill. Divider, Adiran would never forget the way Riin had looked at him, when he’d forced his way through the cell door. His eyes, framed by dark circles and bled half-way black, had seared into him like hot iron. Thick blood, dark as pitch, was dried in layers on his skin; had soaked into his ruined clothes. It was impossible to tell how long it had been there. 

Adiran wasn’t sure what he had been expecting, when he hit the bottom of those uneven stairs. All he knew for certain was that, after that heart-stopping moment of recognition, Riin had hated him. 

And he’d had every reason to.

Sitting there, his hand a feeble warmth against Riin’s icy skin, a new fear slowly crawled its way up from the bottom of Adiran’s chest. In the frantic mess of unlocking chains and checking wounds, Riin had clearly set aside any mistrust for a chance at freedom, no matter how slim. Even if came at the hands of someone he despised. The entire time, he’d barely spoken to Adiran. But the first words he’d said had been a knife to the gut. 

So, it was all true. He’d gave a bitter laugh. Or was it broken? I wondered how long it would take for them to send you here.

He should have said something. Thinking back, he needed to have said something. But he hadn’t. In the moment, he’d been too focused on escape. Too terrified that Lirea would betray him, and the palace guard would come flooding in like rats to a carcass. There hadn’t been time for reassurances, or the truth, or---

“You’re... hurt...”

Adiran jolted, nearly losing his balance between the narrow crate and the uncertain sway of the ship. Riin’s voice was raw, ragged from screaming his pain and fury to unfeeling stone. The words were barely able to cross the narrow distance between them. He was awake, watching him feverishly, one eye a clear amber, the other drenched in shadow. A dark stain, like spilled ink, spread from the inner corner to the furthest edge of his iris.

There he was, with one foot in the grave, worrying about everyone but himself.

“What? Are you s---” To Adiran’s surprise, his voice hitched. Once the shock had passed, he cleared his throat sharply. “Are you serious? Fuck how I am. I’m nothing. I’m fine. I’m…” Slowly, he realised that Riin’s eyes had drifted down to where their hands were resting, one atop the other. Without intending to, Adiran’s fingers had somehow managed to avoid the ruined skin ringing Riin’s wrist. In a rush, he realised he’d never actually seen Riin bruise before, yet alone bleed. It was childish - sheer foolishness - but he hadn’t actually thought it was possible. Even after eight years of sparring together - eight years of swords and sand - he had been convinced Riin was untouchable. Invincible.

But in the wrong hands - hands willing to scrape and grind - even the strongest stone would eventually break.

Riin’s breathing was shallow. Worryingly so. Still, he forced himself to speak, the words limping from his lips. “N-No... you’re not f---.”

---“Stop.” Adiran barely recognised his own voice, pleading and pathetic. All of a sudden, he was a child again, curled in the corner of his room, his first bruise blossoming on his upper arm. “Damn it, Riin - don’t. Don’t make this about me. Not now. You… you’re…”

He couldn’t find the words. Couldn’t say them. What could he possibly say? You’re hurt? You’re shaking? You’re terrifying me?

“You’re crying.”

Adiran froze. His awareness, weaponised over the past hours like an out-turned blade, faltered at Riin’s words. Then, slowly, it angled inward. In that hanging silence, his sense of self slipped back beneath his skin, and Adiran finally realised that yes. He was.

“I’m not... it’s nothing.” Roughly, he pressed the heel of his free hand to both eyes, swiping away the offending tears. There was too much to say. Too many emotions pushing against this skull, ravaging his chest, crowding his throat. “I’m just… I...” Like betrayal, a sob broke past his defenses, weak from exhaustion. Weak from relief. “I’m sorry. Riin, I’m so f-fucking sorry. I didn’t know. I didn’t even think...”

The shame was too much. Adiran cracked. Curved forward. Buried his face in his hand and just cried. It was all too much, but at the same time nowhere near enough, as though he was deep inside his body and outside and around it all at once. He knew he had to stop. That this wasn’t the time. His guilt wouldn’t help anyone, yet alone Riin. It was just another burden; a capstone atop the torture he had already endured. Divider, Adiran didn’t even know what he had been through. The extent of the pain he was in. How deep those wounds truly ran. But he knew what he should have said, back when he had first laid eyes on his friend in that dark cell. When he’d first seen the blood, smelled the sour sweat, tasted the rot on the back of his tongue. An apology was not enough. He knew that. No words could ever undo what had been done. But Divider, that didn’t make it any less of the truth. 

If Riin let him, he’d spend the rest of his life proving it. It was the least he could do for the only man he’d ever called friend.

Suddenly, Adiran felt a pressure on top of his hand. Heavy, but without force. Without roughness. Part of him knew that, if Riin had the strength, he would have squeezed. Maybe in reassurance. Maybe in forgiveness. Maybe just in tribute to the bond they had shared; one that had surely been severed, now. But, when Adiran finally looked up, only one thing had truly changed. Riin’s gaze was resting on him. Quiet. Pained. Feverish. Relieved.

But the hate, seared so clearly and so terribly into Adiran’s memory, was gone.

“I knew,” Riin breathed. “I knew y---AH!” Suddenly, he cried out, arching, gritting his teeth as his upper body spasmed. Maybe it was a fit. Maybe it was pieces of bone snapping back into place beneath his skin. Regardless, all Adiran could do was look on, horrified, and hold his hand through it, wishing feverishly that he knew how to make it stop. It passed in seconds that felt like minutes. It left Riin gasping, shaking, tangled in his thin blanket, skin soaked with sweat. Just as Adiran was about to scramble to his feet and call for help, Riin’s weak voice reached out from the bed, like a hand snagging the corner of his shirt.

“I-I knew you couldn’t have… they said... so many things. But I didn’t...”

Adiran just nodded, not quite understanding. almost afraid to. Just thinking about what Riin might have been told - things to make him break - turned Adiran’s stomach. Cheeks damp, throat tight, Adiran just shifted closer instead, his thumb stroking the back of Riin’s hand in a feeble attempt to smooth away the pain. “Whatever those bastards told you, they were lying,” he said, because he desperately needed him to hear it. To know it the way Adiran knew every line of Riin’s face. Every scar on his hands. “I swear on my life, Riin, if I’d known…”

Slowly, Adiran trailed off. Partly because he didn’t know how to finish the sentence. If he’d known… then what? How would he have stopped it? Would he have challenged the King and Queen - his own family? Would he have kicked and screamed and threatened his way into his own set of shackles?

He didn’t know what would have happened. Maybe they would have both found themselves in chains, Inquisitors cutting bored slices from their skin. Just the thought of it was enough to turn Adiran’s stomach. If he’d been there - if he’d been forced to watch... Divider, he would have told them anything. Anything to make them stop.

Would Riin have broken his oath and done the same?

Luckily, there was no immediate pressure for Adiran to finish his hanging sentence. At some point in the silence, Riin’s breathing had slowed its pace into something halfway resembling sleep. His hand lay limp in Adiran’s, but somehow, he just couldn’t bring himself to untangle their fingers. Not just yet.

Instead, Adiran hesitated, then leaned forward until their faces were just inches apart. Slowly, tiredly, he closed his eyes, exhaled, and gently rested his forehead against Riin’s. Their lashes brushed, their breath mingled, and just for a moment, he let himself feel it. Really feel it. Just for long enough to remind him that the man he cared for more than anyone else was really, truly there. Beaten and bruised. Alive and wonderful.

“I missed you,” Adiran breathed. The confession fell from his lips more easily than his own name. And, for the first time, he didn’t care if anyone heard him say it.

They would get through this. 

Somehow, they would get through this,

[neuxue]

Who are some of your favorite villains?

Oh man, that is a question, anon. This is not a comprehensive list, because if I started listing every morally corrupt character who owns my soul, we’d be here all night. I’ve also taken a somewhat flexible definition of villainy at times, because…it’s complicated.

Also, spoilers for uh…most of the things listed; I’ve tried to keep it vague where possible, but the nature of villainous arcs means sometimes that doesn’t work. I’ve listed the work before the commentary, so if you don’t want spoilers for the thing, skip that section.

In no particular order…

Lord Asriel and Marisa Coulter (His Dark Materials): okay, so arguably they’re not villains, per se, but they each serve as antagonists at various points, they’re ambitious and proud beyond belief, and their morality is…well. Complicated. (Did I lose my mind at the ‘corruption and envy and lust for power. Cruelty and coldness. A vicious probing curiosity. Pure, poisonous toxic malice […] you are a cesspit of moral filth’ speech, from a corrupt angel to the one deceiving him? Abso-fucking-lutely. Also ‘I wanted you to come and join me. And I thought you would prefer a lie’). They’re also on this list because they were my Formative Villain Faves from the age of 7, which probably tells you something about who I was as a child and who I am as a person.

Nirai Kujen (Machineries of Empire). You really…could not write a villain more My Type if you tried. I’m not sure I could write a villain more My Type if I tried. Immortal, immoral mathematician who traded empathy for the ability to act on it, reconfigured a universe, and has lost most of his humanity but not his sense of beauty? I am but a simple woman. It helps that there is one hell of an enemies/allies/lovers dynamic going on between him and another character who is a different sort of my type, and it’s precisely my kind of Fucked Up Power Dynamics.

Moridin (Wheel of Time): ’Your logic destroyed you, didn’t it?’ I have a whole…thing about villains who see themselves as a kind of anti-Chosen One. I’ve written about it slightly more coherently elsewhere, but it comes down to a particular kind of despair and perception of inevitability, that they have no choice but to fight and that their role is always to lose, and that they will be cast and remembered as the monster, and so there is not reason not to be monstrous, but that doesn’t help with the self-hatred.

Semirhage (Wheel of Time): I could pick a lot of the Forsaken, and one or two other characters from WoT but I’ll stick to two here. Semirhage is all about pain without emotion, and I’m into it.

Malkar (Doctrine of Labyrinths): okay, he’s sort of in the category of scenery-chewing villain you love to hate, but I do love to hate him. And he causes so much delicious pain for the major characters; it’s almost like he’s running a charity service for those of us who like watching our favourite characters hurt.

Aaravos (The Dragon Prince): Listen. Listen. Trapped in a mirror, lost and alone and yet only letting that show in glimpses, possibly a Prometheus figure, graceful and beautiful and terrible, and that voice. Also the entire aesthetic. He is awful, and he is a delight, and he has that kind of cruelty that you can almost forget about - it’s as though he’s so into the villain aesthetic that you almost think it’s just an aesthetic, almost forget how capable he truly is of horrors, and so when he commits them it’s all the more thrilling.

Astrid & Athos Dane (Shades of Magic): The Dane twins deserved better. And by better I mean more screen time. They were criminally underused as villains and they had such potential. Vicious and cruel in a world where to be otherwise is to die, holding power by blood and pain, and chaining another …well, if not villain then certainly antagonist to their will, forcing him to serve the world he wants to save? Which brings us to…

Holland (Shades of Magic): Holland is…arguably not a villain but as an antagonist he is absolutely my type: powerful and ruthless and broken, and yet somehow still fighting; a character whose defining trait is his extraordinary will (and also self-hatred); a character who, literally in canon on the goddamn page, is told ‘no one suffers as beautifully as you’. (Plus he gets a redemption arc! That lets him remain complicated and doesn’t undermine his competence! And while it falls into redemption-equals-death, his death doesn’t come at the turning point in his arc the way it does for so many villains - he gets a whole road-trip first!)

Melisande Shahrizai (Kushiel): oh man. She’s such an interesting character, and the narrative does an excellent job of creating that link between her and Phedre - a really, really compelling and beautiful form of 'you know it’s a terrible idea but you can’t help yourself’. Also, she and Marisa Coulter should never be allowed to meet (by which I mean, I would read that fic). I’m also always here for a female villain who gets to be complicated, who has depth beyond just the typical 'femme fatale’ (though Melisande could certainly claim that title), and who is truly central to the story rather than there to look pretty.

Azula (Avatar: The Last Airbender): For all that I love Zuko, he doesn’t belong on this list, flexible as my definition of 'villain’ here is. Azula, on the other hand…sharp and vicious and a void of anger and fear inside, and if she has to feel that, then the world should too.

Zhao (Avatar: The Last Airbender): It’s at least 85% the voice, and the other 15% is the way he looks at Zuko (I know, I know, I’m sorry).

Rhaegar (A Song of Ice and Fire): Rhaegar’s villainy is…complicated, but he gets a spot here anyway. I have a niche subtype that can be defined as Sad Harpists (Rhaegar, Maglor, Deth, Morgon, Asmodean), so that’s part of it, as is the way he sets that aside out of what he perceives as necessity. But also most of his draw is how he’s this shadow hanging over the entire narrative and yet is himself a void in it; we see so little of him, know so little of him in truth, catch only glimpses and will never know what’s behind them, and every character sees him differently, and he has defined all their lives but we know almost nothing of his. I’m all about identity and choices, and the fact that his are so thoroughly obfuscated but have such a lasting impact on the entire world really does it for me.

Baru Cormorant (The Masquerade): Does she count as a villain? I suppose it depends entirely on whose point of view you’re watching from, which is kind of the point. Regardless, she is so much of what I want from a character, from an author who doesn’t do things halfway. Intelligent and ambitious and utterly ruthless, to both herself and the world she wants to burn down around her.

Delilah Briarwood (Critical Role Campaign 1): any character whose cry of agony and despair takes the form of 'I broke the world for us!’ is a character I’m going to like.

The Lone Power (Young Wizards): mostly because the traditional greeting, upon encountering them, is ’fairest and fallen, greetings and defiance’, and I am a simple woman. But also because they’re the Lucifer figure, in all senses - evil, perhaps, but mostly a necessary embodiment of entropy, one who must exist and must struggle and must always lose, beautiful and bright and terrible, and oh so proud.

Judas (Christian Mythology): He betrayed a guy with a kiss. What more do you want from me?

Rin (the Poppy War): By the end, she makes a very compelling case for herself as a Villain Protagonist and I, for one, am into it. Also, 'genocidal’ gets tossed around a lot when villains are discussed, often without cause, so uh…points to Rin for actually deserving it? (This book is strongly in the category of Not For Everyone, but if it’s your thing…weaponising gods.)

Loki (Marvel franchise & Norse Mythology): so, I have a complicated relationship with 'trickster’ figures and characters, in that I like the idea of them, but tend only to actually enjoy the ones who fall on the darker side of that line they all dance around. Loki, in pretty much all his incarnations, fits that mould.

Achilles (Greek Mythology): Is Achilles a villain? Depends who you ask. But he’s powerful and proud and doomed, and knows it. I just…heroes who go out in a blaze of glory are all well and good, but villains who step up to the flames of their own damnation?

Ruin (Mistborn): It’s funny; I really enjoy a lot of Sanderson’s stories, but by and large he tends not to write my type of villain (which I will forgive him because he gave me Kelsier). But Ruin��starts off like just another godlike semicorporeal villain with absurd power, as you do, and then gets significantly more interesting – and tragic – when you learn the full story. I have a thing for villains who chose their villainy out of necessity (with a side helping of hubris) and become that which they most hated or feared. The ones who look at a razor’s edge and think 'I can walk that’. Who look at power that will consume them and think 'I can control it’. It’s a very specific kind of… arrogant sacrifice, I suppose, and it never ends well and I’m into it every time.

[scripttorture]

Torture in Fiction: Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, Paradise

This one was a recommendation from @skeerbs and I enjoyed the beginning a lot more than my previous Star Trek review.

Since I believe in stating my biases; this canon still isn’t for me but this episode is an excellent pick for a review.

Once again I’m rating the depiction and use of torture, not the movie itself. I’m trying to take into account realism (regardless of fantasy or sci fi elements), presence of any apologist arguments, stereotypes and the narrative treatment of victims and torturers.

Commanding Officer Benjamin Sisko and Chief Miles O’Brien are looking for habitable planets when they come across one that already shows signs of human settlement. It’s not documented so they decide to beam down and have the look. The community they find is made up of former Star Fleet personnel, stranded on a planet where all their advanced technology has stopped working.

The community initially appears to be an idyllic pastoral fantasy but as Sisko and O’Brien spend longer there the horrific set up of the community becomes more apparent. People are dying of treatable diseases. ‘Criminals’ are tortured. The community leader, a white woman called Alixus, seems to hold absolute power.

When O’Brien tries to get some of his technological equipment working in order to save a dying woman Alixus accuses him of the ‘crime’ of wasting time. The punishment is torture; a day in a cramped box, exposed to high temperatures with no food, water or sleep.

She chooses to have Sisko rather than O’Brien subjected to it.

At some point during the day she has Sisko removed from the box. Alixus tells him how ‘hard’ doing this is for her. She then says Sisko can have some water, if he agrees to take off his uniform.

Sisko, who is portrayed as unable to speak and almost incapable of walking, refuses. He staggers back outside in his uniform and gets back into the box.

In the meantime O’Brien manages to persuade a member of the community to let him search the area for the source of the energy field interfering with their technology. He finds a machine generating it.

O’Brien shuts it down and storms back into the village, releasing Sisko and revealing Alixus’ betrayal to the community. Sisko calls for rescue and offers passage back to civilisation for any of the villagers willing to leave. They all elect to stay.

Sisko and O’Brien are beamed up, along with Alixus and her son so they can answer for their crimes. The final shot is of the villagers dispersing, with two children looking at the empty box.

I’m giving it 6/10

The Good

1) To start with I think all the actors in this episode did a wonderful job with the script they were given. Avery Brooks does an excellent job throughout and the conflict between his character and Gail Strickland’s is really damn good.

2) At no point does this episode gloss over or downplay he damage torture causes. The first person the audience sees coming out of the box looks half dead. He’s unable to stand, he can barely speak. He trembles. The audience is very much shown he’s in pain and the characters explicitly refer to the incident as torture.

3) The torture here is realistically low tech. It is literally a large box. It’s a combined sort of torture encompassing dehydration, starvation, temperature torture and often stress positions and sleep deprivation as well. Boxes like this were actually used as a torture for hundreds of years.

4) The effects of these tortures seem to be shown accurately both for Sisko and Steven the first victim the audience sees.

5) After ordering him to be tortured Alixus tries to bribe Sisko into compliance, offering him water in exchange for taking off his uniform. Sisko rejects this, sticking to his beliefs and later he does this again, arguing with Alixus immediately after torture. There’s a dignity to the way Avery Brooks plays these scenes that gives them a real weight.

6) This may be a good point to talk about Alixus. One of the things that stood out to me during this episode is the positioning of Alixus as a character. Thinking of films like Get Out and the discussion it generated around the role white women play in violence against black men- well it makes the casting choices here feel very deliberate and weighted by history. I’m not an expert in American history or racism so I don’t think I should try to go into a lot of depth here. But it’s a detail that I appreciated in this story. There’s a highly racialised thread running through this portrayal of torture, with the gardens looking like cane fields and the use of a torture that black men were often subjected to in American jails.

7) Alixus’ use of social manipulation is incredibly well portrayed. She’s shown constantly adjusting the situation to get people ‘on side’. She points out how every one ‘agreed’ to the rules regarding torturous punishments. She positions trying to save a woman’s life with technology as a betrayal of the woman and the community’s values. She tries to get Sisko ‘on side’ by manipulating a young woman into an attempted seduction. She doles out humiliations and punishments on a whim and positions them as in ‘everyone’s’ best interests.

8) Alixus’ ‘justifications’ for torture are the kinds of justifications torturers use. She claims that she’s doing this for the sake of social order and bettering society. ‘This is painful for me too’ she tells Sisko, apparently unaware of the irony.

9) The end result is one hell of a villain. She’s awful. Manipulative, prone to random outbursts of violence and adapt at disguising those outbursts in socially acceptable ways. She orders Sisko to stand watch during the night and then using social pressure to force him back into the fields in the morning. Weaponising sleep deprivation while giving herself a socially acceptable excuse, ‘he could have said no’.

10) There’s also a small but rather nice discussion on the limits of compliance here. Sisko refuses to remove his uniform because it represents so much of what he believes in. One of the villagers feels unable to ‘look the other way’ while O’Brien goes looking for answers. But he does let O’Brien knock him unconscious. Which allows O’Brien to do what he thinks is right, while allowing the villager an ‘excuse’ to present his community. It demonstrates disagreement, but not disagreement as deep and fundamental as Sisko’s.

The Bad

My only real problem with this story is that I don’t feel it goes far enough when it comes to challenging or undermining the torturer’s views. She’s given a lot of speeches justifying her behaviour but the characters opposing her aren’t given much to say in return. They say she’s wrong and that’s about it.

Her actions lead to deaths and suffering but despite that the narrative hedges its bets at the very end. It writes her victims as not wanting to be rescued. It shows them volunteering to stay in a community founded on violence and lies. That action seems to support the justifications Alixus gives for torture; that it’s building and protecting her community.

The truth is torture tears communities apart. It leaves survivors with severe, life long mental health problems. It does the same to a good proportion of witnesses. It polarises and radicalises people. It stops people trusting and engaging with the authorities; crimes are not reported and witnesses don’t volunteer information because torture is a likely response.

For me this story really didn’t go far enough with its ending and it suffered for giving the torturer narrative time over and above her victims.

Miscellaneous

The first character that the audience sees tortured appears to be compliant and agree with the ‘justification’ his torturer presents for torturing him. But he is in her presence at the time so it’s arguable as to whether this is showing anything beyond a survivor paying lip service to a torturer to avoid further pain.

Overall

I enjoyed the majority of this episode and it does have some really good elements to it. The story goes out of its way to show the damage that ‘clean’ non-scarring tortures cause. It shows resistance in survivors.

But I think it does fall down at the very end by allowing the torturer the last word.

The narrative choice, giving her a big powerful speech with swelling music, where she justifies her atrocities, means her views are never effectively undermined. The fact the people she manipulated, tormented and denied medical care for a decade all opt to stay behind in the name of her ‘community’ seems to give weight to her ideals.

It’s close. For me it’s closer than the last Star Trek episode I reviewed. It’s coming down to the implications in the narrative, the editing and the way things were acted, rather than the more fundamental flaws in the script or concept.

But for me the end result feels like another narrative cop out. As though the writers weren’t quite prepared to commit to the idea that torture is bad.

That’s a subjective analysis, and many people may disagree but it’s why the score here is middling rather than good.

Disclaimer