#Society order[Modern verse]

[d20-lesbian]

AFTER AN OVERWHELMING WAVE OF SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT, I'VE DECIDED TO POST THE WILL WOOD ESSAY!!!! it's below the break !!!!

I would like to really quickly state though that this essay is my property, I put a lot of time and effort into this, so please don't claim it as your own !!!! thank you <33

I will be analysing Will Wood’s song ‘Suburbia Overture / Greetings from Marybell Township! / (Vampire) Culture / Love Me, Normally’. which, for simplicity, most fans refer to as simply ‘Suburbia Overture’. This song is the first on his first solo album entitled ‘The Normal Album’, which came out in July 2020.

This song, in the most general possible terms, is a criticism of modern suburban life, how it is advertised as “the perfect life”, and how this advertising is incredibly false unless you fit the picture perfect standard that these facets of society seem to require.

The song itself is split up into 3 distinct sections, "Greetings from The Marybell Township!", “(Vampire) Culture” and “Love Me, Normally”. I'll be tackling each section one at a time in order to properly break down what each means, what different analogies they use, how they all relate to each other and the intended end result of the song and the message it intends to convey.

Let's begin with 'Greetings from The Marybell Township!'.

This section of the song uses a lot of analogies that compare suburban life to a warzone, the first line of this section being “white picket fences, barbed wire and trenches”. This section also focuses heavily on the concept of the nuclear family, and it often literalises the term and uses analogies based around radiation and nuclear warfare. Such analogies can be found in lines such as “the snap crackle pop of the Geiger, camouflage billboards for lead lined Brookes Brothers”. Now there's a couple of terms that require definitions in this line. The first of course being “the Geiger”. A Geiger counter, which is what this lyric is referring to, is a tool used to measure levels of harmful radiation. This, paired with the concept of billboards advertising “lead-lined Brookes Brothers” when lead is a material used to deflect radiation, and the knowledge that ‘Brookes Brothers’ is an American vintage style clothing brand, this line really paints a picture of a seemingly post apocalyptic/post nuclear war but still consumerist and capitalistic suburban society. The last line in that verse is “buy now or die”, which ties back to the concept of safety equipment being advertised on billboards, while residents of this town have no choice but to buy the products. This all relates back to the hyperconsumerism that plagues our society, and runs particularly rampant in middle to upper middle class neighbourhoods. The very same neighbourhoods that are often referred to as “suburban”

In the second verse of this section there are a lot of hard hitting lyrics that to me really show that this perfect idealised life is far from perfect or even good, so we will work through them one by one because I feel that they all deserve proper analysis.

The first line that i want to point out from that verse is the line “takes a village to fake a whole culture” which is clearly a rip off of the phrase “it takes a village [to raise a child]” but it also references the fact that usually suburban towns are incredibly monotonous in both residents and architecture, and so it takes the collective effort of the entire population of the town to pretend that there is an actual culture to it.

The next few lines I'll speak on all come in quick succession of one another, essentially blending them into one line.

“Your ear to the playground, your eye on the ball, your head in the gutter, your brains on the wall.”

So let's break these down. This line is easily split into 4 distinct phrases, and all of these phrases have a few things in common, which I will point out later.

“Your ear to the playground” is a play on the phrase “ear to the ground” which essentially means that the person with their ‘ear to the ground’ is attempting to carefully gather intel about something. Someone having their ear to the playground simply reinforces the idea of this suburban “paradise” being. Not as paradise-y as one would hope, seeing as the people who use playgrounds most of all are children, so this line is demonstrating that the picture perfect life that this suburban town offers is actually corrupting children so young that they are still on the playground.

The next phrase is “your eye on the ball” isn't a play on anything and is in fact in itself a common phrase. To have your eye on the ball means to be entirely focused in and paying attention to something, and not allowing anything to divert your attention. Given the last line this line very well could be another reference to the corruption of the youth and the idea that their every day play has already been tainted with the hostilities of modern life usually reserved for adults.

Following this is another well known saying “your head in the gutter” which, as most know, someone whos head is ‘in the gutter’ is someone who will see some sort of innuendo or otherwise vulgar/inappropriate meaning in something that was intended to be entirely innocent, leading to others in the interaction telling the perpetrator to ‘get [their] mind out of the gutter’

And finally, in my opinion the most hard hitting phrase in this set, “your brains on the wall” which is clearly in reference to the notion of ending your own life with a shot to the head, which would lead to, well, brains being on the wall. These last 2 phrases come in stark contrast to the seemingly picture perfect life that suburban towns offer and advertise, the concepts of suicide and perversion are not concepts one expects to see or hear when imagining this idealised form of life.

There is one main similarity in each of the 4 phrases, that being that each phrase has some body part being on something else, your ear to the playground, your eye on the ball, your head in the gutter, your brains on the wall. This similarity almost offers a body horror aspect to the song, which when paired with the concept that this is written about a seemingly post nuclear apocalyptic town presents an interesting idea of possible mutation, but i'll be the first to admit that may be a little far fetched. However that's not the only similarity that these 4 phrases share, another is the fact that they are all directly, or only slightly modified versions of already well known phrases, a similarity that is found in many lines over this entire song, through all 3 sections.

I want to analyse a few more lines before we move on to the second section of the song.

This next line comes directly after the previously analysed line, and it goes “home is where the heart is, you ain't homeless, but you’re heartless”

Sticking with the theme of using already existing and commonly used phrases, “home is where the heart is'' is once again a phrase that you could likely find as a cross stitch hung up on the wall of any of the homogenous houses you could likely find in this idealised suburbia. But what Wood is saying in this line is that home is where the heart is, and that while people in this town may not be homeless, they are certainly heartless, meaning that they in fact don't have homes. They have houses. Rows upon rows of houses that all look the exact same in the horrifying monotony that is suburban living.

Following this line is the lyric “it's the safest on the market, but you still gotta watch where you park it”. These lines seem to be in reference to buying a car. The car being the "safest on the market" is likely in reference to the fact that it may have a lot of safety features. But this is immediately negated by the fact that you “still gotta watch where you park it” meaning that the safety features could be a reason that the car gets stolen, rendering all the safety that those features offered useless because in the end it made the car and the owner less safe.

In the third verse of this section, you immediately hear the line “so give me your half-life crisis” which partially is a play on the term ‘mid life crisis’ wherein which one realises that they may have wasted their life up till that point and they're already halfway through, but the use of the term “half-life” instead of ‘mid-life’ is very intentional, as the term “half-life” can also be used to refer to the half-life of an isotope, which is the amount of time that isotope takes to lose half of its radiation, which ties back into the theme of radiation that we see mentioned a lot in this section.

Later in the same verse is the line “if it's true that a snowflake only matters in a blizzard”, which is interesting in a few ways, first, it brings up the idea of a singular individual means nothing on their own and that they only matter when they’re part of something larger or a larger group, but i also think that the use of the terms “snowflake” and “blizzard” instead of something like ‘raindrop’ and ‘storm’ is very intentional in the fact that snowflakes are known for being individual, none are alike, every single one is different. So saying that a snowflake doesn't matter unless it's in a blizzard is yet another hit at individuality, essentially implying that in this town individuality means nothing and is essentially rendered useless.

The final line in this verse is “everybody's all up in my-” repeated thrice, and on the third time the sentence is finished to say “everybody’s all up in my business” and before the word “business” can be finished its overlapped with the beginning of the chorus, the first word of which is a very loud “SUBURBIAAAA!”. I believe this is reminiscent of the fact that in towns like this, everyone cares so much about what everyone else is doing, they’re all so interested in everyone else's business, and i think that sentiment being stated and cut off by the word “Suburbia” is essentially saying that ‘this is the norm, this is just Suburbia, this is how it works around here.’

After the final chorus of this section, in the final verse, you'll find the line “chameleon peacocks are talk of the town” which particularly interests me because if you know anything about chameleons or peacocks you’d find that they seem incredibly different as animals. Chameleons blend into their environment in order to stay safe, whereas peacocks are known for parading around bright colours to make themselves look better, but if you think about it the term “chameleon peacock” actually makes a lot of sense, a person who blends into their surroundings in order to make themselves look good. This sentiment seems to perfectly describe the homogeneity of the people that live in these perfect towns, they're all the same, they blend in with one another in order to make themselves look good, or perfect.

Another line heard shortly afterwards is the phrase “he cums radiation”, rather vulgar, I grant you, but it's important because it is yet another literalisation of the phrase ‘nuclear family’. It could also be a reference to the general toxicity of this societal norm.

The final line in this section of the song is “the dog bites the postman, as basement eyes dream of a night at the drive-in, with an AR-15”. Which is another use of juxtaposition, intended to cause a kind of whiplash in the listener and reinforce the idea that while in this place there is scenarios that would happen in a hollywood movie esque picture perfect neighbourhood, like the dog biting the postman, there's also horrors that lurk below the surface. (although clearly not TOO far below.)

Now let’s move on to the second part, ‘(Vampire) Culture’.

If you listen to the song, you’ll immediately be able to recognise where 'Greetings from The Marybell Township!' ends and ‘(Vampire) Culture’ begins, due to the insane juxtaposition between the two. Where 'Greetings from The Marybell Township!' is soft and sort of reminiscent of the 1950’s, ‘(Vampire) Culture’ is loud, jarring and grotesque, complemented with much raspier and strained sounding vocals compared to 'Greetings from The Marybell Township!' ’s soft and melodic ones. The tone for this section of the song is immediately set with much more graphic lyrics, the very first line of this section (after the opening scream) is “i dropped my eyeballs in the bonfire, we fucked on a bed of nails” which absolutely sets the scene for how different this section will be to the previous.

This song immediately jumps into using cannibalism as a metaphor, with the first line after the jump start opener being “I caught kuru from your sister, and I'm laughing in jail”. While this line is written to sound like the concept of catching an STD from an act of adultery, Kuru is actually a disease only found in human brain tissue, meaning that you can only contract this disease by eating a human brain, and what's one of the symptoms for this disease? Uncontrollable laughter.

This use of cannibalism as a metaphor is used again immediately after in the line “smell those screaming teenage sweetbreads on that 4th of July grill”, ‘sweetbread’ is the term used to refer to the pancreas and thymus gland of an animal, usually a lamb, but in this particular case it is in reference to the human teenagers that supposedly lived in The Marybell Township, or a least they did before they were dissected, cooked and served at a neighbourhood 4th of July barbeque hosted by the same people that were once referred to as their neighbours.

This line adds an interesting level of patriotism to the song and criticism of how America utilises patriotism and their love for their country as means to justify harming the youth, however a 4th of July neighbourhood barbeque is also commonly associated with white picket fence gated community America, which ties us back to the base criticism of that style of life and how it is seen as the “proper” and “perfect” way to live.

These cannibalistic sentiments are followed up with the line “smile and wave boys, kiss the cook, live laugh and love, please pass the pills.” which brings us back to the repeated use of commonly known sayings being taken directly or modified only slightly to remind the listener of the setting were in, that being a seemingly 1950’s era tight knit neighbourhood.

Phrases like “live laugh [and] love” or “kiss the cook” are both phrases that could easily be seen in a setting like this, especially “kiss the cook”, as this is a phrase commonly associated with aprons worn by grillmasters at neighbourhood barbeques, not unlike the cannibalistic 4th of July barbeque that this particular neighbourhood seems to be hosting.

These phrases being immediately followed up with a sentiment such as “please pass the pills” serves to entirely undermine the pleasantries that, until a moment ago, seemed to be plastered all over the faces of the people living in this fictional town that Wood has created. I think that final phrase brings the listener back to the realisation that not all is right here, quite the opposite in fact, and drags them from their momentary paradise.

Circling back very quickly to the phrase “smile and wave”. I felt the need to point out that this phrase has been used for centuries as a way to say “stop talking and act normal” which once again reinforces that these people are pretending to be something they’re not in order to fit in.

We enter the next verse with the repeated phrase “it's only culture”, after that line is repeated three times we hear “sulfur, smoke and soot”, which could either be a reference to how dirty and disgusting the ‘culture’ is, or it could be a different way of saying that this culture and the people participating are going to hell, as per the common phrase ‘fire and brimstone’ and the fact that sulfur is another way of saying brimstone, and smoke and soot are both byproducts of fire.

The last line of this verse and the first line of the chorus blend into each other, so I’ll speak on them both.

First, the last line of the verse. It goes “you cocked and sucked your lack of empathy, pulled the trigger with your foot to prove you've got-”

Putting aside the clear innuendo, this line refers to the idea of ending one's own life with a long shotgun. According to the media, by the time the gun is cocked and the barrel is in your mouth, you're not able to pull the trigger with your hands due to the length of the barrel. This line instead presents the solution of pulling the trigger with your foot to end your life.

So this person “cocked and sucked” the gun (cocked the gun and put the barrel in their mouth) before pulling the trigger with their foot to prove they’ve got-

And here's where the verse blends into the chorus.

Because the first line only consists of one word.

“Blood”.

The person who was shooting themselves with a shotgun only to prove that they bleed. Which is where the title of this section comes in. “(Vampire) Culture”. This section seeks to portray either the people in this culture or, the more likely option, the culture itself, as metaphorical vampires, who aim to destroy those around them. This knowledge makes the next line “didn't they want your blood, so why apologise for being blue and cold” make a lot more sense. After all, if these culture vampires have drained you of your blood, is it not their fault that you’re now “blue and cold”, as bodies tend to be if they lack blood flow. However, if you look at synonyms for the words “blue” and “cold”, you could also interpret this phrase as meaning “sad and apathetic”.

A sad and apathetic person doesn't seem to be the kind of person this ‘culture’ seeks to enlist however, and so one who is “blue and cold” is shunned as an outsider.

What Wood is getting at is that if this culture is the one who made you sad and apathetic, then you should not apologise to it for being so.

The next verse is short, and like the previous one, also blends into the chorus in the same way, by having the last line of the verse cut off right where the chorus would finish the sentence with the word “blood”. However in this verse, there's an interesting line. “It's only culture and it's more afraid of you than you are of it”, which is a sentiment usually used by adults to attempt to subdue a child's fear of something, usually insects. However it's interesting in the fact that it brings up the idea that this culture that has caused so much damage and harm is actually incredibly fragile, and would, in theory be very afraid of the concept of the individual, because if this ‘culture’ is only being held together by the silent agreeance that everyone will simply pretend, then the idea that there is people who refuse throws the whole idea into jeopardy.

This line is followed up however, by the line that blends it into the chorus. “Go on drink that-”, clearly intended to be finished by the first line of the chorus, making the full line, “go on drink that blood”.

This line is in reference to the phrase “drink the kool-aid” which essentially means to pledge your undying loyalty to something, a concept, a person, a god, etc. and it derives from an infamous mass cult suicide where over 900 people drank poisoned Kool-Aid and subsequently died for the cult. It is not a far cry to believe that this event and this phrase is what the line is referring to, as it's something that Wood has referenced in other songs, so it only makes sense to believe that this is what he means here.

After that chorus we move on to the bridge, which begins by listing 3 pairs of names, all famous or semi famous, and each pair being similar in one right but opposite in another, the line goes as follows; “were you Nabokov to a Sallinger, were you Jung to Freud or Dass to a Leary”, so let's break down these pairs one by one.

First “Nabokov to a Sallinger”, these names belong to Vladimir Nabokov and J.D. Sallinger, both authors who wrote famous books that both surround the theme of innocence, but in very different ways. Nabokov’s book “Lolita” is a story told from the perspective of a grown man about his sexual obsession and attraction to a little girl, and his desire to ruin her innocence, exploring the theme of innocence in a grotesque and frankly horrifying way, which is in stark contrast to Sallinger’s book “The Catcher in the Rye”, which explores the topic of innocence through the main characters desire to preserve their little sisters innocence, and in that desire displays hesitancy at the idea of sex themself. Both books explore the topic of innocence, however while one seeks to preserve it, the other seeks to destroy it, two sides of the same coin.

The next pairing is “Jung to Freud”, meaning Carl Gustav Jung and his mentor Sigmund Freud, who once again are similar in one right, but opposite in another. Jung and Freud both had theories on the nature of the human mind, but where Jungs was all about the concept of spirituality and how that ties into the collective unconscious, Freud's approach was much more focused on the individual unconscious and the concept of sexuality.

The final pairing is “Dass to a Leary”. both psychologists, both at the forefront of the ‘Harvard Psilocybin Project’ (before they both got dismissed from harvard entirely following controversies around the project) Richard Alpert and Timothy Leary were both psychologists and eventually authors who studied the effects of psychedelic drugs on the human mind, and while they were co workers they ended up with pretty conflicting views. Dr. Richard Alpert, who apparently ‘died’ and was ‘reborn’ as spiritual guide Ram Dass, centred his teachings heavily around the concept of living in the moment, (in fact his best selling book, written in 1971 was titled ‘Be Here Now’) and he believed that psychedelic drugs were not needed and that a permanent version of the same effects could be achieved through meditation. Whereas Dr. Timothy Leary advocated heavily for the use of psychedelics, believing that LSD specifically had great potential for therapeutic psychiatric use.

All of these pairings and examples utilise the concept of duality and speak on how every coin has two sides, which can easily be tied back to the idea that the picture perfect suburban life is just one side of the coin. This idea is then reinforced by the next line, “were you mother, daughter, subject and author?”, The use of the word ‘and’ here shows that it's possible to be two sides of the same coin at once, just like how this town, which is perfect on one side of the coin, is still terrible on the other side of the coin. The line is stating that it's possible to be both at once.

The very last line in this section is; “you don't make the rules, you just write them down and do it by the book you throw around”. This line combines a few relatively well known phrases. The first being of course ‘i don’t make the rules’, which can have two distinct meanings. The first is to express a kind of sympathy for someone being punished, and the second is to absolve yourself of the blame for that person being punished, a sort of ‘don't shoot the messenger’ situation.

The ‘rules’ that are likely being referred to here are the societal norms and expectations forced upon people who reside in these towns, the standard for ‘perfection’.

However, following this sentiment up with the phrase “you just write them down” is essentially saying that while it's not the fault of the people in these towns, they didn't create the norms, they still enforce them. They expect everything to be in line and perfect at all times, they follow these ‘rules’ to a T, and they shun and punish anyone who doesn't fit the standard and/or refuses to follow these ‘rules’, which is where the line “do it by the book you throw around” comes in, doing something ‘by the book’ means to follow rules strictly and to the letter, nothing out of line, and to throw the book at someone means to punish them as severely as possible, usually used in the legal sense to mean punishing someone for their crime as severely as the law will allow. So in all, the lyric “you don't make the rules, you just write them down and do it by the book you throw around” ends up meaning ‘you didn't create these norms but you still enforce them by following them to an absolute T and punishing anyone who doesn't.’

With that we enter the third and final section of the song, entitled ‘Love Me, Normally’, a title it shares with another song on the album, but of course this song is partially meant to serve as an overture for the whole album, meaning it shares some similar lyrics with lyrics from other songs on the album, so sharing a title isn't all that surprising.

The first lyric in this section is “do you know the difference between blazing trails and slash and burn?” which is another instance of duality in this song. Trailblazing or being a trailblazer means doing something no one has done before, paving the way for other people to follow in your footsteps, it comes from the literal act of creating a trail in the woods for people to follow, usually by creating notches in trees or setting small fires, hence ‘blazer’, as blaze is another word for a fire. However “slash and burn” is a method of deforestation that involves cutting down and burning a section of forest to create a field. Both examples include using fire to change something, but where one is seen as progress and positive, the other is negative, and seen as a means of destruction. Once again, two sides of the same coin, innovation and destruction.

This is followed up with the line “going against the grain and catching splinters”, which is a line i particularly like because while it is something that literally can happen, if you run your hand along wood in the opposite direction to the grain, you're more likely to get a splinter because you're essentially pushing your hand against the chips of wood, but it also is another metaphor for the dangers of not being the same. Going against the grain in this instance means daring to be different, not going the same way everyone else is going but instead the opposite of that, and in this example splinters are the consequences one would face for being different, especially in a setting like this perfect town, where everyone is the exact same as everyone else.

A little bit later you hear the line “well Lot he had his lot in life, Job his job and i guess you’ll too, and die”.

Lot and Job are both figures found in the Bible, whose names both share spelling with common English words, but are pronounced slightly differently.

Job, from the Book of Job, was a man that was tested by God, made to suffer to test his loyalty, his ‘job’ was to believe unendingly in God and see Him as always correct no matter what.

Lot, from the Book of Genesis, was a man who went through a lot, and the phrase ‘my lot in life’ is a phrase commonly used by people to write off/explain why they don't have it as good as others, they say it's simply their ‘lot in life’.

The end of this line “i guess you’ll too, and die” i believe refers to the fact that everyone will have their own job and their own lot in life, and then everyone in the end will die.

This theory is solidified by the fact that the next line is “The Lord looked down and said ‘hey, you're only mortal’” which is a play off of the phrase ‘you're only human’. Wood himself said that the phrase ‘you're only human’ has always felt weird to him, he says, “cause like, of course I am, aren’t we all? How is that fact supposed to help? I still feel bad. What does being human mean to you?”. He follows this up by saying that the idea of God saying "hey, you're only mortal" offers the same kind of sentiment, but in a “cosmically condescending” sort of way.

The following line reads “giveth and taketh away, till things come out a certain way, leave you wondering when they might go back to normal… leave you wondering why they can't have just been normal”.

This line presents a sort of hopelessness in the realisation that things are constantly changing, nothing is any more ‘normal’ than anything else, there's no such thing as ‘normal’, which is an overarching theme found throughout the album. Once again bringing back the fact that for all intents and purposes this song is an overture for the rest of the album.

To conclude, ‘Suburbia Overture’ is, in my opinion, one of the greatest criticisms of suburban, middle class, gated community, nuclear family life i've ever seen, it highlights the problems in that life and showcases how this kind of lifestyle in its incredibly rigid and restrictive standards is incredibly harmful to the very concept of individuality, because the expectations and unspoken rules set in communities like this and the widespread idea of forced normality seeks to crush any individuality before it even has a chance to blossom.

The use of metaphors and phrases that are well known and are likely to be seen in settings such as this gated community suburban town that Wood has created really paint a subconscious picture of what this community looks like, the use of duality, how every story has another side, and how nothing that is seemingly perfect from the outside is actually perfect on the inside.

Will Wood is an incredible lyricist and the fact that he was able to cram so much symbolism and such a powerful message into a song just over 6 minutes long is genuinely incredible.

Thank you for listening to my/reading my autistic hyper fixated rambling, i hope i didn't melt your brain too badly <3

[antifainternational]

Since youre antifascist, how about you give us a definition of fascism? What exactly makes someone a fascist? (and in case you use terms such as left-wing or right-wing be sure to define them too)

Guess it's been a while since a clever Anon challenged us to define fascism, huh? Right, let's get into it: Via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

Yale professor Jason Stanley:

“Fascism is a creation of race hatred and its politically organized expression.” - Willhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933).

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” - Upton Sinclair

“Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall…that its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone. ” - Ludwig von Mises,  Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition (1927).

“Spent most of the day reading fascisti leaflets. They certainly have turned the whole country into an army. From cradle to grave one is cast in the mould of fascismo and there can be no escape … It is certainly a socialist experiment in that it destroys individuality. It destroys liberty.” -  Harold Nicolson, The Harold Nicolson Diaries : 1919-1964 (2004).

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends….If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.” - Henry A. Wallace

“Fascism is the cult of organised murder, invented by the arch-enemies of society. It tends to destroy civilization and revert man to his most barbarous state. Mussolini and Hitler might well be called the devils of an age, for they are playing hell with civilization.” - Marcus Garvey,  Authors take Sides on the Spanish War, 1937 Philosophy Tube's breakdown of the elements of fascism is very thorough and recommended if you're not the reading type. But do you read books? We hope so if you're looking to engage in political discussion about anything. Here are some books that tackle the definition of fascism, in whole or in part, that we would recommend to you (check/order from your local library!) Mark Bray's highly-accessible Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook is a great starting point for this topic.

Columbia history professor Robert O. Paxton's excellent book The Anatomy of Fascism goes into this in great detail.

There's also Umberto Eco's The Eternal Fascist

or his "practical list for identifying fascists" as well as Hannah Arendt's seminal The Origins of Totalitarianism

We hope you weren't looking for a simple answer to the complex question of "what is fascism?" Anon, just as we hope you're up to taking our challenge of checking out all of the above so you're curiosity is satisfied and you're well-versed on the topic.

[matan4il]

To the person who wants us to differentiate the modern political movement that came to be called Zionism, and the Zionist nature of Judaism, I'll address you politely, even though your assertion that I must be a teenager (quick search of my blog would show you that I work at a Holocaust museum, education and research center, that also studies the history of the Jewish people in general, so... not a sound assumption) is very insulting and condescending.

Sure, we can distinguish the thousands of years old Zionist nature of Judaism from the modern political movement that came to be referred to as Zionism.

But do you understand that the modern political movement wouldn't exist without the fact that Judaism has ALWAYS been Zionist? That the distinction is, to a degree, an artificial one, especially in the context of anti-Zionists claiming that Judaism is incompatible with Zionism, which is a lie. With that claim, they mean to deny the very right of Israel to exist as a liberation and land back movement of the Jewish people, and while they're at it, they are de-legitimizing every Zionist movement ever, whether modern or not, they're de-legitimizing every Jew who had returned to Israel, even just as an individual, because they are denying the very Zionist nature of Judaism.

I'll attach at the end an attempt at demonstrating why the distinction is somewhat artificial in this context.

But before that, I'll address some of your other claims. You said that Zionism is a secular movement, and religious Jews are opposed to it. While some ultraorthodox Jews are indeed opposed to active Zionism, and prefer a passive wait for the Mashiach, they too are Zionist in the non-modern-political-movement sense (they still believe and pray for the Mashich to bring all Jews back to Israel and re-establish Jewish sovereignty in this land, not to keep them in the diaspora). And they do not represent all religious Jews. The modern political Zionist movement was very much joined by religious Jews, such as a political organization called "Ha'Mizrachi," which was established in 1902. Their Zionism was connected to the actions and writings of rabbis who preceded many secular Zionist leaders like Herzl (first published a Zionist pamphlet in 1896), such as Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever (first established Ha'Mizrachi as a spiritual and educational pro-Zionist center in 1893), Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (published "Minchat Yehuda," a Zionist call for Jews to return to Israel in 1840, and established the Society for the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael in 1852), and Rabbi Zvi Kalischer (asked Mayer Amschel Rothschild to help with the purchase of land in Israel for Jews to return there in 1836, and published the Zionist book Drishat Zion in 1862). Even among ultraorthodox Jews, there are Zionist ones. Some of them were a part of Ha'Mizrachi organization. During the British rule in Israel, there were ultraorthodox Jews who actively helped the Zionist underground movements, the Etzel and the Hagana, and in a 2022 poll, 76% of Chassidic Jews defined themselves as Zionist.

You also made the assertion that the modern political movement of Zionism is European. Again, while many of its founders were from Europe, many Jews from Arab and Muslim countries came to Israel as a part of the modern Zionist movement. Please don't erase them. And why would they be a part of this movement? Because of the intrinsically Zionist nature of Judaism. Yemenite Jews didn't need to be a part of the founding fathers of the modern political movement, in order to be a part of the movement, and to see it as a fulfilment of ancient Jewish prophecies, when they were brought to Israel in a special operation in 1952. In fact, there was a Zionist Yemenite movement of return in 1881, following a verse in the Bible, in the Song of Songs book, that they believed told them they had to return to Israel during this year. Many of them settled in a village close to the Temple Mount, which the Arabs refer to as Silwan, a mispronunciation of the ancient Hebrew name Shiloach (that can be found in the Bible). These Yemenite Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs during the 1936-1939 anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish riots. And when Jews tried to return to Kfar Ha'Shiloach, anti-Zionists attacked that as "colonization," too. Anti-Zionists make NO distinction between Jews returning to Israel from Europe, and Jews returning to it from Arab and Muslim countries. We're all just "Zionists" and "incompatible with Judaism," no matter how much our Zionism is derived from our Jewish identity, and no matter that we are native to this land, not colonizers.

You asked, "how can judaism be 'inherently zionist' when the idea of a jewish state has only existed for less than 200 of those years?" and I will ask you, what's unclear when I say that Zionism is about Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish ancestral homeland, which is an idea that I showed was inherent to Jewish tradition and religion? There were Jewish kingdoms here (the unified kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Yehudah, and the Hasmonean Kingdom), that fulfilled that idea long before there was a Jewish state, and the Jewish state is a direct (and yes, modern) continuation of those ancient Jewish kingdoms (I mean, of course that's the modern reincarnation, we're not going to build a Jewish kingdom now, just so no one can use the accusation that a Jewish state is a modern concept... and I'm sort of weirded out by the fact that I have to defend the right of Jews to implement modern reincarnations of their traditional notions... Also, pretty sure that if we went with the old version and tried to set up a Jewish kingdom, we'd be crucified for being backwards), because it is founded on the same exact principle, that we get to self rule in our own ancestral land. Denying that is erasing Jewish history and parts of Jewish identity.

You said, "our connection to the land does not need to be mediated through a political body the majority of us have absolutely no say in," and I wanna ask you, does every German in the world (or at least most) have to live in Germany, and have a say in it as a citizen, for the nation state of the German people to have the right to exist? Same for every other nation state out there.

You called Israel, "a country younger than our grandparents, and for that matter any other country too," which is untrue on several levels. The state might be younger than some grandparents, but its right to exist is an ancient one, connected to those thousands of years old kingdoms, and in that sense, the modern state of Israel being founded in 1948 is no different to the modern state of India being founded in 1947. Would you tell Indians that their state has no right to exist, erasing its connection to previous forms of Indian self rule in that land, just because those weren't a modern state? Would you offend them by suggesting that the age of their modern state is a factor in its legitimacy? No. But for some reason, you feel comfortable doing that when it comes to the modern Jewish state. While we're at it, whether the current self rule of Palestinians constitutes a state is a matter of debate, but let's say that it counts, and that a Palestinian state started existing when they began self ruling in 1994 following the Oslo accords (the first time ever in history when Arabs in Israel self ruled, rather than be a colony serving a metropole situated in some other Arab or Muslim country), that would make their state not only younger than our grandparents, it would make it younger than quite a few Tumblr users. But I bet you wouldn't say that this de-legitimizes the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Yet you feel it's perfectly okay to say such things about Israel. You should ask yourself why can you accept others, but not a Jewish state. For the record, here's some modern states younger than Israel, that you would never dream to de-legitimize based on their age: Malaysia (1957), Singapore (1965), Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia, 1965), Bangladesh (1971), Guinea-Bissau (1973), Comoros (1975), Lithuania (1990), Latvia (1990), Belarus (1990), Armenia (1990), Georgia (1991), Croatia (1991), Slovenia (1991), Ukraine (1991), Moldova (1991), Uzbekistan (1991), Macedonia (1991), Azerbaijan (1991), Slovakia (1992), Montenegro (2006).

***

Okay, a small demonstration of how artificial the distinction between modern political Zionism and historical Zionism is...

Where do we put the start of the modern political movement of Zionism, what is the date when it began?

A lot of people would suggest that it started with Herzl. He's often referred to as "the father of Zionism" (that's incorrect. It would be more accurate to refer to him as "the father of diplomatic Zionism"). Herzl was actually an assimilationist Jew, who believed Jews in Europe should aspire to be like all other Europeans, erase the difference between them and the non-Jews (relinquishing our tradition, culture, religion, everything that makes us unique and a contribution to the richness of the human experience), and rely on the equal rights that Europeans would grant us. He believed in this, but experiencing antisemitism in the cosmopolitan Vienna, as well as covering the Dreyfus trial (when a Jewish officer was convicted of treason, and shamefully exiled, despite his many years of loyal service to his country, just because he was a Jew), he came to publish (as I mentioned) a Zionist pamphlet in 1896.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1896?

But the term "Zionism" as the name of the movement was actually coined in 1890, by Nathan Birnbaum!

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1890?

But for the term to be coined, it had to describe something that already existed. And in fact, many Zionist groups, counted as a part of the modern political movement, were already active by that time. For example, some people start counting the new Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael as starting with the arrival in Israel of the Zionist Bilu group, in 1882 (they were established in January of that year, and despite being secular Jews, they were drawing from Jewish tradition, naming themselves after a biblical verse from the book of Isaiah. Because like I said, modern political Zionism wouldn't exist without the ancient Zionist nature of Judaism).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1882?

But that doesn't work either, because by the time the Bilu group arrived in Israel, the first Jewish moshava (a Zionist form of settlement based on values of agriculture and communality), Petach Tikva (sometimes nicknamed "the mother of moshavot"), was already established in 1878.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1878?

But how did this new movement of Zionists know to work the land, if in the diaspora, for hundreds of years, Jews were prohibited from being farmers, so they would have no claim to the land they worked? Well, many young Zionists learned how to do this work thanks to a Jewish agricultural school called Mikveh Yisrael, which was founded in 1870.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1870?

But a part of why Mikvah Yisrael was established, was the poor condition of Jews in Jerusalem. By the time demographic surveys were conducted in the 1840's, Jews were the biggest religious group in the Old City of Jerusalem, and so overcrowded that it made their lives much harder, sometimes even endangered (like when a plague would break out). The Jewish minister Moshe Montefiore started building neighborhoods for Jews outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem in 1860, moving Jews out of the old Yishuv and into a new form of settling in the land of Israel, outside the "protecting" walls of the four cities holy to Judaism, and into the idea that they can and should use agriculture to sustain themselves outside these cities, and re-connect with their land.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1860?

But the first victim of anti-Zionist terrorism in the land of Israel is actually considered to be Rabbi Shlomo Avraham Zalman Zoref, who was murdered by Arabs in 1851 for his Zionist efforts to help in the settlement of Jews in Israel and in the restoring of Jewish religious life in the Old City of Jerusalem through diplomatic efforts vis a vis Muhamad Ali Pasha, the Egyptian occupier of the Land of Israel at the time, and by enlisting the help of the consuls of Russia and Austria (by the way, one of his grandsons was among the founders of Petach Tikva).

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1851?

But his diplomatic Zionist efforts, for which he was murdered, didn't start at the time of his death, they go back to when he managed to get that permit from Muhamad Ali Pasha in 1836 for Jews to re-build the Ashkenazi community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Muslims over a hundred years earlier.

So, shall we count the start of the modern political movement of Zionism as 1836?

But where did that Ashkenazi Jewish community, which Rabbi Zoref tried to restore, come from? Rabbi Yehuda Ha'Chassid successfully called Jews to return to Israel, and he did manage to inspire many to follow him as he started his own journey to Israel in 1697, and managed to buy land for his community in the Old City of Jerusalem, which was joined by Jews already living there. This WAS a form of a semi-modern Zionist movement. And it IS quite connected to what came later, in more modern times.

Or another example. Dona Garcia Nassi was a crypto Jew from Portugal, whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition, only for the Portuguese Inquisition to grow stronger and harsher, driving her and a part of her family to Istanbul. There, they could stop pretending to be converts to Christianity, they got to publicly return to their Jewish identity. She did a lot for Jews, and in 1561, she used her financial and political ties to ask the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the First to lease land in Israel, for Jews to self rule there. She first asked for land in Jerusalem, was refused, and so she ended up leasing land in Tiberias instead, helping to re-build the city and the Jewish community there, and allowing for a movement of Jews to return to Israel and settle in Tiberias. It's another type of semi-modern Zionist movement striving for Jewish sovereignty in Israel, in whatever form they could get it.

So where do we draw the line? How do we say, these Jews returning to Israel count as Zionist, but those don't? One of my best friends is a Jew from Morocco, his family was religious and fiercely Zionist, and your ask erased them. How do we accept a narrative that looks at thousands of years of Jews returning to Israel, from all sorts of backgrounds, and from all sorts of countries, and yet doesn't recognize that they all returned for the same reason, drawing from the same Jewish foundation? How do we not see that the separation is an artificial one?

Anti-Zionism is antisemitic in so many ways, and one of them is exactly what this narrative does to so many Jews who were proud, and wanted to be counted as Zionist, precisely because to them it was an expression of their Jewish identity.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[deadpanwalking]

“I do not minimise the services of modern poets in exploiting the possibilities of rhymeless verse. They prove the strength of a Movement, the utility of a Theory. What neither Blake nor Arnold could do alone is being done in our time. ‘Blank verse’ is the only accepted rhymeless verse in English – the inevitable iambic pentameter. The English ear is (or was) more sensitive to the music of the verse and less dependent upon the recurrence of identical sounds in this metre than in any other. There is no campaign against rhyme. But it is possible that excessive devotion to rhyme has thickened the modern ear. The rejection of rhyme is not a leap at facility; on the contrary, it imposes a much severer strain upon the language. When the comforting echo of rhyme is removed, success or failure in the choice of words, in the sentence structure, in the order, is at once more apparent. Rhyme removed, the poet is at once held up to the standards of prose. Rhyme removed, much ethereal music leaps up from the word, music which has hitherto chirped unnoticed in the expanse of prose. Any rhyme forbidden, many Shagpats were unwigged.

And this liberation from rhyme might be as well a liberation of rhyme. Freed from its exacting task of supporting lame verse, it could be applied with greater effect where it is most needed. There are often passages in an unrhymed poem where rhyme is wanted for some special effect, for a sudden tightening-up, for a cumulative insistence, or for an abrupt change of mood. But formal rhymed verse will certainly not lose its place. We only need the coming of a Satirist – no man of genius is rarer – to prove that the heroic couplet has lost none of its edge since Dryden and Pope laid it down. As for the sonnet I am not so sure. But the decay of intricate formal patterns has nothing to do with the advent of vers libre. It had set in long before. Only in a closely-knit and homogenous society, where many men are at work on the same problems, such a society as those which produced the Greek chorus, the Elizabethan lyric, and the Troubadour canzone, will the development of such forms ever be carried to perfection. And as for vers libre, we conclude that it is not defined by absence of pattern or absence of rhyme, for other verse is without these; that it is not defined by non-existence of metre, since even the worst verse can be scanned; and we conclude that the division between Conservative Verse and vers libre does not exist, for there is only good verse, bad verse, and chaos.”

T.S. Eliot, from 'Reflections on Vers libre' (New Statesman, March 3, 1917)

[saturnaftertaste]

I would like to hear your hirarchie opinions!

oh anon, you’re too sweet. you do spoil me so ♡

so, my take on hirarchie?

look. as a feminist, my first thought in the archie-ronnie-hiram subplot/relationship triangle will always be veronica. as such, my thoughts on hirarchie come from the angle of thinking about veronica, who is a very interesting figure in the case of the Jughead-Narrated Riverdale Universe.

first of all - veronica is a legacy outsider to Riverdale. i’ve mentioned this before, but out of s1’s protagonist cast, ronnie was the only one to not be white. not only this, but hiram’s history itself starts outside of riverdale. unlike betty | alice, archie | fred, cheryl | penelope, jughead | fp, veronica | hiram do not have history here. in fact, archie, betty, jughead, and cheryl all have direct ancestors who landed in riverdale in 1580 - i.e. as per colonial “american” practice, the town was “built” by them and their descendants.

so what role do the lodges play in all of this? the blossoms are rich, the andrews’ are good, the coopers are cunning and the joneses write the history, so what role do the lodges play in the existence of riverdale? are they even necessary for that existence? my point is this - nothing happens in riverdale until a lodge shows up.

think about it! we’ve seen riverdale prime start up twice - once in season 1, once in season 7. a lot of people pin jughead’s narration from s1 on jason blossom’s death (“little miss inciting incident”) but my take on this is that the starting point of any riverdale story is the entrance of a lodge. one of my main riverdale theories is that while the events of s1-4 are narrated by jughead, s5-7 are original written pieces by jughead within the meta of the river-verse. as given in the canon, jughead is not a very good writer - so to keep riverdale afloat from s5-7, the stories he tells are essentially ripped off from the first four of seasons, remixed and then re-presented: hence, when s7 starts in the 50s, it starts on the day when veronica comes to town, just like s1, except there is no murder; jason blossom doesn’t exist.

what does this have to do with archie? good question. i’m getting there (i promise. i hope).

this post by @/wallbeatjournal talks about how just because archie and hiram aren’t related, it doesn’t make it any less incestuous. that is what got me thinking about the riverdale citizens’ roles in their society. as the town pares down in terms of citizens, season by season, and the “following in. families’ footsteps” themes become more and more in-your-face, one must question the cycles and where they came from. interestingly enough, the modern-day riverdalians are 1-to-1 copies of their ancestors, with a specific focus on gender. the farthest ancestors shown are not patriarchal heads of houses— instead you have: asher andrews, blessing cooper, james jones, charity blossom. obviously, we do not know if these are “true”; as per my personal theory, this is all jughead making filler backstory for s6 bc he’s alone and trapped in an empty bunker trying to power a dead universe for himself. however, the genders and the naming conventions match our current protagonists. moving forward in time and referencing the parents of the riverdale citizens, all of them who have a historical colonial ancestor become one of their parents, usually looking like one of them as well, despite the end goal being to break out of their cycles of perpetual violence; usually, the parent they become is the one they share a gender with:

betty is the “gang leader’s girlfriend/perfect small-town girl/thrill-seeking investigator” -> all roles alice has occupied, in that order. notice how despite hal’s attempted influence on her, she does not become a serial killer.

jughead is the “writer/gang leader/scholarship kid/alcoholic” -> roles both F.P and his grandfather occupied. he is incapable of leaving riverdale permanently, like F.P., but unlike gladys who left prior to any inciting incident.

cheryl is the “alive half of a pair/center of tragedy/repressed rich kid/witch” -> roles occupied by penelope blossom as more of the story is unveiled, reflecting cheryl’s life? or cheryl reflecting penelope? (remember, clifford blossom dies before s1 is up, so in this way, jason and clifford match in that they are the Dead ones.)

(remember, this is all through the jughead lens, so it’s all subjective. anyway)*

so where does that leave archiekins and veronica?

veronica is interesting, like i said before. she has no colonial ancestor; her ties to riverdale do not extend beyond hiram’s own. in fact, you could say that veronica and hiram have no ties to riverdale at all, since it was jaime luna that came to riverdale, and hiram lodge who left to manhattan after he married hermione.

veronica is also interesting in that she’s the only one out of the main cast to not be the same gender as her primary-complex-relationship parent. although hiram is not present for season 1, most of veronica’s conflict still stems from his existence as her father. veronica is a girl, yet she does not resemble hermione in her riverdale role**; she is her father’s daughter, constantly actively fighting him while mirroring his own traits. the owning of businesses, the murderous intent, the guns for hire (reggie, circa s3?) thé illegal activity? the mob interactions? she is not a gangster’s moll like hermione ends up as; she is the gangster. remember that episode when they all got sent to therapy in the guise of “college counseling” in their senior year? it’s openly stated that one interpretation of hiram and veronica’s relationship is combative, and that hiram doesn’t see her as an extension of himself, but rather an outside agent who might take his place (hence veronica has to “beat” him to win.)

all this to say that the lodges are, on a narrative level, instigators. (the party don’t start till i walk in! - veronica lodge, 2017) not the blossoms. veronica comes to town, and the story starts. hiram comes to town, and veronica and hiram start fighting on various battlegrounds, for some unnamed, constantly shifting purpose. the lodges do not belong in riverdale, and the story is aware of this, but the story/the town also knows that it cannot exist in reality without the lodges jumpstarting it’s existence. only one lodge can bring back the other (veronica in riverdale brings hiram to riverdale; hiram’s nefarious plans for sunnydale truly bring veronica back to riverdale); only one lodge can get rid of the other (hiram attempts to send veronica to harvard, veronica chases him out of town with the shotgun AND orders a hit on him), and yet - the town needs one lodge to keep things moving (the juvenile prison, the speakeasy under pops. the sunnydale development project, the babylonium) the lodges are the only access to growth and change the town has. otherwise, it sits on its haunches, repeatedly producing people who are named like their ancestors and look&behave like their parents.

all except for one person; the one person who becomes the rope in the lodges’ metaphorical game of tug-of-war.

see, archie, through the jughead lens, is special. archie is complex. where everyone else has to be bent to fit a stereotype (girl next door, rich girl, tragic victim, mindless jock, gay best friend), jughead’s narration expands to fill in the gaps about archie (he was a victim? he was clout-chasing football star? a musician? a folk hero?every government service? he fought a bear???) archie, i think, is the only one he allows free will/choices—archie is his protagonist, so he must have a story, but also is the object of his affection. hence, archie “tries” to be like his perception of his father (“good” “kind”, “strong”, male) but often ends up behaving like his mother (leaves people, bisexual***, protective, desperate for the american dream****, redheaded) while also making other choices - presumably, those choices were based in the reality that jughead is recording from s1-s4, and everyone’s actions around archie’s choices are folded into their characters to the fit the stereotypes and story arcs they inhabit.

so what happens when an instigator meets the only other person in their path who has free will? when veronica comes into contact with archie, she jumpstarts the betty/archie thing that supposedly has been simmering for years. when hiram comes into contact with archie, archie unlocks a new ability to take matters into his own hands. veronica consistently enables the choices that archie makes, whether good or bad, and hiram constantly unlocks new levels of action in archie, whether good or bad.

hiram’s influence on archie is obviously paralleled with hiram’s own story, but instead of inflicting it on his daughter who he comes into conflict with, he tries to instigate new levels of action from archie. i think if hiram had had a son, riverdale as a story would cease to exist because the point of lodges, (and i do mean lodges, not lunas) is to be different, even to each other - hence them creating change. riverdale’s near-all-white population in hiram’s years? he moves there, and now the town has someone new and different to them in poverty. his daughter comes to riverdale, and all of a sudden the entire social balance and relationship structures of the town’s youth are upended, because she’s new and different to them and rich. he becomes a lodge; she becomes a luna. he pushes archie to take action (i.e, red circle); she takes actions for archie (raising money for the community center). if veronica had been a son, chances are he would’ve followed so completely in hiram’s steps that he wouldn’t have come to riverdale at all.

why else would they fight as equals? only one of them can be in riverdale at a time. otherwise, they cancel out - hiram puts archie in prison, ronnie gets him out. hiram buys pop’s? ronnie buys pop’s back. and so on and so forth.

hirarchie exists and functions because hiram is one of the only two factors the town can rely on for any kind of change, and archie is jughead’s clumsy (remember he’s a bad writer!) projection of the town’s soul onto his best friend; thus archie is at the mercy of the lodges because the town wishes to express itself through a story, and a story requires conflict, something that cannot be produced without the presence of an outsider.

*the jughead lens is both misogynistic and apathetic but most importantly it’s simplistic. jughead himself does not make it as a writer in nyc beyond his one book - this is because he is unable to write characters that cannot eventually be folded into one-dimensional tropes that are very obviously props for his own opinions and desires.

**side note: while hermione does not have any ancestors mentioned in historical riverdale, someone matching a younger version of her/teenage veronica does exist in rivervale. this, along with teenage hermione’s description of her mother’s job cleaning houses in the “midnight club” episode, establishes that hermione may have been here longer than hiram — and yet, veronica only follows hiram’s patterns, not hermione or her unnamed grandmothers’.

***bisexuality is presumed on account of the interest-in-reggie-and-jughead sub?text and the absence-is-presence of jarchie in the polycule from s7.

****it is implied that mary explores her sexuality after she leaves fred (at least, that’s how i remember it, please correct me if i’m wrong) and the marrying fred and settling into the american dream as fast as possible draws parallels with archie being desperate to maintain “normal” - the wedding fantasies with veronica in s2, the trying to make it work with betty in s5, the insistence on a baby in s6 - this, apart from the red hair, is the greatest similarity archie has with his mother.

[aloevhello]

I’ve been seeing some speculation about how Miguel is out of character in ATSV. I’m not sure how much I can speak on this, since I haven’t finished reading Miguel’s 90’s run yet. But as someone who views Miguel’s story in the SV films to be a continuation of this particular comic line, his tragic comic ending likely paved the way for his current jaded and fatalistic personality.

However, something I find noteworthy for this ooc discussion is how the film includes elements from his modern comics, such as him being a father figure, Lyla’s redesign, and the construction of his white suit. However, Miguel’s story from the 90’s is only alluded to, such as Gabriella’s namesake and Miguel’s 90’s comics being briefly shown. While creative liberties are to be expected when it comes to adaptations, the lack of references to Miguel’s earlier works is reminiscent of the current comics’ treatment of Miguel where the focus is more on his newer stories and features rather than adding to his character work from the 90’s.

Then there’s Miguel’s storyline in the SV films where he spends a majority of his time transversing the multiverse, rather than staying in his home dimension of Nueva York. This is very reminiscent of how sm2099’s modern comics take Miguel out of Nueva York and the year 2099 and place him in modern day New York (essentially making Miguel far from home), which prevents any type of continuation or adaptation of Miguel’s original 90’s comics. Even Miguel’s origin story is brushed aside and is replaced with a pamphlet of his current expeditions with the Spider Society. This could be reflective of how Miguel’s longevity is partly attributed to him holding the Spider-Man mantle as it helped him be the only enduring character of Marvel 2099’s character line-up, along with his modern resurgence being a result of his appearance in the Spider-Verse comics. With all these deviations to Miguel’s character in both ATSV and the modern comics, I wonder if the film is meant as act as commentary on these comics removing Miguel from his original context and how it can make him appear ooc. How the character behind the mask can be lost if their current story does not engage with their past work and believes their ties to a larger IP (ie. Spider-Man) is what gives their character value.

It’s just interesting to see, since much of Miguel’s character arc in his 90’s comics is to understand the importance of the past, both for Nueva York and his personal history, in order to pave the way for a better future. However, much of Miguel’s current comics refuse to engage with his previous works, which comes at the expense of this theme. My hope is for BTSV to rectify this by having Miguel reveal his true origin story and the events from his 90’s comics that led to Miguel being in the current position that he’s in today.

[hompunkulus]

Atrocities of Religion and Satanism as the Voice of the Silenced and Enraged

Satanism is a philosophy of self-awareness, hedonism, and self-expression. It has been around for centuries in different guises through literature, art, or politics. In no order, we have William Blake, Hellfire Club, and Bavarian Illuminati. The aforementioned were based on rationalism on one end and gnosticism on the other.

On a less intellectual and more transgressive, and even criminal level, you have the Aghori (who are still around), Thugees, Hashishan, and Snake Witches (from Japan). The Aghori eat human flesh and excrement, cover their bodies with cremation ash and chant on corpses. The Thugees were an atrocious criminal society that worshipped Kali and offered heads of their kills to her. The Hashishan were Persian assassins that were trained not only in espionage and violence, but also in poisons and psychedelics. The Japanese Snake and Dog witches were known for human and animal sacrifices and having deadly curses at hand. But none of these groups are Satanists, they are mentioned for historical purposes of the general Left Hand Path, this is to say, all Satanisms and Satanists are Left Hand Path but not all Left Hand Paths are Satanic, although the Christian hive mind would say otherwise. That all paths not of Christ are of Satan.

Today, you have transgressive groups like Joy of Satan who glorify Nazi symbolism and Order of Nine Angles who have very real ties to Far Right militant extremists and CSA, mainly through an offshot the Tempel ov Blood. These are only two known Satanic groups, though. They are pebbles on a river bed in the grand scheme of modern Satanism.

Bigotry, CSA, and human sacrifice have no place in my philosophy and practice, or in that of the majority of the Satanic community.

A Little Devil Spit

The Holy Roman Catholic Church, and a number of Christian denominations, have an actual history of genocide, CSA, and xenophobia. The early Roman Catholics converted and murdered pagans, Christian Spaniards started the Inquisition, and the Quakers hunted, tortured, and murdered men, woman (mainly women), and children for, often false, accusations of witchcraft because of the verse in Exodus 22:18 "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The early 90's saw a sickening amount of CSA cases coming from local churches and today we are still fighting battles against racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia within our House of Representatives, Supreme Court, and local police guided by outdated Puritan 'values'. Church and State are supposed to be seperate entities, today they are a dynamic villainy backtracking to Jim Crow and Inquisition era ideations.

What makes me a Satanist is I will, and have historically, used my voice to call bullshit when people accuse Satanism, witchcraft, and vampirism to be violent, extremist, and atrocious cults when it is clear who are the real leaders of said atrocities.

A quote that defines a big part of my Satanic belief is from the last interview with Anton LaVey, "I would say that I am a very happy man, an extremely happy man, in a compulsively unhappy world."

The doctrine of Satanism, if we learn from history and modern incarnations, is it is about intellectual discourse, carnal appreciation, and indulgence in the pleasures of life, and not about race wars or other such nonsense and ignorance.

[viitlumi]

Verses Lore - AOT Modern AU

I'll add this information to a linked page of my blog, but I decided to make this extra post anyway ;D More info under Read because it's a rather long:

;modern au - In the distant future, 2000 years after the death of Eren Yeager, the world has undergone a dramatic transformation. The scars of the Titan Wars have healed into a highly developed society, marked by advanced technology, sustainable urban planning, and a commitment to global peace. The legacies of Eren, Ymir, and other heroes are preserved in museums, commemorated in grand monuments, and celebrated through annual memorial days, ensuring their stories remain integral to cultural identity.

Paradis has emerged as the capital of the world, a symbol of resilience and rebirth. The city stands as a beacon of progress, with its towering skyscrapers, lush green spaces, and seamlessly integrated technology reflecting the pinnacle of human achievement. The streets are filled with people from diverse backgrounds, all contributing to a vibrant, multicultural society. Citizens of Paradis exhibit a strong sense of civic duty and global responsibility, embodying the spirit of unity and cooperation that defines the new world order.

A unified world government has brought unprecedented political stability and international cooperation. Science and education are pillars of society, with groundbreaking advances in medicine vastly improving quality of life and longevity. The education system places a strong emphasis on history, ensuring that the lessons of the past are never forgotten. This awareness fosters a cautious optimism among the populace, who remain ever vigilant of potential threats while striving for a brighter future.

However, whispers of the Titans' possible return due to DNA manipulation continue to circulate, serving as a stark reminder that history's shadows can still loom over the present. Conspiracy theories and rumors persist, leading some to question the true extent of their safety. While these fears are often dismissed as paranoia, they underscore the underlying tensions that still exist in this seemingly utopian society.

Politically, the world is a tapestry of progress and cooperation, yet it is not without its threads of tension and potential conflict. Paradis, as the epicenter of global power, faces the challenge of navigating old hostilities, resource disputes, and the persistent fear of Titans. Efforts towards peace and stability are bolstered by Paradis' diplomatic and technological leadership, but the delicate balance of power requires constant vigilance. The global government works tirelessly to mediate conflicts and promote sustainable development, but the specter of past grievances and the competition for resources remain ever-present threats.

The Fate of Marley and Paradis

The once-powerful empire of Marley has seen dramatic changes over the millennia. Following the end of the Titan Wars, Marley underwent a period of significant political and social upheaval. The collapse of their Titan-based military supremacy led to internal strife and a reevaluation of their national identity. Over the centuries, Marley transitioned from a dominant imperial force to a federated state within the global government.

Marley's integration into the new world order was not without challenges. The initial years were marked by economic hardship and societal restructuring. However, through international cooperation and substantial reforms, Marley gradually stabilized and rebuilt its society. Today, Marley is a respected member of the global community, contributing to advancements in technology, culture, and education.

The memories of Marley’s imperial past and the atrocities committed during the Titan Wars are acknowledged and remembered through education and public discourse. This collective memory serves as a lesson in the dangers of militarism and xenophobia. Marley has embraced a new identity centered around reconciliation, innovation, and cultural preservation.

In everyday life, the people of Marley, like those in Paradis and other parts of the world, enjoy the benefits of a peaceful and advanced society. The transformation of Marley from an empire of conquest to a beacon of progress exemplifies the broader global shift towards unity and cooperation.

The Yeagerist Regime and its Overthrow

After the death of Eren Yeager, Paradis fell under the control of the Yeagerists, a fascist regime that sought to consolidate power and maintain dominance through authoritarian means. This period was marked by internal turmoil and external isolation, as the Yeagerists pursued a policy of aggressive nationalism and military strength.

However, the oppressive regime did not last indefinitely. Over time, internal resistance grew, fueled by those who remembered the true ideals of freedom and justice that had once inspired the fight against the Titans. The people of Paradis, alongside international allies, eventually rose up and overthrew the fascist regime. This revolution marked a turning point, leading to the establishment of a more democratic and inclusive government.

The new leadership in Paradis committed to rebuilding their society on principles of equality, transparency, and cooperation. They sought to heal the wounds inflicted by the Yeagerists' rule and to foster a sense of unity both within Paradis and with the wider world. This transformative period laid the groundwork for Paradis' emergence as the global capital, a hub of innovation, diplomacy, and cultural exchange.

Social norms emphasize community, environmental stewardship, and innovation. The arts flourish, with new forms of expression emerging alongside traditional practices, reflecting a deep reverence for heritage combined with a forward-looking perspective. The balance of this new world hangs on the edge of cooperation and conflict, as the lessons of the past shape the uncertainties of the future. The story of humanity's struggle against the Titans has become a cornerstone of cultural identity, a reminder of both the horrors that once were and the resilience that defines the human spirit. In this new era, the world stands united yet vigilant, ever mindful that the peace they cherish was hard-won and must be diligently preserved.

[beckmessering]

Hey, new to your blog and to opera, and first of all I want to thank you for sharing all your informative, comprehensive and entertaining takes with us. Theatre fandom is so much richer for it! Secondly, I wondering if I might trouble you for some resource recommendations and some advice r.e. understanding opera technically and artistically as a newcomer to the genre. Myself, I only have highschool/College rudimentary orchestral (flute) skills and sadly cannot write music, sightread or sing well (would love to and have tried in the past to teach myself, but it's very difficult and hasn't...really taken well), so while I enjoy so much of the opera music to which I've been exposed, I feel so much is going over my head. What's more, though I have a theatre degree and poetry qualifications, my background is more performance Art and modern non-musical stage, so again I feel I'm missing so much nuance as I take in opera and the glitzy mad world around it. One of my tentative goals is to one day write a libretto, so it's important to me to figure it all out, however I know this will potentially be a long process. The podcasts Opera After Dark and Aria Code have helped somewhat with my understanding, but more knowledge and simpler breakdowns can only help more. Am interested in particular to know how you'd approach educating someone in opera, as you are so well-versed. In about a month I'm going to a screening of Rheingold, which is very much the scary deep end for me (I'm a fluffy French opera fan), so I'd like to go in forearmed haha. Thank you so much for reading and for your content, looking forward to the new season!

hey hey! first of all, sorry for taking half a century to respond to this ask - this is so sweet of you to say, i'm really touched 🥹

about the advice - first, to all the opera friends who see this, feel free to reblog with your own advice and ideas! i don't feel like the most qualified advice giver (lol) because for much of my knowledge, i don't quite remember how i got it. i played classical piano for twelve years, but i never "properly" studied operas anywhere, so most of my learning is and was autodidactic. i think i spent a lot of time on the internet reading interviews with my favourite singers. i also once joined an opera club/society at my university, where i learned more about practical aspects of rehearsals and performing. if you have the chance, going to any kind of open rehearsal is also great to learn about how music, staging, and acting end up together. then, it kind of depends on what you specifically want to discover about the operas you hear, whether it's music theory or aspects of stagings, etc.

i think i can say a bit, though, about how to approach a first-time rheingold (or a first-time wagner?). the most important thing is: the veil of seriousness that seems to surround wagner operas does not exist. at least it doesn't exist for me. it can be no less funky and fun than any other kind of opera. especially rheingold.

it depends a bit from which side you're more prone to approaching something: if you enjoy analysing music to get closer to it or if you feel you have to get closer to it first in order to want to analyse it. i am of the second type, which means i try to drop all worries before going to see something new and approach it with a "yeehee fun!!" mindset. something i find extremely worthwhile in wagner operas, especially because the words and the story are so old, is putting yourself in the characters' shoes and treating them as if they were real people. this helps if you tend to look at everything through the emotional lens - feeling emotionally close to the story in some way, either through understanding the relationships or properly relating, can help with appreciating the music and developing an understanding of why it was written this way. i'm no huge music analyst by choice myself, though, i have to admit. however, rheingold specifically is a very fun opera because it illustrates its own setting quite nicely with the music - there's a lot of atmosphere in the music and there's a lot of tone painting going on, like music that sounds like diving through a river, giant threatening footfalls, sounds of a smithy, and such. several of these reappear multiple times throughout the opera, so one thing i enjoyed playing around with while and after my first ring cycle was this playlist:

it has all the ring leitmotifs the heart desires and it's quite fun to play auditory bingo with them - you can either listen before you go or afterwards and then check out a recording.

as you were in orchestra, perhaps buying/borrowing a score and reading along would also be an option for you? i do this only for the works that really, really interest me, but i feel it does wonders for the amount of things i hear in the music, especially for wagner, because sometimes you can recognise motifs by sight on the page first and then you actually hear them better. i'd suggest doing this after the screening, though, if you liked it.

i'm not sure if this advice is any good, lmao - if you have any more questions, absolutely don't hesitate to be in touch! :) hope that rheingold goes well (which one will you be seeing, btw?) and i'd be curious to find out your opinion at the end!! :D

[firehcart]

𝐂𝐑𝐎𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 + 𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐄𝐒. — this list will continue to be added to pending what media i consume / what muses follow me. generally i will be happy to add to this list even if your verse is not written on here, so please don't hesitate to reach out. the only verses i will not write in include aging down/up characters, and hp.

note for general fantasy verses : unless there is a specific verse plotted, i am happy to mostly prescribe to a canon where our own continents/countries co-exist within the same world for crossovers and alliances.

modern.

born into a very wealthy family, aelin's upbringing was blessed, with her parents joint CEOs of a company responsible for vast technological developments ( terrasen inc. ). at eight years old she witnesses her parents murdered via a hit arranged by her biological aunt maeve, who stood to inherit the company until aelin turned eighteen years old. barely managing to escape with her own life, she was rendered homeless and on the streets until she was found by arobynn hamel, who had made a shelter for homeless children under the guise of a gentle heart. over time, he used this influence over the children to encourage them to commit crimes on his behalf - first small scale thievery, and eventually training them to murder.

continuing in this life until reaching teenage years, falling in love with one of the other boys living there ( sam cortland ), aelin and sam had tentatively plotted to run away when ordered on one last mission where sam did not survive. aelin was found by police with his corpse and arrested for his murder, presumably set up by arobynn.

most plots in this verse will begin after aelin's release from jail one year later, when new evidence proved her innocence - she is living in a luxurious apartment purchased with her earnings from her crimes, and struggling to reintegrate into society. note, in this verse, her primary name is celaena sardothien.

a court of thorns and roses.

this verse exists in two forms - parallel worlds, where we embrace the canon of aelin falling through worlds and interacting with this world as an au one to her own ( which requires some sort of crossover basis plotting ), or neighbouring continents. in the latter, efforts to maintain political peace and a tentative alliance would see either aelin travelling to the night court, or members of the night court travelling to terrasen as emissary. this verse would be post koa.

crescent city.

essentially runs off the same premise as modern verse in relation to her childhood and being offered shelter by arobynn hamel, with the notable exception that aelin is half-fae and works as a bounty hunter post her time in prison, and is very much equipped to slaughter.

note: this verse was heavily au plotted with @stareternyl in a world where feyre was aelin's roommate. taking the drop with aelin as both enforcer and anchor to bring feyre back.

a song of ice and fire.

born and inherited from one of the original families in old valyria, who fled after the doom, aelin was orphaned at a young age after her parents were murdered and her home ransacked. found by the faceless men within the free city of braavos, aelin was trained within their arts of assassination. after freeing a large amount of slaves within essos out of sympathy, whilst she had been tasked a high scale murder, the faceless man cast her out - she was promptly captured and forced into the fighting pits in meereen. note, in this verse, she has no dragon affinity despite her valyrian background, only a particular potency for fire.

house of the dragon.

much like her asoiaf verse, aelin was born and inherited from an old valyrian bloodline, but her parents were murdered when she was only a child. taken to be sold to the highest bidder, aelin made her escape and found her way to the faceless men, to be trained within their arts and make a name for herself. making a name for herself within westeros ( living within kings landing ), she becomes one of the most sought after assassins in the city.

fourth wing.

gryphon bonded, aelin agrees to go undercover within basgiath to provide intel on a base level to the other side. deliberately falling under the radar and unable to bond a dragon, she is "forced" to repeat her first year, using whatever opportunity she can to feed information back to the other side. displays a rare and powerful gift from her gryphon, one not witnessed by the other fliers before - fire proficiency, usually reserved for dragons and their riders.

bridgerton.

orphaned at a young age, aelin has been raised as the ward of the wealthy arobynn hamel, a man well known to offer his home to orphaned women in exchange for the financial benefit of marrying them into wealthy and powerful families when they come of age. finally of age for the marriage mart, new to the ton after their relocation from northern ireland, aelin is desperate to find a good match before arobynn decides to propose to her himself.

dungeons & dragons / bg3.

coming.

[eldritchborn]

Also Ome verse dump:

Main verse: follows the canon of Baldurs Gate

Colony verse: a verse where after Ome is enthralled by The Absolute during the final fight and flees after it breaks free once it is killed, it joins @empcrer colony due to seeing itself unable to return to its norm for the horrors it committed while enthralled

Rogue Minds verse: following the discovery of the cruel experiments that the society was willing to participate in especially regarding the gith egg, Ome and @illithilit Blurg left to become independent researchers while taking care of the egg which they stole from them (which eventually hatches into twins we've decided cause we can)

Companion au: post its run in with tav and crew and studying the tadpole, it requests to join the campsite in order to study the tadpoles and cult more directly. Still does not prefer fighting and rather stay at the "camp". Probably offers to turn alchemical ingredients into potions

Modern au: Living centuries as an illithilich, it has seen the rise of new technology and the extinction of its own kind. It hides as a humanoid professor teaching science while providing "black market" cures and medicine for those that cannot afford it.

"Aphrungolt" / evil au: Following an unexpected metamorphosis to ulitharid due to the odd genetics of absolute illithids, it is mentally broken into the position of colony leader by the colony absent of one. It's gentle nature turns into a cruel and sadistic one with a mind considered mad by most, especially twisted and cruel to other illithids.

[exarchs]

⸻ QUICK VERSE DROP !!

FINAL FANTASY VII .

G'raha is a well - studied historian who works under Heidegger with the Turks as a planetology researcher for the Ancients . He takes a particular interest in their connection to the life stream & their ability to commune with the planet , & his fascinations take his research to the next level . His interest and knowledge on the subject earned him his place beneath Heidegger , but G'raha didn't understand he was being used by Shinra . I think his research could tie him easily into interactions with Aerith & I know he'd just be infatuated with her ( even though no one is supposed to know of her being a Cetra , I think G'raha would because of his position with Shinra ) , but I also believe that his interacting with her could be a slippery slope into leading to her capture by the Turks . I think he's intuitive enough to notice the patterns of Shinra's manipulation of him & quit before things went intensely awry , but because of what he knows , he does not escape them with ease , & spends much of his time running away from them , which could be the cause to the join the main party . I see him as kind of an optional character you might find whilst adventuring Midgar's slums .

FINAL FANTASY XV .

Born as a prince in Solheim of ancient past , G'raha grew up with great knowledge of magiteknology and eventually went to study it & its history . He dedicated a mass amount of his time to developing a mechanism that could take him back to a time in society before mankind went corrupt , when peace filled the lands , & Ifrit loved his people . He eventually managed to create something that could assist him with timelessness , but it failed to take him to the past as he'd intended . Instead , it led him into a deep sleep , the crystal he'd worked with putting him into a stasis of sorts , only for him to maybe wake up to Noctis's presence in the Pitioss Ruins . That is to say , if you have a character in FFXV , we can always jump ahead to their meeting point or form something pre - established , given these events transpire ! Just note that G'raha is from a different time and he is not used to way things go in modern society .

KINGDOM HEARTS .

For this verse , I have a lot more work to do which might involve developing alongside KH muses in order to make it work ! I want to have him be found in Quadratum , perhaps aiding Sora or Riku on his adventure , but also has ties to Yozora and the others . I kind of want to work with connecting him into that universe as someone who assists with knowledge of the city's history & whereabouts . Right now , we don't know much about Quadratum aside from setting , so it'd be a lot of discussion and headcanon / lore building until the new game is released , but I think it'd be a fun idea to tamper with !

[jedites]

hi, i'm moth / twenty-six / central / they. this is my muse and roleplay finder account, so please read my brief rules and muse list before reaching out! i can write on jcink, tumblr or discord. my preference is in that order but please never hesitate to ask for any of them! the answer will always be yes. message if interested!

wanted opposites ➤ wanted characters & faces to write against. my muses ➤ who i want to write. wanted faces ➤ faces i want to use. plots. ➤ plot ideas.

01. my roleplay style: third person only, past tense, multi paragraph, advanced lit. i primarily enjoy writing about 3-4 paragraphs per reply, and love long term writing goals. i am a big fan of pinterest boards, graphic making, playlists and headcanon exchanges! i do work a lot so i am not always active ooc, but i always reply! i prefer my partners to enjoy the same. if you are looking for a partner that is chill ic / ooc activity wise, won't demand replies in any time frame, and who just enjoys screaming about fave characters - we are the perfect match! i tend to get replies out within 2-14 days, depending on how much we are writing, our schedules and the plot! i tend to prefer male muses, and lean m/m or f/m! adults only. 02. my favorite tropes and plots: first, i enjoy all content, ranging from fluff to the occasional darker themes. we can discuss triggers privately and i'm happy to accommodate to someone's comfort level. i love slow burn, angst, hurt/comfort, found family, wound patching, dyads in the force, post-66 aus, modern aus, secret relationships, age gaps, dark academia themes, and enemies to lovers! i love plots revolving around confined shared spaces, queer themes, undercover missions, and anything adjacent to these. i'm pretty flexible. 03. my fandoms: primarily star wars (i write anakin skywalker, jyn erso and cal kestis. i enjoy anidala, obikin, rebelcaptain, calmerrin and calbode as ships.) i am also not opposed to writing in any apocalypse verse (tlou, walking dead, fallout) with characters such as glenn rhee and will graham for hannibal ! i write list: anakin skywalker, jyn erso, cal kestis, glenn rhee, will graham. other fandoms open upon request: harry potter (anti jkr), mythology, the secret history, dead poets society, game of thrones.

04. current most wanted (updated may 10th): star wars muses to play against my anakin skywalker, jyn erso and cal kestis: obi-wan kenobi, padme amidala, ahsoka tano, cassian andor, night sister merrin, bode, saw gerrera, cere. i am also happy to double up (ie: you play anakin, i play another. just ask!) 05. hard no’s: grooming, underage, alcoholism.

[x-authorship-x]

I, 20 mins after waking up, it's still 5.25 am, scrolling thru dashboard and saw you, and thought:, Wait torship imagind tobirama shisui but in like wizarding world lol

*squints at screen just after waking*.... I wrote that???? When?!?

*intermission music*

Okay so i haven't done that yet lmao, but tbh not a lot changes with the dynamic of Tobirama/Shisui when shoved into different AUs (not that, at the core, we'd expect them too... Maybe I'm not fully awake still lmao)

Wizarding-verse? Unspeakable!Tobirama keeps on getting into dangerous scrapes so Minister!Hashirama has Head Auror!Madara keep an eye on him, which means Tobirama ends up with a 'pet' Auror assigned to his cases. If that wasn't intolerable enough, that it's a man with irrepressible good humour, faster than even Tobirama and who seems genuinely fascinated in Tobirama's work is just ridiculous

A modern-magic AU is always always always a good thing, omg, like the fashion and the technology and the- it can be nice, two magical people puttering around in a magical society or even a normal one and being low-key with their powers.... Or, even better, we could twist it into secrecy, BAMFness, I'm talking portal fights that crash land you on top of moving trains in a thunderstorm, the buzz of neon signs and the gurgle of the gutters as you scurry under the eaves of a magic-only nightclub, Tobirama does crazy experiments and he's wanted for breaking the guidelines of the Magical Consulate, Shisui the Uchiha Smuggler (they each have something that lends to this, Obito with his Portals, Itachi with illusions, and Shisui with his time-space-super-speed) is sent to get him out of custody before his trial....!

I'm just going to go completely off the rails here and daydream about an Avatar AU, Kakashi is the Avatar (Naruto isn't, he's one of the only survivors of the Air Nomad purges that sent their village into the sea, his father Minato having died to protect him) that the Fire Nation absolutely can't know about otherwise they'd take it as a sign to increase their war. When Shisui and Itachi, heir to the Fire Throne and General respectively, realise that Kakashi is the Avatar, they smuggle him out of the capital (Kakashi one of the few Fire-Lightning users, now they know it's even more than that), and Shisui goes with him as they flee right into earth territory... Where they find Hashirama, who is kind enough to teach Kakashi, recognising the opportunity for peace if Kakashi can unite the people... (In order to keep a good few of the interpersonal bonds in place, I'm gonna have it that kids are all tested for elemental preferences, kinda like chakra paper, and then fostered across if their element is different from their family's etc, so tribes aren't completely distinct in the same way as Avatar Canon) Hashirama helps Kakashi master Earth whilst Shisui helps Kakashi with his fire (his lightning was, ironically, always better) and then they're sent to water territory to find Hashirama's brother, accompanied by Hashirama's own cousin Tenzo.... Tobirama is much less optimistic than his brother... And he's absolutely not happy to see a fire bender like Shisui dare to show his face... 🤭

This ^^ is a hot mess but 🤷 enjoy, once you've woken up a bit more Neptune! 🤭❤️

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Liam Duffy

Published: Feb 28, 2023

With each new blasphemy controversy in the West, from The Satanic Verses to Charlie Hebdo, the corrosive effect on free expression worsens. In Wakefield, we see just how low the bar for blasphemy allegations has fallen, and how readily complaints are legitimised by our own institutions. As reported, four non-Muslim pupils were suspended from school after the unintentional scuffing of an English copy of the Quran. West Yorkshire Police said they were closely “liaising” with the school and that their enquiries “confirmed minor damage” to the text. In their response, the school and local authorities seem to give credence to an understanding of blasphemy which goes beyond the one advanced even by jihadists.  

After a Batley schoolteacher was forced into hiding and a film, The Lady of Heaven, was pulled from cinemas, this is at least Britain’s third major blasphemy ‘affair’ in as many years. The recent review of Prevent drew attention to the frequency and danger of blasphemy controversies, but there is nothing that any counter-extremism initiative can do to address these persistent clashes in the UK. This is not a question of countering extremism, solvable with workshops on ‘British Values’ or critical thinking, but instead concerns the sovereignty of British law and the fundamentals of British democracy.

Prior to the aforementioned controversies, Glaswegian shopkeeper Asad Shah was brutally stabbed and stomped to death over blasphemy, and it seems almost a certainty to say that more people will be killed unless the British state and civil society can get a handle on these campaigns, and fast. This doesn’t mean workshops and interventions; rather, local councils and police forces must stop prizing “community engagement” to the exclusion of almost all other considerations, while positive community engagement or the cooling of tensions must mean more than caving to the whims of an offended minority. This approach leads to the embrace of barely concealed extremist figures in order to preserve local relations, but at the expense of the overall health of British democracy.

To reverse course requires using the measures which have been used to block Right-wingers and even a rapper from entering the country from abroad whereas, presently, preachers who lionise religious assassin Mumtaz Qadri can freely make fundraising trips from Pakistan to Britain which allow them to whip up blasphemy fervour at home. It means the public sector not rushing to adopt a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ which transparently protects belief as much as it is designed to protect individual human beings. It means mainstream political parties ejecting people who inflame these affairs — as one councillor did in his (now-deleted) description of the Wakefield page scuffing as a “desecration”. It means the police declining to have anything whatsoever to do with damage to a text, religious or otherwise. 

They have failed to do this, and inadvertently lent legitimacy to the complaints of the offended, the outraged, and self-proclaimed community leaders. And a new, serious approach certainly means that counter-terrorism or social cohesion funding should not be going to those who look forward to the restoration of Taliban rule.

This is not about Prevent or counter-extremism; it is the very basics which Britain seems to be getting wrong at almost every turn. All this is nicely summed up by a particularly galling spectacle: a police officer and the fearful mother of an autistic child pleading innocence during what amounts to a modern British blasphemy tribunal.

==

The fact that the kid is autistic is ultimately irrelevant. That it was an accident is neither here nor there.

That said, the fact that this is the reaction that an autistic kid who accidentally drops a book elicits demonstrates how irrational, completely devoid of perspective, and hair-trigger violent this religion is. That this is what happens for a fabricated non-issue in the circumstances given might, hopefully, peak a few people who had previously excused the reactions to Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, etc.

[across-every-universe]

coffee shop, college, and fake dating! 💖💖

From this ask game

thank you!! these questions were a lot of fun :D

Coffee shop: How many AU's do you have between all of your f/o's? What are they?

Off the top of my head, my main f/o (Kαeya) is the only one I have a bunch of AUs for at the moment — but there are a lot of them. We’ve got

Abyss-verse AU: he never switched loyalties and is still Khαenri’ahn royalty, my s/i is the apprentice to their head alchemist

Monster AU: my s/i is an Abyss order member who can disguise themself as a human

Fαtui AU: my s/i is a childhood friend of his that got caught up in debt to the Fαtui and is now forced to work with them, enemies-to-lovers but it’s a misunderstanding

Fix-it AU: his and Dιluc’s dad never died and they’re still a happy family yaaaay

Modern college AU

Multiverse AU: I’m *his* f/o too and then our universe get connected

Modern celeb AU

College: What is your most developed/fleshed out AU?

Probably the Abyss-verse one! I have a LOT of headcanons built up about what Khαenri’ah might look like and how that type of society might function (how do they even survive in the Abyss like that???). At this point the fun is more in the worldbuilding exercise than in the selfshipping lol

Fake dating: How would a reverse/personality swap AU work between your f/o and s/i?

That’s… a very good question. At the base, we actually have some similar personality traits — we’re both nerds, we can both be a bit shy, we’re both overthinkers, we’re both “work smarter not harder” types. But he’s a LOT more socially intelligent than I am, while I’m a lot more well-adjusted than he is. I guess to swap our personalities we’d have to give my s/i the “childhood soldier spy” trauma and give him the autism lol. It’s really cute to think about how he’d be if he was allowed to feel happy and truly free as a kid.