#USURP THE C SUITE

[hotcupoteckla]

This guy^^ (RoaringKitty/Deep Fucking Value, A+ internet handles, btw) believed in a company Against Corporate Predictions so hard,

He Crashed The Corpos with the power of Gamers Acting Collectively So Hard, the Corpos demanded Congress to an Investigation about it.

For $5.50 on Monday, you too can start Forcing a Publically Owned, Universal Payer Option For Healthcare.

All you have to do is buy a .01 piece of a share, and just hang onto it. No matter What.

Take Their Shit.

Make them beg Congress to interfere again.

Reasearch the options they give you for CEO.

Submit options to the Board if they only give shit back.

Tell the Board they Suck with the comments on your votes.

It's okay if you lose a little money, because it means they're losing even more than you did.

Take their Stock, and watch Them Burn 🔥 😤 🔥

United Healthcare CEO gets whacked, and the shills are talking about "Violence didn't solve anything! They're just going to hire another CEO."

BITCH, SHAREHOLDERS VOTE FOR THOSE - the C level board finds a bunch of candidates to promote and then

Sends a little notice to your fidelity account saying some bs like: "EMERGENCY VOTE! PICK OUR NEW CEO BY TUESDAY!!"

And then you go onto Fidelity or Vanguard or wherever and your stocks you own get counted as one vote for each share.

Here's the kicker. UHC might be having a firesale.

They're getting a lot of bad publicity right now.

Nobody liked the CEO nor the Ai they're being forced by the board to invest in.

So they're selling their shares.

So you can buy one.

For cheap.

And follow up on the funniest shit alive and break their shit.

You can buy .01 shares for the price of a coffee!

Gamestop those bitches!

[letstalktoday711]

L’identité usurpée d’un présentateur télévisé et de certains médias tels que Le Monde, afin de promouvoir une arnaque trading

Cyril Hanouna, personnalité bien connue du paysage médiatique français, est souvent au centre de l'attention publique et par conséquent, la cible de nombreuses rumeurs et informations erronées. Récemment, une nouvelle vague d'allégations l'a impliqué dans une prétendue divulgation d'un secret financier lié à une plateforme de crypto-monnaies nommée "Immediate Connect". Parallèlement, la Banque de France a été faussement accusée d'être intervenue pour interrompre une émission en direct à la suite de cette divulgation. Ces affirmations, non seulement infondées et diffamatoires, semblent être un moyen d'inciter les individus à une possible arnaque.

Décryptage de la tentative d’escroquerie par usurpation d’identité

L’article en question, se faisant passer pour un communiqué de presse de Le Monde évoque une altercation survenue entre Cyril Hanouna, animateur bien connu du programme TPMP, et la Banque de France. Il prétend que Hanouna a accidentellement révélé un secret financier lors de l’émission, C A VOUS, ce qui aurait entraîné une intervention de la Banque de France pour demander l’arrêt de l’émission. L’article suggère que Hanouna a révélé l’existence d’une plateforme appelée « Immediate Connect » qui utilisant l’intelligence artificielle pour négocier des cryptomonnaies, permettrait à quiconque d’investir un montant minime et de devenir rapidement riche. Cependant, aucune preuve concrète n’a été produite pour corroborer ces déclarations. Il convient de noter que les émissions télévisées ne peuvent pas être interrompues par un appel d’une tierce partie. De plus, de nombreuses publicités vantant la plateforme frauduleuse "Immediate Connect" ont notamment émergé récemment sur Facebook. Il s'agit également d'une défaillance notable de la part de Meta, qui n'aurait pas dû autoriser ce contenu.

Après une enquête approfondie, il s’avère que ces allégations sont non seulement infondées, mais aussi diffamatoires. Une analyse approfondie de cet article révèle plusieurs incohérences. Premièrement, l’URL ne correspond pas à celle du site officiel de Le Monde et les boutons et les onglets, ne sont pas fonctionnels, ce qui est un signe certain d’usurpation d’identité. Deuxièmement, aucune autre source d’information ou de média n’a rapporté cet incident, ce qui soulève des doutes sur sa véracité. Enfin, l’article contient une série d’échanges entre Hanouna et Bertrand Chameroy qui semblent trop bien orchestrés pour être crédibles.

[rametarin]

please stop doing this

Some Dude: “American Liberals and conservatives are the exact same thing.”

Also Some Dude: “I am so tired of people conflating socialists with communists! They’re not even remotely similar!”

wish even half of you that felt like they were the exact same would stop platforming the democrats/democrat party, and grow some gonads to actually A.) have some integrity and join the actual pro-socialism parties B.) actually join the American communist parties C.) go green, where the other people that are actually crypto-socialists/communists can continue pretending to be ecologists in the interest of ecology and not advancing policy, are living.

But I understand. Being what you are is, “bad optics right now,” probably due to, “CIA propaganda,” or whatever bullshit that takes the onus of responsibility from being associated with a violent, conspiratorial and totalitarian culture of usurpers away from defeating your own arguments.

Since a great deal of you unironically use the fact the US has HAD slavery and concentration camps historically as a reason why things can’t be fixed or modified to be better, they HAVE to be destroyed and replaced in order to not have the stigma or guilt of a thing anymore, it’d make sense you don’t want to speak up and declare what you really are and vote in the appropriate parties. You whom fly the god damned red and black and yellows would have to willingly associate with every bit of imperialism-in-all-but-name that was the Soviet Union, and any Socialist Republic that bore those colors, used those symbols and spoke those memes and slokans. So, given actual history, the famines, the pogroms of the supposed “anti-classist, anti-discrimination, anti-barbarism” parties and movements that turned into piles of pestilence, famine and pyramids of dead skulls don’t want your symbols associated with that.

And yet many of you that’d openly wave a hammer and sickle flag, think a statue of Lincoln erected and financed by freed slaves is too spicy to have without declaring, “LINCOLN WAS A WHITE SUPREMACIST” everywhere. That the United States can never clean the blemishes of its history and that that’s an argument as to why it needs to be snuffed out as a concept and paved over with a Year Zero and something else in its place.

Instead, you spineless fucking interlopers continue to commandeer the democrats. There’s been some headway by the russo-supremacists to commandeer the republicans by tricking some of them into thinking Putin is the cure to the worst of your shit, but by and large the republicans remain more entrenched in religious moralism or plutocratic corporatism and “small government statism,” which one way or another prevents the worst of your intrusions. Yes, the republicans and them doing that present their own sets of problems. They’re different problems from the ones you represent.

You know it suits you better to pretend to be liberals when it suits you, using the term and stretching it, hoping to make it synonymous with you- and you’ve managed to succeed, for the most part. Except; you that aren’t liberal, but pretend to be liberal for ideological convenience sake; the mask has been slipping, of late. You’ve seen that this vessel has taken you as far as it can go.

And I’ve been enjoying seeing this. The holes opening up, exposing the parasite or predatory mimic pretending to be the real deal. You are not liberal. You are anti-private property and pro government (”society,” that you dub a government declaring itself to be the voice of society) control over natural resources and employment opportunities.

I look forwards to seeing some of you actually arguing openly and honestly from the actual parties and stop trying to railroad another party towards your values and goals by pretending to be liberals. And you’d best do it quickly, because between liberal ownership of self, free market capitalism and the advancement of science and technology from both private and public outlets hurriedly bringing us towards an era of affordable miracles and quality of life improvements that just 30-40 years ago WOULD have required megawealth to even imagine, there’s not going to be much of a difference between the opportunities for a wealthy person and a middle classed one, much longer.

Then you’ll be back to trying to rally ‘comrades’ with bluster and insistence that everybody stop imagining the situation just between what’s fair for individuals and instead demanding we imagine some game rules where the rich are a nefarious and inherently evil force unto themselves while ‘the poor’ (those that aren’t rich) are inherently victims of their exploitation and oppression. Assigning malice to things not on the basis of the actual malice of actual assholes doing actual asshole things, but characterizing people as assholes because they have things, and someone whom has poor is automatically a victim because he’s not rich.

When stripped of your cover, and no longer given the benefit of the doubt, and denied the ability to play off peoples unfamilarity of your snake oil, you’ll eventually have to argue for what you really believe. And what you really believe is shit. Even the parts that sound good, are mere cover used to declare would be the positive outcome of your shit systems.

That’s why people will conflate the two systems and not care about the difference. One system will see the crimes of another, and alchemically transmute itself to claim it’s not affiliated with the other, that that behavior is characteristic only of the other guy, and they must be mistaken for presuming you the same. While you in fact engage in the same crimes.

Meanwhile, you cannot argue a secular liberal constitutionalist republic that can and has historically been a limit to social hegemony of religious authority, a federated and regulated secular system has been essential in filing down the much of the worst kinds of trade abuses by cartels and organizations, isn’t worlds different from a fucking religiously fascist ethnostate. American liberalism bears little resemblance to American conservatism outside the fact both to varying degrees and populations have and respect the right to private property, and use capitalism. When those are the only things you care about, your ideology may as well be the only religion you see as valid, and everything that is not your faith may as well be paganism when it’s not the antithetical Satanism to your beliefs.

[duxbelisarius]

It matters quote a lot at which point George introduces Baela's characterization, because as you yourself admit, Baela is 12 when the Dance begins and c.14 when Dragonstone falls, so unless Daemon and Rhaenyra were somehow allowing a 12 year old to have intimate relations with older boys and men, you can' just assume that's how her character was previously.

As to their ages impeding their marriage, it would only impede their producing an heir: Jace can marry Baela without bedding her, esp given how Luke is dead and Rhaena has no betrothal, making Jace and Baela the only way to properly link Rhaenyra to House Velaryon.

Those allies didn't "ultimately win the Dance," the closest to that was the Vale. The North had no impact on the Dance aside from the Winterwolves, and Cregan arrived after the conflict was over. The Valemen landed in KL only after Aegon was dead and the Lads had taken the city. So no, Jace's diplomacy had no effect on the outcome of the Dance. Jace also lost his first battle because he took no precautions against an attack on Driftmark despite being in the middle of planning a major operation AND having been warned of the Triarchy's presence by Aegon the Younger. If there were dragons in the air and ships conducting contact patrols and screening operations, as you would EXPECT of a major fleet with air power supporting it, Jace doesn't die and the Gullet isn't a disaster.

Sending his two younger brothers to Pentos, right next door to the Stepstones and the Triarchy, instead of sending them to Braavos, or to the Vale like Joff and Rhaena, is not keeping siblings safe. Giving dragons to randos, two of whom are complete nutcases and POS (one of whom is a bastard of House Velaryon!) isn't good strategy either.

Jace didn't spend a significant amount of time in the North, so the idea that he suddenly became friends with the Lord Paramount whose own authority he just bypassed by making an alliance with the Manderlys over Cregan's head, is unlikely. Marrying that lord's sister, promising his first daughter through THAT marriage to Winterfell, and guaranteeing that one of stark blood will sit the iron throne, makes far more sense. Cregan swore no oath to Rhaenyra, his father did, and that oath wad legally dead the moment Aegon was born and Viserys had a son to succeed him. Cregan wasn't usurped, his uncle was unwilling to hand the North over to a 16 year old, and Cregan threw him in jail (and faced NO consequences from his bannermen, conveniently).

It doesn't matter if she had their biological father in her life, which was stupid anyways given that it leant credence to her sons being bastards. She gaslights her sons by lying to the about their bastardy not mattering, something she only gets away with because Viserys is a terrible father and George and the show writers ignored inworld prejudice so they could have their story their way.

None of her sons look like her or Laenor; neither she nor her mother had any Arryn traits, nor did Rhaenys children have any Baratheon traits. F&B tells us the boys look like Harwin, and the show reinforces this. She has no plausible deniability; the only defense she has is George and the show writers.

Just to further my point, it makes even less sense that we'll over half the realm (Iron Islands, Vale, North, Riverlands, 70% of the Reach, 50% of the Crownlands) would support a princess with obvious bastards and no claim, when 30 years earlier they voted 20 to 1 to defy Andal Law and deny Laenor Velaryon his claim to the throne, because the idea of him owing his claim to his mother at all was anathema to the 7K. You complain about bad writing afflicting Jace and Baela, but the entirety of the Dance is a poorly written mess. The show is just following suit from the source material, albeit making things worse along the way.

Team Green: Sorry your faves are boring 😊🤷‍♂️ Sure you're supposed to root for the Blacks but the Greens are just more fun. Jace is boring I'm here for my angsty disaster mess 💚

You realise that's bad writing, right? This is a family civil war drama. One side of that family civil war shouldn't be populated with blank slates. If no effort is made into making Rhaenyra and Daemon's children as fleshed out as Alicent's children then that is bad writing.

Some people find the Lannisters more fun than the Starks, but the Starks are still fleshed out characters (and considering in the books Jace is 14/15, Luke is 13, Joffrey, Baela & Rhaena are 12, Aegon the younger is 9 and Viserys is 7 - these kids ages almost map straight onto the Starklings so they were so meant to be our Targlings). It didn't have to be a zero sum "you can only have ONE side that's interesting". The show is poorer for it. Game of Thrones was a disaster in many ways, but at least the different sides of the conflict had equal screen time and attention.

How hard would it have been to flesh out Jace, or at least give him a half-decent haircut? He could have been a mirror to Jon Snow (they technically have the same initials). One is a bastard who does not know he's a targaryen prince, the other is a targaryen prince who discovers he is a bastard. In a world that hates bastards, that insists they are 'wanton and treacherous by nature', there was plenty of potential to explore some complicated emotions, to give weight to how he feels about being a bastard. The whispers that would have followed him, the scrutiny he would have felt, the internalised guilt and shame, his protectiveness over his little brothers and wish to spare them the truth. Maybe after Alicent confronted Aegon over the pig there could have been a shift where Aegon turns his bullying away from Aemond and towards Jace (more in keeping with book canon). Maybe Jace could feel anxious about lessons with Criston Cole due to his open hatred of him. Maybe he could be equal parts devoted to and resentful of his mother over his parentage, maybe he could be driven to perfectionism to prove himself worthy.

The show made Jace more violent in the fight with Aemond than in the book, by changing who started the fight (from Aemond to Rhaena and co.), by narrowing the age gap to make Jace more of a match for Aemond, and by having him draw a knife instead of a wooden toy sword. But they didn't earn that moment. How much more satisfying would it have been if both Aemond and Jace were given equal emotional weight in the build-up to the fight? If the hurt and anxiety at discovering he was a bastard had been building and building until it burst out. The entire reason the show changed the age dynamic between Rhaenyra and Alicent to make them peers and best friends was supposedly to make their conflict more dramatic - why would you then drop that approach with their kids? How does it make the civil war story better if one half of the next generation of characters aren't really characters?

They didn't even have to put much effort into Baela, as GRRM already had her brimming with personality on the page, but they just... ignored that and made her a non-entity. Oh she gets one punch in, and there's a blink and you'll miss it background shot of her trying to hit Aegon (at this point I don't think the actors were even directed to do that I think they just took it upon themselves). Meanwhile Baela in the books is wild and fearless and deliberately provocative and quick to anger and fiercely defensive of her loved ones and wrestles squires in the training yard and has a pet monkey and sneaks out in search of adventure and brings home 'unsuitable' friends. Including a legless beggar, a blacksmith's apprentice whose muscles she admired, a street conjurer, twin prostitutes and an entire troupe of mummers. And she alarms everyone due to being 'overly fond of boys' and gets epic lines like this when it is suggested she marry Lord Rowan:

“I’ve bedded two of his sons. The eldest and thirdborn, I think it was. Not both at once, that would have been improper.”

She could have been an absolutely chaotic presence onscreen. Rhaena meanwhile is a little more like Sansa to Baela's Arya, but would have needed more work to flesh her out onscreen. Her insecurities and wish for a dragon seemed promising at first, but they were dropped as soon as Aemond lost his eye. Because that was ultimately the narrative purpose she served - to provide a new reason for the fight to start that wasn't Aemond hitting and pushing a toddler into a pile of dragon poo. She helps Aemond's image by being the one to start the fight instead of him, and from then on she becomes a voiceless non-entity. We watch Aemond fly away victoriously on Vhagar, we don't see Rhaena tearfully watching the last link to her mother vanish over the horizon.

Considering the prominent role of bastards during the dance (especially the dragonseeds), the uninterest in exploring bastardy in Jace makes little sense. Considering the centrality of gender to the story (and considering a certain event involving key players during the dance), the lack of effort into Baela and Rhaena makes zero sense (the show doesn't even bring up their right to Driftmark in an episode dedicated to discussing the rightful heir to Driftmark).

Considering especially that in fantasy black women are so often consigned to minor Missandei roles, the fact that we were robbed of Baela and Rhaena as main characters particularly stings. Baela in particular was an easy fan favourite in the book, and its a role that black women and girls so rarely get to play. If you had told me before the show that Helaena would be a fan favourite over Baela, I wouldn't have believed it. And don't get me wrong, I like that they fleshed out Helaena in the show, like Rhaena she didn't have much of a presence in the book. But it is so typical that the relative non-entity that they kept white gets to be fleshed out, while the more fleshed out character that they made black becomes a non-entity. And Helaena is skinny now, of course (all love to Phia Saban, but I am mourning plump Helaena).

And don't get me started on Kylo Raemond.

[hederasgarden]

Sins of the Father - Part 1

Summary: When the Greens win the Dance of the Dragons, your father must answer for his support of Rhaenyra.

Pairing: Aemond Targaryen x Lady!Reader(house unspecified)

W/C: 1.5K

Rating: Mature, 18+ only. AU, forced/arranged marriage and reference to canon level violence. Future chapters will be explicit.

A/N: Thank you fieldandfountain, @truesblue and @whatblogisthis216 for all your help with the first part of this fic. The fantastically talented @writercole created the beautiful graphic!

Likes are lovely but comments and reblogs make my day!

You trail behind your father into the nearly empty Great Hall, flinching when the heavy doors close behind you. King Aegon the second is nowhere to be seen. In his place the Queen Mother sits on the throne, flanked by the Hand of the King and who you assume must be her youngest son, Prince Aemond. Even though he looks half bored he still makes for an intimidating figure, dressed all in black with an eye patch that only partially hides the angry scar that bisects his right eye. You swallow hard, recalling all the nasty rumors you’ve heard about him. Kinslayer was the kindest one you could recall.

A handful of Kingsguard members stand at the bottom of the throne and two more follow behind you and your father. You search the room for any familiar figures or other nobles but find none. There are no friendly faces here. When you spot the King's Justice half-hidden behind a pillar, you stumble. Fear lances through your chest, hot and tight, as you consider what his presence means.

“All will be well,” your father promises quietly, offering you his hand.

You grip it tightly and stare straight ahead. The stories your grandmother told you as a girl about her visits to Kings Landing pale in comparison to what you see before you. The iron throne looms large and imposing, the chaotic array of swords terrifying. You have to crane your neck to look at the high ceiling, eyes catching on the beautiful stained glass. Were this any other time you would have been thrilled at the chance to see the capital. Now you feel only dread.

There is no question why the two of you are here today. Your father and brother threw their support behind Rhaenyra in the war and now it was time to face that choice. To beg for mercy like the other lords summoned before your father. The heads of those unsuccessful in their plea were impaled on the spikes that lined the castle’s inner walls. You prayed to the seven that your father would not join them.

“Your Grace,” your father greets, bending deeply at the waist. You follow suit, dropping into a low curtsey and waiting until she bids you rise. “We were expecting to see the King today.”

“My son is busy,” Alicent tells you with a dismissive wave of her hand. “I am here to speak on his behalf.”

“We were summoned by the King,” your father says, a deep frown on his face. “And have traveled far to speak with him.”

“You also pledged your allegiance to the usurper,” the Hand reminds your father.

“The King is merciful though,” Alicent is quick to add, a bland sort of smile on her face. “He understands your family’s ties with House Targaryen go back to before the doom and that your mother was a childhood friend to Aemma. It is understandable you might have been easily led astray.”

Your father remains silent, waiting for Alicent to continue. He told you on the long journey here that he suspected the crown wanted money. There were rumors the war nearly bankrupted the royal coffers. It was a costly war, paid in both blood and gold. Your father is one of the wealthiest lords in Westeros, second only to the Lannisters. It was a logical conclusion and you hoped he was right.

“King Aegon would like to offer you the opportunity to show us you understand the error of your ways and to reaffirm your commitment to his rule.”

“What does his grace have in mind?” Your father asks.

“Marriage between your daughter and Prince Aemond.”

Your lips part in a silent show of surprise but your father’s reaction is more pronounced. His brows draw together and he cuts a quick look at Aemond who stands tall and disinterested beside his mother.

"You cannot possibly expect me to give up my only remaining heir," your father begins, voice incredulous.

Out of the corner of your eye, you see the King's Hand jut his chin out and one of the Kingsguard steps forward, hand on the pommel of his greatsword. You glance up at Alicent. She blinks, her face pinched in a sour expression. You think about the heads on Traitor’s Gate and step forward before you’re even cognizant of your own actions.

"Please your grace, you must excuse my father," you begin, resting a hand on his arm. "He grieves still for my brother, his only son, and heir. He fears he will lose me today too, but I can see that is not the case. Prince Aemond is a virtuous man and would treat me well. We are honored you deem us worthy of such a betrothal."

Your father turns to you and stares, surprised. His eyes, the same color as your late brother's, are full of anger. You know he wants to fight this, but you have your mother and sisters back home to think about. Silently, you beg him to understand, to acquiesce. After a long moment, he seems to, clenching his jaw tightly. The fear you see in his expression is a mirror of what you feel in your heart.

"We would be happy to show our loyalty to the crown," your father says finally, clearly unhappy. A second later he lays his hand over yours.

"The King will be pleased to hear this," Alicent replies.

"Of course, there is the matter of a dowry," the Hand says, speaking up finally. "It would need to be fit for a Prince."

You look pleadingly to your father when his hand tightens over yours, a muscle in his cheek jumping. He came ready to part with his coin, not with you. You should have known it wouldn’t be so easy. The crown needs to ensure your father’s loyalty. He is a powerful man and his influence ran deep. With you in King’s Landing, they could be assured of his cooperation. Any children you bore Aemond would inherit your father’s lands and titles after he passed, guaranteeing your house remained bound to the realm.

“The Prince needs only to name his price,” you say when it is clear your father is too angry to speak. When you look at Aemond, you’re startled to find his eye focused solely on you. His expression is blank, making it impossible to determine what he might be thinking.

“How kind to offer me a say,” he says with a smirk.

You drop his intense gaze, inclining your head forward in a show of respect to hide your fear.

“We are but returning the kindness your family has shown us,” you assure him, not daring to raise your eyes from the ground.

“Then the matter is settled,” the Hand says.

“It is,” your father agrees, voice strained.

The situation you’ve found yourself in is a dangerous one and you know the fate of your father and your house rests on your shoulders now. It’s a heavy burden and he looks at you with such a pained expression you feel your throat close up around any words of comfort you might offer. Instead, you squeeze his arm and try to impart whatever reassurance you can. He nods in return, exhaling sharply. Under his fear and worry, you think you see a glimmer of pride.

“The wedding should take place soon,” Alicent says, drawing your attention away from your father as she descends the throne. There’s an unexpected smile on her face when she beckons Aemond to her side.

“As your grace wishes,” you accede.

“In two months' time, all the lords of the kingdom will come to reswear their allegiance to King Aegon. It can happen then. That will allow us to prepare a wedding fit for the King’s brother.”

“That will give me the time needed for the dowry,” your father adds. “We will return in one month's time to make preparations.”

“You misunderstand, my lord,” the Hand begins, “your daughter will remain in King’s Landing. To ensure your continued loyalty.”

“It will give her time to know her betrothed,” Alicent adds with a smile, drawing closer. She places a light hand on your shoulder and looks at your father. “She will be well cared for until you return.”

“A dragon protects what is his,” Aemond says, a flash of movement drawing your eye to the hand that rests on the dagger in his belt.

“Your skills with the blade are legendary, your grace. It warms my father’s heart to know I will be kept so safe.”

“I am sure it warms something.” Aemond stares at your father now, chin lifted in challenge.

Alicent flashes her son a look but Aemond only chuckles, turning on his heel before your father can respond.

Part 2

♡

My inbox is open for your thoughts and feelings on Aemond! I’m open to requests but cannot guarantee they’ll be fulfilled.

Also, I no longer have a tag list, please follow @hg-library and turn on notifications.

[arabian-bloodstream]

HOTD S01E10 thoughts

Well, I thought the finale was awesome. Also, apparently, Rhaenyra is TOTALLY my favorite character, not Daemon, LOL!

- Emma D’arcy is amazing. Period.

- Sorry, ya’ll, but I completely understood where Daemon was coming from throughout the whole thing. He was like YAAAAS, I finally have a reason to take these motherfuckers down, go to war on Otto and his bootlickers after nearly 20 years. YAAS!!!! Woohoo!!

- Why, why, why would he even remotely want to be there when Rhaenrya was going through that childbirth which could possibly lead to her death when he loves her so much when he went nearly through the same thing with Laena who he didn’t love even remotely near like? Daemon has shown in the past that he does, you know, like cowardly shit. He runs when it’s too much. This is like the ZENITH of way, way, waaaaaaaaaay too much. Of course, his ass wasn’t there.

- As for Daemon choking her, duh! four things:

1. That was all about Viserys and Daemon’s major, major issues about Viserys. Never being good enough for Viserys. Viserys never choosing him for anything. Finding out that he had been heir to the throne for how many freaking years and Viserys had NEVER told him this HUGE fucking thing? And to find this out the day or so after Viserys died, so he can’t even have a good vent to Viserys about it because he’s still dealing with his major grief over Viserys, you know, dying.

2. Daemon is dealing with a shit-ton of emotional shit. A) Viserys, the brother he deeply loved, died. B) He just lost his baby. C) His wife’s throne was just usurped. D) He’s all hepped up on YAAAAAS! I can finally kill Otto and Crispin and all of those other cunts who have annoyed me for years!!

3. Daemon hurt her physically. And then Rhaenyra gave it right back emotionally. Did you see her reaction once he let go? She was all (with a smile on her face, no less) “You didn’t know? Hahahahaha! He never told you!!” Yeah, she hit back at him where it fucking hurt!

Yeah, these two fucking fight dirty as fuck!

4. Daemon Targaryen is NOT an anti-hero. He can be a monster. He can be a bad guy who does a lot of really, really bad things. Yes, he loves his family. Yes, he does, but he is not some woobie. He does really awful, terrible shit. That be who Daemon is. This is NOT out of character for him. No, sireebob!

- Rhaenyra making sure that Rhaena and Baela were part of the war council discussion... chef’s kiss.

- I love Jace. That is all.

- Every moment with Luke made my heart hurt because I knew what was coming.

- The contrast to the birth episode from the first episode compared to this one, gah. All the awards for Emma D’Arcy. ALL. THE. AWARDS. Throughout the labor, pulling out the stillbirth baby girl, holding her, wrapping her up. Gah. And even Daemon coming upon her and unable to come in because it was too much for him and then his grief on his own out in the waves. My heart!! Gosh, it was devastating.

- Vhargar is huge. Aemond is fucking evil. I hate him. I know, he didn’t mean to kill Luke, but still!

- Rhaenrya tried so hard for peace. She. Tried. So. FUCKING HARD. And Daemon was such... ugh, he kept acting like he was in charge, and some of the looks she was giving him like, “Fucker, I AM THE QUEEN, dude!” And then likewise when she wouldn’t let him kill Otto, he was all, “but, but, but.... I wanna! Why won’t you let me kill me him?!?!?” (And, honestly, I was thinking same. “Rhaenyra... let Daemon kill Otto!!”)

- Ooh, I loved the callback to Daemon and Otto facing off on the Dragonstone walkway and then here comes Rhaenrya on Syrax. And this time, Rhaenyra was WITH Daemon. So cool.

- Finally, oh, I LOVED when Ser Erryk brought out the crown, knelt and declared himself loyal to the Queen, said his vows. Oh, I was all verklempt. Then Daemon put the crown upon Rhaenyra’s head, called her “My Queen” and then knelt before her. And all followed suit. That was great.

Really, I think if the showrunners had known how well the show as going to do they would have stretched things out more and THAT would have been the end of the season. It would have been a fantastic contrast the to previous episode’s end, and such an awesome end to the episode and season. Ah well.

Overall, I thought it was a fantastic episode. Emma D’Arcy was really the MVP. Just fantastic. Ep 9 was meh, but this one was awesome. Can’t wait to rewatch it on Sunday night!

[daxxglax]

any actor in a comic book movie scrambling for a genuine response after an interviewer asks them to talk about the c-list villain they'll be playing even though the character is only known to the most hardcore comic readers and even then their big moment was a 4-issue arc back in 1978 where they usurped the king of the Astral Moon Realm or whatever, and spends the next few decades popping up as hired help for actual big leaguers (your Darkseids, your Magnetos) and what can they DO with that, ultimately, I mean sure Phillip Seymour Hoffman took absolutely nothing roles in Mission Impossible and Hunger Games and made them his own, and they thought maybe they could do the same but half their scenes are against a green screen talking to a sea of tennis balls and mocap suits and it doesn't help that the director (well, after the first one was replaced) is really cagey about what the story actually IS due to studio mandates and there's talk going around that the script is actually still going through rewrites and for god's sake can't they just come clean about the role being more or less a paycheck (and if they get called back three years down the line for what amounts to a cameo in the next big tentpole crossover movie for 3 days of filming that will pay for a year of their kid's college, then so much the better, especially since the limited series they were starring in before this got unceremoniously dropped after 8 episodes (solid 80% on rotten tomatoes but abysmal viewership which honestly what did they expect burying it on Amazon Prime Video)) and that they secretly hope their character's extensive CGI will make them all but unrecognizable because the last thing they need is some gif of them to become a meme or something particularly since they heard they're in the running for a supporting role on season 3 of a prestigious HBO drama that's become a runaway hit so god willing they'll forget about all of this by this time next year, but in the present moment their eyes snap back into focus because these press junkets are just what you gotta DO and their mind flashes back to the second week of acting classes in undergrad where a perfectly acceptable stock answer awaits them like a pearl amongst grit:

“Well, no villain thinks of themselves as a villain”

[la-pheacienne]

Ah mais j'ai vraiment très peur pour Blood & Cheese. Sara Hess a déjà confirmé que la série aura sa propre version des faits. Leur propre version ??? Purée, mais c’est tellement simple et limpide “Œil pour œil, fils pour fils. Lucerys sera vengé”. Un enfant de cinq ans comprendrait cela. On peut pas faire plus claire. Qu’est-ce qui ne va pas chez eux ?? Pourquoi avoir voulu adapter Feu et Sang si c'est pour absolument tout changer et détruire ??

1- Ils vont utiliser B&C pour créer un fossé entre Daemon et Rhaenyra, rendre Rhaenyra encore plus faible, passive, et pleurnicharde qu'elle ne l'est déjà, tout mettre sur le dos de Daemon et le diaboliser encore plus. Peut-être même que Daemon ne dira rien de ses projets à Rhaenyra. Elle va probablement voler jusqu'à Port-Réal, se faufiler discrètement dans le Donjon Rouge et avertir Alicent des plans de Daemon. 2- Alicent qui usurpe le trône à cause d’un malentendu, Aemond qui assassine Lucerys par accident, Criston qui assassine Lord Beesbury par accident, Larys qui assassine son père et son frère parce qu’il a mal compris Alicent... B&C se sont emmêlé les pinceaux, ont mal compris Daemon et tué l’enfant au lieu de le kidnapper. Ou Daemon a demandé la tête d’Aemond mais quelque chose d'imprévu arrive et B&C s'en prennent à Jaehaerys. Quoique les malentendus et les accidents c'est uniquement réservés au Verts, histoire de les décharger de toute responsabilité et qu'ils n'aient pas à affronté les conséquences de leurs actes. 3- Ça va être commandité par Mysaria parce que les Verts ont essayé de l’assassiner dans l’épisode 10, ont brûlé sa maison et probablement tué beaucoup de ses amis et leurs enfants. 4- Un scénario à la Young Griff, un échange de bébé. Ils l'ont déjà fait pour Laenor. Les scénaristes sont clairement pro-Verts et refusent d'accepter que la lignée d’Alicent s'est complètement éteinte et que ce sont les fils de Rhaenyra qui ont perpétué la lignée Targaryen. Ils ont une approche centriste/apolitique, “les deux côtés ont tort”, au moins un des descendants légitimes d’Alicent doit survivre à la guerre et poursuivre sa lignée (tu va voir que la série va effacer Daenaera et Jaehaera deviendra la mère des enfants d’Aegon III, afin d'unir et réconcilier les deux lignées fratricides).

1) Déjà les fondements même de Blood and Cheese ont été altéré à l'épisode 10 de la première saison. Daemon est sans émotion, les scènes où il est en deuil pour Visenya et la scène où il apprend la mort de Lucerys ont été coupées, aussi Daemon est devenu un monstre assoiffé de sang qui veut commencer une guerre pour satisfaire son égo, tandis que dans le livre c'était Rhaenyra qui voulait tout de suite attaquer et c'était Daemon qui la retenait. Donc dans ce contexte, Blood et Cheese est juste le résultat de la mégalomanie et le character violent de Daemon, tandis que dans le livre, ça vient d'un état d'esprit de deuil et de colère justifiée. Et oui, c'est clair que Rhaenyra ne sera pas du tout d'accord avec ça.

2) En fait dans le livre, selon une des versions de cet événement, c'est mentionné que le but initial c'était Aegon mais ils n'ont pas pu le trouver et c'est pour ça qu'ils ont attaqué l'enfant. Donc dans ce cas spécifique, il y a une possibilité que Daemon ne soit pas tout à fait au courant. Mais je suis certaine que Sara Hess&Co ne vont pas adopter cette version et vont montrer Daemon comme un monstre absolu, ce qu'ils ont déjà fait, d'ailleurs. Les malentendus et accidents sont réservés pour les Verts.

3) Je crois pas, je crois que ce sera Daemon 100% pour les raisons que j'ai mentionnée.

4) Alors là au début je pensais pas que ça pourrait être le cas, parce que que Sara Hess&Co veulent montrer Daemon comme un diable. MAIS ça me paraît possible tout de même justement pour ne pas laisser la ligne des Verts périr comme ça. Probablement les deux branches vont être unies avec Aegon est Jaehaera, ce qui est encore plus pire 😂

Un drame.

[lemonhemlock]

"Because it seems that the showrunners don't care about nuanced adaption but more motivated by their personal feelings about certain characters. It's clearly they dislike Aegon/Daemon/Larys/Viserys don't care about Helaena/Daeron/Rhaenys/Laena/Rhaena/Baela this why these characters have been either made much worse than their book counterparts or are non existing/ underdeveloped as hell. While they clearly like Aemond, Alicent and Rhaenyra that's why they have been made much better than their book counterparts. And if i remember correctly Daeron was supposed to be cut out from the show and this is the reason why no body mentioned him at all not even his mother and his dutiful and honourable personality was given to Aemond, who was objectively the most similar character to Ramsay/Joffery. Now i am not saying that they shouldn't sympathize with Alicent. What i mean by all of this is given Aegon/Larys/Daemon (and the rest of the characters I've mentioned) nuanced interpretations can coexist with their interpretation of Aemond and Alicent." Okay expecting all characters to be the same as in book is plain naive. Even I after reading Asoiaf didn't expect the show to be better than books and I was right because GoT did many characters different than in books (Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, Euron, Stannis, Tyrells and Martells in general were done terribly compared to books, Littlefinger in books is totally different and much more smart than in show, Varys in the books is also not the same as from the books, Tywin is more terrible in books than in the show) and when it comes to GoT they have actual povs from books, what could go wrong in adapting these books to show? While hotd is a show based on a book that are told by different people and none of them witnessed what exactly happen and yet some people are whining why it's different? They developed Alicent and Rhaenyra because they are there for 10 episodes. Aemond/Aegon/Rhaena/Baela will have more screen time in season 2. That's why Tom himself said that just because Aegon is shown in certain way in 2 episodes in season 1 doesn't mean he is totally not worth rooting for. We don't know what he will do in 2 season, so we still have plenty of time to root for him, especially after b&c happen. He will be there almost until the end of show so I doubt he will spend all of time rap*** maids and we will see him in different light because he will go through much pain after being burned by Meleys and death of his sons and brothers. At the end, all he will have would be Alicent. We just have to wait and not be mad at the show for ruining certain characters when it's just the beginning of the show and they will all change after war begins. As for Daeron, George himself said he regrets he wasn't in the show, but there was no time for him in 1 season and he will appear in 2 season which is understandable because there were only 10 episodes and it's impossible to develop every character in 10 episodes. We know Rhaenyra, Alicent, Daemon, Otto, Criston and Aemond motivations. In 2 season other characters will have their time to shine, including Aegon. Part 4

While hotd is a show based on a book that are told by different people and none of them witnessed what exactly happen and yet some people are whining why it's different?

they're not whining it's different, necessarily, they're whining it's disproportionately biased towards rhaenyra. the changes performed weren't neutral. the tenets of medieval common law during feudalism were not properly laid out (although otto attempts to do so in "second of his name"). stannis, asoiaf's resident legalist, specifically calls rhaenyra a traitor and a usurper, yet hotd frames aegon as the usurper. people parrot back the "king's word is law" argument and think they're harvey specter from suits. king stephen and the nobles who supported him send their regards, i guess.

That's why Tom himself said that just because Aegon is shown in certain way in 2 episodes in season 1 doesn't mean he is totally not worth rooting for

to be fair, what is tom supposed to say? he's stuck between a rock and a hard place here. "no, don't root for me, aegon is trash, only send me hatemail"

[gunpowderdtim]

Talk to me about narratomancy? Just whatever you want to talk about it I'm deathly interested

!!!! Today today i had so many Thoughts. To many. It almost rivals March 2020 thoughts

So

My current running names for the four pillars of Narratomancy are as follows:

Universal Story

Narrative Role Filling/Casting Call

Story Echoes

Narrative Flow/Narrative Imperative

Each of these refer to VERY different things within the concept of Narratomancy. I will do my best to describe them. I have coined every term here but narratomancy, to which I believe the honor falls to @lucky-sevens

Keep in mind this is 50% theory, 20% headcanon, 30% canon, and that you do not have to agree with me.

Universal Story

Universal Story refers to the story of the universe, not stories in the universe, the story of the universe. In other words, the story of ‘Dr. Carmilla & The Mechanisms’

This section of Narratomancy is a tad more meta than the others, as it does in some form rely on real-world events to define it, as well as having little to no in story inpact on anything. Maki created the mechanisms universe, clear and simple. She founded the band, and hashed out the earliest lore. Dr. Carmilla is the main character of the universe, not of all the stories, but of the universe. Essentially, Universal Story refers to the fact that Doc C is the main character of the universe, and that the mechanisms are her side characters, in the story of the universe. I have taken to viewing it as doc carmilla stuff is the story of the universe, and the mechanisms is a spin off of that. Both are just as canon, but not specifically canon to eachother. Regardless, the universes story is Carmilla, from starting on Terra, to Aurora, through Loreli, into creating The Mechansims, all of that. All of that is the story of The Universe. The Mechanisms backstories are included in this, of course, because they are part of Carmilla's tale, not the other way around. Through this, I conclude that The Mechanisms are a spin off, focusing on the mechs rather than Carmilla. After all, The Mechansisms are a vessel for telling stories, for fleshing out the universe.

Narrative Role Filling/Casting Call

This refers to the mechs penchant for falling into narrative roles similar to troupes that they represent, or basically acting as a crutch for a story to continue. In OUATIS, Jonny acts as The Prince figure in sleeping beauty. He saves Briar. In being The Prince, he allows Snow's forces to attack cole, and win the war. Without that whole escapade, its likely the war would have stretched on years longer, and not have ended as it did.

Or, Ashes as Hades. What do mythological Hades and Ashes have in common? Hades was eaten by his father, Kronos, because there was a prophesy that told Kronos that his children would usurp him as king of the titans. Ashes figured out Mickey was the snitch, Mickey realized beforehand and lead Ashes into a trap. Killing them because he knew that they could ruin him. Basically, a parental figure betrays the child figure due to them knowing the child could ruin/destroy their position of power. As well as, if Ashes were not Hades, the Suits would not have met, and because of that the story of Ulysses Dies At Dawn would not have happened.

Continuing, while I am not nearly as much of an Arthurian legend person as I am a greek mythology person, some quick google searches revealed a similar similarity between Merlin and Brian. Basically, Merlin and the lady of the lake. She was basically his apprentice/a lady he was in love with? She basically betrayed and killed him after learning all out magic from him. Brian brought a priest back to life, only to have the priest betray and kill him. The tying together point here is clearly the "someone you helped betrays and kills you." That or, the fact they are both magical. Beyond this, If Brian were not on Fort Galfridian, Galahad would never have sought out the grail, and the entire plot would not have occurred.

In The Bifrost Incident, the Mechanisms do not take narrative roles in the way they did in prior albums. But this does not exclude them from being vital points in the story, after all, if Ivy were not present Lyf would not have been able to recover the data on the Black Box)

In all of these situations, (barring Jonny as The Prince) the Mechanisms have had some sort of connection point in the Roles they assume, as well as in their roles, changing the story so that it can continue to the ending presented in the albums.

Story Echoes

Story echoes are, to be blatant, simply canon. No argument, no theorizing, just canon. Refers to the fact that in the mechanism's universe stories 'echo' or basically repeat. In Kofi's fiction for HNOC, its shown rather blatantly that there are more Arthurs in this universe than just the one in hnoc.

In those burning instants, he’d feel the weight of it all, and know it was true. The golden age that never came; the city that stood at the dawn of a world instead of in its dying embers. And beyond – to a myriad of Camelots and a thousand thousand Arthurs, unfathomable worlds apart, each different, each fighting the same hopeless battle.

I know there are other examples of this, but they do escape me right now.

Lastly,

Narrative Flow/Narrative Imperative

This one is also directly canon. On the mechanisms blog, this post defines it rather well.

In the ask, the asker asks "...Do you heal injuries at an abnormal rate, or can you not be injured?"

In the reply, it is stated.

It depends on the narrative imperative - sometimes a Mechanism might die for a while, and only come back later when it becomes more fun, other times they’ll just heal/ignore wounds as they take them. It’s not something they can control, but tends to follow a rough logic of whatever works best for the story.

This is just canon, no arguing or stating otherwise. A mechanisms ability to heal depends entirely on what's best for the story.

Other examples in canon where this comes into play would be as follows:

GPTVTMK. In gptvtmk, Jonny's severed head is there. Is talks. It moves. In one of the fictions, it's stated Jonny cannot separate his heart from his body. Therefore, these are contradictory. Under normal circumstances, this would be a plothole. It is not here. Under narratomancy, Jonny was capable of being a severed head due to the fact that that would be best for the story.

OUATIS. Jonny walks through rounds and rounds of bullets.

HNOC. This example is a bit different from the rest, as it is not about a Mechanism. Galahad does something pretty fucking impossible.

And so Galahad stood and walked into the corridor. The guns trained on the preacher and opened fire. 

Say what you want about faith, but it can have powerful effects on those that have it. It can keep you from faltering as the bullets start to slam into you. It can keep you walking as your legs are shot to bloody stumps. It can keep you laughing as your lungs are filled with shrapnel and lead. It can keep you smiling as half your face is blown away. It can keep a man like Galahad standing tall until the guns clicked dry.

It is my belief that this is another example of narrative imperative. Under normal rules, Galahad could never have done this. But his faith, his beleif, kept him going. And that was good for the story.

So. That wraps up my narratomancy ramble for today. hope yall enjoyed.

*EDIT: Nastya does say it's nanobots. My opinion is: it's both. The nanobots are narrative driven <3

[dwellordream]

“…At the same time, however, until the mid-eleventh century, the question of whether women were suited for militant activity had simply not been of any real concern to medieval scholars. To be sure, there were historical examples within Western Europe of women who were significantly involved in military activity, but they had not stimulated major debate on this issue. The legendary Boudicca, for instance, led a military revolt against the Romans in early Britain, yet her existence remained unknown throughout the High and Late Middle Ages and was only rediscovered in the sixteenth century.

Much later, another more well-known female military leader, Æthelflæd, the so-called ‘Lady of the Mercians’, led an army that won several battles within England and even invaded Wales in the early-tenth century, but her actions also aroused little comment in the contemporary sources. Though unusual, the activities of these women were not sufficiently contentious for contemporaries to use them as a basis for an argument in favour of female militancy.

Thus, it was not until the military career of Countess Matilda of Tuscany in the late-eleventh and early-twelfth century that we find the first clear evidence of works written in support of female militancy. Matilda, whose military career is examined in more detail in chapter two, inherited a large territory in northern Italy and became the chief means of military support and main defender of the Gregorian reform papacy in its struggle against the Western Roman Emperor Henry IV (1050- 1106).

Her continued military success raised fresh questions concerning women’s place in war, and forced many intellectuals who were dependant on Matilda to come up with new and inventive ways of defending and justifying her military actions. They were, in particular, driven by a desire to appease Matilda’s apparent reluctance to wage war against other Christians, as indeed she was doing by fighting the imperial German army. To this end, a range of innovative arguments were offered in support of Matilda’s cause and female military leadership in general.

Amongst the first to do so was a grammarian in her entourage, John of Mantua, known only for a biblical commentary he wrote on the Song of Songs in c.1081. In this tract he attempted to convince Matilda that an ‘active’ life fighting heresy and schismatics in the Church was just as noble as and indeed more useful in God’s eyes than leading a more ‘contemplative’ life as a cloistered nun. John also applied an allegorical form of biblical exegesis to argue that Matilda’s efforts in fact represented legitimate use of the ‘secular sword’ in defence of the Church, which itself wielded the ‘spiritual sword’ – an idea that was to later gain much currency amongst Church scholars.

Similarly Donizo, the author of a life of Matilda, employed biblical imagery to frame and contextualise Matilda’s accomplishments – military or otherwise – as the continuation of a long tradition in strong biblical female leaders, such as Deborah, Jael, Esther (an Old Testament queen), and Judith (another Old Testament heroine). Although the use of these biblical figures cannot necessarily be said to have legitimised Matilda’s leadership (none of the figures were actually rulers), they nevertheless still illustrated, to medieval eyes, how certain women throughout history had divine support for their actions, and in Matilda’s case, how her use of military force must have been approved by God.

A further attempt at explaining her success was that of Rangerius, bishop of Lucca, who defended Matilda’s actions by lauding her masculine qualities in ‘overcoming her sex and not fearing the brave deeds of men’. In thus construing Matilda as a sort of ‘honourable man’ as it were, Rangerius was able to avoid questions as to how the supposedly weaker female sex could defeat the other in a militarily battle, especially as women were thought to be ‘inherently...unfit for [military and political] command’.

Two others to defend the Church’s use of secular armies and Matilda’s participation by way of canon law were Bishop Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Duesdedit. Both men wrote early, yet independent and influential collections of canons in the 1080s, each of which were identically titled the Collectio canonum. Anselm’s Collectio, especially book 13, is particularly notable because it represented the first canonical collection of its kind, in that it was the first canonical collection designed specifically to justify the Church’s armed struggle against heretics and other perceived enemies of the faith.

More importantly however, at least in terms of legitimating female military command, both Anselm and Duesdedit were the first to employ a little known, and previously ignored, letter by Pope St. Gregory I (590-604) to the Frankish queen Brunhild, in which the pope permitted the queen to use military means in order to defeat any aggressive or evil threats. In Anselm’s collection the letter is discussed under the heading ‘That the power to correct evildoers is granted to the queen’. When placed in the context of Anselm’s support for Matilda and considering the significance and importance of his collection as the ‘the first major systematic justification of warfare in the Christian tradition’, this statement constituted a strong endorsement of female military leadership.

Lest we assume that efforts by intellectuals such as John of Mantua or canonists like Anselm to sanction Matilda’s military activities meant that they actually believed all women might be suited for military leadership, one must remember the context in which their works were written. As Hay has suggested, it is important to realise that Matilda’s very support for the papacy and various persecuted clerics is what predisposed polemicists in the first place to find excuses for her military involvement and justify to both themselves and each other why they were supporting one woman’s military activity.

Indeed, were it not for the need to explain and defend Matilda’s continued wartime victories and political savvy, her supporters may never have gone to the extent they did to justify her actions. Although their efforts to go against the centuries of anti-feminine thought in political and religious circles could not hope to change, in the space of one generation, long- standing beliefs about the legitimacy of female military involvement, their efforts indicate, if nothing else, that ‘medieval conceptions of gender [allowed for] the occasional female combatant’, without contradicting the established belief in male superiority.

Some of the more explicit arguments offered against the idea of women in war in the Middle Ages were also promulgated during Matilda’s life by Bishop Bonizo de Sutri (c.1045-c.1094). Interestingly, although his earlier work, the Liber ad amicum, written in 1085 or 1086, represented an endorsement of her military struggle and the others fighting on her side for the Church, his later canonical law collection, the Liber de vita Christiana, completed 1089-1090, offers a decidedly negative assessment of Matilda and her illegitimate usurpation of masculine power. The reasons for this shift in opinion have to do with Bonizo’s career.

Initially bishop of Sutri, he had been expelled and captured by the Emperor Henry in 1082, then forced to find sanctuary in Matilda’s court where he composed the Liber ad amicum. In it he spoke glowingly of Matilda, calling her a soldier of God and a true daughter of St Peter, who must fight to defend the church against the anti-pope Clement III and his supporters, using ‘every means, as long as her resources last’. His circumstances changed however when, after controversially being elected to the see of Piacenza with only weak support from Matilda and the papacy, he proved unable to maintain his position in the face of opposition, and in 1089 was cruelly mutilated and ousted by his opponents from his seat.

The Liber de vita Christiana therefore, reflects Bonizo’s disillusionment with Matilda, an attitude that is evident in its argument that women must always be under male command; moreover, although he concedes that historically some women have held military or political leadership, he contends they have only ever brought destruction or misfortune to their subjects. Invoking various biblical and historical examples of women who he felt had gone against this divine order and suffered for it, Bonizo concludes by exhorting that a woman’s place is at home, performing domestic tasks, not leading armies on the battlefield, the obvious implication being that Matilda’s struggle could only bring harm to those involved and that she ought to desist in her military activities.”

- James Michael Illston, ‘An Entirely Masculine Activity’? Women and War in the High and Late Middle Ages Reconsidered

[azz-tronaut]

The Supreme Court may not realize it, but in overturning Roe v. Wade it would open up a horrifying and perhaps counterintuitive possibility that should repulse all admirers of liberty: the legality of forced abortion or sterilization. Just as a fetus is inextricably fused with the body of the person gestating it, if the Court erases Roe and thus obliterates the right not to beget and bear a child, it will inevitably erase its reflection: the right to bring a child into the world. If Roe was wrong, then decisions upholding mandatory sterilization and abortion would be right.

The practical and not merely theoretical nature of that symmetry became clear during the nearly two-decade interval between Roe’s initial recognition of the constitutional right to an abortion in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s reaffirmation of that right in 1992. Lower courts, including the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, had during that period been confronted with repeated efforts by state officials, sometimes doing the bidding of teenage girls’ parents, to coerce their daughters into undergoing surgical abortions or sterilizations. The reasons offered ranged from feared birth defects to beliefs that their girls were not ready to be good mothers to disapproval of the fathers-to-be, although it’s hard not to suspect that domestic abuse and incest were sometimes lurking beneath the surface.

Consider the case of Virginia Avery, a 15-year-old Black girl who became pregnant and sought prenatal treatment at a state-controlled medical facility in Burke County, North Carolina, in the years after Roe. State medical officials told Avery that she had a sickle-cell blood condition that exclusively affected the Black population, that continuing her pregnancy would immediately endanger her life or shorten it considerably, and that her condition would prevent her from taking birth control pills. The medical diagnosis turned out to be a lie, but, believing the doctors and succumbing to their relentless pressure, Virginia underwent an unwanted abortion and agreed to be sterilized. In 1981, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in Avery’s favor in a federal civil-rights suit against the state medical officers. The story of a pregnant Black high-school girl pressured for weeks by Alabama public-school counselors to undergo an abortion against her wishes—as well as the wishes of her family and sexual partner—is no less shocking, and ended with an Eleventh Circuit ruling in the girl’s favor in 1989.

The decision those courts invoked to protect the bodily integrity and personal dignity of the young women involved? None other than Roe v. Wade. The courts understood—and the Eleventh Circuit explained at length—that Roe stood not so much for a right to end a pregnancy as for the right to choose whether to end one. Indeed, when Supreme Court justices have affirmed the existence of another right nowhere named in the Constitution—a right to refuse unwanted medical interventions—they haven’t hesitated to invoke Roe v. Wade.

That’s why, when the Court in Casey was explaining its decision to protect a woman’s autonomy, it pointedly said that it wasn’t relying on the doctrine of stare decisis, or standing by decisions previously made, despite the failure of the Constitution’s text to mention the subject except at a high level of generality, using the word liberty. The Court in Casey reasoned that if a woman’s liberty to choose whether to remain pregnant could be usurped by the state on the basis of any rational justification—a notoriously easy standard to meet—then the state would need no more justification to force a woman to abort than it would need to prevent her from aborting. Coerced pregnancy and coerced abortion were, as I wrote in an article several years after the Casey decision, “mirror images of one another.” As the Court in Casey specifically put the matter, in a passage almost everyone appears to have overlooked in the 30 years since:

The soundness of this prong of the Roe analysis is apparent from a consideration of the alternative. If indeed the woman’s interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily restrict a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control, or in eugenics, for example. Yet Roe has been sensibly relied upon to counter any such suggestions.

At that point, the Court referenced the lower-court decisions I’ve mentioned, in which judges refused to force young women to end their pregnancies or to undergo sterilization. And it was that comparison, not precedent, on which the Court relied to insist that the core holding of Roe was right.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in Casey, mocked that supposed symmetry as proof of the Court’s bankrupt reasoning, archly insisting that he could tell the difference, even if the Court’s majority couldn’t, between killing a fetus and preventing its death. But that mistakes a definition for an argument. Yes, an abortion causes the death of a fetus. But the question is how to decide whether that consequence of letting a woman control her own body and destiny suffices to justify an imposition that our law otherwise steadfastly resists: depriving a person of full ownership of his or her body, full control of his or her life, whether in the context of forcing someone to donate blood or a kidney or of forcing someone to continue a pregnancy.

Nor is it decisive that a ban on abortion forbids an act while a coerced abortion commands one. It was none other than Justice Scalia, two years before Casey, who wrote in a case involving mandated medical treatment about “the irrelevance of the action-inaction distinction.” “Starving oneself to death,” he wrote, “is no different from putting a gun to one’s temple.”

In a Constitution that outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, is it really enough, as Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization insists, that “abortion destroys what … the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an ‘unborn human being’”?

If no more than that widely contested characterization is demanded, as the Alito draft implies, then we have opened the door to compulsory sterilization of people deemed likely to transmit undesirable traits, and the nightmare of forced abortion. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once remarked, “It seems trite but necessary to say that … our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.”

[drwcn]

... You know, I was just thinking about Hua Mulan ChengQing AU. Hahah, ha. This movie is SOMETHING. Handkerchiefs are necessary.

oh I HEARD? but idk if i wanna see it. I’ve seen other things Liu Yifei (Mulan) was in and i don’t really like her? 

NOTE: OKAY so there were some confusion!!! Before ppl get offended, anon and I are taking about two different movies. The one that anon is saying is good is Mulan (2009) an original Chinese movie BC I had been asking ppl where to watch it and received many inbox msgs about it. The Disney film is what I won't be watching for so many reasons, including bc I know the actress's work and is just unimpressed by her in general on top of all the other reasons.

Oh boy, but like...what IF it’s reverse!Mulan, aka matriarchal society. Where Jiang Cheng is the “sneak into the army for my family c”!Mulan and Wen Qing is the “I wanted to be a doctor but then the Fire Nation exploded in on itself”!Shang. And I worldbuilded for no reason...

tw: minor character death (suicide). un-beta-ed, unedited, unproof-read, we die like nmj

WEN QING

Wen Ruohan was never supposed to be the Emperor, Wen Qing’s mother once told her, but the imperial court had allowed him to inherit because his late Empress Mother had no daughters to inherit the throne. As long as WRH promised to father daughters and pass on through them, then the Wen dynasty legacy would be preserved. 

“What did his wife say, that her children must take his last name?” Wen Qing had asked her mother, wide eyed and curious. Her mother had shrugged and said, “Well some women don’t mind, I guess, especially if it meant her children would be heiress of the throne.” 

Wen Qing had frowned at that. What’s so bad about children taking their father’s name, she wondered. Men may not be allowed the same liberties as women, may not attend public school or join the army or hold court with the Empress, but they were still children’s parents. Not all women agreed on this of course, but that was the way of their world. 

Her father died of consumption some years after Wen Ning was born, but Mother never took a second husband or a concubine. Wen Qing liked that about her mother. Brave, loyal, true. 

Wen Qing’s mother, Dafan-junwang, a distant relation to the throne, was a renowned marshal, hailing from a proud line of generals and marshals, trusted by the Wen imperial family as protectors of the realm, without fear of usurpation. The people whispered that Wen Qing had much to live up to, if she were to inherit her mother’s duchy and hold a command of her own. 

Wen Qing never had much interest in war or martial arts, but she learned, trained, practiced and perfected her skills because she could never bear the thought of letting her mother down. In her heart (and in her free time), she learned the science and art known by father. He was a quiet man, a physician (quite skilled too), before he married her mother. He wasn’t what her grandparents would have wanted for their daughter, but Mother had been adamant. 

Wen Qing’s mother hadn’t been good at expressing her love, but she did love her husband. Very much. Mother was only ever soft around Father, and Wen Qing only knew this because she’d seen them hold hands when they thought no one was watching. 

Wen Ning, being the son of a wealthy aristocratic family, was destined to marry well when he came of age. Unlike girls, boys weren’t allowed to attend publicly funded scholarly schools or martial academies. Wealthy and noble families however were able to afford private tutors for their sons, so that they would know the four arts (play the qin, weiqi, literature, and art) and be elegant, competent husbands for their wives. If Wen Ning was competent enough, charming enough, and gave his wife daughters (because everyone knew it’s the men who control the sex of the baby), then she would be faithful to him -> at least that’s what their nanny said. 

“How did they know, that men determined the sex of the baby?” Wen Qing asked her mother one evening when she turned thirteen and was given The Talk. 

Her mother tilted her head and said as if it was the most obvious answer in the world. “My dear, women are the earth, we grow and birth life. Men are like the seeds. If you plant an apricot tree, the earth will nourish it and let it flourish, but the fruit will always be apricots, you will never have peaches.” 

Once, Wen Qing had asked her mother if she could be a physician instead, if Wen Ning could take her place as general. Her mother had given her a very stern look and said, “No only is your brother of a sickly disposition, but you are my daughter. The duchy and my command can only be inherited by you. For your country, you do not have a choice.” 

Wen Qing conceded, because she was good.

The days dragged on, and slowly it was becoming clear Wen Ruohan would have no daughters. Not only so, the sons he fathered were ill-mannered and haughty, unfit to rule. Wen Ruohan’s mind, too, was slowly leaving him, due to unknown reasons. The ministers of the court and notabilities of the peerage urged Wen Ruohan to take on the daughter of his cousin born of his maternal aunt, and to groom her as heir. This brought on much discontent from Wen Roohan’s two princes, who aligned themselves with lurking enemies from the north, and before anyone could mitigate the situation, the country was thrust into a full blown civil war. 

Every bit her mother’s daughter, Wen Qing did not hesitate to mount her horse and ride off into battle. She had her duties and she would serve until her death. 

Jiang Wanyin had a very pretty face - she would reflect in retrospect. Perhaps that was why she believed him when he showed up at her camp with a conscription missive claiming to be his older sister Jiang Yanli. 

JIANG CHENG

The Jiang family was a wealthy merchant family situated southeast of the capital, in the province of Yunmeng. The current head of family is Jiang Ziyuan, known for her sharp business mind and sharp ways with her sword.  

(the only reason i’m switching Jiang Fengmian and Yu Ziyuan’s last name is because it’s a matriarchal society, and Yu Cheng and Yu Yanli sounds way too awful as names, but Yu Fengmian and Jiang Ziyuan are actually not bad.) 

There was a rumour that her husband Yu Fengmian of a Meishan Yu clan, had betrayed her with a wandering traveler from the pugilist world named Cangse...something something, and that he had fathered a son with her out of wedlock. If it were true, then by the conventions of the land, Jiang Ziyuan would have every legal right to divorce Yu Fengmian and send him back to his family to live out the rest of his days in seclusion, shame and repentance. 

But when Yu Fengmian came to her with the little Wei Ying, freshly orphaned, Yu Ziyuan turned the boy this way and that, examined him for “abnormalities” and nodded. Then she summoned her son, and said to him, “Our manor purchased  some new indentured servants. This boys is yours from now on, he is your responsibility. Keep him in line, find some uses for him, or get rid of him.” 

Jiang Cheng looked to his big sister, but his sister just shook her head. Not quite understanding what was happening, or why his father was bowed down on the floor, Jiang Cheng took his new “servant” and left. 

Watching them go, Jiang Yanli then turned to her mother and said, “Muqin, if I may be so bold, I have an idea.” 

Jiang Yanli was not the heiress that Jiang Ziyuan had hoped for. Though incredibly intelligent, Jiang Yanli was of poor health and not suited for martial training. Jiang Ziyuan had been quite troubled by this for some time, fearing others would cause trouble once Jiang Yanli inherits. However, she was also hesitant to train her son Jiang Cheng, even though he showed both interest and aptitude. It was not often that well to do families would want to take on a too “rambunctious” boy as groom for their daughters. Yet to leave Jiang Yanli without close protection... 

“Are you thinking that boy...” 

Jiang Yanli nodded. “Father denies being Wei Ying’s paternal parent, but surely tongues will waggle regardless. Mother, you are within your right to dismiss father, but he is still my father, and if not for me, think of A-Cheng. One day he will marry, and what family would want a son with a disgraced sire. Wei Ying looks healthy and strong; as I am unfortunately unable to train with the sword, mother may yet train him. Surely you’re not worried about his future marriage prospects. Perhaps it is better yet that he never marries, for he will remain close to Lotus Pier and serve at my side.” 

Jiang Ziyuan listened to Jiang Yanli’s words and decided that her daughter made very valid points. Her relationship with her husband could never be repaired but she had her children’s future to consider. 

And yet happiness would not last for long. Two months after Jiang Yanli’s sixteenth’s birthday, she received news that her mother’s private boat, which she used to inspect her properties, had capsized in a terrible monsoon storm, killing everyone on board.  

After the news reached Lotus Pier, Yu Fengmian took his own life in the dead of night, leaving a letter stating that he had owed Jiang Ziyuan too much to repay, that though Wei Ying was not his son, he had kept secrets from her that he swore he would not reveal in this life. Now that she’s gone, he would keep her company in her journey to the beyond. 

The Jiangs mourned, but they survived.

Then when the boys turned seventeen, war broke out over the lands, and the conscription missives arrived demanding one female from every household. Jiang Cheng panicked. Wei Wuxian had been sent to Gusu on business and would not return for some time. The military missive was time sensitive, so Jiang Cheng didn’t have another choice...besides it’s not like A-Jie’s matchmaking attempts for him had been all that successful...he was next to blacklisted anyway after his last debacle with the Qin girl. 

Jiang Cheng decided that he could pass as a woman if he dressed properly and redid his hair, but his voice...he'd just have to pretend he could not speak. That way, no one would know. 

WQ: “Who are you?” 

JC *hands her his letter* 

WQ: “Jiang Yanli? The Yunmeng Jiangs? Of Lotus Pier?” 

JC: *nods*

Her subordinate, “I didn’t know Jiang Ziyuan’s daughter was mute, they only said she was of poor health.” 

-

Luo “Mianmian” Qingyang finds out first. 

Mianmian: *GASP and points* You’re a man! 

JC: *covers his body* SHH!!! Turn around! Don’t look at me! *turns to look away*

Mianmian: *naked by the river ready for a bath but too shocked to move* but, but, but, how?? How did we not know????

JC: Mianmian - no- Lt. Luo, please don’t tell the Young Marshal! Please, I only came so my sister wouldn’t have to -

MM: Cowardice! It is every woman’s sworn duty to - 

JC: My sister is of very delicate health. She won’t survive! She’s my late mother’s only daughter, if she dies... I’m expendable. I don’t mind being cannon fodder, please don’t report me. 

-

JC shivering in the snow. “You said you trust Yanli! Why should Wanyin be any different?!” 

WQ stood impassively over him with a sword at his neck. Then, she closed her eyes and turned away. “A life for a life. My debt is paid.” 

---

JYL: *Proud* “A-Cheng helped secure the future of our nation. The adopted young crown princess was too young to rule without a loyal regent, and Wen Ruohan’s sons colluded with outside forces...it would have been chaos. Millions would have died.” 

WWX *teasing* “Sure he brought home a sword, if you ask me he should’ve brought home a wife!”

---

JC, “W-would you like to stay for dinner - ” 

WWX: WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAY FOREVER? 

JC: Wei Wuxian! She’s regent now, be respectful!” 

WQ: Dinner...sounds lovely. 

[huicitawrites]

Can I get a yan dio

“Dearest Pet”

Yandere! Dio x Reader

headcanons

warning: kidnapping, possesiveness, ‘objetification’, implied abuse, obsessive behaviour, human degradation.

————————————————————————————————————————

Dio Brando:

Dio Brando is a self-centred man.

Hungry for power, luxuries, and control.

His never-ending ambition leading him to darker paths that costed the lives of innocents and misery.

Yet, no matter how much he fed his gluttony for bloodshed and power; Dio could not find himself satisfied.

Then he saw you.

When the blonde vampire caught sight of you, he felt at ease for a second. The slight irritation crumbled into nothing and Dio felt he were the most powerful man on Earth.

As if he had it all at the palm of his hand, within his eyesight and reach. Which was technically true, he had you just a few meters away. Dio could just snatch you away at any given moment.

But as soon as you made your way to who knows where, certainly not where you belong -by his side, Dio experienced something he had not before.

A pinching abyss that pulled at the strings of his usurped heart and squeezed it tight, making his chest heavier and his breathing deeper.

At first he was enraged. How dare you do this to him, to the grand Dio Brando. You, a pathetic, pitiful and disgusting mortal.

So insignificant to him- nothing more than cattle’s blood.

Poor, narcissistic boy is a conflicted nasty soul.

He spent days awake in his lair and silent nights pondering on this new humiliating feeling.

However, each day spent on his quarters seemed to produce no progress but a deeper craving.

A bigger and sillier ambition.

Yes, this had to be it.

Finally, he came to the conclusion he shall have you.

A pretty, obedient human pet certainly sounded pleasant to his ears.

Dio even bought a golden collar that had silver spikes lined with gleeming jewels, and a matching gold leash to accompany it. Furthermore, he sent to engrave “[Y/N] [L/N]” on a diamond tag. (He has planned to change it into “[Y/N] Brando” once he has you on your knees.)

He prepared a room for you, a gilded cage to say. The luxurious prison contained a soft, king-size bed with silk bed sheets and curtains. A double-wardrobe filled with the clothes —he considered— suited you best and a full length mirror in which you could see yourself and more. In addition, a crystal chandelier hanged in the middle of the roof, providing enough light for the room.

Now, Dio just needed a fresh toy for his doll house.

The deed to be done was simple, effortless from his part. He climbed into your bedroom during the night and swooped your smaller form onto his muscled arms.

Your struggling proved to be futile. No matter how much you kicked and scratched neither how much you thrashed; it was not enough to flip the tables of your current situation. He was not fazed in the least. The mysterious blonde captor NEVER loosened his vice grip.

Anyhow, he was a bit irritated by your resistance. It put a bittersweet flavor on his tongue.

He found himself surprised by the fact that he did not relish on your tears as much as he thought he would.

Why were you so special, you; a mere human pet?

In time, he got the answer. For with the pass of each night, the blonde found himself more infatuated than before.

Each kiss lasted longer, each caress he’d make would linger a lot more and he just adored losing himself in your astonishing [e/c] eyes.

Soon, the affections he displayed escalated another level. Your body became a canvas in which he’d paint all sorts of ‘love marks’.

However, this affections were never returned.

But he does enjoy your feisty attitude. Furthermore, it was some twisted game of his.

To break your spirit, to make you submit yourself to him alone.

“Darling pet, you might not find it lovely here for now. However, those delicious lips will soon moan my name and beg for my touch. Soon you’ll say ‘I love you, Master Dio’, though you are already mine”.

——————————————————————————

A/N: Here’s the request dear anon! I hope you -readers- liked it. Have a wonderful day!

[wolfistiic]

(KATHERYN WINNICK, IMMORTAL, SHE/HER) | FRIGG IRONCLADE is the PARENT OF FOUR CHILDREN. The isle used to be their prison making them ASTUTE + OBSTINATE, which suits them as they’ve pledged allegiance to the royal family. The new world is finally here, long live the queen.

Admin C with my last baby (though I’ll probably bring more later on !)

Frigg is a demi god which means while she technically borders on the line of immortal, she’s not a full god and therefore CAN be killed. This however isn’t something that she’s actually discovered, as the majority of her injuries over the centuries have been ones that ether left scars or healed very quickly due to her god side. She assumed there’s a possibility to be killed, but akin to most god felt she was too powerful for that to ever happen.

While her husband is old as the hills, Frigg is not. Although time has blended together for her she’s more than likely only eight hundred years old rather than over a millennia. Because of this she’s very much aware that there are other gods and beings much older than her, and thusly with more power.

Fenrir, her husband, is literally the bringer of Ragnarok which means the end of worlds. As such he’s very much akin to other beings like Hades, Chernabog and The Horned King in the sense that Fenrir is all chaos and destruction. For the most part Frigg agrees with everything that he encompasses, however in the last century or so she’s slowly realized she’s sick of the chaos. Sick of feeling like her only option is war and DEATH.

This of course isn’t something that she’s spoken of to her husband, knowing that it goes completely against everything that he is. However with her children being more mortal than god it concerns her that a wave of devastation constantly follows her.

It’s this particular reason that has her avoiding the majority of the other villains in Auradon, even with the usurping of the throne, Frigg finds herself leaning more towards the side of the supposed heroes though she would never readily admit it. Which is why she’s biding her time with the illusion that she’s loyal to the crown.

She has a LOT of inner turmoil and guilt over her change of heart, especially because it would mean essentially abandoning her husband, and possibly some of her children if she were to fully go over to the other side.

Plots:

As cliche as it is I’d like a bit of everything for Frigg but ultimately the following is what I’d REALLY like to see !!

Unlikely friends be it younger villains, heroes or their children !!

VK children that she’s taken into her home as her own for lack of their own parents caring for them !! Maybe 3 at the most !!

Someone that she’s well aware has slept with her husband, once or on more than one occasion !!

A hero or another villain that Frigg’s started to lust after, furthering her own inner turmoil. If it ends up being a hero, bonus angst !!

Any other gods, that are privy to her changing moods and characteristics that call her out on the change!!

Someone that only knows her wolf form, which essentially is as big as a direwolf from Game Of Thrones and pure white; an opposing image to fenrir !!

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

I have a silly Napoleon ask for you: if he suddenly woke up in the present day what do you think he would a)like most about it b) like least about it c)get unreasonably addicted to d)decide to do for a living

hahah I’ve answered a similar one before here and here. 

Most Like About It: A lot, I think. Central heating. Guys, he’d fucking love central heating.

In general, he’d love most technological advances. Cars, planes, trains etc. like he’d be very into that. “Bertrand we’re going to ride the TGV all day every day. Look at how fast we are going! This is genius.” 

“Bertrand WE ARE IN THE SKY. This is AMAZING. We are going from Paris to Rome in a matter of HOURS. HOURS BERTRAND. WE DON’T HAVE TO CROSS MOUNTAINS.” (sorry just assuming this is exile Napoleon who woke up in modern day.) 

Public transit in general - the metro, buses - anything that makes life more efficient for people. Dishwasher, washers/dryers, modern electricity, laptops, printers, ball point pens etc. 

I suspect he’d be a big supporter of public health care and all the advances made on vaccines and medicine in general. 100% would hate anti-vaxxers. Pro-modern glasses (he’d get himself a pair asap. Then they’d explain contacts to him and I think he’d be like “WAIT NO, I WANT THOSE.” He would not be into lasik, I suspect). 

Modern hygiene! Razors, tooth brushes, floss, moisturizer - general daily body care he’d probably be keen on. (All that stuff we take for granted.) Though maybe not all of it, he was quite traditional in certain things (his penchant for older fashion, par exemple). Maybe he’d keep the old straight razor shaving approach. But modern dentistry would be a huge improvement and I can’t see him being against it. Especially as someone who had a tooth extracted in the early 19th century. 

‘Oh they give you pain killers now? Fantastic.’ 

‘Sir, we just numb the area where we are doing the work.’ 

‘So it doesn’t impede my awareness? Amazing. Please, fix all my teeth right now.’ 

He’d also support the greater access to education that exists, especially compared to his day. Also, streaming services. He would binge so many things. ‘Bertrand we are watching every thing this very soothing sounding British naturalist made about planet earth. Holy shit look at that they’re under water! They’re at the bottom of the ocean! Bertrand look at this. if only Josephine were here. She’d be so excited.’ 

Pro-zoom/Microsoft teams/facetime etc. 100%. ‘If I had this instead of people relying on my bad handwriting ...’ 

Oh, he’d like the EU as a concept. Except he would be very disappointed that France wasn’t at the helm. I think France’s position globally would disappoint him, overall. But yeah, the broad principles espoused by the concept of the European Union would appeal to him. 

Brexit though. Lol. I think he’d enjoy watching England shoot itself in the foot. But if you asked him for his opinion, as in “do you think the UK should do this” he would answer no. They should remain. 

He would like globalization, trade agreements, things like NAFTA, CETA etc. Supporter of big government. Reduction of religion in public sphere. Though would he be pro-banning visual manifestations of faith? (i.e. Hijab etc.) I don’t know. I doubt it. Simply because he was very focused on religion in government, so if churches aren’t involved in decision making, what citizens get up to on their own is their business (so long as you don’t cause problems). But I don’t know, he might be pro-it, because he was also into assimilation and creating a broad sense of a French culture. I could see him really going either way on it. It’d probably come down to whatever he thought would garner the most public support as a political move (since a lot of his more liberal moves as a leader were tied to understanding that marginalized communities would gun hard for him if he helped them). 

He would be pro-mask wearing for COVID because he wasn’t a fucking idiot and lived in a time when pandemics were still a real going concern. 

He would also probably like how comfortable modern clothing is. I don’t think he’d like how cheap and made-to-wear-out that most brands are, but he’d like the over all philosophy. Like Napoleon would dig t-shirts. Lounge wear. The fact that jeans have some stretch in them. That sort of thing. 

-- 

Least Like: I think he’d be very wary of the internet. For many reasons. For the lack of government control (Napoleon “What is a free press? never heard of her” Bonaparte). But also, because of the misinformation problems. The side effects many of us are now bearing witness to, and experiencing the ramifications of. 

He would dislike the whole fake news nonsense. Oh this man was a master spin-doctor, very good at twisting a narrative around to suit him, but he still did have respect for and a firm belief in basic facts. Especially fake news that usurped the sound advise of scientists and doctors (i.e. COVID nonsense). 

Free press, I think he would be wary of it. Mostly from a government control perspective. Like as a day-to-day citizen, since he wouldn’t be anyone in power in this hypothetical, I think he’d value it. He would do that disassocative thing he did when he talked about things in the abstract. That cold, calculating way he would position himself in a situation and be like “Ah yes, these are the things that need to be tamped down if you want control of a populace as a monarch”. Then he had his more liberal, call-back-to-that-misspent-jacobin-youth moments where his views shifted. 

I suppose it would also depend what age this hypothetical Napoleon is. He softened a lot in retirement exile. Napoleon at the height of his power, thirty-odd years old, different man to fifty year old Napoleon. 

Would not be into women in politics. He’d be like ‘Why is there a woman in charge of Germany? Also what happened to the Habsburgs? Where’s Prussia? Silesia? What the FuCk is happening in the Balkans? I’m very confused about Europe’s current geographic layout. ...Corsica...still doing you, I see.’ 

He’d dislike Trump and his cronies. As I wrote before: “ I think Napoleon would find Trump disgusting on a personal level. Uneducated, incapable of holding a real conversation, gauche, anti-intellectual, anti-fact-based discussion, anti-science, anti-art etc. He’d also feel that Trump is disgracing the position of President and that he is unworthy of leadership. Napoleon would also find Trump physically repulsive as he could be a wee bit shallow in some of his assessments (though, very early modern to 19th century to assume your physical appearance is a manifestation of your interiority).” 

Steve Bannon’s fiddling with finances? Napoleon would find that repulsive. Mitch Mcconnell disgracing his office by fucking around with constitutional loop holes? Napoleon would think it a disgrace. 

He had a lot of respect for America’s experiment with democracy. Like, quite a lot of respect. So I think he’d be vastly disappointed in not only the person occupying the white house, but also a lot of the apathy in voting that is going around. (Yes, this coming from a [mostly] absolutest monarch, too.) But Napoleon valued and respected the notion of civic duty. If you live in a democracy, you have a duty to participate. To opt out is to shirk that duty which he would find insulting and distasteful. Because, I would argue, he was very much a believer in people doing right by their fellow citizens. 

--

Get unreasonably addicted to: MODERN BATHS. HE WOULD NEVER LEAVE THE BATHTUB. THEY CAN HAVE JETS AND EVERYTHING BERTRAND THIS IS GREAT. 

Also central heating. Saunas. Jacuzzis. He was like a wee lizard seeking warmth at all times. 

I think he’d be into driving. I don’t know if he would be good at it. Don’t let Napoleon take the wheel, guys. But if someone else was driving he’d be that person “go faster. you’re driving like my grandmother.” And gods, he’d do dumb shit like drive like a maniac around the arc de triumph six times in a row because he’s an adrenaline junkie and a risk-taker (it’s that bored ADD brain of his). The autobahn would be his dream. 

I think he’d be super into epic fantasy series. Like the big sweeping ones like Lord of the Rings. I think less so GRRM because GRRM is unrealistic and Napoleon is pedantic. Especially about politics and war. Exhibit A: consider Napoleon’s very detailed nitpicking of Virgil on his inaccurate rendition of Troy from a military perspective. Therefore, I suspect GRRM’s lack of accuracy in how society works, how war works, how politics works, all the plot holes and illogical character decisions, would drive him up the wall. Napoleon liked Homer because he could tell Homer had been to war. And you can tell Tolkien has been to war. Also LOTR hits all those notes of high-hearted emotion and big sweeping scenes that Napoleon so liked in Ossian and the Illiad etc.

All this to say, overall, as a genre, I think those big, sweeping fantasies with lots of plot, politics, intrigue, soaring battles, great heights of emotion - he’d love that. It would hit all of his buttons for what he liked in fiction. Lots of emotion, lots of action, lots of big scenes, lots of crazy shenanigans. This can also be applied to Sci-fi. I think he’d be a big nerd on that too. But the science would have to make sense. 

I think he’d be into Star Trek, particularly Picard, if only for the philosophical aspects of it. He liked those sorts of questions and hypotheticals. So I think he’d binge all of The Next Generation (among other seasons). 

--

Do for a living: Teach? God knows. This is Napoleon from 18-something who just woke up? He could be paid for consultant work for historians and film crews and the like, I guess. Just to tell them how accurate stuff is. Of course, be wary, this is Napoleon I Am A Spin Doctor Bonaparte. 

I think he could lean into writing histories - particularly the classics, early French and European history - that sort of thing, where he already has a strong background in it and it wouldn’t require him basically learning an entirely new trade. Like, will Napoleon ever fully be a natural with computers and cell phones? Probably not. Could he be like your old school Professor emeritus who still churns out papers and does 90% of it the old fashioned by-hand way? Yes. And Napoleon had a bunch of histories planned on St. Helena that he wanted to write, so I think he could do that. 

As this is literally Napoleon Bonaparte he’d get a book deal in seconds. There’d be a bidding war over it. 

--

Thank you for the ask! This was very amusing :D