#all the discussion about rising fascism | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ceilidhtransing · 6 months ago

Text

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

#politics #us politics #american politics #us election #election 2024 #2024 elections #2024 election #us elections #2024 presidential election #project 2025 #agenda 47 #antifascism #please vote #your vote matters #voting matters #harris #kamala #kamala harris #my posts

14K notes · View notes

opencommunion · 3 months ago

Text

looking back on how liberal political analysts talked about donald trump during his 2016 campaign, I notice two very important insights that have vanished from the conversation this time around.

1: the dire warnings about the rise of fascism were really centered on trump's followers, not the man himself. what concerned scholars of fascism in particular was that the already well-established neonazi presence in the US was openly rallying around a presidential candidate. trump's campaign emboldened neonazis, but the neonazis were already there — this is why we saw an astronomical rise in hate crimes against many marginalized groups during trump's campaign, before he was elected. trump himself was understood as an opportunist riding the wave of rising fascist sentiment — the wave itself was a bigger concern than the surfer. trump was replaceable. liberals now seem to have forgotten that trump's followers won't disappear if harris wins. the heritage foundation (originators of 'project 2025,' blue maga's favorite boogeyman) won't disappear if harris wins. extreme right politicians — many of whom I would argue are even further right than trump, and more embedded in the establishment — won't disappear. even if you mistakenly see the republican party as the sole provenance of usamerican fascism, republicans won't disappear if harris is elected.

2: the people centered in the crosshairs of trump's agenda were migrants and asylum seekers; chiefly those from south of the US border and from majority muslim countries. the intensified demonization of these groups led analysts to draw parallels with fascist parties that were on the rise in europe. hatred of migrants and muslims is indisputably the primary driver of 21st century fascism, from the UK to India. so tell me why the conversation in the US has shifted to revolve around white trans people? yes, trump supporters are obviously transphobic, but you have to trace this particular manifestation of transphobia to its source, which still comes down to white supremacy and anti-migrant sentiment. when you actually look at the way fascists talk about trans people, it all comes back to the idea that hostile foreign elements invading the country have degraded white christian values. trans people of color have already been targeted for a long time, because we're seen as a sort of vanguard of non-white perversion; this isn't new to us. white trans people are now experiencing increased persecution because transness is seen as infiltrating white families/communities and corrupting their whiteness. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about the rise of transphobic policies; of course we should. what disturbs me is that anti-migrant sentiment has been shunted to the sidelines of discussions of 'trumpism,' when it is still very much the center of his platform. and that's the part of his platform that the harris campaign has adopted to try and pull voters from him! that's the part of the republican platform that the biden administration advanced with the excuse of 'reaching across the aisle.' and what more extreme manifestation of an anti-migrant anti-muslim platform is there than committing genocide in gaza and then refusing to let gazan asylum seekers (or even gazans with US citizenship!) into the US?

the entire US government, red and blue, is unified around the anti-migrant, white supremacist crux of so-called 'trumpism.' large swathes of the american public, whether they vote red or blue, are enthusiastic about genocidal foreign and domestic policies. none of this stops when trump is gone

#fascism

2K notes · View notes

bookshelfdreams · 4 months ago

Note

What is your Hogwarts house?

yk, I always thought it was a shame that we (here on the Overanalyzing Dumb Pop Media website) consider HP a forbidden topic; or rather, have collectively decided that, because its author is an idiot transphobe, it is unworthy of discussion. There are so many things worthy of discussion about it, about what it believes in, what roles it assigns to people, why it ultimately fails in delivering its message.

Actually, the houses are a big part of that.

What is evil in the world of HP? Not what the text says outright, not the lip-service it pays to Fascism Bad! No, what is shown as evil? What marks an evil person, and in contrast, a good one? (Aside from superficial and again, obvious traits like cruelty or intolerance)

The defining trait of the "evil" house is ambition and cunning - and intelligence. Ravenclaw might not be "the villain", but the characters placed here, when they feature at all, are often morally ambiguous or downright antagonistic. The big bad villain comes from devastating poverty, just like the secondary villain.

What does HP believe in? Well, underlying seems to be the assumption that it is inherently suspicious to want to rise above one's station. It is fine for characters to explore and make use of their natural gifts, but it is wrong and a mark of evil to have ambitions beyond that. Wanting to be better is fueled by bitterness and jealousy; in HP, you either have innate talent, or you're a fraud and a villain.

This isn't something that's put in consciously, I am almost certain of that. Rather, it stems from a cultural background, where everyone ought to stay within their class. Where good fortune, wealth and talent is a mark of God's favour, and trying to achieve better status despite not being born into it, is hubris that ought to be punished.

Now, on the surface, HP obviously rejects this. Harry himself grows up a destitute, abused orphan! Doesn't he?

But he is lifted from his old life when he learns that he was always special. Fate has marked him favourably. He is innately talented in all the right ways, and he's heir to a fortune.

Contrasting that, there's Ron, whose family is actually poor, but who bear poverty gracefully. Who would, of course, never accept charity! And who's father could have had a better, more lucrative carreer, but never had because he enjoys working in his deadend position so much! (And then look at Ron's brothers: The twins find success and a fortune by exploring their innate talents, seemingly without too much care for financial gain. Percy, otoh, who actually has career ambitions, is painted as shallow and selfish for it.)

Even of the protagonists, the one who is the most hardworking - Hermione - is also the most ruthless, even cruel and dangerous at times. And she is allowed to work for success only because all her motivation is purely academic (and also rooted in poor self-esteem). She studies for a love of studying, and because she is terrified of failure. Not because she wants to be the best.

Being the best is something you simply are. Not something you work for.

On the surface level, HP is about defeating fascism. But the whole framework of HP, its underlying worldview, is far more compatible to that of fascism than antifascim. Voldemort kind of has a point! In HP, muggles are constantly portrayed as clueless and idiotic not-people who are needlessly cruel and intolerant towards wizards. Voldemort's offense isn't thinking wizards are inherently better - the narrative believes this too - it's that he's going to far. He's targeting other wizards and that's inacceptable.

Because in the world of HP, the traits and talents you're born with determine your worth as a person. They're the mark of goodness and achieving success beyond your "station", that's evil.

In the world of HP, not everyone is born free and equal. From birth, it is determined whether you're good or evil, and that's unchangeable (which is why there's so little character development in the entire book series). Redemption is impossible. At 11 years old, your character is declared in front of everyone, and this is unchangeable.

So, to answer your question: idk, man. I'm 35, I'm beyond that age when you want to categorize yourself into a neat little box. I don't think people can be easily divided into "brave heros", "loyal servants", "kinda suspicious nerds", and "evil masterminds", we're more complicated than that.

#anonymaus #message #idk if this was bait but thanks for giving me an excuse to talk about hp!#harry potter #thoughts

201 notes · View notes

democracyunderground · 18 days ago

Text

DEMOCRACY UNDERGROUND

I'm changing the name of my political blog from RidenWithBiden to DemocracyUnderground.

I voted for Kamala Harris this time around, and I would again. I hope that she's the Democratic Party nominee in 2028. She came much closer to winning, than mass media has portrayed. No one was going to beat Don the Con, Elon, and the rigged Republicon Party.

While I'm left of center, I vote with the Democratic Party. But, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Ohio Primary, not Hillary Clinton in 2016. I'm an advocate for the Environment, first and foremost, as well as Human Rights, Equal Rights, Women Rights, Black Lives, and Native Lives. I believe deeply in the Separation of Church and State, I'm Agnostic, but not an Atheist.

I'm a Democratic Socialist, and an Idealist. But, I'm also a Realist. However, I differ significantly with others that identify as such. I do not spend the majority of my time focused on the failures of the Democrats, I try to stay focused on the success of the Democrats, and the complete failures, fraud, and wage theft of Reaganomics, for most of my lifetime.

I've been warning people about the rise of Fascism since 1989. Global Warming, and the War on the Environment, the controlling interests and concentration of the Media Monopolies, the Historic Hypocrisy of Corporate Christians, the rise of Corporate Fascism, and the Treasons and Wars of Republicons for decades, including Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr. and Trump.

I believe in a true Free Market Economy, which I do not think America has ever had. So, I will not declare myself as Anti-Capitalist, Socialist, or Marxist. I believe it is a consistent mistake on our part to use the language they establish, or the Monotheistic Dualism that dominates our discussions in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, black and white, male and female, gay or straight, democratic or republican, left or right, young and old, rich or poor, capitalist or anti-capitalist, fascist or anti-fascist, and so on. If we go to battle on their terms we lose.

I hope that people will stay with my page, share it, and expand on it. But, I do not engage with the trolls, at all. Thanks, Hank

#DEMOCRACY UNDERGROUND

90 notes · View notes

antifainternational · 1 year ago

Note

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

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

Yale professor Jason Stanley:

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

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” - Upton Sinclair

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's also Umberto Eco's The Eternal Fascist

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

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

#antifa #fascism #defining fascism

653 notes · View notes

avelera · 5 months ago

Text

"Weirdness", Decency, and the Historical Echoes of Walz's tide-turning call-out of MAGA

At the risk of writing a high school paper about American politics in 2024, I think there's a historical echo that I'd like to add to the conversation of why Walz calling MAGA people, "weird" seems to finally armed Democrats with a line of personal attacks against MAGA that resonates with voters and seems to have overall broken the spell on this, well, weird behavior by them.

I think the one line of discussion that I haven't seen explored as to why the "weird" attack seems to be working to call out this aptly-named behavior by the far right in America is its similarity to the end of another far right movement in America: McCarthy's Red Scare.

It is popularly attributed that the moment, the quote, that brought about the end of the Red Scare was this:

"Until this moment, senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness . . . . Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Special Counsel for the U.S. Army Joseph N. Welch confronting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (source)

Many historical accounts will say this is the moment the spell broke with McCarthy. That this is the moment when Americans looked around like the naval officer at the end of Lord of the Flies and basically said, "What the hell is going on here?"

I think Walz's "weird" quote is this moment.

I've been waiting for this moment to occur with MAGA for some time. It did indeed feel as if no amount of pointing out the lunacy, the absurdity, of the movement was enough. I think other commentators might be right when saying that appealing to how dangerous they are, how scary they are, wasn't working. I could speculate on a variety of reasons for this, like that people like to be part of the winning side and being "scary" can feel good. Or that because of Godwin's Law it's nearly impossible to impress upon people how serious and swift the rise of fascism can be even when it's right in front of you, because no one wants to believe that "our sort of people" would do that sort of thing.

But calling out the MAGA movement as "weird" seems to be working because it echoes Welch's "decency" attack. It is treating childish behavior with the response it deserves. It's huff of exasperation, it's the admonishment of the social choir saying, "What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you care about other people's personal lives so much? Why the hell are you trying to ban books like the Nazis did? Why are you going after women and immigrants and trans kids? Why can't you just be a good neighbor and leave people alone? At long last have you no sense of decency?"

We're tired of it. The MAGA movement has gone too far beyond the wishes of the moderate "silent majority" (such as it is and that's its own topic of debate) and is now obsessed with its own culture war issues that have grown increasingly detached from anything anyone really cares about day to day except for their die hards. And those die hards are so out of touch they don't realize it happened.

If I may end on one last rumination, I think that part of the reason the MAGA movement has lost touch is because of Trump's skill at marketing. Now, I loathe pretty much every aspect of the man, I struggle to think of any point on which I don't, but there is one thing, one thing I'll give him credit for which is being an arguably generational talent at marketing, branding, and self-promotion. He's good at getting his name on things and making them all about him (before he inevitably runs them into the ground).

But the thing is with marketing, you do a thing called A/B testing. You see which message resonates the most. And if a feel-good ad gets you 30% response and a misogynistic ad gets you 60% response, you go with that misogynistic one because the numbers support it (I actually saw this happen with an ad campaign so it's based on personal experience).

Now, if you notice that 16 year old boys really like your product and if you sell to them, you move more product, even if you lost the interest of everyone else, you're still doing a good job at moving your product (see Hollywood for the last few decades). Because a large, certain audience is better in marketing than trying to achieve broad but tepid appeal.

But the thing in politics is that you actually do have to expand your appeal. You have to get over 50% in the US. That means expanding the coalition, appealing to more people. But that runs counter to the way a lot of product marketing would work, where you'd single out your best audience and market aggressively to them because you'll get a better return. That, I think, is why Trump risks losing the middle even as he has the right locked down. He is a marketer, not a politician. He has his reliable audience. But that reliable audience isn't enough to win office. It's just enough to get reliable buyers of his product. And he doesn't know how to expand beyond them.

To bring this all back to "weirdness" and "decency", I think this too plays into what we're seeing. The MAGA movement has turned in on itself through its constant marketing to itself, always seeking a bigger outrage, a bigger sequel to bring people to the theater. That has put it out of touch with the wider mainstream. It's made them weird, a weird subculture within America that is not in touch with what most people want out of their government.

At least, that's what I hope. We'll find out in a few months now, won't we?

#maggie discusses politics #us politics

79 notes · View notes

overthegardenwirtt · 2 months ago

Text

top ten books I read this year, ranked:

10. And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie (pub 1939)

Honestly this wasn't the most mind-blowing or memorable book, but it was my first Christie and my introduction to this genre. It got me out of a slump too which was great. Christie's style is so very british but I thoroughly enjoyed this as my introduction to this kind of mystery, and I found the reveal to be surprising and well done! This book definitely made me want to pick up more Agatha Christie in the future, but I'm not in any particular hurry to do so.

9. Goodbye to Berlin by Christopher Isherwood (pub 1939)

This was actually my most recent read. I picked up this book knowing that it was the inspiration behind the musical (and film) Cabaret. This book feels much more of a piece of creative nonfiction/memoir than a novel, but it tells different stories in vignettes of people in Berlin in the 1930s. Between dancers and artists like Sally Bowles, queer people in Berlin, and Jewish people living through the rise of the Nazi party, these true stories were incredibly touching and really made me think about the way we talk about fascism today. The modern way in which people spoke in Weimer Germany, and the extent to which they knew what was going on in Germany at this time and still just let the Nazi takeover happen, is terrifying and all too real, and I am glad this book exists to highlight that.

8. Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin (pub 1953)

My first Baldwin of the year and third Baldwin book overall. I really enjoyed this book, as it was an exploration of a Black family in Harlem, and each family members' relationship with one another and with God. I loved the way the story was told, through flashbacks and memories of each character as they sat to pray in a church. Each story was both incredibly humanizing and devastating, and the ending was surprisingly somewhat hopeful.

7. Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice (pub 1976)

I read this after the second season of the amc show aired. Honestly, this book was so much better than I was expecting it to be, given what I know about where Anne Rice takes the series in the future. In this novel, the prose is so beautiful and breathtaking. Anne Rice also delves into such deep and thought-provoking discussions about God and religion, goodness and evil and monstrousness, through her characters and their philosophies, and how they deal with their vampirism. I fully feel that this book deserves to be called the modern Frankenstein.

6. Babel by RF Kuang (pub 2022)

The youngest book on here by far. I am often weary of the trendy new books and the 'booktok' books, especially those that seem to be fulfilling some kind of aesthetic. So, my expectations going into this weren't the highest, I was expecting, as is true with most 'dark academia' books, a rip-off of The Secret History. However, I was so pleasantly surprised by this book! This book is an anti-colonialist response to The Secret History and the like, and explores how academia always serves the institutions in power, and how specifically British academia has driven, and continues to drive, imperialism. This book was also very science-fictiony, and completely deserves its Nebula award. The magic system in this book is so interesting and novel to me, and i truly think Kuang is a genius. Also, I personally loved the footnotes. It's so clear how much work and research went into this book, and it adds so much to the quality of the book.

5. Animal Farm by George Orwell (pub 1945)

This was technically a re-read, since I read Animal Farm with my mom in elementary school and didn't understand it at all. So, I finally got back around to reading this and it was great. Just so perfectly told, the story of revolt from one authoritarian regime and the decline into another, arguably worse regime. It was also incredibly heartbreaking, and made even more so by making the characters farm animals. It is truly a perfect book and I know it sounds cliche, but everyone should read it. George Orwell is well-known for a reason.

4. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut (pub 1969)

This one was unexpected! I have owned Slaughterhouse-Five for years, I think it has been sitting on by bookshelf for over five years untouched. I finally got around to reading it a few months ago and it was incredible. Kurt Vonnegut has a witty and to-the-point writing style that was difficult to get used to at first, but I definitely believe it worked in this book's favor. The childlike, simple way of writing and speaking, combined with the grim topic of WWII and PTSD, really highlight the sadness of Kurt Vonnegut's situation and how young he, and Billy Pilgrim, and all these soldiers really were. I absolutely loved the sci-fi interludes as well. It worked both creatively, to provide an allegory for war and PTSD, and literally to show just how dissociative Billy Pilgrim would get after the war. This book left me feeling incredibly sad, and I know that was just the point.

3. The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K Le Guin (pub 1969)

And the book that beat Slaughterhouse-Five for both the Hugo and the Nebula! This book is not one that I would typically read, but I am so glad that I did. It is considered a seminal work of feminist science fiction, and tells the story of a human man named Genly who goes to a planet where all the people are genderless. It is a beautiful story of finding love and understanding with other people, and learning that there are strengths in our differences, and those differences can bring us together. This is a truly great novel, and left me feeling the way the protagonist felt, having gained a new empathy and love for human beings, no matter how different we may be.

2. Another Country by James Baldwin (pub 1962)

My fourth and final James Baldwin novel to date. I absolutely loved this book. The writing style, the beautiful vibes, and the beautiful and devastating story of a group of friends in Greenwich Village, New York was so compelling. This was one of those books that I could not just put away after I finished it. I had to read and reread the book, go over it in my mind for a while afterwards. This book explores Black masculinity and Black womanhood in America, it explores queerness, and specifically Black queerness during this time, and it explores the complicated dynamics between a multiracial group of friends in 1960s America. It feels so shockingly ahead of its time.

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (pub 1949)

yeah yeah, this is cliche, but it's so well-known, and so spoken about, for a good reason. This book, outside of its talk about authoritarianism, was actually just a thoroughly enjoyable and effective work of psychological horror. The way that language and history can shape our current really was so brilliantly done that it had me questioning whether O'Brien was telling the truth to Winston at times. I feel like this is a controversial opinion, but I felt that many of the characters, including Winston, Julia, Syme, and even O'Brien to a lesser extent, were humanized in a way that I felt terrible for these characters. This book had such incredible world-building that I would have been okay with reading 300 full pages of Winston's day-to-day life, that's how interested I was in this horrifying world Orwell created. However, the plot was equally as compelling! I truly felt like I was there with Winston through every step of his journey, and that made this novel feel so sickeningly horrific, and so effective.

26 notes · View notes

queercafe · 9 months ago

Text

CW: discussion of N*zis, fascists, and antisemitism in the context of the musical cabaret

every analysis of cabaret is wrong because it assumes that the nazis and the Kit Kat Club are presented and framed as diametrically opposed by the show. But that is fundamentally not the reality of the musical. The Emcee sings "If you could see her though my eyes, she wouldn't look jewish at all," they dress up as nazis for dance numbers. And maybe these are meant to be seen as satirical in-universe but I really don't think they are.

The takes I always see are either "The cabaret is a distraction from the rising fascism" or "the decadence displayed in the cabaret is harnessed by the nazis to come to power" and I dont think either is the point. To me, it's a show fundamentally about the horror of watching what was presumed to be a safe space become increasingly infected with fascism. It's about the way art, even when it claims to be apolitical, reflects the views of the world around it and can NEVER be truly apolitical.

The Cabaret is never, ever, framed by the musical as progressive. It is just as regressive and fascistic as the world around it

#cabaret #musical theatre

69 notes · View notes

microtheory · 2 months ago

Text

This is part one on the philosopher Carl Schmitt and his critique of liberalism. I hope you love the show today.

So we’re three episodes into this new arc of the show and, as you know, we’re talking about the early 20th century here. Once again, it’s important to keep in mind all that’s going on during this time. Political philosophy is going through a serious transition phase because, in many ways, the world is going through a serious transition phase. Revolutions are taking place, world wars are on the horizon, the rise of fascism, authoritarianism. The entire legacy of the Enlightenment is being called into question. And what this means for the world of philosophy is that the thinkers doing their work during this time are very quickly coming face to face with the realization that, in this post-nuclear world, where for the first time the consequences of war could threaten the entire existence of the human race, they are the people that are going to have to figure all this out.

Think of the pressure these thinkers were faced with at the time. To be a thinker born into the early 20th century is to be born into a world where the strength of your ideas is going to be tested in real time while the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Being born into this time period is like the forces of history commandeering you for one of the most stressful jobs in the history of the world. I mean, imagine your first day at a new job, and the orientation is, here's the entire history of Western civilization; and day one at the new job is, “Well, time for you to fix it all. Now, get to work.”

Now, this job would be difficult enough if we were looking back at a history of total chaos in the West. But, keep in mind, the Western world at this time is the self-proclaimed center of political thought, the self-proclaimed most advanced collection of societies that have ever existed in history. So, if this really is such an advanced, developed environment that the rest of the world should draw inspiration from, why do we have such a rich history of things failing miserably? Think of the history this world is emerging out of. The Age of Reason and the political thought of the Enlightenment produced for us what we’ve long considered to be the greatest political strategy in existence, liberal, capitalist democracy. By this time, for over a hundred years liberal, capitalist democracy has been the gold standard in the West when it comes to how we should be structuring our societies.

The problem facing political philosophers at the beginning of the 20th century is this: What exactly is it about our longstanding strategy of liberal, capitalist democracy that seems to invariably lead society into an endgame of dictatorship, bloodshed, and political instability? When John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci show up with their lunchbox on the first day at the new job, this is the first order of business people like them are going to have to deal with. Now, it’s right here that we can understand why the two of them went in the respective directions they did. Because like we talked about, the beginning of the 20th century can be broadly understood in terms of three major branches of political discussion, three primary conversations that are going on. We’ve already talked about two of them. And understanding all three of them is going to be absolutely crucial, because the contents of these conversations is going to go on to dictate the direction of almost all subsequent political philosophy all the way up to the present day.

When a philosopher sets out to contribute something to the political discussion of the 20th century, they’re almost without exception doing so in consideration to one of these three major critiques of the way we’ve done things in the past. Once again, what we’ve done in the past is liberal, capitalist democracy. The three major critiques are going to be John Dewey and his critique of traditional democracy, Antonio Gramsci and his critique of capitalism, and the guy we’re going to be talking about today, the philosopher Carl Schmitt and his critique of liberalism.

But where’s the best place to begin explaining one of the most scathing critiques of liberalism in existence? Maybe the best thing to preface this with, just given the demographics of this show, is that when Carl Schmitt sets out to critique the doctrine of liberalism, he’s not setting out to critique liberalism in the context that some living in the modern United States may think of liberalism -- you know, that it’s one end of a political spectrum, diametrically opposed to conservatism, with these two poles being defined by the current state of the US political landscape -- that’s not the liberalism he’s talking about here. Carl Schmitt, believe it or not, is not setting out in his work to critique some modern political cliché, you know, some pro-choice Greenpeace platinum card member who roller blades to work and thinks healthcare should be a human right. That’s not the liberalism he’s talking about.

So let’s talk about what the word liberalism is actually referring to in the context of this broader philosophical discussion that’s going on. The term liberalism is referring to a political philosophy and method of determining political legitimacy that emerged out of the beginning of the Enlightenment. Modern historians, when looking back at history, often describe liberalism as the dominant political strategy of the Enlightenment era that should be contrasted with the methods of determining political legitimacy before the Enlightenment, which historians sometimes just group all together and refer to as pre-liberal thought. So we have the liberalism of the Enlightenment that is to be contrasted with the pre-liberal thought, which is the way we did things before the Enlightenment.

To put all this is in a very Philosophize This! way -- look, people form into societies. Those societies have problems that need to get solved. The people that make up those societies have to figure out the answer to several basic but very important questions. What kind of society do we want to produce? What sort of values do we want to uphold when engaging in our political process? What makes something a legitimate political problem at all? How do we solve these problems? Specifically, what is having a political disagreement even going to look like in our society? Because that’s a very important distinction that might not immediately seem like something our political process defines the parameters of. But, keep in mind, political disagreements of today look nothing like the political disagreements of a thousand years ago, and this is a big reason why liberalism is often contrasted with pre-liberalism.

Before liberalism burst onto the scene, societies determined levels of political legitimacy with very different methods than we do today. Pre-liberal societies often informed their political process through things like divine revelation, tradition, ritual, pure authoritarianism, theological scholarship; you know, the interpretation of scripture was an important part of the political process. Pre-liberal societies relied on these methods, and these methods reliably produced a certain type of society. People got fed up with this type of society and put their heads together in the Enlightenment to try to come up with some better criteria to try to base our political decisions on. These criteria and the positions they naturally arrive at have come to be known as liberalism.

Now, what this transition looks like, in keeping with the theme of the Enlightenment overall -- political strategy starts to move away from revelation and instead is beginning to rely a lot more on reason. Once again, from pre-liberal to liberal. When making political decisions, there’s a turn away from pre-liberal methods of theological scholarship and a turn towards a new liberal focus on secular scholarship. There’s a turn away from political decisions based on divine intervention towards a new confidence in decisions that are hashed out through rational debate. The pre-liberal standard of there being some single, anointed authoritarian leader that has ultimate say over the political process is quickly being replaced by things like parliamentary politics, separation of powers, democracy, civil and human rights. There’s a new focus on issues regarding equality. Capitalism starts to become the dominant economic approach. Liberal, capitalist democracies as opposed to feudal aristocracies.

Liberalism primarily aims to do away with the authoritarianism and divine revelation of the past and replace it instead with things like limited government, equality, freedom of expression, secular science, and rational debate. Now, somebody born into our modern world that’s largely grounded in liberal principles might be confused as to how anybody in their right mind could ever possibly disagree with this method of doing things politically. This episode is not talking about the merits of liberalism, but Carl Schmitt’s critique of liberalism. You might think, “Look, I know we’ve had our problems in the West over the years, but all this stuff just seems like common sense. I mean, back to the modern United States, liberalism seems to be the foundation of both political parties. How could anybody possibly think that it’s liberalism that’s the problem with liberal, capitalist democracy?”

Carl Schmitt would probably say to this person that the most dangerous political ideology is the ideology that’s currently popular, the kind of ideological assumptions you make about the political process that are so engrained, so steeped in tradition, that you don’t even think twice about them. Because if we should regard the thinking before the Enlightenment as pre-liberal and the thinking during the Enlightenment as liberal, then Carl Schmitt can be regarded as someone trying to bring about a new post-liberal way of thinking politically. Modern anti-liberal is how he’s often described.

So, for the sake of understanding where Carl Schmitt’s coming from, the important thing to keep in mind right here at the beginning is that, when there’s this shift towards liberal principles during the Enlightenment, what comes along with that is a promise from the thinkers of the time that this new strategy is going to bring about a better world for everyone. One of the dominant theories among the thinkers of the Enlightenment was that, if we let these liberal values play out and allow them to reach their natural conclusions, we will be the architects of a brand-new, cosmopolitan, peaceful world, the likes of which we’ve never seen. To understand Carl Schmitt, this is the perspective from which we need to view liberalism.

Liberalism was created as an alternative political philosophy that was supposed to be a solution to many of the political problems of the past. These thinkers are looking back at history, seeing the pattern of dictators, bloodshed, and political instability, and they’re trying to come up with some new way of conducting politics where these things aren’t going to happen anymore. This is actually a really good way to understand it. I mean, you can see why many of the hallmarks of liberalism are what they are, when you think about them in relation to some historical problem they were trying to solve. History of dictatorships and authoritarianism? Let’s introduce separation of powers, checks and balances on the executive branch. History of sprawling empires and rigid national and religious identities? Well, we’re all members of a global economy. Let’s have political and religious identities take a back seat for now and instead unite the world under a flag of mutually beneficial consumerism. History of political and religious wars? Well, let’s not fight on the actual battlefield anymore. Let’s instead hash out our political differences in the battlefield of rational debate, where people can still be at odds with each other, they can still go to war, but this way nobody has to die. This was the hope and ambition of liberalism as a political philosophy. Liberalism was supposed to be an alternative way of doing stuff that solved these problems of the past, but Carl Schmitt is going to say this is nowhere near what actually happened.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of Carl Schmitt. Try to see liberalism through the eyes of a philosopher living in the early 20th century. Similar to the early liberal thinkers, Carl Schmitt is looking back at history, and he too sees the pre-liberal world of dictatorships, bloodshed, and political instability. Oh, but then along comes liberalism to save the day. And then what he sees is really not much changing at all. What he sees is that, throughout the entire tenure of liberalism, things continue to descend into dictatorships, bloodshed, and political instability all the way up to the present day. And he thinks the only reasonable thing to conclude from this state of affairs is that there is a big difference between the hopes and ambitions of liberalism and how things actually play out in the world. Liberalism, to Carl Schmitt, doesn’t produce the world that it claims to produce.

Throughout several years of his career, Carl Schmitt attacked liberalism from so many different angles that there really isn’t a clear starting point here. So I want to just jump right in to some different examples of hallmarks of liberal thinking that Carl Schmitt takes issue with, use that as a skeleton, and then try to flush out the rest of his position from there.

So, just to get us started, one of the biggest delusions of liberal thought in the eyes of Carl Schmitt is the expectation that it is possible for us to produce a society where people can have extreme political differences and, by adhering to the tenants of liberalism, these people can coexist, live peacefully amongst each other, and just agree to disagree if things ever get heated. Put in the words of political philosophy, this is the toleration of difference. We see this kind of thinking in Western, liberal democracies every second of every day. I mean, you’ll often hear people talk about political discussion with the expectation that this sort of thing is possible. You know, we may be totally different people. We may disagree on almost every element of how a society should be structured. But, at the end of the day, we can shake hands, live and let live, and just go on about our lives.

Carl Schmitt would say that this is a liberal fantasy world, that if you pay attention to what’s actually going on in the real world of the political, this is not the way extreme political differences interact with each other in our societies. Liberalism just creates the illusion that they do. To Carl Schmitt, this expectation that we’re going to be able to coexist, tolerant of extreme political differences, comes from the more fundamental liberal belief that there is no political difference so extreme that there can’t be some sort of solution eventually arrived at in an open forum of rational debate, that there is no chasm between worldviews that is so unbridgeable that there can’t be some sort of reasonable compromise that’s arrived at by both parties. This is a hallmark of liberal thought and a cornerstone of the liberal political process.

Now, Carl Schmitt would say, this idea just in theory, no doubt, sounds really great. I mean, who doesn’t want a world where we can always just talk things through politically? Who wouldn’t want a world where we never have to implement political philosophy by force? The problem for Carl Schmitt is that this isn’t how the world works. Liberalism is marketed to people as an alternative, more peaceful way of engaging in the political. But Carl Schmitt believes all that liberalism really does is allow people to avoid engaging in the political.

Rational debate puts on a good show, but it’s mostly political theater. We have long periods of normalcy where a bunch of people get dressed up in suits and go to this building downtown and scream at each other for a few hours about issues that are almost entirely inconsequential. This all provides a nice soap opera for people to watch that’s supposed to be evidence of the liberal political process in action. “Hey! Look at how peaceful we’ve all learned to be. Hurray for liberalism!” is what we’re supposed to say.

But Carl Schmitt would say, look at history. What happens every single time there is a truly serious political issue where the differences between parties are irreconcilable? I mean, what happens when you try to have a rational debate with someone whose whole political belief is that I should be king of the world, and you should all be my slaves? Well, it doesn’t work. There’s no reasoning with that person. You wouldn’t try to solve that difference of opinion with rational debate. No, you’d tell that person to sit down and be quiet, or else they’re going to be thrown in jail.

So it’s at least possible to have a political situation that all the debating in the world isn’t going to solve. Okay. Now, think of all the political differences that can possibly present themselves that are far less of a cartoon. Carl Schmitt would start by saying, look, there are going to be groups that emerge in the political landscape whose entire existence is predicated on the destruction of another group. The reality of the world is that there are political differences that are irreconcilable. And these differences are not all that uncommon.

To Carl Schmitt, this is one of the failures of liberal political philosophy. No matter how good it feels to tell ourselves we’re going to be open to outsiders and just talk things out when we disagree, rational debate cannot solve political problems of this magnitude. No matter how much of a poster child you are for liberalism, faced with political beliefs sufficiently hostile to liberalism, faced with, for example, an authoritarian regime that wants to ascend to power, you are eventually going to have to do one of two things. Choice number one, be willing to accept the destruction of liberalism simply because something else was popular at the time. Or, choice number two, use the power of the state to silence opposition or, in other words, temporarily behave like what we would otherwise call a dictator by using the sovereign authority that, to Schmitt, is intrinsically embedded into the political process.

Choice number two of those two is something that liberals are absolutely terrified of, and for good reason. Remember, they’re looking to societies of the past that are structured around social contract theory. Society is an agreement between the citizenry and the sovereign. The citizen’s job is to serve the sovereign. The sovereign’s job is to ensure the security of the citizen. Sometimes in order to do this effectively, the sovereign needs to wield an authoritarian level of power. To political philosophers in the days of pre-liberalism, having a designated sovereign body, like a king, that has the ability to maintain certain elements of society unencumbered by the political process, was absolutely crucial. During the formation of liberalism, people looked back at our history of doing things this way and realized many of the downfalls of the great societies of the past occurred when in this volatile place of a sovereign body seizing control. Liberal philosophers, understandably, tried to do away with the concept of a sovereign. They saw it as an outdated and dangerous idea.

Carl Schmitt makes the case that this is why, once liberalism comes onto the scene, the thinkers at the time become absolutely obsessed with finding any possible way they can to make it so that we don’t have to have a sovereign anymore. The idea of a dictatorship, which at the time was historically one of the most common structures of a successful society -- dictatorships in this new liberal world become unthinkable. And Carl Schmitt wants to mark another distinction here between liberal theory and the reality of how the world is. The reality of the world is that societies sometimes need the ability to make swift and decisive decisions. And, in the post-Enlightenment world, this reality gets swept under the rug for the sake of pandering to the liberal fear of authoritarianism. He thinks this taboo towards the idea of a dictatorship certainly makes us feel good, but it simultaneously ignores the need for capabilities that healthy societies require.

To Carl Schmitt, this is yet another failure of the liberal political process. Not only does liberalism ignore society’s occasional need for a sovereign but, even if it wanted to get rid of the sovereign altogether, liberalism doesn’t actually remove the sovereign from the political process. Once again, it just creates the illusion that there isn’t a sovereign until we actually need one. Liberalism performs this illusion by engaging in various different types of what Carl Schmitt refers to as “normativism.” To put it bluntly, Carl Schmitt’s saying that liberalism’s terrified of the idea of a sovereign dictator holding power. So, to safeguard against that possibility, they’ve come up with all these different attempts to hold political power to a set of predefined norms and rules. Liberals are obsessed with this process of normativism. This is the rise of constitutional democracies in the West. Constitutions are designed to be safeguards against the swift and decisive action of authoritarianism. Normativism is sold as an incredible feature of liberalism that helps protect the will of the people.

Now, Carl Schmitt uses this term of normativism in a way that’s mostly intended to poke fun at the hopes of liberalism because, like I just alluded to, normativism is an illusion to Carl Schmitt. The hope and ambition of liberalism is that, by coming up with these norms that political leaders have to follow, whenever somebody comes along that starts to look like one of those sovereign dictators we’ve seen throughout history, well, we’ll just pull out the constitution. We’ll wave it in their face. They’ll burst into flames; and we’ll never have to hear from them again. But Carl Schmitt’s going to say this is yet another delusion of liberalism that doesn’t shore up with the reality of the world.

First of all, he would say, it doesn’t matter how long you sit down and talk about what the parameters should be for someone holding a position of power. You are never going to be able to come up with a set of rules that accounts for every contingency, given how many moving parts are involved when making decisions that affect this many people. To Carl Schmitt, trying to normativize these highly volatile moments that leaders are faced with is, at best, drastically oversimplifying how complex the world can be and, at worst, severely weakening your society and its ability to adapt and defend itself in a bad situation.

Here’s the good news though. To Carl Schmitt, this isn’t actually how things ever play out in liberal societies anyway, because even the most liberal society in existence eventually recognizes how necessary temporary extra-constitutional power is, given the right circumstances. Carl Schmitt is saying that even in liberal societies, whenever it really comes down to it and they’re faced with some sort of existential crisis, the constitution goes out the window anyway. Citizens of liberal, constitutional democracies often have this expectation of, “Oh, well, the government can’t just go rogue and do whatever they want. They’re held to the constitution. There are checks and balances. They got to get permission to do something, right?” But what happens every time there’s an emergency and something needs to get done? Oh, well, they just take action.

In other words, to Carl Schmitt, liberalism claims to have gotten rid of the sovereign from the political process. But what happens in these societies whenever something actually has to get done and we need a sovereign? Abracadabra! Poof! The sovereign was there the whole time. Who would have thought? I mean, this is a great magic trick. And to Carl Schmitt, the misdirection of this magic trick was performed by the liberal political process.

This is yet another liberal theory versus reality thing to him. The hope of liberalism was to get rid of the sovereign. The reality of the world is that we have these long periods of normalcy, where the government does almost nothing, punctuated by rare moments of extreme action whenever things actually need to get done. Liberalism hasn’t removed the sovereign from the political process, and the only time pieces of paper like the constitution prevent the sovereign from acting are during periods of normalcy, when the sovereign wouldn’t be exercising authoritarian power anyway. To Carl Schmitt, the biggest difference between our modern societies and the ones that existed in the pre-liberal world is that the pre-liberal societies were just a lot more honest about the authoritarianism that was going on. Nowadays, we got this grand illusion of liberalism that puts a bunch of window dressing on the whole process and pretends the world is something that it’s not. Liberalism is, in many ways, an impossible, utopian fantasy, in the eyes of Carl Schmitt.

Episode #132 - Transcript - Carl Schmitt On Liberalism pt 1 - Philosophize This! - Stephen West

23 notes · View notes

missempanada · 4 months ago

Text

I'm gonna say something that is probably gonna get me in hot waters but: the whole discourse around Nico di Angelo's race is painfully US-centric. Race doesn't really matter in the original Percy Jackson saga, however in Nico's case, the place and time he was born and raised in is an integral part of his character.

Do I have anything against the actor chosen for Nico being a POC? No, I wouldn't. But we need to keep in mind that's a child who spent his formative years in fascist Italy. A country where very strict racial laws were kept in place.

The Leggi Razziali were the first racial laws passed in Italy and that was in 1928 - Nico would've been 4 years old when that happened. And the Manifesto della razza published 10 years later prohibited marriages between Italians, Jews and Africans, as Italians were seen as descendants of the Aryan race. Also most Africans that lived in Italy in the 1930s came from colonized areas. RR wasn't even able to get into all the nuances of Nico growing up gay in fascist Italy and this would add on another topic that needs to be carefully discussed. Can it be done? Of course. But considering how changing Medusa's story ended up being a hot mess (in my opinion), I wouldn't have much faith in it.

I've seen some kids on Twitter saying Nico's race doesn't matter because "this is a fictional story about greek gods and about how them fighting led up to WW2". And while yes, that may be fictional and kind of ridiculous, Italian fascism is very much real. It's something that real Romani, African and Jewish Italians were affected by. It's also something that White Italians were affected by if they were gay or leftist. And it's something that keeps on affecting people nowadays especially with the rise of neo-fascism we have got going on in Southern Europe. Just because it doesn't affect YOU as a USAmerican it doesn't mean that these issues shouldn't be tackled carefully. To cast a POC boy to play Nico and not explain any of this would be a disservice.

Which leads me to the next thought: I've barely seen any people call for a Roma or Sinti Nico, which would make much more sense geographically and historically than, let's say, an "East Asian Nico" (unless he was Japanese which, again, leads back to fascism). And I can't help but wonder if the reason for this is that there's much less Roma and Sinti people in the US compared to Europe. That would be proof to me of how a lot of USAmericans aren't able or don't want to understand how the world works under a race system that isn't their own.

I feel sorry for the kid they cast as Nico because depending on what race he is he's gonna see either racists or "woke" people complaining about his casting.

#nico di angelo #tw fascism #tw racism #pjo #pjo tv show #pjo tv #rick riordan #percy jackson #percy jackson and the olympians #discourse #?????

27 notes · View notes

satanslisp · 16 days ago

Text

Hello again old friend. I have some news about the state of the world.

I haven't been on tumblr in so long because it wasn't the same after it got bought out.

During the summer of 2020 I was in a really dark place doom scrolling, bearing witness to the ugliness of the world for hours on end. At that point I got off of all social media apps I had and downloaded tiktok. I was jaded about it at first because I had the same perspective as a lot of people who weren't on it; that it was a bunch of dancing teens. But over the last 4 years I found solace and education in that app. Tiktok was the first place since tumblr where I truly felt in community with others globally.

Now for the discussion on our further descent into fascism.

I am a Canadian resident with a Canadian number and sim card and I am also locked out of the app. Tiktok has been banned in the US, but that has somehow spread to many Canadians and Mexicans alike. Some of us aren't affected and others are. I'm not sure what the reason behind this is, but I think it is critical that we stay alert and cognizant of what exactly is happening.

A fascist regime is coming back to power. All they want is power and control. Tr*mp's first term allowed him to put people on the Supreme Court that would support his and his power hungry friends' agendas. Rights are being stripped away, and they have targeted an app that was critical in keeping people all over the world informed when our own news outlets were clearly biased and cherry picking what is "news".

The wording here is so critical. The man who initiated the tiktok ban conversation is now going to be the one who "saves it". The propaganda could not be more obvious. I think the majority of the people who were on tiktok are aware of most of this. But for those who weren't on the platform, that is what is happening. It's not about "China having our data" because every billionaire with a tech platform is selling our data.

This is about censorship. This is about control. This is about the rise of a fascist regime that will impact the world at large.

#tiktok ban #tiktok

12 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 5 months ago

Note

Daenerys deserves to be in a story with a better fandom. A character who won GRRM numerous awards for how special she is, and all that the audience is willing to discuss about her is how she is in the process of succumbing into female hysteria. No wonder GRRM isn’t finishing these books.

I can't claim to know what he isn't finishing these books after more than 10 yrs, so idk abt him doing that bc of stupid ungrateful "fans". However, it'd be a fucking, crying shame.

Sexists/sexism are killjoys...no literally, they "kill" joy. And on top of what he said has brought him emotionally low (rise of fascism was one of them), THIS could sit on his chest or anyone who writes such an iconic WOMAN/GIRL deliberately.

#asoiaf asks to me #grrm #asoiaf #daenerys stormborn 's characterization #daenerys targaryen

13 notes · View notes

starfall-spirit · 10 months ago

Text

Burning in the Starlight

Summary: In the wake of Amarantha's downfall, Feyre finds herself struggling to acquaint herself with the ways of Autumn nobility. Once a third-born daughter, now Cursebreaker, attention and gossip around the court were to be expected. What she didn't expect was the young and rising High Lord's proposal-nor her father's arrangement without her consent.

Trapped between a marriage bed and a mating bond, Feyre finds herself tangled in a new game, thanks to Rhysand's affinity for bargains. A game that would create the sort of scandal a proper Autumn lady shouldn't find herself caught in.

Feyre can't quite bring herself to care.

BitS Masterlist Ao3

@polyacotarweek Day 3: Secrets

Chapter IV: Wife, Mate, Spy

Dinner was an even more casual affair than breakfast, if that was possible. Feyre had lost track of time in the library and Rhys had found her on a window seat, curled up in a blanket with her nose in a book. She was so distracted in fact, it had only been the soft prodding of her mental shield that alerted her he was near.

“Is it getting easier to maintain?”

“Yes,” she murmured, accepting a plate of cheese, meat, and fruit from him as well as a glass of wine. “I’m not so sure that will hold true if I have to be paranoid about you poking at it.”

He frowned, sitting down beside her. “As I said, visitors and powerful officials to Autumn will be a bigger threat to you. Soon enough it will be an unconscious habit and won’t take any energy to keep it solid and in place.” He shook his head, that frown morphing to amusement. “Did you gather every pillow in the house?”

She shot him a glare, burrowing a bit deeper into her nest and balancing her plate on her knees. “What business is it of yours? It’s not like I was poking around your room.”

“And just where were you poking around, Feyre darling?”

He leaned in just half an inch, his body hardly doing more than tilting towards her. And yet that was all it took for his scent to wash over her. For the second time that day she was paralyzed, but rather than having her control stolen, it was raw instinct bringing her to pause and recognize the thread between them. It was a thriving thing, emotions and fears and dreams tangled in and along it, pulsing between them.

He cocked his head, watching her straighten and sit back, letting her slowly widen the space between them.

“What is beneath this house?” Rhys raised a brow, rolling a grape between his finger and thumb. “Well, there must be something beyond this place. This part of your territory can’t just be this house and the mountains beyond it. So?”

“We are rather isolated if we’re discussing the cardinal directions. Beneath the house, however, lies my… occupation, one might say. The Hewn City is unpleasant to say the least. It mostly governs itself unless someone needs a firm reminder about who is High Lord.”

“Hewn City?”

The corner of his mouth twitched upwards. “Amarantha was not as clever as she pretended to be. What you found Under the Mountain was a sanitized version of the Court of Nightmares. And yes, it’s every bit as horrid as its name.”

Feyre hummed, reaching for her wine. “What is it about you wicked and dark types, holding court underground?”

She thought she had masked her distaste well enough, especially with her teasing at what she was truly coming to recognize as a facade. He merely held her stare, his face almost pensive. “Not only are the people there horrid, but it is a reminder. Those years there—” Beneath the stone where he saw no stars. Those years in Amarantha’s bed. “—won’t be forgotten. The first time I returned to court, appearing as High Lord, it was far from easy.”

“Would I have to go there? If…” If she chose him. This place. How long would it grant her this tranquility before the facade faded to the same fascism and maneuverings she was forced to endure in Autumn?

There were many subjects going unspoken tonight. “I would not force you to attend those audiences. My mother rarely did, but then she was not my father’s equal.”

“They weren’t mates?”

“Mates, yes. Equals is another matter. This morning Morrigan mentioned the traditional title a wife or mate inherits. Lady of Night, Autumn, Winter, and so on. There has never been a High Lady, as I’m sure you know through your political studies in Winter.”

“I didn’t have much need for politics or history,” she admitted with a blush. “But I’ve gathered a thing or two since returning to Autumn. Is this your next attempt at a bribe?”

He chuckled. “I’m not foolish enough to believe you would be swayed by something as shallow as power, Feyre. In fact, I’d be disappointed if that was all it took for me to win your heart. This is my pathetic attempt at transparency. Considering where I spent the last fifty years, you could say I’m out of practice in that courtesy.”

Feyre offered him a smile, letting herself scoot an inch closer. “I think you’re doing well enough, all things considered.”

His lips twitched to mirror her own. “I want everything on the table to avoid any unnecessary surprises down the road.” His expression suddenly sobered, making Feyre wary. “Speaking of power, have you discovered any consequences of your resurrection?”

She shook her head. “the usual parlor tricks I had already mastered before going Under the Mountain. You and Eris really believe something was passed to me?”

”It’s been centuries, maybe longer, since the High Lords have seen someone worthy of reviving, and I’ve yet to find any sort of record of the results. Even then, I’d imagine the results are case-by-case. We just need to find your trigger before it does you harm.”

Because fae who tried to suppress power, be they in hiding or something else, had gone mad and burned up from the inside out, trying to lock their power away. “Write to me or—” He huffed, grinding his teeth. “—or inform Eris. He can at least train you in control of Autumn gifts you may possess. Stop smirking like that.”

“You males. Always so jealous when it comes to your mates.” Ignoring his soft snarl, the shiver it sent down her spine, Feyre refocused on the subject between them. “Training the other gifts? Autumn’s ties are tumultuous on a good day, and you have few friends outside of the Night court.”

“The principles will be similar enough through each branch of magic. Once you learn to control a high magnitude of power, the rest will come easily enough. And something tells me you’re a quick study, regardless. Don’t start worrying about that until you actually have to. Especially with the other problems we’re juggling.”

“Hybern, right? Or something else?” She grimaced “You’ll have to fill me in. Vivian could only get crumbs of information behind Kallias’ wards.”

He gave another heavy sigh. “War is coming, Feyre. And fast.”

~~~~~

Rhys’s failure to give a fuck must have worn off on Feyre in the week she was away, because despite her desire to be at least well-mannered enough to show her face in high society, the sheer horror on her mother’s face was worth the risk of wearing Night Court loungewear home.

Though her father scowled at the exposure of her midriff and the sheer sleeves she wore, he had other concerns. “You carry his scent.”

There laid the roots of her concern. The scent of a mating bond left in limbo. She’d spent all week fearing it would snap into place without her consent just because of their physical attraction to one another. “A result of the bargain,” she lied smoothly. “And likely the fact he kept me close during my stay. Monitored, I mean. The last thing he was going to do was let Eris’ bride go snooping.”

There was a semi-truth to that. While there had been little to no classified information to find in the Moonstone Palace, when he spoke to his general and cousin in her presence, there was a vagueness to his words. And a slight pain in his eyes.

“I’m sorry, Feyre,” he told her once. “But even with the bond, I can’t tell you everything yet. One day I hope I can.”

“The day I accept you and your court as my own?” She had no right to feel so bitter, but it still stung for some reason.

“The very moment you do. That’s a promise, and I never break my promises.”

Shaking off the memory, she gave her parents and sisters a tight smile. Elain seemed particularly worried, Nesta simply suspicious. “It was all… taxing. But I’m unharmed.”

”I imagine so,” her father replied, voice still laced with suspicion. “Go change into something proper. It’s nearly dinner and the High Lord expects you to join him.”

Insufferable bastard. All he wanted at the moment was to interrogate her, she was certain. And perhaps try to discourage her romantic pursuit of his enemy. Still, she was sitting across from Eris at a quarter to seven serving herself a portion of roast meat and various side dishes. “What exactly is the point of this dinner, Eris?”

“Do I not possess the right to wine and dine my fiancée?”

“That’s not what I mean and you know it.”

He grinned. Dangerous, was the descriptor that came to mind. It seemed she had a type. Where that thought had come from she wasn’t sure. But she couldn’t deny he was attractive, at least. “You walk freely through my enemy’s household and you expect me to just ignore it?”

Feyre sighed. “You’re being quite predictable, actually. Mates or not, he doesn’t trust me yet. And even if he did, it’s none of your business what he and his court are up to.”

He cocked his head, one short nail clacking against his glass. “And if your mate asked you to spy on me?”

Feyre sighed. “He didn’t ask me to spy on you like that.”

His hand stilled. “Like that?” Just what does ’like that’ mean?”

She raised her own goblet to her lips. “What is your stance on the war against Hybern?”

He chuckled. “Tell me you have a bit more couth at court. That I’ll have the slightest hope at training you in political parley.”

She rolled her eyes. “I have no desire to beat around the bush this evening. That doesn’t make me incompetent. Now, Hybern.”

To his credit, Eris only hesitated a moment longer. “Hybern has had a very long time to plant the seeds of doubt in his people’s mind. Regardless of his own power, an army full of anger can be beyond dangerous. Worse than that, particularly unpredictable.”

“What is Autumn doing about it?”

That was where she saw the change in him. Where this was shutting down. “That’s none of your concern, Feyre. Unlike some, I know when to keep my cards close to my chest.”

“Sounds like a whole lot of nothing.”

Chuckling, Eris wiped his face, standing from his chair. She tensed, but remained seated as he approached, reaching for her chin. He was all too smug the next time their eyes met. “I might be convinced to share such information with my wife.” His thumb stroked down her jaw, the motion small, yet possessive. “Think on that, little wolf. I’ll call on you soon.”

~~~~~

Taglist: @highladysith // @lulling-night-sky // @edgyellie // @stars-and-scripts // @shallyne // @the-lonelybarricade // @darling-archeron // @goddess-aelin // @the-lost-changeling // @faeriequeensuriel // @pandavelaris // @s-uppertime // @elentiya-whitethorn // @acotar-fanns // @jealousveronya // @acourtofwips // @reverie-tales // @gwynkyrie // @corcracrow // @thelovelymadone // @mybestfriendmademe // @lilah-asteria

#burning in the starlight #BitS #acotar #feysand #feyris #feyrisand #feyre archeron #rhysand #eris vanserra #polyamory #poly+acotarweek2024

29 notes · View notes