#also something about him saying its rare to find an intellectual equal. rare implies he’s found one before

[whoredmode]

been developing oleg’s backstory more for my rewrite and i think he had a wife. this is very specific but. oleg gives me dead wife vibes😭 basically i think she was also part of the mafia he was with—i like the idea that she was originally part of an opposing family, or perhaps even part of the syndicate, and the two of them had this longstanding rivalry/flirting thing going on before eventually she switched sides to be with him. she was one of the last members of oleg’s crime family around, but after oleg was captured by the syndicate, she and the remaining members were killed.

like i completely write out the clone shit that’s in srtt and replace it with oleg just being held prisoner and tortured by loren, but i do think it’s interesting that family, or lack thereof, is a vaguely recurring theme with oleg. there’s several references to the brutes seeing him as a father figure in-game, as well as the saints eventually becoming his new found family, and i want to keep that going in my canon. sadly his actual family has been wiped out, and he has no one left to return to, so now he’s vowing to protect this new one he’s got.

[jjba-arni-reblog]

Connection

Alright! This is a bit different. This is a special gift from me to @rasasvavda - an incredible artist who I commissioned an amazing piece. This is my part, my appreciation for the author and her work. The story follows DIO and her OC Akali. The artist provided me with quite some information to work with. This small fic reflects on key moments in their relationship as the two of them slowly realize one’s feelings. There are also soulmate themes established at the start of the work.

@rasasvavda there ya go!~~~ I HOPE you’ll like it! It was a pleasure and a challenge to write for such interesting character! I appreciate your work and support and I wish you only the best!

Words: 3K (damn, I got invested)

A world where not only stand users are connected, but also lovers. Soulmates. While the regular people could feel each other’s soulmate’s emotions, for stand users it was quite different. Being connected by the stands, the soulmate connection wasn’t as prominent and could be easily missed. No wonder they are so little stories of two soulmates finding each other. Their emotions affect their soulmate’s stand, changing their attack power, speed and sometimes even appearance. One could only hope to find the connection between a person and one’s stand changing. So, it was rare, yet not impossible. And those who succeed to find one’s soulmate, found the connection between one another even stronger than stand users might feel. All it takes is to realize one’s feelings and show the stand.

~ ~ ~

“Introduce yourself to me, DIO” the man on the throne commanded.

“My name is Akali, in Punjabi it means The follower of the Immortal One“ the woman explained to the man before her.

“That’s quite ironic knowing who is standing before you” he noted.

“Certainly” Akali answered, trying her hardest to not roll her eyes at the ego of the blonde.

“What do you search for? What does one crave?” DIO asked eyeing the woman, trying to find any sight of fear or reluctancy. None were present, which made the lord smirk.

“For now, these is no pain or revenge in my heart, I am a simple follower, searching for the luxuries of life. By serving you one might obtain such privileges” Akali explained, still no fear present in her eyes.

“Then join me, you could be a great addition to my followers. I can give you wealth, power, anything your soul desires” the blonde confidently proclaimed.

“But don’t expect me to kiss your ass, lord DIO” Akali replied, hoping to establish herself early in this working relationship.

“Ho?~ What a sharp tongue you have. One does not refer to me, DIO, in such way, but I’ll let it pass this time as I could see that your sharpness comes from the passion and strength within you. This once, I will ignore such comment. I can’t wait to witness your power and dedication, Akali.”

“Likewise” the woman smirked. It is going to be an interest work.

~ ~ ~

“Tell me about your culture, Akali. I have noticed that you take great pride in it” the man suddenly spoke out one evening.

It seems like the Lord Dio has heard of Kali’s encounter with some of his fewer notable servants, that deemed themselves appropriate enough to try and discourage you from longing for culture. Unfortunately for them, they were quickly shut down by woman’s sharp remarks as she wasn’t too keen on letting some scumbags put stereotypes on her.

“I respect your strong desire for the connection with your culture, in contrast with simple-minded peasants that can only retort to seemingly pointless arguments and even less intelligent opinions” DIO pointed out, unusual praising words leaving his mouth.

“Why such interest, Lord Dio?” Kali raised her eyebrow, not trusting the man before her. After all he was also known for his cruel and sharp words, not mentioning punishments.

“It is a simple interest of mine to educate myself. Learn about other talented individuals as well as simply acquiring knowledge of other cultures” he answered while approaching the cupboard to find a bottle of wine together with two glasses.

“So, the lord Dio thinks of me this highly?” her teasing tone didn’t go unnoticed by the blonde as the man let out a deep chuckle, finding himself in a rather interesting situation.

“Perhaps, who knows?” lord DIO answered, not bothering to elaborate further.

The two of them didn’t need to worry about getting drunk as both had high alcohol tolerance, instead drinking to relax and continue with intellectual conversations. As Akali told DIO about her culture, sometimes even switching to German when needed, the time went on quickly, the pair surprisingly maintained the conversation on equal terms, being respectful and even understanding of each other opinions, even if they didn’t always match.

After some time, the conversation switched to makeup products, in this case – lipsticks.

“May I ask you, lord DIO, about your taste in lip products, since I have witnessed your unique appearance and tastes” Kali asked a bit unsure if the man before her will even consider her question. Yet she had to try her luck.

“You may. I am a man of diverse interests and lip products are one of those things, I have couple of products in my collection, you may have seen me wearing a particular green one around the mansion. Such colour is one of those that I, DIO, tend to prefer” he explained then continuing “But I have also noticed that you seem to share interest in lip products as well, as your usual appearance is complimented by a dark lilac purple lipstick. Frankly saying, such colour choice has also sparked my interest as it is not the usual tone one might wear daily, however…it does suit you” lord DIO has surprised Kali, earning a look of confusion from her as she couldn’t believe his positive words.

“It is the highest praise to hear such words from the Lord DIO” she commented, taking a sip of her wine to cover her smirk. The man mirrored her movements, letting out a chuckle.

“Of course”

~ ~ ~

“Dio……” she almost whispered, shaking at the movements of the bug that has now started crawling towards her, making the woman panic slightly, praying that the bug would change direction. The said man was reading a book while sipping some wine, clearly not present mentally in the situation occurring next to him.

“Mhm?” he simply mumbled, not noticing Kali’s state, not looking up from his book still.

“Fucking kill it!” the woman screamed, jumping on the table to escape the crawling monster.

Being startled by her sudden move, Dio was quick to find the source of Kali’s panic. Spider was slowly but surely crawling to the stand user, making Dio smirk at such bizarre behaviour.

DIO took the small knife situated on the table (for whatever reason it was there) and in the matter of seconds, threw it, instantly killing the bug. Turning to Kali, DIO raised an eyebrow trying his hardest not to chuckle at the woman. Noticing this, she quickly jumped down.

“DON’T” she simply stated, knowing fully that once the man had started, there will be no stopping him from his teasing commentaries.

“What an interesting sight to witness…Perhaps I, DIO, have a luck on my side today, allowing me to see another side of my precious servant” the blonde said, noticing the annoyed yet a bit flustered expression of Kali. He took in her form, hoping to remember every single detail about her embarrassed yet sharp features. This side of her was new to him and DIO was more than happy to discover more.

~ ~ ~

“What is going on?” was the first thing DIO said when finding Kali cuddling with her stand, cigarette in her lips. She was sitting on the couch with the balcony door open, not wanting to smoke indoors but still wanting to enjoy the softness of the couch. A cup of expensive coffee was situated on the cupboard next to the couch, making it easier for the stand user to reach without necessary breaking the hug. However, the bottle of stronger liquor was placed right next to the cup, implying that the last mission might not have been a complete success.

“Nothing really, lord DIO” the voice tried to reassure the man…rather unsuccessfully as DIO could feel that the tone was false, fake. The tone that tried its hardest to lie about being okay, about not needing help, about current situation.

“If I may note, this coping behaviour is unhealthy for one to have, especially in the presence of me, DIO, himself” his words came out strong, perhaps too strong as he could see the woman letting out a deep sight, making her stand disappear and quickly finishing the cigarette.

“I apologize, lord DIO, this won’t happen again” Akali reassured him with an unemotional tone. No snarky remarks, no comebacks. Nothing. As she was about to stand and leave the room, DIO motioned her to stop, instead getting himself a glass of wine then returning to the couch.

“Speak”

“What about?”

“Whatever bothers you. Or anything. Just speak. It is better than drinking your problems away. I do not wish to see my servants in such state, especially one as strong and useful as you, Kali”

“I…” she thought for a minute, trying to come up with any excuse not to reveal her anxieties. Yet the presence of her lord brought her comfort rather than fear. So maybe this once…maybe she’ll allow herself to be honest.

“Alright”

It was the first time DIO called her Kali, yet it wasn’t the last…

~ ~ ~

“Lord DIO, may I request something?” Kali approach the man as he was reading a book, quickly turning his attention to the visitor.

“What is it?” DIO asked, however there wasn’t a sharp edge in his tone. Not when she was around.

“May I request someone to train with me? Someone from your other servants perhaps. My stand requires attention to offence so having a partner to help with improving my attacks would be beneficial to my work” the woman stated, waiting for the answer of her lord.

“That is very thoughtful of you, Kali” the nickname resonated with her soul, making her feel flustered hearing how her name sounded coming from her lord’s mouth. Pleasant and almost hypnotizing.

“Sadly, I recall that no stand users are present today in this mansion, seemingly trying to find more information for me, DIO” The blonde explained then pausing for a moment “However, I, DIO, am willing to help you with the training. After all, I should be aware of any progress or weak sides my servant may have.”

“I….thank you, lord DIO I don-“ Akali excitedly answered before being interrupted by the lord.

“But I won’t reveal my stand. No matter how much I trust you, I furthermost need to take precautions. Practically no one knows about my stand’s ability and I’d rather leave it that way” DIO explained, crossing his arms after finishing.

“I understand. I am thankful for your offer to train with me. Thank you, DIO” she finished, quickly realizing her mistake “I mean LORD DIO, I apologize I-“

“DIO is fine, after all, you are one of the closest servants of mine and I could say that I trust you enough to allow such change” the blonde smirked at the panicked expression “however, one shall refer to me, DIO, only in private as to not let the speculations appear” he finished.

“Of course, DIO. Shall we start?” Kali asked. The man nodded.

Maybe having her use his name isn’t such a bad idea…

~ ~ ~

A pleasant smell could be noticed as DIO walked past the kitchen. Getting curiosity overwhelm him, DIO opened the door, noticing as familiar figure softly singing as they gathered ingredients.

Kal’s hair was now put into a high ponytail, making her appearance even more noticeable to DIO. He continued to stare at her back, not quite knowing what to do in such bizarre situation yet also not wanting to interrupt the singing.

“Is there anything you need, lord DIO?” the voice cut through the song, surprising DIO as he was known for his stealth and quiet, almost silent steps. The woman turned towards him, motioning him to enter the kitchen.

“What is the reason behind this?” straight-forward as usual the lord was.

“I simply decided to cook, to relax and enjoy good food” Akali answered as the matter of fact, not pausing to explain further to DIO, instead getting out other ingredients for the dish, carefully unpacking them. Then she spoke again “Also, since I know that you are not too keen on eating, I got you wine and blood” she motioned to the countertop where the two bottles were situated.

Hearing the reasoning DIO felt something within him clench. Homemade dishes, it was a while since he had them…it was too long ago, memories hidden somewhere within the lord as he never thought to have felt such atmosphere again. Not here, not now.

Yet a small part of him wasn’t complaining as the blonde eyed the figure concentrating on the task before her, not noticing the sharp gaze of her lord. DIO could see the small smile grace her strong feature. It was a rare sign, to see Kali this relaxed, this content with her situation, this…happy.

This familiar feeling…this long forgotten comfort and warmth

~ ~ ~

Not everyone was loyal to the lord DIO and at some point, the traitors reveal themselves. However, one could expect them to team up, trying to overtake the mansion to find all the gold and treasures hidden within it. Trying, that is.

However, the teaming up surely worked in they favor, as they succeeded in surprising the lord and his servant. Akali was quick to get ready into position, fully prepared to protect the man from the attackers. However, as the feeling of annoyance came (due to realizing that another useless group of wannabe killers is needed to be taken care of), the stand wasn’t

“Stop this, immediately” DIO ordered, however the woman didn’t seem to hear anything or didn’t want to.

“You can’t me tell what to do, let me handle it” she responded growling at the attackers.

“It seems like I can” the blonde then said, his voice sounding confused at a sight before him. Her stand, it has changed. Slightly but nonetheless it changed. Der Maister attacked carefully as if not to drain its stand user too much, trying to figure out who to attack first in order to not hurt its user. Der Maister seemed to be slightly anxious despite Akali looking confident, meaning that such emotion had a different source. DIO. This small amount of worry for the woman manifested itself in her stand, using precise movements that DIO was known for. As if reflecting the man need to make sure that his servant is alright, the stand changes its approach accordingly.

Noticing the change and realizing what is happening, DIO couldn’t help but to look at the scene in bewilderment. So that does exist? And the universe was kind enough to allow DIO himself to find his soulmate? As a slight worry came, Kali’s stand started to drain her energy more, prompting DIO to make a crucial decision.

“Kali” the voice called from behind, surprising the woman with the note of happiness that could be heard.

“What-“ she turned around, stopping in her tracks as she saw a new figure next to DIO. His stand. For the first time he let his stand out, in front of others, in front of her. The stand radiated the same powerful energy that the lord had. It suited him. However, something was off. There wasn’t a need to let the stand out, she had the situation under control as her stand quickly took care of the traitors. Yet here it was, standing next to lord DIO, eyeing the woman before him.

“There’s no need, DIO. I could handle this” Akali said, still not believing that she has the luxury to finally witness the strongest stand there is.

“I let it out to observe. Say, Kali, what are your feelings about me, DIO?” came the question.

“What’s this question out of the sudden?” the woman asked confused at the change of topic.

“Just answer me, Kali”

“I am devoted to you, DIO. As a servant and…as a friend, if you’ll allow me to call you such. I look up to you, hoping to protect you from any useless attacks of your enemies. I feel….content being by your side, in one way than another. That’s the truth” Akali said, feeling the slight worry overtake her. Maybe she said too much, revealed too much even though she tried her hardest to act reasonably, to not let personal feelings get a hold of her.

Feeling his stand to get stronger, DIO couldn’t help but to smirk. This has fully confirmed his theory. They have found each other. Letting his stand approach the remaining attackers, DIO continued.

“It seems like the universe has different plans for us, Kali” he let his stand take out the attackers, making sure that the woman’s stand didn’t use too much of its energy.

“My feelings are mutual, Kali. And it seems that our stands’ reactions reveal another interesting aspect…” DIO continued before Akali interrupted him.

“Soulmates…We are soulmates” the realization hit her as she reflected on her stand’s changes as well as DIO’s words “I…” she didn’t know what to say, how to react towards the new acquired information.

“As I said, the feelings are mutual” DIO said now approaching the woman. The attackers were defeated as expected, making the two of them withdraw their stands. Feeling the lord DIO put his hand on her neck, she couldn’t help but to feel slightly nervous yet excited. DIO shared her feelings…

“Kali, do you wish to stay by my side, not as a servant…” he chuckled tracing soft patterns on her neck, waiting for her response.

“I do, if you’ll allow me” she answered with a small smile on her exotic features. Such small beautiful moment wasn’t unnoticed by DIO, who now started to lower his head towards the woman. Even with her wearing high heels, the difference in the height was still present. Kali could feel her cheeks redden slightly, meeting DIO’s strong gaze as she could feel new feelings overtake her. Those feelings that had built with time, with each interaction, small remark and comfortable silence. Those feelings that one could finally reveal not being afraid of rejection.

In the world of soulmates and stand users, the universe isn’t too kind on letting the both aspects meet. Yet there is always a small chance, a small glint of hope in one’s soul longing to find its soulmate. And today, two more were allowed such luxury. Two souls, connected at last.

[bpd-seishi]

oof today wasn’t like. super great so naturally that means i wanted to write a short seishi character study(?) lmAO SO HERE TAKE THIS 

title: i was killing before killing was cool  summary: in a dream, seishi gets a chance to talk to his child self. they both get the chance to vent about a few things.  characters: yodogawa seishi, katagiri zen (basically just baby seishi ;o;)  pairing(s): briefly implied seiyumu because of course  warnings: references to child abuse, mental health issues, general things associated with being an assassin, super vague references to sa/csa 

“Why haven’t things gotten better, Yodogawa-san?” 

Seishi turns, grateful to have a distraction from the icy blackness surrounding him. A kid stands behind him, and it doesn’t take him long to recognize who it is. Seishi’s eyes widen for a moment, before they soften slightly, guilt and pain suddenly weighing heavily on his chest. 

“I don’t know, Zen-chan,” he says, a weak chuckle escaping him. “I’m trying to make them better, though, I really am. I promise.” 

Zen bites his lip, fidgeting in place. Seishi remembers those days, when he used to fidget and squirm freely without care of what people thought of him. The habit has since been beaten out of him, his superiors at the agency deeming it inappropriate for a highly trained, skilled assassin. It’s simply unprofessional, and honestly, he’s almost grateful for it. It’s hard to keep up his sleek, intellectual novelist act up when he’s wringing his hands and bouncing his leg like an impatient child. 

He still catches himself falling back on his old tendencies from time to time, though. Occasionally he still finds himself chewing his on his nails or his knuckles, or clicking his pen over and over again, or rocking himself slightly. A jolt of panic shoots through him every time he catches himself, even though nowadays he’s rarely watched so closely for his superiors to notice his little slip ups. The few times that they do, though, well... 

Punishments hurt. They make damn sure that he doesn’t dare to even think of disobeying them again. Seishi has to remain extra vigilant, be sure not to make any mistakes. As the agency’s youngest employee, they tend to ride him a bit hard to make sure he’s presenting a good image (even if said image is technically invisible from the rest of the world, their clients would still notice if he came off as weak or insufficiently trained) - 

“I thought that people would stop hurting us after this,” Zen says quietly, interrupting Seishi from his train of thought. “After we became dangerous. I thought that would be enough to stop them.” 

Seishi smiles bitterly, crossing his arms over his chest. “Yeah, well, just because we’re dangerous doesn’t mean we don’t have people to answer to,” he mumbles, digging his fingernails into the skin of his arms. 

Tears well up in Zen’s eyes, and his face scrunches up from the effort he’s making to not cry. He crosses his arms over his chest as well, and Seishi wonders if he’s also scratching at his skin. 

“It’s not just them,” Zen says, shrinking in on himself. “Our coworkers too. More people are hurting us now than ever before.” 

A sigh brushes past Seishi’s lips, and he claws at his skin a little more harshly. “I think it’s because we’re so dangerous that...that people want to hurt us. They either want to hurt us before we can hurt them, or it’s because they’re jealous. Our coworkers are mad that we’re better than them, you know? Since we’re so much younger than the rest of them...” 

Zen sniffles, and a few stray tears stream down his cheeks. He quickly reaches up to swipe them away, but more continue to take their place. “It used to just be Mama,” he says quietly. “And she never did anything like that.” 

A lump rises in Seishi’s throat, and he swallows thickly. He immediately understands what Zen is referring to. “We don’t need to talk about that,” he says plainly, hoping that’ll be enough to shut this train of conversation down. 

It isn’t. Zen sobs, stamping his foot in frustration. “Even people who say they’re our fans treat us like that.” 

Seishi bristles. “Zen-chan, th-that’s different. I-I’m mature enough to handle that...that kind of thing with those women. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Please don’t make comments on things you don’t understand.” 

“You don’t enjoy it!” Zen shouts, taking a few steps closer. Despite himself, Seishi instinctively flinches back. 

“Zen-” 

“You don’t like that kind of attention! Why don’t you tell them that?” Zen takes another step forward, his chest heaving. “Y-you don’t have to lay down and take that, y’know! I-I thought we were strong now! I-I thought we could say no now! Wh-wh-why won’t you tell them to stop, you can-!” 

“It’s not polite!” Seishi snaps, wincing a little as Zen flinches, raising his little hands as if he’s going to be struck. “S-sorry, Zen-chan...” 

Zen whimpers through choked sobs, and Seishi once again finds himself swallowing back a lump lodged in the back of his throat. His hands shake, and he looks down at them with a very forced smile. He remembers being Katagiri Zen, how he would flinch at every single sign that someone was upset with him. He still does, if he’s being completely honest. He’s just gotten much better at hiding it. Weakness within himself was something to be reviled, after all, if his training has taught him anything. 

But it’s hard to be disgusted by it when it’s in the form of a child crying, isn’t it? 

“Oh Zen-chan,” Seishi whispers, the guilt in his chest sinking down to his stomach, making nausea boil in its pit. “I really, truly am sorry. I suppose I never came to be what we needed, huh?” 

Zen sobs softly, taking a few hesitant steps closer. “W-we’re famous. P-people care about us. B-but no one wants to stop bad things from happening to us.” 

Seishi swallows, and the queasiness pulsing in his gut only grows stronger. 

“They don’t care, Zen-chan,” he whispers, his voice breaking slightly as he says it aloud. “No one does. Not really. Not about us.” 

There’s a pause. 

“Ayumu-kun does,” Zen whispers finally. “Ayumu-kun cares about us, I can tell he does.” 

Seishi’s breath hitches, and he closes his eyes. “Maybe that’s true,” he mumbles, his forced smile quickly starting to fall apart at its seams. “But he’s our next assignment. I have to kill him. I’m scared of what they’ll do to me if they don’t.” 

You remember what happened last time, right Zen? 

Tears sting at the corners of Seishi’s eyes, and for once, he doesn’t fight it. There’s no one here to see him like this. There’s no one here to call him a crybaby or other, much nastier names. There’s no one here to punish him. There’s just two halves of one miserable, wretched person. He drops to his knees and wraps his arms around Zen, who immediately wraps his arms tightly around him in turn. 

“Yodogawa-san,” Zen mumbles, tucking his tear-stained face into the side of Seishi’s neck. “I-I want us to be okay.” 

“I do too, Zen-chan,” Seishi whispers, swaying the two of them from side to side. “I don’t think that I deserve it anymore, though.” 

He chuckles weakly, before his laugh is soon cut off with a sob. He clings a little tighter to Zen with an aching desperation (for his youth, for innocence, for worthiness), and oh, if only he were in the right mindset, he’s sure he could write thousands of beautiful metaphors about this moment. How weird is it to be embracing my younger self and actually be gaining comfort from it, he thinks, but as weird as it is, he’s still thankful for it. 

He’s not sure how long they stay like that, but eventually, Zen stops crying, and he pulls away slightly. His thumb has somehow found his way into his mouth, and a pang that’s equal parts jealousy and wistfulness strikes Seishi’s ribcage. 

“Zen-chan,” he murmurs, his eyes flitting over the kid’s tear streaked features. “I have to go now.” 

Zen nods slowly, pulling his thumb out of his mouth and resting it against his bottom lip. “I wish you could stay,” he mumbles, reaching up with his free hand to wipe at Seishi’s cheek. “It’s safer in here.” 

“I know,” Seishi murmurs, swallowing harshly. “It was nice to come here in a dream, rather than because...” He shakes his head. “Well, you know.” 

“Because you need to escape something,” Zen says softly. He drops his hand, and watches with a frown as Seishi gets back to his feet. 

Seishi plasters his usual smile back on his face, and he nods slightly. “Yes. That,” he says. Light starts to break through the darkness of the little dream world he’s created for himself, and he takes a deep breath in anticipation of facing the real world. 

“Don’t kill Ayumu-kun,” Zen suddenly calls out. “Please. He’s so nice to you. He’s so nice to us.” 

Seishi doesn’t get the chance to reply before his eyelids suddenly flutter open, the dark world around him fully disappears. 

[hallsp]

I once had an argument. Not an especially unusual occurrence you might say, quotidian perhaps, but this occasion was subtly discrepant. I should say also that this was a tussle with a particular brand of conservative libertarian, an Ayn Rand type. I could plainly see that some of the policies he was advocating were preposterous, and I mounted a firm protest. The details are irrelevant, but the dispute concluded with a challenge. My opponent demanded that I sketch out some of my own political views, with their eventual scrutiny foremost in his mind. I knew then that, if one is to remain intellectually honest, it is very easy to know what you're "against," and quite another to know what you're "for." Kahlil Gibran once declared that "you have your ideology and I have mine," though Gibran is conspicuous by the absence, on his part, of any observable singular ideology. He is a distinguished "contradictorian." I hope to preemptively remedy any similar characterisation of my own position.

This article represents my attempt at constraining the parameters which govern my placement on the political spectrum. An exercise of this sort must come with a strict caveat. As with all such pseudo-theoretical constructions, there are a number of inevitable uncertainties, and simplifications, and abstractions. This is a salient point, because this might actually serve to define an ideology, as one must inevitably try to make the incomprehensible appear intelligible. Ideology naturally arises when we attempt to understand the complexities of a world in which complication is plentiful. This is not an exacting treatise, therefore, merely an exploration of my political world-view. I must also say that there is a subtle, and important, relationship between ideology and epistemology. Regardless of the "correct" ideology, if there even exists such a thing, the dialectical process will extricate human thought from as many objective falsities as we're willing to concede, but our starting point becomes crucial. It depends, in other words, on "where you're coming from." You must be willing to put your ideas to the test, to submit your conceptions to scrutiny, and ultimately to augment or abandon those that do not add up. In order to arrive at some approximation of the truth, one has to start somewhere, and through application of some variation of the Socratic, one can argue their way through ideology-space, that imaginary multi-dimensional set of all possible ideological positions, hoping to arrive in some Promised Land, or More's Utopia. However, there is one complication, which is that there is no guarantee that such a place even exists. For one thing, the story of the exodus has been conclusively disconfirmed by Israeli archaeology, and the word Utopia itself, translated from latin, becomes "Not place." Still. It's worth a try.

I suppose it's incumbent on me to outline what exactly I mean by "ideology." The word itself was born out of the smoldering ashes of the French Revolution, and the midwife was one Antoine Destutt de Tracy. Just as Sigmund Freud thought of himself as the Isaac Newton of the subconscious mind, divining our latent desires and neuroses, though Freud would not have put it quite like that, de Tracy thought of himself as something of the Isaac Newton of the conscious mind, inventing the term idéologie in the process. De Tracy believed he could differentiate between the objectively true and beautiful ideas which had motivated the revolution, and the patently false ideas which had led directly to the Terreur. Eventually, when Napoleon wrestled power into his own hands, he denigrated such efforts as overtly rationalistic, viewing them as a threat to his authority. He dismissed such thinkers as "ideologues." And thus we are left with two contrasting views of the ideological. One simply as an analysis of ideas, and the other as a set of subversive and prescriptive doctrines. There is an unmistakable deficiency of phraseology within our vocabulary in this regard. We could invent new terms for the purposes of greater clarity, but this attempt is somehow cumbersome and excessively artificial, so we shall persist stubbornly. For the purposes of our discussion, then, it will be necessary to remain vigilent, and to stay "on the qui vive."

At the États-Généraux of 1789, radical Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the President's chair, while members of the First Estate were usually seated to right. Those on the "Left" broadly supported the creation of a secular republic, while those on the "Right" generally defended l'ancien régime, which I would translate as the "former regime," rather than the clumsy "ancient regime," though both are permissable. This argument soon dispersed itself, finding almost perfect articulation in the polemical pamphleteering of Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. This defining conflict, by the way, handsomely repays careful study, as we are the inheritors of its conceptions, and victims of its terminology. Suffice to say that I would be firmly seated to the left. And, despite my compatriot's best efforts in relation to the war for independence conducted by the thirteen colonies, and his campaign for justice in the subcontinent, I am a determined Paine-ite. His call for the revolution in the New World to go broader and deeper, with the total abolition of the slave trade, and his subsequent call for the moderation of la Révolution Francaise, are exceptional. Though Burke's predictions about the violent nature of the revolution in France are remarkable in their prescience.

In recent years, there has been a prevalent temptation to pronounce the death of ideology. In 1992, Francis Fukuyama famously claimed that there was only one system of government which was self-evidently universal in application: liberal democracy. In essence, I agree. There is some subtle tautology at play though, as liberalism is dependent upon democracy. One rarely encounters a liberal dictatorship. Though one must be careful here, as democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Liberalism, i.e. freedom from prescribed attitudes, is the result of democratic pluralism. A government which is representative of its people, and both broad-minded and flexible, is clearly superior to the alternative. Despite some obvious flaws, and purposefully trying to avoid any supererogation, I think we can at least say that the democratic experiment has to some degree succeeded in creating a more egalitarian and more prosperous society.  However, Fukuyama went further, effectively crediting free-market capitalism for its alleged incubation of democratic values. This is a stretch, especially given the ubiquitousness of capitalist exploitation in countries which are distinctly undemocratic. Furthermore, granting the preferability of liberal democracy in general, the ideological permutations allowed by this classification are manifold. A liberal democrat is a protean specimen. A gathering of eminent liberals, socialists, nationalists, libertarians, feminists, environmentalists, and even conservatives, would likely agree on this point. They would probably diverge in their nuanced understanding of the term "liberal" and their respective preferences for the system of democratic election, but would otherwise find themselves in broad agreement. About the only people excluded from this hypothetical assemblage would be anarchists on the one hand, and authoritarians and fascists on the other, and perhaps some marginal advocates for absolutist monarchy.

I don't think that any proper argument can realistically be made in which authoritarian control is extolled as a virtue. The distinctly pejorative word "totalitarian" was originally coined by Mussolini as a positive. I accept, as a principle or as a precept, that state power must be delegated to elected representatives by an electorate comprising the fully-enfranchised population of that state. Quite how this is achieved does not particularly matter. However, I must insist on a constitutional democracy, as I go along with Josiah Tucker when he states that "a democratic Government is despotic in its very Nature; because it supposes itself to be the only fountain of Power, from which there can be no appeal." I agree, mob rule is no way to implement good government. And so there must be safeguards for minorities. As Thomas Jefferson states in his inaugural address as President, "though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America prevents the legislature from passing laws in respect of the establishment of any one religion, for example. This is why the separation of powers is so important. The executive, legislative, and judiciary must be kept utterly remote from one another. There must also be freedom of speech, so that injustices mandated by the majority can be criticised by the minority. In my opinion, freedom of speech is the most important tenet of modern democratic society. The media must be completely unfettered by legal prohibition, except incitement to violence. This is, in my view, a prerequisite for healthy democracy. Any interference with this fundamental right to freedom of speech is the negation of our value system.

The word "democracy" is of Greek origin, from demos meaning "common people," and kratos meaning "rule" or "strength." Ezra Pound puts it well:

Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own 'rights' against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, "ABC of Economics," 1933]

Fundamental to democracy, then, is this sense of public responsibility, or civic duty, under which the onus is on the citizen to be informed of the relevant issues, to elect suitable representatives, and to monitor the activities of government. I think personal responsibility is the foundation of any moral, or indeed legal, system. Despite mitigating circumstances - financial destitution, stunted education, drug abuse - you must be held accountable for your actions. However, society should not be structured in a way that facilitates the conditioning of any of these circumstances. This is why whole-sale libertarianism would not improve our lives, no matter what your status in society, as conditions for some members of society would necessitate all sorts of "crime" and also why the welfare state is absolutely necessary in a capitalist economy. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "the welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us." Clearly this would not be necessary in an entirely socialist context, as the welfare state would encompass the means of production, and the distribution of goods and services.

In the decades after the French Revolution, Europe was in perpetual crisis, eventually culminating in the Springtime of the Peoples in 1848. As a system of social organisation, feudalism was being overthrown against a background of deep social unrest. The Industrial Revolution was quickly creating a large number of wealthy "middle-class" entrepeneurs, but the poorest people were being made to endure more and more exploitation. In countries which did not at least partially dismantle their traditional feudal arrangement, such as Britain, things were made worse with the "upper-class" and burgeoning "middle-class" remaining in control of the resources. With the recent publication of the Bloody Sunday Report, I was annoyed by the constant invoking of some alleged novelty about Bloody Sunday, supposedly being the only case in which British troops attacked unarmed protesters on British soil. Anyone familiar with 19th century history will instantly recall the famines and chronic unemployment which characterised so much of that century, and the introduction of the oppressive Corn Laws, which resulted from the wake of the Napoleonic wars.  The subsequent Peterloo Massacre of 1819, in which cavalrymen of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry sabre-charged a crowd of 80,000 who were protesting these conditions, and agitating for political reform, is precisely another such case.  Interestingly, a direct result of this incident was the founding of the Guardian newspaper. In Ireland, the failed revolution of the United Irishmen in 1798, which included many of the agrarian White Boys, had resulted in William Pitt's Act of Union. The Irish National Land League had been founded in 1879 and the reform of land ownership was the key issue in 19th century Ireland, along with Catholic emancipation.

It was in this context that Karl Marx, a Young (or Left) Hegelian, wrote his seminal critique of capitalism, and developed his Communist Manifesto. In its essentials, Marx argued that, under the hegemony of the unchallenged free-market, the Proletariat provided the muscle which allowed the Bourgeoisie to live in luxury, while the Proletariat had no means of protecting themselves or their livelihoods. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism would replace capitalism, and a stateless, classless, pure-communism would result, but only if the united international Proletariat rebelled in armed revolution, and enforced the foundation of a worldwide workers' state. The last point is crucial, as Marx was not a determinist, despite his Hegelian background.

I am very sympathetic to socialism, sometimes astonishingly so. For example, I subscribe to an augmented materialist conception of history. It works in far more situations than not. It has also had a remarkable effect on each of our lives. Though largely discredited, it has succeeded in making significant gains for the "working-class." The Second International, for example, initiated the campaign for the 8-hour working day. Socialism is the ideology that has intrigued me most, and remains a constant source of inspiration, and frustration. By accident of birth, I never had the opportunity to experience the growth and intensification of the international socialist movement in the late 19th century and especially during the sunrise, and twilight, of the 20th century. I'm less a soixant-huitard, and more a quatre-vingt-dixhuitard. But I know, as far as I possibly can, that I would have been very enthusiastic for the promise of what might have been achieved. We have no way of knowing, but if the conclusions of chaos theory apply historically, a rehashing of the last century may produce entirely surprising results, though I doubt it. In any case, we are left with the legacy of 20th century socialism. Whether you agree with the idea that the "communist" regimes which eventually came to power in Russia, and in Cambodia, and elsewhere, were negations of Marxism, or the direct result of Marxist thought, we must deal with the facts of the last century. In my estimation, Marxist sociology cannot remain passive, or be allowed to stagnate, in the face of recent historical events, if it is to remain relevant. The failure of Soviet communism in the 20th century, perhaps of communism in general, has forced two realisations upon the world. First, that socialism must be sought through democratic means alone - be that democratic socialism, or social democracy. The observation that totalitarian dictatorship is the inevitable result of armed revolution is proto-axiomatic, given that military command structure is necessarily hierarchical. The general will of the people, more often than not, manifests itself as the will of a General. Many, however, disagree with this contention and the socialist movement emerging from the Fourth International, supporters of Leon Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg, remain the only morally coherent still-revolutionary faction. Second, that some degree of economic hybridisation is necessary. In terms of efficiency and output, a free market is in many cases desirable, though provision of many goods and services should be provided on the basis of need rather than purchasing power. The widespread development of community-based co-operatives and credit unions would also serve to cement a healthy economy. In addition, as much as I feel that private property is an unnatural imposition, I cannot shake the feeling that it is in some sense unavoidable. I would dearly like to see stricter limits placed on development, and the cultivation of land earmarked specifically for the benefit of all people, as commons. Lenin claimed that Marxism consisted of three components: materialist philosophy, critique of political economy and socialist politics. I tick all of these boxes. However, I can only call myself a candid friend of Marxism, and cannot call myself a Marxist, because it seems to me that one must not only critique capitalism, but one must recognise communism as the only alternative, and follow the prescribed transition from the one to the other. I can only take the first step. Another problem I have is that one of the most impressive principles of the Marxist movement is its inherent internationalism, but this is necessarily tainted by the division of people into two fundamentally opposed sections, however sound the partition.

Can I call myself a "nationalist"? Well, I am a rather average member of the hominid species Homo sapiens, and one of the most striking results of modern scientific inquiry has been the realisation that the level of genetic diversity contained within this species is remarkable only by its absence. Carl Linnaeus, the patriarch of scientific taxonomy, was wrong to delineate between the various human races. Homo europeanus was characterised as "white, gentle and inventive" while Homo africanus was "black, relaxed and negligent." If not the infancy, this was the childhood of our species. The mapping of our DNA has finally allowed that thin racial veneer to be scratched away completely, rendering the concept of race null and void. Of the little diversity discernible in the human genome, there is more contained within Africa alone than there is between Africans and Europeans. Racism is absurd. Likewise, the notion of "ethnicity" is also defunct. The idea of "nationality" is in a worse condition, given that so many so-called "nations" contain within their arbitrary borders several ethnicities, and often several religious traditions. Though countries with fixed natural borders, such as island nations, may have some claim to homogeneity.

I am first a humanist, and second a nationalist. Like ideology itself, nationalism has a dual connotation. The negative sense verges on the miasmic, and the jingoistic, in which the value placed in one's own cultural tradition becomes the basis of prejudice and oppression. The positive sense has to do with opposition to subjugation. Nationalism in the latter sense forms part of a corpus of liberal and democratic principles arising out of the decay of imperialism after the Great War, in which self-identifying "nations" were campaigning for the right to self-determination. Nationalism was an agent for emancipation and freedom.  In fact, the roots can be detected earlier, in the year of revolution, 1848, in which nation-building was a liberal struggle. This attempt, however, did not succeed and countries like Germany and Italy had to wait for unification under less progressive circumstances. I am a nationalist by virtue of my birth as a citizen of a political entity which had fought very hard for its independence. Do I believe that humanity is divided naturally into nations? No. There is but one people. However, there exist unique and disparate cultures, defined through language, literature, music, and tradition. These are human creations, and belong to us all, so the natural inheritors of these traditions have the right, and the duty, to protect them for future generations. I promote my own culture, long denigrated, as equal to that of others, but not more so. It is worthy of preservation. It is, in my opinion, the obligation of all nations to act as curator of their own particular collection of cultural artifacts, and to recommend those artifacts to the world. In reciprocation, it is the responsibility of all people to immerse themselves in all of the cultures of this world. It is only when nationalism erects barriers to mutual exchange that it becomes hazardous.

One should ask what constitutes a nation. In the case of Ireland, I do not accept that nationalism should be based on any concept of ethnic, or cultural, identity, though Irish culture should indeed be reinforced and promoted. I am an Irish nationalist in so far as I espouse the unifying principle of secular democracy, as against constitutional pseudo-theocratic monarchy. Mine is a progressive nationalism, grounded in history, and not in the least bit reactionary. In Islam, one can find the concept of the "ummah," an arabic word meaning "community" or "nation" which describes the whole community of believers, ummat al-mu'minin, in terms of nationhood. This is the justification for armed resistance against alleged wars of aggression towards any constituent member of the extended community of believers. In other words, this is how al-qaeda countenance their support for Iraq's Ba'ath Party. This example serves to highlight the sort of nationalism that I despise. Dividing the world into the domain of Islam, dar al-Islam, and the domain of war, dar al-harb, strikes me as combative in the extreme. One ray of sunshine emerging from this form of xenophobic nationalism is the possibility of a third "domain," that of conciliation, dar al-sulh, to whom toleration in the form of dhimmitude (I prefer to say apartheid) is extended. Though this is clearly a small victory. I do not think that we need to jettison the term nationalist, once it is understood in a liberal context. I am concurrently a determined internationalist and a progressive nationalist. Though seemingly mutually exclusive, placing these two positions at odds is to construct a false antithesis. When so many states operate under drastically different systems of government, as they do, it is no surprise that "internationalists" single out preferential structures of governance. For instance, I am a Danish nationalist when it comes to supporting their right to conduct their affairs according to their own democratic will, in opposition to those that despise democracy and would impose their will upon that small country in northern Europe. I hope you are getting a sense of my meaning.

In discussing the emergence of "fundamentalist" Islam, I should discuss the relationship between ideology, politics, and religious faith. If a person genuinely believes in the existence of some intervening God, and claims to know, through revelation, something about what that being desires from our fleeting lives, then surely that person is obligated to spread that message. And sure enough, that's what they do. Now, it seems to me that should secular law conflict with that person's world-view, then holy law must take precedence. That is why religious faith is inherently anti-secular. That is exactly why al-Zarqawi condemned secular democracy. However, if we are to co-exist with one another, we must implement the separation of church and state. It is not for atheists that we must do this, though we appreciate such efforts. It is for the faithful. Only a monolithic religion, in which everyone is agreed, and to which everyone is faithful, can possibly enforce a simultaneous legal and religious code, without discriminating severely. The fact that religious faith is so diverse and fluid means that there will be competing claims to truth, even among co-religionists. Blasphemy is a crime whose punishment is usually exacted by the religious against the religious. Secularism makes sense from a religious point of view, but is paradoxically, and necessarily, opposed to religion. At its most basic, advocates for secularism are essentially rejecting claims to any knowledge of the so-called truth, and affirming the superiority of well-attested man-made law to that of alleged holy law. But such is life. One must decide whether vox populi supercedes vox dei, or whether you are amongst the rabble shouting "Deo vindice."

In summary so far, I have tried to outline why I think that secular constitutional democratic republicanism is the foremost, or in the short-term at least the most desirable, form of government yet devised. I really do think that it would be very hard to argue otherwise. The alternative - theocratic authoritarianism - has not entirely convinced me of its merits. Nor has any other permutation. However, this does not mean the death of ideology. There will always come a time when the old reliables will re-emerge. Subtle differences in ethnicity, or creed, and perceived threat of the "other," will revitalise prejudice and galvanise a movement for the "cleansing" of society. Fascism, the coke-fueled culmination of this movement, always lurks in the shadows. We thought it had been defeated, and humiliated. But I have seen the seeds germinate and the shoots thicken in my own lifetime, in Bosnia & Herzegovina and in the disputed territory of Kosovo, and in a very real way, in "fascism with an Islamic face." I share a room with all those who challenge the fascistic. I call them comrade.

In ante-conclusion, I should say why I think that a "liberal"  secular constitutional democratic republic is preferable to one which is "conservative." Aside from the obvious left-right economic divide, I find myself in opposition to the traditional purpose of conservatism, which is to say the preservation of tradition. Though I'll admit to enjoying some of the harmless pomp and ceremony which accompanies established practice in Britain, and although I am naturally sceptical of sweeping "ideological" changes, I concur with Thomas Paine when he says that we should not be kept prisoner of it either. There is, of course, something to be said for continuity of process, but there is also something to be said for sensible progress. I once heard it said that tradition is the "democracy of the dead." The Augustan humanists - Swift, Pope, Johnson, Reynolds, Gibbon and Burke - would likely have agreed with this sentiment. There are two problems with this: 1. most of those in the ranks of the dead did not, in fact, have a vote and 2. eventually, when change did not come naturally, violent rebellion tended to be the result. Burke maintained that the Glorious Revolution had settled the issue of governance in Britain, and no more revolutionary tinkering was necessary. He did not seem to realise that the Glorious Revolution was, well, revolutionary. My response to the tradition argument is to remind ourselves of another well-known saying, from EP Thompson, who talks of the "enormous condescension of posterity." I see no reason for opposition to the resolution of the problems of today through correction of the mistakes of the past. This is exactly what government should be doing. I don't think that over-intellectualisation is something we will ever suffer from too much of. And remember, the word "intellectual" was coined as a derogatory term for those who supported the innocence of Dreyfus in France. I can only endeavour to be described as overly-intellectual. Often allied to conservatism, occasionally unfairly, is imperialism, or nostalgia for same, so I'll brush this nonsense aside while I have the chance. I just need two sentences, one long, one short. Imperialists often try to argue that the provision of infrastructure in conquered countries somehow compensates for the pain and misery inflicted on the native people. It doesn't.

Finally, I'd like to analyse the selection of political parties we are confronted with in Ireland. I have voted in a single general election, in 2007. Though I have also had the opportunity of voting in a UK general election, in 2010, capitalising on my brief residence in London. If you're curious, I voted for the Labour Party in the person of Barry Gardiner. However, in 2007 I voted for the Progressive Democrat Party, an Páirtí Daonlathach (literally "the Democratic Party"!). I did so for several reasons:

Irish politics is a rather odd affair. Both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are founded in history, rather than ideology. I did not want to immerse myself in the rhetoric of the Civil War. The Labour Party were not offering anything of real substance at that time, and their leadership did not inspire my confidence. The PDs seemed to genuinely break the mold. The PDs were ideological, rather than dogmatic, they were keen to experiment. There was a real intellectual foundation to their policies.

The PDs were a small party, with a large number of high-quality, outspoken TDs. Contrarians like Harney and McDowell, as well as people of real substance such as Molloy and O'Donnell. The strong female membership also struck me as important, and unique.

The party was originally formed in opposition to Charles Haughey, whose level of corruption was becoming increasingly obvious. O'Malley and Harney had left a party which offered them the best chance of coming to power on principle alone. That's unusual.

Finally, their economics. The PDs have a reputation as cut-throat free-marketeers, but it seemed to me that the lowering of our corporation tax had been one of the key factors in producing the huge economic growth which characterised the Celtic Tiger, and which dragged Ireland into the 21st century. However, they were also the only "right-wing" party in Europe to oversee an exponential rise in government spending on social services during their term in office. They were also party to the controversial partnership agreements which priced us out of competition with our European neighbours, all because the government attempted to share the pie evenly. You're fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't.

The birth and death of the Progressive Democrats almost exactly mirrors the onset of the Celtic Tiger and the crash into recession. With the dissolution of the party comes a new era in Irish politics, and one which, with some luck and a bottle of brandy, will herald a new and stable prosperity. Given that I am a liberal secular constitutional democratic republican, with social-democratic tendencies, I have deigned to join the Labour Party. Though I do so with oppositional inclinations.

There are a number of things I would like to change about my country of birth. I would like to see the republican project concluded with greater secularisation. That means a referendum to remove all references to God and religious faith from the Constitution. It also means a drive for diminution of Catholic control of state-funded schools. In addition, I would like to see our obligation to neutrality removed, as there are times when neutrality is complicity. I understand the reasons for the institution of this policy in the 1930s but, in light of the great many clear and present dangers of this world, it is a policy we cannot afford to continue. Lastly, I would very much like to see the law in relation to freedom of speech bolstered in favour of the speaker. If this infringes on other rights, it should take precedence. You do not have the right to protection from offence. It's far too subjective and cannot be legislated for, and if anything, you should welcome offence, as you know then that your views are really being challenged. And that cannot be a bad thing.