#and also an inadvertent political revolutionary

[dalesramblingsblog]

Boom has, of course, reignited Kerblam! discourse, because we live in a cold and uncaring universe. So of course, I'm going to talk about it, because, again, apparently I don't know when to quit.

And look, if you like Kerblam!, I get it. Like genuinely, I do understand why people would like it more than me, taste varies and doctors differ as a wise man once said.

But I have seen at least one person try and push back against what they see as the undue focus on "The systems aren't the problem" by saying "Well, that scene comes before Kira has been killed by the System," to which I would like to humbly and with all the kindness in the world... no, it doesn't.

Like I don't want to come across as some sort of Ben Shapiro-esque "According to facts and logic..." edgelord because I have nothing but disdain for those fuckwits, but on a basic factual level you have made an incorrect claim about the episode. The scene in which Kira dies leads *directly* into the scene where the Doctor says "The systems aren't the problem." Ryan's first line in the scene is literally "Kira's dead." To say that the Doctor is unaware of Kira's death at the hands of the System when she says "The systems aren't the problem" is incorrect.

This isn't some unpardonable sin, and I don't wish to ascribe deliberate malice to this error because that does nobody any good and I'm sick and tired of fandom discourse. But, y'know, it's there, and it's weird.

Why can some people not just like Kerblam! without telling falsehoods about the episode in its defence, inadvertently or otherwise? It's OK to like things while also conceding that they have problems, but fandom in general tends to have some problems with this.

It's not enough to like Kerblam! even in spite of the fact that its politics might not be the most sound ever devised - and frankly, while I love it, Doctor Who has some recurrent ethical blind spots that severely limit how often it can truly be cast as anything within a million miles of "revolutionary" - no, Pete McTighe has to be the second coming of Karl Marx.

It's not enough to enjoy The Talons of Weng-Chiang on some level for its good parts while conceding that it is a fundamentally racist text. No, it must be a wholly blameless piece of art that some hissy SJWs are trying to take away from "real fans" who can see clearly that the biggest problem here is a dodgy rat costume.

What is my point here? I honestly don't know. I have, frankly, next to zero interest in becoming a recurring character in the Kerblam! Discourse Cinematic Universe, but I was nevertheless struck by a weird trend of (if I'm being charitable, and I generally like to be where I can) unconscious pseudo-revisionism of a controversial episode.

Alright, nothing to see here, please disperse.

[mottamadhan]

Full article copy-pasted below

An Indian princess whose pivotal role remains largely forgotten in history, had great influence in the Women's Suffrage Movement, which led to British women acquiring the right to vote. Princess Sophia Duleep Singh was the daughter of Duleep Singh and granddaughter of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Born in the summer of 1876, she spent the early part of her life in the English Countryside and only first visited India in 1903. This was a turning point in her life as she was alarmed by the treatment of her fellow citizens under an autocratic colonial regime.

The princess was enamoured by the work of many Indian revolutionaries and was especially intrigued by the work of Lala Lajpat Rai who was imprisoned on sedition charges. This discovery first moved Sophia to turn against the British Raj and she returned to England looking for a fight. She actively got engaged in WSPU (Women’s Social & Political Union) and inadvertently became a significant part of the Suffrage Movement. 

As part of the Women's Tax Resistance League, they led rallies with the slogan “No taxation without representation” and "No Vote, No Tax". Known as the most vilified women in England, they garnered a special dislike amongst royals. In November 1910, on the day later known as ‘Black Friday’, Sophia and Emmeline (woman who organised the Suffrage Movement) led a protest with suffragettes marching towards the House of Commons. As noted by the Quint, they were passionate with the hopes of convincing then Prime Minister Herbert Asquith’s government to pass a limited suffrage bill.

However, they were attacked by the police and the princess soon got arrested. This only fueled her fire as she started selling ‘The Suffragette’ newspaper outside the elite area of Hampton Court Palace. She also subverted the census and claimed that if women do not count then they should not be counted either. The rebellious princess threw herself at the prime minister's car, all while screaming slogans and holding onto a banner that read “Give Women the Vote”. 

The suffrage sisters were continuously imprisoned and were brutally fed to put a stop on their hunger strikes. Sophia noted the crown’s ruthless antics that only seemed to get worse at home and in their acquired colonies. At last, her efforts came to fruition when the Representation of the People Act of 1918 was passed which gave women over 30 the right to vote. This further led to women over 21 acquiring the right to vote in 1928. 

The princess turned activist spent the majority of her life in public protests and fighting against the establishment. During the First World War she took to the bedside of wounded Indian soldiers known as ‘Lascars’. Through all her efforts she only ever worked for the upliftment of those who were forgotten by a powerful regime, becoming a part of the most integral movement in human history. Finally being recognised for her bravery, the princess is to be honoured with a commemorative Blue Plaque by English Heritage in London.

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

Dusty Smith!

Potentate of Logic

Stephen Jay Morris & Pamela Amodeo-Morris

December 15, 2022

Scientific Morality©

Don’t be fooled: There is no censorship of the political Right in the USA. Let me reiterate: though the American, ultra-conservatives have a militant faction that engages in property damage and the inadvertent death of cops, the military industrial complex would rather have White, Right wing militias to contend with than hordes of multi-racial, Leftists conducting a revolution. Fuck yeah, that’s true! The so-called, “Deep State” knows that Neo-Fascists have a low aptitude because the counter-revolutionary Right has brain-washed their followers against the Left wing intelligentsia. Those type of domestic enemies, are pushovers for the corporate police state. The red neck, rude buffoons, with their AR15s fully loaded, haven’t got a chance in goofy-land to overthrow the government and its arsenal of nuclear bombs! Common sense is hardly sufficient! If you think the U.S. Marines are part of a Jewish cabal of globalists, then you have no hope of victory. So, when the ‘Original Gangsters of Cancel Culture and Censorship’ cry sweet tears of McCarthyite regrets, and amplify their wailing and gnashing of teeth about how they are being censored, just put a boot up their ass and tell them to go home to mama!

There are shit loads of pod-casters on YouTube and other social media platforms. Most them are Right wing grifters and mercenaries, chasing after fame and fortune. Some are Millennial amateurs that want to be the next John Wayne. A lot of them have personality disorders. These disorders range from A.D.H.D to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Kanye West, the has-been Rapper, has Bi-polar Disorder. Astoundingly, you can actually garner a salary from some Right wing think tanks as a spokesperson for these people. Like Charlie Kirk does.

As for Left wing pod-casters, there are a handful of them; they can be counted on your fingers. Some who lean toward the Liberal and Progressive direction have made a go of it. David Pakman and Kyle Kulinsky are two. Then there is Vaush , the pseudo-intellectual, Libertarian-Socialist. Also, there’s the “Amazing Atheist,” T.J. Kirk.

However. What about the Lumped-proletarian? The pauper with a Southern accent? You know—the authentic human being? A political Charles Bukowski. A dude that has had his run-ins with drinking, getting stoned, and running a porn site. A social fuck up, if you will! Well, that man lives modestly in a small, Mississippi town; the only White man in a Black neighborhood. He is Dusty Smith, overlooked giant of YouTube pod-casting! Creator and producer of “The Dusty Smith Show,” it is apparent that Dusty spends countless hours preparing for each and every podcast. Initially, he appears a bit rough around the edges, but it doesn’t take long to see that he is a sensitive, passionate, intelligent, and empathetic human being. He will yell with conviction at the reactionary creeps whose Internet posts he exposes, until his face is beet red. He will cry heartfelt tears while playing a video that features a victim of unbridled police brutality and cruelty. He will joke like the great comedians of yesterdays past. He will chastise and correct himself whenever something goes amiss during his show—video won’t play; voice is out of sync. Oh, Dusty curses like a longshoreman in some foggy harbor; he comes from working class roots. But that is part of his charm. He is an open book, sharing big and small life events. He provides helpful, Internet links to useful programs and creative websites. Dusty is a creative songwriter, as well, and posts his recordings on Sound Cloud, for free download. All in all, he presents his show with deep conviction, profound insight, razor-sharp logic, and humble generosity.

Also highly noteworthy about Dusty is that he rescues dogs and cats from death row, and houses them in his self-run, animal sanctuary for as long as they need a home. Some of his cats hang around and lie next to him during his podcast, and can be seen on camera. His primary source of revenue is from the tips and Super Chats contributed during his YouTube podcast, donations from Patreon members, and gifts sent via US mail directly to his P.O. box.

So, how does this king of the Anti-Authoritarian Left get treated by YouTube? Like a turd in a punch bowl!

My wife and I think very highly of him. We two Baby Boomers are strong supporters of this Gen Xer, and we catch his podcast, “The Dusty Smith Show,” live every Monday and Friday night at 9 EST. Its duration is typically two or more hours, sometimes three; if we don’t stay for the entire show, we catch the rest of it, on video, the next day or so. I love it when he makes fun of Right Wing pod-casters and Evangelical hate preachers! Were it not for Dusty’s informative and well-produced show, I would be largely unaware of the vast amount of Right-leaning garbage circulating Online.

At any rate, Social Media is trying to purify all Left wing content and Dusty is on their shit list—as am I. But Dusty has way more followers than I do, so his show being banned hits him especially hard. YouTube recently banned it for two months! Not the first time and, probably, it won’t be the last. In the meantime, he is podcasting his show live on Patreon, same schedule. Sign up to watch and support him!

Ever since Elon Musk took it over, Twitter has become a Right wing ghetto, devoid of any intelligence or logic. They suspended me twice.

Social Media is starting with the hard core Left. Once they succeed in purging them, it’s on to the Socialists and Communists. After that, it will be the Progressives, Democratic Socialists, Liberals, and, then moderate Democrats. However, it won’t stop there. They will go after Black conservatives and Jewish conservatives. Conservative women will be demoted to Christian motherhood. I don’t care if you don’t believe me. It will happen.

Dusty Smith and other Comrades must be protected and supported. I said this once and I’ll say it again: We need our own platform! Free speech is idealistic, but at this time in history, it is not practical. Elon Musk does not care about free speech. That is, with the exception for his Right wing buddies. He really, only cares about money and ego aggrandizement. No rich man is going to hand us a web site where we can freely express our opinions. Until we all realize that capitalism is not going to trickle down to us, we need a peoples’ site that is a true, public square, full of soap boxes for us to stand upon. But, the rich pig and his Conservative, Libertarian, and Evangelical flunkies only want their side of the story heard. The so-called Left does not have wealthy sugar daddies to finance us. George Soros? Well, he may have died of natural causes by the time you read this. Like all classical Leftists, we have no money. That is why we robbed banks for the Revolution!

Dusty may be off of YouTube this time around—but he will rise again!

[werewolfetone]

Okay last bit of Musgraveposting for today I promise but the thing about him is that like. in reality the role of the Catholic Church in the 1798 Irish rebellion is debatable cos some of the leading rebels were priests and also the fact that they prevented large swaths of people from being exposed to British anti revolutionary propaganda (long story), but by and large the church in general was VEHEMENTLY opposed to rebellion + revolution + reform even in some cases. this was a large reason why the government had to get really really suddenly evil for the Catholics to start supporting the reformers, because before that they had all been told again and again by the church that rebellion was Bad. however, in Sir Richard's world, the entire rebellion was STARTED by the priests, who had been telling everyone to get the guillotines since the early 1760s, and the Volunteers + United Irishmen + French fleet + he makes a weird comment about Scotland for some reason that implies that he might include that entire country in this, were operated by Catholic priests with the goal of taking over and turning the entire British Isles into a proto socialist paradise where everyone was equal forever. which is SO irritating because he inadvertently makes them SO much cooler than they actually were. irl the church sucked but Sir Richard would have you believe that they had the best politics in Ireland and the time, and that that's... bad for some reason. like he's not even painting them in a bad light he just keeps saying things that the vast majority of people even in 1801 would have found to be good and then going "AND THAT'S TERRIBLE OBVIOUSLY." every paragraph where he goes on about how the evil church is planning to eliminate poverty and make every single person legally and socially equal (when actually they were doing pretty much the opposite) is the written equivalent of emptying an entire magazine into his own foot smh

[jeffandcyrusgetrevenge]

The ecological arguments of the Untamed

I’ve been thinking about solarpunk lately and how it’s barely a genre (no major motion pictures, I have to explain what it is to most people, unlike with steampunk or film noir or found footage horror, etc) and how shocking that is, given…*looks around at the fires and the floods*…everything — anyway, at one point I scribbled a note to myself about “the ecological argument of the Untamed” and it’s been on my mind. Like, I’ve been learning a little about social ecology, a leftist philosophy (or collection of leftist philosophies? ecosystem of philosophies?) concerned with the intersection between (and inextricability of) economic justice and environmental justice. And they kept talking about how, in a society that lives in harmony with its environment, we would have no waste, because in nature, all waste is used, and “waste” is sort of a false construct, a toxic byproduct of a capitalist society that consumes much faster than it creates.

Anyway, in the Untamed, there is an early scene in Lan QiRen’s classroom in which Wei WuXian questions the received wisdom that resentful energy should never be used. He thinks it’s wasteful, and that sure, it has consequences, but it doesn’t mean that it should be utterly taboo and that no one should ever make use of a force that is already there, just that it should be engaged with responsibly. And then of course he is punished for this heresy. But later, he does use it, because he has no golden core and therefore no access to any other kind of magic. The Patriarch of the Burial Mounds, our king of ghosts. One of the really compelling things about this, for me, is that even though he harnesses this ghoulish type of power, and uses it to achieve his own ends, it never seems exploitative in the way that Xua Yang’s manipulation of the undead seems, or ruthless and power hungry in the way of the Wen Clan. It doesn’t seem like a normal use of magic, for sure, it’s dark and spooky…but it’s not cruel, or evil. I have thought a lot about why this is and I think it’s because he never stops acknowledging the source of the power, which is suffering and injustice. When he meets a restless spirit who is full of rage at being murdered and forgotten, he doesn’t immediately lay them to rest as a Lan disciple might, but directs their rage as needed for his purposes for a while, before allowing them to disperse. In a way, this seems more cathartic and may provide more closure for a restless spirit than the kind of immediate dismissal they might otherwise receive: their rage isn’t impotent, nor does it cause useless destruction. Rather, it is used to build a farm for refugees, or defend the helpless, or maybe, perhaps less constructively, for some revenge unrelated to the one the spirit set out to get. On the whole, this seems more ecological than banishing them. It reminds me of Princess Mononoke, kind of, where the unjust and immoderate exploitation of natural resources created a whole lot of resentful energy and demonic forces and curses that proceeded to wreak havoc far beyond the factory operations that generated them. But they weren’t evil, and neither was the factory, really, it just all needed to be put back into balance. The YiLing Patriarch is kind of a revenge god figure, but really more like one that restores justice in ways that are sometimes ruthless and violent rather than narcissistic, immoderate, and purely malevolent. Xua Yang represents narcissistic revenge, as does Jin GuangYao, but Wei WuXian is content to murder the oppressors directly responsible for inhuman cruelty, and then move on to harboring a bunch of fugitives in a haunted graveyard. Making life out of death! He’s like one of those mushrooms they put in landfills that turns plastic waste into food. There is no waste; all outputs are inputs; everything has a purpose.

I don’t have a real conclusion for this, except that I guess I’m saying that the Untamed is like…solarpunk for goths??? What I really want is to envision what solarpunk and socially-ecological ideals could look like in a narrative, and how that changes the kinds of stories that get told, and the lessons we can learn from them, intuitively. Storytelling is a useful moral device! It’s a far richer tool of persuasion than political rhetoric or philosophical treatises. And if we want to build a utopian future we have to be able to tell interesting stories about it!

Plus, the actual physical land is so much a character in the untamed, particularly in the TV adaptation, with all the gorgeous shots of the mountains wrapped in clouds and the misty river choked with lotuses…even in the haunted graveyard, all they do is farm. The story is profoundly influenced by its relationship with nature, and I think that really comes through in the complex ecosystem of social relationships and shifting political forces.

[kayrllylikesblitzwing]

I almost forgot to post today LOL

HI GUYS meet my FAVORITE character design this is a super old drawing but tbh I’m still proud of her and I LOVE this character she’s such a #girlboss anyway

HERES my oc GLITZ’N’GLAM

——————————————————————————

Glitz’n’glam had it all. Back before the war, she was born into a high level caste and was a huge celebrity to the public. A natural entertainer, she hosted many game shows and practically owned the airways while Cybertron was at peace. She loved fashion and being in the spotlight, as suggested by her eye-catching, flashy design.

But she was never satisfied with what she did. Not only was Glitz’n’glam a trendsetter, but she was also an intellectual who had an undeniable curiosity for the for the world. Using her fame and fortune, she eventually broke away from hosting game shows and published more informative media. She owned news shows and ran the Cybertronian-equivalent of Podcasts to explore current events and educate the world about what was going on. But she soon found her fame taken from her from the strict Autobot rule, and their censorship on her content.

As she continued her Podcasts and shows and political turmoil began to make people fight against her caste, Glitz’n’glam noticed the (at the time) fledgling Decepticon movement and began to schedule interviews with members of the cause. She would talk to them about their revolutionary motives and then broadcast it to her audience. The Autobot’s government caught wind of this, and deeming it as terroristic propaganda, shut down Glitz’n’glam’s shows and ousted her as a terrorist sympathizer. With no protection from the Autobots anymore, she joined the Decepticons.

Things were fine with the Decepticons at first and Glitz’n’glam happily continued her work on secret radio subfrequencies she could broadcast to specific audiences. She used her skills to relay information to Decepticons and Autobots alike at first, but as the Decepticons grew more dangerous and hostile, Glitz’n’glam soon realized she was being used as a tool to gather information for the Decepticons and help them plan attacks. This wasn’t what she wanted at all, and after she inadvertently gave the Decepticons good information that allowed them to plan a big attack and hurt a lot of people, she fled the Decepticons as well, and then completely abandoned Cybertron.

Now a Lone Ranger of sorts, Glitz’n’glam keeps broadcasting on her private subfrequencies, but usually to no one. She keeps tabs on the war and still remains very nosy, but now uses her perspective as an ex-‘bot and ex-‘con to keep things purely neutral. She continues to broadcast from across the universe in her satellite alternative mode, looking for any audience who is now willing to hear her out, since she has been ostracized from everyone…

——————————————————————————

i used her in an rp and she maced a Predacon bcuz he tried to steal her tote bag

like full on just PEPPER SPRAYED that Biaaatch!

I love Glitz’n’glam and I hope you do too ❤️ Tysm for reading

[southeastasianists]

On November 7 2016, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s military, proudly delivered a presentation on the military’s efforts for democracy to the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) meeting in Brussels. To the surprise of many, he had been invited as the guest speaker for that meeting of the EU military chiefs by the then-EUMC Chair General Mikhal Kostarakos.

In its press statement, the EU mentioned that the participation of Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing in the meeting was an achievement of “military diplomacy helping Myanmar to regain its position in the world’s political scene”. On that trip, Myanmar military’s chief also met with the EU officials to discuss “further military ties” before visiting Italy for engagements with military officials and defense companies.

This was followed by another trip to Austria and Germany on April 22 2017.  While there, Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing met with his German and Austrian counterparts and made several visits to local defense companies and industries. Around that period, not only the EU, but the United States also planned to gradually re-engage its military to military relations with the Myanmar military, initially by extending some training programs with the junior officer corps.

Narrative of Constructive Engagement

Wishful thinking was then prevalent in the West that advancing constructive engagement with the Myanmar military could enhance the professionalism and democratic outlook of its officer corps and speed up their withdrawal from politics. That sort of thinking primarily flowed from the narrative that after political liberalization in 2011, the military was ready to gradually retreat from politics if its leadership could be assured that the new constitutional order led by the civilian authorities could function without threatening territorial integrity, security and stability.

In reality, the military carefully planned to ensure its power under a disciplined democracy and lacked a genuine desire to disengage from politics. Under the 2008 constitution, they predetermined the extent of space for civilians to operate within, to what extent they would scale down political intervention and when they would intervene to shut down the nascent political space. As an armed forces which deeply perceived themselves as entitled to rule the country in perpetuity, the military has never intended to fully disengage from politics.

The narrative of the military’s voluntary withdrawal from politics fell apart completely when it seized power on February 1 2021. Some might argue that the military did not have a plan for its coup and that tension between elected civilian leaders and the military in the previous five years led to the takeover. During the first five years of National League for Democracy (NLD) rule, the civilian government held to a conciliatory stance towards the military, and there were no incidences that risked threatening the territorial integrity of the country or the institutional autonomy of the military.

With hindsight, however, it becomes clear that civil-military tensions only reached a crucial boiling point with the November 2020 election, the result of which compelled the military leaders to launch the coup. It was a choice wrought not by civil-military contestation but by the military’s fear that the NLD, if they remained in power for two full terms, would become firmly entrenched in a political leadership role that would enable them to finish off the military’s remaining political prerogatives and economic privileges.

Constructive engagement with the military by Western democratic countries did not transform the military into a professional organization, but instead inadvertently emboldened and legitimized its leadership to do whatever they wished. Less than a year after Snr. Gen, Min Aung Hlaing’s trips to the EU, the world was stunned to witness the military committing the brutal crimes in Rakhine State that a UN fact-finding mission labeled a “genocide” against the Rohingya minority.

In fact, this was nothing new in the modern history of Myanmar. There is a long history of military atrocities, ranging from campaigns of terror that may amount to crimes against humanity in the ethnic minority areas to brutal suppression and mass slaughter of civilian protestors in urban environments. Constructive engagement without holding the military to account for its past crimes, and without promoting the roles of its civilian counterparts, had the unintended consequences of virtually strengthening the military’s political positions and legitimizing its barbarous atrocities.

Narrative of the pro-democratic and stabilizing force

Similarly, there is another narrative that the next generation of Myanmar military officers would be more liberal and pro-democratic. This narrative was widely popular even before the “8888” uprising of 1988. In this narrative, Western investment in the future generations of Myanmar’s officer corps via academic opportunities and exposure to the West could depoliticize and professionalize the force. However, no evidence has emerged that the new generation of officers have changed their approaches and ideological orientations. On the contrary, they became woefully more antagonistic towards Myanmar’s pro-democratic forces.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi seems aware of this fact, despite her persistent conciliatory overtures towards the military as “her father’s army”. When the veteran journalist Bertil Lintner asked her in February 1989 if there were any younger officers who were more sympathetic to her, she replied, “No. It’s the opposite. Some of the older officers are okay as they are still loyal to my father [General Aung San, the founder of the Myanmar military]. The younger officers are the worst. They rose to prominence under Ne Win [the first military dictator who established the precedent for coups in Myanmar] and were hardened in combat in ethnic minority areas.” Now, the new officers who ascended to the top positions under Than Shwe [the dictator who created the post-2010 political reform] deposed and arrested her and also followed their predecessors in murdering the people they vowed to protect.

Another prevailing narrative is that the military is a “stabilizing force for the country”. The military has justified its political interventions with this narrative since 1958 and, through its propaganda machines, some analysts and even some neighboring countries has bought into that narrative. They believed, as the generals always claimed, that unless the military played its active political leading role, the country and its sovereignty would be at risk of disintegration. Even after the coup, Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said that “the military is the only force holding Myanmar together and always striving to prevent the country’s disintegration.”

Historically, as Andrew Nachemson once wrote, the military is “a force of chaos, not stability”. In 1962, the military staged a coup with the dubious justification that the country was at risk of drifting towards disintegration due to the federal ambitions of the ethnic minority groups under civilian rule. The military has persistently hung onto that justification ever since, despite the 1962 coup leader Ne Win regrettably admitting that “he would not have carried out the coup if he was well-informed of the Buddha’s Dhamma (teaching) at that time”.

Notable Shan scholar Chao Tzang Yawnghwe also argued that instead of keeping the country together, “the 1962 coup brought about havoc and ruin to the country, damaging the political links between the various ethnic components of Myanmar”. Also, in the recent coup, the military has obviously destabilized the previously stable political order by bringing an end to the country’s brief experiment with political development and dragging the country into chaos and towards the status of a failed state.

Narrative of Restoration of Democracy

The final key narrative is that military rule is transitory and temporary with the generals being ready to voluntarily transfer power back to elected civilians as they have promised. That narrative was also widely circulated in 1962 and 1990 after the military staged coups. Following the 1962 coup, General Ne Win said in the fourth meeting of the revolutionary council held on March 16 1962 that “the military would not rule the country for a long time”. Ne Win’s military council promised to pave the way back to constitutional rule led by a civilian political leadership. However, the military leaders of the council simply exchanged their uniforms for mufti, crafted the constitution as they wished and ruled the country for 26 years in different incarnations.

After the 1988 coup, the then military chief General Saw Maung promised that the military would return to their barracks and transfer power back to elected civilians after the 1990 election. In reality, the military would rule for another two decades. In 2021, coup leader Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said again that military rule will be temporary, and that it will hold elections and transfer power back to civilians. That narrative has been catching the attention of the international community, mostly countries from the region.

Nevertheless, the coup leaders, as the UN special envoy Christine Burgener has said, “appear determined to solidify their grip on power” by annulling the 2020 election won overwhelmingly by the NLD, extending their stay in power from a one-year emergency to August 2023, and declaring Snr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing as the prime minister of the newly-formed caretaker government. Just six months after the coup, it has become obvious that the narrative of temporary military rule is fundamentally flawed.

All these narratives relating to the military have been more or less integral in the approaches of the international community towards Myanmar. The policy makers of the international community have not yet relinquished the hope that the junta will voluntarily restore civilian rule. Also, they believe, as Biahari Kausikan is convinced, that the military is the only indispensable stabilizing institution that can keep the country together. Consequently, constructive engagement with the military without imposing too much pressure on it, as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now cheerleading for, is the only way to enlighten the officer corps and to guarantee a return to some form of civilian rule.

The military’s political prerogatives have been deeply entrenched in Myanmar politics for a long time. As an army ingrained with a distrust of civilian politicians and entrenched with the notion of playing the leading political role in the country, any hope that the junta will voluntarily transfer power back to a civilian government through elections is nothing more than a daydream.

Recent evidence has demonstrated that the officers of the Myanmar military have been extremely hostile towards pro-democratic forces and that they haven’t hesitated to destabilize, even to destroy, the country in order to rule it. Similarly, another round of the constructive engagement promoted by ASEAN is definitely destined to fail. Rather than resort to the old narratives attached to the military, the time has come for the international community to demystify the old narratives and to reconsider its approaches in formulation of policy concerning Myanmar.

Ye Myo Hein, aka Ko Ye, is the public policy fellow at the Wilson Center’s Asia Program and the executive director of the Tagaung Institute of Political Studies.

[thinkbothways]

Entry 02

2020 was without a doubt the most chaotic and dazing year of my adult life. To “unpack” my take I’ll have to organize this entry as well as possible, as it’s so easy to lose track of, or even establish a point.

Toilet-Paper-Gate

The toilet paper frenzy baffled me. This topic forces me to admit my most cynical understanding of humanity as a social entity. (For the sake of keeping this interesting I’ll be as honest as possible, but I must first say that this is not a reflection of my typical feeling towards us humans.)

It was early covid days and we were all learning about the impending threat of this virus. Slowly I saw more masks at the grocery store, the news reported it coming closer and closer to being a full global outbreak, and then I saw the toilet paper aisle at Kroger. What do I think happened? In a nutshell, people are greedy and will put themselves first when they feel threatened in any way. Hoarding TP was one way for people to create some sense of control in a situation where there really wasn’t any. I saw videos online of people literally fighting each other for the last TP roll at the store. The situation resembled a panic induced TP stock market crash. This was the first reaction to covid and it was bleak. 

Covid is a situation that requires people to consider the impact their actions have on others and what happened? Totally selfish behavior. A problem was created for no reason but to bring a small sense of comfort and victory to a few.

I have fought to embrace my role as a member of society and to make compassion my default feeling towards others. Toilet-paper-gate challenged that. The pandemic had barely started and true colors were already being shown.

BLM protests, the news, the protests & privilege

This is a tough one to reflect on; it is so complex because it takes a specific experience to fully understand. An experience I can only observe. What I can do here is be as honest as possible about my personal experience; one I have never actually articulated. Here it goes:

For most of my life, I have been “asleep” in regards to the underlying racial tension that plagues our country. I was raised in a mostly white town/county in Massachusetts. The area I grew up was mostly upper-middle class and laughably peaceful. I road bikes with neighborhood kids, walked to school, and used my small allowance to buy soda at the old town market. 

When I was probably around 7 or 8 years old my parents showed my sister and I the 1977 historical miniseries, “Roots.” 

“Based on Alex Haley's family history. Kunta Kinte is sold into the slave trade after being abducted from his African village, and is taken to the United States. Kinte and his family observe notable events in American history, such as the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, slave uprisings and emancipation.” -wikipedia summary

I remember feeling utterly shocked by this series. Roots was my introduction to that part of our countries history. The horrifying imagery from the film is still seared into my memory. But as far as I knew, what the film depicted was only history. It was scary and evil, but nothing more than a thing of the past. For a young innocent mind like my own, it was inconceivable for that kind of evil to exist in modern times. In my world of nickelodeon, nintendo, and Harry Potter; racism just didn’t exist.

Up until I moved to Boston for college in 2010, at the age of 18, I really thought that racism was old news. I had never met a “racist” and I had never heard anyone say or do something racist. It was my understanding that everyone saw racism as despicable and it was pretty much abolished. In fact I still grapple with cognitive dissonance from that comfortable belief and coming to terms with the reality of our society.

In college I made friends of all different backgrounds. I studied fine art and saw films, paintings, performances, and every kind of subversive form of expression imaginable. I learned about important topics like “institutionalized racism” and the prison industrial complex. As I matured I noticed the racist undertones in our media. But I had not connected with the topic on an empathetic level. It seemed totally separate from my small world. At an art school you really don’t meet people that are prejudice. At least I didn’t. So to me it was a real, serious issue but it didn’t hit close enough to home to have a deep impact on my life.

Since then I’ve lived a tumultuous  and exciting life that basically centered around me. I did my best to be kind and learn all I could about our world and my reality was ultimately defined by me.

The summer of 2020 was an awakening. Covid had flipped everything upside down. I was confined to my tiny downtown Columbus apartment for months. 

George Floyd was killed.

When the news broke I found the whole thing sad and disturbing. But I was still asleep. The protests began and the movement was spreading throughout the country. Suddenly the movement erupted literally outside of my window. I heard the sounds and watched as a crowd of people gathered on Broad St, rapidly growing in size and getting increasingly louder. Police in riot gear lined up in front of them, marching towards them in attempt to intimidate. Pretty soon I had half of my body hanging out of the window to get a close look. The crowd chanted and pushed back on the police. They went back and forth, seeming to challenge each other to make a move. The police made the first move. Streams of powerful mace sprayed the crowd in a brown mist. Suddenly I was coughing and choking. I had never experienced mace before, nor any real violence. I think that is the moment a part of me woke up.

I think that, like in the toilet paper frenzy, people are more self centered than they know or would ever admit. For a movement to really work, it has to also have a direct effect on uninvolved individuals. The BLM protests did that. I had inadvertently gotten involved just by poking my head out of my window. That moment induced in me a new empathy. I was exposed to the smallest amount of mace and was choking and my eyes were burning. I literally cannot imagine how it would feel to be maced in the face by a police officer, but I can now understand how truly fucked up it must have been.

I think that it is in our nature to empathize with things we see ourselves in. Things that validate us and our existence. I think that an individual’s reception of art is an example of this experience. We like art that we see ourselves in. Whether it is a painting that shows a certain form of pain, or a song that describes a form of love we’ve experienced. 

I think that, as the majority, white people don’t automatically see themselves in other white people. But I can surmise that minorities have that innate empathy towards each other.

From my apartment window I saw that. I imagine that, for black Americans, seeing George Floyd murdered symbolized their own murder.

I try to understand, but I can only do so within the limitations of my own experience and empathy.

I’ll never know what it’s like to be black in America. The closest I’ve gotten to that experience was breathing in a small amount of mace from across the street. Mace that wasn’t even intended for my lungs. That is my privilege. It’s something that is extremely difficult to wrap my head around. 

What do I do?

With the pandemic still dominating basically everything, it’s difficult to come up with ideas. I feel more detached from society than ever before. To be honest, I don’t really know what I can do. I think we’re all kind of stuck watching the world through our TV and window. Our political climate is more volatile than ever and it’s got our attention by the balls.

Imagining a post-covid world feels like fiction. For now my plan is to listen to learn. I have a feeling that this class will be enlightening.

[bubblysnake]

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the taxes were high and the tensions were higher. Americans had been uncomfortable with the British level of control for many decades, but a collection of oppressive events starting in the late 1700s helped to push the British colonies towards revolution. The most influential moment of all was the enactment of the Intolerable Acts. These acts were what made the American Revolution inevitable, because a significant increase in revolutionary thought was evident after their inception in 1774.

In 1769, in response to the Stamp Act- which was widely considered oppressive- the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a series of resolutions entitled The Virginia Resolves. The main purpose of these documents was to reassure Britain that revolution was not on the horizon. One such resolution read, “Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that an humble, dutiful, and loyal Address, be presented to his Majesty, to assure him of our inviolable Attachment to his sacred Person and Government”. This loyal viewpoint that they shared with colonists may not have been popular among the masses, but it demonstrated that revolutionary ideals had not yet bled into legislative thinking. In 1769, five years before the Intolerable Acts, colonial politicians opposed revolution.

In 1770, quickly following the Boston Massacre- which helped to paint the British in a villainous light- Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Samuel Cooper, a prominent religious and community leader. Franklin wrote, “I join with you most cordially in Wishes of a perfect happy Union between Great Britain and the Colonies: This is only to be expected from Principles of Justice and Equity on both sides, which we must endeavor to cultivate. I think there is now a Disposition here to treat us more equitably, and I hope it will increase and prevail... the Expectation of War is much lessened”. Benjamin Franklin was greatly involved in politics and had his eye on political trends. For him to believe that revolution was both unlikely and unwanted, the American Revolution must have not reached full momentum. In 1770, four years before the Intolerable Acts, political experts saw no sign of the oncoming revolution, as it was not yet inevitable. 

In 1772, now two years after the Boston Massacre, Samuel Adams published an essay titled The Rights of the Colonists, which he printed in leaflets and shared with his fellow Americans. Adams wrote, “Have (the colonists) all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted”. This essay was extremely critical of Britain, but instead of arguing for independence, Samuel Adams argued for the colonists to have more power in legislature. Being an individual with highly popular political stances, his opinions likely reflected those of the masses. In 1772, two years before the Intolerable Acts, revolution was not being prioritized as an option. 

In 1774, just months after the enactment of the Intolerable Acts, George Washington wrote a letter to Brian Fairfax, a prominent religious and political leader. Washington wrote, “I shall not undertake to say where the Line between Great Britain and the Colonies should be drawn, but I am clearly of opinion that one ought to be drawn”. This letter may not have argued for absolute independence, but it did argue for increased separation. This idea was completely different from the ideas of Samuel Adams in 1772.  Washington, a man who many would describe as a political genius, always kept in mind what was best for his country. He was also a political and military leader, meaning that his opinions were often adopted by those who looked up to him. This evolution of revolutionary ideas was so fast that it must have been motivated by a jarring event, such as the Intolerable Acts. Just months after they were enacted, Americans believed that the less connection they had to Britain, the better, making the American Revolution inevitable.

In 1775, one year after the Intolerable Acts, the Second Continental Congress wrote a document titled The Olive Branch petition, addressing the King of England. It read, “Your Majesty’s Ministers, persevering in their measures, and proceeding to open hostilities for enforcing them, have compelled us to arm in our own defense... We therefore beseech your Majesty that your royal authority and influence may be graciously interposed to procure us relief from our afflicting fears and jealousies occasioned by the system before-mentioned”. At first glance, this document seems counter-revolutionary, with its flatteringly respectful language, but it’s actually sending a complex message. Congress argues that Britain’s harsh control left patriots no choice but to participate in revolutionary action. This puts Britain in the blame. Congress then promises to be loyal to the King, but only if Britain undoes the damage that they have inflicted upon the colonies. This framed the American Revolution as inevitable, and the only option left. This was no longer a radical idea for legislators to have. One year after the Intolerable Acts, revolution was mainstream and unstoppable.

In 1776, two years after the Intolerable Acts, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet called Common Sense, which he promoted to the American people. In his pamphlet, Paine wrote, “Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “Come, come, we shall be friends again for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind.. and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land?.. If you have (lost everything to the British), and can still shake hands with the murderers, then you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant”. This pamphlet, written to bring Americans to the brink of revolution, was an instant best seller. Common Sense was in the hand of almost every literate American, in spite of the fact that it accused loyalists of being cowards and sycophants. Americans had been radicalized to the point of prioritizing revolution over being respectful of their peers. Just two years after the Intolerable Acts, revolution was all-important and inevitable in the eyes of the American people. 

After Britain enacted the Intolerable Acts, revolution went from being a daydream to being a reality. I think that the American Revolution follows a broad historical trend that we can see repeated again and again throughout history; when the oppression of government becomes too much to bear, the masses rise up.

[theculturedmarxist]

Against Biology, Against the Sexed Body

Gender, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and the Molecular

The specter of biology is near omnipresent. This omnipresence is nowhere more evident than in the way in which sex, and thus consequentially Gender, is understood. The left has long forwarded the understanding of systems of power as that which constitutes political, and thus social, life. That said, what is surprising is that this semiotic imperialism of biology over the field of sex has planted itself within ‘radical spaces’ as well, and in most cases, expresses itself in ways that would seem contradictory to the held beliefs of those expressing them. For example, how can one resolve that biologization is a primary force of Western colonialism, but also forward an article that ascribes penises and sperm as “Male reproductive physiology” and vagina’s and eggs as “female reproductive system(s)” as “one of my favorite articles” (Martin 10–11; Spira)? It would seem that the praising of such a blatantly transphobic, and thus biologizing, article as positive merely reproduces the same colonial force of Western biologization, thus formulating these two positions as necessarily mutually exclusive. That said, the very fact that these two positions are mutually exclusive and thus contradictory to hold at the same time reveals the way in which biology has penetrated the molecular realm to such a degree that we have been circuited to desire a folding of all life (specifically understandings of sex and gender) under the taxonomy of biology; even when it seems inherently contradictory to other ideologically held beliefs. Following Oyèrónke Oyewùmi, we ought not understand biology as an independent vector of violence, but rather as one that is necessarily situated within the production of Western modernity; anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and by consequence compulsory heterosexuality (9). In that sense, I hope to indicate that the taxonomization of molecular life under the signifier of biology necessarily sexes the body, and in doing so, deploys the structures for which compulsory heterosexuality is able to gain coherence. This essay will hopefully not only impel the necessity of gender abolitionism in revolutionary struggles against compulsory heterosexuality, but also a re-articulation of life that “instead of denoting a possible reality” understands life as fundamentally virtual (Parisi 14). 

Biology and the Molecular 

Despite what biology would lead you to believe life is not determinate, i.e. life is not transcendentally knowable or “determined genetically, predominantly by parts of the genes called chromosomes” but rather fundamentally indeterminate; always already in flux (Stryker 8). The reason for which this is the case is due to the fact that the very quantum materiality’s that make up like, for example protons and electrons, exist within a constant state of flux (Barad 394). As briefly mentioned earlier, one of the primary ways in which the biologization of life operates is through the creation of a singular meaning for which life can express itself. For example, there is a unitary classification system that is imparted onto particular species to such a degree that all of the difference that exists between those that might be considered a species is reduced down to a singular set of unifying traits. In this sense an ontology is created, attached, and reproduced as the de-facto way in which life should be understood; as having a constitutive being. It could be said that this ontologization of life is the raison d’etre for Western science in that “difference is expressed as degeneration” and thus must be smoothed over through the signification of an ontology, or being (Oyewùmi 3). Biology serves as one of the fundamental vectors of this collapsing of difference because of its ability to justify its logics as determinate of how the world operates, which through its omnipresence at the heart of any scientific development, has spilled out onto an understanding of quantum physics as well (Oyewùmi 9). As an instance of this, traditional quantum physics has generally explained quantum properties (waves, particles, etc) as necessarily determinate, and thus because of that developed the determinate principle as the overarching structure for which life expresses itself (Sheldon 4). This generally takes the form of constructing waves and participles as having universal principles that always already determine their expression, and because of that, have a definite expression (Sheldon 4).

There is a multitude of reasons as to why this understanding of life is problematic, but first and foremost it just misunderstands the basis for which it justifies its claim to determinacy; particles and waves. Rather than having determinate characteristics that a-priori dictate the way in which particles and waves express themselves, they are rather indeterminate in the sense that the way in which they express themselves is always dependent on the realities for which they are expressed within; they are virtual. Virtual in the sense that their trajectory is not teleological but rather open to the infinite possibilities made possible by particular material realities, or in other words, “the virtual is reality in terms of strength or potential that tends towards actualization or emergence” (Parisi 14). To elaborate, the classic way in which particles and waves are recorded is through shooting them through an apparatus that is comprised of a screen or, “slit,” that once passed through records the pattern for which the particles/waves were composed (Sheldon 4). Traditional quantum physics would say that particles passing through a double slit would produce a scattershot pattern due to the fact that once a stream of particles bounces off of the first slit it should radiate out like buckshot. That said, when particles do pass through such an apparatus they do not actually express themselves as theorized, instead they tend to represent the formation of what a wave is typically understood to be; an interference pattern (Sheldon 4). Compounded with this, if a detector is added after the fact to determine which of the two slits the particles actually passed through their formation reverts back to a scattershot (Sheldon 5). This indicates that the foundational principle for the very building blocks of life is not determinacy, but rather indeterminacy, virtual particles that are constantly opening themselves towards the possibilities constituted by the material relations they both create and are situated within (Barad 395–396). In this sense, life should not be understood as a stabilized biologic force, but rather an interplay between molecular relations that constantly produce mutations within all fields at which life is able to express itself (Parisi 53–54). To reiterate the old Deleuzoguattarian adage, life is about becoming and not being; any attempt to compress becoming into being (as biology does) is a reactive force of violence (Deleuze and Guattari 106).

Sexing the Body and the Project of Gender 

Biology engages in this sort of violence in that it seeks to create a determinate principle, or being, for which life is organized. An example of this being the way in which biology categorizes bodies as constitutive wholes, or organisms, instead of machines that necessarily interplay and are contaminated by their ecologies. Summarizing Merleau-Ponty, Judith Butler articulates that one of the primary ways in which biology engages in this process is through not only the invention of the body as a naturalized product, but specifically the sexed body (463). I want to stress the importance of this argument, Butler’s claim is not merely that taxonomies of biology create a specific conception of the body that is sexed, but rather the structuring logic for which the body catalyzes into existence through a biologic frame is one that is necessarily sexed. To be clear, this is not to say that the impact for which these conceptions of the body are not ‘real’ in their impact/violence, because they certainly are, but rather serves to indicate that the claim to naturalism that they deploy is part in parcel to that violence, and in many cases is the operational logic for said violence (Butler 464). This specific biological project, the compression of the body to be strictly organized around sex, is a process of collapsing the virtual potentialities of the molecular to an ontology and thus a violent attack on life itself. Describing this process, Luciana Parisi brilliantly says this “model of representation does not entail the exact reflection of reality or truth, but is more crucially used to refer to a system of organization of signs where structures of meaning arrange … through the hierarchies of the signifier. The model of representation reduces all differences … to the universal order of linguistic signification constituted by binary oppositions where on term negates the existence of the other” (9). In this sense, it’s clear that the process for which biology embarks upon, the inducing of the body into the semiotic realm vis a vis a sexing, is one that is fundamentally violent, the question then becomes what this conception of sex looks like.

While Susan Stryker’s seminal “Transgender History” is incredibly important for a variety of reasons, it does reinvest within the biologization of sex and in doing so inadvertently is able to reveal the particular conception of sex biology deploys. This reinvestment on the part of Stryker’s when talking about the division between gender and sex, which as Parisi reminds us, are not two distinct entities but rather co-constitutive forces utilized to forward a signified (and thus violent) conception of the body (50). Stryker says “Sex is not the same as gender … the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. Sex refers to reproductive capacity or potential … Sperm producers are said to be that of the male sex, and egg producers are said to be of the female sex” (8). This reveals pretty plainly the specific conception of sex biology deploys as constitutive of the body, one at which is predicated on the idea of static genital expression (penis and vagina), sexual dimorphism, and reproduction. In short, this construction of sex seeks to justify its reduction of genital life to the signifiers of penis and vagina, and the consequential construction of those two signifiers as dimorphic under the banner that sex has solely do to with ‘species’ reproduction. This a-priori association between sex and reproduction is independently violent in of itself in that not only does it constitute the body as a stabilized organism, thereby creating the subject to be disciplined by biopower, but explicitly works towards the overkill of intersex folks (Parisi 35). To elaborate, given the way in which intersex bodies are ones that exist outside of the signifiers of penis and vagina, and the association between sex and reproduction seeks to elevate said signifiers as the only way in which bodies can materialize, it means that intersex people are literally eradicated from existence. To return to the earlier Parisi quote, this semiotic refrain seeks to negate the existence of the other by creating a regime of meaning (in this case what genitals ‘are’) that always already frames them out (9). This is a violence that can once again be seen in Stryker in that she positions sex as the two dialectical positions of male and female ‘sex organs’ that “cannot be changed” (8).

The sexing of the body, through a process of life’s capture within the referent of biology, is not only violent in this sense, but also due to the fact that it is the priming logics used to gender bodies. Logics that gender bodies in such a way that necessitate colonialist, transphobic, and through its production of compulsory heterosexuality, heteronormative violence. Briefly stepping away from the question of biological sexing, it’s important to understand just what Gender is and thus how said sexing paves the way for it to deploy itself. To be clear, when I say that Gender is inherently a violent structure I do not mean to say that gender identity in the abstract is bad. Rather, I mean to articulate the way in which a dominant conception of Gender has been created, deployed, and enforced in such a way that it forces people into specific gender identities that they did not determine. Thus when we critique and call for the abolishment of capital G Gender, that does not mean the eradication of gender identities that exist outside of said paradigm like the Hijra, Two-Spirit, Fa’afafine, etc but rather for the destruction of the system that makes said identities unintelligible. In this sense then, Gender refers to the structure of gender that has been semiotized as the end all be all of what gender could mean, and because of that, the a-priori script for which bodies can exist (nokizaru 6).

This specific structure of Gender was one that was explicitly deployed, and still is, as a tool of the settler colonial project of the land mass we know as the ‘Americas’ and ‘Canada’ (nokizaru 4). To elaborate, not only was this conception of gender one that was almost exclusively a European, and specifically Christian, understanding of how gender operates but it was purposefully forcefully deployed onto indigenous nations in now settler colonial states as a way to engage in the settler colonial project of indigenous eradication (nokizaru 5). This was done due to the fact that a vast majority of indigenous nations not only structured their socialites in non-patriarchal makeups, but specifically had conceptions of gender that did not at all correlate to the European model (Lugones 25). Thus, Gender functions through the production of two gendered subjectivities (man and women), the hegemonic correlation of those subjectivities to particular genitalia, and in doing so, constituting the ontology of those who possess said genitalia. In this sense, Gender could be thought of as operating through what Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari call the ‘faciality machine.’ The faciality machine refers to a particular construction of how subjectivity comes about, or subjectification, in which subjectivity becomes exclusively defined by static characteristics (168). In this sense then, “faciality … ends up excavating a binarist figure-ground referent as the support of the universal … statements. All flows and objects must be related to a subjective totalization” and thus works in service as a weapon of reactionary violence (Guattari 76). In the context of Gender, the faciality machine works in service of signifying penises as men, vaginas as woman, thereby injecting said gendered subjectivities into said genitalia and then making that subjectivity constitutive of the body who its signifying. In this sense, Gender will always already be not only transphobic, because of its coercively assigning bodies at birth and obliteration of non-binary trans folks, but also exclusively utilized to eradicate indigenous populations all over the globe.

The sexing of the body becomes the precursor to this process of Gender because it constitutes the stage, i.e. the compression of genital life into a static expression, for which the subjectification of Gender necessitates. To elaborate, the idea that bodies are born with either male or female sex organs is the necessary first step for gendered subjectificaton, on the part of Gender, to even happen in the first place. Due to the fact that this subjectification is premised off of the injection of a gendered subjectivity (man or woman) into specific genitals, and then facializing that as a bodies white wall, that becomes incoherent if there is not first a static construction of what genitals are (i.e. either penises or vaginas) for which the sexing of the body is able to provide. In this sense then, the sexing of the body provides the necessary first step for the internal logics of Gender to deploy themselves. A logic that forms the basis for all transphobic violence to dispense itself; coercively assigning bodies genders at birth. What I mean by this is that due to the fact that Gender reproduces itself through a claim that it operates as the a-priori, or ‘natural,’ screen for which all bodies pass through it means that it needs to deploy some sort of constitutive claim onto every single body that passes through its systems. The way in which Gender does this, through a multitude of different apparatuses but most chiefly the medical industrial complex and the police, is through retroactively gendering fetuses in the womb and then once they are born. This process is necessarily coercive because bodies have no choice in whether they are gendered or not, they simply are forcibly shoved into a subjectivity of man or woman by virtue of existing and/or not existing with a particular genital makeup. This process is not only violent in the abstract because, as nila nokizaru articulates “Gender benefits those who want to control, socialize, and manage us and offers us nothing in return. Every time a person is scrutinized and gendered, society has attacked them, waged war on them,” but also because it forms the basis for which all transphobic violence is able to justify itself (4). This project is what is able to frame trans folks as abominations in the face of Gender, because they refuse said process of coercive assignment, and thus are justified in violence being taken against them to sustain the internal logics of Gender’s expression. As previously mentioned the way in which this gendering operates is through the faciality machine, you are born with a penis and thus you are a man and will always be a man. This process becomes incoherent if there is no sexing of the body that stabilizes the genital signifiers that Gender requires to inject its subjectivity into.

Compulsory Heterosexuality

I ultimately contend that not only is this process of biologizing life violent, and just frankly incorrect, for all of the reasons listened above but also that through its justification for Gender, creates the conditions for what Adrienne Rich calls ‘compulsory heterosexuality.’ It does this because, if Rich is right that compulsory heterosexuality is a regime that is first and foremost structured through the gendered relations of man and women, which I think she is, then the creation of the system of Gender that provides coherence for said gendered relations is necessary (633). To elaborate, if we understand ‘sexuality’ to describe a specific taxonomy of desire that orients bodies towards politically constructed forms of relations, then sexuality requires an object for which it is oriented towards (Puar 30). It requires such a complete object because, like Rich articulates, the primary way in which sexuality comes to be understood is through the psychoanalytic frame of Oedipalization (especially compulsory heterosexuality) (638). It requires this because the Oedipal understanding of desire articulates that the direction of desire is always attached to a complete, or determinate, object, which in the context of desire being trapped within the sexuality referent of compulsory heterosexuality looks like desire being oriented towards gendered bodies (Nigianni 170).

If compulsory heterosexuality functions as not only a force of heteronormativity, but more specifically as both a re-justification of male dominance over those who have been disciplined into womanhood it means that Gender is an integral part of compulsory heterosexuality’s formation (Rich 640). This means that absent the biologization of life that paves the way for which the project of Gender is able to gain coherence compulsory heterosexuality is not able to dispense its violence because it does not have any desiring orientation for its sexual taxonomy, and more importantly, does not have a class for which its violence is directed at (womanhood). Additionally, compulsory heterosexuality is first and foremost concerned about reproduction, i.e. due to the fact that women are semiotized as only ever having vagina’s, the fact that lesbian sex under this paradigm cannot ‘give birth’ is one of the justifications used to forward cis lesbian’s marginalization (Rich 637). In this sense compulsory heterosexuality should not only be thought of as a system that dispenses solely heteronormative, misogynistic, or lesbophobic violence but transphobic violence as well. Compulsory heterosexuality, in its predication on the project of Gender, forwards the sex-reproduction association and thus the constitution of womanhood and manhood based on imagined dimorphic genitalia. This is important not only because it reveals a dimension of compulsory heterosexual’s violence that is oft ignored, but also because it reveals the necessity of the sexed body in the figuration and production of the multitude of structures that dispense compulsory heterosexuality. Not only does compulsory heterosexuality require some figuration of gender, to become the object of its structured desiring orientation, but it specifically requires the Gender that is produced by the sexed body because of its interpolation of bodies as having an intrinsic sex-reproduction connection.

Conclusion

“Gender is a war against all of us, and for those who desire freedom, nothing short of the total eradication of gender will suffice” (nokizaru 7). We must turn against Gender not only because of its foundational violence(s), but also because in a time in which Rich’s theories are once again gaining prominence. To be clear I think this recovery is important, Rich was right to identify compulsory heterosexuality (among a multitude of other things) as a central vector of violence, but we can never dismantle said violence if we do not recognize that Gender is part in parcel to said vector. If we do not orient our revolutionary politics against compulsory heterosexuality to also be Gender abolitionist it means we will always fail to truly deconstruct the violence of compulsory heterosexuality, and specifically, a re-deployment of violence against trans people (specifically trans women) under the guise of feminism. This move is not only reactionarliy violent in the sense that it is rabidly transmisogynistic but is also a reinvestment within the logics of compulsory heterosexuality through a reformation of Gender, and thus the sexed body. Moves like this are dangerous because they are wear the veneer of revolutionary action as aesthetic while still forwarding the violent material conditions of the status quo, merely allowing for despotic assemblages to rearrange themselves. This could look like Rich forwarding the necessity of deconstructing compulsory heterosexuality while still supporting transmisogynists like Mary Daly, or properly identifying the violence of biologization yet still doubling down on there existing male or female reproductive systems (644). To avoid this, yet still necessarily combating the violence of compulsory heterosexuality, our politics must aim to abolish the structure of Gender entirely. A Gender abolitionism that seeks not only to destroy all of the systems, apparatuses, and enforcers that make Gender a reality, but also a release of life from its domination from biology. This requires not only an affirmation of life as becoming, but a material freeing of life from its fascist constraints under biology and thus an endorsement of life as “the matieral wanderings/wanderings of nothingness … the ongoing thought experiment that the world performs with itself … an endless exploration of all possible couplings of virtual particles, a ‘scene of wild activities’” (Barad 396).

[lgbtqiahistoricalromance]

The Moth and the Moon & The Lions Lies Waiting by Glenn Quigley

- In the summer of 1780, on the tiny island of Merryapple, burly fisherman Robin Shipp lives a simple, quiet life in a bustling harbour town where most of the residents dislike him due to the actions of his father. With a hurricane approaching, he nonetheless convinces the villagers to take shelter in the one place big enough to hold them all—the ancient, labyrinthine tavern named the Moth & Moon. While trapped with his neighbours during the raging storm, Robin inadvertently confronts more than the weather, and the results could change everything.

- Winter, 1780, and the solstice is fast approaching. Four months after the events of The Moth and Moon, burly fisherman Robin Shipp is preparing for his first Midwinter festival with his lover, the handsome baker Edwin Farriner. But when a letter arrives begging for help, they must travel with their friend, Duncan, to Port Knot on sinister Blackrabbit Island for a final confrontation with Edwin’s mother. Also visiting the island are Lady Eva and her wife Iris, with a stunning proposition that could change Robin and Edwin’s lives forever. The snow-covered harbour town of Port Knot is a dangerous place. While there, Robin, Edwin, and Duncan explore the menacing rooftop settlement known as the Roost, mingle with high society in the magnificent splendour of Chase Manor, and uncover a violent conspiracy threatening the island’s entire way of life. Old rivalries will flare, shocking secrets will be revealed, and as Duncan’s scandalous past finally catches up with him, will it ultimately destroy them all? The men will be tested to their limits as they discover that on Blackrabbit Island, the lion lies waiting.

Review

Technically, these are historical fantasy, but there is a considerable amount of romance in both novels, and the third installment is on the way.

The male MCs in the series are in their 40′s and 50′s in age, large in girth, and work in everyman professions. In this world, m/m, f/f, and poly relationships are the norm, and the second novel contains an established f/f marriage that receives considerable attention (and not as a means to just move the m/m narratives along, either).

For those that like intrigue, and political dealings, there is a lot of that as well. The world-building contains just enough of 1700′s Cornwall area to keep the setting well grounded in the reality, while Quigley’s ability to add dashes of clockwork ingenuity and revolutionary espionage, make sure that this is not just your regular fishing village occasionally frequented by pirates.

As an MC, Robin is an adorable alternative to the typical man in romance. He’s nearly as wide as he is tall, less than graceful, warm, supportive of his friends, and loyal. For those that watched Black Sails, Edwin reminded me of the softer sides of Flint, and sense of daring-do is impressive for a man that makes his living by baking.

For those that crave a loving f/f read, Eva and Iris are a great blend of backbone and sweetness, absolutely enamored with one another, and able to carry a sizeable amount of the second novel with their involvement in the island’s affairs.

If you’re looking for a truly original bit of reading, definitely give these novels a try. They contain a bit of everything that draws readers to historical romances, without any of it coming across as old hat. They touch on the treatment of the poor by the rich, mental health issues, and the everyday struggles of living in an area where the weather can change everything, but they do so in a lose-angst manner that makes both novels comfortable reading for a relaxing weekend.

[ultraviolet-techno-ecology]

What do you think of genuine primitivism? As in the one described in John Moore's Primitivist Primer? Feminist, anti-colonial, and otherwise pro-marginalized, just with the belief that civilization and technology should be radically critiqued.

TL;DR - It’s a whole lot of nothing. John Moore spends most of the time presenting information from Zerzan - and others to a lesser extent. Almost all serious questions are resolved with some form of “There is no blueprint!” which isn’t a good enough answer when commentary regarding other topics seems to be lacking in long term considerations. For a more detailed analysis… (Avoiding most of the rehash of Zerzan and others and sticking mostly to Moore’s writing.) —–

“Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as anarcho-primitivism or anarcho-primitivists” […] “Individuals associated with this current do not wish to be adherents of an ideology, merely people who seek to become free individuals in free communities in harmony with one another and with the biosphere, and may therefore refuse to be limited by the term ‘anarcho-primitivist’ or any other ideological tagging.“

The article begins with an excellent example of non-thought. It suggests first and foremost that having a detailed coherent position or ideology automatically some conformist style nonindividual. 

———-

“The aim is to develop a synthesis of primal and contemporary anarchy, a synthesis of the ecologically-focussed, non-statist, anti-authoritarian aspects of primitive lifeways with the most advanced forms of anarchist analysis of power relations. The aim is not to replicate or return to the primitive, merely to see the primitive as a source of inspiration, as exemplifying forms of anarchy.”

We continue by defining the aims of Primitivism in vague academic terms of ideology - and second by what it is apparently not. You are left to fill in your own definitions of things like “Non-Statist” and “Primitive Lifeways” which means this entire sentiment can be read in various radically opposing ways. At no point is anything of material consequence stated.Fascists could easily read the above paragraph as an invitation for a new form of “Blood and Soil” since they typically mentally juxtapose themselves as the oppressed freedom fighter anyway.

—————-

“From the perspective of anarcho-primitivism, all other forms of radicalism appear as reformist, whether or not they regard themselves as revolutionary. Marxism and classical anarchism, for example, want to take over civilization, rework its structures to some degree, and remove its worst abuses and oppressions. However, 99% of life in civilization remains unchanged in their future scenarios, precisely because the aspects of civilization they question are minimal.“

If you see 99% of life as remaining the same after the removal of Capitalism, what exactly are you defining as 99% of life? Anticapitalist revolution implies work, housing, food & diet, healthcare, technology, community, schedules, life events, goods, tools, transportation, relationships both interpersonal and environmental, etc - are all being radically transformed. WHAT IS THE REMAINING 99% OF LIFE? THE FACT THAT I SLEEP IN A BED? 

———–

“Radical ideologies on the Left seek to capture power, not abolish it. Hence, they develop various kinds of exclusive groups - cadres, political parties, consciousness-raising groups - in order to win converts and plan strategies for gaining control. Organizations, for anarcho-primitivists, are just rackets, gangs for putting a particular ideology in power. Politics, ‘the art and science of      government,’ is not part of the primitivist project; only a politics of desire, pleasure, mutuality and radical freedom.“

Short of claiming - absurdly - that Anarchist groups like Food Not Bombs are somehow conspiring to take over the government - I really see no reading of this paragraph that isn’t simply an appeal to long wolf actors and a dismissal of solidarity on a conceptual level. The “Politics of desire, pleasure” does nothing to challenge the image of primitivists as white people looking to have forest orgies.

———–

“Technology is the sum of mediations between us and the natural world and the sum of those separations mediating us from each other.“I’m no philosopher, but I think you will find that “consciousness” is being described here better than Technology.  

——–

“What about medicine?Ultimately, anarcho-primitivism is all about healing - healing the rifts that have opened up within individuals, between people, and between people and nature, the rifts that have opened up through civilization, through power, including the State, Capital, and technology. The German philosopher Nietzsche said that pain, and the way it is dealt with, should be at the heart of any free society, and in this respect, he is right. Individuals, communities and the Earth itself have      been maimed to one degree or another by the power relations characteristic of civilization. People have been psychologically maimed but also physically assaulted by illness and disease. This isn’t to suggest that anarcho-primitivism can abolish pain, illness and disease! However, research has revealed that many diseases are the results of civilized living conditions, and if these conditions were abolished, then certain types of pain, illness and disease could disappear.“

This is exactly what people are referring to when we describe Primitivism as a lethal ideology. My genetic eye disorder isn’t going to be cured by societal transformations - it’s just going to leave me suffering the consequences of blindness. The diseases nearly eliminated by vaccines are not going to just stay away because we changed society. This entire paragraph is profoundly suggestive of able-bodied privilege beyond parody. 

———-

“Animals as well as human communities in the state of nature do not proliferate their own kind to the point of pushing all others off the field.’ So there’s really no reason to suppose that human population shouldn’t stabilize once Leviathanic social relations are abolished and communitarian harmony is restored.”

This is factually wrong. Prey animals without adequate predator populations DO reproduce to destructive degrees. Humans are able to populate the way they do because we have no regular threat of predation - and because we have access to modern medicine. While I could point to things like the Wisconsin Whitetail population as evidence of destructive breeding - it would be easy to attribute that to other phenomena. Instead might I point toward the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone (Link) which resulted in increased biodiversity since local prey population was no longer dangerously inflated. This is once again inadvertently suggesting that Humans need to die in large numbers to create a better society. 

[xtruss]

“Critical Race Theory” Is Being Weaponised. What’s The Fuss About? America’s Culture War Is Raging In Education

— July 14th 2022 | United States | Schools For Scandal | The Economist

“It’s like a bomb went off,” says Christopher Rufo. Mr Rufo himself helped light the fuse. After George Floyd’s murder in May 2020, discussions about racism spread throughout schools, he says. Mr Rufo labelled those discussions “critical race theory” (crt). Controversy around crt has continued to grow—recently expanding beyond race to matters of sex and gender.

With the help of Mr Rufo, now a director of an “initiative” on crt at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, critical race theory, once an obscure academic topic, became a prominent Republican issue in a matter of weeks. Mr Rufo appeared on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson show in September 2020. “It is absolutely astonishing how critical race theory has pervaded every institution in the federal government,” he said, and was being “weaponised against the American people”. He implored President Donald Trump to issue an executive order banning crt. “All Americans should be deeply worried about their country.”

Suddenly the little-known theory was on the lips of conservative pundits and politicians across the country. Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist, saw the impact in focus groups. A journalist from the Wall Street Journal called to ask about crt when it was just starting to percolate, she recalls, but she had not heard anything about it. Then, during the next focus group, “it was all anybody talked about”.

Forty-two states have introduced bills or taken other actions to limit crt in classrooms; 17 have restricted it. North Dakota passed its law in five days. School-board meetings have become ferocious. Protesters claim that children are being forced to see everything through the lens of race. The Manhattan Institute now supplies a guide for parents fighting against “woke schooling”, and the Goldwater Institute, another conservative think-tank, provides model legislation. Banning crt in schools was a core part of Glenn Youngkin’s gubernatorial campaign in Virginia last year, and may have helped him win.

“And I see this really wild racially segregated, very aggressive, very Maoist training documents…” — Christopher Rufo

Understanding what all the fuss is about requires answers to three questions. What is crt? How widespread is its teaching in schools? And, third, to the extent that it is taught, is this good or bad?

The origins of crt go back to the 1970s. The legal theory stressed the role of “structural” racism (embedded in systems, laws and policies, rather than the individual sort) in maintaining inequality. Take schooling. Brown v Board of Education required schools to desegregate with “deliberate speed” nearly seven decades ago. Yet despite accounting for less than half of all pupils in public schools overall, 79% of white pupils attend a majority-white school today.

Progressives stretched the scope of crt before conservatives did. The theory has spread into concepts like “critical whiteness studies”: read “White Fragility”, by Robin DiAngelo, and you might think white people can hardly do anything about racism without inadvertently causing harm to non-whites. Two years ago this newspaper described the way crt has evolved to see racism embedded in everything as “illiberal, even revolutionary”.

Now Republicans have co-opted crt, also enlarging it to embody far more than its original intent. Mr Rufo brandished it to attack diversity training. “Anti-crt” bills have spread to other topics. “Critical race theory is their own term, but they made a monumental mistake,” says Mr Rufo, “when they branded it with those words.” He proudly recounts how he has used the language as “a political battering ram, to break open the debate on these issues”.

The issues have certainly gained ground. In April Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed hb7, known as the “Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (woke) Act”. The clamps down on the hiring of “woke crt consultants” in schools and universities, and crt training in companies. In June Florida’s education board banned teaching crt and the 1619 Project, a set of essays published by the New York Times that puts slavery at the centre of the American story. The same month a bill in Texas was sold by its governor, Greg Abbott, as “a strong move to abolish critical race theory in Texas”. It bans the 1619 Project and discussions of several race- and sex-related topics in schools.

The anti-crt movement has also begun to worry about the way schools teach gender and sexuality. This includes claims that educators are encouraging children to change their genders. A month before the Stop woke Act, Mr DeSantis signed the “Parental Rights in Education” law, which critics call “Don’t Say Gay”. It prevents discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Mr DeSantis claims both bills prevent “woke” ideology in schools.

More recently, social-emotional learning (lessons aiming to teach pupils non-cognitive skills such as managing emotions and being self-aware) has also been in the firing line. Some claim these lessons are used to indoctrinate pupils with crt.

In other words “crt”, to its opponents, has become code for any action that centres on the experiences of the disadvantaged (including non-white, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people) at work or school. Opponents claim that pupils are being taught that white children are inherently racist, and that white pupils should feel anguish about their skin colour because of their ancestors’ actions. Another complaint is that pupils are being taught to hate America: that by emphasising the arrival of the first slave ship as the true founding moment of America in 1619, rather than in 1776 (as the 1619 Project does), crt-type curriculums focus on America’s faults rather than its exceptionalism.

Is this stuff actually being taught in schools? Some say it’s all a figment of Republican imagination, and call it a witch hunt. “#CriticalRaceTheory is not taught in K-12 schools”, tweeted Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (aft), a labour union, a year ago. Yet it so happens that both the aft and the National Education Association, America’s largest labour union, have announced support for teaching crt in public schools.

Whether framed as crt or not, educators are incorporating progressive ideas about race, gender and more into the classroom, not least in response to changing demography. In 2000, white pupils were 61% of the public-school population. Now they are 46%. (About 90% of American children attend public schools.) A study from the University of California, Los Angeles (ucla), found that the strongest predictor of whether a district had an anti-crt policy was whether it had experienced a large decrease in white pupil enrolment (10% or more) over the past 20 years. Schools are changing, and so is the discourse within them.

Amy Bean of Scottsdale, Arizona, felt lied to when her principal told her that crt was not taught in her child’s classroom. It was right there in the book, “Front Desk” by Kelly Yang, that her nine-year-old had been assigned. The book focuses on a ten-year-old girl, Mia, whose parents immigrated to America from China, and work and live in a motel. In one chapter, a car is stolen from the motel. Mr Yao, the Asian motel owner, assumes a black person committed the crime. “Any idiot knows—black people are dangerous,” he says. When the police arrive, they interrogate Hank, a black customer, but not others. Later Mia asks Hank about this. “Guess I’m just used to it. This kind of thing happens to me all the time,” he says. “To all black people in this country.”

This passage was not explicitly about critical race theory, but it was clearly about racism and plants a seed about racial inequality. Ms Bean, a self-described conservative, was upset when the principal denied crt’s existence in her daughter’s classroom. She would have liked the opportunity to talk to her daughter about it first or debrief her afterwards, she explains.

Some progressive policies have clearly gone too far. San Francisco’s school board is a notable example. Rather than striving to get children back into schools during the pandemic, it fretted about renaming 44 schools named after figures linked to historical racism or oppression. The list included Abraham Lincoln. Voters fired three members of the board.

There have been other perplexing cases. In 2017 a parent in North Carolina accused a teacher of asking white students to stand up and apologise for their privilege. This was never proved. More recently, public schools in Buffalo, New York, found themselves in a controversy over their Black Lives Matter curriculum. Some say it is anti-white. Others say that the quotes from the curriculum were taken out of context.

Research and polling suggest that crt, as defined by conservatives, has indeed spread, but is not as pervasive as critics fear. A media analysis by ucla found that 894 districts (representing about 35% of all pupils) experienced a conflict over crt between autumn 2020 and summer 2021. According to a poll by The Economist and YouGov in February, most people do not think crt is being taught in their local schools. Among those asked, 45% claim to know what crt is, and 25% of total respondents have a negative opinion of it. But only 21% think children in their community are being taught it: 14% of Democrats thought so, and 35% of Republicans.

While progressivism may be increasing its reach within schools, crt has hardly permeated state-sanctioned curriculums. American history textbooks are still mostly focused on the accomplishments of white men, says Patricia Bromley, a professor of education at Stanford University who analysed thousands of textbook pages. Recently Florida’s department of education rejected more than 50 maths textbooks (about 40% of those submitted for review) that the state claimed contained crt or the like. Follow-up investigations found little mention of race or crt in them. Curriculums have also grown less political. State standards have become more neutral over time, says Jeremy Stern, a historian at the Fordham Institute, an education think-tank.

What is really happening in schools, then? Largely an increase in availability of one-off courses on racism that pupils can elect to take. Seventeen states have increased teaching about racism and related topics through legislation. Many states insist that African-American or local indigenous history should be taught in schools, though pupils are not required to enrol. Connecticut (where 50% of public-school pupils are non-white) will require its high schools to offer African-American, Puerto Rican and Latino studies from this autumn. The 1619 Project is being taught in many districts despite outright bans in some states. Some changes, however, are mandatory. New Jersey and Washington passed laws last year requiring diversity-and-inclusion classes for pupils or training for staff—the kind of thing that critics see as vehicles for crt.

California is the first state to mandate an ethnic-studies course, beginning with the high-school graduating class of 2029-30. The history course features the experiences of non-white communities (78% of California’s public-school pupils identify as non-white). Two Stanford University studies found that the pilot programme in San Francisco improved attendance and graduation rates for Hispanic and Asian low-achieving pupils. The statewide programme has faced its fair share of controversy. Some Jewish groups felt that it did not focus enough on the Jewish experience or the realities of anti-Semitism. A revised version attempts to plug those gaps. Whether the programme can be successfully adopted statewide is unclear.

“…since much of what has been packaged as Critical Race Theory is not reflective of that or even interested in it.” — Kimberlé Crenshaw

Is bringing such issues into the classroom a good or bad thing? Americans’ response, as on so much else these days, is polarised. The Understanding America Study, a nationally representative survey by the University of Southern California, found that a majority of Democratic parents said it was important for children to learn about racism (88%), but less than half of Republican parents did (45%).

Many of the schemes described as crt by conservatives (ethnic studies, social-emotional learning) were implemented so that pupils would feel represented in school. Black, Hispanic, Native American and some Asian pupils underperform overall compared with their white peers. These pupils form more than half of public-school enrolment in America.

California’s ethnic-studies programme is one example of how learning about one’s own ethnic history can improve pupil achievement. A study from the University of Arizona also found that participation in a Mexican-American history course was associated with higher standardised-test scores and increased likelihood of high-school graduation. Some researchers and educators consider coursework of this sort to be a key component for improving academic achievement.

If this flavour of crt is beneficial, many pupils will never have a chance to find out. Anti-crt laws have stoked much anxiety. Matthew Hawn, a white high-school teacher in rural Tennessee, was fired for showing a video about white privilege and assigning an essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a writer on race relations, to his majority-white pupils. James Whitfield, a black high-school principal outside Dallas, Texas, resigned after being accused of “teaching crt”. (He sent an email offering his school community support after George Floyd’s murder and took part in diversity training.) Some educators fear accidentally defying the law: the language is often vague and the consequences are severe. Punishments can include dismissal, fines or revocation of state funding for schools or districts, and potential lawsuits.

Not all school districts are concerned, though. “Urban districts are not feeling the heat,” says Michael Hinojosa, superintendent of Dallas’s school district in Texas, which is mostly black and Hispanic. “When you get out to the suburbs, that’s where a lot of the vitriol is.”

Many parents of school-age children today attended school in the 1980s and 90s when white pupils were the majority and diversity was less discussed. America has a history of responding poorly to social change in schools. Desegregation in the 1950s and 60s led to violent protests, as did busing—to bring black pupils to white schools—in the 1970s. In 1978, at the time of a growing gay-rights movement, a ballot initiative in California tried (but failed) to ban gay and lesbian teachers.

The crt battles could be the latest iteration. And although schools may be majority non-white, voters are older and whiter. The Economist/YouGov polling found that, though Democrats of all ages largely favour crt as a concept, the vast majority of older Republicans and independents dislike it.

Some conservatives see opposition to crt as a way to galvanise support for “school choice”, a policy that allows public money to fund pupils in other public or private schools. The culture wars “could be extremely helpful for promoting school choice”, says the website of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. Advocates of school choice say it improves options, especially for non-white pupils who often attend under-resourced and under-performing schools. Others claim that school choice is really about racial segregation. The anti-crt movement is about dismantling public schools, says Kimberle Crenshaw, one of the foundational scholars of crt as a legal theory.

The campaign against crt has turned out to be remarkably sticky. “It is putting a name or acronym on a broad set of ambiguous anxieties around changing conversations on race, gender, woke,” says Ms Longwell, drawing conclusions from her focus groups. “crt has become a catch-all for that.”

— Sources: The Economist

[antonseverus]

@imgoingtocurnyscho​

TL;DR: I was always fond of Justin but it wasn’t until his traitorous reveal that he became my fav.

I was here when Justin was first introduced and the general feel was that most of the fandom was uneasy around him, which always influences my opinion on a character in the opposite direction. It’s a personal instinct to dig through the dislike into something that’s interesting, and from the very get-go, I appreciated how professional Justin was. He was charming, slightly geeky, and just overall took everything the MC threw at him whether it was perfectly complying with his advice or blatantly ignoring it and making a fool out of herself in the media.

[[more]]

I think the moment I really liked him was at the end of TRR Book 2 when Justin really pushes for Tariq’s confession to hit the press right away. Immediately, Bertrand, Maxwell, Hana, and Drake take the opposing side and encouraged the opportunity to talk to Madeleine and Liam as a courtesy before releasing Tariq’s statement. It was the first time Justin’s advice seemed to border on ‘cold’, and the frustration he briefly expresses if you decide against it was fascinating. 

I went through with his advice and the wicked delight he took in the nobility’s faces when confronted with Riley’s innocence was also interesting. Finally, the perfect PR agent was showing some cracks. He was like the more cruel best friend I wanted instead of goofy Maxwell and perfect Hana. But he’s just doing his job, so I always understood that any advice and “bond” he may have with Riley is from a career stance. 

Replaying the book, PB was very purposeful with keeping Justin a pro (in glaring contrast to the experience we have with Maxwell in Book 1), minimizing his extended time with Riley and having the one-on-one times focused on Riley’s objectives. We get one chance to flirt with him, and it’s the very first time we meet him ( “You can manhandle me anytime.”). He easily shrugs it off and compliments her charm. What a fuckin’ professional!

With his reveal as a traitor? Holy shit. Was it a surprise to me? Yeah. I thought it was just Lucretia.

Stage 1: Most of the fandom doesn’t care about this character. I’ll like him!

Stage 2: Oh, he has some slight depth under that professionalism? Love it.

Stage 3: He’s fucking evil? Ulterior motives? AND he keeps his somewhat charismatic approach when confronting Riley in the vault to kill her, briefly expressing some sorrow that it has to end with him shooting her? I’m in love?

Bonus: Anton and Olivia’s first words to each other are:

This is like my favorite scene. They’re married. Anton knows that’s his wife and he’s still like... I dunno, terrified of her. There’s something hilarious in how “Justin” behaves around Olivia. It’s such a genuine character Anton has built for years.

I’m a fan of “the mask and you becoming one and the same” trope. I really think Anton and Justin have melded together. If Anton was an angry kid growing up under his father’s revolutionary teachings, and Justin is a persona crafted to schmooze his way around nobles and learn their dark secrets, I’m excited to see what Anton’s personality really is. I don’t want ALL of Justin’s charm and geekiness to evaporate. I don’t think it will, especially when Riley says “I put up with your stupid catchphrase for this?!” and Anton, while holding a gun pointed at her, casually says, “Hey, I’m gonna trademark that one day.”

He’s so funny. He’s so dry. I want to see more of that! There’s a lot of question marks surrounding this guy I thought I had figured out, which just fuels my initial fondness for him.

And I think... he believes he’s doing the right thing.

The videos the Sons of Earth have put out have valid points. They call out the royal family for their corruption and Liam’s weakness as a ruler. I dunno. Maybe we’re skipping a lot of the politics to keep things “fun” in the game, but I don’t think Liam going on a hundred Tours and dedicating most of his time to sleeping with Riley is going to be a great legacy. He doesn’t even want to be King.

But Anton does. I hope, however misguided his intentions are, it’s shown that he really just wants to lead Cordonia out of some stupid tourist spot and expand international outreach by getting rid of the current royal family just taking care of each other and those fucking apples. The Sons of Earth have inadvertently killed Constantine, attempted to murder Liam and Riley (who has proven herself to be more dangerous than I think Anton suspected, what with her popularity skyrocketing and rallying the country against him), but other than that, there aren’t any casualties. For staging a coup, they’re pretty well restrained in not needlessly taking lives. No takeover is ever going to be a peaceful negotiation.

Anton’s the only thing keeping this third book interesting. 

Where I want the story to go: Anton wins and does a phenomenal job with expansion and trade and international policies that don’t keep Cordonia a shitty little tourist island with a fondness for the world’s shittiest apple (with Olivia who finally gets over Liam omg and is a great Queen who focuses on Cordonia and everyone loves her and she bickers with Anton all the time but they get along eventually) and Liam & the crew have a happy life somewhere else.

Where it’s probably gonna go: Anton gets close to winning but is arrested and has a meltdown and we focus on decorating a boring wedding. Olivia marries Liam maybe if you’re not romancing him?

Of course, Classic Pixelberry can pull a fast one on me and dump all of Anton’s careful characterization out the window and just go “Yeah, Anton is power-mad and wants to kill everyone and waste all of the country’s money because he’s evil.” That would suck, in addition to not making any sense.

This is incredibly long but I love Anton so much. The potential is there. I have more screenshots and meta shit at @kingantonseverus but I think I’ll cut it here. Thank you for asking! I’m sure you weren’t expecting a novel to read but if you’re ever interested in talking more on Anton or the other Books, I’d like to!!

[esprit-de-corps-magazine]

ON TARGET: Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752: Remembering the Victims

By Scott Taylor

Last week the Iranian government announced that it has established a fund to compensate those families who lost a loved one in the Ukrainian International Airline’s Flight 752 tragedy.

It was on January 8, 2020 that Flight 752 was blown out of the sky shortly after it had taken off from the Tehran airport. All 167 passengers and 9 crew members aboard the Boeing 737 were killed and that grisly total included 57 Canadians. In the initial aftermath, the Iranian regime attempted to deny responsibility for the tragedy. 

At that juncture tensions between Washington and Tehran were at the boiling point. Five days earlier President Donald Trump had ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani through a drone missile strike outside the airport in Baghdad, Iraq. In response to this killing, Iranian backed militia fired over two dozen rockets into bases in Iraq that contained US military personnel. Regional tensions were at the breaking point.

However, before the Iranians could conjure up enough fog-of-war to create some plausible doubt, amateur video footage was released depicting what clearly seemed to indicate that the Ukrainian airliner was hit by a ground-to-air missile. With this new evidence in the public domain, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shamefacedly admitted that they had inadvertently downed the aircraft. It was in their words a terrible tragedy based on “human error”.

Now, just prior to the one year anniversary of the incident the Iranians have tabled their final report in the inquiry into this tragic incident. Apparently there was actually two acts of human error that night as Flight 752 was actually struck twice.  Following the first missile strike the aircraft engines were still functioning and the pilots retained control of the plane. However when a second missile hit 25 seconds later, the airliner was destroyed in mid-air.

The Canadian connection to this incident is both deep and challenging at the same time. In addition to the 57 Canadian citizens, there were also 29 Iranian-Canadian permanent residents on board that doomed flight. Over three quarters of the passengers on Flight 752 were booked through Kiev on a connecting flight to Toronto. 

One of the biggest stumbling blocks out of the gate was the fact that Iran does not recognize the status of dual citizenship. Iranians are allowed to hold foreign passports, but inside Iran they are only deemed to be Iranians. Thus the initial media reports from Tehran only acknowledged that a handful of Canadians had been killed and that nearly all the victims were in fact Iranians.

Added to this equation is the fact that Canada severed all diplomatic ties with Iran back in 2012 and the fact that Canada has been one of the staunchest allies of the United States' ‘maximum pressure’ policy of trade sanctions against the Tehran regime.

However, in announcing the compensation payments wherein Iran will offer $150,000 (US) to each of the victims’ families, the Tehran regime made it clear that the citizenship status of the individuals will not be a factor. In an official statement from the Iranian President’s office, it was acknowledged that paying this compensation “will not eliminate all of the pain and suffering caused by this incident, [but] we hope it will remind [people] of [Iran’s] commitment to safeguarding the rights of all people and respecting humans.”

Canada’s Foreign Minister, Francois-Phillipe Champagne is not seemingly accepting of Iran’s attempts at contrition and appeasement. In a statement last December Champagne said he was not buying into the ‘human error’ excuse and, without offering any alternative theories, simply told the media “we’ll let the process unfold.” 

Almost immediately the Iranians denounced Champagne’s comments as being “unacceptable…completely political and anti-judicial.”

For the record, I have yet to hear of any other plausible theory wherein Iranian troops blast a Ukrainian airliner, full of Iranian citizens, over their own capital, other than it was a massive blunder. So I must admit that I am not exactly sure where Champagne is going with his veiled claim that this was an intentional act of mass murder. 

At the time of the incident, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered all of the Canadian victims’ families a $25,000 payment to help offset funeral costs. Whether or not Iran recognizes dual-citizenship, the important thing is that Canada does. This was very much a Canadian tragedy and must be commemorated as such.

[dailybestiary]

Nemhain

Named after an Irish war goddess, the nemhain (pronounced “NAY-wuhn,” because Irish spelling is the world’s greatest exercise in trolling) is an undead creature who is interesting on a number of levels:

1) The nemhain chose to become undead—Bestiary 5 says “as a means of protecting a person, object, place, or ideal.”  That’s automatically interesting to me—committing yourself (and your loved ones; see below) to eternal unlife to protect something is devotion/fanaticism on a grand scale.  You don't do that just to guard treasure in a 10’x10’ room…but you might for a holy (or unholy) relic, a political movement, a beloved hero, etc.  Every nemhain once made a choice, and that means every nemhain has a story…perhaps one that your PCs would be wise to ferret out.

2) The nemhain is surrounded by a cloud of bound spirits—usually the spirits of her relatives or friends.  I love this because it recalls one of my favorite undead of all time, the gray philosopher (from the Creature Catalogue and the Monstrous Compendium: Mystara Appendix), whose malevolent thoughts took shape as wispy spirits called malices.  I also love it for the pure horror of this scenario—B5 makes it clear that these souls were usually unaware that they would be drawn into the nemhain-to-be’s self-sacrifice.  It’s one thing to consign yourself to eternity; it’s quite another to bring the local PTA along with you.  And speaking of which…

3) Some nemhains start out good—but they all become evil.  No matter how pure a nemhain-to-be’s motives, the vileness of undeath and the violation inherent in harvesting the souls of her loved ones seals her fate.  So the nemhain is at best a tragic figure whose single-mindedness damned both herself and those around her.  At worst, she’s an abomination willing to sacrifice anything—and anyone—to her cause.

All in all then, every nemhain is special, every nemhain has an interesting story, and every nemhain is deadly (CR 15) at the gaming table.

The pride of elves is dangerous indeed.  When a wild elf soothsayer foretold that the Rose Chamber would be claimed by the dead, the grey elf princess Dharotea swore it should never come to pass.  She promptly closed the borders to the human mage-scholars, the halfling river traders, and especially the dwarf nations and their necromancer-kings.  Even as her self-isolated nation suffered, Dharotea, now queen, never wavered—she would protect the capital, the palace, and its glittering Rose Chamber at any cost.  Finally, to stave off her own death, she performed the Act of Reaping to become a nemhain…inadvertently slaying the rest of the royal court and fulfilling the vision the soothsayer warned of so long ago.

No one expects a bardic college to be deadly—especially not one famous for its jugglers, tumblers, and acrobats.  But the nemhain known as the First Harlequin roams the Laernuin College grounds, and those he selects to perform in his monthly pantomimes must have the ancient forms memorized exactly or be struck down mid-performance.

The worst revolutionaries are the time-traveling ones.  After thwarting a dangerous anarchist—a fiendishly charismatic bard with enough alchemy under his belt to be a literal bomb thrower—adventures discover that he has hatched plots in both the future and the past to undo their hard work. Worse yet, defeating the anarchist’s allies in one time period doesn’t always mean they’re off the game board.  While in their own time the anarchist’s chief lieutenant, Victoria Graves, is too elderly to do more than fund whisper campaigns against them, in the past she is a dashing vigilante, and in the future she is a nemhain determined to see the Scarlet Revolution come to pass.

—Pathfinder Bestiary 5 182

I’ve always wanted to learn Irish (I’m still in touch with my whatever-cousins-however-removed in Carndonagh) but I’m pretty sure I’m 20 years too late for my brain to expand as far as it needs to.  (Hell, I bought a bodhrán in Donegal when I was 17 and I still can't play it, and I’ve been drumming since fourth grade.)

If you’re looking for a fantastic fall-from-grace tale that echoes the nemhain’s, I highly recommend Garth Nix’s Clariel: The Lost Abhorsen, as well as the rest of The Old Kingdom series.