#and doing justice to the complexity of the people who lived and served through it

[ferociouslycreativemystery]

Researching family history for WWII makes for one hell of an emotional roller-coaster

[asgardian--angels]

Izzy Discourse Masterpost

Hey all, given the amount of awful splintering and wank happening in ofmd fandom rn regarding Izzy's death, including the flat-out immature and unacceptable harassment of David Jenkins and Co, I wanted to just make this one all-encompassing post to address the various grievances and complaints I've seen (almost entirely on Twitter). If I've missed anything, please feel free to add on. I'm putting most of this under a read-more for length.

Please be aware, I say all of this as an Izzy fan. I've loved his character since season 1, and while I was sad to see him go, I completely understand and support David & Co's reasons for concluding his arc, and I think it was done respectfully in a way fitting to his character. So let's break down some of the takes I've seen. I am not referencing specific posts or people here, I just want to address the general themes that I keep seeing about why some people are upset.

Izzy's death served no narrative purpose.

Look, this is one that I'm sure fans will debate for the rest of the hiatus. It's completely within your right to disagree with this writing choice, but Izzy's death did serve a narrative purpose in the story that David Jenkins is telling - and he has spoken to this end in several interviews already. I can only summarize here, and fans may find other perspectives in time as well. What we need to remember is that Our Flag Means Death is, at the end of the day, Ed and Stede's love story. That has been made abundantly, explicitly clear. The show has been fantastic at fleshing out the other supporting characters, but that's what they are - supporting characters. They often have their own subplots but ultimately the narrative seeks to move Ed and Stede's story forward and they are tools to spur Ed and Stede's growth or mirror their struggles. Izzy has been a wonderfully complex, multifaceted character but we must remember that all characters are vessels through which stories are told, lessons are imparted, and metaphors are established. He's not a real person who 'deserves' any particular fate. David said he's always intended for Izzy to die at the end of his arc.

Firstly, Izzy (now canonically, through his own dying words) represents part of Blackbeard. He enabled and encouraged Ed's darker side, they were mutually toxic forces to each other. Ed is attempting to cope with and move on from this phase of his life, and like Stede in season 1, set out a free man, unshackled by expectations and loose ends of those he's hurt and been hurt by (though we realize this is an ongoing process that takes time). This lovely gifset sums it up nicely, with Izzy being the Mary parallel, and making s2 mirror s1. Blackbeard is both Ed and Izzy; Ed cannot be free of Blackbeard while Izzy is in his life, and when Izzy is gone he will never truly be Blackbeard again. They are each other's rotting leg!! Yet, they love each other - and David has said that for Ed, this has developed into a mentor and father relationship, and where Ed has previously despised his father figures (his actual father, Hornigold) he does not want to lose Izzy. This time, Izzy brings out Ed, not Blackbeard - and that's where we get the callback to 'there he is', bringing their impact on each other full circle, freeing Ed, getting approval of sorts that he never had, to be soft, to be loved (and there are parallels to Zheng and Auntie here as well that others have made) from that force that drove him to stay in line all this time. David has said in multiple interviews now that he was going for the idea of the mentor/father figure dying and the hero living on and trying to do justice to them.

From Izzy's side, Izzy cannot be free while Edward remains either (Mary cannot find peace while Stede remains). The scar never truly healed, the leg will always be a reminder. At this point the argument becomes 'yes, but why did he have to die? Why not just sail off with the crew of the Revenge?' David has stated that he feels they've done everything they can with, and for, Izzy; he's come leagues from season 1, he's found community, he's found hope, he's found new parts of himself, and he's made good memories. He's found worth outside of what he can be to others. That's more than most pirates could hope for. Where would his character go from there, when the Golden Age of Piracy he belongs to has burned to the ground? Would he stay around and whittle on the Revenge? If he were a real person, yes, that would be lovely, and he'd deserve all the quiet peaceful happiness in the world. But as I explain several points below, he's not interested in being a captain. He's not up for the hard physical labor of regular crew, and he's extremely overqualified for that besides. He has served his narrative purpose, and symbolically, to enter a new age, everything must go. He's connected to the old age of piracy, to the Republic of Pirates, that is now demolished. To him, fighting for what he believes in, for the family he's found, bringing down an army of British twats in the process, is how he should go. It's a pirate's death, and as Izzy's said, he's a pirate - unlike Blackbeard who's succeeding in breaking away from piracy, Izzy never wanted to stop being a pirate, throughout his arc. To me, that's why Izzy remains trapped in the narrative, trapped in history, whereas Ed and Stede will escape history. They leave piracy, and canon, behind, while Izzy was content to remain a pirate and face a pirate's fate.

Burying him on land, right next to Ed and Stede's beach house, shows that his sacrifice was not in vain - they start this new life together, thanks to Izzy's mentorship, his role in their lives that sometimes for worse, sometimes for better, made their love what it was and made their breakaway possible. The new age is built on the foundations of the old age, and is stronger for it.

As we're well aware by now, David tweeted that there's no version of ofmd without Izzy. Whether that's literal or not, symbolically it's true. Izzy's arc of growth affected everyone on the Revenge. Jim fondly remembered fighting for a time when life meant something on that ship; the crew helped give Izzy new meaning in life, and he helped them in return. When he dies, they mourn and have a funeral; that wouldn't have happened under Blackbeard's watch in episode 2. His life meant something to them. He influenced Ed and Stede immensely, and they will take that with them. As David's said, they're all a family, and Izzy was a part of that family, and his loss unites them and brings them closer to continue to fight for that family they've built. It's a tragic, sudden death of someone they've all grown to care for, and that steels their reserve to keep the torch lit. They literally sail off into the sunset to hunt down Ricky to avenge Izzy; he will always be a part of this show. And, of course, with the brief appearance of seagull Buttons, the door is left open for anything.

If this was The Izzy Show, then sure, we'd be content to see him simply engaged in shenanigans every episode. But the plot, and therefore the characters, need to keep moving forward, and Izzy got his growth and development. He got what he needed for his character to have closure, and he served his symbolic narrative purpose in Ed's (and Stede's) story. You may have your own ideas and perspectives, and that's great - that's what fandom is for. But we cannot say his death was pointless when David Jenkins and the writers clearly had a well-defined motive for pushing the narrative in this direction. I actually think the narrative around Ed and Izzy is the most well-developed in the entire show. I for one am so happy we got such an interesting and complex character, and had the brilliant Con O'Neill to portray him.

Izzy's growth & healing arc was rendered pointless by his death.

As this post so eloquently puts it, it's pretty bleak to have the outlook that taking steps to heal and find meaning in life is worthless if it's later lost. Seeking happiness and self-actualization is worthwhile for its own sake; no one knows what's down the road, and we all die eventually. Find meaning in life now. Would you rather have had Izzy not miss with his bullet in ep2? He was given the chance to experience joy, freedom, and hope for the first time in potentially a long time, and when he died he did so with those happy memories. As mentioned, Izzy's death was decided long beforehand given the narrative, and the point of storytelling is to make you feel emotions. We were given impetus to connect and relate to Izzy's character through his process of healing, so when he did die, we felt it keenly. That's how stories work actually! We felt what Ed felt. It moved us. It's not a bad thing that Izzy's arc made him more likeable to fans before his death. It's not a bad thing to lose a beloved character - guess what, it happens constantly in stories - and it's not bad to grieve over it either, but to say that it made his journey pointless is just not true. People saying that Con must be upset that they snatched his character away from him after getting to develop him so much - again I say, would you rather him have died in ep 2 before he had the chance to grow? Or how about in s1, when the crew tried to mutiny? How'd you feel when Stede killed him in his dream, in the very first scene of the season? I think Con's probably glad for the opportunity to have explored this character so much in season 2. Ask him if he thinks it was pointless.

Killing off Izzy was bad for queer rep/burying your gays/"Izzy was the queer heart of the show"

I'm putting 'bury your gays' on the top shelf so people can't use it when it doesn't actually apply. Most of the main cast of characters in this show are queer, and it's a show about pirates with a good amount of violence. Ergo, chances are a queer character will die in the course of Things Happening In Stories. Izzy didn't die because he was queer, and he wasn't the token queer rep. Please turn your attention to the boatloads (literally) of queer characters that are happy and thriving (how about the LuPete wedding immediately afterwards??). As for Izzy being the "queer heart of the show," this is literally the Ed and Stede show. You know, the two queer leads whose queer love the show revolves around, per David Jenkins himself. I'm glad folks connected with and derived joy from Izzy's growth and especially his performance in Calypso's birthday, but he is not the main character of the show. The queer heart of the show is in fact, the entire show, all of their characters and the community & found family they create aboard the Revenge. Not to mention the fan community as well. Izzy was never carrying the show's representation on his back, and frankly that's an absurdly wild take to have (esp when he spent most of s1 actively working against the main queer relationships in the show, attempting to maintain the oppressive status quo of pirate society).

It was bad and irresponsible to have a suicidal character die

Are we forgetting the entire first half of the season where Ed, who was suicidal, kept trying to passively kill himself because he felt he was an unlovable monster, only to be shown that he is in fact loved unconditionally and it gives him the strength to fight for life and triumph against his own self-doubt? The show has spent quite a lot of effort telling viewers that despite feeling damaged or broken you are worthy of love and that you are loved even if it may be hard to see it when you're in a bad place. That you don't need to be fully healed to deserve love and care, and that love and support will help you along your journey. It's incredibly wild to disregard this major plot point and fundamental message of s2 to try and spin this the opposite way for Izzy's character.

Secondly, where are people getting 'Izzy is suicidal' from? Are we going back all the way to episode 2, when he's at his lowest point and fails at his suicide attempt, only to be figuratively reborn after removing the metaphorical rotten leg? By the time of the finale he's shown to be in a good place, thanks to the arc of healing and growth he's gotten, through the support of the Revenge crew and his 'breakup' with Blackbeard allowing him to find his own way in life, realizing he doesn't need a purpose to have value and enjoying his time on the Revenge and the bonds he's made with Stede and the crew. He is, in the words of Ivan, "the most open and available I've ever seen him" by the finale. To take episode 2 as evidence he's suicidal is to erase his whole season of growth, which is an ironic thing to do in the context of these arguments. There's no canon evidence Izzy Hands was suicidal post-'Fun and Games'.

As for 'irresponsible,' once again I say, David Jenkins is not your therapist, he's not 'Dad,' and has no responsibility to tell his story any other way than he intended to tell it. Please find media that gives you what you want or need, and if the death of a fictional character causes you this much distress please seek help. I mean this kindly but seriously.

Killing off Izzy was ableist/bad for disability rep.

I point once again to the rest of the characters, several of which are disabled in varied ways. There are literally multiple other amputee characters specifically. It's not good storytelling to wholly avoid killing off any character that is disabled/queer/poc/female or [insert marginalized group here], especially when a) it makes sense narratively, and b) there's plenty of representation of these groups in the media in question. The answer isn't making such characters invincible and immortal, it's increasing the number of these characters in shows so it's not devastating when some do die in the course of natural storytelling.

OFMD was my comfort show/safe space show, now it's ruined for me

I am not trying to be insensitive here when I say that's a problem that is yours and nobody else's. David Jenkins created this show with a three-season vision and a story in mind, and he is telling that story to the best of his ability the way he wants to. It's already been said that he and the crew did not anticipate the fandom becoming as large and passionate as it has. The plot of the show was never intended to be 'fan service,' and it's ironic that there were people complaining this season that there's been too many fanservice tropes, up until David and the rest of the writers room made a narrative decision they did not like, then the complaints changed to not coddling the fans enough.

We as viewers can derive joy from this show, it can be a comfort to us, it can be important to us. But it was not designed specifically for that purpose, therefore it cannot fail in that respect. We do not have the right to harass writers for not steering the ship in the direction we want - it's their work of art, and we can choose to either come along for the ride or not. It's rare to see creators actually given the chance to tell their story the way they intend (budget cuts aside), so let him do that. He should not cater to fans, or cave and change the story to appease us. Respect his right to create his art, and remember you have the right to create your own. That's what fanfiction is for - write fix-its to your heart's content, but keep these realms separate. David Jenkins and Co hold zero, and I mean zero, responsibility to you. He could not please everyone no matter what he did, it would be fruitless to try, and it would certainly compromise the quality of the story he set out to tell.

You are absolutely allowed to dislike choices made in any show. Curate your media experience. If this show no longer brings you joy, stop watching. But it was never David's purpose nor responsibility to juggle the mental health of millions of fans. Trying to put that on him will only make him less enthusiastic about interacting with fans or continuing to make this show. This isn't rocket science. You're responsible for yourself, not this guy you call 'Dad' that you've developed a parasocial-therapist relationship with.

Izzy should have become captain of the Revenge.

Really?? Firstly, we did actually get that already in s1. He was tyrannical and the crew mutinied. But even if you think 'well after his character arc he'd be better suited to it,' it goes against the point of this arc. He's found value in not having a distinct role or purpose on the ship, decoupling his worth from the job he's expected to perform. He's found his place amongst the crew, not commanding it. There's no narrative reason to put him in charge when he's expressed no further interest in slotting himself back into a role full of pressure and expectations.

Con O'Neill was only told halfway through filming, it's cruel to just kill off the character he loves so much.

Guys, he's an actor. More than that, an actor with a theater background. I think he's used to characters dying. You don't need to look out for him. Con and David spoke one on one about it at length so they were on the same page, and David even said that Con took it well. I'm sure Con had input, just as other members of the cast have influenced their characters' stories, costumes, backstories, etc. Do you really think David Jenkins hurt Con's feelings or something? The writers (remember, it's not just David, it's a whole team of hard-working people coming up with these ideas) gave Con such a chance to shine this season, really developing Izzy beyond what he was given in s1 and letting Con show off his full acting range. Why are you only focusing on the destination rather than the journey? Sure, Con's probably sad to see Izzy go, but please do not project your distress onto him or try and accuse David & Co of being 'cruel' to their cast. That's really ridiculous. It's constantly evident how close they all are.

More importantly, do you actually, seriously think that Con O'Neill would want fans to harass each other or the writers over his character? The man who preaches being kind above all? There is no better way to make an actor uncomfortable about a show and its fanbase than to start treating fictional characters like they're more important than real people. He would not want you to bully people over Izzy Hands, and it's mind-boggling that some of you have convinced yourself otherwise.

Lastly, I just want to talk about the fact that some people are holding OFMD to absurdly high expectations.

Our Flag Means Death has been a pioneer series for its diverse representation, earnest storytelling, and themes of hope, community, and love. It's fine to discuss aspects of the show with a critical eye, but so much of the discourse has truly felt like folks are trying to find fault in a show that is leagues ahead of the average tv series that we still enjoy. How many fan favorites are killed off all the time? How many plotlines are scrapped, or drawn out without closure, or contradicted the very next season? How many shows are indifferent or actively hostile towards their fanbase? How many have any queer characters, or actually do bury them? The bar's so low, and OFMD has risen above to give us so much. Some are holding the show to astronomical expectations, waiting for it to fall from the pedestal it's been placed on. If something you don't like happens in the show, it's not suddenly ruined or demoted to being ~just as bad as those other shows~. Give them some breathing room, have some perspective on how progressive the show is, and that perfection is impossible, especially meeting every single viewer's idea of it. This is basically a repeat of the recent Good Omens drama, with an absurd number of people harassing Neil Gaiman for breaking up Aziraphale and Crowley and leaving the second of three acts on a very predictable cliffhanger. Let stories be told, let them unfold as they may, and you are free to leave anytime. It's so wonderful that more queer love stories are becoming popular and even mainstream, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by tearing them down when they don't go exactly the way you want it, which often seems to mean no drama, no character deaths, and therefore no conflict or even plot!

Just, please be civil human beings, and while this seems to be a difficult thing for so many fandoms to do, just keep your fan opinions in the fan space. Never bring your grievances to the writers, never bully them and persecute them for telling a story that you opted into viewing. That's something that goes entirely against everything this show, and this cast and crew, have imparted onto us - the importance of kindness, support, community, and love. I'll say it again because it bears repeating: the fate of a fictional character is never more important than how you treat real people. Just be kind in real life, which includes the internet. Thanks.

Now please, let's work together to ensure we get a season 3. There's so much more story to be told, and if you want to see Izzy back, whether that's as flashbacks, as a ghost haunting the inn, or in the gravy basket, we'll need more episodes! #RenewAsACrew

[threepandas]

Bad End: Kuro Ryuko

The world shook.

Screams. Panic. Futile commands filling the air, as what Royal Warriors still lived, tried desperately to fight back. What was the point? Didn't they realize? They had brought this on themselves. We all had. I... I had TRIED. Powerless as I was. Trapped as I often felt. I had TRIED.

In the face of The Black Dragon... I knew it to be no excuse.

My soul burned beneath it's cry. That terrible roar, which echoed condemnation. Damning. Our crimes could not be hidden. Our sins unforgivable, rotting behind the pretty lies we had told ourselves. It SAW us for what we were. Beheld our very SOULS.

The Dragon was DISGUSTED.

All I could do was run. Weep. Cling to the hands of the other serving girls, as we tried desperately to survive. Forgotten in the panic, by so called greater men, we had only ourselves to count on. The servants pathways were already choke points. Death traps. Several had been hit, if the pillars of smoke were coming from where we thought the were.

The world shook. Hanako choked on her scream, two girls down. The subtle face paint she was always so proud of, a mess, streaming like tears of ash down her lovely face. Aiko had fainted. Tried so, SO hard not to. Clung to consciousness with vicious painted nails. But the panic had been to much, her health too poor. Her sister carried her now.

The world shook. We were going to die, weren't we? A crowd of forgotten things. Not even good enough to be people in the eyes of our masters. Just maids. Serving girls. Born peasants and dead property. Caught beneath the wrath of a Dragon whose eyes saw us, but who mercy could not comprehend the complexity of mortal cages. The chains we could not see.

Crashing. Fire. Roars.

The World Shook.

It was excuses, in the end. We had a choice. Simple as it was. Obedience or Death as it may have been. To the Dragon morality? We were to have chosen Death. There is no compassion for cowards. Mercy for the cruel and self-serving. Not even, if it is all you can do, to survive. Perish instead, die proudly, Be Dragon, says the Black Dragon.

Of all the Dragons, THEY are not the kind one. Not the merciful nor sweet nor wise. THEY are Justice. Vengeance. Debts paid as they are due. They were feared but no one could get rid of them. For who could rightfully argue against Justice? Debts paid? What, people would ask, did you have to hide?

Everything. They always did. And they DISPISED the Dragon for it. For being impossible to fool. Impossible to bribe. Their Champion's an avatar of their Will. Endlessly carving paths of destruction through sin and debauchery, usually paid for at the cost of those who served. To see the Black Dragon? Was to know Justice was coming.

Like the fist of a wrathful God. The mauling of a beast. Burning through like a wildfire, leaving nothing but ash in their wake.

It was an isolating life. Terrible. I... I remembered, Before this life, Another. Bits and pieces. Disjointed at first. Yet over the years I have come together. Social isolation is a torture. I KNOW this. People go insane. And... and a dragon is not human. Could not possibly be enough, even if they WERE excellent companionship. People need support structures.

So I tried.

Volunteered to be the one to bring Kuro Ryuko her meals, much to the relief of others. Tried to sneak treats and festival snacks in. Little toys and books borrowed from the central library that maybe they would like. I tried. Again and again. Everything I could think of. Quietly and subtly, so as not to get punished. So I would not be stopped. And...?

It amounted to nothing.

Silence.

Did I become too comfortable? In my habits, too arrogant? That I forgot exactly how DANGEROUS the forces I meddled with, truely ARE? At worst... at WORST, I expected her to ignore me. She had such even temperament. A calm, smooth voice. Still and ponderous, like deep waters. How? HOW?! I could not-! Did NOT-!

Not far behind our group, a great expanse of wall exploded to the side, as a god-like section of the Black Dragon's body crashed through it. One small part of a single twinning loop. Insignificant compared to the full beast, which seemed to consume the sky itself.

It was MASSIVE.

We would have died instantly.

Choking on our screams, desperate not to attract notice, we threw ourselves forward. Nearly tripping on our skirts. Two of us DID, but were instantly hauled back to their feet by friends or nearby survivors before they could fall. No one. NO ONE, was getting left behind. It wasn't long now. W-we could do this. We HAD to do this. Survive. Escape. Whatever comes next, so be it.

There were supposed to be other Dragons. To Balance each other. Had they turned on us too? Were they dead? Did it even matter anymore? None of us had ever been so glad for Madame Shimei's secret gaurd lover before, the one we all knew about but all pretended we didn't. They were cute together. Everyone hoped they would marry.

I...I hoped he wasn't dead. It would break her.

There! The outer wall! I could sob with relief. The secret side entrance was open. Madame's Gaurd still there, alone. Frantically searching until he laid eyes on her. Desperation melting into unspeakable relief. He starts forward. We... we are so close...!

CLAWS.

The Dragon's hand, smashs down between us. Crushing everything. Cutting us off from any escape.

Now. NOW we scream. There is no point not doing so. We have been found. Barely visible, past the crushing force, Madame's gaurd appears alive. Unhurt. Refusing to run and leave her. They are not young, it was no grand tale of beauties, but in the face of certain death? He has shown what sort of man he is. She begs him to go. Live. It sounds so very far away, as I follow the line of that limb. Up and up and UP.

Titanic and seething, the Black Dragon's eyes glow. My soul laid bare. Every failing, every mistake, each injustice. How... how worthless I am. I... I deserve this. How dare I run. How dare not pay for my sins? I deserve to burn. We all deserve to pay for our-...

"Not that one. That one's mine."

I am on my knees. Tears streaming down my face. The others weeping, cowering, praying around me. Only a few made the mistake of actually looking the Dragon in the eyes. The others beg them to wake up. They won't. Trapped in a terrible trance, they weep. It take me a long moment to even register my freedom. The source.

Kuro Ryuko. I know that voice. Who else could it be?

She stands, the picture of Judgement and Cold, Calculated, Wrath. Long black hair, blowing in the wind generated by the Dragon's mere presence. Their mere WEIGHT upon the world. Her eyes glowing like suns from within. Golden beacons of light, inhuman marks of absolute power. She... She is looking at me. Why is she looking at ME?

"I have decided No More." Her voice echos in the silence like a command, the declaration of an empress. "They will not listen. Think they can hide. Pester and pander, seek to cage me even as they poison me. Enough. I have tolerated this insolence long enough! It burns, all of it. They may start again from the ashes."

"Now come here, Mouse. We are leaving."

There are certain commands you can twist and some you can not. Some you can argue and some you can not. It depends on how reasonable the person speaking. What they will DO, should you defy them. The cost you would pay. If... if I DON'T heel like a pet? My eyes flick to the other maids. Madame makes eye contact, her horror clear. Experience has taught her EXACTLY how this must end.

Through tears, I offer her a smile. It... it will be okay. Somehow, some way, it will be... be okay. Live. Survive this. K-keep going, alright? Promise me? We have not spoken. Just gaze alone. But the grief and determination painting her face? Tells me she understands.

I'm so, SO sorry.

I get up. Face Kuro Ryuko. A perfect servant's pose. Head up, but not so far as to be haughty. Shoulders back, but not so far as to thrust out the chest. A smile that is pleasing but promises nothing, does not entice. Hands folded, ready to serve, artful not idle. Measured steps as I move forward. I remember my lessons.

Terrified. I am... I am so... so unspeakably afraid. I move regardless. Smile politely. What is one death? If the others survive. I may shake, my soul may howl and tremble, b-but my friends get to LIVE. A-And... and have I not lived before? I am being selfish. This fear is selfish. They get to live. Repeat it. Gods, we must repeat it.

They'll get to LIVE. T-They'll get to LIVE. D-Don't b-be... be...

I can not let myself cry. Refuse to show weakness NOW. Here, at the end. Before this terrible, terrible thing. Tears have no use before a beast with no mercy. I have so little dignity left. The least I can give, can HAVE, is my final memories be one of strength, in the minds of those who loved me. Lie as it may be.

There is blood on her cheek. I can see no wound. And from the angle it stains her? It can only be splatter. Shines, just faintly, with the golden sheen of an Avatar's gift. Their blessings. I guess I know, now, why Shiro Ryuko has not risen to stand against them.

They can not.

I wonder if they are wounded or simply gone.

The Black Dragon has moved its focus to me. Adjusting it's stance to do so. It clears the path and, with despair, the others flee. I... I hope they live long lives. Good ones. Would give anything to join them. But here and now, I do not turn my head. Stare straight ahead and think of nothing. Pretend my hands do not... do not shake.

I am fine.

This is fine.

Kuro Ryuko moves, jumping through the air in a way that denies reality it's laws, it's limits. What are physics to a god? Mere gravity to a DRAGON? She moves as she pleases and the world bows to her will. Touching down with the grace of a frightful hunting bird, weapon swept elegantly to her side, as she rises to regard me. We have never stood so close. Some vaguely hysterical part of me notes... huh, I'm taller then her...

"Hello, Mouse, I am your mate. We are going to be together, forever. Come." There was no uncertainty in her voice. No asking. Just absolutes, command. Her hand expectant as it hung, outstretched towards me. "This place is filthy and does not deserve you. I will find us a better one. Flowers, perhaps? A luxurious bed? You will tell me on the way. Give me your hand."

What else could I do? But obey here? So close, the Black Dragon's every breath rolls across me like waves of heated death. A subtle reminder of at who's mercy, I stand. Her skin is almost too hot to touch. Hand calloused from a warriors training. I am dragged close. Against black silks with golden trims and embroidering. A possessive arm, like steel, sliding around my waist.

She takes a moment. As though to savor holding me close for the first time. Her other hand flicking her weapon up into the air, leaving it to float, weightlessly. Just so she can bury it in my hair, which had half fallen from it's styling, during the run. Pressing her face against the side of my head. Nearly hard enough to hurt. Dragging in air, all but hissing it, through her nose and gritted teeth.

Like it's not enough. Like it will NEVER be enough.

Like she wants to craw inside my skin and wear me. Needs me. Wants to CONSUME me.

Her hands have claws. I can feel them prickling, five painful little points, on each one. Where she holds me still. Bruisingly strong. A pleased hum that rolls like a growl. Pressed close against my skin like a secret.

"Mine. Just mine now. No more patience. No more 'behave'. Just MINE. You and me. My Mouse. Pretty fidgety MY Mouse. Shy and nervous and MINE. Gonna take such good care of you. Give you everything you need. Love you, Mouse. And you'll love me."

"No matter what. I'll make sure of it."

[agentrouka-blog]

A stans conveniently forgetting that she doesn't want to be a lady in the first place. A would probably be very disappointed with them and would be the first to protest LOL

If we didn't have Sansa, Arya's arc could be a very bitter-sweet path of disillusionment and sober acceptance of duty.

She runs out on lessons and hates the life prescribed for a lady, is comfortable with her privileges while ignoring the accompanying duties. She ignores class boundaries because she can - without understanding the power and privilege she retains unlike actual smallfolk. She is violent when she's upset, impulsive, inconsiderate of the needs of others (unless she personally likes them). (While also being sweet, curious, funny, sensitive, obviously.)

And then she gets adventure and travel in the most horrendous way, all her naive dreams destroyed. Just injustice, war and murder. And when she eventually makes her way home, she willingly takes on the duties she had hated. Sitting still, accepting contrary views without immediate blind refusal, reading and studying, negotiating, stationary administrative work, complex decisions, patience, prudence, self-control, marriage and children, sacrifice of her freedom...

All lessons learned through pain and suffering on her travels. A subdued, somber Arya who turns her scars into lessons and gives her life over to serving her people, no matter how she yearned for something different.

But.

Sansa exists. Who has a different arc, going from being perfectly raised to do the job of a consort (with all the attendant study and diplomatic skill), through observation, painful mistakes, and growing experience, to realize that she cannot take refuge in passivity, she needs to exercise power and privilege when she has it in order to achieve the kind of justice or harmony she wants to see in the world. A reluctant ruler, who is equiped with the necessary education and skills, but needs to develop the determination and confidence to act.

This alternative frees up Arya for a much happier ending better suited to her skills and desires, as well. A wiser, more patient Arya, more aware of the power structures and her own privilege, who doesn't have to restrain her boldness as a politician but rather can exercise it as a traveler, a constant representative of the interests of the smallfolk, as an explorer, as a diplomat in the interest of the North, a living legend, Oberyn's Northern counterpart.. just anything that doesn't tie her down with paperwork and the minutiae of administrative necessities.

GRRM loves Arya. I know which ending I think is more likely.

[daturakillz]

What do you need to hear right now? Pick an image!

No. 1.

Cards: RIDER WAITE TAROT:

King of pentacles, the magician, 2 of pentacles.

MAGICK OF YOU ORACLE:

26: protection: set personal boundaries. 27: resilience: burn away the past.

WOODLAND WARDENS:

The chipmunk and Laurel: success. The hound and pear: loyalty.

You have or will be stepping into a time of strength, success, and stability. You may have faced some recent struggles surrounding fluctuations regarding finances, stability, home life, work and or status. This could've been due to an unhealthy or less than favorable work / group situation, causing you to set boundaries and walk away.

You have (or will have) the tools available for you to embark on a new venture in business or career! If you're a practitioner of the arcane arts, I suggest using what you have on hand to do some sort of protection and prosperity spell or ritual! And if you are into astrology, and have your birth chart, look at your money houses and see if there's any particular transits going on for you at this time.

You're headed towards more committed and loyal bonds, finding people you can rely on and who can rely on you. Though the past may have been rocky, you're more than capable of producing a glorious harvest! And a harvest that you can share with those you love ♡

🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯

No. 2.

RIDER WAITE TAROT

Justice. 9 of swords. Knight of wands.

WOODLAND WARDENS

The ladybug and sweet pea happiness. The bobcat and blackthorn patience.

MAGICK OF YOU ORACLE

4: doable: the key is within your grasp. 16: merak: embrace oneness with the universe.

I heard "it's time to reflect." For you guys who picked number 2. I see that you've faced some major difficulties recently (or even over the past few years.) Through these harsh and trying times, you've likely developed some anxiety which in turn has lead to some sleepless or restless nights. And for that, I personally would like to say that I'm truly sorry to hear this. However! Despite what you may feel right now this period will come to an end. And I know, you're frustrated and impatient. But there are just somethings in this life we cannot rush, no matter how much we try to speed run to the finish line...sometimes we aren't meant to get there when we feel we should.

You maybe younger, and you're comparing yourself to others online or in your community that have reached seemingly impossible achievements. Maybe you're older, and you are upset at the life you've lead up until this point. No matter the age, you may feel you're slower than your peers, or lazy, or simply not good enough. But the human experience isn't about followers, ridiculous amounts of money and a picture perfect image. Being a late bloomer or simply not getting the current social trend, doesn't mean you're destined for failure or that something is wrong with you. The world we're living in is complex, distorted, and layered in so much that it can easily overwhelm us.

You deserve to discover your passions again, to reach for the light again, to walk with life without pressure again. Take some time to reflect, to recover, and don't push yourself to be something you are not. Sometimes, you just need to slow down and reevaluate what you want, what you're feeling, or what you simply need.

Happiness will find you again, it may not be today, it may not be this month. But slowly, as you recover and regain your strength you will find that the key is within your grasp. And when you find it, I want you to GRAB IT! Take what is yours because you have earned it my friend. Embrace the darkness, let it carry you to the light.

Justice will be served.

🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯

No. 3.

RIDER WAITE TAROT

3 of cups. King of Swords. Wheel of fortune.

MAGICK OF YOU ORACLE

12: hex: be still and allow the enemy to reveal themselves. 10: firgun: become a loving mirror.

WOODLAND WARDENS.

The weasel and pine: introspection. The turtle and coriander: satisfaction. The coyote and datura: deceit.

You may have had an altercation between enemies or discovered someone in your circle isn't as loyal and true as they've claimed. You may have had your suspicions about someone around you who isn't faithful or honest and the truth about them will be revealed. You're being advised not to act or react and instead allow them to trip themselves up on their own words / actions.

Regardless if you're currently going through this, or this entire ordeal has already happened and is a thing of the past or will be a thing in the near future, the most important thing for you to do now is be there for yourself. A period of introspection is necessary for you to process this action/betrayal or falling out.

Now, on the other side of the coin, and for a few of you. Whether you want to face it or not. It may have been you who lied to and betrayed someone you loved. You may of, at least at the time. Felt justified in your actions. Maybe you believed you were in the right, or you had all the answers. Maybe your view of them was distorted and murky, or you fell for lies and deceit from another about them. No matter the case, whether you did this on purpose or on accident, it's been eating at you subconsciously. You need to find the strength to face yourself and say "I fucked up." It ain't easy, believe me I know from personal experience. But you can't just pretend it didn't happen. We as people are going to hurt those around us with or without realizing it, none of us are innocent and none of us are perfect. You gotta look at yourself and still love who you are and accept that we all make mistakes. If you're truly sorry, and you now understand that your actions weren't just or simply were shitty, then apologize if you can. And if you can't, then as the God of War kratos said himself: don't be sorry, be better.

Allow the one you hurt to find peace, and allow yourself to find peace.

And as for those of you who were hurt, you will recover from this. This was fated to happen not because the universe is cruel or something big like that, but because that is simply how people are. The truth comes out eventually whether we'd like it to or not in most cases.

For both parties here, when all is set and done, you will find satisfaction and move on.

🕯🌹🕯🌹🕯🌹🕯

If you enjoyed this reading or it was accurate to you and your situation then please let me know, be it a simple like, follow/subscribe, a comment and or save! I hope you found this to be helpful, and that you have a great rest of your day or night!

Take care ♡

(I apologize for auto corrections and typos)

[alpaca-clouds]

We need to finally decolonize

You know what? Thanks to Castlevania Nocturne I got a chance to talk a bit more about colonialism. So, let me just talk for a while a bit about decolonialization and what would need to happen for that.

Also, if you are one of the white guys, who is going to whine about "Arab colonialisation, boohoo", I am gonna kick you ass off this blog, just so you know.

I think like two months ago I already wrote a bit about how colonialism has never ended. And it hasn't. For the most part a lot of land is still not only settled, but owned by settlers. This is true for the Americas (including the US of course), but also true for Australia, parts of the Pacific and also large chunks of Africa.

Additionally settlers have constructed contries and borders often to serve their needs and to allow them to assert control. This is particularly clear in Africa of course, where those straight line borders ignore both geography and original tribal lands, splitting it up and hence adding to local conflicts.

Then there is of course the general effects of the genocides that have happened through colonialism and are - arguably - still happening, given how underserved Indigenous communities are often in terms of infrastructure, but also access to justice in any way or form.

And of course once more: Slavery is still happening. Partly in mines (and the like) in countries where you do not see it - often for the enrichment of white people - and of course in the US through the prison industrial complex.

I could go on and on. But let me turn this around and talk about what needs to happen instead. How do we decolonize?

Short answer: Land back and reparations.

No, that does not mean that all settlers have to move, but that tribes get to manage and make decisions about their own land. And if they do not want your fucking pipeline on that land, there is not gonna be a fucking pipeline on the land. And if they allow it, they can charge you for the use of the land. It is their land, they get to call the shots!

And that is not only gonna be true for the US and Canada, but for all settled land that is currently held by white people.

It also means paying reparations to everyone who suffered through colonialism. The people whose ancestors got shipped around the world as slaves, but also the people whose families had to suffer through genocide and all of that.

And no, it should not only be the US to pay those reparations, but all the countries that enriched themselves on all the horrors committed. Which would also include Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal first and foremost.

A lot of western countries act like they are lord and saviors when they give "humanitarian aid" to the global south, even though those payments are not even a fraction of the money they made on the backs of the people living in the global south right now.

The argument against this is always: "But we do not have the money" and "it is all gonna be taken by dictators", to which I say: "Tough luck" and "who was it again that put those fucking dictators in power to prevent the spread of communism?"

I just really do not have any chill for white people going all "but the money" again. That money was stolen. So fuck right off.

[messrsrarchives]

hii just wanted to know your thoughts on regulus/mary in choices. ik its a very controversial topic in the fandom but fir me personally i love how it shows regulus' character. i feel like i'm putting this badly but i think obliviating mary after doesn't really show him wanting her to be happy or smth without her trauma but more regulus still protectinh his own in a way or not wantinh any plans in place to be ruined. like it just shows that regulus is more than someone pretending or trying to do better, but more how complex he is, and how he cares more about things that may come back to him rather than someone elses feelings. i have sm thoughts on this but it's alr so long so i'll leave it here. also mary after it happened!! i love the characterisation in choices omg.

UGH i could yap about this so much,,,

oh wait ! i have ! my main choices yaps: lily mary (i yap a lot so it's at the 1:30 mark)

BUT TO SUMMARISE:

IT'S DONE SO SO WELL!! "i dont think regulus was a very good person" "no, he wasn't. but he wanted to be. and that has to count for something right?"

IT'S RIGHT THERE !!! and i'm 99.9% sure that soph said at one point that the whole reason regulus is involved is to highlight the fact that he is Not a good person! he's not a good person and with a fic focused on morality and how the choices we make turn us into the person we are? SO important that regulus is involved here. and nope, definitely not to protect mary (though i do think there's a part of him that wanted to, but that wasn't the part controlling his actions), it's to cover his back. it's to make sure his plan isn't messed up because he's NOT a very good person, but he wanted to be. and that HAS to count for something.

even just,,, dumbledore and mary. the fact that she doesn't get justice? yes. YES. she wouldn't have. not just because irl hardly anyone ever gets justice for things like this, but because she's (1) a woc who are disproportionately affected and left behind and (2) a muggleborn in a time of drastic conflict - noone would have been on her side even if she DID press charges. mulciber and co would have won, and justice wouldn't have been served either way. BUT - dumbledore doesn't do that. he utilises this event for his own gain, he tries to get regulus to help him and he uses what happened to mary to do that. it's not just regulus whose character is devloped by this, but dumbledore's too. which,,, yk people argue and say that it's just there to DeEpEn ThE mAlE cHaRaCtErS and it's like,,, wow. because irl men have neverrrrrr made it about themselves. because irl men have neverrrrrrr used stuff like this to their own advantage nuh uhhhhh (said as sarcastically as possible)

it's a "controversial topic" because they don't GET IT!!! they don't GET that it's not "oh women shouldn't have justice!!! i hate women!!!" it's actually "hey, this world is going through a lot right now and noone is getting justice for anything and people's lives are being used as chess pieces on a board that doesn't even factor in their existence and even if it did, there's far too many choices to potentially be made that good is so hard to come by"

choices ily. soph ily.

[one-of-many-journeys]

Day 14 (1/2)

Lone Light

Up with the sun, of course. Most of the others in the inn did the same, being travelling hunters, even a couple of Banuk I saw stumbling around in puddles of their own spilled drink last night. Impressive. I spotted smoke and the red skull flags of a bandit camp next to a rock arch on the road. Nil was there. Is he following me, or just returning home to his homeland?

As usual, we took them out silently at first, targeting their snipers and the alarm, then the gunner, using his heavy weapon to pick off the rest in a hail of metal.

Nil is...concerning. He participated in the Red Raids, which I guess I knew, him being an ex-soldier for the Carja, but since then I've learnt more about the terror of those times for the Nora and other tribes. I can't figure him out. He volunteered a confession for his brutality during the war and served a sentence in prison. Makes more sense to lock dangerous people up than just send them away, make them someone else's problem, but I can see what Teersa meant when she called Nora practices humane.

I'm not sure if Nil was always the way he is now, but the way he tells it, it was in prison at Sunstone Rock that he honed his outlook on the world. He doesn't care who he kills, as long as he gets to do it. It's a thrill for him, it seems. Strangely he seems perfectly content to let me take the lead in the camps. Is he testing me? Looking for a spark in my eyes that he feels in his own? He wants me to enjoy it too. Maybe...maybe I do. A well executed hunt is always fulfilling, and the lives of the people in these lands would be better off without this red smoke stain with its warring and plundering. Maggots, Nil called them.

I wouldn't feel this way killing innocents, of course. I've only ever killed killers, people who kill for sport or personal gain. There's justice in that. I know there is.

Meridian from over the rise, and a huge machine stalking the area to the right—a Thunderjaw. I've heard of them, Erend mentioned them. One of the new, deadly machines brought forth by the Derangement. Rested a while in some nearby ruins.

Things got greener the further I rode down toward the river. I stopped my mount at a crossroads, the way to the city being crowded and narrow, stocking up on herbs by the riverbank.

The view from the mountain path.

There was an encampment at the top of the mesa loaded with traders milling around with their wares, carts of food, fabrics, machine parts and wandering animals. The way to the city was blocked by guards, searching all stock that passed through. I heard mutterings that even Carja were being searched, something about keeping all outlanders away. Hard to tell what was law and what was only hearsay. I'm not going to let these Carja stop me from getting to Olin.

There was a huge, golden complex of towers atop an edifice separate from the city proper. Must be the Sun King's residence. With the way Irid and the other Carja talk about him, I guess I can't be surprised—they worship him, but how can one man be deserving of all that wealth? The people out here have sweat on their brows and mud on their soles.

I rested in the camp, hoping to wait out the commotion at the bridge entrance.

No such luck. I figured I'd have a better chance slipping through in Carja clothes (scrounged up the shards to buy their silks), but my Nora Seeker mark and weaponry will probably give me away. The bridge was a marvel of construction: huge chain pulleys hoisting moving platforms up and down.

The disguise was no use anyway, there was a line of guards waiting at the city gates who stopped me immediately. They told me that Ersa had been murdered by Shadow Carja. Gera told me a little about them so I wasn't completely clueless. The Carja are in the midst of a civil war, and Erend has been promoted to captain of the vanguard in his sister's place. It's a shame. I would have liked to meet her.

When I asked the guards to summon Erend, they might have turned me away there and then if Erend hadn't happened by himself, stone drunk. He agreed to let me search Olin's cabin, since he's out of the city on a delve. Did he hear about me? I guess he has no reason to believe I'm alive anyway.

Erend led me through the city, the entrance crowded with Carja and Oseram, heavily armoured. It was loud, stunk of spices and manure, crammed with the cries of sellers, but it was beautiful. So tall, felt like I was going to strain my neck taking in the turrets and domes and overhead walkways, blue flags and hanging ivy swept up in the breeze.

Erend wasn't too happy with the mob gathering in the city, demanding vengeance for Ersa's death. He cussed out the herald and they dispersed. I've heard people whispering of the new Sun King's supposed weakness when it comes to retribution before now, and it seems the sentiment is stronger here in the city.

Searching Olin's apartment. It was huge, decorated with mosaics and embroidered drapings, lounges and beds and shelves full of trinkets. His treachery has made him wealthy. Breaking through a vault door to his hidden basement, I found a map and journal proving Olin was a traitor and that the killers were targeting me. I also found a message, the killers holding his wife and child hostage, urging him to obey. So he was coerced...it doesn't change anything.

I guess what befell the Nora was my fault, in a way. Olin just happened to be there, and he saw me. If I never went up and spoke to him...Where would I be? Would my boon for winning the Proving have been granted? I would never have seen that image of the short-haired woman, that's for sure, and would be forbidden from leaving the Sacred Lands to search for an antidote to the corruption barring me from the door in the mountain. None of this was worth the lives lost, of course, but maybe this was the only way I was ever going to find the answers I've been seeking all my life.

I found Olin's location among the evidence, but before I could leave Erend begged me to use the Focus to search the field where Ersa and her soldiers fell to the Shadow Carja. Maybe I shouldn't have told him about the Focus. Then again, he granted me access to the city and to Olin's house. I should return the favour.

Meridian by night. Fire dancers, then I was attracted to a beautiful, mournful chorus and came upon an open rooftop, a pyre in the centre surrounded by singing sun priests. I wonder if Irid is here somewhere. There were many worshippers, and the altars around the circumference of the space each held artefacts and sigils of a different tribe. Shrines to commemorate those lost in the Red Raids.

There were many at the Oseram shrine, many more at the Carja, a few Banuk. None prayed for the Nora. I sat there, not sure if you could call it praying. The weapons and armour of the dead were on display. I turned and saw one of the sun priests watching me from the edge of the chamber.

His name was Naman, and he was seeking help in clearing sites of worship for a Banuk and an Utaru (the first I've seen) who had come to mourn their own. I agreed to help. At first I didn't really understand the spectacle of it all. Such showy rituals do nothing for the dead. Naman said they're for the living, that they help us to represent the feeling of grief, give it form. Does that separate it from us, in a way? I remember the flowers and artefacts at Rost's grave, his feather cape slung over the headstone as if it was his own body, unyielding, carved with runes of life and memory. It's still in me though, the grief. Those were Nora rituals. What are mine?

I think I'm too practical for ritual anyway; too bitter for prayers.

The spire. In the night, it's even clearer that it's machine made, the way it glimmers along trace faultlines.

Tired, but there's so much to see in this city. I'll stop by the Hunter's Lodge next. As much as I'd like to stay here on the empty outlook under the stars, I think the priests will kick me out soon enough.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Class is an outdated attempt at socio-economically categorizing humans within the industrial society.

Marxists, especially the former Marxists, as well as all the Left tendencies inspired by Marxism, have relied on the same-old tripartite categorization of society dating back to Aristotle, now divided into three big classes. Contemporary sociologists of the Marxist schools of sociology will be using the stats of median income to show how they’re right about it; where indeed the «middle-class» exists and it’s been going down toward poverty levels in the last few decades, where the upper group of ultra-rich just kept getting wealthier and more powerful. All of it is true, yet only within a tiny, limited aspect of the mastodon. It shows us where most people are situated in terms of income, yet not saying much about all these people located elsewhere up or down the curve. That these people aren’t actually part of any unified class, within the tripartite model of “middle/proletarian”, “poor/lumpen”, or “rich”. In reality — or I mean closer to what could be the social reality — a median in statistics only best represents where a bell curve is located within a spectrum of linear-organized data.

Having lived through years of being on the workplace, in the streets, outside of academia, will reveal that the “world” is a much more complex and especially fluid, dynamic place; not made of categories and classes, but people. Especially groupings of people, constantly organizing and plotting for power. Either to gain more or maintain their “acquired rights”.

This narrow marxist interpretation also serves another purpose than showing the social inequalities capitalism creates. It is useful for hiding or overlooking the privilege-building or consolidation of these same groups of Left-oriented middle-class intelligentsia, or petty bourgeoisie commonly found backing Center-Left parties, NGOs, trade unions or more pervasively running a vast portion of the nonprofit sector, especially the sector more politically vocal about issues of social justice. They are struggling for their own elevation through the social ladder, in conflict with who they perceive – with a level of accuracy – as those limiting their access to higher positions of power.

Same goes for the «rich». As if you’d ask me, for instance, who is the richest person/family on the planet, that’s a question no one can definitely answer. Also an equally complex question : who are the « rich »? Not only wealth is a more complex notion than just net worth, but the super-wealthy do not only deal in monetary values... they’re also using other kinds of more «hard» assets and currencies like resources, precious metals, and now big data. The super-wealthy also tend to be super-connected people. Their wealth would not be very meaningful if this wasn’t a factor of power within social networks.

The question of their might makes it even more complicated when you look at their political schemes and networks. And even among this super-rich crowd, there are factions, milieus, gangs playing Monopoly with the world’s con-o-mies. Ever since Trump went into politics, for instance, this became clear there wasn’t only one power gang in the US, that the most repulsive of these, the White supremacist Christian ultra-conservatives, was engaged in an unprecedented battle against the neoliberal establishment, the dominant gang of the last few decades. This is even true in a totalitarian rule like China, who has different factions fighting within the Party, down to occasional vendettas, in order to consolidate power. Everywhere across capitalist societies there are smaller rich of the upper middle-class, all the way up to the mega-billionaires, with differing stakes in the industry, or gradients of political entry – and positions, from the progressive Left the Rothschild family and Soros to the ultra-conservative Far Right like Murdoch and the Koch.

Hence categorizing the “rich” is always more complicated than it seems. But to me, the ultra-rich aren’t as important as they used to be as social antagonists. I know they are doing terrible things, engaged in running awful schemes that keep billions of people into misery. And they are, in all appearance, holding the reins over governments, the media, NGOs you may work for, and most businesses you might work for.

However you might notice that your local progressive resources center for the homeless is managed by rather middle-class people. This is adequate, as here we are dealing with a charity service, notoriously structured by this same-old Christian binary relationship between haves mores and lesses, or between the higher-educated and the low-educated. The moment you’ll see a homeless resource center run by the homeless, well, that’ll no longer be charity, but rather autonomy. Yet social relations keep being structured into hierarchies between castes of different levels of privilege.

Society, being itself a wide-open pyramid scheme, is thus filled with a myriad of people involved in more or less filthy games that deprive others from having the same quality of life they enjoy. When it’s not about White nuclear families raveling in their comfy private bubbles on the countryside it’ll be urban hipsters keeping nice apartments for their artsy gangs of friends. You might even notice a level of disparities — and consolidation of privilege — within the milieus of the homeless, and the prisoners. But as usual, there’s a share of good economic motives behind all this privilege-building. In big cities targeted by intense gentrification, renters are better be organizing with friends, or building networks of friends, in order to share the rents between people they know so the rents remain as low as possible. That also gives the more radical-minded the possibility for conducting rent strikes on more large scales or do other kinds of anti-eviction or anti-hike campaigns that got more effects than just isolated renters filing formal complaints. Worker coops are a way for them to avoid « falling » in the streets by having decent self-managed jobs that may also contributed to accumulating social capital. As usual, collective organizing is a powerful flagship for gaining more power.

But then again, when more power is gained, what is done with it? When peer groups create their housing and workers’ coops, or even collectively-run squats wherever they still exist, what is the place left in their world, at the end of the day, to all the lesser-empowered outsiders? To those often ending up being — yet again — at the receiving ends of privilege-building social machinations. Being “socially-awkward”, being misfits or too “triggering” makes these seemingly more horizontal, democratic, collectivist schemes as yet again exclusive to those disabled, handicapped, aged, gendered, or just not enough socially-skilled for inclusion. Because, like in the rest of society, these projects are produced through in/out-crowd dynamics, generating social exclusion as byproduct. One way or another, it goes down to be facing locked doors, walls, fences, more sleeping on the sidewalks or at best navigating through precarious rents with deranged roommates… so therefore the social hierarchy of prisons is being maintained. Of course this has to do with landlords and « bosses » owning your life by the balls (e.g. a class relationship), but how do people also not reinforce this through caste dynamics? So even when these schemes are considered to be helpful or charitable, the separation they induce — here’s a place where these late Marxists known as the Situationists got it right) is still by essence, and functionally, alienating. However there is little doubt of the good that some of these people do, despite the alienating structures they’re working in.

How does a caste system works?

Essentially, with the reproduction of identitarian cults, clans or families, and more importantly their related cultures, that allows them to relate to each other. Culture — including cultural representations — is the tie that binds them; as cultures are being used as a means to reinforce the caste’s status quo, redefine its morals, and set the boundaries for inclusion/exclusion as well as serving other control imperatives. These aren’t patterns we observe through big social categories such as classes, that only defined by their mutual economic productive activity. The caste reproduces its own systems of representations and relations, beyond its mere socio-economic activity. The former actuates the other, and provides a kind of appeal, by hype, notoriety, prestige, edge, luxury or any other sort of added social value to it. A sense of privilege, without really providing with meaning.

I’ll be elaborating more on this in an upcoming text on countercultures and normalization, but in the Western rich urban hellholes we could have witnessed over the past years a movement from parts of the punk subcultures toward hipster, more streamlined upper castes of artsy citizenry. Mainstream fashion of the trendy urban lifestyles was reinvigorated by what used to be signifiers of marginal milieus... tattoos, piercings, punky black clothing and asymetric hairstyles, even dog-herding (that for some has been replaced with having children), are all now predictable, unsurprising elements of the urban environment, found in just about any of the world’s metropolis, even outside the Western world.

This has been a way to be part of the “in crowd”, to be accepted not not only into squats, but private rented spaces, get decent jobs at trendy hot spots, and more importantly, get relationships aplenty. That’ll be controversial to say about the same of the normalization of the “LGBTQ+” as social identities, that have played the same socio-economic roles and with the same ends, even tho by themselves they represent a fourre-tout of different minority gender identities and sexual preferences rallied together as one big category, for everyone under its banner to relate to regardless of its meaning for every one’s sensibility.

The idea is not to be criticizing any of these subcultures or their values, or even to be blaming urban trends for normalizing them, but to look into how caste dynamics are functioning, thanks in great parts to the use of cultural signifiers and their related politics. Also to realize how the individual, or the person as themself, is being kept silent and invisible by these caste politics, despite all the social media celebs, who’re really not standing for — and by — themselves but literally posing on a stage through a set of prefab representations. How if you aren’t identifying as one of the recognized identities, just choosing to identify as a “yourself”, or a “person”; this becomes a void for the social management of privilege and oppression. There are no non-gender pronouns for persons, only for lifeless objects, or groups to some extent.

This is — in my view — the deepest cause behind the epidemic of mass-killings we especially got in the US. While some of these are mostly based on demented ideologies of hate against more or less specific minority groups, many of the mass-killings are often committed by disenfranchised, misfit, socially-isolated males who for a reason or another, lacking a better analysis of what’s happening to them in this world, decide to stick it up to those they see as their most direct oppressors. Namely, the social castes in their environments. And in a way, it is true that crowd/mob dynamics tend to make human groupings in general to become more oppressive while losing self-awareness as their numbers increase in a given context.

If the Left would be truly understanding the dynamics of social exclusion, oppression and privilege, how do they work, perhaps they could be helping to some level against such sprees of murderous violence that only now benefits more despotic police controls of the public place. But the Left has remained stucked, as some anarchist critiques know, in this endless spiral of outdated analysis of social and political dynamics, centered on our well-known cartoonish representations produced by Marxists. Castes are defined by a lot more than just the productive activity of their members, and equally the socio-cultural reproduction that defines them goes beyond their mere socio-economic productive roles, when they got one in common, even if we consider society as meta-factory.

The issue of how Leftists could make it better, with a better analysis is beyond me. More so, it ain’t really my own interest. Still, I find it harder to not be caring about the mass-shootings, and in fact the « not in my lawn » approach to social problems might not so easily apply here, as anyone could potentially be affected by these sudden bursts of extreme interpersonal violence.

The purpose of such a perspective on social relations around us is to not be fooled by deluded beliefs in the radicality of our « projects » or initiatives, and to look at those with a more critically realistic lens that shows their shortcomings and weaknesses, standing in the way of the total anarchy or the social revolution you might be after. As to be reproducing caste relations can intrinsically undermine any initiative aimed at equity, autonomy or free association.

As I said too often, anarchists and nihilists have a specific opportunity — often wasted — of creating a social tabula rasa, that negates both the dynamics of privilege-building by putting the deeper issues of property and capital-building into question, while also, through patterns of free-based relations, to be making the issue of «social progress», pushed for decades by the Left, to become irrelevant.

Like there’s no need for work within the industry if we choose to liberate goods instead and creating a commons around everything, where everyone can enjoy shit without the trappings and hindrances of both bureaucracy and property, from being on welfare to «buying land», we’re still being submitted and deprived from an immediate relationship with the natural world. There’s no need for affordable housing if you find a way to occupy spaces for living, and especially shared living. There’s no need for better working conditions if you abolished the need for money — in the first place — in order to have good living conditions, as especially to be able... to just make friends, lovers, accomplices or just have a good conversation with some other human, regardless where they’re from. There’s no need for these demoralizing homeless shelters if you got organized squats where everyone has at least their shot at a living-together, and from which other occupation projects may arise.

The power of negation, is one not being asserted by the liberal agency. Neither the one of supposed « radicals ». Or this false negation will be held contained within their own communal bubbles, yet never outwardly-asserted. And in fact, the Marxists have an historical tendency at postponing negation, as revolution is an evolutionary process where, first, we must build the conditions for the proles to be able to negate the State and capital... as if they had found the secret to immortality!

Therefore, like with the rest of the liberal bourgeoisie, breaking the law, seeking pleasures against the dominant morals, will be reserved for the private space, of the caste, the communal in-crowd, or the family, or on a private island. And the more harmful immoralisms (such as rape, abuse and other violences) might also break loose due to the safety bubble promised by privatized spaces, in milieus where they hardly would be allowed to happen in broad daylight.

But are these really negation, or just reconstruction of same-old patterns of appropriation and exploitation, inherited from the dominant morals? A transgression ain’t necessarily negation of an order but rather its preset contradiction, as “rules are meant to be broken”. The “anti-” principle is not an “a-” principle, or abscence of principle; it is an against not a without. Satan exists because of God. So the bank robber or cryptominer is still after making big money, only innovating in their fulfillment of the well-known capitalist imperative (unless of course they throw the money in the streets). I ain’t saying it is wrong... only that it is not negation of an order and its values, where the person takes the liberty to make their own of the latter, asserts power over their own world, making themself emperor and god over it.

Absolute negation of all orders — the questioning of everything — is what is necessary to revert the power of the totality over ourselves. Therefore we cannot truly avoid or abolish these caste relations that separate us both from each other and from ourselves — as well as the world around us — without putting their imperatives, values under the crushing mill of the cold, concrete logic of total negation.

Property is not only theft. Fundamentally “property” is just not something that exists. Your comfort zone known as your household, or friend’s commune, or mansion on top of the hill... are only a privatized space made-up by capitalism’s territorializations and reinforced by walls, doors and locks. It is only «real» as far as it is a relational construct, enforced by the threat of judicial or interpersonal violence. You cannot pretend anarchism, even less «communism» while at the same time enjoying these levels of privilege provided to you by an invisible, unavowed caste system. Well you can... of course! But that is more of the same-old Victorian hypocrisy, reinforced by equally Victorian-era ideologies pretending to oppose the dominant system. You may choose to be a conservative so to be less an hypocrite — indeed — yet the status quo of the caste system will be maintained, only more bare. My postulate, that is not so important to consider, is that 19th century classical liberalism has kept Western civilization from being a full-fledged official caste system, or at least this was delayed by a century of class-defined struggles.

Regardless. The wild, the feral, the natural domain does not know these territorializations. Or neither cares about if they know. The wild one only cares about their own sustenance, protection, pleasure and well-being. Anything else, any attempt at accommodating with any level or sphere within the caste system, means becoming more civilized, or over-civilized, as these are the mostly-intangible yet highly-recognizable walls of civilization, defined by culture above politics and economics. A vagabond can keep freeloading luxury hotels or chic cafés, in order to partly avoid the misery related to homelessness, or even hang out at student parties or exec clubs, but what will chase him off from these spheres will not be their bank account, official status or even their political allegiances; it will be their external appearance, their tenure, their speech and etiquette.. or lack thereof. As the cultural standards are what makes these social categories to be castes. Not classes. Because, to repeat, castes are culturally-defined — more than socio-economically defined — groupings.

So I am not here posturing for an anticiv purity by rejecting caste relations; but this could be useful as an ideal for a direction. Or giving rationale and analysis to a life where the radical critical thought makes you a social misfit, anyways. It can be interesting to be social hacking across the cultural layers of this garbage every caste uses to reinforce themselves, and many of us do achieve this, to different levels of effectiveness. But then again, will be driven by a will that is your own, or only reflect the desires mass-produced for the masses to follow? As for every caste there are different means and modes to attain what everyone in this society is after.

Doesn’t the wild one only contents in seeking power over their own existence? Why, otherwise, would they be seeking any larger power, if not for chasing the aims defined by the dominant power dynamics? For having the privileges they envy so much from any of the castes above them, or for « ruling in Hell, instead of serving in Paradise »?

Perhaps because such dynamics as the terrorism of the judicial system are hindering on this self-power. That the goal would not be to become yet another layer of judicial system, like the call-out culture appears to be doing.

There lies the importance of the initial thesis of this tension. That the Marxist and Marxist-leaning tendencies of the Left have been from the start adopting the class struggle analysis in a way as to brute-force the emancipation of people only through their own hierarchical systems. This is why they’ll always be confined, mentally-restrained, to the notion that any self-empowerment, self-defense, and liberation can only be attained through mass social avenues and means; as these reflect, more deeply, the need for empowerment of a more or less specific caste of «intelligent» educated middle-class people, over what they’ll always perceive as a mass of people who are in the dark, who need saviors or organizers or hot-blooded, loud-talking revolutionary leaders to pull them out of their politically-induced trance.

Not to say this was the case of enlightened, fearless rebels like Fred Hampton, Geronimo, Novatore or Harriet Tubman. These were in my opinion more like the feral ones that undermined the consolidated powers of their times, the society subjected to a predominant caste. Needless to say… you’ll also notice they were also not our well-known arrogant, power-hungry White college kids from the suburban middle-classes.

So the Marxists need this vague, Cartesian model for a social category — the class — that is inherently defined by a position within the production chain of Industrial Society. As in their view, one cannot be else than a Worker, or a Prole (and perhaps including the lumpen prole) in order to take part in this class struggle toward the liberation of all the Workers. But are these leaders, or organizers, ever been really the Workers they claim to be leading to liberation? Aren’t they instead positing for their own empowerment over the Workers, by the use of these Workers workforce to push for a change of power dynamics, where this intelligentsia caste attain a higher privileged status within the processes of production? In the neoliberal society the best they’ll do is to have well-paid white collar positions, perhaps even an entry into state politics within a minority party. Which doesn’t discount for the sleazy corruption of the lawyers and real-estate profiteers taking higher positions of power within the dominant parties. But, restating the obvious that I said earlier, they’re all chasing the same sausage, only through slightly different means and modes. And think about... if they’d, once again, come to terms with the whole capitalist state like the Soviets did, they’d have the highest positions in society!

So you are anticapitalist? Great. But “anticapitalist”, just like “antifa”, is a negative position, which doesn’t say much as the kind of world you want in the place of the existent order. What does it means to you in daily life, beyond a few protests and graffiti?

You are maybe communist? Super. And given it is still subversive thing in many parts of the Western world, this gives you a little of rebellious edge. But then again, whose communism? If you are only after the Commune then which commune are we talking about? The Communal form of property Marx himself told us about, that the Ancient Greeks invented, those brutally partiarchic, slave-owning landlords, who weren’t that different, actually from the Founding Fathers? The Commune of Friends, where all you need is to become a “Friend” in order to be included and treated as equal? So what is it you call a Friend, then?

My intent here is not to drag everyone in the mud of their own grandiose projects or claims (no matter how I’d love to!) but to be looking into what people are really after, and for whose specific interest. As, like a Stirner would say, as far as the Commune is not my own, or as long it is not knocking at my door for any friendly motives, it is strange to myself; it means nothing to me, as it is only to the benefit of a specific group of others.

Not only it is not so much benefiting to me, but a very vague mass of «proles», comrades or Friends that I may or may not be part of, depending on the analysis of the leading core group in charge of defining the social categories and their narratives (also known as the “ID politicians”). And only my being included as a proletarian comrade I may benefit from the leftovers of this nomenklatura. I do eat the leftovers of proles on a regular basis, as part of my means of survival and for secondary ecological aims, but it is never as retribution for serving under the wing of this social category.

The world is driven not by money, but by narratives and their representations.

There were times where men couldn’t live without God. Or without a hunt. Or without fire. Equally, a « world run by money » is a capitalist, materialist narrative of the late industrial age. Such narrative, just like any other, becomes existent due to its supportive system of power relations. Yet it won’t necessarily be meaningful… most often it won’t. If you let yourself be defined and driven by these, written and drawn by a group of others, you let yourself, again and again, be fooled and controlled by the group(s) enforcing it, then it will become an unavoidable fact of existence. Hence this group de facto becomes a caste above you... the hierarchs owning all the secrets of your forever-delayed liberation. Accepting them to define me is accepting the hinges of their control over me.

And let’s make it clear to some of my potential detractors, that the Marxist Left here was used only as example among many other iterations. The Far Right or Alt Right, as we could witness over the past few years, tends to be more successful these days at their games of gaining domination over yet another mass of (much) less educated/intelligent peoples for their own caste benefit. They are, after all, connected to specific groups — the old White supremacist aspect of the wealthy establishment — fighting to regain the power they apparently lost through the Post-War, and especially post-Civil Rights Era neoliberal order. Instead of the class, they’ll be using the more retrograde social categories of race and/or national identity. These were, after all, the first identity politics of the Modern world, in the republican, industrial, post-religious world where scientism and Nation-States purportedly replaced the old religious ideologies. The retrograde Alt Right, more classic liberal than actually conservative (and much less « libertarian »), equally got their own priests and popes of social justice, pandering on inherently shallow, brutish definitions of the «human» as if due to being older, or before, they were any more accurate or righteous than the recent «corruption» of the LGBTQ+, the Women and the non-White social identities, undermining their former, ages-old domi-nation over bodies. Are these new categories produced by the new Left and reproduced by the social media empires – led by White normative men, by the way — any more authentic or accurate? I doubt that.

The only social identity that is accurate, is yours, or mine. The question that you may represent, not the prêt-à-porter answer. That is the only one, removed from even the official citizen and corporate definition enforced by the state from shortly after your birth as physical living being- that can define you.

Who are you? Or what are you?

Am I, the author, in a position to know better than you? I only know, for sure, that you may not be what you pretend, but something more, or less, or else. You may even possibly exist!

[blackmoonoracle]

I feel that it's time to start having real discussions about concepts such as karma. I see many people speak on it without truly understanding the function it serves.

Karma is not an emotional concept, it is the fabric of reality; The momentum we cultivate within our lives & the actions we choose to take in response to the natural occurrences in the circumstances that make up our lives. Take into example the wheel of fortune tarot card. We cannot control other people, but we can control ourselves. Karma can and will overlook those who are kind, meek, & good hearted if they cannot or will not fiercely defend themselves from the likes of the imbalances that plagues humanity. You are not special by default. I don't say that to be cruel, but to be honest. You are special because you choose yourself, because you continue to push in spite of it all. Take your destiny into your own hands, do not be a sitting duck; because inaction is an action as well. Karma is on no one's side inherently, all it does is maintain the necessary balance for existence to continue unfolding. If you learn how to work the system of Karma it can allow you to cultivate the life you desire. Karma favors few, and even when you are favored it does not mean you are impenetrable. We must remember that our perception is a key point in our earthly and ephemeral experiences. Which is why momentum is so important in the conversation of karma. Karma is not necessarily going to naturally pave the path to your fortune or another's misfortune. Especially if you take no intentional actions towards your goal, or if you do not take necessary action. Or even if you misunderstand a lesson and lash out at the person you perceive to have harmed you. Karma is simple yet complex- and to view this system through such a human lens is not doing us any favors. It is a law of the universe, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Yes, karma can "defend us" but most frequently the case is that you or another person have spirits that rock with you. we must kill the emotional narrative. Justice is an aspect of karma, yes, but you also at some point must realize that we all have free will. Was slavery justified? Then how could karma allow this to happen? Is the Palestinian genocide justified? Then how could karma allow this to happen? Have you ever watched someone be forced to relive a karmic lesson over and over again? Yet they remain delusional & continue on the cycle while still managing to manipulate and sway others into their favor? Almost as if nothing changes and they are still allowed to cause harm and chaos? There are many factors to take into consideration. One factor being, have you taken the necessary action to hold someone else accountable? Have you done your due diligence to reflect on the situation or circumstance that occured and asked yourself what can be learned from that experience? Is this person, individual, etc a reflection of collective energies and are they serving a higher purpose that you may not be aware of? All that is divine is not inherently good. What makes you think that an abuser is going to be aware that they're getting their shit rocked because they suck as a person? Who's to even say someone will suffer in the same lifetime as an instance of "unjust" action upon another? We all have free will. No one is coming to save you. Take action and save yourself, you are the hero of your own story. Utilizing spiritual jargon such as karma to put yourself on a pedestal is silly. You are the karma. Society is the karma. Existence is the karma. We are all the result of an action, our life circumstances, the state of the world & society at large. What role will you play?

[nonsenuser]

planet of the apes (trilogy + kingdom)

spoilers ahead for the whole planet of the apes trilogy and kingdom of the planet of the apes

i have a very faint memory about these movies from when i was younger, i mean its a very popular series, who wouldnt be intrigued by the concept of talking apes (also the visual effects for these r genuinely very impressive) but what i don't remember is how surprisingly nuanced the conflicts in the movies feel

when watching these movies as someone much older, with the context of everything currently happening and everything that has happened, it puts the conflict between the apes-humans into a very real life context. caesar is such a wonderful, interesting and honestly deeply complex character, the trilogy works incredibly well as a whole and while some of the movies r much much better than others, his upbringing, trauma and overall experiences play such a role in what we see him do and say in these movies. what makes caesars experience so unique, is his proximity to his oppressors (humans). he has undoubtedly seen the ugly side to them, but on the other hand, he was literally raised by a human. who he undoubtedly holds so much love for and at the same time understands the ways in which as a collective humans have been bad to his people.

that's also why koba, who has seen the most grotesque side of human nature, and in a sense these experiences have radicalized him, will always haunt caesar. because of koba's experiences, one could say his ideology is more focused and clearer than caesars, who is grappling with it continuously throughout the trilogy bc of his attitude twds humans (and this gets brought up repeatedly throughout the trilogy) koba isn't even wrong in his frustrations, would the humans have attacked first? maybe, if the humans had a leader who was much like caesar, the conflict wouldn't have escalated to a point we saw in war. but again who could say for sure. im looking back on what i wrote so far and ive realized how much harder it is to talk about the original trilogy! Dawn is the best of the trilogy for this reason, the escalation of the conflict is dense and you could analyze it through a political lens and compare it to real life events... but i don't think i have enough political insight to serve it justice.

people have analyzed War (which is think is kinda easier to analyze than Dawn) like theres a clear parallel with american nationalism and how horrific and damaging that is to the oppressed (like they put the apes in literal camps) and also they had a strong strong desire to rid of anyone who held mutated virus, you could pull the pandemic parallel sure but this is also how an unfortunate huge chunk of the world feels about disabled people (the idea that ppl need to rid them so they don't infiltrate the gene pool or something like that). and just like in real life you have the humans outside of the camps who are opposed to the ideology of woody harellson and his men.

but anyways throughout all of this CAESAR grows and learns, and as a leader he guides his kind to freedom, their path to liberation is rough but it is well understood that his leadership was incredibly inspiring. it is no surprise that people live by his word, generations after he passed, to the point where they misconstrue his message

kingdom planted a lot, and i mean a LOT of interesting seeds. caesar being a religious figure of sorts, and noa, who you could call a skeptic for most of the movie, are great inclusions to continue the saga. a lot of very important questions get asked (not literally, but this is what i gathered)

caesars words guided their kind back then, how suitable are they for everyone generations later? (especially since they just have word of mouth to go off of)

the humans want to 'reclaim what they once had', what lengths are they willing to go for that and is it justified?

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HUMANS AND APES TO LIVE SIDE BY SIDE? the most important question of them all. and it will be a very difficult one to tackle! has it been long enough that apes will 'forgive' humans? will humans just want to consume and reclaim without consideration for the apes? how nuanced r the viewpoints within the humans and apes?

DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH THERE IS HERE. the messaging is so so so dense and even though it is just an ape movie it is really fascinating to see how all of this plays out! i am so incredibly excited for the sequels to kingdom. would love anyone to jump in on the conversation, correct me or otherwise it is just a lot! i love this series!

[anonameisadditions]

Norm or Norma: PSYCHO, and how Hitchcock saved the film from studio interference

In the last 7 minutes of Psycho, the film shifts from psychokinetic thriller to dead-in-the-water procedural criminal theater. Gone are the inventive visuals informing the everyday life of Norman Bates- the clothes he wears, the spaces he occupies, the food he eats, the life he lives. He is completely absent from the scene, yet his vanishment from the film makes it feel impersonal, and archaic- Justice has been served, and the uneasy build of tension and insanity has been cut with a sharp razor prepped by Occam himself- “Norman is mad”, the sponsored therapist says, “But he’s not a “Transgender”, but rather, something altogether different.” 

The scene was an addition by the studio, last minute, who feared that audiences would be unable to understand the plot twist- Hitchcock himself thought it to be altogether unnecessary, a sentiment many critics have agreed to. But it is not just a poor scene- It’s a scene that showcases the complexities of identity in Psycho, all through the studio trying to wring it’s hands of controversy or confusion. It is the film stooping down on one knee, to look it’s patrons in the eyes and remind them that the bad man in the film is not real, and that all the horrible, empathic emotions you felt towards Norma and Norman Bates were just a trick of the mind- that bad people do bad things because other bad people did bad things to them- and, despite what Norman said, not all of us go a little mad sometimes.

Charming. But not true.

Hello, My Name’s ANoN. I’m a film school graduate who’s been writing, reading, and watching film all my life, with a particular love of horror, and in particular, exploitation horror. I’ve seen plenty of “cheap trash” in my lifetime, and I’m known among my peers for having an eye for detail when it comes to writing and storytelling. But all of that barely matters to you, the random person who clicked onto this blog post- what matters here is Norman- and explaining to you why the world needed to be told that Norman was mad.

Let’s talk about Norman Bates a little. 

He’s young- a bit odd looking, but handsome in a plain, affectionate way. He’s tall, neat, quiet, and he’s ran the Bates Motel for quite some time with his mother. He seems like a known figure in the local community in the area, for how the police chief’s wife reacts to his families name- but curiously, there’s no hint of suspicion or discomfort for most in his name. He’s definitely an odd duck, given his obsession with taxidermy, and his lack of emotional skills in navigating his feelings around women, and he has a vice- He peeps on women in their hotel rooms, and had a bad habit in his youth of “hanging around” whenever a woman guest would check in. Norman lacks an awareness of social skills, not picking up the discomfort that our runaway fraudster Marion hints at the entire time that he watches her have dinner- an interesting formality that Norman doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of- and he speaks about his life.

Marion is drawn in, shockingly- Norman ends up being unexpectedly charming, despite his clear issues- He’s affable, a bit lonely, the dutiful son who seems glad just to have company around again. He ends the night with a firm goodbye, only offended at the observation by Marion that, in his unhappiness, he should consider leaving his mother. In that moment, you can see something come out of Norman- the pain of his relationship with his mother, his sense of duty and expectation, and- most importantly- the terminal grip of his mother around his psyche. “A man’s best friend is his mother”, he asserts- a common phrase in the 1960s, that takes on a sinister air as we see the murderous behaviors of Norma Bates. 

As Norman tries desperately to cover up the attacks of Norma Bates (a death toll including 2 other women, Marion, and a private Investigator), Marion’s sister, and Marion’s fillandring lover is left to investigate the Bates manor. Marion creeps along it’s corridors and rooms- We see the daily life of Norman in the detritus and mess of the household- the clothes he wears, the places he’s slept, the way he lives on a day-to-day basis, and what we find is not the house of a madman, but of someone altogether familiar. There is no horrific effegy to a fallen god- There is no decapitated cats locked in a fridge- there is no nipple belt, no skin lampshade, no woman suit (as we’d relate to Ed Gein, the murderer that Norman was based on.) We find the tense ordinary- We keep expecting that this door, when opened, will find the proof in the pudding, the sign that would have let Marion know that Norman was nuts- and we keep coming up with dust in the windowsill and tar in the attic.

Except for one detail. We come to the basement, as Norman investigates the house- and discover the taxidermed, preserved body of Norma Bates- firing off the Chekov’s gun of the insane amount of Taxidermied birds in the Bates Household- and launch into, what was intended to be the chilling, final image of the film- Norma Bates, revealed- a man in a powdery wig and a woman’s size 10, knife held in hand. Here is your breakawy moment- the moment that the audience is to be left with, the strange, queer detail that is meant to make us see the latent madness in Norman. 

But strangely, It’s hollow. If you were to take this as the film’s original ending, it would still be a smash hit, do not misunderstand me. But we’ve spent a lot of time with Norman at this point- we’ve seen his inner demons, but even in this strange, messed-up basement, You can’t stop seeing Norman in Norma. Their identities are spiritually interlinked- They oscillate, back and forth, and in that complexity, the story feels altogether incomplete, in only the way that true, good suspense fiction can be. 

This is one of the most cunning tricks of the film- We cannot divine who was the one with the mental illness in the Bates household. The Psychatrist seems to think that Norman, driven mad by the highly controlling behaviors of his mother, is the one whose mind broke once she chose another man over him. However, Norman’s own perspective seems quite different- He seems to regard his mother as a madwoman, cooped up in her bedroom, who would spend her days insulting Norman and guilting him into a relationship of deadly emotional incest instead of giving him the ability to decide his own future. Even in death, Norma passes the buck to Norman, implying it to all be his responsibility, whilst demonstrating the same bloodthrist that Norman tries to repress, in her fly speech. 

They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..."

Granted, this could just be projection on Norman’s part- He’s hardly a reliable source- but that’s why Psycho works. It’s creeping dread reaches beyond the film, and into your own mind. Can one safely blame their bad impulses on the way they were raised? We profess ourselves capable of being moral, aware of the consequences of our choices, unlike the bad people we know- but is Marion a bad person for stealing the money of a creep to elope with a man who’s in a demonstratively unfair marriage? The film recognizes Marion as a criminal, who is worn down by society to return to honesty- but before she can decide, a madman with a knife takes that from her. Similarly, the line of deviancy runs through Norman, with the implications of his odd behavior around women and his peeping being traits inherent to his fractured feelings about sexuality- but does peeping at women begit murderous intent? 

Who is Norman Bates- Is he his mother, or his own man? We spent a lot of time with him, and yet we come up with frustratingly few answers. We can sit here and psychoanalyze him all we want, but, we are unfortunately stuck with him, from the inside out. And can we really trust ourselves to know when we’ve gone a little mad, sometimes? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Yours Falsely,

AN0N

[iowarealestateacademy]

Who's the Better Real Estate Agent: Glinda or Elphaba?

When considering the traits that make someone successful in real estate, a mix of charisma, integrity, resilience, and a deep understanding of people’s needs is essential. Let’s have a little fun by comparing two iconic characters from Wicked: Glinda, the good witch, and Elphaba, the misunderstood yet powerful "wicked" witch. If these two magical characters stepped into the competitive world of real estate, who would come out on top? Let’s dive into their strengths and challenges, evaluating them based on key real estate agent traits.

Charisma and Approachability

One of the first characteristics that can make or break a real estate agent is their charisma. This is where Glinda shines. Known for her bubbly, friendly personality, she has a magnetic charm that draws people in. Glinda’s optimism and approachable demeanor would undoubtedly help her in a career that thrives on building relationships and trust with clients. She would be the type of agent who could walk into a room and instantly connect with a potential buyer, making them feel comfortable and confident in her abilities.

In contrast, Elphaba isn’t necessarily known for her charm or approachability. Her strong personality and unique appearance have often made others wary of her. However, those who take the time to get to know Elphaba discover a deeply loyal and compassionate individual. While Elphaba might not win over clients instantly, she could attract clients looking for an agent who is authentic and deeply committed to their needs, even if it means being more serious and less focused on appearances.

Winner: Glinda In terms of initial approachability and social charm, Glinda would likely excel in winning over clients quickly, a key aspect of real estate.

Integrity and Honesty

Real estate agents must be trustworthy. Clients are making one of the biggest financial decisions of their lives, so they need to know their agent has their best interests at heart. Elphaba’s strong sense of justice and commitment to doing the right thing, even when it’s difficult, gives her an edge here. She has always stood up for what she believes in, even when it wasn’t popular or easy. Elphaba would be the type of agent who is straightforward with her clients, never sugarcoating the truth, and ensuring they have all the information they need to make informed decisions.

On the other hand, while Glinda is well-intentioned, she’s more likely to bend the truth to maintain appearances or avoid difficult conversations. Glinda’s priority is often to keep things light and happy, which might lead to withholding certain realities that clients need to hear. While she’s not deceitful, her tendency to prioritize popularity and ease might compromise the level of transparency needed in real estate.

Winner: Elphaba In terms of integrity, Elphaba's dedication to honesty and doing what’s right would make her a more trustworthy agent.

Resilience and Problem-Solving

Real estate is full of unexpected challenges: deals fall through, inspections reveal surprises, and clients’ needs evolve. Resilience and problem-solving are critical in navigating these hurdles, and this is where Elphaba excels. Throughout Wicked, Elphaba faces numerous setbacks and betrayals, yet she always pushes forward with determination. Her resourcefulness and ability to think critically would serve her well in resolving complex real estate issues. If an unexpected problem arose, Elphaba wouldn’t be fazed—she’d roll up her sleeves and work through it, ensuring her clients felt supported and confident.

Glinda, while positive and upbeat, has shown less grit when faced with adversity. She tends to avoid conflict and may not handle high-stress situations with the same level of poise. In a competitive market or during a tough negotiation, Glinda might struggle to navigate the complexities and could be more likely to look for easy solutions, even if they’re not the best ones for her clients.

Winner: Elphaba When it comes to resilience and problem-solving, Elphaba’s strength and determination would make her a more reliable agent in challenging situations.

Marketing and Social Skills

Glinda’s flair for attention and her social media-worthy persona would likely shine in real estate marketing. She understands the importance of image and presentation, which could translate into eye-catching listings and persuasive social media campaigns. Glinda’s ability to attract attention and create excitement around a property would be a huge asset in today’s market, where digital presence is key.

While Elphaba might not be as flashy, she would excel in niche markets that appreciate authenticity and a personal touch. Elphaba would likely create deep relationships with a smaller client base, focusing more on referrals and word-of-mouth, while Glinda would attract the masses with her broad appeal.

Winner: Glinda In terms of marketing and social appeal, Glinda’s outgoing nature and eye for presentation would likely attract a larger audience.

The Verdict: Who Makes the Better Real Estate Agent?

Both Glinda and Elphaba bring unique strengths to the table, but ultimately, it depends on the client’s needs. Glinda’s charm and marketing prowess would make her an excellent agent for those who value charisma and a quick connection. However, for clients who prioritize honesty, resilience, and someone who will fight hard for them, Elphaba’s integrity and determination would make her the better choice.

If we had to pick one overall winner, Elphaba might take the lead for her commitment to truth and problem-solving abilities. But in the magical world of real estate, there’s room for both types of agents to succeed!

[ukrfeminism]

10 minute read

Thousands walk past every day without noticing it or knowing anything about the lives being transformed inside. Nestled behind the sunflower-hued door of a Georgian terraced house, on a busy Brighton street, the Brighton’s Women Centre (largely known by its acronym the ‘BWC’) – is home to those facing unique difficulties, in particular those at risk of reoffending. 

The need for a place like this is great: statistics show that compared to men, women who receive a custodial sentence (prison time) are more likely to be complex and vulnerable individuals, who’ve experienced trauma and abuse – and while 95% of male prisoners’ children remain in their own homes when their father is incarcerated, the same can be said for only 5% of children whose mothers are jailed.

One woman who knows about this heartache first-hand is Hayley*, an evidently caring and straight-talking 43-year-old mother of five, who has been engaging with BWC for six years.

“I’d reached the point of no return when I first came here,” she tells me, as we sit in a quiet meeting room in the centre’s attic, leaflets about the help on offer scattered across a nearby table. “My life was a mess, a shambles really.” Hayley, like many women who’ve been to prison, has dealt with addiction issues, abusive relationships, and unstable housing, all of which contributed to her committing an offence and serving time whilst pregnant. When she left HMP Bronzefield six years ago, Hayley describes herself as ‘broken’. 

“I’d started to wake up when I was arrested, but when I came here, it was the first time I really felt I was being listened to and that there was hope of change. I was pregnant again, with a set of twins, and I’d already had three daughters taken off me. Was I really gonna go through that again?” she shares, reflecting on how far she’s come since first walking through that sunshine yellow door. “When you go through the justice system, you meet a lot of people and go to a lot of places. You meet probation officers, and they’ve got your file in front of them… you instantly feel judged.”

She adds, “You’re scared to be totally honest about your situation in case it comes back to bite you later on. People get scared they’ll lose their children if they ask for help [with a substance abuse issue]. You feel you’re drowning. But it’s not like that in BWC, it’s a women’s only space that has a different energy. There was no chaos in the building, it was just calm.” 

Hayley was first referred to BWC under court orders via her probation officer following a pre-sentence report, which she says is what ‘saved’ her from another stretch in prison. She now also credits her case worker, Marion, for also ‘drip feeding’ her information about the signs of coercive control, narcissism and abuse too, during their chats over cups of tea. “I started to feel a bit empowered and could recognise behaviour that wasn’t right for the first time.”

Unlike a refuge or shelter (accommodation for those fleeing abuse), the function of a women’s centre can sometimes be confused – which is understandable, given that the likes of BWC seem to… do it all, for anyone in need of help. As well as having staff on hand for practicalities such as housing issues, financial problems, mental health support (counselling and psychotherapy is available) and food poverty (the latter being the service that’s seen the biggest increase in demand over the past year), women’s centres provide a safe space to talk – which can ultimately be the biggest game-changer for many. There’s also a cheerful nursery on site, Toy Box, so that mothers can attend appointments without fretting about childcare.

All of which is why the newly announced £15 million government cash injection into 40 women’s charities and centres in England and Wales, like the BWC, that support those at risk of reoffending, is so crucial. But is it enough, given that a recent Women In Prison report found nearly half of all women’s centres are concerned about their survival? What else can be done to stop women – and mothers in particular – from going to jail, and tearing apart families in the process, traumatising a new generation? Why are 3,219 women ending up in prison each year in the first place, with most having committed a non-violent, low-level offence?

Victims before perpetrators

“We often say that women who’ve gone to prison were victims before they were perpetrators,” says Damian Hinds, Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation, who joins me at BWC. “We know female offending is typically driven by factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues. Around 60% of women in prison have experienced domestic abuse and about half have some kind of drug problem, so we need to tackle those underlying issues with earlier intervention and better support, to stop the cycle of offending.” 

He praises the Female Offender Strategy that began in 2018, with the aim of tackling the root causes of female offending and reducing prison numbers (Hinds’ team also shares that between June 2018 – June 2022 the number of women sentenced to immediate custody fell by 37%). 

However, whilst news of the funding is a welcome step in the right direction "that provides a much-needed respite for organisations working tirelessly to meet the needs of at-risk women, or those in contact with the criminal justice system”, there's still a long way to go, says Sonya Ruparel, the Chief Executive of Women In Prison (a charity that has supported women in the criminal justice system for 40 years). Their work sees them have a presence inside prisons, in the community and ‘through the prison gate’ as they help women to resettle in their communities.

"The money is providing a temporary solution to a long-term problem, and this £15m available pales into insignificance when compared, for example, with the £200m the government are investing in an extra 500 prison places for women," she explains. "Despite the government’s commitment to reducing the women’s prison population, they are projecting it will rise by up to 35% in the next three years. 

"Without real investment in services that support women to address the root causes of crime such as domestic violence and abuse, debt and homelessness women will continue to be unnecessarily swept into the criminal justice system." 

Female inmates, the majority of whom have been convicted of fraud (14%) or shoplifting (19%), also have to grapple with being incarcerated by a system designed with men in mind, and it is estimated that women sent to prison are seven times more likely to self-harm than men. Each year, 17,000 children are impacted by maternal imprisonment too.

Helping women to break the cycle of trauma is something that Lisa Dando, Director at BWC, and all her staff, are passionate about. They explain that a ‘trauma-informed’ approach is key when dealing with any woman living with multiple disadvantages [something that can be lacking during arrests, for instance, if officers haven’t been specially trained] and that a shortage of decent emergency accommodation sees women who’ve recently left prison instantly set up to fail. 

Too many are housed far from home – away from their support networks that help them to stay sober and happy – and are forced into mixed gender living situations, with shared bathrooms, toilets, and broken locks. All of which see their fight or flight responses fire up, particularly if they’ve been victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence. It’s much harder to stay sober when you’re scared and lonely.

The UK also continues to put pregnant women in prison, when other countries don’t. “Women give birth in prison here,” Dando adds. “I don't understand why the children are being punished for a crime their mothers have committed. The prison system is damaging in so many different ways and I'm also not convinced that the rehabilitation work that takes place inside, especially for women on short term sentences, which the majority are, has enough time to really make a difference.”

She adds, “It seems illogical [to break families up in this way] when there are alternatives, like women’s centres and non-custodial sentences, that are proven to work.” Dando, of course, caveats that this does not mean she supports people who’ve committed violent or very serious crimes going without punishment. 

It’s a sentiment that Hinds seemed to agree with during our interview too, along with the need for better trauma support training to be instilled across the justice system as a whole. “Trauma-informed services and spaces for these women are vital,” agrees Marion Taylor, Manager of the Inspire project at BWC, who has worked with Hayley. “It’s about working with women in a way that recognises they have trauma in their backgrounds, that shapes the way they’ve developed and react to certain things.” Consistency is also key; BWC is able to offer twelve sessions with a therapist, whereas the NHS offering typically hovers at around six to eight.

Part of the newly announced funding, of which BWC has received £761,280, will also be spent on creating better links between women’s centres and the police, which (as suggested by the Casey review) is rife with misogyny, racism and homophobia. “[The review] is a big part of why we wanted to form a partnership with the police, to divert women away from contact with them if possible,” Dando explains. “We want to step in early and provide a different model of support, to protect women from having to experience being in a police cell or the damaging effects of a service that is struggling. We’d like to bring a different view and educate the police on a new way of working.”

In terms of feeling the impact of previous government cuts to services, Dando diplomatically says that since she “joined fifteen years ago, it’s been peaks and troughs” and that currently, the centre looks set to be financially ‘safe’ for the next two years. She highlights the financial gains of custodial sentences being a last resort too, pointing out that incarceration costs around £42,000 per inmate compared with a community sentence coming in at around £2,000. Around 87% of women given a non-custodial sentence do not go on to reoffend either. Dando adds, “And really, we’re all at risk of needing a women’s centre if our circumstances suddenly change.” 

When asked by Cosmopolitan UK as to whether the new £15 million funding allocation is enough for women’s services, Minister Hinds said he feels it’s a “substantial investment” and that the scheme will reduce the £18 billion overall cost of reoffending for the taxpayer. “Female offenders also benefit from other support the justice and health systems provide, like the Probation Service and Government’s £3 billion 10-year drugs strategy investment.” 

Coming back from darkness

Someone who is a prime example of a non-custodial sentence working is Sarah*, a 60-year-old animal lover who explains that she snapped after a long-running dispute with her neighbour escalated during lockdown. The neighbour, she says, made an illegal roof garden on their building, that Sarah repeatedly said wasn’t safe – and her point was proven when a dog later fell off and was injured. Later on, whilst in the vet’s surgery, an argument between the neighbours grew heated and Sarah admits that she pulled her neighbour’s hair. 

Her situation, Sarah points out, is a prime example of circumstances changing in an instant – and to her credit, she repeatedly acknowledges that she shouldn’t have become physical in that scenario. “I do sometimes wake in the night and think how could this happened? I pulled her hair. Yet I've been punched in the past, and it never goes to court. It was all just blown completely out of proportion… I used to work for probation, I spent five years working with one parent families.”

Ultimately, after sleepless nights spent imagining how she’d survive in prison, Sarah was given a non-custodial sentence of community service work, which she completed in a PDSA charity shop, “I was put in a position in court, where if I opened my mouth and tried to stand up for myself, I knew I would go to prison,” she reflects. “So I stayed quiet and left it to my solicitor, who managed to reduce my sentence down to 50 hours of non-custodial work.” Alongside her sentence, Sarah was also issued an eviction order, which is what led her to BWC to seek help with housing. 

“It was last chance saloon,” she shares. “I’d tried to access other services but found they weren’t able to move fast enough for me. It had reached the stage where my family were exhausted with it all too. My kids are older – my daughter is a doctor and my son's a respected musician – they came with me to court, but they didn’t have the facilities to help me, whereas women’s centres do. Even things like utility bills, I've brought them here as I just couldn’t have handled them alone.”

Now, Sarah is in a much better space – both mentally and physically – having found alternative accommodation with BWC’s support, and once her 50 hours in the shop were up, she decided to stay on as she found it good for her confidence and sticking to a routine. 

Hayley now says she’s now able to be there for all of her children and is clean and sober. She is also single, having broken free of her pattern of repeatedly entering into abusive relationships, and tells me she’s teaching her 17-year-old daughter to spot the red flags that she missed early on. “My kids have seen a lot of things and experienced a lot of trauma, they've seen me beaten up, drug dealers come through the doors, windows being smashed… But now it's like, mum's not that person anymore,” she says. “They can see I'm not running to men, or looking for a man to fix me, or putting up with being spoken to in a certain way. I can finally set the right example.” 

For now, it sounds as though the likes of BWC and the forty other women’s centres that have received funding at least have a little space to breathe – but is allowing them a moment to pause and catch their breath really enough? Especially given that new stats show one in five people in the UK are living in poverty right now, and that debt and homelessness are precursors to potentially committing an offence. Is it right that women’s centres have had to fight so hard – and wait so long – to receive adequate financial support in the first place, given the incomparable work they’re doing? And whilst these forty centres can feel short-term relief, plenty of other incredible organisations around the UK are still struggling. Let’s hope this is only the beginning of the recognition, and that the pressure all women’s centres are feeling will be eased on a more permanent basis in the near future. 

*Name has been changed 

You can donate to Brighton Women's Centre here and Bankuet, the food bank association that work alongside the BWC, here

[phlve]

Sociotype Profiles — LSI

Ego

Leading Ti

The need for existence to align strictly to an order is the main drive for LSIs, who demand a structured and consistent way of viewing their world and acting within it. LSIs naturally direct their attentions to understanding the rules for how things are, how things fit together and whether they do so coherently. With great precision, they are able to assess the logical correctness of systems and whether they follow from evident truths, or else pick out exactly where an action or statement has deviated from underlying principles. From such structures, LSIs establish certainty in their lives, knowing exactly what is correct or incorrect, what can be expected and what should not be, while bringing such assurances to others. LSIs tend to serve as voices of justice or incorruptibility to their friends and communities, setting out precisely what is fair or in line with the true way, and holding to these dictates without personal wants, biases or compromise. Commitment to one's beliefs is of prime importance to LSIs and through such a lens, they are able to interpret the world around them, setting out the priorities for themselves and others to follow, with a guarantee of what can be expected should these standards be adhered to, or transgressed.

Creative Se

In service to their code of beliefs, LSIs readily take action to build order from chaos, disciplining themselves in line with their convictions, while enforcing what they think is right or legitimate onto any situation. When acting in a way they feel is righteous, they will become untouchable, immoveable forces that none might dissuade, and will brook no opposition to their dogged determination and often sharp intellect. In a way, there are two different understandings of the LSI, depending on how much their principles align with existing authority. They may operate as willing soldiers or enforcers of the law, while rooting out any resistance. Alternatively, they may lead a revolution against a system they feel is fundamentally flawed or unjust, with the goal to tear it down and start anew. Others may be content living their own lives by the beliefs they have come to hold, away from a society that cannot live up to their expectations. In each case, LSIs are very capable of asserting their will to reshape reality in line with their understanding, while resisting temptations or contradictions in the battleground of ideas.

Super-Ego

Vulnerable Ne

In their maintenance of clarity and certainty, LSIs lack tolerance of ambiguity. While their logic enables the translation of a complex reality into a clear black and white, situations of ambiguity, where something could be one way or another, present a challenge to LSIs as they are unable to create certainty from this. In such scenarios, the LSI may hesitate, or else push forward blindly on what they are familiar with, not turning back or changing track even if the alternative hypothesis turns out to be true. LSIs tend to be very straightforward and stubborn in their worldviews, not being very open to the idea that their understanding may not be the absolute truth and that other people can have very different perspectives to their own for a wide variety of different reasons. It is rare for an LSI, once their mind is made up, to give anyone the chance of changing their mind. Instead they tend to assume that everyone must come to the conclusion they made from their own experiences, or else, have made a serious error. Consequently, the thought processes of LSIs may come across as overly confined and linear, lacking the flexibility and multiplicity to account for the more complex nuances and surprises that the world has to offer. Similarly any system they create may be too rigid in its precision and perhaps too draconian in its harshness, not accounting for new or unusual scenarios where what may have once seemed correct would end up being intuitively wrong.

Role Fi

LSIs are aware of the need to establish reliable relations with others and to know who they can trust. As such, LSIs tend to be careful in their associations with others, trying to make sure they know the people they are talking to. Similarly, LSIs usually know their personal attitudes towards others, being able to stick with people they personally like while avoiding those they do not. In the area of relationships, LSIs show a softer side to their personality, being more able outside of formality to make exceptions to their rules and give people personally close to them a break. For their friends, LSIs tend to show a strong loyalty and warm attachment. While laying down clear boundaries in their relations with others so that they know where not to cross, LSIs are better able to take the individual into account, working more closely to satisfy a close friend's needs. However, should the personal sphere conflict with the public, LSIs will readily prioritise the logic of their beliefs and commitments, not allowing their principles to be undermined by personal ties. The pressures of navigating this conflict between formality and familiarity can be a source of strain over time, and LSIs much prefer environments where everyone feels united under the set of priorities. In these situations, not only is everyone on the same side and able to be trusted to work towards the same goals, but also the LSI is not forced to justify any kind of special treatment.

Super-Id

Mobilizing Ni

While well suited to the order of a bureaucratic environment, LSIs are often discontent with sticking to something that feels mundane, or ultimately pointless. Instead, LSIs aspire towards a path of great meaning and purpose, that they can follow as a calling throughout their lives, while contributing to something greater than themselves. As such, LSIs are frequently motivated to apply their intellect in service of a higher cause, wanting to see the systems they believe in go on to meaningfully change the world. Although naturally strong at acting instantaneously in the moment, LSIs develop over time to think their actions through carefully and focus their efforts on planning ahead to see the right path or destiny ahead. As such, they aspire to know with certainty how things are going to happen and try to create schedules and strategies so that their projects remain neatly on track. However, such a desire to maintain singular commitments is often undermined by LSIs' inability to consider multiple possible ways an event can turn out. Certainty in their cause can cause their plans to lack contingencies, which they will pursue with great stubbornness, even to the edge of failure.

Suggestive Fe

For their formality, LSIs are socially conscious people who want to belong with a group of people. Although coming across as somewhat aloof to begin with, LSIs quickly thaw out in boisterous, fun conversations and can become quite expressive themselves, joining with the group mood. However, in their focus on thinking things through soberly and logically, LSIs are often the strong, silent types, coming off stiff or severe without the mood to pick them up. They may lack the social ease to express their emotions properly, or even recognise the passion within themselves. Often, an LSI will attempt to deliver information by virtue of the structure they have thought out, telling people what needs to be done in an overly technical manner rather than in a way that is uplifting to hear, or in a way which may unintentionally come across as rude or arrogant. They lack the natural charm and skill with emotive language necessary to persuade people that their structure is important to follow, and so may struggle to convince people outside of intellectual debate. As such, LSIs rarely succeed in contests of popularity and appealing to a large number of people, and may be restricted to preaching to the choir. LSIs long for an emotional stirring to bring what they believe to life and are very responsive to the passions of others that can ignite their hearts and minds. They appreciate the support of others who are more naturally charismatic, who are better able to engage with others on important issues and spread the right message to get others on board.

Id

Ignoring Te

LSIs tend to be very knowledgeable, and clear in the articulation of what they know, while, through careful and exacting attention to quality, creating systems that run like clockwork.. When formulating their plans or coming to a point of view, LSIs may rely extensively on observations of how things work in real life to build their initial knowledge base. However, the optimisation of processes and further updates to what they think and believe, according to new evidence, can be rejected by LSIs in favour of the consistency or integrity of the structures already in place. LSIs devise their ideologies as a model of absolute truth and tend to reject the position that such models need to be updated and tweaked over time. After all, if they have already come to understand the truth, why would more data collection be necessary? In the rare occasions where an LSI does change their system, it is more a complete ideological shift after a life-changing event, rather than one in a series of upgrades. They also may resent those who pragmatically compromise on what they believe to reach 'working solutions', believing these to be the half-measures of those without the courage to fight for the right outcome.

Demonstrative Si

The LSI's affinity for maintenance of rules and standards frequently accompanies a meticulous attention to detail. LSIs are usually very aware of precise differences in the way objects around them are arranged and will be very thorough, keeping things neatly on the razor edge of perfection. Sloppiness can be ruthlessly scrutinised and LSIs may insist on a task being done again if a small detail is missed out. Additionally, when not imposing the severity of some rule or requirement, LSIs are surprisingly good at chilling out, harmonising peacefully with their environment after an intense and demanding period of duty. They may make very capable hosts, crafting the ideal, aesthetically-pleasing space in which to relax and unwind. In this way, LSIs exercise a keen attention to their physical needs, enabling them to pursue their higher goals with sustainability and arranging their domestic or daily life to line up with their ideals.

Source: Wikisocion

[matan4il]

Hi ! Have you watched the 2nd season of Hunters (Amazon) ? If so, have you any thoughts about the final episode ? I’m scratching my head wondering what I think of it aha

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for the ask!

I have watched it and I am TBH still processing. We're talking about some very heavy, complex and important stuff, so I don't wanna fall into the pit of rush judgment. Much like with my thoughts on s1, IMO s2 has some stuff that's good and some that I have issues with. So I need the processing to come to some more cohesive conclusions.

If I have to give a bottom line, putting aside a more in depth, nuanced discussion, I guess I would point to the fact that my fave thing about s1 is to a great degree missing in s2, and that some of the pitfalls they managed to avoid at the end of the day in s1... they didn't in s2. I'll give you one example. In case it's not obvious: spoilers!

Take the whole issue of judging the hunters. I mentioned that since there were actual real life Holocaust survivors who turned Nazi hunters, I don't feel comfortable judging them. By extension, that means I can't judge ANY of the Nazi hunters. The kid or grandchild of survivors either. And that's what Jonah is, right? Yet, that's exactly what the viewers are invited to do with the very last shot of s2 and the show overall. We just heard his wife telling him that when she looks at him, she sees his grandmother and great aunt (both Nazi hunters) and that she loves what she sees. She doesn't know, but we do, that he's lying to her at that very minute, and that their romantic getaway doubles as a cover for him spying on another Nazi criminal. The way this plays out paints him to be similar to a junky, who wants to quit but can't, and therefore ends up lying to his loved ones and destroying his own life. Is this a fair portrayal of most Nazi hunters? No. Most of the real ones actually took up Nazi hunting (in the non-legal sense) for only a few years at the end of the war, and most abandoned it in favor of re-building their own lives or helping others to do so. Yet with the last shot lingering on Jonah's face, knowing he's probably about to destroy his own marital bliss, we're being asked to look at him as his wife does and decide whether we love what we see. And while the shot itself is stunning, I personally just do not like the invitation to judge a Jewish person/character, who has lived through the horrors of the worst genocide in human history perpetrated against their own people, when there was no real justice served at the end of the war (or even within the fictional universe of Hunters s2 IMO) and judge what they decided to do about it.

So this isn't a full answers with all of the details, but I hope this helps until I can write a complete meta post? Thank you so much for writing to me about it. I am so happy for any ask regarding any and all things Jewish. Have a great day! As always, my ask tag. xoxox