#but saying that everyone who talks critically about zionism really means 'the jews' is just totally untrue and a fucked thing to say!)

[hewholivesinhisname]

Is the Devil, REALLY, responsible for this?

When you look at human behavior in the system, it all seems to be, generally maximized towards not taking responsibility. One of the first things I've noticed about people is that when they want to do something they create a front, an organization to do what they want to do....and rather than name it after themselves. They call it something nice sounding. So, the people who want to help the environment create "GREENPEACE" or whatever....or, they create a government. Rather than just ordering people around, they create a government and then say that everyone has to follow the government. The corporations are really sub-organizations within the government that run to make the money which the government prints out and of course we know all the evil that causes.

And of course, everywhere I go, I see churches with priests. Now to me a true priest would be someone who reported to a god. Right? Or, at least the angels or a spiritual leader. One of the best people in the world is probably the Dalai Lama and the reason that is is that instead of saying "O, well, we are doing this in the name of Christ or Buddha" at the very least he is at the head of the organization, he reincarnates and so you know that the yellow hats are generally run by him and report to him. Then you can criticize or congratulate him and the organization based on what he does.

With most priests though, they are just part of "a church" which means that they do things in god's name, but they aren't taking responsiblity, aren't thinking for themselves and are making things out to be that THEIR will is god's will. The Dalai Lama might be partly doing this of course because he is a "Buddhist" so he is making it out to be that he's doing the Buddha's will here. However, I don't see any Buddha, real or fake. As I've said he's a bit better though because at least you can identify who the fuck he is.

With the pope for instance, the pope isn't even saying he is a master spiritual teacher. The claim is that the pope talks to god. So the pope gets up there, claims he is talking to god (is he?, which god? why can't we examine this?) and then he directs the whole organization although of course he has very limited power in many ways because if he was ever to tell the priests to stop raping boys or giving up all the gold crosses and whatever, he would be hung.

When you get down to it though, neither the pope or the Dalai Lama are even attempting to establish standards of responsibility and rather are just upholding organizations through which people can direct their obedience so that they can not be responsible for themselves or others. So long as the pope can say "I'm just acting the role of the pope" and the people can say "we're just being good catholics", no matter how much damage is caused by the whole mess that is 'Catholicism' with all the child rape, torturing of people, promotion of the idea that god wants people to go to hell, the persecution of the Jews by Catholics and the rest of it, as well as a lot of low level bullshit. Well, no one is responsible. It's just kind of up in the air. Importantly at every step of the way they can say "this is god's will"

Is it though? No one checks with god.

This is way it's highly likely that Zionism, or conquering an empire in the name of god is one of the ultimate evils. The Jews in Israel for instance are doing all sorts of things, however it isn't clear whether god really wants them to do it or not. The Christian's really support it however, because if the Jews return to Israel then they can support the story of christ and go on doing Christian things. And then "naturally", you have the palestinian supporters who see that Israel is victimizing Palestine and they are trying to do something to stop it.

More endless war in god's name.

When people want to do something good, they use their own name. They create a big charity organization or something. However, when they want to do something BAD, they use god's name, and if it's so bad or antisocial that they can't do it in public- they do it in the devil's name.

Thus when you see a whole lot of ritual child abuse you see it called satanism. However, I'm pretty sure that the person I THINK is the devil actually ordered this. No one obeys him whatsoever. I mean, eventually they might, but he just kind of has shitty opinions about things such as that democracy is the best form of government.

I hate democracy. It's awful. It is accurate of course. The people run everything. The people build the factories, the people destroy the environemnt, the people, whatever they want to do, they are the ones doing it and of course they have all these mythologies attached to democracy which makes it out as if it is the very best way to do this.

Anarchism, interestingly enough is probably better than democracy because at the very least. Anarchists though, they don't form governments....and anarchists are not the average person either. Even Anarchists though would probably form semi-governmental organizations and would order people around in the name of society which always exists even if you have an anarchy.

Ah Society. According to society god is good, however you don't want to go out and actually find god and obey him. Instead you just sort of half-follow the holy books and then go get a job or something. Society thinks women are good and wonderful, all violence against women is wrong and delights in nice-looking people with money.

Anything bad looking is considered bad and anything good looking is considered good.

So, the system is really the result of the "natural" activities of many, many people creating organizations, those organizations forming hierarchies and then people giving up their will to these organizations and subordinating all activity human and not to them. Eventually "progress" gets good enough that they can build robots and they will worship the robots.

Why?

Because people are always trying to give up their power to others so that they don't have to be responsible for anything.....and this is important: Even obeying. They don't even want to be responsible for making the conscious choice to obey or not obey a dictator.

So, instead you have people creating these things called "democracy" which are nothing but gang violence and evil and then they talk all day about how wonderful democracy is, even though the 2 biggest democracies in the world: America and Israel are probably the 2 most responsible for all the wars. I've read things, of course, saying the opposite, but it's just a myth.

So, really all the "devil" and even "god" is to most people is a scapegoat. The government is a scapegoat. It's a democracay. If that's the case shouldn't we be in charge? we should be able to do wahtever the fuck we want?

However, human nature being what that is, that's not the case. People need to work for "causes" the government needs to act very authoritative and therefore it throws a bunch of people in jail for not obeying "the bad guys", who are the "bad guys"? Well, whoever doesn't obey the law with the law basically being the opinions of the police, the police basically going around and throwing people in jail for basically stupid reasons.

The way that people are constantly searching for ways to subordinate their behavior to roles, organizations, rules that others made up, god, the devil and so on and so forth is really quite amazing and a source of constant suffering as people, well, most of them really believe that they aren't really free to do what they want and in a way they aren't because if you don't do all of the ridiculous things that society and other people demand then you end up in this BAD PERSON category that is subject to all sorts of violence from others including throwing you in jail or an invisible jail like the mental hospital or the Grafton JobCorp.

In general, people just want to act shitty towards each other. The general trend of course to see the entire environment getting destroyed and that really is the result of billions of people, all working to gether to act as if things are "just happening" rather than people deliberately destroying things.

It's very important though to note that you don't have join a religion, you don't have to call the police on others, you don't have to use money and so on and so forth. All of this is a choice.

I made a choice to obey myself and I think others should obey me as well because....well, honestly I cannot imagine someone doing a worse job than the chaos I see around me. Even small scale democracies that I have been a part of have "voted me off the island" so to speak for things I don't really think are a big deal.

People generally think that things that are NOT a big deal are a big deal and that, well that's one of the reasons that very bad big deal things happen:

-my mother kicked me out because I smelled bad from being homeless

-my friend here got a restraining order put on him for texting "happy birthday, I love you" to his ex.

-my friend Doug Wight lost his house because some crazy woman in the local government didn't like a joke he said

-the entire political scene is strewn with these queer types who want to throw people in jail for "hate speech", using incorrect pronouns and the like.

The insane pettiness, the way that people will sell each other out for a dollar and so on and so forth is just incredible and a lot of the worst ones rise to the top in the bureaucracies wherein they make a million weird little rules and then actually expect people to follow them. I don't even think that these bureaucrats know what the fuck is happening or the laws, but they make sure there is a lot of "official looking" paperwork and so on and so forth.

The average person deserves hell because the average person creates hell. If everyone is working to be petty and make others miserable, this is the result, isn't it? Everyone will be throwing each other in hell. People think 'god" will throw them in hell, but as I've explained previiously that is a complete misconception. it's "normal' people who are obsessed with punishing each other for various slights.

It's "normal" peopel who operate all the prisons, who buy the prison stocks, who get jobs as prison guards, who insist that "advancing science and technology will save us" and who also insist on doing it all in god's name even though god specifically says in the Torah that he gave people bad rules to follow so that they would fear him.

People really should fear the people. Because it's the people who are really the problem. The Devil MAY be the worst of them. He might be, but no matter what, at the end of the day, he's just an enabler of bad behavior in the same way that god is an enabler of good behavior. It's people who choose to have bad intentions and to believe and pass down the whole pack of lies that goes along with a bad society.

So, go back and reread that a few times, because I don't think that most people get this. Almost no one gets this. People think it's "good god" vs. "the bad devil" in some cosmic good guy vs. bad guy drama. That's not it at all.

The real struggle is people living shitty lives and then blaming it on god. There are no bad guys and good guys, there is just bad behavior and rather than change bad behavior, people want to continue their bad behavior by labelling people monolithically good or evil. Do you see how that works? me good, you bad? etc. etc.

At times, even God has to act in error really and I think that's an important part of reality because whether there is a god or not, people still have to act morally, to find a way to treat each toher that is moral and most people do NOT want to do that. They participate in the game of society and treat themselves and others like crap. The devil is nothing compared to the evil of reality.

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hello, it is I, your friendly neighborhood historian. I am ready to lose followers for this post, but I have two masters degrees in history and one of my focuses has been middle eastern area studies. Furthermore, I’ve been tired of watching the world be reduced to pithy little infographics, and I believe there is no point to my education if I don’t put it to good use. Finally, I am ethnically Asheknazi Jewish. This does not color my opinion in this post — I am in support of either a one or two state solution for Israel and Palestine, depending on the factors determined by the Palestinian Authority, and the Israeli Government does not speak for me. I hate Netanyahu. A lot. With that said, my family was slaughtered at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have stood in front of that memorial wall at the Holocaust memorial in DC for my great uncle Simon and my great uncle Louis and cried as I lit a candle. Louis was a rabbi, and he preached mitzvot and tolerance. He died anyway. 

There’s a great many things I want to say about what is happening in the Middle East right now, but let’s start with some facts. 

In early May, there were talks of a coalition government that might have put together (among other parties, the Knesset is absolutely gigantic and usually has about 11-13 political parties at once) the Yesh Atid, a center-left party, and the United Arab List, a Palestinian party. For the first time, Palestinians would have been members of the Israeli government in their own right. And what happened, all of the sudden? A war broke out. A war that, amazingly, seemed to shield Benjamin Netanyahu from criminal prosecution, despite the fact that he has been under investigation for corruption for some time now and the only thing that is stopping a real investigation is the fact that he is Prime Minister.

Funny how that happened. 

There’s a second thing people ought to know, and it is about Hamas. I’ve found it really disturbing to see people defending Hamas on a world stage because, whether or not people want to believe it, Hamas is a terrorist organization. I’m sorry, but it is. Those are the facts. I’m not being a right wing extremist or even a Republican or whatever else or want to lob at me here. I’m a liberal historian with some facts. They are a terrorist organization, and they don’t care if their people die. 

Here’s what you need to know: 

There are two governments for the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. In April 2021, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas postponed planned elections. He said it was because of a dispute amid Israeli-annexed East Jerusalum. He is 85 years old, and his Fatah Party is losing power to Hamas. Everyone knows that. Palestinians know that. 

Here’s the thing about Hamas: they might be terrorists, but aren’t idiots. They understand that they have a frustrated population filled with people who have been brutalized by their neighbors. And they also understand that Israel has something called the iron dome defense system, which means that if you throw a rocket at it, it probably won’t kill anyone (though there have been people in Israel who died, including Holocaust survivors). Israel will, however, retaliate, and when they do, they will kill Palestinian civilians. On a world stage, this looks horrible. The death toll, because Palestinians don’t have the same defense system, is always skewed. Should the Israeli government do that? No. It’s morally repugnant. It’s wrong. It’s unfair. It’s hurting people without the capability to defend themselves. But is Hamas counting on them to for the propaganda? Yeah. Absolutely. They’re literally willing to kill their other people for it.

You know why this works for Hamas? They know that Israel will respond anyway, despite the moral concerns. And if you’re curious why, you can read some books on the matter (Six Days of War by Michael Oren; The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich; Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergmen; Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt; and Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis). The TL;DR, if you aren’t interested in homework, is that Israel believes they have no choice but to defend themselves against what they consider ‘hostile powers.’ And it’s almost entirely to do with the Holocaust. It’s a little David v Goliath. It is, dare I say, complicated.

I’m barely scratching the surface here. 

(We won’t get into this in this post, though if you want to DM me for details, it might be worth knowing that Iran funds Hamas and basically supplies them with all of their weapons, and part of the reason the United States has been so reluctant to engage with this conflict is that Iran is currently in Vienna trying to restore its nuclear deal with western powers. The USA cannot afford to piss off Iran right now, and therefore cannot afford to aggravative Hamas and also needs to rely on Israel to destroy Irani nuclear facilities if the deal goes south. So, you know, there is that).

There are some people who will tell you that criticism of the Israel government is antisemitic. They are almost entirely members of the right wing, evangelical community, and they don’t speak for the Jewish community. The majority of Jewish people and Jewish Americans in particular are criticizing the Israeli government right now. The majority of Jewish people in the diaspora and in Israel support Palestinian rights and are speaking out about it. And actually, when they talk about it, they are putting themselves in great danger to do so. Because it really isn’t safe to be visibly Jewish right now. People may not want to listen to Jews when they speak about antisemitism or may want to believe that antisemitism ‘isn’t real’ because ‘the Holocaust is over’ but that is absolutely untrue. In 2019, antisemitic hate crimes in the United States reached a high we have never seen before. I remember that, because I was living in London, and I was super scared for my family at the time. Since then, that number has increased by nearly 400% in the last ten days. If you don’t believe me, have some articles about it (one, two, three, four, and five, to name a few). 

I live in New York City, where a man was beaten in Time Square while attending a Free Palestine rally and wearing a kippah. I’m sorry, but being visibly Jewish near a pro-Palestine rally? That was enough to have a bunch of people just start beating on him? I made a previous post detailing how there are Jews being attacked all over the world, and there is a very good timeline of recent hate crimes against Jews that you can find right here. These are Jews, by the way, who have nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. They are Americans or Europeans or Canadians who are living their lives. In some cases, they are at pro-Palestine rallies and they are trying to help, but they just look visibly Jewish.  God Forbid we are the wrong ethnicity for your rally, even if we agree.

This is really serious. There are people calling for the death of all Jews. There are people calling for another Holocaust. 

There are 14 million Jews in the world. 14 million. Of 7.6 billion. And you think it isn’t a problem the way people treat us?

Anyway (aside from, you know, compassion), why does this matter? This matters because stuff like this deters Jews who want to be part of the pro-Palestine movement because they are literally scared for their safety. I said this before, and I will say it again: Zionism was, historically speaking, a very unpopular opinion. It was only widespread antisemitic violence (you know, the Holocaust) that made Jews believe there was a necessity for a Jewish state. Honestly, it wasn’t until the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that I supported it the abstract idea too.

I grew up in New York City, I am a liberal Jew, and I believe in the rights of marginalized and oppressed people to self-determine worldwide. Growing up, I also fit the profile of what many scholars describe as the self hating Jew, because I believed that, in order to justify myself in American liberal society, I had to hate Israel, and I had to be anti-Zionist by default, even if I didn’t always understand what ‘Zionism’ meant in abstract. Well, I am 27 years old now with two masters degrees in history, and here is what Zionism means to me: I hate the Israeli government. They do not speak for me. But I am not anti-Zionist. I believe in the necessity for a Jewish state — a state where all Jews are welcome, regardless of their background, regardless of their nationality. 

There needs to be a place where Jews, an ethnic minority who are unwelcome in nearly every state in the world, have a place where they are free from persecution — a place where they feel protected. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that place being the place where Jews are ethnically indigenous to. Because believe it or not, whether it is inconvenient, Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. I’ve addressed this in this post.

With that said, that doesn’t mean you can kick the Palestinian people out. They are also indigenous to that land, which is addressed in the same post, if you don’t trust me. 

What is incredible to me is that Zionism is defined, by the Oxford English Dixtionary, as “A movement [that called originally for] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel.” Whether we agree with this or not, there were early disagreements about the location of a ‘Jewish state,’ and some, like Maurice de Hirsch, believed it ought to be located in South America, for example. Others believed it should be located in Africa. The point is that the original plans for the Jewish state were about safety. The plan changed because Jews wanted to return to their homeland, the largest project of decolonization and indigenous reclamation ever to be undertaken by an indigenous group. Whether you want to hear that or not, it is true. Read a book or two. Then you might know what I mean.

When people say this is a complicated issue, they aren’t being facetious. They aren’t trying to obfuscate the point. They often aren’t even trying to defend the Israeli government, because I certainly am not — I think they are abhorrent. But there is no future in the Middle East if the Israelis and Palestinians don’t form a state that has an equal right of return and recognizes both of their indigenousness, and that will never happen if people can’t stop throwing vitriolic rhetoric around.  Is the Israeli Government bad? Yes. Are Israeli citizens bad? Largely, no. They want to defend their families, and they want to defend their people. This is basically the same as the fact that Palestinian people aren’t bad, though Hamas often is. And for the love of god, stop defending terrorist organizations. Just stop. They kill their own people for their own power and for their own benefit. 

And yes, one more time, the Israeli government is so, so, so wrong. But god, think about your words, and think about how you are enabling Nazis. The rhetoric the left is using is hurting Jews. I am afraid to leave my house. I’m afraid to identify as Jewish on tumblr. I’m afraid for my family, afraid for my friends. People I know are afraid for me. 

It’s 2021. I am not my great uncle. I cried for him, but I shouldn’t have to die like him. 

Words have consequences. Language has consequences. And genuinely, I do not think everyone is a bad person, so think about what you are putting into the world, because you’d be surprised how often you are doing a Nazi a favor or two. 

Is that really what you want? To do a Nazi a favor or two? I don’t think that you do. I hope you don’t, at least.

That’s all. You know, five thousand words later. But uh, think a little. Please. 

[schraubd]

Zioness Has a "Manifesto"

Zioness -- a campaign for progressive Zionists launched in the wake of the Chicago Dyke March fiasco -- has a "manifesto". This perhaps offers an opportunity for me to share my thoughts on Zioness, which I've been observing since its initial inception and towards which I maintain a wary but not wholly antagonistic posture. Some people think that Zioness is just a false flag operation -- people who don't actually care about progressivism at all trying to infiltrate and kick-up-dust within progressive communities. There are several bases for this assertion. First, critics point out the links between Zioness' leadership and the Lawfare Project, which tends to take a relatively conservative line on Israel advocacy issues.  Hence, they suggest that Zioness is really just a stalking horse for Lawfare's right-wing agenda. Second, some have claimed that Zioness has taken a confrontational posture towards the progressive groups it marches with that, it is alleged, is designed to provoke and sow division. This, the argument goes, militates against the interpretation that all they really want is inclusion. These arguments don't quite track for me, however. On the first point, there are, for better or for worse, plenty of Jews with non-progressive (even conservative) views on Israel who genuinely care about and support things like reproductive access, gay rights, economic redistribution, and other pillars of the progressive community. I'd be entirely unsurprised if the leaders of the Lawfare Project fit that profile. Call them inconsistent if you like, but I think there is little evidence to suggest they're lying about the cluster of beliefs they hold. And indeed, at least in the social media feed I've been pleasantly surprised at how Zioness has seemed to genuinely pick up and promote progressive causes in a way that feels organic and heartfelt. Groups or commenters that ignore, say, women's rights six days a week and then parachute in to say "what about women in Saudi Arabia?" whenever someone says a bad word about Israel are a dime a dozen. But Zioness has not actually been doing this -- it has promoted progressive causes in ways and in contexts where there is no clear reason to do it other than that they believe in it.

On the second, there's probably something to the claim that Zioness takes on a defiant tone that can be read as hostile. There's also probably something to the claim that people being open and unapologetic about their Zionism in spaces like this will be automatically read as "confrontational." Both of these interpretations, I think, make sense given the genealogy of Zioness as reaction to the expulsion of several Jewish marchers from the Chicago Dyke March for simply holding a rainbow flag with a Star of David on it -- an act which was taken to be sufficient proof of being an outside agitator who wasn't part of the progressive community. One lesson one can take from CDM is that being subdued in one's Jewishness, and adopting a go-along-get-along stance, isn't going to save you -- in fact, it isn't even going to protect you from accusations of tossing "Zionism" in everyone's face. Another lesson is the need to avoid the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic where Zionist are told not to be open in their Zionism when engaging in progressive causes (because it's distracting and making it "about us") and then, when progressive activists seek to define Zionists out of the camp it's justified (because where were all the Zionists during all these other campaigns?). So it doesn't surprise that the new tactic will be out-and-proud, taking a more aggressive and less conciliatory stance. To be clear: this sort of confrontational, disruptive presence is very definitively not my preference. It flies in the face of all my own political instincts. But I've written about how certain modalities of organizing and protesting serve as markers for progressive orientation -- the medium very much being part of the message -- and as much as I hate it there might come a point where it's necessary for more mainstream Jewish groups to pivot towards more confrontational methods of political advocacy that "code" as progressive. Put another way, there's something a bit odd about folks from the IfNotNow wing of Jewish political action complaining that another group is behaving in a disruptive and confrontational manner, and doesn't seem interested in quietly and unobtrusively talking things out without making a big stink in public. To the extent Zioness is confrontational in demanding inclusion, that's wholly consistent with, not in opposition to, speaking in progressive shibboleths. So those are reasons why I don't join the antagonistic camp. Yet I remain wary. And the main reason is that Zioness utterly refuses to even try to think through what progressive commitments mean with respect to Israel. If we return to the manifesto, for example, it's pretty vague on what Zioness actually wants to achieve in the world. Indeed, it tries to hold that vagueness out as a virtue: "We will not define your progressivism or your Zionism." But the fact of the matter is it gives very little guidance regarding what it means, in practice, to "dismantle institutionalized racism in our government and our society." What does that commit us to? What policies are and aren't compatible with that ambition? Most tellingly, Zioness doesn't seem willing to grapple with the fact that progressivism requires certain things out of Zionism. One can believe (and I do) that Zionism and progressivism are compatible while observing the should-be-obvious fact that not all iterations or implementations of Zionism are progressive or consistent with progressivism. Being a progressive Zionist imposes certain obligations with respect to Israel as much as anywhere else; a fact that Zioness seems resolutely uninterested in contending with (and here the link to the Lawfare Project really may do some important explanatory work). So while it claims that it wants to mobilize "progressive Zionists," that term doesn't actually encompass any set of "Zionist" beliefs about Israel so long as the holder is also pro-choice. The progressive Zionist community is already existent in organizations like Ameinu, Partners for a Progressive Israel, and J Street (to name a few), and all of these understand that progressive mobilization around Israel can't be agnostic on matters of Israeli policy or even the best understanding of Zionism. If, as I've often argued, caring about Israel means having opinions about it, these groups care a lot about Israel -- but that manifests precisely because they have particular concepts of what they want Israel to be and an active desire for it to live out a progressive credo. So ultimately, I remain wary. I've already got a progressive Zionist community that I'm comfortable with; it works through the organizations I've just mentioned and they seem to do it better than Zioness is currently capable of. And while I can't fully join the critique of Zioness for behaving in a confrontational, stand-up-and-notice-me sort of way since that mode of social activism is increasingly de rigueur on the left, I don't like it and I don't have any interest in joining it. via The Debate Link http://ift.tt/2s4kcIf

[reactingtosomething]

Reacting to Wonder Woman (cont’d)

Part II: I Am FILLED with Joy/Triumph

The Setup: Find the first half of our Wonder Woman reaction here. 

Also, as you may have noticed, we’re getting more and more easily sidetracked in these things. But also, this conversation surprised Kris, at least, with the stuff we disagreed on, and of course that’s led to longer discussions even when we stay more or less on topic. In this case, that topic will be the god of war. 

Anyway, SPOILERS BELOW, especially after the jump. As always, post-chat notes are in italics, and you can click on the first appearances of our names to see our creative and critical influences.

KRIS: Marchae do you want to dig into the score here a little?

MARCHAE: I do! But can I point out something that happened at the no mans

MIRI: Do it!

MARCHAE: it was such a small shot where she’s prepping to go onto the field and she kind of flexes like a boxer

and it was so micro and so small

and on first thought i said to myself Ali...

KRIS: I loved the patience of the shot of Diana letting her hair down and putting on Antiope’s tiara (?)

MARCHAE: then she does it again and it’s so micro... i couldn’t tell if it was her mannerism or completely choreographed but the second time it made me think of the double gold boxer Claressa Shields

MIRI: Despite the superpowers, they really played to the reality of Diana as a person who can fight and I am obsessed with it

MARCHAE: and just the strength there

it was amazing and kind of a shout out to some really strong women who have over come some serious crap to make it...

that’s all i am sure i am the only human who clocked either of those things... ok we can talk about SCOREEE!

KRIS: In that moment before she goes out, I was expecting Steve’s line about “No Man’s Land” to be followed by basically “I am no man,” but on balance I appreciate that they didn’t go for the obvious line there

MIRI: Oh I highly doubt that! There is so much in this movie to happily obsess over

KRIS: Well I figured the score is so important to this set piece that it’s an easy transition

MARCHAE: I mean sound is incredibly important to all movies... check we know this, but this score is almost its own character

which i found to be completely impressive

MIRI: The score is pretty amazing. I’m not musical enough to pick up on things without being asked to stop and do so

KRIS: Yeah, most scores in this genre aren’t very good anymore

MARCHAE: I don’t know enough about sound or scoring to necessarily speak in an incredibly educated manner

KRIS: There’s a trend of having them blend into the background

MARCHAE: but it was so amazing

KRIS: Which seems idiotic to me

MARCHAE: I think it was important in this film though to further demonstrate her strength

KRIS: Because all the touchstone action movies have very, very distinctive musical identities

I also liked that it was (mostly) an older-school Big Orchestra sound

MARCHAE: OH MY GOD YES KRIS

KRIS: I mean there are still big orchestral scores but they don’t often sound like this anymore

MARCHAE: (i do love me some classical orchestrations)

KRIS: This doesn’t have like a super CATCHY theme, but it has clear melodies

MARCHAE: This was larger than life sounding and it was glorious

MIRI: Ok so I’m listening to the soundtrack but on youtube so it kind of jumps around

MARCHAE: I rarely think to myself I’m getting this track

this was one of those movies

MIRI: And I was just thinking (eh, this song is blending pretty blandly)

KRIS: And everyone’s trying to do the Zimmer-esque percussive thing even with strings

MIRI: and then I looked and it had gone to another DCU scroe

MARCHAE: but i think it had to be this way because this film had a lot to prove to people who didn’t think it would do well

MIRI: Not Wonder Woman

KRIS: But Zimmer’s also written great orchestral scores with clear melodies, like Gladiator

MARCHAE: Gladiator was good!

KRIS: But I don’t think that was the thought process, because I don’t think most people realize the trend of blend-into-the-background scores is bad

I think this speaks to how good Jenkins’s sensibilities are

SERIOUSLY SPOILERS BELOW

MARCHAE: interesting!

MIRI: I’ve never seen any of her other work, I’m going to have to seek it out

MARCHAE: Monster

?

KRIS: So the way I felt about the inclusion of the kinda wacky electric cello theme (introduced in Batman v Superman) was the way this score seems to feel about it: awkward and begrudging

She’s mostly directed TV pilots since Monster

(which I also have not seen)

MARCHAE: Wait?

you haven’t seen monster?

KRIS: no

Speaking of Batman v Superman and monsters

MIRI: Interesting! I didn’t know she’d been doing pilots!

MARCHAE: OKAY what the heck is happening!!!!!!!!

Its one of my favorite movies

KRIS: Well, she wasn’t being offered feature projects she found appealing for OVER A DECADE

MIRI: Right, and she held out for the right one

MARCHAE: she said she had the baby and then the indie industry tanked

MIRI: which I respect enormously 

MARCHAE: meanwhile she’d been trying to get life rights for a film and that didn’t work out

KRIS: But she’s done some really expensive pilots so she said the learning curve on this wasn’t actually insane

MARCHAE: yeah

KRIS: Marchae it sounded like you liked the Sia song in the credits?

MARCHAE: i also read that

KRIS: I didn’t hate it, but when I saw that Florence Welch wrote it that just made me wish she’d also sung it

MARCHAE: I love Sia in general and I think her music is really positive for girls/women

WAIT

as in FLORENCE AND THE MACHINE

WELL DANG IT KRIS

OH MY WORD

KRIS: RIGHT?

MARCHAE: that would have also been equally amazing!

MIRI: HOLY COW

Now I want them to do it as a duet

KRIS: Like honestly one of the best parts of Snow White and the Huntsman is that Florence Welch sings over the end credits

MARCHAE: also another female positive visionary/artist

I just love Florence PERIOD

MIRI: Also a good Halsey song (in the sequel?)

MARCHAE: her voice is so amazing

kris you’ve officially blown my mind of the evening and I will have to see if I can find the demo somewhere to see if Florence sings it!

KRIS: I have other things I want to talk about but I feel like I’ve been picking the topics, so does someone else have a thing?

MIRI: There’s one thing I want to bring up briefly because I haven’t done the necessary research to discuss it more than that, but I would feel remiss in not touching on it

MARCHAE: both of you go!

MIRI: I am uncomfortable with Gal Godot’s reported Zionism

KRIS: (Gadot)

MIRI: (Thank you! She is not a surrealist play)

MARCHAE: (LOL)

I don’t know much about this...go on Miri

MIRI: She tagged a post during a pretty severe IDF bombing that killed civilians with something along the lines of “We are right” and “love IDF”. I don’t blame her for having patriotism and the instagram post was several years ago and people change, but as a Jewish person and a person in general I really believe that a 2 state solution is important

MARCHAE: Wow

MIRI: And obviously I’m not Israeli, I don’t have as much of a stake or understanding. But a lot of far right wing politicians in Israel seem very willing to use the past suffering of the Jews as an excuse to make other people suffer, and I call bullshit on that

As I said, I am NOT well enough informed about Gadot’s actual beliefs to cast any kind of judgment 

I just didn’t want to say nothing about it, as it is important

MIRI: Hamas is a terrorist organization and I support Israel’s right to defend themselves. However, I do believe Israel is wrong in their occupation of Gaza. Please note this is my personal opinion, and not the main focus of this Reaction! There are better informed articles on many sides of this issue out there.

Ok, Kris

KRIS: Yeah

Oh, me

MIRI: What was one of your points? (Unless either of you want to discuss this more)

Yes, you!

KRIS: So, the gods

MIRI: They are dead

KRIS: I did suspect the Ares reveal coming but can’t quite remember which scene; maybe the one where the generals shoot down Steve’s request

I thought that was telegraphed JUST enough

MIRI: Yeah, Casey and I called it before they left london

MARCHAE: Oh wow you all are smart!

MIRI: I’m ok with a slightly predictable story if it’s done WELL

MARCHAE: I caught on a bit later... sorry

KRIS: And this is not an original thought at all but it was a good subversion of our expectations for a War God

MIRI: (Also watching and writing these is kind of what we do)

Yes, I thought it worked nicely

MARCHAE: I do agree

MIRI: And the commentary on the bureaucracy of war worked well for me

KRIS: right

MARCHAE: it was also relevant

MIRI: Especially in the context of WWI and old men arguing about how to send young men to die

(I’m not calling Thewlis old! Riffing on a quote I half remember)

War is young men dying and old men talking - FDR

I also think the gods being dead was very wise from a story perspective

KRIS: And also that whole “You were LYING!” “I’m a SPY!” beat was great

I don’t think the reveal about Diana being the weapon was the BEST executed thing ever, largely because we never see Hippolyta again

MIRI: Because the gods have to have existed for WW’s origins

KRIS: and maybe some reckoning with the Amazons is being saved for later

MIRI: But they can’t have them around in the modern stories

KRIS: What did actually really bother me was that this went with a version of Diana’s origin that erases the goddesses

MIRI: My biggest complaint is that we only got the Amazons for one act and probably won’t get them again

YES

MARCHAE: I don’t know maybe they could... in the show they still exist

KRIS: I’m 70 percent sure the Amazons are in Justice League

K: Only 70 percent because I have been avoiding watching trailers for things (and have been pretty pleased with this decision) and story details for future movies in general, but I feel like I’ve read about this

MIRI: REALLY????

I am FILLED with joy/triumph

MARCHAE: and she goes back to them frequently for advice

KRIS: Yeah, I think one of the Macguffins lands in Themyscira

MARCHAE: she actually has a sister who also has powers and sometimes fights with her

MIRI: Nice

MARCHAE: *hunches shoulders... I hope they come back*

MIRI: More women fighting!

More than one woman on the superhero team please!!!

KRIS: But we can’t really rely on those precedents in the DCEU

MIRI: Right

KRIS: In this version Hippolyta tells Diana she may never return

MIRI: Ok, back to the goddesses barely being mentioned at all: sucked. Not a fan

Right, but she totally could

MARCHAE: that is true...but we know she has to go back

KRIS: Which I first heard as “you might die out there” but I think was meant as “you won’t be permitted to return”

Right, so Justice League

MIRI: Especially if it’s that she never returned between then and the Louvre but then we get to see her finally go back

KRIS: Yeah

MIRI: I really enjoyed that the Amazons were not all white or tiny

Champion boxer Ann Wolfe (26 fights, 24 wins, 16 by knockout) as Artemis

KRIS: How did you feel about the thematics in general, but especially in the third act?

MIRI: And that a lot of them were real fighters/sportswomen

MARCHAE: **CLAPS @ MIRI**

MIRI: hmmmm I do have a concern with the implication that WWI was because of Ares

KRIS: I guess that didn’t bother me, since they went out of their way to show that he was just sort of giving nudges

MIRI: Because while I strive not to overly doubt people as a whole, I also don’t like the idea of pawning blame for genuine bad actions off on some alien force

And with WWII right around the corner it’s weird to me

KRIS: And especially because overall I think Steve’s speech seemed like the main thematic statement

MIRI: Like we’re supposed to believe that Ares was at least nudging ALL the bad terrible things into being, but then a few years later terrible things will happen without those nudges just as much

more even

I guess I’m disagreeing with Diana’s early on surety that the war was all because of Ares

But also the enemy soldiers hugging right after

It’s the danger of using real circumstances, because you have too much context to deal with, I guess

KRIS: I think we’re SUPPOSED to disagree with Diana, because we know what Steve knows, and I’m not sure the Ares thing is really supposed to prove she was totally right

MIRI: Right, I agree with you there

But then (correct me if I’m wrong!!!) once Ares is killed we see a German and a British soldier hug

K, post-rewatch: The German soldiers are mostly hugging each other, and one German hugs Chief, whom we know is non-aligned. The only Allies on the scene are Sameer and Charlie. 

KRIS: Both this and Captain America: The First Avenger also emphasize that the heroes are on secret, i.e. ahistorical missions

K: What I mean by this is that both movies avoid the problematic suggestion that real battles were won only with superheroic intervention. Instead of straight-up revisionism, this is Secret History.

MIRI: And I know some people involved in wars are always there for reasons other than hatred of the other side!

KRIS: I didn’t read that hugging as being related to Ares’s influence so much as seeing the world from Diana’s perspective

MIRI: Interesting

KRIS: Because Ludendorf is the only German we ever really see as Under the Influence

MIRI: But that begs the question of where the f was she in the 40s

I mean obviously Diana is not going to be enough to save the day every time

I’m going too far on this, I know

KRIS: Like they’re just guys, and they all got caught up in the fires and the explosions

K: Caused by Chief, mostly

MIRI: But it made me a little uncomfortable

Right, but they’re also the only on the ground soldiers we’re seeing there so they’re a little emblematic of more than just themselves

But also it’s lovely for them to be able to see beyond their difference and be glad to be alive!

I don’t think I’m making a lot of sense and I’m not entirely sure of why I’m feeling this way, so let’s move on

KRIS: But even when they’re the Bad Guys I don’t think we’re supposed to think Ares is actively manipulating them

MIRI: If I have clearer thoughts after seeing it again I’ll write something up

KRIS: I think the scene when we meet Chief is important for this

He’s smuggling for both sides

MIRI: right

what does that mean to you re: the degree of Ares’s influence? 

KRIS: And we see bad, or at least morally uncomfortable, judgment from British generals

MIRI: I think that judgement is pretty common towards anyone refusing to take a side in reality

KRIS: Ares is nudging Dr. Poison, but he’s also nudging the British in different ways

This isn’t a war that we generally think of in the same Heroes vs Villain terms that we generally frame WW II as

To the extent that it’s even in the public consciousness I think we think of it as Just Terrible All Around

K: And there’s that shot where two of the soldiers take off their gas masks and they’re basically kids

MIRI: We don’t, but I think the British might a bit more

Ah, fair

I’m not thinking that Ares is influencing everyone individually (he is influencing important people very specifically), but the immediate shift after his death does suggest to me that he had a low-grade influence going over The War as a whole

Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how it reads to me

KRIS: Hmm, I don’t know, I didn’t read it that way

MIRI: Fair enough

MARCHAE: I thought he influenced the entire thing...

KRIS: Well this is interesting to me, because none of those beats really struck me as problematic, but I did still not think the theme entirely landed

MIRI: How did it not land for you?

KRIS: Sort of in the same way that we’ve heard (or I assume we’ve all heard) a war movie can never really entirely pull off being anti-war

Diana SAYS “love,” but she still blows Ares up

MIRI: Of course

KRIS: Though it might be to the script’s credit that the word “love” isn’t splashed ALL over the place

MIRI: And her fighting is glorious/glorified

KRIS: I guess what a lot of the Ares stuff comes down to for me is that Steve gets such a great speech

MARCHAE: I did note that she talks about love... but it is more or less that the POWER of LOVE compelled her to rid the world of Ares and also the man she killed before him

KRIS: (Incidentally this is one of many moments when the woman sitting next to me Nodded so Hard)

“Maybe it’s us!”

MIRI: Right, she’s doing it because of her love for mankind. Mostly lands for me, but it is a little sticky

KRIS: Great line, and great acting on both sides of this conversation

MARCHAE: however I promptly noted that this is at such odds with who the character actually professes to be because she let Dr. Poison live

MIRI: Pine did great work throughout

Well I think there’s a distinction between people and gods there

KRIS: And then “We’re all to blame.” (Vigorous Nod) “I’m not.” (VIGOROUS NOD) “But maybe I am!” (V I G O R O U S   N O D)

MIRI: People can change, or at least be jailed for their crimes

A god will always be a god

And Ares is a bad god to have around

so that didn’t feel inconsistent with he Dr Poison thing for me

How did you guys feel about the love story in general?

KRIS: Right, and I don’t know how conscious/deliberate this was but the Greek conception of the gods positions them as Forces

MIRI: Right! Pretty immutable 

KRIS: They’re humanized and have personalities, but Ares is War Incarnate

MARCHAE: But she killed the general(? I am looking up the guys name...)

he wasn’t a god at all

KRIS: Because she thought he was Ares

MIRI: She thought he was

KRIS: Ludendorf

MIRI: And she’s pretty distressed to realize that he wasn’t

MARCHAE: and to me that’s the thing.. is that she’s technically killing anyone  for that reason

KRIS: And that conception I guess is another reason the Ares stuff generally worked for me; I think in the big picture you can read him as a metaphor

MIRI: I think Diana is ok with casualties in a battle (if they’re actively shooting at her and others) but not a deliberate murder/manslaughter kill

And that tracks for me (within the film itself)

MARCHAE: but she only doesn’t kill the woman because of steve

MIRI: I haven’t seen much else

MARCHAE: I see you both at this point i am “thinking aloud”

KRIS: I don’t think it’s JUST because of Steve

MIRI: Right but killing the metaphore didn’t actually kill it in the world because more wars have happened!!!

K: I think the metaphorical (and sequel) answer to this is that Ares isn’t really dead

MIRI: Well that’s the clear and obvious answer that NEVER EFFING OCCURRED TO ME

K, post-rewatch: I have to stand by my original reading. The concrete things Ares says he does are give ideas and “inspiration” for weapons -- but NOT influence the inclination to use them -- and push for an armistice that he assumes will fail, presumably to increase bitterness and cynicism on all sides. In Ares’s head, he was originally just trying to demonstrate the inevitable corruptibility of man, which is to say: he has the same beliefs as Hippolyta.

ALSO: There wasn’t really anywhere else to put this, so I’ll put it here before the topic switch. There’s a really small but really cool bookend thing Jenkins does with Diana. Right after Diana has left the sparring match where her powers blasted Antiope, and right after Diana kills Ludendorf, she stands on top of something high, closes her eyes, and tilts her face toward the sky, to just catch her breath.

And both times, she hears a sound that changes her world. The first time, it’s Steve’s plane, and Diana gets introduced to the World of Man. The second time, it’s the Germans continuing to move the gas bombs because nothing’s changed, and Diana’s understanding of the world -- and of man -- gets a huge wakeup call.

MARCHAE: someone asked about the love story?

MIRI: I did!

It worked for me

I buy it without them having to give it a ton of screen time

You?

MARCHAE: I was glad it wasn’t overdone

MIRI: Kris?

KRIS: I also liked it for the same reasons that we kind of touched on earlier, that Steve is actually developed as a person independent of Diana

It’s kind of obligatory, but it doesn’t FEEL obligatory

MIRI: exactly

MARCHAE: also i was glad that it ended (which sounds really morbid) but i’ll explain

MIRI: When you do your work in other arenas, only a light touch is needed Please do!

MARCHAE: it just showed she didn’t NEED him to keep moving forward

MIRI: 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

YES YES YES

MARCHAE: *takes bow!*

KRIS: Yeah

It also ended in a way that -- again -- allowed Steve to complete an arc of his own

MARCHAE: YUP and we see her at the end cherish her memory of him and keep it sweetly as important to her

but she definitely has persisted

KRIS: WRITE MORE SUPPORTING WOMEN THE WAY STEVE TREVOR IS WRITTEN, EVERYONE

K: But also write more leading women, obviously

That picture does appear in Batman v Superman

MARCHAE: YESSSSSSSSSSS

AHHHHHHHH

MIRI: THANK YOU

MARCHAE: i am going to have to watch that

MIRI: MOTHER FUCKING THANK YOU

PREACH KRIS

K: Though we love Steve Trevor the Character no less, our convictions on the matter of Steve Trevor the Example have perhaps been shaken, thanks to an initially counterintuitive but ultimately pretty convincing argument made by Friend of Reacting to Something and professional critic Caroline Siede

KRIS: The light touch of the Batman/Justice League framing worked well here

MIRI: And I liked the picture thing

The framing worked really nicely with her VO

It wasn’t too much for me

KRIS: I do have to say, it’s going to be a tough sell to convince me that this Diana is okay letting Bruce Wayne take the lead

I guess we’ll see

MIRI: Yeah, that’s very true

MARCHAE: I hope that doesn

*doesn’t happen

KRIS: I mean Batman is literally the lead of Justice League

MIRI: I know in some comic versions he acknowledges that he could never defeat her if he had to

MARCHAE: (hmmm because I only watch the originals...I suppose that was missed on me)

MIRI: But he’s still team leader

???

Although maybe he has better administrative skills than her

KRIS: Well Superman is traditionally team leader

But obviously that’s not an option

at this point

MARCHAE: I thought so

MIRI: Ahhhhhhh rihgt

right

MARCHAE: but i figured i missed something

KRIS: I actually want to talk a bit about this

MIRI: One way it might work is that Diana isn’t actually great at working with others in this

KRIS: If you don’t mind more BvS spoilers

MIRI: Like, she goes off on her own half cocked sever times

MARCHAE: i do not

MIRI: Go for it!

KRIS: Okay so first thing

is that what I think happened is that everyone over at DC/WB defaulted, as many do, to assuming that once Superman is dead, Batman is obviously the next choice for leader

or at least lead of a movie

And I realized, in a brief Twitter exchange with Caroline, that I had Just Assumed that in introducing the rest of the heroes, Of Course they had to have Superman and Batman meet first

Because that’s how it’s always been

But Caroline had said something like “Basically I wish this movie had been Man of Steel 2 featuring Wonder Woman”

And I was like

OH

MARCHAE: (pause real quick...superman is dead?)

KRIS: Yes

Batman v Superman is a WHOLE thing

of things

and other things

and other other things

MIRI: omg ❤️ 

MARCHAE: so many things

KRIS: I think they’ve talked a little about how JL will end with a resurrection

But where I was going

MIRI: I feel like Clark and Diana would be good friends

Like they both believe in humanity so much

KRIS: well, and here’s one of the problems, not this Clark, so much

or at least he hasn’t particularly been written that way

Some telling rather than showing

MIRI: ????????????????????????

KRIS: We’ll talk about it tomorrow

MIRI: 👍🏻

KRIS: But where I was going was that assuming Batman and Superman have to meet before Superman and Wonder Woman have to meet

MIRI: (I’m seeing Man of Steel for the first time the day after we had this conversation)

KRIS: is not great

It’s really one of those Canon, Schmanon things

And in the context of LET’S HAVE A WOMAN SUPERHERO ALREADY, there’s not a good reason Wonder Woman couldn’t have been introduced first in this cinematic universe

ESPECIALLY since we just had Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy

So that was a ramble, but that was all just one point

MARCHAE: (now I need to see all of this films)

thanks Kris

KRIS: The other thing I wanted to mention is that at the end of BvS, Diana briefly explains to Bruce that she’s been MIA for decades because:

(This is at Clark’s funeral, and Bruce and Diana are watching from a distance)

MARCHAE: (WHY IS SUPERMAN DEAD!!!)

KRIS: Because the movie is a mess

K: I actually like Batman v Superman more than most critics, which I realize is not unusual in America but is unusual for me.

MIRI: And has that fact (men making the world that way) changed or is she now deciding that she must change it??

KRIS: I think part of what the movie is trying to do is say that Superman has reminded both Batman and Wonder Woman of man’s potential

K: It admittedly does not do this very well -- Kal and Diana barely interact -- despite the best efforts of what is a very strong cast on paper. More telling and not showing.

MARCHAE: interesting

KRIS: But also the subplot introducing Diana involves her and Bruce learning about the existence of the other future Leaguers

so there’s a thread of “oh CRAZY shit is happening”

But in this Bruce-and-Diana at a funeral scene (which, despite the overall messy execution of the movie, is still a nice geek-out moment), Bruce Wayne almost literally says Not All Men

MIRI: Oh Bruce

KRIS: I mean what he says is “Men are still good,” we fight each other but we can do better etc.

MARCHAE: I really like batman

MIRI: I mean I don’t disagree with his point, as explored previous

previously

KRIS: Well it’s interesting because there’s so much ground to cover in terms of Diana’s changing views of the World of Man, but there won’t be room for it in JL

K: As opposed to in Wonder Woman 2 or whatever they’ll decide to call it

MIRI: Kris, thank you for being our DCEU historian

KRIS: Let us briefly acknowledge the excellence of Etta Candy

MIRI: So is the ending bookend of Wonder Woman trying to bridge that, a little? Like she’s reminded of the goodness and the good fight with that picture?

KRIS: I think so. I THINK the very end might even be jumping into a Justice League scene.

MIRI: Ok, that makes sense

MARCHAE: so what about a WW sequel

MIRI: And yes, Etta Candy is a fucking champ and I love her

I am not opposed to engaging in a bit of fisticuffs, should the occasion arise.

KRIS: But this did better than First Avenger at making the frame just a frame, and letting the WW I story be more or less closed

MIRI: agreed

KRIS: I think a WW sequel is pretty much guaranteed

Financially

MIRI: Do we know yet if a WW sequel would be in the past as well, or a present day solo adventure?

KRIS: I don’t think they’ve decided

MIRI: Cool

MARCHAE: I know they were in talks but nothing had been called... i guess Miri you reframed my question in a more appropriate way

I was curious how/where it would be set and what would be explored or what you twos predictions were

MIRI: I could definitely see it going either way

KRIS: Yeah

MARCHAE: nice

K: Here is the answer (sort of?, for now?): Jenkins has said period piece, The Hollywood Reporter said contemporary, maybe that actually means another frame story, and presumably this will address Miri’s questions above

MIRI: Can we also briefly examine the fact that some of the Amazons are queer and I love it?

MARCHAE: well i will say this. I was so pleased with this film and can’t wait to see it again in 3D

KRIS: I think there’s a definite risk of WW II fatigue if they go there, but I also think they have to address it at least in dialogue somehow

MIRI: Yeah, if they go modern day they’ll have an easier time with that one

KRIS: Yeah! The treatises on pleasure etc. was obviously a great scene

MIRI: Yes!

I mean that could also mean masturbation and be great

KRIS: Incidentally that got one of the loudest reactions from the women sitting next to me. “They came to the conclusion that men are essential for reproduction, but when it comes to pleasure..." 

"PREACH"

MIRI: hahahahahahahhhahaha

But that is an island of only ladies and it was pretty clear that some had some strong bonds happening

And that makes me very happy

MARCHAE: HA!

KRIS: Greg Rucka has said some Grade A things about sexuality on Themyscira

MIRI: Like one is SUPER upset when Aunt A is killed

Oh, please link to that in the post!

KRIS: (he wrote Wonder Woman several years ago, and recently wrote her again)

I’ll try to find that interview

MIRI: And he’s one of the one’s who is a big fan of the film, right?

KRIS: Yeah

MIRI: Oh, was the article a few years ago? I think I saw that!

MARCHAE: (He’s also the writer of Lazarus which is one of my fav comics)

KRIS: The gist of it was, If having sex and romantic relationships is a normal part of human happiness, and there are no men on this island, then O B V I O U S L Y

MARCHAE: share the link i haven’t seen it

MIRI: I mean I’m sure there are some straight as an arrow Amazons. But not all of them, for SURE

KRIS: http://www.comicosity.com/exclusive-interview-greg-rucka-on-queer-narrative-and-wonder-woman/

MARCHAE: it would make sense!

KRIS: [excerpt from the Rucka interview]

And when you start to think about giving the concept of Themyscira its due, the answer is, “How can they not all be in same sex relationships?” Right? It makes no logical sense otherwise.

It’s supposed to be paradise. You’re supposed to be able to live happily. You’re supposed to be able — in a context where one can live happily, and part of what an individual needs for that happiness is to have a partner — to have a fulfilling, romantic and sexual relationship. And the only options are women.

But an Amazon doesn’t look at another Amazon and say, “You’re gay.” They don’t. The concept doesn’t exist.

Now, are we saying Diana has been in love and had relationships with other women? As Nicola and I approach it, the answer is obviously yes.

And it needs to be yes for a number of reasons. But perhaps foremost among them is, if no, then she leaves paradise only because of a potential romantic relationship with Steve [Trevor]. And that diminishes her character. It would hurt the character and take away her heroism.

When we talk about agency of characters in 2016, Diana deciding to leave her home forever — which is what she believes she’s doing — if she does that because she’s fallen for a guy, I believe that diminishes her heroism.

She doesn’t leave because of Steve. She leaves because she wants to see the world and somebody must go and do this thing. And she has resolved it must be her to make this sacrifice.

MIRI: I remember being really excited about that article when I first saw it on tumblr

The way it plays in the movie I think she’s leaving for Sacred Duty more than for Steve, so I can see her never having had a relationship not being the same kind of problem

But I’m glad they looked at that seriously

And I’m always here for queer superheroes

OH that reminds me Caity Lotz (who plays gloriously bi White Canary in the DC tv universe) was at the premiere

KRIS: So I don’t want to END on a Steve note because the movie isn’t called Steve Trevor, but I do want to return to his goodbye scene

MARCHAE: Thats cool @ kris... Miri representation is always essential!

KRIS: Because it’s great

MIRI: It is so great!

KRIS: God, they gave Steve so many good lines

“It has to be me. I can save today. You can save the world."

MIRI: Pine really does a lot with just a look, too

MARCHAE: OH MY WORD i wrote that down!

MIRI: And I like that he got a great, poignant moment but it is still her film

KRIS: Are you just REALLY good at writing without looking?

MIRI: It really served them both beautifully

KRIS: For sure

MIRI: Yeah, are you taking these notes DURING the movie??

Your handwriting during a movie is nicer than mine ever

MARCHAE: I do take them during the movies

MIRI: hashtag impressed

MARCHAE: LOL

i didn’t want to forget anything

and my notebook is tiny so i can be inconspicuous

MIRI: I really cannot wait to see this movie agin

again

MARCHAE: me too

MIRI: I’m going next weekend

MARCHAE: But i do want to go back to that line... OH MY WORD it could just be me because of all the craziness in the world but it’s so promising and so beautiful and so supportive coming from a male character

and i appreciated that

MIRI: Ok, any more closing thoughts?

KRIS: Yeah, I like the 2009 animated movie but that Steve is a more traditional “cocky a-hole with a heart of gold” type and it’s just whatever

MIRI: I’m so tired of cocky a-holes with a heart of gold

They’re fine but we’ve had way too many in row

MARCHAE: YES

MIRI: Give me more Steve Trevors

KRIS: BUT STOP LETTING MEN NAMED STEVE LEAVE SENTIMENTAL TRINKETS WITH THE WOMEN THEY LOVE TO GET ONTO AIRPLANES

OUR FRIEND CASEY CAN’T HANDLE IT

AND APPARENTLY NEITHER CAN I

K: ALSO, another thing I noticed on my rewatch that I love, and that actually makes the theme land (a little) better for me, is that Diana’s quest both begins and ends with a nighttime goodbye.

The first time, she’s on the right side of the shot -- she’s the one leaving -- and Hippolyta says she loves Diana. Diana says she has to go, because the world needs her.

The second time, she’s on the left side of the shot -- she’s the one being left -- and Steve says he loves Diana. Steve says he has to go, because the world needs Diana more than it needs him.

(And both times, Diana receives a parting gift of purely sentimental value: Antiope’s tiara, and Steve’s (dad’s) watch. She has kept both to this day.)

MIRI: clearly

KRIS: Marchae I am referring again to Captain America: The First Avenger

MARCHAE: LOL thanks!

MIRI: I love that that explanation is necessary

MARCHAE: I did see the first avengers... I didn’t love it though 😊

and steve not fred

got it

KRIS: I wish the climactic end battle had been more like the first and second act set pieces and less like every other third act superhero battle

MIRI: No, ‘The First Avenger’ is the subtitle of the first Cap movie

which is different from the first Avengers film

That’s admittedly confusing

MARCHAE: (ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!)

KRIS: But overall, I am very glad Wonder Woman is very good

MARCHAE: ME TOO

MIRI: Yes, I agree!

KRIS: MORE SUPERHERO BATTLES IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

MIRI: The battles did have semi diminishing returns for me

KRIS: MORE AMAZONS JUMPING OFF, OVER, AND THROUGH THINGS

MIRI: because the earlier ones were the more unique ones

and the Amazon one was OBVIOUSLY THE COOLEST

MARCHAE: I loved the spin kick ... I just love fighting in action style movies

MIRI: Like, if a training sequence is more engaging than a battle IT”S CLEARLY TIME TO VARY UP HOW WE DO SUPERHERO MOVIE BATTLES

MARCHAE: ha!

MIRI: I just want a solid 70 minutes of life on Themyscira

Show me them training

show me them having a bonfire

KRIS: I guess we’ve basically said it but I just want to say it as explicitly as possible: GODDAMN, Patty Jenkins can direct action

MARCHAE: I don’t want to see a bonfire

MIRI: show me the election process

MARCHAE: MIRI LOL

MIRI: show me them doing their hair

MARCHAE: she can!

MIRI: just all of it

More Amazons in general

YES all the ups to Patty Jenkins

MARCHAE: So i do have a confession to make

MIRI: It is a spectacular film

KRIS: On top of all the other, more obvious things wrong with some of the reviews written by certain men, the idea that Jenkins’s action direction is not sufficiently engaging is just SOOOO STUPID

MIRI: Make it, and then I have to go pretty soon

UGH STUPID MEN ARE STUPID

MARCHAE: so i thought that the man who played steve

was Yannick Bisson

KRIS: ...

MARCHAE: (hallmark movie star)

sorry

KRIS: .............

Marchae

MARCHAE: for the entire movie

MIRI: hold on, I must google

MARCHAE: I KNOW

MIRI: what really?

Pictured: Not Chris Pine, A-List Movie Star

Ok, I do not see that

at all

MARCHAE: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0084370/

yeah

i felt like it wouldn’t be fair to not admit it

and i knew we were at the end...

MIRI: Well that is mature of you

KRIS: Your honesty is appreciated

[republicstandard]

9 Things Alt-Right Men Need to Know

1. Aesthetics matter more than optics

It Doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you look like while you do it. They hate you, no matter what. You can save an entire school bus of children from drowning in a river in a flash flood, but the second your politics are revealed they will hate you and try to discredit and destroy you. Are we clear? Yes? Good. It doesn't actually matter what you say, hardly anyone will remember it unless it's exceptionally profound and you are a person of note. It matters what you look like, a well kept man is immediately notable versus a disheveled bum. How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell. These are the things that impact people and it happens in 1/10th of a second. If you can make someone like or trust you in 1/10th of a second they will second guess everything that comes after that, you can only do that visually. First impressions are forever. If in doubt, start with the footwear and move upwards.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

2. Not everyone is an erudite gentleman. Nor should they be.

To the untrained eye this may seem in opposition to my previous point. It is not. Authenticity is as much a part of aesthetics as anything else. Cosmopolitan dwelling fellas, you ain't getting a country boy in a suit and tie if he isn't getting married or burying a relative, and that is okay. Some of the issues you have with “optics" is expecting a regionally distinct nation to follow the rules of only one region; which is exactly what the liberal coastal elites have been doing for decades! Speaking of regional conflicts...

3. The South is for Southerners

There is no rational reason to concede ground to an enemy preceding a war, unless you have an advanced strategy to counter the push. You don't volunteer your losses ahead of the game, and you certainly don't reveal your hand of what you find most valuable. Alienating swaths of people by volunteering their homes as tribute to the very people who swarm their neighborhoods making them unsafe and barely habitable may seem like a funny meme or a rational concession; but it isn't and by the by, I don't hear an alternative where you give up your homes and flee to the South. The idea of an ethnic homeland for our people is a good one, but we need to think smarter than Balkanizing the United States of America.

4. Shitposting isn't going to save the world

These ideas have to make it into the real world where people live. Even the people you have contempt for have life experiences they can relate to our ideology. Why? Because the things that you've noticed aren't unique to you just because you noticed them already for what they are. Online we live in a polarized meta-reality of extremes. Fascist or Marxist. Right or left. Genocide or victory. Those extremes simply don't exist on the typical person's radar. There is a season for all things and now is the season to forge real life connections with real life people. The way forward is not tiki-torches and marching, it is a quiet, responsible conversation about real affairs that matter to the man or woman in the street.

5. Stop trying to purge people!

What kind of whacked out brain-fry drug den did you just crawl out of to think that any white person to the right of center is disposable? Identify them for what they are, and then utilize whatever it is they do or can do to benefit our immediate concerns. We have other concerns than just Zionism. We have to get legislation passed or stopped. We have to spread the word of first and second amendment breaches and violations. We have to talk about immigration. We have to talk about MS-13 and other gang activity. We have to have discussions existing on the internet that we don't have a million hours in the day to have. I personally am very critical of basic CivNat conservatives. They are weak and ineffective at conservatism, but i never advocate for purging their huge, beautiful, rarely banned platforms. Stop being ridiculous. Immediately.

6. There's no such thing as "Punching Right"

Nobody is above criticism. Nobody is above harsh criticism. Nobody. This doesn't mean that person needs to be “purged” from the movement. We refine ourselves through defending our positions, we refine our arguments by having them more than once, and losing more often than we win. We refine our ideology through discussion; and you aren't the gatekeeper of how that discussion is meant to be hosted. Anyone who has put their name or pseudonym forward accepts the inevitability that they will be challenged intellectually, morally and spiritually. There is surely no reason to schism between fans of this guy or that guy. That guy is not the be-all end-all, and this guy is only the guy until we find a better guy. Avoid cults of personality.

7. Get a thesaurus

Stop using words you know will get you banned on leftist social media platforms. The English language is the best language on the planet; and there are about 40 legitimate words that aren't bannable for every bannable word you type. For example whore is bannable, strumpet is not. Retarded is bannable, simple is not. Understand that in one moment we talk about white excellence and in the other we show that we can't learn, collectively, how to stop saying bad words and getting shut down. Adapt.

8. Quit pretending you don't want women talking about politics

Yes you do. You need women to talk about politics. You may not want them in politics or to hold office, after all,who does; women are inherently terrible at it. Please though, stop with the ridiculous assertion that you want women to stop talking about current affairs or identity issues. It's an aphrodisiac when a woman agrees with you about topics that you care deeply about. For her to understand what concerns you and why, is a comfort to you. To be able to vent your frustrations to someone who can hear you and can fathom your concern is a boon. Do you really want to come home to dinner, start moaning about Mueller, communists or the latest political compromise in direct opposition to your immediate needs and be met by a blank stare? No. We are a partnership, always. If you happen to be the very small amount of men who actually hate women, shut up and get out of the way of the men who would like to make lots of babies with the women that you despise.

9. Jews aren't that powerful.

I am not suggesting you should give them a single moment of respite from pointing out each and every instance they exercise what influence they've been permitted to have.

I said permitted.

They are not innovative or cutthroat or fun. They merely exhibit an enviable in-group bias. This is the fundamental crux of the relationship between the West and those Jews who take advantage of systems we create for their group benefit. It is not every Jew you meet in day to day life; and therefore our attention to relations between our peoples as a whole should be fair, polite, but firm. The cry of antisemitism arises when the grand arch of Zionist influence is threatened- because it can be taken away from them in an instant, as has been done in many other civilizations throughout history. They cannot outperform us, purely based on the relative sizes of our populations; it is a logical strategy to shape a society to better suit your own interests, given this understanding. It is our role to politely refuse such machinations.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Ultimately, though the Jewish lobby has poisoned our society in many respects they will ultimately only destroy themselves with success; just as a parasite cannot live without a host, they cannot live without the protection of Western Civilization, either in our lands or in Jerusalem. We can recognize this reality in the declining Jewish population in the West, through intermarriage and emigration to Israel. This force is in a process of decline in the West- for as much as we can say demography is destiny, this is true for all peoples. It is thus far more important in this context that you rediscover your power and learn to start saying, "No, thank you. This is not in our interest. Good day."

Absent of criticism we cannot take the steps necessary to accomplish our collective goals. It is what happens within our small but growing community that sets the stage for the future battles we will face; be they culturally, politically, or in some cases physically. We need to learn to turn into ourselves and each other, first to strengthen from within and only after that push forward into the mire that awaits us. If we do, then bleak prospects will become victorious battles rather than nihilistic concessions and defeat.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech. Make a donation towards our running costs by clicking here.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2JJBHoN via IFTTT

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hi I just saw your post about Israel and Palestinian. I don't know if you're the person to ask or if this is a dumb question but I was wondering if anyone has considered starting a second Jewish state? I was wondering because there's a bunch of Christian countries so why not multiple Jewish ones.

Sorry if I'm bothering you and Thanks for your time.

That’s actually a pretty interesting question. I am going to apologize right now, because I essentially can’t give a short answer to save my life.

I’m not a ‘Jewish Scholar,’ so while I can speak with some authority about the history of Zionism, I definitely couldn’t speak about it with as much authority as others. I mentioned in at least one of the posts I have written about the history of plans for a ‘Jewish state’ when Zionism was originally being proposed, and I can kinda of track the history of Zionist thinking for you if you are interested, though essentially it’s just about arguing where to go. But there are better scholars for this than me, so I would recommend Rebecca Kobrin, Deborah Lipstadt, Walter Laqueur … idk. Maybe just read some Theodor Herzl, honestly. With all of that said, I can speak with some authority about the post-war history of this in the Middle East. So let’s go.

In post-war times, there has really only been one serious discussion of an alternative Jewish state, as far as I know. And actually, this is part of why I find it so ironic that people are campaigning so hard to be “anti-Zionist” and to express views like “anti-Zionism” in their activism, because the Jews in Israel who are most anti-Zionist are actually the settlers of Palestinian territories, who want to secede and form a “Gaza-State” called Judeah. There's a great book about this called The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill, if anyone is interested. Anyway, most of those people, who are largely Haredim (the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though some of those settlers are semi Orthodox), have essentially been waging a “culture war” about what it means to have a Jewish state and what the identity of that Jewish state should look like basically since the 1980s.

There is a really good article about this that you can find right here written by Peter Lintl, who is a researcher at the Institution of Political Science for the Friedrich-Alexander Universitat. I’ll summarize it for the lazy people, though, because it’s like 40 pages. Just know that this paragraph won’t be super source heavy, because it is basically the same source. Essentially, the Haredim community has tripled in size from 4% to 12% of the total Israeli population since 1980, and it is probably going to be about 20% by 2040. They only accept the Torah and religious laws as the basis for Jewish life and Jewish identity and they are critical of democratic principles. To them, a societal structure should be hierarchical, patriarchal, and have rabbis at the apex, and they basically believe that Israel isn’t a legitimate state. This is primarily because Israel is (at least technically, so no one come at me in the comments about Palestinian citizens of Israel, so I’ll make a little ** and address this there) a ‘liberal’ democracy. Rights of Israeli citizens include, according to Freedom House, free and fair elections (they rank higher on that criteria here than the United States, by the way), political choice, political rights and electoral opportunities for women, a free and independent media, and academic freedom. It is also, I should add (as a lesbian), the only country in the Middle East that has anything close to LGBT+ rights.

[**to the point about Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel: I have a few things to say. First, I have recommended this book twice now and it is Michael Oren’s Six Days of War, which absolutely fantastically talks about the ways in which the entire structure of the Palestinian ‘citizenship’ movement, Palestinian rights, and who was responsible for governing Palestinians changed after the Six Days War. If you are at all interested in the modern Middle East or modern Middle East politics, I highly recommend you read this, because a huge tenant of this book is that it was 1967, not 1947, that caused huge parts of our current situation (and that, surprisingly, a huge issue that quote-on-quote “started it” was actually water, but that’s sort of the primary secondary issue, not the Actual Issue at play here). Anyway, I’ve talked about the fact that Israel hugely abuses its authority in the West Bank and Gaza and that there are going to be current members of the Israeli Government who face action at the ICC, so please don’t litigate this again with me. I also should add that the 2018 law which said it was only Jews who had the natural-born right to “self-determine” in Israel was passed by the Lekkud Government, and I really hate them anyway. I know they’re bad. It’s not the point I’m making. I’m making a broader point about the Constitution vis-a-vis what the Haredim are proposing, which is way worse].

To get back to the Haredim, basically there is this entire movement of actual settlers in territories that have been determined to belong to the Palestinian people as of, you know, the modern founding of Israel (and not the pre-Israel ‘colonial settler’ narrative you’ll see on instagram in direct conflict with the history of centuries of aliyah) who want to secede and form a separate Jewish state. They aren’t like, the only settlers, but I point this out because they are basically ‘anti-Zionist’ in the sense that they think that modern Zionism isn’t adhering to the laws of Judaism — that the state of Israel is too free, too radical, too open. And scarily enough, these are the sort of the people from whom Netanyahu draws a huge part of his political support. Which is true of the right wing in general. Netanyahu can’t actually govern without a coalition government. Like I have said, the Knesset is huge, often with 11-13 political parties at once, and so to ‘govern’ Netanyahu often needs to recruit increasingly right wing, conservative, basically insane political parties to maintain his coalition. It’s why he has been so supportive of the settlements, particularly in the last five years (since he is, as I have also said, facing corruption charges, and he really can’t leave office). It would really suck for him if a huge chunk of his voters seceded, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that is the only ‘second Jewish State’ I know about, and I don’t think that is necessarily much of a solution. I really don’t have the solutions to the Middle East crisis. I am just a girl with some history degrees and some time on her hands to devote to tumblr, and I want people to learn more so they can form their own opinions. With that said, I think there are two more things worth saying and then I will close out for the night.

First, Judaism is an ethno-religion. Our ethnicities have become mixed with the places that we have inhabited over the years in diaspora, which is how you have gotten Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, and even Ethiopian Jews. But if you do actual DNA testing on almost all of the Jews in diaspora, the testing shows that we come from the same place: the Levant. No matter how pale or dark, Jews are still fundamentally one people, something we should never forget (and anyone who tries to put racial hierarchy into paleness of Jews: legit, screw you. One people). Anyway, unlike other religious communities, we have an indigenous homeland because we have an ethnic homeland. It’s small, and there are many Jews in diaspora who choose not to return to it, like myself. But that homeland is ours (just as much as it is rightfully Palestinians, because we are both indigenous to the region. For everyone who hasn’t read my other posts on the issue, I’m not explaining this again. Just see: one, two, and three, the post that prompted this ask). This is different from Christians, for example, who basically just conquered all of Europe and whose religion is not dependent on your race or background. You can be a lapsed Christian and you are still white, latinx, black, etc right? I am a lapsed Jew, religiously speaking, and will still never escape that I am ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish.

Second, I think you raise a really good point about other religious states. There are many other religious majority states in the world (all of these countries have an official state religion), and a lot of them are committing a lot of atrocities right now (don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia). I have seen other posts and other authors write about this better than I ever could, but I am going to do my best to articulate why, because of this, criticism of Israel as a state, versus criticism of the Israeli Government, is about ... 9 times out of 10 inherently antisemitic.

We should all be able to criticize governments. That is a healthy part of the democratic process and it is a healthy part of being part of the world community. But there are 140 dictatorships in the world, and the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 45 times since 2013. Since the creation of the UN Human Rights Council, it has has received more resolutions concerning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. This is compared to like … 1 for Myanmar, 1 for South Sudan, and 1 for North Korea.

Israel is the world’s only Jewish majority state. You want to talk about “ethnic cleansing” and “repressive governments”? I can give you about five other governments and world situations right now, off the top of my head, that are very stark, very brutal, very (in some cases) simple examples of either or both. If a person is ‘using their platform’ to Israel-bash, but they are not currently speaking about the atrocities in Myanmar, Kashmir, Azerbaijan, South Sudan, or even, dare I say, the ethnonationalism of the Hindu Nationalist Party in India, then, at the very least, their activism is a little bit performative. They are chasing the most recent ‘hot button’ issue they saw in an instagraphic, and they probably want to be woke and maybe want to do the right thing. And no one come at me and say it is because you don’t “know anything about Myanmar.” Most people know next to nothing about the Middle East crisis as well. At best, people are inconsistent, they may be a hypocrite, and, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, they are either unintentionally or intentionally buying into antisemitic narratives. They might even be an antisemite.

I like to think (hope, maybe) that most people don’t hate Jews. If anything, they just follow what they’ve been told, and they tend to digest what everyone is taking about. But there is a reason this is the global narrative that has gained traction, and I guarantee it has at least something to do with the star on the Israeli flag.

I know that was a very long answer to your question, but I hope that gave you some insight.

As a sidenote: I keep recommending books, so I am going to just put a master list of every book I have ever recommended at the bottom of anything I do now, because the list keeps growing. So, let’s go in author alphabetical order from now on.

One Country by Ali Abunimah Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman The Girl Who Stole My Holocaust: A Memoir by Noam Chayut If a Place Can Make You Cry: Dispatches from an Anxious State by Daniel Gordis Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation by Yossi Klein Halevi Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Michael Oren The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East by Abraham Rabinovich One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate by Tom Segev Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman