#commodifying contradiction

[snugglesquiggle]

i am praying we never figure out what to call juzi. the current state of affairs where literally everyone comes up with their own name is the funniest outcome by far. let it never end

[dailyanarchistposts]

II

“We are being led to our slaughter. This has been theorized in a thousand ways, described in environmental, social, and political terms, it has been prophesied, abstracted, and narrated in real time, and still we are unsure of what to do with it. The underlying point is that the progress of society has nothing to offer us and everything to take away. Often it feels like we are giving it away without a fight: when we sell our time for money, allow our passions to be commodified, invest ourselves in the betterment of society, or sustain ourselves on the spoils of ecological destruction, we openly (though not consensually) participate in our own destruction.” — Serafinski, Blessed is the Flame, An introduction to concentration camp resistance and anarcho-nihilism

Civilizations’ death culture of accumulation, exploitation and consumerism, at whatever the cost is at its final stages spreading war and ecocide to every corner of the globe.

It has turned individuals into consumerist herds of wage slaves making us all addicted to some degree or other waiting for the false promises that will never be delivered for most.

How many individuals do actually want to work? I know I don’t. How many actually find pleasure in it having to repeat day after day, after day? Or have to give up on achieving their dreams, or sell themselves in the hope of reaching them?

This is the culture which creates the conditions of refugees fleeing the carnage of war having to walk across a continent to find safety, a better life for themselves and their family all the while begrudging fools would rather see them drown in the medaterian sea along with their children on dinghies so packed with desperate individuals it sinks.

While taking part in solidarity projects I’ve seen mothers in France having to live in muddy fields infested with rats, flimsy tents as protection from the elements. Small groups huddle around fires trying to catch some heat. Babies cries can be heard across the camp. I’ve seen the muddy swamp-like trails that weave through the refugee camp full of rat footprints and urine which appear each morning after the night’s darkness has gone. The very same conditions a 100 years earlier, as the first world war raged on, in the exact same location individuals from lower classes fought it out, blowing each other to smiderians all so wealthier classes could expand their riches!

This is the same culture which creates the conditions for a homeless crisis and makes it socially acceptable for individuals to be left to freeze to death on streets in shop doorways in Dublin’s city centre. I’ve seen the tent cities, the ques of soup kitchens, the desperate.

Society finds this all morally acceptable.The contradiction of civilization couldn’t be any clearer, on the one hand there is riches and wealth beyond beleaf and on the other hand there is poverty and exploitation inflicted beyond comprehension. This is the land of despair, cruelty, and greed.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i dont talk about trafficking as much when it comes to the legal debate regarding prostitution, not because its not important - i would actually say that it is not talked about and problematised enough in broader society, like sex tourism - but because prostitution advocates will always say trafficking is already illegal and they make a clear distinction between voluntary and forced prostitution (which in itself is questionable because its actually not clearly distinguished at all, and trafficking would not exist without prostitution and men willing to pay for sex with women).

i will never tire to emphasise that the whole premise of buying sex should not be enabled or embraced, because a society that treats sex as a service is directly at odds with justice for marginalised groups (impoverished, immigrants and/or affected by racism, single mothers, drug addicts, mentally ill, gay/trans, female, grooming and abuse victims, etc etc), especially considering that men have always used penetration as a tool of enforcing and exercising their power. a society that treats sex as a service instead of a mutually desired act is directly contributing to the ideas creating rape culture, and contradicting the principle of freely given consent.

prostitution advocates want liberalisation and regulation instead of abolishment. there is no possible scenario where this has a net positive effect for women and other marginalised people, because the demand increases, and because it exists in the first place. the demand exists because sexuality is being commodified, the demand exists because men dont care about their sexual partners desires and wishes. because men treat others like objects and vessels for their selfish desires.

and women embracing their own objectification for one reason or another (be it privileged women who see prostitution as an adventure or less privileged women who dont see an alternative for generating income) is not a valid reason for me to support it and accept men being legally allowed to buy access to the bodies of women; which is what most prostitution is.

it doesnt matter that there are women who claim to love it because they could never meet demand, and them spreading this narrative which is often accompanied by glamorisation, trivialisation, normalisation and straight lies about prostitution could actually count as grooming, thats why it has to stop. the fact that there are individual women embracing prostitution does not mean it has merit, from a societal/feminist point of view.

[toskarin]

rewatched it and I'm thinking again about Marisa and Alice's Self-Contradiction

it's a really powerful work not necessarily even because I entirely agree with what it's saying, but because it's so incredibly viscerally upset, guilty, bitter, hurt, and angry — and worst of all, it realises that even by venting those feelings, even by trying to create something to criticise itself, it's doing exactly what it's complaining about. it's commodifying torture to promote its own creative work, and in turn, limiting its scope to what it knows will get attention

but when it does the wink wink nudge nudge about how self aware it is, it doesn't really come off as actually thinking it's smart, but as genuinely feeling gross about itself for writing something this long towards the end goal of what's effectively just an edgy vent session

it's ranty and screamy and childish, but it can't even really make up its mind about what exactly it's mad at. it's mad at everyone, it's mad at systems, it's mad at posers, it's mad at elitists, it's mad at clout chasers and moralists, it's mad at social phenomena, it's mad at itself, and it realises how ridiculous it sounds for having all that directionless disgust

and of course it's all written with the full awareness that anyone who isn't guilty of exactly the same thing as the writer (to greater or lesser extents because you need to know pretty in depth stuff about Cookie to get a lot of the callbacks) won't have the baseline knowledge to fully get the hyperspecific subsubculture drama it's ranting about

maybe it's all a little too much thought to give something that amounts to "I feel like I've been spiritually violated and permanently damaged as a creative by my own attention seeking behaviour" but it feels oddly in-spirit to think too much about it

even talking about it makes it worse! I'm making it worse!

it ends on a sour note where it half assedly says the title of the audio drama several times just to remind you it wasn't even about the characters in the title and lied to make you watch it. and it was kind of right to! because nobody would have watched that if they didn't attach the dox-material-in-touhou-skinsuits subculture to it

[argumate]

*sniffs* Let's consider Tumblr, this peculiar digital phenomenon, through the lens of ideology and psychoanalysis. Tumblr, you see, it's not just a website; it's a microcosm of our broader societal structure, a manifestation of the Lacanian Real in the virtual domain.

On the surface, it presents itself as a bastion of self-expression and creativity. Users are free to post, to reblog, to engage in discourse. But what is really happening in this space? It's a relentless struggle, a constant negotiation of identity and desire. The user is perpetually bombarded with an overload of signifiers: memes, gifs, text posts. But what do these signifiers signify? Is the meaning not always, in a way, deferred, displaced?

And consider the nature of the Tumblr aesthetic. It's a pastiche, a bricolage of postmodern excess. The very notion of authenticity is subverted, turned on its head. What is proclaimed as a space for genuine expression is, in fact, a labyrinth of simulacra, where the hyperreal supplants the real.

Then, there's the dimension of the Tumblr discourse. It's a fascinating, tumultuous arena where ideological battles are waged. Every post, every tag, is a micro-aggression, a Freudian slip, revealing the deep undercurrents of our collective unconscious. It's not merely social justice discourse; it's the very fabric of our ideological reality being woven in real-time.

In this sense, Tumblr is not an escape from our reality; it is a direct, albeit distorted, mirror of it. It's a symptom, if you will, of our late capitalist society, where even our dissent is commodified, packaged back to us in the form of cute cat pictures and fandom wars.

So, what can we learn from this? Perhaps that in the endless scrolling through Tumblr, we are, in fact, scrolling through the deepest recesses of our own psyche, confronting the contradictions of our existence, the discontents of our civilization. It's a place where the super-ego and the id dance together, not gracefully, but desperately, each trying to lead. And in this dance, the question remains: who, indeed, is leading whom? *sniffs*

[Zizek on tumblr as imagined by ChatGPT]

[coochiequeens]

Speakers and hosts agreed that instead of regulating the practice of surrogacy, which would only create demand, efforts should be made to highlight that surrogacy means, in essence, the commodification of children who become objects of surrogacy agreements, which is a deep violation of their human dignity.“

The European Christian Political Movement together with the offices of Members of the European parliament Bert Jan Ruissen (ECR) and Miriam Lexmann (EPP) organized on 23 May a conference on parenthood policies in the European Union, with a focus on the issue of surrogacy.

The two keynote speakers invited to provide expertise on the matter were Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel for the faith-based legal advocacy organization ADF International and Olivia Sarton, the scientific director of the French children’s rights organization Juristes Pour l’Enfance (Lawyers for Childhood).

The conference came as a response to the European Commission’s recent proposal for a EU-certificate of parenthood which is currently being debated in the European Parliament. This initiative would put pressure on member state governments to sanction surrogacy even though a country may not allow the practice.

It also comes as a contradiction to what the Commission has repeatedly said on various occasions: that the European institutions do not have competenceover issues like family, marriage, parenting, etc.

The hosts suggested that surrogacy fuels abuse, human trafficking, violating the rights of vulnerable women and children, in essence violating human dignity. The practice commodifies both children and women’s wombs, which is unacceptabl, they said.

Olivia Sarton underlined that surrogacy is a new form of exploitation that takes advantage of the bodies of women and appropriates the children they bear. She added that the conditions under which many women consent to the practice (state of need and psychological fragility) cast doubt on whether they freely gave their consent. She also made reference to the Casablanca Declaration, which calls for the universal abolition of surrogacy.

According to Portaru, the above-mentioned proposal of the European Commission puts into practice a very specific objective that the EU has pursued and promoted in the past years, captured in the slogan: “If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country”. For her, this means that “if one EU country recognizes, for example, a US judgment which recognizes parenthood emanating from a surrogate agreement, that relationship or birth certificate will have to be recognized throughout the EU. Therefore, de facto, all kinds of surrogacy will be allowed and justified through the proposed regulation”.

Speakers and hosts agreed that instead of regulating the practice of surrogacy, which would only create demand, efforts should be made to highlight that surrogacy means, in essence, the commodification of children who become objects of surrogacy agreements, which is a deep violation of their human dignity.

[aihoshiino]

Heyy so i came across your blog and I LOVE it! I love how you analyse Ai because her character is so fascinating!

You know i always considered Ai to be unfortunate when it comes to right environment and people. From the very beggining her mother neglected her, other idols were really jealous(and many other people tbh) and etc..

Because of this I believe she never got the chance to develop herself emotionally, in the sense she either isn't sure to how to react or she never realizes/acknowledge her emotions. Which caused her to lie and put up a mask. Hence in Viewpoint B she says she is natural born liar. So it makes me think maybe she is contradicting because she isn't sure anymore. She knows she can't distinguish between her lies and truth. That's why even when she says lies are exquistie form of love but never once told the twins she loves her because she dodn't want to lie.

So there are two ways I see this:

She wants to love others like her fans and other members of B-Kamachi, for that she lies. Saying "I love you to fans" or "I am interested in you too" to Nino as Ai can then believe that she can love them. It is stated she couldn't love or trust people so maybe for these people she deep inside never felt love but wanted to love because she was desperately trying to love.(I think Ai was trying to love because she never experienced love so other emotions were foreign to her, so to feel something she wanted to love?) Here Ai lies to love.

Another way is her love for Aqua and Ruby. Ai knows lying is bad and still restorts to it to love others but never told the twins that lie because she was scared. Ai said 'I love you' when she was 100% sure those words weren't a lie. In this context Ai never lies to love.

So in the end idol ai and real ai are two sides of same coin.

Ps-Also maybe the lines "Sorry I can't love you" to Hikaru signify that she consider him to be important or something? But she never felt that 'spark' of love she was hoping for, maybe because he might be the first person she 'loved' or at least close to it?

This is pretty much my take on it too! Being in a home environment like the one Ai grew up in really stunts your emotional growth and your ability to learn how to socialize. That on top of Ai already being neurodivergent in a way that affects how she processes social information means she was always on the back foot and struggling to catch up in terms of understanding herself and other people. This is made ten times worse by the way other people would misread Ai's intentions and actions and react in accordance to what they think she means, which makes it even harder for Ai to understand and make herself understood... so it all just snowballs into tragedy.

As for Hikaru, my best guess is still that she was, essentially, apologizing for not being able to love him in the way she felt she should have. The sense I get from Ai is that she has a very idealized version of what 'love' is in her head, born out of never having it and being raised in the entertainment industry that loves to simplify and commodify it. Since she'd never loved or been loved by anyone before, she had no frame of reference for her own emotions but because they didn't exactly match the simplistic, almost fairy tale like depictions of love and romance in popular media, she concluded that whatever feelings she had weren't 'love'.

[swordatsunset]

haha sickos voice yes

[ID: Indeed, all genuine artworks involve fantasy, the labor of the brain and/or imagination, and how to incorporate fantastic components into a work of art that negates what is externally expected of art in form and content. Every artwork must have some fantastic component, but not every artwork is artistic. In fact, much of what we call fantasy is predictable schlock and tritely conventional because it lacks critical reflection and self-reflection and appeals to market conditions and audience delusions. Those works are only significant because they reveal to what extent fantasy, the imagination, has become instrumentalized and how the fantastic is being used to impose views, as impositions (1) to profit from other people's needs and desires for spiritual regeneration and critical reflection; (2) to reconcile social, political, and aesthetic contradictions that are irreconcilable; and (3) to project images that can be readily consumed and only promote the replication of the same images. Fantasy artworks of all kinds have become depleted of cultural substance because fantasy matters too much. Fantasy has too much potential to subvert and explore the differential of freedom. It must be subdued, controlled, channeled, and sublimated so that it cannot serve to negate the spectacles that blind us to social forces that determine our lives. The culture industry realizes the potential of the fantastic by commodifying it: fantastic elements are produced and reproduced to become important ingredients in the constitution of constant spectacles that impede cognition of the operative principles of the social-economic system in which we live. Delusion has become the goal of fantasy, not illumination. Fantasy has become so common that it has become banal.

Nevertheless, there is a quality of hope and faith in serious fantasy literature and films that off-sets the mindless violence and banality and contrived exploitation that we encounter in the spectacles of everyday life. If fantasy can be subversive and resistant to existing social conditions, then it wants to undermine what passes for normality, to expose the contradictions of civil society, and to right the world out-of-joint in the name of humanity.

The fantastic is not only a projection of fantasy /imagination but also of rational critical consciousness. As Adorno remarked, there can be no separation of the intellect and the sensual when we talk about the fantastic, for fantasy negates what is corporeally experienced and sublimates what must be carried on as a necessary ingredient in the formation of a transformed condition with Utopian potential. Ernst Bloch, the great German philosopher of hope, and a good friend of Adorno, maintained that the best of artworks and even the worst often contained traces of anticipatory illumination that shed light on a way forward toward a Utopian society. Utopia cannot be defined, but it is constituted by fantastic elements in life and art that embody the daydreams of a better life, that is, a different life. A better life can only distinguish itself from what it negates in its differential freedom that is provided by the fantastic. It is through difference that the fantastic provides resistance and illuminates a way forward. It shows what is missing in our lives and refuses to compensate for the lack by proposing solutions and providing categories through which we can define people and situations. The fantastic offers glimpses and markers that recall the original meaning of fantasy, the capacity of the brain to show and make anything visible, for without penetrating the spectacle that blinds us, we are lost and lose the power to create our own social relations.]

[gunkbaby]

What I luv luv luv about Shuu lately is how deep his character is. Like I’ve been writing him for 8 years, studying every inch of this man - and my perception and understanding of him changes constantly!!!

Like, a lot of it is me basically growing up having this character and not much else, but still. Every time I reread the manga, or meditate about him, or watch the anime, or whatever - I find something new about him! And I love that! I live for that!

I have always gotten things wrong about him, even now, but I don’t mind as much anymore? Because yes, the idea of not doing him justice devastates me, but I also have come to understand that with Shuu, getting something wrong comes with the correction. I see my flaws in my reading of him mostly when I see something from him that contradicts my idea - I find the character does communicate that. You have to read between the lines with Shuu, and I think my problem with a lot of previous characterisation of him was down to him being taken at face value, or commodified, or viewed through this very specific light. I try to view Shuu as Shuu - but I think lots of people in the past cast a very pessimistic, cynical idea onto him, no doubt due to the edgy nature of the fandom. I do think with Tokyo Ghoul, that there has been a severe lack of more optimistic views of characters and story in analysis. Not that it’s an optimistic story inherently, but I find people get quite into it being this inherently nihilistic view of the story. Tokyo Ghoul - and it’s characters - are grey but people paint it black. I try my best to view it through a neutral, grey lens.

But my point is that Shuu’s like. Completely esoteric to me. I love it. He’s my muse, my religion - he’s both my raison d'être and something that serves to shock it. He challenges me, and then I want to understand that - and it all feels so fucking rewarding.

I find his character motivates me to educate myself more. I read books I would never consider, do hobbies because he does them or I think of him via them. I only drink good coffee because Shuu says so, and when I was in my recovery to begin with - it was Shuu that made me want to get better, and give myself good quality food. And all because I want to understand him, because I want to feel him and know every part of him. Because of that, my life has been genuinely improved by him. He’s my force of good. He has saved my life. I think about where I’d be without him and there is no answer. I got so lucky with finding him when I did - when my mental illness was just showing itself, and just a year before it all fell apart - like. That was when the best thing in my life showed up - and I’m supposed to believe that was coincidence??? Like he’s not literally my guardian angel or some kind of heaven sent messenger???? God is real, you guys, and it exists for all of us.

I’m off-track. I just. I love that Shuu is so esoteric, so hard to understand, sometimes. Yes, he is chronically mischaracterised and I’m not under the impression that I have not contributed to that, but also? Him being like that is so wonderful. I love that he’s so complex, I love that he pushes me to learn and read and study and experience. I just love him quite a bit, you see.

[snugglesquiggle]

in chat, someone didn't like elaborate ship names with a whole word for each member, like bloody violin or biscuit bites

this led me to conclusion that the best J/Uzi ship name is:

the insidious tendency of capitalism to subsume and reincorporate its own critique, commodifying internal contradictions

[mosertone]

The Situationists identified the ability of the spectacle to commodify anything as its ultimate strength: if dissatisfaction and dissent can be marketed and consumed like material goods, surely anything which arises in the spectacle, no matter how hostile, can become supportive of it. The Situationists saw this ability to recuperate as fundamental to the survival of capitalism, since it intends the denial of the very possibility of contradiction, negation, and opposition -Lee Beckworth

[ghostingthemachine]

Reminder for myself

I feel like I am walking on a thin line between reality and hyperreality. It is so hard to differentiate between the real world and the dream world. I feel like I have fallen victim to unrealistic media and large online spaces; they taught me to self-commodify, to strip away the complexity of being human. They gave me a false promise that by becoming this character, a shell of a real woman, I will be able to achieve everything I want, no matter how unrealistic my desires are. Treating myself as a commodity did not, in fact, liberate me; instead it made me feel even more alienated and detached from reality. I had a tendency to turn to escapism even before becoming chronically online, but now I tricked my brain into thinking that I can live vicariously through experiences that were never mine in the first place. As long as it is real in my head, it must be real real, right?

You cannot run away from yourself forever, though. You can lie to your brain, you will never be able to deceive your body. You cannot transcend your own humanity. The sooner you realize it, the better.  Embracing yourself -  flaws and all, - this is what will actually set you free. You can be weak today and strong tomorrow. You can be a walking contradiction, and that is alright. Fuck consistency. You are not a product of someone’s shortsighted imagination, you are realness personified.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Title: Capitalism Incubates Its Own Contradictions: A Study on Hatching Economic Inequality

Abstract Capitalism, a system designed to drive wealth through market freedom, inadvertently breeds conditions that exacerbate inequality. This article examines the concept of "hatching" within capitalism, a phenomenon where systemic forces nurture elements of exploitation that ultimately weaken societal cohesion and resilience. By focusing on examples of corporate consolidation, labor devaluation, and environmental disregard, we explore how capitalism's unchecked growth fosters outcomes that undermine its own stability.

Introduction Economic inequality is not an unintended byproduct of capitalism; it is embedded in its structure. Just as a bird’s egg nurtures life within, capitalism harbors elements that gradually erode economic equality. Once hatched, these elements—corporate monopolies, exploitative labor practices, environmental degradation—begin to devour the very ecosystem that sustains them.

Corporate Consolidation: Nurturing Monopolistic Power Capitalism rewards successful enterprises, yet this success often leads to monopolistic consolidation. Corporations absorb competitors, growing vast and unyielding, reducing consumer choice and shifting power away from individuals. Once nurtured in the shell of free-market ideology, these corporations hatch as oligarchic entities, creating a landscape where smaller businesses struggle, workers lose leverage, and communities lack diverse economic contributors.

Labor Devaluation: The Hatchling of Exploitation Wages stagnate while executive salaries soar, reflecting a structural imbalance nurtured by capitalism’s drive for profit maximization. With profit as the ultimate measure, workers face declining purchasing power and eroding job security. Under the guise of efficiency, labor is increasingly commodified, devalued, and, in some cases, rendered obsolete by automation—an outcome inevitable within a system that privileges capital over human well-being.

Environmental Degradation: The Neglected Egg Capitalism’s relentless pursuit of growth neglects environmental limits, hatching a crisis of sustainability. Resource extraction, pollution, and waste are byproducts of a system indifferent to its ecological impact. This hatchling of exploitation grows unchecked, threatening the long-term viability of the very environment upon which human societies depend.

Conclusion Capitalism's strengths—its adaptability, efficiency, and dynamism—also nurture conditions that lead to its own contradictions. Economic inequality, corporate dominance, labor exploitation, and environmental decay are not deviations but direct outcomes. Like any organism that hatches unsustainable offspring, capitalism breeds forces that destabilize its own structure.

[normally0]

Smoke and Mirrors: The Fire of Rebellion and the Illusion of Control

Beneath the crackle of bonfires and the whistle of fireworks, a smoke trail winds through history, rising from the embers of Guy Fawkes' infamous treason in 1605 and curling into the present, where his masked face has become a global emblem of rebellion. Yet this smoke, symbolizing both fire and danger, is heavy with contradiction, masking layers of political and cultural complexity. It teases at the edges of rebellion while being co-opted by the very forces it seeks to defy. How is it that a man who plotted to destroy Parliament has become the centrepiece of a yearly celebration, his likeness commodified, his message blurred?

In the haze of November 5th, we burn effigies and dance around the flames, as if every year we must return to this ritual—an act that fuses rebellion with conformity. On the surface, it is a commemoration of thwarted treason, but beneath, it serves as a deeper reminder of the control we live under. There is an irony in how we celebrate this act of defiance through the very mechanisms of authority: organized festivities, regulated displays, and sanctioned symbols. The Guy Fawkes mask, once a symbol of anarchic liberation in V for Vendetta, now lines the pockets of corporate entities like Warner Bros. Discovery, its subversive potential diluted into a mass-produced costume.

The smoke trail extends beyond the bonfire, lingering in the political mind. For many, Guy Fawkes stands as an archetype of the ultimate rebel, a man willing to burn everything down to spark something new. His mask, now synonymous with the hacktivist group Anonymous, has become a global face of protest. Yet, even this rebellion is tinged with irony: in a world dominated by digital surveillance, the mask offers a fleeting anonymity, while the very act of purchasing it contributes to the capitalist structures the wearers oppose. It is a rebellion wrapped in the cloak of consumerism, a contradiction that leaves the air thick with ambiguity.

But this smoke also hints at something more primal: the allure of fire, the thrill of destruction, the deep human fascination with the act of burning. Bonfires, like those lit on Guy Fawkes Night, represent not only the purging of treason but also a dance with danger, a controlled chaos. The smoke rises, much like the phoenix, promising rebirth, yet what is born from these ashes? Are we simply reigniting the same rituals of political control, cloaked in the guise of rebellion? Where is Guy Fawkes' phoenix, the true creation that was meant to rise from the ashes of Parliament?

For centuries, we’ve played with fire, but the smoke from these flames may obscure more than it illuminates. As children run through the streets with sparklers, the scent of gunpowder and bonfire lingers, echoing not just a failed plot but the ongoing performance of control and submission. In this moment, the air is filled with contradictions: we celebrate a rebel’s attempt to dismantle authority, yet we do so under the watchful eye of the very institutions Fawkes sought to destroy.

In the smoke lies the question: what are we really celebrating? Is Guy Fawkes the unknown soldier in an eternal war against oppression, or has he been played into the hands of those who perpetuate punishment under the guise of divine order? The smoke coils back on itself, creating an illusion of freedom, but it is tethered to a reality where rebellion and punishment coexist, intertwined.

And what of the conservative families who light bonfires every year, raising children to the crackle of flames and the echo of rebellion? Is the ritual meant to instil fear, to remind us of the dangers of stepping outside the lines of control? Or are we, unknowingly, nurturing a generation of would-be rebels, captivated by the power of fire, intoxicated by the scent of destruction, unaware that the very system they might one day fight against is already pulling the strings?

In this world, where even rebellion has become a commodity, the smoke trail from Guy Fawkes’ effigy leads us to a deeper, unsettling realization. We are caught in a loop of political theatre, where the fires of rebellion are kept burning, but only in a controlled blaze—enough to light the sky, but never to burn down the structures we claim to defy.

This is the paradox of the modern political mind: we ignite the flames but fear the smoke, celebrate rebellion but cling to control. The smoke reveals the fragility of our constructs, but it also blinds us to the reality that we are still playing by the same rules. If Fawkes is our phoenix, his rebirth has been swallowed by the same systems that once condemned him. His fire, once a beacon of revolution, now serves as a flickering light in the larger machinery of political entertainment.

The trail of smoke calls for us to reconsider this dance with fire and punishment, to look beyond the masks and the bonfires. It invites us to break free from the black-and-white world of charlatans and wake up to the true potential of creation—the kind that does not end with a firework’s fizzle but burns with the possibility of real transformation. If we are to forge a new world, it cannot be one built on ashes alone. The smoke signals something beyond rebellion: the need to rediscover what it means to create, to rise not just in protest, but in the fire of true change.

#GuyFawkes #RebellionAndControl #BonfireNight #VforVendetta #PoliticalTheatre #PhoenixRising #ProtestCulture #CulturalSymbols #DivinePunishment #SmokeAndMirrors #FireOfChange #AnonymousMovement #RevolutionaryIcons

[luciapacheco-creativeobservatory]

The Cult of Creativity: Tracing the Origins and Cultural Impact

In his interview on The Chasing Leviathan podcast, the host points out to Samuel W. Franklin, author of The Cult of Creativity, that he has "opened up something we take for granted." This observation resonated with me. After nearly 15 years in the creative field, I had never questioned the origins of creativity—not just as a word but as a concept and its cultural and historical contexts. Franklin's work makes us pause and consider how the modern fixation on creativity is a relatively recent phenomenon, shaped by forces beyond artistic expression.

A Deep Dive into the Modern Obsession with Creativity

The introduction and first chapter of The Cult of Creativity dive into the construction of creativity as a concept and its prominence in today's world. Franklin takes us through the historical and psychological forces that have contributed to the phenomenon of creativity, offering a clear-eyed view of how the term, which seems ubiquitous today, was molded by mid-20th century psychologists, educators, and, more covertly, the demands of capitalism.

In this early part of the book, Franklin traces the roots of creativity to a relatively new concept shaped by the post-war world, when individualism became highly valued in a society recovering from trauma and facing new anxieties about conformity. Franklin's analysis highlights how psychologists and other influential thinkers began to view creativity not as an artistic or exclusive skill but as a critical, almost democratic attribute of the human condition.

Creativity: A Democratic Concept or a Reflection of Elitism?

One of Franklin's critical arguments in the first chapter is that creativity was presented as a natural human trait, something everyone could access. He emphasizes, however, that the way it was defined and measured—by a mix of cognitive abilities and personality traits—was heavily influenced by the biases of those who shaped the field. After all, the psychologists who studied creativity were products of their time and were primarily funded by institutions with vested interests. In the book, Franklin writes, "The 'creative person': a somewhat unstable mix of particular cognitive abilities and personality traits, while putatively universal, ended up reflecting the assumptions and interests of the psychologists themselves and their major benefactors." This quote reveals the inherent contradictions in how creativity was defined: as something everyone could possess but only truly understood through the lens of those who had the power to define it.

The Historic Connection Between Creativity and Capitalism

One of Franklin's most fascinating points is the link between creativity and capitalism. As creativity was embraced as a universal trait in the post-war era, it was also commodified. The rise of creativity in business, education, and psychology paralleled the needs of a growing capitalist economy, which required innovation, entrepreneurial thinking, and new forms of problem-solving to thrive. Franklin argues that creativity became a tool for both personal and societal advancement but was also shaped to fit the market's needs. In this sense, the modern obsession with being "creative" can be seen as an extension of capitalism's demand for constant reinvention and productivity.

As creativity became more valued in corporate and educational settings, leaders began to adopt it as a key trait in driving innovation and fostering collaboration. Yet, as Franklin suggests, there's a need for critical reflection on how creativity is used and who benefits from it. Is it a tool for liberation and personal growth, or has it been co-opted to drive productivity and economic gain?

In the Chasing Leviathan episode, Franklin discusses how creativity has become a kind of cultural currency, something everyone strives for. However, without a critical lens, we risk promoting creativity without understanding its origins and the structures that perpetuate its value. For those in leadership roles, especially in creative industries, this critical reflection is essential in navigating how creativity is cultivated, harnessed, and distributed.

[gweniveretheponderous]

How unbelievably insulting these TERFs are to their own gender. Femininity isn't a result of patriarchy, its a natural part of being human and anyone can experience it if they wish. It's commodified and controlled by patriarchal systems but I assure you there's nothing "degrading" about being feminine. How fucking nonsensical is it to be a feminist who hates femininity? It absolutely exists outside of the bubble of patriarchy, there are feminine lesbians, feminine gay men, a myriad of gender expressions that enjoy their own type of femininity. It's an unalienable part of being a woman because it's an unalienable part of being human.

It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face to vilify the feminine, since there will always be people in your numbers whose identities lean that way. And it's so telling that these "trans exclusionists" want so desperately not to think about transness. They think wanting to be a man is like treason against your gender, but there's nothing wrong about being a man either. Maleness is also commodified under the system that oppresses women; being queer means finding a gender expression of your own, one that isnt tailor made to fit the system and contribute to toxic and harmful gender boundaries. If being a woman is so degrading and harmful to YOU, then YOU don't HAVE to be a woman. But that's exactly the conclusion they don't want you to draw for yourself, because they hate transness, because transness is gender expression free from the gender boundaries and binaries that keep us all held down.

TL;DR: Basically, don't ever trust someone who wants to police your gender or your identity. And don't EVER trust someone who claims to be your ally while contradicting and diminishing your own personal experience.

Got a terf in my sideblog and the reply is not worth deigning with a response but the pinned post?

This? This is a trap. This is concern baiting. Be very sure that shit like this is not in your best interest and does not care about you. The goal of rhetoric like this is conversion.

You’ll be welcomed and asked to ignore transphobia. You will be asked to side with transphobes at the expense of trans women. Eventually, you’ll be asked to see that, hey, maybe you transitioned to escape how terrible it is to be a woman?

This may seem obviously a trap but I see people every day buy into this. People like this do not care about you! They want to “rescue” you and don’t let them convince you otherwise.