#dangerous communist propaganda

[dangerouscommiesubversive]

I think a really good relationship dynamic is when one partner is an entirely absurd person and the other partner's perpetual thought process is, "I adore you. Why are you like this? I'm going to kiss you at such length and with such fervor that you'll get disoriented and stop being like this for five minutes and I can rest, for fuck's sake."

[schlock-luster-video]

On October 3, 1986, Top Gun debuted in the United Kingdom.

[dailyrothko]

No, the Popularity of Abstract Art is Not the Result of a CIA PsyOp

If you are unlucky enough to move around the internet these days and talk about art, you’ll find that many “First commenters” will hit you with what they see as some hard truth about your taste in art. Comments usually start with how modern art is “money laundering” always comically misunderstanding what that means. What they are saying is that, of course, rich people use investments as tax shelters and things like expensive antiques and art appraised at high prices to increase their net worth. Oh my god, I’ve been red-pilled. The rich getting richer? I have never heard of such a thing.

What is conveniently left out of this type of comment is that the same valuation and financial shenanigans occur with baseball cards, wine, vacation homes, guitars, and dozens of other things. It does indeed happen with art, but even the kind that the most conservative internet curator can appreciate. After all, Rembrandts are worth money too, you just don’t see many because he’s not making any more of them. The only appropriate response to these people who are, almost inevitably themselves, the worst artists you have ever seen, is silence. It would cruel to ask about their own art because there’s a danger they might actually enjoy such a truly novel experience.

When you are done shaking your head that you just subjected yourself to an argument about the venality of poor artists plotting to make their work valuable after they died, you can certainly then enjoy the accompanying felicity of the revelation they have saved to knock you off your feet: “Abstract art is a CIA PsyOp”

Here one must get ready either to type a lot or to simply say “Except factually” and go along your merry, abstract-art-loving way. But what are the facts? Unsurprisingly with things involving US government covert operations, the facts are not so clear.

Like everything on the internet, you are unlikely to find factual roots to the arguments about government conspiracies and modern art. The mere idea of it is enough to bring blossom for the “I’m not a sheep” crowd, some of whom believe that a gold toilet owning former president is a morally good, honest hard-working man of the people.

The roots of this contention come from a 1973 article in Artforum magazine, where art critic Max Kozloff wrote about post-war American painting in the context of the Cold War, centering around Irving Sandler’s book, The Triumph of American Painting (1970). Kozloff takes on more than just abstract expressionism in his article but condemns the “Self-congratulatory mood”of Sandler’s book and goes on to suggest the rise of abstract expressionism was a “Benevolent form of propaganda”. Kozoloff treads a difficult line here, asserting that abstraction was genuinely important to American art but that its luminaries, “have acquired their present blue-chip status partly through elements in their work that affirm our most recognizable norms and mores.”

While there were rumblings of agreements around Kozloff’s article of broad concerns, it did not give birth to an actual conspiracy theory at the time. The real public apprehension of this idea seems to mostly come from articles written by historian Frances Stonor Saunders in support of her book, “The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters” (New York, New Press, 2000). (I have not read this 525 page book, only excerpts).

The gist of Ms. Saunders argument is a tantalizing, but mostly unsupported, labyrinthine maze of back door funding and novelistic cloak and dagger deals. According to Saunders, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an anti-communist cultural organization founded in 1950, was behind the promotion of Abstract art as part of their effort to be opinion makers in the war against communism. In 1966 it was revealed that the CCF was funded by the CIA. Saunders says that the CCF financed a litany of art exhibitions including “The New American Painting” which toured Europe in the late 1950s. Some of this is true, but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know the specifics.

Noted expert in abstract-expressionism, David Anfam said CIA presence was real. It was “a well-documented fact” that the CIA co-opted Abstract Expressionism in their propaganda war against Russia. “Even The New American Painting [exhibition] had some CIA funding behind it,” he says. But the reasons for this are not quite what the abstract art detractors might be looking for. After all, the CCF also funded the travel expenses for the Boston Symphony Orchestra and promoted Fodor’s travel guides. More than trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, it was meant to showcase the freedom artists in the US. enjoyed. Or as Anfam goes on to say, “It’s a very shrewd and cynical strategy, because it showed that you could do whatever you liked in America.”

For what it’s worth, Saunders’s book was eviscerated in the Summer 2000 issue of Art Forum at the time of its publication. Robert Simon wrote:

“Saunders draws extensively on primary and secondary sources, focusing on the convoluted money trail as it twists through dummy corporations, front men, anonymous donors, and phony fund-raising events aimed at filling the CCF’s coffers. She makes lengthy forays into such topics as McCarthyism, the formation and operation of the CIA, the propaganda work of the Hollywood film industry, and New York cultural politics—from Partisan Review to MoMA to Abstract Expressionism. Yet what seems strangely absent from Saunders’s panoramic history, as if it were a minor detail or something too obvious to require discussion, is the cultural object itself: The complex specifics of the texts, exhibitions, intellectual gatherings, paintings, and performances of the culture war are largely left out of the story.”

Another problem with the book seems to be that Saunders is an historian but not an art historian. For me, I sensed an overtone of superiority in the tale she’s spinning and most assuredly from those that repeat its conclusion. The thinly veiled message of some is that if it were “Real art” it would not have had be part of this government subterfuge. The reality is very different. For one thing, most of us know it is simply not true that you can make people devoted to a type of art for 100 years that they would sensibly hate otherwise. Another issue is that it’s quite obvious none of the artists actually knew about any government interference if there was any. Pollock, Rothko, Gottlieb and Newmann were all either communists or anarchists. Hardly the group one would recruit the help the US government free the world of communism. Additionally, this narrow cold war timeline ignores a huge amount of abstract art that Jackson Pollock haters also revile and consider part of the same hijacking of high (Frankly, Greek, Roman, or Renaissance) culture. If you look at the highly abstract signature work of Piet Mondrian and observe the dates they were painted, you’ll see 1908, 1914, 1916. This is some of the art denigrated as a CIA PsyOP, 35 years before the CIA even thought about it. Modern art didn’t come from nowhere as many would have you believe to discredit its rise. There was Surrealism, Dada, Bauhaus, Russian futurism and a host of other movements that fueled it.

Generally, people like to argue. On the internet, “I don’t like this” is a weak statement that always must be replaced by “This is garbage” or my favorite, “This is fake.”

It’s hardly surprising that the more conservative factions of our society look for any government involvement in our lives to explain why things are not exactly as they wish them to be, given the (highly ironic) conservative government-blaming that blew up after Reagan. In addition, modern fascists have always had a love affair with the classical fantasy of Greece and Rome. Both Mussolini and Hitler used Greece and Rome as “Distant models” to address their uncertain national identity. The Nazis confiscated more than 5,000 works in German museums, presenting 650 of them in the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art, 1937) show to demonstrate the perverted nature of modern art. It featured artists including Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Wassily Kandinsky, and Paul Klee, among others. The fear of art was real. It was the fear of ideas.

To a lot of people on the internet just the mentioning a “CIA program” is enough to get the cogs turning, but as with many things, the reality of CIA programs and government plots is often less than evidence of well planned coup.

The CIA reportedly spent 20 millions dollars on Operation Acoustic Kitty which intended to use cats to spy on the Kremlin and Soviet embassies. Microphones were planted on cats and plans were set in motion to get the cats to surreptitiously record important conversations. However, the CIA soon discovered that they were cats and not agreeable to any kind of regulation of their behavior.

As part of Operation Mongoose the CIA planned to undermine Castro's public image by putting thallium salts in his shoes, which would cause his beard to fall out, while he was on a trip outside Cuba. He was expected to leave his shoes outside his hotel room to be polished, at which point the salts would be administered. The plan was abandoned because Castro canceled the trip.

Regardless of your feelings on this subject or how much you believe abstract art benefited from government dollars, Saunders herself quotes in her book a CIA officer apparently involved in these “Long leash” influence operations. He says, “We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do.” Hardly the Illuminati plot we were promised.

In 2016, Irving Sandler, author of the book that started Kozloff tirading in 1973, told Alastair Sooke of The Daily Telegraph, “There was absolutely no involvement of any government agency. I haven’t seen a single fact that indicates there was this kind of collusion. Surely, by now, something – anything – would have emerged. And isn’t it interesting that the federal government at the time considered Abstract Expressionism a Communist plot to undermine American society?”

This blog post contains information and quotes sourced from The Piper Played to Us All: Orchestrating the Cultural Cold War in the USA, Europe, and Latin America, Russell H. Bartley International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 571-619 (49 pages) https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p127_127.xml?language=en https://www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/learn/schools/teachers-guides/the-dark-side-of-classicism https://www.artforum.com/features/american-painting-during-the-cold-war-212902/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.artforum.com/columns/frances-stonor-saunders-162391/ https://www.artforum.com/features/abstract-expressionism-weapon-of-the-cold-war-214234/ Mark Rothko and the Development of American Modernism 1938-1948 Jonathan Harris, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1988), pp. 40-50 (11 pages)

[an-ivy-covered-summer]

i know this will be a controversial statement for some people on this website, but you guys need to understand that being a radical communist with zero awareness of the nuance of living on planet earth is really not very different from being an alt-right extremist.

if you’re past the point of using logical thinking and understanding that societies and politics are complex and can be wildly different from one place to another, you’re just a fanatic, in spite of the place in the spectrum you place yourself on. you’re too swayed and brainwashed by propaganda. you’re just a blind fanatic, and your agenda becomes dangerous for real people living in the real world.

[contemplatingoutlander]

DECODING FOX NEWS

The propaganda in this one Fox News segment is astounding, and succinctly sums up the alternate reality that right-wing media have constructed regarding Biden and Trump.

Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of the right-wing media outlet The Federalist, does four things in this video:

She ignores the history of the Trump family's financial corruption, both during his administration and shortly afterward (when Jared was given control of investing $2 billion by the Saudis).

She implies that the repeatedly debunked Burisma claim against the Bidens is true.

She implies that all the indictments against Trump are due to the Biden administration's attempts to "persecute" Trump for standing up "for the people" to the "corrupt" Biden regime.

She likens the indictments to what happened in the past in communist regimes, where people like the Czech Republic's Václav Havel had been persecuted but later became presidents.

Below is a breakdown of the video:

HEMINGWAY: Also does, though, is it shows us what we're dealing with as our country. We've had a lot of people who have become political leaders and become incredibly wealthy.

HEMINGWAY: Joe Biden spent 50 years in public service and his family all has bank accounts where they take money from foreign people. They go to public service, and they come out much better.

HEMINGWAY: You have with President Trump one of the first and only people to actually stand up against that corrupt regime.

HEMINGWAY: Seeing the persecution that comes associated with it, which also kind of makes the case for him, because people see that if you go along with the regime, good things happen to you. If you stand on behalf of the people, they will try to destroy you.

HEMINGWAY: So there's like a weakness that's shown here in the same way you think of like the... what the communists used do to their political opponents. They would imprison them.

HEMINGWAY: After communism ended, some of those people became presidents and leaders like Václav Havel in Czech Republic because people knew they were persecuted and imprisoned because they were they were opposing a corrupt regime.

If any of Trump's indictments end in conviction, dangerous civil unrest may very well occur--likely in part because of the kinds of false, wreckless statements that Fox News contributors like Mollie Hemingway have made repeatedly.

[urdreamgirls-dreamgirl]

the duffers were heavily inspired by the cia’s secret operations called mkultra which targeted women, people of color, and poor people most heavily and completely destroyed their lives to experiment with torture tactics and “mind control” during the cold war, focusing heavily on experimental drug use and electroshock therapy. el’s mother in the show is a victim of mkultra and el is the product.

what the show fails to acknowledge and what would have been so fucking interesting for them to explore in a show abt GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY is that mkultra was built on the intense and extensive manipulation of the american capitalist propaganda machine that instilled fear in americans of becoming victims of these very same brainwashing tactics the american government was experimenting with but at the hands of the “big bad scary communists.”

now, in the 21st century with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the american people were being manipulated and lied to by their own government abt the “dangers” of communism in an effort to manufacture consent for wars in vietnam, south america, afghanistan, etc. that allowed the us and us-backed military regimes to torture and execute millions of people associated with trade unions and leftist organizations. we killed che guevara, salvador allende, attempted assassinations on fidel castro, and facilitated the murders of millions of regular people to maintain the lie that communism is evil and a direct threat to the american people.

instead of exploring these themes they laid the groundwork for in season 1, the duffers succumbed to the pressure of the hollywood propaganda machine and the promise of continued funding and guaranteed marketing and viewership by creating characters like dr. sam owens in season 2 that allowed their audience to begin sympathizing with the us government and framing brenner as simply a “bad apple” within a system where people were just trying their best. brenner is evil and he’s a villain, but he’s no longer a representative of the us government but rather an extremist leading a covert cell of other extremists within the bureaucracy.

in doing this, the show allowed for the introduction in season three of the big bad communist boogey man in the form of the russian government/military and thus allowed stranger things to enter into a series of media products that, though seemingly unrelated & from different studios, nonetheless all work together to manufacture consent in the present-day for us wars abroad that claim to be protecting us from the perceived threat of “brainwashing,” “indoctrination,” and, in some instances, communism/threats to the capitalist machine (think specifically marvel and star wars). “the evil communists are doing this evil thing so we had no choice but to also do this evil thing” becomes the thesis of the show—the ends will eventually justify the means.

except that now it doesn’t. because to remain a part of the hollywood propaganda industry, the duffers have to sacrifice the themes they first established at the beginning of their show. they have to abandon any characters that offer a deviation from these new themes they’ve introduced. and it’s becoming apparent that the duffers lack the talent and the ability to execute complex storylines that go beyond what was introduced in the first season—perhaps they have the ability to conceive, but they lack the ability to follow through and it’s the very nature of the capitalist structure of the white male artistic genius that has now trapped them in this position—their inability to let go and let others take over the creative execution of their product will be their downfall as their series comes to a close.

[everything-is-crab]

My favorite thing (/s) about Pro Israel folks and the people focusing so much on the recent Hamas attack is how great they're at spreading blatant lies.

You see them post something about what Hamas or Palestinians did to Israelis and through fact checking it's revealed it's the other way round 😂

People linking wikipedia, bbc....and other Western media links.....as their "sources"

Like wow, I didn't know you guys were this dense. Even some of the people I respected on here seem to be affected immensely by propaganda. US and other Western countries have not only supported but also funded Israel's apartheid regime and even now it's doing the same.

I was brainwashed by radfems too with their "rape is never okay". Many radfems sure do know how to manipulate you using your class consciousness as women to be blind to other oppressive systems or distort facts.

There's no proof any of the kidnapped women being raped. And yet most radfems are speaking about nothing but that. They aren't even speaking about the constant suffering and rape of Palestinian women by IDF (including many Israeli women as perpetrators).

I remember that I started reading more about this issue in 2021 when some IDF attack killed many Palestinians in a mosque. Don't remember the details well. It's been a while. And I wasn't on Tumblr then but I do remember that mainstream media did not give a shit about it. And now suddenly the anti terrorism sentiment of Pro Israel countries and even people who supposedly support Palestinians has chosen to rise again.

Very convenient timing for you.

One thing I will tell you is to remember that the conditions colonizers force on the colonized make it hard for the colonized to rely on any ideal form of resistance. Hamas is not the only group for Palestinian resistance. There are others but this is the large one today. Before there used to be better secular ones but they were all squashed cause Israel created Hamas. And there have been peaceful protests and everything. Israel killed the people who protested and the soldiers laughed when they were done. Where was this global outrage then?

Sm of relying for information on media leaning towards Israel and yet so many of you are missing this fact out. This is what colonizers always do. Read history of as many colonized countries you can. And you will find out that colonizers, while they were generally against opposition of the colonized's liberation, funded the anti-leftist, anti-communist/nationalist or religious extremists or/and the ruling class of the colonized society in their national liberation movement.

They help in squashing other more dangerous (from a colonizer's pov) national liberation movements. Nothing better than reducing your enemies to extremists. The British did that in my country too. Talked a lot about how horrible our society is but politically and economically supported the ruling class that created and perpetrated those issues. And some European women and children died in some isolated protests or riots as well during colonial era. But obviously it was nothing compared to the number of people that died on my side than the colonizers'.

So don't be surprised when people see Hamas as a necessary means or don't entirely oppose as part of Palestinian liberation. No sane person actually "supports" Hamas. But it is what is. It's Israel's own creation. Palestinians are left with no options. You're linking ngos supported or created by Israelis and other dumb shit as "an alternative". But colonization can't be won over through ngos lmao. Heck, ngos can't even actually make a lot of changes in human rights in areas that aren't war torn cause of corruption. You expect it to work for Gaza? Please

If Israel or anyone wants Hamas to stop then they should simply give up their brutal settler colonialism and not oppose any leftist org or movement formed by the Palestinians even after ending apartheid and everything. There's no other alternative except this. And if you haven't learnt your lesson yet, then don't support any "intervention" by USA or some other genocidal country.

Ik for a fact you people wouldn't support my country's decolonization if you lived back then. Cause the national liberation movement in my country was dominated by religious, anti communist and ruling class as well. And I, as a female bisexual from an oppressed caste will never ideologically support the people who led national liberation in my country. And yet ik they were necessary in the path to independence cause the British let only them have any power in the country. The two opinions can co exist.

You guys are so focused on opposing the ideology of Hamas and how they're bad for Palestinians themselves, you are forgetting Hamas is legally recognized as terrorists by many powerful Western/west-allied countries around the world and are actively funding and supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians.

It's funny how the same people unconditionally support Ukraine in the war, including Ukraine itself. Even though US, UK, France and other countries are supporting Nazis in the Ukrainian military to fight against Russia.....

And I am not "supporting" Hamas or killing of cilivians....but I am just analyzing the history and politics behind this issue that is hugely ignored.

Radfems are reblogging that dumb addition by female-malice about an unbacked conspiracy theory about Iran,completely removing any accountability or responsibility of the states of "Israel". There's a conspiracy theory that Israel planned this attack as well. And yet I haven't see any pro Palestine leftist spread that theory presenting it as a fact rather than a speculation. Genuinely you guys are just racist and don't want to hold Israel actually accountable apart from a little side remark.

Everytime I see such false claims, misinformation, unproven conspiracy theories I check what sources the person has to provide or which sources are reporting that. And it's some damn Western news outlet every time. Every fricking time.

Ignoring what Israel PM is doing to the civilians in Gaza right now.....in favor of getting into online discourse about "so it's okay to kill/rape innocent people?" Plain evil

You do realize most of the world is revolting against that now? That powerful international forces are incentivizing this attack to commit further atrocities against civilians in Gaza? It's not a time to debate whether the attack was okay or not, it's time to speak about how the Israeli PM and rest of the world is choosing to respond to it.

I was going to write a respectfully worded post about this. But I won't. Cause I am not some extraordinary independent journalist or anything. I am not even in majoring in any social science or history subject. But it wasn't that hard for me to get around the misinformation from msm. And I am from a country that is and has been pro Israel and very great at spreading propaganda through msm.

I saw one radfem say in response to question of Palestinian women's suffering that "how are we supposed to know what's happening to them? I am not seeing any posts on my dash about it". Good to know your dumbass relies on Tumblr posts for misinformation.

I have been incredibly busy so not made any posts about this issue. But I think that's what I am going to keep reblogging and posting about for a while now. So don't hesitate to filter tags or click the unfollow button if this irritated you. Cause there's more to come.

[corvidcentral]

Nora SoSu ref!! I love her (she has been put through the wringer)

More lore below cut v

Like I said she was an extremely talented criminal defense lawyer. She almost always won the cases she was assigned to, and if she didn’t win, she managed to get her clients sentences dramatically reduced. Closer to her maternity leave, however, she picked up a case where someone was falsely accused of being a communist.

(In universe, Fallout has a LOT of anti-communist/red scare propaganda hence this)

She won the case, but her “credibility” instantly tanked, as no one wanted a “commie” defending them. So she was basically bottlenecked into defending communists or people accused of such. She, being one of the top lawyers, won almost all of them, and sent several companies into bankruptcy after settlements were paid, but this made her nationally hated. Her name was in newspapers often, smearing her name and her skills, which often went hand in hand with racist/bigoted rants from these publications

She “retired” after becoming pregnant with Shaun, both because Nate asked her to, and because it was becoming far too dangerous for her to keep at her practice. So she was a sahm until the Great War, upon which the canon events of FO4 happen

She becomes extremely anxious and depressed after being released, and while she does immediately start looking for Shaun, she also begins to look for things that distract her as well, eventually resulting in her appointment to the Minutemen’s General as well as becoming a Railroad member. As stated she does NOT like the Brotherhood, and they make her anxious with their similarities to the American Army (she also doesn’t particularly like Danse, not through any fault of his own, just that he reminds her too much of Nate).

She does find Kellogg and. Punches him to death. It’s cathartic for her, in a way.

I don’t have a solid grasp on what happens after that, but I do know that she chooses to evacuate + blow up the Institute, and that she tries to bring Father with her, but he tells her to take Synth Shaun in his place. SShaun is also a fun concept to play w/ I do have some lore for him

I will say she is friend with Nick, one because they’re both pre-war (on technicality), and two because they actually both knew of each other. Nora often defended people Nick arrested, so they’d see each other on court, and because they were both in the paper often (Nora for the Commie’s Lawyer thing, Nick for the Eddie Winter’s case). They’re. Super shocked and a little disturbed to see the other after “meeting again” but they do become decent friends once they get over their heebies :3

[gay-disabled-characters-showdown]

LGBTQ+ Disabled Characters Showdown Round 3, Wave 2, Poll 5

A character being totally canon LGBTQ+ and disabled was not required to be in this competition. Please check qualifications and propaganda before asking why a character is included. 

Check out the other polls in this wave and prior here.

Kim Kitsuragi-Disco Elysium

Qualifications:

Visually impaired

Propaganda:

I dunno man. He's Kim Kitsuragi. There's nothing I can say about him that hasn't already been said. He's quiet and reserved and uncomfortable with emotions. He's a self-proclaimed Torque Dork who loves his car like a child. He listens to heavy metal music. He's a centrist. He's a homosexual. He's consistently given shit by everyone around him for his race, his sexuality, and his disability, and he's taught himself to respond to it with cold professionalism. He dresses in historical communist pilot cosplay. I love him with my entire heart.

Geordi La Forge-Star Trek: The Next Generation

Qualifications:

He is blind, canonically, and also [has] chronic headaches as a result of the visor he wears. He was actually originally conceptualized as gay, but never written as such because every Trekkie's nemesis, Rick Berman, took over the production of TNG after Roddenbury left. Every single heterosexual romance written for him is atrocious, and his closest non-familial relationship is with a man, Data. Said relationship is often interpreted as romantic or queerplatonic in nature by fans.

He is blind (uses a VISOR that lets him see the electromagnetic spectrum) and was intended to be gay before one of the producers decided not to let him be (thousand curses on Rick Berman)

Propaganda:

He is so wonderful and I love him so so so much. OK. Okay. So Geordi's main traits are that he is an incredibly dedicated and talented engineer, a ridiculously friendly and charismatic person, and very loyal & stubborn when it comes to the people he loves. He has, on two separate occasions, successfully made friends with a member of a hostile alien faction just by spending a few days with them (Hugh, Bochra). When his mother goes missing and he starts getting communications from an entity claiming to be her, he disobeys orders and puts himself in danger in an attempt to save her. Similarly, in The Most Toys, when Data is kidnapped by Kivas Fajo, he refuses to believe that Data made an error in piloting a shuttlecraft that resulted in his death, and through rigorous investigation, finds out what really happened and is able to get the Enterprise to rescue him. (This episode bears incredible similarity to an episode in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, wherein Keiko does the exact same thing when her husband Miles is falsely reported as dead, so in that parallel, Geordi and Data are directly analagous to a married couple). Geordi's disability is presented in one of the best ways I have seen in media from the 80s-90s. His disability is a part of his character, but never his defining trait, and in several episodes he stresses that he doesn't resent being blind, as it is part of who he is. In fact, there's even an episode where he is placed in direct thematic opposition to a eugenicist society that terminates all disabled zygotes. He was originally conceptualized as gay by Roddenbury, but was never written as such (partially due to Rick Berman's influence). However, all of his canon heterosexual romances are unspeakably terrible, and his closest onscreen relationship is with Data. This relationship is interpreted by many to be romantic or queerplatonic in nature.

He's so cooool!! He's the chief engineer on the enterprise, he's so kind, and his relationship with the android Data is one of the best on the show and is my favourite in all of Star Trek

Anything Else?:

The actor who played him, LeVar Burton, is a vocal ally and has expressed support for his gay daughter in interviews :).

Geordi is awesome

The qualifications and propaganda paragraphs correspond, @convenient-plot-device is the first submitter, @autisticiantojvnes is the second.

[dangerouscommiesubversive]

"The creator definitely didn't put that much thought into it" well then clearly someone else has to and I think I'm the weirdo for the job

[schlock-luster-video]

On May 19, 2020, Top Gun was released on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray in the United States.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has adopted former President Donald Trump’s platform for the Republican Party. The new platform removes the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage — though conservatives have signaled that they’d like to overturn it — and also "softens" conservative opposition to abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF), two issues that Republicans worry could hurt them in the November election. The platform’s anti-transgender goals, numbered 16 and 17 among its 20 goals, are stated thus: “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” and “Keep men out of women’s sports.” Chapter 9, Section 5 of the platform promises to “end Left-wing gender insanity,” stating, “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.”

[...] The platform also echoes the Republican opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools by promising to “expose politicized education models.” The platform also promises to “restore Parental Rights in Education”, a dog whistle for opposition to anti-racist and LGBTQ+-inclusive education. Anti-LGBTQ+ groups like Moms for Liberty and Leave Our Kids Alone have functioned under the banner of “parents’ rights.”

“We trust Parents’ Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT [critical race theory] and Gender Indoctrination,” the platform states. “Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.” As for higher education, the platform promises to “fire Radical Left accreditors … restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.” The line about accreditors may refer to the College Board, an organization that gives high school students a chance to pre-earn college credits through Advanced Placement (AP) tests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) publicly criticized the board last year and tried to get it to drop AP test questions on racial justice movements and queer theory — he failed. The platform repeatedly mentions that Leftists should be removed from government. It also promises, “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.”

The GOP’s proposed platform contains several anti-trans items, such as keeping trans women out of women’s sports, de facto support for bans on gender-affirming care, support for forced outing policies under the guise of “parental rights”, and pushes the lie that trans people are a “danger” to women and girls.

[catgirlforeskin]

Actually, I want to talk about this more.

I think that people really overpay how bad politically "online" and 4chan and such are. Not because 4chan is good (it is very bigoted), but in my experience while imageboards are very loosely moderated*, and it allows them to spread some graphic shit, they are not interdimensional aliens. Sure, I didn't see photos of bestiality anywhere else, but I saw and see all the same prejudices in "normie" groups, in comments under movie torrents, in news media, I hear them on the streets and from my relatives. And it doesn't just happen, it's like the norm (not so much in official news, thank fuck, but mainstream TV is still guilty).

After Trump all imageboards into more or less interconnected system of fascist propaganda, sure, but the foundation wasn't that different, in my opinion. Society just sucks because of capitalism and due to the fact that most of pre-capitalist heritage is even worse.

Something similar is true for Reddit. It does suck, but also everyone uses it, even worldwide. The fact that it is like that is not because of redditors, but because this is the face of (mostly white American) middle class society.

This may sound too anti-communist of me, but I feel so angry when people say "actually bigotry is just a thing that online loners do, most people are actually nice". No! People are not nice, people are the ones who do all of this bigotry! It is not 4chan that makes people use racial slurs, it is not twitter that brainwashes women into being housewives, it is not Reddit that covers up rapists, it is not TikTok that makes people crave fascist dict6. It is your neighbors, your friends, you! And me, and all of us here. It's not "human nature", but it's our reality. Society is very flawed, and since society is not a deity but only a network of people, all of us are flawed, all of us are monsters even. Attributing every societal ill to "terminally online neckbeards" is just placing all of your crimes on convenient scapegoats.

This is not defense of 4channers or redditors, they suck, but it's so stupid to pretend that they are just not children of your society, not even that different from you

100% agree, yeah, I hate the tendency for people to project societal ills onto an Other so they don’t have to think about their own complicity in it. We see it in Stranger Danger and the creation of The Predator as opposed to the reality of most abuse coming from people you know and have structural power over you (parents, bosses, etc).

We see it all the time in the transmisogynist harassment campaigns on here, where we’ll see trans women get called “literal rapists” for doing cnc play with their girlfriends when we (at least used to) understand that Rape Culture is a thing and it’s omnipresent in society, or trans women promote “literal incest” for calling their girlfriends big sis or whatever when the most popular porn category everywhere for the last decade has been incest crap.

There’s easily a hundred other things I could list but the point is obvious, I mean shit it applies with the law too, there’s so many things that are part of the dominant culture and everyone has a hand in, but punishment is only inflicted on the subaltern

[terriblesoup]

Political Themes in Classic Literature

Alright, let’s dive into political themes in classic literature. For anyone who thinks old books are just dust-covered stacks of antiquated language, you are dead wrong. Let’s just take a step back and remember that some of the most impactful political ideas in history didn’t come from debates in dull government buildings—they came from books. Yes, literature! Think of classic novels as political soap operas, only with more existential crises and a lot fewer commercial breaks.

The political puppet show:

So, what do politics and classic literature have in common? Quite a lot, actually. Literature doesn’t just entertain; it holds up a mirror to society and shows us how messed up (or wonderful) things are. Whether it’s criticizing an oppressive regime, showing the chaos of revolution, or examining the moral dilemmas faced by those in power, classic literature doesn’t ( and literature in general should never) shy away from political themes.

One of the most intriguing things about classic literature is how authors use characters and plots to critique the political systems of their time. In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, we see the rise of a totalitarian regime, but with... animals. Yes, pigs. Orwell is talking about the Russian Revolution and the dangers of unchecked power. The pigs, who start out with lofty ideals of equality, end up becoming as corrupt and oppressive as the humans they replaced. The message? Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely (a fancy way of saying that rulers, no matter how noble they start, can easily lose their way).

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Yes, it's not a novel, but it’s a key text in understanding political revolutions. Marx and Engels argued that class struggle would eventually lead to a proletarian revolution, where the working class would overthrow the bourgeoisie. While not a story in the traditional sense, its influence on revolutions around the world (hello, Russia, China, Cuba!) makes it an essential part of political literature.

When Chaos Reigns: The Politics of Revolutions:

Nothing gets the political waters flowing like a good old-fashioned revolution. Literature has long been a tool for expressing the chaos, confusion, and sometimes the sheer absurdity of these moments in history. Take 1984 by Orwell—again... This time, we’re in a world where Big Brother is always watching, and privacy is a thing of the past. Orwell’s vision of a totalitarian regime controlled by surveillance, propaganda, and fear was a warning about the dangers of political overreach. Fast-forward to today, and you’ll find that his bleak vision feels eerily close to the reality of modern surveillance states.

In The Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, we see the French Revolution through the eyes of characters who are caught up in the violence and turmoil. Dickens shows us how the revolution, meant to bring about liberty and equality, quickly devolves into chaos and bloodshed. People who were once oppressed now become the oppressors. It's the classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario—and it’s not just in the French Revolution. Many revolutions, whether political, social, or even technological, have shown us how easily things can spiral out of control when the old systems are overturned without a clear plan for what comes next.

Russian literature is a goldmine for political themes that dig deep into societal struggles, personal turmoil, and the larger forces that shape history.

Take War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, for example. Set against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, this epic novel isn’t just about battlefield drama—it’s about the political and social upheaval (violent or sudden change) that these wars bring. Through his huge cast of characters, Tolstoy critiques the Russian aristocracy, showing us how disconnected the wealthy and powerful are from the suffering of ordinary people. As young men are shipped off to fight wars they don’t fully understand, Tolstoy paints a picture of a society that is as chaotic as the battles it’s embroiled in. The violence and chaos of war seem almost tame compared to the political and social systems that allow such events to unfold. It’s a sobering reminder of the divide between the political power held by a few and the lives of the many.

Then there’s Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, which takes us to a different kind of chaos—the moral and philosophical kind. In this novel, Dostoevsky explores the dangers of ideology, faith, and authority, which in many ways are just as politically charged as any revolution. As his characters wrestle with questions of belief, power, and their own place in the world, the novel digs into the political tensions within Russian society and religion. The political impact of The Brothers Karamazov was so strong that the Russian government kept a watchful eye on Dostoevsky himself, fearing that his questioning of church and state could stir up trouble among the masses. This book isn't just a deep philosophical meditation; it's a warning about the consequences of unchecked authority and the destructive power of ideology.

In One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez critiques the political systems of Latin America, focusing on the cyclical nature of revolution and power. The corrupt political systems in the town of Macondo reflect the repeated failures of revolution, where every new regime promises change but ultimately falls into the same patterns of oppression and violence. The novel shows how revolutionary ideals can quickly turn into systems of corruption, highlighting the disillusionment many felt with political leaders who fail to deliver true change.

Morality and Ethics in Politics: the good, the bad, and the politician.

In the world of politics, morality is like that pesky little voice in your head saying, "Hey, maybe don't do that thing." Ethics are the rules you kind of wish everyone followed, but let’s face it, not everyone does. Now, throw these into the mix of political decisions and you get moral dilemmas, the ultimate "What would you do?" situations. And when you throw characters into this, suddenly, you’ve got a drama that’s better than any reality TV show.

In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo presents the story of Jean Valjean, who, after stealing bread to feed his family, faces a lifetime of punishment under a rigid legal system (basically for breathing <3). His internal conflict highlights the tension between legal justice and moral justice. As Valjean navigates his path toward redemption, Hugo critiques the harshness of the justice system and the ethical responsibility of individuals within a corrupt society.

Similarly, 1984 by George Orwell delves into the ethical struggles of Winston Smith as he navigates a totalitarian regime where the very concept of truth is manipulated. Winston's journey, filled with the desire for freedom and individuality, demonstrates the cost of rebellion in a society that controls every aspect of its citizens' lives. His moral battle—whether to remain loyal to his beliefs or submit to the Party's lies—serves as a haunting commentary on the oppressive nature of unchecked political power and the moral corruption it brings. In such works, the characters�� ethical decisions become not just personal, but political, reflecting broader questions about justice, freedom, and the consequences of betrayal.(There are so many books I could talk about rn I-)

Impact on Political Movements: how did these books affect real life revolutions:

In the case of Les Misérables, the themes of social injustice and the failure of the French government resonated deeply with the working-class revolutionaries of the 19th century. The novel’s portrayal of the barricades and uprisings, even though ultimately unsuccessful, inspired a generation of revolutionaries who sought to topple the entrenched social and political systems. Hugo’s work became an emblem of resistance, one that resonated not only in France but across Europe during times of political unrest.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, similarly, had a profound effect on the political landscape of the United States. Its depiction of the inhumanity of slavery galvanized the abolitionist movement, forcing many Americans to confront the moral implications of the system. Stowe's vivid portrayal of the brutal realities of slavery made it impossible for the North to remain indifferent to the plight of the enslaved, playing a crucial role in building support for the abolitionist cause. The book became a symbol of resistance and solidarity, one that ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Universal relevance: Politics doesn't have an expiration date.

The political themes in classic literature touch on things like justice, freedom, and equality. These aren’t just problems from the past; they’re timeless issues...

In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck explores the plight of migrant workers during the Great Depression, but its message about the exploitation of the poor is just as applicable to contemporary struggles against economic inequality (The exploitation of the poor doesn’t have an expiration date either, and it’s still something we’re fighting against in the modern world.).

Similarly, the themes in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, though rooted in the social hierarchies of early 19th-century England, speak to universal themes of class, marriage, and individual agency. Austen critiques the limitations placed on women by society, calling attention to the ways in which economic power and social status restrict personal freedom. These concerns remain relevant today, as women continue to fight for gender equality and the right to autonomy in many parts of the world.

Why Does This Matter?

Okay, so we’ve explored how literature critiques political systems, critiques leaders, and explores the chaos of revolution. But why does all this matter to us today? Here’s the kicker: these books and their political themes still resonate. They’re not just dusty old novels you read in high school and promptly forget. They’ve got real-world implications.

Take a look around. What’s happening in the world today? Struggling to find decent healthcare? Check. Big corporations running the show? Check. Politicians who say one thing and do another? Double-check. We’re still grappling with the same political issues that have been explored in classic literature for centuries. Maybe we haven't had a Les Misérables-type revolution (yet), but we’ve certainly seen protests, uprisings, and calls for social justice echoing across the globe, just like in the pages of those old books.

And it gets worse...

Don’t think that the digital age has made these themes less important. If anything, social media and the internet have amplified the political issues that these classic books explored. Think about how politicians now use platforms like Twitter or Instagram to manipulate public opinion or deflect criticism. It’s almost like reading 1984 all over again, with the new-age "doublethink" of social media where truth is constantly bent and twisted. In a world of 24/7 news cycles, “alternative facts,” and fake news, it’s hard not to see the parallels with Orwell’s Big Brother.

Classic literature is not just for those who enjoy long-winded prose and tragic endings. It’s a treasure trove of political insight. From critiques of power to depictions of revolutionary chaos, these stories show us the triumphs and failures of human societies. They remind us that the fight for justice, fairness, and equality is far from over. So next time you crack open a classic novel, remember: it’s more than just a story—it’s a blueprint for understanding the political world we live in today.

The books mentioned and more if you're interested:

.Les Misérables by Victor Hugo

. 1984 by George Orwell

. Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

. A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

. Animal Farm by George Orwell

. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair

. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

These are some links to more articles about this subject or close to it if you wanna read more about what we already see in real life lol:

[justjamespotterr]

coriolanus is such an insane play because for a story that involves so much politics, the actual political message of the play is ambiguous enough that each reader’s interpretation will depend on their own political leanings. there’s that one post about how coriolanus has been staged as both pro-fascist and pro-communist propaganda during world war ii and the cold war, respectively. today you could interpret the play as a criticism of income inequality and the upper classes’ hoarding of wealth, OR as a warning against the dangers of populism and how people in positions of relative deprivation will make violent decisions if given the chance (or both!). however the only thing that is absolutely not up for debate is that coriolanus and aufidius were two seconds away from having sex the entire goddamn time

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 16, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 17, 2024

Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance. 

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump. 

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s. 

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. 

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.” 

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights. 

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as “we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory. 

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution. 

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. 

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.” 

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.” 

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON