#different nationalities but forced into the same box by their oppressive society

[angel---eater]

tbh the whitest trolls to me are the zahhaks and the makaras bc of what kind of internet-people equius and gamzee represented at the time. juggalo culture is predominantly white working class folks or white folks on the poverty line, and in the US bc of segregation, that meant a lot more mixing of cultures than you see in middle class and up areas. its the same with canada and the UK. so you see a lotta black influences in there bc of how US class structures have been constructed. its a melting pot made by and for the working class. a lotta irl juggalo stuff is pretty chill from what ive heard? as a movement they want to demolish class heirarchy and build community. ofc theres room for abuse in the lifestyle though, thats not unique to juggalos. gamzee as a rich white boy living a juggalo lifestyle but not getting it right and actually reinforcing what irl juggalos fight against makes perfect sense for his character

equius on the other hand is like belligerently Hegemonic White Cis Dude coded to me. he represents young white cis boys on the precipice of falling into the manosphere pipeline, imo. specifically bc theyre lonely and insecure. his spot on the hemospectrum is perfect for breeding that shit. he's been told his whole life that hes better than most of the ppl he knows. hes higher up caste wise than most of his friends, particularly nepeta, but still feels inferieor to his friends who ARE higher up than he is, which is what sparks that hyperspecfic brand of insecurity in white cis boys. their only real problem is that someone else whos even more priviledged is looking down on them. and gamzee also being white just kind of compounds that bc of the sense of 'competition' between white guys or whatever, to be The Whitest Squarest* Guy who is On Top (haha) Of All Other White Square Guys

everyone else? nah. its so obviously not whats happening. which really just highlights the fact that large swaths of fandom still believe that white is default in terms of character design. and its insane to me how ppl can say w/ their whole chest that the hemospectrum has nothing to do w/ race, its just abt class, when racism and class are intrinsically tied. like theyre horrible twin sisters, man, you cant rlly have one without the other. enforced class models in society dont work unless theres someone up top deeping someone else Deserving of having less bc theyre not the exact same type of person as them

*using the term Square here not to denote any kind of 80s movie nerddom but to try to describe hegemonically cishet (and homogenized white) normies who are toxic abt it and think everyone else should be like them

[arcticdementor]

When Machiavelli wrote, “in order to know Moses’ virtue it was necessary that the people of Israel be slaves in Egypt …,” he was pointing to the truth that knowing what one is up against is a powerful incentive for dealing with it intelligently. Genesis tells us that only in Moses’ time did the Egyptians make clear how harsh was the alternative to the Exodus by deciding to kill their longtime slaves’ baby boys.

Today, the oligarchy that controls American society’s commanding heights leaves those who are neither its members nor its clients little choice but to marshal their forces for their own exodus. The federal government, the governments of states and localities run by the Democratic Party, along with the major corporations, the educational establishment, and the news media set strict but movable boundaries about what they may or may not say—on pain of being cast out, isolated from society’s mainstream. Using an ever-shifting variety of urgent excuses, which range from the coronavirus, to the threat of domestic terrorism, to catastrophic climate change, to the evils of racism, they issue edicts that they enforce through anti-democratic means—from social pressure and threats, to corporate censorship of digital platforms, to bureaucratic fiat. Nobody voted for this.

What forces can and can’t this oligarchy bring to bear? We have a hint from Time magazine’s Feb. 4, 2021, valedictory of “a vast, cross-partisan campaign” by leaders of business, labor, and the media, in cooperation with the Democratic Party, that “got states to change voting systems and laws” for the 2020 presidential election in contravention of black-letter constitutional law. Rulings by judges in Michigan and Virginia that changes to those states’ absentee ballot laws were blatantly illegal matters not one whit.

Why not? Because the coalition of masters controls the levers of the state and the press. As Time reveals, they “helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.” Because these elites realized that “engaging with toxic content only made it worse,” they decided on “removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place.” Instead of answering facts and arguments with which they disagreed, they would ignore their substance and smear whoever voiced them.

The boldness and novelty of these as well as of unmentioned tactics delivered the desired electoral result, and power heretofore unimaginable: Americans in 2021 are being fired or “canceled” from society for whatever anyone connected with the oligarchy finds objectionable—even for asking for evidence of the oligarchy’s assertions. Yet Time tells us that because the process of defeating Donald Trump’s voters angered them further, these oligarchs worry that they gained only “a respite.” Hence the united oligarchy must seek, as The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie put it, permanent “national political dominance.”

Though that dominance seems at hand, the general population’s compliance with it is not. That is because isolating and alienating anybody, let alone half the country, is the proverbial two-edged sword. Anytime you isolate and alienate someone else, you do the same to yourself. The boundaries that the oligarchs have drawn, are drawing, separate them from the American people’s vast majority, whose consciousness of powerlessness and defenselessness clarifies their choice between utter subjection and doing whatever it might take to exit a system that no longer seems to allow for the prospect of republican self-government.

…

By this century’s second decade, the oligarchs who occupy the commanding heights of American life had ceased trying to persuade. Self-government has declined as corporations have wielded public powers with private discretion. America’s ruling class—bipartisan, public and private—grew to disdain the rest of America’s religiosity, patriotism, and tastes. But until our own time, most Americans either had not noticed their loss of status as citizens or assumed that they could vote to regain it. But the rulers inspired no confidence and ruled by pulling rank.

…

Hate-as-identity was key to the ruling class’s victory in the 2020 election. For the elites, indulging sentiments of moral superiority, promoting hate, and rubbing “deplorable” faces in the dirt is a means to secure and mobilize supporters, which itself is incidental to securing the material benefits of power. For those who deliver the votes, indulging hate is affirmation of identity.

Ruling people by insulting and harming them is problematic, and not reversible. The use that the oligarchy made of the COVID epidemic added to insult and injury, as well as to its power, in a manner previously unimaginable. Boldly dismissing without argument the fact that viral infections cannot be stopped from running their course once they have taken root in a population, they asserted that acquiescing to indefinite cessation of social and economic activities they deemed to be nonessential would stop the disease’s progression. The ensuing lockdowns, mask mandates, and other measures made life for most Americans worse in every way. But these strictures also crippled the sectors of American society independent of and resistant to the oligarchy—religious institutions and small businesses. They isolated people and limited what they could hear from and say to each other, leaving them prey to one-way propaganda narratives backed by nightly threats of mob violence.

Correctly, however, the American oligarchy, which resides these days in the Democratic Party, feared that the weaponized, mutually validating narratives with which it had bombarded the population could not guarantee that the American people would vote differently in 2020 than they did in 2016, widespread public dislike for Donald Trump notwithstanding. Not a few suspected that the COVID heavy-handedness had increased resentment among people who had learned to be suspicious of pollsters, reporters, and opinion-samplers.

Ordinary credulity was never enough for swallowing the narrative that universal vote by mail, coupled with drop boxes for ballots and ballot harvesting by self-proclaimed civic groups, plus the reduction or elimination of verification of signatures, would do anything other than transfer electoral power from those who cast votes to those who count them—that is, to the oligarchy and its party. Even so, the ruling class’s victory depended on tens of thousands of votes out of 156 million, in some of the most corrupt counties in the land. In Pennsylvania, the vast majority of all mailed ballots were for Biden. The oligarchy sealed the victory as brazenly as they gained it: by meeting demands for transparency with ad hominem accusations backed by threats of social ostracism and enforced by control, which itself was attained in part by issuing naked threats backed by legislative and bureaucratic power—all over partisan, monopoly digital platforms which eventually participated in censorship.

The oligarchy’s power over American institutions public and private, however, does not change the fact that it rests on near universal voluntary compliance. The irrevocable alienation of and from at least half of Americans has canceled much of the oligarchs’ moral legitimacy and left them obliged to rule by further alienating and punishing—to rule a house that they divided against itself. Hence, the unprecedented power it gathered will prove less significant than the manner in which it did the gathering.

…

The deplorables plainly stand no chance of dismantling the new American system. Corporate executives, not legislatures, governors, or presidents are the ones who decide what happens to the trillions of dollars created jointly by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. They are the ones who regulate speech and attitudes, who for the most part decide who rises and who does not. And they are the part of the oligarchy most insulated from republican institutions.

…

In our time, millions of people have grown up or been educated no longer to want or be able to live as citizens of what had been the American republic. Partisans in mind, heart, and habit, their support of the oligarchy’s partisan rule has left the United States with two peoples of opposing character, aspirations, and tastes within its national borders. The government bureaucracies are led by persons selected and habituated against the deplorables. The same can be said of the educational establishment and corporate boardrooms. What sort of dictatorial power would it take to purge them? Were the deplorables to struggle for the partisan power to oppress the others, they would guarantee dysfunction at best, war at worst. That is why it makes most sense for them to assert their own freedom.

Some sort of mostly peaceful exodus is within our powers to achieve. A very bad imitation of Mr. Smith was able to convince 75 million to rise against dangers that were still largely theoretical in 2016. Better imitators can lead many more to act against present ones, and to live within institutions of their own making. We can withdraw our compliance, go our own way, and build anew.

…

Our American exodus won’t be led by a Moses. The Republican Party, with the exception of a few national-level personages, may be as useless as ever. But politics is a collective activity, and the lack of top-down leadership notwithstanding, our exodus is already in progress, thanks to Americans’ legal structures and traditions of state and local autonomy, as well as our Tocquevillian taste for organizing ourselves into ad hoc groups for the common benefit.

…

What to do about the media’s banning or restricting the circulation of ideas with which it disagrees, including the distribution of books and movies, is a major issue of national politics. Without shame, medically unqualified “fact checkers” censor the writings of physicians on medical matters, while defining their own beliefs about gender and race as “science.” Letting such pretenses stand also ratifies the negation of the First Amendment. Overcoming them requires ending the exercise of what amount to governmental powers, indeed of police powers, by nongovernmental persons and entities.

Not so long ago, government power was the only threat to the First Amendment. But oligarchy’s essence is precisely the blurring and blending of public and private power in a partisan manner. Hence, media malpractice must be dealt with as part of a bigger political problem, namely expanding the Bill of Rights’ coverage to ostensibly private entities.

What is to be done about private companies that subject employees to training aimed at convincing them that there is something wrong with being white—or at least pretending to convince them? Or that they must abide by the oligarchy’s preferences? To be sure, state governments may outlaw such training within their borders, as part of their general police power. But big employers may object to such laws as contrary to their own freedom of speech, while asserting that the employees’ attendance at those sessions is voluntary. Even if courts back them up, governors and mayors don’t have to listen and can impose their penalties. Public figures, or brave employees, can organize many if not most employees to stay away and to explain just how wrong it is to racially stereotype. Management can’t fire them all. Yet republican self-government can return to at least some Americans only if and when a bloc of major states puts itself in the position of dictating what will and will not happen within their borders.

…

Until recently, graduation from highly selective colleges seemed to certify their graduates as better for having been admitted, and doubly so for having learned more than students at lesser schools. But for a generation, the Ivy League, Stanford, and others have made a point of admitting many students with lower scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test rather than students with higher ones. In general, and with the exception of physics, chemistry, and pure math, the more highly rated the college, the less work it expects from its students. And since learning is inherently proportionate to studying, graduates of these academic peaks often know less than kids out of Podunk State. Yet they give their students something of supposedly greater practical value than knowledge: prestige, pretentiousness, and access to enviable careers.

Which leads one to ask why the nation’s most powerful consulting groups, private equity firms, and big banks hire Ivy League types and pay them so much. They are not necessarily all that bright or knowledgeable. Why then are they so valuable? Not because of what they know, but who they are: junior members of the oligarchy, identically chosen, trained, and confirmed to defend its interests, to communicate its priorities, and preserve its hierarchy. How come the public-private oligarchy was able to use the COVID challenge to crush independent business, thus transferring massive wealth to itself? Because its various parts are staffed by interconnected people who, whatever their differences, instinctively trump the Smiths’ priorities with those of their own class.

…

The oligarchy’s cancellation of most ordinary people out of its desired America leaves the latter with the choice between helotry and exodus. But since submission to inconstant, inept masters is impossible, common sense suggests counter-canceling: limiting involvement with the oligarchy to minimizing its interference on individuals who don’t share its aims and preferences.

The oligarchy’s cancellation of ordinary working people—of those who actively participate in forms of organized religion, and are otherwise attached to the common norms and values that prevailed in America and shaped the civilization in and by which most of us live—signals an alienation deeper than that between citizens of different but friendly nations. Asking how this cultural chasm has come to be detracts from the hard task of understanding its depth and making the best of it. Like married couples who have lost or given up what had united them, trying to work through irreconcilable differences only drives Americans’ domestic quarrels toward more violence.

[fishoutofcamelot]

Zombie symbolism in media? Body snatchers? That sounds extremely interesting 👀👀👀

OOOOOOOOOOH ARE YOU READY FOR ME TO RANT? CUZ I’M GONNA RANT BABY. YALL WANNA SEE HOW HARD I CAN HYPERFIXATE???

I’ll leave my ramblings under the cut.

The Bodysnatchers thing is a bit quicker to explain so I’ll start with that. Basically, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was released in 1956, about a small town where the people are slowly but surely replaced and replicated by emotionless hivemind pod aliens. It was a pretty obvious metaphor for the red scare and America’s fear of the ‘growing threat of communism’ invading their society. A communist could look like anyone and be anyone, after all.

Naturally, the bodysnatcher concept got rebooted a few times - Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (1978), Body Snatchers (1993), and The Invasion (2007), just off the top of my head. You’re all probably very familiar with the core concept: people are slowly being replaced by foreign duplicates. 

But while the monster has remained roughly the same, the theme has not. In earlier renditions, Bodysnatchers symbolized communism. But in later renditions, the narratives shifted to symbolize freedom of expression and individualism - that is, people’s ability to express and think for themselves being taken away. That’s because freedom of thought/individuality is a much more pressing threat on our minds in the current climate. Most people aren’t scared of communists anymore, but we are scared of having our free will taken away from us. 

The best indicator of the era in which a story is created is its villain. Stories written circa 9/11 have villains that are foreign, because foreign terrorism was a big fear in the early 2000s. In the past, villains were black people, because white people were racist (and still are, but more blatantly so in the past). 

Alright, now for the fun part.

ZOMBIES

Although the concept has existed in Haitian voodooism for ages, the first instance of zombies in western fiction was a book called The Magic Island written by William Seabrook in 1929. Basically ol Seabrook took a trip to Haiti and saw all the slaves acting tired and ‘brutish’ and, having learned about the voodoo ‘zombi’, believed the slaves were zombies, and thus put them in his book.

The first zombie story in film was actually an adaptation of Seabrook’s accounts, called White Zombie (1932). It was about a couple who takes a trip to Haiti, only for the woman to be turned into a zombie and enchanted into being a Haitian’s romantic slave. SUPER racist, if you couldn’t tell, but not only does it reflect the state of entertainment of the era - Dracula and Frankenstein had both been released around the same time - but it also reflects American cultural fears. That is, the fear of white people losing their authoritative control over the world. White fright.

Naturally, the box office success of White Zombie inspired a whole bunch of other remakes and spinoffs in the newly minted zombie genre, most of them taking a similar Haitian voodoo approach. Within a decade, zombies had grown from an obscure bit of Haitian lore to a fully integrated part of American pop culture. Movies, songs, books, cocktails, etc. 

But this was also a time for WWII to roll around and, much like the Bodysnatchers, zombie symbolism evolved to fit the times. Now zombies experienced a shift from white fright and ethnic spirituality to something a bit more secular. Now they were a product of foreign science created to perpetuate warmongering schemes. In King of Zombies (1941), a spy uses zombies to try and force a US Admiral to share his secrets. And Steve Sekely’s Revenge of the Zombies (1943) became the first instance of Nazi zombies. 

Then came the atom bomb, and once more zombie symbolism shifted to fears of radiation and communism. The most on-the-nose example of this is Creature With the Atom Brain (1955).

Then came the Vietnam War, and people started fearing an uncontrollable, unconscionable military. In Night of the Living Dead (1968), zombies were caused by radiation from a space probe, combining both nuclear and space-race motifs, as well as a harsh government that would cause you just as much problems as the zombies. One could argue that the zombies in the Living Dead series represent military soldiers, or more likely the military-industrial complex as a whole, which is presented as mindless in its pursuit of violence.

The Living Dead series also introduced a new mainstay to the genre: guns. Military stuff. Fighting. Battle. And that became a major milestone in the evolution of zombie representation in media. This was only exacerbated by the political climate of the time. In the latter half of the 20th century, there were a lot of wars. Vietnam, Korea, Arab Spring, Bay of Pigs, America’s various invasions and attacks on Middle Eastern nations, etc. Naturally the public were concerned by all this fighting, and the nature of zombie fiction very much evolved to match this.

But the late 1900s weren’t just a place of war. They were also a place of increasing economic disparity and inequal wealth distribution. In the 70s and 80s, the wage gap widened astronomically, while consumerism remained steadily on the rise. And so, zombies symbolized something else: late-stage capitalism. Specifically, capitalist consumption - mindless consumption. For example, in Dawn of the Dead (1978), zombies attack a mall, and with it the hedonistic lifestyles of the people taking refuge there. This iteration props up zombies as the consumers, and it is their mindless consumption that causes the fall of the very system they were overindulging in.

Then there was the AIDS scare, and the zombie threat evolved to match something that we can all vibe with here in the time of COVID: contagion. Now the zombie condition was something you could get infected with and turn into. In a video game called Resident Evil (1996), the main antagonist was a pharmaceutical company called the Umbrella Corporation that’s been experimenting with viruses and bio-warfare. In 28 Days Later (2002), viral apes escape a research lab and infect an unsuspecting public.

Nowadays, zombies are a means of expressing our contemporary fears of apocalypse. It’s no secret that the world has been on the brink for a while now, and everyone is waiting with bated breath for the other shoe to drop. Post-apocalypse zombie movies act as simultaneous male power fantasy, expression of contemporary cynicism, an expression of war sentiments, and a product of the zombie’s storied symbolic history. People are no longer able to trust the government, and in many ways people have a hard time trusting each other, and this manifests as an every-man-for-himself survivalist narrative. 

So why have zombies endured for so long, despite changing so much? Why are we so fascinated by them? Well, many say that it’s because zombies are a way for us to express our fears of apocalypse. Communism, radiation, contagion - these are all threats to the country’s wellbeing. Some might even say that zombies represent a threat to conversative America/white nationalism, what with the inclusion of voodooism, foreign entities, and late-stage capitalism being viewed as enemies.

Personally, I might partly agree with the conservative America thing, but I don’t think zombies exist to project our fears onto. That’s just how villains and monsters work in general. In fiction, the conflict’s stakes don’t hit home unless the villain is intimidating. The hero has to fight something scary for us to be invested in their struggles. But the definition of what makes something scary is different for every different generation and social group. Maybe that scary thing is foreign invaders, or illness, or losing a loved one, or a government takeover. As such, the stories of that era mold to fit the fears of that era. It’s why we see so many government conspiracy thrillers right now; it’s because we’re all afraid of the government and what it can do to us.

So if projecting societal fears onto the story’s villain is a commonplace practice, then what makes zombies so special? Why have they lasted so long and so prevalently? I would argue it’s because the concept of a zombie, at its core, plays at a long-standing American ideal: freedom.

Why did people migrate to the New World? Religious freedom. Why did we start the Revolutionary War and become our own country? Freedom from England’s authority. Why was the Civil War a thing? The south wanted freedom from the north - and in a remarkable display of irony, they wanted to use that freedom to oppress black people. Why are we so obsessed with capitalism? Economic freedom.

Look back at each symbolic iteration of the zombie. What’s the common thread? In the 20s/30s, it was about white fright. The fear that black people could rise up against them and take away their perceived ‘freedom’ (which was really just tyrannical authority, but whatever). During WWII, it was about foreign threats coming in and taking over our country. During Vietnam, it became about our military spinning out of control and hecking things up for the rest of us. In the 80s/90s, it was about capitalism turning us into mindless consumers. Then it was about plagues and hiveminds and the collapse of society as a whole, destroying everything we thought we knew and throwing our whole lives into disarray. In just about every symbolic iteration, freedom and power have been major elements under threat.

And even deeper than that, what is a zombie? It’s someone who, for whatever reason, is a mindlessly violent creature that cannot think beyond base animal impulses and a desire to consume flesh. You can no longer think for yourself. Everything that made you who you are is gone.

Becoming a zombie is the ultimate violation of someone’s personal freedom. And that terrifies Americans.

Although an interesting - and concerning - phenomenon is this new wave of wish fulfillment zombie-ism. You know, the gun-toting action movie hero who has the personality of soggy toast and a jaw so chiseled it could decapitate the undead. That violent survivalist notion of living off the grid and being a total badass all the while. It speaks to men who, for whatever reason, feel their masculinity and dominance is under threat. So they project their desires to compensate for their lack of masculine control onto zombie fiction, granting them personal freedom from obligations and expectations (and feminism) to live out their solo macho fantasies by engaging in low- to no-consequence combat. And in doing so, completely disregarding the fact that those same zombies were once people who cruelly had their freedom of self ripped away from them. Gaining their own freedom through the persecution of others (zombies). And if that doesn’t sum up the white conservative experience, I don’t know what does.

So yeah. That’s zombies, y’all.

Thanks for the ask!

[m-is-for-meme]

"Fun" fact: Native Americans/Indigenous People still do not have the right to vote**

Confused? Cool, history lesson time!

Native Americans were not granted the right to citizenship until the 1920s (most significantly with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)

They were not granted the right to vote until about the 1960s (the 15th and 19th amendments did not apply to them as again, they were not considered citizens until the late 1920s)

And their basic civil rights were not recognized federally until the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968

To put this into perspective, Native Americans have not been considered citizens, did not have the right to vote, and were not granted your basic civil, constitutional rights ALL WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF YOUR GRANDPARENTS/PARENTS

And the REASON Native Americans were granted ANY of this was because the federal government saw it as a faster and more efficient way to assimilate them into White/European/Colonialist society - as it helped erase sovereign identity, it made it easier to break up Native American Nations, and it forced many to cast aside their Nation's culture in order to register and pass prerequisites like literacy tests/poll tax/etc.

Alright, so that's that, now let's get back to the now - 2020

Maybe some of you are going, "well you just said Nation's were granted the right to vote in the 60s, what do you mean that's not ACTUALLY a thing?"

WELL....it's complicated, but bear with me! :

Voting rights and voting inequality go hand in hand, and are not strictly limited to just one group of people (many of the same tactics and limitations that Native Americans face are used against other "people of color/minorities" too - it's important to keep this in mind as your basic civil right to vote is VERY dependent on the privilege/disparities you experience as a white or non-white person in the US)

But here's the thing, voting rights are not a nationally regulated thing - meaning, most of the time, each state will govern how and WHO gets to vote REGARDLESS of federal regulation

"But the 15th says EVERYONE should be granted the right to vote regardless of race, etc.!"

YES! In an ideal world that might be true, but keep in mind that the people and systems in power are structurally put forth as the ones who get to make that final decision

So now we get to my point, most Native American/Indigenous Nations, in the great wide genocidal history of the US, were forcibly re-located to barren lands that are what we now recognize as "reservations"

Each reservation is fundamentally different with its own unique set of problems BUT one of the most common disparities that most Native families face is that they are not granted a federally recognized address

And most states require an address to register to vote, see where I'm going?

"But how do Native Americans get their mail? How do they get IDs? How do congressmen/women know who's in their jurisdictions and what kind of aid is needed? How do they get basic utilities and access to the internet?"

ALL GREAT QUESTIONS! The answer might actually be more surprising and not as long-winded as you would expect: they don't

The most simple answer, they don't

Every Nation fights every day to access their basic needs

"But they could get a PO box!"

Yes, but a PO box is not a federally recognized address and can not be used to apply for anything and does not grant people the right to vote in any way

Furthermore, a lot of Native families do not have the money or access to transportation to GET to these PO boxes (IF they even HAVE a post office accessible and within driving distance in the first place)

But what is my point? My point is that first, these things are not a coincidence - they are direct, conscious actions and regulations that are put into place as a way to prevent Native Americans from accessing and applying their basic civil and constitutional rights, while also preventing any sort of aid/help in the process

Without the right to vote, many Native American Nations don't even get the CHANCE or the VOICE to speak up and are often left out of the conversation when looking for solutions and reparations to economic, societal, and institutional problems

At their most sinister, they're also fully intended to wipe out my people and my cousins (by limiting not only our basic necessities but also limiting how we are treated and helped as "citizens")

But they're also not JUST Native/Indigenous problems, most of these tactics present themselves in similar fashions for almost every single "minority" in the US

And they stem from a legacy of systemic racism and oppression that has only just STARTED being taken apart within YOUR PARENTS' and YOUR lifetime

So if you're sitting there frustrated with everything that is happening in the country right now, ESPECIALLY if you are a white person, I'd ask you to take the time and look at WHY these things are and will continue to happen and what your frustration/inconvenience means in the face of somebody's right to live

My final point is that these systems were inherently designed to withstand attempts at deconstructing, eliminating, and abolishing them from the people they serve to suppress

So maybe next time when you find yourself complaining, ignoring, or giving the "why can't everyone get along" spiel, take a moment to think about how you benefit or are UNAFFECTED by these systems of inequality, and whether your actions or dialogue work to support and keep them in place

[alexsmitposts]

The Great Power Democracy Con: Promising the Moon to Destroy Humanity The United Kingdom is rightly proud of its National Health Service. When London hosted the Olympics in 2012, the opening ceremony included a little tableaux about the NHS, which was presented as one of the finest achievements of the host nation. However for over 40 years, whenever some public figure says “NHS” the next word is “reform”. Politicians are constantly saying there is something wrong with the NHS, and it needs reforming, though they differ widely on what its problems are, and what should be done about them. The slogan “NHS reform” has been so successful that few have realised its use is a very clever tactic. Whenever anyone raises an issue with something in the NHS, they are told they are talking about reform. Invariably this means structural reform – either more along the same lines, or reversing an existing reform. In most cases, the people who complain about the NHS aren’t talking about structural reform at all. They don’t like the behaviour of certain staff, or the waiting times, or the refusal to apologise for obvious misconduct. But the responses to these complaints are always about what sort of reform has taken place, or should, rather than the issue itself. So no one will ever discuss these serious issues, or admit that they exist. The only issue is reform – and of course this protects all those who might be misbehaving, or at least so they think. Does this sound familiar to residents of countries, who have had no experience of the NHS? It should. We’ve all heard so much about “reform” that the term long ceased to have any positive meaning, for exactly the same reason. It’s the same with “democracy” and “human rights” – the things we expect civilized societies to have. Few of those who espouse these things really want to see them in place. These words are used to protect this or that interest group from any consequences – and when we know who, we see exactly who our friends are. Cars without engines Take “economic reform”, which was imposed upon all the former Soviet and Eastern Bloc states after they freed themselves of their oppressive and corrupt systems. No longer would everything be run by an ultimately unaccountable state. The principles of capitalism, which had served rich countries well, would transform these newly-liberated states into progressive and prosperous members of the family of free nations. Have they? It’s been thirty years now. Still the former Soviet states are second-tier nations – what would be called the Rust Belt if part of a Western country. Reforming their economies hasn’t produced the dividends the same economic systems have produced in the countries which impose those systems upon them. Nor was economic reform the inevitable consequence of political change, the tool fit for the new national purpose. When the virulently anti-Communist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, an admirer of Ronald Reagan, declared Georgia independent he continued with a policy of Soviet-style state capitalism, because it had worked better in Georgia than in most places, and there was no point is dismantling everything over night when independence had already removed all the public services/goods previously provided by the Soviet Union. This gave Western countries a choice: stick with their political fellow traveller who followed a different economic path, or bring in a more compliant government which would. Strangely enough, this resulted in the former Communist leader Eduard Shevardnadze being installed after a coup conducted by criminal gangs, everything the West doesn’t agree with in theory, in order to get the economic reform which has left Georgia so poor that scavenging dogs have more prospects than the people. The only thing that mattered was economic reform. Why? Because in its name you could do anything. As the Saakashvili years proved, you have complete immunity both domestically and internationally if you say everything is being driven by economic reform and encouraged by the West. Economic reform means somebody else tells you what to do, and is given a blank cheque to do it. There is no instance in which countries which seek to reform their economies are allowed to do so themselves, as every IMF an World Bank rescue package, which involves more foreign influence and investment rather than less, demonstrates. Economic reform is like globalisation, it has so many meanings, it is devoid of any meaning. Economic reform is never conducted by locals who have advocated such policies for years. It is the province of foreign advisors, top down, who work under foreign rules, invented by those the advisors have to satisfy rather than the advisors themselves. Seldom is it need driven and based on principles of participatory development. Who is protected by this? Look at what the plum diplomatic postings are. Everyone wants to work in the developed countries, which don’t think they need economic reform. The countries which others say need help are where no one wants to go – so who is sent there? If you do something wrong, or are not up to the job, you are suddenly an economic reformer. It is often remarked that the EU is a dumping ground for politicians who have failed, even if once successful, in their home countries. Economically reforming countries get those too dubious for the EU. If people in developing countries complain they can’t live on their earnings, they are told that they are talking about economic reform. A lot of people in rich Western countries can also no longer live on their earnings, and no longer have much social safety net either. But if they complain, they are never told that they are talking about economic reform, only prospering more in the existing system. Who is protected by this? Mostly amongst those who are failures at home, but [suddenly] become experts, visiting firemen, as soon as they get off the plane in the reforming countries. They are those who want to make the shadiest deals with the shadiest people, on the grounds that this is “reform”. Ultimately, it is those who can be blackmailed as well as kept out of the way – who can be used to introduce the drugs that didn’t pass inspection, the high tar cigarettes banned where they are made, the labour exploitation outlawed at home and the network of public facilities sustained by arms and drug smuggling, all in the name of economic reform, when that is not the solution to the problems being presented. One man, one problem Ilham Aliev is fond saying that everyone has their own definition of democracy, so Azerbaijan must be a democracy because his definition is as good as anyone else’s. No leader of a mature democracy would publicly support such a position. The problem is, they know he is right, and they know they themselves have made it that way. In the name of democracy, elected leaders are removed because people who couldn’t vote for them think they aren’t democratic enough. Salvador Allende was a famous example, even though he did not dismantle Chile’s democracy by orienting the country towards the Marxist world, and General Pinochet and his pro-Western dictatorship did. But if people in developing countries complain about their governments not doing what they want, they are told they are crying for democracy. Like the demonstrators in Maidan Square in 2014 who wanted the Yanukovych government to grant them their legal rights, their problems and voices are hijacked for purposes they never intended, by actors they never wanted to side with. Every developed democracy has defects. In some countries the electoral system is so crude that governments are elected with a small minority of the votes, the United Kingdom and Canada being examples of this. In others there may be electoral equity but no accountability – the choice is so meaningless that the same political class stays in power and ignores the public, which has no levers to influence them, as the Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in Belgium laid bare to a horrified world. Nevertheless, most people want democracy, and to say they live in one. So in its name, anything can be done by those who are introducing, improving or guaranteeing that democracy, even when those things have nothing to do with democracy itself. “Democracy” is taken to mean greater alignment with the Western world, rather than rule by the people through their freely and fairly elected representatives. Whatever the problem, that is the solution, and as long as the label “democracy” is attached to something, it can be part of that solution. Democratic reform means accepting development from some sources, considered democratic, over others. China is no democracy, but as long as democratic countries encourage its state companies to invest in the democratically developing country, it can take over all that country’s resources. If Russian tries the same, it is forbidden on the grounds that Russia is not democratic, though its system ticks far more boxes of the definition than China’s—and even by Western standards. Democracy means getting the right result and at the right time. If the people vote for the wrong person, as when they initially re-elected the Communists in Bulgaria, the democratic process must have been subverted by anti-democratic forces. If the right person subsequently takes power, even if through a coup or other non-democratic means, this is a triumph of democracy and an expression of the popular will, meaning foreigners who can’t vote there can introduce more changes to bolster, or rather enslave the right person. Shooting an elephant People are told they want democracy by those who want those people to have as little say as possible in the form and direction of their country. Who does this protect? But are those who don’t want their actions subject to any public scrutiny? Everything must be alright if it is done by a democracy in the name of democracy, and often out of an sense of obligation, to show who is in control. Go to any state which was once the colony of a greater power, and ask what was done there in the name of democracy, and you will see how little any elector could do about the crimes which scar those countries’ collective psyches to this day. Inhuman rights Supposedly The Boer War was fought between Transvaal and the British Empire over the rights of the uitlanders, foreign workers who were treated as second class citizens, or worse, by the Transvaal government. In order to safeguard the human rights of these workers, the British herded non-combatant South African civilians into concentration camps, the institutions for which the phrase “methods of barbarism” was coined. However, it was really about gold, as we know even from Nazi propaganda movies, such as Uncle Kruger. It’s the same everywhere. Human rights only apply to your own side. War crimes trials only involve losers. Genocide is only committed by those you don’t like, as Armenians are fond of saying about the global response to the events of 1917, and the Kurds say about all their neighbours, to be met with total indifference even when the world is complaining about the regimes of those same neighbours. Franklin D. Roosevelt often drew the distinction between “freedom to” and “freedom from”, his thesis being that you can’t have one without the other – you can’t give people freedom to own property if they don’t have freedom from poverty and exploitation. But when people complain they are victims of social and economic discrimination, they are not necessarily calling for human rights but relief from their problems. Why are people being told that they are calling for human rights? Because these rights have to be guaranteed by particular people, and more often than not the same ones who are denying them. Who is protected by saying everything is about human rights? Those who place ideology above all – who want to put their ideas above criticism, rather than the interests, and ideas, of those they claim to be advocating for. Soviet citizens remember when every man had the right to a job – so the state could do whatever it liked to them, and suppress their own views, justifying this by ideology. Israel can violate the rights of Palestinians with impunity so the ideology of Zionism can supersede human need, universal human rights, including the needs of Israelis. Human rights don’t protect the human but the inhuman. The one human right no activist will grant is the right of those they claim to be protecting to have different views and wants. When states intervene to guarantee human rights, it is only the rights of those who want to tear down the values of their own state which they are protecting, to get them out of the way. Reform, democracy and human rights are real. People really want them. But when people are talking about something else, but then told they are asking for these things, alarm bells should start ringing. That doesn’t happen because those in power have silenced the bells. Why? So if their scams are found out, they will be replaced by the only option their behaviour has left available – another generation of reformers, democracy promoters and selective human rights activists.

[recycledmovies]

‘Parasite’ shows the ugliness of Koreans dealing with their hierarchical society in very high detail. Unlike many other interpretations I’ve seen, I will not deal with the details and the mise en scene, but the overall story, characters and their roles. The details are stunning, but I don’t think that’s an excuse to look away from the main story to focus on the little things. Also, there are two dimensions from a macro and meso point of view that I think are more relevant than finding hidden foreshadows or symbols.

Please note that I am Korean and know enough about Korea to point out the flaws of our society and people, including myself. I know very well that Koreans hate being criticized (just as Gitaek shows signs of anger when Mr. Park points out that he has an weird smell), but the truth is the truth and nothing will improve if we cannot see ourselves objectively. So if you’re pissed at my interpretation because you are a proud Korean, think again about what good pride will do.

The Hierarchical Society

Hierarchy has always been part of Korean culture. But as the movie shows, hierarchy is not based on traditional values anymore but overridden completely by economic status. You can see this in the scene where the young pizza box collector speaks down to the Kims. Traditionally, speaking in this manner to people who are even a year older would be considered absolutely unacceptable. This scene sets the stage as a society where economic values have become the new standard for hierarchy. In reality, money justifies everything in Korea and I’m sure it’s the same in a lot of places around the world. Basic ethics and philosophy is forgotten, or something only the naïve remembers anymore.

Although the Parks have higher economic status, a number of scenes demonstrate that in essence, they are also just human beings and have the same flaws as anyone else. Mr. Park and Yeon-gyo uses Gijeong’s underwear as prop during their role-play intercourse on the couch after criticizing the former driver for indecency and accusing him of drug abuse without any evidence whatsoever. Although the Parks are respectful towards the Kims, they still smell the difference. This is another trait of the Korean middle class. While they act like decent people in general, deep down, they still consider the Parks different. Koreans know very well that this is not a trait of the upper class, but more a trait of the middle class. We like to think that we are different from those that are of lower class in our hierarchy. We may act like we respect others, but deep down, the concept of hierarchy prevails. Even today, when two Koreans meet for the first time, questions go back and forth to subtly reveal the status in hierarchy of the two people. Sometimes this is age, sometimes social status and sometimes economic status, but we always establish the hierarchy. When a difference in status is found, the language that we use suddenly changes. The higher class can speak down and the lower class has to speak the polite version of Korean and show respect in almost every word, gesture and even posture.

Another fascinating feature of Koreans and our hierarchical society that also appears in Parasite is the fact that rather than the middle class cooperating with each other to make their lives better, individuals try to move up to the higher class by stepping on their fellow middle class people. The goal is always to make our own lives better by being better than others rather than making everything better. Choongsook demonstrates this when she finds out that Moon-gwang has been hiding her husband in the cellar. Immediately, Choongsook decides to side with the higher class family and fails to see that Moon-gwang’s family and her own would benefit from a partnership. An example in reality? Although most Koreans get outraged when owners of Korean conglomerates or their family members mistreat and deceive the public, most Koreans would do anything to get a job at Samsung, LG or Korean Air. No matter how inhumanely the upper class treats the lower classes, people will jump at any chance to join the higher class and look down on those that are considered lower once they get there, regardless of how many ethical or philosophical values they have to give up.

The dominance of competition in the Korean mentality is emphasized by the fact that both the Kims and the Parks had gone bankrupt from trying to run a franchise store of a ‘Taiwanese Castella’ chain. Even though the Kims hear that Moon-gwang’s family had gone through the same financial difficulties for the same reason, they fail to feel sympathy and only think about competing with those that can be considered their closest fellows. Sadly, another common characteristic among Koreans.

The Absence Of A Middle Class Family

The middle class is the essence of capitalism. The large portion of middle class sets the norm in most modern societies and creates a barrier for the upper class preventing upheavals from inequality. But there is not middle class character in the movie that influences the plot. It’s hard to see this as accidental and for me it was the single most impressive aspect of the plot.

I have two explanations for this absence of the majority. First is that in a strictly hierarchical society, nobody feels like the middle class. Apart from very close friends, everyone else is either in a higher class or a lower class than myself. In one on one interaction with other I’m either the upper class or the lower class. When two Koreans meet for the first time, we ask questions that can lead to answers which give clues to who is higher in the hierarchy. Usually age, social status or financial status is asked indirectly to establish the hierarchy. Once it is established, it dictates the language, gestures and even postures of the two people. Even if one person is a couple of months older than the other, the hierarchy unfolds.

Another reason I think the middle class was left out was because the majority of the audience would be middle class Koreans and Koreans are terrible at taking criticism. If the plot had a middle class family, most of the audience would related themselves to that family. And if the movie showed any criticism towards them, it would instantly become personal to the audience and Bong would have had a hard time both financially and reputation wise.

The Deranged Husband

Moon-gwang’s husband acts like a crazy person and shows unconditional respect towards Mr. Park, who doesn’t even know that Moon-gwang’s husband exists. But is this really that weird for Koreans? Most Koreans work for tycoons that brainwash their employees to show unconditional obedience while not even knowing their names. We arrive at our desks before our superiors do and leave after our superiors leave even if we have nothing to do at our desks and have to kill time watching Youtube videos. Can we really say that Moon-gwang’s husband is that much different from the average Korean? And just like Moon-gwang’s husband, the middle class does nothing about being forced to show fake respect everyday. We actually encourage it by investing years of studies to pass the company employment exams. Yes. Korean companies have exams because there are so many people trying to become employees. One of them is called SSAT. Guess what the first ‘S’ stands for?

Moon-gwang goes on further by impersonating the North Korean national news caster. The North Korean news caster is a symbol of manipulation and oppression for South Koreans. Are South Koreans really in the position to think that North Korea has extreme issues and we are free from oppression and manipulation?

The Hero

Like in reality, there are always exceptions. The exception in this movie? Gitaek. Gitaek is the only character in the movie that acts against the hierarchical system for values that are innate to humans. As a result, he is forced down into the cellar that Moon-gwang’s deranged husband once lived. This also directly reflects the Korean society where being different is unacceptable. Maybe reality is not as severe as in the movie, but going against popular sentiment brings similar consequences. I remember growing up, people who would had tanned skin were called ‘tanning jok,’ meaning ‘tanning tribe.’ During the cryptocurrency boom, people traded cryptocurrency were called ‘coin choong,’ meaning ‘coin vermin’. Such framing isolates people who show any difference from the majority, regardless of whether the difference is positive or negative. Of course, heroes, who act against the wrong when others don’t, are also often isolated by the majority. Gitaek, the hero of the lower class who couldn’t stay put when Mr. Park showed no concern for other people’s lives than that of his son, ends up in the place where a deranged man once lived. The peer pressure to act the same way that others do in Korea is so strong that they can no longer tell the difference between a deranged person and a hero but can only regard them as misfits.

Socially Acceptable Deception

Although the title ‘Parasite’ has a negative vibe, it must be noted that no character in the film ever shows signs of excessive greed or bad intentions. People might debate that the Kims were greedy, but in reality, lying and pretending is everyday life for average Koreans. It is especially considered acceptable when it’s done for profit. Hell, it’s usually considered clever and smart. You’d get a pat on the back if you were working in Korean company and you showed better performance by deceiving others. The lies can be justified further in the movie considering that the Kims were desperate in terms of finances and they had to deceive in order to survive. Giwoo shows no signs of remorse about deceiving the Parks and justifies his lies by saying that he will enter university once he gets his funds together. Things a lot worse than small lies are justified everyday in reality and this is hardly considered a problem among people that have not been educated properly in ethics or philosophy. Do it long enough, and it becomes a way of life.

When Philosophers Are Considered Failures

There are a lot of interpretations about the rock and what it symbolizes. Overall, the rock was the boundary between cleverness and wisdom. Kiwoo, who had the strongest ties to the rock, was no doubt an intelligent character. He was clever enough to deceive the Parks and actually demonstrated knowledge about teaching high school students. But his obsession over the rock implies the boundaries of his intelligence. The power of the rock is a myth and the rock came to Kiwoo with his new job as a tutor. The reason Kiwoo’s friend came over at the beginning of the movie, was to offer him a job. While doing so, he brought the rock as a gift. But as the story progresses, Kiwoo goes on to believe that the rock brought him the new job and good fortune to the whole family. Such myths are still common in Korean culture and often lead to irrational decisions though not as extreme as the case in the movie. A lot of Koreans still read interpretations about dreams everyday and visit fortune tellers before big events such as marriage, buying an apartment, moving jobs etc. The rock is the hope and last resort that Giwoo chose without any logical reasoning.

When Giwoo first meets Dahye, he captures both Dahye and Yeon-gyo’s attention by saying “I don’t care whether the answer to question 24 is right or wrong. In reality, it’s the attitude that’s important.” It’s a great motivational speech, but at the same time, it shows that Giwoo is focused more on handling situations than the basic truth behind the situations.

The study that focuses on the latent truth is philosophy. In Korea, majoring in philosophy is considered a huge failure. Even if you study philosophy in the most prestigious Seoul National University, people laugh and your degree is a mockery. Giwoo’s attachment to the rock, his short term plans and failure to tend to the truth mimics such aspect of Koreans. Without philosophy, we focus on the wrong things. We live in cramped apartments that cost close to a million U.S. dollars and buy exotic cars to show off. A lot of us focus on the top portion of Maslow’s triangle while sacrificing the bottom portions. In other words, we make our lives better by creating fundamental problems. It’s not just Giwoo.

Mr. Park’s ‘Line’

Mr. Park complains about Gitaek’s smell, but he doesn’t fire him for the fact that Gitaek doesn’t cross the ‘line’ that is so important to Mr. Park. From the moment Mr. Park mentions the ‘line’, the line becomes a big deal not only for Mr. Park, but also for the audience as this line has the potential of becoming the tipping point of a major conflict among characters. This mysterious line becomes so important that the audience forget about the basic moral values or philosophical lines of human society and only focus on trying to understand Mr. Park’s line and whether Gitaek crosses it or not. Ironically, it is Mr. Park that crosses the more important line of basic human ethics at the climax of the story. He reveals that he has no respect for human life other than that of his own family when faced with dramatic situations in reality. In spite of having two people in his garden with critical stab wounds, Mr. Park is only worried about his son who had passed out and manages to show disgust towards Moon-gwang’s husband’s smell rather than being worried about his life. Finally it is Gitaek that snaps, not Mr. Park.

“Your Plan Can’t Fail If You Have No Plan”

This is the life philosophy of Gitaek. I’ve seen reviews saying that this is the basic mentality of losers in society. But is it? How many middle class Koreans have made plans themselves that actually worked out? We show hatred towards the owners of Samsung, Hyundai and all those Jaebols, but most of the middle class try so hard to work for them and become a part of their establishments. Was that the plan so many middle class people had that worked out so well? How many Koreans you know currently work at their dream jobs? Gitaeks philosophy isn’t a sign of his inability. It’s his observation of life as a lower class citizen in a hierarchical society. When absolute powers above us make all of the decisions, your plans often get swept away and you are forced to adapt to whatever those higher class people have in store. In other words, Gitaek knows that ‘plans’ of the powerless are merely dreams in a hierarchical society.

Throughout the movie we laugh at the ridiculous plans that Giwoo makes. But in the end, he comes up with a plan to save his father that makes more sense. But how do we feel about that one? It feels closer to a dream than a plan. This is what plans of the powerless look like. Either short sighted plots or unattainable dreams.

So Who Is The Parasite?

Everyone and no one. All three families leech on another family. Moon-gwang and her husband had been leeching on the Parks while traumatizing Dasong. The Kims leeched on anyone with money. And the Parks leeched on the lower class. Despite the whole family working for the Parks, the Kims couldn’t even afford a motel when their underground apartment got flooded. Moon-gwang and her husband couldn’t afford a home either and had debt problems.

More importantly, both the Kims and the Parks scattered like cockroaches when the light switched on and people appeared. The Kims scattered from the Parks’ house when the Parks returned early from their failed camping trip. The Parks and their wealthy friends scattered when the true face of the capitalist hierarchical society appeared in their garden. The Parks had also been hiding in their dens while leeching on the lower class and accumulating wealth. But when the consequences unfold and real people of the society appear, all they can do is run.

When Koreans get tired of these conflicts among one another, we use the term ‘Hell Chosun.’ It’s a word that represents how Koreans leech and step on one another to get ahead of any and all kind of competition. Maybe this is the real parasite in our minds. It eats away at our rational minds and guides us towards irrational decisions. In the end, Mr. Park, Moon-gwang, her husband and Gijung lose their lives, Giwoo gets impaired and Gitaek has to live like an actual cockroach.

  I’m sure there are other interpretations that have different views. I especially found the detail oriented explanations very interesting since by myself, I tend to focus harder on the forest rather than the trees. It would be fascinating to see how people from other cultures interpret the movie as well and whether other hierarchical societies have the same problems. Let me know what you think of my perspective and I hope I’ll soon come across another movie that I can’t resist writing about.

[mortalcoilrp]

SPECIES: FAE

Fae are not determined by genetics; they can be born to members of any species and are reincarnated over many lifetimes on earth based on the positions of the stars and planets. Likewise, the personality and abilities of individual fae originate from their astrological sign.

Even those who appear young in their current life can have memories stretching back hundreds of years. Were it not for their dæmons, they would appear to be the most "human" of supernatural species, and traditionally have blended into human society with more ease. In fact, it’s largely thanks to fae hiding supernatural dæmons that supernatural species were able to remain human for so long.

MYTHS & STEREOTYPES

Fae have often been called witches; a fundamentally incorrect term, detested by fae in particular because real witches will use their body parts (sometimes without permission) for their own magic.

They do not have wings,use wands, shapeshift, or come from a magical realm.

Fae children are not “changelings” left in place of a stolen child.

Slurs include gadfly, gnat, and changeling.

REINCARNATION

Fae are reincarnated into a new life every time they die. Each new reincarnation may have different characteristics such as gender and nationality, and there is no way to control this.

The only consistent thing about fae reincarnations is the time of year they are born. A fae is always born under the same astrological sign, which is tied to their personality and powers. These can vary slightly between reincarnations but will have a clear pattern.

Fae can be born into families of any species regardless of lineage. This is one origin of the changeling myth.

Fae cannot "turn" other species into fae. Likewise, fae cannot change species. However, vampire bites can make them ill, and multiple bites may lead to death.

THE ELEMENTS

Astrology is true for fae in ways that it isn’t for any other species; they are inextricably tied to the characteristics of the positions of the stars in both personality and magic.

Most fae in New Venice use the Western Zodiac, but fae from other cultures can use different forms of astrology.

Their sign is also tied to one of the four classical elements, which affects the types of abilities they might have.

They are strongest during the time of year they were born, especially on their birthday. Likewise, they are weakest during the time of the opposing star signs and elements.

ABILITIES

REINCARNATE MEMORY: The ability to recall past lives. The more recent a life is, the easier it is to remember. Younger fae tend to have flashbacks of past lives in dreams or feelings of intense déja vu; control and clarity increases with age. This can also be accompanied by an ability to sense familiarity with those known from past lives. All fae have the capacity for this ability, though it may never be triggered.

Fae cannot heal as quickly as other supernatural species, unless it that is part of their abilities.

Additional powers depend on star sign. Using abilities can vary: some require a thought, others movement, still others pursuits such as potions.

Magic is very difficult to control; practicing is important. Inexperience and strong emotions can lead to bursts of involuntary magic. It requires mental concentration and in some cases physical energy. Magic follows a rule of equal exchange: for every action, there must be a reaction.

The more practiced a fae is with their magic, the pointier their ears will appear.

Fae are weaker in environments that do not align with their star sign (e.g. a fae who has an affinity for fire would be weaker in a damp place).

BANNED POWERS: mind reading, mind control, necromancy, fae shapeshifting, teleportation, telekinesis, or anything that would allow your character to significantly and permanently alter the world and characters around them without restriction.

AGING & PHYSICALITY

LIFESPAN: Fae can live slightly longer than humans, up to 140-150 years, but they tend to die earlier. This is because their bodies tend to be weaker and prone to ailments than other species, believed to be a characteristic of magic. Using their abilities takes energy, and it’s thought that excessive use of it, paired with aging, can also have adverse mental effects on fae.

Fae are born into their first life and die permanently (without being reincarnated) based on planetary and star alignments, again corresponding with certain times of the year. Nobody knows how many lives they can have.

Appearance: Fae have only one form, which looks human, though they can be influenced by their abilities. Fae who use their magic more often have pointier ears, setting them apart.

LIFESTYLE & CULTURE

THE FAE COURTS are divided by element. They are ancient institutions intended to govern fae throughout multiple lives, and infamous for micromanagement and stifling bureaucracy. The fae courts create laws, carry on traditions, attempt to find newly reincarnated fae, provide instruction for magic, and have other institutions such as maintaining multi-life security boxes in an elaborate bank.

Fae who have fewer lives are more likely to reject the fae courts, which they view as oppressive, because they are less traditional.

A fae's dæmon also comes back with them in each life, bearing the same name each time.

Due to their multiple lives, fae are more prone than any other species to hold grudges and feuds that can last for centuries.

Some live together, others apart. Greater numbers can create more powerful magic.

Some fae take it upon themselves to search for fae born into families of other species so that they can be introduced into fae society.

FAE ZODIAC & COMMON ABILITIES

This is based on western star signs; characters who are born into cultures with other types of astrology can have differences. These will also not be very in depth and contain only key traits, since astrology gets incredibly complex and we're not expecting characters' exact star charts to be calculated. You're welcome to look further into each sign for personality and ability ideas.

Keep in mind that abilities should be limited.

The stronger they are the more of a "price" they should require of the user. For example, effortless/unlimited telekinesis is not okay, but can be acceptable with limitations such as sapping of physical strength and being affected by distance.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Fire and air work well together (air fuels fire)

Air and water may aggravate each other (creating tsunamis and hurricanes)

Air and earth may aggravate each other (creating dust storms and tornadoes)

Fire and earth may balance or aggravate each other (creating volcanic eruptions)

Earth and water shape each other

Fire and water work against each other

ARIES (Fire / March 21 – April 19)

"I AM." Fierce, assertive, courageous, impulsive

Very high natural body temperature, fingers that act like matches, firebreathing, force field generation, holographic projection, blasting spells, object animation

TAURUS (Earth / April 20 – May 20)

"I HAVE." Patient, thorough, predictable, possessive

Retrocognition, unshakable center of gravity that makes them impossible to knock down, enhanced stamina, hardened skin, adhesive spells

GEMINI (Air / May 21 – June 20)

"I THINK." Versatile, sociable, unreliable, superficial

Astral projection, illusions, mimicry, reactive adaptation, hypnosis, camouflage/disillusionment, adoptive muscle memory

CANCER (Water / June 21 – July 22)

"I FEEL." Sensitive, reflective, caring, moody

Limb regrowth, sealing or creating superficial wounds, infection stopping, resistance to aging, sensing emotions, cleaning spell, enhanced plant growth

LEO (Fire / July 23 – August 22)

"I WILL." Dignified, expressive, confident, egotistical

Illuminating skin, magnetic hands, enhanced volume, attention-drawing spells, substance mimicry

VIRGO (Earth / August 23 – September 22)

"I ANALYZE." Practical, service-oriented, perfectionist, reserved

Lie detection, aura sensing, enhanced senses, impervious to emotional influence, sensory blocking, cleaning spells, enhanced plant growth

LIBRA (Air / September 23 – October 22)

"I BALANCE." Diplomatic, idealistic, refined, indecisive

Buoyancy, calming presence, flight charms, contained weather, persuasion, siren song, holographic projection

SCORPIO (Water / October 23 – November 21)

"I WANT." Intense, instinctual, jealous, judgmental

Poisonous bodily fluids, contagious emotions, hypersensitivity, precognition, perfect memory, internal navigation, intruder detection

SAGITTARIUS (Fire / November 22 – December 21)

"I AIM." Imprudent, adventurous, independent, noncommittal

Enhanced endurance, enhanced senses, enhanced reflexes, persuasive lying, tracking evasion, internal navigation, distraction spells, wallcrawling

CAPRICORN (Earth / December 22 - January 19)

"I USE." Practical, reliable, cautious, ambitious

Transmutation, earth tremors, personal body regulation such as falling asleep instantly at will, lie detection, metal shaping, locking spells, adhesive spells

AQUARIUS (Air / January 20 – February 18)

"I KNOW." Revolutionary, altruistic, impersonal, inventive

Precognition, lock picking, escape artistry, dislocating joints, echolocation, enhanced reflexes, aquatic respiration, wallcrawling, adoptive muscle memory

PISCES (Water / February 19 – March 20)

"I BELIEVE." Sensitive, escapist, self-sacrificing, faithful

Night vision, transmutation, dream visitation/manipulation, camouflage/disillusionment, aquatic respiration, selective sensory blocking, substance mimicry

[loudlytransparenttrash]

This Week Within Our Colleges: Part 20

Evergreen State College held another celebration of racial segregation. Last year the school created a shitstorm after they asked white students and staff to stay away from campus for the day so the non-whites can “heal.” This time around it was a three-day “Day of Absence” which asked students to RSVP at a URL named ‘No Nazis Allowed’ where no-whites-allowed meet-ups were held off campus. But don’t worry, they didn’t entirely exclude whites, as they state in their advertisement: “In addition to POC centered events there will be anti-racist workshops for white folks.” 

University of Chicago socialist and black lives matter student groups demanded their school pays not only its black students reparations but local black residents too. They claim the original University of Chicago, a completely different entity from today’s, had its original land donated by Stephen Douglas who purchased the property using profits from his wife’s family’s plantation in 1856, so all black people in the area today are owed “damages.” 

Howard University student protesters occupied an administrative building for over a week with a list of demands which the school has ultimately caved to. The demands include fighting rape culture on campus, disarming campus police out of “respect for Black life,” implementing a system that can track and discipline faculty who use classist, ableist, colorist, queerphobic language, hiring more counselors to “cater to the traumas of systemic oppression,” and the resignation of Howard’s president along with the school’s Board of Trustees. 

A group of black students at Oklahoma State University created a list of demands which include punishing students or faculty who use “racially insensitive” rhetoric, creating a minority history and diversity lounge, hiring more faulty of color and for the school to rename its buildings after “prominent social activists of color.” They’re called the ‘Four Percent’ and from the look of their meetings posted on Twitter, it appears their name reflects their four-person membership.

St. Catherine University canceled a one-day conference designed to equip and empower women for leadership roles because too many of the female speakers scheduled to appear were white. “The lineup did not reflect the diverse St. Kate’s community of today nor the world of tomorrow we are committed to creating.” Last year at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis, a conference on writing for children and young adults was also canceled, calling it a “mistake” that too many white speakers were going to be there.

Duke University hosted a workshop titled “Confronting White Fragility” that explores the topics of “whiteness and racism” with the goal of addressing the supposed problems that white people have with discussing racism. It serves as an introduction to the work of Robin DiAngelo, the inventor of ‘White Fragility.’ According to DiAngelo, white fragility is the defensive moves that white people make when spoken to about their privilege and many forms of racism, all which ultimately protects white supremacy and racial inequalities. 

Stanford University intended to offer a workshop called “Confronting Whiteness” which aimed to provide students an opportunity to understand problems associated with white privilege and learn ways they could lessen the pain white privilege creates, according to the online description. “Learn tools to mitigate the harms of white privilege in daily life. We will work through real-life examples together.” 

Stanford Law School student activists created a campaign to expose the “racism, bigotry and the forces of white supremacy” pervading the school. The group claim racism runs rampant and minority students suffer “death by a thousand proverbial paper-cuts,” pointing to microaggressions they say they are constantly bombarded with. They also complain how “it’s stunning that you can graduate with a Stanford Law degree and completely avoid discussions of race and structural inequalities in your three years here.”

University of Akron thankfully squashed a professor’s plans to boost the grades of his female students in an attempt to “correct gender imbalances” as part of a “national movement.” The professor admitted that his female students were “not doing well” and they would have to repeat the course if he did not boost their scores. It appears he got the idea from the plan of action by Microsoft which encourages teachers to reward female students for effort rather than for knowing the right answers. 

Schulich School of Law first-year students receive a two-sided card in their mandatory Aboriginal & Indigenous class suggesting 50 ways they can acknowledge and act on their complicity in the mistreatment of Indigenous people. Ways for students to pay their reparations include adding land acknowledgment in their email signatures, buying dreamcatchers, learning “why sexy Pocahontas is just wrong,” and when discussing LGBTQ issues, always including two-spirited peoples (LGBTQ2S*)

Humboldt State University offers a lengthy online resource guide to address a wide variety of issues dealing with whiteness, including white privilege, white fragility, white spaces and seeing white. It offers more than a dozen different articles on white privilege, defined as having “unearned entitlements” such as feeling safe in public. The “Seeing White” section showcases a weekly podcast on “the historical origins of whiteness and its racism in the U.S.” The guide also suggests reading “The scientific way to train white people to stop being racist.”

An educational session called “The Guide for White Women Who Teach Black Boys” has been embraced by universities such as North Carolina-Charlotte, University of Iowa, Grand Valley State and Metropolitan Community College. Better connecting with black youth and their education seems like quite a reasonable conversation, until you learn the sessions are based off a book with the same title, where the author writes, “Given that whites come to the teaching profession with ingrained and implicit bias simply because they live in a white supremacist country, their whiteness impacts their classrooms and especially those black males who exist in their space for the school year.” 

George Washington University hosted a training session for students and faculty that teaches that white Christians “receive unmerited perks" and are the beneficiaries of a combined “Christian Privilege and White Privilege.” The event also aims to educate those of the “role of denial when it comes to white privilege.” By the end of the training, the organizers want participants to be able to name at least three examples of Christian privilege and at least three ways to be a good ally for those of a different religion. 

Yale University is offering a course which aims to help students understand and counteract “whiteness,” exploring such topics as white spaces, white masculinity and white speech. Students in the course are asked to read books such as Angry White Men, White Woman, Listen! and My White Feminism. The professor is active in the theater community and has produced the play “The White Card” which centers around a conversation at a dinner party focusing on the question: “Can American society progress if whiteness stays invisible?”

University of Wisconsin-Madison have created a class that teaches students the relationship between social justice and hip-hop. It will be taught by the professor who is best known for his “The Problem of Whiteness” course, and will involve reading race theory and listening to hip-hop music. It will also delve into colonialism, blackness, cultural appropriation, white rappers, black power, and black feminism. The funniest part about it all? The teacher is white and enjoys performing hip-hop on his weekends under the moniker ‘ProfessorD.us’ 

Columbia University is not to be outdone, creating a class about pop and social justice to teach students how to write music addressing “LGBTQIA rights,” mass incarceration and “gender and racial equality.” According to the program coordinator, the workshop will teach students how to “harness music to advance social justice narratives” as “it’s a university’s role to enact social change.” 

California Institute of Integral Studies held a “Making Whiteness Conscious” workshop to discuss how “racial privilege is often unconscious for white people,” especially “in this time when the rise of white supremacy is hypervisible.” Participants took part in “theatre of the oppressed” exercises and reflected on the often invisible negative impacts of whiteness. By end of the workshop, attendees were expected to have a better understanding of “white racial identity” and how to “cultivate racial justice orientation.” 

At Santa Clara University, a “Know Your Whiteness” display was created on a bulletin board which claims white people have to acknowledge their privilege "for the greater good.” “Understanding our privilege is the first step to addressing the problem which will improve everyone’s quality of life.” In the same area it displays a list of boxes to check your privilege, but the only options are if you are white, male, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual and cisgender. The board shows an image of a white male that has a green check mark and a black man, a Muslim woman and person in a wheelchair who all bear red crosses. It recommends white people be “an ally at movements and events BUT don’t speak over others.” 

Penn State has become the latest university to abolish the king and queen homecoming titles, replacing it with the unsexed “Guide State Forward Award” in an attempt to advance “diversity and gender inclusivity” and “foster a welcoming and equitable environment.” They have also abandoned the male-to-female ratio of Homecoming, allowing one sex to be given both of the new gender neutral awards. 

Mount Holyoke, a women’s liberal arts college, has updated its Advanced Topics in Italian course that studies fascism with a particular focus on the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini to include President Donald Trump. Taught in Italian, the course description tells students that it plans to discuss the Trump administration as it follow the development of fascisms.

A New York University music technology professor claims it’s part of white supremacy when teachers trained in classical music teach classical music. Professors who teach their students about Beethoven and Mozart is a product of “a racist patriarchy” and a “preservation of whiteness.” He says the problem with teaching classical music is not a case of boring or alienating students of color, but it’s an “attack on their sense of belonging to the school community" and even more criminal, “it fails to advance social justice.”

Ohio State University’s Young Democratic Socialists hosted a “deportation defense training workshop” that hoped to teach students the “best ways to prevent deportations, protect the undocumented and resist ICE.” According to the event’s online description, “this is an opportunity for us to get involved in the immigrant’s struggle on campus.” Wait, immigrant or illegal immigrant? 

A Columbia University lecturer recently explained how veganism can help “resist the violence associated with the subjugation and oppression of nonwhite groups.” “What we do to other animals informs how we treat one another on this planet, and it is someone who doesn’t have institutional power, and they’re usually brown” he told the attendees. A proud “social justice advocate,” he teaches a graduate course called “POP! Power, Oppression, and Privilege” where he argues the parallels between eating meat and racism and sexism. 

[xtruss]

Are You Ready and Willing to Be Free Again?

“Care what other people think of you and you will always be their prisoner.” — Lao Tzu

— By Stacey Rudin | September 16, 2021

The modern West’s sudden and near universal acceptance of “lockdowns” — a novel concept of government-enforced house arrest — signifies a far-reaching and sinister shift away from bedrock democratic values. When fear was injected into the atmosphere by the media, the West was a sitting duck, ready to accept any lifeline offered by any politician — even the communist dictator — in a stunning reversal of our nation’s founding principles.

“Give me liberty or give me death” was our original rallying cry. Oppressed by British rule, Americans rebelled. They fought for independence, for the right to live their own lives in their own way. This passion for liberty created the most successful republic in history, a nation to be proud of — a beacon of hope and prosperity for people of all nations.

Today’s Americans behave in a diametrically opposed manner, trusting the government with blind allegiance and giving it full and total control over their wellbeing. Even personal health decisions like whether or not to receive a quickly-developed vaccination are entrusted to politicians to mandate. Any neighbor who disagrees is marginalized and rejected: “She’s an antivaxxer; she must be an ignorant Trump supporter.”

You cannot betray the concept of “give me liberty or give me death” any further than by adopting the premise that no one can disagree with you and still be a reasonable person. When you are on board with a plan that includes subverting your neighbors’ autonomy and violating their bodies as you deem necessary to satisfy the people on TV, you’ve rejected the American experiment. You’re a collectivist, and I wonder: have you looked into how well collectivist systems have worked out for regular people lately?

It is shocking how many people appear to want to live in a world where everyone thinks just like they do. The average person quickly distances himself even from political opponents, as if it would be desirable to have just one political party that everyone votes for. Yet in 2021, in affluent coastal communities, republicans have to pretend to be democrats, and they actually do it. When even this commonplace difference of opinion cannot be accepted and dealt with, it’s clear we’ve moved far away from prizing eccentricity as John Stuart Mill did in 1859, back when Liberty was cool:

“[T]he mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”

“The mind-bending part of conformist behavior is this: we all know the truth. We know. We just aren’t saying or doing it”

This fear of eccentricity — which I’d argue is tantamount to freedom — was laid bare in March 2020. Even when the “deadly disease” propaganda out of China was thickest, the average person really did not want to lock herself at home and pull her children out of school, let alone force people out of work. Yet it was only the very rare person who made this desire public. Everyone else pretended to agree — they decided to “go along to get along.” They put the “stay home, save lives” sticker on their Facebook profiles. They did drive-by birthday parades (my God.) And now that the failure of lockdowns is irrefutable, they refuse to admit they were wrong, afraid to face the damage they helped to cause.

To summarize, the appearance of universal agreement with lockdown was just that: an appearance. Agreement was depicted because most people do “what’s cool,” and because mass media is everywhere, and because social media astroturf propaganda efforts are very effective. A society that wants to “be cool” is very easy to manipulate. The dissenters will betray themselves to stay cool, so just make something appear cool, and the conformists will jump on board.

To today’s Americans, appearances are everything — we are afraid to be different, lest it make our friends uncomfortable (maybe we will lose one, whatever will we do?!) We have ceased caring about truth and authenticity entirely. We have tacitly agreed as a society that true things should be hidden whenever they conflict with what is “popular”; with what everyone “smart” and “cool” is doing. Anyone acting outside of these boundaries — the “eccentrics” of centuries past, considered by Mill to be geniuses — are today’s untouchables.

In a nation founded by rebels, somehow it has become cool to be a conformist.

Thanks to lockdowns, we know that people want to “stay cool” more than they want they want their kids educated, more than they want to open their businesses, and more than they want to breathe freely. They will even accept open-ended vaccine dosages for an illness that poses less risk to them than driving a car — anything to “stay cool.” Disagreeing with someone is too much for Americans today. Confrontation is so scary that we’d rather let society dictate who we are; that way, everyone else will feel comfortable.

“Care what other people think of you and you will always be their prisoner.” — Lao Tzu

This is how the West sacrificed freedom before lockdowns were ever imposed. We care far too much what other people think of us. We fear freedom. Freedom is truth and authenticity and acting in your own interest, as your own person, even when — especially when — it makes other people uncomfortable. Why would you want a bunch of fake “friends” who only like the image you’re projecting? They will leave you the second your social power is tarnished. If you’ve never burned a bridge in your life, these are the people you’re surrounded by, guaranteed.

Speaking the truth, even when it burns bridges, will dissatisfy just the people you want to be rid of: the people who want you in a box, who resent having to follow onerous rules themselves, and mean to force you to do the same. The only power they have is the power to reject you, and once you don’t care about that, you’re free. You say the truth, accept the results, walk away from the wrong people and end up with the right ones.

Trade truth for popularity, by contrast, and you kill yourself in a sense. All that’s left of “you” is what society finds acceptable, which isn’t “you” at all. It’s completely external to you and has nothing to do with you. By conforming, you betray yourself by accepting the premise that there is something wrong with the real you. Maybe you’re so bent on being perfect (as defined by others) that you don’t even know what “you” is. That would make you the perfect cog in a machine, but as for your personal well-being, there is nothing worse. You will suffer.

“We defraud ourselves out of what is actually useful to us in order to make appearances conform to common opinion. We care less about the real truth of our inner selves than about how we are known to the public.” — Montaigne

The mind-bending part of conformist behavior is this: we all know the truth. We know. We just aren’t saying or doing it. There are dozens, hundreds of people who email me thanking me for opposing lockdowns and for standing up for medical choice and privacy. So why aren’t they doing this themselves, if they admire it so much, and know it needs to be done? If everyone did it, there could be no repercussions for any of us. Yet it isn’t happening because we are scared of telling the truth, which means we fear freedom. Far too many of us fear freedom.

We fear freedom and authentic humanity so much that we pretend people are robots. One glimpse of human frailty and a person can be blacklisted without a trial. Humanity is barbaric at present, demanding a certain perfect image and absolute cooperation with majority rule or social death. It isn’t hard to understand why people eventually crack in such a system, or develop severe anxiety disorders. Consider one of my favorite passages of literature from modern philosopher Karl Ove Knausgaard, discussing how he was banished by his family for simply telling the truth in his epic autobiographical novel:

“The social dimension is what keeps us in our places, which makes it possible for us to live together; the individual dimension is what ensures that we don’t merge into each other. The social dimension is based on taking one another into consideration. We also do this by hiding our feelings, not saying what we think, if what we feel or think affects others. The social dimension is also based on showing some things and hiding others. What should be shown and what should be hidden are not subject to disagreement . . . the regulatory mechanism is shame. One of the questions this book raised for me when I was writing it was what was there to gain by contravening social norms, by describing what no one wants to be described, in other words, the secret and the hidden. Let me put it another way: what value is there in not taking others into account? The social dimension is the world as it should be. Everything that is not as it should be is hidden. My father drank himself to death, that is not how it should be, that has to be hidden. My heart yearned for another woman, that is not how it should be, it must be hidden. But he was my father and it was my heart.”

“He was my father and it was my heart.” What is there to gain by calling Knausgaard a freak and rejecting him, when we know these things happen all the time — alcoholism and infidelity? Shouldn’t we revere him for his brave example, for his confidence? I find his display of human vulnerability incredibly attractive, perhaps because I see so little of it in my daily life. I’m tired of the display of perfect people with perfect lives and perfectly-scheduled, perfect kids on the path to Harvard. I want the mess, and I want to show my mess and still be accepted and loved.

Knausgaard, I guess, is the rare modern eccentric. He puts it all out there. Here he is again, discussing the purpose of publishing a novel so true that he lost family members over it:

“I was there, turning 40. I had a beautiful wife, three beautiful kids, I loved them all. But still I wasn’t truly happy. It’s not necessarily the curse of the writer, this. But maybe it’s the curse of the writer to be aware of it, to ask: why is all this, all I’ve got, not enough? That’s really what I’m searching for, in this whole thing, an answer to that question.”

Maybe that’s the heart of it all — even the heart of the current crisis. We are all so empty despite “having it all,” because “it all” has been defined by something other than us. Hollywood, the media, popular politicians — they are telling us what to be, and we have listened, and we are miserable. We are lying, pretending, putting on a show; hiding our pain with drugs, drink, porn, overspending. Things that they sell us.

The end result of this entire exercise in anti-self-development is lockdowns and forced perpetual vaccinations, a segregated society with everyone suspicious of everyone else, and technological apartheid on the horizon. Slavery. If we had all defined ourselves, instead of turning into a mass with one hive mind, afraid of any differences — of freedom — would we be here? I don’t think so. We’d be happy, healthy, and free.

“To be satiated with the ‘necessities’ of external success is no doubt an inestimable source of happiness, yet the inner man continues to raise his claim, and this can be satisfied by no outward possessions. And the less this voice is heard in the chase after the brilliant things of this world, the more the inner man becomes a source of inexplicable misfortune and uncomprehended unhappiness.” — Carl Jung

We’ve neglected individuality in pursuit of perfect conformity, and as a result we’ve become a miserable society filled with miserable people who will never feel safe enough. There is no boundary they will not cross in pursuit of perfect compliance with the rules, doing anything and everything that’s needed to “be cool” today, as defined by The Today Show. “Come to our all-vaccinated wedding!” “I won’t play tennis with ‘the unvaccinated,’ regardless of the fact that I took my own vaccine and stand 40 feet away.”

This is what we’ve become.

We simply must revisit truth and authenticity sometime very soon. We urgently need to find what’s real in all of this fake, and that can’t be done without individual human voices. If you care about liberty, you must do this one scary thing: embrace it. Be free. “But to be free, you have to be inconsiderate.” Yes. Inconsiderate to others, but considerate to yourself. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

— Stacey Rudin is an attorney and writer in New Jersey, USA

[rametarin]

My perspective on the word racism

Discrimination and bigotry based on one’s indigenous origins on the world stage isn’t new. It is as old as the first two human groups to have visible differences engaging in hostility to one another. And it may even have followed us from pre-human ancestors. This phenomenon, this discrimination, has helped and hurt humanity as we’ve gotten more diverse and the products of that diversity have adapted to their climates, the flora, the fauna, the geographic locations, everything. This natural selective process is integral to where our diversity as a species came from, and if left to their own devices for a few tens of thousands more years, just like the birds, the insects, the lizards, we’d have diverged into separate species.

But we didn’t. Despite the minor physical differences between distinct genetic groups, characterized by where their populations developed regionally isolated, we’re still the same species. The different races are not really subspecies, just breeds. There’s still enough variation for them to be distinct and recognizable as specific cultures and heritage in genetic data, but it’s still not enough to render them unique as far as subspecies goes.

Therefore, discrimination to characterize these groups as needing protection or destruction is wrong.

Anybody can see plainly, degree in social science or not, that discrimination and subversion of inalienable personal human rights based on ‘race’ (real or perceived) is wrong. Whether it be because you hate one group in particular or because you favor another group- yours or somebody elses. That bigotry is wrong.

Later on, social scientists decided to name this discrimination, ‘racism.’ And it was first defined within the dogmatic framework of eurocentrism, but bizarro. That European and white civilization “created” racism in order to singularly subvert everybody else in the world, that no one else was responsible for this phenomenon, and the entire premise and pretense was built upon that for white supremacism to flourish. This haphazard inverted Eurocentrism that just interpreted whites as the ultimate evil rather than the natural successors of humanity took the liberty of deciding whites invented the very concept of racism, and that racism in and of itself was created specifically and singularly for the benefit of whites. That you could not have racism without it being on the basis of contributing to the superiority of those whites in that society. If it wasn’t in the interests of whites, it wasn’t racism.

People thought that was shit. And it rightfully was. And so rejected it. Even though there was clear unfair racial discrimination occurring, because it had been married conceptually to the idea whites were inherently bad and, according to their accusatory logic, European nations that didn’t go out of their way to racially diversity were “inherently white supremacist” and guilty of this racism by default.

So, they ran PR and reinterpreted the concept of racism to be more palatable for a while. They minimized how they tied and attached their definition of racism specifically and solely, singularly, to white/European colonialism. But they did NOT remove them, below the college tenured academic line. It was still acting policy and belief, it was just blackboxed to society unless you were a social scientist in college and institutions. They still maintained that black, Asian, sometimes even Jewish and Hispanic and Indigenous people could be discriminatory and prejudiced, but they could not be, “racist.”

It’s only now that they’re moving to marry racism to white supremacism again that they’re openly and freely saying, “Yes, white supremacism is racism and racism is white supremacism. Non-white groups cannot be racist, as racism is a system that which benefits and advantages the white culture over anybody else. Black people cannot be racist. Asians cannot be racist.”

Where before, racism was presumably reasonably defined as the phenomenon of any discrimination against someone else on the basis of their race, and that any form of it used to demean, oppress or disadvantage another on that basis was wrong, They’ve revealed they’re re-marrying it back to the concept of social culture and society by merging the two as indistinguishable, and re-adopting the language that condemns white people as inherently wrong. Not for anything they are currently doing, but for the crime of not doing everything they can to eliminate themselves and the distinction as illegitimate. That their existence itself is an oppressive force and represents the modern world, which needs to be dismantled, burned down and replaced with something fresh.

Their idea of, “new and fresh,” of course, is more of the same socialist bullshit we’ve all heard before. Scapegoating white people for everything wrong, trying to get everybody on board with going after The Great Enemy, tearing it down, and “doing something new.” Always defining what they want as, “something new that hasn’t had a chance to work before.”

With this in mind, know that I use ‘racism’ as shorthand for discrimination based on the concept of race and race as culture, but I do not agree with it. As shorthand, it suffices. But taken literally, using the black boxed definitions and for the purposes it exists as, to trojan horse in a socialist dogma and way of seeing and interpreting both white people and other races and the relationships between them, I disavow and rebuke it.

Instead when pressed to use “proper terminology” I will use, ‘racially discriminatory’ and ‘prejudiced.’ If not for the origins as a term originally rooted in arguing that racism is all white peoples fault and their responsibility to fix by taking on the burdens and voluntarily eliminating what makes them what they are, while the same people promoting that simply pat ethnosupremacists and ethnonationalists of every other stripe and variety on the head and approve of their shit, then racism would be a perfectly valid word to descrive discrimination against people on the basis of their race.

But as you cannot divorce the term from its origins in critical bullshit theory, I refuse to entertain it and normalize it as part of the serious vernacular when discussing issues such as discrimination and equality. The egalitarianism alleged in it is simply a cuddly seeming, disarming co-option of the times. When in fact, it’s just a hateful ideologue not telling the whole truth of what goes into their sentiments behind what they really define as discrimination and bigotry or not.

SO.

tl;dr: I prefer to use the term, ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘racial bigotry’ to just calling something racism. I’m not conceding that racism is defined solely by how white the person perpeturating it is and how not-white the recipient is, but I am conceding that the term is ill fit to properly define what exactly is wrong about that discrimination.

It’s.. kind of like how astrology is not a science, but named itself like one. So astronomy had to break the logic of the nomenclature for its own title while astrology plays with cards and nonsense.

[demdread]

BLM protests get militarized police force with tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, pepper spray, paint balls, beatings and jail. While the KKK gets total protection and the freedom to be racist idiots and we think that the system is on our side and will make the changes needed to free our people. How can we think this, when the very system that oppresses us allows a group who is not only racist, but is also murderous and has exacted it murderous agenda on black people for decades? If the system agrees that statues of confederate soldiers are an affront to blacks as well as traitors, if a food company has made the move to take Aunt Jemima off of its pancake mix boxes because of its racist history, then why does this system still allow a racist group to maintain a place in this society? Why is KKK not remove, not devalued, not dispersed because, like the statues and aunt Jemima they are an historical affront to black people and should be to the nation! Let this be a warning that as I have previously said, it is insanity to let the fox's guard the hen house and it is further insanity to keep doing and allowing the same thing to be repeated over and over again while expecting a different outcome. An outcome that never comes with a permanent solution. We are that rodent on the wheel in the cage, running and running and running going nowhere in the systems cage and on the systems wheel! Are you tired yet! And there stands a black man guarding his historical tormentors who hate him with deep and insidious passion! Look at his face and then ask why, why black man do pay homage to those who would not hesitate to assault you, ravage you, castrate you, burn you and hang you! Why black man why? https://www.instagram.com/p/CBiyd-qp6Mh/?igshid=1mu7nagihaa3z

[3sportsguns]

Brees Is the Example of Needing to Listen

Last week Drew Brees sparked internet outrage after voicing his opinion on the American flag protests. The New Orleans QB said he will "never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America..." and "I love and respect my teammates, and I stand right there with them in regards to fighting for racial equality and justice. I also stand with my grandfathers who risked their lives for this country and countless other military men and women who do it on the daily basis."

Of course given recent events these comments are really tone deaf, even for the rest of the interview he gave. Before that he said "I think we accomplish greater things as a community, as a society and a country when we do it together. And I think that we're all equipped with great talents, abilities and strengths and we can use that with each other and for each other...Obviously there are riots and there are protests and people are certainly out there showing their frustration as well but I think at the end of the day we need to find ways to work together to provide opportunities for one another to continue to move our country forward to a bigger and better place."

That was a perfect answer for what is happening but him saying "I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag." was him disregarding what seems to be his general attitude because people are trying to draw attention to it and he ruled it all out. The protest was never about disrespecting the flag but the narrative was politicized and changed to that. Saying you understand why the protests are happening but saying "I never will..." means you aren't open to the converstation. That was wrong and that was his mistake.

Drew Brees apologized the next day on Instagram saying "...In an attempt to talk about respect, unity, and solidarity centered around the American flag and the national anthem, I made comments that were insensitive and completely missed the mark on the issues we are facing right now as a country. They lacked awareness and any type of compassion or empathy. Instead, those words have become divisive and hurtful and have misled people into believing that somehow I am an enemy. This could not be further from the truth, and is not an accurate reflection of my heart or my character.

...I stand with the black community in the fight against systemic racial injustice and police brutality and support the creation of real policy change that will make a difference.

I condemn the years of oppression that have taken place throughout our black communities and still exists today. I acknowledge that we as Americans, including myself, have not done enough to fight for that equality or to truly understand the struggles and plight of the black community..."

Of course after misstepping he still took criticism for his white privilege, being fake and just covering for himself. The question is 'which is the real Drew Brees?' His teammates like Michael Thomas and Cam Jordan seemed to accept his apology and former teammate Joe Horn came out before his apology to support him saying he knows the man he is and what he has done for the New Orleans community. Brees said himself it's about action and not words and so the apology was a start but not enough.

The problem with Drew's take is the same as Colin Kaepernick's original protest, it became politicized and tried to take control of the narrative. The president voiced his support and Fox News Laura Ingraham said 'Drew Bress can have an opinion' after telling LeBron James 'Just shut up and dribble' for having his opinion on the country. That is of course hypocritical and borders on racism, so Brees' next step was critical to put action in place and not just have words. Mrs. Brees started it with the action with her own Instagram apology saying "WE ARE THE PROBLEM... 

We can read books to our children about Martin Luther King, Malcolm X., Hank Aaron, Barack Obama, Rosa parks, Harriet Tubman.. and feel like we are doing our part to raise our children to love, be unbiased and with no prejudice. To teach them about all of the African Americans that have fought for and risked their lives against racial injustice. Somehow as white Americans we feel like that checks the box of doing the right thing. Not until this week did Drew and I realize THAT THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

...We have heard stories from men and women we have known and loved for years about the racism that occurred in their lives .. stories that were never shared or talked about because somehow they were considered normal. To all of our friends and anyone we hurt ...we will do better.. We want to do better , we want to HEAR you, and we will fight for you because thinking we are not part of the problem...is checking the box it means we are are not doing enough. It’s our job to educate ourselves. We are sorry."

That is exactly the right response to what Drew Brees said about the National Anthem apologies and really what white people need to think about. I wrote that I can try and understand what the African American experience is and need to remove the entitlement of thinking I can understand because I never will. What needs to happen is we just need to listen.

I think Brees followed up his apology with action that validated what his wife said when he posted on Instagram to the president "To Donald Trump, Through my ongoing conversations with friends, teammates, and leaders in the black community, I realize this is not an issue about the American flag. It has never been. We can no longer use the flag to turn people away or distract them from the real issues that face our black communities.

We did this back in 2017, and regretfully I brought it back with my comments this week. We must stop talking about the flag and shift our attention to the real issues of systemic racial injustice, economic oppression, police brutality, and judicial & prison reform.

We are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history! If not now, then when? We as a white community need to listen and learn from the pain and suffering of our black communities. We must acknowledge the problems, identify the solutions, and then put this into action. The black community cannot do it alone. This will require all of us."

This is a critical response of action because what his comments did, I believe unintentionally, was fuel the narrative that the National Anthem protests disrespected the military and country and can disregard the message of what the narrative is about. It was already being done after Brees posted his apology.

Colin Kaepernick's message was right, and the NFL has even now come out and said so, as he chose a peaceful protest that many are backtracking to with the riots that have broken out around the country. To be clear there is a massive difference between the rioters and protests and they are not one in the same. Kap was ridiculed and I truly believe he had no intentions of disrespect and even took a suggestion from a former army ranger on the best way to express his peaceful protest. There were also plenty of former military personnel that were in agreement with what Kap was doing, but there were also plenty that disagreed with it.

The American flag is a piece of cloth that represents a lot and different things to everyone. It's a symbol of what the country should be, it's a representation and reminder that freedom isn't free to America. I think a symbol is given power by the actions meant for it and not just the flag itself but it can be a powerful symbol. Is the country perfect, absolutely not. The protests are expressing that clearly and the country of the United States of America isn't perfect and work needs to be done. 

Drew Brees was speaking what the flag means to him but was furthering an untrue narrative. I'm sure most people don't think they're racist at all but what the protest has been about is opening the white communities eyes to the wrong that is the acceptance of status quo, to not being open to the experience of our fellow Americans in the African American community and the fact that we haven't listened enough or actually heard what is going on and being shared by black communities. It is almost a sense of entitlement that we as the white community have it figured out and could lead the charge when the truth is we don't totally understand African American experiences and need to support them as they speak their truths and lead the charge.

I went to a public high school and have always been around all races and types of people and never had a problem with anyone. I've dated girls of different nationalities and never have, nor will, consider myself racist but that in itself is the problem. I think most people say they're an ally by not being racist but haven't actively done anything to change it and that's exactly what Mrs. Brees spoke to. It's an almost insensitivity because you think things are fine even though you see what is wrong.

In a conversation recently with my father I think he crystallized it perfectly when he said "I will never understand the experience of an African American and these protests have been the big eye opener to that." That was the realization for both of us that the example we need to be is in supporting this movement by listening and echoing what is being said by those that have lived with these injustices.

To me there are things you can love about the country and agree that it's not perfect. I think that's where Brees was coming from in his experiences with flag, National Anthem and his families sacrifices serving in the military, but he voiced it incorrectly. The protests are about a beat down community being heard and opening eyes and in an eagerness as human beings people have said 'I get it and am part of the solution.' when it has been a misstep as a whole because ultimately the white community needs to be a force for change but do so in a supportive role behind African Americans so to not bulldoze over what they're sharing and have experience.

This is what we need to do as a community, to listen to what maybe just never sank in. There is only one right side on police brutality and systemic racism, but we as American people also need to be wary of not actually listening to others' opinions because for a lot of other things in life there are more gray area. Brees misstepped with his comments on the National Anthem protest, but in doing so can be the leader for the white community in exactly what we need to open our eyes and ears up to.

[rapeculturerealities]

In Her Own Hero: The Origins of the Women’s Self-Defense Movement, Wendy L. Rouse examines the self-defense movement through an intersectional feminist lens. “Women’s self-defense figuratively and literally disrupted the existing power structure,” she writes, but white middle- and upper-class women often used self-defense training to reinforce existing hierarchies. Learning self-defense enabled white women to work outside the home because it “shatter[ed] preconceptions about feminine fragility,” but it also allowed those same women to teach working-class and immigrant women the tactics in a white savior–esque fashion. Rouse’s class analysis of women’s self-defense is one of the book’s strongest aspects for this reason.

Rouse explores boxing, jujitsu, street harassment, the suffrage movement, and domestic violence to provide historical context to the 20th-century women’s movement. She argues that the women’s self-defense movement largely rose out of “racialized and gendered concerns about the future of the Anglo race and indeed the future of the nation.” For instance, Americans showed an increasing interest in learning jujitsu around the time of World War II, when hysteria about Japan as a world power and fear of “yellow peril” was rising. Jujitsu challenged preconceived ideas about the dominance of Western martial arts, such as boxing and wrestling, so it was exoticized and appropriated to reassert American imperialism.

In the current political moment, similar concerns are manifesting with the rise of white supremacy and white nationalist movements. Her Own Hero comes out as Americans are showing renewed interest in learning the art of self-defense. Marginalized folks have signed up for classes in droves following the election of Donald Trump, mirroring the historical purpose of self-defense as a means of empowerment and protection for oppressed people. The parallels to the current day may be more coincidental than purposeful, but it makes for a compelling read.

Rouse also offers an in-depth analysis of street harassment and the news coverage it received in the early 20th century. The author often uses the term “cultural anxiety” to describe how white people deal with identity-related shifts, and that was very present in the conversations around street harassment. Victims of street harassment, Rouse writes, were almost always depicted as innocent white women who “risked sexual violation and moral ruin by an immigrant threat.” Similarly, in 2014, anti–street harassment organization Hollaback! released a video that was widely criticized for depicting white women as victims of street harassment from primarily Black and Latino men.

During the 20th century, nativists used street harassment to paint immigrants as inherently criminal and dangerous to white Americans. These days, Trump calling Mexicans rapists and advocating for the creation of an office to investigate crimes committed by undocumented people demonstrates that we have not made much progress as a society. Whenever white people feel their power is threatened, we see that “cultural anxiety” reflected in a resurgence of white supremacist ideals.

Rouse also analyzes the differences in the ways the press reports on street harassment against white women versus Black women. Black women were rarely mentioned in newspapers as victims of harassment, though they were subjected to it. This is a trend that continues with Black women, particularly Black trans women, who are often left out of mainstream reporting on street harassment even though they are most likely to be victims of violence. When Mary Spears and Islan Nettles were killed by their harassers, mainstream media remained silent.

Analysis of the intersection of queerness and self-defense is largely missing from the book. A mention of the necessity for self-defense for LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming people would have provided another lens, given that “corrective rape” and other measures have forced LGBTQ people to develop tactics to protect themselves.

As Rouse proclaims, “[W]omen’s self-defense training disrupted existing gender stereotypes and countered the myth that men were women’s natural protectors.” Ultimately, this movement equipped women with the tools to defend themselves and set the stage for freedom in the public sphere, in the political realm, and in their private lives.

[logh-icebergs]

Episode 21: The Battle of Doria Starzone, and...

Spring 797/488. En route toward Heinessen, Yang’s fleet encounters Baghdash, a supposed deserter who is very obviously there to assassinate Yang—not before taking a nap, though, which gives Schenkopp the chance to lock him in deep sleep mode while Yang and co. make pretty quick work of the 11th fleet, which was sent to intercept them. Instead of the dishonor of surrender, the commander of the 11th fleet chooses to fight until all but a handful of his soldiers have been killed, and then commits suicide. Meanwhile on Heinessen, Admiral Greenhill’s whole “if I didn’t lead these young’uns bad things would happen” schtick proves rather pointless when, despite Greenhill urging restraint, the unit sent to break up a peaceful protest ends up inciting a riot that kills 20,000 people, including the organizer, Representative Jessica Edwards.

Julian and Yang

Close your mouth, Julian, a bug will fly in. Or possibly a bird or small spacecraft.

Julian said he would protect Yang back when he was first learning to shoot, and a real opportunity presents itself for the first time when Baghdash shows up on his mission to assassinate Yang. Schenkopp forestalls Baghdash’s plans in pretty undramatic (but hilarious) fashion, adjusting his tank bed to keep him asleep for the whole battle (hey, look at that worldbuilding about tank beds from episode 1 having actual plot payoff!); and when Baghdash wakes up to find the 11th fleet annihilated, he pragmatically offers his loyalty to Yang, who he now believes will be the ultimate victor.

Feel familiar? This is essentially the same scene as when Reinhard gave Ferner to Oberstein, recast with Alliance personnel.

Yang seems to feel he has a good read on Baghdash’s self-preservation instincts and has no qualms trusting him; he even temporarily bequeaths his own gun to Baghdash, since he himself never even carries it. 

This is a move Yang has pulled before, acquiring personal loyalty by putting perhaps undue amounts of trust in people—he did this with Schenkopp and the Rosen Ritter when he relied on them to infiltrate Iserlohn.

Baghdash “jokingly” points the gun at Yang before lowering it and saluting, which leads to this masterful piece of cinematography. 

My, they grow up so fast...

To appreciate the context of this scene, let’s back up and take a moment to peruse a photo album of the last year and a half of Julian’s life.

From making Yang tea and keeping house for him on Heinessen… (Episode 3, early 796)

...to trotting earnestly around after him in Thernusen… (Episode 10, mid 796)

...to getting to tag along to Iserlohn as an orderly… (Episode 16, late 796)

...to pledging to protect Yang if necessary… (Episode 17, early 797)

...to now. Mid 797, fifteen years old. Threatening to shoot a man for the crime of possibly contemplating killing someone Yang.

It’s impossible to talk about Julian without talking about his role in Yang’s life, because such a huge part of his own conception of his identity has to do with struggling to figure out exactly what that role is. We’ve seen his hero-worship manifest as copying Yang’s style and body language in the past, and he eagerly soaks up Yang’s lectures about battle tactics; but at the same time ever since his very first introduction it’s been clear that Julian’s own goals and skills are distinct from—even opposite—Yang’s: he enjoys cooking and cleaning while Yang is hopelessly lazy; he dreams of becoming a soldier while Yang dreams of escaping the military; he excels at physical combat while Yang apparently can’t hit the broad side of a barn.

These differences are part of why Julian sees himself as serving a purpose—he can do the various physical labor that doesn’t come naturally to Yang—but they’ve also introduced tension into their relationship starting way back in episode 3. 

After responding to Julian’s expressed wish to become a soldier by ranting about how much he dislikes both soldiers and the war, Yang tells a rather downcast Julian that they’ll continue the discussion some other time. The only person who’s happy in this shot is Gensui, smiling smugly in the corner. We see you Gensui. Stop laughing at the humans’ drama.

The point of this little Julian Retrospective isn’t to show a transformation from meek housekeeper into badass soldier; on the contrary, Julian’s ambitions to join the military have been a constant of his character from the beginning, and so has his instinct to rush to Yang’s defense physically.

Did you think I could pass up a chance to show my favorite moment from episode 10 again? I told you this gif never gets old. Hang in there Julian, your moment will come!

But while Yang’s overt disapproval of Julian’s chosen path creates some background tension between them, we’ve never actually seen Julian be anything but deferential and eager to please in his direct interactions with Yang.

Until now.

I’m obsessed with Yang’s change of expression here. He goes from an initial (rather impressed) “holy shit Julian means business” reaction to, when Baghdash appeals to him, a more solemn “oh yeah it’s probably my job here to make sure Julian doesn’t actually shoot the guy” face.

Getting over his initial surprise, Yang adopts extremely relaxed body language as if to intentionally counter Julian’s rigid, aggressive pose and diffuse the tension. But Julian is not having it. The key line here is his blunt contradiction of Yang: “Riyuu wa arimasu!”—“There *is* a reason!”—which, while still in polite speech, is delivered with authority and without any markers of humility or deference.

Julian is there to protect Yang from a threat as he perceives it, in his own way, even if that means going against Yang’s own view of the situation and preferred way to handle it. This moment emphasizes that while Julian would—perhaps literally—kill for Yang, he is not trying to fashion himself into a mini-Yang, or even to stuff himself in a box labeled “Yang’s ideal protégé.” His identity is deeply tied to Yang but not erased by him.

Of course, Julian may be the one pointing a gun, but the actual authority in the room still resides with Yang—as becomes clear when Yang finally, laughing, orders Julian to stand down and dismisses Baghdash.

The timing of Yang’s laugh, after several seconds of silently letting Julian stand there looking badass, makes it feel more like a calculated strategy to diffuse the situation than something spontaneous.

The verb form here is actually the causative, “Hito-goroshi wa sasetakunai yo.”—“I don’t want to make you murder anyone.”

Far from acting upset with Julian’s theatrics, Yang seems some combination of proud and just kind of tickled. But despite Yang’s smile and his explanation of why he’s not worried about Baghdash, Julian’s expression remains angry; he may have argued further, but they’re interrupted by news from Heinessen... 

Jessica

The rest of this episode is much less fun than watching Julian level guns at people. When 200,000 citizens gather in a stadium for a peaceful rally protesting the National Salvation Military Council’s takeover of their government, the council sees it as a challenge and sends a unit in to break it up and “restore order.” This leads to absolutely chilling scenes where the leader of that unit (whose name I neither know nor care about, fuck this guy) attempts to show that true power comes through violence by making an example of ten random people.

The question of whether there’s something inherently righteous about being willing to die for a cause is one that pervades the whole episode (and more broadly is one of the recurring themes of the show). I’ve talked before about how Yang is differentiated from many of the other Alliance commanders by his hatred of rhetoric about death being noble and honorable—in his tea speech in episode 6, for example, he motivates his soldiers to fight not for the glory of dying for a good cause but so that they can live to drink more good tea. This same contrast is again underlined by the speeches that Admiral Legrange and Yang give to their fleets before the battle in this episode.

Just like the asshole violently intimidating the crowd at the rally, this speech conflates courage with self-sacrifice, to the extent of willingly giving your life.

Also reinforced here is Yang’s belief in personal freedom and self-determination as the most important ideals, over allegiance to any particular nation or government. He’s not fighting against the military coup because the former Alliance government was so great, but because (as he told Schenkopp in episode 19) he sees the oppressive rule by force of the NSMC as worse.

It’s Jessica, the organizer of the rally, who delivers the most eloquent and impassioned critique of this equation of violence and death with righteousness; in response to the attacks against civilians she quickly steps forward to intervene:

This is a beautiful speech, but it has the effect of angering the asshole commander so much that he lashes out violently against her, which ultimately escalates into an all-out riot. It’s brutal and horrible to watch, and in the end over 20,000 people have been killed. Including Jessica. 

Obviously Jessica is right on the front lines of her own battle. I love this line, as she steps forward out of the crowd to confront the military force: her “koko ni imasu” echoes the accusations of “doko ni imasu?” (“where are you?”) she leveled at Trunicht in her speech in episode 3. Unlike Trunicht and the other politicians, she is right there.

One thing to note about Jessica’s death is that unlike her fiancé Lapp, she is not fridged—her death is very much about her, her own principles and resistance against the oppression being carried out in her society. And while she has a semi-romantic history with Yang, this riot is not a plot device to somehow change his plans or how he approaches fighting the military council. In fact after we see him first react to the news, he never brings it up again. Jessica’s story is about her fight, not someone else’s.

History

Which brings us back to Yang’s office, where Frederica has just interrupted Julian and Yang’s discussion of (argument about?) Baghdash to tell Yang about the riot and Jessica’s death.

Until this moment, the show’s narrator has confined himself to either telling us facts about dates, locations, number of casualties, etc., or making vague, general claims about the nature of war. What he tells us here is different: “They say Yang Wenli said not a single word.” This is neither a fact of public record nor general academic philosophizing. It’s specific personal information which we can see, since we’re watching the scene unfold behind the narration, that only one person other than Yang himself could know. Hmm.

Stray Tidbits

Schenkopp spilling coffee on his uniform in a (pretty transparent?) attempt to distract Baghdash from inquiring further about Frederica is a cute callback to his first introduction, in which he flings a pot of coffee all over a bunch of random assholes who were yelling at a waitress for defiling their uniforms.

I cannot overstate how hilarious I find Dusty’s signature strategy of fucking with enemy fleets by alternately retreating and advancing. It’s adorable, smart, and strangely erotic all at the same time. Dusty, you are the best, never change.

I love the worldbuilding of all the random battle jargon that flies by in the background of this fight. I'm gonna qualify any directions I give from now on with "relative to the standard galactic plane."

You know you wanted this reaction gif, and we are here to give the people what they want. As long as what they want is cute Julian gifs, at least.

[consilium-games]

The Queen Smiles: let me tell you a story

In the eleventh hour of the eleventh month (or, near enough to it), I've managed just barely to publish my second title this year. And to start us off, I'll plug it here, in all its darkly gleaming glory: The Queen Smiles, a cosmic noir horror fairytale game. If you like Cthulhu and Azathoth, Philip Marlowe, or the Grimm brothers and Celtic lore, you'll find something to love here. If you like none of those things, you might at least enjoy this post.

The Queen Smiles grew out of a lot of things. If you like to analyze art (like RPG rulebooks) without having statements from the author to influence you, save this post for much, much later, after digesting the book and even playing it a bit. After all, that would perfectly fit the spirit of the game: making one's own interpretation and meaning out of something ambiguous and hard to explain.

However, if you like seeing the foundations things sit atop, or wonder more generally where ideas come from, read on. I won't get especially personal here, but topics will get political--and the personal is political. That also fits the spirit of the game.

Lots have noted that 2016 . . . did not exactly treat many people kindly. Not even the Republican Party of the USA (in which I live)--no, not even winning the election served them well. In full disclosure, my own biases are unabashedly liberal, progressive, left-wing and socialist, but it never failed to impress me that everyone stands to lose under a delusional, incoherent populist and crony not only of the dystopic cyberpunk corporate fiefs we've gotten accustomed to, but outright foreign nations. Times have gotten no less dark than strange.

Initially, most of the imagery and psychological space of The Queen Smiles came from the isolation of my current job. Without many details, know that it involves very nearly all my waking hours during the working week, in a place very remote from where I actually live, and without a lot of time to just get to know anyone else--a lot of time to spend in one's head when not beleagured with the actual job. So, the mind tends to wander:

What if the GPS box that keeps me from getting lost between home and work and back suddenly . . . got spooked? What if the increasing absurdity of our world really went off the rails? What if the ominous politics we now have turned . . . really weird? That, and doodling with a new mechanic snapped it all into focus, as I read about Celtic folklore at work in between actual work. And thus, the Queen took shape.

America has no real experience with confronting an outside hegemon: America has instead always done the hegemony. During World War II, Germany posed a threat--to allies, very far away (if you forget about Americans vocally and publicly sympathetic to Germany--America nearly joined the Axis, lest we forget). During the Cold War, fears of Russian spies infecting good honest Americans with Communism never materialized into anything but witch-hunts and opportunities for personal vendetta--the movie Red Dawn never became a documentary. And even today with the 'war' on terror, America defends against a tiny number of disorganized plots and spree-killings with fleets of unmanned aerial weapons platforms. These attacks on America shock the conscience and have no excuse or justification . . . but the gulf of disparity between "what America defends itself against" and "its actual defense" simply boggles comprehension.

So America has no conception, no framework for understanding, of the seven-league-shoe strapping onto the other foot. Of an outside force having more power, of an invader taking over, of falling to an occupier. The Queen Smiles, at least in part, tries to get at this: what is it like to lose not just a war, but your entire world? And, much closer to our world: what is it like to watch the things that make your world sane simply erode, under the influence of madness you can barely describe?

'The Queen' of the eponymous book is not intended as a stand-in for our current elected official, however. Or, not quite: that new mechanic I mentioned exists solely to define the Queen and Her values, through play, by prompting the players to associate unrelated outcomes to the Queen's favor--'The Queen Smiling', on different outcomes of the dice. In short, it's a way of creating a time-lapse inkblot and projecting it, a bit at a time, onto the towering figure of otherworldly power and caprice of the Queen.

But, for that reason, The Queen does serve in another way as a proxy for this administration: it 'is' whatever the players want it to be. However, the 'conventional' way to do that consists of coded language and subtle innuendo, interlaced with vague sentiment-laden surface rhetoric, giving the listener an excuse to read a sympathetic interpretation into anything--if the listener has such a motivation. In The Queen Smiles, the process works in reverse: players have their characters take action, and roll dice for it; every dice-roll then singles out one element of the current scene and its action, and says unequivocally, "the Queen Smiles on this". And then it falls to the players to infer what that inarguable fact means in any larger context.

The Queen can Smile on your success, or failure. On your setbacks and suffering, or on your safety. On your wavering and stumbling through a confused and confusing ordeal, or on your swift and direct progress to a clear and compelling goal. Which events, and which facts of these events She Smiles on will give you the means to conjecture what She actually values, what She wants, and most specifically, what She wants with you. The Queen doesn't craft a platform or message to appeal--instead, She shows in hints and tells what She truly favors, and leaves it up to you to figure it out.

The Queen Smiles plays into modern times in another way, however. Namely, this outside force invading our reality might benefit us--or, some of us. Our society rests on foundational and institutional unfairness, the kind we probably will never fully uproot--if only because our most influential citizens don't want to. Toppling these unjust and corrupt pillars would hinder those who have benefitted from them most--and so, these same pillars become enshrined as right and good and moral and identified as the core of a nation's and people's identity.

Which also means that for those most harmed by systematic, pervasive injustice, knocking it all down poses a tempting proposition. If the Queen will cast down the mighty and crush our world as we know it--might She not also lift up the lowly and establish a world better for the oppressed? The game explores this idea--but, it's a horror game . . .

Which means that in The Queen Smiles, the Queen does not offer a fair deal in any event. Instead, She offers, at best, a chance to side with the oppressors in a new regime, which stands poised to crush the old regime in splendor or wonder or horror, but crush it utterly and without remorse. For me, the real horror lies in the fact that this still could make a very compelling offer. That peaceful, humane reform could be so remote and unlikely and at-best-partial that having an eldritch horror from beyond our puny understanding step in and sweep it all aside seems--pragmatically--like a better bargain.

Of course, the underpinnings of source material that go into a work don't ever fully define it--or else I'd not have made The Queen Smiles with so much influence from Lovecraft. Just as this work doesn't cower in a racist panic over the horrors of "people of different ethnicities having children", it likewise doesn't wallow in post-truth despair. You can tell a huge array of stories with it, provided they fit with the core, kernel idea of uncanny beings imposing their world on ours. And forthcoming, I intend to play around more with the 'One Red' alteration that The Queen Smiles uses, to project and embellish the Queen, putting the notion to other good work.

So regardless of where you live or what you believe, I hope you'll find more good gaming from consilium games, and at the least, that you'll get something you can use yourself. Happy holidays in general, whatever those might be, and let's all hope the next year goes better.

[dani-qrt]

Ireland Votes to End Abortion Ban in Rebuke to Catholic Church

DUBLIN — Ireland voted decisively to repeal one of the world’s more restrictive abortion bans, sweeping aside generations of conservative patriarchy and dealing the latest in a series of stinging rebukes to the Roman Catholic Church.

The surprising landslide, reflected in the results announced on Saturday, cemented the nation’s liberal shift at a time when right-wing populism is on the rise in Europe and the Trump administration is imposing curbs on abortion rights in the United States. In the past three years alone, Ireland has installed a gay man as prime minister and has voted in another referendum to allow same-sex marriage.

But this was a particularly wrenching issue for Irish voters, even for supporters of the measure. And it was not clear until the end that the momentum toward socially liberal policies would be powerful enough to sweep away deeply ingrained opposition to abortion.

“What we have seen today really is a culmination of a quiet revolution that’s been taking place in Ireland for the past 10 or 20 years,” Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said at a counting center in Dublin before the results of Friday’s vote were released, giving an early indication of the final outcome.

“This has been a great exercise in democracy,” Mr. Varadkar said, “and the people have spoken and the people have said: We want a modern constitution for a modern country, and that we trust women and that we respect them to make the right decisions and the right choices about their own health care.”

The “yes” camp took more than 66 percent of the vote, according to the official tally, and turnout was about 64 percent.

“Today is a sad day for Ireland and for people who believe in genuine human rights,” the deputy chairwoman of one of Ireland’s biggest anti-abortion groups, Cora Sherlock, said in a Twitter message. “The struggle to defend the most vulnerable has not ended today, it’s just changed.”

The vote repeals the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution — a 1983 measure that conferred equal rights on the fetus and the mother and banned abortion under almost all circumstances. Before the referendum, the government had pledged to pass legislation by the end of the year to allow unrestricted terminations up to 12 weeks if the amendment was set aside.

The outcome signaled the end of an era in which thousands of women each year had been forced either to travel abroad or to buy pills illegally online to terminate their pregnancies, risking a 14-year jail sentence. The government has said that general practitioners — doctors who are the first port of call for patients — will be asked to provide abortions, although they will still be allowed to conscientiously object to termination at their clinics.

The vote “now means I can do my job without the fear of going to jail,” said Grainne McDermott, a doctor who works in intensive care in a Dublin hospital.

Dr. McDermott described one case in which a mother whose life was in danger first had to follow a complex procedure involving hospital lawyers and other medical experts before obtaining abortion pills.

This was the day that the Irish people said “no more,” Mr. Varadkar told reporters after the results were announced outside Dublin Castle, a government complex where supporters of the “yes” vote gathered to celebrate.

“No more doctors telling their patients there is nothing that can be done for them in their own country,” he said. “No more lonely journeys across the Irish Sea. No more stigma. The veil of secrecy is lifted. No more isolation. The burden of shame is gone.”

The vote followed months of soul-searching in a country where the legacy of the Catholic Church remains powerful. It was the latest, and harshest, in a string of rejections of the church’s authority in recent years.

The church lost much of its credibility in the wake of scandals involving pedophile priests and thousands of unwed mothers who were placed into servitude in so-called Magdalene laundries or mental asylums as recently as the mid-1990s.

The church was, in fact, largely absent from the referendum campaign. Anti-abortion campaigners actively discouraged its participation, preferring to emphasize moral values and human rights rather than religion, possibly to avoid being tarnished by the church-related scandals.

During the campaign, the Association of Catholic Priests urged its members not to preach politics from the pulpit. The guidance came after some priests had threatened their congregations that they would not be able to receive Communion if they voted “yes,” according to people who attended the Masses.

“This is devastating for the Roman Catholic hierarchy,” said Gail McElroy, professor of politics at Trinity College Dublin. “It is the final nail in the coffin for them. They’re no longer the pillar of society, and their hopes of re-establishing themselves are gone.”

Globally, the Catholic Church’s center of gravity continues to shift away from Europe to Africa and Latin America. Pope Francis, the first pontiff from the New World, has sought to realign the church’s priorities in political discourse, and has often prioritized economic and environmental issues over divisive cultural ones such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

In August, Francis will visit Ireland for the World Meeting of Families, a gathering held in a different country every three years, to promote Catholic family values.

The result caught most observers and voters off guard. In the final weeks leading up to the referendum, observers and pollsters had said that the gap between “yes” and “no” voters had narrowed significantly.

“I’m very surprised,” said Theresa Reidy, a professor of politics at the University College Cork who researches referendums.

“Yes” campaigners focused heavily on so-called hard cases faced by women, such as rape or fetal abnormalities. The referendum result showed that many Irish voters agreed that women in those circumstances should be allowed a choice.

That shift in attitude was driven in part by prominent cases, such as the 2012 death of Savita Halappanavar, who had asked for a termination of her pregnancy but later died of complications from a septic miscarriage. Ms. Halappanavar’s face was printed on placards supporting abortion, and on Saturday morning people placed flowers in front of a mural of her face in Dublin.

“People started realizing that compassion didn’t fit just one side,” Ms. Reidy said.

The campaign over abortion many years ago “was initially portrayed in very black-and-white terms, crude and simplistic terms like murder,” Ms. Reidy said. But in more recent years, she added, “the whole issue has broken apart.” Women have talked more openly about abortion, too, tearing down what for a long time had been considered taboo.

The church’s influence in referendums has been eclipsed over the past decade. In 1983, when the Eighth Amendment was voted in, 80 percent to 90 percent of Irish citizens attended weekly Masses, she said. Today, that figure is down to 20 percent to 30 percent.

“Ireland has changed a great deal in 35 years,” Ms. Reidy said.

Activists on both sides campaigned relentlessly for months in a debate that set family members at odds over the rights of an unborn child versus a woman’s right to control her own body. There were more philosophical questions, as well: When does life start? When is a fetus a human? Should a victim of rape or incest be forced to carry out a pregnancy?

Both campaigns came under fire for using women’s personal tragedies in an effort to try to sway the vote, and the nation was virtually plastered with signs showing women or embryos, and, in some instances, grisly pictures of babies being cut out of wombs.

For many opponents, abortion amounts to murder, while others worry Ireland is losing its identity as a Catholic country.

“To those who voted no, I know today is not welcome,” Mr. Varadkar said. “You may feel that the country has taken the wrong turn, is no longer a country you recognize. I would like to reassure you that Ireland is still the same country today as it was before, just a little more tolerant, open and respectful.”

For many abortion supporters, the result was an affirmation of their respect and acceptance by society.

Ireland “is taking the proper steps to separate church and state and to move forward as a more progressive country,” said Conor Flynn, a 22-year-old student.

Una Mullally, a prominent campaigner for abortion rights, said the issue was more than just a medical procedure. It’s about how women have been oppressed.

“All of us have underestimated our country,” she said before breaking down in tears. “I dreamed for people to think like this, but didn’t believe it.”

Still, many who voted in favor of same-sex marriage and laws easing rules around abortion — such as allowing women to travel abroad to get it — found the latest measure a step too far. Abortion is still a highly personal issue for many voters, shaped by personal experiences such as miscarriages or fetal abnormalities.

“We’re a Roman Catholic nation. We don’t believe in taking a life,” said Michael Eustace, 55. “Go over to England and get it done there, not here.”

Still, just before slipping his vote into the ballot box, he said, he whispered a prayer for victims of rape and incest, who, had the “yes” vote been rejected, would be barred from having an abortion.

Elizabeth Dias contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Landslide Vote By Irish to End Ban on Abortion. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

The post Ireland Votes to End Abortion Ban in Rebuke to Catholic Church appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2sb6alN via Online News