#he was chosen via democracy

[lake-lunvik]

[littlestpersimmon]

Jose Rizal, the philippine national hero (chosen by the American occupation but whatever lol) believed in peaceful means to achieve liberation, even tried to convince his contemporaries to NOT revolt. And the Spaniards still marched him off to prison where he was eventually executed via firing squad.

Andres Bonifacio, dude who rebelled against both the Americans and the Spaniards, started the revolution that lead to the philippines being among the first democracies of Asia and the entire global south. And the American occupation had him assassinated by the puppet government they set up.

Rizal grew up a member of the bourgeoisie, while Bonifacio grew up among the lower classes. And it didn't matter, because regardless of how differently they resisted, they were both killed by the oppressive regimes they were under. The difference is that Andres died fighting, dedicating his life to the rebellion, and his dream of liberating his people.

Anyways. If a lot of you guys are constantly picking between two lesser and greater evils, what difference do you have from medieval peasants waiting for a benevolent king to have mercy on you.

[dailyanarchistposts]

III. Toward an Anarchist Film Theory

In his article “What is Anarchist Cultural Studies?” Jesse Cohn argues that anarchist cultural studies (ACS) can be distinguished from critical theory and consumer-agency theory along several trajectories (Cohn, 2009: 403–24). Among other things, he writes, ACS tries “to avoid reducing the politics of popular culture to a simplistic dichotomy of ‘reification’ versus ‘resistance’” (ibid., 412). On the one hand, anarchists have always balked at the pretensions of “high culture” even before these were exposed and demystified by the likes of Bourdieu in his theory of “cultural capital.” On the other hand, we always sought ought and found “spaces of liberty — even momentary, even narrow and compromised — within capitalism and the State” (ibid., 413). At the same time, anarchists have never been content to find “reflections of our desires in the mirror of commercial culture,” nor merely to assert the possibility of finding them (ibid.). Democracy, liberation, revolution, etc. are not already present in a culture; they are among many potentialities which must be actualized through active intervention.

If Cohn’s general view of ACS is correct, and I think it is, we ought to recognize its significant resonance with the Foucauldian tertia via outlined above. When Cohn claims that anarchists are “critical realists and monists, in that we recognize our condition as beings embedded within a single, shared reality” (Cohn, 2009: 413), he acknowledges that power actively affects both internal (subjective) existence as well as external (intersubjective) existence. At the same time, by arguing “that this reality is in a continuous process of change and becoming, and that at any given moment, it includes an infinity — bounded by, situated within, ‘anchored’ to the concrete actuality of the present — of emergent or potential realities” (ibid.), Cohn denies that power (hence, reality) is a single actuality that transcends, or is simply “given to,” whatever it affects or acts upon. On the contrary, power is plural and potential, immanent to whatever it affects because precisely because affected in turn. From the standpoint of ACS and Foucault alike, then, culture is reciprocal and symbiotic — it both produces and is produced by power relations. What implications might this have for contemporary film theory?

At present the global film industry — not to speak of the majority of media — is controlled by six multinational corporate conglomerates: The News Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner, Sony Corporation of America, and NBC Universal. As of 2005, approximately 85% of box office revenue in the United States was generated by these companies, as compared to a mere 15% by so-called “independent” studios whose films are produced without financing and distribution from major movie studios. Never before has the intimate connection between cinema and capitalism appeared quite as stark.

As Horkheimer and Adorno argued more than fifty years ago, the salient characteristic of “mainstream” Hollywood cinema is its dual role as commodity and ideological mechanism. On the one hand, films not only satisfy but produce various consumer desires. On the other hand, this desire-satisfaction mechanism maintains and strengthens capitalist hegemony by manipulating and distracting the masses. In order to fulfill this role, “mainstream” films must adhere to certain conventions at the level of both form and content. With respect to the former, for example, they must evince a simple plot structure, straightforwardly linear narrative, and easily understandable dialogue. With respect to the latter, they must avoid delving deeply into complicated social, moral, and philosophical issues and should not offend widely-held sensibilities (chief among them the idea that consumer capitalism is an indispensable, if not altogether just, socio-economic system). Far from being arbitrary, these conventions are deliberately chosen and reinforced by the culture industry in order to reach the largest and most diverse audience possible and to maximize the effectiveness of film-as-propaganda.

“Avant garde” or “underground cinema,” in contrast, is marked by its self — conscious attempt to undermine the structures and conventions which have been imposed on cinema by the culture industry — for example, by presenting shocking images, employing unusual narrative structures, or presenting unorthodox political, religious, and philosophical viewpoints. The point in so doing is allegedly to “liberate” cinema from its dual role as commodity and ideological machine (either directly, by using film as a form of radical political critique, or indirectly, by attempting to revitalize film as a serious art form).

Despite its merits, this analysis drastically oversimplifies the complexities of modern cinema. In the first place, the dichotomy between “mainstream” and “avant-garde” has never been particularly clear-cut, especially in non-American cinema. Many of the paradigmatic European “art films” enjoyed considerable popularity and large box office revenues within their own markets, which suggests among other things that “mainstream” and “avant garde” are culturally relative categories. So, too, the question of what counts as “mainstream” versus “avant garde” is inextricably bound up in related questions concerning the aesthetic “value” or “merit” of films. To many, “avant garde” film is remarkable chiefly for its artistic excellence, whereas “mainstream” film is little more than mass-produced pap. But who determines the standards for cinematic excellence, and how? As Dudley Andrews notes,

[...] [C]ulture is not a single thing but a competition among groups. And, competition is organized through power clusters we can think of as institutions. In our own field certain institutions stand out in marble buildings. The NEH is one; but in a different way, so is Hollywood, or at least the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Standard film critics constitute a sub-group of the communication institution, and film professors make up a parallel group, especially as they collect in conferences and in societies (Andrews, 1985: 55).

Andrews’ point here echoes one we made earlier — namely, that film criticism itself is a product of complicated power relations. Theoretical dichotomies such as “mainstream versus avant-garde” or “art versus pap” are manifestations of deeper socio-political conflicts which are subject to analysis in turn.

Even if there is or was such a thing as “avant-garde” cinema, it no longer functions in the way that Horkheimer and Adorno envisaged, if it ever did. As they themselves recognized, one of the most remarkable features of late capitalism is its ability to appropriate and commodify dissent. Friedberg, for example, is right to point out that flaneurie began as a transgressive institution which was subsequently captured by the culture industry; but the same is true even of “avant-garde” film — an idea that its champions frequently fail to acknowledge. Through the use of niche marketing and other such mechanisms, the postmodern culture industry has not only overcome the “threat” of the avant-garde but transformed that threat into one more commodity to be bought and sold. Media conglomerates make more money by establishing faux “independent” production companies (e.g., Sony Pictures Classics, Fox Searchlight Pictures, etc) and re-marketing “art films” (ala the Criterion Collection) than they would by simply ignoring independent, underground, avant-garde, etc. cinema altogether.

All of this is by way of expanding upon an earlier point — namely, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which particular films or cinematic genres function as instruments of socio-political repression — especially in terms of simple dichotomies such as “mainstream” versus “avant-garde.” In light of our earlier discussion of Foucault, not to speak of Derrida, this ought not to come as a surprise. At the same time, however, we have ample reason to believe that the contemporary film industry is without question one of the preeminent mechanisms of global capitalist cultural hegemony. To see why this is the case, we ought briefly to consider some insights from Gilles Deleuze.

There is a clear parallel between Friedberg’s mobilized flaneurial gaze and what Deleuze calls the “nomadic” — i.e., those social formations which are exterior to repressive modern apparatuses like State and Capital (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 351–423). Like the nomad, the flaneur wanders aimlessly and without a predetermined telos through the striated space of these apparatuses. Her mobility itself, however, belongs to the sphere of non-territorialized smooth space, unconstrained by regimentation or structure, free-flowing, detached. The desire underlying this mobility is productive; it actively avoids satisfaction and seeks only to proliferate and perpetuate its own movement. Apparatuses of repression, in contrast, operate by striating space and routinizing, regimenting, or otherwise constraining mobile desire. They must appropriate the nomadic in order to function as apparatuses of repression.

Capitalism, however one understands its relationship to other repressive apparatuses, strives to commodify flaneurial desire, or, what comes to the same, to produce artificial desires which appropriate, capture, and ultimately absorb flaneurial desire (ibid., esp. 424–73). Deleuze would agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that the contemporary film industry serves a dual role as capture mechanism and as commodity. It not only functions as an object within capitalist exchange but as an ideological machine that reinforces the production of consumer-subjects. This poses a two-fold threat to freedom, at least as freedom is understood from a Deleuzean perspective: first, it makes nomadic mobility abstract and virtual, trapping it in striated space and marshaling it toward the perpetuation of repressive apparatuses; and second, it replaces the free-flowing desire of the nomadic with social desire — that is, it commodifies desire and appropriates flaneurie as a mode of capitalist production.

The crucial difference is that for Deleuze, as for Foucault and ACS, the relation between the nomadic and the social is always and already reciprocal. In one decidedly aphoristic passage, Deleuze claims there are only forces of desire and social forces (Deleuze & Guattari, [1972] 1977: 29). Although he tends to regard desire as a creative force (in the sense that it produces rather than represses its object) and the social as a force which “dams up, channels, and regulates” the flow of desire (ibid., 33), he does not mean to suggest that there are two distinct kinds of forces which differentially affect objects exterior to themselves. On the contrary, there is only a single, unitary force which manifests itself in particular “assemblages” (ibid.). Each of these assemblages, in turn, contains within itself both desire and various “bureaucratic or fascist pieces” which seek to subjugate and annihilate that desire (Deleuze & Guattari, 1986: 60; Deleuze & Parnet, 1987: 133). Neither force acts or works upon preexistent objects; rather everything that exists is alternately created and/or destroyed in accordance with the particular assemblage which gives rise to it.

There is scarcely any question that the contemporary film industry is subservient to repressive apparatuses such as transnational capital and the government of the United States. The fact that the production of films is overwhelmingly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates, the interests of which are routinely protected by federal institutions at the expense of consumer autonomy, makes this abundantly clear. It also reinforces the naivety of cultural studies, whose valorization of consumer subcultures appears totally impotent in the face of such enormous power. As Richard Hoggart notes,

Studies of this kind habitually ignore or underplay the fact that these groups are almost entirely enclosed from and are refusing even to attempt to cope with the public life of their societies. That rejection cannot reasonably be given some idealistic ideological foundation. It is a rejection, certainly, and in that rejection may be making some implicit criticisms of the ‘hegemony,’ and those criticisms need to be understood. But such groups are doing nothing about it except to retreat (Hoggart, 1995: 186).

Even if we overlook the Deleuzean/Foucauldian/ACS critique — viz., that cultural studies relies on a theoretically problematic notion of consumer “agency” — such agency appears largely impotent at the level of praxis as well.

Nor is there any question that the global proliferation of Hollywood cinema is part of a broader imperialist movement in geopolitics. Whether consciously or unconsciously, American films reflect and reinforce uniquely capitalist values and to this extent pose a threat to the political, economic, and cultural sovereignty of other nations and peoples. It is for the most part naïve of cultural studies critics to assign “agency” to non-American consumers who are not only saturated with alien commodities but increasingly denied the ability to produce and consume native commodities. At the same time, none of this entails that competing film industries are by definition “liberatory.” Global capitalism is not the sole or even the principal locus of repressive power; it is merely one manifestation of such power among many. Ostensibly anti-capitalist or counter-hegemonic movements at the level of culture can and often do become repressive in their own right — as, for example, in the case of nationalist cinemas which advocate terrorism, religious fundamentalism, and the subjugation of women under the banner of “anti-imperialism.”

The point here, which reinforces several ideas already introduced, is that neither the American film industry nor film industries as such are intrinsically reducible to a unitary source of repressive power. As a social formation or assemblage, cinema is a product of a complex array of forces. To this extent it always and already contains both potentially liberatory and potentially repressive components. In other words, a genuinely nomadic cinema — one which deterritorializes itself and escapes the overcoding of repressive state apparatuses — is not only possible but in some sense inevitable. Such a cinema, moreover, will emerge neither on the side of the producer nor of the consumer, but rather in the complex interstices that exist between them. I therefore agree with Cohn that anarchist cultural studies (and, by extension, anarchist film theory) has as one of its chief goals the “extrapolation” of latent revolutionary ideas in cultural practices and products (where “extrapolation” is understood in the sense of actively and creatively realizing possibilities rather than simply “discovering” actualities already present) (Cohn, 2009: 412). At the same time, I believe anarchist film theory must play a role in creating a new and distinctively anarchist cinema — “a cinema of liberation.”

Such a cinema would perforce involve alliances between artists and audiences with a mind to blurring such distinctions altogether. It would be the responsibility neither of an elite “avant-garde” which produces underground films, nor of subaltern consumer “cults” which produce fanzines and organize conventions in an attempt to appropriate and “talk back to” mainstream films. As we have seen, apparatuses of repression easily overcode both such strategies. By effectively dismantling rigid distinctions between producers and consumers, its films would be financed, produced, distributed, and displayed by and for their intended audiences. However, far from being a mere reiteration of the independent or DIY ethic — which, again, has been appropriated time and again by the culture industry — anarchist cinema would be self — consciously political at the level of form and content; its medium and message would be unambiguously anti — authoritarian, unequivocally opposed to all forms of repressive power.

Lastly, anarchist cinema would retain an emphasis on artistic integrity — the putative value of innovative cinematography, say, or compelling narrative. It would, in other words, seek to preserve and expand upon whatever makes cinema powerful as a medium and as an art-form. This refusal to relegate cinema to either a mere commodity form or a mere vehicle of propaganda is itself an act of refusal replete with political potential. The ultimate liberation of cinema from the discourse of political struggle is arguably the one cinematic development that would not, and could not, be appropriated and commodified by repressive social formations.

In this essay I have drawn upon the insights of Foucault and Deleuze to sketch an “anarchist” approach to the analysis of film — on which constitutes a middle ground between the “top-down” theories of the Frankfurt School and the “bottom-up” theories of cultural studies. Though I agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that cinema can be used as an instrument of repression, as is undoubtedly the case with the contemporary film industry, I have argued at length that cinema as such is neither inherently repressive nor inherently liberatory. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that the politics of cinema cannot be situated exclusively in the designs of the culture industry nor in the interpretations and responses of consumer-subjects. An anarchist analysis of cinema must emerge precisely where cinema itself does — at the intersection of mutually reinforcing forces of production and consumption.

[schraubd]

Wisconsin Man's Upward Fall Arrested

Democracy may finally be coming to Wisconsin, as Janet Protasiewicz defeated arch-conservative Daniel Kelly to flip a key seat on the state supreme court.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been a national embarrassment for years. This was the court where a justice tried to choke out one of his colleagues, after all. More recently, it was by far the court that came closest to endorsing Donald Trump's authoritarian campaign to overturn the 2020 election. Members of the conservative faction have since openly questioned the validity of President Biden's victory, putting them far outside even the conservative judicial mainstream and marking them as little more than partisan thugs.

Can you imagine the sort of totalitarian hellscape where the votes of the majority play essentially no role in determining who wins elections? pic.twitter.com/VScxrZV5CR

— David Schraub @schraubd@mastodon.lawprofs.org (@schraubd) July 8, 2022

And yet, even among this sorry bunch, Daniel Kelly would have stood out.

I first wrote about Daniel Kelly when he was initially appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court by then-Governor Scott Walker. He had made an argument comparing affirmative action to slavery, something that -- even restricted to the "civil rights programs are the new slavery!" field -- was jaw-dropping in its stupidity (and "civil rights programs are the new slavery!" is already a field saturated with stupidity).

Over the course of his career, and over the course of this campaign, Kelly has proven himself to be the definition of a mediocrity who's managed to fall upward via the beneficent hand of the right-wing gravy train. His academic pedigree is undistinguished. He had no judicial experience when he was appointed to the court by Walker in the first place, and after his (first) defeat he stayed plugged into Wisconsin GOP politics by providing legal advice to the effort to steal the state for Trump after Joe Biden's 2020 victory. And of course, all have now witnessed his petulant response to being defeated by Protasiewicz:

"I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent," he said at an event held at the Heidel House Hotel in Green Lake. "But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede."

Kelly called Protasiewicz's campaign "deeply deceitful, dishonorable and despicable." "My opponent is a serial liar. She's disregarded judicial ethics; she's demeaned the judiciary with her behavior. This is the future that we have to look forward to in Wisconsin."

Adding: "I wish Wisconsin the best of luck, because I think it’s going to need it."

[...]

"The people of Wisconsin have chosen the rule of Janet. I respect that decision because it is theirs to make," he said. "I respect the decision that the people of Wisconsin have made, but I think it does not end well."

 If ever there was a definition of "lacking in judicial temperament," he personifies it.

Yet beyond that, Kelly is a familiar, if not archetypical figure. He is suffused with entitlement for that which he has not earned, and consumed by rage when he doesn't get it. There are thousands -- millions -- of men (almost always men) just like him. Most don't go on to become state supreme court judges, though many do bully themselves into positions far beyond their talents or capacities by a mixture of being useful to the right people and being an impossible menace when they don't get what they want. When they do, finally, see their upward fall arrested, they are incredulous and infuriated at the injustice of it all. Hell hath no fury like a mediocre White man scorned.

Indeed, perhaps Kelly's only mistake was being appointed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court instead of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- a position from which he could never be dislodged no matter how apparent it became that he was ill-suited for the position. On the federal bench, with life tenure, he could have prowled and fulminated and lashed out with impunity, forever; secure in the knowledge that it would be constitutionally impossible to ever hold him accountable. One can only imagine the law school classes he would have baited and berated.

But alas, Daniel Kelly is a creature of the state bench, and in Wisconsin, supreme court justices must meet the approval of the voters. Twice now, the voters have resoundingly rejected Daniel Kelly as unsuited for the role of state supreme court justice. Kudos to them. And while Democrats are celebrating Protasiewicz's win, the bigger winner is the small-d democracy that has been under siege in Wisconsin for far too long.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/lRL0wm7

[saintmeghanmarkle]

an article for understanding Meghan Markle -- "More women may be psychopaths than previously thought says expert" by u/ElectricalAd9212

an article for understanding Meghan Markle -- "More women may be psychopaths than previously thought, says expert" ​It really does explain everything about her, but also explains why people in the media and elsewhere haven't connected the dots.It is very important that Markle begins to be described as a sociopath.Her behaviour exemplifies all these traits.Hopefully writers, commentators and journalists will frame her in these terms, would be helpful if Piers Morgan with his large audience did so.It was Uvalde that made me realise she was a psychopath. It was unnerving.And it also explains why she and her husband should never be allowed near Catherine or her children ever again, and why we need to keep exposing her and Harry, because she has a pathological trait of a psychopath as described here, the pathological lying and abuse which explains her never ending leaks spreading rumours and lies.​++++++++++++++++++​"More women may be psychopaths than previously thought, says expert"Dr Clive Boddy says assessment skews towards obvious male traits but female psychopathy is more subtle“The behaviour of female psychopaths seems to be subtle enough and less obvious than male psychopaths and therefore they’re not recognised as much,” Boddy said.“A small but mounting body of evidence describes female psychopaths as prone to expressing violence verbally rather than physically, with the violence being of a relational and emotional nature, more subtle and less obvious than that expressed by male psychopaths,” he noted, adding that may include spreading rumours and lies for personal advantage.There had also been fewer studies looking at psychopathy in women than in men, he said**, and assessors may be reluctant to label women as psychopaths.**Some estimates have suggested there could be a 10:1 ratio of male to female psychopaths, but Boddy’s work, using only the first part of the LSRP, suggested the figures were very different.“It’s almost one to one,” Boddy said, although he noted large-scale studies of randomly chosen adults would be needed to get a more definitive picture....... Recognising psychopathy in women and men was important, Boddy said, not least because such individuals could have a huge impact in the workplace, with employees sidelined, abused and bullied. In addition, he noted, businesses led by such individuals could lose direction, and it could affect how people viewed large organisations.“They see the greed, untruthfulness and ruthlessness of those at the top and this undermines democracy and the rule of law,” he said.( link ) post link: https://ift.tt/TUN4Sip author: ElectricalAd9212 submitted: February 26, 2024 at 09:29PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[minniethemoocherda]

Iridescent: Chapter 5

Summary: When Jazz is promoted to Head of Special Operations, the last thing he expected was to have to work with a face from his past.

A/N: So yeah sorry this might end up more of a slow burn then I initially intended... Xxxxxx

Ao3

FF.net

Prowl had spent most of his allotted sleep time re-reading the autobot code to see if there was a way to legally remove Jazz from his position.

Unfortunately short of treason, there was no way to remove a head of command without input from the others and as they were fighting to uphold democracy, Prowl had to concede to the votes of his peers, even if he disagreed with them.

Ultimately all his late night research had resulted in was a four hour recharge cycle. Which was even less than the six hours he usually allotted for himself which he had previously calculated to be the minimum amount of sleep needed so that he could ensure that he was using as much time as possible to attend to his duties. And now his functionality was below optimum usage which in turn had increased his stress levels, as his battle computer helpfully informed him.

Despite the late night, he was still able to arrive fifteen minutes early to the fortnightly command meeting.

For once he was not the first person there, as sitting in what was usually his chair with their pedes up on the oval table was the source of all Prowl’s current problems.

“Good morning Commander!” Jazz cried with a wave. 

Prowl didn’t have the patience hold back a cringe at the loud audio volume.

“That is my seat.” He told him.

“Sorry mech, didn't know we had assigned seating.” Jazz said, although Prowl’s processor was willing to bet that it was no coincidence that the spy had chosen that seat, if the times he had previously happened to coincidently be busking outside his old station whenever he was on duty were anything to go by. Which they were.

"Here ya are." Jazz said, graciously getting off the chair and offering it to him with a bow.

Prowl had learnt more than he would have cared to know about pranks from the twins to fall for that.

“Whilst do not have assigned seating, normally I would sit there. However, today I have decided to sit here instead.” Prowl said, pointed sitting in the chair next to him.

If Jazz had been about to protest, it was cut off as the rest of high command started to arrive. The spy quickly started up a conversation with Ironhide and within a minute, the gruff old veteran was laughing along with whatever tales Jazz was spinning like they were old friends.

Prowl watched as Red Alert skittered around the pair and scanned their usual seat for explosives before sitting down, one optic trained on Jazz. Prowl was glad that at least not all of high command had fallen for his charm.

Thankfully it wasn’t long before Optimus arrived by which point everyone had settled down.

Optimus blinked when his optics landed on Prowl. Prowl felt a twinge of guilt as he just released that he was sat where the Prime would often sit, even though he knew that Optimus would not be upset by it.

Instead Optimus' optics moved from Jazz to Prowl. For some reason that his processor, hadn't quite worked out the meaning of yet, Optimus was wearing a similar tired look to when Bumblebee had decided to pick a fight with some of the older mechs for no reason.

For the most part the meeting carried on as normal. It was their monthly briefing with the rest of command at the MacCadam's base so Elita-One, Ultra Magnus and Chromia joined them via holo-call. Prowl's mood was not improved by Chromia and Ironhide spending most of the meeting blatantly flirting even though he should have expected it by now.

By the end of it, not much had changed and nothing new had been learnt. Megatron was still a threat and Elita-One didn't have anything new to report. The only thing that had changed was the pain behind Prowl's processor which had gotten even worse.

He headed straight for his office when the meeting was over, not wanting to indulge in pointless small talk that he knew the others, especially Jazz would try to force him into.

However, when he got there, he found a package waiting on his desk. Once again, having learnt from previous experiences with the twins, Prowl was not going to entertain the idea of opening that.

He also made a mental reminder to book a meeting with Red-Alert to re-evaluate his office security as he put the package in his draw to be tested by Wheeljack later.

Prowl had barely opened the morning reports when there was a knock on his door. He had no meetings scheduled and if it was an emergency then someone would’ve hailed him over his internal comms by now.

His processor ache worsened tenfold when he opened the door to find Jazz standing behind it.

“Hey Prowler did you like your present?”

“I haven’t opened it.” Prowl stated.

“Saving it for a reward for when you finish all your paperwork eh?"

Prowl had no plans on ever opening that present but he did not mention that as Jazz continued.

“Anyway, I was just passing by on my way to the rec for mid-day rations if you wanted to join me?”

Prowl knew that his office was not on the way back from the rec room as he deliberately selected it to be as far away as possible. But again, he decided not to mention that.

“Sideswipe brings me my rations as part of his current punishment detail.” Prowl also didn't mention that by the time the Lamborghini was done chatting the audio receptors off everyone, it was usually half spilled and lukewarm but it was preferable to being in the rec room where the constant bombardment of noise irritated his battle computer and nobody wanted him there anyway.

"No worries! Maybe some other time then?"

"Maybe." Prowl replied, shutting the door before he could be roped into agreeing to a specific time.

Frustrated Prowl tried to finish his reports, but thanks his processor ache he kept falling further and further behind schedule. Until there was another knock at his door.

As Sideswipe was not due for another hour, Prowl ignored the request for entry, his processor having already provided a 87% chance of who was most likely at his door and carried on with his reports.

A few moments later, despite being locked, the door beeped open.

Prowl startled as the black and white form of Jazz strolled into the room.

“So I thought, I would save Sideswipe the trouble of getting your rations. Plus I added something a little special.” Jazz said, winking at the unnaturally purple liquid that had been adorned with decorative rust flakes.

“I do not drink high-grade during office hours.” The and neither should you went unsaid. Besides, the texture of sprinkles irritated his intake port.

"Your loss Babe." Jazz shrugged.

“Babe?!" Prowl exclaimed incredulously.

“Yeah mech, everyone is either a bot or a babe and you tall, pale and serious are definitely a babe.”

Prowl bristled as Jazz’s optics roamed his plating.

"If you drink that in front of me, I'll report you." Prowl stated, having to hold himself back from flipping his table out of the way and shoving the spy out himself.

Jazz took the hint, sauntering back out, raising the glass to his lips just as the door closed.

Prowl commed Red-Alert an order for new security codes.

Sideswipe came and went with his mid-day and evening rations and Prowl finally felt his fuel pressure return to near acceptable levels as he worked through his meal breaks to catch up.

Then there was a beep at his door as despite having got new codes, it slid open.

Prowl's fault pressure skyrocketed as Jazz once again waltzed in, this time with an electro-bass in his hands.

“Aww you just missed one pit of an impromptu party!" Jazz cried. "And since you missed our little shindig in the rec, I thought we could have our own private party here instead!”

Jazz had barely started strumming when Prowl marched out from behind his desk. Yanking the instrument from his hands.

"LEAVE ME ALONE!" Prowl yelled, throwing the base across the room.

A flash of emotion slashed across Jazz; faceplate as it crashed into the wall. It was too fast for Prowl’s processor to recognise it, but if he hadn't been designed to look for the details that most bots missed, he probably would not have seen it at all.

Prowl watched Jazz approached the electro-base. The spy knelt beside it, cradling the instrument in his arms like a wounded animal. With his head bowed, his expression was hidden from Prowl's view.

Prowl didn't know much about instruments but to him it looked as though one of the strings had broken. But what he did know was that on their barren wasteland of a planet the probability of them finding a replacement was near to zero.

Before Prowl could even think about what to say, Jazz left without even looking him in the eye.

Feeling himself slip into autopilot, unsure what else to do, Prowl returned to his paperwork, failing to force his brain to focus on his work in an attempt to not analyse the impending guilt.

[scruggzi]

The UK and US systems are very different especially taking about the presidential system so there are lessons to learn but also voting strategy in these systems should differ as a result.

1. We do not elect the prime minister nationally in the UK. The PM is usually the leader of the party with the most seats.

2. We have no separation of powers. The executive and legislative branches are decided at the same election and most of the executive branch also hold positions in the legislature.

3. We have inherited (Monarch, Some Lords) and appointed (Some Lords, Supreme Court) aspects of our system.

4. The Supreme Court is appointed via a selection board including leading legal figures and is not directly chosen on a whim by the PM.

What does this mean for the US?

1. The Greens (mostly leftist environmental party with some support from rural conservatives who enjoy nice walks in the countryside) made very strong use of targeted campaigning. They made it clear they wanted to be a progressive legislative voice under a Labour government and targeted very specific races. This allowed them to get 4 MPs on the same number of votes as Reform (fascists) on only half the vote whilst not splitting the left vote in closer races between Labour and the Conservatives.

This is not an option in the US Presidential race. There is one vote split up via the electoral collage. Any vote not for the main two will have no impact on the outcome except denying that vote to someone who might otherwise win.

2. Reform split the right wing vote letting in more Labour MPs because they did not target a very small number of seats but ran a large-scale campaign spreading themselves and their resources across too many races. They ended up with the same result as the Greens for twice the vote.

In the US you have no third party right wing candidate or even a sane centre-right Republican to split the vote. You have Biden and Harris or a Trump administration open about a desire for dictatorship. In the UK we can use congressional style tactical voting in the election which changes executive government. This is not an option in the US.

3. Having an untouchable head of state above the law SUCKS, even when they are mostly interested in gardening/covering up their family's sex crimes and don't officially get all that involved. You do not want Trump in that position.

4. The role of the President in appointing the supreme court is the reason you are staring down the barrel of literal dictatorship. Our system is relatively new (used to be part of the unelected House of Lords) and still has enough resilience to allow the court to repeatedly call the government on its shit even when judges were appointed during their tenure in office. This means it's not really a factor in elections. Yours doesn't and that's why it's a huge factor. Even if Trump dies of overwhelming hubris six months in, he could and has done potentially irreparable damage to the systems of government.

Conclusion: if you are wavering, don't. Hold your nose. Vote Democrat for President. Cling to the least worst option with your teeth whilst you still can.

Focus more nuanced efforts to get more progressive voices in targeted smaller scale races. You've got the huge advantage of structural democracy in so many areas (police, education, county, state, it's all over the place). They have relatively low turnout and the Green strategy of careful targeting of the right race can really work.

(Source: I have a PHD in media/politics focused on electioneering)

TLDR: The election is a bus not a taxi. You won't get a lift directly to your house, so go for the one closest to home and then start walking, because the other guy will drive you straight off a bridge.

Hey US folks, I think maybe the lessons to learn from the UK election here are:

voting matters; this is the clearest transition of power in decades, and the Tories lost to Labour big time

the fascists will almost always turn out in record numbers when there's power on offer; 4 million of them did, in fact, and they now have a seat in parliament

splitting the vote is a bad idea; part of the reason this was such a big loss for the Tories is that so many people did vote Reform and even in a much more equitable not-two-party voting process, that still made a difference. (Folks also voted Green but due to luck and mathematics, that seems to have made less of a difference; this could have turned out very differently).

Labour has done a lot of appalling shit, just like the Democratic party, but they are not literal fascists like the Reform folks, and not assholes like the Tories.

[sublimeobservationarcade]

America Chooses A Crook For President

A majority of Americans have chosen Donald Trump, a known liar and convicted criminal to be their president. In a two candidate race they have chosen a ridiculous scumbag over having a capable woman to lead their nation. Make no mistake, America chooses a crook for President. What this tells the world is that the laws of the land and morality do not matter to most Americans. In the wake of all the crap that Trump spews forth daily and its divisive consequences more Americans have chosen this rather than a fresh start. This is a warning to the world about where the United States is heading and fast.

Trump’s Character Failings Fail To Halt His Ascendancy

No matter the multitude of warnings by those in the know – America would not listen. Nearly everybody who worked with Donald Trump in his first administration told the American public he was unfit for office – they did not heed the advice. The complete lack of respect for political insiders is blatantly obvious. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is an old adage. America will now reap what they have sewn – they will get the Project 2025 regime promised by the Trump camp. Dumb folk who did not bother to comprehend how and why governments work the way they do will pay the price. America chose the crook over the prosecutor!

American Democracy Decides To Back A Dictator

What kind of country chooses a morally repugnant and criminally compromised president? Short memory my fellow! Trump’s shambolic handling of the global pandemic cost thousands of American lives. The daily posting of dumb statements deprived the office of its former gravitas. Drinking bleach and trying unproven quack remedies were dangerous tips coming from the highest office in the land. The economy was not better off under Trump, as he oversaw what led to the rampant global inflation. Americans are so stupid they don’t even understand the time lag involved in government policy decisions having an effect on the economy. The United States Selects Trump Over Harris America chooses a crook for President. A country of conservative pragmatists would rather go with a gasbag promising retribution than a fine upstanding woman. I have seen speculative reports about the country being not ready for a woman of colour in the top job. It is the 21C, when will Americans be ready to acknowledge a woman in power being the way to go at the national level? Trump has won twice, both times when up against women – this tells us something about American men and women. #UNGA President Donald J. Trump by National Archives and Records Administration is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0 Trump Evades Justice & Consequences For His Many Crimes Rich folk evade the law in America and Trump sends that message loud and clear for all to see. The multiple serious charges facing Donald Trump will melt away, according to what passes for US law. It is a joke; American justice is a bad joke. I used to think this years ago but having delved deeper into the shenanigans of Trump it is crystal clear. Law and order is a rigged game for ordinary folk who pay with their liberty for their transgressions but for the privileged it is a different kettle of fish. Trump delayed and delayed the wheels of justice via his lawyers until the corrupt US Supreme Court and Aileen Cannon could come to his rescue. The American people have just said this is fine by them, as long as you make us some money or at least make enough noise so that we can feel OK about our meagre lot in life. Men Valuing Money Over Morality The pundits report that Latino men played a big part in electing a crooked president to the White House. Corruption and screwing the poor would be no surprise to them in a political leader. BS macho attitudes toward the role of women would colour their vote too. Of course, Latino men just joined the conga line of American men more generally in backing Trump. Short termism views of the economy can make folk susceptible to lies and misinformation. “It became clear to Democrats that they were no longer the party with an ongoing advantage among minority voters and labor unions. And they will have to think about how to win over those constituencies and where they went wrong in messaging and ground game.” - (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/takeaways-election-day/index.html) Americans are exposed to more BS in the political space than most other Western democracies. The exaggerations and lies fly thick and fast. Biden did a power of economic policy initiatives to take America into the 21C, Trump and the country will benefit from this massive investment. Americans have collective amnesia about what has happened over the last 8 years. Listening to lies and not paying attention to what is going on will cost them, I predict. If you can’t tell fact from fiction you are in for a heap of misery coming your way. Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of America Matters: Pre-apocalyptic Posts & Essays in the Shadow of Trump. ©MidasWord Read the full article

[angelicrebirthed]

The Fall of Arrogance

2065

Joshua is 22, 

After the Public enemies act passed the Idaho Legislature by unanimously. it stated.

"Any and all persons that by referendum, are deemed enemies of the public may be imprisoned for their existence.  The attorney general may lead these prosecutions. They are to be enforced via a registered militia."

The first person on the list is Richard Sabbetean, from a family of famous pharmaceutical titans hated by all but hated by Nazis in particular for being Jewish. Nobody cared about him, he was symbolic of corporate greed, despite the antisemitism, the threat to democracy, he had no friends. Sabbeteans and Company was recently went through bankruptcy court. That wasn’t enough for most.

He is voted out of existence 67 percent margin. His extradition is pending. The Idaho Gestapo was chosen via the states registered militia.

He would be extradited with his wife also guilty

It attracts the attention of the  group43er liberation front, a Jewish Trotskyist militia, it is infamous for their sheer brutality against any perceived threat, they are known for use of raids and high powered weapons, they leaked classified documents of the Patriot Front and other right-wing organizations who are at war with United anti-fascist coalition or known as UAC. The groups43ers were  10x as powerful as group 43. The UAC is an umbrella organization of the armed left. For them pacifism is dead, along with civility, mercy is dead, now truth will triumph at gunpoint over the haters. The 43er liberation front invades Idaho.the decision to land a hit on the author of the bill, the Imperial Wizard of Idaho, he lived on a Ranch on the panhandle.

Group43ers is lead by a Jewish war veteran who believes the Jewish faith requires violent rebellion and revolution in order to create a world that values their faith.

“All must rise for the national anthem”

(The US anthem plays)

"Hello.. My fellow Americans and especially my fellow Jews"

(A bald middle aged man with grey hair and devious tattoos around his neck is tied up with a hemp rope)

"This… is garbage. America is drowning in his flith. This 1488 Klan stan boy decided to vandalize a synagogue…. To him he wants another night of broken glass"

“A calling card before a massacre”

"Ester get me a bottle of manchevitz"

"Yes Brother.."

"You know the bottle is a pretty crude weapon… then again. Fascism is a pretty crude ideology.."

"They worship force right… might over right.."

(Mordecai beats the man to his knees with the bottle)

"You know what the foggy glass of illusions will be shattered.. They will all be. Death.. Azrael… the great equalizer."

"Jewish reverence for liberalism and niceties ends today."

"By any means necessary we will prevent the next Shoah!"

"We will use fear. Garbage and unkosher pigs will wallow in fear"

(he pulls out a Glock)

(he loads it)

(He shoots the first guy)

“1 down 13 to go”

"You know what they said… 1488…. Words have power. Trust me I'm a Kaballahist"

(13 other men hands behind back gagged and blindfolded)

"I am a war criminal… so were the French Partisans.. "

“Law only exists to protect the guilty”

“I am truly an outlaw!”

“For Azrael! My angel I summon you!”

"True equality means you cannot impact this world"

"all tyrants and slaves are two inches of steel away from death… memento Mori"

(Mordecai fires… and all his men do aswell. 14 bodies hit the grass in Northern Utah….)

"MET!"

(The letters met form into Yod and gimel, the numbers 13)

“The 13th arcana, death… It is what the cost of freedom bestows upon the world..”

(Mordecai calls forth the Hebrew words for death…. Anyone who holds the Angel's power is almost immune from worldly punishment. They are death and judgemen, to defy an angel, is to defy nature itself…)

(The corpses dissolve into Clay.. Leaving no trace)

“America teaches us… FREEDOM isnt free. STOP DYING START KILLING!”

“Oppression ends when the masses start shooting back!”

"God we should just kill more of Idaho, this is A disgusting state, they steal cannabis from the dying, run by Nazis and Klansman, publicly vigilantes execute drag queens with no reprocussion, honestly we should do more raids around here. Bloody oil lovin baby killer h*cks, damn they probably f**k their cousins, inbred dogs.."

“Joseph can we please see them as victims being colonized by armed infidels”

“Sarah you are naive as F##k”

"Macabee Alpha squad are we a go!"

"Yes this is beta squad you are clear for deployment"

"Alright let deal with the problem..."

"Simple extraction do not eliminate the target"

"Remember who bought us these new toys"

"Yeah aren't we Trotskyist, why are taking money from a capitalist pig like Sabbetean, yeah he's a superpig!"

“A traitor to Jews and we have to save him, a herem!”

"That is a lie, we still can't afford the best equipment, we are kinda broke, but we got good enough stuff this time from a donor”

"We are not taking money from him, he is a victim of the Nazis"

"Yeah but he's A pig, unkosher, A small sacrifice Jews should be willing to pay, nobody will mourn him"

"True"

"its other people who donated remember our gofundme?"

"Sabbetean didn't donate jack shit, the Nazis made up that to smear him"

"They are going to abduct him next week, we need a decive blow, to free Idaho and liberate them from fashy occupation"

"Lets focus on the mission, we gotta capture or eliminate the Imperial Wizard"

It was a trap.

The house was a setup

The Maccabean Alpha militia is trapped.

The Imperial Wizard gasses them all of the except one to death.

A blaring siren says.  Did you think you could win... (Deep voice)

GET ZYKED 

K#K#. K#klon B

HAHAHAHA

ROT IN HELL!!!!!!!.

The militia has a collective i gues ill die then. 

All the walls and exits sealed.

(A hammer blasts down the walls, A man leaps out of the abandoned house trap, he staggers)

One of them, the only one with a hammer survives. Its the leader Mordecai Bar Kohba, the first level starts now. You must escape the ambush.

(Everyone wants to be so cruel plays in the background)

"Beta squad alpha squad where are you!"

“Navigator get me a path out NOW!”

“On it sir!”

(The navigator is named Esther, same girl as before)

"Commander there are too many of them, they got some enhancements, they are superhuman, clearly equipped with unknown technology, and some chemical weapons, retreat now, I repeat this is an ambush, someone tipped them off!"

"This is where the fun begins" (the comm was clearly taken by a Klansman)

"You think you can live, Nasi… we know who you are commander!"

“We know of your power…. Your angel…”

"It doesn't matter KNIGHT, my ideals are immortal, I will win"

(Mordecai eyes and body glows ready to charge in)

(The game shifts and the cut scene ends, you take control of the commander with 55 levels and all skills support, assist, and a few blast spells  unlocked)

(You have 5 stimjeks, A Uzi with 5 clips, A Glock with 3 clips, A Macabee styled Warhammer, Kevlar Jacket, Targeting Helmet, 1 stamjeks)

(The escape route is covered in fire, poisonous gasses, explosive landmines/IEDs)

(Enemies are simple, but they deal high damage, are somewhat hard and punishing the first mechanic they introduce is charged attack, these deal huge damage unless blocked, none have elemental damage or weapons)

You must make it to the extraction point to escape

He reports it to UAC groups. They immediately retreat from the battle, knowing the enemies capabilities and immorality outstrips them exponentially.

The survivor Mordercai Maimondies only said this:

"Despite me using a firearm, which helped to saved me a little bit, I wouldn't I survived because I used a hammer, it breaks all barriers, it shatters the force of hatred. The Jewish and by extension American people cannot be binded by the false allure of morals, we cannot show mercy to a enemy who has gone to the extremes, far beyond points of no return. We must eliminate all of them. Their ideals and desires cannot coexist with our faith and with our nation, we are American we will not flee to Israel, we don’t need some foreign government to save our “weak” helpless asses. we will not cower behind the 'safety' of our temples, we will not rely on liberal democracy that left us to die until  December 7th 1942. There is no being a moderate, if you are a pacifist you are complicit and cowardly. By being non violent you enable violence.  We will use our minds our resources to eliminate hatred. We will not mourn the death of those would gas us without hesitation, we will not value their lives, or hesitate to take thiers. We must reclaim our weapons of our past. (He dies shortly after)

This is why you must use a weapon of old, for the battles of past and future are merely mirrors are the same truths and morals, the weapons of old can call upon the strength of our ancestors it can guide us, modern weapons are merely a addition. the hammer is the true weapon... For it charges forward, for it shatters all barriers. The powers of stories lie in the collective unconscious We lost this battle, my men dead, but we and our ideals survived, to teach the next warriors. We will defeat those who live with only hatred. They have no morals, they have no God, they have no justice, they have no chance. It will be hard, it will take sacrifice but I believe in us all of us. Those who love versus those who hate.

(he sings)

There is a darkness lying in their hearts. We know its filled with hatred, but love will not fall apart.  There's a hatred lying in your heart, you must not give in or your freedom falls apart. But hope lies in the supremacy of truth…

“I may die now, but my soul and spirit live on in those who rebel. Those who seek radical justice” 

(He dies)

(The recording is sent publicly Jewish ownership of firearms increases by threefold in the next 3 weeks, all Rabbis are presumed armed, Jewish self defense organizations increase fourfold)

[sonicsuns]

America is in danger

Two days ago, the Supreme Court gave the President sweeping immunity from criminal charges. You can read the ruling here, and you'll find links to media coverage here.

This ruling is a severe threat to the rule of law in America, especially with Donald Trump still on the loose and aiming to return to the White House.

Let's be clear: Democrats are not perfect. Sometimes they get swept up in dumb ideas. Some of them are corrupt. Yes, I'm deeply concerned about war crimes in Gaza (though I don't trust Trump to make the war crimes stop.) And yes, Joe Biden should step down so a healthier Democrat can take his place as the nominee.

But at least the Democrats believe in democracy. Most Republicans don't.

Many Republicans think they believe in democracy, but in reality they believe in Trump. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans say that Trump won the 2020 Presidential Election, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

Let's examine this in detail. There are three main pillars for election integrity in America.

First we have the election administrators, chosen because they were deemed trustworthy enough to count the votes. This group ranges from the the lowest-level volunteers up through a variety of supervisors, managers and certifiers. This pillar says that Joe Biden won the election. (A small handful resisted that conclusion but they were overruled by everyone else.)

Second, we have law enforcement. Stealing elections is illegal in every state, and if the cops have evidence against someone they can charge them with a crime. But nobody has charged, let alone proven, that there was ever an illegal pro-Biden scheme large enough to potentially tip the results in even a single state, let alone the national results. Even Trump's attorney general, Bill Bar, concluded that the results were legitimate. Bill Barr was Trump's bulldog! Do you seriously think he betrayed both Trump and America all of a sudden? No! He said the results were legit because the results were actually legit. In that moment, he decided that his loyalty to America outweighed his loyalty to Trump. (Absurdly, he now says that he'll vote for Trump.)

Third, we have the courts, specifically designed to stand apart from politics. At both state and federal levels, Trump lost every meaningful case he ever put forth. Even judges appointed by Trump himself said his claims were nonsense. (The fraud claims were so absurd that Giuliani eventually got disbarred over them!) So again, Biden's victory was confirmed.

And yes, I have seen a bunch of viral videos where people make dramatic claims of election fraud. None of them stood up to closer scrutiny when I looked into it. The election deniers may think they have a mountain of evidence, but in reality they have a mountain of nonsense.

The Electoral College certified Biden's win in December 2020, because Biden actually won the election. He did not win via fraud or misconduct, nor did he win Trump-style where you lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote due to a constitutional glitch. Biden won the old-fashioned way: By actually getting more votes than his opponent.

And what did Trump do? He just kept lying about it.

Even his own paid experts had told him that Biden's win was legitimate, and then he turned around and lied about what the experts told him. He knew full well that he had lost. He has never cared about democracy or the rule of law. He only pretends to care when it suits him.

At one point he seriously considered ordering the military to seize voting machines and essentially declare Trump the winner by fiat. He did not issue that order, but the mere fact that he considered it is chilling.

What he did do was organize slates of false electors to cast fraudulent electoral votes for him. He also ordered the Department of Justice to make false claims of fraud, telling them: "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."

On Jan 6th 2021 he urged his followers to march on the Capitol Building, where Congress was certifying the election results. And yes, he did say that they should march "peacefully". But when the crowd grew violent, when they started smashing windows and trespassing and physically threatening Congress, Trump waited three hours before he gave the order to stop it. He knew what he was doing. He wanted his people to physically intimidate members of Congress, in hopes that they would be scared enough to steal the election for him.

And you know what? He made a scary amount of progress! 139 House Republicans — more than half of the Republicans in the House — voted to overturn the election results. (The Senate was comparatively sane, but even there 8 Republicans objected to the results.)

And when Trump was impeached for incitement to insurrection, the Republicans shielded him. He got away with it.

At the time, I hoped that this was the lowest point. I hoped that more people would understand the truth of the election once they'd had a year or two to think about it and once Covid was no longer stressing them out. But here we are, more than 3 years later and the pandemic long over, and two-thirds of Republicans are still opposed to democracy (at least when Donald Trump is involved.)

This brings me back to the Supreme Court.

On July 1st the court ruled that Presidents are essentially above the law. It recognized three categories of activity that Presidents can engage in: (1) "core constitutional powers", (2) other powers "within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities", and (3) "unofficial conduct". The first category has "absolutely immunity", the second category is "at least preemptively immune", and the third group is not immune.

At first glance this may seem very dry and technical and nonthreatening. But trust me, it's a gateway to hell.

The court specifically said that:

"Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." (page 5)

The "alleged conduct" is that he ordered the DOJ to break the law, commit fraud and help him STEAL AN ELECTION.

The court isn't merely saying "We don't think Trump actually committed this crime." They're saying "Even if Trump did commit this crime, he can't be punished for it."

So once again: According to SCOTUS, the President can order his minions to break the law, and he can't be prosecuted. He has "absolute immunity".

If that isn't an invitation for Presidents to abuse their powers, I don't know what is!

As for the other categories, the phrasing "at least presumptive immunity" implies that the court will happily bump the immunity level from "presumptive" to "absolute" whenever they feel like it. And apparently almost nothing the President does is "unofficial", seeing as the court specifically ruled that "most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities." Meaning that Trump can tweet out "Go commit crimes!" and this court will probably render him immune. The court refused to declare any of Trump's conduct to be beyond immunity. Something things were judged immune, and other things were judged worthy of additional review. This is a recipie for disaster.

Incidentally, the Constitution provides no immunity at all for Presidents. There is limited immunity for members of Congress, but nothing at all for the President. This is on purpose! As Sotomayor points out in her dissent, it was well understood since the founding that Presidents can in fact be prosecuted for crimes. Heck, the constitution clearly references this in the Impeachment Clause!

Also, the Constitution specifically says that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". But according to SCOTUS, he's still free to order government officials to break laws. The Constitutional mandate to obey the law has been turned into permission to break the law.

This is the worst decision since Dredd Scott. A President who can break laws with impunity is a dictator in the making. And it's not as if impeachment will pose any threat to Trump; the Senate already made it clear that they're not willing to convict him!

And as it stands, Trump has an even chance of winning back the White House this November.

Look, people. I try to be understanding. I know that sometimes Trump has been criticized unfairly in the past. I know that sometimes some Democrats push stupid ideas like "abolish the police" (though Biden was never in that camp, nor were most democrats). I know that a lot of Republican voters are lovely people in their day-to-day lives. I know that a lot of them mean well. But even so, Trump is a demagogue. He has amassed a cult-like following and he will abuse whatever power he gets. He already tried to steal an election. Just imagine what he'll do with this new immunity.

(If you're worried about war crimes in Gaza, consider the historical fact that dictatorships commit far more war crimes than democracies. There's no telling what evil deeds America's vast military might do if democracy crumbles!)

I also understand different schools of Constitutional interpretation. I see the appeal of textualism and originalism, and I see how Roe v. Wade outraged a lot of people who either (a) believe that a fetus is a baby, and/or (b) believe that the court invented a "right to abortion" which doesn't exist in the Constitution's text. But nothing in the text of the Constitution makes Presidents immune. Nothing in history says that the framers of the Constitution wanted Presidents to have immunity. I simply cannot trust any of the six justices who joined this oppressive ruling. Even when they've agreed with me in the past (shoutout to Gorsuch for protecting LGBT people in the workplace), that means almost nothing now. The Sinister Six are either willfully corrupt or else they're so stupid that it hardly makes a difference.

The district court said Trump is not immune. The appeals panel unanimously agreed that Trump is not immune. Ordinarily I would assume the Supremes know better that their inferiors, but this ruling is so absurd that it shatters any trust I once had in the Supreme Court.

The only way out of this is to vote for a Democrat (either Biden or whoever replaces him) in November. That's the only way to stop Trump. A Trump victory would place America even further along the path to dictatorship. If he takes office, you won't necessarily see dramatic change in the first day or two. But in the span of four years?? There's no telling what horrors Trump might unleash. Stealing elections. Censoring the internet. Warantless wiretapping. Throwing his enemies in jail without trial. Maybe even assassinating his rivals.

Even if Trump doesn't do all that himself, he'll lay the groundwork for whoever comes next. There's always another would-be dictator waiting in the wings.

Liberty is not guaranteed.

So if you're American, I beg you: VOTE BLUE this November. It's the best hope we have.

[hardynwa]

Edo poll: APC aspirant eyes victory after three failed attempts

A governorship aspirant of the All Progressives Congress, Major General Charles Airhiavbere (retd), on Tuesday, stated that having made spirited attempts to win Edo election on three previous occasions, his wealth of experience put him in pole position to become the next state governor. Airhiavbere, who once ran for governorship on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party, also boasted that he has what it takes to collapse the structures of the PDP to further enhance his chances ahead of the September poll. The aspirant made the submission when he arrived at the APC National Secretariat to submit his Expression of Interest and nomination forms in Abuja. He said, “Just like our president, it is my turn to govern Edo State and the party needs a candidate with the capacity to face the incumbent governor, Godwin Obaseki. This 2024 is my fourth appearance in the Edo gubernatorial race. I have run three times on the platform of the APC and once on the platform of PDP. I was the candidate of the PDP in 2012 before leaving to join the APC and I can collapse the PDP structure for APC to win come September 21, 2024. “The race to Edo state 2024 is to replace Governor Obaseki who has done seven years plus and by the special grace of the Almighty God, he will hand over to me on December 12, 2024. Let me take you into the insight of what I will do differently because no state in Nigeria today can say internally generated revenue can rise without bringing development partners. We have the opportunity to make Edo State safe and peaceful using the security apparatus available to us, using internal democracy. We cannot afford to receive vigilante and put arms in the hands of untrained people. “In 2016, I was among the aspirants but Obaseki was picked. At that time, we listened to party leadership. We were told the best among us was Obaseki and that was why he was chosen. Unfortunately, he (Obaseki) took the governorship ticket in 2016 and ran away with it. He didn’t even consult us for contributions but carried on with the campaign, saying party leaders wanted him to share money. I wasn’t one of those that wanted him to share money. This year, the only thing I will do differently is to obey only the instructions from the APC headquarters in Abuja. If APC today says stop, I will stop. If they say move, I will move to make sure that we present the best candidates to win the election.” The race to choose a viable candidate via the APC primary in Edo State has started gathering momentum. Read the full article

[peacemore-springs]

Economic Stagnation Only Ever Improves The Rich

after having been denied his own creative abilities. after having had his creative ideas interrupted and stolen from him. after artistic creative economy had denied him a healthy inclusion he had found himself without a path to progress down. he had been rendered immobile and without the freedom to express a reflection of his life and the many interactions it had experienced. he had turned his attention to putting on small sporting bets in an attempt to increase his income beyond what a petty government handout gave him. this strategy too had began to fail. living beneath the guard of they who maintain their own economic fortune through the failings of others had made one thing clear. his bloodline was chosen for removal. he was being given only disadvantage. he had learned to accept that nothing came via those who had devised their lifestyle from reaping the encouragements of disabled others. he was not christian because he did not believe that a christ jesus had ever existed. he did not follow the teachings of a creator god because he did not believe that a creator god could ever have existed. he did not live for christian encouragements. he had simply found his life marginalised to be disabled. his lifestyle had become an experiment. it was happening via the combined use of immorality and gain. the unethical nature of the network he was coveted by was obedient to modern slavery and his life was now being pushed back to living out in the street. he realised their routine stagnations were aiding his living towards this. he realised that to keep living in stagnation and ill health was an improving strategy for those with establishment and riches. so he readied himself for selling the little he had accumulated. his life was about to leave the confined buildings of their christian democracy and return to living in the street. the poisonings and tortures would lessen as a result of this decision. the neighbourhood he had been sent to live at could stop tormenting foreign influence. their stagnating removal economy could, for a short while, breathe a breath and relax.

[xtruss]

A Coup Would Put Pakistan Squarely in China’s Bloc! An Isolated Junta Would Be Cripplingly Dependent on Beijing.

— Ibrahim-Azeem | Foreign Policy | March 20, 2023

Supporters carry placards displaying a portrait of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan during a protest in Karachi on March 19. Rizwan Tabassum/AFP Via Getty Images

March 14 was a dramatic day for Pakistan. This was the day, the country’s military said, that it would arrest Imran Khan. He was once an international cricketer, then a politician, then prime minister, and is now, after being deposed as PM by a no-confidence motion last year, a tub-thumping campaigner against what he describes as a corrupt system tying the Pakistani military and the rest of the country’s political parties together. (I was a policy adviser to Khan between 2012 and 2014 but have no professional contact with him at present.)

But the day turned into a triumph for Khan after the police were unable to arrest him. The aftermath has been unlike anything in contemporary Pakistani history. The military, which has governed the country alongside chosen cooperative politicians since independence from Britain 75 years ago, now faces a serious threat from an insurgent who uses the language of democracy and the rule of law. And in response, it’s increasingly possible that the military, tired of playing chess against Khan, will simply sweep the pieces from the board.

In recent months, Khan has led his supporters in a series of mass rallies and mass marches. He has been shot at and wounded. His political supporters have clashed with police; they say they were attacked, while the police say the opposite. And members of Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have been arrested and, they allege, tortured in police custody. One supporter was allegedly tortured to death last week.

This all came to a head on March 14, when Khan was due to be arrested on what his supporters say are trumped-up terrorism charges. Large numbers of Khan’s supporters gathered outside his home in Lahore, Pakistan, to contest the arrest. Police used tear gas, water cannons and batons to attempt to clear a path into Khan’s home. They were repulsed by the crowds. Khan remains free.

In a video message posted to Twitter, Khan remained defiant. If he is arrested, he said, his allies must fight for “true freedom” and the rule of law. Khan maintains that he and his party have been set up: that the charges against him are malicious and false, and that the intention of any arrest would be to disqualify and deprive him of the ability to take his months-long campaign into a forthcoming general election.

As I reported last year, after Khan lost power in a close no-confidence vote in April 2022, he began a barn-burning campaign of rallies and speeches contesting the legitimacy of power in the country. He accused the military of having received its orders to remove him from the United States; he said that the judiciary in the country was hopelessly corrupt; and he launched a serious assault against the military’s place in Pakistani society, including its stranglehold over the country’s economy.

Throughout Khan’s campaign, the military and other politicians have attempted to defer what increasingly looks like a grassroots political revolution: Khan was charged with terrorism offenses for “threatening” a judge and officials; he was also accused of corruption for accepting gifts while in office. His rallies have been broken up. His broadcasts have been subject to restrictions. And he has been shot.

But now, those in office in Pakistan are facing a solid deadline: The politicians and military have only until October this year to call elections under the country’s electoral term limits. Khan’s PTI party has won several local and regional contests since he was removed from power. Khan’s party won a plurality of the vote in the last election, in 2018; followed by the PTI taking 15 of the 20 contested seats in the legislative assembly of Punjab state—the most populous province of Pakistan and a former stronghold of Shehbaz Sharif, current prime minister and Pakistan Muslim League party leader—in the 2022 local elections.

If another election is held and the polls are accurate, it is likely Khan would win with an overwhelming majority. This is a threat to the military and the parties currently in government alike: If Khan were to win, he would do so on a platform explicitly oriented around reining in the military and clearing out the current politico-legal system, including a reform of the country’s judiciary.

Khan’s supporters appreciate they are in a difficult position: Their leader was almost arrested today, and his allies had to hold back the police with their bodies. But they are confident that a revolution might be coming. They say that Khan has created a pro-democracy movement that now transcends party. For the first time in Pakistani history, they say, rich and poor are united in opposition to the military’s chosen government.

Elections in Pakistan have in the past been contests in which patronage often carried great weight. In most elections, powerful and wealthy candidates, called “electables,” are put up by any and all parties. These are often landlords or powerful local businessmen. Perhaps they have a useful tribal, clan, or caste affiliation, or have done a favour for the army or a ministry; they can be safely placed before the electorate, who can be counted upon to signal assent to the individual regardless of party. Thus goes the stereotype.

The electables are notorious floating voters within the legislative branch, switching loyalty and party after cutting deals to get good positions in office. There are some who have been candidates for all the major parties without breaking step.

This system re-emerges at every Pakistani election; it is a consistent theme. But now, it is being challenged. If polling is accurate, the public is increasingly interested not in individuals, or their betters, but in party politics, especially those represented by Khan. The PTI endorsement is a hot ticket. Those who get it are likely to win against the electables sporting the banners of political convenience.

All of this is a challenge not only to the ordinary nature of Pakistani politics, but also to the military, whose hand can be felt behind all votes and government formations.

Khan has not been arrested today, so he cannot be disqualified from running in the coming elections. He is still a threat to the status quo, and gunning for those in power whom he believes have slighted him.

This leaves the military with few options. It can try once again to arrest the opposition leader. In prison he might not, they might bet, be as visible—although Pakistan’s history is full of leaders who kept movements going from jail. But if imprisonment continues to prove impossible, Khan’s supporters claim, the military has only two options left: assassinate Khan and hope his movement dies with him, or undertake a coup.

The press in both Pakistan and India increasingly believe a coup is possible. Pakistan suffered four coups in its first fifty years of independence. The current conditions in the country are not auspicious. They include economic decline and a crackdown on political opposition.

Previous military coups have always had specific framing: They have been about restoring order and removing corrupt politicians.

Perversely, this is a situation Khan’s campaign may have helped; his criticising the government coalition as corrupt helps create a sense of general dysfunction. But Khan has also rubbished and undermined the army. The situation has changed. As Khan’s supporters successfully fight off militarized police, people are no longer afraid of the military. Any coup, rather than meeting with acquiescence, could result in chaos, even civil war.

This is a prospect which ought to merit international attention and planning. Unpopularity has rarely phased Pakistan’s army. If it wishes to overthrow the country’s elected rulers, it will try to do so, regardless of how it looks. If Pakistan’s unsteady democracy is threatened, the West is likely to respond.

For Pakistan, the consequences could be significant. They might include sanctions, travel restrictions, seizure of assets, the possible ignominy of Pakistan losing its membership of the Commonwealth, and the certainty that Pakistan will receive no further support from financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

Pakistan will then have few friends. The military, if it does successfully take power, is likely to look to China to bail it out. China does not want instability in Pakistan, a country heavily indebted to Beijing (Pakistan is the biggest recipient of loans from China’s Belt and Road initiative). And it has long-standing ties with the Pakistan military, going back to mutual antagonism toward India and the funding of the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been within the Chinese sphere for years, with the Pakistani military underwriting this relationship. The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor is a signature project of the Belt and Road view of the world. But if the army were to launch a coup, things would become dramatically worse for Pakistan’s economy and, likewise, its citizens.

Pakistan would be desperate—ensuring that it would be truly within China’s sphere of influence, in time to take its place amid the autocracies forming part of the world’s growing, authoritarian, Beijing-led bloc.

— Azeem Ibrahim is a Columnist at Foreign Policy, a research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College, and a director at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Radical Origins: Why We Are Losing the Battle Against Islamic Extremism and The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Hidden Genocide.

— Argument: An expert's point of view on a current event.

[dailyanarchistposts]

III. Toward an Anarchist Film Theory

In his article “What is Anarchist Cultural Studies?” Jesse Cohn argues that anarchist cultural studies (ACS) can be distinguished from critical theory and consumer-agency theory along several trajectories (Cohn, 2009: 403–24). Among other things, he writes, ACS tries “to avoid reducing the politics of popular culture to a simplistic dichotomy of ‘reification’ versus ‘resistance’” (ibid., 412). On the one hand, anarchists have always balked at the pretensions of “high culture” even before these were exposed and demystified by the likes of Bourdieu in his theory of “cultural capital.” On the other hand, we always sought ought and found “spaces of liberty — even momentary, even narrow and compromised — within capitalism and the State” (ibid., 413). At the same time, anarchists have never been content to find “reflections of our desires in the mirror of commercial culture,” nor merely to assert the possibility of finding them (ibid.). Democracy, liberation, revolution, etc. are not already present in a culture; they are among many potentialities which must be actualized through active intervention.

If Cohn’s general view of ACS is correct, and I think it is, we ought to recognize its significant resonance with the Foucauldian tertia via outlined above. When Cohn claims that anarchists are “critical realists and monists, in that we recognize our condition as beings embedded within a single, shared reality” (Cohn, 2009: 413), he acknowledges that power actively affects both internal (subjective) existence as well as external (intersubjective) existence. At the same time, by arguing “that this reality is in a continuous process of change and becoming, and that at any given moment, it includes an infinity — bounded by, situated within, ‘anchored’ to the concrete actuality of the present — of emergent or potential realities” (ibid.), Cohn denies that power (hence, reality) is a single actuality that transcends, or is simply “given to,” whatever it affects or acts upon. On the contrary, power is plural and potential, immanent to whatever it affects because precisely because affected in turn. From the standpoint of ACS and Foucault alike, then, culture is reciprocal and symbiotic — it both produces and is produced by power relations. What implications might this have for contemporary film theory?

At present the global film industry — not to speak of the majority of media — is controlled by six multinational corporate conglomerates: The News Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner, Sony Corporation of America, and NBC Universal. As of 2005, approximately 85% of box office revenue in the United States was generated by these companies, as compared to a mere 15% by so-called “independent” studios whose films are produced without financing and distribution from major movie studios. Never before has the intimate connection between cinema and capitalism appeared quite as stark.

As Horkheimer and Adorno argued more than fifty years ago, the salient characteristic of “mainstream” Hollywood cinema is its dual role as commodity and ideological mechanism. On the one hand, films not only satisfy but produce various consumer desires. On the other hand, this desire-satisfaction mechanism maintains and strengthens capitalist hegemony by manipulating and distracting the masses. In order to fulfill this role, “mainstream” films must adhere to certain conventions at the level of both form and content. With respect to the former, for example, they must evince a simple plot structure, straightforwardly linear narrative, and easily understandable dialogue. With respect to the latter, they must avoid delving deeply into complicated social, moral, and philosophical issues and should not offend widely-held sensibilities (chief among them the idea that consumer capitalism is an indispensable, if not altogether just, socio-economic system). Far from being arbitrary, these conventions are deliberately chosen and reinforced by the culture industry in order to reach the largest and most diverse audience possible and to maximize the effectiveness of film-as-propaganda.

“Avant garde” or “underground cinema,” in contrast, is marked by its self — conscious attempt to undermine the structures and conventions which have been imposed on cinema by the culture industry — for example, by presenting shocking images, employing unusual narrative structures, or presenting unorthodox political, religious, and philosophical viewpoints. The point in so doing is allegedly to “liberate” cinema from its dual role as commodity and ideological machine (either directly, by using film as a form of radical political critique, or indirectly, by attempting to revitalize film as a serious art form).

Despite its merits, this analysis drastically oversimplifies the complexities of modern cinema. In the first place, the dichotomy between “mainstream” and “avant-garde” has never been particularly clear-cut, especially in non-American cinema. Many of the paradigmatic European “art films” enjoyed considerable popularity and large box office revenues within their own markets, which suggests among other things that “mainstream” and “avant garde” are culturally relative categories. So, too, the question of what counts as “mainstream” versus “avant garde” is inextricably bound up in related questions concerning the aesthetic “value” or “merit” of films. To many, “avant garde” film is remarkable chiefly for its artistic excellence, whereas “mainstream” film is little more than mass-produced pap. But who determines the standards for cinematic excellence, and how? As Dudley Andrews notes,

[...] [C]ulture is not a single thing but a competition among groups. And, competition is organized through power clusters we can think of as institutions. In our own field certain institutions stand out in marble buildings. The NEH is one; but in a different way, so is Hollywood, or at least the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Standard film critics constitute a sub-group of the communication institution, and film professors make up a parallel group, especially as they collect in conferences and in societies (Andrews, 1985: 55).

Andrews’ point here echoes one we made earlier — namely, that film criticism itself is a product of complicated power relations. Theoretical dichotomies such as “mainstream versus avant-garde” or “art versus pap” are manifestations of deeper socio-political conflicts which are subject to analysis in turn.

Even if there is or was such a thing as “avant-garde” cinema, it no longer functions in the way that Horkheimer and Adorno envisaged, if it ever did. As they themselves recognized, one of the most remarkable features of late capitalism is its ability to appropriate and commodify dissent. Friedberg, for example, is right to point out that flaneurie began as a transgressive institution which was subsequently captured by the culture industry; but the same is true even of “avant-garde” film — an idea that its champions frequently fail to acknowledge. Through the use of niche marketing and other such mechanisms, the postmodern culture industry has not only overcome the “threat” of the avant-garde but transformed that threat into one more commodity to be bought and sold. Media conglomerates make more money by establishing faux “independent” production companies (e.g., Sony Pictures Classics, Fox Searchlight Pictures, etc) and re-marketing “art films” (ala the Criterion Collection) than they would by simply ignoring independent, underground, avant-garde, etc. cinema altogether.

All of this is by way of expanding upon an earlier point — namely, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which particular films or cinematic genres function as instruments of socio-political repression — especially in terms of simple dichotomies such as “mainstream” versus “avant-garde.” In light of our earlier discussion of Foucault, not to speak of Derrida, this ought not to come as a surprise. At the same time, however, we have ample reason to believe that the contemporary film industry is without question one of the preeminent mechanisms of global capitalist cultural hegemony. To see why this is the case, we ought briefly to consider some insights from Gilles Deleuze.

There is a clear parallel between Friedberg’s mobilized flaneurial gaze and what Deleuze calls the “nomadic” — i.e., those social formations which are exterior to repressive modern apparatuses like State and Capital (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 351–423). Like the nomad, the flaneur wanders aimlessly and without a predetermined telos through the striated space of these apparatuses. Her mobility itself, however, belongs to the sphere of non-territorialized smooth space, unconstrained by regimentation or structure, free-flowing, detached. The desire underlying this mobility is productive; it actively avoids satisfaction and seeks only to proliferate and perpetuate its own movement. Apparatuses of repression, in contrast, operate by striating space and routinizing, regimenting, or otherwise constraining mobile desire. They must appropriate the nomadic in order to function as apparatuses of repression.

Capitalism, however one understands its relationship to other repressive apparatuses, strives to commodify flaneurial desire, or, what comes to the same, to produce artificial desires which appropriate, capture, and ultimately absorb flaneurial desire (ibid., esp. 424–73). Deleuze would agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that the contemporary film industry serves a dual role as capture mechanism and as commodity. It not only functions as an object within capitalist exchange but as an ideological machine that reinforces the production of consumer-subjects. This poses a two-fold threat to freedom, at least as freedom is understood from a Deleuzean perspective: first, it makes nomadic mobility abstract and virtual, trapping it in striated space and marshaling it toward the perpetuation of repressive apparatuses; and second, it replaces the free-flowing desire of the nomadic with social desire — that is, it commodifies desire and appropriates flaneurie as a mode of capitalist production.

The crucial difference is that for Deleuze, as for Foucault and ACS, the relation between the nomadic and the social is always and already reciprocal. In one decidedly aphoristic passage, Deleuze claims there are only forces of desire and social forces (Deleuze & Guattari, [1972] 1977: 29). Although he tends to regard desire as a creative force (in the sense that it produces rather than represses its object) and the social as a force which “dams up, channels, and regulates” the flow of desire (ibid., 33), he does not mean to suggest that there are two distinct kinds of forces which differentially affect objects exterior to themselves. On the contrary, there is only a single, unitary force which manifests itself in particular “assemblages” (ibid.). Each of these assemblages, in turn, contains within itself both desire and various “bureaucratic or fascist pieces” which seek to subjugate and annihilate that desire (Deleuze & Guattari, 1986: 60; Deleuze & Parnet, 1987: 133). Neither force acts or works upon preexistent objects; rather everything that exists is alternately created and/or destroyed in accordance with the particular assemblage which gives rise to it.

There is scarcely any question that the contemporary film industry is subservient to repressive apparatuses such as transnational capital and the government of the United States. The fact that the production of films is overwhelmingly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates, the interests of which are routinely protected by federal institutions at the expense of consumer autonomy, makes this abundantly clear. It also reinforces the naivety of cultural studies, whose valorization of consumer subcultures appears totally impotent in the face of such enormous power. As Richard Hoggart notes,

Studies of this kind habitually ignore or underplay the fact that these groups are almost entirely enclosed from and are refusing even to attempt to cope with the public life of their societies. That rejection cannot reasonably be given some idealistic ideological foundation. It is a rejection, certainly, and in that rejection may be making some implicit criticisms of the ‘hegemony,’ and those criticisms need to be understood. But such groups are doing nothing about it except to retreat (Hoggart, 1995: 186).

Even if we overlook the Deleuzean/Foucauldian/ACS critique — viz., that cultural studies relies on a theoretically problematic notion of consumer “agency” — such agency appears largely impotent at the level of praxis as well.

Nor is there any question that the global proliferation of Hollywood cinema is part of a broader imperialist movement in geopolitics. Whether consciously or unconsciously, American films reflect and reinforce uniquely capitalist values and to this extent pose a threat to the political, economic, and cultural sovereignty of other nations and peoples. It is for the most part naïve of cultural studies critics to assign “agency” to non-American consumers who are not only saturated with alien commodities but increasingly denied the ability to produce and consume native commodities. At the same time, none of this entails that competing film industries are by definition “liberatory.” Global capitalism is not the sole or even the principal locus of repressive power; it is merely one manifestation of such power among many. Ostensibly anti-capitalist or counter-hegemonic movements at the level of culture can and often do become repressive in their own right — as, for example, in the case of nationalist cinemas which advocate terrorism, religious fundamentalism, and the subjugation of women under the banner of “anti-imperialism.”

The point here, which reinforces several ideas already introduced, is that neither the American film industry nor film industries as such are intrinsically reducible to a unitary source of repressive power. As a social formation or assemblage, cinema is a product of a complex array of forces. To this extent it always and already contains both potentially liberatory and potentially repressive components. In other words, a genuinely nomadic cinema — one which deterritorializes itself and escapes the overcoding of repressive state apparatuses — is not only possible but in some sense inevitable. Such a cinema, moreover, will emerge neither on the side of the producer nor of the consumer, but rather in the complex interstices that exist between them. I therefore agree with Cohn that anarchist cultural studies (and, by extension, anarchist film theory) has as one of its chief goals the “extrapolation” of latent revolutionary ideas in cultural practices and products (where “extrapolation” is understood in the sense of actively and creatively realizing possibilities rather than simply “discovering” actualities already present) (Cohn, 2009: 412). At the same time, I believe anarchist film theory must play a role in creating a new and distinctively anarchist cinema — “a cinema of liberation.”

Such a cinema would perforce involve alliances between artists and audiences with a mind to blurring such distinctions altogether. It would be the responsibility neither of an elite “avant-garde” which produces underground films, nor of subaltern consumer “cults” which produce fanzines and organize conventions in an attempt to appropriate and “talk back to” mainstream films. As we have seen, apparatuses of repression easily overcode both such strategies. By effectively dismantling rigid distinctions between producers and consumers, its films would be financed, produced, distributed, and displayed by and for their intended audiences. However, far from being a mere reiteration of the independent or DIY ethic — which, again, has been appropriated time and again by the culture industry — anarchist cinema would be self — consciously political at the level of form and content; its medium and message would be unambiguously anti — authoritarian, unequivocally opposed to all forms of repressive power.

Lastly, anarchist cinema would retain an emphasis on artistic integrity — the putative value of innovative cinematography, say, or compelling narrative. It would, in other words, seek to preserve and expand upon whatever makes cinema powerful as a medium and as an art-form. This refusal to relegate cinema to either a mere commodity form or a mere vehicle of propaganda is itself an act of refusal replete with political potential. The ultimate liberation of cinema from the discourse of political struggle is arguably the one cinematic development that would not, and could not, be appropriated and commodified by repressive social formations.

In this essay I have drawn upon the insights of Foucault and Deleuze to sketch an “anarchist” approach to the analysis of film — on which constitutes a middle ground between the “top-down” theories of the Frankfurt School and the “bottom-up” theories of cultural studies. Though I agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that cinema can be used as an instrument of repression, as is undoubtedly the case with the contemporary film industry, I have argued at length that cinema as such is neither inherently repressive nor inherently liberatory. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that the politics of cinema cannot be situated exclusively in the designs of the culture industry nor in the interpretations and responses of consumer-subjects. An anarchist analysis of cinema must emerge precisely where cinema itself does — at the intersection of mutually reinforcing forces of production and consumption.

[a-small-batch-of-dragons]

so i finished my rewatch of tdj with a friend and i mentioned how i had so many brain gremlins about the dike app and she was like ‘so write it’

so

i actually don’t know if this is the kind of content this fandom goes for but if it is let me know, may or may not be planning one of these for my name whenever i finish that

actually the dike app is one of the most integral and least talked about part of the live court show because it enables the mob justice that the elite wanted to satiate while also revealing the flaws in democracy and justice systems through holding people accountable in this essay i will

 As a disclaimer, I am not Korean, nor do I claim to have any expert knowledge of the Korean Justice System. I am coming at this analysis from a Western perspective and I make no claims on the singularity or exceptionalism of the arguments I make here. I will not be touching on the ethics of having a live court show to a large extent, nor will I be speculating on why the DIKE app was designed the way it was on a software level. I am simply pulling at a lingering thread that the show left hanging and seeing where it goes.

 To begin with, let us examine the premise on which the live court show was created. The opening of the pilot introduces us to a future dystopian Korea where the President is announcing the start of a live court, where the trials will be live-streamed for the entire nation to see. The people of Korea will be able to act as a jury for this new court by voting live as it airs via an app they can download onto their phones. This news comes at the end of a speech about the state of the country, including the Gwuanghwamun Riot, which he states is the culmination of public outrage due to ‘ungrounded propaganda against the privileged.’ (Ep. 1) Throughout the course of the episode, it becomes clear that the members of the caucus view the live court show as a distraction for the public, or at the very least, a method of satiating their need for progress. The live court show will have ‘the entire nation take part’ in the restoration of ‘law and order,’ which fulfills this need. The President’s speech is played over footage of the riot. We see people throwing things, breaking things, smashing windows and destroying property. The parallels drawn between the riot and the formation of the live court show effectively connect them as two acts of mob justice. One is the more expected version; an angry group of people enacting violence in a public space in protest. The other, more obfuscated. Yet both are what can be described as ‘baiting crowds,’ crowds that form with reference to quickly attainable goals. “The crowd is out for killing and it knows whom it wants to kill.” (Cannetti 49) The live court show takes the crowd’s destructive wrath and arms it in a different way, under the legitimation from the ruling party and the notion of justice, the killing is done with silent violence, or at the very least, an abstracted one. The live court show functions as a government sanctioned mob justice. The real executions of the sentences are carried out by the crowd witnessing them. The DIKE app enables this by providing the casting of the vote and bearing witness to the sentencing. In this way, the hunger of the crowd is satiated and its ire redirected.

 Of course, a crucial aspect of the baiting crowd and the roar of mob justice is that the mob is out to kill and it knows whom it wants to kill. The live court show can only offer targets for the mob that it selects, and herein lies another aspect of its creation. The cases are selected by the presiding judge and, at least in theory, the members of the caucus. As such, the mob only has power when it is given to them. Voting for the outcome of the trial then becomes a poor man’s currency that can only be used in a rich man’s game; there is an illusion of justice being carried out when it is completely under the caucus’s control which cases get chosen and what the sentence will be—we see the Prosecution offering sentences for each trial and the choice of which cases are tried comes up many times throughout the show. A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is not worth much when the question has already been crafted for you—there is a reason that you can object to a leading question in court. From the caucus’ perspective, they can satiate the hunger of the crowd by offering them a say in what happens to the defendant, but the defendant is someone they choose whose sentence will be passed by someone they can control. The public does not have as much power over the execution of their justice as it may seem. Of course, this assumes that they are able to control the presiding judge, but examining the live court show by itself, there is a logic behind its creation. Once the baiting crowd has attained its victim, it disintegrates; “rulers in danger are well aware of this fact and throw a victim to the crowd in order to impede its growth.” (Cannetti 52) As such, the live court show is used as a method of control instead of freedom, a way to calm and distract the roar of the public when its voices grow too loud by projecting the illusion that they are being listened to.

 So we’ve discussed what the live court show was created to do, now let us examine what else it does. Regardless of which judge presides over the live court, there are consequences to live streaming a trial for people to vote on. One important aspect that has yet to be covered is the visibility of the live trials. These trials are designed to be seen, they are designed to be interactive, they are designed to be open. But within that, there are shadows created—some intentional, some unintentional—that undermine that sense of visibility. I make a point of saying visibility and not transparency because as discussed earlier and evidenced in the show, while the trials are indeed visible, the machinations going on around and behind them are anything but transparent. We as the viewing audience have more of an insight into their nature than the in-show public would thanks to the privilege of the fourth wall and we still get misled. When it comes to systems of power, visibility and transparency are two very different things, and while transparency serves to place the power in the hands of people who use the system, visibility in many ways serves to take that power away from them.

 When the live trials take place, they can be seen on screens everywhere in the nation. We see them in public squares, on television networks, and on the DIKE app itself. The public watching the trial can vote and immediately see the results of their vote on the graphics, totaling the votes from the DIKE app and displaying the total number of votes and their respective percentages. The consequences of voting are immediately visible. What this does in turn is make the effects of disciplinary power immediately visible, or as Foucault would describe it, “it is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection.” (187) The reason that the threat of the live court show is so prominent is because it puts the focus of the entire nation on the defendant, rendering them the most visible person. This is the mechanism that traps you in the disciplinary web.

 There are two aspects, however, to an effective system of surveillance that Foucault describes. One is visibility, the other is unverifiability. (201-2) The defendant knows they are on trial. They know the trial is being live-streamed. They know that people are watching. They know that their verdict is going to be decided based off of the votes cast by people on the other side of phone lines and mobile apps. But they can’t see them. In a strange inversion of the Panopticon that Foucault describes, “in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen,” (202) the defendant is in a circular room, seen by all, whereas the mass outside is able to look its fill without ever being seen. The DIKE app enables what Foucault calls “a principle of compulsory visibility,” (187) where the power is dispersed among numerous anonymous and temporary observers, each of which has the ability to judge and control the fate of the defendant. There is no way to verify the existence of this power; even during the trial in Episode 3 where the individual videos and testimonies are called in, there are no checks, no verifications—this is something the trial hinges on—and yet it works. Because the risk of the defendant being surprised and the anxiety over the awareness of being observed is so heightened, the system works. Episode 3 is the clearest illustration of this principle in its entirety, but the implications stretch out over the rest of the show. Because of the nature of the DIKE app and its role in the live trial, it creates a constant field of visibility. It turns each person into the observer of themselves, knowing the constraints of the power. If everyone in the country is your jury, how must you comport yourself to avoid an undesirable verdict? You must first be arrested and convicted before you stand trial, that’s true, but the ever-present threat the live trials pose are far more effective at creating an atmosphere of discipline. As such, it breeds a loyalty to the crowd and a disloyalty to the individual. If the allure of the crowd is to disappear into one of the anonymous observers, to become part of a mass that forgets everything but the roar of the next collective kill, then the other side of that is the threat of being under the observatory’s roof, of being the one with all the eyes that cannot be seen. If those are the only two options, it makes sense that the public would eagerly look the other way when another body is thrown into the live court, or do the dirty work of eliminating the caucus’ rivals for them.

 Or, at least, it would had the caucus not chosen to prop up a judge who had a personal vendetta against all of them, but we all make mistakes.

 The truth of the matter is for the first few episodes, the live court show works exactly as it is supposed to, it’s just aimed in a direction the caucus doesn’t want, namely, at them. The public is satisfied with the sentences Yohan delivers, the defendants are most decidedly not. Public support for the live court show continues to grow, even through controversial decisions and escalating stakes. And the live court show grows more and more powerful to the point where it becomes instrumental in overthrowing the caucus itself. Hurrah.

 The whole course of the show is Yohan’s journey to vengeance or justice—take your pick—on the caucus for what happened with the church fire. But one thing that goes overlooked in the main drama of the show is the notion of accountability. The notion of accountability and Yohan’s character make up a significant amount of the plot points, especially considering Gaon as the viewing audience’s main character. The live court show under Yohan’s jurisdiction is about holding people accountable to their actions: Ju Il-do and his contaminated water supply, Lee Young-min and his abusive actions, Nam Seok-hoon and his sexual assault charges, and Jukchang and his vigilantism. In Episode 3, we have the line: “I will see to it that no case is overlooked,” and we see the public respond to it. Additionally, it’s clear Yohan understands that the live court show is mob justice. In the same episode, we see Gaon realizing why Lee Young-min’s trial needed to be open to draw out the testimonies from the people watching, and we see Yohan encouraging the Prosecution to change the indictment from simple assault to habitual assault, saying that “if you take too long, all this fury may be directed at the Prosecution next.” (Ep. 3) Later, in Episode 13, during his confrontation with the President, we have the line: “I will summon you to the live court show and expose all of your schemes, until the angry citizens turn this place into a sea of fire and drag you out by the collar, like a dog .” Mob justice is volatile, easily redirected, and as we’ve seen, a force unto itself. The DIKE app becomes the vessel through which it is carried out; the streaming of the slum riot in Episode 13 is successful because of the DIKE app, as is the climactic showdown in Episode 16. The technology created by the caucus has become its downfall by enabling the very observation and visibility it was supposed to divert. And here we see the DIKE app divorced fully from the live court show; the live court show was created and run by Park Du-man, a member of the caucus, shut down and to be replaced by an emergency court instead, whereas the DIKE app became synonymous with Yohan, the PD, and the platform where the public can vote and have their voices heard.

 But Yohan isn’t just holding the caucus accountable, it’s everyone. As mentioned above, the live court show has ethical questions I will not be looking discuss here, but it provides a layer of abstraction to the votes people cast within it. There’s only a certain amount of resonance and/or personal investment you can get from tapping a button on your phone, even if you can directly see what’s happening. Even if the sentences are pronounced after the verdict, you’ve still cast your vote, you’ve still had a hand in deciding the fate of the defendant. This comes to a head in Episode 14, when every vote cast raises the voltage on the electric chair until the defendant is executed. The exact consequences, implications, and ramifications of this I will not be discussing, but the distance between the traditional concepts of mob justice and the distanced, often guiltless versions present in newspaper readers and those who participate in cancelling people on line is closed rapidly. In this forum, the DIKE app quite literally becomes the hands and fists of the executioner’s crowd, enabling the mob to kill Jukchang with their own hands. In some ways, this is the recognition of the extreme proposed by Foucault’s analysis of Panopticon, where the inmate is subject to the perils of being in the disciplinary web. In the act of holding the public accountable for the votes they cast and the consequences of participating in the system, we see the crowd start to disintegrate. We see people starting to question whether or not this is something they should be doing, we see a mother yanking the phone away from children who keep voting for Jukchang to die. When a personal connection is formed, when you are no longer part of the crowd and are instead an individual, the anonymity of the crowd no longer protects you and thus, you are no longer safe in the disciplinary web. As soon as you become visible, the system no longer benefits you.

 But is that true?  It isn’t the system of the live court show the public has faith in, it’s Yohan. We see this in how the public reacts after Gaon’s press conference where he says it was all rigged; they do not care. Three times over the course of the series, Yohan puts himself—or is put—in the center of the courtroom, on trial for the mob to serve their justice. And yet, every time, he isn’t a defendant, he’s a person. The mob has every reason to treat him no differently than the other people that have been caught in the disciplinary web, and yet, they don’t, because mob justice is volatile and easily redirected. A central theme in the show is that democracy is inherently flawed because people can be easily manipulated. Justice systems too are subject to people with agendas, and agendas change. It’s not a coincidence that the reason the public lose faith in the systems that brought them the live court show is the man who made himself appear as a person in front of it.

 On a textual level, this is what the live court show and the DIKE app do. But, metatextually, what purpose does it have in the show itself? Well, for one, it helps to reinforce the idea that we are all, at the end of the day, just people. The systems we have in place are manipulated by people with the privilege to do so but that also means there are ways to fight them as a person. Getting lost in the crowd is one of the major allures of it and trying to think as a person in a crowd is difficult. But if we all think as people and not crowds, that’s how we move forward. Crowds disintegrate, people are left. And we see this; we see it in the way the PD chooses to help them livestream the slum riots, we see it in the people in the Dream Home project that choose to put themselves at risk to help Gaon get the footage, we see it in the intern who opens the door for Lawyer Ko and the others to help them go live. Episode 16 is a realistic portrayal of what would happen: the mob is satiated and the systems roll back into place, ready to forget the lessons they’ve learned from the violence. But human beings are not systems, they’re humans, and nothing human is ever perfect. There are simply too many people for this to be forgotten and for the real legacy of the live court show to disappear into oblivion. There will always be at least one person left alive to tell the story.

 And, well, we all know what people are like about a good story.

Obviously, I make no claims that any of these are complete thoughts, nor are they fully fleshed out, but they were bonking around my head for a little too long for it to be comfortable and I haven’t personally seen anyone talking about the DIKE app like this yet so! Thought I’d throw this out there, see what people thought.

stuff i cited:

Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power

Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish

[ukrainenews]

Daily Wrap Up May 19, 2022

Under the cut: US Congress finally approved $40 billion in aid to Ukraine; Russia claims they have lasers that can “incinerate” targets (I remain skeptical on this, as does most of the media, there is no video proof); There may still be Azov commanders in the Azovstal steel plant and the current number of people still in the plant is unknown; Google pulls its employees out of Russia; 21-year-old Russian soldier asked a Ukrainian widow to forgive him for the murder of her husband (a 62 year old unarmed man) in his war crimes trial.

“The US Congress on Thursday approved $40bn in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, with both parties eagerly backing the latest effort to support an ally under brutal assault by Russia.

The US Senate gave final approval to the measure in a vote of 86-11, with all Democrats and most Republicans in favor. The measure will next go to Biden for signature, nearly three weeks after the US president asked Congress for a smaller, $33bn version of the bill.

In a statement, Biden thanked Congress for working together – a rarity these days – to send a “clear bipartisan message to the world that the people of the United States stand together with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their democracy and freedom.””-via The Guardian

~

“Russia’s promise to use lasers to shoot down drones in Ukraine has prompted widespread scepticism that the novel and possibly nuclear-powered weaponry could be deployed on the battlefield or have any significant impact on the war, Dan Sabbagh and Pjotr Sauer report.

Yuri Borisov, Russia’s deputy prime minister, told the country’s Channel One television station that the new Zadira directed-energy weapon could destroy targets up to 5km away, and had incinerated a drone in five seconds in a test.

But there was no immediate evidence to back up the claim, while Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, belittled the claim, describing it as a “wunderwaffe” – a nonexistent “wonder weapon” that was originally a propaganda invention of the Nazis.”-via The Guardian

~

“Deputy Commander of the Azov Regiment Svyatoslav Palamar said that the management and he are on the territory of the Azovstal plant as of May 19.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, 771 more fighters of the Azov Regiment left Azovstal the day before, and a total of  1,730 fighters , including 80 wounded, have left since May 16.” -via Pravda (Ukrainian language)

“Russia’s defence ministry, according to their morning briefing on Telegram, has said 1,730 fighters have surrendered from Azovstal since Monday. That includes a further 771 who surrendered, they say, in the last 24 hours. 80 were wounded. The Russian defence ministry says “those in need of inpatient treatment receive assistance in medical institutions” in Novoazovsk and Donetsk.

The International Committee for Red Cross has stated that it has now registered “hundreds” of Ukrainian POWs who left the Azovstal steel plant this week.”-via The Guardian

~

“Google has reportedly pulled out of Russia, and many employees there have moved to Dubai.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that most of Google’s Russia-based employees had chosen to leave the country, and that the company will soon have no workforce presence in Russia amid the country’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

Russian authorities reportedly emptied Google’s main Russian bank account after a court froze it in March. Unnamed sources declined to tell the Journal how much the government took, but it left Google without the money to pay its Russia-based employees and vendors. As a result, Google’s Russian subsidiary will file for bankruptcy, Reuters reported Wednesday.

Google told Reuters and the Journal that it will continue to offer free services in Russia, including Search, YouTube, Gmail and Maps. But Google hasn’t brought back advertising operations in Russia since suspending them in March. Russia also banned Facebook and Instagram in March after calling Meta "extremist."”-via Protocol (There’s a Wall Street Journal article as well, but it’s behind a paywall.)

~

CW: Death. I include this because Kateryna Shalipova, the widow of the man who was murdered, says, “she would not object if Shishimarin [a Russian soldier who shot her husband] was released to Russia as part of a prisoner swap to get “our boys” out of the port city of Mariupol, a reference to hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have given themselves up to Russia.” Her husband was 62 and unarmed when he was killed.

A 21-year-old Russian soldier asked a Ukrainian widow to forgive him for the murder of her husband, as a court in Kyiv met today for a second hearing in the first war crimes trial arising from Russia’s 24 February invasion.

Vadim Shishimarin, a tank commander, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to killing an unarmed 62-year-old civilian in the north-east Ukrainian village of Chupakhivka on 28 February.

“I acknowledge my blame … I ask you to forgive me,” he told the widow, Kateryna Shalipova, Reuters reports.

The widow told the court she had heard distant shots fired from their yard and that she had called out to her husband the day he was killed.

“I ran over to my husband, he was already dead. Shot in the head. I screamed, I screamed so much,” she said.

Shalipova told the court she would not object if Shishimarin was released to Russia as part of a prisoner swap to get “our boys” out of the port city of Mariupol, a reference to hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have given themselves up to Russia.

The Kremlin has said it has no information about the trial and that the absence of a diplomatic mission in Ukraine limits its ability to provide legal assistance.

-via The Guardian