#implied totalitarianism

[dykedvonte]

I think it’s so ironic that the Pony Express escapes a lot if not all blame in discussion. I can’t even say I am excused from it but it’s just how hard people circle back to the characters alone without considering the environment they were made to be in.

Why would they design a ship where only two of the rooms lock? Not the bathroom? Not the sleeping quarters? We assume that all the companies in the universe are this shallow and careless to their workers but we explicitly know the Pony Express in extra vile. They are fed processed slop pack they can’t even really cook and the ration of those pack is meager at best. They hired and made people with a plethora of conflicting demeanors and beliefs work together on a mission where cohesion is important if not an outright necessity and punish them for not being happy about it. There’s no social protocols, not chain of command other than Captain’s word/choice and the only way to enforce that is with a literal firearm. They don’t allow them to celebrate freely and even took away leisure activities that would make them less stir crazy. They are only allowed a few hours of sleep despite their being no other real responsibilities or work on the ship, no matter the position or its importance. With any crew, with any level of synergy, this was a powder keg waiting for a spark.

I’m not saying characters that made mistakes didn’t make huge ones, but I think part of the horror is that at least for some (this is targeting Jimathan) those mistakes are partly made by a force of the hand. There’s a running theme of lack of choice and being forced into something and the very nature of how The Pony Express expected them to function plays a big part.

[comicaurora]

top three changes to the star wars franchise?

Like, top three things I would change if I was in charge of the franchise top to bottom?

This is Big Cheating calling it "one change", but scrap the prequels. The original trilogy already implied an incredibly simple by-the-numbers dark fantasy origin story for Obi-Wan and Anakin and if we strip away the space veneer we can easily see that Anakin's original backstory was implied to be "prodigy warrior-wizard is tempted by dark magic (and an established evil sorcerer-emperor who has clearly been in power for more than a scant 18 years by the time of the original trilogy) which slowly corrupts and twists him into a monster who eventually has a fight with obi-wan that he loses, also he has a relationship with a woman who survives to raise Leia for at least a few years". Those are the only points you need to hit, and you could tell a very compelling simple-meal-well-made sword and sorcery adventure with a guaranteed tragic ending. The original prequels fail at holding to the ONLY points of canon they needed to hit - the innately corruptive power of the dark side SLOWLY leading to Anakin's downfall, the empire being an existing threat for a long time and the jedi correspondingly being an ANCIENT religion rather than being less ancient than 9/11, and Padme being alive enough for Leia to remember her a little bit. Close your eyes, clear your mind, let the tropes flow through you - a By-The-Numbers Story will come to you and you will see the completely inoffensive prequel tragedy we could've had. Also, never show Yoda, preserve the fun twist in the original movies.

Easy change for this one. Finn's a force-user with a plot about inspiring a stormtrooper rebellion, another plot that literally writes itself, also let the sequel trio actually all hang out for more than five fuckin minutes because the only thing that ever made Star Wars work was the raw charisma of the actors having a good time and the chemistry was really solid for the only time in the final movie they were allowed to share screentime.

And while we're gutting the sequels, how about letting the hero's victories actually fucking matter. Luke gets to actually reinvigorate the jedi way and doesn't have all his victories ripped away in the name of sequel bait, and can serve as an extremely powerful but very busy Jedi Ex Machina who turns up in the darkest hour to save the day, Mandalorian-s1-finale style. The Empire doesn't just get magically replaced with Empire 2, Now With Less Charisma, let the threat be something actually new or a natural consequence of a newly liberated galaxy in sudden turmoil - feudal tyrants ruling over planetary fiefdoms squabbling to fill the Emperor's power-vacuum, more sith lords coming out of the woodwork now that their greatest rival is gone. Leia and the other rebel leaders struggling to reinstate some semblance of democracy in a scarred and shattered galaxy too accustomed to the crushing totalitarianism of the empire. How goddamn unoriginal to start a sequel by undoing every happy ending from the original series for retreaded drama, as if the universe could only ever hold three problems in it.

[txttletale]

what do you think of "extremism". i see it used often in the context of like, horseshoe theory, the "extreme" right is like the "extreme" left, or at least the two sides of the same coin, and i do have to wonder if that's not obscuring what's actually happening to profit a "both sides" narrative.

like for example, i think that right-wingers becoming "extreme" is simply a natural conclusion of their ideology. tbc i don't think that becoming, like, a fascist isn't "extreme", but whenever i see the word "extremism" used in this context the implication is "passed the tolerable threshold for bigotry" even tho i think that any kind of sustained bigotry was just going to turn into that anyways.

meanwhile for the left, i can actually sort of see an argument for that being the case, but most cases of "extremism" there usually seem to be fundamental misunderstandings in the ideology they're pushing for which leads to blind dogmatism rather than actual social-political analysis and activism, if that makes sense. i don't know if that counts as "taking it too far", which extremism would imply.

what do you think?

'extremism', much like 'totalitarianism', is an obfuscatory tactic to delegitimize radical positions by posting a false equivalency to fascism, racism, &c.

furthermore, because what makes a position 'extreme' or 'not extreme' is of course profoundly contingent on the status quo, the broad and nebulous concept is similarly used as a repressive cudgel against all dissent and the existence of marginalized communities. for example, prevent (the uk's "counter-extremism" program) is basically just a vector for state-sponsored islamophobic harrassment. in fact, the uk government has recently unveiled plans to use broad and far-reaching charges of 'extremism' against any group or ideology that 'undermines the uk's institutions and values' (!)

so, yeah. i don't think that the concept of 'extremism' has any value outside of that paradigm of proscribing acceptable relations to the status quo & power and tarring socialist, anti-imperialist, and social justice causes with the brush of some unspecified equivalency to fascism and hate groups. silly concept for unserious people

[cringefaecompilation]

Do we know if the Silken Squall is 100% run by Dorian's parents or if there's like a council of elders or something and the Wyvernwind's are the figureheads?

Because from the little that we know of his parents, they don't seem like the kind of people who'd use Zone of Truth as a punishment or who's children would runaway and go no contact with.

At least not without the involvement of a few meddling old people high on power.

from what we know, they're a ruling family. potentially the highest form of ruling, but we won't know until we get there. and we'd better god damn it.

i'm not particularly a fan of the "evil old people secretly running the show" concept, since that was done to death with both the ruling family of emon and the dwendalian empire. i think that being protective or outwardly defensive of a culture that has historically nearly "fallen" to agressive forces could lead someone to overcorrect in various ways. see the distrust of non-air genasi and murdering people to keep them from telling secrets.

and dorian said that his father loves him, but crucially does not trust him. so i doubt zeru's actions were malicious (as sadly MANY people made him out to be prior to seeing him in the flesh and still do), but dorian still feels uncomfortable about being candid with him in a way that is not prioritizing "making his family proud" so... yeah. they might not have done it themselves but they weren't opposed to it.

plus, it's fine to have a people be imperfect or over-defensive! they can have layers! just, y'know. don't use those imperfections to imply total moral bankruptcy or totalitarianism.

[attonitos-gloria]

I am screaming this from rooftops and going slightly insane :)

I keep coming back to this - innocent as a little lamb - because Tyrion is not technically lying here at this point in the story. He is actually innocent of the crime Catelyn is arresting him for and accusing him of. He's also not exactly plotting a coup - if his family were he would cooperate, but at this point he is ignorant of it. At his best, he suspects it. (Not that I'm saying he is without his vices, lol just placing this within the context of his wrongful imprisonment.)

But the thing is, reading this for the second time and knowing what's to come, Tyrion was right at his trial. This is a fight he couldn't win; he is seen as too weak to be considered a proper Man, but he is also too dangerous to be trusted. This is how Othering works in Westeros and in our world, it's a rigged game. Whatever he says or does - it will be used against him, so he might as well turn this hypocrisy into ambivalence and he does! Intentionally! All the time! Like he is straight up telling the truth - he's literally innocent - but he is also weaponizing this thing that goes unsaid to be wielded in his favor. And the fact that his Lannister name is both another layer of reason why people mistrust him and the only material reason he is able to escape alive at all just adds..... SO much flavor.

And this keeps coming back in his chapters, particularly at the start of his downfall. Neither Shae nor Tywin were expecting him to actually kill them, because Tyrion kind of lacks the basic male prerogative of violence on the grounds of not being seen as a proper specimen of a male by Westerosi standard - innocent as a little lamb! how could a half man even hurt you! - and I love how fighting back against this is precisely what makes him increasingly more violent, the whole "I will become exactly the monster you think I am" arc. Like. Tyrion is pure ambiguity, to his core, I think I'm physically incapable of shutting up about this.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.3 Are anarchists in favour of organisation?

Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty cannot exist without society and organisation. As George Barrett pointed out:

“To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow-men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom. “If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk. “If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government.” [Objections to Anarchism, pp. 348–9]

As far as organisation goes, anarchists think that “far from creating authority, [it] is the only cure for it and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being passive instruments in the hands of leaders.” [Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 86] Thus anarchists are well aware of the need to organise in a structured and open manner. As Carole Ehrlich points out, while anarchists “aren’t opposed to structure” and simply “want to abolish hierarchical structure” they are “almost always stereotyped as wanting no structure at all.” This is not the case, for “organisations that would build in accountability, diffusion of power among the maximum number of persons, task rotation, skill-sharing, and the spread of information and resources” are based on “good social anarchist principles of organisation!” [“Socialism, Anarchism and Feminism”, Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, p. 47 and p. 46]

The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at first, but it is understandable. “For those with experience only of authoritarian organisation,” argue two British anarchists, “it appears that organisation can only be totalitarian or democratic, and that those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in organisation at all. That is not so.” [Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In other words, because we live in a society in which virtually all forms of organisation are authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of society — one whose motive principles are domination and exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.

Prior to that time, for hundreds of thousands of years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls “organic,” that is, based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid, free access to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings based on age, there were no hierarchies in the sense of institutionalised dominance-subordination relations enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom).

It must be emphasised, however, that anarchists do not advocate going “back to the Stone Age.” We merely note that since the hierarchical-authoritarian mode of organisation is a relatively recent development in the course of human social evolution, there is no reason to suppose that it is somehow “fated” to be permanent. We do not think that human beings are genetically “programmed” for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, as there is no credible evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, such behaviour is socially conditioned, or learned, and as such, can be unlearned (see Ashley Montagu, The Nature of Human Aggression). We are not fatalists or genetic determinists, but believe in free will, which means that people can change the way they do things, including the way they organise society.

And there is no doubt that society needs to be better organised, because presently most of its wealth — which is produced by the majority — and power gets distributed to a small, elite minority at the top of the social pyramid, causing deprivation and suffering for the rest, particularly for those at the bottom. Yet because this elite controls the means of coercion through its control of the state (see section B.2.3), it is able to suppress the majority and ignore its suffering — a phenomenon that occurs on a smaller scale within all hierarchies. Little wonder, then, that people within authoritarian and centralised structures come to hate them as a denial of their freedom. As Alexander Berkman puts it:

“Any one who tells you that Anarchists don’t believe in organisation is talking nonsense. Organisation is everything, and everything is organisation. The whole of life is organisation, conscious or unconscious … But there is organisation and organisation. Capitalist society is so badly organised that its various members suffer: just as when you have a pain in some part of you, your whole body aches and you are ill… , not a single member of the organisation or union may with impunity be discriminated against, suppressed or ignored. To do so would be the same as to ignore an aching tooth: you would be sick all over.” [Op. Cit., p. 198]

Yet this is precisely what happens in capitalist society, with the result that it is, indeed, “sick all over.”

For these reasons, anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement. Free agreement is important because, in Berkman’s words, ”[o]nly when each is a free and independent unit, co-operating with others from his own choice because of mutual interests, can the world work successfully and become powerful.” [Op. Cit., p. 199] As we discuss in section A.2.14, anarchists stress that free agreement has to be complemented by direct democracy (or, as it is usually called by anarchists, self-management) within the association itself otherwise “freedom” become little more than picking masters.

Anarchist organisation is based on a massive decentralisation of power back into the hands of the people, i.e. those who are directly affected by the decisions being made. To quote Proudhon:

“Unless democracy is a fraud and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his [or her] industry, each municipal, district or provincial council within its own territory … should act directly and by itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 276]

It also implies a need for federalism to co-ordinate joint interests. For anarchism, federalism is the natural complement to self-management. With the abolition of the State, society “can, and must, organise itself in a different fashion, but not from top to bottom … The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal. Then alone will be realised the true and life-giving order of freedom and the common good, that order which, far from denying, on the contrary affirms and brings into harmony the interests of individuals and of society.” [Bakunin, Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 205–6] Because a “truly popular organisation begins … from below” and so “federalism becomes a political institution of Socialism, the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life.” Thus libertarian socialism “is federalistic in character.” [Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 273–4 and p. 272]

Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or self-management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls “the creative role of dissent.” Federalism is necessary to ensure that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down by a few rulers.

Anarchist ideas on libertarian organisation and the need for direct democracy and confederation will be discussed further in sections A.2.9 and A.2.11.

[caesarflickermans]

oh we’re talking about the heavensbees? i’m sat. please tell me about the heavensbees

We know that Heavensbee is a family of old money. Their background and ties into specific industries are an expansion of my ideas surrounding Plutarch, whose detailed knowledge of the old world seems like an extraordinary trait even by Capitol standards. I assume that most Capitol residents have limited access to historic knowledge, which in turn often has been rewritten in a pro-Panem lens.

Plutarch's book-canon knowledge and belief in democracy—somewhat akin to eternal recurrence in assumptions about circular developments of nations—stands out to me not only as an individual trait, but as a family connection.

To me, the Heavensbees have a monopoly on education and propaganda.

The Heavensbee Hall in the Academy and the movies visualising this aspect into the Trajan Heavensbee statue might speak of relative power held, but their placement in educational spots sparks my curiosity.

While some have rightfully given significance to Trajan's namesake and assumed a founding father role, I have read Trajan's tagline ("Father of Panem") with a stronger parental, educational relationship. To me, Trajan might have been the father of Panem due to having carried educational reforms to reshape child and teenage education in the totalitarian state, placing himself as the benevolent, loving father ready to teach his children (Panem's citizens) a skewed view of the world.

This focus would explain the reason as to why the Academy, Capitol's elite school, has such ties to the Heavensbees.

These developments taking place around the founding of Panem would have granted the Heavensbees influence within elite society, assuring that each generation holds a continued sway in any and all political decisions.

Following the Dark Days, I headcanon that the Heavensbees masterfully inserted themselves into the newly evolving Games industry as Head Gamemakers and personnel surrounding the Games. While these roles are technical in nature, they nonetheless carry a form of state propaganda—What angles to show? What tributes to focus on? How to frame the victor?—which suited the Heavensbees just fine.

I read the Heavensbee family akin to various political families of our time; their influence is ever present—comparable to the Kennedy and Bush families as political office-holders, Murdochs as media moguls, or Succession's fictional Roy family (play theme music!) . Each generation has at least one Heavensbee working somewhere, and their grip on power is not based on a single individual, albeit successful ones are always highlighted. Snow's dislike of Hilarius had made me assume he was not as successful. I do not read him as Plutarch's father. Instead, I see him as an uncle that, while he made it to Head Gamemaker, was not there due to talent or success, but due to his family's connections.

Hilarius is significant as a connection to Plutarch, as I outline in my fanfiction that an uncle—and that uncle's mysterious disappearance—inspired much of Plutarch's rebellion. In addition, this implies that one Heavensbee failing—in this case Hilarius—does not hurt the overall family all too much. Another Heavensbee succeeding, such as Plutarch—and I purposefully mirror them here—has a tremendous impact on Panem's society

In contrast to the rest of the Capitol and the Districts, the Heavensbees have access to the information they sought to restrict. This is the reason as to why Plutarch has enough knowledge of democracy to implement that system following Panem's second rebellion. I've envisioned physical objects—books, art, tokens—that the Heavensbee family has continued to own both as a symbol of exclusive knowledge and hypocrisy within elite society.

[preservationofnormalcy]

So, I remember a while ago that you said that OPN was originally going to be darker, but then it ended up shifting due to how people interacted with it.

Would you say that the BSA event was a sort of glimpse into what it was originally going to be like?

Wow, that’s a great question.

For those who missed it, a week or so ago we did an event involving the Bureau for Supernatural Affairs, which was a glimpse into an alternate universe (by way of a quantum potentiality simulation developed by Ambrose, the Office’s local wizard) where the OPN was a much darker and totalitarian entity.

That wasn’t intentional, but now that you say that, that’s a great way to look at that. The BSA is darker than the OPN would have been, but not by much. The biggest difference is in the BSAverse we pretty heavily implied that there isn’t a veil anymore - the masquerade was broken sometime in the 1980s.

There’s not much I’ve dropped from any previous darker version of the OPN, mostly stuff I’ve accentuated or focused on less. The interviews with Meghan still retain a lot of that darker tone.

It’s still a good comparison, but keep in mind that while the tone of the setting has indeed shifted, a lot of what we see in asks is colored by Norm’s voice as a dedicated company man.

[cptsvensen]

actually elaborating on this but pointing out that west germany copied things from the nazis and conveniently leaving out that east germany did the exact same and that both the allies and the ussr did a shit job denazifying their respective sectors is more than a little questionable

just saw a post portraying the gdr in a positive light......... are you people being like. for real

[komododraggggqueen]

Julia by Sandra Newman is a terrible book and here’s why

“Julia never actually liked Winston Smith, she actually thought he was pretentious and annoying.”

So why does she repeatedly tell him she loves him

“She’s lying.”

But why

“She was a honeytrap by the Thought Police.”

But she acts surprised when the Thought Police come to arrest her

“She’s been told to act surprised.”

So she’s just doing as she’s told for the entire novel and never makes any decisions for herself

“Yes! It’s what she has to do to survive! That’s the point of the book!”

Really because she never once says that when she’s being used as a whore for the Thought Police, if anything it seems like she’s motivated by the prospect of getting a new flat, plus she seems to put actual effort into adopting the party’s ideology, so clearly it’s not just about survival…

“Okay so Julia’s motivations are a little confused, but this book adds so much that Orwell didn’t consider in the original!”

Like what

“The Holodomor.”

Jesus Christ…

“No, but it’s the survival theme again, she sells her mother out in order to escape the famine!”

Okay, and how does she feel about that?

“She doesn’t, she was only a kid, she can’t hold herself responsible.”

Really? Because Winston held himself responsible for the deaths of his mother and sister, and he was only a kid, it’s part of what makes him so complex…

“Well that wouldn’t work here anyway.”

Why not?

“Julia’s mother makes her do it.”

Are you serious? Does Julia make a single decision in the entire story?

“Of course! She runs away at the end.”

What, when she’s seven months pregnant and has been tortured and starved for months? I thought this was supposed to be about providing a woman’s perspective on the original; what woman would choose to go for a cross country run in that physical state?

“Julia’s built different. She doesn’t even get scared when the rats jump onto her face.”

Why would she? It’s never established that she was scared of them in the first place!

“She bites one of their heads off.”

Cringe, then what

“Oh, then they just let her go.”

You cannot be serious

“Of course! They’ve got to use Room 101 at least a hundred times a day, so she just runs out the clock.”

And how does she figure that out

“She doesn’t, someone…”

…tells her to do it, quel surprise

“No but this character is a super cool badass female OC who O’Brien plagiarises because he has no ideas of his own.”

Are you aware of the irony of writing that in a book that wouldn’t exist without Orwell’s original

“Yeah but Orwell’s protagonist is so whiny!”

He’s a victim of a totalitarian regime, what do you expect

“Yeah but he’s so self-important!”

And that’s his downfall, in his hubris he falls into the most obvious trap in the world, O’Brien lures him in with the masculine power fantasy of being a resistance fighter and Smith pays the price by being carted off to the Ministry of Love to be tortured to death.

“The Ministry of Love isn’t that bad, Julia makes it out okay.”

Yes, that’s the problem, Julia survives everything

“She does get a nasty scratch off one of those rats…”

In the original it’s implied she got lobotomised

“That wouldn’t work in this version.”

I shudder to ask, but why not

“Because she needs to live long enough to see the regime fall.”

And how long does that take

“About six hours after the end of the original.”

Are you fucking serious

“And then she meets Big Brother face to face!”

Big Brother isn’t fucking real

“In this version he is.”

So you have a protagonist who survives the horrors of a brutal famine, the Ministry of Love and Room 101 with barely any emotional or physical damage, then after a heavily pregnant hike she gets to meet the final boss of totalitarianism face to face, and you think Winston is self-important?

“Did I mention that she’s queer in this version?”

Is that supported by the text of the original in any way at all

“No.”

Then why. Why to any of this. If you hate Winston so much and you have to change every single aspect of Julia to shoehorn her into your batshit headcanons, why write a book about them, why write a book about 1984, why did this get published, why is this getting good reviews. Why. Why. Why to any of this

[pokegyns]

Sex dysphoria as an incongruous body map is the most sensical, persuasive and not-misogynistic argument for the innateness of gender identity I've ever seen, much more than I've ever got from a TRA, but then you start talking about young future-transwomen showing culture-bound signifiers of femininity in very young childhood. Why would there be any correlation between sex incongruity and gender nonconformity? You specifically say that this is even before they are aware of their own incongruity. Why? Are you saying it's a form of extremely subconscious mimicry of the gender roles of the sex the brain believes its body is? Even before the child even understands the sex-gender connection?

I can tell you're not saying that gnc=trans, I'm not misreading you quite that badly. But what could a correlation between sex incongruity and childhood gender nonconformity imply except either terfism or bioessentualism?

I'm asking in pure good faith. I want to believe.

i do not believe there is an innate, inherent biological connection between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity. however, due to societal indoctrination & environmental circumstances, sex incongruous children most of the time do not feel connected with their peers of the same sex. gender is not just a bystander, it is a large system and a huge superstructure that is built in every aspect of our society. it is something that can have war-torn impacts on people, and i think we all can see the way that this system uniquely disadvantages & impairs sex incongruous & dysphoric people– which does have a very lasting effect on dysphoric children. as children are most of the time raised under a strict gender binary, under the [current] colonial gender system, which is hierarchical & totalitarian based on assimilation that outcasts any ambiguity & deviation– it is no surprise that sex incongruous children will be impaired in numerous social aspects, and that their socialization will be very much affected by this rigid gender categorization which leaves them feeling alienated.

under a system without gender, there would likely be less connections between sex incongruency & gender nonconformity; as there would be no such thing as gender to conform or not to conform to in the first place– and i do believe that the currently existing connections between the two are real, however not biologically ingrained, fixated, or determined in any way– but are rather socially shaped, similarly to how social dysphoria is. just because a phenomenon exists, does not necessarily mean that it is inherently biologically predisposed in any individual. there is evidence that dysphoric children are in fact alienated from their peers & that they have face bigger struggle conforming to their specific assigned gender role, however that is not because their brain somehow misaligns with their sex [which would be neurosexism], nor are they at fault for being socially impaired to a degree; it is the extremely strict, fixated & totalitarian system of gender that unfairly & unjustly punishes those who deviate in any way. we cannot say that the phenomenon itself isn’t real, much like how we cannot say that gender is not– both are real, but they have no scientific basis, nor are they biologically determined. gender is forced on us, and the connection between gender nonconformity & dysphoria is formed due to the existence of gender itself– which must be abolished.

– mod zoroark

[cassiachloe]

Exposing Coercive Control: How the British Government/their partners have Tortured me

Gangstalking and intimidation style tactics to make me feel unsafe in my own home. Emails from fake accounts and suggested posts on Facebook demonstrating knowledge of my biological functions known to nobody but myself, as well as the demonstration of knowledge of private thoughts/information. Demonstrations of entrance in to my home without my knowing. Genital mutilation, deformation of genitals, stretched body parts, bruises and blood from genitals/throat on many mornings with no memory of any events from the night. Strange smells first thing in the morning like the smell of sick when waking up and feeling in my head/throat of having been sick, but no sick to be found. Patches on the carpets with signs and smell of being cleaned by someone (where I have not cleaned). Car engines revving outside my home as well as very low flying aircraft continually flying close to me on walks and over my home. Strange smells that I have coughed up from mucus in my lungs/throat, such as multiple times the smell of shit, and even foods that are not in my home. I was listening to a great talk by Noam Chomsky who implied that so called western democracies tend more to use propagandist and opinion shaping forms of coercion, or persuasion, as opposed to the brute violence directed to citizens of other nations. I can demonstrate quite clearly from my own experience that this is not so, and indeed he was mistaken on this matter. So, if they are able to abuse me with daily psychological harassment and erase my memory of the events of more extreme forms of violence such a sexual torture, physical abuse, humiliation and rape, how many others are they doing this too? This is what worries me most. Has anyone else noticed unusual situations in their lives? Have you ever contemplated undercovers/actors entering your social circles, and familiarised yourself with different forms of covert and unethical domestic coercion and violence? How closely are you paying attention? P.s. I hope this info can be useful for anyone paying attention to the state of tyranny and fascistic totalitarianism presently in the world. For anyone following emerging potential covert and clandestine operations, I can certainly offer my personal experience to confirm a few.

[philosophybits]

Wealth which does not exploit lacks even the relationship which exists between exploiter and exploited; aloofness without policy does not imply even the minimum concern of the oppressor for the oppressed.

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Re: tumblr.com/historicity-was-already-taken/737174801224007680

As a historian, you probably have a more nuanced understanding of this than I do, but I was under the impression that it's simply inaccurate to call Israelis—even far-right, authoritarian, genocidal Israelis—fascists? Fascism is a very specific ideology that arose in 20th c. Italy, with very specific principles regarding power, volition, mythologized tradition, and belief vs truth. (@cryptotheism, who researches cults among other topics, has some great posts about this.)

There are plenty of ideologically far-right, totalitarian, ethnonationalist, even genocidally racist movements that were nevertheless *not* fascism. (for example, see the genocides in Rwanda and Armenia.)

I think a case can be made for classifying Israel's actions in Gaza as genocidal, but calling it "fascist"—i.e. the specific ideology of the Nazis—seems closer in spirit to "swastikas superimposed over the Star of David," doesn't it?

No. Timothy Snyder defines fascism as “the ability to put a name to and define oneself in contrast to the Other,” and so do I.

There were right wing Zionist groups in 1930s Poland which happily adopted the label of “Jewish fascists” in keen understanding of their own historical context.

I would never do or say or imply anything similar to the horrifically anti-Semitic imagery you referenced in your final paragraph, and I, frankly, resent the implication.

I’m sure you sent this in good faith and out of genuine curiosity, but this is my answer, and it’s not something I’m interested in debating.

[joannerowling]

Why is Harry Potter considered a half Blood when both his parents are wizards? I know Lily is muggleborn but isn't a person only considered half blood if one of their parents is an actual Muggle?

Canonically, those who believe in the concept of blood purity also believe "Muggle born" are actually really Muggles, so it makes a twisted sort of sense to treat children of Muggle born as "half blood". Jo once linked it to the infamous Nuremberg Laws (which were horrifically detailed).

In DH, under Voldemort's puppet governement, Muggle born are accused of "stealing" the wands of real wizards, which is how they supposedly manage to use magic. It's ridiculous because that's not how magic or wands work in that universe (which we know because children, and other cultures, use wandless magic, something Muggles are incapable of). That's the point: truth is worthless in a totalitarian regime.

It's implied throughout the series that there isn't a clear definition of "pure blood", but simply varying degrees of hypocrisy regarding one's ancestry. We know the Gaunts took their obsession far enough to encourage incestuous relationships, but few seem to go to such extremes. It's also made clear by other characters like Dumbledore or Arthur that there's no such thing as a real "pure blood" family and it's all about posturing.

[txttletale]

hi miss healed, could you elaborate what you mean by dictatorship/authoritarian not being useful/meaningful terms? i know they're terms the west likes to tack on its political enemies, but i thought it might be a case of just misuse of terms that can still be useful, rather than outright a problem with the concept itself, so id be interested to understand your opinion. thanks!

so i don't think 'authoritarian' has any useful analytical value because every state is 'authoritarian' -- the only metrics by which one state might be seen as less 'authoritarian' than another are the metrics which privilege liberal democracy and a free market as a meaningful sort of 'freedom', which as a marxist, i don't! every state is an institution for class suppression--in the state and revolution, lenin quotes engels as saying:

[...] it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to holddown its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.

every state uses violence to perpetuate and legitimize itself. there is no state that would let you march into the capital and declare its dissolution without deploying armed men against you -- every state is authoritarian, it excercises authority, this is a tautological statement about how states maintain their own existence.

and sure, you could then say 'well we can just call all states authoritarian', but i don't think that makes any sense. the criticism of a state 'authoritarian/totalitarian' implies that there is an alternative, a point of comparison against which the state comes short--and i simply don't think it's possible to use 'authoritarian' as a cogent criticism without having such a point of comparison (usually the US or some european liberal democracy) which in turn means buying into liberal & capitalist ideas about 'freedom'.

as for 'dictator', i have a different criticism of that, also stemming from my marxist perspective. basically, i just think it doesn't describe anything useful in terms of political analysis and massively overemphasizes the role of individual psychology and personality. i frequently criticize both anticommunist and 'stalinist' views of stalin by joking that he must have been a very busy man if he singlehandedly ate all the grain or killed all the nazis. which is obviously a glib way of putting it--but my point is that any dictator who has ever 'done anything' could only do it because they could order a government official to do it who in turn could order a department to do it that could in turn mobilize hundreds or thousands of soldiers/construction workers/bureaucrats/etc. in order to make that happen.

sure, the leaders of countries might make decisions, and in some systems an individual leader might have greater leeway than others. but there are always very clear hard limits about what they must do and what they cannot do. i am sure i can say pretty uncontroversially that mohammad bin salman has an extreme level of political control over the economy and government of saudi arabia, but if he woke up tomorrow and said 'good news everyone, we're converting the country to wicca and donating all our oil to iran' then that would not happen and he would be deposed instantly. for a more realistic example, imagine any 'dictator' of your choice saying 'well, it's time to massively defund the military' -- this would be completely fucking impossible without some kind of loyalist paramilitary organization (which then exerts its own forces upon the 'dictator'.)

and of course all that leaves aside the massive extent to which 'dictator' is politically charged. do i think that vladimir putin was democratically elected? obviously not! but i don't think that any US president has been in any meaningful sense 'elected' by anything other than capital either, and two of the last four straightforwardly lost a popular vote even by the standards of liberal democracy! i think that any political system is best analyzed in class terms, in terms of what interests the government serves in terms of class struggle and competition between global capitalists, rather than in terms of individuals or what formal power structures give out the fancy titles

tldr: as a marxist, i think that 'authoritarian' is a useless distinguisher because excercising authority is the sole purpose and function of a state -- 'dictator' is a useless distinguisher because even the most autocratic fiefdom-state is ultimately a class dictatorship first and foremost