#invoke article 6

[jotunvali02]

EXPEL THE UNITED STATES FROM THE UNITED NATIONS!

SIGN AND SHARE PLZ!

Only 61k & so signatures for now. We need millions of them!

[macoto17]

Time to END USA Veto!

If we want a total ceasefire, we need to expel USA from UN. Please sign these petitions guys!

[gotohellfuckingyankees]

[machineheraldbabe]

viktor, a messiah inverted.

arcane season 2 spoilers throughout.

I have a plethora of thoughts on Viktor's strictly season 2, act 1 arc so far and I'd like to get them down in writing before act 2 drops. without a clue about how this evolves in future acts, I'd like to unpack the ways in which arcane has painted Viktor not as a simple Christ-figure, but an inverted messianic figure in just 2 tight episodes.

important note: i'm speaking strictly in terms of literary/film analysis. as you'll see, i'm taking an archetypal angle and won't be evoking any true discussions of faith in this post. i would never want to offend anyone of any religious beliefs, and i hope the secondary source i bring in helps clarify my meaning <3

Lit scholar and professor Robert Detweiler, writing in a very old (1964) but useful article about Christ figures in American literature, defines 3 manifestations of such symbolism: the disguised biblical christ; the christ figure as "mythological archetype;" and the christ figure as a symbol. i'll be using the second definition, the archetype, which he defines as the following:

“He can be the redeemer on the supernatural level who mediates between God and man or the culture-bringer on the natural level who introduces people to a better life " (115).

*In general, when I'm talking about a Christ figure (which I'll then invert in Viktor's case), I mean a fictionalized account of Christ's experiences and teachings, in whatever way they can manifest in the corresponding literature/story.

Arcane is very heavy on archetypes, and this version of a Christ figure is the most divorced from any distinctly biblical iterations that would hinder an analysis like this one. This definition then invokes 2 main questions: who is the God, or the transcendent, in Arcane, and what is the "better life?" I argue the following: the transcendent would refer to the arcane itself, as it's the only larger than life force we have to work with at this point in the series; the "better life" is the healing Viktor is offering shimmer addicts. Culture-bringer makes Viktor into a bestower of the knowledge the he was "granted" from above (time away from Zaun, time spent enduring the Hexcore). His "descent" to the undercity represents a "mission" of spreading that knowledge and healing. All that, combined with a stunningly on the nose visual rework, he's got the full Jesus-Christ-Allegory package.

But I just don't think it's so black and white!

They've altered an otherwise one-for-one replication of traditional, overdone Christ, messianic allegories into an eerie perversion. I've broken that down into 6 main points...

An Unwilling Resurrection

As Viktor states very obliquely to Jayce, "I was supposed to die." 1x09 all but closes with Viktor telling Jayce to allow him to die by promising to destroy the Hexcore. With his time running out, Viktor resigns himself to his own death; he would even have something of a legacy, as pointed out by Heimerdinger.

But Jayce wrenches him back to life. Whereas a typical Christ figure, in Detweiler's view especially, would have this resurrection spring from a transcendent divine will, Viktor is fighting against said will. He rebukes the life that's been re-thrust upon him. So, while it may be a Christ-like resurrection on the surface, it's far from it in intent and impact.

A Concealed Crucifixion

Viktor's physical positioning is very similar to that of a figure nailed to a cross, sans the fully outstretched arms, in this full-body shot. Yet, whereas a Christ's figure's demise would most likely be displayed as a testament of that character's sacrifice, Jayce has concealed Viktor. He lets only his most trusted confidant, Mel, witness Viktor. Maybe Cait has seen him, too, based on her conversation with Jayce, but in general he's not been seen by a large audience.

The Empty Tomb

Christ's departure from the tomb after 3 days is crucial tenet of Christian belief -- Viktor leaving his cocoon/tomb is not joyous, nor is it a sign of transcendent prophecy. If the arcane is the transcendent in this case, Heimerdinger's frequent warnings about its potential for destruction do not promise anything good by its manifestation walking among the common people - a marked difference from a traditional Christ figure. The empty cavern he leaves is but an eerie revision of the stone being moved from the tomb's opening.

Blind Leading the Blind

Viktor is not on a divine-inspired mission; he's being manipulated to some degree by an entity that has invaded his psyche, taking the form of Sky. He's not piloting himself, nor is there a benevolent transcendent being guiding him toward spreading good will. Viktor is blind, not a teacher, and he leads the blind, the shimmer addicts, further into a darkness over which he has no control (yet! I'm confident he'll be regaining agency soon). Even his eyes, now without their old amber hue, point to the fact that he's not seeing nor living clearly right now.

Cultists. Not Disciples.

The blind in question are not called to love and learn from Viktor organically. Whether by implication or a plot device to expounded upon later, Viktor very frighteningly draws the shimmer addict (Huck) toward him and forces his power unto him. As far as we can tell now, the result was nothing bad, but the Sump addicts have bent their knees to him out of desperate fear, not benevolence or worship. The mercy he's extended them is inspired by the malevolent arcane, which seems hungry and commanding.

Enslavement to, Not Embodiment of, the Transcendent

While Viktor has consumed (or been consumed by?) the arcane, he still does not embody it. Despite aligning with Detweiler's "culture-bringer," Viktor can only maintain this for so long. His body is weakened by this episodic healing - he collapses after healing Huck the first time. And in the newly released poster, we can see what appears to be brown rust/rot beginning to corrupt his hand.

If Viktor truly embodied the transcendent, the arcane, it would mesh properly with his person. Instead, he's been enslaved to it. The degree to which it's currently affecting him may be up for debate, but all signs point to Viktor not being totally with us just yet.

In sum, Viktor has the superficial workings of a typical messianic symbol, but beneath the surface, the writers have made not an anti-Christ, but an upside-down version. If Viktor had malicious intent and spread what was outwardly harmful, especially inspiring that in others, then a new term may be necessary. But the tragedy involved in his story so far is that of attempted healing, attempted redemption, and attempted forgiveness all being corrupted by the transcendent arcane.

I'm very excited to see where they take his arc next. I like to think that this analysis can stand on its own, at least for now!

[ipso-faculty]

Today's rabbithole: the origins of "dyadic" as opposite of intersex/h-word

TLDR: "dyadic" seems to come from 1970s radical feminism and seems to have entered intersex vocabulary via gender studies. This implies it is NOT a term coined from within the intersex community.

I've been reading Cripping Intersex since it's this month's pick for @intersexbookclub (and it's not too late for you to pick it up yourself! 💜). One thing that caught my attention is Orr spends a bunch of time presenting the origins of "endosex" and "perisex" as disputed for whether these terms were coined by intersex people or not.

Orr does this because they clearly prefer "dyadic" and are trying to justify why they're talking about "compulsory dyadism" rather than "compulsory endonormativity/perinormativity" etc. 🤨

Interestingly enough, Orr makes absolutely zero attempt in the book to find an origin for the word "dyadic". 🧐 Orr also never questions whether the term "dyadic" actually came from the intersex community. 🧐 So..... rabbit hole time!

Before I get into what I found on dyadic, I wanna quickly fact check Orr on the origin of endosex. Best as I can tell, the term was first used in German in 2000 by Heike Bödeker. Bödeker is controversial for supporting autogynephilia 😬, but I've never seen anybody doubt Bödeker having mixed gonadal dysgenesis. If anybody knows of an older use of endosex, please send it my way! But as far as I can tell, "endosex" was coined by an intersex person.

Okay, onto the origin of dyadic. Orr presents this word as though its only detractors come from its implication there is a sex binary, even though as @intersex-ionality discusses here there are other reasons people don't like it. One reason is that the term is considered to originate from outside the intersex community.

Orr never questions the origins of dyadic. But intersex-ionality's post got me wondering if I could track down an textual origin.

So I went to Google Scholar, searched for "dyad" or "dyadic" plus "intersex" or the h-word and kept changing the time period increasingly far back in time. (Initially I just used intersex until I remembered the h-word slur would be more common in older articles 😬.)

I went into this thinking maybe dyadic would be related to how in early intersex studies literature like Critical Intersex (2009) you can see authors trying out terms like "dimorphic" and "dimorphous" that reference sexual dimorphism. (Neither "dyadic" nor "endosex" show up in the book.)

But the earliest works by intersex scholars that invoke dyadic tend to use it in a way that implies to me it has its own origin - e.g. Malatino (2010) talks about "at one pole, the dyad of the dimorphic heterosexual couple and, at the other, the hermaphroditic body" and "the heteronormative promised land of proper dyadic, dimorphic sex" which gives me the impression dyadic has a more sociological origin rather than the biology origin of dimorphic.

This 2010 gender studies article by Mandy Merck that talks about the intersex rights movement was my first solid lead. Merck draws a direct connection between the intersex rights movement and the 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone. 😯

In the book, Firestone explicitly talks about the "male-female dyad". This book had a fairly big impact when it came out. Firestone was a big-name second-wave radical feminist. And as Merck puts it: "[Firestone's] aim is to release women and men from the culturally gendered[5] dyad of the “subjective, intuitive, introverted, wishful, dreamy or fantastic” and the “objective, logical, extroverted, realistic”[6] into a society undivided by genital differences. This she calls “integration.”" (emphasis mine)

Pushing the search terms to before the 00s, I found I there were some 1980s botanists kinda using "dyad" as an opposite to "hermaphrodite" (example). I don't know how standard this was though, and with Google Scholar it is important to remember that digitization becomes less common the further back you go. 🤷‍♀️

Judith Butler used "dyadic" in a 1985 article about Foucault's Herculine Barbin.

The Butler article got me searching for more generally - "dyad" or "dyadic" plus "sex-roles male female". I found lots of results using dyadic to talk about female/male sex roles from the 1970s.... and a rather sudden paucity of such articles in the 1960s. 🤔

When I restricted the search to anything before 1970, I get results from symbolic interactionist sociology. I.e. the sociology use of "dyadic" (i.e. any social interaction happening between a pair of individuals).

So looks like dyadic as a sex role thing entered the academic lexicon in the early 70s. Which lines up pretty damn well with The Dialectic of Sex coming out in 1970. 👍️ And indeed, many of the 70s uses of "dyadic" explicitly cite Firestone.

I'm guessing Firestone was probably influenced by the interactionist term. Lots of sociologists were talking about dyadic relationships and/or interactions such as teacher-student, parent-child, husband-wife, etc. In this context, it's not surprising that Firestone would pick dyad as a term to talk about male-female sex roles and interactions.

Other than the 1980s botany articles I didn't actually find much from the pre-2000 biology world, and no leads from the medical literature. This doesn't mean "dyadic" wasn't being used by physicans, just that it isn't showing up in my searches on Google Scholar.

I'm coming out of this with the impression that Merck's got it right to be connecting the intersex-related use of dyadic as originating from the writing of Shulamith Firestone. If anybody knows of competing evidence for an origin, *please* do send it my way as I'd be super interested. But in the absence of other evidence, I'd tentatively say that the term dyadic came out of second wave radical feminism and *not* the intersex community.

[argyrocratie]

(...)

"Set the scene for us: what is the ICJ, and why is the hearing taking place there?

The 1945 UN Charter — signed by all UN members, including Israel — affirms that the ICJ is the UN’s supreme legal organ. The Constitution establishes two powers for the Court: issuing advisory opinions, and ruling in cases between states. The Court’s verdicts are binding on the states that have signed the UN Constitution. A state can agree in an ad hoc manner that a particular dispute will be litigated by the ICJ, or invoke signed treaties containing a clause that establishes ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to those treaties. 

Israel has always had reservations about the jurisdiction clause, and has refrained from agreeing to ICJ jurisdiction in all the hundreds of treaties it has signed, except one: the Genocide Convention. Article 9 of the Convention stipulated that if disagreements arise between the members over the Convention’s authority or interpretation, the ICJ is the place to hear them. 

ICJ decrees are enforced by the UN Security Council. Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter allow for a range of sanctions against countries that violate the Court’s ruling, such as economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and military intervention. The latter is rare but it has happened, for example in the first Gulf War.

Why did Israel sign up to ICJ jurisdiction in the Genocide Convention?

I’m not a legal historian; I can only guess. Israel was one of the initiators of the treaty, and historically one can understand why Israel would have pushed for such a treaty in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Secondly, I think that back then, the popular Israeli notion that we do not let gentiles judge us had not yet developed. We are talking about an era in which the international system had recently decided to establish a Jewish state. Maybe there was a little more trust in that system back then.

What constitutes a violation of the Convention?

(...)

It is defined as an act of extermination, or creating conditions that will annihilate a particular group with the intention of eradicating that group or even a distinct part of it.

The Convention, which was integrated into Israeli law in 1950, states that a soldier or civilian who kills a person, even one, while aware that he is part of a system aimed at annihilation, is guilty of the crime of genocide. In Israeli law, the punishment for this is the death penalty. This also applies to those who conspire to commit genocide, those who incite genocide, and those who attempt to participate in genocide.

What is South Africa basing its lawsuit on?

South Africa bases its accusation on two elements. One is Israel’s conduct. It cites a great deal of statistics about the indiscriminate, disproportionate attacks on civilian infrastructure, as well as about starvation, the huge number of casualties, and the humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip — horrifying statistics that the Israeli public is barely exposed to, because the mainstream media here does not bring them to us.

The second and more difficult element to prove is intent. South Africa is trying to prove the intent through nine dense pages of references to quotes by senior Israeli officials, from the president to the prime minister, government ministers, Knesset members, generals, and military personnel. I counted more than 60 quotes there — quotes about eradicating Gaza, flattening it, dropping an atomic bomb on it, and all the things we’ve gotten used to hearing in recent months.

South Africa’s case does not rely only on the fact that some Israel leaders have made genocidal statements. It further charges that Israel has done nothing in response to these statements: it hasn’t condemned the statements, it hasn’t dismissed from office the people who expressed them, it hasn’t opened disciplinary proceedings against them, and it certainly hasn’t opened criminal investigations. This, as far as South Africa is concerned, is a very strong argument.

Even if we haven’t heard the IDF Chief of Staff or the General of the Southern Command say these things, and we don’t have an operational order that says, “Go and destroy Gaza,” the very fact that these statements have been made by senior Israeli officials without sanction or condemnation sufficiently expresses Israel’s intention.

South Africa also pulled a little legal stunt to get here, correct?

Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined when a dispute arises between the parties over the interpretation or application of the Convention. South Africa sent several letters to the Israeli government saying, “You are committing genocide.” Israel responded, “No we aren’t.” So South Africa said, “Okay, we have a dispute over the interpretation of the Convention.” That’s how it got the authority.

What can we learn from similar ICJ cases in the past, such as those regarding genocides in Bosnia and Myanmar?

First of all, we know from these cases that the burden of proof on South Africa is significantly lower for obtaining an interim order than for ultimately proving that Israel is committing genocide. We also know that this case will continue for years: the Bosnia case took 14 years; Gambia v. Myanmar is still ongoing. But the procedure for an interim order is fast.

Gambia filed its case against Myanmar on behalf of the Organization of Islamic States. It asked for an interim order stating that Myanmar must cease its military operations [against the Rohingya people]. The Court ruled that at this stage of the hearings, it did not need to determine whether the crime of genocide had been committed. What it needs to decide is whether, without an interim order, there is a real danger that the prohibitions set out in the Genocide Convention will be violated.

An interesting interim order was issued in that case, which I think has a good chance of being issued to Israel as well — not in the context of military activity, but of incitement. The Court’s order also required Myanmar to take enforcement actions and submit reports to the ICJ and Gambia on what it was doing to prevent genocide. As for the cessation of Myanmar’s military activity, this matter went to the Security Council, where both Russia and China threatened vetoes, but Western countries imposed sanctions and a military embargo anyway.

So even if South Africa fails to make the Court issue an interim order to stop Israel’s military activity, it could be that in the context of incitement — which enjoys full immunity in Israel — the Court will say that Israel needs to do something.

(...)

I know lawyers don’t like to wager on the results of court hearings, but if the ICJ does produce an interim order, what will that mean for Israel?

If the Court issues an order, the question is of course whether Israel will obey it or not. Knowing Israel, I expect that it will not obey the order, unless it can present the ending of hostilities as the result of its own independent decision, unrelated to the Court order. 

There are good reasons for Israel to do this, because disobeying an ICJ order brings things to the UN Security Council. It’s true that the United States has a veto there, and therefore a resolution to impose sanctions on Israel would most likely be blocked. But vetoing an ICJ order regarding concerns that genocide is taking place would come at an enormous political price for the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally. 

The Biden administration wants to portray itself as a government that sees human rights as one of its pillars. So it is likely that the United States would only veto such a resolution while imposing a significant cost on Israel in order to justify doing so, such as allowing the residents of northern Gaza to return to their homes, or entering into negotiations over two states — I don’t know.

But even if the United States doesn’t use its veto in that scenario, an interim order from the ICJ is likely to cause Israel serious problems. 

There is such a thing as an international legal “deep state.” Jurists and judges listen to what important courts say. And when the ICJ, also known as the World Court, makes its rulings, national courts in most of the Western world take note. Therefore, if the ICJ rules that there is a danger of genocide being committed, I can imagine a British citizen turning to a British court and demanding that the UK cease trading arms with Israel. Another implication is that such an ICJ ruling would likely force the ICC’s chief prosecutor [Karim Khan] to open an investigation of his own.

(...)

Within what time period is the Court’s decision expected?

There are no set rules, but in the Gambia v. Myanmar case, there was a decision within a month. It should be remembered that this [Gaza] case will continue after the hearing on the interim order. Israel will have to present evidence that will exonerate it from the claim that it is committing genocide, but in doing so could get into difficulties with the ICC. For example, it may explain that it bombed a certain place because it was pursuing a military objective, but it may thereby make admissions that create a basis for the claim that it used disproportionate force."

...

[publius-library]

Hamilton: The Energetic Founder by R.B. Bernstein- A Book Review by a Teenage Know-It-All

In general, when an author refers to the Founding Fathers as "The Founding Guys" in the dedication page of his novel, my hopes are set pretty high from the get-go. I found this book while taking shelter in the Harvard Bookstore after a particularly distressing bus ride with my mother, so my judgment could have been clouded, but I actually don't regret this purchase.

Bernstein's book is short, concise, and comprehensive. While you may not be bored to death with every available anecdote about Alexander Hamilton as some authors (who will remain nameless until later) would want you to be, someone with limited knowledge of the bastard founder would be substantially educated after reading this easy 100 page read (not including the preface or epilogue).

Preface and Acknowledgments

You could not pay me to read anyone's preface or acknowledgments unless it is under 20 words. Bernstein's was not, so it won't be included in my review or in my household.

Chapter 1: Life

Early Life

I hate to say it, and you hate to hear it, but Bernstein's novel has very minimal footnotes (not at the bottom of the page, can't slip that past me), only being used for direct citations. So, there is no telling where he got the birthyear of 1758 for Hamilton because it's not cited. However, to his credit, he refers to an ambiguous "latest major biographer", and I admire anyone who does not invoke the name of the devil.

When it comes to the argument about Hamilton's birth year/age, it depends largely on which sources you believe are more credible, as well as which explanation for the discrepancy between them that you believe is most viable. It also depends on whether or not you believe Hamilton, who continuously used the 1757 year that has been considered truth by many. However, this was only used by Hamilton after his college years, and that is an important distinction.

On April 6, 1771, a teenage Alexander Hamilton submitted a poem to the Royal Danish American Gazette and, wanting to seem just a little older than he was, he summarized himself as "...a youth about seventeen..." Doing some simple math with an overqualified calculator and the knowledge that Hamilton was an insecure 16 year old, we can calculate from those numbers that Hamilton was born in 1755.

Source: Founders Online, Alexander Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to Royal Danish American Gazette, 6 April 1771. This document also includes Hamilton's first recorded poem, which is very interesting and a worthwhile read to understand his developmental years.

When Hamilton arrived in the continental British colonies in 1773, the age he gave in the above letter would put him in Boston Harbor at the age of 18- far to old for college in this time period. The exact age of entry and graduation is not precise, but it can be estimated that students would enter in their early teens (around 13-14) and graduate before they turned 17. That makes an 18 year old Hamilton far behind his would-be graduating class.

Source: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Libraries, "Penn in the 18th Century: Student Life". I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and it answered some more questions about what exactly college entailed in the 1700s, which is far different to the modern system as there was very little organized educational systems outside of these colleges and universities.

The running theory among recent historians is that Hamilton aged himself down two years (changing his birth year from 1755 to 1757) in order to apply to the College of New Jersey (modern day Princeton), which was the obvious path for him given that he was living in New Jersey and had several alumnus as mentors. Of course, we all know the story of him being denied access to Princeton after requesting an advanced curriculum*, so this detail of the age-change could fit into this attempt to get into the school on his terms. Since 1757 was now his documented birth year, it makes sense that he would continue to use that year throughout his life, as to not confuse his family, friends, and colleagues.

*According to Hercules Mulligan, Hamilton wanted to advance through the standard curriculum "with as much rapidity as his exertions would enable him to do. Dr. Witherspoon [President of the College of New Jersey] listened with great attention to so unusual a proposition from so young a person and replied that he had not the sole power to determine that but he would submit the request to the trustees who would decide." (Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow; The William and Mary Quarterly, April 1947). Hamilton remedied this by applying to King's College (modern Columbia) and was enrolled as a special student who was tutored privately and audited necessary lectures as according to the president, Dr. Miles Cooper.

Despite all this, I have never come across 1758 as a possible birth year for Hamilton- nor have I 1754 or 1756. The issue is decidedly between 1755 or 1757, and Bernstein's lack of citations does not wholly reflect badly on his credibility, but it is disappointing because it just leaves me wondering where he got those numbers from.

The American Revolutionary War

The book does generally suffer from this lack of citation/elaboration for the sake of clarity, particularly in instances like on page 5, where Bernstein writes, "After months of organizing and training his artillery company, which he financed with the remainder of the funds meant to pay for his college education..." I have not seen any other documentation that Hamilton financed his artillery company with his educational funds, so knowing where this statement comes from would be greatly beneficial, but any citation that might elaborate on this does not exist.

There are also issues with Bernstein's timeline, along with a few dates being off (such as claiming Hamilton was invited to Washington's military staff in March 1777, when that was actually when he appeared on the payroll, and had actually been invited after the Battle of Princeton in January 1777), but it is especially noticeable when there seems to be some overlap in his novel between Hamilton's service as an artillery captain and as an aide-de-camp.

The HMS Asia was a British warship that blockaded the port of New York Harbor in August 1775, and fired upon the city. At the time, Hamilton and his friend Hercules Mulligan were serving in a makeshift militia company composed of college students called the Hearts of Oak. The following account details Hamilton's involvement in this event, which I consider the beginning of his military aspirations:

"The Asia fired upon the city, and I recollect well that Mr. Hamilton was there, for I was engaged in hauling off one of the cannon when Mr. H. came up and gave me his musket to hold and he took hold of the rope...I told him where I had left [the musket] and he went for it notwithstanding [that] the firing continued, with as much unconcern as if the vessel had not been there." -Hercules Mulligan on the Attack of the HMS Asia

Source: Hercules Mulligan: Confidential Correspondent of General George Washington - A Son of Liberty in the American War of Independence by Michael J. O'Brien

Through his connection to Alexander McDougall, who was forming a New York regiment to resist the British army, Hamilton was able to be recommended on February 23 to the New York Provincial Congress as a "...Capt. of a Company of Artillery." Hamilton received the formal assignment to this position on March 14, 1776, and maintained that post until he was offered a spot on George Washington's staff on January 20, 1777, and the appointment was confirmed on March 1, 1777.

Source: Alexander Hamilton: Youth to Maturity 1755-1788 by Broadus Mitchell

The job requirements of one of Washington's aides-de-camp were extensive, and included nearly every administrative duty that went along with running an army- from writing out orders to delivering them, from monitoring troops to rallying them in battle, the aides were official extensions of the Commander-in-Chief. Very often, skilled riders with military experience (as well as exceptional nagging ability) such as Hamilton were sent on small raiding missions, given a few men under their command to destroy or pillage supply stores. However, this does not constitute actually commanding a detachment, so Hamilton did not do this as Bernstein claims. The only time he did while under Washington's direct command was during the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, but by that time, he had long since quit Washington's office due to frustrations with the man in charge.

Source George Washington's Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

This discrepancy is not a major flaw in Bernstein's retelling by any means, but it is one example of how the overall timeline of chapter one is a little muddled, which may confuse someone who does not have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of Alexander Hamilton's life like some of you weirdos on the internet (not me, obviously).

Political Career

Moving out of the war and into the Constitutional Era (1786-89), Bernstein includes the almost mandatory anecdote of Hamilton's infamous six hour speech* during the Constitutional Convention (though he claims it was between three and six hours, though all sources I've seen have said it was six). Bernstein describes the speech as such:

"Taking the floor, he gave a speech between three and six hours in length. He mocked the Articles of Confederation and the delegates' plans to fix them. Instead, he described his own plan for a truly national government that would have reduced the states to administrative districts and vested the general government with sweeping national powers. Unfortunately for Hamilton, his proposal remained only a proposal. He could only declaim and argue, for Yates and Lansing would not support his proposal on behalf of New York, nor would anybody else in the Convention, not even Madison," (Bernstein 11).

And all of this is absolutely correct- however, it misses the point. Hamilton's plan, which was everything Bernstein said it was, was so distinctly Hamilton that even the man himself was well aware that he was not likeable enough for it to pass. Though Hamilton put effort into his plan and had faith that it would be successful, it was far too close to a monarchy to appease the Convention (especially with whisperings of uprisings blowing across the Atlantic from Paris by this time).

Instead, Hamilton continued to give his speech delivering his proposal in order to push the radicals behind the New Jersey Plan to consider the moderate nature of the Virginia Plan, which Hamilton and his comrade Madison favored. The Virginia Plan was essentially a modified version of the British government model, which is distinctly Hamiltonian, even though Madison claims the credit. Hamilton had his reservations about the final draft- but so did Madison. They were teammates at this point, as contrasting to their later relationship that might be. Hamilton would not propose a contrary plan if he genuinely believed it could succeed; he had temporary lapses in political judgment frequently, but this was one of those golden moments where he seemed quite intelligent.

*Hamilton's speech was given about half a month after the Virginia Plan was first proposed, and three days after the New Jersey Plan. So although it was not especially late in the game, that changes when you consider that Hamilton had not spoken in support of either of the plans at all. Hamilton did criticize the Virginia plan ("And what even is the Virginia Plan, but democracy checked by democracy, or pork with a little change of the sauce?" Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787 by Catherine Drinker Bowen), so there is an argument that he was offering an alternative plan, but it's overall effect was to lend support to the Virginia Plan, as well as damaging Hamilton's reputation by igniting rumors of British sympathies.

There is very little to critique with Bernstein's retelling of the Washington administration, aside from a few strange descriptions and excessive brevity, but this era in American history is so excessive, and not everyone can write a King James Bible sized treatise on just Federalist 1-5.

This, however, does benefit benefit Bernstein when he discusses the Reynolds Affair. It is the sort of subject you want to dedicate time and words to, exploring the multiple perspectives and dynamics, if you're going to go in depth on it at all. Bernstein's retelling is simple, delicate, and careful, respecting all parties, especially the women.*

*Unlike some less comprehendible authors, Bernstein is not aggressively sexist against the women in Hamilton's life- starting with Rachael Fawcett (his spelling, again, not cited; Rachel's name has many spellings and variations so this is not especially egregious). He speaks of her respectfully and factually, which I shouldn't be happy about, but that's what we've come to here. I'll get into the larger consequences of brevity in a similar area later in the review, but you should know that I don't entirely approve of how much he skips over Hamilton's relationships with women, but to be fair, that would probably taken 100 pages on its own.

The Last Few Years

Again, there isn't too much to say here except for a few notes and interpretation differences between Bernstein and I. Firstly, on the issue of Washington's death, Bernstein writes of Hamilton's response to the sad news, "It does suggest, however, that Hamilton was so moved by Washington's death, which ended a close personal and political partnership spanning nearly twenty-five years, that he did not heed his own choice of words, a tendency that affected him throughout 1800," (24).

The instance where Hamilton "did not heed his own choice of words" was when Hamilton wrote to Tobias Lear, "Perhaps no man in this community has equal cause with myself to deplore the loss [of Washington]."

I think Bernstein's interpretation of this is a little dramatic; the expression that someone's feelings were the most intense or profound was a common saying in the 18th century western society, and can be seen in many letters regarding friends or extended family, where the person writing is definitely not the most affected by the loss. It is the deep expression of grief, not a legitimate claim that Hamilton's grief supersedes all others'. I only think this worth mentioning because it slightly misconstrues Hamilton's character, and it's important to avoid that.

Source: Founders Online, Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to Tobias Lear, 2 January 1800

The Duel

Overall, there are few portrayals of the 1804 Hamilton/Burr Duel that don't horribly disfigure the intentions of one of the parties involved. In his book, Bernstein picks Burr as the scapegoat, and chooses the route of claiming that Burr was simply looking for anyone he could point his pistol at, shouting unreasonable demands at Hamilton who respectfully raised a hand to silence him and gloriously took to the field.

Of course, the duel is an especially complex issue, which Bernstein dedicates a chapter to, so I will reserve my interpretation until then, but it's clear that his biography is strictly anti-Burr, which taking sides is not the most accurate way to approach the matter of a duel- or anything in historical politics, if I'm being fully honest with you.

Chapter 2: Revolution and Politics and Chapter 3: Law and Constitutionalism

As the heading implies, chapter two focuses on the two revolutions during Hamilton's lifetime (American and French, chronologically) and the impact they had on his politics. Now, while reading this, I admit I was increasingly frustrated that details about Hamilton's life that would have helped the brevity issues in chapter one were found in the following chapters, I can see the vision, and will accept it. The author's retellings of these events are very well, so I have little to disagree with, so I'll be discussing what I do disagree with, and what I thought he handled well.

Of course, as the champion of not giving Hamilton too much credit, I'm going to critique Bernstein for referring to Hamilton as "Washington's principle aide" on page 34. I fought Chernow on this, so I'll be fighting Bernstein on this. Hamilton, while a very valuable asset in Washington's staff, was not literally or figuratively his "principle" aide-de-camp.

The literal title goes to Washington's military secretaries, which, during most of Hamilton's tenure on his staff, was Robert Hanson Harrison. The figurative title falls to Tench Tilghman, who served for longer than Hamilton in, arguably, more capacities. Hamilton's skills were in politics and organization, as well as military maneuvers, so he was most often picked for interactions with congressmen and foreign representatives, as well as raids, foraging parties, and bookkeeping. Tilghman, however, filled in wherever was necessary from 1776 to 1781. The philosophy of "credit where credit is due" dictates that these men be given the title of "principle" aide before Hamilton, who only has the advantage of being louder and more famous.

Source: George Washington's Indispensable Men by Arthur S. Lefkowitz

One thing I think could have warranted a mention was Hamilton's paranoia towards mob rule. Of course, Hamilton's political theory of preventing both majority and minority rule are necessary to mention, as they are interwoven in both The Federalist and the Constitution itself, which can be pinned down as the best models for (most of) Hamilton's political philosophies.

However, Hamilton's fear of the mob dates back to before the French Revolution, where it really kicked up and paired well with Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. These are major historical events that Bernstein does not neglect, however he could have gone a little deeper on this. Hamilton's fear of the mob can be traced back to his childhood in the Caribbean, where the fear of slave uprisings was implanted in every citizen's head, especially if they were raised in the area. This fear motivated Hamilton's actions in the aforementioned Dr. Miles Cooper incident, regardless of how you spell Miles/Myles, which was before both major revolutions, so it is a topic worth exploring.

There was a third revolution that Bernstein does not discuss: the Haitian Revolution in 1791. The results of this revolution was the founding of the country of Haiti, and the liberation of the island's enslaved people, who went on to govern the new country. This was, as you can imagine, every white person's nightmare at the time, especially if they were up to date on the recent occurrences in France, where the violence was increasing by the day. Hamilton's only references throughout his correspondence (that I could find) were in regards to a French fleet arriving in what is now Haiti, and "...the late disturbances in those Islands..." so unfortunately, we do not know his exact thought on that event. However, there is much to be speculated and discussed, given that this revolution occurred so close to his birthplace, and I think that the mention of this could have given this chapter of Bernstein's novel a new perspective that we don't normally see in a Hamilton biography.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow; Founders Online, Alexander Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton’s Final Version of the Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 5 December 1791, Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 5 November 1796

One continuous pattern throughout the book is the idea that Hamilton had a fully "American" or "federal" perspective; that his priorities were dedicated to the entire country's interests, rather than to one particular state or region, (Bernstein 42, 66). This is, unlike most things in this novel, wholly untrue. Hamilton, although he would very much appreciate this statement, was very often biased towards the interests of New York as well as that of the upper merchant class of that state. Though he was not scheming to convert the whole American economy to being run by bankers and merchants like Jefferson claimed, he did still lean towards the class which he belonged until he was unable to maintain that position. In general, Bernstein is very kind to Hamilton, which is charitable, but inaccurate at times.

Bernstein is very talented at summarizing Hamilton's political philosophies, specifically when he describes Hamilton's four basic principles as being "...popular sovereignty, energetic government, checks and balances, and federalism," (Bernstein 40). These are themes that are abundant in Hamilton's political actions, and are espoused in The Federalist and other major publications of his, as well as the Constitution- because they mimic the foundations of the British government. Bernstein is clearly an incredible academic and historian who is greatly worthy of respect and a wonderful source for descriptions such as these.

Note: I included these two chapters in with each other since they're largely interlinked and I didn't have anything noteworthy to say about chapter three that I didn't already say about chapter two. That isn't to say that chapter three isn't noteworthy, but it stands on its own, in my opinion.

Chapter 4: Political Economy and Public Administration

For the two areas where we can see Hamilton's greatest accomplishments, Bernstein does an exceptional job at discussing his actions and motivations, as well as his conflicts with political rivals. My favorite sentence in particular can be found on page 74:

"Even at those times when most Americans have turned to worship at the ideological shrine of Thomas Jefferson, students of public administration have devoted close, admiring attention to Hamilton's thought and work." -Bernstein

I just really like it.

Another thing I really like was Bernstein's categorizing of the factors that went into Hamilton's view on the national economy, as well as his explanation (Bernstein 75-76). I'll include a summary here so those who do not have the means to buy his book can still appreciate his genius here.

Unity: authority organized from top down; keeping all government officials on the same page to execute orders from the top dog exactly as they were meant to be executed

Duration: the system in place would have to remain in place for an extended period of time in order to be properly incorporated, but the time period must also be short enough to ensure the efficiency of government

Adequacy: the government must have enough power to be able to actually execute the policies it puts in place, but cannot have too much that it infringes on the states' or individuals government given or fundamental rights

Responsibility: every official was responsible to the department and nation when executing policy, and must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the overall public administration

This categorization is effective in that it does not leave anything wanting- the reader is able to fully understand what went into Hamilton's thinking- but it is also concise enough that it does not bore you with 100 pages of doing over every. single. Federalist. paper. So, I appreciate Bernstein's mercy.

Chapter 5: War and Peace and Chapter 6: Honor and Dueling

Note: For chapter 5, I again had nothing to say, though I did write notes; however, they were only my typical complaints about having to read about my favorite subject in the world. That being said, there is more to chapter 6.

Bernstein categorizes (once more) the men of this generation into two groups: gentlemen of extreme politeness and gentlemen of the sword. These classifications are based on a man's response to a conflict or insult. Gentlemen of extreme politeness, like Jefferson or Madison, who, when in the face of conflict, do whatever they can to avoid open warfare with diplomatic responses according to an unwritten code of the Enlightenment Era. Gentlemen of the sword, however, shoot each other.

I would not say that 18th century western gentlemen were quite so black and white as this description, but I'll roll with it. So, we have gentlemen of extreme politeness (Jefferson, Madison, the Randolphs, the Livingstons) and then the gentlemen of the sword (Hamilton, Burr, Monroe...) Who else? I don't know, because Bernstein does not mention this name once:

John Laurens.

I made a post mentioning "Laurens erasure" in July, and I swore off arguing whether or not historical figures were queer a long time ago, but the entire exclusion of John Laurens from a Hamilton biography feels sinful, so I cannot let it stand. Even if he is a footnote, he deserves to be mentioned in Hamilton's life story, not only for the personal relationship they had, but for the role he played in the development of Hamilton's view of class distinctions.

John Laurens came from an extremely prestigious family of South Carolina, a colony founded for the purpose of making money for the British Empire. Alexander Hamilton's background contrasts this, as he was raised a poor bastard on an island where there were only the very rich and the severely impoverished, no in-between. This seems to have caused tension between Laurens and Hamilton at various points, but by the end of the relationship, Hamilton had joined the bourgeoisie that Laurens was born into, and this marks a significant shift in his attitudes towards various social issues.

Source: Founders Online, Hamilton Papers: Alexander Hamilton to John Laurens, 8 January 1780

More specifically to the topic at hand, John Laurens provided Hamilton with his first personal exposure to dueling (aside from the duels that occurred in his Caribbean childhood*), when Laurens dueled Major General Charles Lee in 1778, and Hamilton acted as his second. You'd think that this would warrant a footnote, but, as we've established, Bernstein does not believe in those unless it is a direct citation.

Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (pg. 18*) ; John Laurens and the American Revolution by Gregory D. Massey

Laurens and the honor culture we're discussing are inherently intertwined, and he's even further intertwined with Hamilton (usually in a military cot, I presume). It was the 18th century concept of "honor" that motivated Laurens to join the army, duel, and die in battle. It was honor that united Hamilton and Laurens, and it was Laurens who taught Hamilton the ins and outs of being an Enlightened, American gentleman with honor. Without John Laurens, Alexander would not have been Hamilton.

Now that I've said why Laurens should be mentioned, why shouldn't he? Brevity is one reason, and we've established that's very important to Bernstein, however I don't think it's good enough. Laurens would have prompted another question that Bernstein either didn't have time for or didn't have the answers for: were they gay? Well, I have the answers, but not the time, so we'll save that for another day. For now, tsk tsk, Bernstein.

Of course, Bernstein discusses the 1804 duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Bernstein doesn't say anything particularly extraordinary about this event, and neither will I, because everything has already been said about it that could have been said (probably, if you can find something original, please grace my ears with it). However, the particular narrative that Bernstein leans into is problematic in one particular way, and that is demonstrated in this excerpt:

"There are a few salient points about how this honor dispute escalated- or deteriorated- into a duel. First, what if Burr had gone first to cooper to ask what Hamilton's "despicable opinion" had been... Second, Burr's choice to confront Hamilton rather than [Reverend Charles] Cooper suggests how ready he was to accept a duel as the only way to resolve his dispute with Hamilton and vindicate his honor. Third had Burr been that ready to risk a duel, Hamilton could not have avoided it," (96).

For some context, Burr cited his reason for challenging Hamilton as being a letter between Reverend Charles Cooper and General Philip Schuyler that was published in the Albany Argus in which Cooper wrote, "I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mister Burr."

This is problematic in that it entirely pins the blame on Burr, and poses Hamilton as the victim. This is something fairly common, and the most common bias among historians, but it is simply not possible. There is never one complete villain, and Burr certainly wasn't someone who could be described as such. Not even Hamilton thought that, which says something.

To address Bernstein's first point, I don't see how reaching out to Cooper would have benefitted either Burr or Hamilton. If he had, and the "more despicable opinion" had been as bad as implied, the fault still would have lied with Hamilton. There would be no reason for Burr to fault Cooper for this, as Cooper did not say that he agreed with Hamilton's opinion of Burr; it was entirely attributed to Hamilton. (Even if it was implied that Cooper did agree, he could more easily frame it to Burr that this wasn't the case).

Additionally, the reason why Burr was concerned with this "more despicable opinion" is due to several rumors going around about him, some that were objectively vile, such as him having an incestuous relationship with his daughter. The specific instance cited by Cooper was something Hamilton said at the city tavern, discouraging others from voting for Burr. It is a common misconception that this is what motivated Burr to challenge Hamilton, but in actuality, it is the implication, and Hamilton's failure to deny, that Hamilton was guilty of spreading such horrible, false rumors against Burr.

Source: Founders Online, "Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler", 23 April 1804; "The two men were often invited to dinner parties hosted by leading New York politicians, businessmen and even each other. During those years, Burr was widowed and lived with his daughter and husband. Hamilton reportedly suggested Burr committed incest with his daughter. Enraged, the Vice President challenged the Treasury Secretary to a duel in Weehawken, N.J. Hamilton was mortally wounded, dying a day later. Hamilton’s death destroyed Burr’s political career," North Coast Current, "Historically Speaking: The Forgotten Man- Aaron Burr"

The lack of acknowledgment of Burr's perspective contributes to this larger perspective that Burr was a malicious, conniving person, and it lacks empathy and understanding, while also showing poor critical thinking skills. Historians are human, and therefore can never be entirely unbiased, but there is a responsibility in this field to be open to all sides, and to provide the reader with enough information to take a different side than the one given by the author. I feel this was lacking in Bernstein's analysis of the duel, but he is absolutely not unique in this. This is partly why I dislike discussing the duel so much because when this occurs in a more opinionated work, such as Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow, it is simply frustrating. But, I digress.

Conclusion

Overall, I'd highly recommend this biography for someone seeking to start their investigation of Hamilton's life. Bernstein does a very good job of providing a simple, succinct resource that makes the factual evidence of Hamilton's life very easily accessible due to his book's brevity, but this feature does also limit the perspective you get from giving this book. In reality, this isn't very different from any other history book, at least in my perspective. I believe that this is a genre of literature that should be cross-referenced, and you should keep reading to seek what the whole truth is. The best thing about it is that that "whole truth" is not attainable by one person, and that makes history an inherently social art; you need to work with other people to fully understand. Read other people's work, question other people's opinions, have a discussion. In conclusion, keep reading.

[violottie]

🇺🇸 has brought too much pain to the world. Sign this petition to expel them from the UN under Article 6.

caption cont. under images. from Reinspyre, 05/Mar/2024:

"In the 75 years since the UN was founded, no country has violated the principles of the UN Charter more than the United States of America.

This is exemplified in the case of Palestine, where a ceasefire and an end to the genocide is persistently prevented by the United States, which cynically uses its veto power in the Security Council to overrule the will of the majority.

Symbolic demonstrations are important, but focused action with a tangible goal is even more so.

This is why it is time to raise our voices and demand the invocation of Article 6 – to expel the U.S. from the United Nations.

Article 6 allows for any member of the UN to be expelled – even if they sit on the Security Council – for persistently violating the principles of the United Nations.

We call for the expulsion of the United States from the United Nations because that is a real objective that may not only result in a ceasefire in Gaza but can also invite much-needed reform of the United Nations and Security Council.

To this end, we invite all those who desire an end to the tyranny of injustice to join our movement to Invoke the 6th

Let’s demand that our leaders rule with justice and integrity. Let’s demand that all member states have a meaningful voice on the international stage. Let’s act for change. Let’s do it now!

[desperatelyseekingcannibals]

The Suitor (Hannigram/Kaisergram/DogsDogs AU) - Shortfic

Explicit // M/M // Will Graham/Hannibal Lecter, Will Graham/Nigel (Charlie Countryman), Will Graham/Duncan Vizla (Polar), Will/Hannibal/Nigel/Duncan // Tags: Alternate Universe, Alpha/Beta/Omega Dynamics, Alpha/Omega, Royalty AU, Prince Will, Harem, age difference, manipulation, manipulative Will, older alphas/younger omega, Alpha Hannibal Lecter, Omega Will Graham, Alpha Nigel, Alpha Duncan, multi-sex omega, almost incest, heat sex, fertile heat, breeding, pregnancy, mpreg, vaginal sex, triple penetration in one hole, vaginal sex (AFAB language used), come inflation, M/M/M/M. Prompt Fill.

Young Prince Will, having turned twenty on his last birthday and deep into his first fertile heat, bends the law in order to choose a suitor.

Latest installment on my @hannibalbingo card: Harem

The Suitor (3.2k words):

“What’s going on here!” King William roared the words as he stormed towards his omegan son’s quarters. 

“Sire,” Chilton winced as he tried to step between his majesty and the door, without trying to seem obstructive. The two guards posted at the doors looked uncomfortable but held their ground, did their duty. Which was to not allow the prince to be disturbed no matter by what or who. 

“You sanctioned this,” Chilton held up his hands in placation, “and according to the law, the prince must be allowed to--”

“I didn’t sanction THIS!” The King’s finger pointed violently at the closed door as they all tried to ignore the sounds within, loud enough that they resonated through the thick wood. 

“Of course, Sire, and of course I wouldn’t dream of contradicting you, but…” Chilton was nervous as he waved over the Prince’s aide who had come from his room on hearing the commotion. Jimmy nodded and quickly ran off, returning seconds later with a large codex, available so quickly as this situation had been anticipated. 

Jimmy flipped the huge tome to the correct page and then turned it to face the king, holding it like a book stand as Chilton pointed out the relevant law. 

“You agreed that he could invoke article 6 of the Harem Act,” Chilton said as he pointed to the exact clause. 

“I did, but… they are all in there! I can hear them!” King William shouted, his lip curling into a snarl. “I said he could take one of his harem as his mate if they got him pregnant during his first fertile heat, as the law allows.” 

It was clear to them all that the King had not expected any of them to get him pregnant, and he especially hadn’t expected the young prince to take them all at once. 

“They are ALL in there!” The King reiterated and Chilton winced.

Continue on AO3

[eretzyisrael]

by Dion J. Pierre

The author, PhD candidate Prahlad Iyengar, continued, “One year into a horrific genocide, it is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc, or else, as we’ve seen, business will indeed go on as usual … As people of conscience in the world, we have a duty to Palestine and to all the globally oppressed. We have a mandate to exact a cost from the institutions that have contributed to the growth and proliferation of colonialism, racism, and all oppressive systems. We have a duty to escalate for Palestine, and as I hope I’ve argued, the traditional pacifist strategies aren’t working because they are ‘designed into’ the system we fight against.”

In a statement distributed by the CAA, Iyengar accused MIT of weaponizing the disciplinary system to persecute him.

“On Friday, MIT administration informed me that as a result of this article, I have been banned from campus without due process and that I face potential expulsion or suspension,” he said. “These extraordinary actions should concern everyone on campus. My article attempts a historical review of the type of tactics used by protest movements throughout history, from the civil rights movement to the struggle to the fight [sic] against South African Apartheid here on MIT campus.”

MIT has not responded to The Algemeiner‘s inquiry regarding Iyengar’s punishment, but according to excerpts of its letter to Iyengar, the administration told him the article “makes several troubling statements” and could be perceived as “a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT.” In retaliation, CAA is calling on students to harass David Randall, an associate dean, until he relents and revokes Iyengar’s punishment and Written Revolution‘s temporary suspension.

“On Pacifism” is not the first time that elite college students have endorsed violence in the name of opposing Israel and furthering the Palestinian cause.

In September, during Columbia University’s convocation ceremony, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group which recently split due to racial tensions between Arabs and non-Arabs, distributed literature calling on students to join the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s movement to destroy Israel.

“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said the pamphlet distributed by CUAD, a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”

Other sections of the pamphlet were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose was to build an army of Muslims worldwide.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

One more time with feeling . . . Ignore the polls!

November 6, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

    We are one year out from the 2024 general election, and media outlets are busy predicting a future they cannot know. I routinely advise readers to “ignore the polls,” so whenever I write about the polls, readers tell me I should follow my own advice. Fair point. But the poll by the New York Times released over the weekend prompted dozens of readers to send panicked emails asking me to “Talk them off the ledge.” The NYTimes poll will get more coverage in the Monday news cycle, so in anticipation of hundreds of additional panicked reactions, I will once again address the issue of polling. It is a scourge that we will live with for the next year, so occasional reminders that the only poll that matters will occur on November 5, 2024, is in order.

          In short, the NYTimes poll found that Biden is trailing Trump in five of six swing states and that Democrats are losing ground among young, Hispanic, and Black voters. Many voters believe that Trump is better able to manage the economy, that Biden is “too old,” and cannot identify anything that Biden did to improve their lives. Go figure!

          Nothing I write below should be interpreted as saying that polls do not contain valuable information. They can (depending on their quality). Polls include information that helps campaign managers and candidates focus and refine their message. They are NOT predictions. Remember Nate Silver’s article in FiveThirtyEight in 2011, “Is Obama toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election.” If polls taken one year before elections were meaningfully predictive, then each of the following candidates should have quit their first campaigns: Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden—and Trump.  

          So, why should we not panic over the polls? Indeed, is there a silver lining? (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

          Let’s start with a lesson that we must not forget: The old paradigm of “horse-race” polls no longer applies. Why? Because such polls assume that two legitimate candidates are competing for votes within the system. We have never had a candidate who seeks to overthrow the system. Or who attempted a coup. Or who plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his next term. Or who called for the execution of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Or who will use the DOJ to persecute his perceived enemies. Or who was found liable for sexual assault. Or who will support a nationwide ban on reproductive liberty. Or who views Putin as a friend and NATO allies as adversaries and leeches.

          I have not studied the NYTimes methodology, but I am confident it simply asks some variant of, “Which candidate do you support in 2024?” Faced with that limited construct, it is easy to be seduced into making a forced choice without regard to the fact that Trump is an anti-candidate. That error is compounded because the poll does not highlight Trump’s fundamental desire to destroy the system but instead asks about Biden’s age.

          As I have written before, believing that most voters will walk into the polling booth in 2024 and vote only for “Biden vs Trump” is simplistic—and beneath the NYTimes and its expert pollsters. When WaPo/ABC published a poll that was subjected to nearly universal derision for its flaws, I wrote the following:

          The 2024 presidential election features two candidates who are surrogates for different visions of America: Democracy versus autocracy; liberty versus tyranny; dignity versus bigotry; science versus disinformation; personal autonomy versus subservience to Christian nationalism; sustainability versus ecological disaster; safety versus gun violence; global stability versus confrontational isolationism. All of that—and much more—is on the ballot in 2024. The WaPo/ABC “horse-race” poll captures none of that.

          Three more points and then I will stop paying attention to the polls (as I recommend).

          First, Dan Pfeiffer’s article in The Message Box on Substack explains why the NYTimes poll shows the path forward. See Dan Pfeiffer, How to Respond to the Very Bad NYT Poll. If you are worried about the poll and want more details, I highly recommend Dan’s article. Pertinent passages include the following about “double haters” who dislike both Biden and Trump:

Perhaps the simplest explanation of Biden’s political challenges is that he has done a lot of good, popular things, and almost no one knows about them. Navigator tested a series of messages about Biden’s various accomplishments, including allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs, the bipartisan law to rebuild roads and bridges, and efforts to create more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Guess what? All of this stuff is super popular. Medicare negotiating drug prices is supported by 77% of Americans, including 64% of Republicans. The bipartisan infrastructure law has the support of 73% of Americans and a majority of Republicans. Every accomplishment tested in this poll had majority support. It’s hard to overstate how impressive that is in a deeply divided, highly polarized country at a time when the President’s approval ratings are in the low 40s. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news: according to the poll, a majority of Americans heard little or nothing about the accomplishments tested. There is a yawning knowledge gap. Now for more good news (think of this as a positive sandwich); the poll shows that when people are told about what Biden has done, his approval rating goes up. The voters most likely to move are the “Double Haters.”

          My penultimate point: The 2024 presidential election matters a lot. But so do congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, state legislative elections, municipal elections, and more. If—heaven forbid—Trump wins in 2024, a second Trump term with a Democratically controlled Congress is radically different than if Republicans control Congress. And states can be bulwarks of individual liberties if Republicans are able to pass national legislation. So, let’s not put every hope and aspiration into the presidential election. We should do everything we can to win up and down the ballot.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Although I did not intend to devote the entire newsletter to the NYTimes poll, I will stop here. We will be dealing with bad polls, handwringing, and negative press for the next year, so it is worth drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Enough!” The election is not over until it is over—notwithstanding the media’s best efforts to declare defeat a year in advance. And while I am criticizing the media, shame on the media for normalizing Trump as a legitimate political candidate. He is not.

          We will prevail over the long run, no matter what happens in 2024. (To be clear, I believe Biden will win re-election.) But if we have confidence that we will ultimately prevail, we can set aside the apocalyptic fears that we wrongly ascribe to a single election in 2024. We don’t need to panic over every poll.

The NYTimes poll reminds us that we have plenty of work to do in spreading the good news of Biden’s accomplishments. So, rather than needlessly fretting a year in advance about 2024, let’s recognize that we have a year to achieve

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[gotohellfuckingyankees]

[sniperct]

Presented without comment

And I'll just go ahead and paste the text of the screenshot from the Axios article here:

What to watch: To hear Trump and his allies tell it, this is how early 2025 would unfold if he wins:

1. A re-elected Trump would quickly set up vast camps and deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally. He could invoke the Insurrection Act and use troops to lock down the southern border.

2. In Washington, Trump would move to fire potentially tens of thousands of civil servants using a controversial interpretation of law and procedure. He'd replace many of them with pre-vetted loyalists.

3. He'd centralize power over the Justice Department, historically an independent check on presidential power. He plans to nominate a trusted loyalist for attorney general, and has threatened to target and even imprison critics. He could demand the federal cases against him cease immediately.

4. Many of the Jan. 6 convicts could be pardoned — a promise Trump has made at campaign rallies, where he hails them as patriots, not criminals. Investigations of the Bidens would begin.

5. Trump says he'd slap 10% tariffs on most imported goods, igniting a possible trade war and risking short-term inflation. He argues this would give him leverage to create better trade terms to benefit consumers.

6. Conversation would intensify about when Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Sam Alito, 74, would retire.

Lists of potential successors are already drawn up.

President Biden said last month that "the next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees."

If Trump were to win and the two oldest justices retired, five of the nine justices would have been handpicked by Trump.

[sataniccapitalist]

America is at War with its Own People

Sister Imane of Middle Nation exposes the reality of America's war against itself in this excerpt from a recent talk on the Article 6 campaign.

Please sign the petition:

[foxblood]

The Threads of Memory: II In Case of Rain

Chapters: 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25

The bronze guise of Silvanus reached an arm across the marble arch for Meilikki, and she on the other end of the pillar pulled her bowstring taut and aimed an arrow at his heart wreathed in oak leaves.  The plaque above their heads announced “University of Waterdeep Botanic Gardens”.  An old couple sat on the benches beneath the gate, shoulders close together behind the half-sodden pages of the Waterdeep Digest.  Beyond them, the manicured meadow entry and gardens beyond swayed red and gold against the mist that settled heavily over the Castle Wards as it blew in from the ocean.  Gale took his place on the vacant bench beneath the entrance and pulled his robes tighter around him as the damp worked its way through the wool.

He crossed his ankles and dug a pamphlet out of his pocket.  The pages felt thick and sluggish in the humidity when he turned them, the cover advertising the 10th release of the Journal of the Netheril Archaeological Society.  After each line of self-important text, he glanced at the entrance until Velim appeared on the path and stood up to greet them, retaining nothing from the pamphlet.

Velim looked both ways as they crossed under the entryway as though they thought someone may be lurking at the corners, then pulled off their hood and smoothed the neat braid behind their head.  A shy smile crossed their face, but they buried their hands in the pockets of their coat.  

“Sorry I’m late,” Velim nodded into the meadow so that Gale fell into step beside them, “not really my neighborhood.”

“That just puts us back on even footing,” Gale smiled back to put them at ease.

“Yes, well, it’s my own fault for leaving on time.  I should have prepared to get lost,” they pulled a gloved hand out of their pocket to run their finger over the water condensing on the arched railing of a bridge crossing a creek.

“I didn’t take you for one to lose your way.” Gale inhaled the wet autumn day as they stepped onto a path between the trees covered in the leaves falling gold from the ginkgo trees above them.

Velim’s eyes turned toward the canopy.  “I contain multitudes, including a chronic inability to read maps.”

Gale offered his hand as they climbed a steep stone staircase, but Velim kept their hands in their pockets and he pulled it away.  “You must travel with a companion, then?”

They shook their head.  “I find my way regardless.  Would you like some lunch?  My treat.”

“That’s not necessary,” Gale said.

“Nonsense, let me buy you lunch.  I just got the advance for my next publication, something to work the chill out of my hands is hardly going to break my finances, and I was late this time,” Velim insisted.

“Is that so?  Which publication?” Gale asked, “something grand?”

“Not my contribution,” their fingers brushed the fine hairs on the underside of a cherry-red leaf and read the stone with the name of the plant engraved upon it, sanddusk creeper, “but the copper etched illustrations, well, those are quite grand.  It’s a textbook documenting the physiological impacts of magic mediated illness.”

The memory of a wizard Gale once knew flashed before his eyes, the skin of his face melting due to a backfiring healing spell intended to clear his acne.  “Are you an expert in such things?”

“No,” they paused and looked over the side of the pond where bright orange fish swarmed at the banks, begging them for food, “well, perhaps I am now.  I was selected as the ghost writer, each article is informed by the true experts of the individual ailments.  The only magical ailment I’m intimately familiar with is invoked hyperplasia.”

“Because the only intervention is surgical, yes, I have no doubt you would be,” his face tightened with concern, the memory of his school friend stuck in his mind, “a terrible condition indeed.”

“People have difficulty wrapping their mind around healing invocations,” Velim began, each word considered before being voiced, “they see a wound close, and believe they’re seeing some process reverse bodily damage when the truth of the matter is that the invocation is a calling forth of cellular regeneration.  A less-than-precise use of such a spell leads the body into devouring itself to feed whatever retains a splinter of the invocation,” they sighed, “forgive me, I see it so often that I find its continued prevalence exhausting.  Were you ever a student here?”

“I spent a great deal of time as a joint researcher between the archaeology department and the Blackstaff Research Institute, but, no, I was always destined for Blackstaff’s program.  In fact, an old colleague of mine in the archaeology department was the first person to show me this,” he gestured to the turning leaves above them, catching the mist and releasing it as heavy droplets, “I’m sure she’s industrious as ever in Baldur’s Gate, but I do miss her.  She makes a brilliant collaborator.”

“Always a shame when a great researcher moves out of reach,” Velim looked above them and watched droplets slide off a dome of magic above themself and Gale.  When had he cast that spell?  Now that they were paying attention, they could feel the threads leading back to him.  Effortless.  A small voice in the back of their mind wondered if he might teach them such a thing, “you’re quite skilled.”

Gale followed their gaze to the shield above them as the rain finally reached them from the sea in a soft patter on the leaves.  “What, that trick?”

Velim couldn’t cast a shield spell with that ease -- not at all.  They had tried and splashed their apartment with acid.  “I didn’t see you cast it.”

“Are you at all familiar with the Arts?” Gale asked, admiring his own work as other walkers on the path scrambled for cover in the steadily intensifying rain.

Velim considered their answer, letting the pause drag on almost too long before responding.  “I learned only what kept me from discharging magic accidentally.”

Gale’s eyebrows rose.  “A sorcerer?”

They shoved their hands into their pockets again.  “Yes, but I couldn’t tell you from what source.”

A flush rose to Gale’s cheeks, turning them redder than the flush that cold already brought to his face.  “My apologies, I don’t mean to suggest -- well, I’ve met many sorcerers with less intellectual acumen, if you’d allow me a modicum of judgment.”

Velim smirked at him, but their hands remained firmly in their pockets.  “The best of us don’t attend arcane academies.”  Including themself in that number felt wrong, but Gale was too distracted by his own embarrassment to notice the bitterness in their expression was directed at themself.

“Neither of your parents were gifted?” Gale recovered.  The shield above them never wavered.

“I can’t say, I don’t know them.” Velim waited for Gale to press further.

Gale shuffled his feet through the fallen leaves.  “I see.  I’m sorry for your loss.  I lost my father before I could remember, myself.  Do you mind if I ask how it happened?”

The time he wasted on apologies gave Velim time to set the pieces of their story in order.  “I’m not sure if they’re dead,” they watched Gale’s face change in surprise, “I fell from the roof of a building when I was 14, took on a severe head trauma.  I can’t recall anything before waking up in a surgery in the middle of a quarantine for fever.  I couldn’t leave, and I had no way to tell anyone who I was or where I came from, so I began my apprenticeship as a surgeon as soon as I had hands that worked.”

“And they never came looking for you?” Gale pressed.

Velim shrugged, unwilling to twist any more of their past into something fit for consumption.  “When you were working on that joint committee with your colleague, were you looking to investigate that site you mentioned in the Silver Marches?  The one involved with the Ortenkus story?”

“The project was intended to map the annual travels of each known enclave in Netheril based on historical accounts and traces of weave modified by the passage of the mythallars.  No time for old Ortenkus, I’m afraid,” he turned, the grin of a teacher about to drop some semi-secret knowledge on his student forming at the corners of his mouth, “The towns that dot the Silver Marches now, you know they follow the paths of weave left by the mythallars?  The very roads of northern Faerun follow those ancient cities.”

Velim returned his smile.  “I did not know that.  Did the mythallars raise the earth out of the swamp, or is there something further at play there?  It seemed nigh-impassable to me.”

“Unfortunately not,” Gale trailed off when he noticed Velim wasn’t looking at him anymore, their gaze following a pair of arguing voices obscured by foliage, “probably just a lover’s spat.”

Velim cocked their head to one side.  “Probably,” they echoed.

“Are you worried about someone seeing us together?” Gale’s voice dropped, hoping the worry that the time they spent together may be complicated by their inescapable pasts came out as concern for their well-being.

They shook their head.  “No, not at all,” and turned to him, “just an old habit.  Few folks like seeing a Vulture in their village.  You learn to watch for people about to make a bad decision.”

Gale’s posture loosened.  “I see, and those two are about to make a poor decision, in your estimations?”

Velim glanced through the trees, trying to catch a glimpse of the arguing pair.  “Maybe.  Shall we find somewhere dry for lunch?”

“Sounds like a fine idea, this way.” Gale led them down a path that cut between the trunks of two thick maples twined together through some feat of magic or botany.

Velim hesitated at the path’s start, but jogged to catch up before Gale noticed the delay and they got caught in the rain without the shield spell for an umbrella.

“I have something to ask you, and you may feel that it’s coming on a bit strong, but I assure you that my intentions are purely platonic,” Gale waited for Velim to match his stride before continuing, “do you have plans for Liar’s Night this year?”

“None I couldn’t be persuaded to change, though I will be walking with the rest of the Vultures in the parade,” the path narrowed and Velim bumped Gale with their shoulder, “Are you in need of a plus-one for a party of preeminent citizens?”

“No -- well, yes.  Blackstaff Tower holds a Liar’s Masquerade annually.  Normally I would attend alone, but with my extended absence I thought I might benefit from some company this year.  Of course, if you aren’t comfortable with such a thing you need only say the word and I will not mention it again.”  Gale leaned into their weight, following Velim when the path widened again and they pulled away.

Velim kicked through a pile of wet leaves before responding.  “I find it difficult to believe you’ve never taken a guest.”

“Well, I was never alone, I simply arrived alone,” Gale waved the notion off, but his face grew redder, “I once had a full dance card.  It’s only that after a full year of absence, the things that once were easy are no longer.”

“I’d be happy to accompany you, of course,” Velim assured him, “you’ve never brought a date?  Truly?”

“Not for any lack of experience.” He pulled the collar of his coat up.

“Happy to be your first, then,” Velim shot him a crooked smile that sent feathers fluttering through his stomach, their teeth sharper in the expression, “I’m sure I’ll make some poor soul terribly jealous.  Should we plan to match, or let the cards fall where they may in terms of dress?”

Gale feigned a cough to keep his voice from cracking.  “No time to draft up something new, we may as well don the costumes of yesteryear.  I expected more resistance to the idea.”

“Oh, no, I adore a masked party,” Velim buried their hands deeper in their pockets, but their step skipped ahead and stretched the shield that now carried them both beneath a curtain of rain, “They make for good people watching.  I only warn you that I can’t dance.”

“I’m not exactly in the practice of it myself,” Gale ran a hand through his hair and breathed in the smell of wet earth as they approached a covered walkway with scattered food carts meant to feed the students and staff of the university, “I’ll survive a crushed toe or two, should we find ourselves in a dancing mood.  I wouldn’t have thought you the type for parties.”

“Then you thought right,” Velim admitted, walking ahead of him and into the cover of the walkway where the smell of cooking meat swelled beneath the roof, “but variety is the spice of life, is it not?  And I’ve never been to Blackstaff Tower, you might show me around.”

The rain continued falling over the botanical gardens long after both their bowls were empty and replaced in the bin of used dishes beside the noodle cart.  Velim leaned on the railing separating the walkway from the cobblestone paths of the garden and watched the rain slide off the roof in thick rivulets.  Gale leaned against the column beside them.

“Quite the day for a walk in the garden,” Velim glanced sideways at Gale, “I’m tempted to ask you to walk me home with that shield spell of yours.”

“I would be honored,” Gale said with a little bow, “shall we take the path through the trees?”

Velim watched Gale as they stepped out into the rain together, the deluge parting.  Gale glanced back at them back with a sly glint in his eye.  They didn’t notice so much as a twitch of his fingers, and realized he had never dropped his concentration.  

They came under cover of the trees, and Gale stumbled on the uneven path.  His knees buckled as the orb spasmed in his chest.  Velim caught his elbow, his weight dropping them both for a sickening second before Velim pulled him upright.  They searched his face for the ailment, noting the pinch of pain at his temples and corners of his eyes, one hand firm on his arm to hold him steady and the other bracing their shoulder against his weight.  Gale blinked hard, his mouth opening in silent apology.  Velim dragged him to a bench and sat him down.  The chilled rainwater soaking into his coat fought the tearing sensation radiating through his chest, the orb grasping frantically for Velim’s hand on his arm.  He pulled away.  

Velim sat on the bench beside him a few inches apart, hands back in their pockets.  They waited for his back to ease out of its tense arch, his hand massaging his chest as he sat back against the bench and let the chill slip over him as raindrops fell fat and heavy against his skin.  He spoke the word and circled his fingers in the air and the shield reappeared above them.

“Has this happened before?” Velim asked.

Gale took a deep breath, his lungs straining against the pressure of the orb.  “Yes, occasionally.  It’s no trouble, really, I’m sorry to bother you with it.”

“Rain check on walking me home,” Velim joked, their bedside manner slipping into place, “have you seen a doctor about it?”

“Yes,” the affirmative was always the correct answer, “nothing for it, I’m afraid.”

“How long do these episodes typically last?” Velim ran down their list of questions, filtering the ones that seemed too personal for a concerned exchange between friends, “and do you have something to take for them?”

“Not long,” Gale’s voice wavered, “but I’m afraid I do not have the medicine on my person.”

Velim searched his face for something and Gale thought with a jolt that they knew he was lying to them until they blinked and glanced at the mosaic of leaves dotting the path.

“Very well,” they conceded, “when you’re ready, allow me to hail you a cab.”

Gale thought to deny the offer, but he knew it was a command and not a request.  He dragged the last moments out, watching the rain cascading over the shield spell and turning the world into a watery smear of red and gold.  “Shall we?”

Gale stood up before Velim could offer their hand, so they kept their hands where they were and matched his slow pace.  Their footsteps were drowned out by the rain and puddles were beginning to form in the low points of the walkways.

“My apologies for cutting our time short,” Gale said once the pressure in his chest eased down to a flutter, “I did very much enjoy it.  Don’t think my outburst is in any way related to a lack of desire to see you home safely.  Please.”

“I also enjoyed it,” Velim assured him as they entered the courtyard at the entry, the dead stalks of wildflowers giving off the aroma of sodden hay, “and I imagine I’ll enjoy the Liar’s Masquerade just as much, but promise you’ll get some rest and see your doctor again before the event.”

“I promise.” The orb pulsed hotly around a tightening in his chest.

They arrived at the street and Velim flagged down a carriage.  They pulled up their hood and saw him safely inside the covered cab, then tried to offer the driver payment.

“No, no,” Gale pushed a few nibs into the driver’s open palm, “not after you bought lunch.”

Velim put their change back in their pockets.  “I’ll see you on Lair’s Night, Gale.”

“You will.  I promise you, you will.” Gale sat back in the cab as the driver kicked the horse into gear.  He massaged his chest, the faint black lines of the mark pulsing as molten metal beneath the surface of his skin all the way up to his eye where his vision blurred with each hard beat of his heart.

The shield spell vanished with Gale, and the rain resumed falling on the oiled leather of Velim’s duster in a way that pressed the cold into their skin through the waxed seams.  They waited for the carriage to turn out of sight to begin walking, scolding themself for offering to let Gale walk them home in the first place.  A foolish idea, and something they should never have considered extending to someone who knew them not at all.

Without the shield, the cold crept into their shirt and pulled the scars on their chest taut.  They rubbed along the line of them, from sternum to clavicle on each side, smoothing the scales and soothing the prickling scar tissue beneath.  Their shoulder ached where the muscles had strained against Gale’s weight.

[sunnydaleherald]

The Sunnydale Herald Newsletter, Sunday, August 11th

LISA: He didn't say you were a freak. DAWN: Forget it. LISA: He just said you were ... freaky. Which, you know, freaky can be ... sort of cool.

~~The Body~~

[Drabbles & Short Fiction]

I don't want you like a best friend by Kittenwritings (Angel/Cordelia/Wesley, T)

He's Got the Look by fatalfae (Buffy/Angel, T)

5 times she thought about kissing [the other woman] and the 1 time she did by Kittenwritings (Cordelia/Fred, T)

time for school by skargasm (Xander/Spike, M)

Когда ты в Риме by B_E_S (Buffy/Angel, M, in Russian)

Remember to Forget by fatalfae (Buffy/Angel, G)

[Chaptered Fiction]

Against All Odds, Ch. 8 by CheekyKitten (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

East of Nevada, Ch. 13 by Blissymbolics (Buffy/Spike, R)

Morning Stretches, Ch. 6 by CheekyKitten (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

Lost in Desolation, Ch. 3 by Melme1325 (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

Mysterious Destinies, Ch. 1 by EnchantedWillow (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

With Sprinkles, Ch. 42 by dogbertcarroll (anime crossover, Xander, FR15)

Aim High, Ch. 7 by Buffyworldbuilder (Stargate crossover, Buffy, FR13)

[Images, Audio & Video]

Angel, but yellow by livefromthegraveyard (Angel, worksafe)

A Buffy/Spike collage by sunflower1109 (worksafe)

A Buffy/Angel collage by sunflower1109 (worksafe)

Vid: Nothing in common by Faith Victoria (Willow and Vampire Willow)

Manips: Swapped by scratchmeout (Buffy/Spike, R)

[Reviews & Recaps]

thinking about how buffy the vampire slayer jokingly dismissed the idea of giving xander more relevance... by butchrupertgiles

Never Kill a Boy on the First Date Fashion Part Three by theoverlookedoneedits1997

Lies My Parents Told Me thoughts by justsolas

The Delightful Lightness of Season 4 by Opposite-Essay-1093

Just finished my first run through of the series. My thoughts. by InnocentPerv93

[Recs & In Search Of]

Fic rec: Falling by Kally77 recced by flowspuffy

LightningStrokeHere seeks the name of the ending song from the episode "The Harvest" S1E2

Graduation Day reaction video by The Horror Bandwagon recced by Cailly_Brard7

[Fandom Discussions]

Angel should tell Spike that he doesn’t deserve Buffy... by nicnacsnonsense (critical of Bangel)

In Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered Amy invokes Diana for a love spell... by theredpharaoah

I think in regards to angel and spike, the rest of the demon fighting world sees Buffy as... by finalgirl1984

"the sister that used to be a big ball of universe-destroying energy" by debujandobirds

S1 E12 Helpless - Some questions & thoughts by Littledittydee

Did Snyder bring about his own end by being a control freak or was it something more sinister by sKullsHavezzz

Tried to explain every cover of Buffy The Vampire Slayer seasons by Cailly_Brard7

[Articles, Interviews, and Other News]

James Marsters Huntington Comic & Toy Con 2024 Reports, Pics & Videos via dontkillspike

Submit a link to be included in the newsletter!

Join the editor team :)