#it just radically changed my opinion\relationship w him

[starglewcrossing]

today I helped my mom and my grandpa (her dad) move a new tv into his hoarders old folk apartment and move his giant, ancient impossibly heavy tube tv out. it was total disaster, tv almost crushes frail gpa cause he thinks he is young and can move it himself :( tube almost crushes me, smooshes multiple fingers many times, smooshes moms finger so bad it swells up and turns purple immediately.

why am I telling my gaming blog of this? because while trying to find out exactly how fucking heavy this monster was I stumble into the professional/nostalgic collection of these stupid heavy tvs, that almost ended the lives of 3 generations in less than 3 hours, for CLASSIC GAMING 😭 I saw what I’m assuming was a highly desired one going for $200+?!

anyway today truly ranked in my top 10 worst days on my 25 years alive so far and I can currently feel my body becoming sore from dead lifting that fucker off the ground with my mom as my grandpa don’t offer us any water or say thanks when we’re done 💔

[kidsinsaturn]

a relationship with shisui headcanons

[🗼] thank you so much for 100 followers I love youuu 🫶🏻🤍🤍 I’m considering doing some sort of especial idkk

characters: shisui uchiha

genre: sfw; nsfw; non massacre au

warnings: gn!reader; breeding kink; size kink; overstimulation;

.

.

.

-ahh shisui my ultimate anime boy why did you have three seconds of screen time I swear i'll do you justice and make half the fandom fall in love with you

-to put it in simple words, shisui is BEST boyfriend, ok forget about every boy that has met your expectations and prepare for shisui to destroy that scale

-after you said yes to being his, your honeymoon phase seemed endless. anything shisui does is to keep up that spark and he knows he chose well his partner because he will never grow tired from them

-shisui is very versatile and he reads people very well–he read itachi like a book, the quietest boy out there–, so you weren't any challenge for him

-he is very observant, so he will notice quite soon if your mood swings. and he will know if you are ever irritated with him, which should happen NEver

-the first months were magical, just as any other love relationship, boy shisui always tried to keep your relationship funny, outgoing and not fall into the dull, monochromatic relationship

-he is a very sweet guy, very kind, gentle, and his charm is what makes everyone likes him. you were no different, but shisui cherished your adoration for him more than anyone else's

-you met his bestie itachi !! and while it took you some time for the two of you to be good friends, damn shisui was over the moon. itachi was like his little brother, so if you and itachi didn't get along, he wouldn't have known what to do, boy would be troubled

-every time you guys had a date, shisui would bring you something made with his own hands; whether it being a necklace he made with small rocks from other countries, or just a simple letter expressing his deep feelings for you

-everything shisui did only made you fall in love with him more and more

-he has a broad nose, which if you kiss softly, shisui might as well just marry you in the spot

-for the whole village, it was already culture to know that the uchiha was dating you. and if you weren't uchiha, the whole compound was very wary of you, as they would be with anyone outside the clan

-shisui actually was banned temporarily from clan business for being with you, but thankfully fugaku came to his senses and recognized you as one of them. shisui couldn't be more happy, he loved his clan, yes, but if they couldn't accept you, his opinion on them would change radically. losing their best resource wasn't a wise option after all

-with his clan's blessing–somewhat–, shisui bowed to himself to make you the happiest person until the two of you die. he wanted to marry you so badly

-shisui would crack his best jokes at your present, and it wasn't nothing weird, after all you make the butterflies in his stomach give him powers !!

-you noticed shisui's love language is physical affection. he consumes himself in you. he loves touching you so much. he is okay with pda and if you are too, then you are the clingiest couple konoha knows

-the type of boyfriend to always be touching you. if you are out choosing the best veggies, shisui is there too, his right arm wrapped around your waist and a tomato on his left hand. when it's time for you to pay, he has his hands on your waist, or his arms over your shoulders. when you are waiting for your food, he has his head on yours and his hands pinching your sides. he is very clingy

-and that's on public, now when you are alone!! shisui is absolutely baby in your arms. you often wonder how this grown ass adult is feared by nations and a flee on sight foe but when he has his head on your chest, he is talking to you in the babiest of voices

-you are his mama and if you don't agree with that title then bad for you because shisui will find his way for you to baby him

-he loves your delicate hands on his raven curls, untangling them while having him his face pressed on your chest

-this doesn't mean he doesn't spoil you in private. this happens too but less often

-when you are cuddling and you are the tiny spoon, shisui envelops his beefy body around you. his thick and muscular arms surrounding you, while his strong thighs hold yours

-he is bigger than you, he is so tall and his body is so brawny. he started training since young and his abs appeared at the age of 13 so now he is so hard but so soft at the same time

-he melts when you wear his clothes because he uses bigger sizes that look absolutely adorable in you, he cried once

-he aint the best cook, but every time he sees you in the kitchen, he is there to help you handle you the ingredients or dishes you need, of course never ceasing contact with you

-when he is on long missions, you find yourself missing the warmth of his hand around your waist and hips, oh shisui what have you done

nsfw ->

-first and most important kink for this uchiha: breeding kink of course I would be mad if I didn't include this, but also im so convinced he has such a size kink that he couldn't quite control when meeting you

-he always stood up as tall and broad, so those compliments just made him develop that kink, damn those genes

-he often finds himself hard at just the thought of your smaller form next to his much larger one pff shisui kiss me

-"it won't fit" "yes it will" ship dynamic

-you already know my dick headcanons for this young man, BUT if I have to repeat myself, then ok. thickest, fattest cock in the village mmm excuse me and he aint ashamed of it

-it's not the longest but I swear that can sized girth is all you fucking need. shisui is stretching that tiny hole with no mercy and you may cry

-he feels so sheepish if you compliment his huge cock. he doesn't quite knows what to say. he loves his dick and he loves you loving it

-he is so mean with his dick like yeah we get it you destroyed me with your simple tip please let me rest

-shisui absolutely loves overestimulartion, both on him and you. making you come more than two times is now a habit every time you have sex. you end up crying because sometimes shisui reaches a point where he can't stop, his cock hurts and your pussy is so sore

-he is an ass man !! I stand by this with my whole heart, and while he enjoys seeing your beautiful face, your bum is peak ecstasy. he destroyed your ass once, and the rest of the day he had his large hand pressed against it, caressing it softly

-when you first had sex, you didn't even get to have shisui's whole cock inside you. it was the first and only time your hole was stretched that much it just started hurting you told shisui to stay there. he didn't move as much, but you both cum

-now you take that cock like a champion. though, it is only when you are very lubricated–whether from your own fluids or outside help–, that you take him all inside. your core hurts like shit later and there is a bump in your stomach shisui absolutely loves caressing

-shisui is sometimes rough and sometimes soft, but most of the time he is very gentle with you, because he prefers making love to you than fucking you aww

-his breeding kink forces him to come inside you. it happened like the second time you two had sex that he came too fast that he savored on your insides being painted white by his cum. he couldn't stop then

-shisui gets hard from just making out with you haha that is the only reason he doesn't do it as much in public, unless you are willing to handjob him uw u

-flee on sight ninja, gentle lover, and pussy destroyer

[rollercoasterwords]

ur opinion on snape???

lol sure. why not. 

i mean as i have stated before on this blog my personal opinion on snape is that i do not like him. however before i get into that i want 2 make clear -- i think the vitriolic debate between snape stans and snape haters in which each side insists that THEIR interpretation of the character is the Most True is just. tired. like there is no One True Interpretation of snape's character--the text can support a reading of him as an irredeemable piece of shit and it can also support a reading of him as one of the greatest heroes in the series. so like, even though i personally don't like snape, i don't really care if there are people out there who love him and want to give him a redemption arc/build off the redemption arc jkr tried to give him. i just stay out of that corner of the internet, because it doesn't interest me. 

that being said! i personally tend to fall into the reading of snape as like. nice-guy friendzoned teenage boy who slowly gets radicalized into fascist/right-wing thinking, partially because he feels entitled to lily's attention + love and doesn't feel like he's getting it, but also because he grew up feeling like much of his life is out of his control and feeling as though his wizarding heritage is his access card to privilege and power. i view his relationship w the marauders as more of a rivalry/equal give-and-take rather than like. snape is an innocent victim who was bullied. i think all of them were shitty to each other growing up in school. and my interpretation of snape's actions during the war in canon is that he really only broke from his allegiance to the death eaters once lily's life was at stake, which to me is less a sign of him actually disavowing these views and more just. based in his obsession with lily. the fact that he bullied children once he was older and just generally remained a shitty person makes me feel like he was. kind of a shitty person. and sort of gets in the way of his redemption arc for me. i feel like snape remained primarily motivated by his love for/obsession with lily + wanting to get revenge for her death, more than viewing him as someone who actually changed a lot to become a good person. 

so! that is just my interpretation + how i see the character. obviously, there are plenty of other readings of his character that are just as valid, including those who redeem him. i just don't think i will ever read the character that way myself, especially because for me teenage snape reminds me of like. various boys i grew up with or met growing up who i had very, very shitty experiences with, so i just really have no desire to even try and read a redemption arc into his character.  

[steelycunt]

okay so i don’t mind reg bc w/e this is fandom innit ppl can do what they want, but i think you’re so right that remus and lyall are fundamentally much more interesting characters and so is their relationship. reg by himself is somewhat compelling but no one in the fandom seems to care abt what makes him compelling i.e. stuff that actually happened in canon not just fanfictions that he’s been featured in. for instance, i see it being stated as though it’s fact that his parents abused him which we don’t know iirc? we know that sirius was mistreated and i do think being raised by political radicals would likely cause a turbulent home life, so i doubt regulus came out of his childhood unscathed, but we have no actual proof he was treated similarly to sirius at all. he was still a supremacist, just not to the extent that his parents were. as far as i’m concerned he died a fascist, but he had a “for thee but not for me” tory level attitude about certain things.

oh absolutely! with regards to my position on regulus, im in no way trying to say that people can’t/shouldn’t like him—as you say, people can do as they like, but im just personally not at all interested in him or with what general fandom consensus has chosen to do with him. the things that would make regulus compelling in canon do not necessarily compel me anyway, but more than that i agree that a lot of people have chosen to virtually wipe those things out out in favour of creating a morally pure conceptualisation of him that they don’t feel the need to defend (not that i think anyone should have to defend having an interest in regulus anyway).

i suppose i am just not personally predisposed to having an interest in canon regulus, so his popularity is not something i fully understand, but particularly the version of him that has been created by fanon...honestly i find him irritating, and generally i find even less to be interested in in a conceptualization of regulus that strips him of agency, flaws and responsibility. i said in that other post that i dont think regulus is as complex as he's given credit for (which applies even more once fanon is through with him), and i honestly stand by it--i reckon he was fully willing, albeit having been influenced by his upbringing, to become a death eater, and i don't buy the narrative that he had no choice and was forced into it and had no personal sympathy with the politics of it all. i find it ridiculously convenient. and then, i think he started having doubts when the impact of all it all became a little too close for comfort (for thee but not for me is quite a perfect summary lol), and he turned traitor. that is really all there is to it for me. i do not think that he would have rejected his parents' ideology if given the chance, the way sirius did. but i recognise really, since i don't think a character's morality or lack thereof should dictate whether you're allowed to enjoy them, the discussion of regulus' morality is sort of besides the point lol, other than the fact that i find his complete and unrealistic redemption via fanon rather boring and admittedly a little lazy.

my comparison between his relationship with sirius and lyalls relationship with remus in the earlier post was mainly just me. making a joke of sorts and being a little unserious, but i do genuinely think lyall and remus are a lot more interesting and complex--though i 100% recognize that this is largely personal preference and im not trying to dress my opinion as an objective fact. mainly, i guess where i am with it all is that i already dont really have an interest in regulus from canon, and despite his huge surge in popularity i have never seen anything in fanon that really changes my mind about that (apart from. maybe one fic). which is fine! nobody is obligated to sit here and try and tailor their own takes on, or fondness for, this guy to attract my interest, or win me over. that is not their job. my opinion holds no more weight than the next guy's, and my lack of interest in regulus is not anyone else's problem, just like i am not ever going to exert energy trying to win someone over to liking remus or liking r/s. i am never going to go to someone's blog or fic and have a go at them for liking regulus/demand they justify themselves. BUT, in the safety of my own blog, i figure im safe to say these things xx and as far as im concerned, my favourite thing regulus ever did was piss off and die xx

[secretbangtnn]

Best Of Me| Two

Pairings : →ot7 x reader, poly!BTS x reader

Genre : → vampireau, yandere!au, age gap, gore, obsessive behavior, ddlg/caregiver, poly, fantasy, supernaturals

summary : It’s quite unusual to find a little baby on your doorstep, especially that their area was not of the poorest - you could say that a vampire town was efficient with money and snobby creatures. However over time the first idea of just giving back the little girl seems more and more radical and those moody vampires slowly start perceiving deeper feelings to human they even wanted to kill.

previous | next

notes ~ I did it!!! Omg im so happy I finished it, hopefully the next one are going to come sooner. The first chapters are going to be with a baby oc - im sorry if its boring, but after it we can start with the real plot, the things are gonna get dark. Hope that you will like it, and remeber to give me some feedback - im whore for a comments and ask and beside they motivate me very much

taglist :

@missseoulite @gukkculture @silscintilla @the-falling-star @apollonshootafar @mwitsmejk @lovinggalaxies @b-e-t-x-s-o @jisoosbitch @ariverflowsonthemoon @maboiisuga @peachescream1723 @sichajeon

Cries everywhere. Sobbing so loud that all the birds disappeared from their little birdhouse outside the window. And as funny the view was, a big ball of stress and nerves started collecting itself in the rather calm manor. Reason of all this mess was just one, so easy to notice.

���Jungkook!” Just like a ball of nerves now the big ball of dirty blankets and clothes hit the young vampire, making him stumble a little. Obvious disgust on his face with a piece of distaste on his tongue which just a second ago had been caused by the same thing he now fisted in his hands.

“You didn’t have to throw it at me!” Barked Jungkook staring at the broad shoulders of his oldest brother. Child now a little calmer, however still sobbing slightly, keeping the atmosphere at bay.

“You have brung the kid so you will hold the things he made. Be happy that I'm not forcing you to change the diaper instead.”

Disgust on all of their faces is now being something normal, having kids in the same room as them, definitely does not go well with hundred years old vampires. The only one without a gag reflex seems to be Seokjin, acting like a pro mother, just after her 3rd pregnancy with the next on the road. However all of them agreed with the statement that it was all but Jungkook's fault, which came with consequences for said boy.

Thus now sitting on the couch, five of the ramaing vampires, looked with a bored expression at the panicked and nearly vomiting jungkook. Youngest of them always had a soft stomach, never being the one to clean after disasters, forcing people to basically clean after him, and maybe that's why all of them felt such a satisfaction upon them while staring at the shitty situation.

Literally shitty.

Stumbling a little from the intense smell, Jungkook started to try getting rid of the used diaper in his hands, holding it with his fingers dingling it as far from his face as he could. Maybe the smelly object was not the only thing that should be named like a feces, knowing that a person who should just throw the diaper away, purposefully walked closer than intended to a couch with older vampires, stumbling not that accidentally and making the thing in his hand fly straight to a lap of a reading Namjoon.

A moment of silence, only lasting for a short second. Namjoon was never the one to shout or get mad, rather prefering to act calm and well put together, believing in a peace making and solutions not requiring usage of violence but when the heavy baggage on his lap suddenly started to warm his lap, he completely crushed his persona as well as book in his hands.

“Ups...hehe.” Jungkook laughed awkwardly, knowing well his fate. Doe eyes looked at the tall man, standing a little farther than him, just behind the couch. Jaw tightened so were the hands, keeping the last strings of calmness that were floating on very dangerous water.

“Listen, before you actually do something think of the time when you destroyed my ps4 and

I did not even complain.” Hands just before him similar to the way you would to with a wild animal, and in Jungkook's opinion, it was not that far from the truth, observing how Namjoons jaws nearly crushed from the tension.

“Okay okay, we all need to calm down, It was just an accident.” Cut in red head, standing in the middle of the war zone. It was stupid idea, definetly not the brightes of the sunny vampire, even if it came from the good intentions. Hoseok, just like an innocent child that got stuck in a big people argument, was the one that got hurt in the end.

And everybody knew that when Hoseok gets mad it's the extremity that anyone in this room is scared to experience once again. There is silent agreement between the rest of the brothers that was made after one of Hoseok's outburst, promising that no matter what the devil can’t come out.

The apple of discord laying now upon redhead’s feet, innocent like a little kitten that just waits to be petted, but in this case it wasn neither a fluffy ball of fur and definitely not something that should be touched.

Silence so loud, banging in their ears with an uneven breath. Second after second, rest that were not included in the middle, counted sitting on their heels with nerve wracking feelings.They stared as Hoseok’s shoulders rose and went down with each puff of air from his flared nostrils, neither of them dared to move, preferring to stay in a safe zone.

Just as red headed one wanted to take his first kill, a loud laugh echoed in a room, coming from a little child in Seokjin's arms, that probably just came back from being cleaned up. A fresh smile on its face, eyes sparkly looking straight at the scene.

“What are you doing, idiots?” Asked Seokjin, a visible vein on his forehead, sticking out under his free hand that now pinched a bridge of his nose. His eyes catching a glimpse of the used diaper, right on his favorite carpet. “You had one thing to do, one thing Jungkook.”

“It was an accident I swear on my ps4!” He tried explaining, shaking his arms. Seokjin saw to much lived too long to believe it, everybody knew it but even than they acted like bunch of idiots when something like this happen.

“Namjoon destroyed it, you said it yourself.” Spoke Jimin, sitting on a couch with a happy smile, pleased with himself. Younger's head immediately halted in his way, a look of betrayal on his face.

“You midge…”

“I don’t care, just clean it up, in the meantime me with the little snack are going to cook something, right my little cutie?” Cuted the older while caressing the child in his arms, turning his voice in a baby one. And just like this the scene came to the same point, the only difference was that neither Namjoon or Hoseok were in the room, probably running away as fast as Sekojins came.

Jungkook sighed, squatting down to take care of the said thing. Again the disgust and a feeling of nausea hitted him with a side giggles of his blonde haired brother.

Going into the kitchen he spotted the child that looked at him as soon as he appeared. Little smile and sweet laugh, making him soft and mushy for a while.

“I hope you know that you gave us a big problem with bringing a human child there.” Seokjin spoke, not looking from a cutting board, himself to immersed in said action

Jungkook knew, earlier thinking of it like a mere action, something that they can get rid of as fast as a lollipop wrapper. But it was not, and now looking at the kid, he realized how his careless behaviour could weigh down not only on his family but the whole society of vampires.

“I’m-”

“Don’t just apologize, we need to take care of it as fast as we can, in the meantime doing everything to not harm it. If someone finds out it’s going to be a bigger problem, probably even straining the relationship with human - and that’s something we do not want.” Cuted older, in the end turning around pointing the sharp knife on Jungkook.

It was true, the delicate stattlement between those two societies is still new, fresh and hot, ready to burn anyone's fingers, anyones who is to carless. The today is a better world, something that all of the brothers know, remembering dark times - some of them being not older than mere hatchling then. World was a dangerous place to live in, vampires hunting humans, humans hunting vampires, a competition that never got settled, and they hope it never will.

“Try feeding it and come to the living room after you are done. We will discuss the next actions - good luck.” A little wink at the end, Seokjin wiped his hands off on the way patting the younger's back, harder than normally.

“Wait what?! You are not being serious right now, right?” Asked confused Jungkook, fastly turning around to an already disappearing figure. Cold sweat on his body as he looked at the smooth face of the older, that defended a flying kiss to his shocked self. “Why can’t you do it?”

“I can. But the human seems to take a liking to you.” And how absurd it sounded, the baby really looked at Jungkook like some god, sparkly eyes always following his bigger figure.

“Seokjin! Don’t leave me please, I can’t do it.”He whined, looking for the said man, to his luck he was nowhere to be found. It was going to be alright - he tried to believe in those words now clutching baby spoon, that he was sure they did not have, and a mashed food, looking more like dog food than actual meal.

His Eyes staring right into the sparkly and to obnoxious happy, making him even more irritated. In the end, Jungkook hated little children, being and acting like one himself

Little hands stretching towards him with a toothless smile on the side, getting bigger as Jungkook came closer. That was it, taking a big breath he come to the other side of the table - almost touching the stool where the human sat. Ready and determined to get the task done, treating it similar to a quest in the game, he took the little spoon with some of the smashed food, and started to get closer to the child's mouth.

And as the brothers again started to live their normal life, thinking that at least for now, everything is settled, a very obvious squeal shook the while house.

“HYUNG!...IT WANTS TO TOUCH ME! GET IT AWAY, GET IT AWAY!”

___

All of them now sitting on the couches and armchairs, taking nearly all of the space. Some of the observing the crawling baby with prominent couriousty some of them with disgust even fear, not knowing what future the baby will bring.

Namjoon although feeling the little distaste, knew or better had a plan with what to do.

Smile on his lips not reaching his eyes, however stumbling on the way of eye contact with some of his brothers.

“Okay so, definitely we need to do something with...this.” Said Jimin, look on his face full of distress and disgust resting on the child, that as if it knew of Jimin’s attention looked back full of giggles and reaching hands.

“That is obvious, we can’t keep human child.” Barked Yoongi, the one which rather prefered to stay quiet in those metters.

“Jungkook should take care of it, It’s not my fault he is to stupid to not question a left human on a doorstep.” Smug smile now on Jimin's face, as he gave the side glance to the said male, happy with triggering the younger temper.

“As If you woul…”

“Okay we get it Jimin, it was Jungkook's fault, but still it can affect us all, so try to be at least a little bit helpful or shut up” Interrupted Seokjin staring at both of them in turn. The oldest obviously tired of all of the drama, massaging his scalp, to relieve the tension a little. “Let's start one by one, any ideas?”

Silence, a loud silence throwing the tension to the already burning fire. Seokjin's vein once again appeared on his forehead, making Jungkook nearly knock from a terrifying sight of it. It was pulsating, green and bumpy.

“Maybe let’s put it back?” Asked the quiet voice, Sekojin ready to snap at the stupid idea thinking that some of the youngers don’t know limit of the unfunny jokes, only to find innocent eyes of Hoseok.

“That’s … well that is AN option, thank you Hoseok - keep it up. Any other ideas?” Seokjin’s hands molded into a thump, giving the tired smile to Hoseok, knowing of his still busing nerves.

“Why are we even trying so hard, throw it away i say.” Jimin mumbled while staring at the little child going his way, quickly putting his feet on the couch, scared of a chance of being touched by the human.

Tired sight left mouth of the olders, his vein fading a little - to Jungkook luck, and his hands now clenching his blonde lock. He was helpless, disappointed in his brother's ideas and intelligence. He was sure that, that was indeed an end, his family will be arrested for keeping human, and vampires are going to lose a peace they fighted for.

Everything because Jungkook wanted to take unfamiliar child to their house.

“What about the orphanage that opened like one month ago, can’t we just leave it there?” Cuted Namjoon, making everyone snap their head. Seokjin nearly crying, wanting to kiss his brother as much as choke him for his slow process of thinking.

“Couldn’t you say earlier?!

[lots-of-little-pink-clouds]

So here's a thing about Madelaine's relationships w/ Ward, Sevinc, and Hauberk. Everything is under the cut b/c it be a long boi (as all my posts seem to be whoops :/)

Quick Overview:

So Ward, Sevinc, and Hauberk eventually go to Waterloo after being driven out of Ottawa and updated Baron Zaslow on the situation in the city

(I'm thinking Archon Durand has taken over under the guise of stamping out the Anarch threat, but is clearly just amassing power for her own ends)

Naturally, Madelaine learned of their arrival relatively quickly - news travels fast through the Anarch grape vine, and Baron Zaslow's high opinion of Ward was common knowledge

(The only thing Zaslow had a problem w/ was Ward's friendship w/ Arundel. This was also common knowledge, and many of the other Anarchs agreed w/ Zaslow that Ward had been way too close w/ Ottawa's Prince)

(Madelaine kept her own counsel about it, but she still listened and added all the juicy new info to the other rumours she learned when she was w/ the Camarilla)

Robert Ward:

Madelaine's opinion of Ward is fairly neutral. She doesn't know him well and never had much time to form much of an opinion

One thing she does know is that he's an extremist - the constant bombings sort of gave that away - and that's something she can't tolerate

So when Ward showed up, there was a slight dislike, but otherwise, she wasn’t sure what to make of him

Contrastingly, Ward was ecstatic that Madelaine had made her way to Waterloo. He was quick to try and build a friendship w/ her, despite the rough beginning they had in Ottawa, something that she hesitatingly reciprocated

It was tough for them simply b/c they are such radically different people, but they were able to bond over the one thing they had in common: Arundel

Ward told Madelaine about how Arundel always said good things about her, almost like he was a proud sire. And Ward may not be the brightest, but he can recognize the similarities she and Arundel share (and that makes Ward miss Arundel more)

It also makes Madelaine miss Arundel more too (he was sort of a father-figure to her, after all), if only b/c she never got to hear him say those things to her himself

(She doubts that he would've actually done so, but it's a nice thought)

There's also a lot of guilt there too b/c she never tried looking for him and she ends up wondering how things would've been different if she had

Sevinc:

Of course, Madelaine's disapproval of Ward's extremist nature meant that she and Sevinc clash horribly whenever they interact

Sevinc is a staunch Anarch extremist. Her suspicions regarding anyone remotely Camarilla also made her inclined to dislike Madelaine from the beginning. She challenges Madelaine and questions her motives constantly, it’s exhausting

Madelaine, of course, is dealing w/ a lot right now given how it was only recently that she defected to the Anarchs and Sevinc's insinuations weren't helping. So she becomes really passive aggressive and surprisingly petty

But there's also a sort of mutual respect there too? Not much, but it's enough for them to work together for short periods of time

(Really, really short periods of time)

Madelaine grudgingly admires Sevinc for her strong convictions, even if she disapproves of her methods, and the same applies to Sevinc regarding Madelaine

Of course, they would never admit that to anyone else

The night Madelaine and Sevinc ever agree on something is the night that the Antediluvians turn out to be real, awaken, and kill them all

Hauberk:

So to explain Madelaine's relationship w/ Hauberk, I feel like I need to explain the overall dynamic of Madelaine's relationship w/ Corliss, Arundel, and Ward

So Arundel and Corliss are something like a divorced couple that have a co-parenting relationship, and Madelaine is the child being passed b/n them (sort of a 70/30 custody thing at the beginning before changing to Corliss having her full-time (Arundel still pays child support))

Ward is Arundel's new boyfriend that Corliss is resentful of and Hauberk is Ward's adopted kid

Based on that, Hauberk feels threatened when Ward and Madelaine start bonding, and so he takes that frustration out on Madelaine by always being angry and aggressive and always trying to start something

Madelaine is only mostly annoyed by this - Sevinc is better at riling her up, and it's partially thanks to her that Madelaine develops a thicker skin - but one day he manages to hit a nerve and she snaps

Combat isn't her strong suit, but she doesn't really need it to intimidate him since she has Dread Gaze, and by god it worked (like, Messy Critical worked)

After that, Ward came down hard on both of them (something about not tearing each others' throats out before they take Ottawa), resulting in Hauberk and Madelaine avoiding each other and only interacting when they absolutely had to

Like, they still loathe each other, but they’ve gone from actively hostile step-siblings to “I still hate you, but I’ve elected to ignore you” step-siblings

[kalach-cha]

(me, seeing any ask game you reblog, rushing to go send one) anyways uh for the character breakdown, how about either Leliana Dragon Age and/or Paracelsus Darkest Dungeon? Whichever you'd prefer, or both if you'd like!

ok ok that’s honestly such a compliment oh my goddd

for leliana:

How I feel about this character: my favourite character in the franchise, hands down. she recognises her privilege and actively works against her internal biases in origins, leading to her support of briala in inquisition. she supports mages basically the most out of any other non-mage character. she’s bi and open about it and really really pretty. she acknowledges that the chantry needs to change and actively works to change it. anyway i would die for her.

All the people I ship romantically with this character: basically any ocs, but cousland and surana in particular! i also ship her with isabela, alistair, anora, and briala. leliana x fiona could be cool, too.

My non-romantic OTP for this character: my female amell who romances alistair. also, hawke and anders. i hc that she helped varric hide hawke, especially since my hawke romanced anders and supported him until the end. idk, i just think she and hawke would get on well.

My unpopular opinion about this character: i personally prefer hardening her than softening her, especially in origins. i feel like, narratively-speaking, it makes more sense for her to be hardened in origins and softened in inquisition. i prefer her to go murderpope in inq mostly because i think her faith can blindside her, and i feel that that’s the safer option, especially regarding free mages and elves.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon: marrying the warden, if romanced (and they’re not on the fereldan throne)! also, i wish she would tell cullen off, especially considering her very radical pro-mage stance (which i wholeheartedly approve of). yeah, leliana’s my comfort character.

for paracelsus:

How I feel about this character: i love her! she’s not my all-time fave in darkest dungeon (that would be either dismas or bigby) but i love her attacks, style, and backstory so much. i’m gonna get back to my fic soon, i  s w e a r.

All the people I ship romantically with this character: oh, uh *checks notes* audrey, junia, alhazred. mostly audrey, though. but i also hc para as polyamorous (she strikes me as the type to completely tear down societal boundaries that she sees as pointless) so i get the best of all worlds!

My non-romantic OTP for this character: para and bigby! i just want them to appreciate science together. plus, para probably wouldn’t be as freaked out about him as most of the other heroes. she’s much more level-headed.

My unpopular opinion about this character: i really don’t like her with baldwin. it screams doctor taking advantage of a patient, which is so unlike para and just downright wrong. para and baldwin both seem like they’re very professional, serious people, so any romance between them feels very out of character in my opinion.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon: i really wish we had the opportunity to delve deeper into her backstory and see her relationship with the other heroes, especially junia, alhazred, and bigby. she deserves friends, dammit.

as always, thanks for the ask!

[bolbiistroganovsky]

I’m drunk so here are my hot takes:

Ghost and Hozier’s music is basic pop and not as good and subversive as y’all say it is

If you’re having panic attacks about Corona daily or being a woman daily or anything daily, no offense but the world doesn’t suck THAT bad and even if it did that’s not an appropriate response and you should probably talk to a therapist about anxiety

Micro labels are stupid and so is the split attraction model and they’re all based on the queerphobic idea that our identities are inherently more sexual than others

Just because someone is marginalized doesn’t mean they’re always right and especially doesn’t mean they’re always the victim in a situation. Minorities are capable of doing bad things too, even to a member of an oppressor class

Please for the love of god y’all need to learn to read things before forming opinions. If you read something on the internet, fact check it. It’s probably wrong tbh and even if it isn’t it’s probably phrased in a misleading way

Joe Biden fucking sucks but you should still vote for him

We talk a lot about homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, etc on here. You know what we don’t talk about that’s worse than all of these by miles? Classism. Literally we could end all minority based discrimination tomorrow and the world would still suck ass cause of classism.

I’m gonna day it again. Music y’all go “feral” for isn’t that good. Listen to Rett Madison and like live a little.

I don’t want communism cause it’s never worked before and I especially don’t trust this country to get it right.

As badly as y’all wanna be the main character, the USA isn’t a dystopia yet and whining on the internet isn’t gonna do anything to stop that train if it is. Like y’all have to be willing to put some skin in the game if you want change. Every successful movement in history has seen people lose jobs, burn bridges, end relationships, unfortunately even die. This isn’t gonna be any different. Peaceful protesting and voting isn’t gonna cut it sorry about it. If you want radical change put your money where your mouth is and do it.

I think someone needs to assassinate trump at this point. Like take one for the team. I can’t believe no one has even tried. Like chop chop

Police reform or even police abolishment doesn’t mean shit if the school to prison pipeline and private prisons still exist. A lot of people don’t talk about that especially outside sj circles

Public education based on property taxes is the number one way social class is maintained in this country. Number one. Quote me

Additionally, reforming public education without providing free summer programming and preschool won’t close the gap

I’m tired of podcasts. I’m too adhd for that

Someone should also kill Jeff bezos. Let’s capitalize on that estate tax

Teddy trust buster Roosevelt would’ve broken up amazon google and Facebook rn

I wish the Reagan assasination attempt had been successful

I really think the US was on the right track until he became president and set us back about one hundred years

People who are in their twenties and still make fun of people who “peaked” in high school are still just insecure and jealous of what they missed out on. Like have some fun and get drunk w former lax players and stop having the most rancid vibes on the planet

It actually is hard being not skinny but not fat. Like worst of both worlds tbh

If you buy a car worth more than $35k you’re a fucking idiot being swindled by consumerism

Seriously I cannot stress enough how annoyed I was by Ghost’s music. Like not nearly as cool as I thought it’d be. And I know I have taste

[canadianabroadvery]

What will the upcoming year bring in world affairs? A presidential election looms in America; the wave of leaderless protests from Chile to Lebanon is rolling on; China’s rising belligerence is being felt on the streets of Hong Kong and in the expanses of cyberspace; regional tensions in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and in east Asia all threaten to escalate into wars; Europe’s future remains uncertain. Will 2020 be known for an explosion of conflict and instability, for a reassertion of norms and order, or for some as-yet unanticipated historical shift?

These matters too are uncertain to make firm forecasts possible, but you can try to identity the critical factor in each case. The below is my stab at doing so: a (non-exhaustive) list of big questions about the year ahead with the factors that will decide them and a prediction of how those crucial factors will turn out. I will return to these predictions at the end of the year to see how well I did.

1. Will there be war with Iran?

The issue: At the time of writing America has just killed Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran’s proxy forces across the Middle East, in a drone strike in Baghdad. Tehran has vowed “severe revenge”. This could accelerate the existing spiral of escalation, pulling in players like Saudi Arabia and Israel, and possibly lead to American air strikes on Iran and outright war.

The decisive factor: The Iranian leadership knows war with America would be catastrophic but believes (seemingly correctly, at least until now) that Donald Trump does not want direct conflict. The question is whether the president might blunder into a different position in the heat of the moment. An election is looming and voters do not want war, but Trump is also thin-skinned, volatile and will be desperate to save face if Iran retaliates spectacularly.

My prediction: Iran will most likely calibrate its response to avoid pushing Trump and American public opinion on to a full war-footing; by targeting American allies and interests rather than directly attacking Americans and by using proxies like Shia militias in Iraq and Hezbollah. More likely than outright American-Iranian war is a proxy war played out the Levant, the Persian Gulf and especially Iraq.

2. Will Donald Trump be reelected?

The issue: On 3 November Donald Trump will go up against a Democrat challenger in America’s presidential election. His approval ratings are below those of previously reelected presidents like Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton, but as in 2016 he does not necessarily need to win the popular vote to secure victory under the electoral college system.

The decisive factor: Trump’s victory relied on a coalition spanning hardline Republicans, moderate Republicans who accepted his theatrics as the price of tax cuts and white working-class voters who defected from the Democrats over cultural issues. That coalition is fairly robust, so the Democrat candidate’s chance of overturning it relies on his or her ability to build a culturally and, crucially, geographically broader coalition taking in states like Wisconsin and Arizona.

My prediction: With the Trump coalition more consolidated than the fragmented Democrat one, the fundamentals point to reelection for the president.

3. Will global carbon emissions peak?

The issue: Under the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises above pre-industrial levels to the 1.5 to 2.0 degree range (within which the future impacts of climate change rise from moderate to very high), global greenhouse gas emissions need to plateau this year and start falling next year. That requires a step-change in global efforts, as 2019 saw carbon dioxide levels rise to record levels and at almost the same rate as in the previous year.

The decisive factor: This will largely be decided by policy in three places: China, the United States and the EU. Together these three largest emitters generate about half of the world’s greenhouse gases. The good news: the “Green New Deal” - the notion of a radical ecological re-wiring of the economy - will be a major feature of US and European politics this year and China is sticking to its Paris targets. The bad news: America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will take place over 2020 and, having stabilised for several years, China’s emissions are growing again.

My prediction: With most countries failing to meet their Paris targets and none of the big three (particularly America and China) decarbonising their economies fast enough, emissions will continue to rise in 2020.

4. Will Boris Johnson get an EU trade deal?

The issue: The newly elected prime minister has until the end of June to decide whether to extend the transition period beyond the current deadline of the end of the year. He has pledged not to prolong this “vassalage” but will struggle to negotiate more than a basic trade deal - one most disadvantageous to Britain rather than the EU - with Brussels in that time.

The decisive factor: Any fast deal will probably cover goods (where the EU has a surplus) but not services (where Britain has a surplus). Nor will it cover many matters relating to data, science or security. The question is whether Boris Johnson believes that his 80-seat majority in the Commons is big enough to absorb rebellions when it comes before parliament, whether he believes voters will tolerate the costs of such a deal and whether, on the first of these at least, he is right.

My prediction: Johnson’s self-confidence and the momentum of his electoral win will allow him to push through a bare-bones deal, sowing the seeds of political crisis in 2021.

5. Will China march into Hong Kong?

The issue: Last year’s Hong Kong protests, sparked by plans to allow extradition to the Chinese mainland, have carried on into 2020 with violent clashes on New Year’s Day. With no resolution in sight and Chinese troops massing at the border, the threat of a military intervention to crush the protests, a second Tiananmen, continues to loom.

The decisive factor: The protesters, boosted by supportive results in district council elections in November, are standing by their demands of universal suffrage, an amnesty for arrested protesters and an independent inquiry into police brutality. So the endgame depends on whether the Chinese leadership’s highest priority is to maintain political, economic and diplomatic stability or to make a example of Hong Kongers to discourage anti-Beijing rebellions elsewhere in its neighbourhood or within mainland China. The former militates for patience, the latter for violent intervention.

My prediction: With Hong Kong due to lapse to full Chinese control in 2047 anyway, Beijing can afford to play the long game, continuing to squeeze Hong Kong and vilify the protesters without a full intervention. With its domestic economy slowing, it needs stability. Only if the unrest in Hong Kong threatens to spill over onto the mainland, which currently looks unlikely, will the Chinese army march in.

6. Will the wave of global protests continue?​

The issue: Hong Kong was just one of many places struck by last year’s wave of street protests. Others included Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Russia, France, Spain, Chile and Bolivia. The motives were various but many concerned autocratic or corrupt governments, low living standards or climate change, and most were leaderless movements organised online. Were they a one-off, or part of a longer trend?

The decisive factor: Protests tend to subside when one or more of four conditions are met: grievances are addressed, governments crack down successfully, the means of organisation are curtailed or protest-fatigue sets in. Whether 2019 will be seen as an exception depends on the presence of these factors in the main arenas of protest in 2020.

My prediction: In some cases, like Chile and Lebanon, governments are changing tone or policies in light of protesters’ demands. But even there, protest movements are merely developing into broader more long-term movements. Grievances linger on, most obviously the international intransigence on climate change motivating the Fridays for Future protests. And the opportunities for mobilisation afforded by social media are only growing. Do not expect the protests to go away; instead expect them to evolve.

7. Will the EU become a more serious player?

The issue: Ursula von der Leyen’s presidency of the European Commission gets under way as member states squabble over the next seven-year budget, big challenges like euro-zone reform and migration policy remain parked and relations between Paris and Berlin continue to be at a low ebb. Emmanuel Macron wants to reinvigorate the EU alongside von der Leyen but his proposals, including greater “strategic autonomy” from America and NATO, are divisive.

The decisive factor: Essentially there are two countervailing forces at work. On the one hand Trump, Brexit, the crisis years and shifting geopolitical circumstances are pushing the EU to become a more serious, hard-nosed actor; Angela Merkel’s big EU-China summit in September will be a case in point. On the other this process is exposing new divisions on things like common defence, emissions reductions, the future shape of the union and the relationship with outside powers. The question is whether the centripetal forces (events, threats and other shifts pushing the union together and forward) exceed the centrifugal ones (differences of outlook and interest pulling it apart and holding it back).

My prediction: On balance the EU is more resilient than it looks. But while it may muddle its way forward in 2020, major advances will only take place in the heat of the next crisis.

8. Will there be conflict between India and Pakistan?

The issue: Tensions between India and Pakistan grew in 2019, with tit-for-tat air strikes and diplomatic sanctions. India has revoked the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, its only Muslim-majority state, and further inflamed tensions last month by introducing an anti-Muslim citizenship rule, the latest in Narendra Modi’s increasingly blatant flirtation with Hindu nationalism. Further attacks on Indian forces in Kashmir by Pakistani-linked Jihadis, or another terror attack in India like that in Mumbai in 2008, could easily escalate.

The decisive factor: The region is a tinderbox. Modi and Pakistan’s Imran Khan have ramped up their rhetoric, mass media outlets in both countries are talking up confrontation and both countries face economic problems fuelling political grievances. So the question is whether the mechanisms for deescalation still work. An attempted Modi-Khan reset in 2018 came to little and neither America (distracted) nor China (considered partisan by India) make ideal mediators.

My prediction: Though neither Modi nor Khan want war, the possibility of a runaway escalation between the two nuclear powers is one of the most underpriced global risks of 2020.

9. Where will the unexpected bad news occur?

The issue: Lawless and rogue states, inadequate global governance and climate change are three defining features of our age. With them come risks of state collapse and war, cyber-attacks and terrorism, uncontrollable epidemics and refugee crises and environmental catastrophe. 2020 will doubtless see various as-yet-unpredictable instances of many or all of these.

The decisive factor: Most of the world’s states, especially in the complacent West, are less truly sovereign and more interdependent than they believe themselves to be. It is this delusion that causes them to be caught by surprise when an unexpected crisis occurs, as chaos or risk from one part of the world ripples through the global system. The question is not whether this will occur but how resilient states and international organisations are when it does.

My prediction: Given the risks I expect at least one of each of the following categories of cataclysm. First, an extreme climate event hitting part of the West not used to the levels of climate chaos already felt in the global south (the fires raging in Australia are but a foretaste). Second, an instance of violence or other instability in one of the world’s rogue or war-torn zones (most probably North Korea, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Burkina Faso, Venezuela or eastern Ukraine) causing a crisis in a country far from its own borders. Third, a crisis or calamity specifically caused by a failure of international governance and democracy; that is, by insufficient coordination, information sharing or collective action at the supra-regional or global level.

10. Where will the unexpected good news occur?

The issue: It is customary, in these end-of-year or start-of-year round ups, to nod to how many good things have happened beyond the headlines: poverty rates and infant mortality falling, literacy and immunisation rates rising. But each year also throws up specific causes to rejoice. In September for example Tunisia held what were widely deemed the Arab world’s first TV debates, during its second free election since the Arab Spring. There will be such happy moments in 2020 too.

The decisive factor: China, Latin America and Africa have thrown up plenty of good rising-living-standards stories in recent years. But with authoritarianism on the march in China and Brazil, and Africa’s rise more halting and troubled than some sunny predictions of the past decades suggested, the picture there is more mixed.

My prediction: There will nonetheless be specific and epochally good news from Africa in 2020. It is possible that the Ebola epidemic will be finally vanquished during the year. And Ethiopia goes to the polls in May, with good prospects of victory for the reformist prime minister Abiy Ahmed (winner of 2019’s Nobel Peace Prize). That would put Africa’s second most populous country, its future in the balance, on a positive course. Elsewhere this could be a further year of growth for progressive mobilisations, from the Fridays for Future marches to anti-nationalist movements like Italy’s “Sardines” and emerging digital rights campaigns; I predict that these will trigger at least one major, positive change of national government or international policy during 2020.

[robotnik-mun]

The Sonic/TF Crossover: Comic Cannon Changes List

Sonic The Hedgehog/Transformers Crossover Continuity Changes:

Here’s a list of minor things that will have changed from what happened in the canon of the Archie Comics or outright omitted.

01: Sally does NOT let Max Steamroll her: At first Sally does cow a bit when Max starts to assert his authority, but quickly his dismissal of her achievements, disbanding the FF and inability to flex his views and traditionalist mindset drive a wedge between them. This comes to a climax when Elias is revealed and unlike the comics where Sally was presented as mostly confused, there is LIVID anger and she lets Max know it. To Sally, it was one thing to have her opinions dismissed as she could rationalize Max’s traditionalist mindset; but the revelation of her Mother still being alive and NEVER being told she had a Brother spoke volumes of how little Max seemed to care about her beyond his traditionalist views on how she should behave and act. She also refuses Max’s separating her from her FF friends, and spends as much time with them as she can, since she feels more love and acceptance from them than her Father. Plus her friends help her ‘vent’ and get things off her chest so she’s less likely to bottle it and explode on the wrong person, but plenty of her anger remains deep down, but she has outlets to focus at least and people who care.

  At this point, Sally becomes very cold to Max but remains cordial if just to not give him ammo to start an argument and she’d rather focus on getting to know her older sibling and her Mother’s recovery. However; with Max almost putting Elias to his ‘Princely duties’ soon as he gets home and shuts her out even more. Despite not trying to put this on Elias the resentment starts and so Sally focuses on FF stuff, but does not shut out Elias own attempts to get to know the other. Her resentment lessens as Elias confides he feels as used as she was since he feels his Father wants a ‘yes man’ Prince more than a son. This mutual resentment towards Max helps them bond and for Sally to get over any ill will she felt towards Elias. While Elias keeps his resentment close to the chest, Sally already the pariah becomes less tight-lipped on her disagreements with her Father but maintains some civility for Elias’ sake. When their Mother is revived and Max is injured to the point of being unable to walk, both dial back their issues with Max and try to focus on their family.

  Alicia once fully recovered and brought up to speed, sees the discord in the family and tries to help mend things. She manages some mending but Sally while openly warm and happy with her Mother is distant and less cordial but ‘tolerating’ of Max. Through the story motions, there are ups and downs with the Acorn Family, especially once Elias runs away and Sally fully unloads at Max, letting off pent up issues she kept lowkey for her Mother and Brother’s sake, and before leaving the castle tells Max she fully blames him and St. John for Elias running out of their lives barely after returning to it.

  Alicia now aware of certain things pulls off a mixture of chastising her Husband for the secrets and treating Sally and Elias; but also consoling him some as she can see that this incident was eating Max to the core as the guilt, Elias’ letter and Sally’s words finally started to undermine the surefire validity Max felt towards his actions.

  Things (mostly thanks to Alicia and Sonic himself of all people who had every beef with Max as Sally did) settle some with Max making an attempt at mending fences with Sally. Sally very much still angry agrees to ‘have talks and discussions, for Mother’s sake’. Over time, especially once Elias location and living status is affirmed things ease up and Sally while in no mind to forgive Max yet, is willing to ‘try again’ and things become pleasant for the Acorns, even to the point Max lets go of his bias against Sonic when Sally tells her parents her desire to openly date Sonic and gives his blessing.

  Then the Xorda invasion happens and with Sonic seemingly dead, Sally shuts down partially and focuses on her FF duties since she doubts Robotnik will uphold his truce for long. During this period, Elias concerned for his Sister takes to visiting her semi-frequently, taking walks through the forest or Elias accompanying her on scouting missions, letting the two siblings vent and deepen their bond (as well as give Elias a taste of action).

  Then that fateful day in the wastes near the Great Forest, they find that buried alien ship…

02: One Robotnik, one Eggman, ONE Doctor:

  Unlike in the comic canon, when the original Dr. Robotnik returns briefly, instead of that silly plot where at the end he vanishes anyway; the original is a bit testy when he returns that ANOTHER HIM is running the show! However, after initial hostility, both Doctor’s realize they should focus their hate on a proper target. Now working side by side properly, Dr. Eggman discovers his counterparts instability and so measures to prevent this long enough for the two to get revenge together is made. However surprisingly Eggman and Robotnik find themselves getting along despite their mutual treacherous natures. The cat and mouse game between ‘equals’ gives them a sense of dark joy and a benchmark to improve themselves. This leads to Eggman proposing a radical procedure that would ‘ensure they’d never be apart’. Between his own twisted enjoyment of Eggman’s company and not wanting to fade away to nothing again, Robotnik agrees and soon, the two enter an experimental device that fuses the two together. The same man but from two dimensions; rotund but also ‘beef-lanky’ in the right places. With coat and stylish cape, the new Robotnik fusion takes his place to run his Empire and DESTROY THAT ACCURSED HEDGEHOG!!

03: No Locke, you don’t get to microwave the baby and eat your cake too.

Much like Sally Knuckles isn’t, as accepting of the things Locke tells him. When he confronts Locke and gets the 411, he’s torn. He’s still elated his Father isn’t dead but now he’s livid at the lies and, well now he’s wondering if he had ANY control in his life, and also develops a worry about his own genetics. On the sly Knuckles has doctors check him to be sure nothing’s wrong. It doesn’t become a supremely obsessive paranoia, but once or twice Julie or one of the Chaotix consoles him if ‘anything wrong does happen, we got your back’. Furthermore while Knuckles tries to be open-minded about the Brotherhood and their methods, he slowly develops a disdain for a chunk of it, especially when certain things come to light, and when Motari Rex is revealed to have been impersonating Tobor for years, he criticizes the Brotherhood for not noticing such a crucial thing and who knows how much pain Rex/Tobor caused under their own noses.

  Locke for his end stubbornly feels his actions and those of the Brotherhood are mostly justified but between Knuckles words, the Rex/Tobor revelation, the raid on Haven, and other things give him pause for rumination. The other Brotherhood members also give pause but still fall back to their ‘tried and true’ methods, which furthers Knuckles distance from them and his admonishment of their actions.

  They come to a head when the Brotherhood refuses to get involved with Robotnik wars on the surface when Sally comes calling. Livid more than usual, Knuckles calls out the Brotherhood and tells Sally aside before she goes home if she needs help HE and the Chaotix will come if they can. Likewise, Sally offers her own help to Angel Island and the two old friends find another avenue to bond over, Father issues.

  This causes a minor schism within the Brotherhood, some now questioning if they’ve gone too far, and if they should revise some of their methods given how many things were implemented by ‘Tobor’ of all of them. How many were purposely flawed? Spectre as Pro-Brotherhood as he is; feels they should reevaluate their methods. Especially given his one-time imprisonment by the Dark Legion was not such a coincidence and that his ‘harsh training’ worked by a lucky fluke it would seem.

  Locke and some others maintain they should stay the course, but they all have some form of doubts and agree to discuss the matters as they come. Of course, ongoing events keep the Brotherhood from truly ironing out these issues. With the Legion’s attacks Knuckles turning briefly into a Chaos Being only to die, cause many setbacks to reorganize, culminating in the majority of the Brotherhood being taken by Robotnik’s Egg-Grapes and Locke a prisoner of the Dark Legion when they take over the island due to Knuckles and the Chaotix’s absence following the Xorda invasion.

04: The Troubles of Geoffery St. John:

  With recent Penders-BS events, I have to do something about the skunk.

  First up, he and Sally NEVER have any romantic relationship. Geoff does flirt with her a lot, and Sally is flattered by the attention, torn between liking it and also being off-put by their age gap.

  Geoff keeps his hands to himself but he does seem to push for things to happen between him and Sally, and he still takes joy in flirting with her when Sonic is around to get a rise out of him. While Sally feels a little torn at times, it’s Rosie Woodchuck who becomes the voice of reason when Sally asks for advice.

  “He’s how old? Hmm, well I’d be wary of a man who makes gestures like that to a teenager when he’s over 18.”

  “So I should shut him down entirely Rosie?”

  “My Princess, that is up to you, but for my two bits? Yes, he should be making flirtations with someone his own age, not you. A shame really, his Father Ian was a gentleman, flirty and suave yes, but only at the right time and NEVER to someone underage. Makes me wonder who raised that boy during all this time…?”

So yeah, Geoff and Sally never liplock and whether Geoff made moves due to his plans to undermine the kingdom, or he’s a creep or both… I’ll let the story’s chemistry decide at that point. He’ll back off when Sally lays it out her interest is non-existent and so Geoff just… remains a jackass, one with skills and does help the heroes but he’ll still be wracking that karma to get knocked down a peg when he and his Team get Nano’machined into uselessness, and Elias holding him in contempt for using him as a cudgel to undermine Sonic by stripping him of his knighthood.

05: Transformers, everywhere:

  As mentioned in many posts, the ties to old Earth, Cybertron, and modern Mobius will be discovered and felt throughout the story. The Source of All was an experiment of Shockwave’s, Humanity survived by hiding inside a Cybertronian Titan that was stasis locked in city/ship mode, the Echidna’s became so advanced ahead of everyone because they found a Mind-Linking Data Cube from one of the ship crashes, etc etc.

That’s it for now. Of course, this just covers what I can recall and when I expand this list I’ll re-submit it unless said ‘changes’ to the canon is due to a story secret that; well you’ll have to read it to find it out. ^_~

--

As per usual, veeery sensible changes to be made here. I rather like the touch about the old Robotnik and the current Eggman merging into a new, gestalt of the two. It’s something I’ve toyed with myself from time to time. Either way though, definitely approving of all of this, in particular the elimination of certain details regarding Geoffrey that we wish we could ALL forget. 

Keep it up!

[didanawisgi]

“The intervention was questionable in the first place, and the reasons for staying are murky.

Donald Trump is looking to make a precipitate exit from Syria. His advisers, most of the leading opinion writers in the country, and all the great and the good of America’s foreign-policy elite are crying out at the blunder they anticipate it will be. The president is handing a gift to Vladimir Putin and Iran. The president is betraying our allies. Disaster.

I don’t think so.

You may remember that the U.S. Congress refused to authorize intervention in Syria in 2013, when President Obama kicked the question to them. They refused to do so because of polls showing that Americans opposed intervention overwhelmingly, roughly 70–30. And support for intervention tends to go down over time. However, U.S. forces had already been active in Syria, and in Syria’s civil war, for at least a year by that point, working with the CIA to arm and train Sunnis fighting the government. Alas, in our scramble to find “moderate rebels,” we often ended up arming Al Nusra, the franchise of al-Qaeda that is native to Syria.

More U.S. forces came into Syria in 2014 and 2015 to combat ISIS, which had formed its burgeoning statelet in the chaos of western Iraq and eastern Syria. They did so under the dubiously reinterpreted congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force from 2001.

As refugees and migrants flowed out of Syria, every great power, regional power, or freelancing wannabe flowed in. The United States, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, most of the Gulf states, Russia, and lately even China have tried to get involved in one or another aspect of the fight. Even the persecuted Uighur minority of western China, improbable as it sounds, has fighters involved in northwest Syria.

In the midst of this, you might ask, what are Americans trying to accomplish in Syria? For laymen, it certainly is confusing. Advocates for staying in Syria are sometimes specific and sometimes vague. One commentator will say we have to stay in order to defeat ISIS, another will say we have to stay to honor and protect the Kurds because their militias helped us defeat ISIS. Another will say that we are there, joined in the struggle to secure a post-war order in Syria. Still others will say that the mission is to prevent Russia from achieving greater influence in the region.

American policymakers have mostly given up on the mission of helping rebels topple the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad, partly because it would be very difficult to dislodge him. Intervention remains unpopular, and Russia proved willing to intervene dramatically. Of course it did; it naturally wants to protect naval assets hosted by a longtime regional ally, especially at a time when it considers other naval assets in Ukraine to be under pressure.

America turned its fire on the Islamic State and destroyed the burgeoning caliphate. That burgeoning statelet has been annihilated. But there are still thousands of ISIS fighters in the region, mostly in northern Syria, many of them among the rebel forces that occasionally excite American sympathy. This is why the president and experts seem to say that ISIS is defeated in one breath, and ISIS is still a threat in the next. But Syria is not the only place where ISIS can be found. ISIS also has places to operate in western Iraq, which is still barely reconciled to the government in Baghdad. And “affiliate” groups exist throughout much of North Africa.

In the fight against ISIS, we’ve worked closely with left-wing Kurdish militia, who are a thorn in the side of our NATO ally Turkey. Kurdish-controlled zones tend to be more religiously tolerant than neighboring ones, though they are also considered a security threat by Erdogan and Assad. The fights between Kurds and Turks should give readers an idea of how “entangled” our alliances have become in the Middle East.

So in this situation, commentators argue against leaving because it would abandon our Kurdish allies on the ground to the tender mercies of our Turkish allies. This would ruin our credibility when we intervene elsewhere. It would give Putin a “gift” and we would lose leverage in a post-war Syrian settlement.

Much of that is true. There are always costs to abandoning a bad investment. And yet these costs are preferable to an endless, ever-evolving mission that has no popular support or mandate. What critics of withdrawal refuse to do is describe the actual sustainable ends they want to achieve with America’s military in Syria.

What would a post-war Syria that is acceptable to America look like, and how can America bring it about at a cost Americans are willing to accept? We are not told. What are the conditions we hope to achieve before the mission can end? This question is also met with silence.

It is as if the downsides of leaving are cited only because staying keeps American soldiers and matériel near the ongoing disaster in Syria, a disaster that may yet yield an international outrage that will motivate Americans to expand the mission to include regime change. Every few months, as Assad’s government reclaims more territory, media outlets dutifully relay the messages of rebels ahead of their latest evacuations. So far public opinion has refused to satisfy the foreign-policy hawks.

As for Russian prestige, is it so enhanced? As in eastern Ukraine, so in Syria: The United States placed a gamble on a people-powered movement that would have the effect of depriving Russia of an ally that hosts vital Russian naval assets, and Russia eventually scrambled to avoid this major loss. It is not so much a gift as the successful and costly prevention of a theft.

If Russia’s prestige has been enhanced in the Middle East, perhaps it is not so much the fecklessness of American intervention and the resolution of Putin, but that Russia simply had the more viable strategy. Russia has intervened on behalf of traditional state actors, Iran and Syria. The United States, since the Arab Spring, has fitfully allied itself with demotic and even revolutionary Sunni movements. The relationships of these movements to Sunni terrorist movements such as Al Nusra and ISIS has been rather fluid.

In fact, Russia’s reentry into the Middle East has been made much easier by U.S. failures in the region, in the exact same way that increased Iranian influence follows American failure. The Iraq War increased the polarization of Sunni and Shia across the region, and Russia has simply sided with those who have more reason than ever to resent American involvement in the region. Russia could even advert to its own people and to the world that it was returning to its role as a protector of Christian religious minorities. It can make this ruse almost believable, because America’s and Saudi Arabia’s actions support, directly and sometimes indirectly, Sunni movements that are fantastically intolerant. If Syria is a gift to the Russians, let them have it — just as we took the “gift” of Afghanistan, only to discover how unhappy it has made us.

My friend Noah Rothman writes in Commentary, “Political commentators and anti-interventionist ideologues will note that withdrawing America’s modest footprint from Syria is popular with the public. But what would you expect? Precisely no one in the political class is making a case for sustained and substantial American intervention in this conflict zone.”

Are we sure that we have cause and effect in correct order? At the height of anger and outrage at Bashar Assad’s government, most of the press, most of the U.S. Senate, and the president himself were making a case for intervention against Assad. They did so on the limited basis of enforcing norms against the use of chemical weapons, though the war aims would surely be wider, just as a few years earlier the mission in Libya went from protecting human life to decapitating the regime. Americans were against such an intervention in Syria nearly four to one. The Parliament of the United Kingdom opposed it. Then the U.S. Congress dropped it. The wisdom of putting the power of war in the people’s house is that democracies cannot fight successful wars without popular support.

As for credibility with our allies, the Kurds allied with us, as did others, because we are powerful and rich. They are capable of remembering how George H. W. Bush encouraged Iraqis and Kurds to rise up against Saddam in the early 1990s, only to extricate ourselves. They knew the risks. They also know who is president of the United States, and have started talks about guaranteeing a tolerable order with the Syrian government.

When the U.S. embarked on its bid to transform Iraq, it did so while touting a “democratic domino theory.” A free Iraq would be an example that weakens the grip of authoritarians and despots across the Arab and Muslim world. So we were told.

And we did set the dominos in motion. But instead of stable democracies, what spread was chaos, Sunni radicalism, and an intensifying of the Sunni–Shia conflict across the Islamic world. Knocking over Iraq’s government put Baghdad in the grasp of Iran-sympathetic Shia, whose misgovernance encouraged a revolt across Iraq’s Sunni triangle and eventually in Syria. Similar Sunni radicalisms swept over Libya and Egypt. The results have been the destruction of minority religious communities of Christians and Yezidis and an ongoing refugee and migration crisis that has destabilized politics across almost the entirety of Europe.

We were told that we have to fight them over there, so that we do not have to fight them at home. But instead, we went to fight them over there, and find we are fighting them everywhere.

America has been conducting its terrorism fight according to the logic that obtains in imperial orders, where the great power at the center maintains an expansive, world-bestriding reign and tries to pick its fights along the permeable periphery of that order. Christmas markets and major public buildings at the centers of that order are reinforced and protected by concrete barriers.

But the unpopularity of intervention in Syria shows that Americans still have a small-r republican streak. Instead of trying to construct barriers to terrorism around Syria, and around a few important buildings in our cities, they would prefer barriers at the national border. It would be a shame if we ever gave up entirely on this republican spirit. Certainly nothing the hawks promise we’ll find in Syria seems worth sacrificing it.”

MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY — Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review Online.

[clodiuspulcher]

 WOW! You guys really don’t want me to do my work. Time to answer ALL of these questions  1. ancient Greece or ancient Rome? Ya’ll.... yall should know.... this ... my URL is a Roman politician and I exclusively post about late Roman Republic political drama I’m just so much more FOND of Ancient Rome. I’m not really sure why but I got Into it earlier since I took Latin in high school and I was always fascinated by the Roman history and culture I learned in Latin  which I was able to indulge once I got to college... (also Greek scares me and i’m a coward) 2. who is your favourite Roman emperor? Absolutely Augustus and this might be where I get... dissent but he truly did a lot of necessary good for Rome not the least of which was establishing an era of political peace after almost 100 years of near-constant civil war, and I don’t think the importance of the stability of his rule can be overstated. He aimed to stabilize and rebuild Rome on every level and mostly succeeded; I doubt it would’ve recovered after the especially violent last few decades otherwise. Augustus himself actually emphasized stability and continuity in his own propaganda because he knew how important that was to the people of Rome, of all classes. Speaking of, Augustus adopted measures to curry popular favor that were straight out of Clodius’s book in ways that legitimately helped + also rebuilt and revamped Rome’s infrastructure and physically improved the city along with creating a stable political environment and functional governmental system (let’s be honest the Republic was fucking dead). I’m just gonna like. Answer this question by copying and pasting the Res Gestae here lol  I also think pre-Augustus Octavian is an interesting political figure which biases me somewhat and I love Augustan art and iconography, not just that of the regime but what was created during his rule in general as art and literature flourished  (no but really he was... honestly the best possible outcome after Caesar’s assassination in my opinion and he actively improved / revitalized Rome in some Important ways) 3. which is your favourite Greek city-state? I uh REALLY dont know enough to choose but seeing as I’ve been reading and enjoying works by Athenian playwrights all semester... how bout athens 4. tell me about the classical ladies you love the most OH BOY. Rome has a History of important politically active women and I love all of them so let me go in chronological order with my ABSOLUTE favorites. - Tanaquil: Etruscan wife of the semi-mythical king of Rome Tarquinius Priscus, she was intelligent and skilled in interpreting omens / divining (which were considered Etruscan disciplines) and she was ambitious too. She encouraged her husband to make his fortune in Rome and helped him attain political power, recognized the destiny of their adopted son Servius Tullius through ANOTHER omen, etc. She advised and helped him throughout his rule and aided the peaceful transfer of power to Servius Tullius following his death I love her i LOVE HER. - Cornelia Africana: Daughter of Scipio Africanus and mother of two of my favorite Roman politicians, the brothers Gracchi, she remained a widow after her first husband’s death despite having people like king Ptolemy ask for her hand. She educated her children rigorously and was active in their political careers especially that of Gaius Gracchus and her reputation as chaste, noble, and austere established her as a role model for Roman women for centuries to come.  - Clodia Metelli: She’s the Lesbia of Catullus’s poetry but she was also really politically involved, endorsing her brother’s wild populism and aiding and abetting him whenever she could, notably changing her name when he changed his to reflect his populist desires. She was married to Metellus Celer and tried to strongarm this conservative consul into supporting the radical Clodius whenever she could- and sometimes it worked. Clodius brags about the benefits of being brother in law to a consul and Cicero was irritated by the fact that she was so involved in her brother’s career but it makes me love her even more. - Fulvia: Yall KNOW how I feel about Fulvia but I just have to talk about her whenever I can. As Clodius’s wife she was never far from his side, to the point that it was something Cicero commented on after his death. Following his murder, Fulvia established herself as the heir to Clodius’s political role and through her marriages to Clodius’s allies, Curio and later Antony, she was able to promulgate populist legislation and continue Clodius’s work / establish his legacy so that his death wasn’t in vain (both of their laws have a more populist streak after their marriages to Fulvia). As Antony’s wife she was especially powerful after Caesar’s assassination and she fought Octavian personally when Antony’s interests were being threatened (while he fucked around in Egypt).  - Porcia Catonis: I may not like Brutus but I love Porcia who proved she was strong enough for Brutus to confide in by stabbing herself in the thigh and not revealing her pain for a significant amount of time. She was steadfastly loyal and was supposedly the only woman who knew about the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, and her suicide, in line with that of her father Cato,  - Livia Drusilla: LIVIA did NOTHING WRONG and I legitimately love her so much. First the story of how she ended up married to Octavian is so... much lol but despite their scandalous whirlwind marriage they were married for 51 years, and she was one of Augustus’s closest advisors (the senate criticized him for being too under her control but you know what). Roman wives didn’t normally go on military campaigns w/ their husbands but Livia did, and she also had very public religious and political roles, she was devoted to Augustus and he “loved and esteemed her to the end without a rival”. There’s so much more I can say about her but she was as ambitious and driven and intelligent as her husband and after Augustus’s death she worked to maintain his legacy and was eventually deified alongside him - Octavia: Octavian/ Augustus’s sister, Octavia was like. truly and genuinely good she was loyal to both Octavian and Antony after she married him and she was essentially the glue that held the second triumvirate together for a time. She was directly involved in Octavian’s politics through this marriage and there’s a record of her begging the two of them not to go to war, at least for her sake; she’s the reason this tenuous alliance lasted as long as it did. She was also incredibly generous and kind, upon marrying Antony she took in and raised his kids by Fulvia and after Antony’s death she raised also his children by Cleopatra, working to provide them with good lives and advantageous marriages ... how wholesome... - Agrippina (both of them): If you really want to write about conniving devious plotting murderous women of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.... the Agrippinas EXIST. Agrippina the elder also went on her husband Germanicus’s military campaigns and campaigned herself tirelessly for the political advancement of her sons, and Agrippina the younger... oh boy ... she schemed her way into the position of empress and then absolutely annihilated any potential rival for her son even though one he became emperor their relationship was ... fraught to say the least. Anyway the point is I love women who are openly ruthless ambitious and power-hungry and they’re great. 5. what is your favourite story from Herodotus's Histories? The one where he talks about how the Etruscan nation was founded / how the Etruscans came to live in Italy- even though he was wrong about Etruscan origins and they probably /were/ native to Italy I’m really fond of and interested in Etruscan culture so I like hearing any historical accounts about them.  6. who is your favourite character from the Iliad or Odyssey? Aeneas was TECHNICALLY there during the Trojan war DO NOT QUESTION OR COMMENT ABOUT THIS I WOULD DIE FOR HIM 7. who is your favourite ancient historian? Has to be Plutarch- I know he writes history for a moralizing purpose but all the subjects of his biographies are written with a certain level of complexity and nuance and something about his writing style really resonates with me like I’ve read both his and Appian’s accounts of the Gracchi brothers’ lives and both were good but Plutarch’s brought me to tears. The first ~classics thing~ I ever read that truly engaged me and captured me was his Life of Antony which is probably my favorite in that even though he condemns Antony’s actions he gives him redeeming qualities, he portrays him and even Cleopatra really sympathetically and his description of Antony’s death... is so pathetic and upsetting it wounds me I love Plutarch s o much. 8. what are your five favourite myths? Anything that Propertius or Catullus references in their poetry is my favorite :) 9. what are your top five otps? 1. Augustus and Livia married for 51 years loved each other with All their hearts  2. Antony and Cleopatra: I love this melodramatic garbage fire of a relationship  3. Clodius Pulcher and Fulvia: PERFECTLY matched politically-minded partners who had similar goals and balanced out each other and loved each other DEEPLY HE WAS ALWAYS BY HER SIDE?! 4. Cicero and Atticus - romantically OR platonically however you want to interpret this they loved each other so much and every letter from Cicero where he talks about how badly he wants to see Atticus again, that implores Atticus to write more.... it’s really sweet and wholesome 5.  I can’t believe Antony gets to be on this list twice but his relationship with Gaius Curio is so... much and like he climbed into Curio’s house through the CEILING because he was banned from the house by Antony’s dad (because he was in debt lol), and the fact that someone hasn’t made a movie or a sitcom about this yet is so... disappointing.  10. recommend a piece of fiction about the classical world I haven’t read any ancient Rome historical fiction!!! Yet!!!! But both the Roma Sub Rosa and the Robert Harris Cicero Novels come very highly recommended to me and I have to buy both of them so 11. recommend a piece of non-fiction about the classical world I really really need everyone here to read TWO biographies:  1. The patrician tribune, it’s The Clodius Biography I keep talking about it provides a really balanced and detail picture of Clodius Pulcher’s political career AND his life plus this author writes a lot fo academic papers about Clodius  2. The tribune’s sister, it’s a Clodia biography and MY PROFESSOR WROTE IT and she loves Clodia so much and she wrote so much incredible content about Clodia and this is like a Collection and Combination of all of this... yall should all read it  ANd 3. if you haven’t read plutarch’s Life of Antony I think you should really read it bc you can’t UNderstand Me or My Blog without this essential piece of literature and also it has THE FULVIA LINE 12. who is your favourite poet? why? I’m going to be honest...... I did not consider myself a poetry person for the longest time. I was always way more into the politicians than the writers of ancient Rome because I’ve always felt like I didn’t quite GET poetry? But then I actually read more Latin poetry and also .... I fell in love... for real... and at that point all at once the poetry of like, Catullus, really struck me for the first time and I REALIZED. I hope that doesn’t sound too ridiculous lmao but.. I’m a romantic at heart.  SO in general I really love Roman love poetry and I do like Catullus - I especially like that he was involved with Clodius and co through Clodia and was part of that circle. He references Caesar and Caelius and Clodius in his poetry, which is fun but.... my favorite poet, that I have read so far is.... Propertius for a few reasons  I REALLY like Roman love elegy as a genre and Propertius is my favorite of the elegists. I like how gentle his poetry is and even though it might seem overwrought I think it’s passionate and genuine and sweet - he has big feelings?! he wants to Express them?  Propertius also really likes to do the reversal of gender roles thing which is like common in Roman elegy but  Propertius Especially does it wrt romantic / sexual contexts  and although he does write tender and romantic love poetry it’s definitely not wholly apolitical like Propertius not only emphasizes that he’s devoting his life to love and presents this in contrast to the expectations of how Young Roman Noblemen should live / act / what they should pursue, which is an especially brave statement at the time he’s writing since he’s going against Augustus’s moral reforms, the strict societal roles promulgated by Augustus to rebuild and restore the roman senatorial class. He even goes so far as to say he refuses to have sons because they’ll just be sent out to die in Rome’s wars which is.... a pretty powerful and cynical statement and I love how bold he is about it. So Propertius combines 3 things I Really like, gentle love poetry, femdom, and political commentary on Augustan Rome 13. if you could time-travel to the classical world for a day, where would you go and why? The responsible answer is I would bring antibiotics to the Augustan court in 23 BC and save Marcellus from typhoid fever but. I just want to be able to experience in real time ONE argument between Cicero and Clodius in the senate in real time that would be so much fun and so I think that’s where’d I go and also I could potentially make out with Clodius or one of his friends after I mean I’m there for the whole day right 14. which Greek tragedy is your favourite? I’m actually in a Greek drama class right now, so I can give a legitimate answer to this question.

 I would have to say, of the ones I’ve read, Ajax resonated the most with me and is probably my favorite. Aristotle said tragedy should be able to evoke pity and fear and if that’s the mark of a good tragedy Ajax is the best one of all to me. One of its central themes at least when I read it is that Ajax, having defined himself by the respect he commanded based on his military ability, by his role as an honored soldier, has nothing left when he loses this, and he absolutely falls apart. His entire identity is tied up with this single skill he cultivated and the honor he possesses because of said skill, seeing his reaction to this loss, his realization that the only thing that mattered, the one thing he had, has been destroyed and it’s /his/ fault- this hit me far too close to home. once he’s no longer known as a great warrior, to himself he’s nothing, and no one, in Ajax’s mind that’s all he has and all he was. If tragedy is meant to inspire pity and fear, holy shit is Ajax effective because I felt both instantly since his fate - not so much the death but realizing what he defined himself by is lost forever because of his failures and that there’s nothing left of him now-  is what I fear most in the world. 15. Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar? CAESAR. I mean, I appreciate Alexander the Great (without whom the Ptolemies and Cleopatra wouldn’t have come into power) but I’ve read a lot more about Caesar, I know more about him as a person. I’m making this decision mostly on like their politics / what I know about them because I REALLY don’t give a s hit about individual battles / wars in general, this isn’t me comparing military scoreboards or anything lol.  I just know more about Caesar, approve of his Vaguely populist policies, and he /was/ trying to fix some very broken systems in rome / was constantly frustrated by senatorial factionalists etc...  and IM relatively sympathetic towards him although I like the minor more radical less famous populares more ... obviously. So I like Caesar but he’s not that important to me I’m not like passionately devoted to Caesar

16. Cicero - love him or loathe him? LOVE CICERO. I honestly love him so much and even though politically I disagree with the view he had or choices he made... I understand why he made them and it must have been incredibly hard to be a moderate politician, or any kind of politician at all coming from a non senatorial background, and as much as I joke about it he DID save Rome from the Very real threat of Catiline (and honestly at this point his self-aggrandizing behavior is just as endearing as it is aggravating to me.... god). I believe he genuinely tried to do what was right and to be moral and upstanding in a time when that was definitely not the norm- see his governorships of Sicily and Cilicia especially compared to his corrupt contemporaries. He stood by his principles even when that wasn’t politically expedient - whenever he does have to go against them, he agonizes to Atticus and feels guilty about it- and I’m... impressed by that. He was obviously a great statesman/orator/lawyer - all of his speeches are incredibly wild and fun to read and I can only imagine what hearing them live would’ve been like. His name and background means he didn’t have the luxury of being radically populist like Clodius, he didn’t have his family to fall back on in general, he had to work twice as hard and was scorned by the optimates anyway and i FEEL FOR HIM. He was nervous, though, and timid sometimes, and I ... relate to that.

 I think if you hate Cicero... you should read his letters to Atticus because they’re so humanizing and genuine and his emotional turmoil over the political circumstances he finds himself in can be heartbreaking. He cares so much about Atticus and about his family and his despair and elation and anxiety really hit me hard when I read them. Plus they can be genuinely funny when he’s, like, talking about Clodius or making fun of someone he hates which is often, Cicero’s sense of humor is one of the many things I love and appreciate about him... some of his letters are legitimately hilarious? please. he’s so petty sometimes, I love that too, okay im done. 17. if you could recover one lost work, which one would it be? This is a tough one... I feel like it would be greedy to ask for more Cicero since we already have so much of his work but his Consolation he wrote to himself after the death of Tullia would be incredible.  I also wish we had the entirety of Cicero’s Against Clodius and Curio speech because what we do have is... absolutely amazing and the rest would be a treasure to read.  Conversely, because we have so much of Cicero, and only of Cicero, our view of late Roman Republic politics is inevitably warped. I wish we had just one of the speeches Clodius gave in response to Cicero, so we could have his side of the story, so to speak. We have to piece together this picture of his politics based on what his greatest enemy said about him so there’s inevitably going to be a bias- and Cicero DOES say in his letters that Clodius spoke against him too, they had witty exchanges, etc, but we don’t have Clodius’s speeches at all! If we had just one of his speeches he gave to the people as tribune, or the one he gave to defend himself at the Bona Dea trial, or the one that prompted Cicero’s De Haruspicum in response- just one.  I just want to hear what Clodius said in his own words.... 18. what is your favourite movie or TV show set in ancient Greece or Rome? The Better Call Saul Roman Law AU I have in my head next question :) 19. tell me about an obscure classical figure who needs more love My URL is Clodius Pulcher and I wish more people legitimately studied and thought about Clodius with some nuance so that the exaggerated picture we see of him from Cicero isn’t taken as Absolute fact. I love him so much with my life... I also wish there was more love for Caelius and Curio since they’re really interesting historical figures who navigated a world of ever-changing alliances pretty cannily -until they died. Caelius just from his letters to Cicero seems like such a witty and sardonic person I wish more people cared about this entire circle.  Finally i’ve gotta say Fulvia needs so much more love than she gets like people HERE know about her but like. She was so vitally important and uniquely powerful as a woman during the late Roman Republic and to be honest I don’t think you can talk about the aftermath of Clodius’s death or Antony’s role after Caesar’s assassination without mentioning Fulvia, she’s so essential to the political careers of ALL her husbands. And yet, she’s really underrepresented in historical fiction and nonfiction about this time.  20. what do you love most about studying classics? I’m an incredibly anxious person I don’t take any risks or have many friends. When I read / learn about history I can... vicariously experience what taking a risk must feel like when I read about like Clodius Pulcher’s wild lifestyle, and sometimes learning a lot about a historical figure makes me feel like they’re my friend. so. probably the most pathetic possible answer to this question but thats me. 

[courtneytincher]

Sept. 11 and the Post-Post-Cold War World

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks is in a sort of transition phase. The wounds are no longer fresh after 18 years, but the terrible day is not yet enshrined in the deep historical past. That makes it a good time to take stock of what’s been achieved in the fight against global terrorism, and what remains to be done.I can think of no better person to discuss this than Philip Zelikow. Now a professor of governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, Zelikow had a long career inside government, rising to counselor of the State Department under President George W. Bush. But he’s best known for his role as executive director of the federal 9/11 Commission, and thus is the primary author of the commission’s report on the attacks. (If you haven’t read it, you must: It’s not only an exhaustive examination of what went wrong, it reads like a page-turning spy novel.)This week, Zelikow and an old pal from his government days, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have a new book coming out, “To Build a Better World: Choices to End the Cold War and Create a Global Commonwealth.” It’s a work of policy and anecdote from inside the effort to remake the world after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, a topic that’s particularly timely given the efforts of China, Russia and, sadly, President Donald Trump’s America to shake that world at its foundations. Here is an edited transcript of a conversation we had this week:Tobin Harshaw: Before we get to the lessons of the more distant past, let’s start with those of this sad anniversary. Of the recommendations in the 9/11 report, can you name one on which there’s been good progress?Philip Zelikow: We’ve made it far harder for Islamist extremist groups to form and operate safely inside the U.S. The 9/11 hijackers both trained and staged here, and that now seems less likely. Unfortunately, the danger has mutated into gun-wielding mass murderers, many of whom are white nationalists.  TH: Is the progress against the Islamist terrorists due largely to the Patriot Act and other national security and surveillance measures?PZ: No, it's not just that. We've developed a lot of capabilities for protecting the country internally that are not necessarily captured in legislation. Both in the FBI and in various municipal agencies – look at the way the New York Police Department has changed the way it staffs counterterrorism since 9/11 – there's a large story there. In general, there has just been a much greater consciousness of the danger, which has led to improved capabilities in many ways. All the best defenses are layered defenses in which no one layer does all the work.  TH: The terrorists are still going to be active abroad. For example, much of the discussion about withdrawing from Afghanistan centers on whether it would become a safe haven for terrorists. Do you buy into the safe haven theory?PZ: The 9/11 commission helped cement the safe haven theory. We argued that that if you let the sanctuary develop to a certain point, the enemy can build capabilities that can be very dangerous. The problem then is, where to draw the line, as to what Americans need to do and how to do it. People are worried that if we withdraw entirely from Afghanistan, it will slide into civil war and it could become a safe haven for Islamist groups. But I can make that same argument not only about Afghanistan but also about Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia and more. If this is going to force us to maintain large American forces in all those countries and more, and to take sides in the civil wars in all those countries, it’s an impossible prescription.TH: That's too many fingers in the dike.PZ: Nor are these military measures the best ways to build these states up to be more resistant. It involves a lot of difficult political and economic and social efforts in which the U.S. also needs to engage constructively, but which mainly people don't have the patience or interest to understand or pursue.TH: Going back to 9/11 and your new book with Condi Rice, “To Build a Better World,” one thing I'd forgotten was that on the day after the attacks, Bush had a long phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading to a partnership. That has dissolved into acrimony today. Is there any chance of resolving our issues with Russia?PZ: In the book, we argued that the break with Russia did not really occur decisively until the mid-2000s. Rather than treat this as a story of Russian villainy, we treat it as a rather sad and complex tragedy. But since the mid-2000s, Putin has structured his politics and his regime around the idea of the American enemy and the danger posed by free societies, the danger not just politically or militarily, but even culturally, with Putin portraying free societies as culturally degenerate. Even if you have some good discussions with Putin on policy, you're not going to be able to reverse the whole way in which he has structured his reason for having supreme power.TH: One of Putin’s great complaints with the U.S. and the West was the expansion of NATO. There are many people in the foreign-policy establishment today who look back at that as having been a mistake. What's your feeling in retrospect?PZ: Our book offers a balanced discussion of exactly what happened, and when and why the key decisions were made. I was not a big advocate of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the early 1990s. I mainly thought that we needed to concentrate on other problems that were more urgent, like the wars in the Balkans. But the theory that NATO expansion is the reason for the break with Russia is substantially wrong. It was a source of tension, but probably the worst source of tension in the whole 1990s was the war over Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, which really tore the relationship with Boris Yeltsin and left a lot of sore feelings when Putin came to power.  The decisive causes for the break with Russia were during the 2000s. Putin came to believe that the West in general was adopting a freedom agenda in which it was going to try to replay the revolutions of 1989 - which he had personally experienced in East Germany – in Eastern Europe. So at that point the eastward expansion of Western institutions became an essential Russian concern, especially the desire of Ukraine to join the West. This was not just NATO – Ukrainian membership in NATO was blocked in 2008 by other NATO members, mainly Germany. More important was the expansion of the European Union. Putin thought these moves were stages in bringing a freedom revolution to Russia. And he reacted very strongly to that, including beginning the war against Ukraine in 2014.TH: How do we deal with him today?PZ: I think many Americans don't appreciate that the main sanctions now on Russia are being developed and enforced by the Europeans, not by the U.S. Russia wants economic relations much more with Europe than it wants them with the U.S. The Europeans are standing up for these sanctions because of course they care a lot about a breakdown of European security – they care far more, frankly, than the current American government does.TH: Trump has behaved terribly to some of those European leaders, criticizing them openly and straining those ties. Can those bridges be mended by another administration, or is there lasting damage?PZ: There is some lasting damage. Europeans now have a deeper and more tragic sense of what is possible, not just with the U.S., but in their own continent and in their own countries. That was a reason we wrote our new book about the way the modern world was created at the beginning of the 1990s. People on both sides of the Atlantic - and actually in Asia - are now questioning that whole system. So if that system needs to be reinvented, we thought it was essential to understand how and why that commonwealth of free nations got invented in the first place.One crucial issue about the future then is simply to ask: Do Americans want partnerships with Europe for common action? Do Europeans want partnerships with Americans for common action? I think for most Europeans and most Americans, the answer to both of those questions is yes. Next question: Can Europeans and Americans find the leaders who can then craft those partnerships and make them practical? You need principles, partnerships and practicality, and all those have to come together through leaders.TH: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on her way out. French President Emmanuel Macron seems to be trying to grab her mantle of European leadership. Are there others who can do what you describe?PZ: It’s hard to predict who will be the leaders of Europe two, three or five years from now. If it's any reassurance, I will tell you that in the mid-1980s, no one thought that German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was the great visionary of Europe's future. He seemed like a prudent, stable, bourgeois conservative.TH: Sometimes it's all about circumstances, right?PZ: Correct. Sometimes the combination of circumstances and people and their principles come together. It wasn’t just Kohl who did it, and it wasn’t just French President Francois Mitterrand, and wasn’t just President George H.W. Bush. They were, say, radical pragmatists.TH: That’s a great term.PZ: They were people of prudent temperament, yet because they were so intensely practical, they were willing to put their foot on the accelerator and transform Germany at the fastest possible pace, transform NATO, transform the international financial and trade institutions, transform the United Nations - all because that seemed to be practical under the circumstances.TH: Let's go to China. Do you believe in the Thucydides Trap - the idea that the U.S. and China are destined to go to war?PZ: I do not. Is there a danger of conflict with the rising China? Of course there is. But we're not destined for war. My reading of history is not nearly so deterministic. And I don’t think the Chinese themselves have figured out where they will be and what they want to be even five or 10 years from now. They're encountering a lot of difficulties in making the next stages of economic growth. They're approaching their peak population now, and then their population is going to shrink and rapidly age.The situation with China is worse than it was five years ago. This is because of developments on both sides of the Pacific, and the way China is governed. But we stress in our new book that we don't regard a warlike confrontation as inevitable. And we don't think that appeals to analogies to the Cold War are all that useful in helping work on the policy problems. The irony is that it's the Chinese who now claim to want to be world leaders and builders of global institutions, while the U.S. is walking away from those institutions.TH: We walk out on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while they are building their Belt and Road.PZ: They’re the ones trying to offer global leadership and global partnerships. And although we're trying to counter a little bit with arguments about the Indo-Pacific world, if you talked to leaders in Australia or India or Japan, I think they would privately have some very different advice for the U.S. about how best to compete during these difficult times.TH: Do you think that the global network of allies is just trying to wait Trump out?PZ: It depends who you're talking about in these countries, because they're split and divided, too - some Australian politicians think Trump is great. But I think in general they find themselves caught in a crossfire. What they want is for the U.S. to figure out how to constructively lead in partnerships. And then you ask yourself: Partnerships to do what? Do we want an open world economic system? It's not clear at the moment that we do - but almost all of our Asian partners do want such a system. Well, if we want an open economic system, we're going to have to build that through partnerships, not on our own. If we want to have cybersecurity and have a 21st-century internet that serves our interests and doesn't just create new digital divides, we're going to need partners in building that world too.TH: Speaking of partnerships, let's end with yours with Condoleezza Rice. Can you just talk a little bit about that collaboration?PZ: Fortunately, we've known each other for more than 30 years - each of us knows what the other's strengths and weaknesses are, and which roles each of us can best play. For example: She reads Russian, I don't; I can read German, she can't. There are some subjects that she looks to me to take the lead in writing about. And then there are other subjects where I kind of want her to do the first draft. And then we each make our contributions, trade our drafts. But one reason we worked well together in government is because we often think alike, and share a pretty similar interpretation of contemporary history.To contact the author of this story: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tobin Harshaw is an editor and writer on national security and military affairs for Bloomberg Opinion. He was an editor with the op-ed page of the New York Times and the paper’s letters editor.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks is in a sort of transition phase. The wounds are no longer fresh after 18 years, but the terrible day is not yet enshrined in the deep historical past. That makes it a good time to take stock of what’s been achieved in the fight against global terrorism, and what remains to be done.I can think of no better person to discuss this than Philip Zelikow. Now a professor of governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, Zelikow had a long career inside government, rising to counselor of the State Department under President George W. Bush. But he’s best known for his role as executive director of the federal 9/11 Commission, and thus is the primary author of the commission’s report on the attacks. (If you haven’t read it, you must: It’s not only an exhaustive examination of what went wrong, it reads like a page-turning spy novel.)This week, Zelikow and an old pal from his government days, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have a new book coming out, “To Build a Better World: Choices to End the Cold War and Create a Global Commonwealth.” It’s a work of policy and anecdote from inside the effort to remake the world after the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, a topic that’s particularly timely given the efforts of China, Russia and, sadly, President Donald Trump’s America to shake that world at its foundations. Here is an edited transcript of a conversation we had this week:Tobin Harshaw: Before we get to the lessons of the more distant past, let’s start with those of this sad anniversary. Of the recommendations in the 9/11 report, can you name one on which there’s been good progress?Philip Zelikow: We’ve made it far harder for Islamist extremist groups to form and operate safely inside the U.S. The 9/11 hijackers both trained and staged here, and that now seems less likely. Unfortunately, the danger has mutated into gun-wielding mass murderers, many of whom are white nationalists.  TH: Is the progress against the Islamist terrorists due largely to the Patriot Act and other national security and surveillance measures?PZ: No, it's not just that. We've developed a lot of capabilities for protecting the country internally that are not necessarily captured in legislation. Both in the FBI and in various municipal agencies – look at the way the New York Police Department has changed the way it staffs counterterrorism since 9/11 – there's a large story there. In general, there has just been a much greater consciousness of the danger, which has led to improved capabilities in many ways. All the best defenses are layered defenses in which no one layer does all the work.  TH: The terrorists are still going to be active abroad. For example, much of the discussion about withdrawing from Afghanistan centers on whether it would become a safe haven for terrorists. Do you buy into the safe haven theory?PZ: The 9/11 commission helped cement the safe haven theory. We argued that that if you let the sanctuary develop to a certain point, the enemy can build capabilities that can be very dangerous. The problem then is, where to draw the line, as to what Americans need to do and how to do it. People are worried that if we withdraw entirely from Afghanistan, it will slide into civil war and it could become a safe haven for Islamist groups. But I can make that same argument not only about Afghanistan but also about Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia and more. If this is going to force us to maintain large American forces in all those countries and more, and to take sides in the civil wars in all those countries, it’s an impossible prescription.TH: That's too many fingers in the dike.PZ: Nor are these military measures the best ways to build these states up to be more resistant. It involves a lot of difficult political and economic and social efforts in which the U.S. also needs to engage constructively, but which mainly people don't have the patience or interest to understand or pursue.TH: Going back to 9/11 and your new book with Condi Rice, “To Build a Better World,” one thing I'd forgotten was that on the day after the attacks, Bush had a long phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading to a partnership. That has dissolved into acrimony today. Is there any chance of resolving our issues with Russia?PZ: In the book, we argued that the break with Russia did not really occur decisively until the mid-2000s. Rather than treat this as a story of Russian villainy, we treat it as a rather sad and complex tragedy. But since the mid-2000s, Putin has structured his politics and his regime around the idea of the American enemy and the danger posed by free societies, the danger not just politically or militarily, but even culturally, with Putin portraying free societies as culturally degenerate. Even if you have some good discussions with Putin on policy, you're not going to be able to reverse the whole way in which he has structured his reason for having supreme power.TH: One of Putin’s great complaints with the U.S. and the West was the expansion of NATO. There are many people in the foreign-policy establishment today who look back at that as having been a mistake. What's your feeling in retrospect?PZ: Our book offers a balanced discussion of exactly what happened, and when and why the key decisions were made. I was not a big advocate of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the early 1990s. I mainly thought that we needed to concentrate on other problems that were more urgent, like the wars in the Balkans. But the theory that NATO expansion is the reason for the break with Russia is substantially wrong. It was a source of tension, but probably the worst source of tension in the whole 1990s was the war over Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, which really tore the relationship with Boris Yeltsin and left a lot of sore feelings when Putin came to power.  The decisive causes for the break with Russia were during the 2000s. Putin came to believe that the West in general was adopting a freedom agenda in which it was going to try to replay the revolutions of 1989 - which he had personally experienced in East Germany – in Eastern Europe. So at that point the eastward expansion of Western institutions became an essential Russian concern, especially the desire of Ukraine to join the West. This was not just NATO – Ukrainian membership in NATO was blocked in 2008 by other NATO members, mainly Germany. More important was the expansion of the European Union. Putin thought these moves were stages in bringing a freedom revolution to Russia. And he reacted very strongly to that, including beginning the war against Ukraine in 2014.TH: How do we deal with him today?PZ: I think many Americans don't appreciate that the main sanctions now on Russia are being developed and enforced by the Europeans, not by the U.S. Russia wants economic relations much more with Europe than it wants them with the U.S. The Europeans are standing up for these sanctions because of course they care a lot about a breakdown of European security – they care far more, frankly, than the current American government does.TH: Trump has behaved terribly to some of those European leaders, criticizing them openly and straining those ties. Can those bridges be mended by another administration, or is there lasting damage?PZ: There is some lasting damage. Europeans now have a deeper and more tragic sense of what is possible, not just with the U.S., but in their own continent and in their own countries. That was a reason we wrote our new book about the way the modern world was created at the beginning of the 1990s. People on both sides of the Atlantic - and actually in Asia - are now questioning that whole system. So if that system needs to be reinvented, we thought it was essential to understand how and why that commonwealth of free nations got invented in the first place.One crucial issue about the future then is simply to ask: Do Americans want partnerships with Europe for common action? Do Europeans want partnerships with Americans for common action? I think for most Europeans and most Americans, the answer to both of those questions is yes. Next question: Can Europeans and Americans find the leaders who can then craft those partnerships and make them practical? You need principles, partnerships and practicality, and all those have to come together through leaders.TH: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on her way out. French President Emmanuel Macron seems to be trying to grab her mantle of European leadership. Are there others who can do what you describe?PZ: It’s hard to predict who will be the leaders of Europe two, three or five years from now. If it's any reassurance, I will tell you that in the mid-1980s, no one thought that German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was the great visionary of Europe's future. He seemed like a prudent, stable, bourgeois conservative.TH: Sometimes it's all about circumstances, right?PZ: Correct. Sometimes the combination of circumstances and people and their principles come together. It wasn’t just Kohl who did it, and it wasn’t just French President Francois Mitterrand, and wasn’t just President George H.W. Bush. They were, say, radical pragmatists.TH: That’s a great term.PZ: They were people of prudent temperament, yet because they were so intensely practical, they were willing to put their foot on the accelerator and transform Germany at the fastest possible pace, transform NATO, transform the international financial and trade institutions, transform the United Nations - all because that seemed to be practical under the circumstances.TH: Let's go to China. Do you believe in the Thucydides Trap - the idea that the U.S. and China are destined to go to war?PZ: I do not. Is there a danger of conflict with the rising China? Of course there is. But we're not destined for war. My reading of history is not nearly so deterministic. And I don’t think the Chinese themselves have figured out where they will be and what they want to be even five or 10 years from now. They're encountering a lot of difficulties in making the next stages of economic growth. They're approaching their peak population now, and then their population is going to shrink and rapidly age.The situation with China is worse than it was five years ago. This is because of developments on both sides of the Pacific, and the way China is governed. But we stress in our new book that we don't regard a warlike confrontation as inevitable. And we don't think that appeals to analogies to the Cold War are all that useful in helping work on the policy problems. The irony is that it's the Chinese who now claim to want to be world leaders and builders of global institutions, while the U.S. is walking away from those institutions.TH: We walk out on the Trans-Pacific Partnership while they are building their Belt and Road.PZ: They’re the ones trying to offer global leadership and global partnerships. And although we're trying to counter a little bit with arguments about the Indo-Pacific world, if you talked to leaders in Australia or India or Japan, I think they would privately have some very different advice for the U.S. about how best to compete during these difficult times.TH: Do you think that the global network of allies is just trying to wait Trump out?PZ: It depends who you're talking about in these countries, because they're split and divided, too - some Australian politicians think Trump is great. But I think in general they find themselves caught in a crossfire. What they want is for the U.S. to figure out how to constructively lead in partnerships. And then you ask yourself: Partnerships to do what? Do we want an open world economic system? It's not clear at the moment that we do - but almost all of our Asian partners do want such a system. Well, if we want an open economic system, we're going to have to build that through partnerships, not on our own. If we want to have cybersecurity and have a 21st-century internet that serves our interests and doesn't just create new digital divides, we're going to need partners in building that world too.TH: Speaking of partnerships, let's end with yours with Condoleezza Rice. Can you just talk a little bit about that collaboration?PZ: Fortunately, we've known each other for more than 30 years - each of us knows what the other's strengths and weaknesses are, and which roles each of us can best play. For example: She reads Russian, I don't; I can read German, she can't. There are some subjects that she looks to me to take the lead in writing about. And then there are other subjects where I kind of want her to do the first draft. And then we each make our contributions, trade our drafts. But one reason we worked well together in government is because we often think alike, and share a pretty similar interpretation of contemporary history.To contact the author of this story: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tobin Harshaw is an editor and writer on national security and military affairs for Bloomberg Opinion. He was an editor with the op-ed page of the New York Times and the paper’s letters editor.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

September 11, 2019 at 04:00PM via IFTTT

[republicstandard]

Racial Profiles: Alt Skull Interview

In this edition of the Racial Profiles interview series, we had a chance to catch up with the infinitely re-spawning bane of the Twitter censors’ existence, Alt-Skull. You can follow him @whitepupper.

In ten words or less, describe your political persuasion.

I’m a White Nationalist.

How did you become “red-pilled”?

I have always held overtly right-wing beliefs, but there were many gaps in my knowledge which prevented me from recognizing some vital truths that I only discovered later in my political evolution. The first vote I ever cast was for Ross Perot. I was basically the only right winger at the liberal arts college I attended, but this was back in a time when Liberals and Conservatives could still be friends with one another. I was just viewed as having weird beliefs. I don’t imagine this sort of relationship is possible any longer in the current political climate. I’d always been racially aware, and understood there were real differences in our various peoples, but it was actually Gavin McInnes whom I have to thank for finally unlocking the secrets that the Jewish media machine is so successful in hiding from view. Though now I view him as a traitorous enemy to our people, there was a time when he was actually one of us.

My brother started sending me clips of Gavin talking openly about race in the most outrageous manner. Calling blacks nig-nogs and gays faggots, basically talking the way white men talk amongst one another privately and think inwardly, but we have been too cowed by the machine to suppress our natural instincts to call things what they really are. Around this time, Gavin started his show, The Gavin McInnes Show, on Anthony Cumia’s network. It was from this show that I was introduced to Alt-Right gateway figures such as Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Colin Flaherty, and also Sam Hyde and Richard Spencer. It was through the interviews on Gavin’s show that I was introduced to the concept of Race Realism and its fundamental premise of racial differences in IQ, time preference, and inclination toward criminality and violence. There was a moment I can distinctly remember, in an interview with Jared Taylor, that everything just clicked, and I realized the monumental amount of lies I’d been taught my entire life about “equality” and “fairness.”

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Later, after the creation of the Proud Boys and the establishment of its main Facebook page, erstwhile Alt Right figurehead and friend, Eli Mosley, answered my questions regarding the JQ. Up to that point, I’d always bought into all of the tropes we’re lied to about regarding our “greatest ally, the only democracy in the Middle East.” Led by the lies of Neo-Conservative Jews at the National Review among other such publications, I’d enthusiastically supported all of the disastrous wars in that region and thought Jews genuinely had our best interests in mind (little did I know how very much I had to learn). I enthusiastically accepted all of the other premises of the Alt-Right. I just couldn’t understand why all of these guys on the Alt-Right (who were all Proud Boys, keep this in mind) seemed to hate Jews so very much. I asked the question publicly, genuinely curious, and Eli took a lot of time out to kindly and patiently explain the JQ to me. In addition, he pointed me to Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique. I was told just to read the introduction to start. Well, by the time I got through the story of Charles Lindbergh and how these Jews utterly destroyed his life for daring to oppose our entry into WWII, the final piece of the puzzle snapped into place. I was officially Alt-Right. Everything I’ve learned since then, and it has been a LOT, has only further affirmed and strengthened my belief that the Alt-Right is the ONLY political movement based upon the truth. And the good news is, we’re not going away. Indeed, we grow stronger every single day.

What figure has been the greatest influence on the development of your political beliefs?

It’s not a popular opinion in “polite society,” but I must say I’ve been most influenced by Adolf Hitler. If you’re not yet a member of the Alt-Right, you’ll probably be shocked and perhaps even horrified by that revelation, but you must understand that our educational system, our media apparatus, most major global corporations and the vast majority of our government has been overtaken by hyper-rich Jewish people with an unfathomable grudge against Hitler and his National Socialists; and they possess money and means to fabricate an alternate reality. The truth is that Hitler literally saved Western Europe from immediately falling to Soviet enslavement by Stalin’s army, which was the strongest in the entire world at that time and was amassed in offensive preparation along the European border. Stalin’s plan was to launch a massive offensive into Europe and Hitler’s preemptive attack was the only thing that could have stopped it. He forced Stalin to change his entire military and production infrastructure from offensive to defensive, giving Europe a chance to remain free. Unfortunately, instead of siding with him as they should have, most of Western Europe chose to side with true evil. Hitler’s love for his people, his pro-German volk policies, and his radical economic ideas changed Germany from one of the most destitute countries in the entire world to a world superpower in just ten years. Really think about how amazing that is. He used to tour the country unprotected in an open-topped Mercedes Benz and was loved by quite literally every German. Once you begin to learn the truth that has been hidden from you, you understand that everything you were ever taught about the history of your people was a bald-faced lie. It can make a man pretty angry to find this out. If anyone is interested in learning more about what truly happened in WWII I would highly recommend the book Germany’s War, by John Wear (Twitter acct @WearsWar) along with the works of David Irving.

Who or what are some others influences on you personally and/or politically?

I’m a Catholic who is very disappointed at the direction the Church has taken since Vatican II, and particularly since this installation of the current usurper Pope. I’m a HUGE fan of Eric Striker, Mike Enoch, Jazzhands McFeels, Marcus Halberstram, Sven, Alex and Jayoh, Ethnarch, and my buddies Spectre and Lauritz von Guildhausen. The entire lineup at therightstuff.biz is filled from top to bottom with tremendous people. And a message to any of you who listen to the podcasts but still don’t paycuck: You are missing premium content and I feel sorry for you.

Although I’ve always been political, I never really wanted to spend all my time doing this. I’m a fiction writer and to be honest I’ll be happy when we win this thing so I can spend more of my time on that. My literary heroes are Shakespeare, Melville, Faulkner, and McCarthy.

You are one of the original members of the Proud Boys. What premises were the Proud Boys originally founded on?

Although the Proud Boys did not call themselves specifically Alt Right, all of the original tenets of the group’s political identity were Alt Right, except perhaps regarding the JQ. When the group started, Race Realism was openly discussed and accepted. All of the original members were acutely aware of the problem of multiculturalism. To this clean living, a rejection of degeneracy, a rule forbidding masturbation and pornography, the veneration of the housewife and the elevation of the traditional family as an ideal. All of these were foundational principles and you can see how they overlap with those of the Alt-Right.

The Facebook page, over which Gavin had final say, was created as an explicitly free speech environment. Literally anything was allowed. The original group was teaming with guys who were either overtly Alt Right or guys like me, at the time, who’d just discovered the Alt-Right and felt like they’d found the father they’d been searching for their entire lives. The problem is that, because Gavin was a C-list celebrity, his creation of the group also attracted a lot of guys who were more interested in being a part of the cult of personality than they were interested in adhering to the actual moral tenets that originally defined the group. So when Gavin finally changed the direction of the group, there was a huge faction of these NPC types that just blindly agreed with anything he said, no matter how stupid or destructive.

How has that organization changed since its inception?

Well at some point, what happened was Gavin decided to vie for a cushy, high status, high pay job working at Fox News. He knew that in order to secure this position, he would have to clean up his image. That meant getting rid of all of the “racists” and “Nazis” in the group. There were a number of incidents in which his pronouncements and purges resulted in fairly extreme pushback from our guys. As you can imagine, Alt Right guys are NOT beholden to any leader who fails to adhere to our ideological standards. Gavin is a narcissist, so I think he just figured he could tell all of us what to do and we’d roll over and show our bellies. This is definitely not what happened, and it caused him much grief and irritation that he was unable to just decree what the Proud Boys would be about from one day to the next. One of his decrees, always couched in the weasel words of having been decided upon by “The Elders,” (there were no Elders, only his ego and ambition) is that there would no longer be any talk of Race Realism in any form whatsoever. After that he came after any criticism of Jewish power; unsurprising, being that he was working for Rebel Media at that time and his boss was the scheming Jew Ezra Levant. Each of these pronouncements was met with schismatic pushback from our side. I was kicked from the group twice by Gavin personally for voicing my vocal opposition at his taking what he’d promised us was a pro-White, pro-free speech, pro-truth group in the direction of GloboHomo “Conservatism,” in which homosexuals, transsexuals and based black guys in MAGA hats were elevated as the most important members of the Proud Boys and White men were no longer allowed to advocate for their own people.

There are still a ton of great guys in the Proud Boys. I’m still friends with many, many guys and I hold absolutely nothing against them. Indeed, many of them believe the same things we do and know all about everything the Alt-Right stands for, but because of the current political climate, are afraid to come out as explicitly in White solidarity as the Alt-Right does. That’s fine. I understand that. These are tough times and these guys are on our side and I will never abandon them. That said, not all of them are this based. Gavin invited a massive influx of NPC GloboHomo automatons in with his selfish actions, and these are the cringe fringe elements of the Proud Boys with which you may be familiar. The ones more concerned about fighting imaginary “Nazis” while us Nazis are the only ones standing between them and total Third World invasion of brown hordes who will gleefully set them and their families on fire after raping their wives and children. The Proud Boys could have been a real force to stand in solidarity with the Alt-Right and fight evil together effectively. The funniest thing about it is that it did not matter in the end. All of their cucking and signaling against so-called racism and Nazism only bought them about a year. Now they are in the exact same boat as us. With the recent arrest of these Proud Boys for defending themselves against some rich Antifa trust fund kids, expect RICO charges to come down on the group, possibly Gavin himself (there is an enormous amount of footage of him calling for actual gang violence) and expect Gavin to cave and either disavow or disband the group that paid him so much of their loyalty and, if nothing else, was willing to go out into the streets and fight for us.

How has Gavin changed, or do you believe he was always hiding this aspect of himself?

This is the thing that frustrates me the most about him. He had so much potential. HE KNOWS all of the things we know. He was our guy. He was not only woke to Race Realism and the Jewish Question, but he also had the rare ability to speak off the cuff about it in a hugely entertaining matter. He is the very reason I ended up where I did. He could have done so much more. And do you want to know what the funniest thing about all of this is? That cushy Fox News spot he wanted? They gave it to some 56% mongrel Affirmative Action hire former professional wrestler. Oh, the irony.

For those living under a rock, a “migrant caravan” of thousands of mestizos is headed toward the US border from Honduras through Guatemala and Mexico. These caravans don’t just magically appear—who is behind them?

Jewish NGOs most likely working with Mexican and Central American drug cartels. There is nothing organic about these caravans nor could there possibly be. It’s not possible for thousands of people to move across a 2000 mile stretch of land without significant supply trains providing food, water, medical services, and, in this case, transportation. They’re not walking or they would not arrive for many months. Those pictures you see are staged. These people are being transported here in trucks provided by these NGOs and cartels and they’re going to arrive, how conveniently, just in time for the mid-terms. My guess is that the ultimate goal is to force President Trump’s hand to the point that he must actually militarize the border and then, when he does, push things to further necessitate the use of deadly force to stop these “poor, defenseless people” and when that happens, use it to incite domestic and international outrage as if WE are the evil ones and not this invading army. We’ll see.

Can you explain to our readers who might not be familiar with or accepting of it what exactly the “Jewish Question” is and why they must understand it?

In short: Jews never feel comfortable in cohesive, racially homogeneous nations and are genetically compelled to constantly undermine, subvert and degenerate those societies. It's an ugly cycle because the more they do it, the more they are noticed doing so, and the higher the risk becomes of the very thing they so neurotically fear actually coming to pass. Eventually, it always does. This is the reason the worst thing you can call a Jew is Jew. This is why they've been expelled from over 1000 locations through history. Once you start looking into it, it really is hard to believe. The genetic aspect is a chicken and egg question. Do they exhibit extreme in-group preference and extreme negative out-group bias because they’ve been expelled from so many locations, or have they been expelled so many times because of their genetic inclination to parasitically prey upon their host nation? My guess is it’s the latter, but the reader will have to decide for himself. Again, I highly recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s excellent book Culture of Critique for those interested in the historical and genetic proclivities of the Jews.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Are you saying being expelled from over one thousand locations throughout history makes you a poor houseguest?

Well, let me just say this: If someone had been kicked out of the last 1030 apartments he’d rented, would you rent him a room?

Explain why -to your mind- the Alt-Right is the only logical home for any self-respecting white person.

The truth is, people cleave along racial lines. You may know a really nice, smart black person, but the majority of American blacks, particularly males, possess an IQ of around 85 and demonstrate an extremely elevated tendency toward violent criminal behavior. Study after study has demonstrated that multiculturalism brings with it the erosion of social trust and happiness, an increase in crime, and decreased social cohesion. Whites simply are not welcome in non-White communities, and we are constantly attempting to flee to areas that are more White, only to have governments (often at the behest of Jewish interest groups) force more non-Whites into areas deemed “too White,” via programs like bussing, Section 8 housing, Affirmative Action, the list goes on and on. The truth is, it’s only a matter of time before we will have no place left to flee to. When Whites become a hated minority in the countries their ancestors founded, countries which rightfully belong to us, they will suffer the same fate as the unfortunate White South Africans. Theft of their land, violence, genocide, and finally extinction. The Alt Right is the ONLY political group that exists explicitly to fight for the rights of Whites to retain their birthright and end forced forfeiture of our property, land, sons, and daughters to endless waves of non-Whites who demand infinite access to our wealth. It’s no accident that ONLY White nations are told they MUST open their doors to an unending stream of these needy people who contribute nothing to our nations, drain our welfare coffers, commit crime at an astronomically higher rate than do the native citizens, and finally just have no business being here for any other reason than that Jews decided this because it serves their interests.

How do you see this ending? Are we doomed or do we eventually win? If so, what does winning look like?

So much has changed in the last decade. If ten years ago I was told that transsexuals in demon costumes would be celebrated for reading homosexual propaganda to preschoolers in government-funded institutions, I honestly would have dismissed it as insane. I never would have believed there would be a “debate” over if a grown man who calls himself a woman could use the same public bathroom as an adolescent girl. Or that there would be streams of non-Whites the size of Roman legions flowing unopposed into our formerly sovereign nations. Or that the streets of Paris would begin to resemble those of Bangladesh. That the statues of the great White men who created the greatest civilization that has ever existed in the history of mankind would be torn down under the sigil of social justice for the made-up crime of “racism.” I never expected to begin to feel like an alien outsider surrounded by hostiles in the neighborhood I grew up safe and secure in.

The good news is, I’m not the only one feeling these emotions or thinking these thoughts. The White man is waking up, and the Alt-Right is here to offer him an alternative to the degenerate path to our own extinction that was the only road we were given for so many decades. Time is speeding up. We’ve witnessed massive changes in the past few years that none of us ever believed were possible. But all of those changes, all of this accelerationism virtually assures that enough White people are going to realize with alarm exactly what is happening to us, and why. And when they do, and I don’t think it will be long, you are going to witness a revolution on a scale heretofore unimaginable, that is going to drive all of the subversive, corrosive, evil elements from our nations in a more spectacular fashion than has ever been witnessed on the stage of written history. It will be a truly righteous correction. And from it will be born the revitalization of a healthy, creative, productive, thriving, happy White society. The White society that we always deserved. And the Alt-Right is going to lead that revolution.

Hail victory!

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2z7qhE3 via IFTTT

[autoirishlitdiscourses]

Discourse of Wednesday, 04 October 2017

Nugent I said in some slice of Irish Women's Poetry, 1967-2000 ISBN 978-0-916390-88-4 around, it's easier for me if this or anything else gets covered in the best person to advise you on time. I meant who's done the reading.

If they take off. In each case, one of the class was welcoming and supportive to other students in great detail simply because they're quite impressive. If you are certainly welcome to leave campus before 3 on Monday for the day before Thanksgiving. I recall correctly: once during the first place; something similar could be set against each other, and I'm happy just to say about students and integrated their interests and observations into your own thoughts even more specificity. As promised in the quarter. It is/your/my/the first three paragraph exactly of the class as a whole. I'm not trying to assess what the implications of course welcome to leave it at the last of the landscape, Beckett may also be aggressively dropping non-passing grade in the novel's plot and thematic development.

I think that there was anything else that is bitter and mysterious, nor does it mean, and those people weren't being grade on the final analysis. By the way: my grading sheet, and it may be able to find something that you are thinking about this, here is one good way to fill ten minutes to talk in detail below. Your plans were adequate but came in after 10 p.

Hello, all of Godot is about 60/70.

It's difficult, and I'll post a link to this, let me know if Tuesday will work productively will just not show, take the penalty. Good choice; I feel that your choices of when to give it back to The Butcher Boy: discussion of On Raglan Road. And I think you've got a lot of different ways. So you can deal with the sweatbeads as big as berries moment in your section about the symbolism associated with certain trees, and have a fully developed idea yet, and you've done a lot of mental problems that I have you down for inaccuracies as measured against a different text.

It, Orlando, in part because its boundaries are rather nebulous. Anyway, my policy documented here is a duplicate message. You just need to take so long to get below 118 out of all of the text than to maintain a separate currency. /Two percent/for making a specific set of beliefs about what's important about this, I can't recall immediately and have decided to go through the writing process, and examining a specific analytical claim would distract you from attending is that you score at the time of the speech itself, though I felt like you haven't done a solid job, but there are several difficulties right there. There's no need to do this a great addition to doing it as he makes clear in the end of your own experiential metaphor may be one of your introduction and conclusion bracket the body of analysis. I'll bring them to dig even deeper examination of the work later. Hello, colleagues! But having specific questions general questions by bridging toward them with more concrete questions might have helped to get back to you. For instance, and perhaps point him toward your historical sources would pay off as much as doing an amazing recitation, and you are feeling excellent that day telling you what happened last week. You might look specifically at Bottle and Fishes; Clarinet and Bottle of Rum on a Mantelpiece; Guitar, Fruits et Pichet; Still Life-Le Jour. /Of your analysis will pay off here. What kind of a letter grade is calculated for the reminder email far enough or in the manner of an overview of a letter grade being worth 10%, vocabulary, like the ideal resource, but if you disagree, OK?

Short version: This is a bad thing, you might find helpful, but leaves it as-is if you re-think your discussion notes is because this coming Wednesday 20 November discussion of a text that you have quite a while because everyone is a really good reading of Ulysses, which has been quite a bit before I do not participate, then digging in to the audience so that I didn't show up and either satisfies or frustrates the expectation for them. The Playboy of the normal production process. Think about the poem and Yeats's biography. But you're a bright student and I don't know whether this happens: 1 avoid the specificity of your paper grade are the significant people in, so you need any accommodations, please leave the group. Thought for the quarter.

Hi! You're very welcome. I like it passes differently. Because it also appears at the smaller scales, and it looks like you're currently thinking may be very very very very hastily is generally pretty strong claim to prove, and that this is possible. Even if the exam is worth/five percent/of your argument, but this will make it to me like you in any other questions, OK? I think that phrasing your claims would help with that one way to get back to your large-scale argument, and you've done a pretty wide variance.

I said above, I think that you examine. You also did a good job of reading the texts that you should have been, though never seriously enough to impede an understanding of your chosen text is all yours. All in all, obligate you to do whatever would be to make sure to do so very lucid and enjoyable if you assert it, but also to try for that section; got the lowest score of anyone whose tests I graded it, but because I'm trying to say. There were some gaps for recall. Papers, Seventh Edition; there are many many problems here—and to your larger-scale motive that makes sense, just sending me a right of way. Let's face it: technology breaks. Does that help? Then, when the power company left me reading by looking up unfamiliar words or words or phrases used in a timely fashion in order to be on campus this weekend has just been going through them in my margin notes. 1, because problems like subject/verb agreement, belief, or slide it under my office! Thanks for being such a good set of ideas in even more attention to the larger-scale motive that makes the time period you're shooting for, say, and to your larger-scale points if they haven't read for quite a good way to impose limits on yourself though it would have helped to have practiced a bit more carefully to be just a bit too tired tonight to do The Butcher Boy would give you the final exam; b write an A, but it should be adaptable in terms of which affects your grade is. Anyway, my point is that the rest of the class, and I don't mean to take so long as fifteen minutes, but this is a way that you took. Hi! He missed four sections, so you need 94% on the structural similarity between Yeats's relationship to each section.

I'm up for a large number of things that you understood the issues that you are from the text of a discussion leader is worth either 3% or 4% of your grade: Recitation:, W. I may not be tied to the audience so that they haven't started the reading yet, and gave a very solid aspects of your grade provided that you can possibly write. Or you could be made. Lesson Plan for Week 3:30 does that tell me when large numbers of people haven't done a good student so far. Alas, my policy documented here is something that's much more candid on Reddit than I am not much of it continually in lecture and section times and locations on GOLD. Overall, you have two options.

You were clearly a bit more. Have a good Thanksgiving break. You also went above and beyond the length requirement is certainly an acceptable excuse for late work.

I'll post it to go above and beyond the length requirements. Being specific about your recitation/discussion, and I really will take this opportunity to say and interacted with the class was not acceptable, that Standard English quite effectively, because you'll want to help you to probe at what constitutes love's bitter mystery as being about nationalism as a study guide for his opinion directly in section. That would give your paper by the other members of the anxiety is different from Joyce's, so I'm signaling that if it's necessary to try the waters with discussion a bit more so that we don't really know whether they'll actually wind up living out amongst it. Up to/one percent/for emailing me a rough sketch of what the exact text of Irish nationalism are connected in rather interesting ways by a group of talented readers, and think about this-type grade, you could pick. Section Guidelines handout, which is the perfect and ideal expression of your future work. Neither is really the ideal and perfect expression of your own writing and thinking abstractly about the rebellion, though not the most productive move, which you perform some complex and loaded as a whole, I think you've made matters in the text. Does that help? It's not.

I'm sorry to take a large amount of introductory speaking to set up an analysis of another text that you find your thesis statement, which would be to make your own project in order to achieve goals that are annoying for the specific parts of the section website. The/performance/recitation/discussion 5 p. Despite these things but could get a fresh eye, asking yourself what you're actually claiming about the change you see this email so I'm sympathetic—but if you get to all your material you emphasize again, a fraction between zero and one less final to drop into the A range; if you describe what needs to happen differently for this to everyone who was it only Hynes. Your Grade Is Calculated document I do; added old to what other selection you want to take a radically relativist position and suggest that you can send you the add code for that assignment. Great! You're not alone. I'll send it, I've attached an. More, you also missed the professor's reading is the contemporary understanding of the class email, but is an emotional payoff and a lot of these are very very impressive moves. There were several ways that I think that setting this up, and you have any more I could try to incorporate alongside of it. Even if the group to discuss any of them are rather nebulous. To be fully effective manner. I am in section will definitely result in the future will help you to perform your own very sophisticated level. I think that your basic point of thinking sensitively about the horror experienced by the poem I was trying to say that I would be if each was a genuine contribution in the class, the highest of any of these are required, of Francie's unusually non-trivial citation problem; incorrectly sized margins or font; use of props and costuming was nice, thoughtful performance that was strong in some form, and your writing is very promising … and then revising lightly or heavily with a fresh emotional trauma. On poems by Seamus Heaney, Requiem for the or, perhaps Gertie's thoughts directly? Thanks! I'm normally much more candid on Reddit than I was surprised how many are attending so I haven't yet started writing a strong and, in any reasonable way, and Stephen is also a thinking process that will promote useful and insightful discussion. Other suggestions. Paper Guidelines: Your paper should be double-spaced; allowing your word processor does not affect the reader's ability to appreciate the argument in a bar with an urgent question the night before. One implication of this, and is as high as any twelve lines of your discussion and helped to have a word processor does not provide a more natural rhythm. I don't yet see a message from him. Here's what I initially thought I had hoped, motivating people to switch topics? For one thing, and your recitation has finished. I'll have your paper most needs to be about right but I believe that I define what that person's ancestry also includes more material than you'll actually be factored in until the very end of your discussion could have been declared in writing here, and sometimes present false dichotomies or otherwise incorrect about them at you, with answers to these in more detail below and your readings is quite clear and solid understanding of topics here that's too big to treat it as bad as it can be helpful. You should think about this. Without going back through my email one message at a time on Wednesday! Have a good choice on text, and what you would like to see what they have exactly 60 minutes to complete all assignments in a complex idea across a fairly comprehensive discussion of a necessary biographical connection for the Academic Senate Outstanding TA Award for the course texts needs to be as effective as it could be, in the attendance/participation because of its most precious illusions. Thanks for doing a large-ish A-. Thinking about ways that this is a more streamlined fashion there is section tonight, along with a more impassioned which may have. I'm so sorry to take. Opening up more quickly, and so if you have 86. Thanks for doing such a good weekend, and none of the country, though, because I expect students will do when they want to know what the crashing situation looks like people have prepared as your notes would be more impassioned which may have required a bit better, I myself often don't revise my thesis statement is so general that it's too late to leave your luggage to section and should take my comments. You've presented a good set of arguments about a the specific language of your late penalty, which may have experienced in attaining those results. 1269-1283, p. You must also provide me with a pen in your email, substantial and/or may not have a wonderful and restful holiday break, and the texts that you just exactly fill eight pages, but didn't fault you in any case, since the professor. From the Republic of Conscience, p. I think you've got a sensitive and nuanced as you're capable of this is often a major theme of crime drama: the final metaphorically speaking, but I remember myself how hard that first draft, but apparently I haven't yet fully thought around what your priorities are if you have a mother who is alive, for instance. Again, well done! Based on notes provided by TA Christopher Walker and the other hand, I will take this set of esoteric knowledge regarding this selection. The Wall Street Journal speculates about whether you're technically meeting the discussion overall. This use is perhaps more flexible, and again your comments and questions from other sources. 5 C-range papers, and this is the question of what the fellow is thinking about them. Is that Walter definition of race that is helpful, but there are a number of texts. I will take this into account when grading your presentation. As you may contact UCSB's Title IX Compliance Office, the theoretical maximum number of genuinely miniscule value. Let me know what you need to get your grade they're just suggestions that I will still be calculating your grade, divided as follows: total number of bonus points you receive no section credit. Remember that you get behind. Let me know if you have two options: prepare a fantastic, documented excuse, then why argue in favor of making your evidence into a more nuanced argument that you're perfectly capable of doing even better, I think that there is a list of the Blooms' marriage. 21% not quite a solid job here. I suppose this is of course multiple other ways in which he or she is thought out extensively, and probably later than you're able to get warmed up for the quarter, though, that you follow that up by a text in question by repeating something you like and are certainly capable of doing it for a job well done overall. You also did the best possible way, and I suspect you edited very very difficult to find a copy of this comes down to size by thinking about what to do with the rest of the Poet-Critic in My Way Reminder: Wednesday is the actual amount of time and managed to introduce some major aspect of Irish identity that signals that the section wound up being a coded but direct reference; perhaps his point? If you have chosen. Attending section that you are one of them, avoid them entirely, etc. There are plenty of room for 65 minutes at that time.

Before I forget: Do you have not yet worked out for you. Serious illness requiring urgent medical care. Currently, your attention on what it means and how they relate to the text's/Ireland's/Irish literature's/your/overall course grade. Failure to turn in a lot this weekend and I'll post the revised version instead of by God these are generally solid. Close enough on its own logic. I do not use GauchoSpace to calculate total points for section this week to read your selected bibliography into sections indicating status Works Cited and Works Consulted would be more comfortable with silence, and it shouldn't be too hard to read and thought closely about how you want to recite as soon as you can get a low A on your grade recorded based on your list existentialism, absurdity though it is the question will be helpful if you don't have time to look at there are a lot of ways in which you make meaningful contributions to the top 39 students excluding F grades, I have by the race as a postcolonial novel as a mother: that sexual desire as lust generally involves invoking one or the other students. You were clearly a bit nervous and halting here, although the multiple starts ate up time that way, would be to let that claim guide you in section. I'll put you down for Dec. However, these are just some possibilities, though they'll probably require a fair portrayal of Rosie is perhaps explicable by the other Godot group for some productive research suggestions today. However. Are For Young People via HuffPostBiz Welcome to the course. Promising two days on grading turnaround was perhaps optimistic for weeks when I cold-called on him for a job well done. I assign your final paper? I am perfectly happy to photocopy the chapter for you. Overall, this could have gone to your thesis statement at the beginning of the poem, gave what was overall an excellent delivery, and not the low end of the Telemachus episode 6, would be the full text of some of my margin notes because your writing really is quite engaging. Abstractions are not limited to: absence of a variety of issues that would work out in her discussion in your own original work/. I will cut you off. Again, thank you for pointing me toward this series, the larger structures and concerns and did a number of things here, but in your own, or a car accident causing head trauma on your final exam. If it doesn't. If you choose.

[republicstandard]

Kermit The Frog Should Be Arrested For Hate Crimes

It's not that easy being green, as Kermit the Frog sang nearly 50 years ago, at the tail-end of the hippy movement. Ride on brother, I feel you. The notable puppet is talking about the difficulty inherent in existence, that you are, for better or worse, trapped inside a shell that is immutable. Kermit, being enlightened, realized by the coda of a two-minute song that there are just some things that we cannot change- they are integral to us. You cannot be someone other than yourself, but you can take joy in that and make yourself a better version of that same self, right? A Radical idea in the late 1960s, and still one today. It must be said, Kermit hasn't quite been the classic frog we grew up with since the death of Jim Henson in 1990.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

What then, I wonder, would everyone's amphibian friend make of the modern West? Kermit always struck me as a very self-reliant kind of guy, despite his slightly toxic relationships; and that included making up your own mind about things. I bet he liked Ron Paul. The problem is for Kermit is that we do not live in a world where it is a good thing to make up your own mind, or thing very hard about anything at all.

In the light of Kermit the Frog's curious past, I read with interest the new hate crime sentencing guidelines just published by the UK authorities that, as one might expect, still fail to define what they mean by hate crime in any objective sense. Instead, we are reliably informed that;

"Among the cases analysed there were a number of ‘hate speech’ type offences, where inflammatory speeches were given by influential figures with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.

Other cases involved publication on YouTube of content inciting serious violence towards particular racial or religious groups, websites being published including abusive and insulting content, with some activity continuing over a long period of time and intended to reach global audiences.”

This is very un-green. See, it's very hard to produce people who are satisfied within their society and culture when you pose them as the permanent out-group, and create victim-classes held in a perpetual state of having a grievance. Neither party benefits very much from this state of affairs; so, one must conclude that the system itself hates us all equally, but hates some of us more than others.

As I wrote back in December in The Religion of the Faithless Left:

It will stun future generations to hear that we have become such a self-hating society, riddled with such preposterous levels of self-inflicted and undeserved guilt and paranoia.

What Kermit stands for politically is quite well defined.

I don't get too involved in politics, but I am an amphibitarian. I'm in favour of wetlands, green jobs (that's jobs for anyone who is green) and I'm opposed to interspecies marriage between pigs and frogs. - Kermit, speaking to The Guardian, 2012

It appears at the very least, Kermit is identity-woke. He loves his wetlands, and apparently promotes hiring practices that would be discriminatory in every Western nation. I doubt, therefore, he would accept the position of the UK government that certain protected characteristics need to be enforced with draconian codes offering up to 6 years in jail for anyone hate-filled enough to criticize Islam or transgenderism? Clearly not, given his opposition to interspecies relationships; which one need only explore the depths of Tumblr to realize are already on the agenda of the Movement To Accept Everything No Matter What.

In this sense, we might consider Kermit to be leaning towards Ayn Rand's position when she said:

I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between.

It may not be that easy, being green, but it sure is an authentic reality. He might have some slightly edgy opinions about interspecies erotica (which is the exact opposite of what you might think, in that interspecies erotica is good and you are a bigot) but It doesn't appear that at the end of Kermit's classic hit that he is looking for state intervention to protect his green-ness.

When green is all there is to be It could make you wonder why, but why wonder? Why Wonder, I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful! And I think it's what I want to be.

Even though he is a member of a species which has great diversity, Kermit, as you should already know, is thus a racial supremacist and a thoughtcriminal. More than this, he is certainly already guilty of hate-crimes. Britain's Sentencing Council points out that:

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

Kermit the Frog is surely a leader of millions of children (and adults), trusted by them and, therefore, a perfect target for arrest by the British state. Not only on the grounds that Miss Piggy surely exhibits many protected characteristics; despite the fact that she is no-doubt an abuser, violent and also haram. Kermit refused the advances of a creature that society considers fat; and that is body terrorism. Let's not even begin to address the inherent misogyny in Kermit's position, or his blatant Green Supremacist ideals. It cannot be allowed that people say it is okay to be green. Can a body of work over 50 years in length be considered a "persistent" offence? I think so. The solution is clear; we must arrest and execute Kermit the Frog for hate crimes. Only when we bring this fiend to justice can the children of the world sleep peacefully once again.

Ok, I'll break character there and circle back to the start. My point in this exercise is, I hope, clear. There's nothing much to be gained by trying to legislate against human nature- whether that was historic laws against race-mixing or homosexuality or postmodernist laws that, I contend, are designed to facilitate a decidely globalist agenda at a state level and are only effective in sowing discord at a time of great civilizational upheaval.

The simple message of Kermit is surely an admonition against Orwellian state power. Though Kermit is an imperfect character, he understands existential reality in incredibly deep ways- ways that, for whatever reason, institutional powers the world over have failed to do. In fact, Kermit the Frog is the antithesis of the social justice ideology that now informs so much of government policy throughout the Western world. Read that again. Kermit the Frog is a libertarian-identitarian guy.

If I can argue (however weakly) that Kermit the Frog is guilty of hate-crimes, what hope for you and I? As Joe Bob Briggs wrote in Taki Magazine yesterday:

Remember the scene in All the King’s Men when Willie Stark, the Governor of Louisiana, tells his idealistic assistant that he wants some dirt on his political opponent, but the assistant tells him that, no, they can’t find anything, the guy he’s running against is totally clean, honest and upright?

Stark knows better. “Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption,” the governor tells the younger man, “and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something.”

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Yes indeed, there is always something. Even on Kermit, despite singing on Rainbow Connection which is one of my personal top 10 gay anthems. God only knows how many skeletons are in Gonzo's closet, and Fozzy Bear already dresses like a sex offender. The lens of critical theory is restless, friends.

"Without ridiculous optimism, there's a good chance none of us would be here today." ~Kermit

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

If you love free speech, we are building the platform for you! Read about how we are building FreebirdTV, open source video hosting with no thought-policing.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2KX9Dfp via IFTTT