#like the idea of philosopher kings is that they are raised to become a leader

[skitskatdacat63]

And what if I said I agreed with Plato about philosopher kings? What if I think he was right!?

[selvem1karthik]

revolution is need of that time, its inevitable. but radicalism based on supremacy or victimhood is mostly hate and is destructive

REVOLUTION HAPPENS WHENEVER IN-EQUALITIES & EXPLOITATION ARE UN-BEARABLE.  

But radicalism will harm society irrevocably

“    Protesters in Paris forced their way into the headquarters of luxury giant LVMH, on the day shares in the company – which owns brands such as Louis Vuitton and Moët

“If Macron wants to find MONEY to finance the pension system, he should come HERE  (LVMH )  to find it,” Fabien Villedieu, a union leader, told CNN affiliate”

Owners and thousands of employees of Louis Vuitton and Moët have got wealth by engaging in business all over the world. These companies have created a good business model and  given employment to thousands of French people.  If the revolutionaries EAT up Louis Vuitton this year, what will they eat next year when there are going to be no rich in France?   Should everyone in France become equally poor?  Will these revolutionaries eat rich of other countries like China?

People who have wealth achieved by their HARD WORK, creativity or inherited wealth by luck,   are sometimes troubled in the name of

Revolution ,   which is mostly a demand by ordinary citizens to force  the previledged to share the wealth with ordinary citizens.

In poor & educationally  backward societies it’s more common.  It is not common in countries were people work hard China, Japan, Korea, Germany etc.

In such societies where there is jealousy against wealthier citizens, everyone   except kings, dictators , army muscle-men are poor.  Once people start to be jealous, there is no love or brotherhood or adjustment, such societies is full of violence, lawlessness and hate

👇🏻

“ During the Reign of Terror after the revolution of 1789, one of the bloodiest demagogues of those days declared (citing for authority the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau), “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will  EAT THE RICH.”    During medieval times many peaceful societies were massacred by jealous barbarians

That tirade by the Terror’s general prosecutor, Pierre Gaspar Chaumette, was not aimed at the aristocrats, many of whom were dead by then, but at the city’s merchants, whom he accused of catering to foreigners and manipulating currency to victimize the poor.”

Once you start the culture of HATE, there is no END to it, you find new ways to hate

👇🏻

“ Revolutions eat their children; ask, Trotsky and even the so called incorruptible, Robespierre. And South Africa is definitely no exception. The craving for more money and power brings even the most self-righteous to their own demise. It refers to the fact that after the success or no success of a revolution, there comes a time when justice is done to the catalysts of the revolution. Primary this “revolutionary justice” is applied to the members of the old regime. They assume power and those who are victim to their rule are usually the ones who were their followers. Then, as the same people who started the revolution begin to fight each other for power, the same techniques that were used to justify the reason of imprisoning and killing the former rulers are now used for the killing of members of the revolution that have DIFFERENT ideas on how to RUN the COUNTRY.“

“The French Revolution is an example of revolutions killing their members who began it in the first place. The reign of terror began with the execution of the nobility and the King. Not only the king and his nobles were killed but thousand of suspects against the revolution. Years of harsh rule by the monarchy finally ended with the execution of the King and the establishment of France as a republic. In the new republic the Church’s authority was completely stripped from them and was to have nothing to do with the countries politics. This new state based on blasphemous principles was what would be later called the “Reign of terror”. Along with the King, Marie Antoinette was also to be beheaded on the Guillotine during this time period.

Robespierre, the man who started the reign of terror and one of the men who had a major part in the rise of the revolution was guillotined along with other famous men of the revolution like Jacques Danton”

Only muscle men, manipulators, scheming-divisive-hateful politicians benefit from extreme radicalism.

Society, innovators, workers will suffer, everyone in the country becomes ‘equally poor’

👇🏻

“ Potential increase in capital gains tax is likely for top income earners as part of Indian government's overhaul of direct tax laws to curb widening inequality,”

Indian government has encouraged private business companies to recover from bad times

Now businesses have good working environment , exports and manufacturing sector are growing.

so government wants to tax the rich

[simoviacourt]

The Queenmakers - the relationship between the Simovian monarchy and nobility

Yay, another history/worldbuilding post! No? Feel free to skip... But if you do read, I recommend you read this post about the noble titles first and the post about the way the Simovian government is set up is a handy one as well. For more general information, check out this page.

The civil war is over, now what?

To understand the power dynamic between the Simovian nobility and monarchy, we need to look back to 1798 when the War of the Bastards came to end with the former royal dynasty having been stripped of all power. That is when the 21 highest ranking nobles, the landed Vorsts (dukes) came together to discuss the election of a new King from one of their own. 

However, as the name would suggest, the main reason for the strenuous civil war that had lasted for nearly five years had been the late King’s inability to provide a single legitimate male heir, leaving the nation to deal with his five bastard sons instead upon his passing. 

The previous dynasty had also been absolute monarchs, something that the assembled Vorsts were keen to see an end to as well. 

Unsurprisingly, there were difficulties in reaching a decision. Each of the 21 families would put themselves forward as candidates and even though after a month of tireless bickering, negotiation and some more underhanded tactics, the selection had been narrowed down to two candidates from the den Pruys and Creutz families, neither of the candidates could reach the required unanimous vote. 

The problem that both candidates faced was the general division among the noble families who had each backed different factions during the war. Now those differences were erupting once again and it was starting to look like the civil war would resume there and then. 

It was then, in July 1798, that the young Vorst Florijn van Zuylen, who had been instrumental in bringing the noble families together in the first place to depose the King’s bastards and to end the war, received the tragic news that his young wife had passed away in childbirth after bringing to world a daughter, Estelle.

"No man who wears a crown will heed another man’s advice”

A very important note here is that Florijn van Zuylen had been one of the first names raised up by the other noble families to become the next king. He had come very close to receiving the unanimous vote as well, however he had refused the honour, stating that he would rather serve his country in any other way. He had seen each of the late King’s bastard sons succumb to their thirst for absolute power and he had no desire to wear a crown.

Florijn van Zuylen was very familiar with the writings of the late 18th century political philosophers, even going as far as to write some pamphlets himself, and he was a firm believer in power corrupting everyone. This left him with a dilemma. No man who set himself up to be the King would make a good King, but an unwilling King could get corrupted all the same. Yet, a nation without a strong leader would fall prey to infighting. He was already witnessing this with his own eyes as old feuds were being brought up among the nobility.

It is still widely debated what exactly possessed Florijn van Zuylen to make the most controversial proposition that the Simovian history knows. In a passionate speech addressing the other nobles he stated that no man in that room should become a King. In fact, there should never be another King in Simovia. For no man who wears a crown will heed another man’s advice. And so he suggested that his newborn daughter Estelle should be raised and educated to become a Queen for Simovia. Women did not claim such keen ambitions as men and thus would be more amicable to the idea of a council guiding them in their decisions. This, of course, was very much the way of the thinking of the late 18th century, and not true in the slightest but for the Vorsts gathered it made sense, even if Florijn van Zuylen’s suggestion was at first met with shock and suggestions that the young man had gone mad with his grief.

Long live the Queen, long live the nobles that guide her

Yet, such was the uniting power of Florijn van Zuylen that after fierce debate that lasted a good part of a week, the other Vorsts agreed to his suggestion on a number of conditions. Firstly, Estelle would be guided by a council, the House of Lords that would consist of every other noble family apart from the van Zuylens, secondly, Florijn van Zuylen would act as the regent until Estelle would turn 21, and finally, the future Queen’s marriage would need to be sanctioned by the newly established House of Lords. The seats in the House of Lords would be hereditary, making sure that the noble families would keep their power much in the same way that the monarch would. Furthermore, to cement this new form of government, Florijn van Zuylen rescinded his own title and lands to the nation.

And thus, a new era of Simovian monarchy began. No longer absolute, but guided by the House of Lords, and two decades later further legitimised by the creation of an elected parliament. Yet, to say that the transition was smooth, would be false. The highest ranking nobles may have agreed to the new system but the numerous Landgraafs were at first unwilling to go along with the arrangements. It was only after Florijn van Zuylen brokered a deal that liberated the Landgraafs from being fiscally responsible to the Vorsts, that a fragile balance was formed. 

However, Florijn’s efforts were not in vain, and for over 200 years Simovia has enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. There are of course those who criticise the system for giving the 20 families far too much power, especially considering that the noble families have been strengthening their ties to the royal family through marriage. Insiders say that there is so much powerplay within the nobility that what Florijn van Zuylen set out to do, which was to counteract the corrupting effects of power, has failed, though reform is unlikely as most people agree that the system works well enough. The topic however remains a classic staple for the Simovian debate clubs. 

(excerpt from the book “From the Gilded Era to the Age of Queens - exploring the Simovian history” by Professor Jan E. van Geerts) 

[chibivesicle]

Golden Kamuy chapter 259 & 260 - predictable events [shrugs]

Chapter 259 starts with a flashback to Abashiri Prison as Boutarou is released from solitary confinement.  Shiraishi asks him what he did to land in solitary, specifically who he beat up - and we learn it was Ueji.  This goes back to the story by Ueji about how he told Boutarou he saw his aunt, a woman that Boutarou has now confirmed never existed.   Since Ueji was messing with Boutarou, he was upset/offended enough that he had no problem killing him.

This shows us that Boutarou seems to be sensitive to joking/teasing/bullying as Shiraishi chides him for his frequent trips to solitary.

This allows for us to see a contemplative/serious facial expression on Boutarou’s face before he continues the conversation with Shiraishi who is picking his nose with his toes? 

This then allows for a wistful looking image of Shiraishi replying that he doesn’t have any family waiting for him outside of prison, and he was abandoned at a temple as a baby.  This knowledge of abandonment is how Boutarou wants to connect with Shiraishi; that they are alone in this world at the present.

This allows Boutarou to ask him if he’d return to the temple, but Shiraishi could careless; he ran away in the first place and it likely doesn’t exist as it seemed to be on its way out.  As expected, he just jokes if he had a lot of money he’d spent it on prostitutes (and implying that he’s filling his emptiness with transactional sex).

Nihei, reminds them the only thing that matters is to use the tattoo as a way to get out of prison and do whatever you want unrelated to the gold.  This is expected for the man who returned to the mountain to hunt.

They return to Boutarou’s goal, to amass a small fortune e.g. the gold and create his own kingdom.  The next page or so just focuses on how he came from a large family with 14 members and how he was the only one who didn’t die of smallpox.  He isn’t just interested in having a large family to compensate for his lost family, he goes beyond that where by becoming the king, he’ll always be remembered and not forgotten as the founder.  He is a man who wants to preserve himself not only genetically through having lots of kids but also through mythology and nation building concepts.

Shiraishi and Nihei tease him a little about his dreams which they find to be completely unrealistic which he is not amused with.  Speaking very frankly with him, Shiraishi points out that Boutarou is a lonely guy and that his dream is a reflection of his loneliness. 

This exchange is interesting to me for two reasons.  1.) This shows us that Shiraishi is an observant guy which we know but it is another instance of it in his past. 2.) He can be very blunt and forward with Boutarou.  I find him to be very assertive with Boutarou, a man who just came out of solitary for beating up another prisoner.  Yet, Shiraishi can speak like this with him and this also alludes to their current time line interactions where Boutarou respects Shiraishi and understands him well - as well as Shiraishi understands him.

This frank openness between them continues on the next page.  Shiraishi jokes back that he’s been a king - and escape king.  But Boutarou’s critique of him is a valid and honest one.

Breaking out of jail isn’t a long term plan.  Having a dream like Boutarou’s is a viable plan, that since he is unwelcome in current society, he’s like ‘fuck this - I’ll just make my own society’  He lost his home and community support and it was clearly influential on him as a child both having a family and then the loss.  So, for him creating his own special home is his driving force in his actions and reason to become involved in the hunt for the gold.

And not missing a beat, he tells Shiraishi he also needs to create his own home if he lacks one - just like him.  The level of frankness between the two of them - they clearly have more than just a passing ‘professional’ relationship.

The manga returns to the current events and Boutarou is telling Asirpa to let go of the door so that she can return to her home with Sugimoto and that they can become a family.  I get it, he knows she has a crush on him and all little girls dream of finding a man and getting married etc etc.  I don’t doubt Asirpa’s crush on Sugimoto, but she is also not the type of young teen girl who would be so simple minded.

Sugimoto is struggling to breathe in a corridor of the brewery as he falls into his rather pathetic monologuing about how pathetic he is.  Nice copy and paste of the rifle there Noda.  We saw it a few chapters ago when Ogata was eyeing Usami’s which was also Ogata’s when Vasily sniped at them.

Why do I not take Sugimoto’s whole ‘boo hoo’ bit seriously?  Because this shows us how he actually sees Asirpa and her relationship with him.  He ‘finally got her back’ she ‘got stolen away again’.  Even with the English translation, the intention is still clear, Asirpa is like an object to him. 

Read these following sentences;

1. Kiro and Ogata stole Asirpa from Sugimoto.

2. Kiro and Ogata kidnapped Asirpa from Sugimoto.

3. Kiro, and Ogata took Asirpa to Karafuto.

As an objective reader of the manga which of these is the most factually correct?  Number 3, at heart Kiro and Ogata had a plan to take Asirpa to Karafuto to learn the code and connect with Sofia.  Yet, this is not the narrative that Sugimoto tells himself or others.  He continues to go with number 1, that Kiro and Ogata stole Asirpa from him and now Boutarou stole Asirpa from him.  Asirpa is something that he possesses.  This is problematic as it shows how unequal their partnership is. 

I’d argue a more equal partnership if he used number 2.  That she was kidnapped which is a word we use to distinguish people from mere objects in English.  Is my argument 100% based on this - not quite since we are working with the translation of the original text, but ever since Karafuto, Sugimoto has acted like Asirpa is something that he and only he has privy to and completely ignores the fact that she is her own person and will exercise free will. 

Therefore, this also pokes holes in Boutarou’s reading that Asirpa will cave to the idea that if he tells her to go home and marry Sugimoto that will solve her problems.  I’m pretty confident that Asirpa does not see her relationship with Sugimoto the same way that he sees her and Shiraishi already made a point about this back before they were to meet up with Tsurumi.

Anyways, back to the action.  We don’t see if Asirpa let’s go of the door, we just see that Koito is aggressively approaching Boutarou with his sabre raised and notices that he has Asirpa.

With is luscious locks, Bouatrou is able to distract Koito and punch him with his long reach.  He goes to shoot Koito, but a shot hits his hand with the revolver and it is Tsukishima close behind.

He orders Boutarou to withdraw, and he dashes out with Asirpa and heads to a lower level where the beer flood happened.

Asirpa is still resisting trying to hold onto the railings of a staircase, making his fast escape a bit of an issue.  She also is able to raise a fundamental question - the gold was supposed to be used by the Ainu to create their own country.  Therefore, if the gold is stolen by Boutarou, she will be unable to protect her own homeland - the one he keeps telling her to go back to.

We get an image of the clear cutting of the forest in Hokkaido that almost killed her and then she thinks of the kotan where Wilk was born that is now a fox farm.  The traces of her Karafuto relatives is already gone, taken over by the Japanese for less sustainable practices. 

Boutarou sweats nervously, he doesn’t have an answer for her since this is now an example of conflict with their own dreams and goals for the gold.  However, this philosophical pause from him, allows for Koito the strike him with his sabre from behind.  Koito prepares for his second strike as Boutarou falls back into the pool of beer.

Asirpa meanwhile still clings to the stair railing as Koito is ready to strike again.

Boutarou swims off and it is unclear where he’s gone to.  Koito is impressed by Boutarou’s toughness as Asirpa coughs on the stairs.  Only then do we hear Tsukishima’s voice asking Koito where he is.  And with that I internally groan.

Me - goddammit Koito!  Why did you go and do almost the exact same thing you did on the ice floe and with Sugimoto.  Don’t rush ahead with no back up.  You just realized he’s a tough guy.  Well, at least this time he tells Tsukishima where he is and to come quickly.

He says that he secured Asirpa and doesn’t notice that Boutarou has emerged from the beer and is clearly going to attack him.  He looks like a gross beer/swamp monster, his teeth visible and eyes covered by his long hair.

By time Tsukishima arrives with his rifle at ready he sees Asirpa and only Koito’s sabre.

[facepalms]

Come on Koito, I’m rooting for you buddy, but please stop running ahead.  You are slowly getting better, but one aspect of being a leader of men is to have men to lead, not leave behind.

And the chapter ends with his heightened tension that Koito has been pulled back under the beer.

I have other deep thoughts (lol. terrible pun) about chapter 259 so lets move onto 260 which goes back a few seconds to show us what happened to Koito.  Boutarou reaches out towards Koito and he’s able to overpower him.

Asirpa tries to crawl away as Koito drops his sabre and is drug under the surface of the beer.  We all know that Boutarou is going to try to drown him as he can hold his breath longer than his victims.

Tsukishima finally reaches where Asirpa is and he flat out asks her were Koito is.  She ignores him and tries to dash away, but he grabs onto her wolf pelt cloak.  The last panel then shoes her as she draws her knife and swings at Tsukishima!

Yes! Asirpa is about to use her knife against him!  There is so much desperation in her behavior.  Koito then reaches his hand up as bubbles come to the surface, and we see Tsukishima holding Asirpa’s hand on her knife.  Tsukishima calls out for Koito and Asirpa tells him that he was pulled into the beer.

He then uses his rifle to hold her against him and still holds her hand with the knife out of the way as he tells himself that Asirpa is more important than everything else.

Koito is held underwater as his boot sticks out and we see that Boutarou is trying to strangle him with his hair (he truly has impressive hair!) as Koito begins to weaken.  We are left briefly wondering if Koito will be abandoned - but come on, we know what will happen.

Tsukishima kicks Boutarou in the head allowing Koito to sit up.  Tsukishima then shoots Boutarou, and we see some blood diffuse out into the beer.  Tsukishima is focused as he ejects the empty shell and Boutarou swims off.

He tells Koito to get out of the beer as he may return, and Koito angrily asks about Asirpa.  She’s heading out on her own, as the smoke causes her to cough her knife out and ready.  Koito is upset that Tsukishima[aaaa] let her go to save him.  This is so interesting to me as it does show that Koito felt that he is less important than Asirpa.  He was willing to potentially die which, despite his impulsive behaviors, this time he at least seems to be aware of it.

Tsukishima can’t look at him as he apologizes and Koito berates him that saving him is not a priority.  This pretty much seals the deal for these two men.  Tsukishima is Koito’s older brother and he has shown that he doesn’t have it in himself to hurt Koito for Tsurumi. 

This is at least one instance where Koito does at least own up and state that he should have followed orders.  So, kudos to more self-aware Koito, though I’m sure he’s still thankful that Tsukishima saved him.

Nikaido is randomly wandering around (clearly no longer wanting to kill Sugimoto) as he finds her.

She again aggressively goes to strike him with her knife.  Asirpa is beyond desperate - is she trying to mirror Sugimoto by just forging ahead and attacking everyone with no thought about harming them?

But just like with Tsukishima, she is immediately overpowered.  Without her poison tipped arrows, she’s at a huge disadvantage.  Emulating your crush’s fighting style isn’t going to work.

Thankfully, karma intervenes and she doesn’t harm him.  Instead, she activates his chopstick dispenser and she’s taken down by a chopstick to the forehead.

This is rather fitting since, she’s been stopped by an item she would find important, chopsticks which along with spoons facilitate one of her loves - food.  And with that she is delivered to Tsurumi who praises Nikaido.

The next page is when things get really interesting.  Nikaido is upset that Sugimoto is alive and Tsurumi blows him off.  Very rough looking Tsukishima and Koito then make it to Tsurumi to see that Asirpa has been caught.  Likely on autopilot, Tsukishima starts speaking . . . but Koito then continues and reports to him as the commanding officer of the two.

He then mid-explaination becomes incredibly uncomfortable unable to speak.  We can’t see Tsurumi’s facial expression, it would be nice to know what Koito sees as he only awkwardly ends stating they were in the brewery. 

Koito is sweating profusely, whatever Tsurumi looked like, he just realized that he should have let Tsukishima do the talking as he’s given away that his fear of speaking to Tsurumi is gone.  The fact that Tsurumi hesitates before telling him that he understands, leaves Koito in shock as Tsukishima is likely trying to not lose it with him.  Since he now knows that Koito has given away something about his changed status towards Tsurumi.  Since Tsurumi is in the realm of super smart villain, I’d guess Tsukishima knows that Tsurumi knows about how Koito learned something about his kidnapping which was what lead to his in ability to speak to him in the first place.  Recall, that when they were in Kagoshima, young Koito could speak to Tsurumi with little issue.

Tsurumi then calls for a retreat and avoid any more fights.  Apparently, he now has enough information to crack the code.  Okay Tsurumi - does this mean you can do so with Asirpa?  Since, he still doesn’t know the Ainu name that is matches with. . . .

Nikaido pouts in the background as Koito looks like he wants to fade into the background.  Tsukishima clearly doesn’t look happy either as he holds Asirpa.  I guess being Tsurumi’s right hand man means he gets to hold onto her?

He likely feels uncomfortable about things since now that Koito has let the cat out of the bag, Tsurumi will likely ask him about what happened between them.

Boutarou exits, pissed off at how he lost Asirpa but seems to be alright overall.  Of course, the next page reveals Sugimoto charging towards him to give Asirpa back. Yep, attack first, ask questions later/maybe Sugimoto.

Sugimoto pretty much has murder eyes as he thinks attacking Boutarou will solve his problem.

Now, the fact that Boutarou has survived this well, tells me that he likely has the same ‘luck’ that Sugimoto has.  He was stabbed by Sugimoto, his ear cut off, slashed by Koito, and shot twice by Tsukishima.  It is pretty damn obvious that Boutarou is to be both a foil and a twin to Sugimoto.  The only difference between them is Boutarou became a criminal, while Sugimoto became a soldier a man with a license to kill under the laws of the government while enlisted in the army.  Since leaving the army, he’s killed many people in the quest for the gold, but that doesn’t make him a ‘good guy’ because he’s a former soldier.

Sugimoto is always trying to tell others how he’s better than they are.  He’s better than the convicts because he didn’t break the law.  But, if we look at his own actions, he may have been worse than some of the convicts having killed more people than they did.  Think of Shiraishi or Nihei.  Nihei killed those hunters, but he refused to go off to war and lost his son in the Sino-Japanese war.  Therefore, we could argue that based on the number of people killed, Sugimoto is far worse than Nihei as he was almost karmic in his revenge.  Furthermore, Nihei even let himself be arrested, he killed the one man but didn’t even fight the police as his revenge was complete and he accepted his fate.

What I’m getting to is that Boutarou is the character who is going to disrupt Sugimoto and make him very uncomfortable and be unable to keep acting like he’s on the ‘right’ side of things.  Sugimoto needs to stop othering the convicts and tell himself he’s better than all of them - his own decisions led him to this just like something drove Boutarou to become a pirate and criminal.

I predict that Shiraishi will rush in to stop Sugimoto from killing Boutarou.  We still need to learn more about their past and what is the full connection between Shiraishi and Boutarou.  There is much more to learn, Shiraishi is too open and frank with him and he lets Boutarou get close to him physically and emotionally.

Hijikata’s group then regroups and decides what to do.  Of course Hijikata being the manly man that he is, states he’ll enter if required.

Kirawus then begins to panic that that no one has seen Kadokura.  Apparently shooting off the firework was too distracting for him and he didn’t keep track of his drinking buddy.  What were you doing man?  Where were you?  You aren’t very good at these sorts of things?

Kadokura apologizes to Hijikata for failing to stick with him to the end as he lie on the floor of the room with the mash pots. We see Kirawus at his most emotional as he cries out and Kantarou holds him back.

Is Kirawus a softy at heart?  I was predicting that he’d have gone in to save him but no, we get a demonstration of Kadokura’s good bad luck as the collapsing building makes a bed for him, tucks him into the futon and even gives him a beer to enjoy.

I personally like this use of extremely unlikely events surrounding him.  Sometimes, I find some of the more crass humor in GK to be not my cup of tea, but this sort of absurdist humor is good.  For a very action and emotionally charged chapter this is a good resolution of the tension. 

Kadokura is rewarded for trying his best by being rescued by the building.  Yep, he’s certainly more competent than he appears.  Is he the secret weapon of team Hijikata? 

Conclusions on these chapters.

As I stated in the title, things are pretty predictable, but rewarding for the readers at least.

Asirpa has shown that when she loses her cool, she leads to her own capture.  Separated from Sugimoto, she makes many poor decisions.  She tries to leave Koito to be killed by Boutarou.  She attacks Tsukishima and Nikaido.  She tried to use the poison arrow on Kikuta.  As a character who started out with a strong do no harm to other humans, she’s quickly sliding into grey.  I think the worst part was almost ignoring Koito.  She is hesitant to tell Tsukishima what happened and uses his pause to try to attack him.

Her capture is the worst outcome of events.  She should have listened to Kikuta and found another solution. She could have just let Boutarou escape with her and bide her time.  It seems that her reckless and aggressive behavior has backfired.  Sure, some readers will be like ‘She was just defending herself!’ but without her arrows, she is at a huge disadvantage and should know when to give up.  I’m pretty sure that this mindset comes from her being with Sugimoto.

Boutarou will team up with Sugimoto with Shiraishi as the mediator.  ‘Cause it is obvious.

Koito is freaked out that he gave away his personal growth, Nikaido is stewing in the background and Tsukishma just looks guilty.

Hijikata’s group will likely retreat with Kadokura leaving Shiraishi, Boutarou, and Sugimoto behind.  Since other than Shiraishi, the other two men are just annoyances to Hijikata.

Ogata is somewhere.  Is he going to continue his sniper battle or will he retreat?  He seemed pretty chill when he walked by Kikuta.  The smoke and fire and chaos will really mess with things, but Vasily is likely losing his cool.

Vasily, the character who had potential but currently is lame may be waiting for Ogata?  Or maybe he could pull back?

Lastly, where is Kikuta?  Does he know that Ogata shot Usami?  I can’t help but seeing him stroll into the headquarters of the 27th and be like “Hey everyone.  What did I miss?” [as he strikes a sexy pose and lights a cigarette].

It would be neat to learn if they at least chatted about something.

Well that is all for now.  Let’s see how the insanity continues to unfold.

[tark-msi]

IS CENSORSHIP THE DEATH OF CONTENT CREATIVITY?

Censorship, unquestionably, is not just a deterrent to an individual's expression of creativity, but in fact, the very curtailment of their freedom. Since ages past, Censorship has been a tool utilized by ruling bodies, be it kings, queens, priests, religions, or in the present case, democratic governments, to curb expressions of dissent either by an individual or communities. Although an ancient tool, it is still quite popular and in wide use by modern governments worldwide, granted its severity differs from nation to nation. However, foremost, presenting facts: Censorship is always a product of the essentially dominant zeitgeist, which is without exception defined by the ruling social class (more often than not conservative), which wants to maintain the status quo of a specific region. Censorship is no new subject, and to better understand, we have to study both the present and the past. Even today, this is an issue that will undoubtedly affect our country's future.

Let us first state the precise definition of Censorship: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” This is a standard definition of Censorship. However, what people fail to realize is that Censorship's scope spans far and wide beyond the scope of just entertainment and news media. Not to mention the methodology of implementing censorships.

Nevertheless, how about we first trace the history of Censorship up to the present date. The first, most famous instance of Censorship is known to have happened in ancient Greece, where the great philosopher Socrates was charged with "corrupting" the youths and was henceforth executed. ‘Censorship by death’ might seem a thing of the past but is still very much a part of the present world. Censorship keeps reappearing as a blot in the history of humankind, as a sinister spectre. We remember the brutal killings by the church in the 16th century against the progress of science, the mass Censorship of literature in the 17th century by James I, the bloody Censorship in the 18th century during the Reign of Terror, not to mention the censorships implemented by Great Britain when India began its freedom struggle. Even in recent times, Censorship is an ever-looming presence. It was only 40 years ago when Indira Gandhi had implemented the emergency curtailing any and all criticism against the Government. Unfortunately, it is no revelation that India is right now going through a phase where a new kind of Censorship might emerge. A Censorship where there will not be a need to suppress the truth since the truth itself might stop existing hidden under the dirty disguise of propaganda and the veil of patriotism. This Censorship is the courtesy of ******** **** belonging to *** party.

From the examples, it can be easily surmised that no single incident exists where Censorship as a practice led to a positive result. More often than not, Censorship has been a product of conservative social practices and orthodox morality. It is always geared towards thwarting the path of progress. In maintaining the status quo. Several justifications are given in favour of Censorship. All valid reasons in themselves, but the rampant misuse made by the privileged few seriously casts a shadow of doubt on the systemic of Censorship. As previously mentioned, Censorship is subject to a conservative morality, and furthermore, a tool by the Government. These two forces combined only work to hinder the freedom of speech of the average citizens. Severe direct criticism against the ruling body or the upper class is not taken kindly. The so-called 'sentiments' being hurt belong only to the Savarna Heteronormative world, when they feel an 'attack'. But when it comes to the straight-up unconstitutional portrayal and slurs against the Queer and economically depressed classes, our democratic system invariably fails at protecting their constitutional rights.

Censorship is beyond a doubt the bane of content creativity. The combination of the psychological aspect and malignancy of censorship further create sinister dynamics worth our study. In an environment riddled with Censorships, there is psychologically established a safe zone and a danger zone in the individual's mind, creating an isolation of ideas and further constriction of mind. For fear of physical and mental harm, the user/creator remains within the arbitrarily made safe zone, created and defined by those in power. Once the zones are psychologically established, they start taking social roots. The safe zone creepily and silently becomes the core of social values. Hence, in essence, Censorship, in proxy with social values, becomes unquestionable. This further extends the safe zone in the social environment. Stepping out of that safe zone results in facing the wrath of the society itself. It, of course, is an obvious fact that societal norms are ingrained in an individual since infancy and hence get rooted inside the mind. Again, gaining a psychological aspect and here we witness the vicious circle of isolating the information and categorizing it as right or wrong, not through any critical judgment but simply because it becomes a predefined entity by an arbitrary authority (The ruling body). A fixed societal system then leads to a stale system of information where nothing new or creative can exist; rather, nothing new or creative is allowed to exist.

Additionally, Censorship is not merely an act of banning or removing certain content or proliferation of specific ideas. It is a sheer exercise in redacting the truth and hiding it behind a veneer of lies. Just like creativity can be expressed in multitudes of ways beyond the limited scope of media, similarly there exist nuanced censorship practices aimed at crushing deviant and creative modes of thinking. Censorships aimed at creating only one designated path. The different types of Censorship are: Censoring certain content (Removal), spreading false information to overshadow facts (Misleading), capturing means of information (Hijacking), Destabilising communications (Isolation of areas), Interference in collecting data, active prevention of expressing of one's views (Banning protests), ignoring or refusing to acknowledge specific outlets of expression (Disregarding), the threat of harm to relatives or the personnel themselves, and in the most extreme case Censorship by Death. With the coming of the digital age, the act of Censorship has become far more nuanced and harder to detect. And while the people keep struggling to find new ways of expressing their creativity\ the hounds of censorship keep up the chase. The freedom of the Internet is like a double-edged sword. Finding accurate facts among the propaganda and Whatsapp forwards is like trying to find a needle in the haystack. Perhaps part of the issue lies with the overload of information that has become possible with the Internet culture of our time.

Without a doubt, all the blame and critical talk surrounding Censorship should fall on the Government, regardless of the party. The Government's responsibility is to listen to the people's voices, not dictate that voice. A common argument in favour of Censorship is that Government is trying to protect the people from harmful, negative or disturbing media and discouraging its promotion. Media such as child pornography, disturbing and traumatizing videos of murder and gore, texts which might not be suitable for specific age groups. Fair enough. But my question is, why doesn't the Government try to eradicate the problems themselves? How is it that no action against the crime itself is taken? The very existence of such media is proof of how miserably our Government is failing.

Moreover, when someone raises these issues explicitly, those people are silenced on the grounds of spreading 'disturbing' content. Media handles spreading hate violence against communities, and misogynist content are allowed to do what they want willy-nilly, but porn websites are like the ultimate taboo, Oh! What a ruin of 'Indian values’. The ‘disturbing’ content which so endangers our peace and freedom is nothing more than the artist holding a mirror to the society. The artistic freedom exists in the fact that the artist can hold the mirror in any angle to show the dirty side-lines which nourish our established societal foundations. Censorship only exists to break those mirrors. It is an inability to confront the rotten reality, to face the cost of maintain the status quo. We are concerned about the children seeing the scars on a woman’s naked body; Mind! We are not concerned about the scars but about the nakedness! But why ashamed now, when you so proudly beat her up in front of your own child? We are concerned about an abuse in a TV show; Mind! We don’t care about the abuse, but about the fact that it is being hurled at our shining, virtuous culture! But why worried now when the abuses you threw on the young Dalit boy, are being thrown back on you? His are the abuses which are probably the fairest.

An interesting incident comes to my mind, which will also serve as a nice metaphor. Back in February, one of our glorious leaders invited a foreign leader for a political visit. They were supposed to tour certain parts of the country, to show its beauty. In preparation, we made walls along the roads! For very good reasons surely, and not to hide the dirt and the poverty lining the streets. So, the tour continued and our leaders travelled our beautiful country through those clean, immaculate, and wonderful roads, lined with walls on either side. I think the name of the walls was ‘Censorship’. And so it is, that we kill and wall off creativity and the truth. Because the fact is there is no one truth. The diversity and the creativity are all their own forms of truth. All those paths exist for us to explore and learn. But censorship allows only one road. The clean one. Which only the virtuous, the rich and the clean can walk.

Baudrillard's insight into the creation of reality is incredibly useful and a much-recommended read. His much-acclaimed theory has been, how in the present age of information explosion, the one who controls the flow of information is the one who controls reality. We have already witnessed how dangerous Censorship can be during Stalin's reign, where around 80000 people simply vanished. A similar pattern can be seen today with mob lynching and murders of journalists and reporters who dare to raise their voice against fascism. The riots, the protests, the beatings and the killings are the signs of our time. Hence it is not just the threat of ‘Death of creativity’ that we face, but it is almost a matter of life and death. Only us, the people can stand against it and openly raise our voices by our Freedom of expression and speech. The question remains: When will we come together to fight it?

By- Aditya Singh

[theholycovenantrpg]

CONGRATULATIONS, CAROLINE! YOU’VE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE ROLE OF MICHAEL.

Admin Rosey: This was. This was absolutely beautiful to read, Caroline. I feel like there’s no other way to describe it because the emotion behind each and every word was so palpable. I think what struck me - not above all, just something that really struck me and sticks within my mind - is the fact that you identified him as heroic, and then as archaic. It was such a small detail, but it was the most perfect way to describe Michael. He wants to be the hero, the savior - but he’s archaic. Michael is the untitled King of Caelum, and boy, I cannot wait to see how much ruin you will cause to him and everyone else. Sincerely, this was a g i f t to read. Please create and send in your account, review the information on our CHECKLIST, and follow everyone on the FOLLOW LIST. Welcome to the Holy Land!

OUT OF CHARACTER

Alias. Caroline

Age. Twenty-five

Personal Pronouns. She/her or they/them

Activity Level. I will not lie to y’all, I work six days a week ten-hour days. But I also get very attached and want to stay up to date. Between those two, I like to stay up to date with the dash, but sometimes only get to post one or two times a week. Other times I’m always Here. There is no middle ground and I am so sorry

Timezone. EST

Triggers. REMOVED

How did you find the group. Let’s not talk about it (jk it was JJ and we’ve been knowing)

Current/Past RP Accounts. hutchingsb, brighidnolan, achillesgrieves

IN CHARACTER

Character. Michael

Are you comfortable with killing off your character. I sure am, pals. In fact, in the long run, I don’t think Michael should survive. I think he is too muddled in hypocrisy and his own arrogance to not be killed eventually. Especially if history repeated itself and Zadkiel killed him.

What drew you to this character. 

When I was a second semester senior in college (arguably the worst time in my life) I was finishing my degree in philosophy. While everything else went to shit, I took this truly incredible class called the Problem of Evil. I got lowkey obsessed with the concept of this ‘problem of evil’ and what it means for the existence of God. Michael is, in a lot of ways, this discussion in character form. Throughout the roleplay, Michael will have to come to terms with the idea that it’s incredibly hard to be a God type figure and be morally good. And that dynamic excites the fuck out of me y’all.

More than just this philosophical idea that I would literally go feral for, Michael is such a complex character. There are depths to him that just writing this app I got to uncover, and I think that will carry on through writing him always. There is so much potential there, and so much characterization to uncover that I don’t think I could ever tire of the archangel. This being fucks y’all

Plots. 

QUIS UT DUES. Who is like God? History repeats itself. Michael’s rise in the ranks and desperation for both mortals and demons to bend the knee to him shows this. He is not so unlike the figurehead he struck down. He will be forced to make choices that have to be made and enforce punishments that will seem to others merciless. The question truly is how does one become god-like without becoming God-like? What made God so wrong? What made it necessary for Michael to cut Him down? And does Michael even have the ability to notice the difference between the two? The answer, folks, is hell nah.

DEATH RIPENS. ONE NEEDS DEATH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HARVEST THE FRUIT. The fall of God gave Michael the first taste of peace since he can remember. Centuries of carving out punishments and protection means that the archangel has dealt with death before, but it has never soothed him. It has only ever added to his despondency. So when he moved to cut down his own God, he figured the feeling would be much of the same. An intense sense of duty to all creatures and nothing more. The shock he felt at the momentary calm was enough to make him pause. And he is carrying that into his position of King. This idea of death as an action that ends with peace sits in the back of his mind. And it is hardening him into something crueler than he can recognize. 

THE APPALLING STRANGENESS OF THE MERCY OF GOD. Arrogance is almost second nature to the archangel. His pride and his self-worth have become tied into this idea of him becoming a better king, a better version of God. But Michael is also in for a harsh awakening when he has to realize that his idea of merciful, the standard he held God to, isn’t actually all that fair and just. How will he handle coming to terms with the fact that he cannot always be “merciful” and does this make him a hypocrite? If he raised a sword against his Father because He was not merciful, how will he come to terms with the realization that he, as this God-like figure, cannot be supremely good? Will he even be able to realize it at all, and what will push him to that edge?

BROTHER, THE CORD TO THIS WORLD IS A FRAYED ROPE. More than ever, Michael needs his brothers. And, more than ever, he cannot let them in. Michael has always held his position higher than his relationships, but it is more apparent now than ever. He wants the respect from his brothers, because he knows if they can kneel before him so can anyone. But that desire is sharply contrasted by his need for their earnestness. He did not realize the weight their voices held inside of his head until he could no longer hear them freely. I would love to play with this dynamic of Michael feeling isolated and alone without his brothers to act as a soundboard for his thoughts versus believing if he shows his hand too much to them he cannot be respected. This relationship epitomizes Michael’s struggle with finding his footing as a leader and not just a follower of God.

THEN YOU KISSED ME—I FELT HOT WAX ON MY FOREHEAD. Michael’s relationship with Zadkiel is going to cause me physical pain. Zadkiel is the only person who can truly understand the emotional state that Michael has existed in for millennia. He is the only person who has dealt with the conditional love that God had when loving a tool he could wield. And, as a result, Michael has acted the same way towards Zadkiel as God did towards him. His love is conditional on Zadkiel following his orders. But he has held him in high esteem, sought him out, wanted him by their side. There is a bond there that cannot be touched. Zakiel is their reflection in so many ways, and it hurts to look in that mirror. There is this push in pull, that for so long has been for the better but might be souring now in the wake of Michael’s actions. Where he originally could not be soft, could not be vulnerable, in front of the cherubim despite how much it would help him, he really cannot now. He cannot show himself weak to Zadkiel—in the same way God could not to Michael. It is fully a product of how they both have been loved by God, and it does the pair of them injustice. Following the fall of God, Michael has distanced himself from Zadkiel because of how much he sees himself in the other. The weakness he thinks he sees in Zadkiel is just the weakness he sees himself, but his arrogance can’t let him recognize that fully. So instead, he pushes the angel away. Makes the gap between them almost unbreachable, until he breaks again and needs the validation of someone he is constantly searching for that conditional love. Just like he did with God. Zadkiel’s hurt is the biggest doubt that tugs at Michael’s soul. It’s the thing that lets the thought ‘I made a mistake’ keep coming back to him. I would love to see the few moments of “weakness” where Michael allows Zadkiel—and only him—to see the real him especially in a counterpoint to him holding the cherubim at a distance.

I SENSED IN MYSELF A POTENTIALITY FOR CORRUPTION THAT TOOK MY BREATH AWAY. Viktoria is a mistake, but not one he’s ready to admit. Michael’s concept of love is well and truly fucked, because he has only known love from God. And mostly God had conditions for love that were based solely on when Michael acted most as a sword—something inanimate—and not as something conscious and feeling. So when the flicker of something akin to lust flared to life upon looking at Viktora, Micahel mistakes it for love. Or, at the very least, affection. He wants her gaze on him, wants her smiles. So much so that he cannot look through the careful veneer she has crafted. It’s a level of foolishness that he has not ever had to deal with before. Never even known existed, because his concept of love has never involved this kind of ‘love’.

I TOO A CARNIVOROUS LAMB. In a completely selfish turn of events, I think Michael’s relationship with Salome might be the one of the few times that they can show how successful they are. In this period of doubt and chaos, Michael keeps coming up short and having to put on a brave face. But in their dealings with Salome, they are in their element. They can feel the power he used to have as the weapon in God’s right hand when they deals with the demon. They can feel their power. And that’s probably the reason they seeks her out so often. To feel the comfort in something known. To feel useful, powerful, correct.

IN-DEPTH

Motivation. 

LIKE MOST MISERY, IT STARTED WITH APPARENT HAPPINESS. In the beginning, Michael’s sense of duty was unfailing. His motivations started and ended with following God’s word. And while his heart may have whispered softly at rebellion and betrayal in the face of an unjust God, he didn’t dare take heed to any of it. Now, he misses that easy calm that caming with knowing one's duty. He misses the simplicity of following orders. He does not wish to return to being a tool for someone else, but god was it easier.

THE PAIN, THE BEAUTY: EQUALLY ACUTE, EQUALLY TRANSFIXING. The present is a chaotic time for Michael. There is blood on their hands, doubt in their heart, and all they can do is show their kingdom a solemn face. He struggles to keep the facade of this all knowing, all understanding figure head that he just slaughtered. It’s so damn hard when the chorus of ‘did you do wrong’ almost drowns out his thoughts. Michael, in his current situation, craves a validation of his actions that very few can give them. And maybe, he craves something a little more too.

IT MEANT TO CONSUME, TO ASSIMILATE, TO BECOME GOD. What comes next for the King of Caelum? There is ambition there, that lives just under the surface. Something that has maybe always been there, setting ablaze his soul, but he has never been ready to put a name to it. He still isn’t able to name it, but the threads of it are starting to work their way around him. He knows of mortals, of their fickle natures and how they cannot be left to govern themselves. He knows of demons, of their cruelness and how they all function better when they bow their heads to one person. That person used to be God, but Michael is starting to realize how it could—no, should be him. Because Michael remembers what it was like to be adored. God showed favor to many an angel. It was clear in His doting hand and soft words. Cassiel knew it in His allowance of her beauty. Arael knew it in God’s soft sighs. But it was perhaps Michael who knew it best. There is more love in the carpertener for their hammer than in their work. More adoration in the painter's brush than in the creation they makes. Something deep and dark in Michael craves that love again. Ambition feels almost unheard of in the hierarchy he is used to, but there it is, sitting at the base of his chest. And it will likely be the death of him.

Traits. 

HEROIC. Inspiring, brave, damn good at his job

CONSTANT. Calm in the face of chaos, unwavering in all actions

UNDERSTANDING. More merciful than he should be jk unless

ARCHAIC. Stick in the mud, old fashioned, proper. A pain in the ass to deal with.

PROUD. When God put you on a pedestal for that long it’s really hard to climb down yo

CRITICAL. I mean

SAMPLE

“all gods who receive homage are cruel.

all gods dispense suffering without reason.”

HOW TO FORGE A WEAPON

FIGURE 1.

It means something to be made. To be created in the eyes of God. To become something more, something good, something holy and something full of righteousness. All because God deemed it to be so. Around him, his brethren understand this. They feel it deep within themselves, as each and every one of them is handcrafted. But Michael is different. He is not simply made, because he is a weapon.

And, by God’s own hand, Michael is forged.

FIGURE 2.

God molds him. 

That he holds on to. The one truth he knows more than anything. God makes him. He makes him a weapon. Molds him into a sword. He crafts Michael solely as a tool to do His bidding, but He makes him all the same. So Michael follows without thought. A gift to his creator. 

Because a weapon only does.

They spends days upon days in practice, in battle. Besting angel upon angel. With every win, they sees God smile, and something warms sparks into life deep in the cold of their chest. Something physical. Something hot. It sets his body ablaze, empassions him to try more, to push harder. Michael flips the sword out of the grasp of his opponent, recognizing the move coming two steps before it happens. He doesn’t have to think, he only has to do.

 He’ll put a name to this feeling eventually. Later he will learn to understand what the fire in their soul means. But for now, he just stands in awe of his Father’s smile—a smile that is only for them and theirdeeds—and the warmth that it causes. It is the start of something dangerous for, what God fails to realize, that, out of nothing but sheer carelessness, He has taught his weapon to want.

And that? It’ll be the death of Him.

FIGURE 3.

He’s younger than he cares to admit and God gives them a bird. The world is still new. Bright and green in its creation. It’s perfect, Angels sing. Michael wants to agree but the mortals have already shown the treachery of their nature. And he has already learned how to cut down those who might have lifted their hand in blasphemy.

(Eve has taken the apple, Michael sharpens their sword.)

The bird is a falcon, and Michael names her Brenley. She is built for speed and her talons feel as sharp as the sword on his hip. He thinks he loves her, this fiercely delicate creature. She is his and he, in turn, hers. They travel the world together, witness the artistry and destruction God’s newest creations unfold. Michael stands an impartial beacon, watching it all.

Theoretically they know that Brenley is a test, as all things are with God. It is Michael’s first chance to deal with death. God showing him how mortality takes and takes and there is no stopping it. 

But birds live years. So they have time. They push the thoughts of tests and traps and their own shortcomings to the back of their mind. 

Brenley does not have years. She has only five and they are desperately short in the face of a millennia. 

With thoughts of death and endings locked away, he enters the world of man, a bird by his side. The moment is like any other. Nothing different from any number of times Michael has walked among the mortals. He is still learning of how crooked their nature is and yet how soft they can be. It still makes him smile. Brenley makes a single sound, a warning Michael does not understand, so their smile does not falter. Eyes find the bird, high amidst the trees, as the sound reaches their ears. A long low whistle, and then a snap. An arrow flies through the sky. It’s rudimentary, human made, but it does it’s job. Brenley stills. 

And then? Then she falls.

Like a rock, the bird drops from the sky. Her wings tucked to her, a nearly perfect and endless fall. Except it does. End. She hits the ground with a sound, sickening and hollow. He rushes to her side, but it’s too late. 

There is no life left in her.

There is a softness in his features and wetness in his eyes when he turns to the Father. The broken body of what once was settled gently in his hands. Michael is still too new to learn how to steel their face into the mask of iron befitting of the weapon they are. They don’t even know to try. He knows at least not to beg. He’s seen angel, mortal and demon beg God time and time again. Michael has seen the answer that follows. Michael has been the answer that follows.

So instead he asks. A simple word.

“Please.”

God just smiles and shakes his head. A solemn but distinctive no. There is a scream that wretches its way through his body, but when he opens his mouth, it does not come out. But it is not for the loss, this noise that threatens to deafen him. It is for the foolishness in thinking he might change God’s mind. The stupidity in thinking he could be more than an angel formed blade. 

There is no thought, no desire in steel. Nothing but the familiar cold of the pommel and a strong sense of duty.

Michael straightens his back, rigid and iron like. He buries a bird.

It’s the first time Michael truly deals in death. It’s the first time he lets death touch him. Later, when he’s picking away at the pieces of his soul, he’ll wish he’d never let it reach that deep. Because wound tightly around his heart, death holds tight.

It may never let them go.

FIGURE 4.

He remembers every lesson he has ever learned at God’s side. The ones that were easy are sweet and simple. The ones that came hard, something darker and richer. He remembers the ones that tasted bittersweet. He remembers victory and failure. And he remembers the Father’s smile when Michael had pleased Him. There are whispers amongst his brethren. They fall silent when they approach, but they do not sit at God’s right side for nothing. He hears them, and their discontent. They think he does not understand, and maybe they are right.

But what they have failed to realize is that Michael never forgets. Not even a single moment. 

And yet, he still asks.

The girl is only three and Michael cannot find the logic behind it. There are no sins that weigh down her soul, no wrong doings she is being held to. Her parents even are good people, loyal to God. All that means nothing but it causes the sting they feel upon looking at her to vibrate deep within them. There is no reason for her death beside the abject horror of it. All Michael can see when he looks at her is a bird plummeting to the ground, wings held too close. And when she cries, he can hear the sinking thud of something so very mortal slipping between his fingers. The sound of a bird that hit the ground.

So he asks, the want burning him up from the inside.

God just smiles and shakes his head.

A solemn but distinctive no.

Something inside of Michael breaks and he does not know how to fix it. Because God did not teach him this lesson. He must learn it on his own.

FIGURE 5.

At the end, it is not himself who needs convincing but the Cherubim by his side. Some of him has known this ending and its inevitability since the moment he first craved one damning smile. Michael just wishes it would hurt Zadkiel a little less. Wishes he could have understood the crueller nature of their Father—how it’s only ever led Zadkiel to pain—so much sooner. ‘Poor Zadkiel’, he’ll think, instead of ‘poor Michael’.

(He forces his brethren to withstand the weight of his emotions as well as their own.)

“Help me finish this.” It wants to be a command, Michael is so good at commanding. But in the shadow of what is about to come, he cannot stop himself from asking. He needs Zadkiel on his side, needs him to understand this is right.

This is right.

This is for the best.

Michael must kill God.

There is one small nod, one small validation, and it soothes the frantic beating of his heart. The thing that started this journey in the first place. It does not go unnoticed to him that it is something else, someone else, that finally settles them into action. He turns from the Cherubim, Zadkiel’s job is done. The doors swing wide on his command.

He is a weapon, forged for duty without mercy, and that is how he stands before Him. The blade to His throat comes quickly. Michael knows His every move before it comes. This is his Father, this is who first held a sword against him. And Michael has never forgotten.

So God falls.

The thunder shakes the ground on which he stands. It should feel like a victory, but as he hauls in one short breath, Michael feels hollow. He mistakes it for peace.

And then he sees it, a flash of silver to follow the body of the Father. He knows the blade as Zadkiel’s just as he knows his own. Something dark and heavy settles around his heart.

Weak. He thinks, and the thought weighs heavier on his head than the crown he just won.

“half gods are worshipped in wine and flowers

real gods require blood.”

Extras 

WINGS. From afar, Michael’s wings look soft and simple. A brilliant bronze and gold to rival that of his own weapon. But as one comes closer, it is clear that their wings are much more sinister in nature. Each “feather” is in fact a small, sharp weapon. The color of bronze fades way to the real metal. Michael’s wings, like all of him, are a weapon.

FIGHTING STYLE. At his side, Michael carries a sword. It has been his favored blade since gifted to him by God. It is more rapier than broadsword, and Michael favors a more elegant form of battle. He is a dueler by nature, the finesse of the craft allows for him to show off at one of the things he is most proficient at. But at the end of the day, Michael is a being made to destroy. Backed into a corner, he has the strength and fight to hold his own.

FASHION. There is an ease and simplicity to Michael’s style. Nothing is overstated. In fact, he looks almost subdued in the face of some of his brethren. But Michael knows his strengths, and it is the understated nature of his garments that draw the eye. Because, just when you think there is nothing to see, the intricate details of some fabric or the sparkle of something crystalline and expensive will catch the eye.

TAG. MOCKBLOG

[khalilhumam]

Can secularism be compatible with Islam?

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/can-secularism-be-compatible-with-islam/

Can secularism be compatible with Islam?

World of confusion between secularism, free speech, and civil liberties

Anti-terror demonstration in Vienna, Austria, on November 6, 2020. Photo by Michael Gubi/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

< p class="p1">This article by Samee Alhwash was originally published on The Battleground and is republished on Global Voices as part of a content-sharing agreement.

Whether in the boycott-French-products campaign on social media or through conversations with friends, Muslims I know feel conflicted about the recent terrorist attacks in Vienna and Nice.

While they condemn violence, there is also a sense that it is to be expected. Their conflict gets expressed like this:

“We don't condone killing, and those who kill have nothing to do with Islam. But when provocation is disguised as free speech, (for example, Charlie Hebdo), a reaction should be expected.”

Or this:

“Why is it that it's only attacks by Muslims which are branded “terrorist?” Why is French secularism, ‘Laïcité’, applied only to Muslims? Why is it illegal to question the Holocaust but okay to criticize the most sacred elements in Islam?”

Of course, some clear Muslim voices do denounce this confusion between secularism, free speech, and civil liberties. But this conflict is widespread. It seems to come from feelings of disenfranchisement framed in the language of contemporary political Islam.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY6Mux1NKvc?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

Where does this rationalization of violence come from?  Is it really something innate to Islam, dooming the religion to be incompatible with key components of democracy, particularly freedom of speech and secularism?

These are important questions as terrorist attacks produce trauma that brings out equally reactionary arguments within European societies, raising questions about cultural diversity, integration, and assimilation.

Anything sounding like an apology for terrorism risks handing political victories to far-right groups, wrongly stereotyping Islam as backward and violent.

We have been here before. In 2005 I watched something that seemed beyond imagination on TV in my small living room in Syria: mass protests across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) against offensive depictions of Prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

The protests were tolerated by oppressive regimes that would otherwise crack down on any form of protest. The demonstrations were the only ones of their kind until the Arab Spring in 2010.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOiKQ7rnHSU?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

Thinking about them now, I cannot help but question why other incidents didn’t spark the same outcry from Muslims.

The killing of Rohingya Muslims was condemned but it didn't produce the same public outrage. Nor have the Uyghur camps in China.

There was even a widely circulated YouTube video in 2012, one of many to come, of Syrian government thugs forcing an anti-government demonstrator at gunpoint to kneel on a portrait of Bashar Al Assad, in the place of a sajjāda (Muslim prayer rug).

One thug shouted at him, “Pray to your god, Bashar!” True, the actions of the Syrian regime attracted jihadists from all over the world. But this didn’t spark public protests at Syrian embassies like the Danish cartoons did.

This duplicity was intriguing. It tells us something about the nationalistic nature of political Islam today.

It's not a matter of incompatibility between Islam and free speech. Rather, Islam has become an insecure identity that is always undermined by criticism from the Christian or godless, but always colonial, West.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5P_sB_6Ug?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

Muslims adhering to moderate schools of thought, and non-practising Muslims, share this sentiment with conservative elements within Islam. Even secular nationalists view Western criticisms of Islam as an attack on their own culture.

Whether they are Muslim or nationalist, most people in MENA countries are poor, uneducated, and have no political representation. Prolonged stagnation makes them more susceptible to destructive narratives that fuel identity politics and exacerbate social issues. The success of Europe is not viewed as a result of humanist philosophy and a bloody fight against nationalism, such as WWII. To many Muslims, secularism is just a Western colonial scheme to strip away Islamic identity and culture.

Many people in the Middle East and North Africa only see Christian imperial Europe and become slaves to their own inherited colonial traumas. Demagogues, kings, and dictators across the Islamic world reinforce this narrative to legitimize their existence. This feeds into a divisive, nationalistic identity politics that negates any positive intercultural relations with Europe.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkn6R4tUzl0?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

The problem gets even more complex inside Europe, as immigrant communities find themselves in an alien and often racist environment. They cope by embracing shallow and dogmatic versions of political Islam.

Colonialism exacerbated social problems that Muslim societies already had. It didn't create them. We were unequal, hierarchical, and sectarian even before European colonisation and the Ottoman Empire. European colonialism simply reinforced existing hierarchical political structures and used sectarianism to divide and rule. The dictatorships we suffer under today are a continuation of those structures. That means it’s up to us to lead an intellectual revolution that blocks demagogues from using our worst instincts against ourselves. That involves being self-critical about everything, including fundamental reform of our identity and religion.

I’m not saying communities who suffered under colonialism should just forget about the past and move on. On the contrary, we need to see the legacy of colonialism as a big part of the problem, but not the only one. Colonialism inflicted profound scars on the psychology and politics of MENA cultures, which were not healed The racism that immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa experience only reinforces that.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkqCyyy72g?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

This is why the legitimate sense of being victimised by colonialism must not be applied to every social ailment.

On the other hand, because of the history of colonialism, Europe has the responsibility to create a politically correct public discourse, respectful of Muslims, aimed at facilitating their integration, as equals. This must coincide with supportive initiatives abroad, in international development and security policy. And in turn, it’s the responsibility of Muslim communities to understand that there is no alternative to reform in today's political Islamic discourse.

Moderate voices within Islam have to make it clear that nothing is sacred in a democracy, and that we must reject political violence without fail.

To initiate this reform, Muslim communities need to look nowhere else but their own history for messages of tolerance, reason, and most importantly shared values with Europe.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWFrQx29NB0?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

There have been many scholars, philosophers, and even military leaders in our history who testify to the rich potential of Islamic culture, and its tolerance of free speech.

One example is the medieval Arab philosopher and poet Al-Ma'arri. In one of his roughly translated poems, he writes “There's a commotion in Latakia between Ahmed and Issa. One rings the bell and the other shouts from a minaret. Each glorifies their religion. Oh my poetry, who is right?”

In Risalat al-Gufran, Al-Ma’arri adds, “There is but one Imam, the mind,” and “Two inhabit the earth: one with brains but no religion and another with religion but no brains.”

This is a philosopher who lived during the Abbasid Caliphate over 1,000 years ago. He was neither beheaded nor prosecuted. On the contrary, he was praised as one of the great Arabic philosophers and poets.

A statue commemorating Al-Ma'arri stood in his hometown in Syria till 2013, only to be destroyed by Al Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al-Qaeda.

On the issue of incompatibility with secularism, the development of the Muʿtazila school of thought brings out similarities with renaissance humanism from which secular humanism emerged.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3qA6hJYZGI?feature=oembed&w=650&h=366]

The Muʿtazila movement came into being following the translation and interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics and neo-Platonism. It rejected the idea that the Quran is “uncreated,” which dominated mainstream Sunni and Shia doctrines, arguing that the world can be explained through rational thought alongside scripture. It’s not quite secularism as we understand it today, as it doesn’t separate state and religion. But it opens the door for critical and scientific thought, potentially paving the way for secularism.

Secularism is compatible with Islam. It is just incompatible with the current version of political Islam.  

Secularism needs reform as well, as it was often used to discriminate against minorities, whose religiosity is far different from the faith it was supposed to restrain.

Written by The Battleground

[philosopherking1887]

Hark! The Herald Aleinu

Because I'm a sucker for 19th-century cheese, the music of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” has always played on my emotions, in spite of my decided un-Christian-ness. Somehow I did not find out until this year that it was composed by Felix Mendelssohn, who (as you may know) was of Jewish descent, though he was baptized and raised (sort of) Christian.

Because I like the melody (and I was singing a lot of Christmas carols in choir concerts), I have decided to reclaim it in honor of his grandfather Moses Mendelssohn, who famously entered Berlin as a pauper through the gate designated for taxing livestock and Jews, then ended up becoming the most celebrated philosopher in Berlin (Kant expressed admiration several times in his writings), the best friend of the prominent writer and public intellectual Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (and the inspiration for his play Nathan the Wise), and the leader of the Haskalah -- the Jewish Enlightenment happening in parallel to the broader Enlightenment in Europe. Grandpappy Moses did not deserve the perfidy of his descendants.

I had the idea to set a Jewish prayer to the melody of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” and as I was running various candidate prayers through my head, I decided the Aleinu seemed the most promising. So here’s a rough translation of the Aleinu, to be sung to Felix’s unfairly moving melody. (Gendered pronouns referring to God can be switched around or changed to They/Them; I just stuck with He/Him for the 19th-century vibe.)

We must praise the Lord of all and Magnify the Creator’s name, For among the earthly nations He did not make us the same. So we bow and bend the knee To the Sovereign, bless'd be He, King of kings, the Holy One; Render thanks to Him alone. We must praise the Lord of all, On our knees before Him fall.

He spread out the skies above And established firm the earth. High in heaven is His throne And the heights proclaim His worth. Adonai our God we own, King in truth, He reigns alone. As the words of Torah say, Know and take to heart this day: Gods beside Him there are none; In earth and heav’n, His Name is one.

[sassy-socialist-sunday-school]

About this Blog

Hey there. I have had an idea for a long time, and it has only strengthened with time, that Christianity and religion more generally are a lot more socialist and forward thinking than many might suppose from the way their followers act. This is not to say that there are not outdated or problematic ideas within them, just that the piece of advice given by conservative religious figures to read your (insert holy book here) might not be the worst idea. As someone who was raised a Christian, educated in Christianity and still counts themself as a Christian I thought Christianity would be the place to start.

A bit of background on me. I am in my late 20s at the time of writing. I was born in Scotland and have lived there my whole life. I was raised in a Church of Scotland attending household, was baptized and attended till I was 11 or so. When I was 12 I started attending an evangelical church that started in my local town and throughout my teens was a creationist reasonably conservative Christian, though still questioning luckily. During these years I studied the bible hard and read it through multiple times. I listened to Christian rock music (and honestly still do, some of it is quite good, though a lot of what I listened to as a teen was not, but who can’t say that about their taste as a teenager), I helped at missions, I went to Christian summer camps, I was batized for a second time (this time by my own choice). I held a lot of beliefs that were sending me down a dangerous path. For example, my church homophobic. Not in the we should kill them all way, but in that condescending christian manner of love the sinner hate the sin, while they would commit a laundry list of other things listed as sin without really batting an eyelid. At the time I rationalized it. I knew gay people, they were in my class at school, I was good friends with one. They were just sinners like everyone else and just as deserving of Jesus’s forgivesness, but letting them get married, no way. This all really started to become a problem for me on a philosophical level when a friend of mine from church came out as gay. No one was actively hostile, but there was this sense of unease, of judgement. It didn’t sit right with me. It didn’t fully change my perspective until I felt that same judgement on me. This time it was over my playing Dungeons and Dragons of all things (Yes I am a nerd). They thought it was witchcraft and idolatry. I knew for a fact I was just playing make believe the way I always had, just this time with my friends. It took one of my church leaders recoiling from a copy of the 4th edition Player’s Handbook like Dracula from the cross to make me realise how ridiculous this was. And I understood. For me it was over a hobby, but for my friend it was who they were that was being rejected. Both of us were still tolerated as kicking us out would show up the church for what they were, but I can only imagine what they said to him based on what they said to my D&D group. “You can keep playing but don’t spread it to other members of the church”. Long story short I realised how close minded the church I went to was at long last. This made me question everything again, this time more closely. I didn’t lose my faith, but over the next few years I stopped believing in any kind of literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis, I stopped going to church, I stopped having all of the really harmful ideas about my morality that had consumed me in my teenage years and filled me with self hatred. When I attended Uni to study Archaeology and Celtic Studies I learned about the strengths and weaknesses of ancient texts, especially ones coming from oral traditions. I learned a lot in uni and became much healthier and happier. I made lots of friends, read lots of books, fell in love, played lots of D&D and had lots of really good conversations. After uni I got a job in my field and got engaged, and theology took a bit of a backseat as I was busy working long hours of manual labour digging up castles and the like. A year into working I injured my back and had to change career. a few months later I got married. Within a year it had ended badly (Long story for another time, but if the person keeps trying to push getting engaged, marriage or having kids on you that is a red flag and you should have a good think about if the relationship is going where you want it to). I moved in with my parents, stayed there for a while then moved back out. My back injury which never fully healed got worse and I have spent most of the last year on extended sick leave. While already on the left for some time, during this period I shot sharply left. But I found my faith didn’t fit in that well in lefty circles, and I can see why, but I don’t think it has to be that way. Once again few people were actively hostile, but I felt that same judgement, real or imagined. This brings us to today. It is 5am ish, I wanted to go to sleep hours ago as I have things to do tomorrow but here I am creating a Tumblr page about how the bible can be socialist too. TLDR Raised Christian, jumped to the left, is making a blog instead of sleeping.

About this page My plan is to work through the bible, (I will use the King James version as I have been assured it is the most “accurate” to the original many times in my life and I have a love of ancient texts) and I will analyse each chapter and say which bits I would highlight, which bits I would keep and why, and which bits I think are problematic or are likely not the word of any God I would want to be associated with (Yes I know, heresy and all that. If you have a problem with people destroying the word of god take it up with Moses, he did break the literal words of God afterall and he seems to get a pass, I at least will be giving God the excuse of thousands of years of copying, being written down long after or people trying to justify themselves after they did something bad. You know, classic problems all ancient texts have from Plato to Beowulf). There may be chunks of the old testament I do in larger pieces simply because they are very dry and I won’t have that much new to say about the 5th time God tells Moses the exact measurements for his temple curtains (you think I am joking) but I will try and be thorough. I fully reserve the write to jump forward to when I have something interesting to say again or to whatever is of particular interest to me at the time. I may also cover other religions, philosophy or pop culture as and when I see something that catches my eye, but I will try and keep regular updates for our main progression though the Bible. I will always copy the full text I am studying at the start of the post and will give links to the online version I am using so you can check I am not changing anything it says prior to analysis. Also of note, Before making this page I looked up socialist sunday school briefly and there is a movement named this that from my brief read taught/teaches socialism to children in the UK. I am not associated with them but loved the name, hence why I will now try and be Sassy. I would have added student to the end of it as well, but I ran into Tumblr’s character limit for names. If you have any questions, or you wish to discuss a point with me feel free to post on my Questions and Counter Arguments section and I will try and answer, but no promises. If all you want to do is scream into the void I’d rather you did it on a mountaintop or something instead of doing it on my page, but I am sure someone will anyway.

I will try and get the first proper post up in the next few days. Till then everyone stay safe and get ready to have a crack at Genesis Chapter 1, there are obviously no problems here at all hahaha................

[scripttorture]

Torture in Fiction: The Dragon Prince

The Dragon Prince is a wonderfully written and beautifully animated cartoon. I don’t usually take on a whole series but I was interested in the pitch and have fond memories of Avatar: The Last Airbender. I was curious to see what the creators had come up with since.

And overall I really enjoyed it. The characters are engaging and the plot is an interesting twist on a lot of typical fantasy tropes. (It also helped that this is the first time I’ve seen an animated character sign.)

The review contains spoilers for the entire season (1) of this cartoon.

After humans started using dark magic, magic drawn from destroying naturally magical creatures, an alliance of elves and dragons drove them to the western side of the continent. In the war that follows humans killed the dragon king and destroyed his egg.

Years later a group of elves sneak into the human kingdom, determined to assassinate the king and his son in revenge. Rayla, the youngest of the assassins, discovers that the egg is intact and alive. With the human princes, Ezran and Callum, she sets out to return the egg, the titular Dragon Prince, to his home.

But once again I’m rating the depiction and use of torture, not the story itself. I’m trying to take into account realism (regardless of fantasy or sci fi elements), presence of any apologist arguments, stereotypes and the narrative treatment of victims and torturers.

Which means I’m not focusing on the main characters or their plot line here. Instead this review is going to focus mostly on three side characters: Runaan, the leader of the elven assassins who kills the human king, Viren, a dark mage and the king’s advisor who takes over the country on the king’s death and Gren a guardsman loyal to Ezran and Callum’s Aunt.

Viren chooses to have Runaan kept alive and imprisons him in a stone cell. He’s chained in a seated position with his hands raised above his head. Viren attempts to bribe and threaten Runaan into revealing information about a magical artifact. Runaan refuses and in retaliation Viren casts a spell imprisoning Runaan’s essence in a coin.

As Viren tries to consolidate power he clashes with the princes’ aunt, a military commander who insists the boys are alive and should be searched for. Viren manipulates her into returning to the front lines but not before she leaves Gren in charge of searching for the missing princes.

Viren has Gren imprisoned. He’s chained in a standing position with his hands kept level with his head.

I’m giving it 2/10

The Good

1) Torture and the threat of torture is used in the context of interrogation but the story shows it failing. Runaan rejects every request for information Viren makes. He also rejects every 'olive branch' Viren extends.

2) Torture isn’t shown changing or even mildly influencing Runaan’s strongly held beliefs. If anything the story shows Runaan’s anti-human stance becoming more entrenched in response to torture.

3) Viren’s motivation for imprisoning and torturing both Runaan and Gren is quite in keeping with reality. Runaan is an enemy soldier. Gren is loyal to the old regime that Viren is actively trying to replace. This makes both of them political enemies, treated as threats to the new regime’s security. That’s incredibly true to life.

4) The timing of Viren’s bribes also felt like a good point to me. Runaan is captured and abused and then Viren attempts to bribe him into cooperation. First he uses food and drink, then he uses the offer of freedom. I don’t know whether it was intentional or not but I liked this element because it supports the notion of Runaan’s opposition becoming firmer as he’s mistreated.

5) I enjoyed Viren’s general characterisation throughout this and the way he justifies his actions. He presents himself as a ‘pragmatist’. He says he’s willing to make the ‘tough choices’ for the good of others and the Kingdom. That’s the kind of torture apologia torturers often parrot.

6) And that view doesn’t go unchallenged in the story. Other characters point out that Viren’s actions mostly benefit himself. His cruelty and his so-called ‘pragmatic’ lack of morals are presented as causing bigger problems than they solve. Together it creates a really good, succinct and understandable portrait of a torturer. It shows him parroting typical torture apologia and it shows why those views are wrong.

The Bad

Both Runaan and Gren should be dead several times over.

The portrayal of stress positions here is frankly appalling. It's difficult to be exactly sure about the passage of time in the story but Runaan is kept with his hands chained above his head for at least a week. Gren is kept standing for days.

Stress positions kill after about 48 hours.

In this case, neither character is depicting as suffering due to the way they're restrained.

Runaan is shown suffering but this is visually and narrative linked to other things. He's bruised because he was beaten when he was captured. His arm is withering due to a curse. He's weak because he's refusing to eat and drink (which should also have killed him, however I’m willing to give that more leeway in a non-human character). But the stress position he's kept in isn't depicted as fundamentally harmful.

This is more or less repeated with Gren. He isn't shown refusing food or drink and he wasn't beaten when captured. His posture in his chains is relaxed. He shows no signs of pain or discomfort. He leans against the wall and whistles. His movement, colouration, coherency and memory all seem to be completely unaffected.

Stress positions are incredibly harmful. They are painful. They cause wide scale break down of muscles in the victim’s body. This initially leads to a build up of fluid in the extremities. Which causes painful, discoloured swelling in the limbs, sometimes to the point that the skin ruptures into blisters. As more muscles are destroyed the protein released into the bloodstream becomes too much for the kidneys to handle and they fail. One description I read described the kidney’s being turned into ‘swiss cheese’.

The result is a protracted, painful death that can occur a significant period of time after the victim is released from the stress position.

The fact that it’s a stress position singled out as a ‘harmless’ torture is extremely significant here.

This is a torture that generally doesn’t leave lasting marks. It’s a torture that’s common in the modern world. And we unfortunately live in a world where torture trials often hinge on the presence or absence of ‘physical proof’.

Scars.

Survivors are regularly dismissed and belittled because they were tortured in ways that didn’t leave obvious marks on their skin. Because their torturers used techniques like stress positions.

Showing these tortures as harmless backs up the societal view that these tortures don’t ‘count’. That the pain these victims experienced was not real and they don’t deserve our help or compassion.

It backs up the notion that these particular victims are to blame for what they suffered.

These aren’t obscure philosophical notions or debates. These tropes, these patterns, these arguments affect our treatment of torture and torture survivors now.

They are part of the social structures that deny torture survivors asylum. They are part of the reason it takes survivors an average of ten years to access specialist treatment.

Presenting these apologist views uncritically to young children isn’t neutral either.

Because even without taking into account parental blockers on internet searches accurate information on torture is incredibly difficult to find. Any curious viewer, of any age, who watches these scenes and searches for more information would come across more torture apologia long before they find research on torture.

Especially as they may not even link what they saw to torture.

A casual viewer would first need to make that link. Then be aware of the term ‘stress position’. Then be aware of the academic journals or niche authors who publish on these topics. And then have access to enough money to pay for those sources.

Some of the sources are not available in translation.

The result is that the overwhelming majority of viewers are likely to accept what they see: that stress positions cause no harm.

These details are small. They don’t get a lot of screen time. They’re unimportant to the plot.

But they are not neutral. They matter.

The way the different ideas at play here interact matters. As does their impact on the real world.

And as a result, despite many good points in the portrayal of torture, I feel like I have to give The Dragon Prince a low score.

Overall

Part of the reason I wanted to review this was to highlight how prevalent torture is in children’s media and how cartoons are often sending out the same misinformation as adult action movies.

The Dragon Prince doesn’t suggest that torture works and it doesn’t justify brutality. But at the same time it’s downplaying the damage torture causes by treating some tortures as essentially harmless. It’s telling that the tortures singled out this way are clean tortures common in the modern day.

The tortures that victims are commonly subject to now, the ones that don’t leave lasting marks, are the ones being singled out as harmless. As not ‘proper’ torture.

The message that only some tortures and only some victims ‘count’ starts young. And the sad thing is the people creating this, writing it and drawing it probably had no idea they were portraying torture when they chose to have characters chained to the wall.

The background knowledge most people have on torture is poor, made up of apologist tropes and rumours and misinformation. But it is so widely accepted that it probably doesn't even occur to most creators to fact-check what they write.

And the result in this case is a wonderfully made cartoon, which includes fantastic representation of disability, of racial diversity and women. While parroting tropes about torture that are actively harmful to victims.

Edit: If creators are not prepared to show the effects of torture then they should not use torture. If those effects are unsuitable for a children’s show then I’m left wondering why they included torture.

Personally, given the level of research these particular creators lavished on other areas, I suspect this was ignorance not malice. 

Disclaimer

[connectingthediaspora]

Tonight we assemble here to pay tribute to one of the most remarkable men of our time.

Dr Du Bois was not only an intellectual giant exploring the frontiers of knowledge, he was in the first place a teacher. He would have wanted his life to teach us something about our tasks of emancipation.

One idea he insistently taught was that black people have been kept in oppression and deprivation by a poisonous fog of lies that depicted them as inferior, born deficient, and deservedly doomed to servitude to the grave. So assiduously has this poison been injected into the mind of America that its disease has infected not only whites but many Negroes. So long as the lie was believed the brutality and criminality of conduct toward the Negro was easy for the conscience to bear. The twisted logic ran: if the black man was inferior he was not oppressed — his place in society was appropriate to his meager talent and intellect.

Dr Du Bois recognized that the keystone in the arch of oppression was the myth of inferiority and he dedicated his brilliant talents to demolish it.

There could scarcely be a more suitable person for such a monumental task. First of all he was himself unsurpassed as an intellect and he was a Negro. But beyond this he was passionately proud to be black and finally he had not only genius and pride but he had the indomitable fighting spirit of the valiant.

To pursue his mission, Dr Du Bois gave up the substantial privileges a highly educated Negro enjoyed living in the North. Though he held degrees from Harvard and the University of Berlin, though he had more academic credentials than most Americans, black or white, he moved South where a majority of Negroes then lived. He deliberately chose to share their daily abuse and humiliation. He could have offered himself to the white rulers and exacted substantial tribute for selling his genius. There were few like him, Negro or white. He could have amassed riches and honors and lived in material splendor and applause from the powerful and important men of his time. Instead, he lived part of his creative life in the South — most of it in modest means and some of it in poverty and he died in exile, praised sparingly and in many circles ignored.

But he was an exile only to the land of his birth. He died at home in Africa among his cherished ancestors and he was ignored by a pathetically ignorant America but not by history.

History cannot ignore W. E. B. Du Bois. Because history has to reflect truth and Dr Du Bois was a tireless explorer and a gifted discoverer of social truths. His singular greatness lay in his quest for truth about his own people. There were very few scholars who concerned themselves with honest study of the black man and he sought to fill this immense void. The degree to which he succeeded discloses the great dimensions of the man.

Yet he had more than a void to fill. He had to deal with the army of white propagandists — the myth-makers of Negro history. Dr Du Bois took them all on in battle. It would be impossible to sketch the whole range of his intellectual contributions. Back in the nineteenth century he laid out a program of a hundred years of study of problems affecting American Negroes and worked tirelessly to implement it.

Long before sociology was a science he was pioneering in the field of social study of Negro life and completed works on health, education, employment, urban conditions, and religion. This was at a time when scientific inquiry of Negro life was so unbelievably neglected that only a single university in the entire nation had such a program and it was funded with $5,000 for a year’s work.

Against such odds Dr Du Bois produced two enduring classics before the twentieth century. His Suppression of the African Slave Trade written in 1896 is Volume I in the Harvard Historical Studies. His study, The Philadelphia Negro, completed in 1899, is still used today. Illustrating the painstaking quality of his scientific method, to do this work Dr Du Bois personally visited and interviewed five thousand people.

He soon realized that studies would never adequately be pursued nor changes realized without the mass involvement of Negroes. The scholar then became an organizer and with others founded the NAACP. At the same time he became aware that the expansion of imperialism was a threat to the emergence of Africa.

He recognized the importance of the bonds between American Negroes and the land of their ancestors and he extended his activities to African affairs. After World War I he called Pan-African Congresses in 1919, 1921, and 1923, alarming imperialists in all countries and disconcerting Negro moderates in America who were afraid of this restless, militant, black genius.

Returning to the United States from abroad he found his pioneering agitation for Negro studies was bearing fruit and a beginning was made to broaden Negro higher education. He threw himself into the task of raising the intellectual level of this work. Much later in 1940 he participated in the establishment of the first Negro scholarly publication, Phylon. At the same time he stimulated Negro colleges to collaborate through annual conferences to increase their effectiveness and elevate the quality of their academic studies.

But these activities, enough to be the life work for ten men, were far from the sum of his achievements. In the six years between 1935 and 1941 he produced the monumental seven-hundred-page volume on Black Reconstruction in America, and at the same time writing many articles and essays. Black Reconstruction was six years in writing but was thirty-three years in preparation. On its publication, one critic said: “It crowns the long, unselfish, and brilliant career of Dr. Du Bois. It is comparable in clarity, originality, and importance to the Beards’ Rise of American Civilization.” The New York Times said, “It is beyond question the most painstaking and thorough study ever made of the Negroes’ part in Reconstruction,” and the New York Herald Tribune proclaimed it “a solid history of the period, an economic treatise, a philosophical discussion, a poem, a work of art all rolled into one.”

To understand why his study of the Reconstruction was a monumental achievement it is necessary to see it in context. White historians had for a century crudely distorted the Negro’s role in the Reconstruction years. It was a conscious and deliberate manipulation of history and the stakes were high. The Reconstruction was a period in which black men had a small measure of freedom of action. If, as white historians tell it, Negroes wallowed in corruption, opportunism, displayed spectacular stupidity, were wanton, evil, and ignorant, their case was made. They would have proved that freedom was dangerous in the hands of inferior beings. One generation after another of Americans were assiduously taught these falsehoods and the collective mind of America became poisoned with racism and stunted with myths.

Dr Du Bois confronted this powerful structure of historical distortion and dismantled it. He virtually, before anyone else and more than anyone else, demolished the lies about Negroes in their most important and creative period of history. The truths he revealed are not yet the property of all Americans but they have been recorded and arm us for our contemporary battles.

In Black Reconstruction Dr Du Bois dealt with the almost universally accepted concept that civilization virtually collapsed in the South during Reconstruction because Negroes had a measure of political power. Dr Du Bois marshaled irrefutable evidence that far from collapsing, the Southern economy was recovering in these years. Within five years the cotton crop had been restored and in the succeeding five years had exceeded prewar levels. At the same time other economic activity had ascended so rapidly the rebirth of the South was almost completed.

Beyond this he restored to light the most luminous achievement of the Reconstruction — it brought free public education into existence not only for the benefit of the Negro but it opened school doors to the poor whites. He documented the substantial body of legislation that was socially so useful it was retained into the twentieth century even though the Negroes who helped to write it were brutally disenfranchised and driven from political life. He revealed that far from being the tragic era white historians described, it was the only period in which democracy existed in the South. This stunning fact was the reason the history books had to lie because to tell the truth would have acknowledged the Negroes’ capacity to govern and fitness to build a finer nation in a creative relationship with poor whites.

With the completion of his book Black Reconstruction, despite its towering contributions, despite his advanced age, Dr Du Bois was still not ready to accept a deserved rest in peaceful retirement. His dedication to freedom drove him on as relentlessly in his seventies as it did in his twenties. He had already encompassed three careers. Beginning as a pioneer sociologist he had become an activist to further mass organization. The activist had then transformed himself into a historian. By the middle of the twentieth century when imperialism and war arose once more to imperil humanity he became a peace leader. He served as chairman of the Peace Information Bureau and like the Rev. William Sloane Coffin and Dr Benjamin Spock of today he found himself indicted by the government and harried by reactionaries. Undaunted by obstacles and repression, with his characteristic fortitude he fought on. Finally in 1961, with Ghana’s independence established, an opportunity opened to begin the writing of an African Encyclopedia and in his ninety-third year he emigrated to Ghana to begin new intellectual labors. In 1963 death finally came to this most remarkable man.

It is axiomatic that he will be remembered for his scholarly contributions and organizational attainments. These monuments are imperishable. But there were human qualities less immediately visible that are no less imperishable.

Dr Du Bois was a man possessed of priceless dedication to his people. The vast accumulation of achievement and public recognition were not for him pathways to personal affluence and a diffusion of identity. Whatever else he was, with his multitude of careers and professional titles, he was first and always a black man. He used his richness of talent as a trust for his people. He saw that Negroes were robbed of so many things decisive to their existence that the theft of their history seemed only a small part of their losses. But Dr Du Bois knew that to lose one’s history is to lose one’s self-understanding and with it the roots for pride. This drove him to become a historian of Negro life and the combination of his unique zeal and intellect rescued for all of us a heritage whose loss would have profoundly impoverished us.

Dr Du Bois the man needs to be remembered today when despair is all too prevalent. In the years he lived and fought there was far more justification for frustration and hopelessness and yet his faith in his people never wavered. His love and faith in Negroes permeate every sentence of his writings and every act of his life. Without these deeply rooted emotions his work would have been arid and abstract. With them his deeds were a passionate storm that swept the filth of falsehood from the pages of established history.

He symbolized in his being his pride in the black man. He did not apologize for being black and because of it, handicapped. Instead he attacked the oppressor for the crime of stunting black men. He confronted the establishment as a model of militant manhood and integrity. He defied them and though they heaped venom and scorn on him his powerful voice was never stilled.

And yet, with all his pride and spirit he did not make a mystique out of blackness. He was proud of his people, not because their color endowed them with some vague greatness but because their concrete achievements in struggle had advanced humanity and he saw and loved progressive humanity in all its hues, black, white, yellow, red, and brown.

Above all he did not content himself with hurling invectives for emotional release and then to retire into smug passive satisfaction. History had taught him it is not enough for people to be angry — the supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force. It was never possible to know where the scholar Du Bois ended and the organizer Du Bois began. The two qualities in him were a single unified force.

This lifestyle of Dr Du Bois is the most important quality this generation of Negroes needs to emulate. The educated Negro who is not really part of us, and the angry militant who fails to organize us, have nothing in common with Dr Du Bois. He exemplified black power in achievement and he organized black power in action. It was no abstract slogan to him.

We cannot talk of Dr Du Bois without recognizing that he was a radical all of his life. Some people would like to ignore the fact that he was a communist in his later years. It is worth noting that Abraham Lincoln warmly welcomed the support of Karl Marx during the Civil War and corresponded with him freely. In contemporary life the English-speaking world has no difficulty with the fact that Seán O’Casey was a literary giant of the twentieth century and a communist or that Pablo Neruda is generally considered the greatest living poet though he also served in the Chilean Senate as a communist. It is time to cease muting the fact that Dr Du Bois was a genius and chose to be a communist. Our irrational obsessive anti-communism has led us into too many quagmires to be retained as if it were a mode of scientific thinking.

In closing it would be well to remind white America of its debt to Dr Du Bois. When they corrupted Negro history they distorted American history because Negroes are too big a part of the building of this nation to be written out of it without destroying scientific history. White America, drenched with lies about Negroes, has lived too long in a fog of ignorance. Dr Du Bois gave them a gift of truth for which they should eternally be indebted to him.

Negroes have heavy tasks today. We were partially liberated and then re-enslaved. We have to fight again on old battlefields but our confidence is greater, our vision is clearer, and our ultimate victory surer because of the contributions a militant, passionate black giant left behind him.

Dr Du Bois has left us but he has not died. The spirit of freedom is not buried in the grave of the valiant. He will be with us when we go to Washington in April to demand our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have to go to Washington because they have declared an armistice in the war on poverty while squandering billions to expand a senseless, cruel, unjust war in Vietnam. We will go there, we will demand to be heard, and we will stay until the administration responds. If this means forcible repression of our movement, we will confront it, for we have done this before. If this means scorn or ridicule, we will embrace it for that is what America’s poor now receive. If it means jail we accept it willingly, for the millions of poor already are imprisoned by exploitation and discrimination.

Dr Du Bois would be in the front ranks of the peace movement today. He would readily see the parallel between American support of the corrupt and despised Thieu-Ky regime and Northern support to the Southern Slavemasters in 1876. The CIA scarcely exaggerates, indeed it is surprisingly honest, when it calculates for Congress that the war in Vietnam can persist for a hundred years. People deprived of their freedom do not give up — Negroes have been fighting more than a hundred years and even if the date of full emancipation is uncertain, what is explicitly certain is that the struggle for it will endure.

In conclusion let me say that Dr Du Bois’s greatest virtue was his committed empathy with all the oppressed and his divine dissatisfaction with all forms of injustice. Today we are still challenged to be dissatisfied. Let us be dissatisfied until every man can have food and material necessities for his body, culture and education for his mind, freedom and human dignity for his spirit. Let us be dissatisfied until rat-infested, vermin-filled slums will be a thing of a dark past and every family will have a decent sanitary house in which to live. Let us be dissatisfied until the empty stomachs of Mississippi are filled and the idle industries of Appalachia are revitalized. Let us be dissatisfied until brotherhood is no longer a meaningless word at the end of a prayer but the first order of business on every legislative agenda. Let us be dissatisfied until our brother of the Third World — Asia, Africa, and Latin America — will no longer be the victim of imperialist exploitation, but will be lifted from the long night of poverty, illiteracy, and disease. Let us be dissatisfied until this pending cosmic elegy will be transformed into a creative psalm of peace and “justice will roll down like waters from a mighty stream.”

[countrymadefoods]

Seven Lucky Gods

“In Japanese mythology, the Seven Lucky Gods or Seven Gods of Fortune are believed to grant good luck and often have their place in netsuke engravings or in other representations...but gradually became much closer canonical figures for certain professions and Japanese arts. During the course of its history, the mutual influence between gods has created confusion about which of them was the patron of certain professions. The worship of this group of gods is also due to the importance of the number seven in Japan, which is supposedly a bearer of good luck.”

”The Seven Gods of Fortune started being mentioned as a collective in the year 1420 in Fushimi...the Buddhist priest Tenkai selected these gods after speaking with the shōgun he served, Iemitsu Tokugawa, at the order of seeking whoever possessed the perfect virtues: longevity, fortune, popularity, sincerity, kindness, dignity, and magnanimity.

From the period of the gods Izanami and Izanagi, Ebisu is the only one whose origins are purely Japanese. He is the god of prosperity and wealth in business, and of plenitude and abundance in crops, cereals and food in general. He is the patron of fishermen.”

“Daikokuten... is the god of commerce and prosperity. There are other characteristics which have also been attributed to him, such as being the patron of cooks, farmers, bankers, and protector of crops. Curiously, he is also considered a demon hunter.

Bishamonten's origins can be traced back to Hinduism, but he has been adapted by the Japanese culture. He comes from the Hindu god Kubera and is...the god of fortune in war and battles, also associated with authority and dignity. He is the protector of those who follow the rules and behave appropriately. As the patron of fighters, he is represented dressed in armour and a helmet.”

“Benzaiten's origin is found in Hinduism, as she comes from the Hindu goddess Saraswati. While being the only female Fukujin in the modern grouping of seven Fukujin...she was adapted from Buddhism, she was given the attributes of financial fortune, talent, beauty and music among others...She is represented as a smart, beautiful woman...She is the patron of artists, writers, dancers, and geisha, among others.

Juroujin is the god of the elderly and longevity in Japanese Buddhist mythology. It is said that the legendary Juroujin is based on a real person who lived in ancient times...he is represented with a long white beard, riding a deer and is often also accompanied by a 1500 year old crane and a tortoise, as symbols of his affinity with long lives. In addition, he is usually represented under a peach tree...In his hand he holds a cane and a book or a scroll. The wisdom of the world remains written in its pages. Jurojin enjoys rice and wine, and is a very cheerful figure.”

“Hotei is the god of fortune, guardian of the children, patron of diviners and barmen, and also the god of popularity. He is depicted as a fat, smiling, bald man with a curly moustache. He always appears half naked...He carries a bag on his shoulders which is, according to the beliefs, loaded with fortunes for those who believe in his virtues. Hotei's traits and virtue are contentment, magnanimous and happiness.

The god Fukurokuju...has his origins in China...He is the god of wisdom, luck, longevity, wealth and happiness. This god receives certain credits, such as being one of the Chinese philosophers who could live without eating (breatharian)...He normally carries a cane in one hand and in the other a scroll with writings about the world. He is usually accompanied by a turtle, a crow or a deer, animals that are frequently used in Japan to symbolize a long life. It is also said that he likes to play chess, and so he is also credited for being the patron of chess players.”

“Kichijōten, a Fukujin goddess is also known as Kisshōten or Kisshoutennyo, and is adapted via Buddhism from the Hindu goddess Lakshmi. Kisshōten was given the traits beauty, happiness and fertility...Kichijōten replaces Fukurokuju as one of the seven Fukujin.”

Kisshōten

“She is considered to be the goddess of happiness, fertility, and beauty. Kisshoutennyo's iconography is distinguished by the Nyoihōju gem in her hand. When Kisshoutennyo is counted among the seven fukujin and fellow fukujin Daikoku is regarded in feminine form, all three of the Hindu Tridevi goddesses are represented in the fukujin.”

Cintamani

“Cintāmaṇi, also spelled as Chintamani (or the Chintamani Stone), is a wish-fulfilling jewel within both Hindu and Buddhist traditions, said by some to be the equivalent of the philosopher's stone in Western alchemy. It is one of several Mani Jewel images found in Buddhist scripture.”

“In Buddhism it is held by the Bodhisattvas (divine beings with great compassion, wisdom and power) Avalokiteshvara and Ksitigarbha...By reciting the Dharani (small hymn) of Cintamani, Buddhist tradition maintains that one attains the Wisdom of Buddha, able to understand the truth of the Buddha, and turn afflictions into Bodhi...In Buddhism the Chintamani is said to be one of four relics that came in a chest that fell from the sky...The Kintamani mountainous region in Bali was named after the Cintamani.”

“A maṇi-jewel; magical jewel, which manifests whatever one wishes for. According to one's desires, treasures, clothing and food can be manifested, while sickness and suffering can be removed, water can be purified, etc. It is a metaphor for the teachings and virtues of the Buddha...Said to be obtained from the dragon-king of the sea, or the head of the great fish, Makara, or the relics of a Buddha.”

Philosopher's stone

“The philosopher's stone, or stone of the philosophers is a legendary alchemical substance capable of turning base metals such as mercury into gold (chrysopoeia, from the Greek χρυσός khrusos, "gold", and ποιεῖν poiēin, "to make") or silver. It is also called the elixir of life, useful for rejuvenation and for achieving immortality; for many centuries, it was the most sought goal in alchemy. The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection at its finest, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss. Efforts to discover the philosopher's stone were known as the Magnum Opus ("Great Work"). “

Maki-e

“Maki-e (literally: sprinkled picture) is Japanese lacquer sprinkled with gold or silver powder as a decoration using a makizutsu or a kebo brush. The oldest Maki-e in existence now is the ornamentation on the sheath of the Kara-tachi sword with gilded silver fittings and inlay in Togidashi technique held by Shōsōin in Nara, Japan...The technique was developed mainly in the Heian period (794–1185) and blossomed in the Edo period (1603–1868). Maki-e objects were initially designed as household items for court nobles; they soon gained more popularity and were adopted by royal families and military leaders as a symbol of power.”

”Takamakie (or "raised maki-e") is one of the three major techniques in maki-e making. Developed in the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the technique of takamakie involves building up design patterns above the surface through a mixture of metal powder, lacquer, and charcoal or clay dust. Another special kind of maki-e is togidashi maki-e, where a black lacquer without oil is put on the metal decoration as an additional coat.”

Kintsugi

“Kintsugi  "golden joinery", also known as Kintsukuroi  "golden repair", is the Japanese art of repairing broken pottery with lacquer dusted or mixed with powdered gold, silver, or platinum, a method similar to the maki-e technique. As a philosophy, it treats breakage and repair as part of the history of an object, rather than something to disguise.”

[A]t some point kintsugi may have been combined with maki-e as a replacement for other ceramic repair techniques...One theory is that kintsugi may have originated when Japanese shōgun Ashikaga Yoshimasa sent a damaged Chinese tea bowl back to China for repairs in the late 15th century. When it was returned, repaired with ugly metal staples, it may have prompted Japanese craftsmen to look for a more aesthetic means of repair.”

“Staple repair...where small holes are drilled on either side of a crack and metal staples are bent to hold the pieces together. Staple repair was used in Europe (in ancient Greece, England and Russia among others) and China as a repair technique for particularly valuable pieces.

Kintsugi is the general concept of highlighting or emphasizing imperfections, visualizing mends and seams as an additive or an area to celebrate or focus on, rather than absence or missing pieces. Modern artists experiment with the ancient technique as a means of analyzing the idea of loss, synthesis, and improvement through destruction and repair or rebirth.”

Kintsugi: why you should embrace your imperfections the Japanese way

“In Japan, kintsugi is the ancient art of repairing what has been broken...The revitalised ceramic becomes a symbol of fragility, strength and beauty. But now, kintsugi, which translates as “golden joinery”, is the latest lifestyle trend promising to transform our lives. Beyond its interior decorating roots, it can be seen as a metaphor for life.”

“Ceramics are fragile, strong and beautiful all at once, just like people...Ceramics and life can break apart into a thousand pieces, but not for that reason should we stop living intensely.”

It’s all about healing our emotional wounds and rebuilding our lives, becoming stronger in the process. The first step to living a kintsugi life...is to not be scared of taking risks and getting damaged.”

“Do not try to live a pleasant life without suffering, because if you do you will be resigning yourself to surviving instead of living intensely”...It is unrealistic to expect life will always be wonderful. It’s inevitable that, even when taking the utmost care, fragile things, such as our favourite mug, will occasionally break. Likewise, we all suffer illness, tragedy and the loss of loved ones.

[W]hen challenging times happen, we can apply kintsugi. Instead of sweeping our problems under the metaphorical carpet, we can put ourselves back together in a way that embraces the challenges we have faced as part of our life’s journey, while acknowledging that it is our scars that make us strong and interesting people...If we don’t properly take time to repair and reflect on life’s challenges, we are at risk of miring ourselves in self-pity and victimisation.

“When we are immersed in a creative process, we adopt a new perspective that allows us to analyse the pain that we’ve suffered, and transform it into something beautiful.”

(via Kintsugi: why you should embrace your imperfections the Japanese way)

Make the new you a better you

"The world breaks everyone, and afterward, some are strong at the broken places." These words are often attributed to the American writer Ernest Hemingway.In fact, he said something a little different and meant something entirely different.

The underlying principles of kintsugi are twofold. First, the fact that something has been broken does not necessarily make it worthless or even any less valuable. Second, cracks and breaks are part of the unique history of an object and are best highlighted rather than disguised, celebrated rather than deplored.”

”If this sounds odd, imagine that you have a beautiful vase that has been in your family for generations. One day, your baby gets [their] hands on it and smashes it into a dozen pieces. What can you do?

Well, you can throw away the broken pieces, and lose the beauty and history of the vase forever. Or you can repair it the kintsugi way, enhance its beauty and have a permanent and touching reminder of your [baby]'s childhood. In kintsugi, every golden seam is a commemoration and celebration of an object's history.”

”When we were young, we cherished the notion of leading perfect lives one day. We saw ourselves accomplishing beautiful things and enjoying wonderful relationships. But, as time passes, our hopes and dreams get cracked or shattered. Does this strike a chord with you?

If so, look back upon your life. Think of the heartaches and disappointments you have suffered, and the heartaches and disappointments you have caused. Nothing can change things. The question is, what will you do about it? Will you bemoan and regret it, and regard yourself as inferior goods? Or will you accept it as part of your history, learn from it and move on?”

”The new you may be cracked and broken. But even so, with a kintsugi attitude, you can make the new you a better you. As Epictetus wrote: "Don't demand or expect that events happen as you would wish them to. Accept events as they actually happened. That way, peace is possible."

(via Make the new you a better you | The Straits Times)

The Japanese art principle that teaches how to work with failure

“Like a favorite cup or plate, people sometimes crack. We may even break.Obviously, we cannot and ought not throw ourselves away when this happens. Instead, we can relish the blemishes and learn to turn these scars into art—like kintsugi, an ancient Japanese practice that beautifies broken pottery...They call attention to the lines made by time and rough use; these aren’t a source of shame. This practice—also known as kintsukuroi, which literally means gold mending—emphasizes the beauty and utility of breaks and imperfections. It turns a problem into a plus.

You probably don’t expect other people to be perfect. You may in fact appreciate when people expose their vulnerabilities, show old wounds or admit errors. It’s evidence that we’re all infallible, that we heal and grow, that we survive blows to the ego or to our reputations or health and can live to tell the tale. Exposing vulnerabilities by admitting error creates intimacy and trust in relationships, and fosters forgiveness.”

“Psychologists call this distinction “beautiful mess effect.” We see other people’s honesty about their flaws as positive, but we consider admitting to our own failures much more problematic...this tendency stems from the fact that we understand other people’s experiences abstractly yet see our own concretely. We feel the things that happen to us viscerally and physically. What happens to others, however, functions more like an instructive tale, because the pain of failure isn’t our own and the distance gives us perspective. We all understand in theory that bad things happen. But we also feel really bad when they happen to us, and condemn ourselves.”

”In a series of seven tests, researchers demonstrated this self–other difference applies when subjects evaluate the effect of exposing vulnerability in various situations, including admitting errors and discussing bodily “imperfections.”

 “Vulnerability is courage in you and inadequacy in me”

“It’s absurd to be embarrassed about missteps and failures in our lives because they happen to everyone, and no experience is wasted. Everything you do—good, bad, and ugly—can serve as a lesson, even if it’s one you would never want to repeat again. Indeed, errors can be the most important and effective experiences of all.  Things fall apart. That’s life. But if you’re wise, you can use every scrap, patch yourself up, and keep going. That’s the essence of resourcefulness.”

“Likewise, the physical evidence of existence that accumulates over time and a life well-lived can be a source of pride rather than shame. We don’t have to try to look young and flawless, like we’re all brand-new products manufactured for Instagram.”

“Our aesthetic judgments based upon perfection and imperfection almost invariably have consequences that affect the quality of life, the social and political climate of a society, and the state of the world”

“When we expect everything and everyone to be perfect, including ourselves, we not only discount much of what is beautiful but we create a cruel world where resources are wasted, people’s positive qualities are overlooked in favor of their flaws, and our standards become impossibly limiting, restrictive, and unhealthy.”

”The kintsugi approach instead makes the most of what already is, highlights the beauty of what we do have, flaws and all, rather than leaving us eternally grasping for more, different, other, better...In other words, the experiences you have, and the person you already are, suffice. You may, of course, occasionally chip and break and need repairs. And that’s fine.”

(via The Japanese art principle that teaches how to work with failure | Quartz)

[chewykookie11]

Bonding Desire jjk | 1

chapters: 1/17

genre: bts mystery, romance, some crime and fluff

pairing: jungkook x oc

summary: all she did was speak her mind at a fan meet. not a good idea when jungkook is in one of his moods. little did she know that she was destined to meet him. destined to be forced to remain within 45 feet of the idol.

status: complete | editing

masterlist | next chapter

The line continues to slowly move, and I feel the excitement build up inside of me. I’m going to meet BTS! And most importantly, my bias, Kookie. At last, I can see the white table, and I crane my neck to get a glimpse of the boys. My eyes narrow at the first face I see. Kookie. He looks like he would rather be in hell than sitting at the table. He greets the fans with a look full of annoyance and gives them the most pathetic high-five I have ever seen. I can see the slight disappointment in the fans' faces. I walk up to the table, standing directly in front of him, but I act as if he doesn't exist.

"Aren't you going to give me a high-five? You paid like 200 dollars to meet us," he snarks.

I glance at him in irritation. "Why would I high-five someone who looks like he could care less about his fans. I paid 200 dollars to meet BTS. Whether you're a part of that, or not, is up to you." I leave the stunned idol, and move on to Jin, who is smiling brightly at the girl ahead of me. Jungkook may be a famous idol, but that doesn't mean I have to treat him any differently. I hear a chair screech behind me before a hand clasps tightly on my wrist and yanks me towards the table. I found myself in a glaring contest with Jungkook, his face inches from mine. Jin had jumped from his chair, and was trying to calm the maknae, but Jungkook wasn’t backing down. The look of pure rage in his eyes catches me off guard at first, but I can't let myself waver.

"Take back what you said," he growls.

I narrow my eyes. "Apologize to all of the fans who paid to see your awful attitude."

"I don't have anything to apologize for," he argues. My lips press together in irritation. So much for loving and caring for your fans.

"Then I have nothing to take back," I snark back.

"Take her backstage!" He barks, releasing my wrist forcefully, I watch him walk back to his seat before a meaty hand grips my shoulder and pushes me away from the table, and the crowd of confused fans.

"Hey, wait!" The door slams in my face before my cries of protest can be heard. I don't even know where I am. Is this legal? Kidnapping is illegal, isn't it? Is this technically kidnapping? I plop onto the couch with a huff. This is all because burnt Kookie decided to be on his period today. At least there's food. I look at the array of dishes laid out on the table. Score! They have mini sausages! I pile a few on my plate before leaning back, and munching on the meaty delicacies. Who knew how long I'd be in here for.

Jungkook

"YAH!" I cring at Hyung's voice. I know I had it coming for me. "Really Jungkook? I thought you got over these moody fits when you became of age. I mean, what even happened out there!? First you act like you don't care about your fans, and then you're calling security on one of them for just telling the truth?"

"I know Hyung, I screwed up," I sigh rubbing the nape of my neck

"Yeah, you did, and you're going to fix it yourself." I watch him storm off towards the dressing room. Jin sure looked angelic in public, but you don't want to cross him. He’s really like a mom. I know what I did was wrong, but that girl just... No one had ever treated me like that before. While I'll admit it was pretty hot, I'm not letting my guard down. I can't lose to her. Now I just have to find her.

Cathleen

I yelp as the door flies open back up in fear of the figure standing in front of me. Jungkook. His sharp features soften as he sees my fearful state. He runs his hand through his hair, and I can't help but stare at his profile. He is my bias after all.

"Look, I'm sorry..." he begins, but I don’t let him finish.

"Why?" I ask shortly.

"What? What do you mean why?" I cross my arms. He doesn’t seriously think he can make this all better with a simple little apology, does he?

"Why are you apologizing to me? While my experience wasn’t the most pleasant, I asked for it by opening my big fat mouth. But the other fans didn't do anything wrong, so why are you apologizing to me?"

"Look, it doesn't matter now. The fans are gone."

"And at least a seventh of them will go home really upset."

"A seventh?"

"There are seven members, so about a seventh of your fans will have you as their bias. Probably even more. Who knows? But if I were you, I would feel like complete crap."

"Yeah, well, you're not me," he rolls his eyes, irritated.

"I didn't think the media could cover up and lie about so much, but they completely changed your personality. Forget the innocent golden maknae, you're just downright rude.”

"You don't even know me," he growls.

"You're right, I don't, and I hope I never do."

"All of our fans would kill to be in your place right now."

“That may be true, but none of them have the guts to go against their own bias.” My hand flies to my mouth. Well there goes that.

“So, I’m your bias huh?” he smirks. I just had to go and bloat his ego even more.

“What does it matter to you? I’m just another fan,” I say trying to keep my composure as my cheeks grow hot.

“Oh no, you are not just another fan,” he whispers, backing me up against the wall. “I’ve never met a fan like you.” What is he talking about? I try to push him away, but he is too strong for my weak arms. “Just come with me,” he mutters in my ear. My spine tingles, and my cheeks grow hotter at the close contact. He grabs my wrist and leads me out of the room.

“Well aren’t you two looking close,” Jimin teases. I snatch my wrist from Jungkook’s grasp and take a few steps away from him. I look around at the 6 members in front of me. They really do look even better in person. I didn’t know that was possible.

“I’m really sorry for how he acted earlier, it was a bit uncalled for,” he says apologetically.

I look at Seokjin and smirk. “A bit?” The oldest member throws a glare at the maknae. It was scary how quickly his face went from kind and caring to angry Mama Jin. “How can we make it up to you?” Namjoon steps in before the tension grows any thicker.

I blink my eyes in confusion. “Make it up to me?” I ask hesitantly. I just assumed I’d get an apology and be sent on my way back home.

The members begin throwing out ideas left and right. “What if we give her a bunch of merchandise?” Jimin suggests.

“We could always refund her money,” Yoongi says

“Free tickets to our next concert in America?” Hoseok adds.

“I really don’t need anything,” I try to pipe in, but they continue to drown me out with their suggestions.

“Can she come with us to South Korea and be our translator?”

“We have Namjoon for that,” Jungkook retorts.

“Can I just go home?” I cry desperately.

“No!” They all yell in unison. I hold up my hands in defeat. I see Taehyung lean towards Namjoon and whisper something in his ear. The leader’s eyes widen, making me curious as to what Taehyung had said to him.

I don’t have to wait long to find out. “We want you to come to South Korea with us,” Namjoon announces.

I stare at him with a blank face, trying to comprehend what he had just said. “You want me to up and leave my home, and move to another country to become your manager? How does that benefit me at all?” I object.

“We will pay for your college and living costs, and in return, you become our personal manager,” Jin throws in.

“Don’t you already have a manager?”

“A personal manager is different. You take care of the things that are more private.”

“And what if I say no?”

“Why are you so stubborn?!” Can’t you just be grateful for this opportunity?” Jungkook snaps. I turn my head and raise an eyebrow at him.

“From what I remember, I’m the one you’re trying to make up to,” I snap back.

“Have you forgotten who I am?” He takes a step towards me.

“Have you forgotten I don’t care?” I glower, shortening the distance even more. Our heads snap down to our hands when we hear a loud click. Silver handcuffs hang loosely on our wrists, joining us together by a short chain. Jungkook tries to pull away, causing me to lose my balance. I yelp at the sharp pain in my wrist as tears fill my eyes. Jin rushes to my side and inspects my wrist. Jungkook could care less about the pain I was in.

“Remove them hyung,” he growls at the leader. Could someone please slap this boy?

“I’ve never met someone who can compete with your attitude, Jungkook. This will be good for you,” he says lightly, not even sparing the maknae a glance. Jin helps me stand up and leans over to whisper in my ear.

“Namjoon is having one of his philosophical moments. Once he decides to do something, it’s set. I’m sorry, but can you just deal with this until he moves on?” I stare at him incredulously. He seriously expects me to be ok with this?

“So, you’re telling me this is normal for him?” He just smiles innocently at me, shrugging slightly. I let out a huff before turning to face the rest of the group. “But how will this work? You guys have to fly back to Korea. I can’t be seen in public with you guys, especially not like this.” I look up at Jungkook in irritation, who was giving Namjoon a death glare.

“We’ll take special precautions to keep your identity safe,” Namjoon promises. Something in his eyes make me feel as if I can’t say no. It was like some king of magic in his eyes

I nod reluctantly and sigh. “I’ll have to transfer from my college here. I’m not taking any classes right now, so it shouldn’t be a big deal. My mother passed away when I was 12 and I never knew my father, so I don’t really have any family to say goodbye to.”

“Wait, you’re not seriously going along with this, are you?” I glanced over at the outraged maknae. He was now sending me a death glare.

“Why? Are you against it?” I snort.

“Extremely!”

I smirked. “Then I’m extremely for it.”

“So, the point is to make me look like a dude?” I glance at myself in the full-length mirror. My long brown hair is nipped and tucked into a snapback, while sunglasses sit on the bridge of my nose to hide my hazel eyes, and a mask covers the rest of my face. A large sweatshirt conceals my curves, and a pair of sweatpants hangs loosely on my hips. “Aren’t people going to think I’m a homeless man?” I mutter as I twist and turn in front of the mirror.

I hear Jungkook snort before looking at Jin, waiting for an answer. “We’ll just say you’re our new assistant whose luggage got lost, and this was all you had to wear,” he quickly reasons.

“Very convincing,” I mutter sarcastically, lightly tugging at the sweatshirt. At least it’s comfortable. I hope it’s not too hot in Korea.

“I need to finish packing,” Jin announces before leaving the two of us alone in the small dressing room.

I sneak a glance at the boy sitting next to me. His sharp features are distorted with faint annoyance as he stares at his phone. Is this the real Jungkook? He’s always so kind and charismatic on the screen. Meeting him in real life has really opened my eyes to the deception of media.

As if he can feel my eyes watching him, he snaps his head up to look at me, and I quickly look away. “I still don’t understand why you’re doing this,” he grumbles.

I look up to see his tall frame standing behind me in the mirror. “Well first of all, it doesn’t really look like I have a choice. Namjoon isn’t going to take these off until he wants to. Second, because you’re completely against it,” I smirk.

“You’re doing this to purposely irritate me?” He raises an eyebrow at me. I couldn’t help but stare at his face. He may be rude, but he is still a very attractive man.

“If that’s how you want to take it, sure,” I shrug. He rolls his eyes.

Jimin pops his head through the door. “Are you ready yet? Can we go now?” he asks impatiently. I look at Jungkook, who is already back at his chair getting his stuff, before nodding my head. Guess I don’t have a choice. It was go time.

I begin to worry about what could happen when we get off the plane. I am about to be spotted in public with BTS, disguised as a guy. We board the plane and take our seats after storing our carry-ons. Jin, who sat in front of me next to Namjoon, turns around to check up on me.

“How are you feeling?”

“I’ve been better,” I chuckle softly. “Not much of a plane person,” I mutter.

“Now you tell us,” Jungkook mutters next to me, his face buries in his phone. Jin shoots him a glare before turning back to me.

“If you need anything just let us know,” he smiles. I thank him with a smile.

“Don’t bother my hyungs. If you need anything just ask me. They’ve got enough on their plates.” I look over at the boy next to me, who now has his eyes closed and headphones in, blasting music. I sigh and settle into the back of the uncomfortable airplane seat, waiting for them to make an announcement that the plane was taking off. This was the only part of flying that freaked me out. In my eyes, so much could go wrong during take-off. My hands were shaking, and my eyes darted around the plane as I anxiously waited for the metal bird to lift off the ground and possibly combust into flames. I couldn’t even distract myself with my phone.

“Passengers, make sure your seatbelt is securely buckled, and all personal belongings are stored under the seat in front of you.”

This is it. My knuckles turn white as they gripped onto the arm rests. My breathing grows quicker, but I do my best to hide it, not wanting anyone to notice I was freaking out. I glance around at the members, all of them either asleep or preoccupied with something else. This was easy for them. They fly all the time. Everything is going to be ok Cathleen. At least if you die today, you’ll die next to BTS. I continue to reassure myself trying to soothe my nerves. A pair of headphones are slid over my ears, blocking out any noise with beautiful piano melodies that instantly relaxes my body. A strong hand holds my shaking cold one in a firm grasp. I look over to thank him, but he’s already asleep, his head facing away from me. I try to relax, only gripping onto his hand for dear life the moment the plane lifts off the ground. Not wanting to take away anymore of his music listening time, I slid the headphones off and carefully place them onto the sleeping boy’s lap. Now that we can have technology out, I rummage through my backpack and pull out my laptop.

“I’ve never met a Korean with light hair and hazel eyes.” I jump a little at his voice, not knowing he was awake.

“I’m half. My father is Korean and my mother was Irish. Until I was 12, I had dark brown eyes and stick straight black hair, but I guess my mother’s genes decided to take over when I went through puberty.” I shrug.

“TMI,” he mumbles.

“You brought it up,” I retort quietly before turning back to my laptop.

“Do you hate your father?” The question catches me completely off guard. I’ve never talked about my dad, and no one ever bothered to ask about him either.

“How can I hate someone I’ve never met?” He nods in understanding.

“Do you hate me?” I slowly turn my head to look at him. His eyes are plastered to the fidgeting hands in his lap. As much of a jerk he’s been to me, I can tell he’s more than that. Whether it’s a mask or ‘just a phase,’ I don’t know, but he’s not completely heartless and evil.

“No,” I whisper. His head snaps up to meet my eyes, a look of relief on his face. He goes back to doing his own thing for the rest of plane ride, and I try not to bother him as much as possible.

Half way through the flight, my throat grows dry and I realize my water bottle is empty. Dang flight regulations. Can’t bring liquids through security. I tap Jungkook lightly on the shoulder and watch him slip his headphones off one ear.

“Is it possible to get some water?”

“There’s always the bathroom,” he smirks.

“Are your telling me to drink from the faucet in a plane bathroom?” He just shrugs before slipping his headphones back on.

Moments later, a flight attendant comes to our aisle with a glass of ice water. “Sir, are you the one who ordered the water?” He doesn’t spare her a glance, and points at me. I narrow my eyes at him. Cut the jerk act Jungkook.

Wonder if there’s a way I can test the maknae.

next chapter

[theresgloryforyou]

This is an interesting read, and there’s truth in it, but oh, so much to unpack here.   I’ll give this segment a shot, since it’s been awhile since my shot at Jacobin’s bullshit, and I see a similar self-serving strain here:

“As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need intersectional resistance,” [Charles] Derber said. “At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the ’60s, fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with gays.”

*cracks knuckles* Okay, first off, “The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed” is one of those sentences that should make everyone cringe.  Accuracy would require you to write “Women realized their issues were not being addressed”, OR, better yet,  “Women’s issues were not being addressed by the left.”

Also, white people slinging around the word white is fucking obnoxious.  Stop doing that.  We see you.

So this “Intersectional Leftist” proceeds to individuate a systemic problem and then structure his paragraph so he can blame WOMEN, and black folk and gays, for making an “intersectional”, “universalizing” movement fall apart?  If it was so fucking intersectional and universal how did that happen then?  Girls are irrational?  We just got our little feels hurt?

The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within capitalist structures.

NO ONE WAS FOCUSING ON ALL OF THE OPPRESSED THAT WAS THE PROBLEM YOU WALNUT.

“Let’s take a modern version of this,” Derber said. “Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said ‘lean in.’ It captures this identity politics that has become toxic on the left. What does ‘lean in’ mean? It means women should lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major, wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased.”

Sheryl Sandberg is corporate America, not “the left”.  She’s not engaged in “identity politics”, she wrote a successful pitch to non-leftist women, who are the majority because shits like you try to speak for “the left” and none of what you say applies to any of us.  She’s no more a feminist than you are, and feminism is not what created identity politics.  LIBERALS hijacking the conversations of various groups and pandering to them is what created identity politics.  LIBERAL DUDES created identity politics. 

And “But all that got erased” is insulting to every leftist woman and, again, is a stellar example of why women decided to organize without y’all.  You’re writing from the position of The Imagined Leftist Default, thinking you call the shots and everyone else is supposed to go along with you, when really you and your kind were the cause of the problem, you didn’t go along with anyone else.  You wanted to rule the roost, and being challenged by females, by lesbians and gays, by Black folk and Natives and Hispanics and Asians, none of that was anything you could handle.  You kicked US out, and you’re still doing it.  Let’s continue:

“The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements,” Derber said. “This is very connected to moral purity. You’re concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You’re competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You’re just concerned about getting your fair share.”

“People in movements are products of the system they’re fighting,” he continued. “We’re all raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it’s not surprising. And it has to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up in systems they’re repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It’s largely an identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it doesn’t offer a contextual analysis within capitalism.”

I like the way you stuck “moral purity” in there but never followed up on it.  It’s like a buzz word to signal to readers that not getting on board with your program is a mere prudishness, like there’s something wrong with aiming for morality.

Liberalism, which is a fundamentally capitalist and therefore oppressive ideology, seized on the failure of Leftist males, and in many cases the specific choice to refuse to include marginalized groups and women, in leadership, in organizing around our specific issues, in any way at all.  Liberals saw an opportunity to peel off support from those groups.  If the Left was so solid and really were fighting for the oppressed, the oppressed wouldn’t have split into groups both leftist and non in an attempt to survive.

The majority of Americans were never leftist in the first place.  That non-leftist women, for example, saw themselves in the more liberal iteration of “feminism” but not at all in “Intersectional Leftism”, is not surprising, because y’all ain’t as “intersectional” as you claim to be.  After all, you’ve casually co-opted the term “intersectional” without crediting the orgin of the idea behind it, and are using it to actually mean “Solidarity”.  Which you do not feel or show towards women who don’t submit to your leadership.

All of this recapitulates Jacobin’s ignorant hit-job attempt on Radical Feminism:  “come the revolution, men will magically become enlightened and”  and there the sentence has to end because actually no, patriarchy pre-dates capitalism, capitalism is predicated upon patriarchy, and men, especially leftists, I mean, I can hear it now:  “But we did so MUCH for you, babe!  We supported birth control access and abortion, dollface!”  Mmmmmm-hm.  From the goodness of your darling hearts, I suppose, but to continue:

Derber, like North, argues that the left’s myopic, siloed politics paved the way for right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of Trump.

“When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you lose that systemic analysis,” he said. “You’re fragmented. You don’t have natural connections or solidarity with other groups. You don’t see the larger systemic context. By saying I want, as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you’re legitimating the American empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?”

“I don’t want to say we should eliminate all identity politics,” he said. “But any identity politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy. That’s been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It’s just been erased. That’s why Trump came in. He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism, militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire.”

“Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse,” Derber said.  Hold up Imma stop you there.  Identity politics is NEOLIBERAL, or more simply LIBERAL discourse.  Don’t go dragging the “right wing” into this.  Right wingers don’t give a fuck about women or gays or most certainly anyone other than the Great White Race.  So you are wrong.

But more to the point, hilariously in light of, again, Jacobin and pretty much every single leftist organization out there right now, Radical Feminism is the Feminism that focuses on the larger political economy and on systemic oppression and on class based oppression.  An actual Radical Feminist, in her siloed identy-politcs clubhouse according to this article, would never frame lesbians joining the military as a victory for women.  Yet Radical Feminism has been thrown under the bus by leftists for post modern identity politics.  So when you attack women for rightfully organizing apart from broader leftist movements, because you can’t use our free labor and our numbers and all the heavy lifting in the background that women traditionally do in leftist movements, but you don’t actually support Radical Feminists as leftists who have analytical and philosophical similarities with Marxists and socialists of all stripes, I mean, I’m getting a pretty mixed message here.  I’m getting the typical patriarchal message that women need to pitch in for the good of the whole and we’ll sort you girls and your problems out later, but right now everyone else is more important than you.  And I’m also getting the typical patriarchal message that women need to shut up and embrace whatever we tell you to, including a movement based exclusively in individualism, identity, appearance, and gender, ie non-leftist non-materialist things we cannot analyze and that actively undermine you and your scant rights, or you’re not one of us. 

“It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It’s scary.”

“How much of the left,” he asked, “is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that we’re fighting?”

ALL OF IT, pal.  The entire left is reproducing patriarchy.  Which I, as a leftist woman who is a radical feminist, am fighting.  So how exactly do you, a leftist with a platform, propose this gets fixed?  With women, yet again, agreeing to put our needs on the back burner for you?  That’s worked so fucking well for exactly NO WOMEN, and we aren’t a little teeny siloed group.  We’re half the fucking earth’s population.  I’m not saying every woman is a Radfem, more’s the pity, I’m saying Radical Feminism is the only Leftist Feminism, because sure the fuck “Socialist Feminism” is just third wave feminism with the words “economic justice” and “praxis” thrown in for dramatic effect.

Leftists need to get their shit together.  If Mr. Intersectional Leftist Man Chris Hedges had his shit together, for example, and other Intersectional Leftist Men had their shit together, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because Intersectional Leftist Men would organize with Radical Feminists, as our backup and labor.  This would go a long way to creating functioning solidarity.

But what these guys actually want is to continue to be in charge and call the shots, and for women to obey them and quit thinking for ourselves.  What else am I to take away from this self-serving shit?

I like Chris Hedges at times, he is capable of brilliant exposition and analysis-- this article is not an example of one of those times.

[musicallisto]

Hi❤️ Can I have a ship w/TMR & HP(male), pls? I’m 5'7,have a long black hair,dark eyes,fair skin. I'm ENFJ,the eldest of 4,making me reliable & a good leader. Very caring,affectionate,kind,strong both physically & mentally,competitive & fearless. I'm a good listener so as a good adviser. I adore animals,children & LOVE cuddling,skinship,coffee,theme park & advanturous things.I hate heat & worst w/directions. I'm always there for my sis. Smile's always on my face & I hope everyone can smile,too.

(Thank you so much and take your time with my ship if you’re too busy, I understand! Hwaiting ♥ I’m supporting you~ 🌹🌷🌺💐🌼🌻 I hope you have a lovely day filled with happiness, smiles and love.❤️❤️❤️)

I Ship You With…

T H O M A S

• If Thomas had to describe in one word everything he felt when he looked at you, it would be admiration. He was completely mesmerized by the way you moved, the way you talked, how good of a leader you were, how everyone seemed to rely on you, how you were so tender and yet so brave, how you were so altruistic and generous, how you were determined to save everyone no matter the price. It was what drew him to you. Your personalities were so alike in many ways. Although you weren’t one of the official leaders in Group B, you quickly became the head of the operations because the girls soon realized how good you were at taking the lead, scheming and making plans, and leading people to victory. You were a rebel, a fighter, and Thomas loved that about you. You didn’t try to talk him down, to tell him what he was doing was worthless. You believed in him and he believed in you, and it was enough for the both of you, despite all the death and the chaos surrounding you. You showed your utmost potential in the Scorch: you were an absolute badass, saving Thomas and the others Gladers several times. Your fearless and commander nature was Thomas’s favorite thing about you.

• Besides being one of the strongest and most physically capable ones in the Group, you also valued intelligence a lot, so it was very important for you to keep doing mental puzzles and things like that after all the situation died down. You taught Thomas how to play chess and even if he didn’t understand a lot at the beginning, he was more than happy to play with you. It often ended up in Thomas being frustrated because you won extremely easily, in only a few minutes, and he didn’t understand how you did it. You laughed and told him that he was just really bad at that game, and you wondered why WICKED had even bothered studying his brain. He smiled light-heartedly; your little jokes never failed to bring a smile to his lips, no matter how pained he was by all those he had lost. Evenings in Paradise were spent playing chess on a makeshift board as the sun was dying down behind the horizon on your right, and it was peaceful and quiet: everything you wanted and deserved after the trials.

• Since you loved children a lot, you tried to convince Thomas to have some of your own, years after the dreadful events of the Maze and the Scorch. He was skeptical at the beginning, not wanting his children to live and to be raised in a world so dark, a world so cold, but you told him how amazing of a father he would be and how incredible the kid would feel having a dad like him, and eventually, after a few months of asking and persuading, he accepted. Your first born child, a boy, was named Newt. It felt like a proper tribute to your best friend, and although you wished he could be there to see his small alter ego, you were filled with happiness with your little family. Thomas turned out to be a really good father, treating his child with respect, love, and being firm when he needed to. Sometimes, you could hear Thomas’s voice crack when he called your son by his name, but you shared a comforting look and he smiled lightly. Everything was going to be alright.

M I N H O

• Minho must be your best friend, there is no discussion here and it seems OBVIOUS to me that you two fit each other perfectly. Like honestly I don’t see a romantic relationship between the two of you but sign me up for the bff stuff. You both get so competitive and teasing when you are around each other, especially because you were both the best runners in your respective Mazes, and Minho can’t have his ego beaten by *cough* “a girl” (he regrets those words as soon as he realizes that you’re indeed going to beat him God knows how and that you’re actually one helluva girl). You’re always throwing snarky comments at each other and being what others would think is nasty, but you both know it’s just for the laughs and it’s your way of being affectionate.

• HOWEVER, as soon as the other is in danger, shit gets wild. When Minho is threatened by WICKED because of his immune condition, you’re the first one to react and try your best to protect him, and Minho would be the quicket to jump in front of danger to protect you (I mean, Thomas would too, because they’re both such hotheads). Sometimes, and especially in the Scorch, when everything seems desperate and after Minho gets hit by the thunderbolt, his playful banter slowly turns to more philosophical and deeper conversations that he shares with you at night around a bonfire. At first, you’re taken aback, because it’s a side of Minho that you don’t know, or are not used to seeing. You find some stupid joke to make because seeing your lively best friend so down in the dumps is very frustrating, and he uncontrollably laughs because you know him so well. He’s uncapable of keeping a frown when you’re around.

• After the Scorch and all the Flare shit, when life goes back to normal, you suddenly realize that animals must have suffered as much as humans, if not more, and you instantly find a new goal: adopt and care for any stray animal that you find near Paradise or on the roads. And every g o d d a m n time you see a wounded racoon or a pathetic-looking dog, you must take it in, to the great displeasure of Minho who doesn’t understand that fascination at all. From his point of view, it’s already hard enough to keep humans alive, let alone furballs. However, when you pick a little blind in one eye kitten, pleading eyeing Minho with his only blue orb, and literally shove him under his nose, he can’t help sighing and agreeing with you. From that day, he helps you put up an animal shelter in Paradise and surprisingly becomes the most whipped and gaga in front of the baby animals.

J A M E S   S I R I U S   P O T T E R

(faceclaim: Blake Steven)• So you didn’t specify which era you wanted so I thought you were okay with any, and I never wrote anything about Next Gen (actually, yes, I did. I wrote a Lorcan x Rose fanfic years ago and it was actually quite decent. It was called Kiss From A Rose bc, yanno, the song and the wordplay, rose, haha, lol, so funny 10/10) so I thought why not? So you two would be King and Queen of mischief™ just like the two amazing bastards he was named after. You may not be the most malicious, and that’s exactly why you make an excellent duo: teachers never suspect you because they know how intelligent, mature and responsible you are, and therefore would never do anything as childish and frivolous as putting pranks on people, right? but they fail to remember that you are dating James Sirius Potter, grandson of James Potter and nephew of Fred and George Weasley. (actually, McGonagall knows very well what’s going on, but she doesn’t interfere a lot because she misses the lively and funny atmosphere in the castle from the Marauders time, or the twins time).

• Soooo many dares, tournaments and stupid challenges between the two of you. At first, they were light-hearted and simple, nothing too extravagant, like “I bet you can’t eat two turkeys in one dinner!”, but as days went on and neither backed down, it escalated until it reached the point of “One hundred Galleons if you dye Professor Longbottom’s hair green in his sleep”. You always come up with the w o r s t dare ideas, or at least the most maleficent, and the thing is James Sirius always executes them. He never backs down from a challenge or dare, partly because it amuses him a lot and partly because he doesn’t want to be seen as cowardly. When you fear it’s going too far (because you have the most common sense, so even if you find it funny, you know when it’s time to stop and be serious), you tell him that it’s okay if he doesn’t do it, and it will absolutely not degrade his reputation or the way you view him, but once he has an idea in mind, he doesn’t let it go. Which leads him to detention quite a handful of times per semester, and as a consequence he receives a lot of Howlers while you’re laughing on the other side of the table.

• Because you both adore animals, and because that kind of stuff seems to run in your blood, you decide during your fifth year to become Animaguses, or at least attempt to do it. It takes a lot of months of preparation, and at first, you are very intimidated by the processus, but James Sirius convinces you to try to do it with him because it will be so much fun and imagine the endless possibilities if you can transform into an animal at will! Finally, after months and months of bizarre spells and disgusting concoctions, after several times escaping from detention because you were brewing potions after hours in the bathrooms, you finally manage to make it. It’s very confusing at first to change shape and become an animal, and not knowing what animal you would change into when you first transformed was very stressful, but after a lot of practice and training, it became easier and easier to get used to changing into an animal, and you could use that new, secret ability to meet with him without anyone knowing.

T E D D Y   L U P I N

(faceclaim: Chace Crawford)• So despite being much older than you both and therefore leaving Hogwarts years before you, Teddy is your best friend because of his mischievous, happy-go-lucky nature that really mirrors James Sirius’s personality. You get to hang out with him a lot, because he is a very good friend of the Potters, and also because you get on well with Victoire too. He is your favorite partner in crime and when he gets a prank idea to pull on someone in the castle and James Sirius is there to follow him, he basically is unstoppable. Your trio is very well known in Hogwarts when Teddy is still attending because of your creative jokes and pranks, and, to tell the truth, a little feared.

• Even after Teddy leaves Hogwarts, you still are in touch with him and talk a lot via letters. You tell him everything that’s going in Hogwarts, the classes, your friends, your family, gossip about the professors and the students, every little thing that he never would have thought he would miss when he was a student himself. He’s the only person you tell about your Animagus journey, and he’s very impressed because he knows it’s a very advanced form of magic and few wizards are ever capable of doing so. He doesn’t need it, obviously, but he loves hearing stories about your adventures and animal escapades nonetheless. Your letters are always the highlight of his days because he loves hearing from you and James Sirius and you are the closest thing he’s ever had to a brother and a sister. He loves hearing from you, your friends and your handwriting always reminds him of the times when you would spend days scheming jinxes and hexes to traumatize the poor other students.

• During the holidays, instead of staying at Hogwarts that becomes completely empty and dull, you would go back to the city and spend one week with your family and the other with the Potters, who basically adopted you as their second daughter. You love spending days with them because most of the time, the Weasleys and Teddy are there too, and it’s one giant family gathering where everyone knows each other and everyone gets along. You usually take long walks in the countryside with your best friend, trying to catch up the time you’ve spent without talking to each other, laughing and running in the corn fields, laying in the grass and laughing at the clouds that ominously look like McGonagall, or that Malfoy kid, reaching a pond and pushing a fully-clothed Teddy in there, then fleeing from the crime scene under his infuriated shouts… You’re so grateful for your friends and the amazing family that took you under its wing.

Moodboard

bigger version

Playlist

Muse - Knights of Cydonia

Martin Garrix - Virus (How About Now)

Eminem - Not Afraid

The Cab - Angel With A Shotgun

(the playlist & moodboard are mostly TMR related, but I was much more inspired, hope you don’t mind!)

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

Earlier this week, Donald Trump made two sweeping claims about his executive power under the Constitution. “When somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total,” he declared on Monday evening, asserting that the president, rather than state governors, has the power to decide when to end social distancing. And then two days later, speaking from the Rose Garden, the president threatened, “The Senate should either fulfill its duty and vote on my nominees or it should formally adjourn so that I can make recess appointments. If the House will not agree to that adjournment, I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers.”

Neither of the president’s claims about the scope of his powers under the Constitution was, to put it mildly, well received. Scholars and politicians from across the political spectrum, including both New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indicated that they disagreed with the president. But perhaps the most pointed criticism of these ideas comes from Alexander Hamilton.

In “Federalist No. 69,” Hamilton makes an extended argument about how the powers of the American president differ from those of the British king and, as it happens, the governor of New York. He gives four distinctions, all of which are worth parsing. They demonstrate that even the Founder with the most expansive view of executive power—so broad that the other Founders considered him a closet monarchist—insisted that there were limits to that power, which would be balanced and checked by Congress, the judiciary, and the states.

Adam J. White: A republic, if we can keep it

In that essay, Hamilton begins by noting that “the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate and if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.” He goes on to enumerate the ways in which the president has fewer powers than both the British king and the New York governor.

“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.” Here his power is less than that of the British king or the New York governor, who have “at all times the entire command of the militia within their several jurisdictions.”

“Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” In this respect, his power in practice is “much inferior” to that of the British king, which extends to declaring war and raising and regulating armies, powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress. Although the governor of New York also had the power to only command the state militia and navy, Hamilton continued, the constitutions of other states, such as New Hampshire and Massachusetts, arguably conferred broader powers to their governors than the president could claim.

“Thirdly. The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT.” By contrast, “the governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President?” If the New York governor were heading up a conspiracy, Hamilton suggested that he, unlike the president, could promise his co-conspirators immunity by dangling the promise of pardons. “A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.”

Jane Chong: This is not the Senate the Framers imagined

Fourthly, and most relevant to the current episode, Hamilton makes clear that the president can adjourn Congress only when both chambers disagree about the time of adjournment. “The President can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment. The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament. The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may be employed to very important purposes.” This conclusion reinforces the clear language of Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, which says that the president “may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.” To drive home the point that the president’s power to adjourn Congress is limited to cases in which both chambers disagree, Hamilton put the limitation in capital letters. “In case of disagreement between [both chambers of Congress] WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT,” the president has the power “to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.

Why did Hamilton, whose enthusiasm for executive power was so vigorous that he argued for a president elected for life, go to such lengths to emphasize limitations on presidential power in “Federalist No. 69”? The limitations stem from Hamilton’s vision of the virtues of what classical philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero called “mixed government.” Plato identified three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—or rule by the one, the few, and the many. Each of these, he believed, would deteriorate, if unchecked, into their degenerate forms: Monarchy would become tyranny, aristocracy would become oligarchy, and democracy would become mob rule. The Greek historian Polybius, whose history of the Roman Republic was much cited by the American Framers, insisted that the most successful constitutions assigned equal amounts of power to the few, the many, and the one.

Like other Federalists such as James Madison and John Adams, and like Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton was an enthusiastic advocate of classical mixed-government theory. In his notes for a speech at the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787, in which he argued that the president and the Senate should be elected for life, he declared:

Here I shall give my sentiments of the best form of government—not as a thing attainable by us, but as a model which we ought to approach as near as possible.

British constitution best form.

Aristotle—Cicero—Montesquieu—Neckar.

Society naturally divides itself into two political divisions—the few and the many, who have distinct interests.

If government in the hands of the few, they will tyrannize over the many.

If (in) the hands of the many, they will tyrannize over the few. It ought to be in the hands of both; and they should be separated.

This separation must be permanent.

Representation alone will not do.

Demagogues will generally prevail.

And if separated, they will need a mutual check.

This check is a monarch.

Hamilton went on to say that monarchs had the advantage of being above corruption and not susceptible to foreign intrigues. He concluded by praising two principles unknown to classical authors—representation and the separation of powers—that would achieve the classical goal of preventing democracy from degenerating into mob rule by balancing the powers of the one, the few, and the many. “Gentlemen say we need to be rescued from the democracy. But what the means proposed?” he said. “A democratic assembly is to be checked by a democratic senate, and both these by a democratic chief magistrate.”

Read: The quarrel of Jefferson and Hamilton

The fact that the convention rejected Hamilton’s proposals of life terms for the president and the Senate suggests that there was disagreement among the delegates about the ultimate scope of presidential power. And that disagreement persists today, dividing proponents of the idea of the “unitary executive”—some of whom argue that federal independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional because they impose restrictions on the president’s power to fire, supervise, and control executive officials—and executive-power minimalists, who argue that Congress could prevent the president from firing the attorney general or the secretary of state. But regardless of whether you are an executive-power maximalist or minimalist, a Hamiltonian or a Jeffersonian, Hamilton’s conclusion is persuasive: The power of the president of the United States, in some respects, is less than that of Queen Elizabeth or Andrew Cuomo.

That’s why Cuomo, the Hamiltonian governor of New York, and Rand Paul, the Jeffersonian senator from Kentucky, both rejected the president’s claim that his “authority is total.” In asserting that “we don’t have a king in this country,” Cuomo cited Hamilton’s observation at the New York ratifying convention of 1788: “The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will forever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.” Paul concurred with Cuomo that presidential powers are limited by states’ rights and the ultimate sovereignty of the people, invoking the powers reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment. “The constitution doesn’t allow the federal gov’t to become the ultimate regulator of our lives because they wave a doctor’s note,” Paul tweeted. “Powers not delegated are RESERVED to states & the PEOPLE. If we dispense with constitutional restraints, we will have more to worry about than a virus.”

On this point, Hamilton himself would have agreed.