#many righteous revolutionaries

[fieriframes]

[Everywhere you looked there was confusion, violence, drama, and drugs. So many righteous revolutionaries spouting utopian love. Everyone shrouded in purple haze. Then one day they woke up from their dream state. They found themselves no more at peace than before. Older, meek, and conformed.]

[lith-myathar]

.

[melancholic-pigeon]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this but it IS super weird to see so many leftists

get told they're being rampantly antisemitic

fact check (which is a good instict!)

realize they've been hitting Antisemite Bingo with every post they make

...and instead of going "oh shit, I didn't realize it was that baked into all of society, I really need to listen to more Jews about this and do better not to perpetuate hatred towards them"

they go "well, I do all of this, and I'm a good person, so those filthy Jews Zionists must secretly control the media!"

It's especially weird when they know better than to do this to any other minority, but somehow when it's Jews it's acceptible as long as you call them Zionists before hate-criming them.

This is probably why the denial is so high, though. They HAVE to believe leftist antisemitism isn't a problem, because if they believe it's a problem then THEY are the problem, and that interferes with their mental image of themselves as Righteous Revolutionaries.

[branwinged]

"dragons plant no trees" gets thrown around a lot as fact, but i think the veracity of that claim is still up for debate in the books. because dany (like bran and jon and many others) is a narrative symbol of hope and rebirth within the series because of her connection to dragons and fire, not in spite of it. this is because dragons in asoiaf have a much more expansive narrative function than simply 'nuke metaphor'. the 'exclusively weapons of war' image they have acquired breaks down immediately if you recall that the first thing dany does with them is begin dismantling an unjust status quo. she rallies the unsullied at the gates of astapor with cries of dracarys! dracarys! freedom! <- dragons as a symbol of hope and freedom for the persecuted. and obviously they've been built up as an oppositional force against the others. we're told when the last dragon died summers became shorter. in that respect the dragons, or more specifically, fire which is warmth which is passion—very much embodies life against the numbing, deadening threat of eternal winter that the others represent. but fire also consumes, which simultaneously makes dragons agents of destruction, or as adwd shows: the monsters who eat little girls and leave behind their bones. but when dany found herself chained to a false peace which effectively undid her cause in meereen, it was the dragon that rescued her and reignited her fire to fight back—which is to say that dragons represent a wealth of contradictions within the text and this is likely something grrm means to parallel with the others to some extent, by questioning their apparent narrative role as the one true evil. because i doubt the series is gearing up towards a spectacle-esque battle wherein our heroes get to practice righteous, easy violence on a monolithic army of monsters. that feels like it would undo a lot of asoiaf's preoccupation with investigating violence against socially acceptable targets, even if said target is ice sidhe. and this binary between a one true good and a one true evil, i.e. melisandre's philosophy ("if half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. a man is good or he is evil.") is not something the story takes as given.

instead there's this exchange between bran, jojen, and meera in asos: "but you just said you hated them." / "why can't it be both?" / because they're different. like night and day, or ice and fire." / "if ice can burn. then love and hate can mate."—and i think it's talking about reconciling two conflicting ideas. because the dream of an eternal summer is just as unsustainable as the threat of eternal winter. i think the battle for dawn is more about questions of seasonal harmony. the first line from agot's summary says, "long ago, in a time forgotten, a preternatural event threw the seasons out of balance", so it's not totally out of question for the series to end with that seasonal balance restored once more. and that question of balance and how it can be achieved then works as a metaphor for a bunch of other things. because asoiaf at its core is very interested in exploring big contradictions, like love and duty? how do you keep all your oaths without betraying someone you love? how can one hope for a just, rightful ruler in a world where the systems in place can never allow such a thing? how do dragons plant trees?

you cannot frame dany's arc as a binary choice between planting trees or embracing (dragon)fire. because the fire is hers, it is a part of her, that's who she is. and her character has always existed outside of rigid dichotomies. at the end of agot she had two options, resign herself to a life of seclusion as a widow or die with the last of her family in that pyre, instead she performed a miracle. presently, i think grrm means to explore necessary, revolutionary violence with her arc because you cannot deal with institutional slavery by simply negotiating with slavers like she does in adwd. and the consequences thereof because she's also been set up to be more reckless with dragonfire in the future. but i think there will be an eventual reconciliation there, between her dreams "to plant trees and watch them grow." and her role as the mother of dragons, as a revolutionary figure. because if ice can burn, then maybe dragons can plant trees. they'll learn how to.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Revolution fetishism is a horrible political view, especially in this context

Okay, rant incoming, partially related to recent events, but also to earlier thinking on my part.

There are, on the Left, a fair few people that romanticize or outright fetishize the concept of Revolution, of violent popular uprising to wrest power out of the hands of a corrupt elite and give it to the people. Very romantic, very righteous (self-righteous pretty often), very good and nice and sexy. And by the grace of revolutionary fervor and ideological purity, everything will be better after.

Except no.

See, a lot of this romanticization of Revolution comes, to my knowledge, from my own country of France. We have romanticized our Revolution a fair bit, and honestly, looking at the first part, fair. A serious go at giving women rights, a no-cause divorce, abolition of slavery, privileges thrown out, equality between people proclaimed loud, enfranchisement given to minorities ... in 1789. A LOT of good and progress, especially for the time.

But then it got fucky, VERY fucky. The Reign of Terror, under the caring leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, was a fucking nightmare on Earth, caracterized by mass executions on political basis, and by this I mean anyone that opposed Robespierre got beheaded. Political plurality? You mean anti-revolutionary sentiment ! Unacceptable, kill everyone.

A rumor of the time said the Place de Grève was covered in a layer of blood that was ankle deep. Is that an exageration ? Yes, certainly. But the fact it got to that point should tell you something about how intense the murdering was. And that was just one square in Paris, there was the rest of the country to consider too.

But surely, after Robespierre fell victim to his own system and was executed, something better emerged, right?

No. Sweet mother of fuck, NO.

What followed was roughly 70 years of political instability and violence, warfare and civil war, several dictatorships, including attempts to restore absolute monarchy, that undid most of the good brought by the first part of the Revolution. And finally, France stumbled onto political stability in 1870 when the temporary 3rd Republic, that was supposed to wait until the presumptive heir to the throne (who wanted an absolute monarchy) croacked did what temporary things do best and became the permanent system (until its fall).

This was not thanks to the Revolution. It was pure randomness.

Did the French Revolution bring good things? Yes, it did. In its first part. The second part brought chaos and misery for multiple decades. And it took a lot of work and efforts to bring back what the Revolution, the peaceful part, had brought in.

And far too many people on the Left fetishize and romanticize the whole thing, as if we couldn't have had the first part without the second, as if the progress and hope and betterment somehow needed the chaos and murder that came after.

Yes, there would have been a period of conflict, European monarchies would not have accepted quietly a realm the size of France doing away with monarchs. But did we REALLY need the political purges ? Did we REALLY need the paranoia ? Did we REALLY need the massacres ?

But you will find people that answer yes, and say the spilled blood somehow made it pure, or good. And those same people are looking at what Hamas is doing and are cheering. These people don't celebrate the first part, the progress and hope. They claim to be, but they aren't. They celebrate the Terror. They yearn for the unjust "popular tribunal" AKA mob "justice". They dream of executing political opponents or anyone they think is "bad" on light or even absent charges.

And That's why they cheer for Hamas rockets and massacres. That's why they sing when Israeli children are murdered. That's why they attack Jews that don't live in Israel. Because they hope to vicariously live this period of unchecked violence.

Know who was celebrating the RIGHT part of the Revolution ? The Israeli working with Gazan to build understanding. The Gazan protesting against Hamas. The Israeli Arabs risking their lives to save the lives of fellow Israeli and of foreigners, regardless of skin or creed. The Gazan trying to improve things in their homes against the wishes and efforts of Hamas.

Know who IS celebrating the RIGHY part of the Revolution ? The Israeli protesting the way the IDF is bombing Gaza. The people decrying the hypocrisy of blood-thirsty leftists. The people calling for Peace and working to make the political change to allow it.

But the Robespierres of the time, drunk on their own self-assurance, condemn and insult them, claiming that blood must be spilt. But it doesn't have to be. The French Revolution started relatively bloodlessly. It didn't need some great orgy of violence. Oh it wasn't clean, but it was far cleaner than the armchair Robespierres would like it to be. Because it didn't need to be.

And that's my point, really. The people fantasizing about and fetishizing the Revolution always dream of torrents of blood washing away the injustices, of seas of corpses forming a fertile ground upon which progress can grow. But that horseshit. All you get with that is, like the Place de Grève, a sinister place that stinks of rot and death, and flocks of scavengers gorging on your crimes.

All you get is a chance for a Napoleon to arrive. Or Stalin's USSR that so casually carried on with the crimes of the Tsars. Or Polpot who murdered 25% of his population.

If you look at the French Revolution, the right lesson to learn is that you need to know when to stop, and that's before you get to indiscriminate killing. Because once you get to that point ... people that thrive in those settings get in power and perpetuate them.

And to apply that to the situation in I/P ... knowing when to stop means realizing that Israeli are still humans, that Gazan are still humans, that their lives have worth and should be protected, that supporting child killings when it's done by "brown people" is not anymore alright than supporting child killings when done by the IDF. And you people should very well consider the possibility that people inside the IDF are doing all they can to reduce Bibi's ability to order war crimes.

And you should recognize that there are efforts on the part of the IDF, sometimes token efforts, sometimes more than just that, to limit the number of dead civilians. Point me to a case where Hamas did the same. Point me to a case where they tried to get Israeli civilians out of the way instead of targeting them.

Hamas is not a Revolution you want to succeed. It's not about being free. It's about killing. This isn't a "glorious revolutionary action", it's a prelude to the wholesale slaughter and ethnic massacre they dream of. It's a tiny window into their ideal, blood soaked world.

Violent revolution should be a last resort, when there is no other option available, when the system is so utterly broken and shattered that nothing can move, and it should be stopped as soon as the system is unfucked enough to negociate. The I/P situation is not at that stage. Look at how much efforts the fascists of both sides have to invest in maintaining this. Look at how much time and money and efforts they have to invest to keep each other in place. And despite this, people of both sides reach for peace, argue and protest for it, even at the risk of their very lives (especially true in Gaza).

And if you refuse to consider all this, if you insist on following Robespierre, remember this : La Veuve came for him too, in the end.

[lyon-77]

I’ve been curious as to why Erlang Shen, who was once depicted as a heroic lord with strong ties to the mortal realm, was turned into this cold-hearted "hound of heaven" figure. I get that his influence had waned, and you've said that it was an unconscious effort to revive key themes from his lore. That might make sense during a decline in his worship. But why did they have to lean into a more negative interpretation of his character? Sorry for the example, but it reminds me of how characters who were originally portrayed as good and fair sometimes get flipped into their opposite, and that darker version sticks. It’s kind of the reverse of the trope where villains become heroes. Take Sun Wukong, for example: he originally wasn’t some oppressed freedom fighter for the yaoguais (like he only cares about his children, which isn't bad but yeah). He was a warlord whose pride got wounded, and he threw a massive tantrum because he wasn’t getting the position he thought he deserved. Black Myth: Wukong shows him as a misunderstood revolutionary. But with Erlang Shen, it's the opposite—he started as a popular hero and deity, and yet he’s been reduced to a villainous enforcer. From what I’ve heard about his original stories and your and many others posts, he was a good person and a hero, not the oppressive figure he's been turned into over the years. It’s strange to see him constantly depicted in such a terrible light when his lore is so much more complex and positive.

Yeah, it can get frustrating, but I’d say the tide has turned since the early 2000s. Erlang is almost always portrayed as charismatic and dependable in Investiture of the Gods adaptations. In JTTW-inspired works, he's meant to be a positive figure as well, though some adaptations that focus solely on the main hero can end up oversimplifying or even discrediting complex supporting characters. To me, it always feels like such a waste of the rich source material.

In the past two decades though, the trends has leaned towards depicting Erlang Shen as a misunderstood hero. When the Black Myth: Wukong intro first came out, many people were disappointed, though not entirely surprised, to see Erlang cast as the antagonist again. So when it was later revealed he was more complex than he first appeared and had been our ally all along, the Chinese audience were both relieved and greatly satisfied.

I do think part of the reason Erlang wasn’t more fully developed in modern media previously might be precisely because he’s a righteous god—a character archetype that doesn’t always translate well in eras that celebrate antiheroes, individualism, and self-made rebels. Figures like Wukong and Nezha, who actively defy traditional values, fit the idea of a hero as someone who challenges the status quo. Meanwhile, the classic hero archetype can get pedantic and lose its emotional impact. Erlang Shen is a classic hero but is also more than that: his nuances bridge the old and the new and can resonate well with the audience today. Yet, his complexity isn't always easy to convey in the short-form messaging more typical of today's media.

In the end, all canonized characters need to adapt to remain relevant, and new audiences need a bit of patience and curiosity to get to know them. I think it just took Erlang some time to find his place in our era, but for a folk god with millennia of history, that's not too bad at all 😉

[cartermagazine]

Today In History

Bobby Seale, political activist and co-founder of the Black Panther Party, was born on this date October 22, 1936.

Seale and Newton wanted to organize the black community to express their desires and needs in order to resist the racism and classism perpetuated by the system. Seale described the Panthers as “an organization that represents black people and many white radicals relate to this and understand that the Black Panther Party is a righteous revolutionary front against this racist decadent, capitalistic system.”

Seale and Newton together wrote the doctrines "What We Want Now!”, which Seale said were intended to be “the practical, specific things we need and that should exist”, and “What We Believe,” which outlines the philosophical principles of the Black Panther Party in order to educate the people and disseminate information about the specifics of the party’s platform.

“The Ten Point Platform and Program of What We Want Now! And, What We Believe, culminating with the opening paragraphs of the United States Declaration of Independence, reflected the objectives of the party. Huey and I drafted the first version of this program at the North Oakland Neighborhood Service Center. The Ten Points simply says what black people have been crying for four hundred years. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our black community. We believe that black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny”-Bobby Seale

CARTER™️ Magazine

[lycoperdales]

Media References in Teen Wolf (pt. 1)

I’m thinking of starting a series about the stuff I’ve read or watched that were shown in the series that were relevant to the themes of series.

Starting with the first thing I read:

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

The cover of this book was given a close up in season 3 episode 12 when Rafael McCall is sitting in Scott’s room while the kids are trying to safe their parents from the Darach.

It is one of the books Scott read over the summer which I think greatly impacts his views on ‘justified’ violence and righteous dogmas that perpetuate throughout the entire series but especially here through Deucalion and Julia Bacchari.

This book represents the theme of cyclical violence that pervades the entire series but especially season 3A. Specifically how such violence only escalates, leading to more pain, strife and casualties. The book being in Scott's room serves to illuminate our understanding of him and the realisation he has of the violence around him.

(Take a shot for every time I say violence)

To be rudely brief, this book tells a tale of the French Revolution (it’s origins and motivations), but centres around the people caught in the cross-hairs.

The main characters (relevant to this analysis) are:

Doctor Manette (The face of the French Revolution, a former prisoner of the Bastille. Incarcerated for 18 years due to a false allegation given by Marquis St. Evrémonde)

Lucy Manette (A devoted daughter, recently reunited with her father, Dr. Manette, after his incarceration)

Charles Darnay (A former French noble who relinquished his titles and wealth to live peacefully and frugally in England. He later marries Lucy and they have a young daughter together)

Marquis St. Evrémonde (Uncle to Charles Darnay. A tyrannical noble responsible for the death and torture of many working-class french citizens and the reason for Dr. Manette’s incarceration)

Madame Defarge (An unassuming yet crucial member of the revolution. She experienced the death and torture of her family under St. Evrémonde’s hands and uses her pain as fuel to enact revenge. Her and her husband nursed Dr. Manette back to health after his imprisonment)

Sydney Carton (A listless, depressed legal aide based in London with an uncanny resemblance to Charles Darnay, and in love with Lucy Manette)

The revolution consists of two waring parties, the nobles, and the working-class revolutionaries. Both parties used their own ideologies to justify the violence they caused.

The marquis thought it was his god-given right, and that inciting fear was what secured him to his power, wealth, and safety. Whenever something bad happened to them, nobles used it to argue for the necessity of their violence.

This mirrors Deucalion and his pack who use Gerard’s actions to justify using fear as a means ensuring their safety, but also have no qualms about threatening, maiming and killing for their entertainment/benefit as they think it is their right as powerful beings.

The revolutionaries, specifically Madame Defarge justifies her violence as part of an uprising. It is the accumulation of the violence she and the other revolutionaries have faced and they feel that the only way they can be recompensed is through bloodshed. You agree with them after hearing their stories but quickly grow horrified as they begin sacrificing working-class servants, helpers, nannies and children. It is seen as the "lesser evil" against the powerful nobles.

In their quest for liberation, they end up jeopardising the life of their own hero, Dr. Manette, and his family. Madame Defarge does this by orchestrating the incarceration of Charles Darnay and plans to execute him for his noble blood, Lucy for marrying him, and finally to execute their young child (for her noble blood).

She mimics Julia Bacchari almost entirely as they both sacrifice innocent, blameless people in their quest to defeat their true oppressors.

Just as the revolution (as depicted in the book) is perverted into senseless propaganda which ultimately endangers the victims of nobility (the Manettes), Julia’s motivations turn void as she begins endangering the lives of the Alpha Pack's other victims (Boyd, Isaac, Derek, Scott, and Melissa).

The pinnacle of this parallel occurs when Derek says to Julia (after her big sacrifice yap-fest):

“Stop talking to me like a politician. Stop trying to convince me of your cause.”

As for the others, they are not a part of the war. Doctor Manette (though face of the revolution) only seeks peace, quiet and recovery with his newly reunited family. This reminds me of Derek, who is seen by Julia as a partner though he wishes no part in the conflict. Like the doctor towards the nobles, Derek hates Deucalion, but cannot use his hatred to fully take part in Julia’s destruction. Though he stands by Julia at some point, it is more that he is trapped due to Julia’s idealisation of him (just as the Revolutionaries idolised Dr. Manette).

In the book, Charles Darney is in the middle of the two parties, yet fundamentally separated from both of them, very similar to Scott.

Darnay is noble by blood but abhors all that it represents. He loves and marries into the Manette family, and even teaches french in London due to the love of his country, yet he cannot sit by as the Revolutionaries try to execute his former family servant.

Though Scott is not yet an alpha, he is regarded as one. He also has responsibility over others as an alpha (*cough* noble *cough*) does. Despite this, he is fundamentally against everything the Alpha Pack represents and his unwillingness to promote the system acts as a threat to what the Alpha Pack preaches.

On the other hand, he, like Julia, is a victim to the cruelty of alphas, yet does not use his victimhood as a justification for more violence, rendering Julia’s ideologies just as sloppy as Deucalion’s as she also fails to proselytise him. In the end Scott is basically shoved into Deucalion's corner as Julia jeopardises his family (just as the revolutionaries jeopardise Darney's family).

Now for my beloved Sydney Carton (this is going to be the most reductionistic analysis of this character, but alas, this meta is about teen wolf). This man, for his love of Lucy's happiness and all that it represents, bribes his way into Darnay's prison and forcefully changes their places so that he can die in Darnay's stead. His execution serves as a distraction to ensure the Darnay and Manette family's safe passage back to England (much like Scott distracting Julia until the lunar eclipse fades to save the lives of the parents). He represents true sacrifice and (though it sounds cheesy) the power of love. It is his love that spurs him into action after a life of passivity. It is his sacrifice that ensures that peace (the conciliation of the Manette's and the St. Evrémonde blood line) can exist, that violence in spite of pain can be rejected.

Derek willingly loses his power, status and safety for the love of his Cora. Scott thrusts himself upon mountain to save the parents, essentially sacrificing himself (Remember when he says: "I did it once, but it almost killed me"). The kids actually sacrifice themselves to prevent more, irreparable blood shed.

Scott (and essentially his entire pack + Derek but I want to focus on Scott's book in Scott's room), is a victim of the war in which he really should have no part in. But unlike Deucalion- and Julia's other victims, he willingly sacrifices himself in the hopes of, like Sydney Carton, ensuring a better future with the redemptive powers of love.

I believe that if Scott had died then, he would've, as Carton, “see[n] the lives for which [he] lay[s] down his life”

[morisonus]

This is probably a cold take, but when it comes to Transformers I tend to prefer fanon over canon, mainly with how they deal with societal issues. Including the war.

I understand the franchise is innately made for children, or at most teenagers, so many topics need to be watered down for the sake of clarity and understanding. (I know IDW and other continuity’s are an exception to this, but I’m mainly talking about cartoons and the more widely known about media) War isn’t black and white, that’s a given and something everyone should know and consider. This is a very simplified generalization of my opinions, and it very much varies depending on the context, but when a conflict escalates to a war, more often than not, both sides have their reasoning, and both sides commit immoral acts for the sake of their cause. Transformers is no exception. My favorite backstory’s of the war is Megatron, a bottom class worker turned revolutionary fighting for equality in an unfair system, and Optimus, a middle class worker slowly becoming aware of the injustices in his society, wishing to do something and make a difference. When you start the characters as that, it’s obvious that they are both fighting for a common and righteous cause. Their paths are often split when it comes to methods, and what their end goal is. While they both fight for a similar purpose, their experiences greatly affect how they see their would and laws, and how they need to be changed. Megatron is from the lowest of the low, where violence and abuse is commonplace towards those deemed lower than others. Optimus comes from a world of comparative privilege, able to choose wha the does in his free time, how he associates with, and has power over his own life. Of course Megatron feels that a more radical and total change is necessary when the system in place has killed and mistreated him and countless of his peers. Yes, Optimus can see why the system is wrong and a general idea of what needs to be changed, but seeing it is different from living it. Whether that is a detriment or positive depends on how your mindset is molded by it.

This post has just devolved into a brain dump of all the thoughts in my brain. I don’t even know what the original purpose pf writing this was. If I got something wrong, or you have differing opinions, please share and or correct me because I am more than willing to listen and learn. This is simply my two cents on what I know and how I see it.

[canmom]

hi cuba i'm dad

I watched I Am Cuba, whose not-so-recent restoration was playing at the GFT. insanely well shot film, like the level of choreography to pull off those long takes and supercomplicated crane shots with no steadicams or anything is just mind bending. absolutely wild that the soviets didn't say "wow we have a banger on our hands here comrades" and play it everywhere - as a propaganda film, it did its job! definitely leaves you fired up to fight the Cuban revolution.

it is certainly a very didactic film, with the lesson of each vignette being pretty clear. but it is able to lend enough depth to the archetypal characters - the struggling sex worker from a slum who has to hide her relationship serving american visitors at a jazz club, the salt of the earth sugarcane farmer whose land is sold out from under him, the student revolutionary who hesitates to pull the trigger, the other farmer who only wants peace - to get you really engaged, though definitely the revolutionary characters (probably closest to the experience of the filmmakers) feel like they're the most fleshed out.

the third act, in which a revolutionary student plans to assassinate a regime cop (unnamed) but hestitates when he sees the man with his family, only to see that same cop murder first his friend and them himself, is maybe the most spectacular, with huge scenes of rioters getting blasted with water cannons, or the incredible funeral shot...

but it's not just these flashy huge shots; it's a gorgeously lit greyscale film (absolutely crazy detailed looking with the 4k scan, so cheers for that one Scorcese), ingeniously augmented by infrared photography in places to make it extra stark. more than that and so many shots have really elaborate blocking and camerawork, with the camera drifting from actor to actor, effortlessly sliding between closeup and longshot like it's in the hands of Ichirō Itano, which is wild for live action.

one relatively simple scene towards the end I noticed had a revolutionary arriving at a farmer's house and sitting down for the meal; the men argue, and the farmer goes to stand at the door, allowing the camera to perfectly frame the two of them and almost nothing else in the shot.

it is otherwise very happy to linger on a musical sequence, such as the intense club scenes at the beginning, in a way that feels way more modern than you'd think for the 60s.

the architecture of revolution-era Cuba is just as striking - some buildings, like the rooftop where Enrique tries to line up his shot, look like they could easily be modern buildings. compared to the romantic picture of something like Chico and Rita, of course, this is a film determined to remind you how bad things are, not just show you the touristy bits of Cuba. much of the film revolves around the question of violence - certainly from an agitprop angle, like act 3 is sorta should you hesitate (no), and act 4 is like will you be OK if you keep your head down (no); many of the revolutionary songs are in major part about how it's good and righteous die for the country.

when first shown, it was criticised in Havana for stereotypical depictions of Cubans - which doesn't entirely seem unfair, they are kind of stock characters for the most part, although portrayed with a lot of humanity. in the Soviet Union, meanwhile, it got criticised for not being propaganda-y enough, which is wild because to my mind it works better at getting its emotional message across than most oldschool propaganda films I've seen. that said, I definitely need to watch more critical Cuban films from the same period like Memories of Underdevelopment, or recent ones like Strawberry and Chocolate, for some contrast.

all in all cool film, big shoutout to @hamiltonianflow for suggesting we watch it together <3

[blacksapphhicmaddonna]

HAPPY PRIDE MONTH, ALPHABET MAFIA

just a few reminders:

- first pride was a riot

- black & BIPOC queer people are the foundation of our entire nation and the global culture

- we owe most of our rights and progress to BIPOC trans women/femmes and different communities of lesbians, trans/gnc folks and elders.

- trans people have always existed, they are ancient and indigenous to many cultures and places and are SACRED.

- I’m glad you’re here and there is community out there for you, waiting with open arms. Don’t give up just yet, please.

- rainbow capitalism isn’t liberation

- we are all we have, be fucking better to each other

- lesbians have done so much for lgbtqia+ people and should maybe idk stop being erased for no reason

- biphobia is real and just bc your ex cheated on you doesn’t make it bi folks fault, you’re projecting babe

- being queer doesn’t dissolve white privilege, pls touch grass

- be safe at pride. they’re coming for us all and we need to protect ourselves.

- not everyone wants to use the word queer/dyke/fag etc. I’m glad you reclaimed the slurs used against you, me too, but not everyone wants to and you need to respect that. LGBTQIA+* exists for a reason.

- the black and brown belong on the flag.

- the A is for asexual/romantic or agender, not ally.

- get some pussy (or whatever you do (or don’t do)) and make space for joy! because black/queer joy is revolutionary and fucking righteous just as much as our anger is, too

- Juneteenth coming up too, issa parade in my city fr

- asexuals/aromantics belong at pride. Period. Full stop.

- safe sex is the best sex

- get tested!

- it’s okay to not watch the news. america is hell, go take a nap

- people 100% know themselves better than you ever will, people are who they say they are and you don’t get to decide that for them. respect pronouns, identity, etc. or argue w ya mama/god/someone else cause it ain’t finna be me ❤️

- you deserve relationships that feel safe and actually are safe. Don’t settle.

- learn your queer history. they won’t teach us. they took our elders from us.

- Black LGBTQIA+* history IS Black History.

- we all need to be thankful to the house mothers and the ballroom scene and those who gave us what we have now, regardless of who you are.

- don’t call yourself a stud if you’re not BLACK. wit a capital B and at least one BLACK parent.

- not everyone is out. happiest of pride month to y’all. you’re still gang and we love you just as much. 💗

- our collective liberation lies in the fact that we are all tied to each other. if you’re down for the gays but not the theys, you’re not as decolonized as you think you are.

- shout out to fanfiction writers who have been single-handedly providing queer art/content/representation for years while the industry continues to make a mockery of us or intentionally leave us out. one thing we gonna do is help someone find their queer awakening, and get that story right. love us 🤪 go team

- your life means something. it’s important beyond comprehension. you look good. your ass is fat (if you want it to be). get the mullet as a lil treat.

- LGBTQIA+* people across the board have ALWAYS existed in literally every culture and every continent (and Antarctica counts if you count the cute lil gay penguins😌). Don’t let them tell you different. We are not a “mInOrItY”, we have been MINORITIZED. we are not small, we are great and mighty and have ALWAYS been here. And we always will. We exist in the future just as we have existed in the past. We stand on the shoulders of MASSIVE collective ancestors. If that’s not an indication to keep going, keep fighting, keep laughing, dancing, voguing, and keep showing up authentically - then I don’t know what is.

- it’s gonna be ok baby. pinkie promise.

[jesuis-melodrama]

My Favourite Reasons For Why the Great War Started

1. Revolutionary Justice in an Unequal Caste-System Society.

I adore the IDW comics, it's the second Transformers media I consumed after the franchised Michael Bay films, and let me tell you – I was not expecting all these heavy explorations into bot psyche, romance, societal injustice, and redemption. Really, it seriously surprised me, I never expected to see actual canonical romance in the Transformers universe, it always struck me as the type of medium to focus on action first.

So – thank you, James Roberts and Alex Milne.

There's so many characters and arcs I could talk about – Cyclonus and Tailgate and Whirl; Chromedome and Rewind; poor poor Shockwave; whatever's going on with Prowl; Starscream, Bumblebee, and Windblade attempting to scrape Cybertron back together; that one time Rodimus and Megatron's charisma was so awe-inspiring, it made personality parasites explode – but I want to focus on how the Great War began in IDW.

It's the first media to suggest Megatron not as a power-hungry tyrant, but formerly as a member of Cybertron's suppressed working class forced to labour due to the alt-mode he was born with. Sick of and unwilling to accept the subjugation imposed upon him and fellow mechs like him, Megatron rises from miner to gladiator who eventually becomes powerful enough to seize power as a revolutionary and then ascends to the image of the all-mighty Lord Megatron that is synonymous with his name.

Optimus, on the other hand, had somewhat humble beginnings as a strict but fair and righteous police captain named Orion Pax struggling to provide justice in a society deeply embedded with corruption.

Although both Megatron and Optimus sought to revolutionise Cybertron into a world where all bots are equal and uninhibited from potential and free will by their alt-modes, they had very different ideologies and motivations on how and why to reach this goal. Megatron, especially, loses his way and path eventually, and continued his slaughter not for the means to an end, but because he began to crave the "pleasure" from the act.

Optimus didn't escape unscathed from tragic ramifications either: the mantle of leadership as the war dragged on for thousands of millennia weighed heavily upon him, so much that his later psyche in the comics could be described as suicidal.

But whatever that infects these two old bots in the future, young Megatron and Optimus were, in some strange way, allies, out of mutual respect and acknowledgement of the other if nothing else.

The war was initiated and continued by them, because they both believed in a better Cybertron, and millions of years later, thousands of atrocities after, unspeakable acts of war crimes, the Great War ended with both of them remembering what they were fighting for in the first place.

IDW's concept that Megatron was a gladiator turned revolutionary and Orion Pax became Optimus Prime who was inspired by Megatron's words made its way to the Transformers: Prime animated series, allowing this universe's rendition of the two titans to be voiced by Peter Cullen and Frank Welker, the legends themselves.

2. Lord Prime and Lord High Protector

Whatever contentions (of the many) that may be had with Michael Bay's re-imagining of this iconic franchise; you've gotta admit: the designs were cool.

Bay gave us Megatron's ram-head helmet, the astonishing CGI transformations, and the adorable Bumblebee design that has since become a classic of the character.

And according to Chris McFeely's video on the Great War, apparently, Bay's Transformers is the first Transformers media to introduce the idea that Megatron and Optimus had personal pre-war relations, some intimate form of brotherhood and camaraderie, while other adaptations at this point only alluded to their connection as rival leaders who rose to power at roughly the same time.

Bay took it a step further; Megatron isn't simply an opportunistic warlord making a grab for power, he was once a legitimate ruler holding an equal throne besides Optimus.

That's right, Bay crafted the title of Lord High Protector, a Cybertronian ruler of high status with authority over military affairs, ruling in tandem with the Lord Prime, Optimus, who was in charge of more civilian and spiritual duties.

It's interesting, this idea, because it implies far more depth to Optimus and Megatron's history, they must have been ruling together for quite some time before Megatron fastened his greedy claws on the All Spark.

I, for one, am curious in a series that explores how they ruled Cybertron together and how exactly this fracture came to be.

3. Megatron Dunks on a Dock Worker for the Fun of It

The classics of the classics, the first Transformers show to place the universe on the map: the archetypal G1 cartoon series that featured wacky shenanigans such as battling dinosaurs on a remote island or Soundwave and his Cassettes dancing with teenagers at a local gymnasium party.

G1 followed a very traditional hero-vs-villain formula, inspired by the Cold War tension at the time of airing and writing; there was no personal connections or noble aspirations for an equal society – Megatron was simply a campy, formidable scoundrel who yearned for power and Optimus Prime was the honourable, paternal everyday hero who rose to be the leader of the force resisting him and his army (at this point, Prime wasn't even a title, it was just Optimus' last name!).

Optimus Prime still had a previous form of Orion Pax, a dock worker rather than a police officer or an archivist, and Megatron was once an admired figure of Orion's, whose parasocial adoration was disintegrated when Megatron blew up Orion's workplace, critically injuring him and girlfriend, Ariel (soon to be Elita-1), and de-activating best friend, Dion. From the ashes of destruction, reconstructed by Alpha Trion, Orion became the battle-masked, audial-finned, red and blue paragon of justice that shouldered the burden of command in the war against Megatron and his evil Deceptions.

[xiphiaarts]

Still solidifying the relationship between Starscream and Megatron for my au

I don't know the fine details of it yet, But I know I don't want to go the 'Starscream gets pimpslapped for every small mistake' route

I rather go for like the corrupt military official route, who may very well be sabotaging his own affiliation in order to have it's people turn against their leader, and elect him, the one who supposedly knew Megatron didn't have to steel for leadership all along, as new ruler (Also known as Starscream talking sweet in Megatron's face and talking shit about him when he isn't around.)

Soundwave and his cassettes are spared Starscream backstabbing musings, his loyalty to Megatron and the decepticon cause poses a threat to Starscreams plans

I also like to think Starscream wants to lead based off of the idea of being loved/feared by all, being seen as a revolutionary like Megatron, untouchable like him too, though he usually lacks the compassion to be the kind of leader Megatron started out as, the compassion Megatron has slowly but surely lost.

I also like to think another part of it is the idea of 'if I can just get x thing I'll be good enough' or 'if I can just get x thing I'll be happy', he's tunnel visioned onto ruling the decepticons as his object of happiness, he assumes the role comes with power, respect, and safety, but never considers factors like maximizing your troops survival or an end goal *if* the decepticons ever manage to truly trump the autobots.

He wants the power, but he has no righteous goal he wishes to see through, he has no guilt for those weaker than him because he was never fighting for them, only for the chance of being the one on the throne and calling the shots, to be the one wearing the crown

I can't imagine if they (the cons) win Starscream will be satisfied, there will always be a bigger fish, such leadership won't make him happy so there will always be another 'x thing' for him to pursue, it will never end unless he changes his goals entirely.

He isn't in the cons to make a difference, he's there to highjack what power and notoriety Megatron has achieved with his own two hands by soaring straight to the top with little effort besides his manipulation. He works hard but he works hard for his own interests and nothing more, he figures he's done being used and he has the right to use everyone else, like some twisted sense of vengeance

I like to think only after Starscream manages to kill off most of the decepticon ranks does Megatron's trust in him waver, even if he doesn't say anything to Starscreams face, he knows of the whisperings Starscream spreads about him (he's been told many a time to ensure the loyalty of his second in command by other cons, hes not nearly as sneaky as he thinks he is) But Megatron keeps him close to keep an eye on him, to keep him sharp in the face of fake friends, and to utilize what resourcefulness Starscream does posses.

This is why plans may be made or revised in the absence of Starscream, his second in command left out of the loop to make it more difficult for him to orchestrate decepticon failures. He knows of plan A, But not plan B Through Q, the backups Incase something interferes, autobot or traitor.

Though Megatron does bestow him with 'decepticon hospitality', the base layer of hostility all decepticons treat eachother with, he doesn't particularly aim his frustration at him, he more sees his disloyalty as a challenge, a way to keep his processor on its toes and to expect every bad thing.

His punishment may come in the forms of suicide missions, but the wonder that is Starscream always returns from them, bruised, beaten, maybe missing a few operatives assigned to him, maybe even dead. But he always returns

That's all for now, I'm still thinking about it, thanku for coming to my Ted talk

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

The realization that many "revolutionaries" are hopelessly addicted to the idea of the grand gesture/magical fix that does all the hard work for them because they're too self-righteous and too uncritical of their own Calvinist Christian roots (where this mentality comes from) to care about the messy nuances and complexities, or do the longer term work.

If there was gonna be a grand revolution it would have happened during the four years Trump was president. Now we’re doing it the hard way, and anyone who told you this would be easily fixed if only x is lying to you.

Really though I’m worried that so many of them are either unaware of activist burnout or think it won’t apply to them. Take it in cycles and remember that you aren’t saving the world alone. Your guilt will not fix anything.

[bbybnnuy]

dear, @whereserpentswalk

anarchists like you drive me insane. i saw you reblog that post with instructions for discord for russians. and let me tell you something.

idgaf if not all russians support the invasion of Ukraine. this won't bring my old childhood friend back. this won't rebuild Mariupol, my mother's hometown and many other Ukrainian cities wiped off the face of Earth by russians. this won't bring the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers and civilians back.

you are the type of person the propagandist documentary "russians at war" was made for. ignorant, self-righteous and easy to impress. you are the kind of leftist who is looking for the nuance, where everything is crystal fucking clear. Ukraine is invaded by russia. russia is an agressor. it is not only putin and russian government that wants to destroy Ukraine. russian soldiers were not held at a gunpoint and ordered to kill, rape and plunder Ukainian civilians. russian civilians have actively expressed their desire to kill Ukrainians.

also, if you're so anti-christian and anti-theist, why did you express support for an ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN nation that actively uses their religion as a tool of influence? isn't that what nazis did, according to you? not only did russian government use their perverted version of orthodox christianity as a tool of influence, but also to repress and persecute Ukrainian christian denominations, like greek catholicism for example. for an anti-theist, you seem pretty ignorant of the religion you oppose.

ignorance, doubt and misguided empathy are 3 main weapons at russia's disposal in their hybrid war against Ukraine. please educate yourself on the history of my home country and the current state it's in. please, start listening to Ukrainians. listen to their stories and and their pleas to west for more military support and less limitations for it's use. educate yourself on Ukrainian history, culture and society. don't believe russian lies.

if you refuse to open your mind to this, then you're doing russian government's job for free. and contribute to the current genocide in the middle of the fucking europe. yes, you can perform genocide on white people, actually. and not just them. but also many ethnic minority, like Crimean Tatars, whose persecution by russia continues till this very day.

i know that you blocked me, because i dared to question your preachings. you're ready to debate christians and anyone else opposing you, but as soon as a Ukrainian girl shows up in your notes, you cowardly block her, to "protect your mental health". admit it, you don't care about jewish people, Palestinians, queer or disabled people or even people with religious trauma. you only care about your image and impressing other anarchists with how "progressive" and "revolutionary" you are. i've already seen through your bullshit and it would take more to impress me.

sincerely,

bbybbnuy, a very tired Ukrainian girl

[sokkastyles]

Am I the only one who thinks Sokka doesn’t get enough heat for siding with Aang in The Southern raiders, Aang, who literally compares Katara’s righteous anger to Jet (who may I remind you, she hates) and starts talking about how she was you’re mother too, but you’re siding with a guy who basically demands that you’re sister forgives the man who KILLED HER!!!

That’s wild.

Yeah, I've talked about how Katara has ample reason to be angry at Sokka there, although I mostly focused on the friction that Kya's death caused between them because of Katara having to take up a motherly role, and how Sokka isn't always appreciative of that, even though he admits he benefits from it.

But you mentioned another point of contention between Katara and Sokka, and that's Jet.

I've also talked before about how reductive Aang is being by saying that Katara sounds like Jet, and how Aang is deliberately saying something that he knows will hurt Katara, but the fact that Sokka agrees in particular with the comparison Aang makes to Jet also is hurtful to Katara and trivializes her justified feelings of anger towards the man who murdered her mother.

A lot of people have pointed out how faulty the comparison is, and Katara's response is correct. Jet wanting to obliterate an entire village and looking for reasons to attack innocent people is very much NOT the same thing as Katara going after her mother's murderer.

But also, the comparison to Jet is insidious because it's a way of reminding Katara that her judgment can't be trusted. Whereas Katara did trust Jet, Sokka was against him from the beginning, and although it does turn out that Sokka is right about Jet, he also kinda reduces Katara's belief in Jet to being based on him being a hot bad boy, when in reality, it was Jet's revolutionary spirit that Katara was attracted to. Therefore, Katara's genuine desire for justice is reduced to female hormones. That's why the comparison to Jet is so reductive. Given how many times we see Katara call out Sokka for his sexism, it is not surprising at all that she gets angry at him here and feels like he doesn't understand her.

I also think Sokka was afraid that Katara would get hurt, both with Jet and when she went after Yon Rha, but Sokka's fears don't mean that Katara is being irrational and can't handle herself, and once again, I wish the episode had made room for them to reconcile instead of just having Sokka side with Aang. Like, maybe show some of Sokka's fear when Katara storms off, instead of having him make a comment about how wise Aang is. That comment, in particular, felt so off since we're shown that Aang's "wisdom" only makes the conflict worse.