#revolution or mutually assured destruction

[crooked-wasteland]

People who are shocked about the state of our country are individuals you should be wary of. For all the coverage around ICE deportations, Kamala Harris also ran on a platform of closing down US boarders. Obama and Biden both had extensive issues with immigration policies and the numbers of missing children from detention centers along the southern border have not decreased in the last 4 years.

Kamala Harris would not have threatened our nation's food supply, but that begs another question about what makes up the left in this nation. Being hostile towards immigrants only when they can no longer exploit them is not any better than what is happening right now. It is literally the platform Musk and MTG stand on. The Democrat establishment and the DNC are not any less fascist. They just put a rainbow flag on it.

[apas-95]

if you believe that correct theory leads to good outcomes and incorrect theory to bad outcomes

why didnt the USSR prevail? what were they missing?

to a certain degree the USSR was a victim of circumstance - being the first socialist state it was both navigating uncharted waters, as well as holding the attention of the entire bourgeois world - but it did also have a number of theoretical failings which exacerbated and induced issues. we say of stalin's administration that he was 70% correct and 30% incorrect, not that everything done was right! one of the greatest failings of the USSR was its handling of the national question, and its resulting commandism; an issue of the same type as the one that killed Che in Bolivia. obviously the domestic issue of revisionism overtaking the party was the ultimate cause of the downfall of the soviet union, but the cause of said revisionism was the objective situation that the USSR was in - the desperate attempts to undermine the non-aligned movement, the wrong notion of 'peaceful coexistence' the ussr promulgated, etc were all reactions to the fact that the USSR had, like it or not, locked itself into an irreversible nuclear standoff with the USA that it knew it could not actually follow through on. if you want to know what the ussr was missing, look to the state carrying on the torch. the PRC diverged significantly on the questions that destroyed the USSR, and it survived as a result. the USSR tried to divide the world between itself and the US, the PRC instead integrates itself into the entire world; the USSR tried to export revolution and build a dependent bloc, the PRC refuses to interfere in the self-development of other nations; the USSR established the principle of mutually assured destruction, and the PRC stated 'we are against it, but we are not afraid of it.'

[smytherines]

[This was supposed to be a joke post, but it turned into an essay on the Cold War and nuclear brinksmanship in Spies Are Forever. Sorry]

Once again thinking about Tatiana Slozhno-- who for all intents and purposes would be considered a rogue KGB agent working with the Americans-- unilaterally detonating a hydrogen bomb on an island in the Pacific ocean. The geopolitical implications would be off the fucking charts

Hydrogen bombs are hundreds of times more powerful than the standard atomic bomb. For comparison, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people died when the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (and hundreds of thousands died from radiation-related illnesses in the years following WWII). It killed everyone within a 1 mile radius of the blast

For a hydrogen bomb, the blast radius is more like 5 to 10 miles, depending on the yield. A 15 megaton yield (they range from 10 to 50) hydrogen bomb test performed by the US (code name Bravo) vaporized two entire islands, part of a third island, and left a 6,000 ft wide, 240ft deep crater in the fucking ocean. It was 1,000 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

Now clearly, in the show, this is not considered a big deal. Tatiana doesn't seem to be on the run, Cynthia says that relations with Russia are the best they've been in ages. But in the real world it would be absolute global pandemonium with the potential to escalate the Cold War into a full scale nuclear war

Just to give some context here-- one year after the 1961 portion of Spies, the Cuban Missile Crisis happens. Here's a very very condensed version: Cuba has a communist revolution, the USSR finally has a staging area for nukes that could easily hit the US and tries to bring nukes to Cuba on ships, there's a tense 13 day standoff between the US and USSR that very nearly results in WWIII and complete nuclear annihilation. Most historians consider this the height of the Cold War. This is the incident that led to the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction"

So imagine that a hydrogen bomb explodes in the Pacific ocean. There is no way to hide that after the fact, so both nuclear superpowers would know about it fairly quickly. In October of 1961 the Soviets detonated Tsar Bomba, a 50MT yield hydrogen bomb and the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested, and US intelligence knew about it well in advance. They had spy planes close enough to the detonation that the protective plating on the plane was damaged.

Assuming they are able to connect it to Tatiana (lots of questions about how she was able to send a rocket shoe from far enough away to not get incinerated but oh well), the US would see it as a hostile act from a Russian agent. The Russians would consider her a traitor working with the Americans. Relations between the two countries would most likely deteriorate, not improve.

And this is more of a tangent, but I also think this era of nuclear brinksmanship (both countries having their hand hovering over the button, so to speak) is potentially a big motivation for Owen. I think he is clearly making irrational, emotional choices post-fall, BUT I also think he is the sort of man who needs to believe his decisions are based in logic and pragmatism.

So what logical justification can Owen find? Well, there's the idea that mass surveillance is already happening, already escalating, that this is the way the world is headed and if Chimera wants to succeed they need to get out ahead of it.

But I think the initial buy-in, how Chimera gets Owen ideologically committed to their organization and plan, is by using this constant looming threat of nuclear annihilation. By saying "these two countries and their little spy games are going to turn the world to ash if we let them. We need one neutral, central power to hold all the cards if we want to survive as a species." I think that would be a very powerful argument to a man who was just left for dead by his own agency and his American partner, who is presumably severely injured in a Soviet prison. A man who has a keen interest in foreign policy.

Because one of many things I find fascinating about Owen Carvour is that his/Chimera's plan is actually pretty rational, especially in comparison to a Bond villain. The Bond universe version of Chimera is called Spectre, and their plans are absolutely batshit stuff like "blow up the moon," and 10 variations of "giant space laser to kill everybody." Shit that doesn't even seem like it would benefit the villains because it's so over the top.

Chimera's plan is vile, but not outlandish. It is essentially just taking an idea that is already in development for the global superpowers, and finishing it first so they have all the power. It's a plan grounded in real world events. A big news story in 2013-2014 was the National Security Agency's PRISM program, which revealed how absolutely massive the US surveillance state had become, how the US was essentially turning everybody into spies (they just weren't aware of it).

I do sometimes wonder if someone in TCB read Glenn Greenwald's book (the reporter who broke the story), because Chimera's plan feels very specific to that late Obama era of the surveillance state

Holy shit this got so long.

Anyways Spies Are Forever 2 should follow Tatiana as she goes on the run to avoid trial at The Hague (I'm joking please don't kill me)

[hippie-spirits-bard]

Fucking hell Israel. You know you are in deep shit when you are making a terrorist regime look good. Not to mention the 'rally under the flag effect'. Iran was starting to fail, people were beyond fed up but now people have a common enemy together with their oppressive government so less chance of a revolution. Congratulations Israel you just expanded the lifespan of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas by at least 10 years. Let's hope Russia hasn't given Iran nukes and Bibi isn't trigger happy because there is nothing holding either of this idiots from nuking each other. That whole 'mutually assured destruction' does not apply to Israel nor Iran. And while Bibi and his friends and the clerics of Iran will sit happily in bunkers people will burn.

[originalleftist]

Something to remember about anti-Israel protests is that they are, quite frankly, an exercise in futility.

I'm not talking here about any protests against the actions of the Israeli government, but protests specifically supporting the destruction of Israel, or targeting the Jewish people.

They will never achieve their maximalist goals of totally destroying Israel, much less the dreams some Islamists have of some kind of global caliphate, or that some of their Western supporters have of some sort of worldwide violent anarchist/socialist revolution.

Leave aside what you think SHOULD happen (and if you think the above goals should happen, don't you dare claim to be "pro-peace" or "anti-genocide"), but just look at what IS.

Israel has nukes. Like every other nation that has nukes, those nukes exist as a deterrence against an attack that would destroy the nation state, a threat of final retaliation. Mutually Assured Destruction.

As long as Israel has those nukes, the most the maximalists could ever achieve is for Iran to get nuclear weapons and use them on Israel, and then get nuked by Israel in return (and no, you can't take all a country's nukes out reliably in a first strike, this is literally why nuclear submarines exist), or for a coalition of anti-Israel states to attack Israel conventionally, win (which depends on the US not intervening), and then get nuked by Israel. Probably shortly followed by the rest of the world, once the taboo on nuclear first use is broken in a post-Cold War World.

Now, I don't doubt that many so-called "pro-Palestine" activists around the world would be happy to trade every life in the Levant or the larger Middle East, including all of the Palestinians, if it meant wiping out the Jews "Zionists". But that's because their real motive is Anti-semitism (and general hated of the "Western establishment"), not being pro-Palestine. I am admittedly just some random white guy from the West myself, so I can't speak for anyone actually living there or part of those communities, but it seems to me that if you were "pro-Palestine", you'd want Palestine to be free and alive, not a burned out wasteland.

And if that's what you want, then I don't see how you get there except by working with reformers in Israel to get a peaceful solution that is acceptable to both peoples, however impossible that may currently seem.

Also note that the above does not mean that Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity. Nukes are great as a deterrent (albeit with a risk of eventual escalation or accidental launch), but they are shit for making other countries do what you want, because the best use for them is to make sure they never get used. Israel is a small nation, in terms of geography, resources, and people. Even in wealth its really only middle of the road (Wikipedia lists Israel as having only the 28th largest GDP, right between Austria and the United Arab Emirates). It cannot defeat every neighbouring country by force, it cannot defeat Iran by force, except by nuking it (see above for why nuclear first use is a terrible idea for everyone), and it's frankly struggling just to beat Hamas in Gaza. Israel has a nuclear deterrent against its own destruction, but it relies on the support of other nations, primarily the US, to avoid ever reaching the point where it has no options left but to use those nukes.

Again, this is not a question of what would be the case in an ideal world, but of what currently is, and is likely to be the case for at least the near future.

And if your politics aren't based in reality, what's the fucking point?

[redjennies]

me, talking to my friends from the mutual aid collective: yeah, obviously revolution begins not in destruction, but in gardens. destroying the exploitative system we live under is necessary, of course, and effective organizing especially by those who most need it will inevitably bring down state violence and we should be prepared for that in order to protect each other, but anarchism is not about violence. it is about building a community outside of hierarchies where everything is for all, and yes, fighting for it both in defense and through the very act of creation. still, it pisses me off so much that so-called leftists on Twitter were so comfortable making guillotine jokes to union organizers instead of learning absolutely anything that helps and applying it to their lives. like god, equating anarchism with just throwing bombs and nothing else is, counter-productively, exactly what the State wants you to believe anarchism is.

me, possessed by the spirit of Louis Lingg the second i see the basic principles of anarchism smeared by a useless left-of-lib: [...] It is not murder, however, of which you have convicted me. The judge has stated that much only this morning in his resume of the case, and Grinnell has repeatedly asserted that we were being tried not for murder, but for anarchy, so the condemnation is—that I am an anarchist!

What is anarchy? This is a subject which my comrades have explained with sufficient clearness, and it is unnecessary for me to go over it again. They have told you plainly enough what our aims are. The state’s attorney, however, has not given you that information. He has merely criticized and condemned, not the doctrines of anarchy, but our methods of giving them practical effect, and even here he has maintained a discreet silence as to the fact that those methods were forced upon us by the brutality of the police. Grinnell’s own proffered remedy for our grievances is the ballot and combination of trades unions, and Ingham has even avowed the desirability of a six-hour movement! But the fact is, that at every attempt to wield the ballot, at every endeavor to combine the efforts of workingmen, you have displayed the brutal violence of the police club, and this is why I have recommended rude force, to combat the ruder force of the police. [...]

While I, as I have stated above, believe in force for the sake of winning for myself and fellow-workmen a livelihood such as men ought to have, Grinnell, on the other hand, through his police and other rogues, has suborned perjury in order to murder seven men, of whom I am one. Grinnell had the pitiful courage here in the courtroom, where I could not defend myself, to call me a coward! The scoundrel! A fellow who has leagued himself with a parcel of base, hireling knaves, to bring me to the gallows. Why? For no earthly reason save a contemptible selfishness — a desire to 'rise in the world“ — to ”make money," forsooth.

This wretch — who, by means of the perjuries of other wretches is going to murder seven men — is the fellow who calls me “coward”! And yet you blame me for despising such “defenders of the law” such unspeakable hypocrites! Anarchy means no domination or authority of one man over another, yet you call that “disorder.” A system which advocates no such “order” as shall require the services of rogues and thieves to defend it you call “disorder.” [...]

I tell you frankly and openly, I am for force. I have already told Captain Schaack, “if they use cannons against us, we shall use dynamite against them.” I repeat that I am the enemy of the “order” of today, and I repeat that, with all my powers, so long as breath remains in me, I shall combat it. [...] You laugh! Perhaps you think, “you’ll throw no more bombs”; but let me assure you I die happy on the gallows, so confident am I that the hundreds and thousands to whom I have spoken will remember my words; and when you shall have hanged us, then — mark my words — they will do the bombthrowing! In this hope do I say to you: I despise you. I despise your order, your laws, your force-propped authority. Hang me for it! [x]

[kustas]

i know it's not like. your thing. but i figure we were all 13 once. do you have any thoughts on naruto? me and a friend of mine often bemoan how rich that story is in threads that are left completely unexplored in favor of your average shonen nonsense. like, for a story centered around child soldiers and mutually assured destruction, the story really isn't very interested in child soldiers nor the magical nukes

you're wrong actually for the first part! while i did get to read a bit of naruto as a preteen it was only the first volumes - my most important naruto experience was reading the full series about three years ago as a grown adult. and while i have a lot to criticize about it it's a case where i absolutely get the appeal. naruto is this popular for a reason. it's engaging, fun, and imo the artwork is amazing. an iconic manga/anime! there's so many cool elements from that manga and it's such a good shonen doing shonen things, taking you on a big scale adventure with a bunch of guys in a fantasy land with good concepts.

naruto falls apart for many different reasons too and the ones you mention consist of a sort of fatal flaw. the thing with these shonen anime with large scale warfare and 12 yo protagonists is you have to pick between two sides - taking the matter of their involvement in the conflict and its implications seriously (à la HxH) or not giving a shit about the logic of it all and just being there for fun (à la Soul Eater). naruto is constantly switching between the two, ass between two chairs as would say my mother, and this lack of commitment does a huge disservice to the writing.

naruto for starters, the guy not the series, is a very engaging character. he's an attention hogging menace of a kid who's willing to be a little shit if it means getting the spotlight, later revealed to be because no one cares for him. kids hate him for being weird and unpleasant and adults hate him for being a living reminder of a wartime disaster that gave their generation widespread ninja PTSD. this is not only a great concept but something I believe was the recipe to success for the character because a lot of the anime target audience would see themselves in that lonely weird kid. that touching backstory and layers to his personality go absolutely nowhere very quickly... because it's not exactly compatible with fun ninja school fighting shenanigans. or it could be but kishimoto is not a good writer.

many characters from naruto have similarly interesting backgrounds or quirks who go absolutely nowhere. there's multiple reasons for this but it gets especially annoying when the story switches back to dead serious So Deep monologuing about its serious topics, mostly trauma, and doesn't satisfyingly explore any of the issues. this is for characters but behind these character decisions there is worldbuilding and this is where i believe one of the big flaws of the series shines through: i think what it went for cannot be solved satisfyingly because the author's politics fucking suck.

the child soldiers, nukes and mutually assured destruction are pointed to as bad things, and their origin is explained, but their resolution must go through the magical mind filter of kishimoto which has a few rules set to it. as an adult who's not very involved into the interpersonal drama of the characters or the power scaling magic attacks you start noticing these patterns. people's actions have consequences, but a bad character's badness can be forgiven if they apologize nicely. nations can be cruel and start wars but they cannot be dismantled. revolution isn't the solution, coming to an agreement is. there's more too ofc. characters who's thoughts break those rules mean they are acting badly. this means that if breaking those rules is the solution to a problem it can't be solved normally and you get weird or unsatisfying endings to plot threads.

speaking of plot threads - boy, there's too many. I'm no fan of big series so that's a biais, but naruto has a cast of hundreds and present way too many locations and stories to satisfyingly deal with them. ask someone their top naruto characters and if you're like me who's only casually a fan you'll have to google two of them because you simply don't remember the guy. it's fine to not elaborate on your side plots but the main ones are just not appealing enough to carry it for me, as most of them either go for ridiculous amounts of powerscaling, abort their conclusion, or both.

so you end up with small moments, mini arcs or side characters who fascinate you drowned in a sea of war stories that don't want go talk about war too much and filler moments with an endless cast you might not give a shit about. there's no real overarching thread or "curve" to the intensity of the story. it's a writing that takes itself too seriously but when given the spotlight fails to elaborate.

second most iconic ninja in chief sasuke uchiha also represents this inequality well. he starts off as a tropey rival, enjoyable role for what he is in a juvenile pure entertainment sort of way. the story builds up on his tragic background, making you take him much more seriously as he gets roped in a weird kidnapping political mess, as a child. when you're already sat down for this more mature story he just fucking vanishes to come back here and there giving out villain speeches and doing sparse actions too far apart to leave your interest on. at this point his personality is unclear. it slowly starts clearing up and he becomes interesting again as his motivations are explained and you start getting answers to what caused his backstory in the first place. with these answers come a side serving of uncomfortable political biais from the author. and when you get to know all of his motivations explained it's to portray him as a bad guy who's making sense but guys he's still bad! and then fights happen with big anime magic and he agrees with the main character and marries trope girl from arc one. no consistency in highs or lows or even story presence which makes him hard to be enjoyed as a character...

i don't really have a good way to conclude this. tbh kishimoto neither which is why he threw aliens in and now sasuke is fighting dinosaurs

[ebooklibrary]

The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin

Genre: Science Fiction, Fantasy, Aliens

The Three-Body Problem

Set against the backdrop of China's Cultural Revolution, a secret military project sends signals into space to establish contact with aliens. An alien civilization on the brink of destruction captures the signal and plans to invade Earth. Meanwhile, on Earth, different camps start forming, planning to either welcome the superior beings and help them take over a world seen as corrupt, or to fight against the invasion.

The Dark Forest

This is the second novel in "Remembrance of Earth’s Past", the near-future trilogy written by China's multiple-award-winning science fiction author, Cixin Liu. In The Dark Forest, Earth is reeling from the revelation of a coming alien invasion — four centuries in the future. The aliens' human collaborators have been defeated but the presence of the sophons, the subatomic particles that allow Trisolaris instant access to all human information, means that Earth's defense plans are exposed to the enemy. Only the human mind remains a secret. This is the motivation for the Wallfacer Project, a daring plan that grants four men enormous resources to design secret strategies hidden through deceit and misdirection from Earth and Trisolaris alike. Three of the Wallfacers are influential statesmen and scientists but the fourth is a total unknown. Luo Ji, an unambitious Chinese astronomer and sociologist, is baffled by his new status. All he knows is that he's the one Wallfacer that Trisolaris wants dead.

Death's End

Now this epic trilogy concludes with Death's End. Half a century after the Doomsday Battle, the uneasy balance of Dark Forest Deterrence keeps the Trisolaran invaders at bay. Earth enjoys unprecedented prosperity due to the infusion of Trisolaran knowledge. With human science advancing daily and the Trisolarans adopting Earth culture, it seems that the two civilizations will soon be able to co-exist peacefully as equals without the terrible threat of mutually assured annihilation. But the peace has also made humanity complacent.

Cheng Xin, an aerospace engineer from the early 21st century, awakens from hibernation in this new age. She brings with her knowledge of a long-forgotten program dating from the beginning of the Trisolar Crisis, and her very presence may upset the delicate balance between two worlds. Will humanity reach for the stars or die in its cradle?

The Redemption Of Time

In the midst of an interstellar war, Yun Tianming found himself on the front lines. Riddled with cancer, he chose to end his life, only to find himself flash frozen and launched into space where the Trisolaran First Fleet awaited. Captured and tortured beyond endurance for decades, Yun eventually succumbed to helping the aliens subjugate humanity in order to save Earth from complete destruction.

Granted a healthy clone body by the Trisolarans, Yun has spent his very long life in exile as a traitor to the human race. Nearing the end of his existence at last, he suddenly receives another reprieve―and another regeneration. A consciousness calling itself The Spirit has recruited him to wage battle against an entity that threatens the existence of the entire universe. But Yun refuses to be a pawn again and makes his own plans to save humanity’s future…

EPUB link

[darkmaga-returns]

When Thomas Kuhn released his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, it riled a lot of people. Mostly those who were wedded to the old way of looking at things, an Old Paradigm, and couldn’t look at data in any other way, which prevented them from seeing anything they weren’t already looking for.

This causes problems when the Old Paradigm doesn’t adequately answer new questions posed by outsiders. Eventually, there comes a time when the Old Paradigm still rules, nominally, but it has lost its ability to sustain belief. At the same time, the nascent, emerging New Paradigm is not fully visible to all, and thus it too lacks a public united in belief. Thus, this period, this interregnum, produces a vacuum of power.

This vacuum, when it revolves around the scientific nature and conduct of war, is a very dangerous thing. Those times can produce chaotic and even deadly results. Think of August, 1945. The events of that month have ruled the scientific-military world for the past 80 years. The ironclad rules that emerged from that time (e.g. Mutual Assured Destruction) have shaped everything in international relations since that time. But that Old Paradigm has been fading from view. At least, to those who have been looking at it closely. It is evident, at least to me that a New Paradigm is emerging.

And in fact, that moment has already come. The new paradigm has finally emerged. Not that it wasn’t already here. But it has now been revealed to a global viewership. The question is, has anyone near the Western Big Red Button noticed this changing of the guard? A guy named Vlad has.

Let’s say you find yourself scheduled for a gunfight. Better have three things available. First, of course, a gun. Loaded, preferably. Second, a faster hand. Third, truer aim. Now let’s examine the state of those involved.

[cagenerals]

The Cold War: A Journey to a Peaceful Conclusion by AF

The Cold War, a period of intense geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, is often remembered for the fear and apprehension it generated worldwide. Lasting from the end of World War II to the early 1990s, the Cold War had the potential to erupt into a devastating global conflict. However, against all odds, it ended peacefully.

One of the primary reasons the Cold War ended peacefully was the pursuit of diplomatic initiatives by both sides. The policy of détente, which emerged in the late 1960s, aimed to reduce tensions and establish a more cooperative relationship between the superpowers. Through arms control treaties such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the United States and the Soviet Union sought to mitigate the arms race and establish a framework for strategic stability. These agreements demonstrated a willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiate peaceful solutions, gradually reducing the risk of an all-out war.

Bilateral summits played a crucial role in fostering understanding and trust between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union. Meetings such as the Geneva Summit (1985), the Reykjavik Summit (1986), and the Washington Summit (1987) provided platforms for open discussions and negotiations. The personal rapport between key figures like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev helped to break down barriers and dispel mutual suspicions. These summits resulted in significant agreements, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, further contributing to the peaceful resolution of the Cold War.

Additionally, diplomatic back-channels played a vital role in establishing informal lines of communication and building trust between the superpowers. Secret negotiations, facilitated by intermediaries, allowed for more flexible and discreet discussions that were often not possible through official channels. These back-channels, such as the meetings between KGB head Vadim Bakatin and CIA director William Webster, enabled confidential exchanges of information and played a pivotal role in de-escalating tensions.

The dynamics of the global landscape during the Cold War underwent significant transformations, contributing to the peaceful conclusion. Economic interdependence emerged as a powerful force, bringing the United States and the Soviet Union closer through shared economic interests. The rise of globalization and the recognition of the benefits of economic cooperation led to a realization that armed conflict would be detrimental to both sides. This interdependence incentivized peaceful relations and motivated leaders to prioritize dialogue over confrontation.

The information revolution, characterized by advancements in communication technology, played a crucial role in shaping the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War. The rapid dissemination of information and ideas across borders facilitated greater understanding and awareness of the consequences of a potential conflict. People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were able to witness firsthand the devastating impacts of wars, prompting a shared desire for peace and stability.

Nuclear deterrence, a doctrine based on mutual assured destruction, served as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. The recognition that a nuclear conflict would result in the annihilation of both superpowers and potentially the world at large created a sense of caution and restraint. The fear of mutually assured destruction helped prevent the escalation of conflicts into direct confrontations and provided a strong incentive for peaceful resolutions.

Proxy Wars, which were prevalent during the Cold War, also played a role in ending the conflict peacefully. The superpowers realized that their indirect involvement in conflicts across the globe not only perpetuated violence but also hindered their own interests. Proxy wars, such as the Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan war, were a stain on history.

 War showcased the futility of pursuing ideological battles through military interventions. The rising costs in terms of human lives, economic resources, and international reputation prompted a reevaluation of strategies and a shift towards seeking peaceful resolutions.

The leadership of key figures during the Cold War played a pivotal role in the peaceful conclusion of the conflict. Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms, known as glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), aimed to modernize the Soviet Union and improve relations with the West. Gorbachev's bold vision for reform and his commitment to diplomacy set the stage for a peaceful resolution. Similarly, Ronald Reagan's pragmatic approach emphasized engagement rather than confrontation, leading to improved relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The personal rapport between these leaders, characterized by mutual respect and a shared desire for peace, paved the way for diplomatic breakthroughs.

Other leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher, George H.W. Bush, and Helmut Kohl, also played important roles in the peaceful resolution of the Cold War. Thatcher's strong alliance with Reagan provided a consistent and unified Western front, while Bush's cautious diplomacy during the collapse of the Soviet Union helped to prevent a chaotic transition. Kohl's steadfast support for German reunification and his commitment to European integration fostered stability and cooperation in the post-Cold War era.

The peaceful conclusion of the Cold War stands as an extraordinary achievement in human history. Diplomatic initiatives, changing global dynamics, and the leadership of key figures all played integral roles in averting a catastrophic global conflict. The pursuit of dialogue and negotiations, facilitated by agreements, summits, and diplomatic back channels, created an environment of understanding and trust. The changing global dynamics, driven by economic interdependence, the information revolution, nuclear deterrence, and the futility of proxy wars, all contributed to a shared realization of the benefits of peace. The leadership of figures like Gorbachev, Reagan, and other key leaders provided the necessary vision, pragmatism, and collaboration required for a peaceful resolution.

Understanding the factors that led to the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War serves as a valuable lesson for future generations and global conflicts. The power of diplomacy, the importance of leadership, the necessity of global cooperation, and the imperative of nuclear disarmament are all valuable takeaways. By embracing these lessons, humanity can strive to resolve conflicts peacefully and create a more harmonious world for future generations.

[the-psudo]

First Draft: Russia, Ukraine, and Rumors of War

What's happening with Russia and Crimea?

Short answer: Putin wants everyone scared enough to do whatever he asks.

The long answer comes in 5 parts:

Russia

Crimea

Ukraine

Germany & the United States

Putin

RUSSIA

A few cultural traits or principles have remained true in Russia for centuries, regardless of changes to its form of government:

They believe they are the rightful heirs of Ancient Rome. Rome conquered the Mediterranean by finding paranoid reasons to believe that neighboring countries were about to attack, and then preemptively but defensively attacked them first, thereby conquering the world defensively.

Russia believes it is their moral obligation to protect ethnically Russian populations anywhere in the world, and especailly in neighboring countries. (This is often their reason for their preemptive defensive wars.)

They don't trust a united Europe, like the EU and NATO represent today. They genuinely think a united Europe will inevitably invade them and fight deep into Russian territory before eventually being destroyed by Russian winters. Like how Napoleon did after the French Revolution, and like the Austro-German Alliance did in World War 1, and like Hitler did in World War 2. The USA even invaded Russia during its Bolshevik Revolution. Nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction are probably why that pattern stopped since then, but Russia hasn't forgiven or forgotten.

In addition to that, there are some current, modern factors that affect how its national character expresses itself.

Russia still has about 45% of the world's supply of nuclear weapons (4,000 or so), and they're old and in bad repair. It would be almost convenient to use some of them, but it might expose that most of them don't work anymore and in their view that'd be tantamount to suicide to expose that weakness. They almost certainly won't use their nukes, but 99% certainty isn't comforting.

Russia's economy is heavily dependent on the export of fuels and energy products these days (63% of total exports, with crude oil and natural gas accounting for 43 of those percentage points).

Putin's political agenda has two points: 1) to restore Russian power, and 2) to convince the Russian people that all democracies are pretty authoritarian and corrupt, so they shouldn't bother to complain about Russia's corrupt authoritarianism.

That's Russia today.

CRIMEA

Crimea is a peninsula sticking south out of Ukraine into the Black Sea the way Florida sticks south into the Caribbean.

Russia (under the Tsar) first conquered the Crimean Khanate in 1783, ran it as a Russian province for centuries, then (as the Soviet Union) added it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921. Ukraine declared independence in 1991, taking advantage of Soviet weakness during an attempted coup d'etat in Moscow. When Ukraine elected corrupt oligarch billionaire and pro-NATO President Petro Poroshenko, replacing corrupt pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Putin took decisive action to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the EU. He declared Poroshenko's government to be a modern Nazi party, a theory based on delusions and string, and sent Russian troops disguised as pro-Russian locals to hold a popular referendum on whether Crimeans wanted to join Russia or get shot where they stood. 96.77% of respondents voted to join Russia (local community activists put the real number at about 20%), and the international community labeled the entire Crimea adventure "the Russian annexation of Crimea." Russia disputes this characterization the way Trump denies the 2020 US election results.

Torture and other human rights abuses of hundreds have characterized the Russian occupation of Crimea, but most Crimeans keep their head down and Russia treats that compliant set like citizens with rights. Selective application of human rights is one of the hallmarks of tyranny.

Russia also invaded eastern Ukraine, justifying themselves with the argument that the far east was mostly Russian, mostly pro-Moscow, and the imaginary Nazis just elected would otherwise have killed them off. Poroshenko, bloated plutocrat that he was, still managed to arrange an impressively effective resistance to Russian aggression in the east, but that took all his forces. All he could do about Crimea was dam up the North Crimean Canal that supplies Crimea most of their drinking water. Crimea's agriculture was destroyed, and the population is chronically short of drinking water. Russia spent a ton of money trying to build wells and things, but it's not really working.

Putin has to get Ukraine to open up that canal.

UKRAINE

Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe, similar to how the Great Plains states feed America. Ukraine and Russia have been parts of the same country a lot in recent centuries, and citizens of both countries tend to have a lot of family in the other and a lot of mutual loyalty. War between them is a war between brothers.

In the mid-1600s, a war against Poland was going poorly, so Ukraine called in Russian help. They ended up split between Poland and Russia, with the exact border bouncing around for a few centuries but favoring Russia. They also oscillated between relative independence and heavy-handed rule by Russia. Ukrainians fought on both sides of World War 1, but about 14 times as many on the Russian side. Ukraine was one of the founding members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1921, and the centralized management of agriculture quickly led to widespread crop failures in Ukraine and tens of millions of people starving to death across the Soviet Union. In 2010, the Ukrainian Parliament declared this mass starvation to be a genocide, but scholars are divided on whether that's technically true.

When World War 2 came around, Russia's alliance with the Nazis included uniting the Polish part of Ukraine with the Russian part for the first time. But when the Nazis (predictably) betrayed their alliance with the Russians, much of the fighting took place in Ukraine, including the famous resistance of the Battle of Kyiv (or Kiev). Caught between two dictatorships, about 6 million Ukrainians died, about 40% of the USSR's total causalities. After the war, the Soviet Union invested heavily into Ukraine, and it quickly developed into a major European industrial center, and many leading Soviet citizens came from Ukraine.

Ukraine developed a major energy and energy transportation sector, made infamous by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, killing 56 people directly and an estimated 4,000 due to increased cancer rates. Mostly safe today, the site has become somewhat of a tourist attraction.

A unity and independence movement arose in 1990, and when an attempted coup distracted Moscow in 1991, Ukraine declared its independence. Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear arsenal, the 3rd largest in the world, and ceased to be a nuclear power in exchange for security assurances. The collapse of the Soviet Union hit all of the component republics with a severe economic disaster as the economy adjusted from centralization to something more like crony capitalism, with Ukraine hit with a deeper economic depression than most. After a particularly corrupt election in 2004, the people arose in the peaceful Orange Revolution seeking freer elections and spreading the economic benefits of the energy industry away from the oligarchs and toward social safety nets and infrastructure projects. When President Viktor Yanukovych reversed national policy, pushing away from Europe and toward Russia, another wave of anti-corruption and anti-Yanukovych protests known as Euromaidan broke out. Yanukovych reacted by banning protests, and the protesters reacted to that by getting violent; 86 died, 100 went missing, and an estimated 15,000 were injured. Yanukovych signed a compromise that included freer elections, and the elections chose pro-NATO President Petro Poroshenko.

Putin accused this populist movement of being as bad as Nazis, and used the imaginary danger to ethnic Russians as an excuse to invade eastern Ukraine and annex Crimea. (Protests gone violent seeking democracy and justice portrayed as rising tyranny... why does that rhetoric sound familiar? Oh, because that's exactly the same rhetoric in the USA about 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. It's almost as if the same sources are telling the same lies in Ukraine and the USA, almost as if Russia is using the same lies in both countries to deepen national disunion.)

Before and after Putin's 2014-6 campaign of hostility in Ukraine, pipelines through Ukraine continued to deliver Russian natural gas to German customers for a transport fee. This was a huge economic benefit to Ukraine, and Russia hoped to evade those charges. To that end, they built the Nord Stream 1 pipeline through the Baltic Sea to Germany (now open) and the Nord Stream 2 to Germany's border (Germany refuses to allow the construction to continue onto their soil, because it gives Russia too much money and power). Natural gas transport through Ukraine has dropped to about a quarter of what it once was, dousing the Ukrainian economy. This pressures Germany to buy Russian natural gas through the Nord Stream pipelines, where more of the money goes to Russia, rather than through Ukraine, where Ukraine gets transportation fees.

In the Ukrainian election of 2019, Poroshenko was beaten by Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his populist, pro-NATO, anti-corruption platform with over 73% of the vote. Zelenskyy represents a move from oligarch-headed crony capitalism towards genuine representative democracy. Though he is praised for his handling of Russian and American meddling in his country (remember Trump's phone call to him?) and for his handling of the COVID pandmeic, his critics generally complain about his not doing enough to shed Ukraine's authoritarian past.

Russia wants to avoid having to pay Ukraine's transport fees when it sells natural gas to Germany, so that Ukraine's economy and international sanctions against Russia will be weakened.

GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES

Germany's entire political system and governing philosophy is based on never again resembling Nazi Germany to even the least degree.

Germany wants to move to 100% renewable sources of electricity, but about a third of their energy comes from natural gas and about 16% from nuclear. They're trying to cut their dependence on these thermal energy sources, while investing tremendously in solar and wind energy. In the meantime, though, they're importing a lot of natural gas from all over. About 10% of their total energy consumption is Russian natural gas specifically. There's far more capacity for Russian natural gas to be imported through Ukraine, but with war and rumor of war blocking the use of Ukraine's pipelines, Germany is actually getting more Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 1 now than through Ukraine.

Then-Prime Minister Angela Merkel encouraged the importation of more Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 1 and 2 as recently as summer of 2021. But her center-right coalition was voted out of office and replaced her with Olaf Scholz of the most left-wing party in the left-wing coalition that formed Germany's new government. He opposes Nord Stream 2, fossil fuels generally, Russia's escalation of tensions in particular, and anything that smacks of war most of all.

Since the fall of the Nazi Party, Germany never wavers on its anti-war stance. To that end, they've refused any hint of willingness to defend Ukraine if Russia attacks and even refuses to let other nations use German-made military equipment to defend Ukraine. The have dragged their feet about Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO and the EU, in hopes of preventing tensions from escalating by preventing Ukraine form joining. But tensions have escalated anyway. Germany is disgusted with Russia's tactics of disinformation and provocation, and has declared intention to stop importing Russian natural gas entirely if they invade Ukraine. This would mean paying a LOT more money to keep Germans warm this winter, but most Germans across the ideological spectrum consider that a small price to pay to prevent war.

Then there's the United States. The United States led NATO in laying the sanctions smackdown on Russia in the aftermath of the 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine. Neoconservative Republicans wanted Obama to take a stronger stand against Russia, perhaps with some bombings or military assistance to Ukraine, but paleoconservatives wanted to stay out of any foreign conflict. When Obama did take a strong stance against Russia, the paleoconservative position became the party's dominant position. Donald Trump took special glee in his 2016 campaign calling Obama a warmonger and making excuses for Putin's Russia.

After the Trump Campaign's cooperation with Russians who hacked the 2020 election fell technically short of the US criminal law definition of conspiracy, Trump was adaptable -- some would say erratic -- about US foreign policy towards Russia. He would strengthen and weaken sanctions without obvious pattern, met with Putin at times openly and other times in secret, and when Congress passed a new sanctions bill against Russia (and other countries) Trump simply refused to enforce the Russian sanctions.

The Trump Administration also dragged their feet in defending the interest of any countries that sought American help against Russia, including Ukraine. The most famous example of this is Trump's call to the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in which he ostensibly demanded a political assassination of Joe Biden in exchange for actually giving Ukraine the military aid that Congress had already voted to give them. This was bribery (specifically, soliciation of a bribe) under US criminal law and the US Constitutional description of what crimes justify conviction on impeachment of a President. But, in a rejection of rule of law, most Senate Republicans ignored the evidence and worked directly with Trump's defense lawyers in order to thwart the impeachment trial. Trump was impeached by the House, but escaped conviction in the Senate, for his role in undermining Ukraine's defense against Russian meddling for his own personal benefit.

Trump and German PM Angela Merkel found a rare point of common ground in their mutual support for Nord Stream 2. But when they both lost elections in 2020, the dream of Russia circumventing Ukraine to sell natural gas directly to Germany died. In April 2020, in response to the economic impacts of the COVID pandemic, Trump brokered an international agreement with 20 countries including OPEC, Russia, and Mexico to cut global oil production by 9.7 million barrels/day (3.1 million B/D of it in the USA) and slowly reintroduce oil production back into the economy; half by 2022, and the other half to be negotiated based on circumstances in 2022. This deal or one substancially like it was absolutely necessary to prevent adding an global oil crisis to the already tumultous first pandemic year, but as a side effect ensured US and global oil and gasoline prices would stay high for years after lockdowns ended and oil demand returned. Russia heavily favored cutting oil production, since the oil company profits enabled Russia to improve their economy without despite the economic sanctions they operated under, and Trump did nothing to oppose Moscow's call for as large a cut as possible.

PUTIN

Summarizing all this, Putin has at least 4 good motives, solidly based on Russia's national interest, to heighten tensions with Ukraine. And history demonstrates that he will lie, cheat, steal, and commit acts of war in order to achieve his ends.

The very existence of tensions between Ukraine and Russia has increased profit margins on Russian oil and natural gas exports, helping Russia's economy and helping them circumvent international economic sanctions.

Putin can pressure Ukraine to release fresh water into Crimea, implying that they accept the validity of the annexation and making it easier for Russia to manage Crimea.

He can pressure Germany to accept natural gas through Nord Stream 2, either by physically destroying the Ukrainian alternative pipeline or as a German concession in negotiations to prevent war. This would hurt Ukraine's economy, benefit Russia's, and would make Russia even more impervious to international sanctions.

He can test the resolve of the USA, NATO, and the EU (collectively, "The West"), and take for Russia whatever they will allow Russia to take. This fulfills his political promise to restore traditional Russian power on the global stage by traditional Russian means.

More speculatively, he might be able to annex more of Ukraine. Traditionally, Russia doesn't feel complete as a nation without Kiyv and Moscow residing within the same national borders. Think of it as Russia's equivalent to the Manifest Destiny cultural myth.

Interestingly, he can accomplish all of these goals (except annexing Ukraine) without war. All he has to do is bring the West to the negotiating table and get them to concede these points. But, if negotiations fail, he can go to war to try to take these concessions by force. This puts him in a strong negotiating position. Russian people generally think that Putin would never be crazy enough to fight their family in Ukraine, but is just trying to bluff the West into greater concessions. They're probably right about that. That doesn't imply that it will fail.

[[ TODO: integrate bibliography from external file ]]

[dreamsclock]

IM SO SORRY TO CLOG YOUR ASKS EVEN FURTHER BUT i just saw this post and im so damn sad :( (link is safe, it leads to a post by about c!dream making a little grave for c!wilbur)

like;; oh my god.. he Would mourn wilbur but in a bittersweet way, if that makes sense?? like "you caused so much trouble and everyone hates me because of you, but at the same time no one respected your death so i guess i'll do it" like hhghbnnh oh my god,,,, :(( sorry i just rly wanted to share this with someone

i had to write this, i’m obsessed with this idea :’) i love the og post !!

warnings: death, grief, mourning, unhealthy relationships, mutually assured destruction duo

It’s midnight by the time he finishes building Wilbur’s grave. Dream flops back on the ground beside the grave, exhales a raw, jagged breath that says a lot more than he could verbalise, and stares up at the stars above him. They’re merciless, twinkling down the same as always, completely impervious to the fact one of the strongest influences on the server is dead - maybe they don’t care, maybe they just don’t want to show it, Dream doesn’t know and doesn’t think he cares either. Wilbur has been nothing but an enemy who had destroyed all he’d created and then some - Dream doesn’t care the stars don’t care he’s gone.

...His head turns to the side, and he’s greeted with the sight of the grave.

(He doesn’t care, he tells himself, but his hands ache from building a headstone, and his body aches from fighting for Wilbur’s stupid cause, so who’s the liar?)

(Not Wilbur, not to him.)

It’s modest enough - Dream doesn’t think Wilbur deserves gold and riches and a huge grave declaring his final resting place, but he doesn’t deserve anonymity and fading into the background either. Wilbur Soot is a lot of things, but forgotten shouldn’t be one of them: so Dream studies his earthy headstone in something akin to pride, and claps a hand on its side quietly.

“Well,” he murmurs, and he doesn’t know if he’s talking to himself or to Wilbur, “you did it.”

L’Manburg is no more. Wilbur’s L’Manburg is no more. Instead, in its place, stands New L’Manberg - Tubbo’s New L’Manberg, a New L’Manberg that has the potential to be better or to be worse. It has the potential for inclusivity and peace or suffering and tyranny and Dream’s head is too muddled to know which one he wants. Does he want New L’Manberg to be better or to be worse? 

What would Wilbur want?

Sitting up, turning to face the grave head-on, Dream sits in silence for time that passes by in a crawl and a swirl, tries not to examine his own feelings too closely. He’s been getting better at keeping a careful hold over them, but sometimes he slips up - he’d slipped up giving Wilbur TNT, he’d slipped up during the L’Manburg Revolution (revolution from what? He remembers asking himself bitterly), and had noted with some pride he’d kept himself carefully neutral fighting for Manberg. The shield weighs heavily on his conscience, so he takes it off now, tentatively, sets it at Wilbur’s grave, because for all he’d fought for Manberg, he’d known he’d been fighting for Wilbur too, because they’d been the ones with a deal. They’d been the winners in the end, Wilbur had promised him so. Him and Technoblade and Wilbur had won. Nobody else.

(Is this what winning feels like? Is winning so hollow?)

Wilbur’s body still lies buried under the ruins of L’Manburg somewhere, the button room long since caved in. Dream doubts it’ll be recovered, but an empty grave on top of the Pogtopia tunnel is better than no grave at all. If Schlatt gets a grave, Wilbur at least deserves one too. Dream’s no builder, but it’s something: a dirt mound with an empty wooden box inside it, a crudely scrawled sign that simply states:

WILBUR SOOT

FATHER, BROTHER, LEADER, MARTYR

He’d debated adding friend, but he doesn’t think he would call Wilbur his friend.

Instead, he adds:

THIS IS HIS FINISHED LEGACY.

It’s not much, but he thinks Wilbur would love it and hate it, so Dream does too. 

He can’t stay here long - doesn’t want to, either, he has things to do, peace to maintain, a country, he guesses, to run - but he lingers anyway. He’ll stay for the night, to pay his respects, to say goodbye, because it’s what Wilbur would have laughed at. When the sun begins to rise, he’ll leave, and he’ll never come back to this place - he’ll let Wilbur rest, and hope to Prime that he doesn’t ever fall low enough to try and revive him.

So Dream closes his eyes, shifts a little closer to the grave, rests his head against its side. He can stay there a little while longer. Just the two of them.

Something like grief tries to crawl out his throat, but he swallows it down and pretends he doesn’t recognise it.

It’s what Wilbur might have wanted.

taglist for writing (if you wanna be added or removed send an ask!):  @pastelicious-nova  @kynamite  @chasingstarsandthemoonwith11  @cyanbutnotquite  @purpleglitch  @saltsasssnark  @elenath-s-misc  @carpedzem  @ruby-whistler  @prodigal-sunlight  @runninshoos  @dt-anon  @ronywillcox  @calculatingpillow  @kazo0-boy  @barely-corporeal  @ethereal-deadly-clover  @demi-and-awkward  @0325-4419  @fandom-theorist  @darkikyu  @faeholic  @sn1per-tank  @kath-is-being-weird  @dreamscat  @lady-star-strings  @namewastaken  @duckachu  @far2late @alpineripcord  @keorami  @astrariums  @gia3700  @dreamsmpsideblogging 

[goldendiie]

The Third Blink

It’s the Summer of Love, 1967. Lyndon Johnson runs the country, there’s a social revolution in the west, and the unjust war in Vietnam rages on: but, Sarge’s biggest problem seems to be Fillmore, the anti-war peacenik he met on the wrong side of a Be-In outside of Radiator Springs. They were two sides of the same coin, mutually assured destruction waiting to happen. Sarge never wanted to like him, and he was sure that Fillmore felt the same. Yet, after a night spent alone together, they find themselves in a fitfully passionate love affair; throwing all caution to the wind, together they lose themselves in its desperate spiral.

AO3

[kitsu-katsu]

Why c!Wilbur blowing stuff up for shits and giggles as a child makes no sense for his character (and why that would reflect a lot more badly on c!Phil anyways if that were the case):

Warning: c!Phil critical ahead, if you don't like that, skip this post

Now, to those of you that decide to read this: Strap in folks! We've got a lot of ground to cover this from and a ton of quotes ahead!

1) Wilbur’s a pacifist through and through. He always preached words over weapons, only fought when attacked first, wanted to ignore a war until it went away, considered giving up his nation many times, etc. A few examples of quotes to show this thinking:

“Basically, we have such a lower opportunity here that we probably just need to accept the conditions of surrender, just so we can save any more bloodshed, any more destruction on our land. They’ve entrapped our land, they’ve set up bombs on our land, they’ve destroyed all our homes. To stop any more bloodshed, I feel I would be a bad general if I didn’t look for conditions of surrender.” - (Wilbur’s The Revolution is Coming: 30:32, 2nd Aug)

“Tommy, we need you alive. Tommy, this isn’t worth it. Tommy, your life is worth more than the revolution.” - (Wilbur’s The Revolution is Coming: 34:57:, 2nd Aug)

“What has made you do everything you’ve done up to this point?” (Quackity)

“That’s a- That’s a big question. Um. I guess it’s just protection for my people. I mean, I- I- I just want to see them thrive, and I want to see them safe.” (Alivebur)

- (Quackity’s Killing My Enemies: 1:03:02, 12th Apr)

“Look, do you know how long and how much blood was shed to get L’Manberg to the point it was at? You know what would happen if we manage to get L’Manberg back again? More blood would be shed, and we would be the illegitimate rulers of a nation.” - (Wilbur’s video Am I the Villain?: 18:52)

“We don’t win wars with battles and with armour. We win wars with our words, Tommy. We’re starting a revolution, not a war.” - (Wilbur’s The Wall: 4:54, 29th July)

“I’m not a fighter, I’m a writer.” - (Wilbur’s The Wall: 1:48:31, 29th July)

“Fighting is not necessary right now, Tommy.” - (Wilbur’s the election results: 43:42, 22nd Sep)

“Tommy, control yourself. Tommy, control yourself, it’s not worth it. Tommy, do not take your shot! He disrespected me, yes! But we’ve talked about this, Tommy…!” - (Wilbur’s techno and wilbur make cave better: 59:36, 23rd Sep)

2) The reason his thoughts about blowing it all up in Pogtopia even hit as hard, the reason all his allies were so shocked about him going through with it IS his pacifism first mindset (which has only been put second when he’s been attacked first and put in the defensive or in the case of his speech to Quackity after the political debate he genuinely thought, by the previous failure of his philosophy and the war trauma spurred on mainly by the FCR and Eret’s betrayal, that the only way to truly win respect and make a change in the world was through fighting and killing, which he was convinced of but was ultimately always too soft to actually go through with (note how he doesn’t kill anyone in the L’manburg explosion and how in the times during Pogtopia in which he declared he wanted people dead, he got second thoughts, regrets, retracted his statement or protected people with his actions):

“If you want to really help people, you’re gonna need power, Quackity. You can make a movement, you can make a resistance, right, you can go out and you can come back, and they’ll give you a ticker tape parade. They’ll cheer for you in the streets, but you will change nothing.” - (Quackity’s Killing My Enemies: 1:05:42, 12th Apr)

“If you have a revolution, everyone will hate you, you will sacrifice everything, and you will lose everything you’ve ever had, but you’ll come back and everything will be changed.” - (Quackity’s Killing My Enemies: 1:05:59, 12th Apr)

“And power isn’t gaining from diplomacy, and bureaucracy, and giant courthouses suspended in the sky, blah blah blah. It’s gained from swords, Quackity. It’s gained from blades, it’s gained from steel, iron.” - (Quackity’s Killing My Enemies: 1:06:19, 12th Apr)

“We blow up the entire fucking place to kingdom come. I want no survivors. God help whoever’s caught in the fucking crossfire.” - (Wilbur’s video, Am I The Villain?: 17:52)

“And, I know you’re scared, Tommy, I understand you’re scared. And it’s scary, it’s scary, Tommy, but do you know what? You know what? In a time like this, when a man has nothing to lose, do you know what that means? It means we can do what we want. We have a man on our side who literally rigged our nation with TNT. We can do the same to them. We can rig this festival with TNT. We can kill them all, Tommy. ” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:15:52, 8th Oct)

“Anyone caught in the crossfire is caught in the crossfire. That’s how it goes, you know? - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:41:22, 8th Oct)

“Chat, do I wanna- Chat, do I wanna, do I wanna do it? I’m having second thoughts about the TNT. Chat, I’m having second thoughts about the TNT. Do I wanna kill these people? Seeing that they’re my friends.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 34:09, 16th Oct)

“Tommy, I’m getting second thoughts. These are my friends, I don’t- Do I- I don’t know if I wanna [inaudible].” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 36:17, 16th Oct)

“Just, if you’re gonna kill anyone else, kill me. Don’t kill anyone else here.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 1:10:53, 16th Oct)

“You sounded like you were gonna murder another person. You sounded like you were gonna go for Niki.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 1:12:34, 16th Oct)

“Oh, yes, sorry, Niki, you missed that part. I was gonna blow up Manberg, I was gonna completely destroy it in a huge fireball. Look, Niki, come to Pogtopia, you’re safer here. You’re not gonna be hurt by anyone.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 1:17:59, 16th Oct)

“No you two can escape, I’ll be the… I’ll- I’ll- I’ll be… I’ll be trapped in here…” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 27:27, 17th Oct)

“I don’t, I don’t, I don’t want to kill you two. I don’t want you two to die.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 28:53, 17th Oct)

3) He was inspired by Dream blowing up L’manburg first with Eret’s betrayal during the first revolution. He knew Dream wanted L’manburg out of the picture and had tried it before. It’s why he knew to immediately ask him for TNT, because either way, Dream would benefit from both side’s mutually assured destruction:

“Here’s the plan, right, Dream. Dream is on our side, Dream has TNT, Dream has everything, right. I say we talk to Dream, and we ask him very nicely, very kindly, ‘Dream, give us all the TNT you have’. ” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:12:22, 8th Oct)

“Remember, how he rigged L’Manberg, like ages ago, during the War? And then he detonated the TNT and destroyed the entire thing? We do that again, everyone, we blow up the entire fucking place to kingdom come.” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:12:36, 8th Oct)

“The only reason that Dream is working with us, is because of the fact that we are the enemies of his enemies! That’s it! That’s all that joins this!” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:14:35, 8th Oct)

“Dream, let me be your vassal. Dream, I understand you have a lot of TNT, a lot of the ol’ trinitrotoluene in your possession, don’t you? You do! Dream, I want to be your vassal, I want to set this up, I want to rig the city.” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:33:27, 8th Oct)

4) Wilbur hesitated a LOT with the detonation, wanted to be stopped, told people his plan in detail and was overall in a deep internal conflict about the whole thing (and didn’t blow it up once to not kill Tommy and Quackity too, this is also the moment in which his suicidal tendencies are the most clear in his lines before the 16th). Ultimately he decided to do it because he was suicidal and deeply suffering from mental health issues, believed himself to be the root of all bad in the server and by extension, L’manburg was too, and by that point his original view for L’manburg had been so twisted by Schlatt anyway that in his POV it’d only be used to hurt more people anyway:

“I- Look, rigging L’Manberg is not gonna help us get it back, I’m aware of that. But sometimes in order to feel comfortable and safe you have to be ready to give up the things that you’re worried you might lose. And in this case, I think I might lose it already.” - (Wilbur’s who are you go away: 1:17:57, 8th Oct)

“I know there’s a lot of people, Tommy! … I’m not telling you where the button is, man. … Tommy, it’s over that hill, it’s over that hill, right there!” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 28:30, 16th Oct)

“Chat, do I wanna- Chat, do I wanna, do I wanna do it? I’m having second thoughts about the TNT. Chat, I’m having second thoughts about the TNT. Do I wanna kill these people? Seeing that they’re my friends.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 34:09, 16th Oct)

“Tommy, I’m getting second thoughts. These are my friends, I don’t- Do I- I don’t know if I wanna [inaudible].” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 36:17, 16th Oct)

“But this is the opportunity- this is the opportunity. If I don’t blow it up now, when am I gonna blow it up?! When am I gonna blow it up, Tommy? But when do- when do we do-” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 36:30, 16th Oct)

“If I don’t do it now, what happens if this is the only chance I get. Everyone’s in this close situation, I can do some proper damage. Look, this isn’t a- He needs a consequence for his actions, Schlatt does, he can’t just keep being handsome and powerful and strong all the time. He needs, he needs to be put down a peg.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 37:07, 16th Oct)

“I can still call off this whole detonating at the end of the speech, dude. I can call it off.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 38:24, 16th Oct)

“Should I show you where the TNT’s laced? ‘Cause in a, in a last ditch effort, we may need to destroy it by hand, okay? So, under the chair, where Schlatt sits, there’s about twenty pieces, right? And then going under, under the main area here, following this red line, there is TNT all the way, and then it jut- and then it- … It darts up here, and over to the dance floor, but it doesn’t touch the water.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 38:29, 16th Oct)

“I have to light it, I’ve got to light it, I’ve got to light it.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 1:08:17, 16th Oct)

“Yesterday I had the perfect opportunity to blow everything up and finally end it, you know. I had the perfect opportunity to finally blow up everything and end it and just completely save everyone, right, from the tyranny of Schlatt and the tyranny of the existence of Manberg and L’Manberg, right.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 25:17, 17th Oct)

“Explain it to me! Give me a reason! Give me a reason!” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 26:50, 17th Oct)

“Who else is it gonna hurt?! It’s gonna hurt Schlatt, Manberg, and-” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 26:55, 17th Oct)

“Why did I bring- I should have just done it. I’m such a fucking showman. I should have just done it.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 27:18, 17th Oct)

“No you two can escape, I’ll be the… I’ll- I’ll- I’ll be… I’ll be trapped in here…” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 27:27, 17th Oct)

“I just- I just want to f… I just wanna end it, I wanna end it. I wanna press that button, man.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 28:08, 17th Oct)

“I don’t, I don’t, I don’t want to kill you two. I don’t want you two to die.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 28:53, 17th Oct)

“Ohh, fuck you! Fuck you, man! Why do you make it so hard?! I should have just- I’m such a fucking showman.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 29:29, 17th Oct)

“Tommy, we’ve tried my ideas. I’m willing to listen to you. I’m gonna follow you, Tommy. Whatever you think is gonna be the best way of taking down Schlatt, we’ll do it. We’ve tried my ideas.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 32:01, 17th Oct)

“My L’Manberg. My L’Manberg. As long- As long as I know the button is here… as long as I know. As long as I know the button is here. It’s just not today. I just need to know that it’s there for a fall-back. I need to know it’s there.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 33:46, 17th Oct)

“I’ve been hasty. But the fact that I know it’s there, and I can just stroke my right mouse button, that’s all I need. As long as I know it’s there.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 34:27, 17th Oct)

“You’ve convinced me, I don’t wanna go straight to Plan B, if Plan A fails.” - (Wilbur’s Speedy Stream Festival What festival: 39:02, 17th Oct)

“Look, Tommy, at the end of the day, if this doesn’t go well, I’m gonna blow the place to smithereens. The place will be gone, I’m gonna detonate it and blow it to smithereens, right, if this doesn’t go well. But it will go well…! … ‘Cause it’s literally- there’s no one on Schlatt’s side.” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 21:00, 16th Nov)

“But none of them have the same anticipatory love of what they’re doing, unlike us. Everyone on our side is fighting for something we’ve loved, and had for ages, right. That’s why we’re gonna win, and that’s why you shouldn’t be afraid. And yes, the whole place is rigged.” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 21:38, 16th Nov)

“I could, I really could, that’s the thing. That’s the bit that I like. It’s the bit that makes me smile the most is the fact that I definitely could.” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 26:28, 16th Nov)

“Chekhov’s Gun. Chekhov’s Gun. I’ll be honest with you, chat, I’ve been wondering this whole time if it still works. I’ve been thinking to myself does it still- ‘Cause I fixed it up for today.” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 1:11:36, 16th Nov)

“Phil, I’m always so close to pressing this button, Phil! I have been here, like seven or eight times I have been here… Seven or eight times” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 1:14:56, 16th Nov)

“Phil, I’ve been here here so many times.” - (Wilbur’s smithereens: 1:15:13, 16th Nov)

“I don’t even know if it works anymore, Phil. I don’t even know if the button works. I could, I could… press it, and it might-” (Wilbur’s smithereens: 1:15:29, 16th Nov)

5) The one time anything about Wilbur using TNT while young (and here the age isn't as clearly implied as in Phil's thing, this could very well be more of teen Wilbur than kid Wilbur) is mentioned in the actual text is this one maybe-canon-maybe-not-so-canon-anymore line:

“Tommy, have you heard of TNT duplication? The flying machines that dup TNT? Phil taught me about them. He taught me about them- I’m sure he wouldn’t have taught me them if he knew what I was gonna do with them. But, he did teach me about them. … They were very useful, in this.” - (Wilbur’s The Festival: 11:30, 16th Oct)

Now let’s pretend that headcanon makes any sense and that yeah, Wilbur totally just enjoyed building shit to detonate and said tendency encouraged in childhood just up and carried into adulthood and manifested as him internally going “I must blow up this thing I made because that’s what I do” and let’s pretend that he didn’t have a big ass internal conflict about it.

Ok, so Phil said that Wilbur blew stuff up when little, so he’d have connected it to the button room. Now think for a moment: How does that reflect on Phil as a parent? Let’s forget about everything else for this one moment (and believe me, I’ve got no shortage of stuff to critique c!Phil on in regards to his relation with c!Wilbur) and just focus on this one action. A man freely lets his son use TNT to blow up some random stuff presumably made out of toys. Just a little kid playing with TNT, yup, that’s his boy. And it was to such a degree that the same man just went “Oh yeah! It’s totally the blowing shit up thing!” in a fraction of a second after seeing the button… And then yeah, saw all of the hesitation, the breakdown, the struggle, the wishes to die and impaled him with a sword, but we can go deeper into those aspects in another post

Then Phil tried to make it better by saying to chat that all kids just break stuff apart, more implying that little Wilbur wasn’t actually using explosives which… makes the whole thing even dumber, ngl, because at that point c!Phil is just saying “Oh yeah, he knocked over his lego houses when he was four, so when I saw that button I immediately went ‘Oh, of course! He rigged the place! What an obvious connection!’”. You see what I’m getting at?

TLDR: It doesn’t fit with canon and even if we shove it in with its implications, then c!Phil is just an idiot, whether it be from letting his kid freely play with TNT to such a degree that he deduces where his most drastic measure resulting from trauma and breakdowns is going just by seeing the button OR whether it be from him connecting dots where there are none if he tries to save his skin as a father and just say “Oh yeah, no, who didn’t knock over stuff as a kid, what do you mean?” not realizing that… exactly… who didn’t…. so it wouldn’t connect with the button room at all

[call-me-apple]

Thoughts on c!Dream and c!Techno’s relationship? (Especially after the Quackity live stream—)

Screams yells falls off the chair hits the walls

C!RIVALSDUO MY BELOVED

I have thoughts and I have A LOT OF THEM

They have a neutral relationship and avoid being on opposing sides, because Dream and Techno, the overpreparing, overstrategizing bastards they are, know that going against one another is likely to result in mutually assured destruction. Both know that a fight with the other is not one worth having if it can be avoided.

I think that the relationship between c!Technoblade and c!Dream is one based mainly on mutual respect and understanding.

On a server full of dysfunctional relationships and no proper communication, the two have managed to build an allyship without much negotiation. It's like the two just understand each other naturally and can easily set their boundaries with barely any verbal communication.

Dream knows Technoblade isn't one to trust easily, Technoblade knows Dream is someone with his own goals and pursuits who isn't to be trusted. The true nature of their relationship has been clear to them from the very start – they aren't friends, they have no commitment to each other, they are neutrals whose goals just so happen to have crossed in this one moment. Technoblade had been used and had his motivations and feelings disregarded twice, only for his agency to finally be acknowledged by the server's "villain", of all people, who never hid his intentions of using Technoblade's strength to help in his own goals.

Technoblade and Dream are two of the strongest players on the Dream SMP which has played a massive role in how they're treated by the rest of the server: with fear, with caution, but in each other's eyes, they are equals. I said before that they are neutrals, but considering how terrible their relationships with the rest of the server are, their neutral relationship leans towards a positive one.

They are two people traversing the world in their own ways, with their own pursuits, and their paths only intersect on occasion. And when those paths cross, they can be sure that the other will listen, if not out of genuine interest then so as to avoid a conflict.

It is incredible how different yet similar the two are. They are both powerful and feared, they have both been dehumanized by others, both have an "ends justify the means" mentality that enables them to do horrible things in pursuit of their personal goals (although Dream takes that mentality to an extreme).

Yet Technoblade is an anarchist - someone looking to destroy hierarchies so that people can't be exploited by someone in a position of power or be corrupted from possessing power.

And Dream is someone looking for power so that he can have enough influence to force people into meeting his wishes.

Technoblade seeks to have control over his own life and to give control to others, Dream seeks to have control over others as a method of achieving his goals. And this is one of the few areas where their ideals can potentially conflict. But Technoblade isn't exactly against using coercive power to get his goals (e.g. my man committed terrorism against nations on multiple occasions), he only has issues with institutional power, and Dream isn't an institution.

People judge Techno for teaming with the "tyrant", the "abuser", but the thing is, Technoblade doesn't really know what Dream's role on the server is and what he has done. He wasn't there to witness the L'Manburg revolution, wasn't there for the Disc War, he didn't see Exile, also wasn't there to hear Quackity, Wilbur and Tommy preach their anti-Dream propaganda *coughs*. All he knows is that Dream isn't a fan of the local governments and wants them gone. So, as far as Technoblade is concerned, their goals aren't contradictory, quite the opposite – they align. Both don't like governments/nations, if for different reasons.

And then there's the favor scene.

A lot of people despise Technoblade for offering to give up Tommy at that moment, but I think that situation is far more complicated than people think. I think the interaction was mostly Dream and Technoblade testing the waters, seeing each other's level of commitment.

When Technoblade said "this guy is with me" he signalled to Dream: "this is something I am committed to." When he said "unless you want to call in that favor" it was him also signalling just HOW committed he was to Tommy – that the only way he'd consider giving him up is if his life debt was cashed in.

Techno didn't have to bring up the favor, yet he did. It could have been him just trying to get rid of it or could've been him warning Tommy about it. Telling his ally that there's something Dream can use against him. I am leaning towards the latter.

As I said before, rivalsduo communicate without actually communicating. Their negotiations are done through subtle hints. There's little need for words between the two. As a result of this people took the favor scene at face value when I believe there was a lot more to it between the lines. It wasn't just Technoblade going "oh yeah sure you can just take this child off my hands if you want to, I don't care about him". Quite the opposite, it was Techno telling Dream "I will fight for this and the only thing that can make me step down is you using up the only bit of leverage you have on me."

The rivalsduo crumbs we got in the Quackity stream are very interesting.

Because:

We got Dream calling Technoblade his ally even though they only allied for Doomsday

We got Dream risking his physical wellbeing for Technoblade

Now originally I interpreted this as a clear indication of Dream caring about Techno's safety, because who would risk torture for a person they don't care about, but then I saw this interpretation of the scene and realized that c!Dream is the exact kind of person to do that, the ruthless bastard that he is. So Dream could've lied about his current stance with Techno, or he could've been truthful and does, to some degree, care about him.

I think Dream will actively avoid getting into conflict with Techno, if not because he cares then because Technoblade is not someone you want to have as your enemy. Dream gains far more benefit from being allied/neutral with Techno.

(also Technoblade would be the perfect support for Dream if there is ever a redemption arc because the two are on good terms and Technoblade has a tendency to see past people's actions into their motivations so if there's anyone on the server who might, if not forgive, then sympathize with Dream and be willing to over him help in redeeming himself, it's him and maybe Phil)

please I can never stop crying about Syndicate!Dream AUs

And I think that's all I have on the two!

[cdroloisms]

maybe you could talk about the dynamic between c!wilbur and c!tommy / c!tubbo? i think it's very interesting and i have conflicted feelings about them, i'd love to see your takes

c!wilbur my beloved ,, he’s such an interesting character and his relationship w/ c!tommy and c!tubbo is simultaneously so ,, twisted and heartbreaking. i think he really did care about them, to the end, but c!wilbur had always been characterized with his ,, love for lmanburg, to the point of obsession - think him in the revolution, saying “we would rather die,” him and his unfinished symphony in the button room on the sixteenth. in the end, it’s this obsession that really comes to destroy him,, but i feel like he still *cared* for tommy and tubbo, you know? tommy, canonically, saw wilbur as an older brother figure, and i feel like to some degree that feeling was reciprocated - not in the healthiest way, especially as c!wilbur became more manipulative, but that came from his untreated mental illness and growing paranoia and other things. i think that he saw himself as a sort of,, mentor figure, to both tommy and tubbo, and he hurt them, in the end, in very very deep and unjustified ways ,, but he still cared. it doesn’t make it right, or even better, but i think that w/ the way wilbur thought, he wasn’t necessarily trying to be cruel.

anyway, take this mutually assured destruction au (credit to @dreamsclock for the au) interaction of c!wilbur and c!tubbo!

tw: mentioned abuse, death, manipulation, toxic relationship, unhealthy thinking, mental illness, derealization (? wilbur thinks of everything as a twisted story), c!wilbur critical (not really? but just in case)

“Do you know what he did to Tommy?”

Wilbur turns, blinks, smiles; Tubbo is standing in front of him, spine straight, shoulders pulled back; there’s a fire in those eyes, highlighted by the starburst scar that stretches over his face. He wipes the gunpowder with a quick snap of his wrists, one-two, and cocks his head to the side. Amusement bubbles under his skin; now this is interesting.

“Tubbo! Can’t say I expected you here,” the kid is wearing netherite, but doesn’t move closer, keeping himself just out of reach of a sword. Smart, Wilbur shifts, stuffs his hands into his pockets, he’s learned.

“Wilbur,” Tubbo’s voice is firm, tired. Wilbur stays silent, prompting, something satisfied becoming a curling warmth in his chest; he’s always been perceptive, moreso than Tommy. Tommy lives, breathes a sort of unpolished sincerity, drawing attention, bleeding heart and loyalty and emotion so brilliantly and shouting so loudly that everyone has no choice but to listen - to contain him is no easier than to cage a flame. Wilbur knew this, even back in Pogtopia, let his and Dream’s passion and drive and bone-deep feeling burn each other out.

Tubbo sighs, lifts his chin; his eyes are cold. Something amused pulls at the corners of Wilbur’s lips; where Tommy is fire, Tubbo is ice, waiting, watching, letting Tommy charge into the fray while he hangs back and simply observes. He’d known, even then, that when push came to shove, Tubbo would be the one to get the job done, that he was the one that would smile serenely with an arsenal of weapons hidden up his sleeve, had looked into those ice-blue eyes and seen the same snake-in-the-grass determination that he recognized from every time he looked in the mirror.

“I know,” he says, finally, every word carefully measured, just smooth enough to edge on the side of sincerity. He doesn’t miss the way that Tubbo flinches, the tremble of his bottom lip, but turns away and pretends not to notice. “He told me, and even if he didn’t, I still have Casper the friendly ghost’s memories, as much as I don’t like them.”

“Then-” Tubbo’s voice cracks, goes quiet, and Wilbur watches from the corner of his eye as the kid purposefully untenses, hiding his shaking hands behind his shield. “Why are you helping him?”

Wilbur pauses; it’s not a question he didn’t expect, but the weight of it is- startling, even so. Something bubbles, hot and vicious, in his throat, almost tasting like anger, revenge, love. He remembers his hand placed, calming, on a too-tense shoulder, nestled in wind-blown hair, remembers star-bright eyes following him, hanging onto his every word like they had the power to coax the sun into the sky. Remembers, even in the hazy joy and grief that had been the world falling to pieces under his hand on the sixteenth, that spark of blue-tinged sorrow that had almost felt like regret burning cold and quiet in the middle of his chest.

“Have you read Shakespeare, Tubbo?”

Wilbur turns away, but it’s not early enough to miss the way Tubbo jolts at his question, a mumbled, incredulous “what?” falling from his lips.

“His tragedies, specifically,” he counts the TNT in his inventory, thumbing through the rows and rows of dynamite. “If you haven’t, they all follow the same basic formula - it’s how tragic heroes work, after all. It all boils down to one flaw - just one mistake, that sends the entire house of cards crumbling down.” Just one button pressed. Just one person that shouldn’t have been trusted. Just one life.

“I don’t- I don’t see how this is relevant, Wilbur.”

And here’s the thing; once upon a time, these boys - they had been his.

Not his, as in family, or his, as in followers, but some muddled mix of the two. They’d been his to guide, to some degree, his to keep out of trouble, his to teach about drugs and blackmail and propaganda and respect and leadership and honor. And- maybe he never should’ve been trusted with kids, maybe they shouldn’t have given a damned man this responsibility - scratch the maybe, they definitely shouldn’t have - but the universe didn’t operate on “should have”’s so he ended up with these brilliant, lost boys anyway.

And he fucked up, more than anyone, more than even Dream, because these boys had been his in a way they never were for Dream, but Wilbur has always been a selfish, selfish man. He chose his unfinished symphony first and he’d choose it again because that was the flaw in his foundation, the chip in his soul that would send him collapsing from the outside in every time, but that doesn’t mean he can’t try to guide the kid standing in front of him away from the path of self-destruction that Wilbur’s already too far down to come back from, that he and Tommy and Dream have been damned to.

“You’re a side character, Tubbo. You don’t matter,” Wilbur speaks, ignoring the hitch of breath that comes from behind him, “and this is a tragedy. Everyone that matters dies at the end of a tragedy.”

“Wilbur-”

“Cassio lives in Othello. Horatio lives in Hamlet. Dream, me, Tommy - we’re fucked. We’ve been fucked since the beginning of this story, since L’manburg. I signed our death warrant the moment I signed that declaration, Tubbo! We’re dead men walking. It’s only a question of how much we burn down before we burn out. But you?”

“You’re not like us, Tubbo. When the curtains close, when this story ends - somebody’s going to be left to pick up the pieces. You have people to live for now.”

“This- this isn’t a story, Wilbur.” Tubbo’s words tremble in the air, hang between them like a thread pulled taut - the thread frays, snaps, as Wilbur begins to walk away.

As he leaves, Wilbur remembers Dream, hair white in the moonlight, back when those eyes shone with something other than remembered pain - this isn’t a story - and hopes that Tubbo won’t learn the hard way, too.