#so many bigots hiding in the woodworks

[thedeafprophet]

i loved playin with soft 'cottagecore' aesthetics and lookin into homesteading stuff back in my stardew days.... but let me tell you as a jewish person, going through 'aesthetic' tags could be a bit of landmine with Certain Types:tm: of blogs.....

[postmodern-marxist]

Reflections on Tolerance, Free Speech and the American Constitution

The recent emergence of anti-Semitic threats against judge Bruce Reinhart, who reviewed and signed the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, is not even remotely surprising in the current climate of American politics. Amidst a burgeoning fascist/neo-Nazi/white supremacist/Christian nationalist movement - or to borrow the term of Sölle, a "Christofascist" movement - not merely on the fringes but at the heart of American governance, it is only to be expected that anti-Semitism be a part of this bouquet of hate, and its emergence from the woodworks of American society is yet more evidence that the apparent cosmopolitan, diverse and tolerant cultural fabric of American society of which we have historically prided ourselves has only been skin-deep, and that imminent threats to this fabric broil beneath the surface. This has, therefore, prompted another episode of reflection for me in a long and continuing line of reflections over the dire crisis of the last half-decade.

At the heart of the innumerable and constant debates surrounding how to deal with the reprehensible Christofascist current in American political society is the topic of Freedom of Speech. This Human Right, enshrined in our First Amendment, has been a cornerstone of the American experiment from the beginning. Recently, however, it has become weaponized, a most prime tool for allowing fascist rhetoric to infect American political life by ostensibly shielding it from the rebuke it deserves. Given the clear political crisis in which this has resulted, it is with great urgency that we must consider deeply the nature of what Free Speech means.

Free Speech has been at once the greatest strength and the greatest loophole of American political culture, in success as a contract with government, in failure as a contract – or, perhaps, the lack of contract – among society at large. As a strength it has upheld a contract between people and government to perpetually defend the right to criticize the powerful and to innovate new political progress. As a weakness, however, it has become used and abused as a ram with which to break down civil society, and as a bulwark behind which bigots hide from the consequences of their actions. In this capacity it is frequently claimed, incorrectly, that Free Speech prevents even private individuals from rejecting or ridiculing the ideas expressed by other private individuals. Naturally, this claim has been exercised hypocritically, as those who typically claim it readily ridicule all opposition to their bigotry, and in reality demand only that their speech go free of challenge, supposed ‘violations’ of which they have given the absurd appellation ‘Cancel Culture’.  But this hypocrisy does not alter the fact that Free Speech has been the cornerstone of this movement to claim freedom from all ridicule whatsoever. The reality, however, is that the Bill of Rights and the Freedom of Speech which it protects can only properly be understood as a defense of private individuals against repercussions from the government and other public bodies, being by definition a contract of protections between the people and their government. It has then been only misunderstood as a broader interpersonal contract, or more accurately, as a license for the free-for-all of rhetoric, respectful or otherwise, to be free not only from governmental but also social consequences. To the contrary of such claims, to be thought of and called an idiot, a fool, an uneducated ignoramus, a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a Nazi, a supremacist, or any number of conventionally insulting terms on account of one’s speech is in truth not a violation of Free Speech, but rather the innate social consequences of behaving as one whom these terms describe. And yet, Freedom of Speech is so frequently used to defend such reprehensible conduct that is seems almost as though the right to bigotry were written into our Constitution.

It is well-known that our Constitution is notoriously vague on many points, and intentionally so, as to be adaptable to changing circumstance and re-interpretable in changing contexts. But while some would argue – with some validity – that these vagaries and intentional handicapping have prevented the Constitution from becoming a force of domination, the alarming developments of the last few years have revealed that such vagaries have also prevented the Constitution from effectively defending itself against overtly democracy-opposing threats, most of which have hidden behind the disguise of Free Speech to avoid retaliation. From the present vantage point, it certainly looks like the Constitution has failed to offer sufficient defense against those who – by evading and discrediting elections, or by using political alliances to weaken or even eliminate structures of justice by which the powerful may be held accountable – would disregard the whole Constitutional order altogether. The vagaries surrounding the right of Free Speech have now allowed this right to be turned against the Constitution itself, in the form of anti-tolerance ideologies being treated as ‘protected speech’, an absurdity of contradictions.

The mutual tolerance of ideas implicit in the right of Free Speech, being both a cornerstone of the American experiment and a base necessity for the function of civil society organized around non-authoritarian means, has in short been made defenseless by its own indefinition despite the Constitution’s reliance upon it. Tolerance by free-for-all – which is to say, tolerance hanging for its life on the hope of mutual respect from otherwise unchecked parties – has shown to offer no recourse whatsoever against those who choose to violate it. The desperate, fragile balance of tolerance on the good faith of individuals has wholesale collapsed in the face of those few who would see it die and regimes of oppression and hierarchy rise in its place. The death of tolerance in America is as much the fault of America’s apathy towards preserving tolerance as it is the fault of the fascists who would seek to destroy it.

The crux of all this is simply that we must collectively make a choice, an active choice and one which cannot merely be left to the fates as it has been in our current Constitution. The choice we must make is this: between, on the one hand, a political society which passively entertains tolerance equally alongside its enemies; or, on the other, a society concretely constructed on a foundation of tolerance as a guiding principle. The overwhelming evidence of not only the most recent years but of American sociocultural development as a whole is that the former, being the model which American has conventionally operated on, is in fact a model willing to sacrifice tolerance in its own name, and as such is susceptible to fall to the first powerful anti-tolerance movement to come its way, as is happening now, and as has indeed happened many times in corners of America throughout its history. It is the latter model, then, a direct endorsement of mutual tolerance as the guiding light of our society, which must be the better way forward in the fight against American fascism.

Tolerance is not merely a practice; it is an active political position. It is an active choice we make to support not just tolerance as a behavior, but a tolerant society, which is to say a society where all free individuals of whatever class and creed receive tolerance and respect so long as they give it out to all others in return. This final point is crucial; those who would advocate innately intolerant ideas and positions which seek as their core philosophy to deny tolerance to certain others are in violation of this contract, and as such forfeit their right to receive its benefits themselves.  The intolerant, in short, cannot be tolerated, and despite what some would claim that this constitutes hypocrisy, this is no contradiction but is in fact the strictest adherence to a coherent code of morality, a contract of tolerance between all persons which, if violated, becomes null and void for the violating party. This is what Popper observed to be the paradox of tolerance, what Zunger more recently identified as the ‘peace treaty’ of tolerance, and the truth of this fact, that tolerance of the intolerant will lead to the end of tolerance itself, is being demonstrated real-time in the politics of America today.

It is beyond imperative that America, should it wish to survive its rapid descent into disorder and fascism, must enshrine its founding principle of tolerance not merely as lip-service but as Constitutional law. I will cut to the chase: the form this must take is as an amendment distinct from and operating independently of the Freedom of Speech; or, should this fail, a fundamental reworking of the Constitutional text (which, after all, remains the composition of antiquated slave owners who cannot be reasonably thought capable of articulating our contemporary understanding of tolerance) centered around support for tolerant society and its willingness to take action to defend tolerance as a guiding social principle at its core. To combat fascism demands the legally binding affirmation that fascist ideology has no place in a society defined by tolerance, an affirmation which does not currently exist in the American Constitution. This must change if America is to be spared its descent into darkness.

[theintrovertedfaith]

1st Post - Self Reflection and Introduction

I am an introvert. A writer. A christian.

These three facets of my personality, of my character, have significantly defined my life up until this moment, and they will likely define how I am seen well beyond my death.

I am proud to be all three of these. Without these traits I would not be who I am. However, I have to admit, being any of these three things tends to make a person an outsider in our current culture. Being all three can just be .... complicated. I am sure anyone who has any of these three traits could relate.

I have been an introvert my entire life. I’ve always known I was an introvert, and not only an introvert, but an anxious introvert. I love people, but I am not good at socializing with them. In fact, I would much rather be alone or spend quality time with the few I know really well. The problem is, one must socialize with strangers in order to get to know others well enough for deep friendships. My affinity for loving others, then, must often be tapered by our cultural expectations of small talk and large social gatherings.

I am also a writer, or at least one who aspires to write. I find it very interesting that writers tend to be introverts. I suppose writing is very much a solitary activity, but it requires a willingness to put one’s most private inner parts out for the world to see, which, to me, has always seemed to contradict the ways of the introvert. But perhaps that is just for the anxious introvert. Or maybe it is just weird for me. I have struggled to pull together these first two aspects of my personality. In my personal life I wish nothing more than to blend into the background, be an observer. When I pick up a pencil (or a keyboard) I suddenly feel the expectation, and the drive, to come out of the woodwork. Writing is all about NOT blending in with society, but exposing it, and yourself, to your readers.

The struggles, however, of being both introvert and writer I do not believe are unique to my experience. Probably a lot of those who are reading this post, if there are indeed any reading my personal reflection, relate to my experience on some level. Most of us who write were once readers, and readers are those who often live vicariously through the eyes of others instead of participating in their own society. But writing is a whole different story, with a whole different set of challenges and requirements. How can one write when one has not experienced? How can one write if one wishes to hide?

The third facet of my character is my faith. This is the one that seems to complicate my whole being (albeit, often for the better). Being a Christian in our culture is very complicated. While western civilization was founded on very many Christian principles, and being a Christian was, for the longest time, something that granted a person privilege in our culture, we have now reached a point in time in which being a Christian is counter-cultural. Christianity, to many, is synonymous to words like bigoted and proud. In fact, many Christians, or at least so-called, have given reason for the world to think this so.

Christianity is a subculture, which has its own expectations and community. Oddly enough, although an introvert and a writer does not fit into the worldly culture well, introverts and writers struggle even further amidst the Christian community. While the culture of the world had begun to embrace the unique individual, including introverts and writers, with ideas like “you do you” and subjective truth, the Christian culture has, and often must, hold on to certain expectations for those within its community.

Christians are called not only to hold certain beliefs but to act and respond in certain ways. I am not talking about sets of rules Christian’s must follow in order to belong to the group. Christianity, true Christianity, recognizes that Christ died for all men, all sinners, and the only action actually necessary to become a Christian is to believe that He did so. But like all cultures, there are expectations of character within the community. 

We are called to love, to participate, to be humble, and often to not stir up discontent. This can present several problems for both the introvert and the writer.

First, as an introvert, the particular brand of love and participation can often be uncomfortable, or even nearly impossible. I think the Church has not made a lot of room for introverts or those who struggle with social anxiety. Yes, the Church is meant to be reaching out to others and involving themselves with people. But I often question where my calling, as an introvert, is in the Body. I cannot count the times I’ve felt guilty for not stepping up to take part in a Church social function or volunteer work, or for stepping up to do such work and then not being all that good at it. Did God make me an introvert and yet still call me to participate in the same way, spreading His word and His love socially as all the extroverts do? Did He wish for me to overcome my lack of social wherewithal? Am I, as an introvert, called to participate in some other way, and does the Church need to adjust expectations to accommodate those like me?

I do not know the answer to this question. It is one I have struggled with since I began my Christian journey. Once one has faith and understands the grace of God, there becomes a certain overflowing of the heart, a need to share the gospel and the love and the grace with others. I will not deny that. But the question isn’t whether or not Christian introverts should also express and participate equally to the extrovert, but how the introvert may do so. I am not even sure if there is an introverted form to equally be participating.

The second is that, as a writer, which already seems to contradict with introversion, there is very little room in the Christian Church. I have always wanted to be a writer, particularly to write novels, and so, when people ask what I plan on doing or what I do, the answer has always been the same. It has always been easy to say, “I want to write,” but, beyond those words, expressing my exact desire as a writer within the Church has not been simple or easy. 

What do I want to write? That is always the next question. Setting aside that, without considering the expectations of anyone but myself, that question is hard to answer ... the expectations of devout Christians is that those in the Church working within the arts should and would desire to center their works around purely Christian expression. The expectation is to write Christian books that are wholesome and pure.

There is nothing wrong with writing these kinds of books except that ... they have already been written. These are the kinds of things that only Christians read, making the careful presentation of the gospel and the character’s journey to discovering it ... honestly, redundant. Christians pick up books that say they are Christian novels often because they are embarrassed to pick up secular books, except maybe a classic now and then (this is a generalization, not a fact for all Christians or all Christian books). While being reminded of the gospel message is never a bad idea, the book is not often going to impact them greatly because the impact is meant to be the salvation message, which, as a Christian, they’ve already received. 

There are good Christian books out there, which incorporate Christian themes and beliefs but are not centered solely around a character coming to Christ. These novels, again, are often picked up by Christians, but the authors seem to recognize that the reader already knows the Lord. (One such novel I read recently is called “No Greater Love” by Gina Holder - which is a mystery/thriller with strong Christian themes)

On the other hand, secular novels expect there to be no pushing of Christian beliefs or ideals. Often, writing for the secular world means exploring characters and situations that are anything but good and pure. 

So, as a writer and as a Christian, I feel a duty to express what is true. The problem is this: it is true that we should focus our attention on God. It is also true that the world often does not reflect what is good so directly. Real people don’t have easy lives because they are Christians, and they don’t suddenly start making the best choices. Finding faith can be a huge journey, one that requires us to face the world with our eyes open and our hands reaching out. We often learn to understand God’s love by first witnessing the mess that is human love. We understand sacrifice by experiencing sacrifice ourselves. 

I think writing is a good opportunity to safely explore such themes. We can read a book and be in the head of a character who makes sacrifice, and when we finally learn the gospel, we can better understand what Christ’s sacrifice really meant. We can see love develop between characters, see where it goes wrong and it goes right, and suddenly the love of God becomes so much more amazing. For me, personally, reading secular novels gave me much of the insight necessary for me to build my faith and make it strong enough to hold up even still.

But that still does not answer my question of exactly how to balance my faith with my writing.

My point in writing all of this, which I doubt more than maybe a few will read, is to say that balancing being an introvert, a writer, and a Christian is a tricky task I have yet to master. For the longest time I was afraid of how these three traits appeared to war within me, but now I want to face them all and accept them all and use them all. 

This little tumblr blog will be my way of attempting to sort it out, and if anyone relates to me, they are free to join my journey. 

[gingerly-writing]

Hello? I'm currently trying to write a superhero novel and I'm extremely bad at it. Can you help me, like just give a few tips? I'm really excited about this project so your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Hello dear Anon! You have definitely come to the write (hehe) place. I have so much advice (and hard lessons learnt) to share that I almost burst with information when I saw this ask in my inbox. I’ve tried to trim it down a bit so I don’t clog up people’s dashes, but this is still gonna be pretty long. (Also, this is my 4,500 post on this blog, quite coincidentally, and I also just passed 700 followers. Consider this advice post my celebration!)

This is a novel, not a comic book series.

You won’t be able to convey every awesome aspect of your characters’ looks without boring the reader to death.

Some tropes don’t translate well. At all.

Nothing is wholly original, not anymore. But you can still come up with something you can comfortably call your own.

Action scenes will either become your trusty sidekick or your archnemesis (and each one can turn out to be either).

LESS. IS. MORE.

1) This is a novel, not a comic book series. Even if you write a whole series of novels, you don’t have the page space to waste on the tens or hundreds of smaller villains you might find littered across a Batman series. First of all, everyone your hero encounters has to be fleshed out at least somewhat, and that takes up both space on the page and in your reader’s mind as they try to keep track of everyone you’ve introduced. If you need to make your hero seem as though they’ve been around for a while and save a lot of lives on the regular, have them namedrop villains they’ve defeated or muse about just how many civilians they must have saved over the years and how that makes it all worth it.

What I’m saying is, you need a coherent plot. Obviously the journey from A to B needs ups and downs, but those probably shouldn’t consist of 18 minor villains with the Big Bad at the end unless all the attacks turn out to be related. Keep your plot tidy, and remember, this is a novel. For the first book at least, you might be better off sticking with one supervillain/group as your major antagonist, with subplots constructed from other, less major conflicts (tension with law enforcement, other heroes, collapsing marriage, love interest, high school issues etc. etc.). In my first attempt at a superhero novel, I had my hero (Ace) fighting gangs and cleaning up the streets, saving kids from their own stupidity, dealing with a new addictive and highly highly dangerous drug pouring into his city, trying to uncover who or what the Crime Syndicate was, fending off the police who were trying to arrest him, and a bunch of civilian life problems too, including his mother and best friend trying to work out what he was hiding, passing university and finding a job, all on top of tracking down and fighting his newfound nemesis. This is a slightly exaggerated list, but you can see what I’m talking about. Too much going on can kill your coherency, even if it’s the kind of winding plot you’re used to seeing on comics.

My tip here: pick one main villain, or gang, or anti-hero etc. –pick only one major villainous entity. Stack in one to three sideplots. Make sure everything is coherent and leads your hero from A to B, whether they know it or not. It might be a superhero novel, but it’s a novel above all. Stick to your basic plotting rules, and you’ll be a-okay.

2) You won’t be able to get down every aspect of your character’s awesome outfit. This is another rule applicable to everything, but it’s especially hard to resists in a genre where a hero’s public image is often built from their outfit and powers as much as what they stand for. But imagine if you had to read a block paragraph description of Batman’s outfit? He wears all-black, with a cowl covering the top half of his face that has pointy bat ears which electrocutes you if you try to take it off. He also wears eyeliner to cover the skin around his eyes. He never smiles, and his voice is a deep growl. His chest plate is black and decorated with false abs and a bat-symbol, which is yellow or black depending on whether he’s in camouflage- YAWN! I’m bored just typing all that out.

Pick defining characteristics for all of them. My villainess has candyfloss pink hair, a slow smile and a dappled black outfit fit for a thief. My hero is half-Japanese, wielding a glowing blue sword (which might become a shield in the edits) and donning his heirloom hero suit of black and matching glowing blue. It’s not a lot, and I drop in other details here and there (she carries smoke bombs and knives in her boots, he can’t wink), but sticking to core, important details when describing their outfits in particular can give a pretty clear idea without choking the reader.

3) Some tropes don’t translate well. At all. Put aside the rampant racism, the homophobia, the general mistreatment of many minorities in the comic industry. Put aside the America-centrism and the fridging of ‘pure’ girlfriends and the slutty villainess alike. These are all problems, but they also exist outside of the superhero genre.

Here, I’m talking space radiation giving people powers, killing their loved ones, serving the plot in any which way. I’m talking Superman’s 800 superpowers and Luthor’s inability to figure out his secret ID despite being the smartest man on the planet. I’m talking fallacies of logic, stretching the suspension of disbelief far past breaking point, Gary Stus galore. I’m talking Guy Gardener’s bowlcut. Y’know, just generally bad writing.

You’re going to have to come up with more original power-origins and better haircuts than they did in the Golden Age, I’m afraid. While I genuinely wish I could get in the invisible brainwave-controlled escape boomerangs from Captain Boomerang in the Silver Age, it doesn’t work so well in a pseudo-serious novel. But work a little harder at your worldbuilding than the golden oldies had to, and you’ll have everything down pat.

4) Nothing is wholly original, not anymore. But you can still come up with something you can comfortably call your own. This is linked to point three. Everything has been done. Every superpower, every storyline, every outfit, magic item, warping of genes. You name it, someone, somewhere, whether inside or outside the big comic houses, has done it. This is common with all ideas, but with superheroes you know some all-knowing jackass will pop out of the woodwork like ‘actually this was the plot of Assman #236 in 1987 and your just a hack’ if you ever publish your work.

Fuck ‘em. You might not be able to create something wholly original, but you can create something with a twist. From your superpowers and gadgets, to your plotlines and your worldbuilding, to your hero leagues and villain cadres and your mob squads –you can create something fresh, something we’ve never seen before, something that will open mouths and eyes and hearts. Everything can be original if you take it and play.

5) Action scenes will either become your trusty sidekick or your archnemesis (and each one can turn out to be either). Some will flow from your pen (or keyboard) as though the Muses themselves are scribing your words with golden ink. Other times, you will want to strangle every one of your characters, and throw their weapons, your writing implements and yourself out of the window. The real problem is that action scenes tend to be crucial to this genre, and you never know which fight scene is going to bite you in the ass.

It’s okay if you’re terrible at them (like me). Sketch what you need out of the scene in terms of plot, and then research to your heart’s content (while remembering this is a genre built on ridiculousness and you can stretch reality as far as you need). Then, as with wit, remember you don’t have to be an expert fighter. Unlike your characters, you can write and rewrite and play and mess with until everything is exactly how you want it.

LESS. IS. MORE. I think this is the sum total of my advice, though bear in mind that I’m a massive overwriter: if you underwrite, you might need to flip some of this advice on its head. In my experience, keep your original plot tight, because it will expand with heroic shenanigans and villainous sideplots. Keep your initial character description to key characteristics, and build in the cool, extraneous details over time. Watch out for some of the good old tropes (and not just the bigoted ones) that simply don’t translate well into a modern novel. Play with your assumptions, your tropes and anything else you can get your hands on, but don’t be too afraid to hang onto some of the old classics: this is a genre known for its fun tropes, after all.

If you need any more general writing advice, feel free to come back! You are talking to someone who wrote 60,000+ words of my core superhero novel and scrapped every single one of them, who’s plotted out seven superhero novels and counting, and who may or may not be far too in love with this genre.

But over everything else, remember to take all advice -including and especially mine- with a large pinch of salt. Come talk to me off anon if you just want to chat about superheroes, I don’t bite (and I really, really love superheroes).

Thanks for the ask!xx

[taramaclaywasaterf]

Oh my god. Why the fuck are vegans like this? Veganism is a diet. It restricts what you eat. That means it’s a fucking diet. Not that hard to understand. I don’t need a novel about veganism as if I haven’t heard it all before.

Yes. Veganism is harmful to women you fucking asshole. As a disabled woman, do you know how many vile pieces of shit like you I’ve had sling the most bigoted, misogynistic, ableist, fucking bullshit my way, the second they found out I can’t be vegan and never will be? Do you know how many young disabled women I have in my inbox right now sharing similar horror stories? The second women prioritize ourselves over a goddamn chicken, you monsters throw your pathetic little hissyfits. The second someone like me literally CANT be vegan, you assholes crawl out of the woodwork to demand us to sacrifice our health and well-being for the sake of your own moral purity, and yall spew the most vile ableist bullshit I’ve ever heard. Not to mention, I’ve spoken to countless young women and girls who’ve suffered due to your bullshit DIET. They’ve supplemented one eating disorder for another, and watched themselves wither away...only for you monsters to turn around and demonize them and attack them the second they say “fuck this” and prioritize themselves and eat meat again. Veganism has turned into a contest of who can be the most ~*pure*~, and that type of complulsive eating is terrible for young girls. Women are and always will be more important than fucking livestock.

As for leather, like I said, just buy second hand. That’s all. And I’ve literally tanned my own hide, I work with dead animals all the time (roadkill and those I’ve found already dead in my woods) So don’t fucking lecture me on making leather lol I know what I’m doing. The process of making the synthetic shit overseas then transporting it across oceans, dumping the waste from those products, and selling it in oversaturated fast-fashion markets is WAY less ethical and does way more damage than, say, one pair of nice leather boots that will last MUCH longer will ever do. And knock the ~*brutally murdered uwu*~ bullshit off. You’re ridiculous.

Vegans are literally the most annoying self righteous pricks on the planet, jfc.

eating a plant-based diet is part of veganism, but veganism is more than just a diet, it's also avoiding leather, animal testing, etc

lol sis I’m fully aware of everything veganism entails. It’s still a diet tho. And it’s still harming women. So I’m gonna keep talking about how toxic it can be, thanks!

I’m not even gonna bother going into the whole bullshit that is the leather conversation. Let’s just say that leather is far better for the environment and is much more sustainable than whatever faux “vegan” leather or plastic shit that is used as an alternative. If you don’t wanna buy leather direct from the source, that’s totally fine, buy second hand leather instead. But buying alternative materials is doing more damage than buying leather, and you’re prioritizing your sense of moral superiority over what’s actually ethical.

As for animal testing, believe it or not, you can be against that and not be vegan. It’s not an either/or thing.

[techfist-blog]

the brotherhood of steel.

so we all know just how rigorous the brotherhood is, & the extents they will go to in order to carry out their goals. especially on the east cost, under maxson, it’s clear that the brotherhood is not above wholesale murder to perform what they believe is best for other people. they are a controlling group under the guise of “protecting humanity from itself”, & use that as a focal point for new recruits to make them believe what they have signed up for is something noble. the real thoughts & opinions of the members of the brotherhood don’t come out of the woodworks until one really makes their way into the heart of the brotherhood, its core members; one discovers that maxson is a bigot, truly an asshole. but even maxson is a product of an upbringing of martyrdom & brainwashing. 

this is going under a cut because the post is huge.

i would be willing to say that the west coast brotherhood of steel is the least outwardly brainwashing faction of the brotherhood. however that chapter is just as terrible as the others in terms of leadership & beliefs. 

the brotherhood is a closed-minded, singularly-goaled organization that makes its members believe in their cause by essentially breaking their souls. one is pitted against every creature the wastes has to offer; deathclaws, radscorpions, super mutants, feral ghouls. recruits receive little training because the brotherhood is in a desperate rush to gain more members as they become increasingly irrelevant & unwanted by the general people of the wastes. 

as evidenced by mcnamara’s running of the mojave bos, elders have complete & total control over the group of people they oversee. nobody else has a say, there is complete authority & control. if one disagrees or dissents against the governing body, they risk consequences of being kicked out (likely from the only home they have ever known, as the bos rarely accepts outsiders into their ranks: you’re born there, you die there) or severely punished by bos leadership. what the elder says, goes, & it is extremely difficult to “impeach” an elder from their position without jumping through many hoops. even if the impeachment is successful, the chapter is likely to be in shambles for many months on end as preparations were not made to accept a new elder. 

in the case of the eastern coast chapter, the brotherhood was in shambles for years after the death of elder lyons, & then his daughter sarah. many people took over after them to try to fill the position, but none could command the brotherhood as they had, & nobody had been groomed for the position after them. 

so, what exactly does the brotherhood seek to accomplish? they seek to “protect humanity from itself & rebuild civilization no matter the cost”. now what is wrong with this statement, one may ask: well, firstly, it says “humanity”. just humans, not ghouls or synths or super mutants. just humanity. secondly, it seeks to destroy all higher technology that could pose a threat to the general public or take that technology for themselves (their entire beef with the institute & synths). thirdly, “no matter the cost” implies that they would not be above genocide if it furthered their cause (as evidenced by the entire plot of fallout 3 (though the enclave was arguably exponentially more terrible than the brotherhood), & if you side with them, the plot of fallout 4). 

how does this all relate to veronica? 

the brotherhood tried to break veronica’s will. especially elijah, who was a radical that used his position as the elder to separate veronica from her girlfriend. he used his relationship with veronica to further manipulate her beyond that, as well -- he demonized her parents to make himself seem like he was veronica’s savior, her only true parental figure, the only one who really cared for her. he brought her along with her on his dangerous journeys, & he cost the brotherhood many, many, many resources by insisting on remaining at helios one (i presume this is probably where her parents died ngl). she brushes it off in conversation (”i guess it was important”), pretends that the death of her parents doesn’t affect her, but in all truthfulness it is the final nail in her theoretical coffin that makes veronica fall into a weird, twisted depression & hopelessness. 

she hides beneath the idea of “wanting to see the world” & “trying to help the brotherhood” when in reality, it is her trying to find a purpose. she has become disillusioned with the brotherhood’s ideals, she feels detached from her home & the only family she has ever known. she sees them going down a dark path (which she struggles to acknowledge as the dark path they have ALWAYS been going down), & seeks to save them. but it’s deeper than that, more than just her longing for the nostalgia of her days with elijah, because she knows that the “idyllic” brotherhood she misses doesn’t exist & never has, she knows that the brotherhood has manipulated her & everyone else, that the people they are now are products of years of careful control & brainwashing by power-hungry fools who thought that the rest of society was too stupid to handle anything for themselves. 

the brotherhood is elitist, imperialistic, & believes itself to be superior. the brotherhood gets what it wants, at any cost, even at the cost of its own people (the grunts are expendable, though the leadership hides that behind false honor. the only ones who really care about the fallen are the bleeding hearts of the scribes). 

one cannot deny that the brotherhood is at fault in many situations. that the brotherhood teaches that groups like the ncr are terrible & seek to destroy them. that ghouls & super mutants & synths are terrible creations that will see the end of humanity, the end of civilization by their hands. that anyone who isn’t brotherhood or the helpless human sheep of anyone that isn’t the brotherhood needs protection from these terrible enemies, that the brotherhood is the only chance, that the rest of society is too stupid & disillusioned to everything else, too naive, too unskilled, too uneducated, too selfish, too cowardly to do anything themselves (though the rest of civilization had done quite well for themselves before the lone wanderer showed up to finish project purity. i, as a person, would argue that project purity is the only good thing the eastern brotherhood ever really did for anyone else). 

the brotherhood has potential, under the right leadership. get rid of the bigotry, the one-track mindedness of the people in the brotherhood, the elitist & imperialist attitude, the superiority they have against the rest of society, the viewing everyone else as victims & themselves the savior, & you will end up with a group raw for shaping into a powerful, positive force that can really do some actual good for the people without underlying motives.  

[frontstreet1]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

PITTSBURGH — The man accused in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre appeared briefly in federal court in a wheelchair and handcuffs Monday to face charges he killed 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history.

Robert Gregory Bowers, who was wounded in a gun battle with police during the shooting rampage, was released from a hospital and wheeled into the courtroom, where he was ordered held without bail for a preliminary hearing on Thursday, when prosecutors will outline their case against him.

During the proceeding, Bowers talked with two court-appointed lawyers, went over documents and confirmed his identity to a judge, saying little more than “Yes” in a soft voice a few times. Courtroom deputies freed one of his hands from cuffs so he could sign paperwork. He did not enter a plea.

He was expressionless.

“It was not the face of villainy that I thought we’d see,” said Jon Pushinsky, a congregant who was in court for the hearing.

Federal prosecutors set in motion plans to seek the death penalty against the 46-year-old truck driver, who authorities say expressed hatred of Jews during the rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue and later told police, “I just want to kill Jews” and “All these Jews need to die.”

Tree of Life Rabbi Jeffrey Myers vowed to rebuild following a weekend massacre at his Pittsburgh synagogue where Robert Gregory Bowers is accused of killing 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history. (Oct. 29)

After the hearing, U.S. Attorney Scott Brady called the shootings “horrific acts of violence” and added: “Rest assured we have a team of prosecutors working hard to ensure that justice is done.”

Meanwhile, the first funeral — for Cecil Rosenthal and his younger brother, David — was set for Tuesday, and the White House announced President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will visit the same day to “express the support of the American people and to grieve with the Pittsburgh community.”

The response to Trump’s plans was mixed.

Leaders of a liberal Jewish group in Pittsburgh, Bend the Arc, wrote an open letter to the president, accusing him of contributing to the violence with his words and deeds and saying he was not welcome until he denounced white nationalism.

But Rabbi Jeffrey Myers with the Tree of Life synagogue made clear Trump would be welcome, telling NBC, “It would be my honor to always meet a president of the United States.”

The weekend massacre — which took place 10 days before the midterm elections — heightened tensions around the country, coming just a day after the arrest of the Florida man accused of sending a wave of pipe bombs to Trump critics.

The mail bomb attacks and the bloodshed in Pittsburgh set off debate over whether the corrosive political climate in Washington and beyond contributed to the violence and whether Trump himself bears any blame because of his combative language.

Barry Werber, 76, said he found himself hiding in a dark storage closet as the gunman rampaged through the building, in the tree-lined neighborhood of Squirrel Hill, the historic hub of the city’s Jewish community.

Werber said he hopes Trump doesn’t visit Pittsburgh, noting that the president has embraced the politically fraught label of “nationalist.” He said the Nazis were nationalists.

“It’s part of his program to instigate his base,” Werber said, and “bigots are coming out of the woodwork.”

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, said the White House should contact the victims’ families and ask them if they want the president to come to Pittsburgh. He also warned Trump to stay away when the first funerals are held.

“If the president is looking to come to Pittsburgh, I would ask that he not do so while we are burying the dead,” Peduto said. “Our attention and our focus is going to be on them, and we don’t have public safety that we can take away from what is needed in order to do both.”

Bowers killed eight men and three women before a police tactical team shot him, authorities said. Six other people were wounded, including four officers. Four of the wounded remained hospitalized Sunday night, two in critical condition.

The president of the hospital where a wounded Bowers was taken said that he was ranting against Jews even as Jewish staff members were treating him.

“He’s taken into my hospital and he’s shouting, ‘I want to kill all the Jews!’ and the first three people who are taking care of him are Jewish,” Jeffery Cohen of Allegheny General Hospital told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” ″Ain’t that a kick in the pants?”

Cohen, who is also Jewish and a member of Tree of Life synagogue, said he stopped by Bowers’ room.

“I just asked how he was doing, was he in pain, and he said no, he was fine,” Cohen said. “He asked who I was, and I said, ‘I’m Dr. Cohen, the president of the hospital,’ and I turned around and left.”

He said the FBI agent outside Bowers’ room told him he didn’t think he could have done that. “And I said, ‘If you were in my shoes I’m sure you could have,’” Cohen said.

Bowers was charged in a 29-count federal criminal complaint that included counts of obstructing the exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death — a hate crime — and using a gun to commit murder.

Bowers was also charged under state law with criminal homicide, aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation.

Just minutes before the synagogue attack, Bowers apparently took to social media to rage against HIAS, a Jewish organization that resettles refugees under contract with the U.S. government.

“HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people,” he is believed to have written on Gab.com, a social media site favored by right-wing extremists. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

HIAS had recently weighed in on the migrant caravan heading toward the U.S. from Central America, urging the Trump administration to “provide all asylum seekers the opportunity to present their claims as required by law.” The president has vilified the caravan and pledged to stop the migrants.

One of the targets of the mail bomb attacks last week was liberal Jewish philanthropist George Soros, who has been accused by far-right conspiracy theorists of paying migrants to join the caravan.

The youngest of the 11 dead was 54, the oldest 97. The toll included a husband and wife, professors, dentists and physicians.

Bowers shot his victims with an AR-15, used in many of the nation’s mass shootings, and three handguns, all of which he owned legally and had a license to carry, according to a law enforcement official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bowers was a long-haul trucker who worked for himself, authorities said. Little else was known about Bowers, who had no apparent criminal record.

By MARYCLAIRE DALE, CLAUDIA LAUER and ALLEN G. BREED – Oct 29. 2018 – 5:16 PM EDT

___

This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of “Pushinsky” and to show Jeffery Cohen’s comments were made to “Good Morning America,” not WTAE-TV.

___

Lauer reported from Philadelphia. Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Mark Scolforo in Pittsburgh, Michael Balsamo in Washington, Jennifer Peltz in New York and Michael Rubinkam in northeastern Pennsylvania.

___

For AP’s complete coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings:

https://apnews.com/Pittsburghsynagoguemassacre

Synagogue Massacre Defendant Appears In Court In Wheelchair PITTSBURGH — The man accused in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre appeared briefly in federal court in a wheelchair and handcuffs Monday to face charges he killed 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S.

[frontstreet1]

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

PITTSBURGH — The man accused in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre appeared briefly in federal court in a wheelchair and handcuffs Monday to face charges he killed 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history.

Robert Gregory Bowers, who was wounded in a gun battle with police during the shooting rampage, was released from a hospital in the morning and a few hours later was wheeled into the courtroom, where he was ordered held without bail for a preliminary hearing on Thursday, when prosecutors will outline their case against him.

During the court appearance, Bowers talked with two court-appointed lawyers, went over documents and confirmed his identity to a judge, saying little more than “Yes” in a soft voice a few times. Courtroom deputies freed one of his hands from cuffs so he could sign paperwork. He did not enter a plea.

He was expressionless.

“It was not the face of villainy that I thought we’d see,” said Jon Pushinsky, a congregant at Dor Hadash, which lost one of its members to the massacre. Pushinsky was one of two Dor Hadash congregants at the hearing.

Federal prosecutors set in motion plans to seek the death penalty against the 46-year-old truck driver, who authorities say expressed hatred of Jews during the rampage and later told police, “I just want to kill Jews” and “All these Jews need to die.”

Tree of Life Rabbi Jeffrey Myers vowed to rebuild following a weekend massacre at his Pittsburgh synagogue where Robert Gregory Bowers is accused of killing 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history. (Oct. 29)

After the hearing, U.S. Attorney Scott Brady called the shootings “horrific acts of violence” and added: “Rest assured we have a team of prosecutors working hard to ensure that justice is done.”

The first funeral — for Cecil Rosenthal and his younger brother, David — was set for Tuesday.

Survivors, meanwhile, began offering harrowing accounts of the mass shooting Saturday inside Tree of Life Synagogue.

Barry Werber, 76, said he found himself hiding in a dark storage closet as the gunman tore through the building.

“I don’t know why he thinks the Jews are responsible for all the ills in the world, but he’s not the first and he won’t be the last,” Werber said. “Unfortunately, that’s our burden to bear. It breaks my heart.”

The White House announced President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will visit Pennsylvania on Tuesday “to express the support of the American people and to grieve with the Pittsburgh community.”

The response to Trump’s plans to visit has been mixed.

Leaders of a liberal Jewish group in Pittsburgh wrote an open letter to the president, saying he was not welcome until he denounced white nationalism. But Rabbi Jeffrey Myers with the Tree of Life synagogue made clear Trump would be welcome, telling NBC, “It would be my honor to always meet a president of the United States.”

The weekend massacre — which took place 10 days before the midterm elections — heightened tensions around the country, coming just a day after the arrest of the Florida man accused of sending a wave of pipe bombs to Trump critics.

The mail bomb attacks and the bloodshed in Pittsburgh set off debate over whether the corrosive political climate in Washington and beyond contributed to the violence and whether Trump himself bears any blame because of his combative language.

Werber noted that the president has embraced the politically fraught label of “nationalist.” He said the Nazis were nationalists.

“It’s part of his program to instigate his base,” Werber said, and “bigots are coming out of the woodwork.”

Bowers killed eight men and three women before a police tactical team shot him, authorities said. Six other people were wounded, including four officers. Four of the wounded remained hospitalized Sunday night, two in critical condition.

He was charged in a 29-count federal criminal complaint that included counts of obstructing the exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death — a hate crime — and using a gun to commit murder.

Bowers was also charged under state law with criminal homicide, aggravated assault and ethnic intimidation.

Just minutes before the synagogue attack, Bowers apparently took to social media to rage against HIAS, a Jewish organization that resettles refugees under contract with the U.S. government.

“HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people,” he is believed to have written on Gab.com, a social media site favored by right-wing extremists. “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

HIAS had recently weighed in on the migrant caravan heading toward the U.S. from Central America, urging the Trump administration to “provide all asylum seekers the opportunity to present their claims as required by law and treat all migrants fairly and humanely.” The president has vilified the caravan and pledged to stop the migrants.

One of the targets of the mail bomb attacks last week was liberal Jewish philanthropist George Soros, who has been accused by far-right conspiracy theorists of paying migrants to join the caravan.

Three congregations were conducting Sabbath services in the synagogue when the attack began just before 10 a.m. in the tree-lined residential neighborhood of Squirrel Hill, the historic hub of the city’s Jewish community .

Speaking at a vigil in Pittsburgh on Sunday night, Myers, the Tree of Life rabbi, said about a dozen people had gathered in the main sanctuary when Bowers walked in and began shooting. Seven of his congregants were killed, he said.

“My holy place has been defiled,” he said.

In the basement, four members of New Light congregation were just starting to pray — with two others in the kitchen — when they heard crashing coming from upstairs, looked out the door and saw a body on the staircase, Werber recalled in an interview.

Rabbi Jonathan Perlman closed the door and pushed them into a large supply closet, he said. As gunshots echoed upstairs, Werber called 911 but was afraid to say anything for fear of making any noise. When the shots subsided, he said, another congregant, Melvin Wax, opened the door, only to be shot.

“There were three shots, and he falls back into the room where we were,” Werber said. “The gunman walks in.”

Apparently unable to see Werber and the other congregants in the darkness, Bowers walked back out.

Werber called the gunman “a maniac” and “a person who has no control of his baser instincts.”

The youngest of the 11 dead was 54, the oldest 97. The toll included a husband and wife, professors, dentists and physicians.

Bowers shot his victims with an AR-15, used in many of the nation’s mass shootings, and three handguns, all of which he owned legally and had a license to carry, according to a law enforcement official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bowers was a long-haul trucker who worked for himself, authorities said. Little else was known about Bowers, who had no apparent criminal record.

By MARYCLAIRE DALE, CLAUDIA LAUER and ALLEN G. BREED – OCT 29. 2018 – 3:12 PM EDT

___

This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of ‘Pushinsky.’

___

Lauer reported from Philadelphia. Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Mark Scolforo in Pittsburgh, Michael Balsamo in Washington, Jennifer Peltz in New York and Michael Rubinkam in northeastern Pennsylvania.

___

For AP’s complete coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings: https://www.apnews.com/Shootings

Synagogue Massacre Defendant Appears In Court In Wheelchair PITTSBURGH — The man accused in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre appeared briefly in federal court in a wheelchair and handcuffs Monday to face charges he killed 11 people in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S.