#stateless individuals

[pearwaldorf]

Hey so this is happening and it's bad. Palestine is not recognized as a state by much of the world, so this risks making these children stateless.

Belgium saying it has nothing to do with the current round of conflict doesn't mean a damn thing. It's not like Israel hasn't been bombing the shit out of Gaza before August. What sets off alarm bells for me is this:

[The spokesperson] said that the Belgian authorities remain concerned about potential "abuses" of the country's asylum system. "The Foreigners' Office regularly notes that Palestinians in the European Union go to Belgium to have children there in order to acquire Belgian citizenship and, consequently, to benefit from family reunification," he said. "[We will] fight against practices where people who do not have the right to do so try to possess Belgian nationality," he added.

I trust this anti-immigrant rhetoric is familiar to Americans and others. Oh no, they get to have kids outside of a war zone, get citizenship in the EU, and keep their families together. What an awful thing to help enable.

By definition, people who apply for asylum are in a bad spot. Certainly it is one way people will try to game the system, but people will attempt to exploit any advantage they think they have, especially if it gets them out of very real danger.

I don't know anything about how asylum in the EU/Belgium works or if the Foreigners' Office can even do this, but it is deeply concerning they think they might have the authority to do something that drastic. Denaturalization of groups (usually ethnic minorities) is closely associated with ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Please be aware of this sort of rhetoric around citizenship and nationality, and how it is used to punish already vulnerable people. Push back against it, because it is absolutely wrong and extremely frightening as a barometer of what people think is acceptable.

[mesetacadre]

I understand this is extremely Communism 101 to ask, but how would human civilization at this stage in history even be able to function without the state? Almost the entirety of progress made by humanity has been made possible due to the resources and power made available by states (even supposedly "private" ventures owe much of their success to the structure of a state), and the only examples of stateless societies are burried so deep in the past that there are virtually no success examples that are relevant, at least ones that can ensure the function of a society that is larger than a small community.

You've stumbled across the answer, at least partially. Human civilization at this stage can't function without a state. But the reason why, and the rest of the answer to your doubts, I think can be explained relatively succinctly. What is the state, in the framework of marxism? The apparatus for the oppression of a class over another, the perpetuation of exploited-exploiter class relations. And when the proletariat takes control of the state to create its own instruments of class oppression, it remains a state, but with an inverted character. The class oppression it exerts is placed upon the bourgeoisie, for the protection of the proletariat's political power during the long transformation of society and its relations into a communist one. By definition, communism is a stateless society, as well as a classless one, meaning that there is no longer a bourgeoisie, extant or otherwise, and that it's no longer the antagonism between classes that drives society. Those two qualifiers, stateless and classless, go hand in hand because of what the state is, an instrument for the exertion of one class' interests over all the others through implicit or explicit violence. So, therefore, since the state necessitates as a prerequisite antagonistic class relations to exist as a state, once the relations of society lack class dynamics, the state will cease to exist. This is, nothing more and nothing less, what the withering away of the state means, the disappearance of any class relations will necessarily result in the disappearance of the state as it has existed ever since the very first classes emerged in history.

We understand the simple administration of resources and society to be distinct from the function of class oppression, and it's only the latter that makes a state, a state. I understand your concerns come from a supposed elimination of that administration, but that's simply not what marxists refer to by the withering away of the state. As for the specific form of that administration of resources and society after classes cese to exist, I think it'd be a very sterile debate for this momemt in history. Those stateless societies from before the dawn of economic classes also needed to administer their resources in a logical way, after all, and that will be orders of magnitude more important after human society creates a similar organization of society, except with billions of individuals instead of tens of thousands

[apas-95]

Do you have a concept of what the "stateless, classless society" of communism would possibly look like? Personally I find it hard to imagine a functional society devoid of a state apparatus, I was discussing politics with a friend recently and they said they don't bother differentiating. Tween socialism and communism because communism isn't possible and I kind of wanted to reinforce the proper definitions of the two but since I'm also not convinced about statelessness I wasn't sure if I technically disagree with their point.

Well, principally - no, I don't have any concrete conceptions of what communism would look like, because we are not at the historical stage of building communism yet. However, here I think there's a misconception that is leading to confusion: the conflation of the state specifically and of government in general.

The state is the means by which one class subjugates another. The state's principal feature is bodies of armed men - police and armed forces. Ultimately, every piece of state apparatus and state power is dependent on the ultimate enforcement by these bodies; by the ability to escalate cases of disobedience to cases of force.

In class society, all things have a class character - all things are branded with the mark of one class or another, and serve the interests of one class or another. The dictatorships of one class over another, manifested through that class's state, envelop all aspects of governance and take them under the control of the dominant class, in service of that class's interests. However, governance itself need not be a class affair - in a classless society, the existence of organised committes and agencies for carrying out the tasks of public works have absolutely no relation to the domination of one class by another.

The assumption that 'stateless society' means a society without organisation or government, or even hierarchy as dictated by industrial production, is a misconception. Statelessness is simply the logical result of classlessness - that being, that with the withering away of classes, so too would the need for an apparatus of class rule wither away. The communist movement seeks to abolish, in the ultimate sense, the rule of one social class over another - not to abolish all differences between individual people, or between industries, or between sections of a given factory. It's entirely possible that the communist stage of society would, through advances in the means of production, do away with these forms of organisation, but that is not a goal of the communists, nor is it, again, something that can be speculated on at the present stage of history.

[veliseraptor]

Top 5 nonfiction books?

like. ever? damn, anon, asking the hard questions. this is based mostly on my current bookshelf, largely because it's the best basis I have for my memory

1. Splintered Light by Verlyn Flieger. This book changed the way I thought about Tolkien and The Silmarillion especially, and heavily informed my thesis (indirectly, mostly). I have been...less than impressed with most of Flieger's work I've read since, but this book has stuck with me.

2. Black Earth by Timothy Snyder. Incredibly upsetting book, very good. It's about World War II and the Holocaust, but more specifically about the way that the creation of stateless zones enables atrocities. I really like Snyder's work in general but this probably remains my favorite of his - although The Road to Unfreedom is also very good, as is Bloodlands.

3. Why Fish Don't Exist by Lulu Miller. I have such a hard time pitching this book to people because I don't really know how to summarize it. It's sort of a memoir and sort of a biography and sort of a science book and sort of...a lot of things. But it is all gorgeous and moving and compelling. I sniffled.

4. The Future Is History by Masha Gessen. I know relatively little about Russian history (I'm ashamed to admit) and this book was my first foray and boy was it a good one. I love Masha Gessen as a historian and this was just a deeply compelling look at recent history through the lens of a few different specific individuals. I still need to buy this book, actually. It's not even on my shelf and I still remember it.

5. The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher. This book fucked me up. I read most of it in about two days and a friend of mine told me "congratulations! you have discovered the reading equivalent of doomscrolling." It was also very, very good, and a damning indictment of the role major social media companies have played in shaping the social and political world of the past decade or so.

[apostacism]

If your concept of wardens is not informed by the brutal reduction to their life expectancy (both from the Calling AND from the fact that they are fighting darkspawn on the regular), then what is the point?? DA pointedly made all their military groups have glaring issues for all their members in one way or another, people think that's on accident, I suppose?

idk, maybe my Mahariel run in DAO told me about loss of freedom in a different way from Amell/Surana, where you are trading one prison for another, but it really feels like if you know Anders and Bethany, you should know the wardens aren't a fix-all for mages either. It's a guaranteed life sentence with a lot of turmoil before the end.

Not only that but the isolation, both physical (wardens strongholds, as we've seen, are often in shit places) and in terms of alienation from non-wardens (whose reception to wardens may range from admiration to disdain, depending on how recently wardens have been useful for anything and how much wardens are viewed as stateless leeches in that particular place and time). The loss of the opportunity for reproduction and family life (obviously different for mages, but the loss of being able to fantasize about something can still be a genuine loss). The fact that you are now permanently part of a military force and will spend the rest of your short, painful life in conflict when there's a very good likelihood that combat was never something you wanted at all.

People have a tendency to play their Amells/Suranas as rebels and freedom-seekers - and no shade for that, my Surana CERTAINLY fits that description - who prize being out of the tower/outside of Templar purview above all else. And sure, if an individual warden feels that way about the wardens - whatever. I'm not saying that no individuals ever prefer the wardens to the other life they might have had. I'm saying that as an analytical framework and a holistic view of the wardens, that lens is missing the point.

It's just as easy (maybe even more so!) to play an Amell/Surana who was happy in the tower. That backstory casts you as a prodigy and shining pupil, an example of success among apprentice mages. That is easily the kind of circumstance which could shelter a young mage from the worst of the tower and lead to them growing up with the mindset "yeah there's downsides but this is the best and safest option for everyone. I'm fed I'm cared for I have no material worries I'm in community with people who understand me and are like me etc etc" and for becoming a warden to be a PROFOUND violation.

With Mahariel especially the loss of agency and freedom are a striking theme but there's no particular reason that Surana/Amell should regard their conscription with YIPPEE except that players are coming in with meta knowledge and rightful anger towards the chantry and the circles versus softness towards the wardens informed by biased viewpoints from characters they favor (despite, again, those characters being DISAPPOINTED by the ultimate reality of the wardens).

[horizon-verizon]

Calling Daenerys a “colonizer” or an “imperialist” is actually genuinely insane because both her ancestors and her personally are culturally Essosi, and Valyria was itself a big factor in why slavery exists in Essos at the scale it does at all. While Slavers Bay was part of Old Ghis thousands of years ago, it spent an equally sizable and influencial part of its history being part of Valyria, to the point where several of the masters we encountered spoke Valyrian as their first language. She’s not an outsider, and there is no cultural misunderstanding. Outside of the abhorrent practice of slavery, she is attempting to fit in culturally, right down to wearing a tokar.

Some people already explained how it’s not allegorically operation Iraqi freedom from an authorial standpoint, but also, just from a purely political standpoint, Slaver’s Bay is a massive imperialist force itself. It’s not an unstable developing region, and Daenerys is not an agent of a powerful foreign empire attempting to destabilize it for the enrichment and strengthening of that empire. She is a singular individual and former bridal slave being followed by a truly stateless group of former enslaved people from hundreds of different places who herself has literally nothing to gain by staying there. Any allegory to US intervention in the Global South fundamentally falls apart when you think about it for three seconds, because the Slaver’s Bay itself is more akin to the US than it is to any nation in the Global South. (Which is also why it has so many powerful allies in other slavery-practicing parts of Essos trying to get her gone.) It’s a powerful imperialist machine. It also falls apart because it requires to deliberately misunderstand why the US has the intervention policies it does (hint, it’s not actually to spread freedom and democracy. It’s to steal resources.) There are no resources Daenerys needs in Meereen, and she actually is interested in and working towards the longterm stability and improvement of the lives of the people there, which is why she didn’t just fuck off to Westeros (or at least Pentos until her dragons grew) after Astapor.

And her haters keep regurgitating the “she just killed 163 random slavers and didn’t find out who ackshulllyyyy was responsible” talking point, but contrary to the show, there was no poor sad little Hizdar’s daddy who was really really so sad about the 163 murdered enslaved children. Because that’s not how anything works. Killing 163 children to intimidate Daenerys was not something that a few bad eggs got together and did by themselves, it was an official act of the state. The state in Meereen is collectively run by the masters, and organizing that kind of deliberate, calculated horrific action, from planning to execution, is the collective responsibility of all of the officials in the state. Every single one of them was as guilty as the next and the only problem there was symbolically only killing 163 of them instead of the all of them.

just from a purely political standpoint, Slaver’s Bay is a massive imperialist force itself. It’s not an unstable developing region, and Daenerys is not an agent of a powerful foreign empire attempting to destabilize it for the enrichment and strengthening of that empire...Any allegory to US intervention in the Global South fundamentally falls apart when you think about it for three seconds, because the Slaver’s Bay itself is more akin to the US than it is to any nation in the Global South. (Which is also why it has so many powerful allies in other slavery-practicing parts of Essos trying to get her gone.) It’s a powerful imperialist machine. It also falls apart because it requires to deliberately misunderstand why the US has the intervention policies it does (hint, it’s not actually to spread freedom and democracy. It’s to steal resources.)

Absolutely, but they'll almost never admit to that (unless it's like that blonde whitey on TikTok who blase said she'd be fine with Southern states integrating slavery) part of U.S. liberalism is disguised conservatism bc white supremacy.

[eretzyisrael]

by Bari Weiss

There was not a single conversation that I had in the week I spent in Israel where the person did not say a version of the following: There was an October 6 version of me and an October 7 version of me. I am forever changed. I am a different person. 

And that is another sense in which the story of the ancient Roman requires modification. The binary of war and peace, the pastoral and the military, is a retrospective luxury of powerful nations or empires. A small democracy, whose very existence is contested by populous autocracies, does not have the privilege, as Cincinnatus did, of going from the field of battle to the field to till. Israel’s citizen-soldiers are scientists, artists, and farmers, just as they are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. Israeli citizens, whether they serve or not, are not—as one Hamas leader said of Gazans—someone else’s problem.

“It’s like after you knock your finger with a hammer, you don’t feel anything for a while,” the journalist Gadi Taub said, describing what Israelis have gone through since Hamas’s invasion. “People haven’t begun to understand the extent of this earthquake and how it will change Israel. The tectonic plates have moved, and nothing in the system has yet absorbed or changed to accommodate what happened.”

The public intellectual and Bible scholar Micah Goodman told me in Jerusalem that the country went through a collective near-death experience. Imagine an entire society that, between sunrise and sunset, peered together into the abyss. “For the first time in our lives, we had a moment where we could imagine that the whole thing was over. That the whole thing ended. You know how when individuals have a near-death experience, they’re transformed. Because they learned that life should not be trivialized. As a country, we had a near-death experience, and now we’re transformed because we know that Jewish sovereignty should not be taken for granted. It can’t be trivialized.”

Israel’s founding fathers and mothers, having known a period when Jews didn’t have a state—a period in which six million Jews were murdered—understood the difference between statelessness and sovereignty in their bones. The paradox of their extraordinary achievement is that modern Israelis, who might appreciate the distinction intellectually, could dismiss the dread alternative even when presented with visible evidence of a fragility they consigned to the past. Or at least they could until October 7. On that day, the thought exercise became real.

If Israel, in other words, is currently fighting a second war of independence—an existential war necessary for the survival of the state, as everyone here believes—then the young men and women of this country are more than soldiers. They are latter-day Ben-Gurions. They are a new generation of founders. Indeed, as Gadi Taub told me in Tel Aviv, one of the slogans of this war is lo noflim midor tachach! Which loosely translates to do not fall short of the ’48 generation.

[tamamita]

in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, how would zakat work?

Well Shi'a Muslims don't believe Zakat (charity) should be collected by the state. It is to be distributed by representatives of the community. Zakat does not necessarily have to be money, but can be anything that ensures that the individual survives. There will always be needs.

[metamatar]

Excerpted with permission from BREAKING WORLDS: Religion, Law and Citizenship in Majoritarian India; The Story of Assam, a report by the Political Conflict, Gender and People’s Rights Initiative at the Center for Race and Gender at UC Berkeley.

The publication of the draft NRC in Assam in 2018 revealed the exclusion of more than four million persons from the survey rolls. Reportedly, some people were excluded due to spelling errors in their names or inconsistent names in documents. After the draft list was made public, excluded individuals were permitted to submit further documentation proving their citizenship. While a majority were not of Hindu descent, reportedly between one and 1.5 million were Hindus. The exclusion of a large number of Hindus from the 2018 NRC list is presumed to be the foremost reason that changes were made to the citizenship law, and that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 was enacted, whereby, in effect, only Muslims would be excluded from citizenship.

The (ostensibly “final”) update to the Assam NRC was undertaken on August 31, 2019. Approximately 1.9 million persons (numbering 1,906,657) were excluded from the 2019 published list, and may potentially lose their citizenship, and face expulsion, exile, and statelessness.

[...]

The Foreigners Tribunal of Assam remains the state mechanism for appeal for persons excluded from the NRC. Individuals may petition the Foreigners Tribunals with requisite documentation validating their citizenship. An appellant is deemed to be either “foreigner” or “citizen” as per the ruling of the tribunal. The process is hard, complex, and arbitrarily and routinely discriminatory. An analysis of 787 Guwahati High Court orders and judgments published by The Wire found that cases before the tribunals took about 3.3 years on average

[...]

September 2019, a Muslim family with land documents dating back to 1927 found that all members of their family were not on the NRC due to: “an objection filed [apparently anonymously] by someone against their inclusion in the final draft.” It is unclear who may file bad-faith objections or how they may be held accountable. Reportedly, approximately 250,000 such objections have been made, mostly anonymously.

[...]

Once declared a “foreigner,” an individual may be held in detention. Immigration detention centers are often locally referred to as “concentration camps.” Detention serves to criminalize and confine those deemed “illegal foreigners.” Without established limits or protocols for ethical resolution of the matter, detentions can be prolonged or indefinite unless deportation ensues. Currently, India operates thirteen detention centers, and others are being constructed to assumedly hold “undocumented” individuals.

[hasufin]

Radical Reinterpretation

In the novel 1984, they had Newspeak. It was like English, but not English. It was a language which allowed the Party to define what things meant.

While people talk about things like “Doubleplusungood”, the real power is in redefining existing words. If you can change what a word means, not only do you control what you say you also control what everyone else says and has said in the past.

The USA has jus soli “right of soil” citizenship, meaning that anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. This is a powerful thing for America. Historically, it was used to assure that black slaves were legally full US citizens, a right which had been denied to them prior to the American Civil War. It has another important benefit: the USA does not, and cannot, have generations of stateless residents. Although some may find that objectionable, it has been beneficial to the country.

This right is found in the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Now a reasonable interpretation to this would hold that anyone born in the USA save for the children of foreign diplomats (who have Diplomatic Immunity) are automatically US citizens.

In recent years, opponents of this right have advanced the claim that persons who are not here legally are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore their children should not be allowed US citizenship. Of course, illegal immigrants who are held in US prisons are somehow not afforded diplomatic privileges.

One would say that in order to end jus soli citizenship, the 14th amendment would have to be repealed. This is not the case. If the current Chief Executive decides on a reinterpretation of the words ”subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the courts allow it, then effectively the Executive and Judiciary branches will have changed the Constitution without involving the Legislative branch.

It is worth noting that the current SCOTUS has not shrunk from overturning precedent and radically reinterpreting words when it suits their goals.

Such a rewrite of a crucial right in the Constitution would have dire effects on the country.

Realistically, the current administration has no more ability to reduce illegal immigration than prior administrations; it is engaging in showy and brutal measures, but is not targeting the root causes. So there will still be a substantial population of undocumented people in America - but such a policy will create a further population of stateless individuals, assuring legal problems and severe unrest in future generations. This has not worked out well for any other country, and will not work out well for the USA.

It will deter legal immigration: this places the children of H-1b visaholders in limbo, and even if the current laws do not directly affect them, a sensible person will realize that US law is becoming increasingly xenophobic and the country is not safe for anyone presenting as foreign regardless of their legal status.

It could be used to disenfranchise large numbers of American citizens: a citizen could be challenged to not only prove their own US citizenship but also that of their parents. While likely not resulting in deportation or putting people in concentration camps, it could be used as an excuse to deny voting registration. Notably, this would particularly affect college-educated liberals who often move away from their families after graduation, and would find it onerous to prove the citizenship of family members who live many states away. (It might hurt some conservatives too, but if it disproportionately hurts liberals, republicans are okay with it).

In a larger issue, this sets precedent to essentially suspend entire rights by radical reinterpretation. For example, Article VI of the US Constitution states “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Current interpretation being that you cannot bar someone from public office based on their religion, or lack thereof. However, the Constitution does not explain what constitutes a religious test. A new interpretation would hold that this simply means you cannot require a person to perform a particular religious act or answer any questions about religion as a condition of public office; but requiring someone to be a member of a church (likely under the guise of “demonstrating membership in good standing within the community”) does not constitute a religious test, as it does not specify a particular church nor any particular religious practice. And, of course, local authorities would be allowed to determine which churches are actually members of the community. Such a reinterpretation could be used to deny public service to anyone who is not a member of an organized religion, and even to specify which organized religions can participate in government, while maintaining the façade of religious freedom.

Rewriting laws by redefining words is a powerful tool in the authoritarian playbook, and makes a mockery of the entire concept of the rule of law.

[tlacatecctzin]

The Decline of the "Left" in Regards to Women's Issues: A Radical Feminist Perspective

In recent years, the decline of the "left" in addressing women's issues has become increasingly evident. This erosion is not only a matter of policy but also a deeper ideological shift that has led to a significant misunderstanding of feminism, the inclusion of trans and other queer (TQA+) people into the feminist movement, and the queer takeover of anarchism. As radical feminists, it is crucial to analyze and critique these developments to reclaim and refocus the movement on the liberation of women.

The Misunderstanding of Feminism

Feminism, at its core, is a movement aimed at dismantling the patriarchal structures that oppress women, for our liberation.

However, contemporary leftist circles often misunderstand or intentionally obscure this goal. Instead of focusing on the material conditions and systemic issues that women face, there is a tendency to dilute feminism into a broader, less defined struggle for "equality" that fails to address the unique challenges women encounter.

Neoliberalism and modern leftist ideologies have changed the definition of feminism from women's liberation to "equality" for "women" within existing structures.

However, equality for women in this system is not only impossible but could never be real while supporting queer ideologies, capitalist systems, or generally liberal politics.

This misunderstanding undermines the movement's potency and distracts from the primary goal of eradicating patriarchal oppression.

Inclusion of Trans and Other Queer People into Feminism

The inclusion of trans and other queer identities into the feminist movement has been a contentious issue. While the fight against all forms of oppression is crucial, conflating gender identity with the distinct biological and social realities of women can obscure the specific nature of women's oppression under patriarchy.

As radical feminists, we recognise that the inclusion of trans women in female-only spaces and discussions often shifts the focus away from issues that uniquely affect women, such as reproductive rights, sexual violence, and economic inequality.

This shift not only muddles the objectives of feminism but also compromises the safety and integrity of female-only spaces, undermines the well-being of women and girls, and dilutes the definition of what it means to be a woman.

The Queer Takeover of Anarchism

Anarchism has historically been aligned with radical feminist principles due to its opposition to hierarchical and oppressive structures. Anarcho-communism advocates for a classless, stateless society where resources are shared equitably, and power dynamics are dismantled. These principles naturally complement the feminist struggle against patriarchy and the liberation of women from systemic oppression.

However, in recent years, the increasing focus on queer theory within anarchist circles has overshadowed the discussion of women's liberation. The inclusion of gender theory, and the prioritization of queer and trans issues, often clashes with the foundational principles of anarcho-communism.

Mutual aid emphasizes the importance of collective support and solidarity within communities. It is rooted in the idea that individuals and groups should help each other to achieve common goals, particularly in the face of oppression. The focus on individual identity and the fluidity of these illegitimate identities, promoted by queer theory can fragment this collective approach, diverting attention from the systemic issues that affect women as a class and weakening the solidarity needed to dismantle patriarchy.

Direct action, another key tenet of anarchism, involves taking immediate, grassroots actions to address injustices and bring about social change. This approach requires a clear understanding of the specific oppressions and systemic issues faced by different groups. The prioritization of queer and trans issues often shifts the focus away from the direct actions needed to address women's unique struggles, again, such as fighting for reproductive rights, combating sexual violence, and achieving economic equality.

Anarchism seeks to abolish all forms of domination and corrupt authority, but the promotion of queer theory within the movement has introduced new forms of ideological conformity and social policing, where dissenting views on gender identity are often silenced and met with violent threats. This undermines the anarchist commitment to free thought and open debate.

Moreover, I must repeat that the inclusion of trans women in female-only spaces and discussions often shifts the focus away from the systemic oppression of women.

The prioritization of queer and trans issues within anarchism can dilute the movement's ability to address and dismantle the patriarchal structures that fundamentally oppress women. To truly advance the cause of women's liberation, it is essential to realign anarchist principles with a focus on the material conditions and systemic issues that women face, ensuring that the struggle against patriarchy remains central to the movement.

Reclaiming Feminism for Women

To counter these trends, radical feminists must assert the primacy of women's liberation in feminist discourse and practice. This involves a return to the roots of feminism, emphasizing the unique experiences and challenges women face under patriarchy. It is essential to create and protect female-only spaces where women can organize and discuss their issues without the intrusion of broader, less focused agendas.

Moreover, radical feminists should critically engage with leftist movements to realign them with the goal of women's liberation. This involves challenging the ideological shifts that have led to the marginalization of women's issues and advocating for a feminism that is uncompromising in its focus on dismantling patriarchy.

The decline of the "left" in regards to women's issues is a pressing concern that radical feminists must address. By understanding the roots of this decline and actively working to reclaim feminism for women, we can revitalize the movement and continue the fight for true liberation.

[multifacetic]

afternoon, everyone! or morning, evening, depending on wherever you are on beyonce’s green earth. please call me anwar (not hadid, s/th, est), and i bring to you ansong’s favorite yuppie, nagano shunsuke, who is also not beating the unc allegations. under the cut is a surplus of biographical information and as always, feel free to like and i’ll contact you! 🤞

alrighttttyyy so some bg information: nagano shunsuke’s a fourth gen zainichi born korean from japan’s kansai region! meaning that the catalyst to rightfully blame was jp’s colonial occupation of the korean peninsula which drove his familial predecessors to migrate forcefully as laborers. i’d say that shun’s great grandparents on his father’s side were 1st gen migrants but they didn’t live long enough for him to know them growing up so…… in seo yeongju we trust (dearest halmeoni)

as a result of worker’s + economic exploitation and various social matters concerning the zainichi korean community in japan, shun basically grew up poor. lower class to lower middle (on a good year). it was very difficult to move up in one’s career due to ethnic discrimination and the work environment was often shitty and hazardous. so that paired with his father’s alcoholism (likely a physically + emotionally abusive father who cheated on his wife Btw) which stemmed from the fragility/stress/turmoil of his maintenance mechanic job including rearing a family with a woman he no longer loves because she’s not attractive to him after bearing his children is… uh.. Something.

and of course to make matters worse, after ww2, the japanese gov snatched jp citizenships from the zainichi community and made them foreigners/aliens to the country and later as stateless individuals (so anywhere from 1947-52) :-) imagine the stress shun’s fam had and Now they’ve been declared as 100000% displaced peoples. the naganos were outed after years of quietly assimilating with the japanese gov outing them alien registration statuses which made life even harder. so it’s safe to say that shun’s developmental growth lacked as he was often singled out, left behind, or neglected as a minority child growing up and slowly began to resent his own identity

seo yeongju, shun’s grandma dies and that shit hurt him so much ‘cause she was basically his mother and performed most of the emotional support if not childrearing because his actual mother is too occupied with trying to save her loveless marriage. yeongju is p important to him in that maternal aspect, but also she migrated from seosan, korean peninsula to shikoku as a young girl so again, more nagano family ancestral lore

but ofc things end up looking somewhat positive when shun gets into baseball mostly to avoid his abusive father at home lol being in the same room with that man sent him into a deep ballistic rage that no kid should be subjected but Anyways. pops saw potential with son so he began training with shun and their bond.. sort of.. got better and closer between father and son. wallahi not that playing fucking baseball is gonna answer the question of abuse but there’s that

shun ends up enrolling to osaka university on an athlete’s scholarship because otherwise his ass has no money to go to school, neither does his family and even now higher education for most zainichi koreans is basically almost unthought of???? so YEAHH shunsuke goes to school majoring in finance and economics but who gives a damn bc he’s trying to make it in the major league with drafts coming up. unfortunately tho bro gets a Really Bad elbow injury that he got 2 surgical operations for so… he’s cooked. he’s done for. just put the fries in the bag lil bro

haha jus’ kidding but yeah his dream is fucking cooked but it’s fine (not really) / shun ends up becoming his family’s 1st gen university graduate which is a big fucking deal because zainichi koreans were typically denied access to education. but even after graduation, shun had a hard time getting a job due to stigmatized discrimination, competitive job markets/outlets, etc.. and his official transcripts (lmao in case of hiring managers of companies decided to request them but they wouldn’t ask japanese applicants now would they?) were ass because he was greatly depressed working thru 3rd-4th yr of uni after the shitty injury. it seems that he just can’t win: works 7488548 crappy jobs and kept the restaurant dishwashing + hotel receptionist gig for a minute until…….. mizuho trust & bank gives him a call back for an interview!! and he gets an entry level investment banker job!! WE ALL CHEERED

life is looking a lot more positively: got a great paying job, the economy was flourishing in 80s japan, his (then) girlfriend and him are looking to move in together—it seems like nagano shunsuke is on top of the world fr. but allah’s timing is always strange and unrelenting as shunsuke unfortunately dies in a plane crash in fall of ‘88 with his gf on the way to yeosu for the week of chuseok. it was the first time traveling outside the country, let alone the first time visiting the homeland

so what’s next?

well 4 starters: he remembers absolutely nothing in regards to his past life. he’s your friendly bilingual financial advisor that lives on floor 8/unit 6. he lives a comfortable life of routine and prioritizes balance in his life. he’d look at you crazy if you told him his entire life story which is ^ above when he was alive. but surely…. something has got to be explained here. as in what’s going on and is he fr dead or like. not. u know

personality

i did mention that shun’s rather friendly! is always looking giving people and things a benefit of a doubt but once he’s been proven otherwise then yeah, there’s no going back. a bit of a yapper from time to time but it needs to be with the right person, otherwise why would he be yapping to someone who’s just gonna give him the lead paint stare….. also a lot more sensitive than he lets on (read: pisces moon) and is awfully in tune to his emotions + sensitivity but that’s none of your business. quick to get pissed off if something rubs him the wrong way too??? as in don’t underestimate his kindness and generosity among other things that’ll piss him off for reasons idk yet?? all crass and smart ass behavior, loves inoffensive banter, sometimes is too quick to say what’s on his mind before giving it a Good Thought (read: gemini sun, gemini mercury), u know the vibessss

connections

ok my bad for not thinking of relationship plots but i do have this wanted connection here in case if somebody’s looking to take up a 2nd/3rd chara. otherwise i love brainstorming!

[catherinetheprincessofwales]

Greek Royal Family |

"It is with deep emotion that, after thirty years, we hold the Greek citizenship again. The law of 1994 deprived us of our citizenship, rendering us stateless with all that this entails in terms of individual rights and great emotional distress. Our father and our family fully respected the result of the 1974 referendum.

However, the provision of the 1994 law on citizenship, a result of the political status at the time, was not befitting of a former head of the Greek state and an institution that served the country faithfully. The passing of our father marked the end of an era. Prerequisite for the reinstatement of our nationality was to declare a surname thus, we chose the one chosen by our late uncle, Michel De Gréce, that was the only familiar one to us since our family never bore a surname.

During the years we were deprived of our citizenship, we were driven by the duty and honor of serving our country with loyalty and devotion from wherever we were, with all our means. The same principles will continue to guide the course of our family."

Private Office of the Greek Royal Family, 23 December 2024.

[doufudanshi]

hi! I'm a big fan of your translations, thanks for sharing! I was wondering if you've ever done your own translations/interpretations of the names of the characters in mdzs?

hi!! ahh thank you! yes, I do have a (wip) post with my translations of character titles (eg cssr) and proper nouns in mdzs here! and I actually have been meaning to post an analysis of the mdzs surnames for a long time, so I'll use this ask to do so! thank you for reminding me!!

note: the characters are in traditional chinese :)

魏 Wei

this one is pretty self-explanatory for anyone who can read chinese. on the right is a 鬼 gui radical, which means ghost! for our lil 鬼道之王 king of the ghost path <3

(this radical also appears in a lot of words for "soul," such as 魂魄)

藍 Lan

I've often seen people simply say 藍 lan means "blue," and that wouldn't be wrong but it also wouldn't be completely correct. similar to how wwx clarifies that the 義 yi of 義城 yi city is not that of 俠義 heroic justice, but that of 義莊 coffin home, the in-universe definition from chapter 18 is that the lan surname is derived from 伽藍 qielan, which is a loan word from sanskrit, “saṃgharāma,” meaning buddhist monastery.

溫 Wen

溫 wen means temperature, warm. the wens do love their sun. pretty straightforward!

金 Jin

also straightforward. the jins are rich and opulent, and 金 jin means gold!

聶 Nie

here's where things get interesting. this is the one that made me think more about the surnames, and the reason why they're written in traditional here. I had always read nhs's name in simplified (聂) but when I saw it in traditional (聶), it clicked.

not only does 聶 nie mean "to whisper," but nhs has three 耳 ears in his name!!

AND INDEED, NHS HAS EARS EVERYWHERE, AND HE IS ALWAYS LISTENING. 👂👂👂

江 Jiang

this one I had to think about for a bit. of course, there's the most direct answer, which is that 江 jiang means river—and the jiang's are, of course, well known for their lotus pier and rivers and such. but a more interesting thought that occurred to me was that 江 may be a reference to 江湖 jianghu, aka rogue martial artist communities who aren't affiliated with mainstream society often seen in wuxia fantasy novels. those part of the jianghu do not adhere to government/law, but rather live under individual moral codes of conduct re righteousness, justice, vengeance, etc. quoting jeannette ng's essay on wuxia:

In Stateless Subjects: Chinese Martial Arts History and Postcolonial History, Petrus Liu translates jianghu as “stateless”, which further emphasizes that the hero’s rejection of and by the machineries of government. Jianghu is thus a world that rejects the dictates of the state in favor of divine virtue and reason, but also of a sense of self created through clan and community.

the jiang family precepts and ideals seem v aligned with this aspect of jianghu morality—after all, jc never lets us (or himself) forget that wwx's acts of vigilante heroism are those of an ideal jiang.

Bonus: 莫 Mo

mo xuanyu was only ever a blank canvas. 莫 mo means nothing, no one, none. </3

[lordascapelion]

Been a lot of talk about fascism and obviously leftoids have been making its definition “political stuff I don’t like” for eons, but I think I’ve figured out what it actually, really is based on some information I’ve been consuming lately.

In short, Fascism is the idea that the State is a metaphysical entity that the citizens are utterly beholden to. The State is the body, the citizens are the cells and various organizations are… well, the organs.

Fascism doesn’t have prescriptive dictates on how the economy functions because a prescriptive economic system isn’t the goal- the sustaining of the State is. This is why the fascist regimes we have seen played fast and loose economically. Of course, as in a body, the businesses (organs) are under tight control by the State, so while there might be some aspects of a market, there is no true free enterprise.

Just as in the body, where some organs are considered more important, fascism embraces hierarchy (its main departure from Marxism, it’s rival collectivist ideology). After all, some organs will be held in higher importance than others. While the State/Body sustains its citizens/cells, no one individual has worth outside how they contribute to the whole. Anyone who knows biology knows that cells undergo “apoptosis”- programmed cell suicide, all the time. Cells that rebel against these dictates are cancer and the body eliminates them.

Worth repeating is the metaphysical nature of the State in Fascist belief. Not to go all anime villain on you, but Fascists literally believe they are creating the next phase of human existence- the coming together of all to form a new type of creature. Fascism is not just a governmental system, but a religion.

Fascism is not about any particular mode or method. It only truly cares about the elevation of the Corpus State above the individual and will employ whatever works to achieve this state of being. It has absolutely nothing to do with being “Capitalism in decay.” Marxists hate fascism because it’s a competing ideology, not due to any ontological state of the fascist ideal. At the end of the day they are both collectivist politic-religions that attempted to fill the void left by traditional religion’s receding from Western culture. Communists hate fascists because they are too alike, not because they are opposites.

And finally, allow me to declare: fascism is total bullshit. Just like Marx’s stateless society free of money and human greed, the Corpus State will never happen. Human beings cannot devote themselves as replaceable cells to an uncaring overmind. It’s not in our DNA. Fascism claims to be able to overcome human nature to create the New Human, but the law of God/Nature trumps the “innovations” of humanity, every time. The disdain for the individual fascism holds is at odds with the ascendant divine spark within every human being. Liberty is the optimal state for humans to embrace their divine reflections.

[anarchopostings]

Chaos is Freedom✳

"We live in Capitalism, it's power seems inescapable, but so did the Divine Right of Kings" - Ursula K. Le Guin

"Not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow, and always" - Errico Malatesta

"It speaks to the very nature of our domestication that we only choose resistance so long as it feels like something we can win." - Serafinski 'Blessed is the Flame'

What Is Anarchism?

Anarchy is a social political philosophy that believes all hierarchies lead to exploitation and, therefore, must be negated and rejected.

Hierarchy is often defined as a pyramid system, with a group at the top, and everyone else organized under and to the bottom. Those at the top with the most authority, who strip away power from those below them. A hierarchy can mean many different things, and anarchist seek to oppose them all. Examples are social forms of domination such as white supremacy and racism, the patriarchy and misogyny, xenophobia, colonialism, queerphobia, etc. As well as economic systems such as class and capitalism, and the positions within them such as cops, landlords, bosses and politicians. Including but not limited to governments, states, and social political means of authority.

Anarchists seek a world where people freely associate with each other and build connections to help each other and their communities, in a multitude of ways. From workers unions to individual association and gift economies.

Anarchists most commonly advocate for Communism, a stateless, moneyless, classless society, but there are anarchists who believe in anti-capitalist free market styles of trade (called Mutualism).

Commonly, the media portrays anarchy as an ideology of indiscriminate violence and warlording, to propagandize civilization into believing we need to be commanded to be safe. Anarchists believe in communication, in transformative means of justice, in seeking peace when at all possible over violence.

However, this does not mean the Anarchist is passive. To resist domination is self defense, and anarchists believe in the right to defend yourself as needed.

A common phrase is "Anarchy is order, Government is Chaos", which some anarchists embrace while others reject. We are a part of those who reject it. Order is controlled, contained, and caged. Chaos is unbridled, free, and liberating. There is beauty in the Chaos, there is beauty in decentralization, of people organizing communities in their own ways not due to following any sort of Order, but because it is what's best for their community. Anarchy means a diversity of tactics. Anarchy means everyone doing what they can. Anarchy means doing what fits for each situation and community, not one answer fits all without nuance. This is not always ordered, that is to be embraced.

Anarchists believe in landback, anarchists believe in abolishing borders and the means of private and public property. Anarchists believe in the freedom of movement and the respect of nature. Anarchists believe we are not better than nature, humans are not better than the world, but do not get confused and think Anarchim means humans are a negative to the earth. Humans are a part of the earth, just like the plants and every other living being. We are here to live and respect nature, that doesn't mean at the expense of human life like what is advertised in Eco Fascism.

Anarchists are anti-capitalists and anti-fascists, always. Capitalism and Fascism are blood dripped hierarchies, antithetical to Anarchism at its core, and any 'anarchist' claiming to be for Capitalism and / or Fascism is no Anarchist, but an enemy.

If you made it this far, may we suggest going a little further?

Anarchist Reading List

Life Without Law, A Beginners Guide to Anarchism

Anarchy 101, A Beginners Guide to Anarchy

Armed Joy, Insurrectionary Anarchism

Anarchism And Other Essays

Anarchy.Works, Historical Examples of Anarchy

How Anarchy Works, Organizing Anarchy (Video)

Abolish Work? The Meaning Of Anti-Work (Video)

Why States Fail Humanity (Video)

The Tyranny of the Clock, Capitalist Productivness (Video)

The Psychology of Political Cults (Video)

Sticking To It, A Zine About Stickering

7 Myths About The Police

Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution

Blessed Is The Flame, an Intro to Anarcho Nihilism

Where to Read More

Sprout Distro

Crimethinc