#that they will be rejected by those who should be their allies and exploited by their creators under capitalism

[hera-the-shoggoth]

Smashing the robot in the name of copyright law is not revolution, it's reaction. It is the atavistic response of a person who doesn't understand that technology is a morally neutral thing wielded against the people and not an enemy that can or should be fought for its own sake. Capitalism exploits artists and forces all people to compete with technology for a wage. That, not machine learning, is what is causing art and artists to suffer.

lions are very mean and like jellyfish

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Steven Beschloss at America, America:

Anyone who’s spent time with an abusive narcissist understands the dilemma: If you just go along to get along, you’ll never escape their grip. And if you confront them, they will do anything they can to make your life a living hell—until you get away or they leave forever.

America is trapped right now in this ugly nexus, thanks to millions of Americans who identified with Donald Trump’s anger and hatreds or didn’t comprehend the dangerous choice they were making. But we have a chance to overcome this dark chapter with a clear, fearless opposition. That will require elected officials refusing to work with him and abandoning the idea that collaboration is the only way they can mitigate the damage he will cause or accomplish something themselves. The more they give him, the more he will take. The more they communicate that they accept his dominance and respect his power, the more he will exploit their vulnerability, particularly because he sadistically relishes harming and demeaning others. We saw that dynamic play out yesterday when the president of Colombia initially rejected two military planes carrying deported migrants, demanding that the U.S. create a protocol that treats these people with dignity before they would be repatriated. It was a moment when a significant trading partner and ally reminded all of us what we are fighting for.

��A migrant is not a criminal and must be treated with the dignity that a human being deserves,” Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro said. “That is why I returned the U.S. military planes that were carrying Colombian migrants.” Petro went on to say that his country would receive these citizens only if they are transported “in civilian planes, without being treated like criminals.” The bellicose, over-the-top response from Trump? He would immediately put a 25 percent tariff on Colombia and issue a travel ban revoking the visas of Colombian government officials as well as their allies. “These measures are just the beginning,” Trump threatened in a Truth Social post.

Could Trump have picked up a telephone and had a simple conversation? Of course, he could have and should have. It’s not like there wasn’t an easy solution. Colombia received 475 flights with migrants deported from the U.S. between 2020 and 2024, according to the Associated Press, including 124 in 2024. But the abusive Trump preferred to bully this strategically important ally, which buys billions of dollars in U.S. exports, including corn which is important to U.S. farming states. Reluctant to escalate the unnecessary dispute, Petro’s government subsequently announced that the country would make available their own presidential planes to pick up the migrants and provide them “dignified conditions.” Classic Trump case: Escalate a minor dispute that could have been resolved calmly and simply. Exploit the “crisis” he created to pound his chest and pretend that it demonstrates how powerful he is. “I have directed my Administration to take…urgent and decisive retaliatory measures,” Trump posted.

This extreme reaction concerned less than 200 migrants, but late last night Petro reversed course to avoid a trade war by allowing even military aircraft. And the false Trump response, delivered by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt: “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again.” Donald Trump doesn’t care about or respect laws. He doesn’t care about or believe in American democratic values and principles like equality, diversity and justice. He rejects free speech and despises the peaceful assembly of those who disagree with him. He is bored by the details of policy and governance, belittles the value of expertise, only wants attention and spectacle, and is determined to surround himself with sycophants who will bow down to him. He doesn’t care about or comprehend the pain he causes other human beings. He is more than ready to use political violence to get what he wants.

He will never make an effort to unify the nation. He will never rely on inspiration, only stoke fear, seek to intimidate and threaten violence. He will never work to gain the trust of the majority. Is this an American president? Are we obliged—are elected Democrats obliged—to treat such a man with respect? This is the person who pardoned over 1,500 convicted felons who attacked the U.S. Capitol; just this weekend he invited the remorseless Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes—freshly released from prison and his 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy—to appear behind him in a Nevada rally.

Should Democrats find ways to work with Trump or oppose him at every turn? Is there any reason to believe he will do anything to make lives better rather than commit acts to glorify himself and enrich himself and his billionaire cronies by stealing from the wealth created by hard-working Americans? As I see it, going along with even some of Trump’s policies in order to minimize the damage represents collaborating with a man bent on the destruction of American democracy and aiding his effort. I understand the decision of 13 Senate Democrats (many from border states) to sign a letter to Majority Leader John Thune, offering to work with him “in good faith” to craft border security and immigration legislation. But do they really think Trump will ever work with them in good faith, especially as he’s focused on mass deportation, building a wall (again) and demonizing refugees and Democrats?

As the transgressions and degradations and the acts of corruption and criminality mount—and, yes, they already have been at an alarming pace meant to shock the unsuspecting—we should demand that Democratic leaders and anyone who is committed to overcoming this dark chapter in our history refuse to work with this regime. That will become even more important as he is surrounded by dangerously reckless cabinet secretaries and others in leadership positions motivated to carry out his agenda, satisfy his hunger for vengeance and dismantle the very government programs and agencies they have sworn to serve. Soon the deeply unfit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will likely be joined by the retribution-minded Kash Patel at the FBI, the Putin-supporting Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “running” Health and Human Services.

[...] We have to prove that we will not be drowned, not just to be resilient in the face of hostile forces, but capable of confronting and overcoming them.

In the first week of 47’s reign of terror, he has rapidly slid the country into the toilet.

[beardedmrbean]

CAIRO (Reuters) - Palestinian militant groups threatened punishment on Thursday for "collaborators" furthering Israeli goals after the first substantial protests against the war in Gaza and Hamas' rule.

Hundreds of Palestinians have rallied in recent days in north and central Gaza, some chanting "Hamas out", in a rare show of opposition to the group whose October 2023 raid on Israel triggered a devastating offensive in the enclave.

More demonstrations, which have been applauded by Israel's government, were planned for later on Thursday.

A statement by the "Factions of the Resistance", an umbrella group including Hamas, threatened punishment for leaders of the "suspicious movement", which Palestinians took to mean the street marches.

"They persist in blaming the resistance and absolving the occupation, ignoring that the Zionist extermination machine operates nonstop," it said.

"Therefore, these suspicious individuals are as responsible as the occupation for the bloodshed of our people and will be treated accordingly."

Hamas officials have said people have the right to protest but rallies should not be exploited for political ends or to exempt Israel from blame for decades of occupation, conflict and displacement in Palestinian territories.

Some protesters reached by Reuters said they took to the streets to voice rejection of continued war, adding that they were exhausted and lacked basics like food and water.

"We are not against the resistance. We are against war. Enough wars, we are tired," a resident of Gaza City's Shejaia neighbourhood, which saw protests on Wednesday, told Reuters.

"You can't call people collaborators for speaking up against wars, for wanting to live without bombardment and hunger," he added via a chat app.

LINK

Videos on Wednesday, whose authenticity Reuters could not verify, showed protests in Shejaia in the north where the rallies began, but also in the central Gaza areas of Deir Al-Balah, indicating the protests were spreading.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has promised Hamas' total elimination, said the rallies showed its decision to renew the military offensive in Gaza after a ceasefire was working.

Hamas police, the group's enforcers, are again off the streets.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz urged Gaza residents to keep expressing their discontent.

"Learn from the residents of Beit Lahia," he wrote on X, referring to the first protest. "Just as they did, demand the removal of Hamas from Gaza and the immediate release of all Israeli hostages — this is the only way to stop the war."

A Palestinian official with a Hamas-allied militant group said protests were allowed - but not cooperation with Israel.

"Those suspicious figures try to exploit legitimate protests to demand an end to the resistance, which is the same goal as Israel's," he told Reuters via a chat app.

"We don't threaten our people, we adore their sacrifices, but there are some suspicious figures who cooperate with the goals of the occupation, they want to exempt the occupation of responsibility and disgrace the resistance."

More than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli campaign in Gaza, Palestinian officials say.

It was launched after thousands of Hamas-led gunmen attacked communities in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and abducting 251 as hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

Much of the narrow coastal enclave has been reduced to rubble, leaving hundreds of thousands of people sheltering in tents or bombed-out buildings.

[tmarshconnors]

The Suez Crisis of 1956

As a British nationalist, I must confront an uncomfortable truth: the Suez Crisis 1956 was a watershed moment when Britain, once the world’s preeminent power, faced the harsh reality of its diminished global standing. That fateful period saw Britain falter on the world stage and lose much of its grip on the illusion of imperial dominance.

The Crisis Unfolds

On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal, previously owned and operated by the Suez Canal Company, a Franco-British enterprise. For Britain, the canal was more than a strategic asset—it was a lifeline to the Empire, connecting Europe to vital colonies and oil supplies in the Middle East. Nasser’s bold move was perceived as a direct challenge to British authority.

The ensuing weeks were marked by diplomatic wrangling, covert planning, and military posturing. Prime Minister Anthony Eden, a staunch believer in Britain’s imperial legacy, saw Nasser’s actions as intolerable. Alongside France and Israel, Britain hatched a plan to regain control of the canal. The strategy was clear: Israel would invade the Sinai Peninsula, and Britain and France would intervene under the guise of peacekeeping, seizing control of the canal in the process.

The Illusion of Power

On October 29, 1956, the plan was set into motion. Israeli forces attacked the Sinai, and Britain and France issued ultimatums, which Nasser predictably rejected. Airstrikes and landings followed, but instead of showcasing British strength, the intervention highlighted its vulnerabilities.

The United States, under President Eisenhower, condemned the operation. Eisenhower, wary of Soviet exploitation of the crisis amidst the Cold War, pressured Britain and its allies to withdraw. The financial strain of the operation compounded the issue. Facing a collapsing pound and a lack of American support, Britain had no choice but to abandon the campaign. By March 1957, British troops had withdrawn.

A Humbling Defeat

The Suez Crisis was not just a military setback; it was a blow to Britain’s pride and prestige. For centuries, Britain had projected an image of unassailable authority. The events of 1956 shattered that illusion. The country was forced to reckon with a new world order where the United States and the Soviet Union held the reins of power, relegating Britain to the status of a secondary player.

For Eden, the crisis marked the end of his political career, his reputation was irreparably damaged. For Britain, it signalled the twilight of the empire. The humiliation at Suez accelerated decolonization, with countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean pushing harder for independence.

Reflections on What Was Lost

As a nationalist, it is painful to look back on Suez and not feel a sense of loss—loss of influence, loss of unity, and loss of the boldness that once defined our nation. The crisis underscored how much had changed since the days of Victoria’s empire. It revealed the cracks in the foundation of British power, forcing us to confront the limitations of our ambitions.

Yet, amidst the gloom, there is a lesson. The Suez Crisis, while a defeat, should remind us of Britain’s capacity for reinvention. From the ashes of empire, the country forged a new path, albeit a humbler one, grounded in soft power, diplomacy, and economic resilience.

In the end, Suez remains a cautionary tale: a reminder of the costs of overreach, the importance of alliances, and the need for pragmatism in a rapidly changing world. For those of us who still believe in Britain's greatness, it is a chapter worth studying—not just as a lament for what was lost but as a guide for how we might reclaim a new kind of leadership in the modern era.

[nsfwmiamiart]

(Second Draft - Version) Incoming Text for Sofia Vergara and Jessica ‘Simply Jess’ Marquez (@iamjessmarquez) and Jamie Chung (@jamiejchung) and Chloë Sevigny (@chloessevigny):

Dear Sofia, Jessica, Jamie, Chloë,

I want to give you a forewarning about wealthy individuals who offer you money and invite you on vacations with the intent to see you naked. Never forget that these men might record your naked bodies and use it to blackmail you in the future.

Remember, you are part of my royal household now, and you represent your royal family everywhere you go. Anyone who invites you to a party with the intention of seeing you naked should be considered a suspect.

The only man allowed to see you naked is Elon Musk. He will never record you or try to use it against you in any way. Elon Musk is my brother and a close ally of our royal family.

Make sure you remember this important fact: you cannot give your body to any man who offers you money. Those days are over—they are in your past.

Elon Musk will defend and protect you. Additionally, you can stay with your current husbands and boyfriends; we support and respect them fully.

Chloë should stay with her current husband; we support him.

Jamie Chung should stay with her current husband; we support him.

Jessica should stay with her current boyfriend; we support him.

Sofia should stay with her current boyfriend; we support him.

However, you must never seek intimacy outside your current boyfriends or husbands. If you do, you will face hate and jealousy. People are trying to bring us down, so ensure your loyalty remains with your current partners and avoid anyone outside this trusted circle.

The only billionaire allowed to have a relationship with you is Elon Musk. Anyone else is blocked.

Keep this in mind when you see billionaires chasing after you. They are not interested in you for who you are—they are after the power associated with our royal household. Protect yourself by refusing their invitations and free trips. Their ultimate goal is to exploit and enslave you.

Never forget: these billionaires didn’t care about you a month ago. They are only calling now because you are part of my royal household.

I encourage you all to buy homes in Mexico. Eva Longoria will help ensure your safety and take your security seriously. She will never let any wealthy man come near you.

Elon Musk will visit from time to time, and you will enjoy his company while under the protection of the Mexican armed forces.

Living in Mexico will safeguard the dignity, privacy, and honor of our royal family. It will be your safe haven. You will travel to America only for business purposes, and when you’re done, you will return to your secure neighborhood in Mexico.

This neighborhood will also house many other female celebrities who have chosen to escape persecution in America.

I know you are all smart women and will figure this out together as a team.

The end of this conversation.

Your loyal friend and future husband, Angelo (Crown Prince)

P.S.:

Synopsis of the Letter:

The letter is a forewarning addressed to Sofia, Jessica, Jamie, and Chloë, advising them to avoid wealthy individuals who might exploit or blackmail them by recording intimate moments. It emphasizes their roles as members of the royal household and the importance of safeguarding their dignity, privacy, and honor.

Key points include:

Caution Against Exploitation: Wealthy men offering vacations and money often have ulterior motives, and their advances should be rejected.

Exclusive Trust in Elon Musk: Elon Musk, described as a trusted ally and brother of the writer, is the only man permitted to be intimate with them, ensuring their safety and protection.

Support for Current Partners: The women are encouraged to remain loyal to their current husbands or boyfriends, who are respected and supported by the royal household.

Relocation to Mexico: They are urged to buy homes in Mexico, where Eva Longoria and the Mexican armed forces will ensure their security and create a safe community.

Avoid Billionaires: Other billionaires are portrayed as power-seekers who only want access to the royal household.

Safe Haven Lifestyle: Mexico will serve as a refuge from persecution, allowing the women to travel to America solely for business purposes before returning to safety.

The letter concludes by encouraging the recipients to work together as a team to maintain their honor and protect themselves, with the writer offering unwavering support as a loyal friend and future husband.

[mr880fan]

Chain Migration and the Diversity Visa Program: Legal Immigration at Its Worst

Mayor Eric Adam’s remarks that migrants will “destroy New York City” foreshadow the coming battle over legal immigration reform. Democrats know that President Biden’s radical open-border policies have overreached, and the American public is concerned. Even establishment, left-leaning polling operations are reluctantly picking up the trend that more and more Americans see immigration as a problem. The legal immigration debate, of course, is not a “yes” or “no” question, although that is how pro–mass immigration groups like to frame the issue, as Gallup did in publishing its recent polling results. This misleading slant obscures serious failures in our poorly conceived immigration system that most Americans would soundly reject if they understood it. Conservatives can win the immigration debate when they focus on the questions of how many migrants should be admitted and how those should be selected. This will require smart work in Congress designed not only to reduce widespread immigration fraud, but to push all admission numbers down and, most crucially, restrict “family reunification” to only the nuclear family. Conservatives acknowledge that the United States, a prosperous, continent-spanning country of 330 million, will always take in some number of legal migrants. For example, admitting just the foreign spouses of American citizens brings in some 250,000–300,000 immigrants yearly. Yet that number is artificially high as a result of the current flawed system; the high number mainly represents newly-minted American citizens, who, having recently immigrated themselves, are now reaching back to their home country for brides and husbands. Curtail the current system’s poorly conceived family-reunification process and over time the foreign spouse number will also begin to drastically fall. In winning hearts and minds, our presidential candidates and allies in Congress should return to two initiatives that have eluded us in previous legislative fights. First, they must end chain migration by eliminating the visa categories that authorize arrived adult immigrants to later bring their parents, grown children, and siblings to the U.S. These subsequent immigrants, selected for no other reason than their family relations, arrive in America and repeat the exact same cycle that made their arrival possible: They file paperwork for their extended families—parents, adult children, and siblings—and the process repeats like a never-ending chain letter. As discussed below, this system does not promote assimilation, does not select migrants for skills, training, or youth, and does not serve any real U.S. national interest except perhaps growing the country’s aggregate population. The second conservative priority should be ending the diversity visa program. Based on the dubious premise that some countries send too few migrants to the U.S., the program is exploited by international fraudsters who spread corruption and carry out criminal scams that far outweigh its benefits. Terminating both chain migration and diversity visas would reduce legal immigration by over 300,000 yearly. Just as important, turning away these arrivals will also impact millions of future potential immigrants, given that our current system—as illustrated by the foreign spouse example above—is designed to facilitate recent newcomers in later bringing in other family members from the home country. Pre-Biden, about 1.1 million lawful immigrants typically entered the country each year. The arrivals all become “Legal Permanent Residents” (LPRs, also called “green-card” holders). Of that total, some 700,000 are admitted through the family reunification process. What is crucial to emphasize is that the current system does much more than keep the nuclear family together, it is an extended family reunification process, leading to an unending chain of millions of new migrants. Established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965, the extended family reunification process is stubbornly defended by America’s powerful immigration-industrial lobby, which profits immensely from the status quo. American lawyers alone earned $8.5 billion in 2022, mainly from migrant families, guiding them through the INA’s incredibly byzantine rules. Like most federal laws, the INA is a complicated, antiquated statute that has, for over half a century, fiercely resisted common-sense change. In simple terms, the INA authorizes all immigrants to bring along their nuclear family when they first enter the U.S.; that is, the principal immigrant can bring a spouse and minor children when he gets off the airplane. Conservatives should have no problem with such a pro-family arrangement, to the extent America accepts any immigrants at all; after all, the nuclear family is the indispensable building block of all communities, and immigrants coming with spouses and minor children assimilate better and Americanize faster. The problem is the INA also entitles these new migrants, once established in America, in most cases after having obtained U.S. citizenship, to then file paperwork (“petitions”) that starts the process of bringing extended family—grown children, parents, and siblings. These three extended-family visa categories bring in more than 250,000 immigrants yearly and thereby set in motion the admission of additional millions in the future. A key reason these admission numbers are not even larger is that many extended-family would-be migrants are on waiting lists. Yearly admissions under the brother-sister category are capped at 65,000 per year. Admissions for adult children are also capped, although they still account for close to 100,000 annual immigrants. There are no numerical limits on the number of parents who can be admitted, and typically around 150,000 arrive annually, many of them elderly and past their economically productive years. Since all adult immigrants are allowed to file petitions, regardless of whether the visa category already has a waiting list, there are now almost four million foreigners and counting who believe they have a right to immigrate to the U.S. Legally, they have no such entitlement, and Congress should act to make that indisputably clear. The simple fact that they are on a waiting list has been used by DHS Secretary Mayorkas as flimsy cover to unlawfully permit some of those from Colombia and Central American countries to immediately enter the U.S. as parolees—another brazen example of the Biden administration’s lawlessness. In offering all these visas to extended family, the INA does not even pretend to serve any U.S. national interest, such as identifying young Anglophone migrants who would arrive on our shores with specifically sought professional skills. The INA actually works against quick assimilation, by not encouraging new immigrants to cut ties with their old countries and previous loyalties, but keeping the new arrivals focused on constantly filing petitions for their extended family, thus creating new waves of similar immigrants. Reality long ago demolished the INA’s quixotic pretense that international extended families need immigrant visas to maintain their ties. In our globalized world, they have access to instant communication, seamless money transfers, and affordable regular jet travel. While there is great value in keeping immigrant mothers, fathers, and minor children together, conservatives must expose how the extended family reunification concept of the INA is an anachronistic drag on forging new Americans. Of course, the pro-immigration lobby counterattacks. In particular, they raise the compassion issue of immigrants’s care for their elderly parents. In response, conservatives, who first fell for this argument back in the 1990s, should respond that U.S. national interests—in this case, compassion for aging Americans—must discourage the arrival of elderly immigrants. There is more than enough challenge in caring for our own aging population. For example, some seven million LPRs are 65 or older with perhaps four million enrolled in Medicare. Under complicated Medicare rules, elderly immigrant parents, after five years of residency, are entitled to substantial benefits in the overburdened Medicare system. How is such an arrangement fair to Americans who have labored a lifetime paying for Medicare and similar programs? Should not younger immigrants who arrive in this country have to accept that one of the conditions is they cannot bring their elderly parents? Although there are exceptions, elderly immigrant parents would likely receive better care in their home country, where medical treatment, funded by remittances, is certainly less expensive, and they can also be cared for by extended family in their original communities.  Moreover, today’s immigrant parents who join their adult offspring already in the U.S. inevitably leave behind other children, who have no immediate visa option, utterly defeating the INA’s declared notion of keeping families together. Ultimately, the powerful pro-INA lobby defends the extended-family-reunification system, not on account of its faulty premises, which are also tied to arbitrary mechanisms (e.g., why a yearly cap of 65,000 siblings?), but simply because it is the main motor to keep overall migrant numbers constantly growing. Conservatives should also work to end the diversity visa program, another task which we have failed in the past. First created in 1990, the DV program has brought in well over 1.5 million migrants to date, who have petitioned on the order of four million additional relatives, now present in the U.S. through the same chain migration. The DV program was originally justified as a way to bring in newcomers from countries that traditionally sent few migrants to America. Today, there is a very strong argument that contemporary America lacks no significant immigrant “diversity,” but in advocating for its elimination, conservatives need to stress the corruption, fraud, and criminality this program unintentionally unleashes on the world. Some 20 million people around the planet submit entries to the State Department in the hope of being selected for one of the annual 50,000 visas awarded. The ruthless paper chase to be picked as a DV winner has produced in numerous countries sophisticated criminal enterprises that fleece vast numbers of desperate, would-be migrants. For years, U.S. policymakers have basically ignored comprehensive reports documenting the high levels of criminal activity surrounding the program. Much of this fraud is perpetrated in the name of the United States. In truth, visa processing in many countries involves considerable levels of fraudulent activities, often connected to document authenticity, particularly birth and marriage certificates. U.S. consular and diplomatic staff spend considerable time and effort in trying to verify such documents, sometimes using screening tools such as DNA testing and background field investigations. But visa applicant numbers are too large and foreign government corruption is too widespread; in many countries corrupt officials issue authentic documents to unauthorized persons, making fraud virtually impossible to detect. The sad result is that the number of legal immigrants today in the U.S. who have used such tactics to gain their status as LPRs would probably shock most Americans.   Subscribe Today   Get weekly emails in your inbox   Diversity visa scamming is the worst. Some countries like Nigeria have made scamming the DV program a national industry, using online tools to reach around the world. In my own diplomatic experience, I encountered sophisticated visa scam operations that even involved American criminal co-conspirators working abroad and posing as U.S. officials. Many foreigners conclude that the U.S. government must actually be involved in, or at least receiving a kickback from, these con-games. In a word, immigration romantics in the United States need to be disabused; we should end the DV program because it is a corruption multiplier and certainly not worth the theoretical diversity contribution of 50,000 yearly migrants. There is much to do on immigration. At this moment, Biden’s open-border migration disaster is overwhelming the country, and thwarting illegal immigration should be the highest priority.  But a national debate is beginning to brew about remaking legal immigration, presenting smart conservatives, whether they are on the presidential campaign trail or in the halls of Congress, a golden opportunity. Tomorrow is a new day. Source link Read the full article

[bestworstcase]

One Chekov's Gun that has yet to fire I think the FNDM should bear in mind: Theodore is canonically so ready to throw hands that he'll wager his position as Shade's Headmaster just to spice things up.

Whether he ends up becoming an antagonist and that's how they defeat him, or SALEM decides to take him up on the challenge and Vacuo's cultural norms force him to cede power to her when he inevitably loses to her, that gun is on the mantle and WILL be fired before the Vacuo Arc comes to an end.

HDJFJD this would be hands down the funniest way for shade to fall, but could you quote the source on that bc i do not remember him doing that and couldn’t find it skimming through before the dawn

i did, however, just skim-reread most of before the dawn and reminded myself of a whole pile of vacuo thoughts including:

- lol the villains are a pair of twins with a fraught codependent relationship with each other, one who gives her people seemingly limitless power and one who uses literal mind control to force people to obey him (including his twin, although he doesn’t have as much control over her as she lets him believe), both entirely drunk on believing they’re the rightful heirs to a monarchy of the distant past. their father literally cites ozpin’s philosophy as a justification for believing in his family’s mythical royal heritage even though he implicitly admits he knows it’s bullshit. the heroes bemusedly ally themselves with the grimm to defeat said twins and it ultimately comes down to the more reasonable twin betraying the one who’s obsessed with control. i just—

- subtle!!!!!

- ETA: oh and yatsu describes the experience of being under jax’s influence like this: “With those alterations to his memory—to his very identity—a new Yatsuhashi had been born, with unrestricted anger, unafraid to use his strength to serve Jax. Meanwhile, the real Yatsuhashi, submerged in his consciousness, could only watch and struggle to regain control. He’d had to work out a way to turn his Semblance against himself for the first time, losing some of his own memory in order to cast off Jax’s programming and reassert independence.” so interesting that there’s another character cursed to live with a corrupted identity-stealing alternate version of himself in his head eh

- the book‘s cultural worldbuilding is profoundly interesting to me, because vacuans explicitly buy into the idea that you have to be “hard” to survive, that it is their fault they were conquered and exploited for so long because they had it too easy and they got “soft”—but the story itself contradicts this mindset at every turn, because rumpole’s vicious behavior towards the students (ostensibly to prepare them by stripping away everything comfortable from their lives) is revealed as deliberate sabotage, jax’s disdain for “weaklings” (and boiling unspoken hatred of himself for being “weak”) is explicitly the root of his corruption, every bit of progress the heroes make comes from cooperation and kindness, and one of the most emotionally triumphant moments in the story is sun rejecting his instinct to run into battle in favor of staying with a bunch of total strangers who need his help, followed by that group collectively leaping to help him dig his friends out of a collapsed mineshaft before he can even think to ask them to—in short the thematic conceit of the narrative is very much about the strength of community and compassion, not the rugged individualism vacuo takes so much misplaced pride in

- and in one sense that’s just of a piece with what rwby *is* but the thing is? that has NEVER HAPPENED in rwby proper, because rwby proper has been eight volumes of huntsmen and huntresses taking ozpin’s lead by treating the common people like helpless wards who must be protected, sheltered from the truth, and carefully guided into doing the right thing, and as a consequence the heroes of rwby proper have never ENGAGED with people as anything but a logistical and/or moral problem to solve—except blake in menagerie, sort of?, but even that is combat-oriented and framed as a struggle against communal apathy. meanwhile sun turns away from a fight—turns away from the thing huntsmen are meant for—to take care of people who are scared and disoriented and in pain, and those people IMMEDIATELY, without question, without discussion, come together to help him in turn.

- “it should not be this hard getting people to just cooperate” says oscar about a bunch of terrified people reluctant to evacuate their homes (though note that only one of them had an actual problem and her daughter was dealing with her, so catastrophizing much?). “the people he had just rescued, some of them barely able to stand on their feet, were helping him dig out someone they didn’t even know […] this felt like a different kind of teamwork” thinks sun about people who are scared and sick but see an opportunity to help and take it without hesitation.

- is ozma out of touch? 🤔 no, it’s human nature that’s wrong

- my hunch is theodore’s gonna try to take the fight to salem with the sword of destruction. he’s bombastic. he’s impulsive. when the crown attacks his school and his students ask what’s going on and who is attacking them he literally answers “does it matter? charge!” and he’s so keen on fighting that he harasses his own students into sparring with him (“dancing around the circle of students, jabbing fists at them, feinting left and right, beckoning them to come fight with him” who put this man in charge of a school). he has to be cajoled into mounting a serious defense against the crown’s attempted coup because he’s afraid of “weaken[ing] us for the big one,” i.e. salem, if he “invests our full strength in this fight.” he proudly delegates most of his actual job to rumpole, signs off anything she tells him to do, and pays so little attention that he completely misses that she’s been brainwashed. he is, frankly, kind of an idiot figurehead.

- now consider this: at the time NORSE turn up with the entire population of atlas and mantle and the news that the whole kingdom is just gone, all of one day after ruby’s apocalyptic broadcast, vacuo has just weathered a popular insurgency by reactionary monarchists and, although jax doubled the size of his army using his power of suggestion, fully half of that army comprised true loyalists. many of these people evaded capture after the battle and remain at large. grimm overran the city during the battle and the outer defenses of shade academy were breached. the governing council barely even qualifies as a joke; theodore is the king of vacuo in everything but name. and during the attempted coup, sun rallied the people of vacuo to fight back by invoking the exact same nationalistic rhetoric jax used to justify his movement (“Long ago, we lost our identity and our way of life because people became too content. We let other kingdoms come here and take what they wanted, put us to work mining dust, let us die in their mines. And then they left us with nothing but sand and heat. They promised us prosperity and paradise, but we ended up with nothing but bitter memories.”)

- in short the state is in shambles, on the brink of civil war, and at the end of the book theodore is already priming his students for an even bigger conflict (“when the time comes, we will be ready for the greatest test any of us have ever faced”)—without explaining who or what he’s talking about, so between this moment and ruby’s broadcast in the indeterminate future it’s all but guaranteed that every single one of these kids will have been thinking about where they stand if it comes to civil war or if vacuo is invaded by another kingdom because those are the things they’ve been primed to anticipate.

- and theodore’s social and political power in vacuo is contingent on maintaining a “good relationship” with the vacuan police and local huntsmen (many of whom are royalists).

- so vacuo is a hot mess a breath away from exploding into full-blown national populism, and theodore’s best shot at keeping that situation under control is to point it at salem, not the thousands of vulnerable refugees, and the most effective way to do that is to go all-in on the “hardship makes us STRONG and we’re BETTER than all these wimps who ran away when THE ENEMY attacked their homeland” rhetoric and if you are the de facto monarch in this situation, and half the nation does not consider your authority legitimate, and you’re temperamentally inclined to escalate the fighting anyway, and you’ve got the divine relic of destruction sitting in your basement…

- …yeah?

- and then as far as theodore himself goes the question really is whether or not he’s the first headmaster to get sense knocked into him before he dies because there is no way stoking those flames is gonna end well for anybody, including him.

- also if i’m generally on the mark about salem and she rocks up in the middle of all this to call a ceasefire and negotiate an alliance against the gods i will LOSE IT. the one kingdom legitimately prepared to go to war with her and she’s like “actually,” hskfbdkfb

- and that’s how salem’s villain -> hero arc provokes full blown civil war in vacuo, probably

[tea-party-at-wonderland]

China hit back at a report that the US has confronted it with evidence suggesting some of its state-owned firms may be helping Russia’s war in Ukraine, saying Washington should stop sending weapons if it wants the conflict to end.

China “would never add fuel to the fire, still less exploit the crisis,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Monday at a regular press briefing in Beijing. “The US is the one who started the Ukraine crisis and the biggest factor fueling it.”

“Rather than reflecting on its own acts, the US has been sowing paranoia and pointing fingers at China,” she said. “We reject such groundless blackmail, and would not sit by and watch the US harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies.”

The support from Chinese companies consists of non-lethal military and economic assistance that stops short of a wholesale evasion of the sanctions regime the US and its allies imposed after Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine about a year ago, Bloomberg News reported Jan. 25, citing people familiar with the matter.

The trend was worrying enough that US officials raised the matter with their Chinese counterparts and warned about the implications of supplying material support for the war, the people said, though they declined to provide details of those contacts.

President Xi Jinping has avoided criticizing Russia over the war and has offered to play a role in peace talks. Xi has also come out against the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict.

(Source)

[autokratorissa]

If we wished to sum up the peculiar object and ambitions of this investigation in a few words, I should say, first, that at a time and in a world which either stubbornly fight against Marx or cover him in academic honours while distorting him in bourgeois interpretations (economism, technocratism, humanism), I have tried to re-emphasize the fact that we owe to him the greatest discovery of human history: the discovery that opens for men the way to a scientific (materialist and dialectical) understanding of their own history as a history of the class struggle. I should then say that this science cannot be a science like any other, a science for ‘everyone’. Precisely because it reveals the mechanisms of class exploitation, repression and domination, in the economy, in politics and in ideology, it cannot be recognized by everyone. This science, which brings the social classes face to face with their truth, is unbearable for the bourgeoisie and its allies, who reject it and take refuge in their so-called ‘social sciences’: it is only acceptable to the proletariat, whom it ‘represents’ (Marx). That is why the proletariat has recognized it as its own property, and has set it to work in its practice: in the hands of the Workers’ Movement, Marxist science has become the theoretical weapon of the revolution. I should say, lastly, that class conditions in theory had to be achieved for Marx to be able to conceive and carry out his scientific work. So long as he remained on bourgeois and petty-bourgeois positions, Marx was still subject to the ruling ideology, whose function is to mask the mechanisms of class exploitation. But it is only from the point of view of class exploitation that it is possible to see and analyse the mechanisms of a class society and therefore to produce a scientific knowledge of it. The story of Marx’s Early Works and his rupture with his ‘erstwhile philosophical consciousness’ prove this: in order to fulfil the conditions that govern the science of history, Marx had to abandon his bourgeois and then petty-bourgeois class positions and adopt the class positions of the proletariat. […] it is only from the point of view of the exploited class that it is possible to discover, against all bourgeois ideology and even against classical Political Economy, the mechanisms of those relations of exploitation, the relations of production of a class society. When one reads Marx’s works, this change of position takes the form of a ‘critique’: a constant critique, from the Early Works to Capital (subtitled ‘A Critique of Political Economy’). One might therefore think that it was a matter of purely intellectual development. […] But on Marx’s own admission, it is the theoretical effect of a determinant cause: the struggle of the contemporary classes, and above all, since they gave it its meaning, the first forms of the class struggle (before 1848) and then the great class struggles of the proletariat (1848–49; 1871). […] Without the proletariat’s class struggle, Marx could not have adopted the point of view of class exploitation, or carried out his scientific work. […] I close on this comment because it is vital for us, who live one hundred years after Capital. […] It is only on the positions of the proletariat that it is possible to provide a radical critique of the new forms of bourgeois ideology, to obtain thereby a clear view of the mechanisms of imperialism and to advance in the construction of socialism. The struggle for Marxist science and Marxist philosophy is today, as it was yesterday, a form of political and ideological class struggle. This struggle entails a radical critique of all forms of bourgeois ideology and of all ‘bourgeois’ interpretations of Marxism. At the same time, it demands the maximum attention to the resources, new forms and inventions of the class struggle of the proletariat and of the oppressed peoples of the world.

Louis Althusser, Foreword to Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (1971). Trans. Ben Brewster

[knochengeier]

Drawfee Classpects???

I set a while ago to spitefully Classpect the Drawfee crew because they rightfully made fun of homestuck.

PREFACE:

I should state clearly that this is not meant as an attack on any members of Drawfee, and that I will be leaving out the majority of the negative aspects of the analysis. It should also be mentioned that this is more of an analysis of their online personas rather than who they actually are.

I did mention that I would leave out most negative things, but some things are core to a persons persona something they consciously and willingly put out into the world; again, this is not what I actually think these individuals are like, and is not a reflection of how I feel about them as a person. Things like "Julia doesn't know media" and "Jacob is the bad boy of Drawfee" that are explicitly stated as part of the persona is free game.

So, without further ado

——————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————

Caldwell, Prospitian Muse of Breath:

A Muse is the embodiment of and the inspiration to others through their aspect. The Muse class is one in a pair of incredibly powerful and rare classes known as the “master classes.”

Breath is the aspect of individuality, drive, optimism, and most importantly freedom.

As the Muse of Breath Caldwell inspires others to be themselves and be free, motivating creativity and driving others to pursue their dreams. Caldwells unbound optimism and resolve is a force to be reckoned with, in fact he so embodies freedom and enthusiastic ambition that he left Drawfee to pursue his own creative endeavors on the west coast.

Caldwell commands not only the forces of Skaia, but Skaia itself; his inspiring aura would be strong enough to end the war between Prospit and Derse in an instant, and even those that opposed him would find it hard to stay committed to their cause for long.

Caldwell would have the power to: a. control the wind, weather, and possibly even lightning by freeing the electrons from their atoms (though that might be an active ability) b. bypass any restraints, physical or otherwise, by any means necessary which c. Also means that he can most likely teleport at will and d. Probably turn incorporeal.

——————————————————————————————————

Nathan, Prospitian Sylph of Hope:

A Sylph is a person who passively invites the healing and generation with their aspect.

Hope is the aspect of possibility, inspiration, and positivity.

As the Sylph of Hope Nathan is the light that helps others with his positivity and inspiration, not only does he help people but he inspires them to create their own hope. A Sylph of Hope would be able to see the potential for positivity in everything, and seek to be as amiable as possible, in turn helping others do the same.

Drawfee is as much a show about success as it is failure, it’s something that people can watch and say “These people make mistakes just like me” and they inspire hope for those down on their art.

One of the longest held of these humanizing aspects of the show is the apology at the end of every episode, which only became a thing after Nathan disliked a drawing so much that he was compelled to apologize, and it stuck. As much as that drawing might have sucked it inspired others who weren’t happy with their art to keep at it, and we are reminded of that after every episode.

Nathan is one of the first members of the crew to assure somebody that even if the piece didn’t come out the way they wanted, that it still looks good and is impressive nonetheless.

Nathan is the glue that holds this session together; with the presence of a prince, a bard, and a lord this session should have been doomed since the start, but Nathan’s pure awe inspiring hope promoted the best in everybody.

Nathan’s powers would include: a. A buff akin to bardic inspiration that could affect people to fight harder b. Healing abilities c. Probably an energy beam d. Manifestations of other’s hopes and dreams in the form of glowy specters like a JoJo stand.

——————————————————————————————————

Julia, Dersite Lord of Void:

A Lord is the embodiment and commander of their aspect, not through inspiration but rather assimilation and domination.

Void is the aspect of confusion, secrets, and doubt.

As the Lord of Void Julia is the sovereign of secrets; unpredictable, unknowable, and the proprietor of unknown knowledge Julia uses her runes and studied knowledge to summon hideous abominations creatures from the void.

Void players have an inextricable link to the furthest ring; the furthest ring is the incomprehensible and unnavigable space that exists outside of the universe. The furthest ring acts as an impassable border between universes inhabited by massive eldritch gods called the “Horrorterrors.”

Julia would not only have the ability to traverse the furthest ring and visit other universes, but she would also have the ability to bend the horrorterrors to her will. She would be able to switch in and out of grimdark mode at will, and most likely would not be adversely effected.

Julias powers would most likely include: a. The creation and manipulation of black holes and the general desperation of physical matter b. The ability to turn invisible and probably teleport c. The ability to erase peoples memories and mute their senses, and d. The ability to speak, read, and write the language of the horrorterrors.

——————————————————————————————————

Jacob, Prospitian Prince of Rage:

A Prince is a destroyer of and with their aspect.

Rage is the aspect of fate, defiance, and rejection.

As the Prince of Rage Jacob is the destroyer of and through failure, negativity, and rejection. Jacob forged his own path, he destroyed his fate as a writer and destroyed the limits and expectations for what an artist could be, and he got a job at college humor despite the odds.

Jacob is also, or was, a punk; a subculture that is predicated on the destruction of barriers through rebellion.

Even though he can use Rage for good he often doesn’t; he is well known for stirring discourse, his particular brand of Rage elicits anger and hatred thanks to his flaming hot takes.

He is also known for his infinite petty anger at dumb things ex. “see animals shouldn’t live under ground,” “lizards shouldn’t have to lick their eyes,” “muppet is short for man-puppet,” “mayo is food lube,” and “if god’s ever been mad at anything I’ve said, he hasn’t done shit about it.”

Jacob’s abilities would be: a. Becoming physically stronger the angrier he gets, or somebody gets at him b. The ability to create and control lightning c. The ability to pacify or remove the anger from somebody d. The ability to make people fear him or e. turn against their own allies.

——————————————————————————————————

Karina, Dersite Knight of Heart:

A Knight is a person who precisely uses and exploits their aspect as a weapon or a tool.

Heart is the aspect of emotion, passion, and identity.

As a Knight of Heart Karina uses feelings as a weapon. Not only does Karina use her powers to literally use the emotions of her characters (see Schmidt and Nando) as a tool to effect others, but she also has deep passions like Neopets, Digimon, and Yugioh that she uses as a weapon to torment the Drawfee crew.

Karina is passionate about her identity, never missing a chance to mention any of her favorite things like Beelzemon, Seto Kaiba, catboys, or her Texan roots (Bucky’s).

Karina would have honed impulses, knowing when and where to act and how to do (or draw) something challenging. She also has the ability to hype up her friends, strengthening their resolve.

Karina’s abilities would be: a. She can create a powerful glowing weapon by materializing her soul b. She could find out the weaknesses, emotions, and insecurities of enemies c. She could split into multiple versions of herself to create a veritable army of clones, and d. Enter a soul form where she is basically impervious to most attacks.

——————————————————————————————————

David, Dersite Maid of Time:

A Maid is a person who heals and regenerates their aspect or with their aspect.

Time is the aspect of machines, music, and endings.

As a Maid of Time David heals time; more often then not time is not an abstract thing, and the responsibility of time players is to keep the timelines in order and fix paradoxes.

David, as the chief editor for Drawfee is responsible for taking whatever dumb shit the crew gives them and edit it to make the video palatable.

David is also interested in theater (see “Artists Draw Posters for Musicals (They've Never Seen)” one of the only episodes in which they appear) which is related to time through music.

An interesting thing to note about Time is that it is often equated with heat, fire, and lava, something David has experience with, revealed in the episode “Drawing What We're Thankful For In 2019” in which Nathan depicts David with an overheating external drive (something that is also mechanical).

David could: a. Essentially freeze time, making moments last for hours b. Heal paradoxes in the time line c. Fix events so they go favorably, or d. Speed up time to heal a wound

——————————————————————————————————

Tristan, Prospitian Mage of Light:

A Mage is a person who understands their aspect by experiencing it.

Light is the aspect of fortune, luck, relevance, and knowledge.

As a Mage of Light Tristan has an innate and personal understanding of lore; Tristan, through his interactions with pop culture, knows a lot about said things.

Mages often experience their aspect in a negative way, seen in the frequent possession of Tristan by the Lore Librarian, and his burden of knowledge about absurd and obscure facts about nerd media.

Tristan is one of the only people on the crew who understands how the game works and what the final boss’s deal is, but you know he’s going to be cryptic and vague about it because it’s funny. Tristan would have the uncanny ability to know what something is without having seen it before.

Tristans abilities are: a. Foresight, he can tell exactly when and where something will happen and manipulate them in his favor b. He can give people luck or take it away c. He can manipulate light and probably use it as a projectile, and d. Know exactly what has to be done at any moment.

——————————————————————————————————

Willie, Dersite Bard of Blood:

A Bard is a person who invites the destruction of or with their aspect

Blood is the aspect of bonds, stability, and unity.

As the Bard of Blood Willie actuates the severing of bonds and the dissolving of stability.

Willie is a change maker, he breaks down the stable and familiar structure of the established group dynamics in Drawfee often in an antagonistic way; Willie is well known for his hatred for Jacob, and his very presence elicits the rage in both of them.

Videos in which Willie appears are marked by hostility, but through him new and interesting things get made.

Being a bard isn’t all bad, Bards of blood are not one sided; A bard of blood has the ability to destroy using the bonds they have, uniting a group of people under a cause to destroy something, like rallying the crew against Jacob.

Willie, like a lot of the crew, has a lot of buffing abilities; utilizing his bonds he can make others more powerful and fight harder than they could otherwise.

Willie’s abilities are: a. Control of literal blood b. Group sync, he acts as a conduit through which the coordination and damage output increases, and c. Dismantle, he can break the bonds of atoms and make physical matter crumble away.

[nietp]

So rather than bridging political identities or articulating a politics that moves beyond identity, allyship is a symptom of the displacement of politics into the individualist self-help techniques and social media moralism of communicative capitalism. The underlying vision is of self-oriented individuals, politics as possession, transformation reduced to attitudinal change, and a fixed, naturalized sphere of privilege and oppression. Anchored in a view of identity as the primary vector of politics, the emphasis on allies displaces attention away from strategic organizational and tactical questions and onto prior attitudinal litmus tests, from the start precluding the collectivity necessary for revolutionary left politics. Of course, those on the left need allies. Sometimes it is necessary to forge temporary alliances in order to advance. A struggle with communism as its horizon will involve an array of tactical alliances among different classes, sectors, and tendencies. But provisional allies focused on their own interests are not the same as comrades—although they might become comrades. My critique of the ally as the symptom and limit of contemporary identity politics should thus not be taken as a rejection of practices of alliance in the course of political struggle. That would be absurd. I am rejecting allyship as the form and model for struggles against oppression, immiseration, dispossession, and exploitation.

Communicative capitalism enjoins uniqueness. We are commanded to be ourselves, express ourselves, do it ourselves. Conforming, copying, and letting another speak for us are widely thought to be somehow bad, indicative of weakness, ignorance, or unfreedom. The impossibility of an individual politics, the fact that political change is always and only collective, is suppressed, displaced into the inchoate conviction that we are determined by systems and forces completely outside our capacity to affect them. [...] If we recognize that the attachment to individual identity is the form of our political incapacity, we can acquire new capacities for action, the collective capacities of those on the same side of a struggle. We can become more than allies who are concerned with defending our own individual identity and lecturing others on what they must do to aid us in this defense. We can become comrades struggling together to change the world. 

—  Jodi Dean, Comrade: An Essay on Political Belonging    

[thebadboyfanclub]

Well Behaved One (Flip Zimmerman x Reader)

This was requested by an anon. I wasn’t thinking about writing about Flip but since he is one of the few cops I would trust I thought why not. Also for future reference this page is ACAB, pro choice, anti gun, LGBTQIA+ friendly, mental health advocate and ally to everyone. So don’t come up here with some bullshit cause I won’t hesitate to talk some shit, alright? Enjoy

(y/n) was a bit of trouble for her family, fighting the boys that messed with her in kindergarten, playing with the “black kids” although she played with them cause they were the only ones that wanted to play with her, as she got older she would talk back to teachers, question the ethics of what they were teaching, now she was a college student, studying arts-which made her parents go crazy- and still standing up for what she thought was basic human decency.

“You don’t have to drag me I can walk”

Her voice was heard in the police station, making a lot of heads turn-including flips- as she walked in with her head high, hands handcuffed behind her back and an almost prideful smirk on her lips. The two policemen took her in one of the investigation rooms and another police man came in the station with a swollen nose.

“What happened?”

Ron asked. Flip was intrigued about finding out who made the bigot policeman bleed before he got the chance.

“Womens rights march, she punched a cop in the face”

“feisty”

“That’s why flip will interrogate her”

“Wait what? why?”

“Cause it’s your turn now”

Flip got up and started walking towards the room. He had to admit he wanted to see up close the ace of the female that dared to do such thing that a lot of people in this office wanted to do, cause to be honest he was a complete asshole.

Flip walked in and saw a pissed off woman wearing a black leather jacket, black shirt and a pair of jeans with black boots, her hair was up in a ponytail and maybe a tad bit of make up. Her expression was harsh and she was ready to punch someone if given the chance.

“Hello miss-flips pages- (y/l/n), I am officer Philip zimmerman”

“Good for you”

She fired back. Flip stayed silent and walked over, taking the key he had and freeing the girls wrists from the metal restrains they had put on rather tightly, probably to show off and make her life difficult.

She started rubbing those wrists, trying to hide the relief but also the pain she felt, it was her first time coming in the police station, but she was already taught what to do if this happened. Flip sat directly in front of her, not really knowing how to navigate this.

“I will not speak until I get a lawyer”

“You won’t need one. They haven’t charged you with anything they are just pissed off, most likely get an assault accusation but the officer will be too embarrassed to follow take your finger tips and let you go”

“He was groping on of the girls”

She stated. The only reason she went up to that cop was that she saw with her own eyes doing a “body research” and fully grab her butt, she had to do something since the girl was already scared and in tears.

“Excuse me?”

“That cop, he was searching one of us and he grabbed her by the ass, in front of everybody, the girl was crying. Anyone would have done the same”

He was left stunned, she was defending someone. He didn’t even doubt that the cop wasn’t touching the girl inappropriately, sounds exactly like something he would do.

“I understand. May I ask you a question?

“Sure, don’t have anywhere else to be at”

“Why were you there?”

“Why wouldn’t I be? This whole thing is filthy, racism, sexism whatever you want to call it, it’s like a jungle, not about who is superior or who is smarter, it’s about who hit first, who can get more aggressive first, who can pick up a gun first, we are fighting against each other. I am a white female, I look like them but I am still a female so i’m not enough, a male jew, he is a male but still a Jew, a white homosexual man, still a homo,so there is nothing really that fuels it, not a skin color, not a religious belief, it’s just about who killed who first and i’ll be dammed if I let another girl feel less than just because he did it first”

He didn’t have words to describe how he felt, in just a few minutes he became mesmerized by her mind, her words, her drive everything she said stood valid, he could say that he admired her.

“Give me a second”

With that he got out and did a straight b line to the officer that she had punched. Before that poor son a bitch could have a chance of seeing flip, flip had grabbed him by the shirt and pushed him to the wall.

“YOU SEXUALLY EXPLOITED A WOMAN? YOU FUCKING DICK”

“SHE IS FUCKING LYING, I WAS DOING MY JOB”

“hey, hey,hey Flip let him go”

Ron butted in and held Flip back. In the meantime (y/n) was brought out of the room and got to witness the whole thing. She smiled at Flip, seeing a cop defend the words of a woman was as a rare as a man helping his wife with the chores in the house.

“You are lucky she only punched you, I would have ripped your balls off you fucking dickhead”

As Flip turned his back on the scared officer he saw her, standing there with that smile again, almost like she approved of him. He went up to her and the officer that was showing her out and stopped them

“I’ll take it from here”

He said to officer and led her out of the station. He wanted to ask her out but he was afraid, of what you may ask? he didn’t know either, getting punched in the face, getting rejected, telling him she had a boyfriend.

“The charges were dropped”

“I told you, too embarrassed”

 She made chit chat, that was a good sign of him succeeding but something in the back of his head made him second guess his words.He was running out of time as they got closer to the door.

“Do you wanna go out with me?”

“What?”

“I am asking you out, like for a coffee”

She was asking him out? Well nothing really should surprise him coming from her, he ha to admit he was relieved she said it first so he wouldn’t look like a complete dickhead

“Aren’t you afraid to be seen with one of the pigs?”

“It’s alright, you are a well behaved one”

[quietnqueer]

Does one HAVE to be born asexual or can one BECOME asexual? Some thoughts on the ‘attraction not action’ and related discourse.

There’s no proof that asexuality arises from biology. However, that doesn’t stop many ace-spec folk (including myself) from talking about our asexuality as something inborn, innate, immutable.  We are adamant that we can no more change our ace-ness than we can the colour of our skin.

When we speak about our asexuality in these terms, we’re trying to get across how real our orientation feels to us. Asexuality isn’t something we chose, it isn’t something we made up. And it doesn’t matter that there’s no ‘asexual gene’. We just know we’re ace.

Claiming our asexuality to be something innate to us, is our strongest weapon in a world which assumes that everyone wants sex and everyone experiences sexual attraction. When we say we were ‘born’ asexual, not only are we popping a pin in that ‘sex is essential to the human condition’ balloon, we are also demanding that asexual people be recognised, accepted, and protected, for we cannot ‘help’ what we are.

The most widely-accepted definition of an asexual person today - someone who experiences little to no sexual attraction - encourages this ‘essentialist’ discourse.  Asexuality 101 likes to make it very clear that being asexual has nothing to do with whether you actually have sex or not. Asexual is an orientation, something you just are.

I want to talk about some of the problems and limitations of this.

Firstly, it doesn’t allow for the fact that some people’s sexual orientation is fluid / can change over time. The idea that one is born asexual is so dominant in the ace community, that the voices of those who feel they ‘became’ asexual, or move in and out of asexuality, could get drowned out, or worse still, dismissed entirely. Do we accept that people can identify as asexual even if they’ve experienced strong sexual attraction before? Can people claim to be asexual if their lack of sexual attraction is something contingent, influenced by their external environment, rather than as something innate and immutable?

For this is another issue with the ‘born asexual’ rhetoric. It prohibits an exploration of how social and cultural forces also influence / intersect with our asexual identities and experiences.

Before I discovered I was asexual, I didn’t identify as anything - not straight not gay not bi. I was just nothing, a blank. However, the reason I didn’t identify as straight wasn’t because I knew I lacked sexual attraction towards men; it was because I was a radical feminist and rejecting heterosexuality went with the territory.

Yet even now, having realised I’m asexual, my feminist politics still ‘inform’ my (a)sexual identity. My feminism reinforces my asexuality, it allows me to revel in it that little bit more. It’s not just that I don’t experience sexual (or romantic) attraction towards men. I’m glad I don’t because it means I don’t have to try and reconcile my ‘grrr patriarchy!’ worldview with any squishy-squashy feelings I may have towards individual men - because I don’t experience those feelings.

                                                         [...]

I’m a feminist who has never been sexually attracted to men or been interested in forming a relationship with a man. However, what if a woman was attracted to men, but decided to stop pursuing sexual relationships with them because she believed to do so would compromise her feminist politics?  Could she claim to be ace?  Well, in the seventies, during the days of second-wave feminism, some women did identify as asexual on this basis.

The authors of ‘The Asexual Manifesto’, a feminist pamphlet published in 1972, wrote: “we reject any possibility of sex… [to] prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed… For us, asexuality is a commitment to defy and ultimately destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.”  [You can read the full manifesto here.] 

In stark contrast to today, the manifesto does not define asexuality as an innate orientation, but as a political identity, as an “efficient ‘alternative lifestyle’ for revolutionary women”. It argues a case for women to choose asexuality.

To choose to lead a life without sex is still a radical act, especially when that choice is informed by a feminist / queer politics, and regardless of whether you’re sexually attracted to others or not. Given that so much of what The Asexual Manifesto had to say about the sexual exploitation of women still applies today, I think there’s grounds for incorporating this definition / experience of asexuality within current ace discourse and to create space for people to claim asexuality as a purely political identity.

                                                           [...]

What difference does it make, what harm do we think it would do, if someone wants to identify as asexual because they - quite willingly and quite happily - lead a life devoid of sex/sexual relationships, even if they (whisper it) still find themselves sexually attracted to other people from time to time?

I think ace discourse today is a little too insistent on making a lack of sexual attraction the arbiter of asexual identity. Asexuality 101 likes to point out that being ace comes down to ‘attraction not action’ i.e. you can be asexual and still have sex, you can be asexual and even enjoy having sex. What makes one truly ace is that you don’t fancy the person you’re fucking.

Now, I’m not arguing here for celibacy to be used interchangeably with asexuality. However, I think the emphasis on ‘attraction’ over ‘action’ does exclude some people from potentially identifying/allying with the ace community. There are people who experience sexual attraction, but who don’t have sex, who are sex-repulsed / indifferent, and/or prioritise / prefer non-sexual relationships. These non-normative experiences / feelings around sex are bound to affect their everyday lives, in ways which asexual people may understand and be familiar with.

I potentially have more in common with a single woman who experiences sexual attraction but who lives a sex-free life, than I do with an asexual woman who doesn’t experience sexual attraction, but who’s married and has sex with her partner. Those who live a ‘single at heart’ / queer spinster life can still experience a lot of stigma, and this is the case regardless of whether they are sexually attracted to others or not. The lack of ‘action’ can give rise to just as much discrimination / judgement / weird looks as the lack of ‘attraction’. But this is what gets lost I think when so much ace discourse, indeed the very definition of asexuality itself, is so firmly rooted in asexuality being an innate, inborn orientation.

Can we allow for people to become asexual as well as to have been born asexual?

Must we insist that asexuality is something that resides in your head with nothing much to do with what goes on in your bed?

I want to give a massive hat-tip to Rotten Zucchinis’ blog series: ‘Notes on Neoliberalism, Homonormativy, and Ace Discourse’ which got me thinking along these lines and inspired this post. You should definitely check out the series here.

[d3nt4l-d4m4g3]

Consider: The effeminists

Effeminist—(historical) A member of a male homosexual movement opposing prejudices against effeminate behaviour.  —Wikipedia

The next quote is from Jeanne Cordova’s When We Were Outlaws. She was a major figure in the lesbian feminist movement and created the most prominent lesbian newspaper of the time, The Lesbian Tide. This part of her autobiography is set when the lesbians employeed at the gay center (who created some of the first health care programs for women alcoholics, btw)  are shoved out of power. Most of the gay male employees at the GCSC were fine with what was clearly manipulative and misogynistic bullshit that would disempower an entire neighborhood of poor, lower-class women. However, one group of men stood by the lesbians:

“In recent weeks a handful of the gay male employees [at the Gay Community Services Center] had begun to support us, calling themselves “effeminists,” a term used by radical left wing of the gay movement. Effeminists glorified in the name “gay faeries” and understood that the straight world mocked them because they as (f-slur)  identified with women. They championed feminist principles like lesbian equality in the gay movement. They were usually feminine, rather than butch gay men, and they became our natural allies.” (Cordova 97-98)

The Effeminists’ 1973 Manifesto is below, transcribed from this archive:

The Effeminist Manifesto (1973) Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, Kenneth Pitchford

We, the undersigned Effeminists of Double-F hereby invite all like-minded men to join with us in making our declaration of independence from Gay Liberation and all other Male-Ideologies by unalterably asserting our stand of revolutionary commitment to the following Thirteen Principles that form the quintessential substance of our politics:

       On the oppression of women. 1. SEXISM. All women are oppressed by all men, including ourselves. This systematic oppression is called sexism. 2. MALE SUPREMACY. Sexism itself is the product of male supremacy, which produces all other forms of oppression that patriarchal societies exhibit: racism, classism, ageism, economic exploitation, ecological imbalance. 3. GYNARCHISM. Only that revolution which strikes at the root of all oppression can end any and all of its forms. That is why we are gynarchists; that is, we are among those who believe that women will seize power from the patriarchy and, thereby, totally change life on this planet as we know it. 4. WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP. Exactly how women will go about seizing power is no business of ours, being men. But as effeminate men oppressed by masculinist standards, we ourselves have a stake in the destruction of the patriarchy, and thus we must struggle with the dilemma of being partisans – as effeminists – of a revolution opposed to us – as men. To conceal our partisanship and remain inactive for fear of women’s leadership or to tamper with questions which women will decide would be no less despicable. Therefore, we have a duty to take sides, to struggle to change ourselves, to act.

       On the oppression of effeminate men. 5. MASCULINISM. Faggots and all effeminate men are oppressed by the patriarchy’s systematic enforcement of masculinist standards, whether these standards are expressed as physical, mental, emotional, or sexual stereotypes of what is desirable in a man. 6. EFFEMINISM. Our purpose is to urge all such men as ourselves (whether celibate, homosexual, or heterosexual) to become traitors to the class of men by uniting in a movement of Revolutionary Effeminism so that collectively we can struggle to change ourselves from non-masculinists into anti-masculinists and begin attacking those aspects of the patriarchal system that most directly oppress us. 7. PREVIOUS MALE-IDEOLOGIES. Three previous attempts by men to create a politics of fighting oppression have failed because of their incomplete analysis: the Male Left, Male Liberation, and Gay Liberation. These and other formations, such as sexual libertarianism and the counter-culture, are all tactics for preserving power in men’s hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a carry-over from one or more of these earlier ideologies – the damaging combination of ultra-egalitarianism, anti-leadership, anti-technology, and downward mobility. All are based on a politics of guilt and a hypocritical attitude towards power which prevents us from developing skills urgently needed in our struggle and which confuses the competence needed for revolutionary work with the careerism of those who seek personal accommodation within the patriarchal system. 8. COLLABORATORS AND CAMP FOLLOWERS. Even we effeminate men are given an option by the patriarchy: to become collaborators in the task of keeping women in their place. Faggots, especially, are offered a subculture by the patriarchy which is designed to keep us oppressed and also increase the oppression of women. This subculture includes a combination of anti-women mimicry and self-mockery known as camp which, to its trivializing effect, would deny us any chance of awakening to our own suffering, the expression of which can be recognized as revolutionary sanity by the oppressed. 9.SADO-MASCULINITY: ROLE PLAYING AND OBJECTIFICATION. The Male Principle, as exhibited in the last ten thousand years, is chiefly characterized by an appetite for objectification, role-playing, and sadism. First, the masculine preference for thinking as opposed to feeling encourages men to regard other people as things, and to use them accordingly. Second, inflicting pain upon people and animals has come to be deemed a mark of manhood, thereby explaining the well-known proclivity for rape and torture. Finally, a lust for power-dominance is rewarded in the playing out of that ultimate role, The Man, whose rapacity is amply displayed in witch-hunts, lynchings, pogroms, and episodes of genocide, not to mention the day-to-day (often life-long) subservience that he exacts from those closest to him. Masculine bias, thus, appears in our behavior whenever we act out the following categories, regardless of which element in each pair we are most drawn to at any moment: subject/object; dominant/submissive; master/slave; butch/femme. All of these false dichotomies are inherently sexist, since they express the desire to be masculine or to possess the masculine in someone else. The racism of white faggots often reveals the same set of polarities, regardless of whether they choose to act out the dominant or submissive role with black or third-world men. In all cases, only by rejecting the very terms of these categories can we become effeminists. This means explicitly rejecting, as well, the objectification of people based on such things as age; body; build; color; size or shape of facial features, eyes, hair, genitals; ethnicity or race; physical and mental handicap; life-style; sex. We must therefore strive to detect and expose every embodiment of The Male Principle, no matter how and where it may be enshrined and glorified, including those arenas of faggot objectification (baths, bars, docks, parks) where power-dominance, as it operates in the selecting of roles and objects, is known as “cruising.” 10. MASOCH-EONISM. Among those aspects of our oppression which The Man has foisted upon us, two male heterosexual perversions, in particular, are popularly thought of as being “acceptable” behavior for effeminate men: eonism (that is, male transvestitism) and masochism. Just as sadism and masculinism, by merging into one identity, tend to become indistinguishable one from the other, so masochism and eonism are born of an identical impulse to mock subservience in men, as a way to project intense anti-women feelings and also to pressure women into conformity by providing those degrading stereotypes most appealing to the sado-masculinist. Certainly, sado-masoch-eonism is in all its forms the very anti-thesis of effeminism. Both the masochist and the eonist are particularly an insult to women since they overtly parody female oppression and pose as object lessons in servility. 11. LIFE-STYLE: APPEARANCE AND REALITY. We must learn to discover and value The Female Principle in men as something inherent, beyond roles or superficial decoration, and thus beyond definition by any one particular life-style (such as the recent androgeny fad, transsexuality, or other purely personal solutions). Therefore, we do not automatically support or condemn faggots or effeminists who live alone, who live together in couples, who live together in all-male collectives, who live with women, or who live in any other way – since all these modes of living in and of themselves can be sexist but also can conceivably come to function as bases for anti-sexist struggle. Even as we learn to affirm in ourselves the cooperative impulse and to admire in each other what is tender and gentle, what is aesthetic, considerate, affectionate, lyrical, sweet, we should not confuse our own time with that post-revolutionary world when our effeminist natures will be free to express themselves openly without fear or punishment or danger of oppressing others. Above all, we must remember that it is not merely a change of appearance that we seek, but a change in reality. 12. TACTICS. We mean to support, defend and promote effeminism in all men everywhere by any means except those inherently male supremacist or those in conflict with the goals of feminists intent on seizing power. We hope to find militant ways for fighting our oppression that will meet these requirements. Obviously, we do not seek the legalization of faggotry, quotas, or civil-rights for faggots or other measures designed to reform the patriarchy. Practically, we see three phases of activity: naming our enemies to start with, next confronting them, and ultimately divesting them of their power. This means both the Cock Rocker and the Drag Rocker among counter-cultist heroes, both the Radical Therapist and the Faggot-Torturer among effemiphobic psychiatrists, both the creators of beefcake pornography and of eonistic travesties. It also means all branches of the patriarchy that institutionalize the persecution of faggots (schools, church, army, prison, asylum, old-age home). But whatever the immediate target, we would be wise to prepare for all forms of sabotage and rebellion which women might ask of us, since it is not as pacifists that we can expect to serve in the emerging world-wide anti-gender revolution. We must also constantly ask ourselves and each other for a greater measure of risk and commitment than we may have dreamt was possible yesterday. Above all, our joining in this struggle must discover in us a new respect for women, a new ability to love each other as effeminists, both of which have previously been denied us by our misogyny and effemiphobia, so that our bonding until now has been the traditional male solidarity that is always inimical to the interests of women and pernicious of our own sense of effeminist self-hood. 13. DRUDGERY AND CHILDCARE: RE-DEFINING GENDER. Our first and most important step, however, must be to take upon ourselves at least our own share of the day-to-day life-sustaining drudgery that is usually consigned to women alone. To be useful in this way can release women to do other work of their choosing and can also begin to re-define gender for the next generation. Of paramount concern here, we ask to be included in the time-consuming work of raising and caring for children, as a duty, right and privilege.

Attested to this twenty-seventh day of Teves and first day of January, in the year of our falthering Judeo-Christian Patriarchy, 5733 and 1973, by Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, and Kenneth Pitchford.

[dicapriho]

Important quotes to take from this article, that sums up perfectly why Daenarys’ treatment in season 8 was so heartbreaking..(long post with bullet points for easy reading):

Game of Thrones is "a world where women are often treated as disposable objects, Daenerys outwitted and overpowered her male enemies. As the sole protagonist in her own storyline, far from the rest of the characters, she was set up to be one of the few unambiguously [female] heroic figures in the series."

"in just a few episodes, she quickly transformed from a woman who has prided herself on saving the downtrodden to one who burns the innocent."

"[Daenerys’] treatment this season from the makeup of the writers’ room: The writers and directors on the show have always been overwhelmingly male, and women were shut out of both writing and directing jobs for every episode in season 8."

"Throughout her life, Daenerys has shown a commitment to justice...She freed the slaves in Meereen... When Drogon burned one child, she chained up her other two dragons, leaving herself more vulnerable...She put her fight for the Iron Throne on pause to fight in Jon’s war against the White Walkers [in the North where she knew she would feel unwelcome]."

"She was called the “Breaker of Chains” for a reason. When she misstepped, we forgave her, as we forgave, say, Tyrion for strangling Shae." [And Jon for killing a child for betraying him!]

“Daenerys has certainly used “Dracarys” to punish plenty of people during her reign... she always gave some compelling reason for doing so.”

She first used her dragon’s fire to kill a warlock who tried to imprison her, and again against a slaver who tried to cheat her...she crucified all the masters in retaliation for them having killed slave children — but they had killed children...She burned all the Khals who were threatening to keep her as a slave or rape her, or both."

Dany’s advisors gave awful advice:

"Daenerys agreed to make Tyrion her hand because Tyrion said he “knew things”...specifically, he claimed to know how to make alliances in Westeros and exploit people’s hate of Cersei in order to put Daenerys on the throne. Except, Tyrion did…none of that."

"...when did Tyrion convince a single lord that if they joined their side, they could get a new title and nice castle and see the land’s most hated woman [Cersei] burned to a crisp? Never."

"...what Tyrion did do: Try to cut a deal with slavers that would have kept slavery legal for a longer period of time, until Daenerys decided to burn their ships instead; convince Dany not to fly to King’s Landing and burn the Red Keep, which would have resulted in far fewer Kings Landing deaths; come up with the horrible plan to capture a wight that almost got Jon killed and lost Daenerys a dragon and still didn’t earn Cersei’s allegiance; convince Daenerys to trust Cersei, who has never proven herself to be trustworthy; forget to remind Daenerys that Euron and the Iron Fleet would almost certainly be waiting near Dragonstone, thus losing Daenerys another dragon; free Jaime from captivity in an effort to help both his brother and Cersei escape death at Daenerys’ hands..."

"Don’t even get me started on Varys, who didn’t write a single letter to a single lord to gain intel against Cersei or an ally for Dany but did find time to spread the word about Jon’s true parentage...”

“Tyrion and Varys were supposed to be her helpers. They failed her. Instead of owning up to this and realizing the part they have both played, Tyrion and Varys begin to worry that Daenerys is a flawed ruler exactly because she’s losing faith in them over their terrible decisions."

On the Sansa v Dany struggle:

"...The writers of the show cited much more petty reasons for their [Sansa and Dany's] conflict: “[Daenerys is] also very pretty, and how much does that factor in? Sansa starts off this season very suspicious and not at all friendly with Dany.”"

Her Isolation:

"In the last few episodes, Daenerys finds herself envying the love that Jon’s people feel for him...it’s destabilizing for her to arrive in Westeros and find that people are not eager to see her. Why, exactly, the Northerners don’t appreciate her dragons — without which they could not have defeated the Army of the Dead...."

"Daenerys rightfully glowers at Jon as his countrymen celebrate the fact that he mounted a dragon a couple of times when Dany has been riding one for years [Not to mention she is the first Targaryen in hundreds of years to have successfully mothered & raised/trained dragons]...In a mission to make Dany feel as isolated as possible, the show killed off her closest advisors, Jorah and Missendei."

"Daario is controlling Slaver’s Bay in her absence. Yara Greyjoy is sworn to her. In theory, the new Prince of Dorne would be allied with her since Daenerys struck a pact with Ellaria Sand. Daenerys could have called on any of these allies when she faced Cersei’s army but didn’t — simply because the show needed her to be alone ."

On Missandei:

"Game of Thrones fridged Missandei. There’s no other way to put it. Her capture and death happens just so Daenerys would feel isolated. The fact that the writers turned the only major black female character on the show into a device to motivate Daenerys feels even more cringeworthy."

"The fairly quick transition from complicated hero to totally mad villain leaned heavily on an oft-repeated line: “every time a Targaryen is born, the gods toss a coin”. But should Daenerys’ Targaryen blood necessarily doom her? After all, Jon is half Targaryen, too. So why does he get to sit comfortably on the other side of the coin?...The show has long been obsessed with various characters’ struggles to shake their family’s legacies. Tyrion killed his own father and joined Team Daenerys, only to betray Daenerys in order to help his family again." 

"Daenerys has long tried to differentiate herself from her father, the Mad King, only to become her father’s daughter."

"...the show’s most recent plotting flaws was Varys’ rushed decision that Daenerys was a terrible enough queen that he would endeavor to poison her — quite a stretch for a man who served under King Joffrey...Remember that Varys once wanted to put Dany’s brother Viserys, a demonstrable megalomaniac, on the Iron Throne."

"...when Varys found out Jon was a Targaryen, he began openly conspiring to undermine and overthrow Daenerys...He accused her of being paranoid while simultaneously conspiring against her, which means she had every right to be suspicious...Again, it’s a failure of the show that the man who was once revered as Master of Whispers walked up to Jon in the middle of a crowded beach and suggested he usurp Daenerys."

"Other rulers we think of as heroes in this story have executed men for less than attempted murder: Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark for killing the Lannister hostages, against Robb’s orders...Ned Stark executed someone for abandoning the Night’s Watch...Jon Snow executed the men who succeeded in murdering him (before he was resurrected) including Olly, a young boy."

"...Jon betrayed Daenerys’ trust by telling his family, and Tyrion betrayed her — twice. Davos also betrayed her too for totally inexplicable reasons by helping Tyrion smuggle Jaime to Cersei...Her advisor’s lie to her and gaslit her, plain and simple. And yet the way that Daenerys’ destruction of King’s Landing is shot, we are supposed to see her as the irrational one and Tyrion as one of the victims of her terror."

"...either due to time restrictions or lack of source material or just plain lack of creativity, the show took shortcuts this season...And those shortcuts tended to rely on the laziest of sexist stereotypes about crazed, power-hungry women."

"Maureen Ryan at the Hollywood Reporter put it best: “Inescapably, infuriatingly, what we’re left with is apparently the central message of Game of Thrones: Bitches are crazy.” "

"...Had [Dany's] paranoia been seeded many episodes ago and grown over the course of several seasons, it would be an epic Shakespearean tragedy. Instead we must infer this descent based on her frizzy hair."

"Worse, the moment when she seemingly decides to rule with fear, not love, comes after she’s romantically rejected by Jon...” [Suggestible that the lack of requited love is a strong enough reason for a level-minded strong woman to fall into a pit of craziness, despite all the good she has ever done and vows to continue doing..]

"Varys suggested that Jon would be a better ruler exactly because he did not want to rule. Figures in mythology and history ranging from Moses to George Washington to Harry Potter have been heralded as heroes because they came to power reluctantly. Those figures also tend to be male. How do our stories cast women eager for power? As evil queens. And now Daenerys is a cliché."

"There have been a lot of problematic characterizations of women this season, as revealed by the writers’ own commentary surrounding the episodes...Sansa essentially parroted what the writers have been saying for years about her rape by Ramsay Bolton — that it made her stronger...and the showrunners called Cersei, one of the smartest, most vicious characters on Thrones, “just a girl who needs the comfort of a man..”

"...in the end, Daenerys cycled through several tired stereotypes: Another evil, power-hungry queen literally shot with a dragon’s wings behind her; the crazy lady that a noble man has to heroically overcome..."

Like Cersei, Dany was a character introduced in the first episode, who ws incredible meaningful in the narrative of Game of Thrones. Instead of going out with a bang, Daenerys’ death wasn’t a bang like she truly deserved, but a whimper and forgotten to emphasise the man’s conquer and victory.

[ciceroprofacto]

Song of Alexander Summary

For those of you who can’t/don’t have time to re-read:

Prelude and prologue-2

Alex realized Washington’s the most likely leader to win the war and becomes an aide for his ability to conduct vital intelligence work virtually unnoticed.

He convinces Washington to take John Laurens on staff because he needs support against political rivals like Gates and Mifflin.

John is an idealist with a muddled history of misplaced guilt and homosexual tendencies.

3

John is attracted to Alex. Alex plans to exploit that by seducing him.

John and Lafayette get along- instant bros.

Victory at Freeman’s Farm hints at General Gates’s campaign’s coming success

Alex tries to get John to have sex with him at the celebration, but John resists because of previous breakup with Francis and guilt he’s associated with that ‘sin’.

He offers friendship instead which makes Alex feel threatened.

4

Despite Alex’s hesitation, they’re on the path to becoming real friends because they share a lot of interests and Alex is actually Soft. 

Besides, John has unrealistic abolitionist ideals which makes him seem less-intelligent and less threatening. So, when Alex has the chance to continue his seduction, he doesn’t follow through with it.

Battle of Brandywine- Lafayette saves John’s life.

5

Alex was sent to burn supplies and is suspected dead by Captain Lee’s detachment

John’s connection to Congress is used to urge them to evacuate Philadelphia.

John White comes to camp. Makes Alex nervous again because he’s jealous.

Victory at Saratoga makes Lafayette a vital ally for Washington, but John is already closer to Lafayette than Alex. 

Since John resists seduction, Alex extends work to him in a show of friendship.

Alex and Lafayette both leave- to heal injuries and prep Philly for evacuation.

6

John’s developing as a soldier and has moral conflict over his own violence. Alex returns to camp and soothes that while introducing him to reconnaissance work.

Alex leans into John’s offer for friendship. He reveals information about himself in a system of bartering for information and supports John’s command in skirmishes leading up to the Battle of Germantown. He shows more and more of his influence over Washington and his involvement in intelligence work.

John’s judgment at the Chew house extends the effort beyond their culminating point, expending resources, time, and ultimately leading to John White’s death.

7

John’s guilt over White’s death and his inability to return to work with his injuries lead him to a depressive spiral. He takes it out on Alex.

Shrewsberry and Tallmadge attempt to intervene, Tallmadge taking John out to drink with the intention of having Alex there.

They start a fight over insults to Washington’s command, favoring Lee.

After the lecture for fighting, Alex makes the case for John’s official appointment.

8

John continues his downward spiral over White’s death, fearing his own apathy.

Tallmadge gives him the opportunity to interrogate a prisoner and he shows Washington he can be useful for this type of work. Alex doesn’t discourage it.

Alex confronts John on the way to the Delaware fort. He’s invested himself in this friendship and feels adrift and threatened by John’s emotional retreat.

They meet the Marquis de Fleury and John starts his work supporting this effort. 

9

Washington informs John of the reputational risk of his mistakes at Cliveden and offers to protect him while asking John to reinforce his connection to Henry.

Alex conducts a subconscious campaign aimed at either proving John’s unworthy of his attention or getting John to prove his own investment in their relationship

The way that Wilkinson reported General Gates’ victory at Saratoga then received an unmerited promotion, and now increasing signs of mismanagement in the Quartermaster Department are starting to reveal collusion between high-ranking officers in the army.

Alex and John disagree over how much to trust Washington with his reputation

10

Alex left to take the minutes of Washington’s Council of War without saying goodbye. 

Lafayette returns to camp

Alex falls ill on the road. 

11

John meets Major Clark- General Greene’s aide and Washington’s primary informant in New York City. The only spy who’s successfully remained undercover there.

Alex’s letters indicate that he’s dying.

John goes on a raid with Lafayette. Reuniting with the man shows him how much he’s changed since Germantown. Lafayette doesn’t mind.

He’s nearly killed by a former-slave militiaman before an earthquake interrupts.

12

Hamilton returns to camp and is seen by Doctor McHenry.

Laurens reads a letter from Ned Stevens and starts to realize how much he doesn’t know about Alex He feels more evenly-matched to Alex now, understanding his job..

They argue over how much or how little to tell Lafayette about the cabal.

A committee of congressmen comes to camp to collect Washington’s reports of the things the army needs. The lineup of representatives is obviously a political move. Alex brings John to talk with them while Lafayette’s going to ask their opinion of the assignment he’s received to lead an expedition into Canada. 

Alex plays his illness to a political angle and John snaps at him about how worried he’s been. Alex survived his illness to accept John’s friendship and he meets John halfway.

John finally overcomes his hangups over comparing Alex and Kinloch

13

Alex nearly dies and John saves him.

Alex provides constructive feedback about the Black Battalion from his sickbed.

John cares for him through his recovery and they develop their ability to be physically-affectionate, but Alex is pushing things along too fast in order to avoid feelings while John wants it to be loving and honest

Alex is jealous over John’s interest in Clark and John keeps his concerns over Alex’s link to Cope secret. When that truth comes out, they fight.

Alex realizes that Washington is sending Lafayette to Canada without knowing about Gates’s part in the Cabal so that the expedition will fail and he’ll blame Gates for it.

They have no choice but to allow it. Washington needs Lafayette.

14

John suggests Washington give Alex work to apologize for their fight. Washington assigns him to Lee’s exchange- with unspoken ulterior motives.

Tench gives Alex a court-martial case about sodomy in Aaron Burr’s unit- Alex is concerned about what that will do to John psychologically. He’s also worried about why Tench gave it to him. He compiles arguments to defend their relationship logically. John doesn’t need that. He needs Alex to slow down his push for physical intimacy while he figures himself out.

Conway leaves camp, expecting to be Lafayette’s second in command in Canada

Alex has a tense relationship with Martha Washington, but John wants to use her to make him the Quartermaster General. She doesn’t bite. Alex is unknown to Congress. She suggests General Greene instead.

Alex pushes for a definition of what they are to each other, but John doesn’t know.

If he isn’t going to mean it, Alex would prefer John stop flirting with him.

John’s father rejects the Black Battalion plan and John is upset, wants to challenge the world with it, but he doesn’t have the resolve to do so without his father’s support. Alex would stand by his side with or without and he’s disappointed by John’s hesitation.

John latches onto the idea of establishing the position of Inspector General- using that as a way he and Alex can be partners.

15

Everyone on staff has doubts about the major role John wants for the Baron von Steuben 

John tries to convince Martha Washington to help them push for Steuben’s position as Inspector General, but she’s unhelpful. Instead, she makes John question whether he understands what influence Alex wants.

As Alex and John train each other in drill and fencing, John still wants Alex and can’t help flirting. Even if Alex has asked him not to, Alex still flirts with his body language and John recognizes the difference between flirting with Alex and flirting with Francis. It’s emotionally safer with Alex who doesn’t see his feelings as shameful.

John realizes that Alex has grown to expect his retreat every time they flirt physically. 

Baron von Steuben is blatantly gay in a way that makes John uncomfortable.

Alex notices John’s discomfort and is worried about it and frustrated with it. He’s also frustrated with the lack of action against Gates after the Genl. tried to trash his reputation.

Gates accepted a challenge to duel from Wilkinson- beneath him and embarrassing.

Steuben is intelligent- more difficult to control than John expected, but better-suited to the post of Inspector General than he could’ve hoped. The congressional committee and Washington like him- Alex also likes him. John’s intimidated by him.

John starts giving up on the Battalion idea and Alex is upset with him.

Alex starts pulling away from helping John with drill and John is upset with him.

Alex is nervous that the Enslin trial will not be conducted fairly. He goes to Steuben for advice about it. Caty Greene is there and she’s already made friends of Steuben. 

John communicates to Steuben that he doesn’t need to like him, he’s determined to work with him. Steuben communicates that he knows John is gay.

Meade is suspicious of Washington’s motives for assigning Alex to Lee’s exchange.

John sees sex marks on Alex’s back and jerks off to the thought of Alex being with a man, feels bitter at Francis for making him feel ashamed of such a thing.

John delivers Steuben’s unofficial appointment from Washington for Steuben to act as Inspector General.

16

Discussing philosophy with Caty, Steuben’s staff believes camp is the place to test ideas of self

Steuben’s making a good name for himself in camp. Alex thinks John should be reassigned to work with him and sends an old friend, Nicholas Fish to deliver that message.

Alex creates a rumor that he’s sleeping with a married woman so that will be reported to Washington and keep everyone from investigating who he’s really sleeping with.

Alex is only sleeping with another man to divert his desires for John, but John insists that, if he does this with anyone, it should be him. Alex thinks he’s saying that out of pity.

John tries to confront him about the misunderstandings by bringing him to one of Steuben’s parties but they only make things messier and start dragging other people into their drama.

John gets one-on-one time with Joseph Reed and considers the differences between a political and a military career

Alex gets drunk and tells John he misses training with him. John admits he wants to have sex, but Alex thinks he’s only saying that because he’s also drunk.

After the Enslin trial is completed, John confronts Alex again, offering another chance to work together on Steuben’s position as Inspector General. Alex forces John to answer for the internalized homophobia he projects onto Steuben, but John forces Alex to answer for the way he’s avoided their unfinished discussion of what kind of physical relationship they want. Alex is overwhelmed when John doesn’t retreat from their physical flirting.

Alex admits why he suggested John for Washington’s staff.

17

Intelligence has arrived that General Howe is being replaced by General Clinton

Alex tells John that even if he initially suggested him for his political connections to his father, John remained politically useful by creating connections to Lafayette. John refuses to let Alex point to that as the sole reason he wanted him to stay on staff.

Enslin is drummed out of camp. Steuben insists that John watch it and confront the fact that this man deserved punishment- not because he’s gay, but because he preyed on a subordinate.

John seeks comfort in his new physical dynamic with Alex.

Washington wants to fight Howe on the retreat even if Steuben’s not had time to train the army to professional order and John’s worried about the political implications of that. Alex isn’t as concerned- doesn’t believe the full utility of John’s plan.

John meets Kitty Livingston and gains more of an understanding why he’s a good match for Alex.

Washington is increasingly frustrated with his inability to get his generals and the French to support his idea for a plan on Howe before the change of command and he starts working on another plan to capture Clinton who is to replace him.

Alex and Clark are involved in the planning and John confronts him after seeing hickeys on his neck. Alex jerks John off to avoid explaining the mission he’s being assigned to.

Alex goes to observe the Baron leading drill but refuses to stay and be of proper use and John is hurt by that. John focuses in on his work with the model company and Steuben.

Alex packs to leave on his mission without telling John what it is, but John figures out that Clark is involved and tracks him down. Together John and Clark chase Alex down and John convinces him not to go through with a mission that would solidify his place as a spymaster over an aide de camp- a mission that would kill his political potential.

John finds Enslin’s friend, Lieutenant Fairclough trying to hang himself in order to avoid being caught in the same crime as Enslin and he’s shaken by their brand of homosexuality. He searches out Alex to feel that he’s separate from them.