#the biggest coupe in history

[secretmellowblog]

People who try to analyze what happened on Tumblr on November 5th, 2020, often really overstate how much it was actually “about” Supernatural. As someone who has never been in the supernatural fandom ever but dID join in on the hysterical destielposting—it was really more about the stress of the pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.

The two biggest Youtubers I’ve seen try to dissect “what happened that November 5th” in video essays both weren’t American—- and I think that explains why they both tried to explain the hysteria primarily via analyzing the Supernatural fandom/the original show, rather than through the lens of the election. And while those videos are cool, valid, informational, and make lots of really well-considered interesting points— I can tell you that me and almost all my mutuals had literally no knowledge or interest in the fact that “oh supernatural had made nods at the ship in the past but the creators were adamant that I wouldn’t be canon” or etc etc etc etc. the first time I learned about any of that context was way later, watching videos where people claimed that fandom history context (that I did not know anything about) was the actual reason for the hysteria.

But the reality is that people latched on to the Destiel stuff because it was a piece of big useless inane zero-stakes fandom news in a time when we were desperately waiting for serious high stakes election news. We were latching onto a “positive “ piece of inane stupid fandom news in a time of great stress, with all the desperation of a drowning man who latches onto whatever piece of wood will keep him afloat.

The core of the hysteria was that Americans (who make up a huge chunk of tumblr’s userbase) were currently glued to their laptops watching the live presidential election vote counts come in. These vote counts were taking an extended amount of time due to the pandemic causing high numbers of mail-in ballots, resulting in a constant state of Election Day Stress for multiple days straight.

This was also during the height of the Pandemic. People had predicted Trump’s presidency would be bad; no one had predicted it would be this apocalyptically bad. No one had predicted pandemics and lockdowns and hospitals overflowing with bodybags. remember Trump spreading Covid lies and conspiracies?? There were so many Qanon conspiracies about democrats being Satanic child traffickers who had to be put to death, and coup threats were mounting from the right wing side. It seemed like this election was a choice between ‘centrist democrat’ and “apocalyptic right wing conspiracy theory authoritarianism,” in the midst of pandemic conditions that people feared would never ever improve— and it seemed like a close election.

Another major point was that Trump voters were more likely to be antimaskers/Covid deniers, while Biden voters were more likely to take the pandemic seriously— so Biden voters were more likely to send in mail-in ballots instead of risking the in-person voting crowds, which meant their ballots would take much longer to count. And so, in many state electoral vote counts, it would initially seem like Trump was very far in the lead— only for Biden to slooooowly build up an agonizingly small lead as the mail in ballots came in, and then defeat Trump at the very end.

So you’re just watching these news sites giving live election updates, refreshing the page every 2 minutes to see if you’re going to live under a spineless centrist democrat or a literal Qanon Dictatorship. And then you go on tumblr to distract yourself, and there’s more election posting, and more agonizing over the votes, and more stress and despair—-

And then it’s been days and we’re right at the crucial tipping point where it’s anyone’s game and the next few hours will determine whether Trump will win, so you need to keep your eye on the vote count, because the next hours will determine the future of the pandemic and your country and your plans for your entire life—

And then stupid Destiel becomes canon! And it becomes canon in the silliest way possible!

If Destiel had become canon at any other time, it would have been a big goofy tumblr celebration? But we wouldn’t have gotten the insane explosion of hysterical interaction.

The entire core of it was the contrast between the inane meaningless stupidity of fandom news vs the actual stressful election news you wanted to hear! It really is best conveyed in that meme where Castiel says “I love you” and Dean indifferently responds with a piece of important election news.

It’s about the contrast between the low-stakes inanity of fandom and the massive life-destroying stakes of a terrifying election. There really was no reason it had be Supernatural specifically, except that Supernatural was a thing everyone knew basic things about from dashboard osmosis— it could’ve been any other equally huge silly fandom ship news about a ship everyone *knew of* but might not necessarily be invested in (ex. Stucky becoming canon, Johnlock becoming canon, Kirk/Spock becoming more canon somehow, etc etc etc.)

I think it’s true that people who weren’t paying agonizingly close attention to the American election news got swept up in it, and that non American Supernatural fans also were extremely excited for purely fandom reasons — but the entire reason it blew up to an unprecedented degree was because of that core of stressed out terrified Americans glued to their computers watching election results and suddenly receiving stupid fandom news instead, and deciding to just hysterically parodically hyper-celebrate this absurd useless zero-stakes news.

I think it was also all elevated by the fact that, as I said before, this happened at the crucial “tipping point” of the election where the next few hours would determine the winner. The fact that Biden began to slowly develop a lead in the hours after made it feel, hysterically, as if the hours after Destiel became canon was somehow the turning point where he began to win; so celebrating Destiel felt like celebrating that slow turn towards victory.

The tl,dr is that it’s so important to Remember the Fifth of November …..in preparation the inevitable hysteria that will happen in the presidential election on November 5th of next year. XD. Personally I’m rooting for Johnlock or Frodo/Sam to somehow become canon in the eleventh hour right before the democrats win

[alternative-munster-goes-fourth]

1. I'd prevent Michael Collins's death.

2. I'd make sure Saladin gets killed during or immediately after the Battle of Montgisard in 1177.

sometimes I spend time socially with normal people and I'm reminded that "if you could go back in time to change one historical event, what would you do" is actually not a normal question, and when they're all like "idk I guess I'd kill hitler" nobody wants to talk about how little that would have done to suppress the rise of fascism in Germany

also nobody wants to talk about my plan to prevent the assassination of tsar alexander ii in 1881. they are for the most part not interested in the possible long term implications of a Russia that modernized before wwi

[qqueenofhades]

I just feel like even if we all vote and Biden wins, Trump won't accept the loss, and eventually they'll just put him in anyway. And then there won't be another real election. Even if Biden wins and somehow is actually confirmed (which again, I think is unlikely) we're going to have to do this for 30 more years because of the SC, and that isn't at all sustainable.

All this isn't to say I won't vote but I just think people are being way too optimistic about what happens if Biden wins. I don't think him winning will keep Trump out or the horrible fascist future at bay.

Look, I get the fear. I do, I do... but this is also one of the times when you have to ask if it's actually telling you something true, or if it's just preying on that generalized feeling of doom to make everything seem hopeless even if we win again. And that is... there is absolutely no actual mechanism for Trump to be installed as president if Biden wins the Electoral College (since as we have repeatedly seen, the popular vote is immaterial). SCOTUS is horrible and evil and are trying to interfere as much ahead of time for Trump as they can, but part of that is because they can't simply issue an order for Biden to be removed and Trump to become God King By Fiat. That is not how it works. If Biden wins in November, he will be president until his term ends, he steps down, Kamala takes over, or anything else.

Trump tried a coup with all the entire overwhelming might of the US government as the sitting president last time; fortunately, it failed. Reforms to the Electoral Count Act have been made to prevent another January 6. The Department of Defense and the military are still under (and would be on another January 6) Biden's command, not Trump's. That's not to say that Trump won't try some shit with his insane cult followers, but he is just a late 70s conman from Queens out on bail and under sentence for a criminal trial, who is already the biggest and most disgraced loser and asshole in American political history. He is so desperate to cheat his way back into power because in a real sense, this IS the last-chance saloon for him. He can't put off the legal proceedings, however long they take, for another four years. He's losing his marbles at a rapid rate. I'm just saying: we don't know what or when, but there will be (and already have been) real consequences for him. That is why he is scrabbling so hard.

"Even if we vote, nothing matters and Trump will win anyway" is another of those insidious lies that works to make you feel as if the battle is endless and pointless and none of its victories matter. Of course it will not all be magically fixed forever if Biden wins. We will still have to figure some godforsaken fucking way to expand SCOTUS or kick Alito and Thomas off it. But we will have bought ourselves, our democracy, our country, and the world time to do that, and put another nail in Trump's coffin. That matters. It matters a lot.

Fascism wants to present itself as overwhelming, irresistible, inevitable, and ready to happen no matter what you do, and that's what your brain wants you to buy in now. But that's not the case, Trump is not inevitable or some all-powerful monolith (in fact, another of the debate takeaways seemed to be that Biden looked bad but people still hate Trump too much for it to really shift anything). He is a loser, a fraud, a conman, a liar, and a crook, and he WANTS you to fear him like an almighty god. Don't give him or the MAGAGOP the satisfaction.

Frankly, having to endure another four months of this might kill us all, and I know that we are tired and scared (me too). But IT IS NOT INEVITABLE THAT WE ARE DOOMED. Not at all. Let's hang onto that and tell that anxiety doom voice to shove it.

Hugs.

[bloodyshadow1]

I feel like people are underestimating Zeus' reaction to Athena at the beginning of his part of God Games. Like yes, of course he's pissed, no one is supposed to be able to win his rigged game, it makes him look like a fool for losing his game, but there's something else.

Athena after winning his game is literally Zeus' nightmare come to life. Zeus was prophecized to be deposed by his and Metis' child, some say they would have a daughter and then a son who would usurp him, but I've seen a couple interpretations. That's why Zeus ate his first wife so he could murder his children by her before it came to pass. Athena was born from his skull anyway, but it was clear and scared him enough to become just like his father.

Now hundreds or so years later, his 'favorite' daughter comes with a request so he makes her do the impossible task, getting members of their family to agree with her. He stacked the deck, Apollo and Hephaestus don't care, but Ares and Aphrodite hate Athena and the feeling is mutual, and Hera would never back one of his kids that weren't hers, at least not for a mortal. Athena could get one or two of them to release Odysseus, but the man is such a divisive figure that there's no way she'd be able to get 5 gods on her side.

Yet Athena did, not only did she beat him, beat his game, she showed off how capable she is. She showed her wits, her strength, the skills a true ruler would need, and she's standing in front of him making 'demands.'

No wonder Zeus freaked out, he literally took a page out of his father's playbook and tried to devour one of his children to avert a prophecy and there she is standing in front of her, 5 gods behind her, nearly half of the Olympians, the same amount of siblings he freed and overthrew his father with, the biggest threat to his power since hera's coup.

Now Athena doesn't want his throne, she wants her friend free, but that doesn't matter to Zeus. The guy was paranoid enough to try and murder Athena in the womb and here she is like the prodigal daughter like he was when he free his own siblings, no wonder the guy freaked out on her. He only relents when Athena, with her 'dying' breath, reiterates that she only wants Odysseus free, not his throne and starts to let his guard down

I could be overthinking this, I love to overthink Greek Mythology, but it does make sense if you look at Zeus' history. Child overthrowing their fathers is the founding of their dynasty, If I was the king of the gods I would be freaking out

[reasonsforhope]

Note: I super don't like the framing of this headline. "Here's why it matters" idk it's almost like there's an entire country's worth of people who get to keep their democracy! Clearly! But there are few good articles on this in English, so we're going with this one anyway.

--

2024 is the biggest global election year in history and the future of democracy is on every ballot. But amid an international backsliding in democratic norms, including in countries with a longer history of democracy like India, Senegal’s election last week was a major win for democracy. It’s also an indication that a new political class is coming of age in Africa, exemplified by Senegal’s new 44-year-old president, Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The West African nation managed to pull off a free and fair election on March 24 despite significant obstacles, including efforts by former President Macky Sall to delay the elections and imprison or disqualify opposition candidates. Add those challenges to the fact that many neighboring countries in West Africa — most prominently Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, but other nations across the region too — have been repeatedly undermined by military coups since 2020.

Sall had been in power since 2012, serving two terms. He declined to seek a third term following years of speculation that he would do so despite a constitutional two-term limit. But he attempted to extend his term, announcing in February that elections (originally to be held that month) would be pushed off until the end of the year in defiance of the electoral schedule.

Sall’s allies in the National Assembly approved the measure, but only after security forces removed opposition politicians, who vociferously protested the delay. Senegalese society came out in droves to protest Sall’s attempted self-coup, and the Constitutional Council ruled in late February that Sall’s attempt to stay in power could not stand.

That itself was a win for democracy. Still, opposition candidates, including Faye, though legally able to run, remained imprisoned until just days before the election — while others were barred from running at all. The future of Senegal’s democracy seemed uncertain at best.

Cut to Tuesday [April 2, 2024], when Sall stepped down and handed power to Faye, a former tax examiner who won on a campaign of combating corruption, as well as greater sovereignty and economic opportunity for the Senegalese. And it was young voters who carried Faye to victory...

“This election showed the resilience of the democracy in Senegal that resisted the shock of an unexpected postponement,” Adele Ravidà, Senegal country director at the lnternational Foundation for Electoral Systems, told Vox via email. “... after a couple of years of unprecedented episodes of violence [the Senegalese people] turned the page smoothly, allowing a peaceful transfer of power.”

And though Faye’s aims won’t be easy to achieve, his win can tell us not only about how Senegal managed to establish its young democracy, but also about the positive trend of democratic entrenchment and international cooperation in African nations, and the power of young Africans...

Senegal and Democracy in Africa

Since it gained independence from France in 1960, Senegal has never had a coup — military or civilian. Increasingly strong and competitive democracy has been the norm for Senegal, and the country’s civil society went out in great force over the past three years of Sall’s term to enforce those norms.

“I think that it is really the victory of the democratic institutions — the government, but also civil society organization,” Sany said. “They were mobilized, from the unions, teacher unions, workers, NGOs. The civil society in Senegal is one of the most experienced, well-organized democratic institutions on the continent.” Senegalese civil society also pushed back against former President Abdoulaye Wade’s attempt to cling to power back in 2012, and the Senegalese people voted him out...

Faye will still have his work cut out for him accomplishing the goals he campaigned on, including economic prosperity, transparency, food security, increased sovereignty, and the strengthening of democratic institutions. This will be important, especially for Senegal’s young people, who are at the forefront of another major trend.

Young Africans will play an increasingly key role in the coming decades, both on the continent and on the global stage; Africa’s youth population (people aged 15 to 24) will make up approximately 35 percent of the world’s youth population by 2050, and Africa’s population is expected to grow from 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion during that time. In Senegal, people aged 10 to 24 make up 32 percent of the population, according to the UN.

“These young people have connected to the rest of the world,” Sany said. “They see what’s happening. They are interested. They are smart. They are more educated.” And they have high expectations not only for their economic future but also for their civil rights and autonomy.

The reality of government is always different from the promise of campaigning, but Faye’s election is part of a promising trend of democratic entrenchment in Africa, exemplified by successful transitions of power in Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone over the past year. To be sure, those elections were not without challenges, but on the whole, they provide an important counterweight to democratic backsliding.

Senegalese people, especially the younger generation, have high expectations for what democracy can and should deliver for them. It’s up to Faye and his government to follow."

-via Vox, April 4, 2024

[philsmeatylegss]

I’ve seen a few people, mostly non-American, who don’t know who Henry Kissinger is or what he did. So your local history student and nerd is going to try to give a quick summary of the main atrocities he committed.

-Role in the Vietnam War: this is the first and biggest reason most people have for hating Kissinger. He unnecessarily extended and expanded the war prolonging the already frivolous conflict. He purposefully delayed negotiations. He approved large scale carpet bombings done with the use of B-52 bombs killed thousands to millions of innocent civilians. The Christmas Bombing was an intense, focused bombing that caused large civilian deaths in a short period of time. He engaged in negotiations with the North Vietnamese often without permission or knowledge from the US government. He was the National Security Advisor and overall had much knowledge about 1) how useless the war was 2) the travesties happening to both the North Vietnamese and South, as well as America’s own soldiers.

-Secret Bombing and Invasion in Cambodia: Kissinger (and Nixon) lead secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia aimed to destroy North Vietnamese trails and routes that ran through the country. Cambodia originally pursued neutrality in the war. Its citizens were not involved.

-Invasion and Bombing of Laos: Laos also held North Vietnamese routes, so Kissinger led Operation Lam Son which was a full scale invasion supplied with American air power and weapons. Not that it would matter, but this invasion did little to interrupt the trade routes. The North Vietnamese, made up of people who lived and knew the landscape of Vietnam, were able to adapt and find new routes. There was also secret bombings carried out in Laos, authorized by Kissinger, aimed to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, which, once again, wasn’t disrupted and just took innocent civilian lives in Laos. Laos also remained neutral in the Vietnam War. They were not involved, yet they were punished.

-Involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War: this was a war between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Kissinger remained in a close relationship with Pakistan which, by now, was known to be committing horrendous human rights abuses, including large scale killings of the Bangladeshis. In fact, Kissinger and America provided funding for them. America was aligned in the first place because of bullshit Cold War alliances.

-Supporting and funding a dictator over an elected president: Chile had elected a *gasp* socialist president that really made Kissinger piss his pants. Project FUBELT, directly under Kissinger’s guidance, initiated covert actions to undermine and prevent the socialist President, Salvador Allende, from rising to power. Financial support was provided to anti-Allende groups and would eventually provided support to a military coup who would kill Allende. The leader of the coup, Augusto Pinochet, would then assume power and take rule an authoritarian government and become a dictator for 17 years. Under his rule, torture and executions were carried out against political dissidents and others. This wasn’t a secret.

-Supported the brutal invasion of East Timor: Indonesia would invade and occupy East Timor in 1975. Kissinger and Nixon had knowledge of the invasion beforehand and provided military support despite the knowledge of human rights abuses already taking place in East Timor by the Indonesians, abuses often using US weapons. Massacres, forced displacement, suppression of political dissents, torture, sexual abuse, restrictions of religious and cultural practices, and scorched earth policies are just some examples.

To my knowledge, these are usually the largest reasons cited, but please add more if I’m wrong. There are also lesser known atrocities either supported or funded by Kissinger, many taking place in Africa, that I thoroughly implore you to read about. Please correct any inaccurate things I said.

[mesetacadre]

Half-doubting if this anon was even a good idea to begin with but, am I a bad communist for being actively hostile against any form of authoritarian concentration of power?

I just don't think any single person could embody the revolution much less serve it on a system built entirely on personalism where we worship the leader instead of the workers themselves. The only role individual people should have on communism is that of thinkers and philosophers, not of absolute rulers.

This may be drawn from a personal bias though, my country was destroyed by a dictatorship that would have gladly shot me and hid my body for being a lesbian and I have developed animosity towards authoritarians that is perhaps unhealthy.

Where do we draw the line to avoid becoming a red painted tyranny? Or am I just not a good communist for my intransigence?

Thank you for your time

I'll break this down into two parts, authority and idolatry

Authority is a value-neutral, metaphysical concept. It is the use of some kind of force to impose a will on others. If you consider yourself a communist, then how do you intend to overthrow capitalism without exerting authority? Engels said it best: «A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all». We must come to terms with this, as revolutionary marxists. If we refuse the concept of authority all-together, then all that can happen is that authority is applied against our entire class, for the rest of time. I also live in a first-world country that used to have a fascist dictatorship, and the ~150,000 thousand killed for political reasons, 30,000 disappeared, 500,000 interned in concentration camps, more than 100,000 summary trials, tens of thousands of slaves and the thousands tortured up to the very end can speak to its destructiveness. But it wasn't as simple as "they used authority, therefore all authority (abstractly) is bad". Franco's dictatorship responded to a series of needs that the Spanish and European bourgeoisie had, by the time of their sponsored coup d'etat in 1936, Spain was at the forefront of organization of the working class in Europe, the communist party had hundreds of thousand members if you include their youth wing, and the biggest unions reached the millions, in a country of just under 25 million. Italy, Germany, Austria and Portugal found themselves in a similar resurgence when their fascists took power, in every case financed by their biggest capitalists, national and foreign.

The point I'm getting at is that, if you want to understand class society, you have to go beyond the black-and-white, metaphysical liberal philosophy. Violence can be exerted by multiple classes through their own class organizations, and the character, context and sense of that violence changes accordingly. I'm not saying that all violence committed by workers without exception is wholly good. I'm saying that the relationship each class has with class society modifies the very reasoning and effect of that violence. And no example of violence in history can be really described as senseless. My country's dictatorship did not kill, torture and repress that many people for no reason, the holocaust did not happen because Hitler was an evil entity, and the various proletarian states, past and present, have not exerted their authority senselessly.

In marxist theory there are two very important concepts: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), and the dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP). The DotB is a catch-all term for any state of any form that serves capitalist interests. This is useful because, whether it's a liberal democracy with a strong welfare system, or Pinochet's Chile, they both ultimately serve to protect and expand the interest of the capitalist class. Put another way, the capitalist economy sustains the state and other entities like the media, the military, the government (what we call the suprastructure), while the capitalist economy underneath it all (what we call the infrastructure) maintains its existence. It is a dictatorship because it is one class enacting their own will in their own interests. The DotP is the same concept, but turned on its head. After our class has taken power and has began to build socialism-communism, it is actively enacting their sole will in their own interests. Why would the formerly exploited listen to what their former exploiters want? The proletariat must be able to repress the extant capitalist elements within and the permanently hostile capitalist class without. Dwell on this for a moment. While a DotP fosters democratic mechanisms for its class, the social majority (as all DotP in history have done), it simultaneously exerts its authority on those extraneous to the working class. If you live in a capitalist state, the very same thing is happening, just reversed. The managers of capitalism, i.e. the representatives in liberal democracy, govern for the capitalist class, even representing various sections of that class, while simultaneously repressing or preventing any organization of the working class.

I did not mention Chile as an example for no reason beforehand. When the working class of Chile attempted to build socialism through non-violent means, after the election of Allende (there were many tendencies within Allende's party and among his entire support base but that's beyond this post), they were met with an intervention that did not have any qualms about using violence, kickstarting Pinochet's 17 year long dictatorship, backed by Chilean and USAmerican capitalists, atop the corpses of at least 40,000 executed and/or tortured. Look up the massacre of Estadio Nacional if you're interested, it's where Victor Jara was murdered.

"Authority" in DotP is never as widespread nor as violent, firstly because it doesn't aim to repress the social majority, but rather the small but resourceful capitalist class, and secondly because its "repression" more often than not manifests in our actual goals, which is to build a socialist economy, which would necessarily eliminate the social basis for a capitalist class to exist in the first place. In the USSR, for example, the rich landowner peasants disappeared first an foremost because the structure of land ownership was completely changed, eliminating the source of their power. Any instances of actual violence were mostly against saboteurs during collectivization or during the grain seizures to curb the mass starvation that happened in the cities during the civil war, since no grain made it there. Capitalist authority is meant to keep the mass of working people subservient and exploited, proletarian authority is meant to protect the project of socialism-communism against attacks. It has never been about killing all the rich people, it has been about abolishing the capitalist mode of production and building a new one, one which does not need the oppression of any kind of people to keep functioning.

I recommend the following books if you're interested in sources about "authority" and democracy in DotPs:

The Soviets Expected It, Anna Louise Strong (1941). It is focused on the USSR's lead-up to the fascist invasion, but it contains a few examples from ALS' own, unsupervised, experience with soviet democracy and the general attitude of working people

In North Korea: First Eyewitness Reports, Anna Louise Strong (1949). Same as the previous one, it has a few examples of ALS' unsupervised travels through North Korea before the Korean War that talk about how democracy was set up.

The Triumph of Evil, Austin Murphy (2002). I've said a lot how this author is very annoying about keeping to this useless good vs evil dichotomy when talking about socialism and capitalism, but apart from those sporadic remarks, it's incredibly well researched. It focuses on economic aspects, but chapters 1, 2, especially 3, and 7 all contain analyses on the actual mechanisms of authority that DotP use, taking East Germany as an example. Again though, the author is very annoying as soon as he begins to give his personal opinions on morality.

Stasi State or Socialist Paradise? The German Democratic Republic and What Became of It, Bruni de la Motte and John Green (2015). Pretty self explanatory title, this one goes into more detail about the security apparatus of East Germany. I haven't read this one in full, but it has a dedicated chapter on democracy and the state security service.

Onto idolatry. I promise this part will be shorter.

I've written more in detail about this, but while personality worship is a problem, I don't agree that it leads to the problems you outline. It's undeniable that there have been elements of individual idolatry, but that's neither a reflection of actual power concentration or ever a substitution for the elevation of workers. Leadership in any communist party is always collective, and if it follows Leninist principles of organization even partially, then internal democracy is always guaranteed save for the most extreme of situations. Stalin might have been a popular figure, but the Central Committee he was a part of was not below him, and the periodical Congresses had more authority than the CC or any individual person. ALS mentions how, for example, the 1936 constitution was made. It was a wholly democratic process, more than a hundred thousand suggestions were all recieved and considered by the organs in charge. It was the most progressive constitution in its time, it guaranteed rights many of us still do not have. And that process supposedly happened while the "worship" of Stalin was in full force. Every position in DotPs has some mechanism of recall and accountability, everything is elected and ratified. Can you start a process of recall for any specific member of the state administration in your DotB? In one instance, as ALS says, in the region of Crimea up to half of the elected officials were all recalled in one year.

I keep using the USSR as an example because it's the system I'm most familiar with, but any other DotP you can think of has similar mechanisms and limitations to power. Once again, was there a certain amount of idolatry towards a few individuals? Yes. Was this a harmful vice which created unchecked concentration of power and undue oppression? Most certainly not. Besides this, we're materialists, and we understand that human psychology is largely molded by the underlying material conditions. Focusing on individuals when it comes to these sorts of things is almost inevitable for large groups of people because of how the exploitative economic conditions modify psychological tendencies. It is a remain of liberal ideology for the most part, and it should be fought against. But you can't expect millions of people to change how they view certain processes, changes like those take a lot of time, generations, and education.

I've spent essentially all of my political life within a party structure not very dissimilar from that of Cuba's, the USSR's, China's, the DPRK's, etc, and I can say with full confidence that it is the most democratic and simultaneously productive set of principles you can have in political activity. Compared to liberal democracy, and compared to horizontalist/non-centralized structures, even those employed by anarchists, which I have also experienced, it is still far more democratic and effective at taking into account all input without devolving into a glorified debate club.

I don't think you're a bad communist, having these doubts and talking to other people about it is a very good habit to have. If you still have doubts or want to keep talking about this, feel free to shoot me another ask or a private message :)

[irhabiya]

hey could I ask where I could learn more about the arab spring? I can’t find many resources and most of them are very American. I’m asking partially because my parents mentioned a massacre that happened at a mosque around that time, but I can’t find much of that? They used to study in Egypt which is why they were horrified to hear about the brutality those years ago. Sorry if this sounds disrespectful you can ignore it if so. I just want to better understand the unrest in Egypt that I assume is still ongoing today with Sisi

hi sweetheart <3 this isn't disrespectful at all don't worry

unfortunately i don't really have any specific resources i can point you towards that aren't riddled with usamerican propaganda or leave out key details but i remember reading this article from a while back and it was pretty succinct. read it with a discerning eye and lmk if you have any further questions about the points they raised

the massacre your parents are referencing is probably the Rabaa massacre which happened in august of 2013, the biggest massacre in modern egyptian history. military and police forces killed an estimated 1000 protestors, most of whom were supporters of the muslim brotherhood, some others were simply opposed to the military regaining power.

the main key points you need to understand about egypt's modern history, contemporary history, and the arab spring as a whole, are the following:

egypt had been effectively ruled by a military ruling class since the 50's. nasser's presidency oversaw anti-imperialist policies and policies favoring the working class, but he basically laid out groundwork for 70+ years of military dictatorship

anwar al saddat's presidency involved lots of dramatic changes to our domestic and foreign policies, namely privatization of many sectors, introducing neoliberalism to the country, signing the camp david agreements with israel

mubarak's presidency was essentially a 30 years long continuation of sadat's neoliberalism and corruption, things got worse by the day for your average working class egyptian

the 2011 25th of january revolution in egypt was sparked due to worsening living conditions, and protests igniting many of the neighboring countries. namely tunisia, where street vendor mohammed bouazizi self immolated in protest of harassment he had been receiving from government officials.

it's important to note here that even before the protests in tunisia, there had been dissent from the egyptian working class, many factory workers went on strikes in protest such as in mahalla

the 2011 revolution was not ideologically coherent, in the sense that everyone, from all different political ideologies joined in, from the Muslim brotherhood to leftist coalitions. this will be important for understanding why it fell short of achieving long term goals. it managed to force hosni mubarak to step down

the MB's candidate, mohammed morsi won the 2012 elections, which sparked a lot of upheaval from leftists, liberals and religious minorities such as copts.

in june of 2013, mass protests broke out against his regime demanding that he step down from power, the us-backed military hijacked the protests and enacted a coup which reinstalled the military regime with sisi as president. protestors of the new regime, whether in support of morsi or not, were massacred in Rabaa and other locations leaving an estimated 1000 protestors dead

it's important to note here that it was later revealed that certain groups which were involved in the 2013 counter-revolution were funded and backed by gulf states (mainly the UAE iirc, i need to fact check that though). there was a marked increase in organized violence from these groups (tamarod was one of them) out of nowhere and it all played out in the military's favor in the end, which isn't a coincidence considering who are their biggest allies in the region. i don't think this was covered in the article above

there has been unprecedented efforts of censorship in the country since then, a complete crackdown on dissent. journalists get jailed for tweeting things opposed to the regime all the time. egyptian prisons (which aren't exactly known to be the most humane) are filled with political prisoners. this current regime is the one the US and their gulf allies backed and endorsed, we get billions of dollars in military aid from the US in exchange for carrying out their imperialist interests in the middle east. as for living conditions, it only gets worse by the day for your average egyptian. most major cities are riddled with slums, inflation is through the roof, unemployment is high, most people can barely afford basic necessities, our infrastructure is in desperate need of maintenance and renovations, our economy is almost entirely financed by the US (even putting military aid aside), the UAE, and saudi arabia. and we're drowning in debt. we take imf loans like, every other month lmfao it's bad

a lot happened within the span of 3 years, this is all not to say that the MB were good, not in the slightest. but the US once again interfering with a foreign country's domestic affairs to secure their interests has resulted in nothing but devastation for the overwhelming majority of the people living here.

as for the arab spring as a whole, i think it's disingenuous when people dismiss its entirety as western backed conflict. even though a lot of it is exactly that (see: libya), especially in countries where the revolutions kind of bled into them rather than already having brewing tensions from working class people suffering worsening conditions. in tunisia and egypt, there was already a lot unrest within their populations over material conditions, which is why i mentioned the mahalla strikes. it's a shame our revolution didn't have more coherent, stronger socialist organizers, it's a shame it was killed and hijacked before we ever got to reap its benefits

[quitealotofsodapop]

Wukong and Macaque end up practically moving to the Celestial Realm for the time beong, not to join the Celestial Body like Azure believes, but simply out of convenience and because of the revelations about their family history that were revealed to the entire Celestial Court during Azure's coup.

With such accusations thrown at Wukong regarding his heritage and the Jade Emperor not denying it, the Celestials all but demanded a rest to be done to verify Azure's words It wasn't the first time someone tried to claim to be a royal or noble's reincarnation or related to someone's reincarnation, and there are tests and trials in place to verify. When the test came out positive, Wukong was now officially confirmed as the son of Sonzi's first reincarnation and that sort of Pandora's Box cannot be closed. He is now, by spirit and blood, a member of the royal family and entitled to everything that comes with it.

That and his consistent health issues mean that despite his and Macaque's reluctance to be in Heaven, Macaque still had his community service to do and Wukong needed time to recover and to deal with a lot of bureaucratic bullshit what with him now being recognized as a Celestial Prince, it's just easier for the new family to just stay where they are to deal with all that and a commute from Flower Fruit Mountain. Plus after the coup the Jade Emperor and Xiwangmu are very reluctant to let their newly discovered grandson and great-grandson out of their sight.

Prev.

Nezha and Erlang were personally overseeing Macaque's community service (lots of cleaning the horse stalls bimawen-style) when the Brotherhood strikes.

So when Azure comes before the Celestial Court with Princess Songzi's Scrolls claiming that Sun Wukong is a lost Celestial Prince, Heaven is missing its two biggest warriors.

And when Peng appears, clutching both Wukong and his cub in their talons, Macaque isn't there to go kaiju on them.

The Celestial Court demands a test be done to deny the Brotherhood's claim, especially when the royal couple start sweating nervously at the accusation.

The Jade Emperor does something no one would ever thonk possible; he kneels before the Brotherhood to ensure the safety of Sun Wukong and his cub.

And after the coup is dealt with (courtesy of a released and furious DBK + a sympathetic Yellow Tusk), the monkeys still have to keep their "temporary" home in Wukong's old attendant quarters for the time being while the heat dies down. And for the monkeys health since Wukong us still recovering, and Macaque's own "condition" is discovered (note the latter is the only reason DBK hasn't turned Macaque into paste).

The Stalwart laugh when they learn about it. They had been trying to ease Wukong into leaving the island the last few centuries (barring his stasis), and now he's a whole Realm away! XD

[freebooter4ever]

i have one bit of words and then im back to surviving but the last time this happened in 2017 there was a reason i started researching wwii in depth. on his deathbed in 2018 grandpa held my hand and told me he was terrified because the world right now reminded him of the world right before the war when he was young and he didn't want to leave me alone in it. grandpa and i both felt it, we are both bleeding heart liberals, we both sensed the social/political shift even before it became explicit.

best case scenario the threats and dictatorship turns out to be as ineffective as the orange cheeto has been before. but worst case scenario?

americans, we are no longer the good guy in the story. you research history, its time to start paying attention to what the average citizen in germany could do. white women, we have become the fucking enemy and we need to admit it before feminism truly progresses. it's telling that the pink hat ladies wouldn't rally behind a black woman the same way they did a white woman from new england. you want comfort that its possible to live out a dictator coup? start looking into how people in the past survived it, how they risked their lives down the chain to protect the more vulnerable, when the tipping point came where it was too dangerous for the more vulnerable to remain in those societies. the truly sad thing about humanity is how often we repeat the past and how long it takes for people to welcome change. but that also means we have seen this before, we have fought this before, we have won this before.

there are a lot of protections surrounding the US government, our biggest hope is that this narcissist discovers he is smaller than any of them. but i wouldn't count on it. ask anyone in south america about how experienced the US conservative right is at taking down governments.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

December 8, 1991: Counter-revolutionary leaders dissolve the Soviet Union.

DAY OF SHAME: Thirty-three years ago, against the will of the people and the Constitution of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin of Russia, Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine and Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus signed the “Belovezhskoe agreement” dissolving the Soviet Union.

Sam Marcy on the counter-revolutionary agreement to dissolve the USSR (Dec. 1991):

Let’s remember that as early as 1922, when the Civil War had barely ended, a treaty was formulated under Lenin’s guidance that recognized the sovereignty and equality of all republics. What united them was the strong influence of the Communist Party. There was centralism on a working class basis. The party expressed the solidarity of the working class, the Soviets expressed the solidarity of all the oppressed masses. Together they reined in the centrifugal forces generated by nationalist tendencies. …

It was then that the Soviet Union established a bicameral system. One house–the Soviet of Deputies–represented all the population, all the workers and peasants. The other one–the Soviet of Nationalities–had a certain number of representatives for each nationality.

For many years it was a very important area where the national question and other issues could be discussed. When there was disagreement, the leaders of both houses met. If a compromise or agreement was not arrived at, it was sent back to both houses. This was a new and remarkable achievement for a workers’ state. …

This Commonwealth treaty abolishes the Soviet of Nationalities and destroys and invalidates completely the existence of the Congress of People’s Deputies. Under Gorbachev this body had become a bourgeois parliament, as distinct from Soviets organized on a working class, peasant, and popular basis. But a bourgeois parliament is better than a bourgeois dictatorship. And better than having centrifugal forces organized by a few top leaders of the biggest republics.

After the failure of the coup, Gorbachev called the parliament, the Congress of Deputies, into session and virtually ordered them to give up all their power to the republics. Their pay would go on, however. So the Congress was virtually shorn of all its power. How 2,500 parliamentarians could take all this, I don’t know. Why not have a sitdown strike and say: You’ll have to arrest us first!

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/1991/sm911226.html

[5mcsinatrenchcoat]

One thing I think about every time I'm replaying ME2 is:

It actually makes Shepard even scarier is you tell the Council to shove it and don't accept the Spectre status back, doesn't it?

'Cause here's the thing: Bioware didn't sufficiently change the dialog based on that decision. There are multiple instances where they just threw in the word "former" and otherwise kept everything the same.

Think about it. Not everyone knows Shepard's face (esp in ME2 where they're dead and already a history bad movies are being filmed about), not everyone even keeps up with Council news well enough.

What do most people know? That Spectres are these scary supercops who are above most laws are can do virtually whatever they want to achieve their goals. The only famously un-spectred rogue Spectre that they maybe know of is Saren, who, uh, betrayed everyone and allied with the geth and then tried to coup the Citadel.

So when this awfully self-confident human (potentially with a scary scarred face too) rolls around and says to you, threateningly:

"You're going to 'run in' a former Spectre? I don't think so."

The biggest question that should concern any sane person would be:

WHAT THE FUCK DID THIS BITCH DO TO BE A FORMER SPECTRE

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Cadillac was founded in 1902 by Henry Leland, who named the company after Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac, who happens to be the founder of Detroit. Just 6 short years later Cadillac brought the idea of interchangeable parts to the automotive industry and laid the ground work for modern mass production of automobiles. As a result, Cadillac became the first American car to win the prestigious Dewar Trophy from the Royal Automobile Club of England. After earning such high praise Cadillac adopted the slogan "Standard of the World."

In 1910, Cadillac became the first company to offer a passenger car with a fully enclosed cabin, a major change from the vehicles of the time. Two years after that, in 1912, the company released the Model Thirty, the car with no crank, which was the first production car to feature an electronic self-starter, ignition, and lighting. By dropping the crank starter, Cadillac opened the door to women drivers, and was able to bring the prestigious Dewar trophy back to Detroit, making Cadillac the only car manufacturer to claim the award twice. Nearly three years later, Cadillac brought the world the V-type, water-cooled, eight cylinder (V8) engine, which would become the signature of the Cadillac brand.

The Roaring 20's was not only a big decade for the country but was also important for Cadillac. In 1926, Cadillac branched out and offered customers more than 500 color combinations to choose from. As the famous Henry Ford saying goes, you can have any color you want, as long as it's black. Cadillac changed this mentality. That same year, the company brought in designer Harley Earl to design the 1927 LaSalle convertible coupe, which made the car the first to be designed from a designer's perspective rather than an engineering one. What Earl created was elegant, with flowing lines, chrome-plate fixtures, and an overarching design philosophy, that made the Cadillac brand known for beauty and luxury.

In the middle of the 1930's a midst The Great Depression, while most companies and families were struggling Cadillac created the first V-type 16-cylinder engine for use in a passenger car. This engine would go on to be one of the most iconic engines in Cadillac history. Shortly thereafter, Cadillac released a V12 version to give buyers something between the already popular V8 and new V16 engines.

Cadillac went quiet in the 1941's when they suspended automobile production to help produce planes for the war. After the war ended Cadillac adapted some of the aircraft technology and created the first ever tailfin on a vehicle. This feature is now found on almost every car and was one of the biggest reasons that Cadillac was given the first ever Car of the Year award in 1949.

The tailfin took off rather quickly and by the mid to late 1950's it was being featured heavily in the design of nearly every vehicle. Also in the 50's Cadillac began developing power steering, which helped the automaker take third, tenth, and eleventh places at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. After Cadillac's stunning "victories" power steering quickly became the new standard of the industry.

Small but meaningful innovations filled the 1960's for Cadillac. In 1963, the company made front seatbelts standard in their vehicles, which lead to the eventual passing of a federal law requiring front seatbelts in all vehicles just one year later. Then, in 1964, Cadillac brought to market automatically controlled headlamps and redefines luxury with Comfort Control, the industry's first thermostatically controlled heating, venting, and air-conditioning system. Over the next few years, Cadillac introduced variable-ratio power steering, electric seat warmers, and stereo radio.

While the 1960's were fairly quiet, with only some smaller, luxury items being introduced, Cadillac started out 1970 with a major bang. Cadillac opened the decade by unveiling the 400 horsepower, 8.2-liter engine Eldorado. With its completely redesigned axle this model boasted the highest torque capacity of any passenger car available at the time. Closing out the decade, Cadillac brought to market the 1978 Seville which used onboard microprocessors in its digital display. This started the era of the computerized automobile.

Throughout the 1980's Cadillac laid low, working on some new technologies that would come to market in the early parts of the 1990's. The first feature to debut was an electronic traction control system on front-wheel drive vehicles. Cadillac began offering this as a standard feature on the 1990 Cadillac Allante. This same year Cadillac would go on to win the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Two years later, in 1992, the company developed a feature that allowed the engine to run for up to 50 miles without coolant, and a unique induction system for near-perfect fuel distribution. The Seville Touring Sedan of that year would become known as the "Cadillac of the Year" thanks to features such as an all electronically controlled Powertrain, traction control, anti-lock brakes and speed-sensitive suspension. Closing out the decade, Cadillac introduced the, now iconic, Escalade SUV.

CELEBRATING 100 YEARS AS 'THE STANDARD OF THE WORLD'

Coming up on the 100th anniversary of the Cadillac brand, the company had to do something big or the decade, and they did not disappoint. Cadillac started off the 200's by introducing the F-22 stealth aircraft inspired Cien Concept, which ended up winning a few design awards. Later in the decade, in 2008, Cadillac expanded the Escalade SUV by making it the world's first full-size luxury hybrid SUV. In the same year, the company redeveloped the CTS Sedan. This redesign has been incredibly popular and even won the coveted 2008 Car of the Year award. A short year later, the performance edition CTS-V, becomes the fasted V8 production sedan in the world, establishing a record lap time of 7:59:32 on Germany's famed Nürburgring.

[neworleansvoudou]

Who's Who in Hoodoo History: High John the Conqueror

John the Conqueror is known in Hoodoo folklore as a trickster spirit, always making a way out of no way at all, “hitting a straight lick with a crooked stick. Winning the jackpot with no other stake than a laugh” (Hurston 1943, 452). Slaves saw him as emerging from a whisper, finding laughter in sorrow, irony in tragedy, and triumph in despair. He was the bringer of hope, “the source and soul of our laughter and song.” He provided much-needed comedic relief in everyday life. He was a resistance figure whose weapons were laughter, cunning, and trickery.

They say that John was a prince who came from Africa, walking on the winds that filled the sails of ships through the Middle Passage. There are no photographs or drawings of the actual John the Conqueror. However, some say he resembled big John Henry, the “steel-driving man” of African American folklore. Or maybe he was “a little, hammered down, low-built man like the Devil’s doll-baby” (Hurston 1943, 452). Some say you can’t draw a spirit, so quit trying. Others say no one ever talked about what he looked like because it wasn’t necessary. White people never knew of his existence, which was by design; they weren’t supposed to know about him. He was the slaves’ biggest advocate on the downlow, and they lived for the tales of his putting one over on ole Massa.

They say that the spirit of John the Conqueror was around in the form of Brer Rabbit before John came on the scene. That wily mammal had already made the rounds on the plantations for a year and a day by the time John came along. Because he was in the form of an entertaining bunny, his tales spread far and wide. In reality, Brer Rabbit and John the Conqueror are two different spirits, but their functions are similar. Both are tricksters; both gain the edge through cunning, audacity, and intelligence. Both are empowering resistance figures.

John the Conqueror’s renown comes from the abundance of folktales describing his exploits. The most significant tales involve his role in procuring freedom through comedic relief and trickery. Freedom was of primary concern to John, and it governed near about all of his decisions. But he wasn’t the same kind of resistance figure as San Malo, Bras Coupe, or Annie Christmas. He was good at playing dumb when he needed to, and he excelled at the art of gaslighting. He played ole Massa like a fiddle.

He could make you think yellow was green and green was yellow. He would make you believe that what he did was your doing, and he was a master at leaving ole Massa standing in his place, mouth agape. He was just that cunning.

John the Conqueror was most popular during slavery days because he served an express purpose. People needed the kind of resilience and inspiration he could bring. They needed the hope he dispensed. They needed a vision for the future, one that involved their complete liberation. And when he went back to Africa, they say he left his spirit right here in the United States in the root of a special flower, a variety of morning glory bearing purple flowers. In this way, John the Conqueror never actually left. Whenever anyone needs him, they can access him by communing with the root bearing his namesake.

*Excerpt from Witch Queens Voodoo Spirits and Hoodoo Saints: A Guide to Magickal New Orleans.

Learn more about the OGs of Hoodoo: https://www.crossroadsuniversity.com/courses/who-s-who-in-hoodoo-history

[asterrrrion]

Okay I should definitely be sleeping rn but ! I need to say this : I've seen a lot of international (mainly American people) on the internet describing the general situation of the world as chaotic etc because of Syria and Korea and Brian fucking Thompson and France (which is what I'm going to talk about here).

First off, the current french situation isn't really that groundbreaking or anything new right now, the country has been in a political crisis for... a while now, at the very least since 2018-19 although in my opinion it started much earlier.

It has been really chaotic for now nearly five months, since Macron dissolved the Parliament and the acting government in June after the European elections (there was a political strategy at play here however it failed pathetically which is something I'll get to later) ; however this isn't something on the scale of what happened in Korea, not even mentioning Syria. The government and the people are just (much like in America) extremely polarised because of years of neoliberal political decisions and it's showing and slowing the government down.

Tale as old as time, I know.

However ! I ask of you to never say that the extreme left and the extreme right united among themselves to take the centrist government down. While the Rassemblement National is a far right party (who is currently being charged for stealing a shitload of cash btw, hope you like the taste of lawsuits Marine), our current President Emmanuel Macron and his party (I would give you the name but tbh they've rebranded so many times I can't remember what it is rn so let's just use the old one En Marche) are NOT a centrist party, and LFI, even more so the NFP are NOT a far left coalition/party.

Saying they were a centrist party was what carried them through the 2017 presidential election until it became abundantly clear if it wasn't already that they were in fact very right-wing.

Macron started out in the Socialist Party who is, these days, not very socialist anymore and who we can in fact barely call left-wing as they tend to have pretty much the same ideals as you guys' democrats (which are our centrists, basically, we have different political scales).

So, to summarise (I am warning you right now I have unmedicated adhd and am studying history with a deep love for political history this will be 5000 words long) nearly fifteen years of french politics to analyse what got us into this mess and why I'm asking you to not say these parties are far left parties, here's this :

There are a lot of different political parties in France. Anyone can create one, and so that means that the left's biggest problem for the past *checks notes* now a bit more than a century, has been division.

The socialist party and the communist party, which used to make up most of the left wing, separated in 1921 or 22 can't remember over the 3rd International and the Soviet Union. That created the historical division between far left and left : which one wanted to overthrow the government (in the 1920s the anarchists and communists which... to the left is still the same today actually) and which one thought elections were the best way to change things (the socialists).

The communists were big for a long time but they kinda got demonized after the Marshall Plan for obvious reasons, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, while they remained the French Communist Party (PCF for short) they kinda stopped actively having communist ideals and being a big party. Nowadays they still exist but are a pretty small party and aren't exactly big revolutionaries (nor, to be honest, big communists).

The socialists had their time of glory, the Front Populaire, in 1936. It was an alliance between all left-wing parties to forbid the far right from being elected basically, as they had just attempted a basically coup d'état but not really a few months earlier. The thirties were, for also obvious reasons, a pretty rocky time in Europe. They did very very good (i'm a leftist if you haven't noticed by now. Also, duh, this is Tumblr.) social policies for the first year but quickly had to stop due to various economical and military issues and resorted to a pretty default not doing much type of governing (I promise you, this WILL become the signature pattern of the PS or socialist party).

They were elected again in the 80s, and pretty much did the same thing, and then again in 2012, and by then they were hardly a left wing party anymore, mostly a bunch of at best left centrists politicians and at worst right wing opportunists. So a new party emerged called La France Insoumise (LFI) who is now the biggest french left wing party led by an extremely controversial figure who has a bit of an ego problem (they've also, objectively, made a bunch of shitty decisions on handling inner politics of the party but we won't get into that).

Forgot to mention this but there's also the Greens, Les Verts, an ecologist party with vaguely leftist ideologies. Their ecology program is pretty much the same as LFI's but it doesn't really hurt to vote for them except for the presidential election.

Now, the Republicans on the other hand (our Republicans. not yours. obviously.) used to be a left-centrist wing party but they slowly became a right wing one at the beginning of the 20th/end of the 19th century as the monarchists and imperialists got the fuck out of the Parliament and the socialists came in. This is a prime example of a political scale being tipped to one side (rarely seen this way around). What you need to know is that except for Mitterrand in the 80s and Hollande in 2012, the country has been exclusively led by these guys from 1959 onwards. Or, not necessarily these guys but similar parties (yes I'm looking at you De Gaulle). Nowadays they're extremely divided and the whole party is falling apart between far right and traditional conservative right.

The Rassemblement National which used to be called the Front National (so RN or anciently FN) is a far right party who was founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen and a few nazis. Yes, you did read that right. No, I'm not joking. Funnily enough Jean-Marie was in the Resistance, but I don't wanna know what goes on in that guy's mind. They're now led by his daughter (as the dude is on death's door now, but there has been some family drama there also), Marine Le Pen, who has worked very hard in the past few years to make the party go from outwardly racist, misogynistic and homophobic to covertly racist, misogynistic and homophobic.

This means that aaaall of the decisions that caused poverty and misery for french citizens, mainly the lack of funding that goes into public service and the abandonment of any and all rural areas has led a lot of people to turn to the now not as demonized as before RN.

On the other side the left wing has been eating itself alive since Hollande in 2012 because of rivalries between the Socialist Party and LFI, which has cost them several times the presidential election, and less and less people are voting since more and more people are losing hope in modern politics.

Which leads us to 2017 : the election of Emmanuel Macron as President. Macron was originally a banker and Minister of the Economy under Hollande, but he changed sides and left the Socialist Party in 2016 to create En Marche, a party that was supposed to be a centrist party but was quite obviously a right wing one.

As the left was divided, LFI's leader and the socialist leader were outvoted in favour of him and Marine Le Pen for a second vote to determine the President ; this was his strategy. As long as the left was divided, he would win the first round of voting, then the second, because he knew that left-wing people would ALWAYS vote for him against Le Pen.

A LOT of shit happened under his mandate (to name a few, COVID, the gilets jaunes etc) all of which were handled very badly, and all of his decisions were neoliberal shit as always which didn't help anything and made it actively worse. That wasn't helped by the guy's ego (I am not kidding most politicians are arrogant but this is like on another level this dude seriously, dead-ass thinks he's the smartest person in any room he walks in) and general condescending behaviour and statements (like when he said "I like train stations, because you meet both people who have succeeded and people who are nothing". yeah. turns out the nation he's supposed to be representing wasn't a big fan of that one. wonder why).

In 2022 most people hated his guts, but as the left was still divided because the fucking socialists can't admit they're not the biggest leftist party anymore and the threat of the far right in power was more present than ever, he got re-elected. The thing is, right afterwards the presidential elections is held the legislatives. They're the election of both the Senate and the National Assembly, so the Whole Parliament.

Normally, this would just be a formality, as a people who has elected a president literally four weeks ago is generally going to vote for his party. It's important to note here, than TRADITIONALLY (can you hear the anger in my voice yet ?) the President, when choosing a Prime Minister, is supposed to choose from the biggest political party represented in the National Assembly. When that party is from another party than the President's, we call this a cohabitation.

Cohabitations are always a messy but pretty fun time, as the Prime Minister, usually only a lackey of the President, is now a member from an opposing party and as he has, constitutionally, enormous legal power (that he, usually, as a lackey of the President, only uses to support the President's politics). The thing is we hadn't had a cohabitation in a long-ass time, because the amount of time presidents were elected was specifically changed to avoid them and put the legislatives right afterwards the presidential election. The other thing is, when the entire country is only voting for you because the only other alternative is the far right...

Now, in 2022, the biggest party elected was still the President's. However, it was only a relative majority instead of an absolute one, which meant that they had to have support should they want to pass any law. So, instead of finding allies, they chose to use a lovely article of the Constitution, the now infamous in France 49.3. This article means that on budget laws (and ONLY on budget laws which... is definitely going to be totally respected and not at all ambiguously used) the government (read : the Prime Minister) can make a text of law bypass the National Assembly and be automatically applied.

But the Assembly has then the choice to vote in order to demote the Parliament. They tried. It nearly went through. It didn't though, in the end, because the Republicans were too divided for it to go through. However both of the major opposing forces, the entire left wing and the far right party the RN, voted it if I remember correctly. And most of the past two years until summer 2024 were just the government fighting with the National Assembly. They used a metric ton of 49.3, it's now a meme (and also a widely antidemocratic tactic that everyone hates).

In the summer of 2024, there were the European elections. Each country votes, and ours voted for the far right. Like, a lot. I'm not kidding when I say that the situation with the RN is pretty fucking critical. What matters here is also that the President's Party had a ridiculously low score.

Now, Macron won't be re-elected. He can't. Like, physically. You can't be elected more than twice in France. But he wants someone of his party to take over after he leaves (which btw is going to be difficult, I'll be very surprised if en marche lasts three weeks without him since they're also divided as hell), so he needs it to be popular.

So he did something that he thought was smart : he dissolved the government and the Parliament. That meant we had to have a new legislative election. We were scared shirtless as we were all sure the RN would be elected and we'd have an RN prime minister, which we know now by some sources is what Macron intended to be able to prove that his party is the best alternative to the far right in order to continue to be elected in the next Presidential elections in 2027.

But the morning after the annunciation, then LFI MP Ruffin called for an union of the left wing parties, which was by the way done remarkably quickly for parties that have been at each others throats for the past ten years (forgot to mention this but it HAD to be done quickly as our rat bastard President put the election literally a month and a half after annunciation).

So now Macron needed something to discredit the left in order to be considered the only candidate against the RN. And he found his thing : he demonized them. Because of their public support for Palestine, they were suddenly antisemitic (this is particularly vicious as antisemitic hate crimes have in fact been an issue since the beginning of the Palestinian genocide in France and a lot of Jewish people here are scared of antisemitism for, yk, very good reasons) and a far left party who was basically anti republican and composed of revolutionaries.

And it worked ! It helped that LFI has been seen as such for a while for a variety of reasons, mostly baseless, and that everyone conveniently forgot that the leftist union was and is made up of four different parties. The far left does not exist in the National Assembly in France. Not in the communist party, not in LFI. I'm not the one saying this, official statements by the state council are. But every right wing politician forgets that because it gets them elected. And people believe them. So stop spreading that lie, please.

The first round of voting was led by the far right, so for the second, Macron and the left allied themselves : in every district of voting where a leftist candidate, a macronist candidate and a far right candidate were still competing against each other, the candidate of the two with the least votes would resign their candidature to be able to give as little votes to the far right as possible.

In truth this wasn't completely followed by Macronists especially, some refusing to resign when against an lfi candidate, which is completely ridiculous and personally disgusts me. But it worked, and the left-wing won the election with the far right coming in third place. I cried that day, actually, from relief, as embarrassing as it is.

So that meant that Macron had to name, TRADITIONALLY, a left wing prime minister. Several names were offered (which was difficult as the socialists and government would veto any lfi member and the communists and LFI would veto any socialist member) and Macron said that he wouldn't name any government who had members from lfi in it. So the lfi leader did a pretty beautiful move and pulled out all of the lfi members of any and all propositions of government (this being, I remind, the biggest left wing party in France).

Macron still named a right-wing prime minister, denying the elections' result and preferring to work with the far right than with the left, left which might I recall got him elected. Anyway. So we got a very right wing government, borderline far right to appease the RN, who only managed to stay in place because of that fact.

They had to make 49.3 for most laws they wanted to pass as the Assembly was heavily divided in the past months. The leftist union voted to demote the government every time, but the RN wouldn't. And then, a week or two ago, on one of the most restrictive budget propositions for public service this country has ever seen, they remembered they had to look like they care about poor people since that's, you know, their electorate, and since the budget was of course forced through with 49.3 voted also to demote the government.

So now we have a new prime minister, supposedly more to the left although still, obviously, a right-winger. Nothing much changed. Can't fucking wait for 2027... And please don't say that the leftist union is far left or that Macron is a centrist. Neither are true.

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV S2 Musings - Tentative Timeline (Pt3a: 1945 - 1950) - ❗REVISIONS❗

These revisions took a minute, y'all, apologies.

HUGE thanks to @usuallydeepalpaca-blog and @alleyskywalker for working with me to make a (hopefully) more precise tentative timeline for S2 -- Pt 1 (1940 - 1948ish: x x) and Pt2 (1949: x x). There's so much unreliable narration from ALL these MCs, so things are very much STILL up in the air wrt chronology, that will likely only be resolved in S3 🙏 (AMC y'all got some explaining to do, cuz this ish REALLY don't make sense!!! 😩). So until then, this is still just a rough guestimate of when events took place in S2, cuz IDFK. 🤦

1945

Mostly I brightened up the dark AF pics I used on all the nodes

Added the rest of the quote from Lou & Claudia's convo to "follow the blackouts," cuz I hate when people complain that S2 wasn't as "glamorous" as S1; when IRL post-war Paris was broke as a joke--the lights flickering on & off in Claudeleine & Loumand's scenes in Ep2 were cuz of continent-wide blackouts during & post-WWII. You can't demand that AMC be historically accurate, then complain about the grim reality of IRL history during & after THE biggest war in Europe.

Adjusted the date range of Lou & Claudia meeting the coven from Nov, to a grace period of Nov/Dec 1945 (IF they arrived 5 months earlier in July, not June)

Adjusted the date range of the Chateau hunt with the coven from mid-Dec, to a grace period of Dec 1945/Jan 1946 (IF they arrived 5 months earlier in July, not June; plus 1 month of Claudia watching their performances)

1946

Small but significant changes:

Added a node of Claudia confirming her hazing period took "weeks"

Bumped Satre up to Spring 1946, before Claudia's initiation--the grace period I gave that scene was too vague/generous

June 29, 1949 - the night Claudia invites Lou to her initiation ceremony

July 6, 1949 - I reckon Claudia's coven initiation was July 6, cuz "at the end of this week" would be Sunday, June 30, so Claudia could've just said "tomorrow" if that's what she meant. So the only other night she could be referring to was July 6th.

Thus, Baby LouLou definitely started performing in the summer (approx. July), not the spring

1947

I split up 1947 - 1949, to isolate everything that happened pre-Roget's interrogation.

I can't count, and miscalculated 500 nights = 16 months instead of 18 months, which effed up the whole thing, omfg I'm stupid! 🤦

So Claudia's 500th performance is December 1947, rather than Fall; sorry y'all.

Added a node for Lou vs art dealer Alois (as in Alois Meidl????)

Added nodes for Lou's convo w/ Dreamstat & Claudeleine's convo, that confirm it's been "two years" that they've been in Paris--so this is definitely 1945 → 1947; esp. if they only met the coven & Madz around Nov/Dec 1945.

Added a node specifically for Santiago's coup, splitting it from Loumand's park bench convo, just for clarity's sake.

1948

Everything from Roget down to Sam's Guido/Godot script has been moved to 1948.

Added a node where Roget mentions the Theatre being closed "a fortnight ago"

Added a node with the coven reading Claudia's diaries b/t the pages of Sam's Guido/Godot script

Added a node for the "God's Light" quote, which is part of the Guido/Godot script

Added a node screenapping Sam's Guido script

Added a node of Madz's SA. I have no idea where in the year this happens, even going by the clothes--that could be anywhere from Spring - Fall. 🤷

Added a node of Armand mentioning Sam's "new pages" for Guido/Godot

1949 - 1950

THIS is where ish gets hella messy

A bunch of Roland-Garros nodes, cuz those are muy importante

July: more of Armand's quote about Loumand's library date

Sept: Armand's quote where he says/lies(?) that the same night Madz was Turned, the coven gave him a "rewrite" of the Trial script

Changed the dates of Louis in the vault from Nov/Dec to Oct/Nov, bumping it up a month, esp. since the Trial HAS to take place in September (IF the Roland-Garros match was Sept 17-18)

Added Lou's Rage & Madness planning (approx 2-3 nights long)

Added the Great Fire of 1949 frame from the Talamasca files

Added the Jan 9, 1950 article about the Theatre burned down

@usuallydeepalpaca-blog pointed out that Lestat probably wasn't referring to THE French Championships, but a different France vs Australia match at Roland-Garros on September 17-18, 1949.

(DANG, I hope the Australians watched their necks in 1949! 💀 They effing won the mens' doubles in that match! 😅)

Jokes aside though, AMC has A LOT of explaining to do here. I'd assumed Les was referring to the 1950 French Championships:

But IF the September 17-18th 1949 games are what Les was talking about, that means he arrived around Sept 5th, and the Trial happened barely two weeks later!? 😰

Which means the rehearsal took barely no time at all; and most importantly: Claudeleine got ZERO TIME to wander. 😩💔

1950

This is a BIG problem, AMC:

Does anyone know what interview this was, where Jacob(?) said Claudeleine were together for months+?

I couldn't find it, but I DID find an interview with Roxane that said basically the same thing, which WORRIES ME.

Cuz "quite a time stretch" just DOES NOT WORK, if September 5, 1949 - January 9, 1950 is THE LIMIT for everything that happens from Madeleine's turning to Madeleine's death.

Which tells me that if anything, AMC's props department effed up not once, but TWICE, and actually had no effing idea when the Theatre burned down. 😅

Regardless, I added the nodes to account for al these shenanigans.

TL;DR: I no longer have any frikkin idea what's going on with the S2 timeline, esp. after Ep6. 😔

I love this show, it's excellent, 100/10. But laaaaawwwwwwd, I'm confused; and TIRED.