#the government does corrupt things or... freedom (ACTUAL freedom not the propaganda freedom) is good... | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mirrormirrormag · 4 years ago

Text

why i don't like democracy

Since its inception, democracy has been branded as one of America’s many hallmarks. As long as democracy and freedom has been associated with America, everyone else has been led to believe that America is the leader of the free world.

But even as Thomas Jefferson declared independence from the tyranny of Britain, he still justified the ownership of human beings as slaves. And even as the founding fathers drafted the constitution that would protect our unalienable rights and liberties, they still justified the exploitation of black bodies in order to serve the interests of White America.

These foundational documents provided the blueprint for America and its interests over time, and since the country’s founding, America has pillaged, colonized, looted, exploited, ravaged, stolen, imperialized, controlled, capitalized, and subjugated the rest of the world all in the name of “democracy.”

Not to mention, the denial of humanity to the very people that built this country’s wealth that continues to this very day.

America co-opted the concept of democracy and created an excuse to oppress the world under the guise of goodwill and progressiveness, which is why I hate democracy. American democracy, to be specific.

Along the journey towards global domination, our government intentionally corrupted the world’s ideals of what democracy should be in order to preserve their image of goodness and utopia. We allow America to wage unnecessary and useless wars to preserve “democracy” and “freedom.”

But what is democracy? To America, democracy is defined by capitalism where the means for production are unregulated and unchecked, but that is inherently undemocratic because capitalism has only allowed for the corruption and greed of rich people to control the lives of others. At its core, democracy is the form of government that is run by the people for all people, and when we allow some people to have more power than others, the foundational ideologies of democracy are nullified.

American democracy, or capitalism, has been the basis for the myriad of undemocratic things that America has done. Yet, to the rest of the world, it’s entirely justified and patriotic. Ever since World War 2, when America really started to pillage and loot on a global scale, so much propaganda was used to vilify any other means for democracy like socialism and communism and glorify the democracy that America was the vanguard of. It allowed the military to interfere in any foreign conflict that they deemed “undemocratic” while not allowing room for growth in our ignorant mindset of what democracy is.

To this day, “third-world countries” which is another concept created by Western countries to perpetuate the white savior complex by asserting that countries that were robbed of their country’s resources by the West are poor and helpless, continue to buy into the myth of American democracy. Rather than creating a new standard of freedom and liberty in the world, countries that were destroyed by America continually attempt to build a government in the image of America.

Even the distinctions between the West versus the East, and the narrative that countries in the West are the definition of progress and freedom, while the East is oppressive is laughable because America and Europe created the blueprint for systemic racism and misogyny that brands the East.

To deny the existence of these systemic issues in our countries is doing a disservice to the aspirations for democracy. The coronavirus exposed all of the systemic issues at the root of our country’s operation at an important time in history where White people were very quick to claim that we are living in a post-racial society. The first step to actually living in a democratic society is to acknowledge the wrongdoings of our predecessors.

"America never intended to be a country for all people: the founding fathers were all rich, white men who wanted their property to be free and liberated, as opposed to the people who lived alongside them."

The establishment of oppressive systems such as the police, the prison system, and the military were intentionally created to deny Black Americans basic rights supposedly guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, which clearly shows that this country was never created to accommodate the livelihood of Black Americans while posturing as vanguards of democracy.

Through the course of history, there has never been a moment where Americans have not been protesting for one thing or another, and ironically, America now uses that as justification of being a country led by the people (when in reality it’s not) but in the moment, the government did everything it could in order to suppress the voices of protestors through the use of state sponsored violence like the police and maintain the safety of property and capital. America continually ignored the voices asking for change because it would upend the standards of power and class in America, which is what the government truly wants to preserve.

The current protests are a huge example of this because just as White America was becoming oblivious to the violence that Black Americans routinely experienced, the video of George Floyd being murdered exposed the realities of America and the systematic efforts to perpetuate systemic racism.

The American government tries harder to preserve oppression against Black people than it does listening to them and abolishing the structures that exist solely to create a new iteration of slavery.

I could call America a hypocrite for claiming democracy as their own while sponsoring all sorts of violence and oppression against people, but America never intended to be a country for all people: the founding fathers were all rich, white men who wanted their property to be free and liberated, as opposed to the people who lived alongside them.

As long as we allow America to limit our ideas of what’s possible in the realm of democracy and government to a superficial level, we will never be free.

#politics #society #democracy #socialism #capitalism #imperialism #looting #protests #black lives matter

72 notes · View notes

gffa · 5 years ago

Note

One thing that I just came to realize about Star Wars in the wake of the end of TCW is that expanded universe stuff has expanded and humanized both the clones and the world in the CIS, making us see that it wasn't a black and white conflict, but rather that there good and bad people on both sides of the conflict and that the conflict itself was far more complex then we first understand and that everyone had a good reason to fight. (1)

And as far as I know, Resistance and some of the comics and such set in the Sequel era has shown that there were at least some good people in the First Order. I found it interesting that the SW crew hasn't fleshed out the Empire or the Stormtroopers the same way that they did the Prequel era. But then I realized that the conflicts actually were quite different and it really was a much more black and white conflict in the OT. (2) Rebels VS Empire is a fundamentally different fight compared to Separatists VS Republic. Because in the latter, it's people with genuine gripes and problems and people that are good but refuse to open their eyes to the corrupt that they wade through. While the former is freedom fighters versus racist oppressors and tyrants. Sure, there are people like Maketh Tua, which I would say is a pretty human portrayal of a nice Imperial, but for the most part. The empire is pure evil. (Last.)

There actually has been similar things for the Empire! It’s been along the lines of what we’ve seen in Resistance and other ST supplementary material--that there are good people within the Empire, who just don’t realize how bad it really is, and some people who just take awhile to make better choices. I would argue the movie Solo is a great example of this, where Han isn’t a bad person, but he joins the Empire because he needs a way off Corellia. The Han Solo - Imperial Cadet comic shows that there are other decent people within the Empire, too. Lost Stars has Ciena Ree, who is deeply devoted to the Empire, despite being a really good person. From a Certain Point of View has a couple of short stories from the point of view of Stormtroopers, where they’re really not bad people, they just don’t see another choice. Alphabet Squadron showed us Yrica Quell as a reasonably late defector, who wasn’t a bad person, but found that the Empire offered more and she just never found the right time to leave, until it was almost too late. Servants of the Empire expands further on the Leonis family (from Rebels) who felt the Empire was putting food on the table and saw them in a good faith light and had no idea what they were actually doing on Lothal, that they are good people who just don’t know what their government is really up to. I think you could argue that Rae Sloane--at least in “Bottleneck” or maybe A New Dawn--was a decent person for awhile, at the very least she saw the Empire as something that should have been noble and hated what she knew of the dirtier aspects of it, and that she saw it as her only way out of a miserable existence on a dirt poor world. Resistance’s Imanuel Doza was part of the Empire and reasonably high ranked until his wife got him to defect. Battlefront II has Iden Versio is deeply loyal to the Empire, until Operation Cinder happens and then she defects to the Rebels because they attacked Vardos, her home planet. Bloodline had Ransolm Casterfo talking to Leia about how Riosa had been loyal to the Empire, despite the forced labor camps enacted on them, because at least it put food on the table, and a lot of worlds during the New Republic maintained at least something of an appreciation for how the Empire made the trains run on time. So, there’s definitely been a similar pattern of establishing that there are “good” Imperials who either don’t know what their government is up to or they’re just trying to make it through the day because they don’t see any other options for themselves. What’s interesting is that the movies rarely do any of this worldbuilding (aside from, arguably, Solo) and even TCW never really does much to actually show us good people in the Separatists. There’s Mina Bonteri, possibly Onaconda Farr, and maybe Onderon would count? Though, the latter two were forced into it, either by desperate circumstances or they were forced into it. Did Rogue One establish that Cassian was a Separatist or was that in supplementary material? I can’t remember now! The only reason we really know much about the Separatists’ legitimate gripes is that Star Wars Propaganda told us about it, it really hasn’t come up in many stories, has it? While the pro-Empire and pro-First Order characters have had a lot more stories told in canon stories, rather than in guidebooks and such, which is fascinating, given that the Separatists have arguably the best case, if you ignore that their army was doing things that are just as evil as the Empire!

#republic #separatists #rebellion #empire #new republic #first order #meta #robinlightwalker

82 notes · View notes

bobbyshaddoe80 · 3 years ago

Text

Liberated Audio Reviews

Blake's 7 - The Liberator Chronicles Vol. 2

RELEASED AUGUST 2012

Recorded on: 18 October and 25 November 2011, and 15 March 2012

Recorded at: Moat Studios

Review By Robert L. Torres

The Magnificent Four by Simon Guerrier

'A mission to steal data from the planet Mogul goes badly wrong when Cally and Avon are outflanked and outgunned. And then they are teleported to safety – to an alien spaceship stolen from The System, which is crewed by Gilden Trent and his small team of rebels.

For Avon it’s the opportunity to start over again without Blake.

But can Trent be trusted?'

Chronological Placement:

Set during Series B between the episodes Countdown and Voice From the Past.

Magnificent. Defined in the dictionary as 'impressive, deserving of admiration, especially due to an unusual quality involving size'.

The word is often used when describing something vast in size and scope, but magnificence can also be attributed to the quality of something that involves a small group. A prime example would be the title characters of the classic Western The Magnificent Seven. Even the accomplishments made by the John Wick character could be described as magnificent despite them being done by one man.

Magnificent is an apt word to describe the impressive storytelling quality that Guerrier has pulled off with this Cally focused story.

Cally, as played by the exquisite Jan Chappell, was always one of my favorites from the original cast. She was someone that wasn't a hardened cynic like Avon (who provides much needed support for Cally in this story), nor was she cowardly like Vila. She was someone that genuinely believed in doing the right thing and saw fighting against the oppressive tyranny of the Federation to be a very serious responsibility.

I was also always fascinated by her stance as someone that, for all intents and purposes, was the alien of the group (due to her coming from a race of telepaths). I have my own thoughts and theories about the Auronar, but that can wait for another day. Despite having powers of the mind, I always felt that Cally was very much the heart of the team.

I love that this story has Cally and Avon meeting up with a group like Blake's, on a ship like the Liberator, only to learn that they are little more than highly skilled pirates.

I love that the events of the Series B episode 'Redemption' are brought up and how the crew of the Libertine are a result of the aftermath of the events from that story.

I love how the story showcases in the crew of the Libertine a distorted reflection (and perhaps a retroactive premonition) of what would happen to the crew of the Liberator should they lose their way by abandoning their morals and scruples and just give in to blind self interest... Which for the most part is exactly what started to happen during Series C and ultimately came to fruition in Series D.

A minor nitpick, but I always thought the planet Cally came from was called Auron and her people were called the Auronar. And yet in this story and others, they refer to her as being an Auron. Is it a case where one singular person is an Auron but the collective term for the species as a whole is Auronar? It is a minor thing, I know, but still something that stuck out.

Something else that is a bit of a minor flaw is that at one point in the story the voiceover narration switches from Cally to Avon. There is a specific reason why this happens in the narrative, but it still comes about rather unexpectedly.

Given the stories in these chronicles are events being recounted AFTER the fact, there is the inevitable problem of how to create tension and intrigue with life threatening peril for the characters when most fans know the show backwards and are fully aware of what the inevitable fates for many of the characters are.

Luckily for Guerrier and many other writers, they do create moments that make you wonder how such and such will be able to survive whatever life threatening peril is thrown at them, and manage to cleverly pay off how they survive without falling into 'Oh Come The Fuck On' Territory.

8 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

Anyway, this story is very well done and is the first of many plots that involve coming across potential allies for the Resistance movement, only to learn the would be allies are often a lot worse than their enemies in the Federation. Definitely give it a listen.

False Positive by Eddie Robson

'Dr. Lian has a mysterious new patient – a man who was found shot in the leg near Engel City, a man who is delirious and talking about the most extraordinary acts of rebellion.

She prescribes drugs and the use of the alleviator – a device that will dig deep into his memories – to unlock the truth about Carlin Guzan.

But the truth that she exposes is far more shocking than she bargained for...'

Chronological Placement:

Set during Series B after LC Vol. 10's Retribution, between the episodes Horizon and Pressure Point.

This story is definitely a step up in quality from volume 1's 'Counterfeit' and is an excellent Blake-centric story. The framing device for the recollection of the events is actually quite clever as it ties in with the adventure itself in a very naturalistic manner.

The dialogue scenes between Blake and Dr. Liam are excellent. Kudos to Beth Chalmers for giving the character of Dr. Liam the right balance of professional intrigue and personal curiosity as she learns more and more about her 'patient'. But this story belongs to the late Gareth Thomas through and through and it is great to hear him be afforded better material than during his first go round back in 'Counterfeit'.

I always rather liked Blake from the start, and a large part of that is down to the performance of the late Gareth Thomas. The character of Roj Blake was a passionate idealist fighting for a noble cause, someone who could be diplomatic but understood the need for action rather than simple civil disobedience. As someone that broke free from an oppressive government, he immediately gains our sympathies... even if his passions occasionally bordered on overzealous fanaticism. This is largely due to what the Federation did to him personally by trying to rewrite his mind, killing his family and even destroying his public image by falsifying accusations of paedophilia.

Since the Federation enact the same tactics on countless others without any hesitation, morals or scruples, it is no wonder why Blake is so overwhelmingly passionate about wiping out the corruptive and cancerous tumor that is the Federation. Not only to avenge family, but to ensure that people are given the freedom to choose for themselves and not simply be coerced into following the rules through propaganda, torture, drugs or mind control.

Speaking of drugs and mind control, that goes to the heart of the plot: Blake going undercover at a Federation research facility that is conducting a clinical drug trial for the development of a new pacifying sedative, which the Federation hopes to employ in order to ensure total compliance and obedience to Federation doctrine.

Ironically enough, that is exactly what would come to pass towards the tail end of Series D... But we already know that, don't we?

7 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

All things considered, it is a pretty good story. This story, like a few others in the Liberator Chronicles range, could work as a two-hander stage play with a couple of tweaks. It also could easily have worked on TV or even as a full cast audio. Give it a listen.

Wolf by Nigel Fairs

“I heard his death cry. I felt it. And there was a word. ‘Wolf’. You, Servalan. You were the “Wolf”. You killed him. I want to know why.”

'Some time ago, Blake and his crew were helped by a revered Auron scientist named Gustav Nyrron. He stayed aboard the Liberator for a time and then disappeared.

Cally wants to know what happened to Nyrron, and only Servalan knows the answers.'

Chronological Placement:

Set during Series B between the episodes Pressure Point and Trial.

This is a very intriguing Servalan focused story, featuring Cally and a return appearance by Gustav Nyrron from Volume 1's 'Solitary'.

They say that a protagonist is only as good as the antagonist created to provide drama/conflict. This is especially true when the character of Supreme Commander Servalan (along with the equally excellent Space Commander Travis) was introduced as the Liberator crew's primary antagonist in the Series A episode 'Seek-Locate-Destroy'.

A large part of why the Servalan character has left such a lasting impression on the minds of fans had to do with the casting of the late Jacqueline Pearce, and the way she played the role. Her grace, charm, beauty and seductive allure went hand in hand with a ruthless ambitious edge along with a keen strategic mind.

In many ways, Servalan, as played by Jacqueline Pearce, reminded me of Alexis Colby as played by Joan Collins. Although Servalan was a bit more reserved than Alexis.

As such, it makes perfect sense that the Liberator Chronicles would provide ample opportunities to explore the villains as well as the heroes. This story does well to explore Servalan's character along with her thoughts, beliefs and how she carries herself as she recounts events. The recollection is pretty interesting cuz it comes about in multiple ways.

We learn a little bit about Servalan's childhood in reference to a game she used to play with others. Its interesting how this story, along with the upcoming 'Kerr', 'President' and 'Three', provides more insight into the character than the show ever did. The aforementioned upcoming stories do provide some great insight into why Servalan is the way she is... But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I love the scenes between Servalan and Cally, as I do not recall the two of them having much screentime during the series proper... If ever. But I could be wrong.

This story has some great twists and turns as it deals with exploring how Servalan used Nyrron as her personal plaything in her efforts to lure the Liberator into her clutches.

Although Nyrron will be featured again in the story 'Brother' off of Volume 11 (which I will talk about eventually), I think this is the story that features him the best. We learn the most about him as a character, and much kudos to Anthony Howell for bringing much pathos and nuance to the Auron scientist.

The story also lends itself quite well to philosophical debates regarding how each side views the other. Naturally, Blake's crew view Servalan and the Federation as an evil and oppressive tyranny, while Servalan and those within the Administration view Blake and his ilk as little more than terrorists wanting to bring down the only force for law and order in the galaxy.

It is that clash of ideals and personal morals that will be explored to great effect in future volumes as well as in the full cast audios.

9 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

Final score for Liberator Chronicles Vol. 2 in its entirety is 8 out of 10 Plasma Bolts. It is a profound step up in quality compared to Volume 1, and it demonstrates that things can only go up from here in terms of character exploration and engaging plots.

Special credit to Craig Brawley of the Big Finish Listeners Facebook Group for his tireless efforts in mapping out the chronology of the audios and determining his they fit in with the established TV continuity.

#blake's 7 #reviews #big finish productions #audiobooks #audio dramas

4 notes · View notes

ignitesthestxrs · 5 years ago

Note

Hi! I love reading your thoughts about the fever king (and your blog in general) you’re very well spoken and have a very firm grasp on the book and the characters (in my opinion). That’s why I wanted to ask you this question: why did Lehrer abdicate? I’ve been thinking about it and can’t find a reason. Did he do it bc people started taking him for granted? Did he do it to prove to himself that democracy would’t work? It seems pointless to give up power and then take it again. Sorry it’s so long!

thank you for this!! i know i’ve left it to linger for a while but i have thoughts!

at the end of the day, i think the way he is seen publicly is actually very important to Lehrer, at least within the sphere of his own country. he wants to hold power and be seen as powerful, yes, but it’s important to his ego and his own concept of himself that he’s seen as a beneficial force.

like - yes he’s extremely powerful, more than powerful enough to hold off the threat of foreign nations to new carolinia. he could take political power by being openly a Fuck if he wanted to, and it would be very difficult to stop him (the sequel is very clear about Just How Difficult this is). but he doesn’t do this - he operates in secret in The Fever King, using propaganda to control people’s opinions, literally creating a refugee crisis.

regaining power is clearly important to Lehrer, but the way he regains it is just as important to him. he wants to be the saviour of his country - he wants the crowds chanting his name with love, not avoiding it in fear (although i think he would still take the latter if the former proved impossible, but his ego demands the love just because that’s harder than making people fear you. Lehrer never did a thing easy if it could be done complicated with an opportunity to enjoy how clever he is afterwards).

what does this have to do with his abdication? essentially - Lehrer was committee-elected to the position of king. he maintained his initial power very much through the specter of being a man who could throw a nuke back at any country that dared to launch one in the first place. even if people did love him in that position, he didn’t get it through the mandate of the people, and the word ‘king’ is one that i think still tastes funny in the mouth of once-america.

especially with his ability to essentially be immortal. sure, the people start off loving him - but if he were to reign for eternity as a king, eventually people would forget that he’d once saved them from anything. he’d become the autocrat, the dictator, the despot (i mean he is all these things lol, but in the eyes of the People). the problems of the nation would become Lehrer’s fault, and while he might be able to hold onto power in the face of that, he wouldn’t hold onto the love of the people.

if he’s the man who gave up ultimate power to enable democratic elections, though? that’s securing a legacy of benevolence. that’s securing his reputation in history as a man who was reluctantly pushed into leadership, was good at it for long enough to become adored, but not too long for public opinion to turn against him, and then he ushered in the era of ‘freedom’, stepping back to a position that allows him to continue protecting New Carolinia without (publicly) infringing on anyone’s rights.

and then if the country proves unable to handle self-governance - if it somehow all starts to fall apart under the corruption of its officials, then who better to provide a steadying hand than the incorruptible Lehrer, who gave up that power in the first place? it’s the ultimate boost to Lehrer’s ego - both to be asked by his country to serve because no one else is as good at it as him, but also because he’s the ultimate puppet master that arranged the whole thing behind the scenes.

none of the people in his life are actually ‘real’ to a man like Lehrer. they’re all tools and toys - the only thing he really sees as something that he wants is the Country and the People (and mostly the Country), because only something that huge in concept can satisfy his ego. he considers himself to be better than everyone, more than a match for anyone he encounters, so playing individual manipulation games has no real satisfaction for him in the the long term. people are mere diversions - the only thing that makes life really interesting for him is the very long game of politics and history and legacy, set on a scale that no one else but him (he thinks) is capable of understanding.

#the fever king #tfk #tfk meta #calix lehrer #huntedthemoon

73 notes · View notes

sparksinthenight · 4 years ago

Text

Kindness

selflessness

connection

equality

responsibility

hope

mercy

justice

compassion

open-heartedness

spontaneity

understanding

community

ecological protection

valuing human life

peace

cooperation

true, spiritual freedom

None of these things are actually valued by capitalism. Quite the opposite. Capitalism actively bulldozes all these values in order to press forwards it's agenda of making everyone selfishly only persue material things for their little small exclusive groups. Capitalism does not care about the lives of people or their happiness. Not about camaraderie or equality or connection or anything. Capitalism kills, it destroys the earth, it rips apart families, it encourages materialism and selfishness, it isolates people, it exploits and controls people, it causes so much pain, so much grief. It does. We're all slaves under it. Well not all of us. Not all of us. Some of us are owners, some of us are overseers. But most of us. Capitalism is a fucking mess and it causes so much bullshit.

Like y'all know what the cause of all the ecological destruction that's going on is right? It's not fossil fuels but the thing that causes all the fossil fuels to be burned, all the habitat destruction, the habitat fragmentation, the pollution, the commercial hunting, the overfishing, etc. It's capitalism. Capitalism did that.

Y'all know about sweatshops, about the inhuman, dangerous, unhealthy, and physically and psychologically torturous working conditions, about how people are forced to either work or starve to death.

Y'all know sbout child labour.

About forced migration because of all the bullshit going on with ... everything.

Y'all know about how many people, living in extreme poverty and non-extreme poverty, die because they can't afford what they need.

Y'all know about the lack of access to education. The lack of access to decent quality education. The lack of access to post-secondary. To any type of education at all even, for many people.

About how hard capitalism makes it for domestic abuse victims - often financially dependent on their abuser - to escape. This last point literally isn't talked about nearly enough by the way. I have so often thought about how if running away from home wasn't a guarantee of homelessness I would've actually done it long ago. But no. My shitty minimum wage job, which is the best I can hope for right now and literally exploits me though not nearly as much as people in the Global South are exploited, is fucking not enough to pay for rent and bills and groceries. If I left I'd be homeless. And I might just leave anyways because maybe it's worth it.

But anyways back to the labour abuse. Do you really think ten-year-old children should be fucking working in collapsing mines? Should they be handling mercury, a highly toxic poison that causes a slew of health effects? Should they be sewing three sleeve seams per second for hours? Should they be separated from their families and working in an abusive stranger's house? Should they be subjecting themselves to dangerous pesticides while picking avocados under the hot sun? Should they be carrying heavy bricks? No? You're right. They FUCKING SHOULDN'T. But they goddamn are. They are.

And what about the military industrial complex? What about all the weapons companies that want to keep selling weapons and have their grubby little hands all over world governments?

And when the planet dies so will everyone. Literally everyone. The capitalists straight up need to realize that everyone needs the environment. But they won't. They won't realize that and we're having to rely on a little girl to save us. Not that Greta isn't more than capable, she is. But she has too much responsibility on her shoulders for a kid that young. She deserves a childhood.

And then there’s the stuff I can't even mention because of how liberal propaganda has so programmed us to see ourselves and each other as commodities.

There’s the fact that the legacy of colonialism and slavery and stuff will always live on under capitalism because of generational wealth. The fact that unless we are committed to equality and don’t leave people and peoples to fend for themselves, previously colonized people will remain cripplingly poor. Because wealth builds wealth and they did not start off with wealth. And that’s not fair.

There’s the fact that homelessness exists. And it’s torture to not have decent shelter or anywhere to be. It’s torture to not have anywhere to be, anywhere to be wanted, anywhere to belong. It’s torture to be out all fucking day in the freezing cold or the burning heat. It’s not okay. There’s the fact that even in a country as comparatively prosperous as Canada, there are homeless fourteen and fifteen-year-olds. What the hell? In America there are children who are in elementary school who are homeless.

There’s the fact that there are children sleeping on the ground outside in the cold weather all over the Global South and even occasionally in the Global North. The fact that there are emaciated children begging on street corners. There are children forced into joining gangs because they have no other source of income and they want their loved ones to survive. There are police officers, politicians, and rich people that blame and judge those kids for wanting their loved ones to survive.

Rich people would rather see children die than redistribute their wealth. They created a world where despite the best efforts of desperate family and community members, children die.

There are children who have lost their parents in climate change-induced natural disasters.

There are of course trust fund kids that grow up in mansions and inherit multimillion dollar empires. And I hate them.

Listen. I’ve grown up in the Canadian left. And the Canadian left has no place for this bullshit. It’s a lot of different things but it is in no way pro-rich people. Like, at all.

Everything is so wrong.

So like, how do we fight this?

Empty promises of communism that have no actual substance behind them don’t bring any change at all. Look at Vietnam. They say they’re communist but all their social policies are literally more capitalist than America. Look at China. They say they’re communist but they are a state capitalism and even their roads are privatized. We can’t just say we’re communist. The communism has to be real. Has to be democratic. Has to be backed by real, good values.

So what values am I talking about? Tbh the list goes on but more or less community, unity, cooperation, kindness, compassion, responsibility, true freedom, equality, people power, and love and protection for the Land are the bedrock of a functional society.

These values are exactly the values that capitalist status quo power structures want to crush. Want to get rid of. Wants us to forget.

But without them, without the forces of love and connection that connect all of us, what’s left? What can we fight with? What can we use to make us strong? What can we use to bring us together? Because we need to fight for something. We need to fight for each other. We need to fight for human dignity. And human dignity is built on universal love. On recognizing that we’re all from the same source and made of the same stuff.

So anyways I completely forget where I was going with all this.

But like, hold on to your heart, ultimately.

And fuck corrupt governments, fuck rich people, fuck billionaires, fuck large companies, fuck racists, fuck classists and homophobes and all that shit. We are going to come together and save the earth and free everyone and fix everything.

5 notes · View notes

angrybell · 6 years ago

Text

Things I have to get off my chest about Senator Kamala Harris (aka why no one should ever vote for her)

So you think Kampala Harris is a really great candidate for president. Really?

Was she a good DA? Her first elected office. Well, no, she was not. Her office somehow managed to get less convictions at trial than her predecessor (believe me, if you knew the sordid history of what her predecessor did to the office, it would amaze you). SF Weekly did a review of her office and reported that her prosecutors, “won a lower percentage of their felony jury trials than their counterparts at district attorneys’ offices covering the 10 largest cities in California[.]” Yeah, LA county was outperforming her, and their jury pool back then was a nightmare for prosecutors.

Was she an honest prosecutor? Nope. She was found to have hidden information about a crime lab technician which was discoverable under California law. This was information she was legally required to turn over to defense attorneys. This lead to 600 convictions being overturned and dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct.

Since this was SF, a bluer than blue city in a deep blue state, she received a promotion to Attorney General. Failure and abuse of power was rewarded.

As Attorney General, she directed her office to cover up prosecutorial misconduct. What does that mean I’m plain English? She protected prosecutors who falsified evidence.

This was not a one time thing either. Her prosecutors were cited for this multiple times. Just like when she was the SF DA.

In one case, the local DA added lines to the transcript of an alleged confession. Without them, there was no admission of guilt. Basically, they falsified the confession, so that the defendant would plead guilty. The only way it was caught was because the defense attorney fought for the tapes of the interrogation and got them. Now, the trial judge, when shown the evidence did the right thing: he dismissed the indictment completely.

Then-Attorney General Harris, who likes to portray herself as noble for not opposing the Prop 8 lawsuit, instructed her appellate prosecutors to take the issue up on appeal. She literally told them to defend lying and falsification of evidence.

This case was not the first time she’d had been caught defending a known lie to the courts. In a series of cases coming out of the Sierra Pacific/Moonlight fires, the investigators committed more outrageous misconduct. The state agency, CalFire (which handles wildfires in California) basically hid/destroyed evidence. And the Attorney General’s Office helped cover it up.

The conduct of the CA DOJ under Harris was so egregious, the Ninth Circuit was talking about making a referral for prosecution for perjury during the oral arguments in the Baca case.

In the Baca case, there was evidence that the prosecutor had actually suborned perjury. Harris’ appellate team tries to sweep it under the rug. Harris has her prosecutors fight tooth and nail to deny the appellate court access to transcript of hearing where the perjury came to light.

Did Harris’ DOJ prosecute these rogue DAs for their crimes? Nope. Did any of the appellate attorneys within her own office suffer any consequences? From what I’ve read, not a one has been disciplined in any fashion.

Clearly, she’s happy to tolerate and protect corruption. Is this what makes her a good choice give her your vote?

As Attorney General, she tried to force non-profit groups to release their donor lists. She was of the opinion that the government had the right to know the identity of everyone who donated to every group. Why? There’s no reason except for the purpose of harassment. Which is exactly what was happening as soon as the non-profits handed over their donor information. Witnesses at the trial testified to being harassed and intimidated because their private information was leaked.

Put another way, do you want Trump to have this power? No? Then you shouldn’t want Harris, or anyone else to have this power.

Fortunately, this program of Harris’ was stopped by the federal courts. And before you say “oh it was because a Republican judge”, the judge who enjoined the program was appointed by Lyndon B Johnson.

One of the reasons the judge ruled against Harris was because it was clear that the purpose of her program was not a proper one. Judge Real wrote, “As made abundantly clear during trial, the Attorney General has systematically failed to maintain the confidentiality of Schedule B forms.”

It was not an accident that the information was leaked. It was by design. She was blatantly using her power as AG to oppress people who disagreed with her.

And you want to reward her with your votes and give her more power? Do you think that she won’t turn on you if you end up disagreeing with her?

Think about that.

What has she done as Senator? Has she sought to find a way to broker compromise on issues where that is possible? If you look at her voting record, that’s not the case.

Has she gotten any legislation passed? She’s sponsored 76 bills, resolutions, and amendments to bills. She’s gotten the same bill passed twice. She’s gotten a couple of Senate resolutions thanking various groups for their service (my favorite was Buffalo soldier one).

So what’s the bill she’s gotten passed twice? It’s to outlaw lynching. Something I find hilarious because for more than a century, the Democrats blocked anti-lynching laws in Congress. Of course, the last lynching happened in 1981, so clearly it’s a pressing matter. In case your curious, it was a unanimous vote.

Is this a demonstration of her political skill? Not really. Being opposed to lynching in politics is as controversial as being in favor the sun rising in the East.

Being a politician means more than just winning elections in a state that is so in your favor, with a party machine that picks its people according to the wishes of the party leaders (and she clearly has thei favor). It means getting things done. So far, she’s done nothing. She’s built no alliances. She’s moved no bills through Congress.

She hasn’t even gotten a post office named and Bernie Sanders has been able to do that at least once.

What is she good at? She’s good at getting media attention and showing up to celebrate hard fought victories achieved by other people. The scene of her showing up in The Case Against 8 is one of the most disgusting displays of political opportunism I’ve seen in recent years. They fought the case. They went through it all. And she swooped in for a fucking photo op after doing nothing but making sure their victory was incomplete.

She’s not a good politician. She a good media whore.

Is that what you want in the next person to take the oath as the next President of the United States?

Where do you stand on your civil liberties? She’s anti-2nd Amendment, which I realize is a plus for people who are inclined to vote Democrat. What should trouble you is that she is also opposed to the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. How do we know this? She has called for Supreme Court Justices to be conformed who would overturn Citizens United.

Now, I realize that the propaganda is that Citizens United allowed “bad” money into elections, but that’s not true. the holding of the case deals with the power of the government to restrain free speech. The case is about a small group of people, who formed a corporation, to speak out on certain topics. One of those was to oppose Hillary Clinton and her proposed policies. If SCOTUS has ruled the other way, the ability of people to get their voices heard would be subject to government restraint. Or to put it in clearer terms: censorship. It would ensure only the wealthy would have a say in elections (who else has enough money to self fund a protest movie? Or ad?)

Think it would only restrain groups like Citizens United (you know, the evil right wing ones)? Nope. It would also apply to unions, the Sierra Club, and all the other “good” groups.

She has some other troubling positions that implicate the 4th Amendment. She is in favor of law enforcement doing a DNA dragnet through commercial DNA testing services, looking for familial DNA to develop leads on cases. I don’t know about you, but giving the federal government free reign to develop a DNA database is troubling.

Senator Harris is also proponent of civil asset forfeiture. As much as detested the Obama Administration, at least they were trying to make it harder to do. She is so much of a fan, she tried to make easier for the government to forfeit your property. Now, if you don’t know what civil asset forefeiture is, you’re not alone. In my experience, it’s one of the least understood things that the government does by lay people.

Essentially, civil asset forfeiture (“CAF”) is a law that allows the government to seize the assets of criminals. Sounds harmless right? Well, it’s an easy power to abuse. Under CAF rules she was supporting, the state would be able to forfeit the property if there was a “substantial probability” that it was obtained by criminal acts. Now, that sounds good but it’s really a lower standard. Remember, to be convicted of a crime, you have to be convicted only if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To make it worse, the presumption works against the person who has lost their property to the state asset seizure. You have to prove the negative. Prosecutors love this, because they almost always win (I do have the dubious honor of having lost one of these cases as a prosecutor).

So what does all this tell you? Senator Harris has a history of abusing power, violating the law, and protecting government corruption. If that’s how you like your candidates, then she a perfect choice. If you care about someone who will not intentionall violate the law, use the government to harass and intimidate her opposition, or be effective at upholding the law and constitution, find someone else.

Please stop rewarding her track record of failure and abuse of power!

#kamalaharris #kamala harris #democrats

21 notes · View notes

hollowandeceptivephilosophy · 5 years ago

Text

Snippets on Theological Issues Pt. 1

Inspired by the Zondervan Counterpoints Series

Miraculous Gifts

I’m a continuationist, though I only particularly expect to see gifts when the church/individual needs to be doing something radical. The performance of gifts in churches in “holding patterns” is not expected by me. (And to be fair, sometimes churches in a given society need to be in holding patterns, not every church is the church in Corinth). Church Growth

Generally not a fan. The Social Sciences are generally based on a non-Christian ideology and cannot be adapted by the Church without substantially subverting her message. (Aspects of the social sciences are cool and good, but the underlying presupposition is based upon assuming that the fallen world is the way the world actually is in an ontological sense; this is okay for handling pragmatic or day-to-day matters, but will result in the subversion of the church’s ability to genuinely condemn the world). On the other hand, churches often use “tradition” as an excuse to not actually answer the questions that people are raising today. This is bad and a violation of the great commissions. (Loudly answering the wrong questions is about as useless as softly answering (perhaps incorrectly) the right questions). Apologetics

I think apologetics is useful when it focuses on diffusing particular arguments against Christian Faith, I don’t really think it is useful beyond that. More particularly, I don’t think evidentialism works as a general model (because evidence is always in relation to given tradition of inquiry, there is no “neutral” evidence), and I don’t think presuppositionalism works either (because while God is in fact necessary for truth, in our intellects he is not, because our intellects cannot comprehend God and thus cannot rely upon him as a fundamental postulate in the way that the presuppositionalists would require; God stands at the end of the process of reasoning, wherein we recognize that the core ideas which we have been using all along only find their true meaning and source in him; but this is the opposite of presuppositional theory). The Reformed Epistemology position is probably the one that I’m closest too; but I don’t think foundationalism in the sense in which they work is terribly useful; our core concepts are inherited from the traditions in which we work, and while we have freedom to improvise within those traditions, we aren’t reliant upon some kind of foundational intuition in the way that the (limited) amount of reformed epistemology I’ve read implies. (Instead, the sense in which we have a general revelation of God is due to things inherent to anything which could be called a language and linguistically structured desire/sense of self/being-in-the-world; these things guide us towards “general revelation”, not some mysterious intuition. (Though, I entirely confess perhaps that’s what the Reformed Epistemology school has been driving at, in which case I’m quite close to them; and I have enormous respect for them regardless). Inerrancy

I accept that everything in the Bible is true in some sense, and is binding upon my thought and intellect. I cannot discard any part of the Bible as merely a product of its times, instead I must accept (and to a limit extent, join with) the long effort of my fellow Christians to understand the Bible as the Truth about the Word of God.

At the level of the text: I accept that the final revisions of the tradition were divinely inspired, and that what they say is normative for Christian faith and practice. While it is not accurate to say God “said” every part of the Bible, he certainly has endorsed every part and said a great deal of it (most of the Prophetic books, most of the Pentateuch etc.) Basically some parts God said, other parts he edited, other parts he published (if we are using the modern publishing process as an analogy). However, I also believe that what God is saying through the text usually is far more than what the original author was saying, and that there can be substantial tension with what the original author would have understood the text to mean. (But I think that about all texts; the original author and even the original community of interpretation do not necessarily exhaust or finally determine the meaning of a text; though their opinions are quite significant as they are the most fluent speakers of the idiom of a text [under normal circumstances]). However, God still chose this text as God’s text (in way not dissimilar to how he chose this people as God’s people) and therefore one must accept it as chosen by God and not something that can be ignored. So, while there can be tension between God’s intent and the author’s intent, there are limits to the sense in which there can be irreconcilable contradiction between the two. Law and Gospel

The Law is a form of Gospel, the Gospel is a form of Law. The differences between them are based upon the ontological differences inaugurated by Christ’s Life/Death/Resurrection, and the resulting epistemological differences.

(The Law kills only because the Law faces sin qua unredeemable and has to fight against it as an enemy; a contradiction only overcome by Christ who in being God could make those naturally enemies friends and children once more. But this is an ontological change, not merely an ethical or “conceptual” one). The differences between the ethical norms of “the Law” and the ethical norms of “the Gospel” are grounded in this ontological difference. (And thus, some precepts of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians, or at least are not necessary for Gentile Christians).

I also accept that the Church has the power to generate law, albeit the law that the Church generates is contingent and prudential, not necessarily true in all cases. (as all laws are)

The Law of the Church, to be legitimate, must also be grounded in the revelation of Christ and the new order of being he inaugurated.

Sanctification

I have a sufficiently sacramental theory of redemption that most of the sanctification debates don’t really interest me. I don’t really believe in a second work of the Holy Spirit (Other than, maybe Confirmation), I do believe that in every individual case of sin mature Christians can resist; but factually speaking due to corruptions of will or intellect patterns of sin tend to persist throughout the Christian life. (But I also believe in purgatory, so... I think everyone does get sanctified before heaven).

Christian Spirituality

I don’t really understand what this means, but insofar as I do understand... I think each major doctrinal loci properly speaking is a source of deep existential satisfaction, along with the scriptures and the Church (understood to encompass both the living and the dead). Both excessive individualism and excessive communalism will result in a failure to continue to seek God through Christ Jesus as the Center though, as all of these things only have coherence in that (and through our baptism). Divine Providence

God’s causal activity is not in competition with creatures, and is ontologically an entirely different sort of thing. (So God “divinely” causing things never precludes a creature “creaturely” causing them). (See Tanner and Aquinas) [God of course can use divine causation to, in one way or another, cause things in a creaturely sense, such events are what we usually call miracles. But this is not God’s typical mode of causal relation to things]. Thus while God causes everything that occurs, that tells us very little about how God governs the world. Otherwise I broadly accept a Molinist view: God chooses this world among other worlds he could have chosen to create. Since creating a world is, for God, a non-temporal event, he knows all that will happen in this world, but the things that happen are co-determined by the internal logic of this world (and indeed, God could not have created *this* world without creating *this* world with *this* internal logic).

Eternal Security

I don’t really believe in this, other than in the sense that God’s creation of the world includes the creation of all who will be saved. However, individual persons accept and reject God’s grace, and thereby accept or reject salvation that is available to them; and their position can change over time.

The Problem of Canaan

The major problems in this text are resolved by recognizing that the reformulation in “genocidal” or “holy war” language is a polemical response to Assyrian theories of religious war, and is meant to indicate that God fights powerfully for his people as well. The earlier layer of stories which the later author is adapting include elements which make it reasonably obvious imo (Such as Rahab, Gibeon, etc). that the actual conquest was not genocidal [and indeed, historically speaking probably resulted in the assimilation of many rural Canaanites as new tribes of Israel]. There is still some tensions (after all, God definitely endorses a war of conquest even if it was not historically genocidal, and is reformulated in more absolute terms later, and is apparently consenting to being used in what is functionally state propaganda.) But I do think that this is inherent to choosing to become a God to a particular people who exist in a particular place and time.

(So I guess my view is a mixture of: the events didn’t happen in this way, and the primary point is not ‘God wants you to kill Canaanites” but rather “God has destroyed powerful enemies utterly in the past, much like these empires claim they can do; he can give us triumph over Assyria”. And then of course there are the spiritual and Christological readings which add even more depth.)

#Theology

2 notes · View notes

healthierlife4u · 4 years ago

Photo

How to fight back against internet censorship

Internet Information Suppression: Fighting fire with fire So as you may have figured out by now, they are actively attempting to censor information on the internet. Not only that, but I’m am 100% convinced that they are using multiple fake bot accounts in a desperate attempt to control the narrative on the internet. You may have noticed that anything critical of mainstream news especially on platforms like reddit are quickly down voted, removed, or deleted when it goes against this narrative.

They are using terms like fake news and Russian propaganda because they are losing control of this narrative and they would rather create a reason for censorship then face the allegations and deal with fixing the mainstream propaganda mechanisms like those of the major news outlets.

For so long they, I’m talking about you liberal media, have tried convincing us that bringing immigrants from poor uneducated countries is diversity in action and only positive. But we can see the rapes, the beatings, the terrorism being allowed to propagate within our western countries, working to degrade us as a whole, not enrich us culturally. They try to hide this, they try to hide anything damaging to the liberal state propaganda apparatus and blind us to the reality of the squalor they are creating for us. Try to question this obscene behaviour, try to question other institutional corruption and you are blocked, banned, or worse ghost banned.

The problem I see is that they are constantly attempting to frame everything as some type of race war and as such are excusing violent behavior and it’s clear from police behavior that they are ignoring their oaths to charge members of the left like antfa and such they are literally abdicating their respective responsibilities and letting groups like this get away with criminal assaults against what they refer to as neo-Nazi’s. Seriously people put down you iPhones and look around you, your political affiliations are not a concern, and you are being played by your governments. As such are playing into the giant distraction the liberal media is pulling so you don’t demand they explain themselves for the clear wrongs they are responsible for.

RELATED: Divide & conquer: a rich man’s game where common men lose

Cutting the cord has given me tons of perspective, it’s like you’re born again into a reality where you can see a spade for the spade it is, I recommend getting as far away from cable as you can. The problem now however, is you can see the propaganda sneaking into the internet at an alarming pace, and with things like net neutrality, we may face a future where, things deemed not acceptable by the CIA and mainstream news organizations are literally throttled down to oblivion and to never be seen.

You see, the internet is the last great refuge for the free thinking individual; it’s all we really have left and as such we must fight back in a smarter way to avoid them winning. I was told I lived in a free country and I am going to live like this is still a reality even though I know that everyday my freedom becomes more and more limited. They shouldn’t be able to take our ability to communicate freely just because they can’t admit to where they have gone wrong.

Sometimes it may become necessary to fight fire with fire and the need to move towards the same modus operandi. They are seemingly using multiple accounts for propaganda and censorship purposes and that does not mean we should discount these methods ourselves. You see we can fight back and we can hit them back, everything leaves a footprint and these fake accounts are likely upvoting and promoting other accounts that are fake. Fortunately for us, this is simple for any private citizen to also utilize. Here are some steps you can take to get your own alternative accounts:

Step 1. Proxies. You will need to find a reliable proxy if you want to setup more than a few accounts. Typically for one proxy you can reliably have 5 accounts of each social network. What the heck are proxies? A proxy can work as a bridge so to speak, your computer or device using a proxy can appear to be the ip address proxy that you want.

They are geographically attached so that you can purchase USA proxies and you appear to be from the USA or you can get Canadian proxies and appear to be from Canada. They are great for other uses as well like masking your ip address to get access to content that may not be available in your region. Proxies are cheap and there are lots of suppliers out there, for example you can expect to pay around $10.00 USD per month for 10 proxies. With that kind of plan you could have 50-60 social media accounts and fight back against the blatant censorship.

Step 2. Firefox portable or similar standalone browser. Once you get the proxies you’re halfway there, now all you need to do is download the portable firefox browser, make sure it’s the portable version! What I’d do is download the portable version and make a new copy for each proxy I’m going to use. So you should have 10 copies of firefox portable if you get 10 proxies. Now you just open each browser, one at a time and go to “options” and then “general”. Choose “network proxy” check “manual proxy configuration” and input one of the proxy ips and the port for each one.

That’s all you really need to do, now you are free to have like 50 accounts and fight back against the bot assisted downvoting and manipulation of content not deemed appropriate by them. Now you can go and get called fun buzzwords like “Russian agent of Putin”, “white supremacist” and “neo-Nazi”, for simply questioning or being critical in general about any mainstream news.

It’s really amazing to see how giant companies like Youtube are attempting to censor people’s thoughts and opinions, many people I personally follow have had their accounts demonetized which means that they are being actively suppressed and as an added bonus to this demonetization they will appear lowing in the searches in Youtube and Google search. This is very troubling, the internet was never meant to shut people up rather it was created for the good of us all to communicate freely, censorship is outright wrong and dangerous.

We really have to fear when the truth is being suppressed so much, this tells us that rather than face the truth they would rather silence us all, so we must all stay strong and fight back. To really be effective in your fight against information supression, you will need to find relatively new content and promote it everywhere you can. This is where it can be effective with reddit to sort by “new”. If you notice that something is being brigaded especially in the case of reddit, fight back with your own army of accounts and upvote what they are downvoting en masse, this will help others to see this information and make them harder to be suppressed.

The number one thing you can do today for your critical thinking self, is to cut the cord get away from the heavily propagandized media apparatus, they are a cancer on free thought and have ventured so far from their original mission statement into a degraded corporate propaganda mouthpiece. Show and teach everyone you know about this, we can take back some power with the corporate media in it’s death throws as we rise to the top. We are supposed to live in free societies where freedom of the press used to actually mean something, now it’s only purpose is sowing division and promoting war propaganda. They want to turn us all on ourselves and degrade our good intentions, while they hope to remain under the radar and heeding no responsibility for this madness.

In writing this post I am in no way condoning illegal behaviour, rather providing information for educational purposes only.

The post How to fight back against internet censorship appeared first on The Green Living Solution .

https://thegreenlivingsolution.com/fight-back-internet-censorship/

0 notes

striving-toward-170 · 4 years ago

Photo

How to fight back against internet censorship

RELATED: Divide & conquer: a rich man’s game where common men lose

In writing this post I am in no way condoning illegal behaviour, rather providing information for educational purposes only.

The post How to fight back against internet censorship appeared first on The Green Living Solution .

https://bit.ly/37Kg96R

0 notes

workingtolovemyself · 4 years ago

Photo

How to fight back against internet censorship

RELATED: Divide & conquer: a rich man’s game where common men lose

In writing this post I am in no way condoning illegal behaviour, rather providing information for educational purposes only.

The post How to fight back against internet censorship appeared first on The Green Living Solution .

https://bit.ly/37Kg96R

0 notes

mp-fear-in-films · 4 years ago

Text

V for Vendetta 2005

Of course, I think that any questioning of good and bad is subjective for the film V for Vendetta (2005). In my opinion the villains are everyone that V killed: the high chancellor, Creedi, the bishop, the former general, and the doctor. Anyone involved in continuing the authoritarian regime in power, really. I would say that Gordon, Valerie, the victims of St Mary’s disease, and the others tortured liked V are the victims. And, obviously Evey and V are the heroes of the film with the citizens joining them at the end donned in their Guy Fawkes costumes.

However, I don’t believe it’s necessarily easy to identify whether the heroes are actually heroic. I think the difference between the heroes and villains in the film, besides the Norsefire being actual fascists, is that who I define as heroes are fighting for the truth, for freedom of expression while the government is hiding their past and current abuses towards the citizens at all cost.

I think that V for Vendetta (2005) would be identified as a dystopian story. I say this because of the film’s similarity to our notes definition of “dystopian”. The film has an oppressive government that regulates everything and the rebellious protagonists try to uncover the truth. This government was developed after a war and gained more power with fear tactics after experimenting with disease; but I would say that the final moments of the film, the ‘new world that will come tomorrow’, could at least be symbolically “post-apocalyptic”. I believe the major threat in the film is the fascist regime. As well, I think apathy and corrupt news are just tools used by fascism. And I think the answer does change with how the viewer aligns themselves.

I think a major thing I noticed between gender and dystopian & post-apocalyptic stories is the role we push women in. What first comes to my mind is that we have the final girl or women, at least the female protagonist, are oppressed in some fashion. I always think about Margret Atwood’s “Handmaid’s Tale”.

Again, I think that good and bad is subjective in this film, especially with violence. Looking at this fictional story, I think that V’s acts of terrorism are just. I think that the fascist government deserved the violence as V’s reasons were to tear down a regime that harmed so many people. And I do believe that sometimes conflict is necessary for real progress, at least in such a situation as the film. I think the bad violence can be described as violence committed towards the innocent. V, Valerie, Gordon, and the countless other victims were not harming anyone by being themselves. I personally think it’s a lame argument that your religion or way of life is threatened by heterogeneity. It is absolutely political, and a reflection of reality, with how we define just and unjust politics acts based on our ideology. This goes for gay rights, women’s rights, abortion access, immigrant rights, religious expression, etc. I honestly think the film is very extreme, but not out of the realm of reality.

I don’t believe violence and apathy is as contagious as, say, germs, but it can be learned and encouraged by those inciting it for their own gains. The same goes for resistance and revolution, but I feel as though revolution is more of a universal idea or cause that may include violence but not always. I think that the statement ‘terrorism is a form of heroism that only translates to the singular’ is true. I think that those who commit acts of terrorism find it just, to the point of going through with the act, and the rest of the world sees it for how we define it: terrorism.

Technology and media does play a huge role in spreading ideas and can be both good and bad, but not neutral. I know that within this century we’ve tried to make journalism more neutral and technology to benefit the human race, but I don’t believe we’ll see the separation of opinion or politics, or even personal gain from these things. These tools have been great for bringing people together but also showing our differences, which may encourage this fear of heterogeneity.

I think the statement “The film’s political content stirred a lot of controversy from many different voices, some of which directly labelled it as anti-Bush, anti-Christian and pro-terrorist. For Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, V for Vendetta is just ‘a vile pro-terrorist piece of neo-marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity.” is true...if you’re a conservative Christian. In my mind, Christianity and right-wing politics is just as guilty if not more with the ridiculous propaganda as the left-wing. It’s almost as if those people feel personally attacked by any kind of critique...even though their religious agenda pushed colonialism, imperialism, politics, war, misogyny, and even controlling the arts for hundreds of years.

I may be outing my political beliefs with these statements but I couldn’t help but to relate V for Vendetta with modern day America. Of course, the film is a warped reality, or at least much more extreme but we still see these authoritarian leaders pushing conservatism, pushing Christianity much like the high Chancellor. We see corruption in the church and police brutality. In the film we see generals who became corporatists and TV personalities, perhaps now it's that the TV personalities run the government. Or that the government took no accountability for allowing 80,000 people die from a disease...or is it 200,000?

I’m not immune from being swayed one way or the other by media, but at least I feel aware of what’s going on. I honestly felt encouraged by V after these last few weeks, even years. I think that V is in everyone too, and that ideas are bulletproof, and that maybe we could leave off the acts of terrorism but keep a little bit of V with us as we move forward.

(This is a favorite movie of mine, I’m glad we got to work on it in our class!)

0 notes

mitigatedchaos · 7 years ago

Note

If you were the leader of North Korea and wanted transition North Korea into a nice place to live as a common citizen what would you do? (Note, you only have the power of a leader of North Korea, you do not have complete control and if you try to change to quickly, you may find your self ousted.

I was originally going to skip out on answering this one with the reason “that’s above my paygrade,” but I think I have an idea on it now.

The good news is that you already have the atomic bomb, so you can remain sovereign and avoid U.S. invasion so long as you can maintain reasonable control over your nuclear war command and control.

Your friend in this is going to be China, not the United States. In the United States, the ruling party, no matter which of the two it is, will attempt to take credit for disarming you and try to push for democracy before that would remotely make sense.

The key thing is that, apparently, the military has most of the power in North Korea, especially its leadership tier.

1. The first question is, does the power mass,

(mean_power(population) * population),

of potential supporters for reform in the military exceed the power mass of their rivals? If the answer is no, then the first step, before even admitting you’re doing this, is to increase the relative power of the potential reformers until their power mass is greater than the power mass of the likely opposition.

2. The second question is why people with power cling to the current order. Is it wealth? Status? Power? Wanting to avoid repercussions for their past behavior?

Can you buy them off while liberalizing or making DPRK a nicer place to live?

There are various ways that this might be accomplished, but the exact choices depend on the environment.

3. Can you prevent minor degradations in the regime’s power from resulting in a sea change that topples the government?

This can happen in some situations, where a slight loosening can result in the whole thing liberalizing far more quickly than would otherwise be expected. That probably isn’t the case in North Korea, but if you’re promising your guys in step #2 that they won’t be hanged, then you have to mitigate this.

I would suggest avoiding increasing political freedom while simultaneously improving the economy during the early phases. Get help from China to help bring in money from multinational corporations by laundering it through Chinese companies. (Don’t let them mess up the environment too much, though.)

To keep your allegedly-socialist bona fides, issue dividends from this. To bribe your guys at the top, however, arrange for them to get a larger share of the dividends, on a more permanent basis, so that they don’t feel compelled to just take all of the dividends right now.

One thing to consider is having a sort of “national company store.” Again, illusion of Communism - you have money coming in from Chinese companies. Arrange for mass, standardized runs of various goods for distribution into the country via DPRK money. (Control of this enterprise may be how you control the guys at the top. Maybe split half the proceeds to the citizenry and half the proceeds to your guys. Slowly cut out the guys you don’t like who aren’t getting with the program.) Your citizens will only be allowed to have DPRK money, but you’ll arrange the transfers with China using something else, most likely.

Especially in the initial stages, I would avoid distribution of electronic communications goods (such as televisions or radios) and focus on mundane quality-of-life items - toothpaste, nail clippers, fruits, etc. (The Americans will attempt to use any electronic communications channel to undermine you before you can complete the project so that they can look good on TV.)

One of the main things China wants to avoid is a large stream of DPRK refugees fleeing across the border. Not only do you avoid this, but you’re importing Chinese consumer goods, so you should be able to do reasonably well in the eyes of Beijing.

(Again, don’t show weakness towards America. Only cut deals with China. This is a “new era of national development” that will “strengthen the eternal power of Socialism in Korea”. You can halt nuclear weapons development both to lift sanctions and save money, but do not give up your bombs. You may even want to provoke them slightly in order to prop yourself up in internal propaganda!)

While this is going on, hire personnel to create a new media environment for your new ideological configuration - books, manhwa, radio programs, plays, etc. Put these in the company store, too, and save money by mass production.

As this economic development moves forward, overall wealth will increase substantially, so the effective relative amount going to bribing the old guard will decrease even as the effective absolute amount they receive increases.

Create virtual state-owned corporations to manage your resource allocation, assisted by the Chinese, and close them if they are too unprofitable. There are ways you can obfuscate that this is what you’re doing. Allow personnel to rise in the ranks if they can create profitability without too many side effects. Convince China to send you plenty of food.

Be sure to constantly talk about how great you are for causing all of this. And I mean plural “you” here - this should be attributed to the government in general as a foretold era of cooperative socialist prosperity. You’re going to have to do a lot of political theater.

4. Only after a period of prolonged economic development should you consider liberalizing the politics a lot.

At that point, it depends on whether you want to remain at the helm, or move to and live in China.

If you want to remain at the helm and not allow the government to slide into Liberal Democracy (or corrupt liberal democracy), then the interests of the People and the interests of the Party need to be more closely intertwined somehow, and a more-or-less dummy Opposition Party setup that you won’t allow to actually gain power. Probably this would work with some kind of weird recursive voting scheme for electing Party representatives.

If you want the nation to become a Liberal Democracy, then at the end, only after you have achieved all that economic growth, should you ask the American professors and various members of the broader American establishment for advice.

#anons #asks #politics #the red hammer #the iron hand

11 notes · View notes

hotelconcierge · 8 years ago

Text

Lies of Omission

it’s a lot of responsibility, granted

New York Times, “Norway Is No. 1 in Happiness. The U.S., Sadly, Is No. 14.” Note that the Times is careful to say that they are “sad” about these results. That’s how they show that they are objective.

This nonsense concerns the 2017 World Happiness Report, written by a bunch of PhD golems doing part-time for the United Nations. Let’s go straight to the conclusion.

“The country is mired in a roiling social crisis that is getting worse,” [Dr. Jeffrey Sachs] wrote in [the concluding] chapter dedicated to America’s flagging happiness. “Yet the dominant political discourse is all about raising the rate of economic growth.”

To fix that social fraying, Dr. Sachs argues policy makers should work toward campaign finance reform, reducing income and wealth inequality, improving social relations between native-born and immigrant populations, overcoming the national culture of fear induced by the Sept. 11 attacks, and improving the educational system.

Right away, you should be skeptical. The survey (Gallup World Poll) from which this report draws its conclusions did not ask about September 11. It did not ask about campaign finance reform. It did not ask about the educational system. For comparison across nations, the report used one question to measure happiness:

“Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”

And then tried to explain this score via “happiness predictors”: GDP, life expectancy,

“If you were in trouble, do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them, or not?” (Yes/No; “Social support”)

“Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?” (Yes/No; “Freedom”)

“Have you donated money to a charity in the past month?” (Yes/No; “Generosity”)

“Is corruption widespread throughout the government or not?” and “Is corruption widespread within businesses or not?” (Yes/No; “Corruption”)

That’s it. One might suggest that yes/no questions of this sort are subject to some degree of cultural interpretation. One might argue that using a single question to measure “freedom” or “social support” would earn an F minus in frat boy hangover Sociology 101. One might muse that some of these terms are broad enough to encompass several dozen overlapping variables, giving them little if any explanatory power. One might claim that the “happiness” question does not measure day to day happiness at all, but rather a peculiar sort of satisfaction / imagination (my life may be quite pleasant, but since I can imagine life as a “crunked out” Soundcloud rapper, 6/10).

Even if the methodology was pristine, however—and there probably is some signal beneath the tinnitus—Dr. Sachs’ conclusions are inexcusable. His ideas may be correct, they may be disastrous, but nothing in the data even remotely supports them. Indeed, he almost directly contradicts the prior chapters, which argue for the primacy of social factors over economic ones. Chapter five:

...Eliminating poverty in the USA reduces misery by 1.7% points, unemployment by 0.3% and physical illness by 0.5% out of the total 5.6% in misery. Taken together, those three factors barely make as much difference as mental illness on its own.

Dr. Sachs admits this:

America’s crisis is, in short, a social crisis, not an economic crisis.

Then follows with:

The first priority should be campaign finance reform, especially to undo the terrible damage caused by the Citizens United decision. The second should be a set of policies aiming at reducing income and wealth inequality. This would include an expanded social safety net, wealth taxes, and greater public financing of...

The disconnect is so sharp that I have to wonder if Dr. Sachs got sick of writing and decided to plagiarize Wikipedia. I sympathize. I’m just not sure if you should be doing that sort of thing when you work for the United Nations.

II.

Despite all this, the World Happiness Report is not political propaganda. Like most bureaucratic documents, it is self-propaganda. Opening paragraph:

The first World Happiness Report was published in April, 2012, in support of the UN High Level Meeting on happiness and well-being. Since then we have come a long way. Happiness is increasingly considered the proper measure of social progress and the goal of public policy...

The authors of the report want to persuade you that happiness (as they measure it) is the correct measure of social progress. Two of the lead authors have published books about Happiness Science, the third is Dr. Sachs. The political conclusion is clickbait, a spoonful of stevia to help the methodology go down. That’s why the chapter on China ends with:

If the objective of policy is to improve people’s well-being, then [Subjective Wellbeing] is a more meaningful measure than GDP, as China’s experience attests.

And chapter 6, on work:

Generally, the analyses reported in this chapter provide additional empirical evidence for the merit of policies that focus on both the quantity and the quality of employment to support worldwide wellbeing.

So if you’re wondering why this report needs to be repeated every year, so the same people can say the same things and the New York Times can host,

“The libertarian argument that economic freedom should be championed above all other values decisively fails the happiness test: There is no evidence that economic freedom per se is a major direct contributor of human well-being above and beyond what it might contribute towards per-capita income and employment,” Dr. Sachs wrote.

the answer is, it doesn’t, it gets printed, admired, and tossed in a recycling bin. At best, the report exists to be pointed at, like a highlight of a college application brochure: “We’re not just looking at GDP—we’re looking at happiness.” At worst, it exists because the guy who’s always giving unsolicited back rubs said it should. Good luck cutting the program that investigates well-being.

The big acronyms (WHO, UN, OECD) command a Pope-like respect that your local school board does not. This is because you forget that organizations are made up of people. The elementary particle of corruption is the human being.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.”

“In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” (Michael Crichton)

III.

One more punchline. Here’s the table that appears in the Times.

Here’s an excerpt from the same table within the actual report:

I had no idea what being 14th looked like; turns out, not too bad. America’s score of 6.993 appears nowhere in the Times article (or rest of the report). We’re 93% as happy as Norway; we’re better than Germany (16), UK (19), France (31), Spain (34), Italy (48), and Japan (51). How’s your socialized medicine now, suckers? (jk, jk.)

In summary: a specious dataset gives rise to a redundant report with radically disconnected conclusions, the worst of which are picked up by a major media outlet, which excludes any part of the dataset that would compromise the message of societal ruin.

And yet not one point is demonstrably false. There are lies of omission, true. Leaps of logic. There may even have been an intent to deceive. But it’s not like it’s “fake news” or anything. That’s for the other team.

63 notes · View notes

arcenciel-par-une-larme · 8 years ago

Text

Reasons to be a leftist in the 21st Century

[translated and slightly modified from an article I read. DISCLAIMER I do not own anything except my own additions, where noted.]

Because you can consider yourself morally superior to everybody else without ever having to practically prove what your superiority consists in. It suffices that you pose it as an axiom.

Because you have the freedom to maintain that true politics is limited in philosophical quotations and the recitation of noble desires with which pretty much everybody (especially Peter Pan) agrees.

Because you can criticise everything without offering a counter-proposal. The answer to everything is “love” [own note: cf. “open-mindedness”, “tolerance”]

Because you are a priori right in every discourse, since you are not obliged to construct and submit arguments. In case your opponent demands them, you can easily leave them dumbfounded by asserting that s/he has never studied history (which, by the way, is ALWAYS on your side) [own note: Alternatively, come up with some convoluted reason to declare them sexist, racist or homophobic. That ought to shut them up].

Because you have the most beneficial relation to capitalism possible. You take advantage of it in the way, time and degree that you desire (e.g. by consuming its goods, offering your services to it, being rewarded by it) but theoretically you are its permanent detractor. Thus, you manage to benefit from its positive aspects, while at the same time you renounce its “monstrous evils” - given that, formally, you disagree with it and, as is well known, all that matters in your world is ideology, i.e. what you believe and say you are.

Because you are able to be philosophically opposed to the concept of power or authority and consider anyone who wields it (in any form and intensity - from the local school principal up to the PM himself) inhumane, but also approve of it with immense joy when it is exerted by you or anyone of your persuasion.

Because you can defy every procedural framework and democratic tool when they are imposed and used by non-leftist folks (because, in your judgment, “they are not pro-human” (now ain’t that deep)) but also demand their strict observance when those whom you like call upon them.

Because you deserve to and, to be exact, enjoy the exclusive privilege to label every application of a law which you don’t particularly like as fascistic and totalitarian, as well as designate the state involving the legal status quo which you dislike as fascistic. In the meantime, you have the right to state your satisfaction in the implementation of the exact same laws and democratic institutions - as long as the government is of leftist leanings.

Because you enjoy the exclusive privilege to produce authentic judgment on violence, as well as constantly invent new sub-categories of it, regardless of the dictionary definitions or plain sense because, clearly, you know better. In the same framework, you hold the absolute right to detest violence and put under the umbrella of its vague definition anything that displeases you, but also call for its use against your enemies, because then it is not “violence”, it’s “justice”. [own note: usually expressed in terms such as “the oppressed have every right to lash out against their oppressors”]

Because your arsenal of arguments consists primarily of absolutes which are not subject to scrutiny under reason and/or science, because, as everybody is aware, sciences and degrees are bought/sold/corrupted things who estrange man from true knowledge [own note: to this you may add, ad libitum, that “evidence and logic are obsolete constructs of the cis white heteropatriarchy”]. Thus, you have the ability to support everything but also deny everything, without bearing any sort of burden of proof for your allegations.

[my own addition] Because, depending on your metaphysical beliefs in the context of your leftism, you can also have a special relationship to science as well. When your opponent happens to be a theist, you can very simply refuse to debate with “retards like him/her” by playing the “Science has proven that God does not exist lol who could ever take you and your arguments seriously” magic card, with no examples or citations needed even for that, but when peer-reviewed articles prove that the gender pay gap can be traced back to causes unrelated to institutionalised sexism, then “the results are obviously rigged” and “traditional logic and reason are patriarchal constructs”. Or, more concisely: theists bear a burden of proof for the existence of God, but your claim that there are 145 genders must be taken as gospel.

Because you can shun the education system, school, college, university, classes, studies and separate disciplines, but at the same time assert an active role in the structuring of the curriculum and administration of colleges and universities.

Because your former life means jack s**t once you decide to join the “enlightened” left. From the moment on that you embrace leftist dogma and modify your speech accordingly, you are a true missionary and whatever you say gains extra importance and a poetic gravitas. Your whole record is wiped clean and you are a saint in everybody’s eyes. [own note: if you want some evidence off the top of my head, take a look at the organisers of the vagina demonstrations women’s marches. Hint: if you find an ex-torturer and a Sharia apologist among them, don’t say I didn’t warn you.]

[own addition] Because, once you are a leftist saint, or at least seek protection under the wings of the Almighty Church of Leftism, you get a free pass on things ten times as controversial as what you criticise others for. By way of example, you can compare opposition to no-measures immigration to genocide, but when you say “kill all men” it’s ‘just a joke’. Likewise, when you deem your child trans in its third year of age, you are a ‘hero’ of ‘progress’, but a couple raising their kids in a Christian worldview and way of living are “indoctrinating them” and it counts as child abuse.

Because while, formally, you are strongly opposed to discrimination and labelling, you are entitled to lump all your intellectual opponents together into one enormous category, apply to that category the label that suits you and cast stones at them at will.

Because you have the freedom to speak on behalf of “the people”, without any authorisation by anybody.

Because you have the most convenient relationship with logic. Whenever you want or are forced to collide with it, you aren’t irrational as anybody else would be, you’re just a romantic revolutionary who wants to make the world a better place.

Because you can continually reinforce your position (which is either way dominant) by invoking the struggles of others, with whom you are not connected in any way beyond your imagination.

Because your left-ness is something akin to an honorary title, which shall accompany you throughout your entire life and shall buy you positions, distinctions and glory, without your actually being obliged to do anything for that or possess any ability or talent.

Because you have the mind-bogglingly surreal advantage of stigmatising as apolitical [own note: or, just as easily, fascist, medieval or nazi] anyone whose political convictions fall to the right of yours.

[own addition] Because, if you are a leftist but also consider yourself Christian, things could not be better for you! Not only can you conveniently label any conservative a racist/misogynist/homophobic/islamophobic bigot, but when it comes to Christian conservatives in particular you can also confidently shout that they are not true Christians and gleefully proclaim how God will burn their asses in Hell eternally and you will be laughing. (Yes, fellow leftist ‘Christian’, the “love your enemies and pray for them” commandment only applies to others; you are a cute, special little snowflake and you don’t need to burden yourself with anything resembling courtesy or ethics or bearing your own cross and all that jazz...)

Because it is ex officio self-explanatory and universally accepted that you belong to the group of the greatest Fighters for Social Justice and, at the same time, the most oppressed among all citizens, just because you participate in rallies and believe that the state owes you extra stuff and special treatment.

Because you can always decry propaganda while simultaneously declare yourself unaffected tby it - and in this you see no contradiction.

Because you have the most peculiar and schizoid relationship with the state. It is obliged to pay you, recompense for you, educate you, take care of you, employ you, spoil you, not tire you, foster you and do likewise for your children and the only thing you have to do is point out how bad and incompetent it is.

[own additions henceforth] ...until a left-wing government is elected and then you insist that we must give more and more and MORE power to the state or else the entire country is doomed. When, after all that, you have a right-wing government again, only then and not a moment earlier you have to remember that it is bad to trust the state with excessive control and call for curbing its power.

Perhaps most importantly: Because you can spend years on end being allergic to any sign of dissent, labelling whomever disagrees with your ideology hateful or bigoted or whatever modern synonym is available and shutting down all debate, but when people get disillusioned by your collective attitude and turn en masse to other platforms and ideologies, you are under no obligation to assess your actions and words so far and consider the possibility that you might have been wrong; nope, it MUST be their fault and this only proves that they ARE hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, climate-change-denying Bible-thumpers after all and that YOU HAVE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!

#leftism #liberalism #leftist hypocrisy #anti sjw #anti cultural marxism

7 notes · View notes

fandomsandfeminism · 8 years ago

Video

youtube

Ever since President Annoying Orange von GrabbyHands came into office, there’s been a lot of chatter about Orwell, and 1984, and whether this or that is Orwellian. Amazon was actually sold out of copies of 1984 for a few days after Kellyanne Conway said that falsehoods being spread by the administration were “Alternative Facts.”

So today I want to talk about 1984, what “Orwellian” actually means, and how Orwell explores the impact of language on thought and dissent with NewSpeak in his novel. And, at the end, we will look at how these concepts do and don’t apply to today’s political climate

Transcript below:

Quick warning: This video is going to be...political. This is to be expected when discussing Orwell, but I think it bears saying. This will be a political video, and if you aren’t sure which way my politics lean right now, you are about to find out. I will try to keep my rage to a reasonable level, but this could get...kinda ranty. So...you’ve been warned. Ok.So.Ever since President Annoying Orange von GrabbyHands came into office, there’s been a lot of chatter about Orwell, and 1984, and whether this or that is Orwellian. Amazon was actually sold out of copies of 1984 for a few days after Kellyanne Conway said that falsehoods being spread by the administration were “Alternative Facts.”So today I want to talk about 1984, what “Orwellian” actually means, and how Orwell explores the impact of language on thought and dissent with NewSpeak in his novel. And, at the end, we will look at how these concepts do and don’t apply to today’s political climate -

Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name, George Orwell was born June 25th 1903. He was an English novelist who was particularly concerned with social injustice, totalitarianism, and was an outspoken advocate in favor of democratic socialism. My kinda guy. His most famous works are his allegorical novella, Animal Farm, which follows the rise and corruption of Stalinist Russia as told through farm animals, and 1984, our focus for today.

I want to give a quick shout out to another dystopian novel that I love, and that is often taught as a pair with 1984. Huxley’s novel “Brave New World” is an amazing book that focuses on how a dystopian government will seek to control the populace through the cultivation of apathy. Through escapism and drugs, sex and a carefully cultivated caste system, a totalitarian regime can carry on with little to no violence on its part simply because the citizens are too unaware to do anything about it. Huxley feared that the things we love will destroy us because we won’t care enough to stop them.

Orwell though? Orwell’s warning of the future is far more brutal- the things we fear will destroy us because when sufficiently powerful, they can not be stopped.

1984 is a dystopian novel published in 1949 that explores the extreme totalitarian regime of Oceania, specifically the province of Airstrip One (Formerly Great Britain) and the protagonist, Winston Smith’s failed attempt at breaking free of the grip of the government. The government is characterized by its hyper-surveillance, the dictator figure of Big Brother, the idea of thoughtcrime, the two minutes of hate where party members must express their hatred of the party enemies loudly and publically every day, the repeated revision of history in the government’s favor, and the repression, aggression, and anxiety that pervades such a political atmosphere.

Many aspects of the novel are based on the totalitarian governments that Orwell was familiar with. The revision of history for example, is a reference to Soviet Russia. There are many examples of people being seen clearly in official photographs of Soviet Russia, and later being removed when they fell out of favor with Stalin. - So what does Orwellian mean? It’s not just a synonym for dictatorial or authoritarian, though you’ll see people use it that way. Orwellian is meant to be more specific. Some characteristics of a situation or government that are Orwellian include: Extreme and persistent government surveillance The emphasis on loyalty to the state above all else, even family. The advocation for “doublethink” where citizens must accept obvious contradictions- like giving up liberties to achieve true freedom State revision of history The use of a contradictory euphemism to describe the function of an agency- the Ministry of Peace is responsible for the military and war for example The manipulation of language for the purpose of controlling the people

And this brings me to NewSpeak and Language. Within 1984, the government is working to create a new official state language- NewSpeak. The idea behind NewSpeak, on the surface, is fairly reasonable. English, as a language, is highly inefficient. We have many synonyms with many shades of connotation after all. So on the surface, NewSpeak aims at eliminating all redundancy. You don’t need the words phenomenal, wonderful, amazing, fantastic, and exceptional when just Good will do. And on that same note, you don’t need the words dreadful, terrible, horrible, awful, and horrendous when UnGood will do. Want to show emphasis? DoubleUnGood. Need even more emphasis? DoublePlus Ungood. Simple.

But the true purpose behind NewSpeak is far more sinister. The book says “ "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

By controlling the way people talk, the government can control the way people think. It’s impossible to dissent or rebel if the words you need to dissent or rebel don’t exist. -

And while that sounds pretty far fetched, there really is some evidence that language can shape the way we think. Russian speakers are faster to distinguish shades of blue than English speakers, for example. Traditionally, Japan didn’t have separate words for blue and green, and didn’t develop a distinction between the two colors until after world war 2. Some aboriginal languages in Australia don’t have words for right and left- all directions are described in terms of North, south, East, and West. Many languages gender nouns and this affects the way native speakers will describe those objects. If you were asked to describe a "key" —a masculine word in German and a feminine word in Spanish — the German speakers are more likely to use words like "hard," "jagged," or "metal,"; while Spanish speakers are more likely to say "golden," "little," "lovely," and "shiny," The languages we speak seem to affect the way we see the world.

Even on a more basic note, you can’t identify with a group of people if there is no word to describe that group. The creation and definition of labels is important to community building. Create the word, make it possible to talk about that group.

Even something as simple as pushing a certain phrase or alternative name can affect how people feel about something. The current rise in stories of people who LOVE the Affordable Care Act, but HATE ObamaCare, failing to realize they are the same thing, is evidence of that.

Orwell uses this idea- that language itself shapes the kind of thoughts we can have, to suggest that if a government can control language, they can control the thoughts of the citizens. Going beyond even the most aggressive propaganda, leaving citizens unable to rebel because no thought of rebellion is possible because no word for rebellion exists. - Now.

Not everything that a politician does that you dislike is “Orwellian.” Trump’s executive order about banning immigrants from predominantly islamic countries and the mexican border wall are awful, but not Orwellian. When Betsy god damn Devos can stand in front of congress and admit to not knowing a god damn thing about public education, pedagogy, or current educational policy and still become the secretary of education: Not particularly Orwellian, but definitely incompetent and terrifying and infuriating. Not Orwellian. Millions of people losing their healthcare if the Affordable Care Act is gutted is heartless and evil, but not Orwellian. Trump having globe spanning conflicts of interest, when people made Jimmy Carter sell his goddamn peanut farm for be president, but apparently we’re just going to sit here and let Trump run his billion dollar businesses because who the hell cares and where are his tax returns?- ridiculously hypocritical and infuriating, but not Orwellian.

But-Thinking about Putting an Anti-Vaxxer in charge of the Vaccine Safety Committee? That’s Pretty Orwellian. Insisting again and again that his inauguration crowds were huge and shouting down any evidence that says otherwise as “fake news” and pressuring the park service to find photos that support his version of events- That’s Orwellian. When are people renaming Neo-Nazis as “the Alt Right”: Kinda Orwellian. When the House Science Committee chairman says that people should get their facts from the administration, and not the news….Orwellian. When Trump says he has “drained the swamp” and gotten money out of politics, and his appointed cabinet is richer than ⅓ of America combined? That’s some DoublePlus UnGood DoubleThink. And it makes me UnBellyFeel.

1984 is a bleak vision of the future, a future that suggests that resistance is futile if the government gains so much control that it can literally brainwash citizens.

And here is where I’m going to get...extra political. I know that the first two weeks and counting of SprayTan McBabyPaws’s presidency has been alarming and stressful for many, myself included. But we are not Airstrip 1. We are not Oceania. We do not have Big Brother looming over us, ever vigilant for ThoughtCrime. We are in a frightening situation as a country right now, but we will persist if we stick together. We preserve the past. We fight for what is true. We resist propaganda and fear mongering, revisionist history and scapegoating. We can’t allow ourselves to ever believe that 2 and 2 make 5 just because the party says so, we can’t allow ourselves to fall into fatigue and complacency.

We can do this. We can do this together. Call representatives. Go to marches. Speak out.

Stay strong.

Thank you for watching this video. I’ll see yall down in the comments. As always, if you’ve enjoyed listening to this queer millennial feminist with a BA in English, feel free to subscribe.

#trump #feminism #politics #orwell #1984 #newspeak #orwellian #george orwell #surviving trump

325 notes · View notes