#their authority/legitimacy/point of view | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bokunoheros · 29 days ago

Text

🪲author's note :// sorry guys i worked 50 hours this week so this might be bad and also the format for this post is shit.

topics discussed & warnings:// smut, Voyeurism, lowk non con in some way, masturbation, porn watching, sex toys, tenya iida looks through your panty drawer lmao

word count:// 839

ᯓ heed the warnings laid before you, your media consumption is your responsibility! ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 .ᐟ

Tenya was sick in the fucking head.

He had originally wandered into your dorm room to look for you, having a ‘question’ to ask about homework from your shared class. That ‘question,’ despite its partial legitimacy, was just an excuse to bother you because he has such a sickening crush on you to the point where he can’t help himself.

Tenya had stumbled into your dorm with a handful of textbooks, calling out your name only to find your room empty. He glanced around, pursing his bottom lip as he surveyed your room, creepily, albeit. His middle finger found the handle to your panty drawer and he slowly slid it open, gazing at your underwear momentarily before he realized there was a sound coming from the bathroom. You were in the fucking shower. And you just turned off the water.

Shit, shit, fuck, goddamnit! Motherfucker!!!

Tenya choked on his own tongue as he slammed your panty drawer shut, putting the pieces together that you were bound to walk out of your bathroom at any fucking moment. He scampered, hesitating back and forth before he ducked into your closet, throwing his textbooks in with a thud before he launched himself on his knees and closed the door behind him.

The knob on the bathroom door jingled as you opened it, stepping back into your dorm with a pleased sigh. Tenya curled into himself, peaking out of the small slats that lined the white stained doors. He held his breath as you walked into view: you were in only a thin towel that was lazily wrapped around your middle. You sat on the edge of your bed, facing the closet while you scrolled on your phone. Tenya bit his tongue as he watched you, his ears turning a bright red color when the sounds of sex poured from your phone speakers. You crossed your legs, biting your thumbnail while you paid attention to the porn on your phone.

Jesus fucking Christ.

He swallowed, nudging his glasses up his nose. You paid such attention to the pornography that played on your phone, scrolling through different videos as the sounds of moans, fapping, squelching— every raunchy noise under the sun leaked into the air. When you settled in a video you liked, you bit your lip, standing up from your bed and letting your towel drop to the floor while you dug in your bedside drawer.

Tenya almost blew his cover when your towel fell from your form, choking on his spit as he screwed his eyes shut. You kept digging in your drawer, completely unbothered when you finally found your vibrator against all the clutter you shoved in your bedside. You hopped back on your bed, positioning yourself on your back, using one hand to hold your phone up, and the other to twirl around your nipple. Tenya’s eyes shot open again, unbeknownst to you, admiring your body. Your free hand slid up and down your body, groping what you can as you stared at your phone screen. Fingers dipping towards your sex, you teased yourself until you abandoned your phone and grabbed for your wand, turning it on with an electronic buzz.

Tenya shivered at the sound, unconsciously leaning closer to the slats on the closet door to watch you. You winced when the buzzing silicone finally brushed over your clit, sighing as you relaxed against the vibration. Your other hand groped your breast as your legs fell open, letting the vibrator work it’s delicious fucking magic on your cunt. Sighs fell through your lips as you teased yourself, inevitably turning on your stomach, hiking your ass in the air so you could hump your toy.

Tenya is sick in the fucking head.

His cock is straining against his khaki pants as he watches you slack jawed, his dominant hand pawing at his erection as he presses his face against your closet door. You moan wantonly as you grind against your vibrator, using your other hand to reach around your back to slip a finger into your sloppy cunt. You’re muttering bullshit under your breath as you splice yourself open, your hips grinding down onto your vibrator as your mind fucking melts. Your thumb hits the button to turn up the speed, and you cry out a pathetic mewl into your sheets.

“Hah— mmm’Tenya,”

He snaps out of his daze when you moan his name, cum oozing from your pussy as you finish against your toy. You fall limp against the bed, shivering as your vibrator finishes you off until you’re forced to turn it off with a sensitive wince.

You. You just, you came. You came moaning his name. His. Fucking name.

He could only dream of you lusting after him as much as he does you, and now he’s convinced you were imagining him while you watched another woman get fucked on a website. Tenya wants to bust out of your closet and take you right then and there, but he knows that’d end his chances with you immediately.

380 notes · View notes

journeytothewestresearch · 1 year ago

Text

PSA - Don't Treat JTTW As Modern Fiction

This is a public service announcement reminding JTTW fans to not treat the work as modern fiction. The novel was not the product of a singular author; instead, it's the culmination of a centuries-old story cycle informed by history, folklore, and religious mythology. It's important to remember this when discussing events from the standard 1592 narrative.

Case in point is the battle between Sun Wukong and Erlang. A friend of a friend claims with all their heart that the Monkey King would win in a one-on-one battle. They cite the fact that Erlang requires help from other Buddho-Daoist deities to finish the job. But this ignores the religious history underlying the conflict. I explained the following to my acquaintance:

I hate to break it to you [name of person], but Erlang would win a million times out of a million. This is tied to religious mythology. Erlang was originally a hunting deity in Sichuan during the Han (202 BCE-220 CE), but after receiving royal patronage during the Later Shu (934-965) and Song (960-1279), his cult grew to absorb the mythos of other divine heroes. This included the story of Yang Youji, an ape-sniping archer, leading to Erlang's association with quelling primate demons. See here for a broader discussion. This is exemplified by a 13th-century album leaf painting. The deity (right) oversees spirit-soldiers binding and threatening an ape demon (left).

Erlang was connected to the JTTW story cycle at some point, leading to a late-Yuan or early-Ming zaju play called The God Erlang Captures the Great Sage Equaling Heaven (二郎神鎖齊天大聖). In addition, The Precious Scroll of Erlang (二郎寳卷, 1562), a holy text that predates the 1592 JTTW by decades, states that the deity defeats Monkey and tosses him under Tai Mountain. So it doesn't matter how equal their battle starts off in JTTW, or that other deities join the fray, Erlang ultimately wins because that is what history and religion expects him to do. And as I previously mentioned, Erlang has royal patronage. This means he was considered an established god in dynastic China. Sun Wukong, on the other hand, never received this badge of legitimacy. This was no doubt because he's famous for rebelling against the Jade Emperor, the highest authority. No human monarch in their right mind would publicly support that. Therefore, you can look at the Erlang-Sun Wukong confrontation as an established deity submitting a demon.

I'm sad to say that my acquaintance immediately ignored everything I said and continued debating the subject based on the standard narrative. That's when I left the conversation. It's clear that they don't respect the novel; it's nothing more than fodder for battleboarding.

I understand their mindset, though. I love Sun Wukong more than just about anyone. I too once believed that he was the toughest, the strongest, and the fastest. But learning more about the novel and its multifaceted influences has opened my eyes. I now have a deeper appreciation for Monkey and his character arc. Sure, he's a badass, but he's not an omnipotent deity in the story. There is a reason that the Buddha so easily defeats him.

In closing, please remember that JTTW did not develop in a vacuum. It may be widely viewed around the world as "fiction," but it's more of a cultural encyclopedia of history, folklore, and religious mythology. Realizing this and learning more about it ultimately helps explain why certain things happen in the tale.

#sun wukong #monkey king #journey to the west #jttw #Erlang #Erlang shen #Buddhism #Taoism #Chinese mythology #Chinese religion

368 notes · View notes

facelessoldgargoyle · 1 year ago

Text

ok so I started reading worm this week and it blows my mind that apparently wildbow is a fuckin lib, because this seems like such a screed against centralized authority. For context, I have read through arc 20, through the end of arc with the Echidna fight.

So much of the story is driven by the abusive nature of state power, starting small and getting bigger. Taylor is bullied by a group of girls, and the school chooses to not take it seriously. She’s imprisoned and her injuries ignored by an emergency room because they view her as a legal liability. High-ranking members of the Protectorate allows class-s threats to flourish in an attempt to either gain glory or kill Taylor and her friends, trusting that their legitimacy will means that their version of events will be believed. The triumvirate has been in control of a company running human trials that have destroyed lives in order to consolidate their power.

Instead, the people who are outside of the system are the ones who make the general public’s lives safer and happier. It feels like an out-and-out endorsement of anarchism’s position against state authority and for general and freely given cooperation. The Undersiders frequently operate by consensus, not agreeing to make a move until everyone’s on board, or at least satisfied. Taylor’s territory is far from anarchism, especially with her hard stance against drugs. But she operates by making allies and accruing loyalty, and she allows people to move in or move out as they please. It all feels like it’s gesturing towards a different, more egalitarian system than the protectorate and the government has in place.

And then at the end of the Noelle arc, Alexandria makes this speech about how everyone there who has learned of this massive betrayal has to keep it secret in order to preserve the protectorate’s power. She argues that (a) the protectorate allows normals to tolerate parahumans, (b) that it allows supplies to be distributed, (c) that teams would dissolve without it, (d) it would bring greater scrutiny on parahumans and (e) that it provides unity when fighting the endbringers. And Taylor steps forward and agrees with her!

It’s such a naked power grab on Alexandria’s part and such a failure of imagination on wildbow’s part. (e) The leviathan attack showed that everyone with powers will spontaneously unite to fight together. (a) Legend pointed out during the prep for the fight that the endbringers are the reason parahumans are embraced in society. (c) The teams employed by the protectorate might dissolve, but parahumans feel compelled to use their powers and would reform teams. (d) Based on all of the evidence, it seems like the protectorate needs scrutiny like the catholic church need scrutiny. That is, desperately. (b) ok sure. supplies is always easier to distribute with a centralized organization. that’s not an argument for maintaining the PRT as it exists though. get superhero UPS together.

In the speech, Alexandria is appealing to the crowds fear of losing their legitimacy, and that’s powerful. I get why wildbow believes this. I just think he’s wrong, and I think the world he wrote could have supported a different choice.

#i also think it would be way more interesting #parahumans #wormblr #long post

148 notes · View notes

skydarkin · 4 months ago

Text

viego rant

i kind of hate the lack of empathy involved when people discuss viego??

"oh hes selfish, hes controlling"

yes and that doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him you

the feeling of loss is selfish. i understand it can be hard to imagine yourself in viego's shoes, because statistically most people, especially young 20 somethings have never loved to the degree that viego has.

we can make arguements about the legitimacy of his marriage to isolde or the power dynamic behind his proposal but i don't think anyone can argue that his love for isolde was disingenious?

the kind of loss that viego suffered can completely unmake a person. viego is a man who suffered unfathomable pain, had no support network to help him out of it ( a king is a very hard person to get therapy for ) and then, as if putting a cherry on top of it all, became a ghost, which many people who believe in ghosts or many authors who write ghosts in fiction agrees only amplifies negative emotions and trauma out the wazoo

viego should be viewed by people as what could happen to anyone who goes through something as devastating as the lose of your s/o, and doesn't get the right help. he is YOU if things went horribly, horribly wrong. instead because he's a man who wants to 'control' a woman i feel like people write him off as an "incel" or womanizer or wife beater or something.

and can we talk about that for a minute? there is no point during viego's quest where he sees what hes doing as bad for isolde? he is trying to bring the woman back from the dead, and in his mind everyone trying to stop him is just trying to keep them apart.

the only point in viego's story where isolde herself tells him otherwise is moments before she is killed, permanently, and if you pay attention he looks confused and remorseful.

a comparison they made in wild rift and one i cant shut the fuck up about is lucian and viego. ask yourself what the difference between the two of them really is? they both lost their wife, the only difference is viego became obsessed with bringing her back, and lucian became obsessed with revenge. they both became self destructive and potentially dangerous, unhinged people. lucian just accidentally got his wife back in the end.

the point is that viego is not a villain because hes an evil person who got ghost powers, hes a villain because he is a regular ass person who didn't get the help he needed. he can be anyone. which, by the way, is why his possession works; he can control any champion because he can literally overwhelm them with their own emotions, essentailly making them go through what he went through

anyway thats my two cents. be more empathetic to the crying ghost

#viego #league of legends

23 notes · View notes

goodqueenaly · 2 days ago

Note

Hello! I’m so sorry if you’ve answered something like this before, I’ve been reading different alternate universes of Fire and Blood, what do you think would happen if Maegor had had a posthumous son from Queen Elinor or Rhaena? How would Jaehaerys and co have handled it? My guess would be the son being forced to either go to the wall or joining the faith when he came of age to prevent any potential succession issues.

Of course, it’s important to note at the outset of this ask that the author made a very specific point of Maegor not having living children. Whatever the specific reason Maegor was unable to father a living child - and I think the author has left the answer deliberately obscure - GRRM took pains not only to not have Maegor have a surviving child, but to have the children Maegor did father be “a monster, with twisted limbs, a huge head, and no eyes”, “a legless and armless creature possessed of both male and female genitalia”, and “a malformed and stillborn child, an eyeless boy born with rudimentary wings”. (We’ll leave aside the question of Silver Denys, whose paternal ancestry assertions are at best highly speculative.) Indeed, Maegor’s inability to gather a living child gave his enemies in-universe strong grounds to denounce Maegor as cursed (with such colorfully coarse rumors as Maegor’s “privy parts [being] poisoned, his seed full of worms”, such that “the gods would never grant him a living son”). Therefore, to have Maegor father a living child by either Elinor Costayne or Rhaena Targaryen would potentially substantially change how characters in universe viewed Maegor, and by extension how the author wanted us to perceive Maegor himself.

Likewise, I think the scenario might change, though perhaps not significantly, depending on when such a child was born vis a vis Maegor’s death. Depending on when such a child would have been conceived, it’s possible that either mother would not have known she was pregnant until after Maegor was dead. Therefore, unless the new King Jaehaerys or any of his courtiers insisted on verifying whether Elinor or Rhaena were pregnant following the death of Maegor (which no one seems to have done, likely for obvious reasons, IOLT), it’s possible that Jaehaerys would simply have been acclaimed as he was IOTL, as the only remaining legitimate male male-line Targaryen, with the rights of this posthumous son coming up after Jaehaerys had already been acknowledged as king - hardly a good starting ground for such a child in terms of a potential royal claim, when King Jaehaerys would presumably have already been blessed and crowned. (I should point out here that Elinor Costayne did IOTL give birth to a child by Maegor early in 48 AC, though exactly how much time there was between this birth and Maegor’s death is unclear, and in turn whether Elinor could, on a purely biological level, have conceived another child by Maegor in the time.)

All of that said, I think any living son of Maegor, whether by Rhaena or Elinor, would have been passed over in favor of Jaehaerys anyway. Between the unborn or newborn child of a tyrant usurper, who had so far only proven able to father stillborn “monsters” by his many wives, and the near-adult only remaining son of the Conqueror’s elder son and heir, there might have seemed like very little reason to back the former; indeed, given the rapid and substantial erosion of support for Maegor IOTL before his death, I highly doubt that anyone would have been. Nor indeed would Jaehaerys have lacked an argument to undermine the legitimacy of this baby: if Maegor had forced his pet “High Lickspittle” to perform the triple wedding between himself and his “Black Brides”, this polygamous arrangement was denounced by Septon Moon and his Faithful followers; with young King Jaehaerys eager to come to a peaceful (albeit frustratingly under-detailed) settlement with the Faith at the outset of his reign, it would have been all too easy for the king to say that Maegor’s simultaneous weddings to the Black Brides were illegal in the eyes of the Faith, and subsequently that any children born of such unions were bastards with no right of inheritance. (It’s perhaps worth remembering that Jaehaerys would later sternly remind his sister Rhaena that she was only a “queen by courtesy”, the implication being that he could choose to no longer recognize her as a queen at his leisure.) Too, given Jaehaerys’ willingness IOTL to pass over the very colorable claim of his niece Aerea, and his unwillingness to recognize his eldest brother Aegon as the rightful king between the death of their father Aenys and Aegon’s own death above the Gods Eye, I think it’s quite likely that Jaehaerys would have similarly decided that any son of Maegor would not be permitted to reign in the place of Jaehaerys himself. Jaehaerys may not have expected to come to the throne in his youth, but once he was acclaimed at the tail end of Maegor’s reign, I think Jaehaerys was quite certain on not letting anyone - his sister, his niece, the shade of his brother, or even a would-be son of his dead usurping uncle - claim the throne instead. At best, such a child may have been relegated to the Faith or the Wall, in the vein of Aerea’s twin Rhaella; at worst, Jaehaerys may have seen to this cousin being quietly murdered, much as I think his descendant Viserys would with his troublesome nephew Baelor, or Philip of Poitiers did with his royal infant nephew Jean in The Accursed Kings.

#asoiaf meta #alternate universe #maegor i targaryen #jaehaerys i targaryen

11 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 6 months ago

Text

The need for good intelligence has never been more visible. The failure of the Israeli security services to anticipate the brutal surprise attack carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023 reveals what happens when intelligence goes wrong.

In contrast, in late February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s planned three-day “special military operation” to invade Ukraine and topple the government was pushed onto the back foot by the U.S. and U.K. intelligence communities. While Putin’s rapid seizure of Crimea by a flood of “little green men” in 2014 was a fait accompli, by the time of the 2022 invasion, anticipatory moves including the public declassification of sensitive intelligence ensured that both the intelligence community and Ukraine remained a step ahead of Putin’s plans.

Yet, despite the clear and enduring need for good intelligence to support effective statecraft, national security, and military operations, U.S. intelligence agencies and practitioners are undermined by a crisis of legitimacy. Recent research investigating public attitudes toward the U.S. intelligence community offers some sobering trends.

A May 2023 poll conducted by the Harvard University Center for American Political Studies and Harris Poll found that an eye-watering 70 percent of Americans surveyed were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about “interference by the FBI and intelligence agencies in a future presidential election.”

A separate study, conducted in 2021 and 2022 by the Intelligence Studies Project at the University of Texas at Austin and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, found that only 56 percent of Americans thought that the intelligence community “plays a vital role in warning against foreign threats and contributes to our national security.” That number is down 10 points from a previous high—if it can even be called that—of 66 percent in 2019, and the downward trend does not give us cause for optimism. Reframed, that statistic means that in 2022, an alarming (in our view) 44 percent of Americans did not believe that the intelligence community keeps them safe from foreign threats or contributes to U.S. national security.

Worse, despite abundant examples of authoritarian aggression and worldwide terror attacks, nearly 1 in 5 Americans seem to be confused about where the real threats to their liberty are actually emanating from. According to the UT Austin study, a growing number of Americans thought that the intelligence community represented a threat to civil liberties: 17 percent in 2022, up from 12 percent in 2021. A nontrivial percentage of Americans feel that the intelligence community is an insidious threat instead of a valuable protector in a dangerous world—a perspective that jeopardizes the security and prosperity of the United States and its allies.

The most obvious recent example of the repercussions of the corrosion of trust in the intelligence community is the recent drama over reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). First introduced in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Section 702 is an important legal authority for the U.S. intelligence community to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. According to a report published by Office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI), 702 is “extremely valuable” and “provides intelligence on activities of terrorist organizations, weapons proliferators, spies, malicious cyber actors, and other foreign adversaries.”

Section 702 was scheduled to “sunset” at the end of 2023 if not reauthorized. Yet Congress failed to reauthorize 702 by the end of 2023, electing to punt the decision—as is so often the case—to this spring, when it was finally reauthorized (with some important reforms) in late April 2024, but it was only extended for two years instead of the customary five. An unusual alliance of the far right and the far left squeezed centrists and the Biden administration, which was strongly pushing for a renewal that would protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens and not needlessly hobble the intelligence community in protecting the United States itself.

But the frantic down-to-the-wire negotiations about reauthorizing some recognizable form of 702 obscured a deeper problem at the heart of the contemporary Americans’ relationship with intelligence that has been brewing over the last decade: The fundamental legitimacy of a strong intelligence community—and the integrity of its practitioners—has been questioned by U.S. lawmakers on the far left and the far right, perhaps reflecting a misguided but increasing consensus of tens of millions of Americans.

This trend is now a crisis.

Section 702’s troubled journey faced queries from the privacy-oriented left, where those with overblown concerns about potential abuse by the intelligence community viewed reauthorizing 702 is tantamount to “turning cable installers into spies,” in the words of one opinion contributor published in The Hill. The intelligence community’s revised authorities (some adjustments were required given the 15 years of communications technology development since the amendment was first passed) were called “terrifying” and predictably—the most hackneyed description for intelligence tools—“Orwellian.” On the power-skeptical right, Section 702 is perceived as but another powerful surveillance tool of the so-called deep state.

In response to legitimate concerns about past mistakes, the intelligence community has adopted procedural reforms and enhanced training that it says would account for the overwhelming majority of the (self-reported) mistakes in querying 702 collection. According to a report from the Justice Department’s National Security Division, the FBI achieved a 98 percent compliance rate in 2023 after receiving better training. Further, the Justice Department and the DNI have gone to unprecedented lengths to publicly show—through declassified success stories—the real dangers that allowing 702 to lapse would bring to the United States and its allies.

Never before has an intelligence community begged, cajoled, and pleaded with lawmakers to enable it to do its job. After all, a hobbled intelligence community would still be held responsible should a war warning be missed, or should a terrorist attack occur.

For instance, Gen. Eric Vidaud, the French military intelligence chief, was promptly fired over intelligence failings related to Putin’s (re)invasion of Ukraine despite the Elysée’s criticisms of the warnings made by the United States and United Kingdom as “alarmist.” And Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva, director of Israeli military intelligence, recently resigned over the Oct. 7 attacks despite the fault probably lying across Israel’s political landscape as well. Intelligence professionals pay more than their share of the bill when their crystal ball stays cloudy.

The hullabaloo over 702 is not the only recent instance painting the actions of the U.S. national security apparatus as questionable state activity conducted by dishonest bureaucrats, and some recent history helps put the recent events into a broader downward trend in trust.

In 2013, National Security Agency (NSA) mass-leaker Edward Snowden, a junior network IT specialist with a Walter Mitty complex, sparked a needed but distorted global conversation about the legitimacy of intelligence collection when he stole more than 1.5 million NSA documents and fled to China and ultimately Russia. The mischaracterization of NSA programs conveyed by Snowden and his allies (painting them as more intrusive and less subject to legal scrutiny than they were) led to popular misunderstandings about the intelligence community’s methods and oversight.

It was not only junior leakers whose unfounded criticism helped to corrode public faith in intelligence; it has also been a bipartisan political effort. In 2009, then-U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the CIA had lied to her after she wished to distance herself from the agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques”—which critics call torture. But Pelosi’s comments earned a “false” rating from Politifact’s “truth-o-meter.” Then-CIA Director Leon Panetta countered that “CIA officers briefed truthfully.”

Some suspicion of a powerful intelligence community stems from genuine failings of the past, especially the CIA’s activities in the early and middle stages of the Cold War, which included some distasteful assassination plots, the illegal collection of intelligence domestically (such as surveillance of Americans on political grounds, including illegally opening their mail), and the LSD experimentation on unwitting Americans as part of its infamous MKULTRA program.

Most of these excesses—characterized as the CIA’s “Family Jewels”—were reported to Congress, which held explosive hearings in 1975 to publicize these activities, bringing the intelligence agencies into the public realm like never before. Images of Sen. Frank Church holding aloft a poison dart gun, designed by the CIA to incapacitate and induce a heart attack in foreign leaders, became front page news. These serious failings in accountability were the dawn of rigorous intelligence oversight.

Public trust in government was already sinking when, in 1971, the Pentagon Papers revealed that politicians had lied about US activities in the deeply unpopular Vietnam war. The Watergate scandal the following year added fuel to fire. Although the CIA was not directly involved in Watergate, the involvement of former agency employees led to a wider belief that the agency was tainted. And in the late 1970s, CIA morale sank to an all-time low when then-President Jimmy Carter began the process of sharply reducing its staff, attributing the decision to its “shocking” activities.

In response to congressional findings and mountains of bad press, subsequent directors of the CIA considered the criticisms and made numerous changes to how the intelligence community operates. While the intelligence community (and its leaders) made good-faith efforts to operate strictly within its legal boundaries, be more responsive to congressional oversight, and embrace some level of transparency, the public image of the CIA and the broader intelligence community didn’t change. After the Cold War ended, the preeminent vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called twice for the disbanding of the CIA. Such political pummeling of the role of intelligence and the integrity of its practitioners was bound to leave a mark.

The politics of distrust are back to the bad old days. By 2016, distrust of the intelligence community had returned with a vengeance: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed that NSA was circumventing domestic legal constructs to spy on his campaign through its close partnership with the Government Communications headquarters (GCHQ), the British signals intelligence agency. (The NSA said those claims were false and GCHQ called them “utterly ridiculous”.) As president-elect, Trump also compared U.S. intelligence to “living in Nazi Germany.” Once Trump entered the Oval Office, the FBI was a frequent target for his invective thanks to the investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election.

While the intelligence community is a long way away from the excesses of the 1970s, it is not perfect. Intelligence is an art, not a science. It is not prediction so much as narrowing the cone of uncertainty for decision-makers to act in a complex world. Even when acting strictly within the law and under the scrutiny of Congress and multiple inspectors general, the intelligence community has been wrong on several important occasions. It failed to stop the 9/11 attacks, got the assessment that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction spectacularly wrong, and was made to look impotent by Osama bin Laden for nearly a decade before the U.S. Navy SEALs caught up with him on a CIA mission in Pakistan in May 2011.

Errors still happen because intelligence is hard, and the occasional failure to warn, to stop every attack, or to prevent every incorrect search query is inevitable. Today, mistakes are self-reported to Congress; they are no longer hidden away as they sometimes were in the past. Yet the intelligence community has done a poor job telling its own story and self-censors due to widespread over-classification—a problem that the DNI has acknowledged, if not yet remedied. It has only belatedly begun to embrace the transparency required for a modern intelligence apparatus in a democratic state, and there is much work yet to be done.

It is the job of the intelligence agencies to keep a calm and measured eye on dark developments. In a world in which the panoply of threats is increasing, the role of the intelligence community and its responsibilities within democratic states has never been greater. If the community cannot be trusted by its political masters in the White House and Congress, much less the American people, then it will not be given the ability to “play to the edge,” and the risk is that the United States and its allies will be blind to the threats facing them. Given the adversaries, the consequences could be severe.

U.S. intelligence has had a rebirth of confidence since 9/11 and the incorrect judgments of the Iraqi weapons program. It was intelligence and special operations that hunted and killed bin Laden, U.S. law enforcement that has kept the U.S. homeland safe from another massive terror attack, and the intelligence community correctly predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That increased sense of purpose and morale is moot if the U.S. people, Congress, or the president (sitting or future) do not trust them. This crisis of legitimacy is a trend that may soon hamper the intelligence community, and the results could be unthinkable. Getting the balance between civil liberties and security right isn’t an easy task, but the intelligence community must have the tools, trust, and oversight required to simultaneously keep faith with the American people while serving as their first line of defense.

18 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 7 months ago

Photo

Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon was called in 451 CE by the Roman Emperor Marcian (r. 450-457) to settle debates regarding the nature (hypostases, "reality") of Christ that had begun at two earlier meetings in Ephesus (431 CE and 439 CE). The question was whether Christ was human or divine, a man who became God (through the resurrection and ascension) or God who became a man (through the incarnation, "taking on flesh"), and how his humanity and divinity affected his essence and being, if at all.

Shortly after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 CE, an Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, applying logic, had simply taught that if God created everything in the universe, then at some point he must have created Christ. This caused debates and even riots throughout the cities of the Roman Empire. If Christ was a creature, then he was subordinate to God. Seeking empire-wide unity, Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE) called for a council meeting at Nicaea in 325 to settle the matter.

The First Council of Nicaea produced what became known as the concept of the Trinity. This concept expressed the belief that Christ was of the identical essence of God, who had manifested himself in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It produced the innovation of a creed that dictated what all Christians should believe. The Nicene Creed was now enforced by the legions of the Roman emperor, and Arianism was condemned as heresy. However, those who sided with Arius continued to incorporate his teachings in their communities. One of Constantine's sons, Constantius II (r. 337-361 CE), was an Arian Christian.

With the beginning of the barbarian invasions in this period, Christians were urged to be patriotic Christians, in line with the Imperial Church. However, the Antiochene and Alexandrian communities continued to debate which emperors had such authority (legitimacy), depending upon their views of continuing Arianism at their courts and other topics. The other problem was that the Council of Nicaea only addressed the relationship between God and Christ but said nothing about his nature.

Struggle Among the Sees

For several centuries, Christian bishops had competed with each other in relation to who had the authority to dictate beliefs and rituals for all Christians. The major sees (dioceses) of bishops were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 elevated Rome above all others (as the site of martyrdom of Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle). Alexandria, which had several Christian schools of philosophy, saw this as an insult to their prestige. Antioch resented it because they claimed their community was the first to be called Christians (from Luke's Acts of the Apostles). Jerusalem was the most insulted, as this was the site of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection. Thrown into this mix were three more heresies that ultimately required more imperial anathemas and dictates: Paulinism, Novatianism, and Nestorianism.

#History #Christianity #CouncilofChalcedon #JesusChrist #WHE #[#]

20 notes · View notes

dinoburger · 4 months ago

Text

I guess the current train of thought about trans discourse is just watching how unconstructive it is, how these kinds of discussions that could be useful to potentially informing a broader and more interconnected community only exacerbate problems.

having come to other political issues with an open mind and a clean slate makes me feel differently.

like.

what we need and what's being asked of us is to develop tools that are more effective at dealing with communal concerns and examining the mechanisms which cause these problems to begin with.

I think the most jarring thing about the "transandrophobia" discourse or the ace discourse is that the biggest concern being leveled is "I do not have the visibility to describe my experiences and feel isolated" and the response is always to counter that and question its legitimacy, not to try to build a better understanding of the cause of these problems or develop tools to make speaking on them easier.

as wrong as you think someone is or as badly as they might word that sentiment, the core problem of being unable to express themselves properly doesn't go away when you "win" the argument

this is where acknowledging gender divides as a tool of alienation becomes useful, but instead I really get the impression folks engaged in these arguments are arguing for the onus to be on trans women to be the arbiters of what constitutes legitimate transphobia or to have to argue on the behalf of them to lend any legitimacy to the points being discussed.

purely from a practical point of view, I can't see how this approach does much except make all parties involved feel more isolated, more alienated and more hostile towards each other. everyone's eager to point fingers about who is using "TERF talking points" but nobody is eager to think about where to go from there, or offer any practical guidance - at least not without belittling if not being openly hostile towards the other party.

if I have to opt out of all discussions about the trans identity because I don't have the authority to speak on everyone's behalf, only mine, then I don't engage, I may leave those who don't have a choice to fend for themselves

it seems more logical that the purpose of examining the way gender divides are arbitrarily enacted on trans people and enforced is to undo the damage being caused by them, not to become so reactive that they're enforced even more.

moreover... I don't actually think hunting down and humiliating trans men who might have some uninformed ideas does much to help trans women in the long run. maybe it makes you feel good in the moment to do that, but you're probably not going to change that person's mind if it's still, again, mostly that they're just lacking the tools to talk about what they're going through.

13 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 2 months ago

Text

Recently surfaced North Korean footage has captured the North Korean government's crackdown on citizens, including teenagers, for consuming banned South Korean media.

The footage, obtained by South Korean production company KBS Media, shows a public denunciation session where a group of young girls, including a 16-year-old student, are publicly humiliated and arrested for the offense.

Pyongyang maintains tight control over the flow of information within its borders, forbidding citizens from accessing foreign music, films, and TV series. Those caught violating these restrictions face severe penalties, including public shaming, imprisonment, and in some cases, execution.

The Kim Jong Un regime views South Korean media as a direct threat to its ideological purity and legitimacy, heightening crackdowns on such content in recent years.

The footage shows a young girl identified only as Choi, breaking down in tears during a public denunciation session—a form of organized group criticism employed by communist regimes such as North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China under former Chairman Mao Zedong.

"I made the mistake of listening to and distributing impure published propaganda," Choi said into the microphone during the hearing, according to KBS's translation. The footage then shows her being led away in handcuffs.

Though such public punishments are commonplace, a North Korean defector surnamed Jang who fled the country in 2020 expressed shock at the public punishment of someone so young.

"I've never seen school students punished like this before," she told KBS. "The fact that they were handcuffed is really shocking to me."

The video is part of over 10 recordings obtained by KBS, most of which were produced after May 2021.

North Korea closed its borders in early 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The country finally reopened its borders to returning citizens in August 2023.

Video under the cut

youtube

North Korea's rigid control over media intensified in 2020 when Pyongyang enacted what has been dubbed the "evil laws" as part of its crackdown on perceived external threats to ensure loyalty to the regime.

These laws target foreign cultural products, including media and also South Korean slang.

"The North Korean authorities have been policing and cracking down on foreign culture for over a decade now, but the three new laws formalize and strengthen the draconian punishment for the offenders," Ethan Hee-Seok Shin, a legal analyst for Seoul-based NGO the Transitional Justice Working Group, told Newsweek.

Shin pointed out that the degree of punishment is linked to the gravity of the offense.

"The distributors are generally more harshly punished than the consumers," he said. "Similar to how other countries would deal with narcotics-related crimes."

The South Korean Ministry of Unification's 2023 report on human rights abuses in the North highlighted testimonies from defectors who witnessed public executions of young adults simply for watching K-dramas and listening to K-pop.

Pyongyang earlier this year amended its constitution to label Seoul as its primary enemy.

Despite the harsh punishments, South Korean media continues to penetrate North Korea, often via activists in the South who send USB drives filled with dramas and music into the North using balloons.

USB drives filled with South Korean media sent north by activists in the South have further inflamed tensions. The North has retaliated by sending balloons south laden with trash, and in some cases human waste.

A U.S. State Department spokesperson previously told Newsweek that Washington, DC advocates human rights and the free flow of information in and out of North Korea and condemns the country's three "evil laws" and "draconian punishments and youth targeting."

The North Korean embassy in Beijing, China, and U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to written requests for comment.

#nunyas news #Youtube

10 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 1 year ago

Text

by Yossi Klein Halevi

How is it possible that, in much of the international community, there is “understanding” for the mass atrocities of October 7? That on parts of the left there is greater outrage against Israel’s response to the Hamas massacre than to the massacre itself? That those who feel most vulnerable on liberal American campuses are not Hamas supporters but Jews? That anti-Zionists who call for turning Israelis into a defenseless minority within “Greater Palestine,” “from the river to the sea,” are chanting their hateful slogans with even greater vigor and moral self-confidence?

One answer was inadvertently provided by Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas. Speaking last month on Palestinian TV, Abbas sought to explain the origins of the Holocaust. The Nazis, he said, were not antisemitic, but opposed the Jews “because of their role in society, which had to do with usury, money… In [Hitler’s] view, they were engaged in sabotage, and this is why he hated them.” In other words: the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Abbas was widely condemned as an antisemite, including by some on the left. Yet Abbas’s sensibility informs the response of many progressives to the events of recent weeks. Israel, they say, effectively provoked the massacre with its occupation of the Palestinians, its racism and colonialism and apartheid, perhaps with its very existence. Once again, that is, the Jews have brought tragedy on themselves.

Blaming Jews for their own suffering is an indispensable part of the history of antisemitism. Whether as the Christ-killers of pre-Holocaust Christianity or as the race-defilers of Nazi Germany, Jews were perceived as deserving their fate. Invariably, those who target Jews believe they are responding to Jewish provocation.

What makes this moment more complicated is that, unlike in the past, Jews do indeed have power. We are no longer innocent. We are occupying the Palestinians in the West Bank. As the war intensifies, civilian casualties are rising in Gaza. And expansion of West Bank settlements undermines the long-term possibilities of a two-state solution.

But this moment does fit the historical pattern of antisemitism in the ease with which much of the world has, over the last decades, erased the Israeli understanding of the conflict and how we got to this point. A systematic and astonishingly successful campaign on the left has negated the Israeli historical and political narrative. As a result, one of the world’s most complicated moral and political dilemmas has been turned into a proverbial passion play, in which The Israeli plays the role of Judas (in place of The Jew), betraying his destiny as noble victim and becoming the victimizer.

The Jewish state has been transformed into the sum of its sins, an irredeemably evil society that has lost its right to exist, let alone defend itself.

To blame the occupation and its consequences wholly on Israel is to dismiss the history of Israeli peace offers and Palestinian rejection. To label Israel as one more colonialist creation is to distort the unique story of the homecoming of an uprooted people, a majority of whom were refugees from destroyed Jewish communities in the Middle East. To brand Israel an apartheid state is to confuse a national with a racial conflict, and to ignore the interaction of Arab and Jewish Israelis in significant parts of the society. To understand Israel and its security dilemmas only through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian power dynamic is to ignore its vulnerability in a hostile region, and the Iranian-allied terror enclaves pressing against its borders.

#israel #hamas #hamas massacre #yossi klein halevi

53 notes · View notes

liminalwings · 1 year ago

Text

DMBR - Seeking Dragons: Connecting to Dragon Energy and Magick

Author: Virginia Chandler

Book Link

"The most honest, down-to-earth Dragon Magic book on the market. Great for those just starting a dragon path, and a breath of fresh air for those who have already been practicing for several years. This book draws from draconic lore around the world to create a personal system working with dragon archetypes, so does not fall into the trap of other works that presents Unverified Personal Gnosis as some sort of Universal Truth, nor does she make bold claims of a false ‘historic authenticity’ like certain others; the author states clearly that your path will likely not end up looking like her own path presented here as you develop your practice.

This book is very much meant as a thoughtful springboard and introduction to working with dragons and becoming familiar with their energies. Out of the handful of dragon magic books currently on the market, this is the first one I would be comfortable recommending to beginners, as no matter your view on the nature of draconic existence, much of what is presented in here can be applied just as well. "

From the author of Year of the Magickal Dragon, which I've reviewed previously and gave lukewarm approval to (compared to other dragon magic books which tend to run mostly tepid). From the start, Chandler makes it very clear that she is offering a system of working that is, one, based on her own developed path rather than trying to claim a false historic legitimacy or universal truth, and two, is very clearly once again utilizing draconic archetypes. I'm not an archetypal kind of witch but it can definitely have its place and use, and a lot of practice suggestions in this book can be applied to non-archetypal beings as well. She also says plainly that a lot of the practices she presents are just how she does things and that your path, as you use her examples as a springboard, may end up looking very different as you practice; there is no 'this is how it absolutely must be'. As such it goes without saying that with how much personal leeway there is given and the fact that you're working with archetypes, there is little-to-no 'dragons are like this' or other similar absolute statements about the nature of dragons; dragons, in this system, are how you as the practitioner experience them. There is also no talk about Atlantis, multiple dimensions, Draconic Elemental Rulers/Universal Clan Leaders, or equating magic with quantum mechanics, thank gods. She does encourage readers to engage in some level of critical thinking and explore alternate ideas, though I do feel some of her alternate readings of dragon myths can be a slight stretch at times.

It should also be mentioned that her practice is influenced by Neo-Paganism, which is to say Wiccan-flavored, at least a little bit. The meditations included are very similar to the ones she gave in her previous book, and are probably the most rigid part of her work (personally not a fan, but that's okay). Also included are incense and oil recipes for various rituals, and she does make a point of basic health and safety practices (especially fire safety). There is both a 'recommended reading' AND citations, mostly for the lore she discusses with each archetype, but it's still nice to see. Warning though: two of her three recommendations for rune information (pertinent to her path as also taking Scandinavian influence) are by Edred Thorsson/Steven Flowers (of AFA affiliation).

If I had to be honest, a lot of this felt like if someone had managed to turn Tumblr’s collective dragon magic posts into a full-fledged book… with far more UPG than I've been comfortable sharing so far. I almost wish this had been available before Conway's works, and might even deign to make this my first 'recommended book' for those new to working with dragons, instead of my usual stance of "they're all crap." Do I think it's perfect? Well, no. But it's the closest Llewellyn has gotten so far.

#dmbr #sal writes things #dragon magic #dragon witch #dragon work #Dragon Magic Book Reviews

24 notes · View notes

stromuprisahat · 5 months ago

Note

Do you think Leigh Bardugo planned to write the King of Scars duology? At first I thought so, because of Nikolai's scars from the Merzost. But given how the duology is ultimately written, I don't think so at all. I also have the impression that all the characters are the spokespersons there to remind how horrible the Darkling is, which is objectively ridiculous. She even went so far as to tell Alina that Nikolaï, Zoya and the others are trying to repair the damage caused by his wars with him... Whereas the Darkling barely caused a civil war in the original trilogy, and no has nothing to do with the wars against Shu Han and Fjerda. So what is this shit dialogue?! What plural wars has the Darkling caused?! Why is he held responsible for Genya's rape?! Why do we demonize the creation of the little palace?! Why would the Darkling tell Zoya "you and I are going to change the world" as a manipulation technique?! What fucking use?! Why are the characters like, "Let him be the hero or not?" in the end, whereas if he doesn't sacrifice himself EVERYONE DIES?! This duology is such an absurd demonization of the character that it gives me a headache...

I think she planned it the same way it usually looks she does. She has some nice ideas, puts them together as she goes, and doesn't much deal with implications. What's sad is that neither does her editor, whose job should be to poke and prod.

I've read the books as soon as they were out, so my memory hopefully isn't the best, but:

Yes for author's mouthpieces. Especially poor Genya got reduced into just that and a victim. Then there are the bigot twins or Zoya, especially her famous Darkling's crimes speech.

“That’s the moment? Not in manipulating a young girl and trying to steal her power, or destroying half a city of innocent people, or decimating the Grisha, or blinding your own mother? None of those moments feel like an opportunity for self-examination?”

Rule of Wolves- Chapter 9

I'm pretty sure I've encountered antis with the very same list.

Alina's just heartbreaking in case you survived her epilogue in R&R unscathed. What we see resembles an empty shell taught equally empty phrases to repeat in public. When viewed through reader's lenses, it's just another mouthpiece, paraded around to remind us Alina had it all coming and the Darkling bad (in case you haven't caught onto that yet).

“No. But every child I help heals something inside me, every chance I have to tend to someone left in the wake of your wars. And maybe when our country is free, then that wound will close.”

Rule of Wolves- Chapter 14

What I find hilarious, is how the Righteous Gang™ dealt with their neighbouring countries. They tricked Shu Han into signing a treaty about peace and alliance... only to have it broken in the very same book. They won a war with Fjerda in a single battle, because Zoya threw their strategy to the wind, but appeared soon enough to be proclaimed Saint for being a dragon or something?!

Sorry, but LB's idea of how politics, religion and warfare work is beyond ridiculous.

The Darkling's obviously responsible for Genya's rape, because he's been micromanaging late King, which is why his Coup went so smoothly... and we can't have the reader question how fair has been the late Tsar's punishment, how well it prevented repetition of his crimes, or if getting rid of him in the first place might've prevented his reappearance and role in challenge to Nikolai's legitimacy.

Little Palace needs to be discredited, so we don't question The Gang's decision to abolish the law that takes children from their loving families. Don't. Just don't delve into it. There's no point.

I've read pretty good explanation of that catch up line. Zoya's often lying. If Alina's an unreliable narrator, due to her damaging upbringing and prejudice, Zoya's simply happier to see the world as she pleases. She's consciously choosing delusion. Alina might have mentioned what the Darkling told her, and Zoya's always been his special girl, right?! Even current regime's propaganda calls her the Darkling's favourite...

The only BUT I see is that for some reason, Aleksander uses the very same sentence on one of his Starless minions. Then again, that Aleksander has no fucks left to give, and even he suffered Zoya-praising disease, so excuse me, when I don't trust the author with her own characters and keeping them IN CHARACTER.

The ending is a mix of absurdity and heartless cruelty. The Darkling's constantly called monster, accused of NOT caring about the damage he causes... but reading the last few chapters made me despise the author's Coolest Female Trinity beyond measure.

I've delved into this somewhere already, but what I appreciate in real people and fictional characters alike, is kindness. Not blind or endless, but kindness. Having a bunch of "children", who barely lived a few decades, condemn a person to eternity of suffering, is beyond detestable. I might understand they all feel wronged by him (I don't.), but they all also owe him pretty much. And they're in no position to judge him.

If such short and relatively easy lives made them this unsympathetic, he should've been congratulated for hanging on so well.

It also wouldn't do any harm to cut about a quarter of those books, including the obvious fanservice.

#reply #Grishaverse #King of Scars duology #The Darkling #The Righteous Gang™#grishanalyticritical #RoW Chapter 9 #RoW Chapter 14 #Alina Starkov #Genya Safin #Zoya Nazyalensky #books #quotes #Leigh Bardugo #anti Leigh Bardugo #degraded!Genya #anti Zoya #anti KoS

19 notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 2 years ago

Note

Could you elaborate on the different ways that Qui Gon, Obi Wan, Anakin, Ahsoka and Luke defined Jedi or what it means to be a Jedi? I love to read your thoughts on stuff like this!

Yeah of course! I’m a bit rusty on Star Wars canon so this will be a bit more vague, but my general opinion is basically some version of the following:

imo Qui-Gon is billed in the canon as being a skeptic of the Jedi Order. He questions rules and determinations made by the Council, seems to dabble in conspiratorial or esoteric interpretations of Jedi theology or rules (iirc this is from Master & Apprentice), and seems to generally hold himself out as a contrarian. I don’t know if this manifests as a comprehensive critique of the Order, or if he just believes that pushback against institutional orthodoxy is inherently good. And you can probably critique his skepticism (he’s still an agent of the Order and by extension, the Republic), but like from what I remember in canon he is a guy who likes debating and questions his orders from the Council. My instinct is that he’s one of those anti-institution libertarian types, it’s not like a comprehensive critique of the Order but a more surface level desire to question authority (which, hey, no complaints in that regard lol). Now this is a separate question from how he views being a Jedi, but clearly some element of that is a moral obligation to “find a better way” to be a good person as a Jedi, to pushback on norms. He wants to be the minority opinion in the room, keeping the Council honest and all that jazz.

Which Obi-Wan fucking hated lol. Again pulling from M&A (mostly because it’s the most recent SW novel I’ve read with them in it), but Obi-Wan seems to be like this beleaguered bright-eyed student who has to put up with his Master’s bullshit antics. My personal view of Obi-Wan is a guy who fully buys into the Jedi Order as an institution that facilitates justice - he may critique the methods the Order uses or bend rules to get a better outcome (thinking of the 2016 Obi-Wan & Anakin comic here), but I think at the end of the day Obi-Wan believes the Order is a net-good for the world, believes in the mission of the Jedi to engage in diplomacy on the Republic’s behalf (I believe this is in conflict with his Legends characterisation, but iirc in the new canon he’s much more of a keener and I tend to like that interpretation more), and in his pursuit to be an ideal archetype of Jedi, he craves the legitimacy and prestige the Order confers onto his status as a Jedi Knight, especially as a Knight training The Chosen One. I think this is also why his death is integral to Luke’s story, as Luke had very different ideas about what a Jedi Order would look like and had Obi-Wan survived ANH, they likely would have fought bitterly about it.

Anakin I haven’t thought as much about, I think in general he was becoming a Jedi because that’s what everyone wanted him to be, and maybe he did have that dream at some point, but I think Anakin is mostly resigned to training and being knighted because that’s just how his life is going. He doesn’t seem to have a great deal of respect for the Order or Jedi customs (this informs a lot of his conflict with Obi-Wan), and he seems disinterested in furthering the Order’s political and social role in the Republic. He was actively hostile to taking Ahsoka on as a student, and I think his eventual fall from grace and turn towards the Sith marked this like, ultimate form of indulgence for him - a total rejection of his destiny, of all the expectations put on him, and a way to perform the perceived inadequacy that he was burdened with as a child. Like look dad, I’m the bad guy asshole everyone was so afraid I’d become! I’m not a Jedi and never could be! Fuck you!

Ahsoka I think has a much more developed version of the skepticism that we see from Qui-Gon, because she was confronted with the entire might of the Order and was cast out for a crime she didn’t commit. For her, being a Jedi is synonymous with institutional acceptance, and so if the Council doesn’t consider her to be a Jedi, then fuck that noise she’s not a Jedi. I think in terms of outlook you could say she’s still very Jedi-like, in the same vein as Luke, idealistic and self-sacrificing, but with Ahsoka it’s tinged with more cynicism and pragmatism than I think we see with Luke (at least in terms of the OT - I’m not familiar with the ST at all and don’t have a desire to engage with it so maybe later in life that’s a different story for him, idk). I think the loss of Anakin in particular also affects her a lot, and probably informs her non-attachment to a lot of people. She’s a drifter for personal safety reasons, but I also think she wouldn’t do well in a group long term (compared to someone like Kanan, who very much eschews the attachment rule and finds community with the Ghost crew). In that sense I think you could argue she’s a Jedi in practice but not in writing.

And Luke like. Idk where to even begin lol. He’s the only one of this group who was not brought up in the Order and has no formal training. Even Yoda and Obi-Wan’s training can’t substitute for growing up around other Jedi and being taught that kind of discipline and culture from a young age. He doesn’t have access to Jedi written teachings or Jedi history, he doesn’t place them in the same political context as the rest of his lineage does, experiencing the Jedi only as a bygone era, mysterious and ultimately fundamentally unknowable. Which means that his vision of Jedi-hood is probably “heretical” but also sort of a necessary new way forward, responding to what he perceives to be the failures of old Jedi teachings and ways of life. So for him Jedi-hood is a much more provisional affair, it is what he makes of it because he’s the guy who is literally making it. Which is ironic given that he’s literally THE original Jedi in the canon, like he’s how audiences are introduced to Jedi, but so much of that lore has been built up around him that he kind of becomes the odd one out. Which makes Filoni’s comment that he’s not really a Jedi sort of correct? Almost? Like I don’t actually really agree with it and his reasoning is idiotic, but Luke is not the traditional Jedi, he’s the origin point for an entirely new tradition. So he is a Jedi, very much so, but there is a break in tradition that can’t really be squared with the previous historical circumstances that created the Order. He has to forge a new way forward and reshape how Jedi exist and practice in a totally new context. Which is very cool!

#sw.txt #asks #sw meta #also thank you <3 sorry if any of the canon is wrong like I said I’ve forgotten a lot #honestly though this is fun. I need to get back into it

81 notes · View notes

yaoist · 3 months ago

Text

Book Roundup

Beria, My Father: Inside Stalin's Kremlin / Sergo Beria

This is the book of Sergo Beria's recollections of his father and his time under Stalin (up until his father's arrest and the arrests of himself and his mother). As every memoir is, it should be taken not as history per se but as a self-serving account limited greatly by its perspective, but I still enjoyed it a lot as someone who reads everything about Beria he can get his hands on. Sergo repeatedly gets dates and facts wrong and seems to both be intentionally fudging to make his father look better and uninformed about what actually went on (a lot of information he relates as being told to him by his father, who I don't think is an accurate source). At the same time, I enjoy any insights into the personal character of the people involved in Stalinist politics, and Sergo relating Beria making fun of Marx and being fixated on George Sakaadze ring true to me. Absolutely don't read this book without a companion like On Stalin's Team or Beria by Amy Knight, because you will come away with a very strange view of someone who was evil if the word has meaning. Recommended with heavy caveats.

Stalinist Values: The Cultural Norms of Soviet Modernity / Daniel Hoffman

This book was my first foray into understanding Soviet culture and I found it very interesting even if it wasn't what I was initially looking for. The premise of the book is refuting the idea that the resurgence of more conservative values was a turn away from socialism, and instead argues that the new cultural line was in fact co-opting previous cultural ideals and incorporating them into socialism. Whether you agree with this will probably depend on what you think socialism should stand for, but it's very interesting to see more radical values be pushed aside for the interests of state consolidation and the construction of a national identity. Hoffman points out that this was basically what everyone else was doing and expounds on the forces that made these things desirable - like world war one creating the necessity of mass mobilization of population. It touches on something important in Soviet party culture, the desire for legitimacy as a ruling class, multiple times and gave a lot of insight into how that played out and how it was encouraged or discouraged. Life has become more joyous! Recommended.

Court of the Red Tsar / Simon Montefiore

Much-maligned (by me and others), this book keeps getting cited and is the unfortunate creator of many a historical fiction on Stalin. It leans hard into just about every dramatic and lurid claim about Stalin and despite the claims of the author that he had a high standard of proof that doesn't seem to have stopped him from jumping immediately to every conclusion he can once he gets his hands on whatever memoir source he's using. He also seems to think that using esoteric words will justify him as a real historian despite his poor credentials and conviction that "Jewess" is a word that's normal to use in 2000s english. You should not be reading this book at all if you don't have a solid history background and for god's sake don't cite it to me. Read a real Stalin biography and only resort to this if you've exhausted every other memoir. Anti-recommended.

Stalin's World: Dictating the Soviet Order / Sarah Davies and James Harris

This book is newer and discusses recent documents released from Stalin's archives. It tries to form a picture of what information Stalin was getting and what he was doing with it. My one quibble with this book is how general it is; it only devotes a chapter to most things and admits that there's a lot more scholarship and examination to be done. It also brought my attention to a part of the Terror (36-38) that hadn't been covered in my reading which was the foreign incidents that were taking place while the terror was going on. The Soviets were absolutely both terrified and obsessed with other European countries, which they were convinced were preparing to attack them at any moment. They were also under delusions about what other countries were actually up to diplomatically and assumed they were all colluding. I appreciate it for highlighting just how limited Stalin's perspective was and how that played into his decisions - while he was at the top, he relied on everyone below him for information and suspected them of lying and misinforming him at every turn. It also discusses some of the factors that lead to the Soviet system being so deeply dysfunctional and ineffective: not just the lack of skilled personnel but the pressure from the top to meet impossible targets and Stalin's refusal to acknowledge his role in creating mass dysfunction. In addition, it dispels the idea that Stalin didn't believe in what he preached. Perhaps he didn't believe in what he said, but his words still carried a direct relationship to the beliefs and principles that lead him to act, much in the way that politicians speak today. It's inspired me to take a close look at the words of the Bolsheviks and how they expressed themselves politically - the words and metaphors that made up their ideas, the concepts they obsessed over, the catchall smears that were ambiguous enough to be meaningless but specific enough to have meaning to the people who used them, the dramatic political rhetoric and how it related to their specific ideological interests. Highly Recommended.

#sovietposting

5 notes · View notes