#to fascists hypocrisy is a virtue

[aquietwhyme]

The hypocrisy is not the point. Keeping us on constant defense, fighting for our right to exist instead of challenging their power, keeping us too divided and atomized to be effective, that is the point. The point is evil cult members aligning with amoral oligarchs to both further their own goals, to protect capital and drive poor desperate people into the arms of abusive churches, while eliminating anybody that challenges either goal.

The people behind bills like this have no morals, they have no faith, they only crave power. Hypocrisy is a perk for these folks, because it's a public display of their naked power that they aren't beholden to plebian values and ethics. In a way, the good vs evil rhetoric they peddle is true, in a darkly ironic way, because they publicly revel in being the evil they use their words to decry.

Literal motherfucking genocide!

[autolenaphilia]

God I think I actually prefer explicit fascist transmisogyny in comparison to the disguised dogwhistly liberal transmisogyny.

Like the people who openly call me an autogynephile and other various slurs and tell me to kill myself are at least being honest. They don't bullshit me about hating my very existence and wanting me to die.

It's all the faux-loving forms of transmisogyny that really make me angry. Like it makes my skin crawl in its dishonesty and hypocrisy. And it takes so many forms. Like the transmisogynist christian "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach where they claim to love me and just want me to accept Jesus in my heart. The necessary condition for accepting their version of Jesus however is me detransitioning, and that would kill me.

There is the terfy "people with gender dysphoria are suffering and they need help but we can't endanger women's sex-based rights for them." i've even seen in arguments about legal gender changes the following: "of course trans women deserve to use women's spaces, but if we allow legal gender self-id evil cis men will take advantage of that. So trans women will have to have their rights restricted." Even J.K. Rowling used it in her terf manifesto.

It makes one yearn for the days of the ur-terf book "The Transsexual Empire" which had the "shemale" slur in its subtitle and in which the author Janice Raymond argued trans women rape real women by the fact of their very existence. That kind of brazen transmisogyny at least had some kind of honesty about it.

There is also the transmisogynist callout culture fandom, or as the japanese fittingly call them: the american feelings yakuza. They callout transfems for problematic kinks like at least once a week but deny transmisogyny. "oh we don't believe all transfems are evil predatory sex perverts, it's just that this particular transfem is."

Their evidence for her being sexual predatory is that she ships two fictional siblings. Or in meatspace meetings, things like her having "bad vibes" ("bad vibes" or "gut instinct" are polite words for what more sensible people call "ingrained bias") .

And they suspiciously keep on making callouts for transfem after transfem in a neverending series, trying to ruin her reputation and socially exile her, but of course they are not transmsiogynists.

There is also the sofboi transandrobro type of transmisogyny. They spread the vilest transmisogyny but always falls back on a terfy bioessentialism to claim ontological innocence and perpetual victimhood in all situations. I've literally seen someone say "how can i be a misogynist, i'm literally afab." These people will not say directly "shut up about your oppression, stupid tranny", but say it in coded form. I had one guy traumadump to me about his rape in vivid detail to make the point that (trans)men suffer more and imply that transfems don't suffer from sexual violence.

And that's the crux of the issue. Open hate barely fazes me anymore, unless there is an immediate threat of physical violence. But being condescended to, being emotionally manipulated, being faced with people veiling their hatred of transfems behind a veil of superficially loving rhetoric, that does make me angry. And these people always use my anger against me. "Why are you so angry when these people are being so polite and nice to you?" And that's because the point of these rhetorical approaches is to have plausible deniability for your bigotry and make transfems look crazy when they point it out.

Yet it's the same bigotry as the explicit version, it's just more dishonest about it. Like if had the They Live glasses and looked at the rhetoric, it would just read "exterminate all transfems." All those polite liberals believe the same thing about transfems as the neo-nazis openly calling for us to be hanged, they just lack the virtue of being honest about it.

[simplegenius042]

Late Music Monday and Partners-In-Law Meme

Tagged by @imogenkol

Tagging @socially-awkward-skeleton @aceghosts @noodlecupcakes @direwombat @voidika @la-grosse-patate @inafieldofdaisies @cassietrn @adelaidedrubman @shellibisshe @josephseedismyfather @icecutioner @derelictheretic @shallow-gravy @strangefable @rhettsabbott @josephslittledeputy @cloudofbutterflies92 @skoll-sun-eater @carlosoliveiraa @g0dspeeed @wrathfulrook @afarcryfrommymain @strafethesesinners @turbo-virgins @raresvtm @softtidesworld @starsandskies @ladyoriza @florbelles @minilev @yokobai @thewanderer-000 @omen-speaker @justasmolbard @alypink and @sledge-in-space + anyone who'd like to join.

Late Music Monday, songs for characters from The UnTitledverse, The Silver Chronicles and Life, Despair & Monsters. Not in that order though. Partners-In-Law Meme for my V, Judy and River. Songs and template below the cut:

Welp, here I go rambling about the parallels of Silva and Paul once more. Alright so, I think by now we've mostly gotten well-aware that Silva (and Paul) have not had good experiences in regards to religion. Most certainly due to the fact they were both born in a cult that abides by puritanism and fascist beliefs, which, by the time of Paul's birth, also gained a militaristic mindset with the introduction of the Enforcers when Adam took charge as their Prophet. The Congregation of Adam's Guard, on surface level, preaches and demands virtue and righteousness from its followers, to effectively become morally pure under their Prophet's watching eyes, especially if they wanted to see Paradise after the world falls to the Collapse when all seven Frozen Omens melt. To not adhere to or display any other qualities other than their "norm" was punished with extreme force, and by the time Adam came into charge, with death. Which explains why under the surface of the cult's message, is a foundation rooted in colonialism and xenophobia, tied up in a bow of hypocrisy that is used to justify all kinds of depraved and heinous actions the Congregation and their Prophet allows. Silva and Paul are both victims of the Congregations persecutions and discrimination. Both had been under the God-fearing foot of the Congregation, with Paul being amongst the segregated Tumultites and Silva enduring under Adam Omar's terror. Both Silva and Paul eventually reject the Congregation, (a) because the Congregation wants them dead, (b) long-term wise, especially under Adam's tyranny, the Congregation and the society it has built through fearmongering cannot survive the inevitable collapse from the insufficient resources that protects them from the environment and the spark of rebellion due to the less fortunate citizens living under the pressure of becoming "pure" and (c) the Congregation sucks. Silva and Paul instead adopt the Tumultite community's values and beliefs, especially of their first revolutionary leader, Jannah, who Paul especially aspires to be like. Finally, Paul and Silva, once in the modern world, while not believers in the predominant religions (especially in America), do not hold any ill-thought towards such groups; Silva rather admires some of the lessons spoken and wishes she could have the same comfort that their God gives to others, meanwhile Paul is only hostile to people who hide behind God to harm and oppress others... otherwise he's pretty agnostic to the whole thing. One things clear though; their experiences with the Congregation had irreversibly shattered their perceptions of being able to seek any kind of comfort under any deity, especially with the associated pain that haunts them to this day. The song below can fit either one of Silva or Paul or even both.

"First things first I'ma say all the words inside my head I'm fired up and tired of the way that things have been, oh-ooh The way that things have been, oh-ooh

Second things second Don't you tell me what you think that I could be I'm the one at the sail, I'm the master of my sea, oh-ooh The master of my sea, oh-ooh

I was broken from a young age Taking my sulking to the masses Writing my poems for the few That look at me, took to me, shook to me, feeling me Singing from heartache, from the pain Taking my message from the veins Speaking my lesson from the brain Seeing the beauty through the...

Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer Pain! You break me down, you build me up, believer, believer Pain! Oh, let the bullets fly, oh, let them rain My life, my love, my drive, it came from... Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer

Third things third Send a prayer to the ones up above All the hate that you've heard has turned your spirit to a dove, oh-ooh Your spirit up above, oh-ooh

I was choking in the crowd Building my rain up in the cloud Falling like ashes to the ground Hoping my feelings, they would drown But they never did, ever lived, ebbing and flowing Inhibited, limited till it broke open And rained down It rained down like...

Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer Pain! You break me down, you build me up, believer, believer Pain! Oh, let the bullets fly, oh, let them rain My life, my love, my drive, it came from... Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer

Last things last By the grace of the fire and the flames You're the face of the future, the blood in my veins, oh-ooh The blood in my veins, oh-ooh

But they never did, ever lived, ebbing and flowing Inhibited, limited till it broke open And rained down It rained down like...

Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer Pain! You break me down, you build me up, believer, believer Pain! Oh, let the bullets fly, oh, let them rain My life, my love, my drive, it came from... Pain! You made me a, you made me a believer, believer!

Eden "Evie" Bloodleech, formerly known as Evie Jackson, was picked up and became an experiment for Sir Enigma Malvolio. Unfortunately, she survived the process and became one of his rare human successes, which was a mindset that was further encouraged by her apparent likeness for her "rebirth" and led him to continue his absurd quest to evolve humans to a level he sees as perfect for them, allowing Evie to officially join the Ruins of the Midnight Rise as both a valuable member and a prized success story. He sent her out in his stead for diplomatic purposes, allowing her to use her abilities to charm potential investors and allies to further his illicit research. Eventually she was sent back to her original universe in my An Invite To Wine And Dine WIP (set in The Invitation) to infiltrate the Alexander Family in order to dethrone Dracula and take the three families he held control under her wing... or rather tendril. And... she's rather a show-off (byproduct of being one of Malvolio's rare favorites I guess):

"There's only two types of people in the world The ones that entertain, and the ones that observe Well, baby, I'm a put-on-a-show kinda girl Don't like the backseat, gotta be first (Oh, oh) I'm like the ringleader, I call the shots (Call the shots) I'm like a firecracker, I make it hot

When I put on a show I feel the adrenaline moving through my veins Spotlight on me and I'm ready to break I'm like a performer, the dance floor is my stage Better be ready, hope that you feel the same

All eyes on me in the center of the ring Just like a circus When I crack that whip, everybody gon' trip Just like a circus Don't stand there watching me, follow me Show me what you can do Everybody let go, we make a dance floor Just like a circus."

And finally, a I'm sure I've used before, but am gonna do it again because "I'm So Sorry" not only slaps, but fits the main antagonist of The UnTitledverse's first saga, Edward Carmine, quite well, if you squint. He's a menace to society and should not be in charge of any leadership roles, even as a CEO. Edward's the type of man to burn all his bridges and blame a child he manipulated for it. Diabolical man that just won't get the hint and stay dead. Extremely petty and arrogant, as antagonists like him should be. By far, amongst one of my favourite antagonist OCs (though that's probably because he's one of the first ones to be developed). Listen below:

"About time for anyone telling you off for all your deeds No sign the roaring thunder stopped in cold to read (No time) I get mine and make no excuses Waste of precious breath (No time) The sun shines on everyone Everyone, love yourself to death

So you gotta fire up, you gotta let go You'll never be loved till you've made your own You gotta face up, you gotta get yours You never know the top till you get too low

A son of a stepfather A son of a, I'm so sorry A son of a stepfather A son of a, I'm so sorry

No lies and no deceiving, man is what he loves I keep tryin' to conceive that death is from above (No time) I get mine and make no excuses Waste of precious breath (No time) The sun shines on everyone Everyone, love yourself to death

So you gotta fire up, you gotta let go You'll never be loved till you've made your own You gotta face up, you gotta get yours You never know the top till you get too low

A son of a stepfather A son of a, I'm so sorry A son of a stepfather A son of a, I'm so sorry

Life isn't always what you think it'd be Turn your head for one second and the tables turn And I know, I know that I did you wrong But will you trust me when I say that I'll make it up to you Somehow? Somehow?"

And lastly, a Partners-In-Law meme for my V (actual name Min-Ji "Vasilisa" Choi), her new partner Judy Álvarez and her amicable ex River Ward. [Note: I'm assuming affection refers to their feelings for their mutual partner. Also I never romanced River and am just taking taking whatever information I can recall or from the internet in regards to his preferences and sexuality and the information I've found (especially the wiki compared to everything else) is quite conflicting so I'm going with Bi-curious]:

[play-now-my-lord]

"no seatbelts, we die like men"

in a fascistic society, petit-bourgeois or middle-class life is defined by unendurable hypocrisies. The soul rebels at its intellectual diet of doubletalk, and the fascistic society prescribes as a solution the myth of catharsis in heroic death. In prior societies, defined by the industrialization of combat and the direct military struggle between regional powers for resources and prestige, the usual site for such martyrdom was to be pitched battle. But in the 21st century, regional and global powers fight their wars through remote proxies - rival governments a world away, trained mercenaries, remote-control airplanes, or the more abstract war-proxy of economic competition between rival multinationals. It is this final form of proxy warfare that takes place in the full light of day, and thus this and this alone - corporate warfare - is viewed as an appropriate site for the fascistic death-cult.

We have not yet reached a stage of history where these multinationals are capable by themselves of fielding standing armies and waging pitched battle over points of strategic importance; for those of us living in fascistic societies in this awkward in-between period, we encounter in our smallholder class a desire to prove themselves - and escape the contradictions of life as they must live it - by heroic endurance and eagerness to die in the realms of product choice and consumption.

In the near future, existing public unrest over product availability, price points, perceived social prestige, and brand image will escalate. Laws which already exist criminalizing boycott campaigns for select pressure groups will spread and become more general, and take on the character of inverted sumptuary laws. Fanatical brand loyalty which multinationals already encourage will explode into open sectarian violence.

Death serving the purposes of the state was never the objective of any of the previous century's fascistic death cults - the objective was to personally embody the perceived heroic virtues of the nation or ethnos at the site of death - but it was certainly more than a happy accident that such deaths served the state interest. Likewise, the first man to die for the sake of McDonalds or Disney or whatever other multinational will not perceive his martyrdom as one to the benefit of a corporate bottom line, but as an apotheosis, a blunt declaration of the supremacy of his rational economic choices and his marketing demographic -- and as a welcome reprieve from a life in which that supremacy must be seen as both inevitable and impossible

[kitty-pelosi]

kamala harris is the perfect face of neoliberalism. I think it is very possible that she can extend it well into the next decade. an intersectional victim - you can cut her up and her composite pieces are at the receiving end of oppressions and yet the collage occupies a material role as an oppressor.

she will be a powerful tool to maintain the way the matrix of Democratic victimhood and accusation operates: calling Republicans fascists who are trying to overturn democracy while simultaneously fetishizing bipartisanship as a virtue. her face is how they will negotiate this hypocrisy with the public. black and disenfranchised, yet a cop and direct oppressor of black people. the perfect person to usher in the final stages of a police state under capitalism in its dying empire.

and then there is the fact that she is funny, to Americans. she has a good sense of humor, is very charming, and has successfully captured the attention of a youth audience - an audience which will compose the next decade’s political operatives and field agents for the democratic party. she didn’t even have to try, all she had to do was lean in to the way her critics made fun of her, and the satire suddenly becomes good PR. it’s the same move trump pulled off in 2016. I suspect both of them did this accidentally, but it benefits them nonetheless.

i think she will win, and no one’s life will be measurably improved

[windona]

Windy's Non-Fiction Book Rec

Is there an order to this? No. Did I read all of these books in the last year? Also no. Does this tell you a great deal about me? Definitely. Note, I chose to link to Hoopla or Overdrive rather than Amazon because support your local library.

Let's begin.

The Lakota Way by Joseph M Marshall III.

What it's about: It's a book that tells the virtues that are considered most important to the Lakota, interweaving cultural stories with personal ones and real life examples.

Why I like it: I have a fondness for cultural and folk tales, so this should not be a surprise. I like how it relates the mythological to the personal, taking on a macro and micro look. The audiobook is also read by the author, making it rather nice to listen to.

Rez Life by David Truer

What it's about: It's history and memoir about Native American reservations. It's about how they came to be, how they exist, and what life on them is like. It also interweaves the personal with the grand scale, at one point talking about a major case regarding a reservation that the author's mother was involved in.

Why I like it: It's incredibly informative while being well written, flowing well, and helping to connect the overarching policies with how it impacts daily life. My brother said the audiobook was good, but I read the text version and enjoyed it well.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

What it's about: This is an instruction guide on politics and how to run a principality by the 16th century diplomat himself. Reams of writings about his intentions and what it means are about, but this is an interesting read.

Why I like it: Politics, practical and ruthless. It's a well thought out read, and an excellent insight into how Princes work.

What I Saw by Joseph Roth

What it's about: This is more a collection of newspaper articles than one book. It covers a variety of aspects of the Weimar Republic, as shown through the eyes of someone living there.

Why I like it: Joseph Roth has a fun, flowery way of speaking in translation. His observations are interesting, and cover all aspects of Berlin. The last article in the book will punch you in the gut.

Blitzed by Norman Ohler

What it's about: Drugs in the Third Reich. It delves a bit into Weimar era drugs, and looks at how the Nazi ideology clashed with the reality of drug use, from the troops to meth chocolates for housewives all the way up to Hitler himself.

Why I like it: It focuses on a very particular part of history, and goes into detail. The author highlights the hypocrisy, but also shows exactly the impact such drug use had. The language flows well with the subject matter. leaving you gripped in its grasp.

Aftermath: Life in the Fallout of the Third Reich by Harald Jähner

What it's about: How did Germany go from a bombed out fascist state to the liberal West Germany and the East Germany that would eventually become the country we know today? This book examines the ten year period after the war, giving an overview of the situation from the people in the camps to those in bombed out cities, showing how Germany transformed.

Why I like it: This topic has been personally fascinating, as the period my father grew up in but also in how the country recovered from fascism to become a well functioning democratic republic. Everyone who voted for the Nazi party did not disappear. The people who were kicked out of Prussia and Silesia had to find somewhere to live. The people from concentration camps also had to find their own places, if they could. This book is fascinating, delves into the issues, and at times is uncomfortable.

Editing Humanity by Kevin Davies

What it's about: The history of CRISPR up until it came out in 2020. It goes through the science, the competition, and the debates. From the various bits and pieces that led to CRISPR discovery and development to the ethical questions surrounding its use, it will take you through one of the much lauded scientific breakthroughs in the last decade.

Why I like it: The author knows his stuff and knows how to write it. He highlights the various contributors to the breakthrough, from understanding yogurt spoilage to a powerful tool. He also does a good job explaining the Dr. He controversy, and the ethical dilemmas regarding it, from germline versus somatic cell editing to how far is too far.

This Is Your Brain On Parasites by Kathleen McAuliffe

What it's about: Parasites, and their impact on nature and humanity. From individual behavior to how our societies are influenced by the eternal war, this book goes into the big influence of tiny organisms.

Why I like it: It goes into parasites in humans and animals, and is very thorough and an enjoyable read. The melding of science and history is fascinating. Warning, not for the squeamish.

There were a couple of books on magic in Medieval Europe I was unable to find, and I reserve the right to update this list as I find interesting books.

If you have any interesting non-fiction books to recommend, feel free to let me know! And fiction as well, but that rec list will be a different post.

[dandelionjack]

every time the ‘should i genocide the daleks’ choice comes up again and again i realise i’d be a bad companion because i would immediately go, yes you fucking should. for the good of literally everyone in the universe and your loved ones you should take that chance. at this point letting them live when you have the opportunity to free the world of their reign of terror is more about virtue signaling to yourself; maintaining moral high ground and not allowing missy/davros to ‘win’ the debate around your hypocrisy, rather than genuine compassion or mercy. fascist holocaust-machines that have no means or hope of redemption (unlike, say, either of your ‘arch enemies’) should be destroyed because the alternative is letting the war rage on forever.

it’s a children’s show of course and that would send the wrong message and be antithetical to the concept of doctor who itself. i get it. on screen it always has to be ‘til the next time’

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

To them [the fascists], violence, power, cruelty, were the supreme capacities of men who had definitely lost their place in the universe and were much too proud to long for a power theory that would safely bring them back and reintegrate them into the world. They were satisfied with blind partisanship in anything that respectable society had banned, regardless of theory or content, and they elevated cruelty to a major virtue because it contradicted society’s humanitarian and liberal hypocrisy.

—Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, pt iii, pp 28-29 (1951)

[via Scott Horton]

[thatstormygeek]

And so fascists play on, in a land of zero consequences for fascists.

In order to deal with this problem of unpopular and illegal goals in a governmental system that's meant to run on what is popular and legal, the fascists also intend to end democracy, and they sure have been making strides with rules they've changed and rules they're changing. In the swing state of Georgia, Republican election saboteurs have seized control of the election process and are rather predictably sabotaging the election, which they claim they are doing in the name of protecting the election. And Republicans are pushing an election law they call SAVE, which they claim is written to protect elections from fraud, even though the danger they are safeguarding against is non-existent, and one real effect of the rule may be to prevent women from voting. And they're trying to move the goalposts in Nebraska—even though the voting has already started—to claw back a single electoral vote Republicans have managed to let squirt free of its moorings, and they say they're engaged in this clear disenfranchisement of the people in the name of letting the will of the people be heard. This means that every 2 years or so the main choice we're making is whether or not we ever get to make choices again, which doesn't seem sustainable, probably because it isn't sustainable. It's like playing football against a team that only has to score a single touchdown to win no matter what the scoreboard says, because instead of playing football they spend their energy changing the rules, and now they've got one that states that if they (and only they) score one touchdown, then they get to execute any referees they don't like—according to the head referees, who they have been bribing. And if all the cheating fails and they lose anyway, then retaliatory violence is all but assured, partly because that's what happened last time and partly because that's what they are promising. This gang wants killing and they intend to have killing, one way or another.

Robinson also posted far worse things on the porn site than the things about his predilection for peeping on unsuspecting women and other sexual misconduct, which we know, because CNN, who broke the story, decided not to publish the worst stuff, because it was too bad to print. So I guess there's even worse out there that's just ... not being reported on, for our protection, I guess. Protection from what, I might wonder. Maybe CNN is sparing us the boredom of learning things about Republicans that we already assume are true, things that it has decided to decide for us won't "move the needle." Maybe CNN decided that we all already know that the true reason Republican voters liked Robinson enough to nominate him is that he is the sort of person who says things like "some folks need killing," and that statement so obviously represents the true core value of Republican voters that it no longer bears repeating. But it also presumes that Robinson's shocking statements about slavery and Nazism are all things that should probably be assumed of anyone these days who is a Republican candidate for high public office. Still, let's not single Robinson out. It also came out in court documents this week that Florida Representative Matt Gaetz attended a drugged-up sex party with an underage teen, which I could have sworn is something that already came out about Matt Gaetz. But then again sex crimes and predatory behavior and protecting those who commit them just seem to be standard party-issue stuff for Republicans these days, so perhaps it is notable mostly because Gaetz (like the rest of his fascist party) uses the protection of minors from pedophiles as the unfounded justification for their active persecution and demonization and dehumanization of trans people and other queer people and elementary school teachers and librarians (among others). And of course we have the head donut Donald Trump and his vice donuthole JD Vance, who along with demonizing trans people (among others) just won't stop inciting terrorist violence from their violence-aligned cult against Haitian people living in Vance's home state, smearing these poor people with a blood libel for the fake crime of eating neighborhood pets—animals that everyone by now knows were only temporarily missing and are still alive and well. At a recent fascist rally, Vance insisted—even while admitting that the targeted Haitians are there legally—that as far has he is concerned, the Haitians are illegal. And they intend to round up and deport "illegals," even as they signal that the definition of "illegal" has nothing to do with law, is in fact something that is entirely up to them and their bigotries. It's just directly shocking Nazi propaganda straight out of the genocide playbook, and it's quite popular with the sort of people who like that sort of thing, which for many of us includes neighbors and family.

So the report's conclusion was clear: The Republican Party could not succeed in a democracy any longer. Something would have to change. Republicans decided to take the report seriously, and set about making change; not attempting to build popular support by abandoning their base of white supremacists, but rather by destroying democracy. And here we are. Trump is here because he is very popular with fascists, and fascists are numerous enough that Republicans can still squeak out wins by using every anti-democratic tool at their disposal and inventing new ones. Trump is fascist because he sensed that fascism is what fascists wanted, and that fascism could be harnessed by somebody willing to give it in undiluted form. And the fascists responded because he was right about them, even while our institutions all agree to tell exonerating myths about them. All the tales I hear about how Republicans actually have other motivations and other, better, more honorable desires ignore the inescapable evidence that Trump took over the party with no shots fired, with only a few objections quickly walked back, a few murmurs and harrumphs. Trump didn't invade the Republicans. They summoned him. They were what they had decided to be. Trump was an inevitability just as whoever comes after him will be an inevitability, for as long as what he is is what they want. The rot isn't at the head; there is no head. The rot goes to the core. ... Republicans intend denaturalization and deportation and ethnic cleansing because those are the things that fascists want, and they intend to cheat at the election as much as they can, and they intend chaos if the cheating fails, and they plan violence if the chaos fails, because fascists don't care about rules, they only care about ruling, which is a matter they insist has nothing to do with questions of whether they have actually won the right to do so. They're doing all this openly because doing it openly is maximally menacing for the people they want to target, and fascists enjoy the fear of others, because the fear of others demonstrates that they are still dominating others. They're lying about why they're doing it, not because most of them don't know that they are lying, but because getting away with lies demonstrates domination. And the lies are ridiculous and laughably obvious because getting away with obvious lies demonstrates more dominance than being forced to craft believable ones does. They're calling themselves heroes for doing it, even while they mock and scorn true heroism, because being held blameless for abuse when you are the cause demonstrates dominance most of all. And they're getting away with it, because our institutions and systems and even the political opposition favors civility and politeness over truth and consequences. Even acting as if fascists intend to do what they say they intend to do is seen as gauche. And so fascists play on, in a land of zero consequences for fascists.

[verycleverboy]

Portrait Of An American Sunset

The author's summary from Bluesky: "In a shocking week even by the low standards of Republicans, I wrote about where we are and how we got here, and how many often forget that supremacy and fascism are things Trump found and harnessed, not his innovations. He didn't invade; he was summoned."

Having our bodies and lives dominated forever by greedy religious freaks is still largely unpopular with the larger population of awesome freaks who are not greedy freaks or religious freaks, however, and it's also against our constitution, too boot. In order to deal with this problem of unpopular and illegal goals in a governmental system that's meant to run on what is popular and legal, the fascists also intend to end democracy, and they sure have been making strides with rules they've changed and rules they're changing. In the swing state of Georgia, Republican election saboteurs have seized control of the election process and are rather predictably sabotaging the election, which they claim they are doing in the name of protecting the election. And Republicans are pushing an election law they call SAVE, which they claim is written to protect elections from fraud, even though the danger they are safeguarding against is non-existent, and one real effect of the rule may be to prevent women from voting. And they're trying to move the goalposts in Nebraska—even though the voting has already started—to claw back a single electoral vote Republicans have managed to let squirt free of its moorings, and they say they're engaged in this clear disenfranchisement of the people in the name of letting the will of the people be heard. This means that every 2 years or so the main choice we're making is whether or not we ever get to make choices again, doesn't seem sustainable, probably because it isn't sustainable. It's like playing football against a team that only has to score a single touchdown to win no matter what the scoreboard says, because instead of playing football they spend their energy changing the rules, and now they've got one that states that if they (and only they) score one touchdown, then they get to execute any referees they don't like—according to the head referees, who they have been bribing. And if all the cheating fails and they lose anyway, then retaliatory violence is all but assured, partly because that's what happened last time and partly because that's what they are promising. This gang wants killing and they intend to have killing, one way or another.

Moxon's article not only touches on the Mark Robinson nightmare in my backyard, but the depressing contention that CNN (the outlet whose "unforgivably leftist" tag only works when you've cultivated a population that's never read or seen anything "unforgivably leftist" in their lives except as a sitcom trope) didn't even touch the worst of it because it was unpublishable. Which begs the question, "How do you (a corporate news source) define 'unpublishable' in 2024?"

And he includes a reminder that Mitt Romney, the Republican who other Republicans still send death threats for having one moment of conscience, also ran on an anti-immigration platform in 2012. The main difference between then and now, Moxon argues, is conservatives (in the leadership, at least) don't pretend to be decent about it anymore.

They're doing all this openly because doing it openly is maximally menacing for the people they want to target, and fascists enjoy the fear of others, because the fear of others demonstrates that they are still dominating others. They're lying about why they're doing it, not because most of them don't know that they are lying, but because getting away with lies demonstrates domination. And the lies are ridiculous and laughably obvious because getting away with obvious lies demonstrates more dominance than being forced to craft believable ones does. They're calling themselves heroes for doing it, even while they mock and scorn true heroism, because being held blameless for abuse when you are the cause demonstrates dominance most of all. And they're getting away with it, because our institutions and systems and even the political opposition favors civility and politeness to truth and consequences. Even acting as if fascists intend to do what they say they intend to do is seen as gauche. And so fascists play on, in a land of zero consequences for fascists.

(Oh for god sakes, read the full thing. Then when you're done reading, keep reading some more. Read harder. Read better.)

[bumpercars-after-hours]

"It's best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It's how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. It's not an inconsistency. It's very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination." - A. R. Moxon

Both.

Republicans want complete immunity for Republican presidents. Unitary executive.

Republicans want Democratic presidents to have very limited power.

They offer no legal basis, just rotten prejudices.

[libertarian-druid-ny-separatist]

It's insane to me that some anime icon having weirdo, who's now blocked me, can accuse me of being someone else (for legalities sake I am New here) and make up something I didnt say, and then a swarm of rightoids can come out of the woodwork with anon hate again. At least you're being reasonable...

But no, your situation doesn't give more weight to anything cause anecdotes are rarely useful or relevant when giving ones opinions on public policy, especially regarding ones rights to ones own body and pregnancy from you, a man. Framing removing a brainless clump of cells as "murder" is pretty christian, to my mind, at least culturally anyway. Since most people who study the human body don't consider it murder. But thats neither here or there rn.

originally, I was speaking to a maga delulu cultist, who finds it ok to force other women to have children against their will, but shrieked and started a whole stink when I said that they should face the circumstances they so easily and casually were willing to force, legislatively, on others. Hypocrisy. From christians? par for the course, lol.

If I had been arguing at the time with someone against say, what I consider common sense gun control, I would have said "I hope you have to live through a shooting event that makes you reconsider". Or on a different track- I would hope some anti-public transit person, Id wish them nothing but traffic and exhaust fumes, because the empathy free dont realize they could be wrong or change their minds until something effects them personally.

And Im not offended when someone says to me "I hope your support for democratic socialism gets you (insert rightoid holocaust fantasy about evil denmark style socialism)" because I understand thats just words on a screen, not a "wish" or a "threat" lol. Could my wording have been better originally? Probably? Who knows or cares though?

This is only still going on cause some rightoids and neonazis keep bringing it up so they can pretend to be offended by me, as fascists do, to ignore reality. And also to pretend to defend a white chick and her virtue against a mouthy jew who sources stuff. Its all clownery and mostly from maga cultists 😂.

I can appreciate you being reasonable about it though, which is why I bothered to reply at all. Sorry for the rambling.

Okay, this is a long one, so I'm gonna kinda break it up a bit for ease of reading.

Thank you for being reasonable in return, just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be civil, which is a thought process I wish both sides of the aisle would be more open to. There are admittedly people on both sides that agree with that sentiment, but not nearly enough.

My point is that it's still a life, snuffing out innocent life will always be murder to me, whether it's a year old, a decade old, a century old, or a second old. Every life has inherent value so long as it retains innocence. I appreciate the honesty in saying that it's because I'm a man and that your original points about rape and Christianity were more or less just repeating talking points (I know that's going to come off as sarcasm, but I assure you it isn't).

I don't tend to care much for the religious portion of the issue, if you're having unprotected sex, there can be consequences. One of those consequences can be impregnation. I can agree that being forced to carry the child of your rapist is wrong, I don't believe it should be forced, so much as deregulation of adoption so that abortion isn't the go-to solution. I think you can probably agree that despite the circumstances, the child is still innocent of their father's crimes. So while I wouldn't force it upon anyone, I would say it would be wrong to end a pregnancy, and continue to disagree with that portion of the decision. If being brainless is what makes it okay to you, then it stands to reason that upon the third gestational week, abortion should be off the table, as that's when brain tissue begins to develop. If not, feel free to correct me.

Yeah, I can agree that the phrasing could have been better, it comes off like you're wishing pro-life people would get raped in the post. And honestly, the modification to the scenarios you present isn't much better. But it also doesn't help the situation that I'm in full support of all natural rights, self defense being one of those. I actually offer to teach anyone how to shoot in a defensive manner, especially my Romani "family" and Jewish folks given the situations regarding those groups internationally and here in the US. That said, if you're more comfortable having to look your attacker in the eye while bludgeoning or stabbing them in defense, then more power to you, I can almost relate. As far as public transit goes, I support opening the market to private competition, partially to lower costs and partially to improve the services. I'd also avoid calling them "empathy free" just because they disagree. I assure you, in most cases, they're not sociopaths.

My issues with socialism arise from family history, and how many times socialist economies have failed/converted to capitalist ones. While it makes tyranny an easier goal to achieve, that's less of an inherent worry for me than the fact that it seems to fail so often. I'd hope you'd consider that it's largely only a good system on paper given how things actually work, but your views are yours to hold, and possibly change, on your own.

Can you honestly say that the people arguing against (what they view as) murder (to which you disagree) are fascists though? Is it possible that they simply don't want to have a society in which the murder of children is acceptable? I don't think the government should regulate it, so much as it should be deregulating alternatives such as adoption. If an adoptive parent wants to help take care of the child as it is developing in the womb, and then raise said child, I see no harm in that. However, there is already a wait list for adoptions, and not really much going into helping to shorten that wait. If the government should be doing anything that would actively use tax dollars, it should go towards helping out adoptions and adoptees. As someone who was adopted (I know, I've got a whole lot of skin in this) it generally works out for the best for all involved parties. That said, I understand that "generally" is different than "always" and the concern some have if it's not something with a 100% success rate. Most folks are a lot less willing to take risks than they were 20, 30, 50 years ago.

If you're interested in continuing the conversation, or if I skipped something you feel is relevant, my dms are open, asks are open, and of course, reblogs will remain available.

I ask that you use reblogs if any are applicable, but won't demand it. Just helps to keep things organized.

[fraga-et-cruor]

If I were to create another branch of atheistic satanism, I would rework the stupid original 9 satanic statements and 9 satanic sins and 11 satanic rules until they're actually a workable framework instead of just vague statements that have all the intellectual and mystical depth of a nose booger. (And are no longer thinly-veiled fascist and separatist sentiments)

.

The Statements:

Expound more on materialism and hedonism, on getting rid of the guilt that many Christians carry when they seek out pleasurable activities solely for the sake of pleasure. Or heck, just outright get rid of that weird dichotomy. The only purpose a dichotomy serves is to learn that it does not exist.. Nothing can be cleanly sorted out into two groups. Labels of A vs Not A are as useful as a toothpick against appendicitis. The material builds the spiritual and the spiritual is within the material.

Questioning, and skepticism as virtues. Nuances instead of absolutes. To wield authority is to receive defiance. Question unreasonable requests, but do so with logic and grace, for even defiance and skepticism can be unreasonable.

Do no harm but take no shit. Be kind, but do not expect extravagant generosity nor be compelled to give it.

To forgive is not to forget, and forgiveness is earned the same way trust broken must be earned back. It is not for anyone to demand.

Nothing is inherently, ontologically 'evil' or 'bad'. It is the use, misuse, and disuse that determines its effect on others and on the world.

.

The Rules:

Rework all that's structured as "don't do this" into "do this" (eg "walk slowly" instead of "don't run") - I find it incredibly ironic that a religion named for a big adversary entity has a lot of restrictive rules. Which says something about the amount of thought and care put into this.

(1), (2), and (8) can be condensed into: "Wisdom before speech."

(2), (5), and (6) are just: "Consent before interaction."

(3), (4), and (11) cannot be saved, but a non-fashy version of the sentiment could be "Set your boundaries and enforce them. Be mindful of other's boundaries and back away when they enforce it."

(7) is just a very round-about way to call out hypocrisy in religious/spiritual/philosophical/social matters.

(9) and (10) are poorly phrased and just sound like an attempt to enforce personal ethics to others, but something like "Use violence only for survival" should encompass both.

(And thus eleven becomes five. Or four.)

.

The Sins:

Rework to give some of them actual solid definitions instead of just something you have to vibe out lmao. To be fair, some of these are pretty solid by themselves, like (3)-(8), and just need more so they could become easier to practice.

(1) "Unthinking compliance and submission" - there should be a snappier word for this but I can't be arsed to Google for it.

(2) is odd because lack of aesthetics is another sin but alright. Roughly, it could "Posturing without substance".

.

Misc.

As it is, even reworked, these are just a random collection of ideals with no singular thread uniting them, which imho makes it a very weak framework for a religion. It really needs something to bring it all together and tie it with the idea of 'satan'.

So far the connecting threads are: materialism, hedonism, non-conformity, adversary, and addition (compared to restrictive and subtractive doctrines)

[fidelesir]

[Image ID 1: A gif from Spongebob Squarepants of Spongebob and Patrick with exaggerated thinking faces. /End ID.]

[Image ID 2: a tweet from A. R. Moxon / @ JuliusGoat that reads: It's best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It's how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. It's not an inconsistency. It's very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination. /End ID.]

Nothing to see here, just the state of Texas denying a woman compensation for her stillbirth because the foetus didn’t technically have any rights.

Let’s think about this for a second.

[adequatelyllama]

If humanity is going to survive, we have to face the fact that we cannot engage with our regressive factions at face value. We cannot hope that reason and good faith arguments will win the day. Conservative/Regressive/Fascist ideologies and their followers do not adhere to the same rules of reality. Their reality is whatever they wish it to be, whatever aligns with their egocentric paradigm, and no one can alter it for them. It doesn't matter what is true, because they only have to convince others of the lie long enough for it to be useful, and then they can discard it, and by forcing you to disprove it, you waste your time in a futile effort that will fall on deaf ears. It doesn't matter what the science says, because their entire worldview relies on fallacy and magical thinking. Facts that don't fit are simply irrelevant, or better yet they're 'lies and propoganda' of the enemy. It doesn't matter if they're seen as immoral, evil, or unethical; all terms they can redefine as needed. They see hypocrisy as a virtue, because it forced you to engage to call it out, and they can point at your efforts to discredit them as proof of "cancel culture". It doesn't matter whose lives are at stake or who ends up suffering. They will inflict suffering on themselves just to see the ones they hate suffer also.

We have been playing the game thinking that if we just stuck to the rules and played fair, that it would eventually win out. Our pretentious magnanimity is costing us our future.

One cannot be tolerant of the intolerant, or they win. And everyone else loses.