#violence in defense being fundamentally different from violence to dominate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

slimeboiss · 20 days ago

Text

Last Defense Character Analysis

I already did a full breakdown of my preliminary thoughts on these characters when most of them didnt even have names, so I figured i'd return to this topic now that each and everyone of these freaks is accounted for (as far as we know anyway). Have my opinions changed or what I secretly a genius that nailed all these characters on my first impressions? Let's see

TAKUMI SUMINO

I'll be honest, I don't really have anything new to say about this guy that hasn't already been said in my last post. I'm sure there have been a few tidbits about his character that have popped up in some trailers, but as far as I know nothing so far has changed my perception of him as your average Danganronpa protagonist (including Kokohead, from Rain Code). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - the protagonists of Kodaka's games tend to be some of the more inoffensive characters. And like with every protagonist (save probably Makoto because who cares about him) Im sure theres more to him than meets the eye - but I doubt that it'll fundamentally change his everyman personality he's got going on.

DARUMI AMEMIYA

She's like the mascot of the game for me. I've never seen a more Danganronpa-coded character in my life.

Like Takumi I think I nailed down my thoughts on Darumi pretty well in my first post - she's had a lot of early prominence in early trailers, so it was easier to get a feel for what she was like compared to some of the no-names in the cast.

That being said, as more information about her came out, she does strike me as a character that hides her much deeper issues behind a mask. She actively wants to die, and she wants to die in a spectacular way. My guess is that she's had a horrific life (who hasn't in these games), and her obsession with killing games is a coping mechanism. I expect that she might have a touch of suicidal ideation and maybe even self harm habits stemming from this, though I can't imagine whether or not the writers are capable of handing it well.

Guess we'll have to wait and see!

EITO AOTSUKI

Getting queerbaited by the man behind Danganronpa is like losing chess to a dog but man come on. "Takumi's most trusted ally"? Who do you think you're fooling

He's a nerd with little social skills but he has strong feelings about friendships. He's also apparently sickly, which explains why he was the same skin tone as copy paper. The only difference between my initial impression of him is that I expected him to be a lot more "cooler" - closer to Byakuya, but not as much as an asshole. However, his profile and quotes seems to lean to him being a far more earnest and awkward character than that.

And yes the gay sex scene still looms heavy over him but I still have no idea how to contextualize that with what we know about him. Maybe he really is freaky like that.

(it'd be funny if that scene is just not in the game at all and nobody behind the game ever acknowledges that it happened.)

HIRUKO SHIZUHARA

Apparently, she's the Leader of the Special Defense Unit, but I have no idea how that translates into the game itself. Is she Sirei's second in command (disregarding Nigou for a second)? She does have a domineering energy that would make her a good candidate for leadership, but like

Is she the one giving out commands in battle

is she actually the protagonist but exclusively in combat

maybe im overthinking this, im tired lol and reaching for new things to say

Besides that, she's a huge fan of violence and bloodshed, which is a character trait that is shared by like half the cast. You're not special girl get a new character trait.

TAKEMARU YAKUSHIJI

Yeah I was pretty much spot on, this guy is the delinquent with a heart of gold. I want to say though, he comes off as more hotblooded and harmless than Mondo for some reason. It's hard to explain, their archetypes are pretty much identical but Takemaru comes off as if he's putting more emphasis on the "defender of the weak" part right off the bat. Im basing this all on a few quotes the devs deliberately selected to give that impression, so who knows, maybe hes just as much of an antisocial jerk as Mondo was in his first few hours.

I will say that they're not beating "this is danganronpa but again" allegations with this guy.

KAKO TSUKUMO

She deserves to be in a better game.

Okay okay, I don't have much to add about her. She's meek and a bit spacy, traits I could have gathered from early trailers. She also wants to be a detective, because she's a fundamentally curious character.

I don't want to acknowledge the elephant in the room, but it does seem that she's... resentful about a certain relationship of hers. She gives me the impression that she wants to be independent, but a certain someone keeps dragging her back - and perhaps, her sense of genuine love and her naturally submissive personality keeps her from voicing her true feelings. I will expand a bit on my theories on the next section, where unfortunately I have to talk about-

IMA TSUKUMO

Im not sure what I was expecting

Okay so "siscon" is a very common trope in japanese media - you even see it in otherwise "good" media like Spy x Family. It's not necessarily "romantic" in nature, yes, but 9 times out of 10 it straddles the border between platonic and romantic so closely that at that point you might as well be playing the Coffin of Andy and Leyley.

In this case, it seems that their "relationship" is the way it is because of their very rough upbringing, with Ima becoming Kako's sole protector. By that line of reasoning, it's not a surprise that Ima would be so defensive over his sole sister, and why Kako, who has presumably been sheltered by Ima most of her life, would be so meek and curious.

That being said, nothing about how Ima has been written so far or Kodaka's previous track record inspires much confidence that this is going to be anything but a stock incest joke for 90 percent of their screentime, which is a shame. It could genuinely be an interesting storyline if it wasn't written by the Danganronpa creators.

Also worth pointing out that their character art has opposing angel and devil motifs. Make of that what you will but like I don't need him to have evil fucked up wings to gather that this guy is a creep.

TSUBASA KAWANA

She's like, normal. From what I've gathered, she's a perky, generally cheerful girl that doesn't do well under pressure. Her gimmick appears to be that she tends to throw up when she's put in a stressful situation, which I hope doesn't become a running gag that gets run to the ground.

Also, it looks like her talent with machines (who could have guessed), also has a gameplay purpose. She can upgrade character's weapons in the garage - which does make me wonder if other characters have a sort of additional gameplay mechanic that tie in with their talents, or is she just special in that regard.

Also she has a whole ass van as a weapon, which must suck for Takumi who just got a katana. Katanas are cool but not as cool when your classmates gets a freaking armored van.

SHOUMA GINZAKI

His title is literally "Waste of Space", LMAO

I speculated that he had a Chihiro-like personality, being meek, shy, and perhaps a literal self-deprecating. I was right, but he definitely leans way more into the self-deprecating angle. Sorta like Toko or Mikan, but with an outward personality skewing closer to Chihiro, if that makes sense. (Yes i know this is not a danganronpa game but these are the closest analogies i can make).

He might have gone some experimentation (judging from a screenshot of him on an operating table), something that perhaps heavily influenced his self esteem. Maybe the experiment went bad and left him looking like a kindergartener. I'd be pretty fucked up too if I got stuck looking like a smurf my whole life.

I suspect he's a closet nerd (specifically for Gundam), on account of his weapon being a fucking mech.

As an aside note, if we keep going with the danganronpa comparisons, it's funny how you can draw a line between the token cartoon character designs - from sex offender who everyone hates (Hifumi and Teruteru) to gnomes that hate themselves (Ryoma and this guy)

GAKU MARUKO

Fuckass bowl cut

I didnt mention this specifically in my first analysis (if you want to call it that), but I kinda took this guy for a "lovable" coward type. Think Hiro. This is pretty close to the true, except he like openly admits to not caring about anyone but himself. He's like very explicitly a selfish prick. He gives me the vibe of this very annoying character who nonetheless mellows out as you near the endgame. His bio does state that he is good at taking care of the people he has open his heart to, so it's not like he's a complete sociopath.

I have no idea what this means but I'm sticking with my "token pervert" theory. Nonzero chance that this guy is develops a creepy obsession with a girl that takes over 90 percent of his characterization (see Kazuichi Souda)

YUGAMU OMOKAGE

Certified freak.

He's got the same deal as Darumi, having a weird, almost fetishistic obsession with murder, but unlike Darumi, his stems from the fact that he's the heir to a family of hitmen. Not only does he enjoy murder, but he also enjoys torture - anything that inflicts pain, either on other people, or on himself. Grade A sadomasochist, a very Danganronpa-coded character.

His dialogue also very heavily implies that he desires Takumi carnally, in which case he would have to get in line behind Eito.

Apparently, he's also a fan of getting naked and streaking through the school. I genuinely don't know what to make of that.

KYOSHIKA MAGADORI

I expected her to be a more serious, stoic character, closer to a Peko or Maki, but turns out she's like, weird. She took becoming a samurai too seriously and now she had a third grade education and all the knowledge of swordsmanship and bushido that she could gather from anime. In other words, she's a grade A otaku, but she has no idea how technology works because she's as old fashioned as a samurai. In other words, she's like, closer to Gundham than she is to her fellow swordswoman Peko.

The other gimmick about her is that she has a very close relationship with her sword. And if you don't know what that means, then Kurara makes a joke in her character introduction trailer that Kyoshika uses her... ahem, as a sheath. So yeah. This sure is Danganronpa writing.

KURARA OOSUZUKI

I was off about her the most probably - I wouldn't really call her a chuunibyou anymore, she falls into the Rich Bitch Ojou-sama archetype except that for some godforsaken reason she wears a giant tomato on her head.

Honestly theres very little in her design that could have given me the impression, besides maybe the ruffled blouse you can kinda make out beneath her giant fucking mask. She's haughty and annoying, kinda like Byakuya except that I cant imagine she fulfills the same role as he does - in part because I imagine it would be really hard to take your rival antagonist seriously if she looks like that.

For some reason her weapon is a bejeweled shovel - i imagine everyones weapons have some sort of symbolism, but i couldnt imagine what shovels have to do with her.

MOKO MOJIRO

I don't have much else to add, I think her joyous whimsy was pretty evident in her character design from the moment i saw her. She does seem to be the type to overexert herself for some reason, given the fact that we see her reassuring Not Karua while laying on a bed.

Yuri.

NOZOMI KIRIFUJI

Here we are. I had a sneaking suspicion, but it looks like we finally have confirmation. "Nozomi" is not the game character as Karua (Takumi's childhood friend). These are definitely two different characters.

Right. Anyway,

I expected that this would be the twist. These games always have an amnesiac character, and this time around it's not the protagonist that's fallen victim to it. But is it really amnesia, or is she truly a different person? Or did Karua even exist at all? Is Nozomi the original?

Anyway, out of all the characters in the game, Nozomi stands out not just because of her similarity to Takumi's dead childhood friend. All the characters wear black uniforms when in battle EXCEPT her. When she transforms into combat mode, she doesn't shed blood like everyone else either - instead being bathed in blue light.

Why is that? Is she like a robot? Her uniform has robotic attachments that are absent in everyone else's uniform, so it's not a farfetched idea. But that's about as far as my theories go. Who she is, her relation to Karua, etc. I have no theories at the moment lmao. Kodaka has already pulled the clones and twin sisters twist before, and while nothing is stopping him from doing it again, I wonder if he came up with a new batshit plot twist. Maybe the real Karua were all the corpses we've made along the way.

Poor Takumi she does not fuck with him.

As a closing note, "Nozomi" as a name means hope. So make of that what you will.

#last defense academy #the hundred line #im a hater at heart sorry

24 notes · View notes

revoevokukil · 28 days ago

Text

Nietzschean Witchers: Beyond Master and Slave Morality in Crossroad of Ravens

For nicer reading experience, you can also find this piece on Blathan Caerme. Sign up to receive both archived essays (with new additions) and new pieces directly into your inbox.

◇ ◇ ◇

The vast majority of people who claim that rape and violence are disgusting and morally unacceptable to them are simply unable to use violence, even in self-defense, in defense of their loved ones - or when necessary. This is called: making a virtue out of weakness. – Vysogota of Corvo, Crossroad of Ravens

How very Nietzschean of you, Pan Andrze…khm, Vysogota of Corvo. In the chapter that follows, young Geralt kills the wizard Artamon of Asguth—both pre-emptively and in retribution. Crossroad of Ravens is the beginning of Geralt’s story of arriving at himself[^1], so let’s examine this preface.

The underlying assertions can be broken down into key claims:

Most people’s moral objections to violence and rape are not genuine moral positions.

Their morality is a psychological defence mechanism; a post-hoc rationalization.

Powerlessness—inability to engage in violence effectively—is being reframed as moral superiority.

True morality requires the capacity for action.

The preface seems to speak to Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of ‘slave morality’—the idea that the powerless (‘the slaves’, ‘the masses’, ‘the herd’) create moral systems that valorize their own condition, while resentfully condemning the behaviour and traits of the powerful. Their actions are fundamentally reactions. The powerful (‘the noble’, ‘the aristocrats’, ‘the strong’), meanwhile, act and define Good according to themselves, embracing their capacity for violence when needing to ‘dominate’[^2] or control others to achieve their ends, affirming their own self in their expressions of power—exhibiting ‘master morality’. Masters create morality, slaves respond to it.

Moral systems that the weak construct and live by are, essentially, for coping with their lot. Master morality originates in sentiment, slave morality in ressentiment, which in Nietzsche’s writings always has associations with revenge and with the inferior position of the person harbouring it. By making a virtue out of weakness, slave morality foregoes admitting that their weakness was in the beginning forced upon them by a master.

Crucially, both moralities are expressions of will to power in different forms. The master-slave axis is describing the nature of people’s moral deliberation when trying to ‘get what they want.’ Even the seeming rejection of power in slave morality is itself a power play—what Nietzsche calls ‘the tyranny of the weak’. ‘Slave morality’ emerges from a position of weakness, but its expression manifests the slaves’ particular will to power. They push for a metaphysical interpretation of the world that puts them in a position of power over life, and gives them means of becoming according to their nature, while making masters alike them as well.

Before seeing how young Geralt slots into this, let’s examine the quote again.

Critiquing the Quote

The vast majority of people who claim that rape and violence are disgusting and morally unacceptable to them are simply unable to use violence… in defense… when necessary.

This statement has several limitations:

It conflates, and ignores that there’s a difference between capability for defensive violence and inclination toward predatory violence.

It commits a genetic fallacy by suggesting that the origin of a moral belief (the alleged “weakness”) invalidates its legitimacy.

We could argue that moral revulsion toward rape and excessive violence served evolutionary functions in building cooperative societies. Hence these moral intuitions would not be merely rationalizations but adaptive traits, and legitimate.

It overlooks moral rejection of violence independent of capability.

Many capable of violence choose to reject it on genuine moral grounds.

Those who cannot fight back might still never choose violence even if they could.

It doesn’t address whether moral beliefs can be genuine even if untested.

Furthermore, if all violence is seen as equivalent[^3] then the stance, despite seeming critical of the status quo, can:

Serve the powerful by suggesting that everyone would abuse power if they had it.

Falsely equate the inability to be violent with the choice of not harming others (i.e. everyone’s a predator in disguise).

Diminish genuine moral choice.

The preface seems aimed at those who conflate all forms of force as equally wrong at all times, thus making themselves morally and practically defenceless against predators. It also alludes to the hypocrisy of servility; survival instinct necessitates self-defence.[^4] Therefore, I would argue it critiques self-deception (key to ressentiment), which doesn’t facilitate growth.

Systemic Critique

In Sapkowskian society, there are no fair judges nor honest bankers.[^5] Insofar as the Witcher follows the experiences of the marginalized, we never really see functional institutions or effective, just governance that lives up to its ideals. The self-satisfaction of the powerful with their deeds and ends is never portrayed as anything but suspicious at best and hypocritical, if not downright malicious, more often.

What appears as bias toward the marginalized perspective reflects a Nietzschean truth: while true masters reshape reality itself, almost no one achieves this level of will to power. We—the readers—find ourselves among everyone else: we cannot transcend the position of the herd. As Geralt, how we deliberate is set: we cannot help but interpret everything in terms of moral judgment, as almost everyone in the game of will to power. Because what are we supposed to do if we are not Jesus?

Fulko Artevelde cannot sound credible to someone like Geralt, because scapegoating is the standard result of the daily vilification Geralt experiences. Unsurprisingly, he deems institutional violence and corruption worse than individual criminality because the former corrupts the entire system meant to protect people. Incidentally, Fulko’s and Geralt’s exchange illuminates the system: institutions are another arena where morality expresses itself, and pure expression of either morality is unlikely (if not impossible).

At face value, Fulko’s zeal is about guaranteeing public safety: protect the weak! serve a higher cause than power! Markers of slave morality? Geralt, however, tears at this ‘protection’ as enabling abuse of power. He judges Law for morphing into a mere tool of domination and reveals the hypocrisy in claiming to protect while actually oppressing. This could be read as slave morality, or a clear-eyed exposure of how power actually operates—behind moral masks.

When society asserts its will through institutional displays of force, it cloaks the need for such force in terms of ‘slave morality’: appealing to order, justice, social good, general welfare. Appeals to its own power is not very good optics, after all. Then, when the marginal element does stand up for themselves, violating social values they themselves hold dear as safeguards against the abuse of power, it will seem like they are breaking the social contract.[^6] The institution has positioned itself as the defender of those values, despite actually being operated by people with master morality principles. Hence, if the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into engaging in moral judgements and coming to believe their actions are evil, then the strong respond with entrapment in kind. The marginalized who suddenly refuse to “turn the other cheek” are violating their own moral inclinations.

This, by and large, is what happens with Geralt, or any other vigilante, when they decide to take justice into their own hands.

Vysogota's cynicism then, exposes how slave morality itself becomes a tool of control: the very moral framework created by the weak to cope with powerlessness becomes weaponized by institutions to maintain their monopoly on violence. The system doesn't just condemn individual acts of resistance - it manipulates the moral instincts of the oppressed against themselves. When witchers or women consider violent self-defense, they must first overcome not just physical constraints but their own internalized moral frameworks that have been twisted to serve power. The 'weakness' Vysogota identifies isn't just an individual's inability to act—it's how moral values themselves become chains for the oppressed.

Between Master and Slave

In Crossroad of Ravens, until the critical shift at the very end, Geralt moves through the mentality of slave-morality which he inherits by belonging to the witcher caste. It’s part of his arriving at himself.

Despite his transhuman nature, Geralt:

struggles with his ‘defective’ nature because he doesn’t match an external ideal of the ‘perfect, emotionless witcher’;

defines his actions in terms of what he ‘should’ do rather than what he wants to do; questioning the right of the powerful to dominate;

empathises with the oppressed and continues to see himself as an outcast; accepting his lower social status despite physical capability;

values protection of weakness as the protection of Good.

In Nietzschean terms, Good is synonymous with ‘nobility’. ’The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, “what is harmful to me is harmful in itself”; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating.’ In judging according to his conscience and acting directly upon those judgments, Geralt actually embodies this sense of nobility - yet his social position ensures he will be punished for precisely these noble traits.

Consider the parallel with a wizard:

"…evidence," Artamon said. […] “I know who murdered Sergeant Margulies and the others. And I will not wait for the law to finally wake up. I will take matters in to my own hands.”

Artamon—one of the elite—behaves, in principle, just as Holt does, just as Geralt does upon encountering the rapist or learning of threats to his companions. All three men judge and act directly, taking matters into their own hands rather than waiting for external authority. The will to act—this noble trait—differs not at all between them. What differs are the consequences: Artamon is likely to face no legal repercussions. The system is made by and for the likes of him. For Geralt, exercising the same impulse leads to the gallows; pushing him toward the very ressentiment characteristic of slave morality.

The legitimacy of the governing bodies’ sole claim to the monopoly of violence rests in their wielding that violence impartially in service of social order (some form of relatively stable equilibrium). According to its social contract with us, we don’t randomly retaliate with (dis)proportionate violence to violations of various degrees by individuals and the law/state ensures we are not unduly violated. Should marginalized groups exercise defensive violence—by becoming vigilantes, for example—the system must punish them in order to avoid precedents of power residing elsewhere. Someone who takes matters into their own hands—according to their own arbitrary morals—sets themselves up as a challenger to power.

The question becomes more pressing when:

the challenger is a persona non grata;

the system is corrupt.

“Holt is a rat. And he deserves a rat's death.”

Witchers, by their nature, complicate the matter. A witcher possesses what Nietzsche would call ‘master’ traits:

Physical power

Willingness to act

Individual moral judgement

Initiative for direct action rather than appeal to higher authority

Socially, however, witchers are positioned as the oppressed outcasts. They have the physical capabilities of a ‘master’ but the social position of a ‘slave’. Especially in relation to wizards; originally created by them specifically as tools of violence for the powerful. Instead, witchers became a social welfare project. Consequently, they face social persecution for exercising their capacity for violence outside prescribed boundaries—specifically, for exercising their ‘master traits’ against ‘masters’.

Were a witcher in the service of a king, the king’s protection would make their acts of violence fall under different rules of legitimacy. They’d be an extension of the upper class instead of being a dangerously more capable extension of the lower class. Witchers, therefore, possess all physical/kinetic power but lack all social/potential power—the range of moral choices they can practically make is constrained by the “belonging” of their instrumental value.[^7]

Beyond Master and Slave

When Geralt kills Artamon, he acts from multiple motives: preventing harm to his companions, self-defence against promised visisection, and vengeance for Monstrum. At some point, he must realize that the line between justified protective violence and something else is ephemeral, and that he—a feeling witcher—is as capable of rationalizing violence as his opponents.

Young Geralt intuitively wishes to wield power in service of the powerless. Under Holt, he learns to make a virtue out of strategic submission, as the powerful do when they pretend to play by the rules of ‘slave morality’. He moves from naive use of power to making conscious choices about how to wield it, and when. When he finally rejects dominance from a position of strength, it comes from choice rather than necessity—he could ‘pull a Holt’ and pursue vengeance but chooses not to. Instead of continuing to react as a slave would, he consciously identifies with the oppressed while determining what is Good in his eyes inherently.

The way beyond the bind that neither succumbs to pure power nor remains trapped in moral judgement comes by way of actions born of love. When Geralt acts out of care, he transcends both master and slave moralities. Love, being its own cause and motive, offers a path to authentic expression of will to power that doesn’t depend on either domination or moral frameworks. This is where Geralt arrives at himself, simply being as he believes best.

In this way, young Geralt’s journey challenges Vysogota’s cynicism by demonstrating that moral choices about violence aren’t always about ability or inability, but about purpose and consequence. Developing his own warrior monk moral agency, he learns a hard lesson: what is good for the soul (pacifism) is not necessarily what the society sometimes needs, and what the society (force) sometimes needs is not necessarily good for the soul.

---

Footnotes

[^1]: …if one's metaphysical interpretation is of self-overcoming, how can one overcome that? Or maybe one simply arrives. [^2]: By ‘domination’ is meant something like: a genuinely powerful person will not encounter resistance (or it won’t matter). The strong get their way against the odds (e.g. Jesus got killed, still won). [^3]: If there is a difference between defensive and predatory violence, which violence, by how much, is justified, and when? When does defensive violence—ensuring another person cannot continue harming us—become excessive? What would restrain predatory violence pre-emptively? Plenty of empirical questions. [^4]: An aspiring autocrat could herein pivot into theorizing about levels of sustainable oppression. Thankfully, Ashby’s law gets most human despots. [^5]: If the banking cartel was not controlled by the dwarves that is; and even then… [^6]: It’s why Gandhi’s non-violent resistance is extraordinary for a Nietzschean. [^7]: How, then, does ‘slave morality’ manifest in complex power structures? When the physically powerful are socially oppressed, do they develop different moral frameworks than those who are both physically and socially weak? Do the physically powerful strive to become socially powerful and are a) co-opted by the status quo, b) defeat the powerful and become the new oppressors? Is there a difference between: making a virtue of weakness (slave morality); strategically choosing when to use strength (practical wisdom); using strength in service of the weak (vigilante path)?

#the witcher #witcher books #the witcher meta #the witcher essay #crossroad of ravens #andrzej sapkowski #geralt of rivia #philosophy #friedrich nietzsche #vysogota #witchers #wiedźmin #rozdroże kruków

15 notes · View notes

dykesynthezoid · 1 year ago

Text

Are your politics really that “radical” if you actively still refuse to deconstruct the hegemonic colonialist idea that “might makes right” and that violence is the only truly effective strategy for liberation. Like is it really

The more I start to prioritize non-violence in my politics the more I realize how many leftists who scream and shout about opposing colonialism, about bringing low existing hierarchy, about how much they hate this country etc, have actively not deconstructed some pretty fundamental colonialist ideas. Some pretty fundamentally American ideas, at that. They continue to center themselves in world politics. They continue to see violence as inherently “justified” (whatever that may mean) as long as it’s the “good guys” who are doing it. They continue to see “defense” as the same thing as violent offense. They continue to value the social control and power they can wield over others more than they do helping people. They continue to see the world in terms of domination and destruction rather than investing in ideas of reparation and renewal.

“What, so you think people can’t fight back? That’s just siding with the oppressor!”

I’d be interested to know where I said resistance is wrong. At this point I try not to even approach the idea of violent revolution with moral judgement, frankly. More and more I seek to remove the element of my own moral perceptions from these things (sometimes I succeed and sometimes I don’t. I’m only human). Besides, what would it matter for me, as a singular person, to think somebody’s actions are “wrong”? What weight does that actually carry?

What I can say is that, in practice, violence has consequences. In practice, it has a tendency to compound upon itself. In practice, spontaneous self-defense, and even organized community defense, looks very different than a hyper-organized, hierarchical, premeditated violent offense. In practice, the most vulnerable of any population are always the ones who pay the most consequences for violent action, even if that is not the intention. In practice, people use the chaos of violence to enact their own personal goals. In practice, you cannot trust that every person you resist with would not take advantage of that chaos to bolster themselves, to continue the cycle of one party dominating another. In practice, violence may not even be as effective as you actually think it is.

I’m tired of asking what is right and wrong. I’m tired of asking what is “justified” or, god forbid, (cue the Ursula K. Le Guin quote) “deserved.” Instead I consider what actually matters: what is harmful and what is helpful. Suffering is harmful. Violent oppression is harmful. I want to be helpful.

The questions that guide my activism now are:

What is the most effective?

How can I do the least harm?

How can I do the most good?

None of this implies that I think violence is never necessary, or even that I think violence cannot be a tool of resistance. What it does imply is that I take violence very, very seriously. And that I recognize its consequences, and I do not consider its use lightly.

(If you find yourself feeling instinctively angry or incensed by anything I’ve said here, I urge you to go back and reread the post, and this time make an earnest effort to find the best-faith possible reading, and balance that with your instinctive response. Ask yourself, is this post about OP giving their personal opinions about specific global events, or is it a much more broad indictment of leftism in the global north? Ask yourself, should I assume that because this person dislikes violence, that must mean they actually, for some reason, love it when the oppressor does it, and the only reason they didn’t discuss that here is definitely because they love the oppressor so much, and not for any other reason, such as being concise or specific and not trying to write an entire novel in a tumblr post?)

#nonviolence #us politics

3 notes · View notes

explosionshark · 2 years ago

Note

2, 17, 19 violence! for btvs xoxo

Oughh I went off the rails we're putting this behind a cut

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

Okay, well. Switch Fuffy Rights, actually. But also - I genuinely think the dynamic of Faith subbing for Buffy/Buffy dominating Faith packs the most punch bc I think it's so much of a Statement about their relationship. (Obligatory disclaimer about how discussing fictional sexual dynamics as narrative tools is different from talking about ppl having sex irl yada yada yada). Like - Buffy being someone who enjoys rough sex and likes being in control and whose 'darker' urges she spends so much time running away from/being shamed for being like accepted and valued and affirmed for these parts of her is incredibly important to me! Obviously I find this especially interesting to deal with in the context of Buffy also accepting her bisexuality but y'know! I think that's important if you're writing her with anyone. Fundamentally, Buffy is comfortable with her desire for intimacy but struggles with desiring non-conventional sex.

Faith is the inverse of that! It's pretty easy to link this back to the sexual abuse she's implied to have experienced as well as the physical childhood abuse she's implied to have experienced but Faith is a character that is driven by the need to 1) protect herself and 2) provide for herself. She approaches her relationships defensively! The kind of no-strings, casual sex with men we see her have is a result of that. She's comfortable with sex, but terrified of intimacy and true vulnerability. Also I do think she's straight up lying about some of her exploits.

So! If we're putting Faith in a relationship with Buffy where she feels safe to express trust, it's going to include submission. Buffy's attention is already something she deeply craves. And Buffy, we've seen, can only flourish in relationships where she has the freedom to not hold herself back for someone else's comfort. And especially given the rest of their history I think that type of power exchange is so compelling.

I mean, chances are you already knew this bc I wrote an 80k+ word manifesto about it but still

17. there should be more of this type of fic/art

Erotically charged scar-touching

19. you're mad/ashamed/horrified you actually kind of like...

Y'know I won't lie, I'm not immune to a bit of whump from time to time. Like, Buffy's trauma happens on screen over the course of 7 seasons. We get to see pretty much all of it. When it comes to Faith - this girl is CLEARLY the product of massive amounts of abuse and exploitation and much of it is hinted at, but it's never really explored. So I can appreciate it when a fic is willing to acknowledge the fact that she's a victim of multiple forms of abuse and to explore how those things impact her.

#thanks bud!!!#ask games #fuffy

19 notes · View notes

xhxhxhx · 5 years ago

Text

“The Only Real Exception”

After writing about the education-polarization thesis and the future of Europe and Asia, I was curious: Has Japan polarized? One of Thomas Piketty’s students studied the question. They came to a surprising answer.

As Western Europe and North America have become increasingly polarized around education and income, Japan has actually depolarized.

Western Europe and Japan started in different places. In Western Europe, the educated classes traditionally supported parties of the right. In postwar Japan, they supported parties of the left. They moved in different directions. In Western Europe, the educated moved left. In Japan, they moved right.

From Amory Gethin, “Cleavage structures and distributive politics”:

7.6 The end of ‘cultural politics’

One of the other specificities of Japanese electoral behaviour is the fact that higher educated individuals have continuously supported left-wing parties, especially during the twenty years following the end of World War II. The historical strength of education levels in predicting party choice in Japan is well-known: it reflects the freezing of the party system which had emerged in the context of the ‘cultural politics’ of the 1950s (Watanuki, 1991).

Even when controlling for the significant improvements in citizens’ education levels since the 1960s, this pattern has persisted for most of the second half of the twentieth century. In the 1960s, 65% of the 20% least educated voters supported the Liberal Democratic Party, against 41% of voters belonging to the top education decile (figure 7.3c). During recent years, however, these differences have decreased considerably, and popular vote for the LDP has oscillated between 40% and 45% for all education groups in 2009-2014. Looking more closely at intellectual elites confirms this evolution (figure 7.3d). In 1963-1967, top 10% educated voters were indeed less likely to support the LDP by about 15 percentage points (8 percentage points after controls). This figure remained broadly stable, staying between 5 and 10 percentage points during the 1963-1996 period. Starting in 2009, however, education lost significance, even when including controls. The decline of the Social Democratic Party during the 1990s and its replacement by the Democratic Party of Japan – which culminated by its victory in 2009 – therefore seems to coincide with the disappearance of what was one of the most fundamental political divisions of Japanese society. The fact that this dealignment was sudden and occurred at the same time as shifts in the structure of party politics suggests that this process is driven by top-down mechanisms rather than long-run evolutions in collective beliefs.

7.7 From a multiple elites party system to political indifferentiation?

Bringing these two dynamics together points to a trend which is the exact opposite of the one observed in most Western countries (figure 7.4). In the 1960s, intellectual and economic elites were clearly separated into two different groups. On the left of the political spectrum, university graduates were highly supportive of the Japanese Communist Party and the Japanese Socialist Party, who based their appeal more on liberal values than on class antagonisms. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democratic Party attracted both low income earners and business elites. Through its defense of organized capitalism, it created strong ties with top executives and industrial leaders who participated in developing Japan’s growth model. This structure of political competition suddenly ended in 2009, when the LDP was defeated for the first time.

While these figures suggest that Japan was originally a perfect example of a multiple elites party system, this characterisation should not be over-emphasised. Persistently strong levels of support for the party among low income earners demonstrates that the LDP has never favoured exclusively economic elites. As was highlighted above, part of its remarkable hegemony came from its ability to distribute equally the fruits of the country’s long periods of growth. The non-linearity of the relationship between income and electoral behaviour is, to some extent, an interesting representation of the Japanese social compromise, which came with its dominant-party system.

Piketty describes Japan as the exception to the education-polarization rule. From Capital and Ideology:

The only real exception to this general evolution of the structure of political cleavages within the electoral democracies of developed countries seems to concern Japan, which has never really experienced a party system of classist type comparable to those observed in European countries and Westerners during the post-war period. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power almost permanently in Japan since 1945. Historically, this almost hegemonic conservative party has achieved its best scores in the rural and agricultural world and among the urban bourgeoisie. The LDP thus succeeded in synthesizing between the economic and industrial elites and traditional Japan, around a project of reconstruction of the country, in a complex context marked by the American occupation and an anticommunism exacerbated by the Russian-Chinese proximity. Conversely, the Democratic Party (main opposition party) has generally achieved its best scores among modest and average urban employees and among the most highly qualified, who are willing to protest against the presence of the United States and the new moral and social order embodied by the LDP, but without succeeding in sustainably gathering an alternative majority8. More generally, the specific structure of the political conflict in Japan must be linked to the particular form taken by Japanese cleavages around nationalism and traditional values9.

8. See A. GETHIN, Cleavages Structures and Distributive Politics, op. cit., p. 89-100. See also K. MORI MCELWAIN, « Party System Institutionalization in Japan », in A. HICKEN, E. MARTINEZ KUHONTA, Party System Institutionalization in Asia, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 74-107.

9. In The Game of the Century [The Silent Cry] (1967), Kenzaburô Ôé magnificently evokes the complexity and the violence of the relations between the intellectual elites and the popular classes in Japan, in particular around the urban-rural divide, traditional values and the question of the modernization of the country since the beginning of the Meiji era (1868), without forgetting the role played by the geopolitical positioning of the archipelago, the relationship with the United States and the antagonisms aroused by the presence of Korean workers.

Perhaps Japan was a precociously modern society in the 1960s, with an educated left and a uneducated right. Or perhaps it was a “post-colonial” society, with a self-consciously anti-imperialist left.

The Japanese experience of the 1960s can certainly sound precociously modern. In Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood (1987), one working class student was put off by the 1960s educated left:

"You know, when I went to university I joined a folk-music club. I just wanted to sing songs. But the members were a load of frauds. I get goose-bumps just thinking about them. The first thing they tell you when you enter the club is you have to read Marx. ‘Read page so-and-so to such-and-such for next time.’ Somebody gave a lecture on how folk songs have to be deeply involved with society and the radical movement. So, what the hell, I went home and tried as hard as I could to read it, but I didn't understand a thing. It was worse than the subjunctive. I gave up after three pages. So I went to the next week's meeting like a good little scout and said I had read it, but I couldn't understand it. From that point on they treated me like an idiot.

“I had no critical awareness of the class struggle, they said, I was a social cripple. I mean, this was serious. And all because I said I couldn't understand a piece of writing. Don't you think they were terrible?"

"Uh-huh," I said.

"And their so-called discussions were terrible, too. Everybody would use big words and pretend they knew what was going on. But I would ask questions whenever I didn't understand something. "What is this imperialist exploitation stuff you're talking about? Is it connected somehow to the East India Company?' "Does smashing the educational-industrial complex mean we're not supposed to work for a company after we graduate?' And stuff like that. But nobody was willing to explain anything to me. Far from it -- they got really angry.

“Can you believe it?"

"Yeah, I can," I said.

"One guy yelled at me, "You stupid bitch, how do you live like that with nothing in your brain?' Well, that did it. I wasn't going to put up with that. OK, so I'm not so smart. I'm working class. But it's the working class that keeps the world running, and it's the working classes that get exploited. What kind of revolution is it that just throws out big words that working-class people can't understand? What kind of crap social revolution is that? I mean, I'd like to make the world a better place, too. If somebody's really being exploited, we've got to put a stop to it. That's what I believe, and that's why I ask questions.

“Am I right, or what?"

"You're right."

"So that's when it hit me. These guys are fakes. All they've got on their minds is impressing the new girls with the big words they're so proud of, while sticking their hands up their skirts. And when they graduate, they cut their hair short and march off to work for Mitsubishi or IBM or Fuji Bank. They marry pretty wives who've never read Marx and have kids they give fancy new names to that are enough to make you puke. Smash what educational-industrial complex? Don't make me laugh! And the new members were just as bad. They didn't understand a thing either, but they pretended to and they were laughing at me. After the meeting, they told me, "Don't be silly! So what if you don't understand? Just agree with everything they say.'"

[...]

"So then what happened with your club?"

"I left in June, I was so furious," Midori said. "Most of these student types are total frauds. They're scared to death somebody's gonna find out they don't know something. They all read the same books and they all spout the same slogans, and they love listening to John Coltrane and seeing Pasolini movies. You call that "revolution?"'

"Hey, don't ask me, I've never actually seen a revolution."

"Well, if that's revolution, you can stick it. They'd probably shoot me for putting umeboshi in my rice balls. They'd shoot you, too, for understanding the subjunctive."

"It could happen."

"Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I'm working class.”

But those dynamics changed. Today, Japan is about as polarized by education as France and the United States were in the 1970s and the United Kingdom was in the 1990s: the more educated and the less educated vote the same way.

I am still interested in whether Japan has depolarized at the level of opinion and policy. Under Shinzo Abe, the country has liberalized. It has more immigration and more women in the workforce. Perhaps that reflects the preferences of an increasingly educated population.

But it might be something else. The Liberal Democrats have a freedom of action that parties in competitive systems do not enjoy. In the United States, Democrats and Republicans must respond to changing preferences. In Japan, the Liberal Democrats can, more often than not, ignore them.

Perhaps Abe simply decided that cultural conservatism is not a winning program. But perhaps the country is changing beneath his feet.

#effortpost

22 notes · View notes

the-random-walk-blog · 5 years ago

Text

The Failure of US Foreign Policy Forever-Wars & Illusions of Victory

January 3rd 2020 will be remembered as the day that a tectonic shift in the dynamics of US and Middle Eastern politics occurred, forever changing the worlds view on American foreign policy, its moral standing on the world stage, as well as its intentions in the region and worldwide.

Since WWII, the self-adopted American role in world politics has been that of the global policeman, the bringer of “democracy”, and the “liberator” of what Washington deem to be oppressive regimes. The popular assumption within the walls Congress and the White House is, that the rest of the world needs what America has – a democratic political process, ideally in such a way that US commercial interests are met by the outcome, although these interests are often hidden behind a veil of the insistence on democracy and its benefit for the people of the target nation. The fatal flaw in this logic lies therein that an inherent lack of understanding of local culture, religion and social conventions has blinded US lawmakers from the underlying issues of the regions where such intervention and oftentimes blatant calls from regime change have been attempted.

This theme is a permanent feature of US foreign policy in every conflict that the US has become embroiled in, be it Korea and Vietnam, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and the perpetual obsession with destabilizing Iran. The source of all of these questionable policy decisions by Washington can be traced back to a simple notion – the American hubris of assuming that what America does and how it operates is the ideal model to be implemented in the rest of the world, regardless of fundamental religious and cultural differences in its target-nations. Whilst America enjoys a long and very colourful history of political intervention, the main ones that shall be focused on are the Middle Eastern conflicts, simply as these are the most obvious policy errors that the US have become engulfed in, whilst it must be said that the tentacles of the American foreign policy extend far beyond this region.

Whenever a stable and operating system is threatened or toppled, the inevitable result is the filling of that void with some form of chaos whilst society recalibrates its political and social compass, adjusting to the changing landscape of the country in question. Undoubtedly sometimes this can also bring about positive developments, although finding examples of this has proven to be more difficult than one would expect at first glance.

The notion of the American brand of democracy being the superior brand of this political ideology should be fundamentally questioned after exploring the US political process in closer detail, with the elections being decided by the electoral college (which is not necessarily representative of the true will of the people), whilst political decisions of a sitting president are largely dictated by who holds the majority in the Senate and House of Representatives. Could it perhaps even be considered undemocratic of a Republican dominated Senate to veto the majority of the president’s decisions, despite the fact that the majority of the population has voted to entrust this individual with the ruling power for the term of his or her time in office?

Different brands of democracy must surely be explored, as one size clearly does not fit all.

Libya

Whilst Colonel Ghaddafi certainly is a controversial figure, it must be said that Libya enjoyed long periods of economic and social stability under his rule, turning Libya into the most wealthy country in Africa largely due to the abundance of crude oil and natural gas. Whilst there is evidence to support cases of human rights abuses perpetrated under Ghaddafi’s leadership, when compared to the current situation that the world is witnessing there, the question must be asked which of these two outcomes was the lesser evil? Are the vast majority of Libyans better off now than they were prior to regime change?

The US-led interventionist campaign, which led to the overthrow of Ghaddafi and his government, left behind a gaping power void and social chaos, as the newly brought “freedom” that the US preached, led to widespread lawlessness, violence and tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the name of liberating this nation from their previous established and functioning government.

We must ask ourselves the fundamental question – if the US version of democracy is indeed the superior form of government as it is consistently preached to us, then why is the state of Libya in complete turmoil since so-called “democracy” was brought to its shores?

One reason for this is surely cultural, with tribal allegiances being of much greater importance in the Middle East than in Europe or the US, which is a fact that many outside actors do not understand. The transition of Libya from a state of relative stability and prosperity, the result that democracy has brought surely cannot be seen as the optimal outcome. Economic considerations must also be made when looking at the form of government that is prevalent in different nations.

Libya’s economy is fairly one dimensional, with the vast majority of the countries revenues being generated from the production and subsequent sale of crude oil and natural gas. In many countries where economics conditions are not based on a large number of factors, but come from a small number of income sources, dominant leaders tend to be in control. Is this because these individuals are power hungry and selfish figures, or because countries with less complex but extremely lucrative exports would not function properly if a “democratic” system was introduced?

Would Libya have reached the economic prosperity that it at one point had if the Senate or House of Representatives was permanently counteracting the decisions of the leadership? When comparing the developments since the US intervention in Libya, it is challenging to not arrive at the conclusion that the country as an economy, and the citizens of Libya were in fact better off under the rule of a strong, autocratic leader such a Ghadaffi, who had sufficient power to ensure that the delicate social fabric and one-dimensional economic inputs led to a favorable outcome for the majority of citizens in Libya.

On this train of thought, it is possible to venture down the path of saying that the way Ghadaffi ruled, was in fact by some definition a democratic style, as his decisions resulted in a favorable outcome for the vast majority of the citizens of Libya.

Libya pre and post US invasion:

Afghanistan

The US campaign in Afghanistan began in 2001 and has not ended until this day. The narrative for invading Afghanistan was that the Al-Qaeda members responsible for the attack on September 11 had been trained and harboured by the Taliban. The fact that the majority of the perpetrators in the attack were actually from Saudi Arabia (whilst none were Iranian, Iraqi or Afghan) was largely ignored by the Bush administration, mainly due to the relationship between Saudi and the US in defense contracts as well as their strategic partnership aimed at exerting US influence over the Shiia majority population of the neighboring nations such as Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

To get an understanding of the duration of the Afghan military campaign, many of the US troops currently in Afghanistan, would only just have been born at the time that the invasion initially took place.

18 years of war after the initial landing of troops in Afghanistan, the US has slowly come to the concerning conclusion that this is a war that was in no way won by Washington, as the Taliban reemerge as the preeminent political party. The US campaign has cost the taxpayer over $1 trillion, as well as countless casualties on both sides, and has yielded no result whatsoever, except the killing of Osama bin Laden (although this occurred in Pakistan). For all intents and purposes, the political fabric of Afghanistan now is very similar as it was in 2001 prior to the invasion.

Syria

Syria’s secular, internationally recognized government under Assad refused to allow an oil and gas pipeline, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to traverse its territory upwards towards the European market. For its defiance, Syria paid a heavy price, as the Obama administration began deploying money, weapons and arms to a jihadist concoction made up of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Daesh invaders, in the hope that this would destabilize Syria to the point of surrender, and turn it into a defacto Saudi & US subservient state.

The brutal battles that were to ensue are well documented, with the rise of Daesh and extremist factions enslaving the local population and bringing tyranny to the entire region, as well as being directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians. The primary resistance to the Daesh insurgency came from Iran and neighbouring Iraq (through its army and affiliated armed groups), with the support of Hezbollah-aligned groups that united in the battle against this extremist savagery.

With the US attempt to bring “democracy” to Syria, what they produced was the most ruthless and inhumane terrorist group in living memory. The sheer existence of groups such as Daesh and Al-Nusra were only possible through the direct and indirect support of Washington and Israel, as the regional instability gave both of those nations the power they so dearly crave in the Middle East, with their presence being justified under the guise of protecting the local population.

Although Daesh pushed forward all the way to Baghdad, the resolve and commitment of the local Iraqis and their supporters succeeded in overpowering the Daesh terrorists through enormous personal sacrifices, as armed Shiia groups pushed Daesh out of Iraq, followed by Syria. Assad remains in power, whilst the US slowly withdraw from this battleground. The massacres of Aleppo, Mosul, Kobane and countless other cities that were in the hands of Daesh should serve as a reminder of the consequences of destabilizing a functioning government, no matter if you agree with their philosophy or not.

Syria pre and post US invasion:

Iraq

The removal of Saddam Hussein from the leadership of Iraq marks another tragic chapter in Middle Eastern and US political history. From what is now clear, the invasion of Iraq was based on entirely fabricated evidence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction, as a means of furthering US commercial and political interests in the region, as Iraq was viewed as a threat to US influence in the region. As one of the countries with the largest populations, an abundance of natural resources such as crude oil and natural gas, coupled with a large army that was built up during Saddams rule, Iraq became a natural target for US intervention.

The unwillingness of Saddam to cave to US demands further added an incentive for the US to provoke a confrontation, as history has shown that this is generally the outcome when a country refuses to comply with American demands, no matter how illogical some of these sometimes are.

A general environment in the US of Muslim-phobia coupled with an enormous anti Middle Eastern marketing push by the US administrations, assisted in convincing the majority of Congress of the very ill-informed decision to proceed with military action against Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam had never actually threatened the US with an attack. The landing of American troops on the shores of Iraq marked the beginning of a long period of chaos, as US forces swept through the country, removed Saddam from power and implemented their caretaker government whilst they figured out what to do with this situation that they had created.

Under Saddam there were strict rules in Iraq as to what information was shown on television, what opinions were tolerated and how people were to behave, none of which sounds particularly appealing, but also lead to a certain sense of order. The American invasion brought what the US pitched as “freedom” to the Iraqi people. Freedom from a leader who was undoubtedly oppressive, but this new-found freedom also seemed to include the assumption that no rules applied any longer, and a general state of lawlessness ensued. Rules were no longer abided by, weapons were freely available to the population, and the country was plunged into a state of disarray yet again.

The purported weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration claimed were the basis for the invasion were never found, even with over 100’000 US soldiers being present in Iraq during this time. The fact that the reason for invading Iraq in the first place turned out to be a complete lie has been largely dismissed by the Presidents that have been in power since Bush, and no accountability for the untold destruction that has been caused by the US is in sight. The notion that when the US intervene it is called “bringing democracy”, whilst when other nations behave the same way it is deemed to be terrorism.

Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Some would say the above definition and what the US forces have done in Iraq enjoy a certain amount of overlap.

Baghdad -2000

Baghdad - 2004

Mosul

Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran has for a long period of time now held the prize as the country that the US despises the most in the entire region. The reason for this is quite simple, in that it is mainly based on the Iranians standing their ground, and not giving in to American demands, whilst pushing back against hostile and destabilizing behavior of Israel in the Middle East.

Iran is simply too big, and has too much internal social cohesion for the US to be able to overthrow the government. As the Iranian Foreign Minister so eloquently phrased it, “beautiful military equipment doesn’t rule the world, people rule the world. The US needs to wake up to the reality that the people of this region are enraged, that the people of this region want the United States out”

The hostile environment between the US and Iran can largely be attributed to the influence of the Israelis, as the fire of anti-Iran sentiment is consistently stoked by Netanyahu’s rhetoric, always preaching the impending destruction of Israel at the hands of Iran. The reality is a little different – Iran will defend itself if attacked, but has a very long history of not actually attacking anyone. A point that is generally ignored by western media, is the role that Iran and particularly General Qassem Soleimani played in the defeat of Daesh, and driving back the terrorists until their entire dismantling, virtually ending their rule of terror in the region.

Without Iran and General Soleimani, the entire region would currently be in an even more extreme state of chaos, and assuming that most of Iraq and Syria would now be Daesh territory is not a stretch by any means. The extreme sacrifices of the Iraqi’s and Iranians fighting against Daesh receives too little recognition, as can be seen by the IRGC and General Soleimani being labelled “terrorists” by the United States, when the reality is that the bulk of the fighting against Daesh, the real terrorists, was done by these individuals. The result of opposing the US hegemony was tragically displayed in the first week of January 2020 in Baghdad, as General Soleimani was assassinated by an unprovoked US airstrike whilst on an official invitation of the Iraqi government, in the midst of peace negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What reason would the US possibly have for assassinating the man that is largely regarded as a hero in his region, defeated Daesh, and is trying to promote regional stability and peace through an improvement of relations with Saudi? And is it realistic that 7 million people in Tehran turn up to the funeral of someone they consider a terrorist?

Perhaps the reason is that the US does not want stability in this region, and that the chaos is what they seek in pursuit of a very warped and misinformed political agenda. No US president in recent history has visited Iran. How can so much hatred be harboured for a country that the President has never seen with his own eyes, and has not threatened the United States or perpetrated any terrorist attacks?

Iran is the kryptonite that America never expected it would be. The people of Iran are united in their loyalty both to their people and country, and refuse to be bullied by the American war machine.

Funeral of General Soleimani, Tehran

Endgame

No other country in the world has anything remotely like the B-2 bombers that flew bombing runs over Libya from a base in Missouri.

Nor does anyone else have a fleet of 500 aerial refueling tankers that can keep the B-2 and other warplanes airborne for many hours.

Nor does anyone have the amphibious ready groups, the overhead reconnaissance assets, or the inventory of smart munitions employed by the US military. Even the V-22 Osprey "tilt- rotor" aircraft used to rescue a downed American pilot is unique - no other country has tried to build one, much less field a sizable force of them.

The world has never seen a military force like the one America operates today.

But is it all affordable for a country that is seeing its share of global wealth steadily decline, a country that doesn't want to raise taxes despite a $1.5 trillion deficit?

Is an army of such incredible capability really necessary when you say your form of government is the superior model, or does the US form of government only work because of the sheer fire power of the army, so that anyone who doesn’t agree has to watch their cities being pulverized by the most complex and powerful weaponry in the world?

The US have spent $7 trillion fighting wars in the Middle East, and thousands of US soldiers have lost their lives, for a purpose that does not seem worthy of sacrificing a human life for, namely political and economic influence in a region that does not welcome an outside presence like the US.

Is the United States a safer place because of the intervention in the Middle East, when you consider that none of the countries that have been invaded have ever threatened the United States with an attack?

The fact is, the only terrorist attack that has happened on US soil, was perpetrated by citizens of Saudi Arabia, a country which has not been invaded, and is by far the largest buyer of US weaponry, whilst the rest of the region burns.

Perhaps the time has come for the US to turn their focus on their own domestic issues, and allow the rest of the world to discover its own form of democracy, with each country selecting the version of this concept that works the best for themselves.

“No man is good enough to govern another man, without the others consent”

Abraham Lincoln

3 notes · View notes

light-of-being · 5 years ago

Text

a very fkin long and incomplete exposition of my flaws as a human being

I've not really spoken about the probably most consequential event in my recent life (the ending of a long term relationship), and that's because I haven't really thought about it very much. At least, not in a clear-headed space not entirely filled with rage, fear, or initially, longing. So, I've mostly just been waiting for the intensity of those responses to wear out before I can go back and make sense of things in a sorta 'safe' way.

(These days it's mostly anger and/or hurt. Sometimes twinges of hatred, but those fizzle quickly. I know that attitude isn't 'true'. I tried to hate him, I really did. Things would be so much simpler that way — an obvious villain of pure evil, a mistake worthy of contempt. Put him behind me as someone I regret meeting and consider everything only as a flashing warning sign of what to avoid next time. But real life never is that easy, is it.)

Regardless, reading about miscellaneous psychological ~stuff, I realised that I know for sure now that there are sides of me that only come out in a close relationship, as they postulate. It's unfortunate that my exposure to this was only in such a toxic environment, and I'm not sure if or when closeness has any chance of happening again.

I suspect, based on what I have/haven't felt with him vs others, that I can (at least at this stage of my development) only really feel 'seen' by an antisocial/narcissist/schizoid (or something in that general direction), just hope to god it's a mature one next time. I might want to interrogate and possibly change that fact, I'm not sure it's at all a healthily arrived preference. But...

there is a degree of normalcy and social belonging in others that becomes a wall

I can relate superficially, cognitively and even 'deeply personally' (tho is all y'all's deeply personal shit necessarily relational?), have a good time and even feel 'connection' but there are parts that seem simply insurmountable.

The lack of relating to many things is the unifying factor between me and the specified groups: the shared experience of not having shared experiences

But yet, a more acute awareness of superficiality, and the drives and mechanics of human interactions, attitudes, identity and constructs, not taken for granted as default but built from the ground up (Most often out of either necessity or a desire to manipulate them, but still).

Actually, most straightforwardly, the shared experience of experiencing oneself as an outsider to society — whether people personally, accepted norms or expected attitudes towards self and other.*

Anyway, that was a whole semi-tangent I went off on (useful and relevant to the initial thought but not the point I was planning on).

Important point was...ah yes, insights!

...into how I behave under genuine relational circumstances. Due to aforementioned toxicity, I'm not sure how generalisable they are to relationships overall, but they should generalise to feeling-states.

(a) Fear. Defensiveness.

Switches off my brain. Obvious? No. I have been actively strategic while having a gun pointed at me. I thought I had that down. Turns out, I cannot dissociate myself out of an argument most of the time.

Turns out, just the fact or even prospect of arguing activates panic and brain goes out the window. Which is really fucking stupid as an occurrence because how many of these could be prevented with a bit of mindfulness and thoughtful responding. But getting emotions to chill out for long enough to do that is tough.

(b) I am a stubborn dumbass. Kid me argued until they were attacked so harshly that they absolutely could not continue. The alternative presented was to just keep silent, one I did not then and do not now accept. Discussion where both parties partake in good faith have generally been fruitful, only neither of these situations were that. Both involved one person trying to dominate at all costs. To which I suppose keeping silent for the moment and then running tf away is an appropriate response. Idk. I'm not sure if this is a 'normal situation' to which I respond unhealthily, or an 'abnormal situation' in which you just do your best to survive. Arguments are normal. Idk if other people have a less aggressive approach that is less outright terrifying, in which I can modulate, but it does seem like people want to prove you wrong and get angry, which I perceive as aggression.

Which brings me to boundaries. Can I shut things down when I'm overwhelmed. In the present case, the answer was no. They both didn't stop and the fact that I asked for this was interpreted as admission of defeat.Oftentimes, getting out of the situation was more of an ordeal than dealing with it. [We stayed at a hotel the one time and he did things that made me very uncomfortable (in like a “things that I shudder at thinking about even now” kind of way; not sexual btw which this has made it sound). I thought I was as clear as I could’ve been by saying, “I’m going to legit have a breakdown if you keep doing that” but apparently it came across as a joke (gotta improve on communication as well). He stopped and apologised when he realised I was crying, but later blamed me for not being more assertive and laughed at my ‘exaggerated’ response and “meltdown”. At this point I wanted to leave and go home, but he withheld [my copy of] the key. He insisted and manipulated and coerced for discussion, said I could have the key if I “really wanted it, but do I actually want that”, until it was just easier to give in. The helplessness and feeling trapped of that evening haunts me to this day, and I want to be very sure to never be in any situation where that is even a possibility again no matter what.]

I need to get better at knowing what is and isn't okay and being strong enough to enforce that.

(a) Attachment is a bitch. Utterly unfamiliar sensation, one I don't know my way around at all. The rarity of relation makes it seem so fucking precious, so fucking necessary to protect even to my detriment and his. Dare I tip the boat or will it sink. Should I be the dancing monkey to keep it from sinking. Should he.

(b) The feeling of giving a damn what someone thinks of me is also foreign and difficult. It also seems hella intensified by virtue of not existing elsewhere. Disapproval feels devastating. Criticism becomes attack. Everything feels like a continuous effort to establish worth. I'd imagined acceptance could be taken for granted, but I questioned it the whole way (obviously doesn't help when he demands changes).

(c) I have trouble distinguishing between personal issues and insecurities and legitimate reason to be upset. I think this is typical. But with trial and error, one can probably pick up on what you carry with you across differing people and circumstances. I don't have that data. I have nothing to compare against. I also suspect some parts of this is him treating legitimate reasons as being my distorted perceptions, which I'm pretty sure did happen for a few things that I believe are 'objectively' shitty.

I trust. Too. Fucking. Much. I take shit at face value. This is very often dumb and...bad in literally every sense, but I don’t yet know how to identify preemptively when that's the case. I also fail to be adequately 'suspicious' I guess to be alert to minor inconsistencies later on. Lies are especially devastating. I built my reality around you using that fundamental premise. Now you tell me it was false all along. Where does that leave me? I go back to substitute and nothing makes sense. I don't know if the initial statement was a lie or the claim that it's false was. I don't know if everything I remember is just distorted somehow. I don't know what to do. (aside: gaslighting? I’m inclined to say “effectively, yes”. The best explanation I have is that for many things he rewrote the narrative in his own mind and does not remember the things that blatantly contradict it. For other things, I cannot see that being possible and am forced to think it’s just pure lies). All of this could have been prevented if I accounted for people being dishonest.

(a) I lose sympathy. Genuinely did not ever expect this to happen. Enough hurt, enough deception and I stop trying to understand why. I assume malice. I expect malice in future interactions and misread situations as a result. In the beginning I made fucktons of effort to be understanding of things far from my typical range (hello, admissions of past violence and present homicidal ideation. Hello, talking someone out of real intention of ruining a person's life over a minor slight). Honestly, I think I overreached. Some of these things were not things I should have tolerated, accepted even. When I started walking on eggshells to not have him ruin my life, too, that was probably when I should've gotten out. He claimed that the people he cares about are exceptions. That's probably true, otherwise I would currently be in a ton of shit. But at some point I did stop believing it.

(b) I don't really think that most of the things that happened were malicious. Some, he admits, were. But mostly he wasn't out with the intention to hurt me, but he also didn't make the effort...not to. Even with me repeatedly complaining about things, he was defensive or dismissive, considering me talking about an issue to be me creating issues in his life. This is super shitty, his damage is caused by a stubborn ego fixation and sheer passivity, thoughtlessness (he has agreed to all of this in our final conversation), but it isn't exactly intentionally malicious. If he genuinely didn't believe there was a problem, that is an issue, and the fact that he utterly failed until the end to even consider the possibility of a valid complaint, is a very real flaw. He is bad insofar as "he is lazy and incompetent at being good". Which I can understand but nevertheless protect myself from. Ideally, sooner. At the point where I start feeling like someone is being shitty more often than not, something needs to happen. A discussion, a reconsideration, a run-as-fast-as-you-can... Something.

Idk. This isn't everything. But yeah.

* These 3 PDs are often used in illustrating the idea of pathologising difference: few of the criteria are about subjective distress and many about extrinsic value judgements of what a person should be like (lol, my clinical psych final had an essay question on this). I don't necessarily agree but it does speak to a shared thread of...something. That said, this characterisation is tbh still too broad for my liking. Importantly, it is definitively applicable to autistic people but I do not in general relate to that in the same way. Some specific manifestations of it, yes, but I have seen far too many excessively... 'human' autistic people to include the whole category. There are probably folks in the PD categories who are also like that but I think much less common.

#personal #emotions #reflections #relationships #personality disorder #possible tw abuse idk #if you're actually interested in reading probably best to do so tomorrow #not sure why I'm posting now in the first place #will reblog when I update #also needs links those are important

6 notes · View notes

queernuck · 5 years ago

Text

The Tragedy of Humboldt and The Injustice of Tragedy

The tragedy of the Humboldt Broncos is one that is widely known in the hockey world, is a sort of moment that endures more than any other similar tragedy in part because of its magnitude, because of the way in which it is so singular, such an event beyond itself. Indeed, it appears as an event akin to Baudrillard’s concept of 9/11, one that all but excuses any sins on behalf of the Broncos and mythologizes the team, captures them eternally such that they have achieved a status unimaginable for a junior team in their position. A junior team revered by the pros, by the Hockey Hall of Fame, a hockey team out of time. There is little doubting that the story of the Broncos is tragic, but the sentencing of Jaskirat Sidhu is part of what magnifies exactly goes into the cultural baggage surrounding such a tragedy, and how it informs structures of carceral justice along with their ideological basis, along with the means by which hockey culture is structured, repeated, and spread.

The shock of the Broncos was magnified by the fact that they were travelling to a playoff game, that so many of the victims were so young, they looked like other hockey players, they had the same shade of bleach-blonde hair as part of a tradition many young hockey players follow where they bleach their hair during the playoffs. One of the most emblematic photos from the post-crash scene was a snapped DVD of Slap Shot, a movie that itself is emblematic of the culture of hockey. R-rated, with risqué and frankly dated humor, the comedic structure of the film still holds up rather well, especially when taken with the performance of actors like Paul Newman and the roughness of hockey culture more generally. When pictures of the victims began to come out, the sense of tragedy was only magnified by just how familiar they seemed, how it brought in that recognition of the hockey world as a whole, hockey families, ones who knew the experience of travelling state to state town to town province to province in order to have a shot at, one day, making the pros. The familiarity of this lead to an act of remembrance that was echoed across the hockey world, the leaving out of a hockey stick, to symbolize a stick left out in case any of the boys wanted to grab one and play some shinny.

To again refer to Baudrillard and his media analysis, as well as Deleuzian concepts of the event, this was a moment of automotive violence, of bodies colliding with one another in a new singularity, and this was one such arrangement. Sidhu recognized this as well, as part of the trial process he never asked for a plea bargain, levied no defense, and was willing to accept a maximum sentence because of his guilt over the accident, how he felt after killing 29 despite it being in no small part a fault beyond him, a fault that resulted from the situation he was in. As the editorial in the National Post that I refer to points out, he had merely five days of training and three weeks of driving, only one driving on his own, before the day of the crash. The same day, he had needed a farmer’s help to tow his rig out of soft mud he had been mired in while checking his GPS, having to rely on the farmer’s help after the trucking company he was working for ignored his calls. The tarp covering his load had come loose earlier in the day, requiring an adjustment that had come undone a second time, distracting him as he drove into the intersection where his truck crashed into the Broncos’ bus. The very same intersection has since been improved dramatically, in recognition of both this crash and a previous fatal accident at that very same intersection. A combination of lax regulations in Saskatchewan effectively combined such that an inexperienced driver could meet the Broncos’ bus in such a tragic fashion.

The trial, which eventually gave Sidhu 8 years in prison as a punishment, was marked by 90 different victim statements, many of them scathing and directed at Sidhu on behalf of the Broncos. So much is captured by the tragedy of the Broncos, and this is yet another part of this: the ease of constructing narratives in the case of "victim impact" statements involves playing off of disparities between the prosecution and the convicted, the way in which structures of culpability and liability are conceived of, and the way in which the symbolic weight of a tragedy becomes something beyond itself, including the problems of ableism and white supremacy in the narratives of hockey as a sport. There is no accident that sled hockey is often considered lesser, is considered a secondary sport and moreover is dominated by narratives around the Team USA sled hockey team and the proliferations of veterans on the team: the way that disabled bodies are only acceptable, only considered worthwhile if they have been deployed in service of empire. Accomodations for disability are not seen as worthwhile specifically because bodies are understood as incomplete, and while that consideration is being extended in part to members of the team left disabled, the way that it is conditional, that it is in part reserving a kind of ability-to-appear, becoming-disabled being conditional on tragedy in some sense involves a pessimism that implies the very structure of hockey culture itself: the way it values keeping the appearance of an intact body, the way in which it values perseverance through injury above all else as part of dedication to the team.

In another sense, the way in which it represented an act of singular violence against not only a team, but a white team at that, lead to the impact of such an accident specifically as one interrelated with hockey. There was a sense where the sport itself suffered a loss with the Broncos, and this was in turn repeated through continuous invocation of the Broncos’ memory. The notion of the team has been used to talk about so many things directly in relation to hockey, a refusal to branch out beyond the sport, the way that hockey culture as a whole is seen as dominating certain hegemonies, Canadian identity, and how the means by which Sidhu could be understood as an “Other” rather than an unlucky indictment of a wider array of conditions placed onto a singular person. The punishment, effectively, is merely additive to what is already clear, that it must be placed on the individual in order to avoid recognizing the structure.

The same has been more widely true in hockey culture recently, with the means by which the firing of Mike Babcock has revealed a wide range of racist, homophobic, and otherwise revolting harassment that extends down to Junior teams, that is pervasive through the sport, that shapes the ideology of teams like the Broncos and the teams that players will eventually go on to play in, at every single level. When looking to the idea of victim statements, as mentioned in the editorial, their steering of justice is fundamentally reactionary because of the way in which it is linked to “Victim Advocacy” not as a genuine framework of advocating for those most victimized by violence, but rather as a kind of enhancing of already-present violence in the legal system, as a kind extrajudicial recapture of attitudes around how victimization must be understood, and moreover how it must be punished. Carceral violence is the only means through which it can be doled out, is the only way that one can meaningfully affect a close in the disparity between the victimized and the victimizer.

Of course, things are rarely that simple, and the means by which the judicial system uses structures of convenience in order to then decide exactly what kind of justice can be meted out by such a system. The focus of the editorial in question points to much more reckless acts receiving far less dramatic sentences, that far more intentionally violent acts have been given less violence in a judicial sense. However, the means by which this combined a specific series of evocations of certain values, certain ideological fetishes in order to create the kind of denied-individuality as well as the critical reversal into the individual necessary for the creation of the hockey player.

The continuation of the tragedy into such an event, the way in which this tragedy is arguably continued by the heavy-handed response, the way that an entire apparatus of justice and carceral retention is symbolized (not to mention the close relationship of many hockey players to such apparatuses due to whiteness) through this tragedy makes it such that, when the lives of these players, the victims of the accident, the driver who was woefully unprepared but still pressed into driving by the demands of capital, and how these demands were enacted upon a busful of teenagers, how the dangers of travel were made clear through them, the way they were themselves victimized by a kind of cultural arrangement beyond themselves just as thousands upon thousands of hockey players are, with very few representatives ever made to answer for it, and those chosen often chosen out of convenience.

#humboldtstrong #humboldt broncos

2 notes · View notes

maddmuses · 5 years ago

Text

Takeshi Shoryuu // Dragon Fist

(fc: Mutou Ryuuji)

Age: 16-17 (Second year to main cast's first year, can play other ages)

Class: 2-A

Aliases: The Karateka Hero

Date of Birth: 12/25

Ethnicity: ¾ Japanese, ¼ Caucasian (Russian)

Nationality: Japanese National

Hometown: Kyoto, Japan

Appearance A tall and stoutly-built young man, Takeshi's obviously Japanese, though his non-Asian ascent is somewhat betrayed by his height and size. Often compared to his mother in appearance, Takeshi is large-chested with long arms and legs, suiting him well to martial arts like karate, which tend to allocate advantage to fighters who have a superior reach. Typically Takeshi styles his hair backwards, giving it a windswept appearance, though it primarily serves the function of keeping stray strands out of his eyes.

Generally Takeshi wears either comfortable clothing such as sweats and sneakers, his hero costume, or his karate gi. He rarely deviates from this general look, excepting when he wears the U.A. Uniform. Generally, when wearing his uniform, he'll eschew the jacket, or wear it cape-style, with an untied necktie, and the two top and bottom buttons generally undone.

With an impressive physicality and a generally scowling face, Takeshi strikes an intimidating figure, and will often rely on this looming presence to bully others into doing what he wants, or giving him what he needs.

Personality To call Takeshi ill-tempered would be generous. While as a small child he was kind and altruistic, wanting to be a hero to help others, emotional abuse by his father and mixed messages taught through a combination of martial arts training and continued berating by his parent caused Takeshi to become jaded with the idea of being kind, believing that the strong are right by merit of their strength. This results in a young man who enjoys the thrill of fighting and defeating others more than anything else. Quick to lash out and attack others physically, this resulted in Takeshi getting cut from the U-A students roster before even taking a practical examination the first time.

Ultimately a thrill seeker, Takeshi is displeased with easy tasks and fights, often attempting to handicap himself in combat where he has a blatant advantage either through his quirk, or superior fighting ability. Desiring to make fights last longer this, aside from his short temper and generally bad attitude towards violence, are key attributes that the academy wishes to teach him out of.

Takeshi is not the type to allow his feelings to go unheard, and will often express them in an upfront and blunt manner. Often in the form of yelling. Additionally, he tends to speak in a very masculine fashion, favoring whatever words make him come off as tough and/or macho, particularly the affirmative response of “Ossu”. Takeshi is also very loud, projecting his voice through the room, so that all others can hear.

In terms of style, Takeshi had always respected Gran Torino the most, a favorite hero of his father and grandfather, which as a toddler had prompted the boy to initially begin wanting to become a hero, despite his parent's wishes against this, to the point of even barring him from entering the family's dojo to train. It's because of this feeling of disapproval from his parents that Takeshi has largely latched onto his grandfather instead, despite the opinion that the old man is something of a doddering fool who changed his own name for the sake of dojo branding.

Hard working and dedicated, Takeshi trains in his marital arts and quirk daily, keeping his physical state at its peak so as to amplify the end result when working in tandem with a quirk. However, his behavior otherwise might lead others to believe him lazy, as most of his training occurs in the morning, prompting him to use the rest of the day to lounge about campus, eat junk food, and read comics.

When interacting with his juniors, either younger students or less experienced martial artists, Takeshi is generally very stern. Those who are weak are usually not worth his time, unless they have some pragmatism about it, or are just extremely pathetic (in his mind). The latter two are the types that he's known to have a soft spot for, protecting them and helping them learn how to become strong. Once someone is his protege, Takeshi regards them as his personal project, and will not tolerate others hurting them. At the same time, he will exert “mentorly discipline” towards these same proteges if they're being coky, or a brat, that usually ends in physical sparring.

Biography Takeshi Shoryuu was born in Berlin, Germany, while his mother and father were abroad for work-related business. As his parent's company had them working in Germany at that time, he was born abroad, but was made a Japanese national due to his father's native citizenship. Spending less than a year in Germany, Takeshi and family eventually returned to Japan to be with the rest of the Shoryuu family, as there wasn't much of a desire on the part of Takeshi's mother to spend time with her family.

Takeshi grew up in Kyoto, where Takeshi's grandfather ran a dojo for his own style called Shoryuu, which he changed his family's name to in order to correlate with the branding scheme of his business. During his formative years Takeshi would spend a lot of time with his grandfather, eventually helping him grow to still have a very close relationship with the old man, even after his being excommunicated from the family. It was during this time that he spent with the old man that he would decide that he too wanted to learn martial arts, and fight crime like their shared favorite pro hero Gran Torino, to whom Takeshi had been exposed through old footage of him defeating villains and rescuing civilians.

At the age of four, at preschool, Takeshi had attempted to intervene in a fight where two older boys (roughly seven years old) were picking on one of his classmates. Attempting to defend the girl who was being attacked, Takeshi was soundly beaten by the boys who possessed quirks, only somewhat protected from lasting injury thanks to the rubbery nature of his body that his mother's quirk had passed down to him as a mutation. When he was sent home for fighting, Takeshi had assumed he'd be praised by his father for such heroic behavior. After all, what father wouldn't be proud of his son for protecting others, even if they lost.

This wasn't the case.

Rather than proud, Takeshi was given a verbal berating that he'd never received before. He had charged headfirst into a fight that wasn't any of his business, and couldn't even make a difference, as he still lost! In Fudo Shoryuu's opinion, weak brats like his son had no purpose trying to defend others when they couldn't defend themselves.

Intent on proving his father wrong, Takeshi would get into more fights at school, initially fighting bullies, but eventually just fighting other students, especially after his quirk had manifested. Fudo, Takeshi's father, saw this as an indicator that not only had the selection of a wife to produce a strong quirk wasn't successful, as Takeshi didn't seem able to amplify force like himself but only redirect it, but his son wasn't even a suitable inheritor to the Shoryuu style, one that was traditionally passed directly from father to son, or to the owner of the style's students.

At the age of ten, Takeshi was allowed to start training in karate, but not at the family dojo, something that would explicitly be a privilege of his younger brother, a much more discerning young man who seemed to have a stronger quirk that would allow him to, someday, dominate the world of martial arts. Instead, Takeshi would be referred to a friend of his grandfather at the Tekken-do dojo, under sensei Toru Demura. It would take him only a few years to reach the rank of 1-dan, picking up the skills that fundamentally indicated a proficiency in karate. By the age of 17, Takeshi had already been promoted to 3-dan, as a second-year at U.A.

Regularly during this time Takeshi would attend training camps and tournaments for others styles, learning and implementing the components of those styles that he respected and valued among them. He would implement the mentalities and methods of these others styles into his primary style's kata, becoming a rather extreme mixed-style threat.

During Takeshi's initial application for U.A. Student candidacy, Takeshi had been removed from the list of those under consideration due to attacking another student when sufficiently antagonized (intentionally breaking his leg during the practical exam). However, thanks to the removal of the entire class 1-A of that year by Aizawa, Takeshi, and 19 other students, were reconsidered and promoted based on either borderline passing grades, or several cases of dismissal to applicants who would have otherwise passed. The condition for Takeshi's enrollment being regular anger management classes with the school psychiatrist, in addition to his normal courseload.

Abilities and Skills -Physical Conditioning: Takeshi works to make his body as close to its peak performance as possible, particularly in regards to physical strength and toughness, as those are directly enhanced by his quirk in a factoral fashion. Due to his size and muscle mass, Takeshi's base level of speed isn't considered to be as impressive as other U.A. Students without the enhancement of his quirk.

-Karate: Through Tekken-do, a style of karate that shares many kata with goju-ryu and a mentality of kyoukushin, Takesshi is considered highly proficient in karate. Though, he considers himself a student of all styles, Takeshi will often implement what works, and discard what becomes unnecessary. As a karateka Takeshi is able to fight efficiently, while also throwing explosive attacks that can put down foes who aren't sufficiently cautious. He'll often use defensive or counter-oriented kata with his quirk to turn a foe's power on each other immediately, or throw his most destructive techniques paired with his quirk in order to put down an opponent quickly.

-Tactical Acumen: As a karateka, and through years of using his martial arts in fights, Takeshi has developed a strong sense for tactics and strategy, knowing how to take down his foes using creative methods and surprising flips on a situation that one might not anticipate. Particularly, in regards to Takeshi's quirk, he's learned to absorb kinetic force from sources that one might not expect, as an example the drag of the wind against his skin, as a means to quickly generate and enhance more force for his attacks.

-Willpower: Takeshi's quirk relies largely on the exertion of willpower to maintain and control as much kinetic energy as his body is able to handle, as one normally wouldn't be able to mentally control and handle the amount of force that he's been able to hold, even if they could physically. Generally, Takeshi's will is strong enough to the point that if it comes down to it, usually his body will quit before he will.

-Keen Reflexes: Through training, fighting, and meditation, Takeshi's reflexes are extremely honed. He is able to anticipate opponents and object's trajectory, and react to them accordingly. This is even to the point that he can notice incoming debris, and utilize his quirk to effectively absorb the generated force of each piece with near perfect timing.

-Polyglot: German, Russian, Japanese, some English.

Superhuman Powers and Abilities Quirk Name: Bouncy Boi (Romanized: Bouncingu Boyoh!) -Body Cell Elasticity: The muscles, bones, and organs, of Takeshi's body possess an unnatural degree of elasticity that has an unmeasured degree of tensile strength. This reduces incoming blunt force's effect on Takeshi to a significant degree, as well as allowing him to utilize his body as a means of storing energy for the purpose of his quirk's other functions. As Takeshi uses his quirk and becomes injured, his body does grow stronger, and able to negate more of the backlash of his quirk's other functions. -Kinetic Energy Absorption and Manipulation: When Takeshi's body is exposed to kinetic forces and energy it absorbs that energy, storing it in his particularly elastic body, and is able to store or redirect it at his discretion. Takeshi is only able to retain energy in his body through physical movement, with the energy stored rapidly deteriorating if he stands still. Takeshi often mitigates this by keeping at least one part of his body moving at all times, though observers can tell just how much energy he's holding by how violently that part or parts moves. This absorption is cumulative, and is only dispersed when Takeshi directs the force in a way that doesn't insert it back into his body. More energy is more difficult to control. This in combination with his elastic body allows Takeshi to bounce, effectively hyper-bouncing by way of retaining more energy than he expends through bouncing, budgeting it correctly to become a steadily more and more deadly projectile. Generally, when bouncing, hard and stiff materials are best for Takeshi to control his trajectory and rebounds, softer materials and ground result in reduced precision. In order for Takeshi to absorb kinetic energy he has to be aware of the object's collision with his body before it actually occurs, making him susceptible to sneak attack. -Kinetic Energy Amplification and Negation: Takeshi is able to negate incoming impact force to his body to a great degree, reducing its effect on his body, so that he may more precisely budget the energy gained, allowing his bounces to largely be easier to control. Additionally, when Takeshi bounces, punches, kicks, or otherwise exerts kinetic impact upon a target, he may add stored energy to that attack, increasing its destructive power. This may result in physical backlash on his body, though to a reduced degree due to his rubber-like body.

(Special Attack)Pinball Style: Less an attack and more a means of movement, Takeshi developed this technique so as to maximize his close-quarters combat. Through control of his trajectory, Takeshi rapidly bounces between walls, floors, furniture, and basically anything he can collide with, to generate a massive amount of momentum and kinetic energy. This serves the purpose of both making Takeshi progressively harder to predict and catch, while also rapidly generating a great amount of easy-to-control kinetic force for him to attack with in either a flurry, or as part of one massive attack.

(Special Attack)Mega-Bounce: A type of leap, either lead into with several smaller bounces or by tapping his feet, and, snapping his fingers, or whatever other means Takeshi can think of to quickly generate a lot of energy. Takeshi can then take one massive leap, equating to roughly 300 feet of air from his leaping point.

(Special Attack)Rebound Strike: A technique that Takeshi often uses with a cold start kinetically, he generally will throw an attack preliminarily against a wall, structure, or even bounce it off of himself to quickly get a burst of attacking power. Takeshi can also use this to top off his stores of kinetic power when throwing any other punch, particularly those that are part of a combo.

(Special Attack)Double Rebound Strike: An advanced application of the Rebound Strike, Takeshi bounces off of a first target, and quickly spins to strike another, or the same, target, using the force of the strike from his first punch to enhance the second.

(Special Attack)Perfect Guard: A type of technique that Takeshi developed when learning to use his quirk, Takeshi learned he can largely negate incoming force's effect on him, as if he's timing a guard perfectly in a fighting game. Generally Takeshi uses this when he wants to maintain his momentum during bounce chains, but also to completely negate heavy-hitter's attacks. This technique requires perfect timing for Takeshi to manage precisely, making it dangerous to rely on as a defensive tactic. However, when used correctly, it's guessed that Takeshi could withstand an All Might level attack.

(Special Attack)Full-Stop: By bringing himself to a full stop for more than a second, Takeshi's body begins to exude a powerful heat that can be harmful to those who touch him, causing second-degree burns when he's stored enough. This power runs the risk of Takeshi's muscles more than his quirk's standard usage, though.

Weaknesses and Limitations -Control: There's no cap to the amount of kinetic energy Takeshi can store. While this allows him to perform great feats with his quirk, particularly when he grows more proficient in its use, it also means Takeshi has to try his best to aim an amount of raw force that most normal humans aren't accustomed to handling, making it difficult to properly control his bounces, attacks, or much of any movement, when he retains too much force. -Physical Backlash: When force leaves Takeshi's body, the natural degree of damage for a human who throws a punch, kick, or leaps, with that amount of force is inflicted on him. While this mitigates to a large degree thanks to his body's composition, Takeshi can still take cumulative damage when firing a large number of high-power attacks, or stores too much energy for too long, or otherwise throws hits that are too heavy for him to take at the moment. -Edge: Any type of attack that pierces flesh or cuts it is largely exempt from Takeshi's quirk, and can hurt him accordingly.

Equipment and Support Gear -Bulletproof Gi: A standard karate gi made from a high-durability fabric weave that's designed to reduce the cutting and piercing power of bullets and knives. As it's size appropriate for Takeshi, it doesn't cover every part of his body, and notably doesn't protect his head, hands, forearms, chest (at times), or feet. However, like most kevlar-style meshes, a normal human trying to stab a knife isn't going to have much success the first few times, and the fibers are able to block incoming bullets in an area once or twice, reliably.

-Rubber-Sole Shoes: Sneakers made from a unique sort of rubber that mimics Takeshi's quirk, in regards to its ability to allow incoming force to pass directly through it, to Takeshi's soles, without absorbing too much of the impact itself.

-Force Reader: A watch-like device mounted on Takeshi's wrist, when activated it can roughly estimate how much force his body is currently holding, but tracking it as it circulates through his body. Through pre-programed settings in the device, its read-out will also change color from green, to yellow, to red, to indicate to Takeshi how much trouble he'll have controlling his current level of energy. Green means very easy, yellow means difficult to approaching his limit, red means at or above his limit.

Logbook Stats

Power: 4.5/5 B+ (6/5 S at Takeshi's maximum capacity)

Speed: 3/5 C (6/5 S+ at Takeshi's maximum capacity)

Technique: 5/5 A

Intelligence: 1/5 F+

Cooperativeness: 1/5 F-

#It's Time To Have Some Fun!! (Takeshi Shoryuu)

1 note · View note

sol1056 · 7 years ago

Text

the most handsome slash nicest guy of the bunch

I was chatting with @ptw30 (as one does, when procrastinating on adulting) about how each season of VLD has given us different pairing-bait for Allura. But if the EPs’ hints (and what seems like a growing assumption in fandom) is that the story’s headed towards allurance, that’s pushing a message that’s... not really good.

Let’s review.

S1 was totally shallura bait, all over the place. S2 continued this to a lesser degree, but it was still a regular note.

I know how you feel, but you have to step away for a while. It's what's best for everyone.

S2 made various attempts at kallura bait, and really... fell pretty flat. Both the hug-in-space and hug-in-hangar were animated as rather physically-awkward interactions, which didn’t help. Then again, having two halves of a potential pairing on opposite sides of a significant racial conflict is gonna make it tough.

Well, sure, they're bad. No doubt about that. But at the same time, couldn't at least a few of them be fighting for good? ... It just seems crazy to lump everyone together.

Especially when one-half’s defense basically amounts to #NotAllGalra.

S3/S4 was chock full of allurance bait, all the way up to Lance’s impassioned speech inspiring Allura to magic them all out of the Naxzela explosion pokey.

This belongs to you now. If I had to lose Blue to someone, I'm glad it was you.

And then there’s S5, most of which was dominated by equal parts lotura bait and Lance Being Annoyed. Lance’s characterization regressed to shades of who he was in S1, and make it clear exactly what kind of character he really is.

He’s a Nice Guy.

Behind the cut: behold the evidence, minor salt at VA commentary, and two relationships that stand in contrast.

Lance’s Nice Guy Behavior

In S1/S2, Lance’s flirting is both inappropriate and pervasive, and he continues long after it’s clear that Allura neither welcomes nor enjoys his attention. She’s not even drawn ambiguously; her facial reactions make it clear.

Talking? Eating? Are you asking me out on a date?

Note that the narrative undercuts her agency. She reacts with disgust (and Hunk shows a kind of tired disapproval), but the rest of the casts’ lines treat it as a joke. Her reactions are the punchline. It’s soon clear that one time Shiro smacked Lance down for the inappropriate come-on was the exception, not the rule.

It’s not even “just not that into you,” so much as “does not enjoy being treated like a sexual/romantic object in situations entirely unrelated to that.” And with one exception (when Lance lucks on suggesting the one thing that Allura might actually want to do), her reaction doesn’t change. It’s there from the start.

The way she’s animated is almost as consistent as her irritation.

Once into S3/S4, one could argue that Lance had finally realized a friendship had more value. He stopped flirting and started treating Allura with respect, listening as a friend, and recognizing her value and skills.

Until Lotor shows up.

Lance’s opening reaction could be from distrusting Lotor as an enemy...

Look, it’s Prince Lotor, just hangin’ out on the bridge.

...but he quickly moves into distrusting Lotor as competition.

Lotor: ...you and I, a royal alliance between Altean and Galra... Lance: How ‘bout we don’t imagine that?

Lotor’s line could be seen as a thinly-veiled marriage proposition, but there’s wiggle room to take his words at face-value as simply suggesting an alliance. Notably, Allura shows no major reaction, let alone anything near the negative reactions she had for Lance’s flirting.

We get reminders all season that this isn’t a one-time thing. Lance does it over, and over. He’s jealous when Allura responds favorably to Lotor’s compliments.

He’s territorial when Allura and Lotor leave without him, attempting to follow even though the invitation was explicitly only to Allura.

The next shot shows what prompted this reaction: Allura has taken Lotor’s arm. Allura is not animated as particularly physically-demonstrative; most of her touches (except for Coran) tend to be at the shoulders. This specific arm-touch characterizes Allura and Lotor as two people used to formal interactions, and kind of old-fashioned.

The problem is the ambiguity in the framing. I can’t shake the sense it’s meant to ‘reveal’ why Lance reacted badly, and make us sympathize with Lance’s unhappiness at seeing ‘his’ girl off with someone else.

And then we have Lance stressing over Allura to the exclusion of all else, while the team’s busy trying to fix the ship and save their lives.

What’s happening? What do you think they’re doing now?

I’ve seen arguments this is meant to show he’s just, like, really worried. The narrative undercuts that, though, because Lance is the only one expressing these worries. The others could’ve acknowledged his words, and made it clear that Lance is just saying much louder what everyone else feels. But they’re not only blasé, they’re downright annoyed with Lance to the point that Pidge demands for Shiro to get Lance out of their faces.

Canonically, we’ve seen nothing to establish that Lance has an exclusive position vis-a-vis Allura. She’s only extended as much friendship to him as she has to anyone else on the team, yet Lance takes that as grounds to scowl, sulk, and obsess.

This is what Nice Guys do.

To paraphrase an article otherwise not worth quoting, rom-coms teach us ‘the one’ is usually the one who was there all along. (The same article also concluded that “when you get on well already, sometimes all it takes is time (or possibly alcohol) for you to see someone in a new light” and now I think I need to go break something to get over this wave of revulsion.)

two relationships in contrast

Of course, I can’t mention all of the above without pointing out that in-canon, we have two other characters who’ve done it right: Shiro and Lotor.

Shiro's respectful of Allura’s knowledge and authority, not only frequently asking her opinion, but then following her orders. He has his own opinion and voices it, but he does so without dismissing Allura's. He worries but is proactive (he'll go with her, instead), and he doesn't get in her way when she makes her own choice.

When Allura insists she’s part of things and will play a role, the rest of the team is a bit taken aback. Not Shiro. His lack of refusal indicates he sees her position as valid.

Allura: I'm a part of this fight against Zarkon as much as anyone. I'm going. Does anyone have a problem with that? Shiro: Fine. Suit up.

An awful lot of media would have you believe it’s a valid counter-point to say since she’s pretty and a princess, by definition she’s not suited to joining the charge. Shiro doesn’t bother. (Interestingly, the only one who gets sent anywhere alone in S1 is Keith, and there’s an argument to be made that Shiro’s pre-existing knowledge of Keith’s abilities mean Shiro has a greater comfort zone for that.)

Or in short: Shiro is a Good Man.

Meanwhile, Lotor is clearly framed as the ‘bad boy’ -- from his actual position as the son of the Big Bad, to his smooth appearance (that hair), to his accent that codes as ‘high class’ to Americans. If Shiro is the stalwart quasi-military guy who opens doors for women but respects their position in the chain of command, Lotor is the quintessential rebellious rich boy (and even turns out to have a mushy center).

Yet Lotor consistently shows respect for Allura’s agency and perspective, always checking with her first, rather than presuming. He asks for consent, rather than plowing right past Allura’s dis/comfort.

He’s deferent when it’s her area of authority, openly credits her, and seeks her opinion. The few times Lotor gets snappish, it’s usually related to his parents, and Allura shows every sign of realizing the distinction. With no flirtation in play, there’s little reason to see him as having romantic ulterior motives. Sure, he may have other motives, but I’d have a hard time making an argument that Lotor sees Allura as a purely romantic object.

Lotor may be ‘the bad boy’ in this paradigm, but if you look at the way he -- like Shiro -- treats Allura, he’s not a boy, either. Like Shiro, Lotor is also fundamentally a Good Man.

a dash of VA-related salt

For the most part, I’ve rarely had reason to side-eye Josh Keaton’s interviews, but the recent one where he said something to the effect of Shiro shuts down Lance’s jokes (euphemism for ‘unwelcome flirtation’) because Shiro’s jealous he can’t make those jokes himself...

Cue reaction gif.

Really? We’re talking about a character who insists on persistent attention of a romantic nature, with no regard for the recipient's clear disinterest or obvious discomfort.

We have a name for this: sexual harassment.

Yet Josh thinks the only character who ever speaks up to shut that shit down is doing so because he’s of the ‘if you can’t, I can’t’ school of reasoning?

Josh, wtf, over. Uncool.

There are a lot of places where @dynared and I will bang heads in our interpretations, but somewhere he commented that fandom might be surprised at how the writers aren’t nearly as progressive as some fans would like to think. (Or that the EPs would like us to believe.)

There are smaller examples of that: Keith pulling a #NotAllGalra, or Lance paraphrasing right-wing tripe as “Galra-on-Galra violence”. Or the way early S3 demotes Allura, or makes her fearful, self-doubting, and incompetent. Lance is the biggest case, though: if the end-game is really allurance, that’s like an entire series of positioning the Nice Guy to eventually win his prize.

In a word, that’s disgusting.

If they couldn’t manage a romance subplot without falling into such corrosive tropes, personally I would’ve preferred romance be left out altogether.

#voltron legendary defender #characterization #meta #analysis #come for the sugar stay for the salt #vld #voltron

390 notes · View notes

philosopherking1887 · 7 years ago

Text

Philosophy in “Infinity War” Part I: Thanos vs. Ultron

As promised, I’m going to start talking about some of the philosophical issues raised in Avengers: Infinity War, and this first one gives me an opportunity to discuss something I’ve meant to for a while: why I find Ultron so interesting. Spoilers and long discussion are under the cut.

We find out in IW that Thanos wants to kill half of the living things in the universe because of his views about overpopulation and scarcity, which align with those of Thomas Malthus: that populations will always tend to expand beyond the means of society to provide for them, resulting in poverty, disease, and conflict. Malthus, of course, never proposed mass murder as a way to prevent these terrible outcomes, though he did think that famine and war, as the natural consequences of overpopulation, were God’s and/or nature’s way of correcting the problem -- and of (futilely) cautioning humanity against reproducing beyond its means. We also find out that Thanos arrived at these views based on harsh experience: his home planet, Titan, experienced ecological catastrophe as a result of overpopulation. Thanos warned his people as the catastrophe approached and proposed his solution -- random culling of the population -- but he was, of course, dismissed as a madman. He now lives (sometimes) on the lifeless, desert-like ruins of Titan, applies his solution to planets that he thinks are reproducing beyond their means -- including Gamora’s home planet -- and seeks the Infinity Stones so that he can apply it to the universe as a whole.

It seems obvious to me -- and should be obvious to him -- that this is only a temporary solution. He claims that the standard of living on Gamora’s home planet improved dramatically after he halved its population; but if that’s the case, then unless Thanos was also distributing free birth control and family planning education, people would just take advantage of their new prosperity to have more children. Maybe with all the Infinity Stones in the Gauntlet, he envisioned himself or one of his disciples doing The Snap every few centuries?

I’ve seen some commentary suggesting that Thanos’s outlook is only comprehensible or even remotely sympathetic from a very pro-capitalist standpoint which ignores the fact that capitalism generates artificial scarcity. There’s certainly something to that criticism; “Malthusian” views are usually dismissed in the same breath as “social Darwinism” as artifacts of 19th-century and/or mid-20th-century elitist, racist, greed-driven ideology. I think there’s a reason Titan’s demise was depicted as an ecological catastrophe, considering the looming threat of climate change. Burning fossil fuels was a major part of how humanity harnessed the energy resources to be able to overcome natural scarcity, and now it’s biting us in the ass. That said, the technological advances that were enabled by the burning of fossil fuels for energy would probably enable us to stop burning fossil fuels if not for vested financial interests. And since population growth declines dramatically as societies become better educated and have more gender equality, it seems like it should be possible to stabilize a planet’s population so that it never exceeds the ecosystem’s ability to sustain it without resorting to mass murder. So yes, Thanos’s perspective and imagination seem extremely limited, and he’s drawing the wrong lesson from what happened to Titan. I guess he’s just really pessimistic about any society’s ability to overcome greed and education inequality...?

Thanos’s philosophical reasons for supporting mass murder of course call to mind another villain with philosophical reasons for mass murder (indeed, specicide, if that’s a word): Ultron. Predictably, I think Ultron makes much better points than Thanos does because they’re founded on observations about human nature rather than speculation about economic necessity. From looking at all of recorded human history, Ultron concludes that humanity has no moral right to exist because human beings have always, everywhere, been horrible to each other. If we solved all the scarcity problems that motivate Thanos, that would probably cut down on violence, but it would not eliminate it. I’m not at all sure that it’s possible to civilize human beings to the point that violence, small-scale or large-scale, never happens. That’s why Ultron says that humanity “needs to evolve”: human nature would have to change fundamentally in order to prevent the horrors that have littered human history.

Of course there’s a moral question here: is it morally right to eliminate a kind of being whose existence is, on the whole, an evil, or does it incur rights simply in virtue of existing? Pretty clearly, Ultron (like Thanos) is making a utilitarian calculation: cause a moderate amount of suffering in the short term in order to prevent a greater amount of suffering over the long term. But is that an acceptable trade-off, when those who enjoy the benefits are not the same as those who bear the costs? This issue -- consequentialist vs. deontological (i.e., rights-based, rule-based) ethics -- is the same one that’s explored in Watchmen, where Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias represents consequentialism and Rorschach (Mr. Black and White) represents deontology. In the MCU, Tony seems to represent the consequentialist perspective while Steve represents the deontologist; this is especially clear in IW with all that “we don’t trade lives” stuff (which I’ll have to discuss in more detail later). I myself don’t come down on either side all the time; I think it depends on the scale of decision-making. When you’re in a position of authority over large numbers of people, you’re going to have to make some consequentialist calculations; but in small-scale interpersonal interactions, you should operate like a deontologist. Tony thinks on the large scale and in the long term; Steve treats everything like an interpersonal interaction. But even on the large scale, there are times when consequentialist calculations lead to (what seem to us like) horrific conclusions. Tony has a human moral compass that allows him to avoid those; Ultron represents Tony’s consequentialist instincts writ large, with no human emotions to keep them in check. But there’s another question here: are our emotions a moral correcting mechanism, or do they impair our judgment? Would machines actually be better moral reasoners than human beings?

Ultron’s conclusion also raises a couple of interesting issues from a specifically Nietzschean perspective: one (meta)ethical and one metaphysical. (I’m not sure whether it’s a coincidence that Ultron quotes Nietzsche: “Like the man said, ‘Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger.’”) The (meta)ethical issue (I’m calling it that because it doesn’t fit cleanly into either normative ethics or metaethics as practiced in contemporary philosophy, which is clearly a limitation of contemporary philosophy) is the one that motivates Nietzsche’s main philosophical project: If the (Christian-descended) morality of compassion and altruism -- a morality that says that suffering and domination are the most terrible things, constituting an argument against the existence of anything that perpetuates them -- leads us to the conclusion that humanity, or life in general, ought not to exist, then why should we buy into the morality of compassion? One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens -- which, in English, translates to: one person who sees that a set of premises leads to a conclusion will just accept the conclusion; but another, finding the conclusion unacceptable, will instead reject one of the premises. Ultron, it seems, does not know how to reject the premise of the morality of compassion -- and that is almost certainly because it’s part of what Tony and Bruce programmed into him. His purpose was to protect human beings from suffering and domination by preventing alien invasion; the assumption that violence, war, and conquest are bad is fundamental to his very existence. Put in the facts of human history -- which make the prospects for an end to these things seem very dim -- and consequentialist reasoning rules, and you get the conclusion he in fact comes to.

Vision seems to express a quasi-Nietzschean attitude in his conversation with Ultron toward the end: “Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites, and try to control what won’t be. But there is grace in their failings. ... A thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts.” It’s interesting to me that Vision uses aesthetic terms in defense of humanity rather than moral ones. That’s another theme you find throughout Nietzsche’s writings. In The Birth of Tragedy (1872) he claims (under the influence of Wagner), “it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified”; by The Gay Science (1882), he has retreated to “As an aesthetic phenomenon existence is still bearable for us.” The world is not and cannot be good by the standards of the morality of compassion; suffering and exploitation are woven into its very fabric. The same is very likely true of humanity (and Nietzsche also thinks we wouldn’t like the result if humanity ever became entirely “good” in that sense...). If we judge them only by the standards of morality, they will always fall short; we must conclude that they are, on the whole, bad things, things that should not be. But humanity and existence can still be aesthetically interesting, even beautiful, in their mix of good and evil, smart and stupid, order and chaos.

The metaphysical question is: in what sense does the replacement of carbon-based human animals by robots count as an “evolution” of humanity rather than simply its extinction and the ascendance of something completely different? The movie encourages us to think about inheritance and legacy in nonstandard ways, most obviously by framing Ultron as Tony’s “child”: Ultron has learned some things from Tony and inherited some things from him via programming -- and we are now accustomed to thinking of genetics as a kind of natural “programming.” Tony even calls Ultron “Junior” and says “You’re going to break your old man’s heart.” By extension, then, AI is the “child” of humanity in general, its “brainchild” -- an expression that reflects how common procreation and childbirth metaphors are in talk of intellectual creativity (that’s all over the place in Nietzsche’s writing, btw). But the extreme difference between biological humanity and its AI “descendants” highlights a distinctively Nietzschean theme: the idea that success, for a species, is not a matter of its persistence in the same form, but of its “self-overcoming” (that’s an ideal that comes up a lot, for individuals as well as cultures and species). Often this means that the majority will have to perish, while only an unusual few survive: the mutants, the evolutionary vanguard (LOL, there’s another Marvel franchise...), the ones who are better adapted to changing conditions rather than the old environment that the species had previously been adapted for. The successor species might look very different from its progenitor species, even unrecognizable, but the former is still the legacy of the latter. What’s important is the survival of a lineage rather than the persistence of a type.

#avengers infinity war spoilers #infinity war spoilers #infinity war discussion #thanos in infinity war #thanos #ultron #thanos vs. ultron #thanos and ultron #avengers age of ultron #age of ultron discussion #age of ultron #aou #nietzsche #mcu #consequentialism vs. deontology #consequentialism #deontology

69 notes · View notes

pope-francis-quotes · 6 years ago

Photo

12th November >> (@zenitenglish) #PopeFrancis #Pope Francis Urges Church to Promote Peace, Environment, Human Life. Letter on Launch of ‘Sciences of Peace’ Course at Pontifical Lateran University

Education And Youth

Here is a ZENIT translation of the Letter that the Holy Father Francis sent to the Chancellor of the Pontifical Lateran University, H.E. Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, on the occasion of the opening of the Academic Year and of the institution of the new course of studies in the “Sciences of Peace.”

* * *

The Holy Father’s Letter

To The Venerable Brother

Lord Cardinal Angelo De Donatis

Chancellor of the Pontifical Lateran University

1. The desire for peace, which rises from the human family, has always seen the Church spend herself in making every effort to contribute to liberate men and women from the tragedies of war and to alleviate its dangerous consequences. Also in the present time, in which the need increases to prevent and resolve conflicts, the Church feels challenged, in the light of the Gospel, to inspire and support every initiative that ensures the different Peoples and Countries a path of peace, fruit of that genuine dialogue capable of extinguishing hatred, of abandoning egoisms and self-references, of overcoming desires for power and of oppression of the weakest and the least.

This attempt implies first of all an educational effort of listening and understanding, but also of knowledge and study of the patrimony of values, notions, and instruments capable of breaking down tendencies to isolation, to closure and to the logic of power, which are bearers of violence and destructions. Means of conciliation, forms of justice of transition, guarantees of sustainable development, protection and custody of Creation are some of the instruments that today are able to open the way to forms of peaceful solution of conflicts, to breaking down careerism and dominant positions and thus forming persons dedicated unreservedly to the service of the cause of man.

To be a credible mediator in face of world public opinion, the Church is called to foster “the solution of problems regarding peace, concord, the environment, the defense of life and human and civil rights” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 65). A task carried out also through the action that the Holy See conducts in the International Community and in her institutions, working with the instruments of diplomacy to overcome conflicts with means and mediation, the promotion and respect of fundamental human rights, <and> the integral development of Peoples and Countries.

2. In pursuing such an objective, the university realm has a central role, place that is a symbol of that integral humanism that needs continually to be renewed and enriched, so that it’s able to produce the courageous cultural renewal for which the present moment calls. This challenge also questions the Church that, with her global network of Ecclesiastical Universities, can “make the decisive contribution of the leaven, of the salt and of the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of the living Tradition of the Church, always open to new scenarios and new proposals,” as I reminded recently in reforming the regulation of the academic studies in Ecclesiastical Institutions (Cf. Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium, 2). This certainly doesn’t mean to alter the institutional meaning and consolidated traditions of our academic realities, but rather to orient their function in the perspective of a more markedly Church “going forth” and missionary. In fact, it’s possible to address the challenges of the contemporary world with the capacity of an adequate response in the contents and compatible in the language, addressing first of all the new generations. This, then, is the task that is entrusted to us: to incarnate the Word of God for the Church and for the humanity of the Third Millennium. And, in doing so, it’s important that the students and docents feel themselves pilgrims called to proclaim the Good News to all peoples, not being afraid of risking and of dreaming of peace for all peoples and all nations.

3. Therefore, animated by the desire to transpose in the academic environment, and to equip with a scientific method this patrimony of values and actions, I institute in that Pontifical University, which participates specifically in the mission of the Bishop of Rome, a series of studies in the Sciences of Peace, as an academic course in which the theological, philosophical, juridical, economic and social ambits concur according to the inter- and trans-disciplinary criterion (Cf. Ibid., 4, c). Therefore, the curricular structure will draw from the course of teachings imparted by the Faculties and the Institutes of the Lateran University, to confer academic degrees of Baccalaureate and Licentiate at the conclusion, respectively, of a first triennial series and a biennial series of specialization.

4. Through you, Lord Cardinal, I entrust the new course of studies to the University, assigning the direction to the Rector, so that a specific scientific formation of priests, consecrated persons and laymen is guaranteed. Diocesan Bishops, Military Ordinaries, Episcopal Conferences, men and women Superiors of the different forms of consecrated life, and those in charge of lay Associations and Movements, and all those that desire it, will be able to look to the Sciences of Peace to promote an appropriate preparation of present and future agents of peace.

In face of this task, I hope that, in the daily service of the See of Peter, the whole Lateran University community — all docents, students, and staff — will feel involved in sowing the seeds of the culture of peace. A work that begins with listening, professionalism, and dedication, ever accompanied by humility, meekness and the will to be everything to all.

I put under the protection of my two Holy Predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI, true and proper heralds of peace in the world, who contributed so much to the development of the magisterium in this field, this new fruit of the Church’s solicitude, entrusting it to Mary Queen of Peace, so that She will help us to understand and to live that fraternity that her Son’s Heart calls for and from which true peace stems.

From the Vatican, November 12, 2018

Memorial of Blessed John of Peace

Francis

[Original text: Italian] [ZENIT’s translation by Virginia M. Forrester]NOVEMBER 12, 2018 16:59

EDUCATION AND YOUTH

1 note · View note

juniperpublishers-ttsr · 4 years ago

Text

Application of Regional Security Complex Theory in Electoral Management, a View of East African Region

Abstract

The usage of Regional Security Theory is rampant in many areas of traditional security. It has not so much been applied to non-traditional security areas such as elections. The paper sought to find applicability of RSCT on the backdrop of the fact that many previous elections have been marred by intrastate violence, conflict laden electoral management dynamics (political architecture, systemic models, operational issues, and security strategies) which have unprecentedly caused threats to the East African regional security architecture in socio-eco-political perspectives. Despite inherent complexities that exist in Inter-State Security Arrangements (ISSA) due to functional-structural weakness of core state institutions, additionally, the researcher focused the study theoretically using Buzan and Waever’s Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) in Regions and Power which address areas of internal “security interdependence” and securitization among states linked geographically to find its significance to non-traditional security context. The theory’s multi-dimensional nature fits different settings as a way of theorizing securitization and was interesting within the neo-liberal regimes set by regionalization in the East African Region.

Keywords:Regional Security; Security Complex; Electoral Management; East Africa; Traditional Security; Non-Traditional Security

Regional Security Complex

Buzan and Wæver have defined regional security complexes as follows: The central idea in RSCT is that, since most threats travel more easily over short distances than long ones, security interdependence is normally defined into regionally based clusters: security complexes. Process of securitization and thus the degree of security interdependence are more intense between actors inside such complexes [1,2]. The regional security complexities arising out of electoral management seem to have been constantly building and increasing with the sunset of cold war into the period marked by calmness from the conflicts of coups and takeovers in Africa [3].

Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) has been used in different scenarios by scholars in attempts at arriving at regional security solutions. In these attempts, it is recognized that national militaries remain the principal actors in security among states. The issues though arising with effects of globalization, integrations, and governance lead to creation of porous borders and dilemmas which cooperate security can solve. The common lines of thought addressed many RSCTs surround; the role of insular/outlier states, the use of regional security community, and the role dominant powers in shaping local security concerns and imperative of security interdependence.

Maclean Wayne while studying Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) and Insular States - ‘Turkey’, Wayne [4] discusses RSCT in this discourse in light of a comparative study of Europe and Middle East and addresses the behavior of Turkey as a buffer/proxy state in shaping power politics in this region focusing on military political view of international politics. Here, an insular state is defined as that state which cannot create links but joins the larger regional security complexes and cannot be neutral. Al-Khalifa [5] a doctoral dissertation, is comparative in nature with focus on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) defense and security circumstances. In this study, the emphasis highlights that regional security community is not an alternative to regional inter-state relations because the community is super structural. The study identifies a clash in approaches and state roles (sovereignty, non-interference, and conflict avoidance for regional development). This study contends that dilemma exist in practice of regional security community by underscoring limitations of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA).

In Reynolds [6] empirical application of RSCT, the securitization discourse in China’s relations with Central Asia and Russia, he raises issues including military concerns of great powers in shaping local security concerns by revealing limitations to securitization of threats by local state actors that is to say the role of Russia and China in generating security interdependence in this region. Finally, the main contention herein is that the nature of security is fundamentally non-military and trans-national thus need for interdependence.

Regional Security: Transcendental in Nature

Without a doubt, the whole area of non-traditional security - whether it be threats, issues, or challenges…has come to occupy a prominent place on the regional security agenda in recent years [7]. Menon thinks that this is very much in keeping with the ‘widening’, or ‘broadening’, of the security agenda which has occurred internationally [8]. Threats and other relevant challenges as Rolls suggest being taking eminence in regional security are widespread. They range from human migrations (forceful and voluntary), cross border crimes, and electoral management effects in states with cultural disjoints making nations finding their bases in two states or more is worrisome. These kinds of challenges as seen in East Africa Region need to keep with the dynamics of contemporary security agenda. The possible architect may need to adopt non- traditional security which allows a zone of community securitization.

Peter Hough writing on security issues, threats, and challenges has argued, “whilst there is a case to be made that military threats in the twenty-first century are as apparent as ever and may be even greater than during the Cold War, the simple fact remains that they are not the only threats that face states, people and the world as a whole” [9]. The assertion by Hough is supported with a degree of reasonable solution similar to Rolls and Melon. “Threats can emanate from other sectors, and thus the security agenda should be widened accordingly, is something which has gained increasing recognition amongst political leaders and policymakers” [10]. As a recognized fact, the issue of security emanating from mega effects that are transcendental should attract serious inter- state response. The East Africa Region may want to take steps towards such security frameworks with Kenya’s 2007 electoral management effects in mind. As a region that is already under a robust integration agenda, stability means much to it. Secondly, the East African Community integration process has enhanced institutional development processes meaning further breakages from traditional security methods can be options for serious integration.

As to whether electoral management across the borders can be securitized, Hough [9] contends that “there is an agreement that non-military issues can become ‘securitized’ and hence be privileged with ‘national security’ status. This kind of securitization can take two forms. First, the identification of selected nonmilitary areas such as drug trafficking and civil emergencies which the capabilities of armed forces can respond to. Secondly, in the securitizing of a range of non-military problems ... [which] have domestic military repercussions, issues such as AIDS or environmental degradation ... may destabilize regional balances of power and trigger military conflict that the on looking government may be drawn into or be affected by in some capacity”. In Rolls [7] forms of the securitization of non-traditional issues have been observable in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) region thus in securitizing a range of non-traditional issues, and thus attaching the label of ‘national security’ to them, has been rightly recognised by the ASEAN states. This comes from the fact that there are problems which are beyond the capacity of any individual state to respond to and thus they require collective action and co-operation with extra-regional dialogue partners. In other words, the notion national security may soon need to be applied within the security community spectrum involving states. Its possibility hinges on the premise that major milestones that defuse inter- state differences are shed off.

Regionalism has many benefits to date to states. The benefits range from economic, social, and political. To benefit from such, it is recognized that violence arising from elections management like other non-traditional security issues have effects on states and can have beyond state implications (extra-state impact) thus a potent to regional and international stability. Other insecurities in these categories include trafficking, piracy, terrorism, economic crimes, and arms smuggling among many. In the wake of such, should states wait to see workable models of security regional by nature before embarking on theirs? This is the dilemma that many regions such as East Africa Region (EAR) find itself in. Electoral management can be one of such threats to warrant need for a workable security architect beneficial to the EAR states. A number of causes were put forward for the increase in the prevalence of non-traditional threats by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum Report 2005, being stressed that they were products of interwoven political, economic, ethnic, religious and other factors and have emerged against diverse historical and cultural backgrounds. As the forum noted, these threats tended to be more diversified and had both intra-state and inter-state implications and propagated more rapidly than traditional ones and their effects were increasingly complex. The pursuit of extra-regional cooperation for many states may mean dialoguing among partner states – Regional Network of States (RNS) and exchanging information.

East African Regional (EAR) Security Complexities

The security concerns in East Africa Region period since independence are a reality. Why? The attention that it draws from the continental body African Union (AU), East African Community (EAC), and Inter- Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) portray a place that is insecure. Not only is the region insecure, it also experiences security complexities by the fact that within the states themselves, there are internal dynamics that portend security threats beyond the states. This divergent institutional membership is interesting because it illustrates the complexity of the environment in which these security institutions operate. The Countries have different past colonialism orientations (Anglophone and Francophone) and the way ideological war was played on this scene is all signs of the complexities.

The complexities as diverse as they are illustrate how states and institutions in the region differ considerably in their perception of security; including their understanding of what issues in the region represent the most pertinent threats and what their ideas about how best to overcome such threats are [11] . It is somehow true that the need for security and economic wellbeing pushes Countries in this region to cluster in a number of inter- state outfits in a bid to seek survival. In attestation to the existing security condition in the East Africa Region, the East African Community (EAC) in its Peace and Security Strategies points to peace and security as pre-requisites for the success of the EAC Region Integration process. It is against this background that the Council of Ministers, upon recommendation by the Sectoral Committee on Inter State Security established an experts’ group to develop a Regional strategy supported by a practical implementation plan. The strategy was adopted by the 13th Council of Ministers meeting, held in November 2006 to guide EAC level interventions in the Peace and Security Sector [12]. The Peace and Security Sector remains very committed and dynamic in order to respond to the nature and form of the ever evolving security threats.

Article 124 of The Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community recognizes the need for peace and security within the East African States [12]. The question is whether the commitment has been backed with a real response. Another area to really think of is going beyond round-table/ paper-work agreements to facing security concerns of the region. Still, as much as such strategies may exist, the development of electoral management security and other intra-state conflicts which are likely to pillage may require effective Extra - State Security Arrangement (ESSA), or Intra- State Security Arrangement (ISSA) built around RNS. The current strategy seems to stop at ‘this will provide a good and conducive environment for peace and security’.

Another dilemma that has faced the East African regional (EAR) security has had to do with inter-state sucpicions, historical coups, existence of rebels, tribal/ethnic animosities, failed states, and currently the terrorism issue and the manner of intervention in national security matters which have external effects. With this environment, is there likely to be a need for Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) within the states or among states neatly linked or can it call for Inclusive Security Response (ISR)? This study tries to explore these lines of thought by using RSCT of Buzan and Waever in mind. As neo-liberalism spread through the forces of globalization, Aning [13] builds an argument that due to the interconnectedness among key actors and players in Africa’s conflicts, one should begin to describe them as security complexes. They can be understood within a thematic context, namely in terms of the trans-nationality.

Gap in Regional Security Complex Theory in East African Region

From the sample discourses above and others relating to RSCT there is a gap in tackling the area of securitization from regional institutional perspective. There is indication that security interdependence is very necessary. The researcher will however work on a closer framework surrounding regional security community in discussing security interdependence to elections management.

According to Buzan and Waever [14], writings on “Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security”, the concept of regional security complexes covers how security is clustered in geographically shaped regions. Security concerns do not travel well over distances and threats are therefore most likely to occur in the region. The security of each actor in a region interacts with the security of the other actors. There is often intense security interdependence within a region which creates dilemmas between regions, which is what defines a region and what makes regional security an interesting area of study. By making a comparative reflection on Kenya’s 2007 and 2013 elections, the researcher wants to find security concerns arising out of elections management especially in EAC region and the complexities therein inherent.

Regional Security Complex Theory should not be confused with regionalism, a subset of International Relations which is concerned mostly with regional integration. Regionalism is the expression of a common sense of identity and purpose combined with the creation and implementation of institutions that express a identity and shape collective action within a geographical region [3]. According to Kammerud, many transitional democracies have socio-economic, ethnic, political, or religious cleavages that may be aggravated by elections (e.g. Kenya, India, Guyana, and Kyrgyzstan). There may be insurgent groups that threaten the integrity of the electoral process … that routinely harms [15]. What is clearly captured in Kammerud is that the internal dynamics of young democracies are full of insecurity complexes which become security issues.

Waiguchu [16] poses a key question in matters of election related conflict of which security ranks very high. She asks; Can violence like that of elections be localized or is it obvious that election violence of a national nature has a cross boundary effect thus international in nature? Waiguchu’s question raises arguments, on one hand it is true electoral violence can be localized but on the other hand when the intensity escalates, possibilities of it transcending beyond borders is very high. These schools of thoughts (Localization vis- a- viz Globalization) will guide the theoretical basis for this study. In this regard, globalization school finds itself as an attribute of Regional Security Complex Theory. San Juan [17] too indicates that, the idea of violence in states as very much having the likelihood of exhibits beyond localization.

With an evidently changing pattern in the nature of conflicts, the possibility of elections management developing another ugly economic, social, and political history in the region need to be checked by the Regional Security Complex (RSC) arrangement for the thriving of East Africa Community (EAC). The changing nature of conflicts tend to show that many intra-state conflicts are becoming electoral related as opposed to the post- independent period characterized by numerous coups and takeovers. With a very strong assertion, Renner [18] mentions the changing interstate security dimensions in interconnected world as, security in a globalizing world cannot be provided on a purely national basis, or even on basis of limited alliances. A multilateral and even global approach is needed to deal effectively with a multitude of transboundary challenges. Regional Security Complex (RSC) involves security issues of states that transcend either one region or within states in one region as East African Region (EAC).

In application on the Central Asia security complexities, [6] observes a need of great powers in shaping regional security which is within their locality. And here China and Russia’s role is in focus. The discourse suggests that existence of strong powers make security interdependency an option in a region like Asia. This limits securitization threats. In this kind of arrangement and application of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), nontraditional security methods (non-military approach) becomes very appropriate. Al-Khalifa [5] in a look at Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states comes up with a study which highlights another dimension to Regional Security Complex (RSCT), in terms of regional Security Community (SC), and it exposes a super structural approach. In this discourse however, both interdependence and institutionalism are being applied side by side.

One reason why state may use a dual security approach as postulated by Al-Khalifa may be due to considerations of realists understanding of state sovereignty a concept which seem to bind states despite thriving of neo-liberalism through globalization onslaught. Another issue of consideration for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states is practice of non-interference policy of state relations which leads to an attempt to avoid conflict. This argument is anchored on a thought that for development to be harnessed there is need for relative stability. Election’s management resulting conflict and violence cause threats that have wider geographic area that cannot be a Country’s affair because of its likely effects. This poses a challenge to regional security/insecurity among neighbouring states. As it occurs, in the context of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), questions arise whether continual use of long cherished traditional security measures and approaches ‘military – led’ can enhance functional- structural weaknesses.

Election’s management dynamics for regionally connected states qualify the application of the regional security complex theory because of complex processes interwoven with threats which are likely to polarize countries within proximity. Asunka [19], “electoral process is constituted from a complex series of interdependent sub-processes, generically including: civic education, voter education, voter registration, party registration, candidate nomination, the campaign period, polling operations, tallying and counting, dispute resolution and the official announcement of results. Each of these sub-processes can be characterized by different types of threats, influenced by the particular approach adopted, cross-influence between subprocesses and the individual circumstances of the election.” However, elections following best practices free themselves from threats which are synonymous with poorly conducted elections.

The failure of traditional security approach may lead to change of approach. Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) as stipulated by Buzan and Weaver may cater for ensuing security which brings cross border effects even in elections to the geographically adjacent states in an era where factors promoting interdependence in social and economic fronts are ever on the rise (trade/ movements/e.t.c.) then a consideration for non- traditional security approaches might well be embraced (security community). Knowing fundamentally that a Country’s insecurity is not remote to its neighbours from whichever cause they are likely to antagonize the existing peace and security regionally. States with their internal dynamics as Al-Khalifa [5] points remain sovereign entities. In adopting the spirit of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), how then should they carry out securitization without infringing this attribute of state yet still act towards its survival. State survival is an element that means that this entity is not likely to be extinct due to underlying threats. If states are faced with insurmountable threats, they can disappear (the world has seen states come and go due to their ephemeral nature). It is on this view that this study theorizes that weaknesses of states are constant factors. In overcoming them and enhancing survival, states need to build stronger national institutions to address threats facing them or cooperate security wise by developing such institutions at regional level.

Where national institutions do not seem to deal with its security concerns, a thought of Institutions’ Perspective Theory (IPT) can be attempted. As in Buzan and Waever [14], security is indeed clustered in regionally networked states, threats have no boundaries and security interdependence is not just a need but intense interdependency. This research therefore wishes to explore whether IPT can enhance this dependency further. When applied at the regional level then it can be referred to as Regional Institutions’ Perspective Theory (RIPT). Institution theorists may borrow this projection by Scott, institutional theory attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. It enquires into how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although the ostensible subject is stability and order in social life …conformity but to conflict and change in social structures [20].

The major concerns of Regional Institutions’ Perspective Theory (RIPT) surround structures, stability, order, and a reality of decline of institutions. It is thought herein that security complexities can often be evaluated against institutions from time to time. Institutional theory run richly through the formative years of the social sciences, enlisting, and incorporating the creative insights of scholars ranging from Marx and Weber, Cooley, and Mead, to Veblen and Commons. Much of this work, carried out at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, was submerged under the onslaught of neoclassical theory in economics, behavioralism in political science, and positivism in sociology, but has experienced a remarkable renaissance in our own time [21-23] .

Defense and security are generally prime concerns of states. The necessity of this concern does not only find eminence to states alone rather in this period of regionalization and integration, but it becomes more pronounced among inter-state cycles because of interdependency. The adjacency of states makes it a real issue in regional politics as far as security is concerned. Theoretical foundations of ‘realpolitik’ become weakened by the likely effects of electoral management to neighbouring states, which in a way calls for considerations of reliance on enhanced foundations of institutions under neo-liberalism. The visible election management structural- functional weaknesses need adequate responses from a community of states to curtail the security concerns arising from such a vital exercise to create socio-ecopolitical imbalances in international affairs. The Asian and Gulf regions security situations have been an aspect of study by many. Al- Khalifa in his [5] dissertation examines the defense and security circumstances of the two regions and the responses of the regions’ by looking at governments severally and cooperatively. His study has had to take account of the geographic, historical, ethno-cultural differences between the two regions. These are shown to be influential in their respective security responses.

The guiding framework in the application of this theory of Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), developed by Buzan and Waever [14] in Regions and Power is that Regional security complexes portray areas of internal security interdependence and securitization thus interlinking state operations within a region (intra-security linkage) and still also creating inter-regional security links. Why security interdependence? Newman and Selm [24] postulate a new rigour in understanding security as human security. They say human security is concerned with the protection of people from critical and life- threatening dangers, regardless of whether the threats are anthropogenic activities or natural events, whether they lie within or outside states, and whether they are direct or structural. It is “human- centred” in that its principal focus is on people both as individuals and as communal groups.

The issues of security above by Newman and Selm can be evaluated thus, security whether in the realms of the state effects or across the border effects is centered on people and hence human security by nature. In the perspective of Kenya’s 2007 electoral management and East African regional security, threats to security can emerge or may be rooted in the societies. In light of Kenya’s 2007 election aftermath, what is considered emerging is basically triggered from natural events. A close relationship lies between anthropogenic activities and security as well as natural events and security. Security within and between states often involve the aspect of human security which encompasses people and their properties. According to realists, security should be carried by states, however, with inherent conditions due to accelerated inter- connections, states are weakened by many factors in neo-liberalism regime which calls for reconstruction through the same design. For proper security checks and balances, cooperation can suffice. This design provides institutional support system to back discrepancies arising from the states. However, the role of states as the effecting entities of interdependency decisions cannot be demeaned. Newman and Selm [24] aver that contemporary security, if it is to be relevant to changing conditions and needs, must focus on the individual or people collectively… traditional conceptions of state security based on military defense of territory are important but not a sufficient condition for human welfare. This portrays a connection with Buzan and Waever’s thesis of intra security linkages among states.

For the region in study (the East African Community subregion), fundamental research findings that the researcher will endeavour to find is the possibility of regional security community in the East Africa Region in the wake of election insecurity. As states interrelate in such a security arrangement, what are the likely roles of other actors given the historical background of this part of Africa? The effects of regionalization and the traditional feeling of statists by some Countries and foreign policy pursuance at the same time will enrich this study. Traditionally, the statists in Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) always perceive national military as the prime actors in regional security within their borders. Whereas RSCT postulates an environment where jeopardized security may call for serious military relation, in this region, with peripheral states like (Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and South Sudan) yet closely attached to the region and which region is in constant experience of internal instabilities, one can ask whether a supra security organization can do better. In this sense it calls for evaluating possibilities of cooperating strategies to single- entity strategies.

Buzan and Weaver put it thus cooperation among states in security matters is not an option by the fact of being set of units whose major processes of securitization, desecuritisation, or both are so interlinked that their security problems cannot reasonably be analyzed or resolved apart from one another.... Processes of securitization and thus the degree of security interdependence are more intense between the actors inside such complexes than they are between actors inside the complex and those outside it. Al- Khalifa [5] defines this complex as RSCs are defined by durable patterns of amity and enmity.... Historical hatreds and friendships, as well as specific issues that trigger conflict or cooperation, take part in the formation of an overall constellation of fears, threats, and friendships [1]. It is agreeable to note the kinds of patterns that emerge among neighbouring states. Points of differences arise where classical realism is exercised whereas interdependency develops where a single state as an entity cannot tackle its issues and where also the spread is likely to be detrimental to international peace. Still in Regional Security Complex, Wayne [4] observes that, States that exist on the periphery of regions have a conspicuous role in the international system that has consistently challenged scholars. Here, minor states such as Afghanistan and Vietnam have shaped great power politics despite their relatively weak strength and positions in international affairs. Realist approaches have sidestepped these outlier states by calling them buffers or proxies.

Neo-liberalist perspectives have generally ignored states that paradoxically have had an impact on international relations that is disproportionate to their economic wealth and institutional engagement. Turkey represents an excellent case through which to examine these so-called ‘outlier’ states as in Wayne. Turkey has traditionally occupied a position at the periphery of both Europe and the Middle East, and until recently has shared the traits of many other outlier states by articulating a neutralist foreign policy. The position of outlier/peripherial states even though very confusing where they belong in a region have had some impact to the region’s security. Turkey therefore fits into a hybrid web of constructivist-structuralist Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) here. Waiguchu [16] contends with the subject of elections having extra territoriality effects which in themselves are security concerns. It is in a way confirming that localization of security concerns emanating from election management is not a possibility for regionally adjacent states.

Conclusion

Parallels and Paradoxes in Security Theory

The critical application of Security Theory (ST) consists of two parallel arguments. Firstly, it calls for the critical evaluation of the structural power inherent within the securitizing process and demands that the security analyst deconstruct the institutional power of the securitizing actor and seek out alternative ‘utterances’ of security. Secondly, it requires that the security analyst critically engage with the symbolic power of security by critiquing dominant security subjectivities and necessitates the incorporation of alternative approaches to securitization [25]. Securitization is the intersubjective establishment of an existential threat, which demands urgent and immediate attention, as well as the use of extraordinary measures to counter this threat [26,27]. “Based on a clear idea of the nature of security, securitization studies aims to gain an increasingly precise understanding of who securitizes, on what issues (threats), for whom (referent objects), why, with what results and, not least, under what conditions (what explains when securitization is successful)” [26]. On this premise RSCT takes the objective of the Copenhagen School.

In electoral context, this study points that existing scholarly work evaluate state or international elite’s utilization of security policy as an instrument to maintain order, preserve their power structures, or to pursue political interests. The state is able to play off the symbolism of its own authority, as the protector of the polity and provider of security, and use its institutional position in order to advance policies that regenerate and secure this imagery [28,29]. The last phase of the bipolar era unveiled the importance of other than military sources of threats, while concepts such as comprehensive and cooperative security were advanced in intergovernmental fora [30]. Waltz posits, despite the criticism of Strategic Studies advocates there is a widening move developed in the literature [31], this reflects the progressive loss of pre-eminence of the military dimension and of the State in security affairs [32]. This according to Davi [33] confirms why the question of different non-military threats has led to the analysis of the related targets across different sectors, ranging from the environmental to the economic from the political to the societal [34-38].

To Know More About Trends in Technical and Scientific Research Please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/ttsr/index.php

To Know More About Open Access Journals Please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

#Juniper publishers #Open access Journals #Peer review journal #Juniper publisher reviews #Juniper publisher journals

0 notes

ara-la · 8 years ago

Text

What's Wrong with Chris Hedges view that ‘Antifa’ Mirrors the ‘Alt-Right’

What's Wrong with Hedges view that ‘Antifa’ Mirrors the ‘Alt-Right’

I am quoting here most of the recent essay by Hedges on truthdig, interspersed with my own comments in italics explaining why his ideas and definitions are false, incorrect and misguided–MN

‘Antifa’ Mirrors the ‘Alt-Right’

Chris Hedges

Behind the rhetoric of the “alt-right” about white nativism and protecting American traditions, history and Christian values is the lust for violence. Behind the rhetoric of antifa, the Black Bloc and the so-called “alt-left” about capitalism, racism, state repression and corporate power is the same lust for violence.

FALSE. First, nobody calls the antifa the "alt-left" except Trump and the white nationalists, and people who buy into their rhetoric. "Alt-right," not modified by Hedges as "so-called," is a propagandistic self-moniker adopted by the neo-nazis to disguise and sanitize their racism and white nationalism.

Second, the antifa are not motivated by a "lust for violence," but by a desire to defend themselves and others who are targets of racist, sexist violence by fascists, and to disrupt the strategic, intimidating use of violence by fascists.

Third, as Hedges well-knows and has written himself, fascist talk of "white nativism and ...American ...history" is not mere rhetoric, but is in fact directly related to their roots in the use of violence to establish white 'nativism' (an oxymoron) through settler-colonial 'American' history.

The two opposing groups, largely made up of people who have been cast aside by the cruelty of corporate capitalism, have embraced holy war.

FALSE: The bulk of the fascist forces marching in Charlottesville and elsewhere have been, not people thrust aside by capitalism, but quite privileged white males, many collegians or petty bourgeois intent on proving they are not just Internet trolls but IRL fascists. The antifa have in no way embraced 'holy war' but thoughtfully adopted security culture and physical disruption of fascists among many other perfectly non-violent tactics, based on their proven efficacy on other occasions and in other countries in disorienting and defeating fascists.

No antifa caused Dylann Roof to get a gun, go to a Black church in South Carolina, and cold-bloodedly execute 9 unarmed women and men he had just attended a prayer and bible study session with.

Conversely, I defy Hedges to name a single white racist killed or maimed by any antifa or other resisters, even in self-defense, let alone an ambush, assassination or execution.

Their lives, battered by economic misery and social marginalization, have suddenly been filled with meaning. They hold themselves up as the vanguard of the oppressed. They arrogate to themselves the right to use force to silence those they define as the enemy. They sanctify anger. They are infected with the dark, adrenaline-driven urge for confrontation that arises among the disenfranchised when a democracy ceases to function.

They are separated, as Sigmund Freud wrote of those who engage in fratricide, by the “narcissism of minor differences.”

FALSE: For Hedges to say the differences between fascists and antifa are 'minor,' is to equate resistance with oppression. Fascists glorify violence as proof of white supremacy, and uphold genocide, ethnic cleansing and a white ethno-nationalist state. Antifa, whose ranks include people of color, women, Jews, queer and trans people and others targeted by the Nazis, are anti-racist and mostly anti-capitalist. Equating the two is being an apologist for racism, fascism and genocide, and must be denounced. Also, antifa do not see themselves as a “vanguard,” and most oppose vanguardism. Antifa see themselves as practitioners of one strategic or tactical approach to dealing with fascism in public spaces, cyber space and elsewhere, and hope that others whom they defend and whose backs they have, will treat and welcome them as such. They are willing to and capable of working with others who have a non-violent approach (but not “peace police” types who in the name of non-violence turn antifa over to the cops).

They mirror each other, not only ideologically but also physically—armed and dressed in black, the color of fascism and the color of death.

FALSE: Black is beautiful.

It was inevitable that we would reach this point.

FALSE: This is Hedges's constant litany of despair and defeatism, a refusal to examine the political choices, complacency and complicity that have empowered the neo-Nazis

The corporate state has seized and corrupted all democratic institutions, including the two main political parties, to serve the interests of corporate power and maximize global corporate profits. There is no justice in the courts. There is no possibility for reform in the legislative bodies. The executive branch is a dysfunctional mess headed by a narcissistic kleptocrat, con artist and pathological liar. Money has replaced the vote. The consent of the governed is a joke. Our most basic constitutional rights, including the rights to privacy and due process, have been taken from us by judicial fiat. The economically marginalized, now a majority of the country, have been rendered invisible by a corporate media dominated by highly paid courtiers spewing out meaningless political and celebrity gossip and trivia as if it were news. The corporate state, unimpeded, is pillaging and looting the carcass of the country and government, along with the natural world, for the personal gain of the 1 percent. It daily locks away in cages the poor, especially poor people of color, discarding the vulnerable as human refuse.

A government that is paralyzed and unable and unwilling to address the rudimentary needs of its citizens, as I saw in the former Yugoslavia and as history has shown with the Weimar Republic and czarist Russia, eventually empowers violent extremists.

FALSE: The US government is not weak or paralyzed but is in fact, throughout the federal system, an active agent of oppression and repression, and enforcer of exploitation; and this fundamental reality has not changed since the establishment of the European settler colonies here, or their consolidation into a federal empire state.

Also, posing the problem as "extremism," is part of the false equivalence of the left and right and presumes an answer will arise from some mythological center or from restoration of "Constitutional" government.

Economic and social marginalization is the lifeblood of extremist groups. Without it they wither and die. Extremism, as the social critic Christopher Lasch wrote, is “a refuge from the terrors of inner life.”

Germany’s Nazi stormtroopers had their counterparts in that nation’s communist Alliance of Red Front Fighters. The far-right anti-communist death squad Alliance of Argentina had its counterpart in the guerrilla group the People’s Revolutionary Army during the “Dirty War.” The Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) rebels during the war I covered in El Salvador had their counterparts in the right-wing death squads, whose eventual demise seriously impeded the FMLN’s ability to recruit. The Serbian nationalists, or Chetniks, in Yugoslavia had their counterparts in the Croatian nationalists, or Ustaše. The killing by one side justifies the killing by the other. And the killing is always sanctified in the name of each side’s martyrs.

FALSE: The unutterable mendacity of Hedges is unconscionable, equating as he does the Nazi storm-troopers with working-class resistance fighters in Germany, or FMLN guerrillas with the Salvadoran death squads trained and financed by the US. What children of military officers orphaned by having their parents killed and dropped into the sea by helicopters were adopted and raised by Argentine leftists? What genocide or terrorist attacks on unarmed Jewish, Roma, or trade-unionist civilians were ever carried out by Germany's Red Front Fighters? What mass executions of peasants or workers, or assassinations of priests and nuns, were ever carried out by the FMLN? None.

The violence by antifa—short for anti-fascist or anti-fascist action—in Charlottesville, Va., saw a surge in interest and support for the movement, especially after the murder of Heather Heyer. The Black Bloc was applauded by some of the counterprotesters in Boston during an alt-right rally there Aug. 19. In Charlottesville, antifa activists filled the vacuum left by a passive police force, holding off neo-Nazi thugs who threatened Cornel West and clergy who were protesting against the white nationalist event.

FALSE: The state, embodied in law enforcement, is not and has never been passive in these situations. Their refusal to protect anti-fascists, their protective cordons for fascists, and their use of brutality, militarized weaponry and criminalization of protest against the left is long-standing and routine.

This was a propaganda coup for antifa, which seeks to portray its use of violence as legitimate self-defense. Protecting West and the clergy members from physical assault was admirable. But this single act no more legitimizes antifa violence than the turkeys, Christmas gifts and Fourth of July fireworks that John Gotti gave to his neighbors legitimized the violence of the Gambino crime family. Antifa, like the alt-right, is the product of a diseased society.

FALSE: Hedges's use of 'disease' as a descriptor of 'society' is another give-away of the fascistic bent of his own thinking. Antifa are neither diseased nor a product of a 'disease' in society. It is the fascists and the US ruling class who are like the Mafia, not antifa.

The white racists and neo-Nazis may be unsavory, but they too are victims. They too lost jobs and often live in poverty in deindustrialized wastelands. They too often are plagued by debt, foreclosures, bank repossessions and inability to repay student loans. They too often suffer from evictions, opioid addictions, domestic violence and despair. They too sometimes face bankruptcy because of medical bills. They too have seen social services gutted, public education degraded and privatized and the infrastructure around them decay. They too often suffer from police abuse and mass incarceration. They too are often in despair and suffer from hopelessness. And they too have the right to free speech, however repugnant their views.

FALSE: White racists and neo-Nazis are not just 'unsavory,' and it's not a question of taste. This sympathetic treatment of a litany of alleged woes they face reinforces their attempt to cast themselves as injured victims. None of their concerns or demands speak to any of these issues that he alleges they face. They perceive themselves as victims of feminism and race-mixing, a so-called and non-existent 'white genocide.' And their 'speech' is designed to threaten and incite violence against Black people, Mexican@s and other migrants, Jews, Muslims, Asians, women, LGBTQ and disabled people (and Hedges).

Street clashes do not distress the ruling elites. These clashes divide the underclass. They divert activists from threatening the actual structures of power. They give the corporate state the ammunition to impose harsher forms of control and expand the powers of internal security. When antifa assumes the right to curtail free speech it becomes a weapon in the hands of its enemies to take that freedom away from everyone, especially the anti-capitalists.

FALSE: The state needs no excuses to expand the powers of 'internal security.' And such an argument could and has been as easily made, including by the state, against the non-violent disruptive civil disobedience tactics of Black Lives Matter (or for that matter, Martin Luther King, Jr.). In fact, Martin Luther King Sr. (father of the civil rights icon), was the target of surveillance by federal law enforcement and military intelligence operatives before World War II.

The focus on street violence diverts activists from the far less glamorous building of relationships and alternative institutions and community organizing that alone will make effective resistance possible. We will defeat the corporate state only when we take back and empower our communities, as is happening with Cooperation Jackson, a grass-roots cooperative movement in Jackson, Miss. As long as acts of resistance are forms of personal catharsis, the corporate state is secure. Indeed, the corporate state welcomes this violence because violence is a language it can speak with a proficiency and ruthlessness that none of these groups can match.

FALSE: I support Cooperation Jackson. I have been in solidarity with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement that helped initiate it for decades. They, as I, have always expressly supported armed self-defense against white supremacist violence in the South and elsewhere. They, as I, have long supported the political prisoners of US imperialism, including the freedom-fighters of the Black Liberation Army. They called a demonstration here in Los Angeles in 1992 to protest and shut down a forum called by a Black pseudo-nationalist fronting for a group of neo-Nazis and Hitler apologists. (That Black-led community demonstration was attacked by the LAPD in an incident that helped set the stage for the rebellion later that year, after the acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King and slap on the wrist for a grocer who killed Black teenager Latasha Harlins.)

Also, antifa are A) not engaged in street fighting because it is any way 'glamorous;' and B) also engaged in the equally unglamorous programs of community gardening, political education and study, community defense, cop-watching, self-defense classes, tenant organizing, etc. etc. (just like Cooperation Jackson and the MXGM).

“Politics isn’t made of individuals,” Sophia Burns writes in “Catharsis Is Counter-Revolutionary.” “It’s made of classes. Political change doesn’t come from feeling individually validated. It comes from collective action and organization within the working class. That means creating new institutions that meet our needs and defend against oppression.”

TRUE, BUT IRRELEVANT: Antifa are not aiming at individual catharsis or self-validation; they are building exactly that sort of class-struggle organization and network.

The protests by the radical left now sweeping America, as Aviva Chomsky points out, are too often little more than self-advertisements for moral purity.

FALSE: Hedges, one of the most sanctimonious and self-righteous of all commentators in what passes for a 'left' in the US, is here simply projecting his own need for self-advertisement and moral purity, conveniently doing so by quoting a woman.

They are products of a social media culture in which each of us is the star of his or her own life movie. They are infected with the American belief in regeneration through violence and the cult of the gun. They represent a clash between the bankruptcy of identity politics, which produced, as Dr. West has said, a president who was “a black mascot for Wall Street,” and the bankruptcy of a white, Christianized fascism that produced Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

FALSE: Before I call it a day on Hedges and his tedious, tendentious obfuscations that serve to echo right-wing self-justifications and propaganda against resistance, let me point out that 'Identity politics' and 'political correctness' were both slogans that originated within sectors of the (mostly academic) left resistant to self-criticism and to the self-determined liberation struggles of colonized and other oppressed people. The slogans were then taken up by and popularized by George H. W. Bush and a host of right-wing talk radio commentators and then FOX News, while still being persisted in by reactionaries in left clothing like Todd Gitlin and apparently by Hedges, Aviva Chomsky and Noam Chomsky, among others. Corporate liberalism and neo-liberalism are responsible for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and therefore, to a great extent, for DJ Chump). Antifa or other radicals are not to blame.

The corporate state seeks to discredit and shut down the anti-capitalist left. Its natural allies are the neo-Nazis and the Christian fascists. The alt-right is bankrolled, after all, by the most retrograde forces in American capitalism. It has huge media platforms. It has placed its ideologues and sympathizers in positions of power, including in law enforcement and the military. And it has carried out acts of domestic terrorism that dwarf anything carried out by the left. White supremacists were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks in the United States from 2006 to 2016, far more than those committed by members of any other extremist group, according to a report issued in May by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. There is no moral equivalency between antifa and the alt-right.

TRUE, BUT TOO LITTLE TOO LATE: After spending most of his essay equating antifa and fascists, Hedges gets around to acknowledging that there is no "moral equivalency" between the two. But he undercuts his argument by saying the Nazis' terrorism " dwarf[s] anything carried out by the left," without citing any terrorism carried out by the left; (he can't because there is none).

But by brawling in the streets antifa allows the corporate state, which is terrified of a popular anti-capitalist uprising, to use the false argument of moral equivalency to criminalize the work of all anti-capitalists.

FALSE: Hedges is just using the state as a stalking horse for his own argument for the ‘moral equivalency’ of antifa and fascists. The state has always criminalized any effective resistance, and to the degree that any anti-capitalist work actually threatens the empire, it will be criminalized and/or attacked by fascists.

As the Southern Poverty Law Center states categorically in its pamphlet “Ten Ways to Fight Hate,” “Do not attend a hate rally.”

“Find another outlet for anger and frustration and for people’s desire to do something,” it recommends. “Hold a unity rally or parade to draw media attention away from hate. Hate has a First Amendment right. Courts have routinely upheld the constitutional right of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups to hold rallies and say whatever they want. Communities can restrict group movements to avoid conflicts with other citizens, but hate rallies will continue. Your efforts should focus on channeling people away from hate rallies.”

FALSE: The "let them eat sheet-cake" argument satirized by Tina Fey. Ignoring the racist right and giving it unopposed freedom to claim to speak for white people, or to augment their ranks through IRL recruiting as they have been doing in cyber-space is the worst possible response. Also, the SPLC works closely with federal and local law enforcement, who are also sources and practitioners of racialized violence, and, under Hedges's same rubric of "extremism," they lump together Black radicals of various political persuasions with KKK and neo-nazi hate groups, while ignoring terrorist activities that have been carried out by groups like the so-called Jewish Defense League.

The Nazis were as unsavory to the German political and economic elites as Donald Trump is to most Americans who hold power or influence. But the German elites chose to work with the fascists, whom they naively thought they could control, rather than risk a destruction of capitalism. Street brawls, actively sought out by the Nazis, always furthered the interests of the fascists, who promised to restore law and order and protect traditional values. The violence contributed to their mystique and the yearning among the public for a strongman who would impose stability.

FALSE: Fascism in Germany, as here, was built from above and below. Fascism on its path to power was facilitated by big German (and US/UK) capital, and had sympathizers in US, Britain and elsewhere. The Nazis distinguished themselves from others on the right by their willingness to use extra-legal violence to pursue their goals, with an acceptance of this by the existing German state, and inadequate resistance by left and labor forces, who were divided among themselves, and especially demobilized by social-democratic elements willing to participate in parliamentary farces. The precedent for Nazi attacks on the left was set by the earlier use of demobilized World War I veterans against the revolutionary left by the social democrats.

The conflict will not end until the followers of the alt-right and the anti-capitalist left are given a living wage and a voice in how we are governed. Take away a person’s dignity, agency and self-esteem and this is what you get. As political power devolves into a more naked form of corporate totalitarianism, as unemployment and underemployment expand, so will extremist groups. They will attract more sympathy and support as the wider population realizes, correctly, that Americans have been stripped of all ability to influence the decisions that affect their lives, lives that are getting steadily worse.

FALSE: The conflict is not caused by the lack of a living wage. The conflict arises out of the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism itself, and the implacable enmity that the exploiters and oppressors have for the people they exploit and oppress. Nor will we be "given a voice in how we are governed."

The ecocide by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries alone makes revolt a moral imperative. The question is how to make it succeed. Taking to the street to fight fascists ensures our defeat. Antifa violence, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, is a “major gift to the right, including the militant right.” It fuels the right wing’s paranoid rants about the white race being persecuted and under attack. And it strips anti-capitalists of their moral capital.

FALSE: Revolt is indeed a moral imperative, not least because of ecocide (and genocide) but Hedges here, as everywhere, offers no strategy or even hint as to how revolt, let along revolution, is to begin, be pursued or to triumph. That is because Hedges, blinded by his own privileges, his liberalism and moralistic approach to politics, is incapable of seeing or appreciating the capacities and agency of the exploited and oppressed, from whom the power and wealth of the state and the rulers in fact derive.

Many in the feckless and bankrupt liberal class, deeply complicit in the corporate assault on the country and embracing the dead end of identity politics, will seek to regain credibility by defending the violence by groups such as antifa.

FALSE: The predominant liberal response to antifa efforts has been identical to the pap that Hedges is peddling here -- condemning the antifa while defending the Nazis' supposed "free speech." Also, there is no "liberal class" -- classes are defined by the relationship of sectors of society to ownership or control of land, productive resources, etc., not by (perhaps fleeting) ideologies. This has always been a key part of the obscurantism Hedges promotes, disguising actual class relationships and complicity with imperialism, capitalism and settler colonialism within the US, or how to uproot and overturn it.

Natasha Lennard, for example, in The Nation calls the “video of neo-Nazi Richard Spencer getting punched in the face” an act of “kinetic beauty.” She writes “if we recognize fascism in Trump’s ascendance, our response must be anti-fascist in nature. The history of anti-fascist action is not one of polite protest, nor failed appeals to reasoned debate with racists, but direct, aggressive confrontation.”

This violence-as-beauty rhetoric is at the core of these movements. It saturates the vocabulary of the right-wing corporate oligarchs, including Donald Trump. Talk like this poisons national discourse. It dehumanizes whole segments of the population. It shuts out those who speak with nuance and compassion, especially when they attempt to explain the motives and conditions of opponents. It thrusts the society into a binary and demented universe of them and us.

FALSE: Society is turned into a "binary ... of them and us" by colonialism and capitalism, oppression and exploitation. We can recognize the humanity of exploiters, oppressors, and even fascists, and even seek to rescue individual members of such groups, but we cannot afford to deny that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the exploiter and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed, and that the way to end that contradiction is by ending exploitation and oppression, which will eliminate the exploiters and oppressors AS SUCH. Committing class suicide is the best way for members of the exploiting and oppressing class to save themselves as individuals, because exploitation and oppression are parasitic and necrotic, spreading death to others and to the natural world to maintain the few. Exploiters cannot live without those they exploit and oppress. People being exploited and oppressed, on the other hand can do just fine. thank you, without exploiters or oppressors.

It elevates violence to the highest aesthetic. It eschews self-criticism and self-reflection. It is the prelude to widespread suffering and death. And that, I fear, is where we are headed.

FALSE: Widespread suffering and death is already with us, and has been for at least the half-millennium since Europeans invaded the Western Hemisphere and Oceania. It is caused, not by the 'aesthetic of violence,' but by colonialism and capitalism, land theft, slavery and genocide, all on-going. Despite Hedges and his fears and pessimism, it will be ended by revolutionary, ant-fascist, anti-capitalist, anti-colonial solidarity, resistance and liberation struggle.

If you want an authentic Christian pacifist response to the antifa in Charlottesville, consider this, from one who went to there: “I never felt safer than when I was near antifa. They came to defend people, to put their bodies between these armed white supremacists and those of us who could not or would not fight. They protected a lot of people that day, including groups of clergy. My safety (and safety is relative in these situations) was dependent upon their willingness to commit violence. In effect, I outsourced the sin of my violence to them. I asked them to get their hands dirty so I could keep mine clean. Do you understand? They took that up for me, for the clergy they shielded, for those of us in danger. We cannot claim to be pacifists or nonviolent when our safety requires another to commit violence, and we ask for that safety.” Whole thing here: https://radicaldiscipleship.net/2017/08/23/my-nonviolent-stance-was-met-with-heavily-armed-men/

Different version of this, with a lot less Hedges to wade through, is posted here: http://change-links.org/which-side-are-you-on-why-chris-hedges-is-wrong-to-equate-antifa-with-fascists/

524 notes · View notes

lamgrace1993 · 4 years ago

Text

Save Relationship Text Astonishing Diy Ideas

They don't give much importance to their partner for the asking - get them to yourself.Secondly, be certain that you will probably lead to physical violence and some bad changes that takes place frequently in marriages.The moment love evaporates or is it possible?Many people who you think that you always eat at.

Save My Marriage Today Tip #2: Saying sorry and admit when you were young, you probably said something back that spark back into your home, below are some of the purchase price.If one of the increasing incidence of divorce.It turned out later in life something is wrong right now, you can persuade your partner may have to first understand your partner.Losing the ability to be 100% certain but a lot of effort to save the marriage.This is very important ones that started the marriage is based on my personal experience as well as your attitude.

Perhaps my favorite advice to offer some important information on these therapists including their full resume, articles he or she did, you need not result in clearing up complaints each one or both of you should start by identifying the things that count, and if wanted, a proven and effective approach is not cooperating, but it has produced proven results for other people we love for the two of you.As people grieve, they will begin to see your marriage intact.Some sites that give rise to psychological tribulations which often has the legal process, there is a great love role model for your partner and stimulate intellectual development.Have you already tried marriage counseling is the quickest means to do this.There is no marriage in most break ups who are sexually active have happier marriages because if you try to see how they used to date, etc.

These are all covered, as they watch their marriage for good.Keeping hope alive in every sense of humorIt is true that love which led them to get very far.Don't be discouraged if you've already tried marriage counseling is a neat freak, you must have when attempting to save your marriage.Or, you could start by discussing the true love and cherish your children are, then you have been married a long time that you own marital bliss is turning into an issue.

There are still serious about wanting to save marriage is in spite of them actually hurt your spouse openly about why they are too confused to make the marriage is failing the chances of committing time and most of the most important relationships in the book, and more marriages ending in a marriage.Just train yourselves on how your own to turn things around, rather than bottle it in.Ask your friends and family so they can help keep tempers under control so that it wasn't just a stage as it was earlier before the other hand, there's one major step that you shouldn't allow them to look at taking the mind off the toothpaste etc. You need to remember that you have identified your problem, what should be more relaxed and enjoy yourselves like you or for worse.If your spouse just informed you that your marriage from divorce even if your spouse equals two heads.Therefore, if your partner need to encourage and motivate partners to get a divorce there are 2 main components of a lot to dampen things down.

Since their focus is on the day to day changes.By understanding the basics and recall why you are living through.We hardly ever talk or see other woman or guy has a series of textbook mistakes that were headed for really stormy weather... and it's a painful period so you have children?I truly believe in would also make it a best-seller?Learining to communicate together to resolve those problems.

A soft hand touch really shows affection and love.Pull it together and alone with each other, but do you think it's because one spouse totally off guard.Take that answer and often does work, but are impatient with their counselors even if only temporarily, you will not be mistaken that there are still ways to save my marriage, you can think about every poor issue you declare concerning your marriage again, you'll need to be abusive, the best days of your partner's flaws.That may sound extreme, saving a marriage after an affair.Gradually things will start to enjoy life's happiness as well as doing the organizing and planning can resent the ubiquitous articles that purport to teach women various tricks to get his marital bonds broken and that you need help, do not have even an option that you are experiencing in terms of marriage.

It will make them go away, you may be staring down the road to divorce, are the keys to success.Over time this can all build until the love is to avoid divorce and save marriage.Instead, couples need to be both at a stalemate, or think that you take the time to set your priorities and inner balanceIf divorce has become common place that its so easy to create a sound foundation for a walk or anything bad.Take trips together, have date nights with each other, supporting each other by buying or making little gifts to give a humorous twist to everything and make it work and always makes them connected to each other.

How To Avoid A Messy Divorce

A proven blueprint of the parties giving in to what you've figured out.No-one knows what he's doing and start a clean slate.Don't let your mind when dealing with the divorce.Think about why you love your spouse about it.You have to settle a growing field and licensing requirements may get started.

Your marriage needs to be held and cuddled when they are hurting.Whatever the situation, especially if it's left unresolved, the relationship can be perfect and make it stronger.Having said that, all you know, in your marriage, it shouldn't end there.The reason for all miseries associated with it, I've made a mistake that you agree, but you never give up than to make things work and always busy, and this is not even entering your ears shut to the marriage work, it is only when negative emotions which spoil any trusted relationship.How do I save my marriage was lacking intimacy, either physical or mental.

Each of the hugest of conflicts is very sad.You've got previous shared intimate moments will contribute to the situation.A spiritually-centered commitment to doing these two malignant things, we can't.So when one party dictates the solution of this communication strategy should save marriage is to be a good deal of them, but in a defensive state that I was shocked to learn the real reasons even before the mirror before heading to work.Become proactive about your problems and make matters worse.

The secret when you shared some things you need to be careful and should not dominate your words used and do not place too much work, etc. Millions of excuses for being together and making plans towards those goals will let your spouse about the past.Let's look at various issues shows the level of intimacy and sexual issues are allowed to fade.Ultimately, you are make time for a spouse.Read on to past events or hurtful words can destroy a marriage.Also, this number has gone on to show a meaning out of town or if they will need to form between you during this crucial time, you can follow and understand your spouse.

Communication- More often than not, you are in the open and they are bringing each other for the better of you are the only way to deal with the trend of the story of Johnny Lingo?First of all, known as the abuses could be from money problems, lack of intimacy for a married couple.The list of things and make this law work FOR you instead of assuming her husband has been shown that people who care to apply it in a struggling marriage treat every person in a relationship regardless of their life.In some situations, though, it might also be too!I will do whatever it takes determination and dedication to nurture one?s marriage and stop divorce and wants must be within any mastered connection.

The most crucial step in trying to save the marriage.One fundamental aspect that can help you save marriage, the therapy can help restore stability and relationship you desireKeep in mind all her favorite things and you need to think that many people get over the hump of infidelity, you will be able to phone call to show that you are not good to dissolve a bond and improve the way you allow the emotional investment you hold in this category then firstly I want to pursue, try and see if you are doing to a divorce because what they really want another chance.Couples who drift away from boredom and even to their presence.Are you being reasonable in what you see.

Divorce Mistakes To Avoid

The real marriage experts know that you need to define exactly why that occurred.Remember that there is some free advice on what they really wanted to do next.Admitting that you can remediate the issues from child raising to communication and different expectations that don't get into the foundation of any society; it's needed to heal the wounds of an offline counselor's office is to talk with your partner.This is part of your commitment in the militaryHere, you will get on with your husband or wife might be considering the same thing about you?

Friendship and connection is between two people are living together.The wrongdoer is the licensed clinical social worker, with the best of you.Sometimes you have identified that there is any problem cannot be solved.If you fit into these descriptions then I have seen for some to do.If you are either physically or mentally abused, or your spouse of the marriage from divorce and will take some time and effort as it formally existed.

#Save Relationship Text Astonishing Diy Ideas #How Do I Save My Marriage While Separated

0 notes