#we cannot have that if we are being forced to participate in your government upon pain of fascist guillotine

[skaruresonic]

>>tfw the government they're telling you to vote for lest that government become even worse slaughtered 99% of your people and the people like you, then shunted the 1% of survivors onto actual prisoner-of-war camps and proceeded to beat the language and traditions out of their children

>>entire country is founded on illegal means because of said genocide >>country has broken every single treaty there is, leading you to believe nothing will change for you just because there's a rotation of the prison guard

>>cannot vote because if you do then you're serving this mendacious government your tribal sovereignty on a silver platter

>>"if you don't vote in this system literally built on precluding, erasing, and oppressing you, you're a psyop and personally responsible for fascism in our already genocidal country"

>>tfw they mess up their own government yet chide you for not helping clean it up

>>tfw you can't help but wonder how it is the Haudenosaunee managed to get along for centuries without all this fuckery, yet they're in charge of the place for two minutes and now it's on fire. >>muh democratic principles without Great Law. muh Constitution that doesn't consider slaves or indigenous tribes people. much greatness, many wow >>tfw they copy your homework and still fuck it up

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the “notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product” and think that in an anarchist society “the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done.” By so doing workers would free themselves “from the terrible bondage of capitalism.” [Voltairine de Cleyre, “Anarchism”, Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style “socialism” — better called “state capitalism” --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves “socialists.” They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay “Modern Science and Anarchism,” ”[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense — as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital — the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker’s words, “the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own,” a claim that both “the two schools of Socialistic thought … State Socialism and Anarchism” agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word “socialist” was originally defined to include “all those who believed in the individual’s right to possess what he or she produced.” [Lance Klafta, “Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism,” in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, “the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour.” [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers’ co-operatives, where “every individual employed in the association … has an undivided share in the property of the company” because by “participation in losses and gains … the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers’ control and either ownership by workers’ associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon’s (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see ”[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished” for “either the workman.. . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate … In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience… In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen… he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave … we need not hesitate, for we have no choice… it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers … because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two… castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.” [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215–216]

Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist (“If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism” [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example — the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) — called his ideas “Anarchistic-Socialism” and denounced capitalism as a system based upon “the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit.” Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since “labour… will… secure its natural wage, its entire product.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring the latter’s exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various “spooks,” which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific kind — libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

“It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic.” [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not]

Labadie stated on many occasions that “all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists.” Therefore, Daniel Guerin’s comment that “Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man” is echoed throughout the history of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings. [Anarchism, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact — “every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist” — while acknowledging that the movement was “divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists.” [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81]

So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues — for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market would be the best means of maximising liberty — they agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will “decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual” during working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was “the exemplification of gaining freedom by association” and that ”[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of his employer than he is with it.” [Different Phases of the Labour Question]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today “socialism” almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky’s statement on this issue:

“If the left is understood to include ‘Bolshevism,’ then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism.” [Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 779]

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the “Red bureaucracy” that would institute “the worst of all despotic governments” if Marx’s state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker accepted Marx’s analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily influenced by Max Stirner’s book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a brilliant critique of what Marx called “vulgar” communism as well as state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) — for example, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism’s desire for the free association of equals.

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as “socialism” (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of “central planning,” which many people associate with the word “socialism,” anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose “state” socialism as a form of state capitalism in which ”[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer.” [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchists reject Marxism (what most people think of as “socialism”) as just ”[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism.” [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist objection to the identification of Marxism, “central planning” and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in section H.

It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce confusion, most anarchists just call themselves “anarchists,” as it is taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise of the so-called “libertarian” right in the USA, some pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves “anarchists” and that is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller discuss of why “anarcho”-capitalism is not anarchist see section F).

[the-root-of-all-revolution]

Political Afrofuturism - An Analysis of Science Fiction and Current Affairs

Science Fiction of past eras is often telling of the political climate of the time it was written. This is true in any genre of fiction. The writing of the time often reflects the schools of thought shaped by world events of the time. This analysis can say many things. Sometimes, stories reflect the perspective that comes from the author’s demographic. Other times, these stories reflect an imperial narrative told by powerful forces in the state to its own citizens– even if this narrative conflicts with reality. Some writing is truly timeless, and is more difficult to pin down as a product of its era as much as a critique of society as a whole.

In his essay, “Star Wars and the American Imagination,” Mumia Abu-Jamal provides an analysis of this phenomenon. Star Wars is not Afrofuturism. Instead, it is a mainstream science fiction film franchise consumed by millions in America and around the world. It tells the story of Luke Skywalker, a farmer’s son who eventually joins a rebellion to fight the oppressive forces of a so-called empire. On the surface, this is simply a fun narrative of an underdog gaining a victory against a much more powerful villain, a David and Goliath story all too popular in American fiction. Upon deeper examination, Abu-Jamal argues, a much more powerful and colonial narrative is at play. Star Wars was released in the 1970s, right after the Vietnam war. This was one of the few recorded combat losses in American history, and the country’s participation is now considered one of the worst political decisions since its inception. This is a more recent perspective to be adopted by the general public. As such, American elites at the time had a few possible ways of presenting this loss to the public. One, they could eat their losses: Accept that the war was a loss and the failings of a modern colonial empire taking on more than it could handle. Alternatively, they could push this narrative to contradict the overwhelming truth of America’s imperialism. After all, if America is the world’s most powerful nation, how could it lose a war? How would it lose to Vietnam, of all nations? In Star Wars terms, America could either present itself as rebels, down on their luck heroes who barely manage a victory or an oppressive, militarized empire. In the end, people - specifically the American audience - are meant to empathize with Luke Skywalker, the rebel. The empire was a distant force meant to fall eventually. Something the valiant American core audience could never connect themselves too– Or could they?

In a later Star Wars film, it is discovered that Darth Vader, the supreme leader of the empire, is Luke Skywalker’s father. This scene went down in film history as one of the most memorable plot twists of all time. “Luke, I am your father” is a line recognizable even by people who have never touched a Star Wars DVD. This line breaks the metaphor. If Luke is a metaphor for the American layman, where does that leave him? How could we, as Americans, be against ‘the empire’ if we are a part of it ourselves? Abu-Jamal argues this is just another propagandized tactic to get citizens to submit to American imperialism. Star Wars as a franchise is targeted towards teenagers and some young adults. This is the most likely demographic to participate in anti-government activism, such as being anti-Vietnam War protesters. Sure it is fun, as youth, to imagine oneself as a rebel, fighting against the forces at play, but eventually, we all must grow up. Star Wars, is after all, fiction. Colonial empires, as we learned, are a thing of the past. Right? Maybe. Or maybe Abu-Jamal is right. Maybe America is as much of a devastating force as the empire of the films. Either way, the crimes of America’s past and present cannot be ignored, especially as the narratives surrounding these events permeate themselves in our most beloved pieces of media.

[rauthschild]

Throughout the rest of the world, people are citizens at birth. They owe a responsibility to their national government the moment they are born. In many countries, that obligation is lifelong with no escape.

People born in, for example, Germany or Mexico, immigrate to this country and become Americans, but so far as their birth country is concerned, they are still Germans or still Mexicans, whether they like it or not.

This non-consensual Dual Citizenship is not under the control of The United States and cannot stand as a bar to lawfully immigrated people preventing them from participating in the government here.

All forms of "citizenship" imply that the individual is required to serve the government, instead of the government being required to serve them.

Our country stands alone on the Earth in being the only country where the individual has no obligation to serve the government at birth or at any other time. Beyond keeping the peace and causing no harm to others, we are free -- as Americans who are part of the native population of each nation-state.

However, the present problem is that Britain, as usual, got greedy, and circa 1921, their Territorial Congress started registering British Territorial babies born in America....and then, they just started registering everyone as British Territorials. It was a creeping, undisclosed usurpation.

In this way they slowly, one by one, secretly and illegally converted the political status of these American babies from their native political status to that of a British Territorial Subject.

British Territorials are part of the whole Romano-British Caste System I have recently described. They agree to act in the capacity of Humans (indentured servants) and as British Subjects (slaves) for life at birth, which is one of the things that we, Americans, fought to get away from.

Nonetheless, and even though they know it's an international crime, here they are on our shores pumping away without disclosure, registering everyone as wards of the King and as British Subjects --- and using unconscionable contracts to do it.

By not giving disclosure to our parents and preying upon us when we were too young to know what they were doing, they foisted British Territorial U.S. Citizenship on us without our knowledge or consent.

That isn't the way it's supposed to be.

Americans are supposed to grow up free from any such obligations to any government. They are supposed to learn about their government as they are growing up, and past the age of 21, they can participate in it or not. Their choice.

That is, in large part, what being "free" is about.

How can you ever be free if you owe your time and labor and money to the government?

Are you "free" if the government claims to own your labor? And forces you to pay a peonage tax on your labor, i.e., Federal Income Tax?

Are you "free" if the government "takes title" to your land and then forces you to pay "property taxes" for them?

It's one thing if you voluntarily serve your government on terms that you agree to, and a completely different thing if you are obligated to serve the government from birth.

So the Brits have been caught misapplying their system to Americans and it's an international crime -- a capital crime under international law.

Forcing people into citizenship obligations and "conferring" foreign citizenships upon them was just too tempting a plum, and it seemed that nobody was here minding the store, so....

That right there, is ninety-percent of the problem we are facing in America and it is down to the Brits again. So we feel completely justified in blaming them and exposing their bad faith and criminality to the world.

This idea that groups of people can arbitrarily "confer" citizenship obligations on others has to stop.

This British Bunko started in the wake of the Civil War when some States were (purportedly-- there is no proof of this) still resisting the idea that the former black slaves could be part of their nation-state and population.

So the British Territorial Congress voted to confer a new "Federal Citizenship" on them-- which turned out to be Municipal United States citizenship.

All the former plantation slaves were then "presumed" to be "citizens of the United States" (slaves of the Municipal Government) under the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, and as the Municipal Government owed the Territorial Government money, the Territorial Government started collecting from the former plantation slaves.

The total of these new citizen's estimated lifetime value-- their value as slaves, their labor, anything they might have as property -- was "assumed" as collateral backing the debts of the Municipal United States Government.

They went from being privately owned to being publically owned and the mechanism for this was a "conferred" citizenship obligation.

Bear in mind that the British Territorial Congress never had any right to confer any such obligation on these men and women.

They took men and women who were born free on the land and soil of this country and obligated them to perform under the presumption of foreign citizenship.

The Perpetrators of this crime gained a lot of collateral to borrow against as a result, with hardly anyone here understanding what was going on.

After that, the Brits were off to the races, counting anyone "of color" as a debtor and a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States". Millions of innocent people were enslaved by this scheme, not only black African Americans, but Oriental and Hispanic Americans, too.

Then in the 1920's the Perpetrators hit upon the Birth Registration Scam and started a massive undisclosed and unlawful political conversion operation on our shores.

Ostensibly, they were just "registering" their own British Territorial babies as British Territorial U.S. Citizens, and as British Subjects, but it very rapidly escalated into a wholesale effort to register everyone in sight as a Brit.

By this means, they secretly and falsely claimed to own millions of Americans, body, mind, and soul, as British collateral, and they began the whole nasty business of trading in "birth certificates" and "baptismal certificates" in the 1920s.

The Internal Revenue Service was imported to this country as a Delaware Corporation in 1925. The only purpose of the Internal Revenue Service was to collect a tax on the slave's labor as part of an illegal and immoral British Territorial peonage scheme, by which their government demanded a fat kickback from their own employees for the privilege of a "federal job".

But again, they secretly pushed to involve as many clueless Americans as possible in this same system and it should come as little surprise then, to learn that a "Taxpayer" is a Warrant Officer in the British Merchant Marine Service.

It's all bunko foisted off on Americans, and so-called Federal Citizenship is key to it all -- it's actually plain old British Territorial U.S. Citizenship as if you were a Tory born in Puerto Rico. And once they have you "signed up" for that duty, they impersonate you again, and confer Municipal citizenship of the United States on you, too, which has allowed them to claim that you are indebted to them --- when in fact you are not.

All of this is just British lies, bunk, bad faith, False Claims in Commerce, conspiracy to defraud, unlawful conversion, inland piracy, etc.,etc.,etc.

They've entrapped and enslaved millions upon millions of Americans for over a hundred years using this scheme and the pity is, they got away with it. Until now.

If anyone asks you if you are a United States citizen you want to look hard at them and ask, "Which United States are you talking about? These United States or those United States?"

The answer to that question is the difference between slavery and freedom.

They've also tried to enslave and entrap every immigrant to this country in the same way. They are all told they have to apply to the British Territorial Immigration and Naturalization Service and their INA bureaucracy, and by the time they emerge from that bureaucratic meat-grinder believing that it is a wonderful thing to be a U.S. Citizen, they've all been misinformed and subjected to peonage and enslavement, too.

The phony British Territorial Government and their colluding Roman Municipal Government pals want to fatten up their war chest before trying to push another mercenary war in the Middle East.

All these poor people from Mexico and South America think they are coming to the Land of the Free, but they are actually walking into a trap. They and all that they are, is being claimed as chattel, and when they walk over our border they become a much more valuable chattel.

A man born in Honduras might be worth maybe a hundred thousand dollars to these Slavers, but when he walks over our border, he is suddenly worth around $40 Billion in collateral to the fiends.

They come here wanting to be free and be Americans and wind up being British Territorial U.S. Citizens and Municipal citizens of the United States, too. And who knew?

What does it mean to be a "citizen" --- not of a country, but of a corporation? It means you are owned by the corporation, as in slave ownership.

They kept all this illegal and unlawful activity quiet for decades, and passed it off under color of law as being normal and just business as usual --- when in fact they were playing a game of murder on paper, "killing" the American babies on paper, gratuitously "waiving their American estates" for them, seizing upon the natural estates of their American victims, and distributing the purloined assets for their own benefit, all while relabeling everyone as U.S. Citizens and citizens of the United States.

It's all self-interested lies and fraud, inland piracy, bunk, con, racketeering, all tied up with a bow constructed upon false citizenship obligations.

The British Territorial United States Government is a criminal syndicate with operations all over the world, and they have been colluding and splitting "the take" from all this with the Roman Mafia, which has its own crime syndicates.

This is all far beyond bad faith and ill-service. This is active inland piracy and commercial crime on a vast scale, perpetuated by countries and governments that are under contract to serve us in "good faith" and which have been our purported Allies through two World Wars.

The Roman Catholic Church has known about this all along and has done nothing to help the Americans object to this gross disservice, because they were collecting 60% of proceeds from this grossly illegal, unlawful, and immoral activity.

The British Monarchy and the Government of Westminster have both been the implementers of this giant National level Identity Theft Scheme, so there is no doubt that they have acted as shameless gluttons and thugs, in bad faith and hopeless breach of trust.

These are criminals and they try to say that they are "at war" and to pass all this off as being legitimate, but it isn't. The record proves that none of this was the result of any "war". This has all been the result of illegal and immoral Mercenary Conflicts which they have promoted and tried to disguise as wars.

Americans serve their States of the Union as State Citizens. That's it. That's the only kind of citizenship that we may accept and the only kind of citizenship this country recognizes. Every other kind of alleged citizenship has been foisted off on us under conditions of deceit and non-disclosure via the use of unconscionable contracts.

Let all the people of the world know for sure that what has gone on here is a crime of staggering proportions -- a crime that the Roman Catholic Church allowed and profited from, a crime that the British Government promoted, perpetuated, and profited from, a crime that the Government of Westminster promoted, perpetuated, and profited from.

Let everyone know that the Americans were the victims of all this crap that was imported here from Europe and be aware that the Municipal Corporations operating "as" government and using the District of Columbia as a base of operations are not our Government. They are run amok Subcontractors -- service providers for our government.

Donald Trump is not our President. He's the President of a British Territorial Corporation under contract to provide us with "essential government services" per The Constitution of the United States of America.

Joe Biden is not our President, either. He's the President of a Roman Municipal City-State Corporation that is also supposed to provide us with "good faith" service under The Constitution of the United States.

Both these men are under the obligation of their respective contracts to secure our borders. Period.

It is not within the powers of either one of their "Congressional bodies" to say one word about our borders nor to establish a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone" around our borders. They have no power of legislation that can overcome their contracts and their contractual limitations.

The Government and the Constitutions which created these Subcontractors and provided them with stipulated and strictly enumerated powers can destroy them, too. Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, of both their Constitutions, makes it clear that for them, there is no other or greater Law.

They can give themselves no powers beyond those vouchsafed to them. They can claim no property but that which the actual States, our Government, allowed to them and officially acted to give to them.

Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, is exactly right. There is no record of any action taken by Texas, and its actual State Assembly, to give these Federal Corporations any of the land in question.

It should be apparent that the Hired Help has no ability to declare any cubic inch of our States or our Territories as "Constitution-free".

Joe Biden's corporation needs to be permanently liquidated and shut out of the District of Columbia and anywhere else it hides under whatever new names it adopts, and Donald Trump's corporation is on thin ice, too.

Both these corporations and their immediate predecessors have contributed to defrauding generations of Americans, have engaged in war-for-profit, imposed unlawful conversion and foreign citizenship obligations, and otherwise behaved as criminal organizations on our shores.

Both of these foreign corporations for their separate reasons, promoted the phony pandemic which has resulted in genocide, pollution of our genetic inheritance, and destruction of our economies.

Being the Bad Guys to catch the Bad Guys is a logical fallacy; the ends never justify the means.

Telling us to "enjoy the show" isn't helping, because it is painfully apparent that everything, including the evils of the Civil War, World War I, World War II and everything in between has been a big joke to these commercial corporations, a "show" --- foisted off on the public by men engaged in denigrating and defrauding their employers for their own profit.

It's also apparent that much of the evil perpetuated by both these denizens of the District of Columbia has been promoted and permitted by an evil and corrupt banking system which has been built on peonage and enslavement born out of "conferred" citizenships and False Registrations.

The Federal Reserve has to be completely and permanently restructured. So does the World Bank, the IMF, and numerous other banking institutions that profited from these and associated criminal practices.

It's time for restitution, not a war in the Middle East.

[sophiesblogs101]

Tales from the Hood film review

I felt that the movie Tales from the Hood was fantastic. Despite being somewhat older than the other movies we examined in class, this movie still goes above and beyond what I would have expected from a horror movie.This movie is related to the others that were discussed in class as well because it's not your typical horror movie, instead, it depicts social issues that are prevalent in real life. Three drug traffickers are called to a funeral parlor to pick up a load of drugs in the movie Tales from the Hood. The strange, eccentric Mr. Simms greets them and tells them four terrifying moralistic stories about the dead that are lying in his parlor. In the first story, a cop who wants to exact revenge on the man who was killed by corrupt police officers starts hearing his voice from beyond the grave. In the second story, there is a creature who torments a child named Walter, and the teacher notices that something is off. In the third story, a white supremacist seeking governor ignores the warnings of a supernatural presence that resides in an old house where there has been a history of racial conflict. The fourth story, which concludes, is on a career criminal who consents to participate in a horrifying behavioral modification program run by a scientist employed by the government. The drug dealers are eventually handed what they came for and discover that there is much more evil to the funeral home than they ever imagined. The stories get progressively worse as Mr. Simms continues telling them. Investigation of societal injustice is a repeated theme in the movie. Each narrative tackles an individual aspect relating to social problems such as racism, corrupt administration, and consequences from an individual's past. However, it is experienced by the audience through the overview of the stories, making it very personal and unpleasant. In place, escape becomes an essential element of the horror genre, which turns it into a formidable weapon for social criticism, forcing viewers to witness harsh realities. Retribution is also a significant theme in Tales from the Hood. It also implies that these departed souls are taking their revenge upon individuals who caused harm to them, thus supporting the idea that every story contains a “thread” which explains how everyone must get their due and certainly pay for their deeds. The movie acts as a moral compass, showing that one’s history cannot be escaped and that responsibility has to be taken for the decisions made.

[catharsistine]

To Write A Good Villain

TW: loss of control, hallucinogenics, dr*gs, sc*rs, venom, bl*od, death, defeat, s*x, god, volcanoes, pr*dtors, m*rder, j*alousy, smoking, ab*se, cheating, sl*very, oppression, servitude, vampires, destruction.

Technically, I'm here on Tumblr as a writer. So. It's time I contributed my itty bitty bit.

Many things make a good story. Some claim it is world-building, some think it the cast of protagonists, some the vivid descriptions. All of those elements, however, will seem lacklustre, if your story does not have a good villain. What use is an MC with glorious superpowers or magic, if there is nothing to oppose them? Can there be any victory without a great evil?

In real life? Perhaps. In any fictional world? No. The readers tune in for awesome conflict, so we writers must provide, and enjoy ourselves while doing so.

So what does make a great villain?

Before we explore that, let us review the types of villains. Most important to remember is that a villain need not be human. In literature, there can be many types of discord:

- Person Vs Self: Often used as a compelling subplot, this kind of conflict is valid when a person needs to do something that is opposed to their inner self, something they find morally, emotionally or intellectually repulsive. Eg; A scholar forced to indulge in activities that are unscientific, like smoking when they know it is bad for their health. A pacifist who is forced into a war situation and must commit murder to save their own or their family's lives. A person seeking enlightenment struggles with jealousy when their guru finds a new favourite. (IMPORTANT: Feeling conflicted due to one's morals is acceptable. Hating oneself due to a mental disorder is not. Please do not use mental illness as a plot point.)

- Person Vs Person: Often used as a primary plot point in standalone stories and movies, this kind of conflict is valid when a person bears a personal grudge or hatred toward another. Eg; A wrestler hating someone who defeated them in the ring through sabotage. A child-hating the murderer that orphaned them and their sibling. A person hating their lover who manipulated, gas-lit or cheated on them. (IMPORTANT: Ensure that abuse and abusers are not romanticized, that the healing journey of the character does not lead to them forgiving their abuser. Forgiveness is not a prerequisite for closure. Please do not encourage abuser-abused relationships.)

- Person Vs Society: Often used as a primary plot point in dystopian stories and movies, this kind of conflict is valid when a person aims to fight against a law or a government that systematically oppresses them. Eg; A womon fighting against the law which considers them as lower-class citizens. A PoC fighting against slave laws. A member of the working class rebelling against the bourgeoisie. (IMPORTANT: If you are not a minority, do not presume you are qualified to tell their story. Our stories belong to us alone, and taking away from us the privilege of sharing our trauma when we feel comfortable enough to do so is the worst kind of representation. Please remember if you occupy a position of power, you have no right to speak on our behalf. Already we are often silenced, do not participate in that further if you claim to be an ally.)

- Person Vs Machine: Often used as a primary plot point in science fiction stories and movies, this kind of conflict is valid when any man-made object gains enough intelligence to be considered sentient and becomes a threat to humanity. Eg; A machine that acts as a maid desiring to be free of the bonds of its servitude. An AI which does not have empathy and value for human life. A robot that attempts to destroy mankind. (IMPORTANT: These conflicts are often intricate, and can be spun anyway. Perhaps a human tries to teach a robot to love, and the result is embarrassing in a comedic way. But do not try to equate people on the asexual and aromantic spectrums, people with mental illness or people with severe trauma to these AI. They are extremely discriminated against. Please, do not contribute to the stigma.)

- Person Vs Nature: Often used as a compelling subplot, this kind of conflict is valid when a person is pitted against fauna and flora in a vulnerable state. Eg; A captive who has escaped their bonds only to come upon a harsh landscape. A person with severe allergies visits a place that is opposed to their disposition. A person with a grudge against a famous wild animal who bit off their leg. (IMPORTANT: In many such stories, a trend is that a character comes across a hostile tribal group. These tribes are portrayed only the negative attributes of certain PoC cultures. Doing so is blatantly racist and highly offensive. Please refrain from representing us in such appalling ways.)

- Person Vs Fate/Supernatural: Often used as a primary plot point in fantasy and YA stories and movies, this kind of conflict is valid when a person is threatened or working against a force that is outside nature. Eg; A person coming across a magical artefact belonging to a god, and the devil's henchmen are after it, but it has bonded to them. A lower-level employee working in a tampon factory accidentally discovering their boss is a deadly vampire. A person falling in love, only to discover their partner is heir to a clan of selkies, and their younger sibling plans on overthrowing them. (IMPORTANT: Oftentimes, the villains are given physical and cultural attributes exclusive to PoC and their culture, like the antagonist having dreadlocks or enjoying food that lies outside white cuisine. Please realise that is racist.)

How to create a proper villain:

1. Motive.

Arguably the most important factor in a villain is motive. Their end goal must be reasonable(depends on their moral compass), achievable(depends on their means), and must cause moral conflict in the protagonist.

Eg; Due to childhood trauma, a villain feels weak and unsafe in their own skin. Adopting a terrifying persona, they seek to control everyone around them, and by extension, the world, through a potent hallucinogen. Considered worthless until they design a new identity, the villain is only considered a threat when they overthrow a monarchy/gain obscene amounts of money/create a giant machine. The MC knows that the villain is wrong in their actions, but understands that their henchmen are drugged, and must choose a different course of action than brute force to defeat them.

2. Power/Skill

Expanding on the earlier point of a goal being achievable, a villain must have the capabilities to obtain the prize they desire. If they perform actions outside their means, the entire premise becomes boring and unrealistic. Unless the villain is playing pretend for a future plot twist, humble the antagonist before they get out of hand.

Eg; A machine cannot destroy the world if they do not have an intricate base code if they are not linked to machines around the world. An animal cannot be famous unless its existence is questionable unless it is more mythical than real unless it possesses some quality (a missing tooth, a scar across their eye) that the others of its breed do not have. Kindness cannot be a source of a moral dilemma if it is not shown in many actions of the protagonist.

3. Appearance.

Contrary to popular belief, the way a villain looks contributes greatly to their story. If the appearance of an antagonist does not match their other attributes, the villain may fall flat and feel one-dimensional.

Eg; If a person comes from humbler beginnings, them wearing designer clothes is not feasible. A wealthier person should at least maintain the appearance of being well-groomed, but a few things out of place, such as a tie clip, messy eyeliner, or stubble are acceptable, perhaps due to lack of respect for themselves, or mania from unfulfilled desires. If a plant is secretly venomous, let insects keep away from it. If a werewolf is known to violently transition, let them have a feral look in their eye, larger canines and stronger jawbones.

4. Presence

Outside of appearance, the overall vibe of the villain is of the utmost importance. Their aesthetic instils fear, inspires awe, which is one of the primary things that cause audiences to secretly root for them. Their smooth delivery of scathing, savage lines makes us fall in love with them. Having a stellar, scary presence amplifies whatever the villain does tenfold.

Eg; If a villain wears a daring dress, different from the style of their era, it will make them seem much more impressive. Fresh after a murder, if they have blood splattered on their face, it will make the ghastliness of their actions more resounding. If they're haunting little children, having grotesque features instead of sharp ones will terrify the kids more, and the readers.

5. Backstory

Why did the villain become a villain in the first place? This is perhaps the most important question when it comes to antagonists. Not only do backstories help us understand the villain's motives and reasons better, but readers may also root for them if they glimpse a part of them reflected in the villain, making the tale more painful to read.

Eg; If a bully has been abused at home, it explains their actions. If a villain was in a situation where their body was not theirs, their actions may be born out of a desire for control.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not make them a caricature. Avoid toxic and dull stereotypes such as "catty ex-girlfriend", "sex-crazed womon", "evil old pr*dator" etc. Not only are these caricatures cartoonish and overused, but they also make a villain hollow and lifeless. Villains are humans too, give them quirks, bad habits and things they enjoy, beliefs of their own. (Eg; They enjoy watching cat videos, smoke or bite their nails, enjoy mixing drinks for fun, and think God is a hoax.)

2. Avoid coding them as PoC or LGBTQ+. If you have a diverse cast of various races, ethnicities, sexualities and genders, then it is completely alright to write another such character as the villain. However, if your only minority character is the villain, that is highly problematic.

3. A backstory does not equate to sympathy. If the villain's actions are extremely reprehensible, including and not limited to; r*pe, g*nocide, ab*se or s*rial murder, please do not try to redeem them. Understanding someone's motives is wildly different from making the audiences sympathize with them. Do not romanticize their flaws.

4. Lastly, humble them. A villain will always entertain the audiences if they suffer a bit too. Instead of constant angst and pain, add lighter moments, moments where they stumble, trip, are tired or bored. This would make their eventual death/defeat burn even more, and the audience will definitely mourn the loss of a wonderful antagonist.

Like a volcano, a true villain leaves ashes in their wake, but their fire forces the protagonists to solidify into stone. Let their actions echo into the age.

[pocfansmatter]

Okay I said before I was going to get more in depth with blood quantum eventually so now is as better time than any I guess. Mind you I'm speaking as a Native American meaning an Indigenous person from America. Specifically from 2 southern California tribes. I cannot speak for all Native or Indigenous people. I can only speak for myself, I can’t even speak for my tribe. However most Natives tend to have the same view when it comes to the blood quantum debate. From this point on blood quantum will be shortened to BQ & Native American to Native(s).

Originally this was gonna be a reply to another comment but decided to make it it's own post so I don't associate my blog with that anti Indigenous one. Please try to read the whole post before clicking the articles. I screenshotted the main parts to keep the discussion going. Feel free to click on all the articles because they are good & most of them are from Native run news websites.

I was gonna do this with a read more tag but my laptop doesn't want to work. I'm literally getting anyther one on Thanksgiving but my old one doesn't cooperate sorry so y'all are gonna get a long post. 😕

So let's start with the basics. What is blood quantum?

"Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are laws in the United States and the former Thirteen colonies that define Native American identity by percentages of ancestry. ... For instance, a person who has one parent who is a full-blood Native American and one who has no Native ancestry has a blood quantum of 1/2."

In case that was confusing if one person is "full blood native" they are considered 4/4. Meaning they have no relatives who are of any other race or ethnicity. If the "full blood native" has a child with a non Native person the child would have a BQ of 1/2 Native blood. If that child has a child with a non Native that child will be considered 1/4. This will continue to get lower & lower unless the child has a baby with another Native. Then the BQ raises or stays the same depending on the other parents BQ.

Now that the definition is out of the way lets get into the issue with this.

This is a good article that narrowed down an issue with Pharrell wearing a headdress. I wanna focus on one part of the article though.

"... deeply connected to their Native culture & live it every day."

"Having Native American ancestors doesn't get you off the hook if you don't bother to do the homework."

So I mentioned before that a lot of Natives don't consider BQ as a proper way of measuring your culture. Being Native isn't something you can pull out when it's convenient like for a photoshoot. Its every single day. It's in the words we speak, in the clothes we wear & in the food we cook. Same as any other culture.

Asian people don't wake up not Asian. Black people don't wake up not Black.

So why is do some people pull out the Native card when it is convenient? Like Pharrell did or Elizabeth Warren claims.

This article sums it up well but I wanna focus on the last 2 paragraphs.

Link to the full article:

There's similarities in both articles by 2 different Native authors from 2 different news websites.

They both speak about connections to our culture. A DNA test cannot measure ones Indigenous Ancestry because being Indigenous is much more than something in your blood.

I made a post asking some questions that might help understand if one is Indigenous or not. Now I'm not saying these are all the questions nor that I'm the expert on this. These are just STARTER questions to help people understand what it means to be Native.

Does the tribe you claim, claim you?

Have you been to the reservation?

Do you participate in the community?

Have you met your family from the tribe?

Do you know your history, traditions, anything about the tribe you claim?

The big one is are you claimed. You cannot claim a tribe that doesn't claim you. Now I'm not saying the entirety of the tribe has to know you personally. I'm not even saying you have to stand in front of the tribal council & ask them if they claim you. A claim can be made as little as just your family saying "this person is one of us".

The reason I bring this up is because multiple tribes have in the past & continue the practice of "adopting" a person into their tribe. There's many examples of this. Some can be adopted because they married into a tribe. Non Natives & Natives of other tribes alike have been adopted into tribes. There can be legal adoptions like adopting a child. And countless other examples.

A lot of the time biologically those members aren't apart of the tribe & cannot be enrolled but are still viewed as a member by the community.

For personal example, my sister has been adopted by my tribe. She's actually an enrolled member from another tribe & technically my cousin but was taking away by CPS & my family took her in. She grew up & still lives on my reservation. She is from another reservation. Although her tribe still claims her as a member my tribe also does. People in my community know her as a member of my family & have grown up with her. She knows many of our traditions & practices some ceremonies with us that are specific to my tribe. No one in our tribe has expressed any issue with this so far & even if they did they would have a stern talking to. We are even in the process of organizing her to be buried on our tribal land instead of hers. Her choice & we are okay with it.

Now I want to point out another way people can be considered Native even if they aren't enrolled or cannot answer those questions properly.

Let's look at something called "reconnecting Natives".

What is a reconnecting Native?

A reconnecting Native is someone of Native Ancestry who for whatever reason has been removed from their culture, family, reservation, etc so they do not know them & are actively trying to learn those things so they can reclaim their Native roots.

So, how does this happen? This is actually a very common issue in the community.

One of the main ways a Native might become disconnected is through the process of Residential Schools or Indian Boarding Schools. What is that? Here's a snippet of an article to help explain.

Of course here is the link:

The official motto of these schools was "kill the Indian, save the man” and if you think it sounds awful I promise you, it was much worse than you could imagine.

There's a movie on Netflix called Indian Horse which I have not watched yet but is based off a novel by an Indigenous author that looks at these Boarding Schools if you wish to check that out.

The goals of these schools were to strip Indigenous children of their culture. They were beaten, starved, punished of things as simple as speaking in their languages. A lot of them didn't even speak English. It was illegal to keep your kids from this school & often times tribal children went to these schools and never returned to their family. Natives who attended these schools or are children of children who attended these schools more often than not stop practicing their culture or forget it. In that way they become "disconnected".

Those members can if chosen too began the process of reconnecting.

I found this really good article going a little more in depth on the do's & don't's of reconnecting.

But here's a screenshot of important parts.

Granted this is a long process. Lifelong. Every journey to reconnect is difficult & very different from others. It depends on your tribe & community. Some of them make it easier & some make it harder. It's up to the individual to put in the work.

Now I don't want to make it like being a connected Native is easy. Yes it's easier but connected Natives also put in work to live their culture everyday.

Now what does this have to do with blood quantum? As you can see none of these articles about being Native or even a reconnecting Native mention blood quantum or DNA being a requirement.

If one is Japanese & someone asks "how are you Japanese?" What would the answer be?

"Because I just am. Because my parents are Japanese."

If someone is white & has kids those kids are white, correct?

So if it's so easy to explain for other cultures why does mine require math? Why are some of my family members not enrolled members despite having Native parents & growing up on the reservation? Why do my people have to actively think about the DNA results of our children if we choose to have them?

Because of BQ. Its a tool created by colonizers that are forced upon us. If we do not abide by the rules & requirements the government sets in place we run the very big risk of

Losing our status of a Native American tribe.

Losing our land & land rights.

Losing funding from the federal government.

Losing our housing.

Losing Healthcare.

Losing our basic citizenship rights.

The thing about BQ is it's designed so that we fail. If we fail to keep a certain amount of enrolled tribal members in a tribe then the government can break treaties & take away our land & things that are rightfully ours.

BQ is a lose/lose situation all around for us as well as extremely racist.

Because of the BQ requirements Natives actively worry about who they have children with. Some don't date outside of the their culture in fear of their children not being seen as legally Native. The problem here is a lot of the tribe is related. The issue of inbreeding increases. How do we solve that problem? Well we can have children with Natives of another tribe. But there's a problem here too. Most tribes do not allow what we call dual enrollment. Both of my tribes for example don't allow this. Which means one would have to pick which tribe to enroll their child. That means one of the tribes will lose out on a member. So that's another way identities are erased using BQ.

Okay I think I'm going to end this here. There is so much more I could've added. I also could've expanded on residential schools, what it means to be Indigenous, & reconnecting Natives but I wanted to keep it focused on BQ. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask or research on your own. We're still here. We aren't stuck in the 1800's. We weren't all killed by cowboys but the government is still actively trying to erase us.

[eternal-echoes]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. The Natural Moral Law

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. the natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

[zecretsanta]

Fic: Christmas at the Kashiwabara's

To: @miiversian​ 

From: @bookworm-2692​

I used the following prompt: the 999 cast hanging out together again for the holidays! (sans Ace bc… obvious reasons). There’s also bonus Nona and Ennea, since Hazuki is hosting the party!

This possibly isn’t quite as happy as you were hoping for - but as we know from VLR and ZTD, post-999 Junpei isn’t in a good place, so a bit of angst snuck its way in. I hope you enjoy it anyway!

Thanks for this prompt! I love the 999 cast, so this was really fun to write. I hope you enjoy it, and I wish you a wonderful rest-of-December!

AO3 Link

Summary: After the Second Nonary Game, Hazuki Kashiwabara hosts a Christmas Party for the other participants of the Nonary Game. They try to enjoy themselves and get into the Holiday Spirit, but as they’re still processing what happened last month, this doesn’t always go to plan.

———

Hazuki places the last knife and fork on the table, and sighs. It’s mid-December, mere weeks after the ordeal in Nevada, where she had been kidnapped and made to play some sick game, all to ensure the survival of some paradoxical girl’s existence. That same game was also where she finally learnt what her daughters had gone through nine years prior, and why they had returned from those nine days as shells of their former selves.

She still wasn’t entirely sure how she felt about the other participants of the Nonary Game. Two of them had caused the original game her daughters went through – Hazuki was free to hate them unreservedly, and feel gleeful that one was in jail and the other dead, blown to smithereens. Seven was the detective who had rescued Nona from the incinerator all those years ago – for all that he was annoying and loved to rile her up, she would be forever grateful that he had saved her daughter’s life.

Clover and Light were also victims of the first Nonary Game, the same game that Nona and Ennea had been kidnapped for. Hazuki felt nothing in particular towards them, other than pity that they had been forced to go through the game twice, and relieved that they had survived. The other set of siblings during Hazuki’s game, Aoi and Akane, had also gone through Nona and Ennea’s game as well. However, while she didn’t feel much specifically towards the Fields, she felt much more strongly about the Kurashikis, even though most of those emotions were conflicting and confusing. She felt the usual pity that as children they had been forced into such a cruel game, but she also felt anger that they then staged their own version of the game, endangering a further seven people (or nine, depending on how one counted). Their game however ultimately punished the four behind the first Nonary Game, with death and life in prison, and for this Hazuki was grateful. Nine years ago, Hazuki wanted anything to punish the culprits of her daughters’ kidnapping – now she had it, and she wasn’t sure if the price was worth it.

Then there was also the question of the paradox surrounding the siblings. Surrounding Akane Kurashiki in particular. Apparently, she had died on the boat nine years ago, but Hazuki had gone with Akane (and Aoi) behind every single door during the Nonary Game. Door 4. Door 8. Door 6. One of the Door 9s. She definitely seemed real behind each of those doors, and between the doors themselves. Somehow she had died nine years ago, and also masterminded the game six weeks ago in order to save her own life when she was twelve years old. This really increased Hazuki’s anger towards the siblings – that they would put on such a dangerous game, but then not even fully explain why, or how actions now could save a life in the past. Hazuki deserved a better explanation. But she was still glad they had ultimately survived. Probably.

The final participant of the Nonary Game was Junpei. Junpei, who had been friends with Akane when they were children, before Akane had died (or something. Hazuki had resolved to not think about that part of it too much). He had apparently not seen her or even thought about her for years, and yet now he cannot stop obsessing over her. He had immediately quit school to go find her. Hazuki wishes Junpei would just let it go and get over her. She was ultimately glad that Akane had decided not to be part of their lives anymore – she just wants Junpei to join the rest of them in moving on. As it is, every time she speaks to Junpei now, he’ll either be talking non-stop about her, or otherwise moping because she hasn’t gotten in contact with him yet. He had joined Seven’s detective agency, so Hazuki hopes he will be able to keep a closer eye on Junpei, and keep him from going further over the edge.

So, despite feeling conflicted or neutral about most of the others who had been kidnapped for the Nonary Game last month alongside her, they had all decided to keep in touch, and this evening’s Christmas Party was born. Since Aoi and Akane could not be contacted, they had not been invited. Junpei was devastated when he found out, although Hazuki is privately relieved. She isn’t sure she wants to confront the Kurashiki siblings about what had happened anytime soon, so knowing they won’t be here will give her some much needed space to process those emotions. Hazuki still isn’t entirely sure why she got stuck with the hosting job – until Seven pointed out that they were the two “most adulty” adults, and thus had the most established homes out of the group, and that his was a small flat since he lived alone, whereas her house was the largest because it was where she had raised Nona and Ennea. So here she was, setting the table, and hoping that tonight would not go horribly wrong somehow.

Just then, Hazuki hears the door unlock, followed by a loud “We’re home!” in Nona’s voice, and a smaller “With Clover and Light” in Ennea’s. Hazuki looks up, and indeed sees all four of them entering.

After the Nonary Game last month, Hazuki had learnt that her daughters had been kidnapped nine years prior in order to participate in an almost-identical Nonary game. Hazuki was shocked to learn that the morphogenetic field, pseudoscience she brought up to distract Junpei from whatever his funyarinpa nonsense was, was real, and that Nona and Ennea were intimately embedded within it. More disturbing was that their abilities with the fields were the reason they, and the other sixteen children, were kidnapped for that Nonary Game. Nona had met Light during their Game, and Ennea had met Clover, although somehow (Hazuki wasn’t sure she’d ever fully understand it) they were all aware of each other through the fields.

After escaping the Game, the Egyptian woman, Alice, had directed the car to the SOIS base for questioning. Following that, SOIS had attempted to track down all 18 children from the first Nonary Game, and offered them jobs. From what Hazuki could gather, Aoi and Akane could not be found, but the other 16 young adults now, all accepted the government job. Hazuki’s daughters had been reunited with their friends from those nine hours, nine years ago, and they were all workmates now. Nona and Ennea had thus offered Clover and Light a lift back to the Christmas Party following work that day, and now they had all arrived.

“Hello, hello!” Hazuki calls out. “Welcome to my home!”

“Hello, Lotus! It’s great to see you again.” Clover ran over to give Hazuki a hug, while Light walked over more calmly, and shook her hand.

“Thank you for agreeing to host us, I’m sure your home is very beautiful.”

“I’d appreciate being called Hazuki now, rather than Lotus, but you’re quite welcome.”

After Nona and Ennea each give her a hug, Hazuki directs Clover and Light to place the Kris Kringle gifts on the coffee table, where three brightly wrapped boxes already sit.

“I’m so surprised we’re the first to arrive,” Clover comments, “since it usually takes me forever to get ready.”

“It helps that we came straight from work though,” Nona adds.

“True.”

“Even so, I would have expected Seven to be more punctual – or even early,” Light interjects, looking thoughtful.

As if on cue, Hazuki’s phone buzzes with a message from Seven. He had told the group his real name after the SOIS questioning, since by that point everyone else’s was known, and codenames no longer mattered, but then Clover had declared that he would always be “Seven” to the group, and since he hadn’t introduced himself nine years ago when he was rescuing her brother and the others, then he lost the privilege of being known by a name (or at least, it would take at least another nine years for his name to sound like a usable name). Seven just shrugged at that, and said he didn’t mind the nickname anyway, and only disclosed his name to be fair. So Seven he still was.

Seven was texting Hazuki to explain he would be late, since Junpei was more unresponsive as usual. Junpei was extremely erratic when it came into keeping in touch – he would often go a week at a time before saying anything. Seven had taken to checking on Junpei when he didn’t respond to texts, and so he was giving Junpei a lift to Hazuki’s place (even if he, quote, had to drag him kicking and screaming).

“You’re right,” Hazuki announces to the group. “Seven was intending to be right on time, but he’s picking up Junpei, and today is apparently not one of Junpei’s better days.”

Nona and Ennea glance at each other as she says this, while Clover purses her lips and looks away. It’s Light who responds.

“Well, Junpei will be coming to the right place. We’re his friends, hopefully we can distract him tonight with food and jokes.”

Noises of affirmation heard all around, Hazuki sighs with relief as the conversation smoothly continues on. As a mother to children Junpei’s age, she worries about him. He rarely seems to discuss his parents or other family, or even other friends. His focus is completely trained upon Akane, and little else seems to occupy his time. She doesn’t want to baby him, though, and does her best to treat him as a regular adult, and avoids mentioning Akane Kurashiki whenever she can.

After about twenty minutes of conversation, the ringing of the doorbell cuts through and interrupts. Hazuki excuses herself, opens the door, and finds herself face to face with a grim Seven and a sullen Junpei. Upon seeing her, Seven grins, says “Merry Christmas”, and holds out his gift for the Kris Kringle. Junpei offers a small “Hi”, and Hazuki ushers them both inside.

“Ayyyy! They’re here!” Clover calls out.

“Junpei! What are you wearing?” Light says. “The colours clash horribly – I think it’s going to blind me!”

Junpei looks down at his all black outfit and scowls at Light but doesn’t say anything. Hazuki still chalks it up as a win – he doesn’t look as listless as he did before anymore.

Nona then steps up with Ennea following. Hazuki smiles when she sees this, as it has been their dynamic ever since they were small, Nona charging up and speaking for both of them, and Ennea being quieter behind.

“Hello Seven! And you must be Junpei. I’m Nona, and this is Ennea,” Nona introduces. “Nice to finally meet you after all these years.”

“Y- years? What do you mean years?”

“Akane mentioned you nine years ago. You were the one who told her about checking if the elevator was dry, to make sure we wouldn’t drown.” Nona steps closer to Junpei. “I was one of the four who went down the elevator at first, to check on Door 2 with Ren. Because of you, we didn’t drown. Of course we’d remember your name.”

“Of course,” Ennea adds, stepping forward as well, “we didn’t imagine at the time that you’d be an adult. But it was only weeks ago for you, wasn’t it? And not years, like it was for us.”

“And what on Earth did you mean by ‘boys don’t drown’? Of course boys drown! You idiot!” Nona flicks Junpei on the nose, and giggles when he takes half a step back, eyes wide and bewilderment clear on his face.

“Wh- what? You heard all that?”

Light smirks. “We didn’t hear your conversation, but Akane certainly repeated it for the rest of us.”

Junpei groans, and drops his head into both palms, just as Clover pouts and bemoans how it’s not fair that she didn’t get to witness that conversation, and that it’s not fair that her connection to Light is not two-way, like Ennea’s is to Nona. That’s news to Hazuki. She assumed all morphogenetic field connections were two-way, since that’s what she’s witnessed for years in her daughters. Hazuki raises an eyebrow and glances at Seven, who just smiles fondly at the others.

Ice broken, they begin to move to the table. The turkey is sitting in the middle, surrounded by various dishes, including a whole leg of ham and a potato bake. There are slices of cured salmon, meatballs and lingonberry jam, roasted vegetables, halved boiled eggs, bread rolls, and frankfurter sausages. Sitting on each plate are the Christmas crackers.

Soon enough, cracks fill the air as the crackers are pulled. Brightly coloured tissue paper crowns rest atop of everyone’s heads, and terrible jokes are being shouted across the table. The plastic items inside the crackers are looked at with mild curiosity before being forgotten for the rest of the meal. Long after all the crackers are gone, Junpei, Seven, and Nona have engaged in a heated pun and dad joke war. There’s a comment shouted over that din that the terrible jokes are supposed to end when the crackers end, as everyone digs into the food.

The clatter of cutlery against the plates begins to die down as everyone finishes. Hazuki is feeling comfortably full as she looks around the table, a feeling of satisfaction at seeing almost everyone’s empty plates. Junpei’s is still mostly full of food, and it looks as though he barely touched it. Hazuki doesn’t take it as a slight against her cooking, as Junpei’s appetite has been lacking lately, and mostly feels sorry for him. She doesn’t dwell on it though, as she doesn’t want to lower the otherwise lively mood – Clover and Ennea are excitedly chatting and practicing some of the ASL that Sachiko has taught them, while Nona, Light, and Seven are chatting about what each of them got up to in the nine years since they first met.

Nona glances over at Hazuki, then looks at Ennea, and then both of them get up to start clearing the table, telling Hazuki to stay sitting. Hazuki still can’t quite believe that the “twin thing” she had joked about all those years ago was real, and not just limited to twins.

“Ah, is it Kris Kringle time?” Seven says. “I’ll grab the gifts, you four stay put”

Junpei complies – Hazuki isn’t entirely sure he was even paying attention – but Light grumbles that being blind and missing an arm doesn’t make him incapable of helping, and gets up anyway to assist Seven. Clover takes one look at her brother, and stays seated, explaining that when he’s like this, he’d rather not have help either, so it was simpler to just… let him be.

Soon enough, the table is cleared and the gifts are in a pile in the centre of the table. Ennea fetches a couple of dice and Clover takes one look at them and bursts into laughter. She points to Junpei and says “no dice”, continuing to laugh. Hazuki smiles in wry amusement and Seven chuckles at this, when the doorbell rings unexpectedly. Still standing, Ennea goes to the door and opens it, silent shock radiating from her. A shout of “No way!” from Nona, before she leaps up and runs to the door.

Curiosity piqued, Hazuki begins to rise from her seat, when Nona says, “Well don’t just stand there, let them in Ennea!”

It’s two people Hazuki was beginning to think she’d never see again. The two people who orchestrated the entire game last month.

“Aoi? Akane?”

At the mention of “Akane”, Junpei finally looks up, and sees her.

“Akane? You’re here? Why?” Junpei is just staring in shock and disbelief – which is exactly what everyone else is doing, too.

“I’m sorry for turning up uninvited,” Akane begins, but Junpei interrupts her.

“Don’t apologise for that! I’m just so glad you’re here! But… why didn’t you come find us sooner? How did you know we would all be here?”

“We couldn’t come earlier,” Aoi says sternly. “What we did was not exactly within the bounds of legality, and we couldn’t be sure you wouldn’t turn us into the police. And if you start to do so now we’re marching straight back out again. I didn’t even want to show up here and now, but Akane… she insisted. She said we had to do this.”

“Junpei, I’m so sorry. I just. I had to disappear like that.” Akane tries to be gentle but Hazuki can detect a hint of impatience in what she is saying.

“Okay so you had to leave or whatever, that’s fine,” Clover interrupts. “But like, I know Lotus wasn’t able to contact you two. Because you left. So how on Earth did you know we’d all be here? Like not to make you feel unwelcome or anything but…?”

Akane places her head in her hands, and sheepishly says “I got it from Junpei, via the Morphogentic Fields. We’re still connected.”

“Wait… you got my location via the field? Why couldn’t I get yours?”

“Well um, Junpei… I have a bit more experience with the fields…”

“What she means to say,” Aoi interrupts, “is that she’s amazing at them and your abilities are non-existent. You were only able to connect to her before because she was able to reach across the nine years and connect. You can’t do jackshit on your own. She was able to read the invitation Lotus sent you, but even if Akane was standing in a room with flashing neon lights saying ‘we are here’ you would get nothing from her, unless she chose for you to get it”

“So Akane is able to spy on Junpei whenever she likes, and he gets no say in the matter?” Light asks quietly.

Akane says nothing, and looks to the ground. Junpei glares at everyone and no one. Aoi freezes, as though he hadn’t considered it in those words before.

“No… I don’t think that’s quite right,” Ennea pipes up.

“Yeah. We’re able to block each other out if the other is annoying us too much,” Nona adds.

“So if we don’t want to be connected… then we won’t be.”

“And since we know Junpei quit uni to search for Akane, he wants to find her. He opened himself up to her. She can connect to him through the morphogenetic field because, on some level, he wants her to.”

“No!” Junpei suddenly shouts. “I don’t want her to, to, to spy on me! I just… don’t want her to disappear!”

“I can’t block Light though.” Clover turns to her brother. “Can I?”

Light looks thoughtful. “Well, I can’t say I’ve ever been aware of you blocking me. Sometimes I don’t get anything from you, but I don’t know if that was intentional on your part or just…”

“So can we only block each other because our connection is equal in each direction?” Nona asks.

“But so was ours!” Junpei bursts out. “Back in the incinerator, I could hear her, and when I spoke, she responded! It’s like we were talking in real time!”

“She’s just that much better at it then you. She can transmit and receive powerfully enough that she could simulate that. I don’t think you can block her,” Aoi says. “For what it’s worth, I don’t get a choice either. She either chooses to give me something, or get something from me, and otherwise I can’t connect to her either.”

“I don’t want to be spied on,” Junpei repeats in a quiet voice, staring at the floor.

There’s silence for a moment, as though no one knows how to respond to that.

“Well, you’re here now aren’t you? So you may as well join us and sit down, right?” Seven looks at Hazuki in confirmation, and she nods. “Have you eaten yet? Yes? That’s good, I think we pretty much demolished everything here, we were just about to get on to the Kris Kringle game. Perfect timing for you to show up, Santa Claus. What have you got in your sack of goodies?”

“My. Name. Is. Aoi.” Aoi says through gritted teeth. “Yes, we did bring gifts, but stop calling me Santa!” He holds up two wrapped boxes, a cylinder and a flat rectangle, and places them on the table sharply.

“Is that another thing you stole from my brain?” Junpei retorts.

“I mean,” Akane begins, “it is a Christmas party, is it not? So gifts were an obvious thing to bring.” Junpei’s glare doesn’t abate, and Akane sighs and adds, “Okay yes, I read that on the invitation too. Happy now?”

Before another argument could get under way, Clover picks up the dice Ennea brought over earlier, and says, “Okay forget about all that. Let’s play! I’m the youngest so I should start!”

Relieved by the distraction, Hazuki raises her eyebrow and says “Sure. Provided you don’t insist on age order for the rest of it, and settle for a simple clockwise direction.”

Clover says “Deal” at the same moment that Junpei mutters “You just don’t want it to be obvious that you’re like the oldest one here or close to.”

“Oi! Just because you’re grumpy is no excuse to turn on me young man!”

Before Hazuki could continue yelling at Junpei’s blatant disrespect (how dare he!), Clover throws the dice down onto the table, perhaps harder than necessary, where they clatter for a few seconds before turning up as a one and a three.

“Aww,” Clover whines, as she pushes the dice to her left to Nona. Nona rolls the dice less forcefully than Clover, and ends up with a three and a five. She just smiles, and passes the dice to Light, making sure they drop into his hands. He rolls, and Nona cranes over to see what he got.

“First double,” she announces. “Two ones.”

“Wait, seriously?” Clover asks, and gets out of her seat to see for herself.

“She’s right,” Seven, to Light’s left and at the head of the table, says. “Snake eyes, huh? What are the chances of that?”

Light smirks. “Clearly I chose the right name for myself six weeks ago.” He reaches out and grabs the closest gift in the pile, as Seven grabs the dice and rolls.

The game continues. Doubles on the dice are rewarded with choosing a present from the centre, until they’re all gone, and then the players are free to steal the gifts from each other. Hazuki doesn’t miss how Junpei keeps on snatching the gifts brought by the Kurashiki siblings, despite the intermittent glares he keeps on sending them.

Soon enough, the timer on Ennea’s phone goes off and the game ends. Everyone stops to take in each other’s hoards. Clover has a pleased grin on her face as she notices that she has the largest hoard, with three gifts. Light and Ennea managed to snag two each, while Aoi and Junpei each have a single gift. Hazuki, Seven, Nona, and Akane all have no gifts. Ennea immediately hands one of her gifts to Nona, seated across from her, while Light offers one of his gifts to Hazuki, seated across from him. After a beat, Clover notices everyone looking pointedly at her, sighs long-sufferingly, and gives a gift each to Seven and Aoi.

The group then opens the gifts. Hazuki unwraps the small package from Clover, and finds a deck of playing cards. Hazuki turns to Clover to thank her, but is greeted by the sight of Clover staring suspiciously at a packet of chips, and then putting one in her mouth. Almost immediately, she yells at Junpei about the chilli flavour while simultaneously offering them to everyone around her. Aoi absent-mindedly takes a chip and eats it without flinching while fiddling with the three-dimensional puzzle he received from Light, trying to pull it apart. Next to Aoi, at the end of the table, is Akane with the mini succulent that Ennea bought.

Just then, a loud shout sounds out. Nona is holding what appears to be a Pringles can, but instead of Pringles inside, is a giant stuffed snake. Nona glares at Aoi, while he just grins and offers her a thumbs up, leaning back on his chair and thoroughly enjoying himself. She stuffs the snake back inside the Pringles can, closes the lid, and throws it at Aoi. It hits him in the face, dislodging the lid, so the snake leaps out again. Aoi falls off his chair, and glares at Nona, and then at his sister when she also starts laughing.

Hazuki tears her eyes away from the sight, and looks back at Light. He received the bottle of wine she had bought, and is sniffing it to identify it. He seems to sense that she is watching him, as he turns to face her and thank her for the gift.

“A joke book!” Ennea exclaims from Hazuki’s left. “And they’re not even good jokes. They’re terrible puns and dad jokes. Almost worse than the Christmas crackers earlier! Seven, why do you wish for me to suffer in this manner?”

Seven just laughs and holds up the notebook and coloured gel pens he received from Nona. “Your sister has just granted me the means to create even more jokes, and worse ones. Just you wait for next year!”

Ennea groans, dropping her face into her arms. “Just kill me now. End my suffering, please,” she jokes.

Hazuki laughs and looks beyond Ennea to Junpei to see what he received. He’s holding yet another book, looking between it and Akane and back again.

“What’s wrong with it, Junpei?” Hazuki asks.

“It’s a Sudoku book!” Junpei exclaims. “It’s like she’s taunting me about last month!”

Clover starts laughing. “Oh man. That would’ve been terrible for any of us to receive since we’ve all been in that incinerator – but especially you!”

Junpei glares again. “Akane! Did you do this on purpose?”

“Do what?” Akane asks serenely. “I did indeed exchange money to obtain that book… but I didn’t purposely give it to you. You kept on grabbing it yourself!”

Aoi smirks. “She was pretty sure you’d go for the one from her though.”

“Hey! Don’t expose me like that!” Akane turns in her seat and playfully hits her brother, before turning back to Junpei. “I’m sorry, this wasn’t meant to cause distress. You at least don’t have a time limit for any of these.”

Junpei scowls. “I guess.”

“Junpei – you’ve been trying so hard to find Akane,” Hazuki begins. “Now that she’s here, why are you being so hostile towards her?”

“I- I don’t… she’s just confusing! Why a Sudoku book? Why does she get to disappear and then come back without warning? Why is she allowed to spy on me? I don’t understand!”

Aoi leans over to Akane, and quietly says, “I think we’ve overstayed our welcome. We should go before we make things worse.”

Akane nods and stands. “Hazuki, thank you so much for opening your home to us. It was lovely seeing you all again one last time but it’s time for us to go.”

“Yeah, thanks,” Aoi adds. “Merry Christmas, happy holidays, all that jazz.”

“Wait.” Junpei gets out of his chair. “What do you mean by ‘one last time’? Are you leaving again? Why’d you come back if you’re only going to leave again? Why are you leaving me?”

Akane just looks heartbroken as Junpei keeps on talking. Junpei’s arm reaches up, reaches for her, but stops before touching her. Akane doesn’t look at Junpei, mumbles another apology, and turns around and back towards Hazuki’s front door. Aoi offers Junpei a final, “Sorry, man, we both wish we didn’t have to do this,” before following his sister out the door. Junpei’s arm continues hanging in the air where Akane used to be, before it drops to his side. Junpei bows his head, and Hazuki can see his body shaking, while everyone else stays sitting at the table in stunned silence.

Clover is the first to break the silence. “They’re… gone. Just like that. They’re gone.”

Seven gets up, walks past Hazuki to Junpei and grips his shoulder. “Hey man. How are you holding up?”

Silent sobs continue wracking Junpei’s body as he struggles to draw breath, let alone respond. Seven draws him into a hug, enveloping him and shielding him from the stares of the others.

“I think we’ll head home now,” Seven says, not releasing his hold upon Junpei. He meets Hazuki’s eyes over the top of Junpei’s head. “Thank you so much for your hospitality. I hope you have a wonderful holiday. Thanks everyone for an enjoyable evening. Come on, Junpei.”

One arm still around Junpei, and they too leave.

“Poor Junpei,” Ennea whispers.

“How did Akane change so much?” Nona wonders. “She’s nothing like what she was nine years ago.”

“The incinerator,” Light says. “None of us can know exactly what she went through in there.”

“But… she survived, didn’t she?” Clover asks. “She’s here now, we did the Nonary Game last month to save her life. So she shut it off. So it’s just like what happened when Junpei shut it off for us last month, or when Reed solved it for Ennea’s group nine years ago, right?”

“There are infinitely many timelines where she died,” Light says. “There’s only one where she survived.”

“But that’s this timeline! She survived here!”

“I still remember her dying. I remember her screams and I remember Aoi collapsing on the floor when the door opened and all he saw was ash. I also remember Akane surviving. I imagine if I can remember Akane dying, so can she. She probably fully remembers burning to death until she no longer existed. That would change a person.”

“I remember her dying,” Ennea mumbles. “Nona remembers her surviving.”

“Y-yeah. I think I can understand how she would remember dying too,” Nona says.

Hazuki doesn’t know what to say. She didn’t even find out about the first Nonary Game until she had already been through her Nonary Game, and even during her game she didn’t have the pressure of either finding or sending information through a, a, a pseudoscience! These four had that extra pressure, as well as being actual children at the time.

The silence stretches for a moment longer, and then Light says, perhaps a little too brightly, “This was a wonderful evening, Hazuki. However, I think we need to head home now as well. It’s late.”

Clover startles out of her thoughts and agrees. “You’re a wonderful cook, Lotus! If that’s what Nona and Ennea had growing up, they’re so lucky.”

Hazuki smiles. “Thank you. Happy holidays, and get home safe.”

“We will! I’m driving!” Clover grins. “Bye Ennea! Bye Nona!”

“Bye! See you soon!” Nona and Ennea chorused.

Once the door closes behind the Field siblings, Hazuki begins chewing her lip, worried.

“Did I somehow make it worse for Junpei, doing this?” she asks her daughters.

“No, Mum,” Nona says. “I think it was good for him to actually interact with people again.”

“Besides, you couldn’t know that Akane would show up, nor that that would affect him like that,” Ennea adds.

“I suppose,” Hazuki concedes. She still isn’t entirely convinced, but it isn’t just Junpei she worries about. Everyone who has been through a Nonary Game will carry those scars for life. They just have to take this one day at a time.

She wraps her daughters up in a hug, reminding herself that they’re still here, still alive. One day, this will all get easier. They just have to get there.

[tinyshe]

Story at-a-glance

New York City is implementing vaccine passport rules to enter certain venues, thereby discriminating against minorities and people of color

As of August 2, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showed 59% of Americans who had received at least one COVID injection were Caucasian, 16% were Hispanic, 10% Black, 6% Asian and only 1% were Native American or Alaska Native

When a vaccine, like the COVID shot, fails to fully prevent infection, it can promote the creation and transmission of more virulent pathogens

CDC has confirmed fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load as unvaccinated individuals who get infected, which proves there’s no difference between the two, in terms of being a transmission risk. If vaccinated individuals can be infected, carry the virus and cause it to mutate, and then transmit it to others, how does proof of vaccination promote public safety?

Would-be totalitarian rulers know how to use fear to induce mass psychosis, where people can no longer think rationally and act out of primal fear. They then offer to restore safety and order, but to do that, everyone must forfeit their personal freedom. The creation of safety through forfeiture of freedom is what vaccine passports are all about

The video above is a 15-minute outtake from Joe Rogan’s podcast episode #1693,1 in which he interviews Evan Hafer, a special forces veteran who founded Black Rifle Coffee Company and hosts the Free Range American podcast.

In this clip, Rogan lets his opinions rip on vaccine passports, COVID “vaccinations” and breakthrough cases. He points out the obvious irony of New York City’s new passport rules. While the democratic leadership claims to want to protect people of color and immigrants, these are the very groups that reject the COVID shots the most.

As of August 2, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation2 showed 59% of Americans who had received at least one COVID injection were Caucasian, 10% were Black, 16% Hispanic, 6% Asian and only 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native.

So, now New York is actively discriminating against minorities in the name of public safety, and people are actually applauding this as a good thing. “It’s madness,” Rogan exclaims. Meanwhile, science shows us that everything our public health officials are doing is wrong.

Leaky Vaccines Drive Mutations

For example, Rogan cites 2015 research3 showing that nonsterilizing vaccination — meaning when a vaccine fails to fully prevent infection, also known as a leaky vaccine — can promote the creation and transmission of more virulent pathogens. As explained by the authors:4

“There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (‘hotter’) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so ‘hot’ that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves.

Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked.

But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.

This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.

Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease.”

The COVID shots, which do not provide you with immune protection against the virus but, rather, only lessen symptoms of infection, are a perfect example of leaky vaccines that can allow the virus to mutate within the mildly ill host, who then transmits the mutated virus to others. In this way, the COVID shots can fuel a never-ending chain of outbreaks.

Vaccine Passports Cannot Protect Public Health

If vaccinated individuals can be infected, carry the virus and transmit it to others, what good is proof of vaccination? Vaccinated people obviously are no less likely to spread the infection than unvaccinated people, so why is the liberty to freely participate in society being removed from the unvaccinated? It’s completely irrational.

Since there is no medical logic behind their use, vaccine passports must have some other unspoken function, and indeed they do. They’re an essential part of a massive control mechanism. Right now, you can’t go places unless you’ve gotten your required one or two doses of COVID injection.

You can be sure that once a third dose is recommended, your passport will become invalid until or unless you get that third booster. This will be repeated once there’s a fourth booster, and a fifth, and anything that gets added after that.

The requirement you must fulfill in order to maintain a valid passport could be literally anything. We also know that these vaccine passports can serve as a platform for all sorts of other interconnected things, such as your personal identification, your medical records, financial records, government assistance, employment records and much more, so restricting your access to restaurants could eventually become the least of your problems.

You might not be able to access your bank account. You might not be let into your job. You might be denied medical attention or government assistance. So, Rogan is correct when he says the vaccine passport is one step away from dictatorship, and history has repeatedly shown that dictatorships cannot thrive. They breed misery and spoil both talent and opportunity.

Do Not Exchange Your Freedoms for a False Sense of Security

Only when people are free to do as they please, when they’re free to express their creativity, do you end up with a superpower and cultural phenomenon as the United States. We are now looking at the end of what was once the United States of America, unless enough people wake up to reality and push back.

An argument vaccine passport pushers like to use is that “spreading a lethal infection isn’t a human right,” therefore, proving you’ve been vaccinated is not an unreasonable request if you want to participate in society. Likewise, they insist that going to restaurants isn’t a human right, nor is airline travel, staying at hotels or going to gyms. CNN anchor Don Lemon doesn’t even think buying groceries falls within the scope of being a human right.

Freedom is the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action; unrestricted use; the quality or state of being exempt from something onerous; privilege; liberation from restraint or from the power of another; independence.

The problem with those arguments is that a) COVID-19 isn’t a lethal infection for most people,5 b) it’s an infection that is just as easily spread by vaccinated people,6,7 so both groups confer the same risk, c) outbreaks occur in populations where everyone is fully vaccinated,8 d) there are effective treatments if you do contract the infection,9 e) it’s virtually impossible to eradicate human respiratory viruses that have animal reservoirs, no matter what you do,10 f) discriminating based on vaccination status is no different than discriminating based on other medical conditions, g) it violates the very definition of freedom upon which this Constitutional Republic was built.

What Is Freedom?

What is the definition of freedom? Freedom is “the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action; unrestricted use; the quality or state of being exempt from something onerous; privilege; liberation from restraint or from the power of another; independence.”11

If you cannot enter a grocery store without being vaccinated, are you free? If you cannot travel, even if you have the means to do so, are you free? If you cannot eat a meal at a restaurant, even if you can pay for it, are you free?

Some try to sell vaccine passports as something that will grant you these “privileges.” In other words, something that will grant you freedom. But you cannot give freedom by first taking all freedom away.

Freedom is an absence of necessity or coercion. So, a vaccine passport can by definition not grant you freedom because in getting the passport you had to first relinquish the freedom you had originally.

Your whole life, you’ve probably been allowed to go to restaurants, gyms, concerts and grocery stores at will. Right? That was freedom. Now, they’re taking away that basic freedom, saying you can “get it back” if you get the shot and carry proof of vaccination. That’s coercion, which is the opposite of freedom. You cannot give people freedom by first coercing them into give up freedom.

Are We in a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated?

According to the official narrative, we’re now in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” with 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations occurring among those who have not received the COVID jab. That, however, is absolute propaganda based on profoundly serious manipulation of old data.

To achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the United States population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.

January 1, 2021, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots,12 and as of June 30, 46.9% were “fully vaccinated.”13 Keep in mind the CDC does not consider you “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot.

By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental injection.

When you look at more recent and emerging data, you can see an opposite trend. In Israel, data show half of all COVID-19 infections are now among the fully vaccinated,14 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations are among the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated also account for 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients.15

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July 2021 were vaccinated,16 and in the U.S., a CDC investigation of an outbreak in Massachusetts between July 6 through July 25, 2021, revealed 80% of COVID-related hospitalizations were among the fully vaccinated.17,18

The CDC also confirmed that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected, which proves there’s no difference between the two, in terms of being a transmission risk.19

So, again, if vaccination status has no bearing on the potential risk you pose to others, what do we need the passports for? They’re useless, as passengers on Carnival cruise lines recently experienced. There was an outbreak of COVID-19 onboard despite every last person having been “vaccinated.”20 The same thing happened onboard the fully vaccinated HMS Queen Elizabeth, a British Navy flagship.21

Unify for Freedom Under a Banner of Sanity

A couple of days ago, I published an article about mass psychosis,22 an epidemic of madness that occurs when a large portion of society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions.

The psychogenic steps that lead to madness include a panic phase, where the individual is repeatedly frightened and confused by events they cannot explain, followed by a phase of “psychotic insight,” where the individual explains their abnormal experience of the world by inventing an illogical but magical way of seeing reality that eases the panic and gives meaning to the experience.

The technocrats who created and maintain the pandemic narrative, worldwide, know all about how to induce mass psychosis, and what we’re experiencing is by far the biggest psychological operation mankind has ever been put through. They’re using all the known tricks, and it’s working beautifully.

If you’ve been able to see through their machinations, congratulations. The onus is now on you to help others free their minds, which is not an easy task. It’s not even easy to stay sane yourself. Contradictory reports, nonsensical recommendations and blatant lies are deployed intentionally, as it heightens confusion.

The more confused a population is, the greater the state of anxiety, which reduces people’s psychological resilience. As the ability to cope wanes, the greater the chances a mass psychosis will develop. Add isolation to that equation, and the susceptibility of psychosis is further heightened, as people lose contact with positive examples — people who act as role models of rational thinking and behavior.

Once a society is firmly in the grip of mass psychosis — and I believe we’re halfway there already — totalitarians are then free to take the last, decisive step: They can offer a return to order and safety. The price? Your freedom.

You must cede control of all aspects of your life to the rulers, because unless they are granted total control, they won’t be able to create the order and safety everyone craves. Already, we’re hearing this narrative. The creation of safety through forfeiture of freedom is what vaccine passports are all about.

Help Heal the Mass Psychosis

The good news is you can reverse the effects of mass psychosis, but it takes time, effort and patience. First, center yourself and live in such a way as to provide inspiration for others to follow. Next, share and spread the truth — the counternarrative to the propaganda — as far and wide as possible.

Because truth is always more potent than lies, the success of propaganda relies on the censoring of truth. Right now, online censorship and propaganda is off the charts, so you may have to get creative. One tactic is to use humor and ridicule to delegitimize the lies.

At the same time, create parallel structures — businesses, organizations, technologies, movements or creative pursuits — based on sane and rational principles currently lacking in the world around us.

Last but not least, to prevent the descent into totalitarian madness, sane and rational action must be taken by as many people as possible. The ruling technocracy do not sit around hoping and wishing to increase their power and control. No. They are actively taking steps to augment their position. To defend against them, we must be just as active and resolute in our counter-push toward freedom.

from article titled Joe Rogan on Breakthrough Cases and Vaccine Passports

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola August 21, 2021

please note uncensored profanity!!

[daylightsun]

What I Learn from Years of Reading and Collecting Books and Letting Some of Them Go

These past few days, I "KonMari" my room and decided to rearrange my bookshelves. While sorting out all of my belongings, I discovered a box filled with books I manically collected during my college years sitting underneath my bed. After opening it, the books seem to be staring at me while I stare back at them like we are having a confrontation of sorts. For a moment, it made me reflect on my life as a reader and book collector, and this sense of nostalgia hit me.

After snapping out of this nostalgic state, the fact remains that my shelf space and room space are precious and limited, and I only want to fill my life with things that “spark joy” within me. I need to decide which books would stay and which would eventually go to the bin. So in honor of literature month and the books I am about to throw away, I would like to write some piece to honor my journey as a reader and book collector.

Starting Years as a Reader and Book Collector

My fascination with books started early in my childhood. I remember holding my small hardbound fairytale books, a book set with stories like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Three Little Pigs. But it was the illustrations at first that engrossed me. It's like my eyes can't get enough of the colors and drawings. I look at them again and again, committing them in my memory. Then there was my childhood best friend Grimm's book of fairytales. The book was enormous and heavy. It contained more words and the occasional one to two pages of illustrations, like the naked butt of the king in The Emperor's New Clothes, the candy house of the witch in Hansel, and Gretel other beautiful illustrations inside that book.

However, it is in my teenage years that I started to enjoy reading literature, and book reports ignite my interest in book collecting. Books like Ella Enchanted, The Little Prince, and Thieves of Ostia were carried inside our classroom boxes after boxes. A sheer excitement overcame me, forgetting the fear I felt days before asking for extra money to buy something outside the average family expenses, even if it is for school requirements.

I did not grow up in an environment that encourages me to read books outside the typical academic obligations. It is usual for Southeast Asian households to be thrifty, so buying books for leisure is a luxury. Moreover, since it does not involve cleaning and moving around the house, reading for my parents is a lazy activity. Not to mention what damage it can do to your eyesight, they would add. However, I continued to read in secret and went against the general expectations.

I have read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince while holding a flashlight while everyone in the house is sleeping at night so no one could scold me. I read with my friends at school. We exchanged novels, particularly stories about young adults. I bought my first novel, L. Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables, in a book fair inside my school using my savings. And even after my childhood best friend, who was four years older than me, went away to college, I marched to their house and borrowed books from her mother like Louisa Alcott's Little Women.

Reading helped me to cope with my deep-seated feeling of isolation and loneliness because of being an adopted child. I found out pieces of the truth through indirect hints and silent whispers between adults and childish banter between cousins. So I was left alone on my own devices to understand and stitch the truth. But in reading, I started to find solace and identity with the people I meet in stories. Books became for me houses I visit to explore and get to know the people living inside. And sometimes, I leave too early out of boredom or just out of an inability to comprehend the house. But sometimes, even after the visit, a piece of my heart stayed inside those pages. When I read, I have companions, and when I buy a book, I have something of my own.

Moreover, in books, I found girls like me, like Anne in Anne of Green Gables or Mary in The Secret Garden. Orphaned and neglected at a very young age and adopted, they were able to find acceptance and love. In those stories, they eventually mattered and belonged to the people around them. And in my heart, I wanted the same assurance these characters have that I am going to be OK despite my "oddness."

Not encouraged to read, buy books for my leisure, and being an adopted child in her young adolescent years made me want to form a personal path of rebellion. I decided to be a bookworm and persist in reading and building my book collection even if I am discouraged! Talk about being brave and revolutionary. Though I developed a deep affection for reading and books by this time, this "rebellious" way serves another personal purpose, and that is instead of being single out because ofbeing an adopted child, I can be single out because of my "bookish-ness." This identity gave me a powerful feeling of being significantly different from the crowd. I am somehow special but without the burden and constantly feeling the need to fight the pity of the people around me.

College Years

When I went to college, I develop an unhealthy impulse of excessively buying booksbut not reading them. There is a Japanese term for this impulsive behavior called "tsundoku." My obsession with buying books can be attributed to two main culprits. First, I started to attend and participate actively in church, and second, the store Book Sale.

In our church, we have a statement I wrote in the tablet of my heart with great faithfulness and love. It goes this way "Great leaders read books," which is a remarkable statement unless someone went overboard with trying to read books by purchasing them. This someone is, of course, is me. Ooops.

On multiple days within a week, I would visit and sit on the SM Baguio's Book Salefloor, hunting and obsessing over books. I would gladly move stacks upon stacks of books desperately looking for a purchase treasure. And most of us know, books are sold at Book Sale at a meager price. It became a standard for me to go home to my boarding house with three to five books. And oh boy, the stacks of books in my room just grew and grew. By the end of my seven years in college, the heaviest of my baggage is the one enormous box where I managed to fit all the books I have acquired.

Even though my college years were a time of my compulsive and unhealthy behaviors in reading and book buying, these were also the years I familiarized myself with what types of storytelling I would enjoy and who are my favorite authors. Neil Gaiman and Haruki Murakami cast their spell on me, and I would read again and again stories like The Little Prince, Memoirs of A Geisha, and The Last Time I Saw Mother.

But what I am most thankful for reading around this time is the opportunity it gave me to connect to other people through knowledge sharing. When I read an excellent book that gave me a lot of insight, there is an internal urge to pass it to someone else or talk about it with a friend. So I either talk about it or give the book. Giving that well-written book will sting a bit. Still, the disappointment of not having someone to undergo the experience of reading it is more painful than letting it go because I've discovered that there are types of books that cannot stay only in one pair of hands but have to travel to the next pair to be held and read. Some stories and books are personal to me, and they will stay on my shelves as long as they can, but there is another type of book that the knowledge they contain needs to be passed on and shared.

Working Years

Buying books using the allowance from your parents are far easier than using your own hard-earned money. Being a young professional and just started to manage my finances made the reality of my unhealthy addiction hit hard. I can not longer afford to go to book shops without thoroughly thinking if the book I am picking is something I should buy. "Adulting" has forced maturity in me.

Putting some healthy breaks on my general attitude towards reading and book collecting is just one part of the exciting times ahead of me as a bibliophile. Going back to my hometown and having more personal freedom have opened the doors to uncharted territories. As a reader and book collector, I've been officially and finally introduced to book fairs and Philippine Literature.

When I talk about book fairs that I participate in this time, these are the mega fairs that involve many publishing houses. Book fairs with book launching, book signing, live-reading, and writers' meet and greet events. The Manila International Book Fair (MIBF) and Big Bad Wolf are an example of these fairs. The experience was exhilarating and magical, and I would like to think that every reader and book collector would agree that book fairs are sort of heaven or nirvana on earth.

But so far, the greatest book fair I get to experience must also be the most challenging endeavor I undertook professionally, the Frankfurt Book Fair 2019. Imanaged to be a part of the team that organized the delegation that represented the Philippines in the largest international book fair. FBF is annually held during October in Frankfurt, Germany, with participants worldwide and boost to be the most extensive platform for digital and printed content. So even though I did not personally go to Frankfurt, being part of this massive event as a production assistant and being part of the early planning stages to post-prod was a dream come true. Seeing over 500 books published by the leading publishing houses in the country and written by Filipino authors showcased in the entire world in a beautifully designed stand made me very happy and proud.

Working in a government agency that primarily serves the Philippine publishing industry also gave me a closer look into the local literature. Unfortunately, I did not grow up reading books written by Filipino writers. Aside from the usual piece of local literature my Filipino textbooks in high school and college courses offered, Philippine literature did not become part of my early reading and book collection. But my ignorance of Filipino authors and literature ended when  I worked at NBDB and when a friend lent me Philippine literature books. As I started to read the literary works of Eliza Victoria, Nick Joaquin, Luis Joaquin M. Katigbak, and other amazing Filipino authors, I felt both shame and relief. I finally got to experience my national consciousness and Filipino identity through literature by Filipino authors for Filipinos.

But my bad habits in college still are present and had managed to erode my psyche. Surrounded by so many book-related things, I got back to the same dangerous pattern. I acquired more books but have no diligence and genuine interest in reading. In the process, I become a hoarder like the Businessman from The Little Prince, who cannot stop owning and counting every star he sees in the sky but never understood its value. After all, what is a book without its reader?

And as a result, something bad happened. The words in the pages started to leave me, I slowly lost the ability to build worlds in my head, and my insatiable thirst for knowledge had dwindled. Then one day, I lost all of my interest in books. For one and a half years, I would not touch any books on my bookshelves and stop actively reading and looking for books to buy. I had enough.

                                                           *** Going back to the present time and Marie Kondo, she mentioned in her best-selling book, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up (and yes, I have the book), that the KonMari method encourages only to keep around thirty books. Thirty books seem to be awfully few, and how can a person who loves reading and collecting books find the courage to let go.

But as the book explained, you need to ask oneself the fundamental question of the KonMari method, "does this spark joy?". Does this book spark joy? Have I read this, and if I happened to have, does it aroused my intellect? And I have asked these hard questions to every book in my belongings.

It is almost four years after my time at the university. I am currently in a work-from-home setup which is a very fortunate situation while in the middle of a global pandemic. And yes, I am about to throw books, a lot of them, which you might think is a waste, but deep down, I know I will never reread these, nor will I ever start to read them again.

Honestly, I cannot remember the exact day I pick up a book on my shelf and read again, nor the reason behind it. But having the courage to declutter and purge my book collection, I realized a few months ago that I started again to read and purchase books, but this time there is an effort to be mindful with every reading and purchase made. This subtle change in behavior gave my reading and collecting a better sense of purpose and direction.

My life is composed of limited time, meaning I can only read books that much. But I've been in a relationship with books for many years now. Collecting books became a form of personal art, and reading stories helped me become a better person. It healed me, became a catalyst to learn a couple of life lessons, and taught me to give. And I do not see myself stopping at any point in my life. So might as well keep and read books that only truly capture my spirit, challenges me, and, if I was lucky, changes me. Because that is the thing about it, books are powerful.

[kundalinifire111]

Nowhere to Run!

We cannot run from the joys and difficulties that can accompany a Kundalini awakening. It is one of the first impulses expressed when we encounter that which is unspeakable. There is no way to escape the Kundalini as it resides within us, flows through us, radiates outward from us. The phenomena given are what we need to aid our transformation and it can be difficult in the extreme and yet there is no escape. Not even death will remove the divine influence from completing its course within the individual. It is best to buckle down and begin to learn. Yes the phenomena can be very strange and fear provoking. Emotions and fear and anger and rage and love and bliss and sadness can all get mixed up in ways that are very confusing. We are being changed and the new pattern is replacing the old one and in that change are the two patterns merged for a time as instantaneous transformation doesn't work for most people. So we surrender. And by that I mean "really" surrender. It's a big deal to surrender a lifetime of learned response to a spiritual force. It's not easy and we are given many opportunities to "go over it again" and again and again until we begin to get the idea. Shakti is patient about most things and it is understood that it takes time and gentle nudges and sometimes outright force for the human to get the meaning of what it means to surrender to the Kundalini agenda. You can give yourself a great gift by making the decision not to try and run away. Choose to stay and accept the divine influence upon and within you. Become an active participant and feel and experience and love what is happening. Love makes fear much less of a force so look at your loving capacities and bring them into the forefront of your daily and nightly expressions. Accept the transformation and learn from the gifts of grace that are given. The dreams and the energetic surges on the physical and emotional and mental and ego bodies of expression are given not to entertain you or cause you to wonder in awe of what is occurring, though this happens, they are there to teach! Your outside mundane life may give you challenge because nothing on the outside except the grandeur of nature can even compare to the changes that are occurring within you. The snide boss at work, the high pressure job, the ignorance and pathetic distractions of those in a different process may cause you to become angered or enraged. These are tests for you to move through as given by the Kundalini within you. No where to run! Your ego will think it can compartmentalize the Kundalini phenomena and give it a name or express an understanding but as it is happening there is very little in the way of explanation that is sufficient. The ego is not to be trusted to have knowledge in these areas. For a time as the two expressive bodies merge, the old you and the Kundalini you, there are going to be some hurdles to jump over. You have all of the tools you need right now within you to accomplish this. Your ego will want to go into fear. When this occurs recognize it and choose not to go there. This goes for any of the hurtful or hateful expressions. Choose not to go there. This is what I mean when I write that there is nowhere to run. We need to learn how to work with this rather than run away from it. We learn what our best choices are and how they are to be applied. Kundalini will teach you on many different levels as it continues its transformation within. Please do not forget that all five bodies of expression will have simultaneous transformation. Mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical will all be changing in different ways at the same time. Reality will be changed in this process. Belief systems and understandings of what is real and is not real will be changed. This can cause extreme fear and self doubt. This can cause you to think you're going crazy. You are not crazy. You are opening to the greater understandings and truths of life. Beyond school teachings, beyond science, beyond government, beyond religion you are entering into that which has no reference in today's society. So know this and understand this and accept this. You are ready or it wouldn't be happening. Enlightenment isn't given as a punishment. Do not run. Do not fear. You are inside of a great transformation and grace is all around you. You are covered in the loving arms of divinity and this is the greatest work you will ever do! - blessings all. -

-chrism

[jenner-benjamin]

SURREALISTS STUCK AT HOME: Writing and Drawing Lockdown

This is the second online workshop I have attended by London Drawing Group, this time hosted by artist Luisa-Maria MacCormack and writer Philip Webb Gregg. I cannot commend London Drawing Group highly enough. The workshops they offer are engaging, insightful and incredibly well researched and presented. From my experience they have been ‘pay what you can’, which when times are financially uncertain is a fantastic option. 

In the last couple of months I have found myself in isolation twice, as per the government guidelines for coming in to contact with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus. It is a strange period of time where you are led to feel as though you have been given a golden opportunity to create artworks and be productive, but this time does not necessarily lend itself to positive thinking or inspired creativity. This has led to a period of self doubt and a general feeling of demotivation. 

I have found solace in virtual courses, workshops and activities that have given me a feeling of artificial normality and some routine to long stretches of disorganised and unstructured days.  

This Surrealist workshop caught my eye because it incorporated writing alongside drawing and I felt it might inspire some visual poetry. We were instructed to have prepared a body of text in which we would be defacing, which reminded me of the Dadaist poetry that I had considered in the last module. 

The introduction stated that Surrealism was described as being a reaction against the ridiculousness of the world. I felt this sentiment resonated with most participants. A series of rapid challenges were thrust upon us in quick succession that did not allow for us to sit and contemplate too much about the work we were making, but to accept and enjoy the creative chaos that ensued. 

The tasks that we were asked to participate in were selected from the Surrealist Book of Games. In all honesty the games we took part in were not revolutionary tasks that I had not come across before, but did stimulate a response from the part of me that had been struggling to feel free with my creative outlets. I have felt very despondent of late, and forcing work that does not want to be forced. These tasks encouraged expression and amusement. I have since bought the Surrealist Book of Games for myself for times when I feel creatively disorientated.    

Below are examples of the drawings and written works that came from the workshop, some were more successful than others, but all were important reminders to not expect too much of yourself in a strange and unsettling time such as the one we find ourselves in. Being encouraged to seek out words and images in this hour also led to a newfound appreciation for the space around us in lockdown, encouraging us to not merely exist in the space but to live in it.

Ephemeral Poem - a game in which you explore your home environment searching for misplaced words in order to create a collaged poem. We had two minutes to search for words or phrases, and then two words to compose a poem. 

Shake, and create your own universe,

Enjoy!

Love, distilled and bottled.

Found Drawing - a game in which you explore the home environment searching for misplaced imagery in order to create a collaged drawing which will reflect the experience of your environment. Each item was given a different time limit, some were as short as 5 seconds, some as long as 30 seconds.

Text as art - select a body of text and cut up words or phrases, not reading the words beforehand. We had four minutes to cut up the text, and then four minutes to compose a poem.

we’re gonna do tonight

outside on the street

we’ve got it all planned,

laughing and feeling good

he was the funniest

Decalcomania - also know as ‘blackout poetry’. Take a page of text and ruthlessly erase big bodies of writing with a black marker pen, trying not to read the text beforehand. 

at any moment

freedom and absolute freedom.

I myself was not a lovely little poem

for this one rare full moon.

Involuntary Sculpture - take a page of text and screw it up into a sculpture, studying the sculpture and composing a poem with the words that you can find.

Your Spot - a series of 4x three minute drawings from a place that you find yourself drawn to in lockdown. The drawings must sit on one sheet of paper, either on top of each other or as a panoramic study.

Automatic Writing - allowing yourself to be completely honest with what feelings or thoughts arise in response to a specific image. In this case, we responded to ‘The Therapist’ by René Magritte and subsequently ‘Notes for an Apocalypse’ by Dorothea Tanning. 

I can’t support myself. I’m tired, and hiding, and tired. I want to leave, but I'm trapped in my outside inside. Clutching, not holding. Red, white and blue, but not in a freedom way. Two birds in the cage is worth how many in the hand? How many in the bag?

‘The Therapist’ by René Magritte, 1937 - oil on canvas. 

I don’t understand what it is I'm experiencing. A tablecloth that is a cloud, but not. And how many limbs? And a green goblin? Stuff of nightmares with a fireball halo. Confusion, uncertainty and a fireball halo in a moody grey sky.

‘Notes for an Apocalypse’ by Dorothea Tanning, 1978 - oil on canvas. 

As a closing task for the workshop we we asked to select elements from both artworks and create a new surrealist piece in response to these. The drawing I ended up creating was made while not looking at the page, fully embracing the surrealist weirdness of what happens when you relinquish control of the drawing to pure intuition. 

[philosophycorner]

A Hallmark Sophistic Tendency and More on Epistocracy

Sophism is when one reasons fallaciously in hopes of deceiving someone. In other words, it is when someone employs fallacious, yet convincing, reasoning to sway someone. In some cases, people with these tendencies will project by accusing their opponent of sophistry or they will employ a No True Scotsman in saying that their opponent cannot possible be a “real” philosopher. I do not take kindly to such ad hominem and that is why I discontinued the discussion. Some of you may have seen this in my opponent’s response yesterday. These issues are minor. The major issue is in how he defines words.

Sophists tend to define words by omitting the use their opponent is using. When I say voting rights infringe upon other more integral, unalienable rights like the right to life or healthcare, I am not at all talking about a negative right, as he defined, in where one can hypothetically defend their right using force. While this is a definition of a right, it is not the only definition on offer. A right is also a principle of entitlement, a positive right, and so, when I say someone has the right to life, what I am saying is that they are entitled to live, irrespective of what the Constitution says; the phrase right to life in The Declaration of Independence is described as unalienable, god-given if you prefer. While there are clauses attached to this entitlement, such as they are entitled to live given that they do not murder someone, my definition is just as valid as the one my opponent employed. The difference is that my opponent dismissed my definition in order to deceive his readers. That is to say nothing of the validity of the distinction of negative and positive rights; plenty of philosophers (e.g. Eric Nelson, Ian Carter, Henry Shue) do not think the distinction is valid or even necessary.

He, for instance, continued to accuse me of not knowing what rights are, as though definitions themselves do not describe words in a self-evident fashion. A right is sometimes synonymous with a certain entitlement, but not all entitlements, real or imagined, are rights. A man may feel that after dating his girlfriend for five years, he is entitled to have sex with her. Consent is still at play no matter how long a couple has dated and so, he is not entitled to have sex with his girlfriend; she is not entitled to sex with her boyfriend either. These are matters of consent and as such, it is a privilege that they grant one another. The right to life is self-evident as even the Declaration of Independence attests. I do not need to go any further on that.

In that same vein, he mentions consent of the governed and people providing healthcare and bizarrely asserts that taxation is a violation of bodily autonomy; he does nothing at all to ground this claim, but, ironically enough, begs the question. Under the current government, 100 million or so people forgo their voting rights every election and many more forgo their rights as it pertains to electing state and local officials on a year-to-year basis. This implies that the right to vote is not as integral as some argue and definitely not as integral as my right to life. I may willingly surrender my right to vote given that I’m not particularly drawn to any of the candidates; I will not willingly surrender my right to live, assuming I am not terminally ill or mentally incapacitated. I am entitled to live and that is an integral entitlement; I am also entitled to vote, but that is not an integral entitlement as I can willingly choose not to.

What I have proposed, as Plato and others before me have, is an Epistocracy. Also of note is that he flat-out asserts Plato was wrong without justifying it; that is more more evidence that he has presupposed his conclusions. It is not a soft tyranny as he claimed. It is rule of the knowledgeable. What I am basically arguing is that if a third of the population is not going to vote anyway, we should decide on which one-third that is. The one-third that I temporally want to exclude are the least informed and that is assuming that such people even comprise one-third of the population; they might comprise a smaller portion than one-third and as such, I can say that at least I am not excluding as many people as are currently excluded and who have been excluded, at times, with malicious intent. The least informed are individuals who have not learned to or do not care to think critically. Since they do not think critically, they are prone to ignoring crucial issues and engaging in cult-like, conspiracy-based reasoning. A White Supremacist, on paper, is entitled to vote, but since he votes to harm minorities, he should not retain that entitlement.

Felons are largely excluded from the political process because they surrendered that entitlement in breaking the law. So it is up to my hypothetical government to decide at which point someone has committed to all that is required prior to breaking the law. What separates the average White Supremacist from Kyle Rittenhouse? The question boils down to who is armed and who is not and who is willing to harm or murder minorities versus who is not. Who then is the ideologue and who is willing to act on erred convictions? Since there is no sound reasoning to justify racism, discrimination, and prejudice, then White Supremacists should not be entitled to vote. Since there is no way of predicting which White Supremacist will act on their erred convictions, they should not be entitled to vote. Full stop!

The consent of the governed does not reduce to mere voting rights. In being a citizen or legal immigrant in the United States, you have de facto consented to be governed whether you vote or not, whether you are entitled to vote or not. Our current government already excludes a large portion of the population due to criminal records, gerrymandering, and other forms of voter suppression. So there is no material difference in my saying that we should exclude certain people for reasons separate from the ones the government uses to justify their exclusion and disenfranchisement of certain voters. As I have shown, however, I think my reasons for excluding the woefully ignorant are far better than the reasons given to exclude an entire demographic in a certain district or most felons without distinction. The primary reason is that voting rights cannot be prioritized over unalienable rights, so if a person votes with the intent to harm minorities, the minority’s right to live supersedes the White Supremacist’s right to vote. If I have to ground an entire moral framework to prove that conclusion, then my opponent is basically arguing that the right to life is not unalienable and is therefore, a privilege reserved for some and not others.

All felons are not created equal. Sure, a murderer on death row has long surrendered his entitlement to vote. Someone wrongfully accused of a crime or someone serving a marijuana-related sentence should not be excluded. Yet, in most cases, no distinction is made between the former felon and the latter. Then there is the real crux: my exclusion is not permanent. You can be a White Supremacist today and not be one tomorrow. That means that you can learn why you are wrong about non-Whites and come to see common humanity in minorities. Any and all kinds of ignorance can be rectified given time, so it is entirely possible to justify a vote for any candidate in an informed manner. What my hypothetical government would guarantee is an informed voter who does not vote along party lines, who does not double-down on a quasi-fascist like Trump, who does not ignore science and the urgency of Climate Change, and so on. A more informed electorate is absolutely a good thing and the exclusion stemming from my hypothetical government is preferable to the extant exclusion in the current U.S. government. 

In any case, this is why I refused to exchange further. Sophists define words by omitting definitions they dislike. They accuse, commit fallacies, and project their errors onto you. Ultimately, sophists tend to be disingenuous because they have predilections and surmises they think are self-evident and so they do not commit to the philosophical work of reasoning to their conclusion; this was observed in my opponent’s bizarre claim that taxation violates bodily autonomy and that the provision of healthcare, in where one is paid by the government, is also a violation of bodily autonomy. These conclusions are not argued for or justified in any way and entirely ignore state-provided healthcare in other countries in where people have consented to pay their taxes for sake of receiving free healthcare and tuition-free college educations. 

I have reasoned to my conclusion. I have seen the real harm in letting ignorant people vote year after year; these people have been given no (dis)incentive to rectify that ignorance. So basically what I am saying is that if we disincentivize ignorance, people will want to become more informed. They would not call every disagreeable story about their favored candidate “fake news.” They would not go down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories. They would have good reason to change. I see nothing at all wrong with telling people this: if you want to vote, demonstrate that you are informed enough and empathetic enough to participate in this process because your vote has palpable effects on other lives. After nearly four years of suffering through the lack of empathy, apathy, hatred, and incompetence of the Trump Administration, I am more resolute now than I was two years ago: everyone should not be entitled to vote; only the demonstrably informed in the U.S. population should do so and as such, I propose Epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable as that incentivizes everyone to become more knowledgeable before casting a vote. 

I will conclude by saying that the false equivalence he made between Epistocracy and tyranny can be dismissed very easily: Epistocracy does not permanently exclude anyone, so if anyone has an issue with being governed by the knowledgeable, then it is incumbent on them to demonstrate the aptitude to join the ranks of the knowledgeable; tyranny, on the other hand, excludes the governed and subjects them to any number of abuses. Epistocracy is not about abuse, but rather about preventing the abuse suffered by the more empathetic and knowledgeable at the hands of the cruel, apathetic, and ignorant. Perhaps we should want to exclude malignant Psychopaths, Narcissists, Sadists, and Machiavellians, most especially when they have dehumanizing and degrading views of people they do not agree with. This is beyond, “I do not like your voice” or “I do not like these people.” This is about people who speak harm and carry out actions consistent with dangerous and potentially fatal beliefs. 

The United States cannot continue to tolerate such ignorance and it is clear that the entitlement to vote has fallen into the wrong hands. In the least, I can say what a lot of other people cannot say: I have proposed a viable solution. I also happen to think it is among the better solutions, especially in light of my opponent’s tacit anarchism and admiration for Capitalism. I will not challenge a sophist on such erred points of view, as they have already presupposed the conclusion; this is also painfully obvious in his ego-stroking as it pertains to Marxism. He has claimed to debase all of Marxism and this should not surprise anyone given that my opponent’s love for Capitalism entails feeling threatened by an anti-Capitalist like Marx. There is no argument to be had with such people. In any event, be mindful of the tendency to define words by omitting key definitions. Such an individual does not want a genuine dialogue; they just want to win. Nothing productive comes from that.

[things2mustdo]

It is often said that chivalry is dead, but why is that so and who is mourning? A recent article lamenting the rarity of the gentleman within the millennial male populace would seem to provide something of an answer to that question. The author of the piece, Hope Rodriguez, contends that millennial men are severely lacking in gentlemanly traits, and explains to us why they should “man up” and correct these errors.

1. Elevator etiquette I don’t care how big of a hurry you’re in, or how slow she may walk, if there is a female or five on the elevator with you, you hold your arm in the door and let them off first.

2. R-E-S-P-E-C-T (sing it to the tune of Aretha Franklin) If a female walks past you, for God’s sake, do not turn your head and stare at her behind. If she is talking to you, don’t stare down her shirt. If you’re driving down the road, don’t honk or yell “hey sexy!!!!” Gross. Undressing a girl with your eyes is one of the most disgusting and degrading things you could possibly do to her. Don’t worry about getting a date, you’ve already ruined it by being a pig.

3. Give up your seat. Whether she is old, young, pregnant, active, fat, skinny, whatever; if the bus, classroom, etc. is full, get up from your chair and offer your seat to a female who is standing. If you chose to stay in your seat and force ladies to remain standing, make sure you remember to take off your maxi pad on the way out. (oops, did I just say that?!)

4. Pay attention to the fact that the world is more threatening for females We are automatic targets everywhere we go, especially at night. I don’t need to get into the subject of rape. Walk your female coworkers to their cars at night. Just watch out for the women around you, they’ll definitely appreciate it.

5. Be polite. Compliment a lady today. They aren’t going to automatically assume that you want to have babies with them just because you said they look nice today. You would be surprised by what can make a woman smile. Little things, men. Little things.

6. Hold the door. If we are pretty far behind, we don’t expect you to hold the door open for us. It makes us feel like we need to hurry to the door. However, if there is a woman walking behind you or relatively close behind you, do NOT let a door shut on her.

7. Driveway etiquette My son will know that he will NOT drive up to a female’s house and honk the horn or shoot her a text that says “I’m here, come get in the car.” If a guy comes to pick my future daughter up for a date, and he honks the horn or texts her to pick her up, I’m going to walk outside and tell him to go home. Walk up to the door, knock on the door, and then walk her to your car. At the end of the night, walk her back to her door. I don’t care if you’re just friends or you’re married. It’s what you’re supposed to do.

Guys: man up. Bring back gentlemanly behaviors. It would definitely be appreciated.

Unfortunately for this author, her requests are simply incompatible with the notions of gender equality that our society has embraced wholeheartedly and integrated aggressively into its legal and social order.

For example, the modern man on an elevator with women has been raised and conditioned to respect those women as his equals. Equals do not receive special consideration over other equals on the basis of gender or any other marker. Equals are treated… equally. Providing the benefit of this etiquette to women simply because they are women would fundamentally contradict notions of equality that we’re heavily invested in as a society. A man who truly believes in equality and all of the values that it represents is going to practice that elevator etiquette with everyone he meets regardless of gender. He will be polite to everyone. He will respect everyone. He will practice driveway etiquette with everyone, and he will hold the door or give up a seat for anyone who actually needs it. He will not engage in these behaviors selectively on the basis of gender because he has been taught not to discriminate in that way.

A few of Ms. Rodriguez’s other statements betray outright ignorance, naiveté or both. Take these, for example:

…Walk your female coworkers to their cars at night…

… Compliment a lady today. They aren’t going to automatically assume that you want to have babies with them just because you said they look nice today…

The first statement sounds like an excellent way to invite a sexual harassment suit or attract potential discipline for violations of workplace conduct. Your typical corporate millennial females are unlikely to tolerate this unsolicited “escort” on the part of their male coworkers, much less appreciate it. Unless they have already been deemed attractive by these females (most men won’t be in this category), the men attempting to provide this escort will be labeled “creepy” at best, and accused of stalking at worst. No good can come of this.

The second just sounds naive: any man who has interacted with modern millennial females for any period of time will understand that many of them will jump to precisely that conclusion, and will also sometimes react negatively upon doing so. Hope Rodriguez is not a man and so could possibly be forgiven for not understanding these things at the outset, but she needs to change that if she hopes to have any advice she writes for men taken seriously.

That brings me to my next point: Ms. Rodriguez seems not to grasp the true nature of the chivalrous ideals she yearns for or the environment in which she currently lives. The concept of chivalry required men to be perfect gentlemen in their conduct, but said behavior was not intended for every female they met. It was more specifically designed to govern male conduct with ladies. Chivalrous codes of conduct required a gentleman to execute them, and a lady to receive them..

Ladies had their own rules to follow, and it was only through the adherence to those rules that they could qualify for the receipt of chivalry from a gentleman. Chivalric codes of conduct traveled on a two way street: the gentleman cannot exist without the lady, and vice-versa. Both genders were required to adhere to certain standards in order to engage in the chivalric exchange. The gentleman and the lady are like the yin and the yang.

Ms. Rodriguez is probably right to note that an ideal chivalrous gentleman would be more measured and restrained in his observation of an attractive female that he had not yet been acquainted with. He probably wouldn’t be too forward with her to begin with, and would remain exceedingly polite during his first interactions with her while avoiding overt sexualization.

In order to get that treatment, however, a woman would need to be the ideal lady. Ladies in the age of chivalry were modest in their conduct. They were not particularly sexually suggestive in their speech, dress or dance, and this made it relatively easy for a gentleman to approach and engage them in a more polite, less overtly sexual manner.

Most modern millennial women do not adhere to the codes of conduct inherent to the lady. Their dress is often highly sexually suggestive, designed to invite overtly sexual approaches and draw the very suggestive gazes that Ms. Rodriguez scolds millennial men for wielding. Their dance is often even more sexually suggestive, roughly approximating the act of intercourse itself.

Modern millenial females express their sexuality more openly and freely than any lady of a bygone age would have been expected to. A lady expecting to keep that label and thus benefit from the chivalrous conduct of a gentleman could not engage freely and openly in casual sexual relationships with multiple men while unmarried. She could not engage in simulated sex on dance floors with men she didn’t even know well (or even men she did know somewhat well). She could not walk around in clothing designed specifically to expose and draw attention to the more sexually alluring portions of her body. The modern woman can do all of this, however, and very often does. Why?

Because she wants to, and that’s alright. Women have spent generations fighting for the ability to remove social limitations on their sexuality, and they now enjoy the fruits of that effort. Don’t get anything twisted here: I have no problem with this and neither do most millennial men. Women are free to dress as they like, dance as they like and fuck as they like. I’m certainly not going to stop them, but there’s a price to pay for all of this.

As noted before, the gentleman and the lady come together. One cannot exist without the other—the code of chivalry was designed with this understanding in mind, and it dealt with that understanding by creating standards of conduct for each gender seeking to participate in the chivalric exchange. When we freed women from the obligation to adhere to those standards of conduct, we necessarily freed men as well.

How can we change this and bring back the missing gentleman Ms. Rodriguez so desperately desires to interact with? Well, gentlemen require ladies. If you want more gentlemen in the traditional sense, you’ll need to create more ladies in the traditional sense, and that would require a re-imposition of the same social and legal restrictions on female sexuality and expression that women have fought so hard to eliminate during the last few generations. There would need to be a rescission of the legal progress females in our society have made toward true equality.

To further illustrate just why this is, consider the way in Ms. Rodriguez’s suggestion that men give up seats and hold doors (among other preferential and somewhat deferential things) specifically for women solely because they are women. Such behavior was once common, but why was this?

Because women were seen as the weaker sex. This notion of the inherently “weak” female governed the discriminatory legal and social landscape in which the code of chivalry was born and practiced. Men did all they did for women because of the implicit understanding in society that women, by virtue of their being women, were not equal to them. They were weaker and needed assistance and men, by virtue of their being men, were stronger and therefore obligated to provide that assistance.

Men are no longer behaving this way because they have been raised to understand that their female counterparts are not weak, but strong. They’re not dependent, but independent. They’re not inferiors, they’re equals. Our modern legal system takes these statements as fundamental, unassailable truths and uses the force of law to ensure that they are treated accordingly. This will, in turn, prevent men from doing many of the things Ms. Rodriguez would like them to, as they have become increasingly unable to see women as their true inferiors.

If Ms. Rodriguez wants the chivalric code to make its way back into the mainstream, she’ll need to bring back the old view on gender relations that gave rise to it. Modern notions of gender equality will need to go out the window.

That is unlikely to happen, however. For all of her yearning for the “chivalry” of yesteryear, I doubt that Hope Rodriguez or any other modern woman would like to see the return of the social mores necessary to sustain it. Millennial women live in what is undoubtedly the best time to be a female in the history of humanity. At no point in human history have women been as wealthy, as free, as respected and as influential as they are today. The return of te social norms necessary to sustain chivalry in the traditional sense could only inhibit their enjoyment of all that, and they know it. Women have made their voices heard loudly and clearly: they will not tolerate this.

Hope Rodriguez seems like a nice girl and I’m sure she’ll find a man to treat her well sometime soon (if she hasn’t already), but she’ll not succeed in bringing back the ways of a bygone age. Chivalry is dead and, at the end of the day, that’s just the way that most millennial women want it.

https://www.returnofkings.com/28660/the-concept-of-chivalry-has-been-distorted-to-create-subservient-men

From Wikipedia:

Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood… It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code… involving gallantry, individual training, and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasise more ideals such as the knightly virtues of honour, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition.

The term “martial” here, of course, means relating to war: the code was originally meant to guide medieval warriors– not peasants, aristocrats, or even lords. And certainly not modern day men, living in the world we do today.

This fact alone sheds light on why the code has changed over time. Warriors slashing each other with swords simply don’t exist today. Yet chivalry has stuck around. So has its meaning been refined? Or completely distorted? Let’s take a look at its conception.

The first noted support for chivalric vocation, or the establishment of knightly class to ensure the sanctity and legitimacy of Christianity was written in 930 by Odo, abbot of Cluny in the Vita of St. Gerald of Aurillac.

This passage sheds more light on its intended purpose. The knights, and their chivalric code were meant “to ensure the sanctity and legitimacy of Christianity.” Take fearless warriors like these knights, put them in wartime scenarios, and what do you get? Things like rape and pillaging come to mind, and are commonplace in wars even to this day. Chivalry was meant to ensure that the Christian values that these knights were supposedly fighting for were observed, even in battle.

But as time went on, the application of this code began to encompass more areas of a warrior’s life. Below are the three fronts that chivalry embodied as the middle ages went on:

1. Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. 2. Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord. 3. Duties to women: this would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies.

The first two areas mentioned here represent the origins of the code. Knights were to uphold the Christian values of mercy, courage, protection of the weak, and service to god as they carried out their battles and crusades. The third point, however, is what we are most familiar with today.

This is the expansion of the code into court life where the knights were expected to respect and serve women. But not all women 0nly to Christian ladies of the court, i.e. noble women. The same way these courageous warriors were to protect the weak, they were meant to protect and serve women. In addition to their primary wartime purposes, of course.

Today

What does chivalry mean today? Apparently, now that we don’t have a defined knightly class to battle with swords and protect Christianity, it has expanded to mean that all men should follow it. But not the whole thing. Just the part about serving women.

And there’s nothing wrong with this. A manly man opening the car door or carrying a heavy load to help a feminine women out is a great and attractive thing. This at least resembles the traditional dynamic of a knight protecting and serving a medieval lady. But when you remove some key aspects of this dynamic, does it still apply?

If you take a bratty, drunk girl who’s whining and complaining to her man, does it still apply? What about a girl who is so committed to being on her own and free of dependency on any man that she always tries to order them around and flip the script? When a poor beta man rushes ahead of her to open the door, is that chivalry?

I think not. I think she just made him her bitch.

So is chivalry alive today? In the modern sense of a man protecting and serving women it certainly can be. The strong, confident alpha male who takes it upon himself to treat women as medieval ladies and take care of the manly tasks like carrying heavy bags or walking on the outside of the sidewalk to protect her is a shining example of chivalry in its true sense.

Unfortunately many modern men aren’t like this. They are weak and timid. When you combine this with a women who’s susceptible to taking advantage of such a man and the idea of chivalry, you have the makings of a disaster. A man like this going out of his way to serve all women is only going to further damage his sense of self worth. Rather than being her “knight in shining armour” he becomes something that more closely resembles a servant or a slave.

In the end, it all depends on the context. Chivalry only applied to the knightly class in medieval times. Today, it’s become something that all men are encouraged to follow, whether alpha or beta. While it certainly is an attractive and acceptable behaviour of the alpha, it only serves to further emasculate the beta.

[creepingsharia]

Pennsylvania: Yemeni jihadi lied to feds to get into the U.S., indicted

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Yemeni Man Indicted on Charges of Lying to Joint Terrorism Task Force About Supporting Anti-American and Anti-Semitic Armed Insurgency

PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced that Gaafar Muhammed Ebrahim Al-Wazer, 25, of Altoona, PA, was charged by Indictment with three counts of making false statements to Task Force Officers with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Philadelphia Joint Terrorism Task Force. The defendant was previously arrested at his home in Altoona on November 7, 2019, pursuant to a Criminal Complaint, and has been detained since then, following a finding by U.S. Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley that he presented a risk of flight and danger to the community.

According to the Indictment and Criminal Complaint, FBI counterterrorism investigators questioned Al-Wazer, a Yemeni citizen, on May 17, 2016 about his affiliation with the Houthi movement, known formally as Ansar Allah. Ansar Allah is the armed rebel group that toppled Yemen’s government and has fought in an ongoing civil war there for years. Al-Wazer allegedly denied to the FBI that he was aligned with the Houthi movement, whose motto is “Allah is the greatest of all, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam,” and further denied that he had ever fired a weapon or participated in military or militia training.

To the contrary, however, the court documents allege that a search of Al-Wazer’s Facebook account revealed numerous postings and photographs in which he extolled and praised Ansar Allah, its objectives and its fighters who were killed in battle against the Yemeni government and its Saudi and U.S.-backed forces. In these postings, Al-Wazer was armed with automatic weapons (including a rocket-propelled grenade launcher). Al-Wazer’s Facebook account allegedly included a posting of a photograph of him and others bearing automatic assault rifles and pledging that they would stay on the path of jihad and wishing death to the United States and Israel and victory to Islam. In another posting, Al-Wazer again bears a machine gun in a photograph, which is accompanied by a pledge to Ansar Allah to the death.

“Just as when Al-Wazer was arrested and detained in November 2019, today’s Indictment demonstrates that lying to counter-terrorism officers in the course of their official duties is a crime,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain. “Al-Wazer was welcomed into our country for the educational opportunities available here, and he is entitled to hold and express his political and religious beliefs as freely as anyone else in this country -- no matter how vile and disgusting they are. But what he cannot do is lie to federal officers when directly questioned about his activities and beliefs. I want to thank our partners in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force for their continued vigilance in this case.” 

“People have the right to their own beliefs — the FBI isn’t the ‘thought police,’ nor do we want to be,” said Michael J. Driscoll, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia Division. “But lying to federal agents about your ideology and your actions is illegal, for good reason. If the people we interview feel they can deceive us with impunity, false information will hobble vital investigations. We can’t allow the mission of our Joint Terrorism Task Force to be derailed like that. The stakes are just too high.”

"Let the indictment of Al-Wazer serve as an example that lying to federal officers is a federal offense, and those who do so will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law," said Brian A. Michael, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Philadelphia. “HSI and our law enforcement partners are committed to pursue justice against those who seek to harm our country and our citizens.”

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of five years’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine, a $100 special assessment, per count.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Philadelphia Joint Terrorism Task Force, and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Nelson S.T. Thayer, Jr.