#which were not explicity discussed

[peachyykira]

.

[taliabhattwrites]

I don't think there is a significant or notable number of people who believe transmascs are not oppressed.

I feel slightly insane just having to type this out, but this is rhetoric you inevitably come across if you discuss transfeminism on Tumblr.

The mainstream, cissexist understanding of transmasculine people is the Irreversible Damage narrative (one that's old enough to show up in Transsexual Empire as well) of transmascs as "misguided little girls", "tricked" into "mutilating themselves". It is a deliberately emasculating and transphobic narrative that very explicitly centers on oppression, even if the fevered imaginings misattribute the cause. As anyone who's dealt with the gatekeeping medical establishment knows, they are far from giving away HRT or even consults with both hands, and most transfems I know have a hard enough time convincing people to take DIY T advice, leave alone "tricking" anyone into top surgery.

Arguably, the misogyny that transmasculine folks experience is the defining narrative surrounding their existence, as transmasculinity is frequently and erroneously attributed to "tomboyish women" who resent their position in the patriarchy so much they seek to transition out of it. This rhetoric is an invisiblization of transmasculinity, constructed deliberately to preserve gendered verticality, for if it were possible to "gain status" under the sexed regime, its entire basis, its ideological naturalization, would fall apart.

Honestly, the actual discussions I see are centered around whether "transmisogyny" is a term that should apply to transmascs and transfems alike. While I understand the impetus for that discussion, I feel like the assertion that transmisogyny is a specific oppression that transfems experience for our perceived abandonment of the "male sex" is often conflated with the incorrect idea that we believe transmasculine people are not oppressed at all. This is not true, and we understand, rather acutely, that our society is entirely organized around reproductive exploitation. That is, in fact, the source of transfeminine disposability!

I know I'm someone who "just got here" and there is a history here that I'm not a part of, but so much of that history is speckled with hearsay and fabrication that I can't even attempt to make sense of it. All I know is that I, in 2024, have been called a revived medieval slur for effeminate men by people who attribute certain beliefs to me based on my being a trans woman who is also a feminist, and I simply do not hold those views, nor do I know anyone who sincerely does.

If you're going to attempt to discredit a transfeminist, or transfeminism in general, then please at least do us the courtesy of responding to things we actually say and have actually argued instead of ascribing to us phantom ideologies in a frankly conspiratorial fashion. I also implore people to pay attention to how transphobic rhetoric operates out in the wider world, how actual reactionaries talk about and think of trans people, instead of fixating so hard on internecine social media clique drama that one enters an alternate reality--a phantasm, as Judith Butler would put it.

Speaking of which--do y'all have any idea how overrepresented transmascs are in trans studies and queer theory? Can we like, stop and reckon with reality-as-it-is, instead of hallucinating a transfeminine hegemony where it doesn't exist? I'm aware a lot of their output isn't particularly explicative on the material realities of transmasculine oppression despite their prominence in the academy, but that is ... not the fault of trans women, who face extremely harsh epistemic injustice even in trans studies.

The actual issue is how invisiblized transmasculine oppression is and how the epistemicide that transmasculine people face manifests as a refusal to differentiate between the misogyny all women face, reproductive exploitation in particular, and the contours of violence, erasure, and oppression directed at specifically transmasculine people.

You will notice that is a society-wide problem, motivated by a desire to erase the possibilities of transmasculinity, to the point of not even being willing to name it. You will notice that I am quite familiar with how this works, and how it's completely compatible with a materialist transfeminist framework that analyzes how our oppression is--while distinct--interlinked and stems from the same root.

I sincerely hope that whoever needs to see this post sees it, and that something productive--more productive dialogue, at least--can arise from it.

[c0eu4]

OP81 | Babies ♡

Summary: Oscar is looking for y/n around the paddock but can't find her until he saw her with Lando's niece.

Warning: smut, oral (f m receiving)

A/N: It was a need for me to start this little 'story'.

MASTERLIST requests are open

He walks around the McLaren premises, looking for y/n. But it seems that she is wanted and that she is nowhere to be found. Even though he sends her messages, she doesn't seem to want to answer it.

He continues to look for her, even going to Lando's driver's room. But she is still nowhere to be found. As he begins to despair but above all to worry, he hears the sound of her voice, laughing.

He walks towards the noises he hears and finally finds y/n, in the break room of the premises, Lando's niece on her lap.

Lando and his sister are not far away, talking. Oscar doesn't dare approach y/n, afraid of disturbing her. He looked at her, his arms crossed but a smile on his lips.

Oscar has a secret. Deep down, for several months he has wanted to see her with a round belly, carrying his child inside her. He never dared to tell her about it. Because he didn't think it was urgent at the moment. But seeing her with the little one was like a click. He needed to talk to her about it. He needed to know if she were okay and ready for this.

Lando notices Oscar's smile. And of course he understands right away. He calls him to join him, which Oscar does. Y/n looks up at him, taking the little one in her arms and joining in on the discussion.

The four of them talk while the little one plays with her hair. Cisca looks at her daughter, then at y/n how seems to enjoy her. She looks at Oscar, who is looking at the little one that plays with y/n's hair, probably imagining that it's his own daughter in her arms.

Quickly, the boys have to get in their car for fp2. Cisca and y/n find themselves in the McLaren garages, watching the cars passing in front of their eyes.

''Have you ever thought of having a baby?'' Y/n look at Cisca, a bit surprised.

''Why are you asking me that?'' She answers, the little one who's now playing with her fingers.

''C'mon, don't tell me you don't want a baby.'' She giggles as her daughter bites y/n's fingers.

''Uhm well, we never talked about it with Osc.'' Cisca looks at her, a big smile on her face.

''You should talk about it. You didn't see his gaze on you? It's obvious that he wants a baby with you.''

Y/n found herself blushing just at the thought of having a baby with Oscar.

''Maybe we should..'' Cisca feels proud of herself for being able to give her some ideas...

🏎️_ _ _ _ _

Once Oscar and y/n are in the car to go back to their hotel room, Oscar starts the discussion directly.

''We should make a baby.'' He simply said, without any emotion or explication.

''I was thinking the same.'' Oscar giggles.

''We've lived together for too long, our minds are connected now.'' He drives a little faster than usual, probably in a hurry for the night that awaits them.

''More seriously, do you think you're ready for it?'' He looks at her for a few seconds but quickly goes back to look at the road.

''I think so. And you ?'' He didn't waste any second to answer her.

''I'm more than ready.'' He finds himself blushing at the question he wants to ask.

''Uhm but, how do we do ?'' She chuckles at his asking.

''You really want me to explain how we can make a baby ?'' He chuckles too.

''Of course no. But you're using a birth control pill, no?'' He parked the car in the underground parking lot.

''Yeah, I just have to stop taking it and we can try.'' She smiles at him. He kissed her soft lips and got out of the car. Once she's too, he takes her hand.

''So if we try tonight, we can have a baby?''

He called the elevator and entered it with her.

''No I don't think so. Plus, I'm not in my fertility period.'' He looks a bit disappointed by her revelation.

''So when are you going to be pregnant?'' She chuckles at his impatience.

''I don't know Osc. For the moment, I'll stop my pill and we'll see. Ok?'' The elevator opens and they walk in the corridor, looking for their hotel room.

She opens the door with her card and enters the little room. Oscar quickly follows her and closes the door behind him. She takes off her shoes and her jacket, puts her bag on the ground while Oscar does the same thing.

He quickly ran his hand to her hips moving her to the bed.

''But I want a baby now..'' He whispered to her ear in a childish voice. His whisper sends shiver down her spine.

She turns around to face him and kisses him passionately. He bites her lower lips and she whines softly, giving him the opportunity to enter his tongue in her mouth. He explores her inner cheeks, until he can't catch his breath.

He separated from her, running his lips to her neck, kissing it with his warm and soft lips. He continues to move her backwards until her legs meet the bed and she falls onto the mattress gently.

He goes on her top, tucks a few strands of hair behind her ear.

''Is it a green one ?'' She doesn't answer right away. She looks up, as if she was thinking.

She makes herself desired.

''mhh... it's a green one.'' He wastes no more time kissing her neck and leaving a few reddish marks there.

She tilts her head to the side to give him more space, her hands wandering under his t-shirt.

Before she does, he removes his t-shirt as his kisses trail down her collarbone. He takes off her t-shirt and nibbles on the skin of her stomach.

The caresses of his hands move down her hips, removing the button of her jeans. He takes off her jeans, leaving her in underwear in front of him. This is of course not the first time he has seen her like this. But he will never tire of this view.

He kisses her thighs as her body already begins to respond a little more, wriggling and moaning.

She strokes his hair as he spreads her legs, kissing her inner thighs.

''Mhh Oscar..Please..'' She begged him to go further, to touch her bundle of nerves. One of his hands that was on her thigh leaves it to tickle her clit through her panties.

''Be patient pretty girl..'' She responds with a slightly louder moan and a sudden movement of her hips.

Oscar himself can't wait any longer. He takes off her panties and places her leg on his shoulder, already teasing her clit a little more with his tongue. She squirms with pleasure, unable to hold back all her moans. He looks at her, with his hungry eyes and mouth.

He plays with her bundle of nerves, making small circles and sucking it hard. His tongue go a little lower, teasing her entrance by sliding it in and out quickly. Her hand quickly finds his hair, lightly pulling on it to show him her pleasure.

He removes one hand from her thigh, using his fingers to continue the circles as he fucks her with his tongue. She quickly finds herself grinding against his face, his nose perfectly aligned with her clit.

Oscar knows that she was going to cum, he knows her better than anyone. He made her cum hundreds of times. And usually, he would have made her wait, he would have tortured her by forbidding her to cum.

But today, he only wants his own good. He only wants to please her.

''Cum for me baby.'' He moans against her cunt. The vibrations of his voice are felt throughout her body, her back arching as she drowns him in her liquid.

She moaned his name loudly and for a long time in pleasure, reaching ecstasy.

Oscar, proud of himself as always, does not lose a single drop of her precious liquid. He moves his kisses towards her breasts which he does not fail to tease too. He licks one and gropes another, pinching and biting her nipples.

But she suddenly takes control by turning him onto his back, riding him. She removes the last pieces of clothing that separates her from his already hard cock. She gets between his legs, her gaze full of lust and hunger.

Oscar doesn't say no and groans when she takes it in her hand, jerking him off quickly.

''Uhg.. y/n.. keep..'' She uses her thumb to play with his tip, making him moan louder. He moves his hips around her hands, showing her his impatience.

She doesn't wait any longer and shoves him into her mouth, already making him hit the back of her throat, making herself gagging.

He grabs her hair and puts it in a ponytail as she bobbed her head up and down around his shaft, taking him to heaven.

As he is about to cum, she removes him from her mouth and runs her tongue over his lips.

''Y/n!'' He groaned in frustration, making her giggle.

''You want to take full control?'' She barely has time to finish her sentence as he nods his head quickly.

She takes him back in her mouth and opens her mouth as wide as possible, letting him hit the back of her throat again and again, gagging.

His hips move frantically as he begins to see the stars.

''Oh yes! Fuck y/n! Yes baby! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!'' His head falls back as he cums roughly into his beloved's mouth.

His head is on fire, his vision is blurry and he is having trouble catching his breath.

She gets back on top of him, resting her pussy on his already soft-hard cock, moving her hips to tease him again.

He growls and turns her around, getting back on top of her.

''You better be ready pretty y/n..'' He whispered to her ear, entering her gently.

She moans loudly the whole time he enters, him hiding his head in the cushion next to her. He grabs one of her hands, puts it above her head and intertwines his fingers with hers. Her other hand is already clutched behind his back, ready for what's next.

He starts to move slowly and they feel that they are already going to cum soon. Her because of her sensitivity and the treats she made to him, him because just seeing her underneath him, her moans filling the room, turns him on so much.

His movements quicken, the groans in the room quicken, the sound of the flesh crashing together quicken.

The room is filled with 'uh uh' sometimes smothered by sensual kisses.

Oscar can't take it anymore. He loves her so much. He wanted her just for himself. He wanted her forever. And his mind is so dirty now. He wants to forever engrave in his memory his beloved beneath him, begging him to go faster.

After just a few minutes that seemed like seconds, Oscar filled his pretty girl with his precious liquid, her who quickly joined him.

Oscar's arms tremble and he falls on his princess, exhausted by all the efforts he has made.

She kissed his hair, wet from the sweat.

''We should try to make babies every day.'' She giggles as he kisses her neck.

[paganimagevault]

Four images of Thor 'The Wind Raiser' 8th-11th C. CE.

"Perkins provides numerous written examples of Norse sailors attempting to conjure up wind magic, often through the invocation of the God Thor, who is charged with special responsibility for the weather. Perkins relies on a detailed explication of a passage from the little known Icelandic þáttr (tale) to argue that, as with his better-known hammer-wielding influence over thunder, the God's control of the wind is instrumental. Perkins interprets the terms skeggrödd and skeggraust (each meaning 'beard-voice') as the act of Thor blowing out the wind. The central argument of this work is that the Eyrarland image is a plastic representation of Thor carrying out this process, using his beard in the manner of a wind instrument. Perkins is an accomplished philologist and his reading of the passage is convincing. However it is a limitation that the text is provided only in Old Norse, though passages in Latin and Russian are translated. Old Norse texts will continue to be marginalized in medieval studies if they are not made accessible to those outside the rather narrow discipline of Norse studies. An engaging and technical discussion of Scandinavian artefacts and texts will always find an audience there but other scholars are prevented from fully appreciating this argument if they cannot understand the critical texts. The argument that Thor was visualized as blowing out the wind, and that he was invoked to influence the wind leads to the conclusion that the Eyrarland image and other similar artefacts can be identified as amulets carried by those, presumably sailors, who most wanted to control the wind. Perkins briefly mentions a strikingly similar image to the Eyrarland image, the bronze Rällinge image. As this small figure is in rather an excited condition, he is usually identified with the fertility God Freyr, an identification with which Perkins concurs. However the Rällinge image too is stroking his beard, in the gesture which Perkins repeatedly characterizes as Thor's wind-raising ritual. Frustratingly, this parallel is not explored. The remaining sections of the book follow this conclusion into archaeological territory. Perkins focuses specifically on four small figures, including the Eyrarland image. The figurines were found as far apart as Iceland and the Ukraine, and made from media ranging from carved amber to cast bronze but Perkins identifies in them distinctive characteristics which, he argues, type them all as representative of Thor in his wind-raising capacity. These symbolic qualities range from the general observation that they tend to have the glaring eyes and muscular physique appropriate for textual accounts of the 'bruiser' God (p. 70), to the very specific feature that each of them appears to be holding his beard like a wind instrument and blowing into it."

-Thor the Wind-Raiser and the Eyrarland Image (review) by Katrina Burge, University of Melbourne 2005. The 3 bottom images are from the GermanicMythology website.

[dodger-chan]

Did I procrastinate by writing steddie fic again? Maybe. In my defense, I think this is very funny. Also on AO3.

Warning for non graphic but frequent discussion of sex.

Like a good number of things, it was Wheeler’s fault.

Under normal circumstances, Eddie would have no problem sitting back in his throne and staying above the fray while his little sheep had their silly arguments. Talking is a free action, etc. etc. And they’d wrapped for the night, were only delaying clean-up. But Wheeler, pressed by his friends to join in the defense of their favorite paladin, had gone with a very explicable but awkward choice of phrasing.

“I mean, Steve doesn’t suck.”

Eddie bit down on his tongue. He wasn’t going to say anything. He was not.

Unfortunately, something about the tepidness, the lackluster nature of Wheeler’s tone only encouraged Gareth.

“Au contraire,” he said, standing and making a gesture that Eddie chose to interpret as homage rather than mockery. “Harrington most assuredly does suck.”

Eddie bit down harder. He couldn’t say anything.

Gareth then began to list a number of harms done to the members of Hellfire that were, for the most part, merely tangentially related to the actions or existence of one Steven Harrington.

Perhaps it had always been a little unfair, to blame the social strictures of highschool on one individual who had no part in designing them and had done little more than anyone else in the way of enforcement. But what was the point of a figurehead if not to take the blame?

Of course no part of Gareth’s speech addressed the one way in which Steve truly did suck dick: literally. Steve had taken to oral sodomy like a duck to water. Eddie would love to claim credit by citing his excellent tutelage - largely by example - but he suspected his boyfriend was a natural.

Eddie tasted blood in his mouth. He couldn't keep biting his tongue. But he also couldn't set the record straight, so to speak. Even if he could tell all of Hellfire that he and Steve were dating, it would be beyond inappropriate to discuss Steve's cocksucking acumen with the freshmen.

“It's an interesting linguistic phenomenon, wouldn't you say?” Eddie interrupted Gareth’s spiel. “You are debating the merits and acceptability of one Steve Harrington, but using as shorthand a term that refers to oral sex. A phrasing that suggests people who give head are lesser than those who do not.

“Without making too many assumptions, I feel safe in saying that most of us would like to enjoy a bit of oral sodomy in the future. Now, I may not be the smartest guy in town, but it seems to me that preemptively insulting the people who might suck your dick is a good way to ensure they never will.”

He gave them a moment to digest his speech.

“So I should have said Steve doesn’t blow?” Mike asked, tentatively.

“Blow comes from blow jobs, so that’s the same thing,” Dustin corrected. A little less confidently, he went on. “Bites, maybe? Biting’s not a sex thing, is it?”

Eddie sighed. Surely there were insults that didn’t reflect some aspect of his sex life. Though biting was, at minimum, not related to oral. And it would probably be easier not to brag about the number of little bruises he’d left on Steve’s neck. And shoulders. And chest. All over Steve’s body, really.

Who was he kidding? He needed to shut this whole conversation down yesterday.

(this now has a sequel)

[demi-shoggoth]

2024 Reading Log, pt 2

006. Gardening Can Be Murder by Marta McDowell. I honestly thought that this book was going to be about something else. With the subtitle “how poisonous plants, sinister shovels and grim gardens have inspired mystery writers”, I thought it was going to be about, you know, that. True crime themed to gardens, discussions of poisonous plants, that sort of thing. The book is actually about the mystery books that have gardening as a theme. And while the author’s dedication to not spoiling anything (seriously, anything, even 150 year old stories like The Moonstone or “Rappacini’s Daughter”) is admirable in its own way, this leaves the book feeling like endless buildup without any payoff. Big fans of murder mysteries might enjoy this—especially the last chapter, which interviews writers about their gardens—but I found it more boring than anything else, and finished it only because it was very short.

007. Antimony, Gold and Jupiter’s Wolf by Peter Wothers. This book is about how the elements got their names, and most of it deals with the early modern period, as alchemy transitioned to chemistry and then into the 19th century, when chemistry was a real science, but things like atomic theory were not yet understood. The book goes into fascinating detail, and has a lot of quotes from primary sources, as scientists then were just like scientists now, that is, opinionated and bickering with each other over their preferred explanations. And names! Many of the splits between elements and their symbols (like Na for sodium) are due to compromise attempts to appease two different factions with their preferred names. A book covering arcane minutia of history always has the risk of feeling like a slog, but this is a fast and fun read.

008. Doctor Dhrolin’s Dictionary of Dinosaurs by Nathan T Barling and Michael O’Sullivan, illustrations by Mark P Witton. This book is an odd concept, but one that I was immediately on board with—a D&D book written by paleontologists with the intention of bringing accurate and interesting stats for prehistoric reptiles to the game. The fact that it’s mostly illustrated by Mark Witton definitely clinched my backing that Kickstarter. And this book is a lot of fun. So much so, that I read it all in a single sitting. I don’t know how accurate the stats are (like, a Hatzegopteryx has a higher CR than titanosaurs or T. rexes), but they seem like they’d be fun in play, and the writing does a good job of combining fantasy fun with actual education. Even for someone not running a 5e game, the stuff on how to run animals as not killing machines, and the mutation tables, could be useful. There are multiple types of playable dinosaurs, all of which seem like they’d work well at the table and avoid typical stereotypes, and a lot of in-jokes and pop culture references (like the cursed staff of unspared expense, which looks like Hammond’s cane in the Jurassic Park movie).

009. Romaine Wasn’t Built in a Day by Judith Tschann. I’m a sucker for books about etymology. And this one, on food etymology, is a pretty breezy read. I had fun with it, and it even busted some misconceptions that I had, etymologically speaking. Like, there’s no evidence that “bloody” as an explicative originated from “God’s blood”? Wild. Etymology books tend to be written in a sort of stream-of-consciousness style, where talking about one word may lead down a garden path to the next one. The book also has a couple of little matching quizzes, which is something I haven’t seen in a book since like the 90s.

010. The Lives of Octopuses and their Relatives by Danna Staaf. I was previously a little disappointed in The Lives of Beetles, another book in this series, but I knew I liked Staaf, who wrote the excellent book Squid Empire about cephalopod evolution and paleontology. I’m pleased to report that this book is also excellent. Staaf takes the “lives” part seriously, and the book is arranged by ecology, looking at different marine habitats, the challenges that they pose to living things, and the cephalopods that live there. Cuttlefish get slightly short shrift in this book compared to squids and octopuses, but that’s about the biggest complaint I had. I like how the species profiles cover more obscure taxa, and information about the best studied (like Pacific giant octopus and Humboldt squid) is kept to the chapters.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

I have a question for you that is tangentially related to some of your recent posts. I remember reading a while ago that the term "fish" is somewhat controversial for taxonomists because of how many animals are fish and (I think) that what are generally considered fish don't fit in a single clade without including all other tetrapods (and maybe also vertebrates) (on a related note, I'm pretty sure the same is true for trees but without the controversy). Do you know if I my memory is correct and, if so, where do you stand on the controversy. I'm assuming you'd be pro-"fish" as a term. Also very sorry if this doesn't make sense. I tried my best but I feel that it may still be confusing. Also have a great day! (And happy late/early birthday to your spouse! (you have one of those I think))

Hello! (Spouse's bday is Feb 12 :) so veeeery early and he's scared of turning 32 so)

so we have to do a little history of science here

"fish" is a term that existed before science, or at least, modern science. it basically meant "aquatic organism". it wasn't a relational term, so we didn't treat it like one

then Linnaeus, annoying taxonomist from whom we will never escape, decided that "fish" meant, specifically, certain types of aquatic vertebrates: Chondrichthyes, Actinopterygii, and Sarcopterygii without tetrapods

so, for most biologists for the past three hundred years, "fish" has meant Aquatic Non-Tetrapod Vertebrate

so the whole thing with "jellyfish" and "starfish" isn't really relevant to the discussion because they were already thrown out of the fish group to begin with

now, we are trying to use cladistics instead of Linnaeus bc linnaeus' system doesn't work for fossil organisms

which means we group organisms based on descent, not traits

which means tetrapods, which descended specifically from lobe-finned fish

are lobe-finned fish

so, we have the situation where whales were fish (pre linnaeus, aquatic organism) and then weren't (mammals aren't fish) and then are again (mammals are fish)

the people who say "fish aren't real" are ignoring that important middle step where scientists decided that fish was just a vertebrate term; they're acting like "jellyfish" and "starfish" are still considered fish when they haven't been for 300 years

so, yeah. I'm pro fish. much of tetrapod anatomy is only explicable when you remember we are fish. but, ultimately, I'm not going to correct people on that one

alternatively, we just start calling everything actinopterygiian or sarcopterygiian or chondrichthyan or whatever. I doubt people will get behind that though

yeah I wish the history of science was taught better bc a lot of these discussions would become sooooo much more streamlined

[kenzietensei]

Thoughts on sweet pool

So, I installed this game on my laptop a couple years ago, and only played about an hour into it at the time. This past week I was dogsitting and my laptop was with me, so I thought to play through the various endings of sweet pool.

I'd gotten the game because I read a tumblr post about the history of omegaverse, and I thought it would be interesting to see the origin of some of those tropes. I'm not into omegaverse, though I've read one or two fics using that setup. I'm not really into BL either, and most visual novels I've played have been otome or mystery stories. Also not a fan of gore or horror! So, uh, really not the audience for this title XD

Even so, I found the game compelling and it's been rotating in my brain the last few days since I got through the whole thing. There are a couple points in which I think my perspective might be unique so I figured I'd share. Spoilers below. If you're familiar with the plot, you'd also know what content warnings might apply here, so keep that in mind too >.>

First, I wanna go over some points I haven't really seen discussed/explicated anywhere that stuck out to me!

About the parasites:

The infodump that Kitani reads mentions markmeat, which I've seen reviews refer to as the stuff Youji passes. I'm pretty certain the fleshy bits are actually the fleshseeds and the markmeat is the 'bloodlike' pheromone which seeps out of Youji's neck.

The only people who can see this stuff is supposedly hosts. If you're a host, you'll become either Osu or Mesu. But it's unclear when that transition happens. Is it like a secondary puberty? Zenya's issues have been with him a long time, but he's also an unusual case. Tetsuo has had regenerative talent from childhood. Youji's accident was several years ago, but only very recently has he begun emitting pheromones.

There are at least two other people who can see these signs of the parasite who are unaffiliated with the cult as far as we know! There are rumors going around the school of blood and guts in the chem lab, and a separate rumor about blood and guts in the boys bathroom. Both incidents come about through a male student becoming alarmed and upset upon seeing something no one else can confirm is there. If it had been the same kid, I think the rumors would go a little differently (aka such and such has gone mad, that sort of thing) so I think its fair to say that more than one boy is effected. This indicates these boys are hosts, and also that they don't know about the biological aspects, at the absolute least.

Who are these kids? Are they children who were exposed like Zenya was? If they knew about the cult, they probably wouldn't have freaked out in public, so they're uninitiated and possibly not experiencing any symptoms (IE the way Youji was?). Receiving purebreed flesh is the only way we really see discussed for becoming a host, but then how did Tetsuo develop? Do some people just inherit this from their parents?

Speaking of inheritance, Youji's situation introduces some questions too. He seems to have been physically passed along his father's parasite during the accident... like it entered his wound and this ultimately revived/remade him. Whether Youji was going to eventually develop into a host through inheriting that in a different way, had the accident never occurred, isn't discussed. In the pool, Youji can will himself to do the same for Tetsuo - so did his parasite enter Tetsuo? Taken with the state Youji is in during that epilogue, it's pretty vague what happened. But should we take that to mean that a new parasite melding into the body of a host can revive them?

We are given a decent idea of what Osu and Mesu are. But there seem to be others involved with the cult who aren't dealing with these same symptoms. Kamiya is around high school boys every day and not driving any of them mad. Kunihito couldn't see the Sodomites until after he was shot - even though his family were long time participants in the cult. Furthermore, had either of them been Osu, wouldn't they have been interested to learn of Youji the Mesu? So, are they hosts? Interestingly, there's a moment in the school with Kunihito that makes me really wonder. Kitani interacts with his boss, who is alive (even though narration from Youji earlier seemed to indicate Kunihito had died) for the moment. Then Kitani sees a wriggler entering a wound, and it seems to be attached firmly. He rips it away and shoots it, and then next thing you know, Kunihito is dead. Was that his parasite, keeping him alive, or a new Sodomite trying to enter as a parasite and then reform Kunihito's body? Did Kitani's actions here actually doom his boss?

Can you have a host and then lose it? Might Zenya's state have been fixed by removing the inner being? As a fierce believer, it's obvious why Kunihito wouldn't have opted to do that, though. But I feel like the grand ending suggests that Tetsuo has lost this aspect of himself in the epilogue. He takes a long time to heal, after all. Perhaps in wishing they could live together as humans, Youji caused their parasites to detach?

The whole situation with Youji is so bizarre. He's perpetually weak with a lung disorder, lives barely nourishing himself, and experiences numerous intense injuries over the course of like 2 weeks while undergoing debilitating physical changes. I get why, bereft of regenerative abilities, he would die at the end of the plot.

I think the violins version of Miracles May suggests Youji succeeds in saving Tetsuo at the cost of himself. And the grand ending seems to say that in rejecting the Sodomites, in not sacrificing himself for Tetsuo, Youji does not get his wish in full - he wants to live on with Tetsuo as humans, which I think only half works (Tetsuo managed to pull through after being wounded), and Tetsuo speaks his name one last time, but I don't think Youji is truly around anymore. But I feel like Tetsuo is a human at this point. And perhaps Youji died as a human, too. I just don't get why there was an attempt to cover up his passing? Like the scandal at the academy is already pretty bad, wouldn't it make enough sense to say two students stopped into the school that day and both were accosted by the yakuza and one of them perished? It seems like it's vague just to confuse the audience.

About the characters:

Was Makoto sensitive to the pheromones just cause he happened to be? Or like was it because he was attracted to men that the pheromone could harm him like that? Because I feel like either reading is supported by the text. At what point, removed from the impact of the pheromones, would Makoto regain his sanity? He seems himself when we see him in the hospital. But in his ending, a week has passed since Youji disappeared. We can't know how long it's been since only bones remain - like at what point will the Mesu pheromones no longer be present in Makoto's system? He seems to be still outside his own control at the close of his story.

On endings, it's pointed out that purebreeds can use pheromones to control even normal people. But the degree of *control* is something I wonder about. Like, Youji's pheromones elicited control over others, chaining them to a desire beyond their own sanity. But Youji isn't the one holding the leash, so to speak. Tetsuo's scent also caused this to happen to Youji. And like, the ending where they breed & the prominence of instinct in that route suggests that this final choice is something they submit to rather than a choice they make under their own rational control. So I wonder about the purebreeds ability to control others... is it an active ability, or does it elicit an instinctual response in others?

We see the lump of flesh that Kunihito worships, and from his uncle's journal we know he was once a captivating young man. But he "gave too much of himself to his followers" and now is a weakened flesh slab... Honestly this whole bit of the journal is super suspect. It's phrased like that was a thing the purebreed did of it's own volition, but I don't think we're supposed to accept that at face value. As more of it's flesh was taken, it became weaker - so weak, that members of the organization were sufficiently outside of it's "control" to act on a revolt. Up to that point, was the cult compelled to consume the purebreed's flesh, regardless of it's wishes, due to it's outrageous pheromones? Or did the purebreed willingly give of itself but go to far and tipped the balance of control outside it's own favor? Could the cult have failed at this moment, and prevented the events of the story from ever coming to pass? It seems like there are other purebreeds elsewhere in the world, though, or have been throughout history, so I don't know that the japanese branch falling would end the Sodomites' bid to live on.

Uncle Okinaga can't explain why he tried to protect the purebreed, only that he was compelled to do so in remembering the boy's smile. In one route, Kitani encounters the newborn purebreed. Is he a slave from this point on? Will Kitani end up feeding on the purebreed? It's an uncomfortable question I was left with.

Speaking of Kitani, I feel really mixed about him. On the one hand, he is sympathetic. His shit childhood leads to him forming a traumatic bond with Kunihito. This is actually one of the most upsetting moments of the game, for me! Lol moreso than the gore, tbh. He's at his lowest moment, his body is failing, and this powerful man comes and exerts that power over him through assault. Kitani's instincts take over (he struggles to live). Kunihito says, work for me, you might as well die for a purpose... It really mirrors what happens to Youji so strongly! Like, Youji's connection to Tetsuo is in many ways just the same as this - he is overpowered by Tetsuo, and in the horror of his changing biology, Youji finds that being accepted as he is to be worth the discomforting aspects of the bond. Kitani likewise accepts the worst aspects of the Okinaga family as the price for having a place and a people to belong to. It isn't a loyalty earned through goodness or affection. In the Diving Deep ending, Kitani is said to feel aimless and purposeless without his family, and it seems like he might not care about living any longer. We see in different endings Youji submit his own life to the cost of a 'higher purpose,' whether that be procreation or saving Tetsuo. Ultimately, I don't think either of these men really formed healthy attachments to others and it is worthy of sympathy.

On the other hand! Kitani has committed himself to the Okinaga family, to the point that his support of them is more instinctual than rational choice. He knows it's abnormal, but he still goes ahead and does the eyeball thing, supports Kunihito's religious fervor, never intervenes in anything they've got going on (until the point comes where outside forces - Kamiya - threaten his family). He feels horrible about hurting women and children, but he beats a high schooler on orders from Zenya, and helps Zenya kidnap Tetsuo and Youji. Like, I think he'd already looked into Youji's background at this point, so once Zenya's done with Youji for the time being, Kitani knowingly dumps this frail, frequently hospitalized boy who has just undergone a brutal beating in the trash disposal area of the house where he lives alone with no one to care for him. That is abhorrent. Then, he helps Zenya kidnap this same boy a second time, at which point the boy is kept as a sex slave. Kitani is not in the dark about this - he is an adult and knows both Kunihito and Zenya are mentally unstable, and that these actions are not only harmful or illegal, but seriously jeopardize Youji's life. And then, the real kicker? Zenya really loved it when Kitani sewed Kristi a lil yukata to match Zenya's outfit. So, Kitani dutifully makes his new pet, Youji, an outfit as well! I'm sure seeing Zenya so happy really made it all worth it, huh Kitani?

About my feelings:

So, I played this game at a point in time where I was actively on my period lol I still am right now as a matter of fact. And although I initially started it earlier before this was part of my life, in the interim time I had bariatric surgery and have developed a different relationship to food, hunger, my biology, and the often uncomfortable bowel changes that came with it.

It's horrible, but my partner didn't flinch away from the hard truths that came with major surgery. We've had to discuss diarrhea and incontinence and foul gas. Early on, there were days I thought I would die of embarrassment, but he loved me regardless. Thankfully, the biggest problems of the early days are mostly a thing of the past, but it's not something I'm liable to ever forget. I felt so bad for Youji, going through something that altered him intrinsically like that, with no one to support him. When he takes Tetsuo's actions to be unconditional acceptance of his mortifying biology, this leads Youji to bond with the man at the expense of his own being. He becomes subsumed into this bond. Had Erika's situation been different at the time, I don't think Youji would have clung to Tetsuo's lack of repulsion as if it were love.

Further, I felt a kinship to Youji's difficulty feeding himself that was absolutely absent the first time I played any of the game. Having been through a great deal of nausea, food repulsion, and experiencing my body at it's weakest, I was just as worried about his health as before but more sympathetic to the forces at play than last time.

As for the menstrual aspect, I can totally vibe with the idea that this bodily change is a repulsive, dirty, shame-inducing experience which alienates a person from their peers and from their own body. When I'm on my period, I do feel like my body is outside of my control, and knowing it's for a function (childbirth) isn't some welcome news. Like I have to put aside myself as an individual person (mind) to deal with the realities of my form (woman) for the time being, and it's jarring and uncomfortable. In this regard, I feel the reason vs instinct system is so well supported by the story's themes!

Also, uh, as someone who has experienced painful sex, anal sex, and painful anal sex in my life, the sex scenes were pretty intense to play through. Like the agony is well written and Youji's lack of consent is ever present. When he becomes aroused, it is not treated as if that is equivalent to consent, which I especially appreciated as this is something of a problem when it comes to discussing the rape of men in particular. Even when Youji is participating in sexual interaction, the way the biological aspect has been laid out, with the pheromones and everything, makes consent not really possible. While Youji comes to feel a bond with Tetsuo, it is due to their biology moreso than a romantic connection, and this seems like something borne from the need to mate rather than driven by who they are as *people.*

I do think it's interesting that this game is so focused on biological functions. The drive to breed, which in some species does indeed come at the expense of the parents' lives, is only one thread of this theme. The need to nourish oneself is definitely very present. And then digestion and expelling waste comes into play in a highly unusual way, lol. I found the mention of the myrmecoleon to be thematically resonant and perplexing at the same time. From Kamiya's comments, each half is biologically at odds with the other. I wondered how this was meant to be taken in conjunction with the story. Like, Youji doesn't eat, but he produces this new flesh and passes it - the flesh seeds are not a product of what he takes in. And it doesn't seem like not eating is enough to kill Youji based on what we see. But Kamiya's statement that maybe one end could survive if it would reject the other is kind of weird. You can read it as saying one part can survive - either the reasonable part of the being (the human) or the instinctual aspect (the parasite). There is no fusion of the two possible, no coexistence. It makes enough sense in regards to Youji, but it's a little confusing if you try to apply it to the Osu-Mesu pairing (two halves of a whole). I kind of felt that it was saying only one of the two could have their wishes fulfilled/their needs respected. Since Youji is getting raped all the time, I thought that's what Kamiya was getting at, at first. And if you take it to the breeding stuff, it is also confusing, Kamiya! What we see of their copulation, producing a purebreed is very much a matter of fusion, so it reads at odds with the myrmecoleon bit. If you see the lion and the ant as humans and Sodomites in their separate species, that's also kinda weird. I think its meant to represent that the hosts are these third kinds of beings - both ant and lion - and that their existence is at odds with both parts of their biology. It really leaves me wondering how the hosts and purebreeds thing is supposed to accomplish anything for the Sodomites. It's not clear what they're gaining from this, though it also isn't clear that any alternative is available to them. The drive to exist is strong enough that they must attempt to continue the species, no matter what indignities it requires, I guess?

Overall, I left the game feeling very unsettled (the music is SO effective, omfg) and on edge. Hopefully having written out my thoughts will help me to move on from sweet pool!! Can't really say I'm glad I played it - I was curious about how it related to omegaverse and it was indeed fascinating to see the root of those tropes being developed - but it didn't do anything for me in that doki-doki kind of way and left me more agitated than moved by its emotional stuff. I do think it was very well written, and well conceived, and well produced. I'd love to talk about it with other people, though I doubt I'd ever play it again or be likely to recommend it.

Thanks for reading this crazy long post :3

[gorseflowers]

feel like i really should make a post about primitivism in yellowjackets given how much of my dissertation was about primitivism in art, which is a different area but its the same principal like its the creation of a romantic ideal of the primitive usually from the misinterpreted imagery/beliefs of a marginalised culture and the idealisation of that ideal as better/purer than the present state

much like how primitivist painters lifted imagery from cultures they were interested in without caring about the context/meaning/importance of the imagery to those cultures, it feels like yellowjackets is doing the same with the wilderness ritual stuff like the animal mask parade symbolic burial nat walked in on in the present, the ash anointing smoke smudging thing lottie was doing before nat and travis went out hunting in the 90s, it seems like theyve taken generically recognisable “wicca shit” as nat put it, that the audience will immediately understand as “primitive” and therefore associate with a level of mystery and power that’s accentuated by the lack of context or tangible link to anything explicable.

and i get that, at least in the 90s plotline, it kind of has to be generic wicca shit because the girls are literally making it up and assigning meanings to the materials they have available like ash and blood, but to have this ~mysterious primal power~ coming from the only character with indigenous heritage is like. really transparently primitivist in the most original sense. its the idea that there’s gotta be something ~cool/mysterious/spooky/powerful~ about this culture thats ~soooo connected to nature/primal states of self~ that always leads to white europeans (like myself full disclosure, im white/scottish) strip mining that culture for this sense of the primitive. its not about that actual culture or those actual people, its about what a white audience reads into it and what they want to see it as.

obviously the second season has only just started so they could well be setting up to subvert what theyve been doing so far, but two things are making me think thats not gonna be the case -- the way the mysterious ambiguous and supernatural elements of the plot are directly linked to the two main characters of colour (which has been discussed in more depth by other ppl), and the way that the wilderness itself is framed as a category of place that diametrically opposes “civilisation” without considering the concrete reality of the location in Real Life Canada which has a Real Life Indigenous Population who go completely unmentioned so far. its definitely indicative of how the writers want to frame “the wilderness” as some kind of other-place devoid of humanity that they have pointedly ignored the people who originally inhabited/still do inhabit other areas of that landscape. potentially also because the realities of modern (or 90s-modern) indigenous people dont fit the primitivist romantic ideal.

once again i am white/european so despite having studied like the art context of this im really not Qualified and i’d be greatly obliged for anyone else’s input. also this isnt totally slagging off the show i do enjoy it i just feel like they could be really doing better here. anyway!

[mangocheesecakeicecream]

On the "masculine" side of the diagram, Lacan wrote a formula generally read as "All men are subjected to the phallic function." On the "feminine" side, he wrote a formula generally read as: "Not all of a woman is subject to the phallic function." The difference is that whereas men can be discussed as a class, there is no set of "all women." Lacan believed that while women were a part of the phallic or symbolic order, they were not in it "all together." Thus, he would describe woman as pas tout [not all]. We know that women historically have been kept out of the symbolic order. We could also say that there is something about woman that resists it. The lower half of the sexuation diagram shows the "feminine" side having access to two libidinal positions, while the "masculine" side has access to one only. Thus any given "woman" can choose to associate with the phallic function, or with the "signifier of the barred Other"- a way of describing the jouissance that is beyond the phallus. Again, if these distinctions appear outrageously subtle and abstract, they at least have the virtue of not trapping us into neo- Confucian paradigms according to which man is rational; woman, emotional- paradigms surface endlessly in popular psychology. Lacan also made it clear in explicating the diagram of sexuation that he was not simply placing biological males on one side and biological females on the other. As he explained, referring to the "feminine" side: "Any speaking being whatsoever, as is expressly formulated in Freudian theory, whether provided with the attributes of masculinity -attributes that remain to be determined- or not, is allowed to inscribe itself in this part" (S XX, p.80). How do the two sides relate to each other? How does desire move within and across the divide of sexuation? Ellie Ragland has suggested beautifully: "Heterosexual or homosexual, we are drawn to each other sexually because we are not whole and because we are not the same."

Deborah Luepnitz

[opheliaintherushes]

I told myself I was done tormenting my kind and non-Riverdale-watching mutuals, and besides, I am too old and weathered for this fandom anyway, but really, the final, final thoughts on this finale and season as a whole:

First, and separately, does anything that happened after the characters got their memories back make sense? What was the point of it? They seemed completely unaffected by anything and happy to roleplay 50s teens. Were they even teens? Were they twenty-somethings sticking around high school like the vampires from Twilight for no explicable reason? Also, I'm sorry if you want to play the sentimental card, but if I was one of a handful of people who had traveled back in time and was stuck living in the past for 60 years or what have you, I would not lose contact with the others who also had. You would go insane! What did Archie tell his Modesto wife and child? Was Veronica picking up options on scripts she already knew would win Oscars? Did Jughead and Betty rewrite old issues of Mad and Ms. they might have read in the past? And is Gloria Steinem okay??? Also Betty and Jughead should remember they kind of hated each other in the future after the cheating and the voicemail, and Veronica should be so jealous of Betty for getting Archie, and Jughead should be so jealous of Archie for getting Betty, and my brain is hurting -

Almost more irritating were a) this idea that Archies are fundamentally stuck in the 50s (I owned the decade collections as a kid and the 60s and 70s were by far my favorites - very groovy), and b) the presumption that they did anything to address, expose, and or/fix actual problems of the 50s. Let us recap:

The school is already desegregated and this is never, ever discussed. The Black students are allowed to compete in beauty pageants, form their own literary club, dance on an integrated TV show, and join cheerleader squads, and this all happens with zero fight from the villains of the season. Fake Ray Bradbury and Fake Ray Bradbury's sweet but stupid wife think they could have settled in the south as a married couple in the forties. But? This is Riverdale, you say? They fixed everything? Sorry, you don't get to use Emmett Till to open the season and then eat your cake too.

Homophobia seemed to be the writers focus this season - except that every other episode someone would threaten Cheryl or Kevin, and then the next episode it would be an open secret at school with zero repercussions. Also, of course only the bad guys are homophobic (sorry Evelyn); our heroes are as forward thinking as they come. Hell, even Buffy had a moment to be wigged out by Willow and this was 1999! Anyway, look up what Lou Reed's parents did to him ('don't you know they're gonna kill your sons')

Let us not even discuss Reggie, who conquers racism through the power of athletics. Look up Richie Allen. Heck, watch the actual School Ties. It doesn't work out so well for David Greene in the end.

And then there's Fangs and Midge: first, rock and roll was seen as a huge menace, Fangs should've been on the school's hit list. Second, the writers obviously never read up on rock and rollers (who were generally older) and teen girls if they thought that was a good storyline. Third, they definitely never read any memoirs written by women in the 1950s, which all feature back alley abortions, slimy lovers, and shady doctors. (We don't even have time to get into Betty's idea of feminism being about sex all the time, everywhere, and becoming a burlesque dancer rather than, like, equal pay. Who knows, maybe she could have been the one harping on non-stop about the Beats and seen the cold face of her future there).

They didn't change anything. EC (sorry, Pep Comics) shut down. The Comics Code Authority won. So apparently all those artists who never worked again were just fine, right Tabitha?

[milkywaydrinker]

Speaking as someone who is also SEAsian, I'm disappointed by how... apologetic for racism Amphibia ends up being? Which feels like it's undermining a celebration of Matt's Thai heritage and experiences, since with that inevitably comes a critique of bigotry. Again, season 1 handled it fairly well, with that scene with Maggie...

But then by the end of the show? The Three Armies simplifies the systemic conflict between the species as something they're all guilty of contributing towards, despite there being a clear class divide and hierarchical aspect, which we know was invented by Andrias on a petty whim. Speaking of, Andrias' hand in inventing frog racism is just glossed over, because actually he's just a Sad UWU Boy who needed to be told by Leif that she still loved him! Ignoring Barrel and the treatment of the Toads, of course...

Leif is set up as a hero who saved Amphibia by setting everything in motion, a kind friend who redeems Andrias and created the Plantar bloodline! But her explicit pro-colonizing attitude is left unaddressed and glossed over. She has no issue with colonizing a world full of 'savages' (aka humans), and Matt even clarified in an interview that he found it more 'realistic' because that's 'just how it was back then' (such a phrase is called out as a historical fallacy nowadays meant to excuse past generations).

Leif doesn't steal the box because she has a change of heart and realizes humans don't deserve this; Instead, she only opposes imperialism when she's afraid it may backfire on her own beloved empire. She waxes poetic about the gems' usage disrupting a 'cosmic ecosystem' but then we find out there is no connection between usage of the gems and the moon falling; It's all the Core activating the mechanisms it built into the moon to push it into the planet. In hindsight, you actually have to take the Core's side of the argument, because the Core is actually right and knows what it's talking about, while Leif is making stuff up.

It's not as if we're told that Leif's motives evolved when visiting Earth; All we know is that she came in, dropped off the box, and then returned to Amphibia, and did nothing to talk down Andrias while her and Barrel's people suffered. Nothing to be said about engaging with the local humans and realizing that colonizing them was wrong, too, since again Matt's interview made things even more explicit. It's truly ironic when you realize that Leif's efforts to prevent the moon from falling just cause a long chain of events that result in it falling only because she tried. So all her concern for the ecosystem led to the tides being imbalanced (not that the show addresses that last bit, either).

And then of course... the Maggie cameo. Maggie's racism towards Anne felt like an attack on me personally, too, which was why it really pissed me off when fans elevated her to an explicable favorite. It's not as if her bigotry can be excused as fantasy racism towards all humans in general, or like there's other aspects to her character to explore; She's a one-off who exists only to be blatantly racist and that's it. I felt bad for Matt Braly, but then...

He allowed, if not decided to include Maggie in the penultimate finale??? Have Maggie change her mind on racism while STILL getting Anne's name wrong, and I guess it's meant to be seen as heartwarming because omg the PoC proved their racist wrong by showing they were useful and capable of great things! Which is a tired trope these days. What was even the reason for that, to validate and throw a bone to the racist fans? It'd be one thing if the fandom missed the point, but with all this, it feels like Matt just went back on his own message.

The fact that the protagonists never once bring up the inequalities to Andrias when meeting him, despite it playing such a big role in season 1, makes it come across as if the show suddenly became afraid to call out and discuss systemic racism. So when Andrias is revealed as evil, it's only with the revelation that he wants to invade and blow up other places. Our heroes don't kick themselves realizing they should've seen the red flags long ago with the racist system, because again, the show seems afraid now of discussing it; Instead, it has to treat Andrias' evil as some huge plot twist and not a natural evolution of his at-best apathy towards the hierarchy he allows (which we then find out, he invented).

I didn't like the first episode of season 3, but I DID appreciate the market scene as something I grew up with. But in lieu of all this other stuff I've mentioned, it just feels like a sanitized, defanged celebration of Thai heritage, made to appeal to another demographic, without alienating the white audience by calling them out. By comparison, TOH's villain is not a plausibly-deniable metaphor for colonizers, he is a literal example of the alt-right, and with the show being much more rebellious and willing to call out oppressors, I think that's another reason why TOH didn't 'fit the brand', but Amphibia did. Under Disney, you can celebrate being a minority without ever discussing WHY you're a minority, and even then you can't be too critical of the people who are the reason why (they're stockholders and investors).

I'll give you the floor here. I'm painfully white and my takes on this are pretty basic. I'm mostly going to focus on the worldbuilding side of things.

That being said! I have an unhealthy habit of browsing /co/ from time to time and indulging in some sealioning there. It's juvenile but everyone has some guilty pleasures. That was the only place where I encountered an actual Maggie fandom. Channers loved that character. Way back when the cameo happened I even said that brainrot must have been contagious. People from the crew had to browse those threads. I have no other explanation.

The systemic specieism in Amphibia is lackluster and poorly addressed because it's fundamentally treated as a personal form of bigotry. We know there has to be some form of institutionalized oppression, the tax system for example seems to disproportionately target the poorest demographic (of predominantly frogs) to keep them poor yet the only time Anne opposes it is when the tax is even more unfair due to tax fraud.

We know the toads are directly under the pencil pushing newts from the capital. Their bigotry towards the frogs is fueled by that frustration with their own oppression. Essentially, they get manipulated into directing their anger not at their oppressors but at the even more oppressed social class.

There's a lot that could've been done with that premise, but instead we get a watered down Three Armies "Just Get Over It and Stop Being Mean >:(" and it waters it down even further when we learn it's actually really just a baseless whim of an authoritarian King of an intergalactic colonial empire.

I know an argument could be made that we shouldn't expect a children's cartoon to tackle complex social dynamics. Maybe under different circumstances I would be willing to just roll my eyes and say "Sure" but with a show like The Owl House doing just that I'm not willing to let it slide.

[quincyhorst]

El Matador Rojo: An analysis of Querardo Naval, bullfighting, and localization differences.

Querardo Naval, dub name Victor Garcia, is the captain of Red Matador (Or Los Rojos); Spain's selection in the third Inazuma Eleven game. Not that relevant in the franchise (Minus for a friendly match on the anime), but unfortunately with it's own controversy. To sum it up, almost everything about RM -including few of its players- is highly tied with bullfighting o 'Tauromaquia', the most controversial spanish tradition... Yet, the most "recognizable" worldwide.

In a way or another, I can understand the dislike towards RM and its players, specially from the Spanish Ina11 fans. Like it or not, bullfighting is one of those discussion topics that are bound to create strong emotions on people, specially on the country its most associated with. So, I won't judge anyone who isn't in par on this team.

But because today is May 5th, (5/5), the captain's number, I wanted to dedicate this entry to him, as to show a so-called "different side of the coin". We WON'T be talking about bullfighting per-se; but instead about how it was originally implemented on Querardo's character, how overseas localization treated it, and, most shocking to me, how that accidentally changed his entire character.

This entry is long and it will contain some personal interpretations of mine, so please bear with me.

First off, we will be checking the japanese profile from the original IE3 games, released back in 2010. Given this was the first version of Red Matador, it won't hide itself on showing bullfighting on its team and its profiles. Querardo's one in particular, goes like this:

闘牛のマタドールを目指して幼い頃から特訓している。 "He has been training since childhood to become a matador in bullfighting." (DeePL) "Aiming to become a bullfighting matador, he has been training since childhood." (Google Translate)

Very straightforward, he simply desires to become a matador and that's it. We could also talk about his anime version, too: Vs Inazuma Japan, he's shown as a very fiery player, perhaps seeming a bit smug towards his rivals but not necessarily ill-mannered, as he's eager to re-match Inazuma Japan again. He also does not hold back to use a hissatsu heavily inspired by bullfighting: Matador Feint.

Now we go to the other side of the globe, and this is where things start to change. Like I said, due to the controversial motif Spain wasn't very fond with this team; and most likely the rest of Europe too. So few modifications had to be made as RM was being brought overseas.

First, we'll stop by the english version, which is the most faithful translation, BUT...

"He has trained to be a matador since he was a child, but he hates hurting animals."

As you can see, Querardo (Or better said, Victor) retains his desire to be a matador, but now we get to ALSO learn about his dislike of animal suffering. Rather... Ironic.

In my opinion, I feel like this -and similar changes we'll see- were just a safe way for the localizers to say "SEE!? Red Matador isn't all pro-bullfighting!!!"; or maybe as a way to avoid putting the topic in a "normal"/positive light. Nonetheless, let's keep going through Europe. Something I've noticed is that the other languages also try to keep it faithful, but they change in at least one thing.

We now go to Spain, aka the country this character was meant to represent. Out of all the languages I could say this is the one that has been changed the most, adding too some sort of "background" to Victor's life.

"Se crió en una finca con toros y sabe torear, pero no le gusta herir a los animales." "He grew up on a farm with bulls and knows how to fight (them), but doesn't like hurting animals." (Translation by myself)

Another huge change is that while on both the japanese and english version it is explicity said he wants to become a matador, in here is it removed entirely. Victor just happens to know some moves, still justifying the existence of Matador Feint on him, but it is NOT specified if he wants to become a bullfighter or not.

The German profile of Victor returns to be more similar to ENG/JP, BUT we could say there is a... Different use of words. Credits for raspberrydevil on Tumblr for translating the profile from their game.

"Wurde von Kindesbeinen an zum Matador ausgebildet, obwohl er Tiere über alles liebt." "Since his childhood he was raised to be a Matador, even though he loves animals above anything else."

...In this version, it isn't even Victor's choice to become a matador. It is someone else's. And here it isn't specified if he likes this assigned future; in fact, it seems it conflicts with his love of animals. Sad...

Shout-out to the french version too, although my less knowledge about the language might not give me the full picture. I find interesting the use of the word "Destiné à " (Assigned, destined for, intended), and that in this version Victor straight up REFUSES to harm any animals, conflicting even more with his imposed future as a matador.

"Destiné à la tauromachie depuis l'enfance, il refuse toutefois de faire souffrir des animaux." "Destined for bullfighting since childhood, he refuses however to make animals suffer." (DeepL)

For now that's all the profiles I could find, but I think you get a proper idea of what I'm talking about. Either way...

...Isn't it interesting how with all those changes, we could make two entirely different characters?

First, we have Querardo Naval, a fiery boy who wants to be a matador regardless of the controversy; yet is so proud of this art that he incorporated its moves onto soccer.

And meanwhile, we have Victor Garcia: A boy raised alongside bulls, with the choice of becoming a matador in the future either made by him, or by somebody/something else: Be it a parent, family legacy, or even societal pressure. However, as time went on, Victor's feelings started to turn conflicted. He loved animals, specially the bulls who he would see almost everyday; yet being a matador required some sacrifices. In hopes of clearing his mind up he turned onto soccer instead, adding his own knowledge of bullfighting moves for new hissatsus; but its unknown what will he choose at the end. Well, of course, this ISN'T the actual story of the character, just one of the many takeaways I *myself* can interpret with all these overseas changes.

Now, here comes a dilemma, but when it comes to choosing between these two versions, specially when creating headcanons... I'd rather leave that to your own choice. I feel like the opinion on this topic overall will depend over oneself's own view of bullfighting. Those who might be on its favor could argue these changes are unfair, and those who dislike such tradition might see this in a positive light.

In my case, I'll confess that I personally prefer overseas!Querardo/Victor, mainly because I find interesting the story and dilemma it presents.To follow a century old tradition, or to see its other side? Plus, I think its a fun contrast with his whole team. Keep in mind my own view about bullfighting and "matadores" is mostly negative, so that influences my choice a bit. But if somebody where to prefer Querardo's original version, then I'd have no option but understand. After all, it does feel weird to see him so happily being the captain of an entire team based around bullfighting. Or maybe he's masking it, who truly knows.

I also understand somebody preferring Querardo's original profile due to it being heavily modified between versions. Lately I've been seeing some discourse when it comes to localization and region differences, and it's obvious not everyone will hold the same views about the topic.

Either way, if you've gotten here, thank you. Red Matador and Querardo have been topics I've been hyper-focusing a lot lately, so I've enjoyed writing this analysis. If you got another interesting overseas game translation here, feel free to share it, alongside your own thoughts on the character and his potential story.

Muchísimas Gracias!

----

Clarifications:

Another character from Red Matador that also had huge changes between versions was Samuel Mayo/Mateo Bonachea; but I'd rather put him in an aside post.

This entry's idea happened with me finding the japanese version AFTER seeing the english and german versions first, which hitted me with such cognitive dissonance that led me to do all this research.

An alternate reading of "Wurde ausgebildet" in the german profile means "was trained" or "Has been trained", which is an adjective that refers to somebody who had been teached. It's still curious how in all the instances are worded like if a third party were the one who trained him. I'm not good at German at all, so correct me if I'm wrong.

To tell you the truth, even I myself don't know how to handle Querardo's story in my own setting. Like said before I love what the overseas region proposes and what could be done about it; but not using his original japanese self just gives me... Guilt? Idk. But at least I hope it can inspire anybody else who wants to make headcanons for him.

Other profile I saw was the italian one, but I haven't found much of interest with it.

Final one for now: I'm aware that a huge discussion that persists when it comes to bullfighting is the topic of "if the bull suffers or not", and also the personal stance of it can also impact any possible interpretation of the character. But by my own view, let's be fair... Seriously, there's NO way the poor animal doesn't have at least some high level of distress during the act. Being trapped in an enclosed arena with a deadly fate no matter what... Poor thing must be so confused 💔

...If you believe I'm just reading way too deep into this, don't be afraid of telling me (? If what I believe isn't true, then at least I hope this post can show some localization fun facts. 😅

[theculturedmarxist]

U.S. foreign policy has set the country on a course destined to lead to a world of rivalry, strife and conflict into the foreseeable future. Washington has declared “war” on China, on Russia, on whomever partners with them.

That “war” is comprehensive — diplomatic, financial, commercial, technological, cultural, ideological. It implicitly fuses a presumed great power rivalry for dominance with a clash of civilizations: the U.S.-led West against the civilizational states of China, Russia and potentially India.

Direct military action is not explicitly included but armed clashes are not absolutely precluded. They can occur via proxies as in Ukraine. They can be sparked by Washington’s dedication to bolster Taiwan as an independent country.

A series of formal defense reviews confirm statements by the most senior U.S. officials and military commanders that such a conflict is likely within the decade. Plans for warfighting are well advanced. This feckless approach implicitly casts the Chinese foe as a modern-day Imperial Japan despite the catastrophic risks intrinsic to a war between nuclear powers.

The extremity of Washington’s overreaching, militarized strategy intended to solidify and extend its global dominance is evinced by the latest pronouncement of required war-fighting capabilities.

Recommendations just promulgated by the congressional bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission include developing and fielding “homeland integrated air and missile defenses that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.”

They were endorsed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley in his post-retirement interview where he proposed adding up to $1 trillion to the current defense budget in order to create the requisite capabilities.

President Joe Biden, in his weekend interview on 60 Minutes, reiterated the dominating outlook with buoyant optimism:

“We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake!; the most powerful nation in the history of the world.”

This is the same country whose war-fighting record since 1975 is one win, two draws and four losses — or five losses if we include Ukraine. (That tabulation excludes Granada which was a sort of scrimmage). Moreover, the U.S. stock of 155mm artillery ammunition is totally exhausted – as is that of its allies.

No Discussion

This historic strategic judgment is heavily freighted with the gravest implications for the security and well-being of the United States — and will shape global affairs in the 21st century.

Yet, it has been made in the total absence of serious debate in the country-at-large, in Congress, within the foreign policy community, in the media and — most astonishing — at the highest levels of the government as well.

The last lapse is evinced by the superficiality of the statements issued by Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Milley and their associates.

We have heard nothing in the way of a sober, rigorous explication of why and how China or Russian poses so manifest a threat as to dictate committing ourselves to an all-out confrontation.

Nor do we hear mention of alternative strategies, their pluses and minuses, nor are there candid expositions of the costs that will be incurred in their implementation. Most certainly, silence reigns as to what happens if this audacious, all-or-nothing strategy fails — in whole or in part.

The stunning rise of China along with the reemergence of Russia as a formidable power are developments apparent to attentive observers for quite some time.

For Russia, the landmark dates can be identified.

Russian Milestones

The first was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007. There, he made clear his rejection of the Western script that relegated Russia to a subordinate position in a world system organized according to principles and interests defined largely by the United States.

Whether fashioned as neo-liberal globalization or, practically speaking, American hegemony, it was unacceptable. Instead, Putin set forth the twin concepts of multipolarity and multilateralism. While emphasizing the sovereign status and legitimate interest of all states, his vision did not foresee conflict or implacable rivalry. Rather, it was envisaged demarcating international dealings as a collective enterprise that aimed at mutual gain based on mutual respect for each other’s identity and core interests.

Washington, though, interpreted it otherwise. In their minds, Putin had thrown a monkey wrench into the project of fashioning a globalized world overseen by the United States and its partners.

President George W. Bush’s administration made the judgment that an irksome Russia should be fenced-in and its influence curbed. That objective animated the campaign to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, the sponsorship of the doomed Georgian attack on disputed South Ossetia, on the attempt to block the building of a new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and on setting strict terms for commercial exchanges.

It culminated in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev and the bolstering of Ukraine as a power that could keep Russia in its place. The rest of that story we know.

Then, the image of Putin as a diabolical Machiavellian who works relentlessly to cripple the U.S. was given a thick layer of varnish by the Russiagate charade — a scheme concocted by presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton and her allies in order to explain how she could lose an election against somebody who started the fall campaign with a personal unfavorable poll rating of 67 percent.

The Chinese Challenge

The confrontation with China is not marked by equally clear events or decision points. Designation of China as the challenger to the U.S. position as global supremo crystallized more gradually.

It was the Middle Kingdom’s growing strength in every dimension of national power and capacity that stirred first anxiety and then fear. This challenging rival had become a threat to the foundational belief in U.S. exceptionalism and superiority. Hence, an existential threat in the truest sense.

(“This town ain’t big enough for both of us!” is a familiar line to Americans for the way it punctuates showdowns in hundreds of Westerns. Now it has spilled into foreign policy as a neat summation of Washington’s attitude toward Beijing. Instead, how about inviting the other guy for a drink at the Long Branch and a long talk? Dutch treat.)

The string of disputes over this or that issue were symptoms rather than the cause of the antagonism mixed with dread that has led the U.S. to treat China as a mortal foe. When we look at the chronology of events, it becomes evident that the U.S. bill of indictment does not come close to justifying that conclusion.

The fashionable — now official — view is that it’s all China’s fault.

President Xi Jinping & Co supposedly spurned the opportunity to join the outward-looking community of liberal nations; they have grown increasingly repressive at home — thereby, disqualifying themselves from partnership with the democracies; they have been aggressive in pushing their territorial claims in the South China Sea; they have not composed their differences with neighbors, most importantly Japan; and they have deviated from the Western (i.e. American line) toward Iran while mediating a modus vivendi with Saudi Arabia.

Closer to home, China is accused of operating extensive spying networks in the United States designed to purloin valuable high technology; of systematically manipulating commercial dealings to their advantage; and they are extending their cultural influence in a porous American society.

In this bill of indictment no reference is made to dubious actions by the United States. Washington’s record as a global citizen is less than impeccable. Specifically in reference to China, it is Washington that made what are by far the most provocative moves.

Let’s recall the jailing of Huawei’s CFO in Vancouver at the Trump White House’s insistence on specious grounds (violation of Washington’s own illegal sanctions campaign against Iran) in order to thwart the company’s success in becoming a dominant player in the IT field. Former President Donald Trump himself admitted as much in stating that the United States might refrain from pursuing her prosecution were China ready to concede to his demands in the bilateral trade negotiations.

The ultimate provocation has been the series of steps in regard to Taiwan that signaled clearly Washington’s intention to prevent its integration into the PRC. Thereby, it crossed the most indelible of red lines — one that the United States itself had helped draw and had observed for half a century. It is tantamount to an Old Europe aristocrat slapping another in the face with his gloves in public. An unmistakable invitation to a duel that precludes negotiation, mediation or compromise.

Not Just a Rival

The United States finds it far easier to deal with manifest enemies, e.g. the U.S.S.R., than sharing the international stage with countries that match it in strength whatever degree of threat it poses to American national security.

The latter is far harder for Americans to handle — emotionally, intellectually, diplomatically.

Hence, the growing tendency to characterize China as not just a rival for global influence but as a menace. That results in a caricature of China’s ambitions and a downplaying of prospects for fostering a working relationship among rough equals.

An enormous amount of energy is being put into this delusional enterprise. The target is America itself. The project is a bizarre form of conversion therapy designed to substitute a confected version of reality for the irksome real thing.

Stunning evidence of this self-administered treatment is available on a routine basis in the pages of The New York Times. Every day we are treated to two or three long stories about what’s wrong with China, its trials and tribulations. No occurrence is too recondite or distant to be exempt from being used in an exaggerated diagnosis of social or political illness. The extremes to which the editors go in this re-education program is pathological.

The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.

By time that the Biden administration arrived in office, the scene had been set for the declaration of war and the taking of concrete steps in that direction. But it’s odd that such a momentous commitment should be made by such a lackluster team of individuals with a diminished, distracted president as its nominal head. That can be attributed to two factors.

First is the dogmatic worldview of the principals. Their outlook represents an absorption of Paul Wolfowitz’s notorious memo of 1992 laying out a manifold strategy for consolidating and extending U.S. world dominance in perpetuity.

Second is the neocon passion to shape other countries in the U.S. image. That blend was laced with a dash of old-fashioned Wilsonian idealism along with a drizzle of humanitarianism from the Responsibility to Protect movement (R2P).

[Related: Chris Hedges: R2P Caused Libya’s Nightmare]

This potent brew had become orthodoxy for nearly all of the U.S. foreign policy community. In addition, a rudimentary version has gained the adherence of the political class and has shaped the thinking of Congress to whatever extent its members do any thinking about external relations beyond habitual resort to convenient hackneyed slogans.

Alternative No. 1

Objectively speaking, alternatives did exist.

The first we might call inertial ad-hocism. Its features would have been the continued segmentation of the country’s external dealings into more-or-less discrete packets — geographical and functional.

The Middle East’s two sub-categories: Israel and the Gulf; the desultory “War On Terror” wherever; the aggressive promotion of neo-liberal globalization featuring the ensconcing of a heteroclite corporate/technocratic/political elite as guides and overseers; bilateral relations with new economic powers like India and Brazil to bring them into the neo-liberal orbit; business-as-usual with the rest of the Global South.

As for China and Russia, one would be treated as a formidable rival and the other as an overreaching nuisance to be stymied in places in Syria and Central Asia. Concrete steps to counteract the Chinese commercial and technological challenge would have been taken either unilaterally or in hard-nosed direct bargaining. Support for Taiwan would have increased but stopped short of ruffling Beijing’s feathers by calling into question the One-China Principle.

The foundational premise of this approach is that an ever-deepening neo-liberal system would pull China into its field as a politico-economic centrifugal magnet. Hence, by an incremental process a potential challenge to American-Western hegemony would be gradually neutralized, avoiding a direct confrontation.

Russia, for its part, could be treated more roughly: the post-2014 sanctions tightened, its approaches in Syria and on other matters rebuffed and the quiet build-up of Ukraine continued. This, in essence, was the tack taken by former President Barack Obama and Trump.

Today’s uniform assumption that a momentous battle with the Chinese is written in the stars, the culmination of a zero-sum rivalry for global dominance, is of relatively recent vintage.

Not so long ago, the consensus was that the most sensible strategy composed two elements.

The first was peaceful engagement emphasizing economic interdependence leading to China’s participation in a more-or-less orderly world system whose rules-of-the-road might have to undergo some modification but where power politics was restrained and contained.

(Regarding the restructuring of existing international organizations, the IMF stands out. Since its post-war founding, the United States has held veto power over any or all of its actions. It adamantly refuses to relinquish it despite the drastic shifts in the constellation of global financial and monetary power. Hence, the IMF serves as a de facto subsidiary of the State Department. This state of affairs soon will prove absolutely unacceptable to China and the BRICs.)

The second was a measure of military balancing to remove any temptation as might exist in Beijing for empire-building while reassuring neighbors. The open question focused on exactly where and how the balance should be struck.

That was the prevailing perspective until roughly the second Obama administration. These days, that approach has lost its place in the mainstream of foreign policy discourse. There is no fixed day or event, though, that marks the abrupt and sharp change of course.

This disjointed incremental line of approach has its advantages despite its leaning toward conflict. Paramount is that it avoids locking the United States into a position of implacable hostility vis a vis China. There is no embedded logic propelling us toward armed conflict. It implicitly leaves open the possibility of U.S. thinking moving in a more positive direction.

Whatever the odds of such an evolution occurring, and on the arrival in the White House of a president with the bold vision of a true statesman, such a development would not be excluded as it is by the current mobilization for generational “war.”

Alternative No. 2

There is another, radical alternative grounded on the belief that it is feasible to fashion a long-term strategy of nurturing ties of cooperation with Russia and China. Taking some form of partnership, it would be grounded on a mutual commitment to the maintenance of political stability and fashioning mechanisms for conflict avoidance. This is by no means as far fetched as first glance might suggest — in concept.

The idea of a great power concert comes to mind. However, we should envisage an arrangement quite different from the historic Concert of Europe that emerged at the Conference of Vienna in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.

One, the objective would not be a buttressing of the status quo by the dual strategy of refraining from armed conflict among the underwriting states and suppressing revolutionary movements that could endanger existing monarchies. Its attendant features were the concentration of custodial power in the Big 5 co-managers of the system; the stifling of political reform across Europe; and the disregard of forces appearing outside their purview.

By contrast, a contemporary partnership among the major powers would presume a responsibility for taking the lead in designing a global system based on the mutually reinforcing tenets of openness, sovereign equality and the promotion of policies that deliver plus-sum outcomes.

Rather than rule by a directorate, international affairs would be structured by international institutions modified in terms of philosophy, multilateral decision-making and a measure of devolution that empowers regional bodies.  There would be an established pattern of consultation among those governments whose economic weight and military capacity quite naturally should be expected to play an informal role in performing system maintenance functions and facilitating the involvement of other states. Legitimacy would be established through conduct and performance.

The drastic fall in respect for U.S. world leadership will facilitate that process — as the BRICs’ successes already demonstrate.

The crucial starting point for such a project is a meeting of the minds among Washington, Beijing and Moscow — accompanied by dialogue with New Delhi, Brasilia et al.

There is reason to believe that conditions, objectively speaking, have been conducive to an undertaking of this order for several years. However, it was never recognized in the West, much less seriously considered — an historic opportunity lost.

“The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.”

The most significant sufficient factor is the temper of Chinese and Russian leadership. Xi and Putin are rare leaders. They are sober, rational, intelligent, very well informed and capable of broad vision.

(China’s traditional goal always has been to exact deference from other countries while bolstering their own strength — not to impose an imperium on them. Much less do they share the American impulse to arrange the affairs of the entire world according to a universalization of their own unique civilization.  Therein lies an opportunity to avoid a “war of transition.”

However, there is no American leader on the horizon who recognizes this overarching reality and who seems prepared to grasp the opportunity to “bend the arc of history.”  Obama briefly toyed with the idea — before relapsing into the stale rhetoric of American exceptionalism: “We’re number One — you better believe it. Nobody else is even close!”)

While dedicated to securing their national interests, above all the well-being of their peoples, neither Xi nor Putin harbor imperial ambitions. And both have long tenures as heads of state. They have the political capital to invest in a project of this magnitude and prospective. Washington, unfortunately, has not had leaders of similar character and talents.

As for U.S. allies, no counsel of restraint can be expected from that quarter. Those loyal vassals have moved from being craven irrelevancies to active, if junior, partners in crime.

An Odious Spectacle

It is stomach-churning to observe the leaders of Europe lining up for slap-on-the-back meetings with Bibi Netanyahu in Tel Aviv while he inflicts atrocities on Gazans. Barely a word of concern for 2 million civilians, just the hurried dispatch of more weapons diverted from the Ukrainian killing fields.  This odious spectacle was eclipsed by Biden’s disgraceful performance this week in Jerusalem.

Summit meetings by Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden always have concentrated on either small-bore issues or instruction on what their opposite number should be doing so as to conform to the U.S. view of the world. Both are wastes of precious time insofar as the imperative to foster a long-term, common global perspective is concerned.

The sensible approach to inaugurate a serious dialogue might be a president with statesmanlike qualities who sits down alone with Putin and Xi for an open-ended session and asks such questions as: “What do you want, President Putin/President XI? How do you see the world 20 years from now and your country’s place in it?”

Would they be prepared to expound an articulate response?  Putin certainly would. That is exactly what he has been proposing since 2007 — on numerous occasions vocally or in his writings.  Instead, he was stonewalled, and — since 2014 — treated as a menacing pariah to be defamed and personally insulted.

Here is Barack Obama’s take:

“The Russian President is a ‘physically unremarkable’ man, likened to ‘the tough, street-smart ward bosses who used to run the Chicago machine.”

This comment from Obama’s first volume of his published memoirs, The Promised Land, says more about his own inflated yet vulnerable ego than Putin’s character.

In fact, it was the Chicago machine along with money and encouragement from the Pritzker network that made Obama what he became.

Contrast: when Bismarck met Disraeli at the 1878 Berlin Conference — going so far as to invite him, a Jew, home twice for meals — he did not nag the British prime minister about trade restrictions on German exports of textiles and metallurgical goods or the systematic British abuse of tea plantation workers in Assam.

Nor did he comment on the man’s physique. Bismarck was a serious statesman, unlike the people in whose custody we place the security and well-being of our nations.

The upshot is that Putin and Xi seem puzzled by feckless Western counterparts who disregard the elementary precepts of diplomacy. That should be a concern as well — except by those who intend to conduct the U.S. “war” in a linear manner that pays little attention to the thinking of other parties.

The vitriol that is thrown at Putin with such vehemence by his Western counterparts is something of a puzzle. It is manifestly disproportionate to anything that he has done or said by any reasonable measure — even if one distorts the underlying story of Ukraine.

Obama’s condescension suggests an answer. At its core, their attitude reflects envy. Envy in the sense that he is subconsciously recognized as clearly superior in attributes of intelligence, knowledge of contemporary issues and history, articulateness, political savvy and – most certainly – diplomatic skill.

Try to imagine any U.S. leader emulating Putin’s performance in holding three-hour open Q & A sessions with citizens of all stripes — responding directly, in detail, coherently and with good grace. Biden? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz? British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? French President Emmanual Macron? Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission? Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallis?

Even Obama, from whom we’d get canned sermons cast in high-minded language that distills into very little. That’s why the West’s political class assiduously avoids paying attention to Putin’s speeches and press conferences — out of sight, out of mind.

Act in reference to the make-believe cartoon instead of the real man.

The Ukraine Era

These days, in the Ukraine era, the rigid Washington consensus is that Vladimir Putin is the quintessential brutal dictator — power mad, ruthless and with only a tenuous grip on reality.

Indeed, it has become commonplace to equate him with Hitler — as done by such leading lights of the U.S. power elite as Hillary Clinton and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with “opinion makers” galore. Even 203 noble Nobels lend their collective brains and celebrity credentials to an “open letter” whose second sentence pairs Russia’s attack on Ukraine with Hitler’s assault on Poland in September 1939.

Sadly, the idea that those who make those decisions should bother to know what they are talking about is widely deemed as radical if not subversive.

In regard to Putin, there is absolutely no excuse for such painful ignorance. He has presented his views on how Russia visualizes its place in the world, relations with the West and the contours/rules of a desired international system more comprehensively, historically informed and coherently than has any national leader I know of.  Shouted declarations “we’re No. 1 and always will be – you better believe it” (Obama) are not his style.

The point is that you may be troubled by his conclusions, question his sincerity, suspect hidden strands of thought, or denounce certain actions. However, doing so has no credibility unless one has engaged the man based on what is available — not on cartoon caricatures. So, too, should we recognize that Russia is not a one-man show, that it behooves us to consider the more complex reality that is Russian governance and politics.

President Xi of China has escaped the personal vilification thrown at Putin — so far.  But Washington has made no greater effort to engage him in the sort of discourse about the future shape of Sino-American relations and the world system for which they are destined to be primary joint custodians.

Xi is more elusive than Putin. He is far less forthright, more guarded and embodies a political culture very different from that of the United States or Europe. Still, he is no dogmatic ideologue or power-mad imperialist. Cultural differences too easily can become an excuse for avoiding the study, the pondering and the exercise in strategic imagination that is called for. 

Shaping the World Structure

The approach outlined above is worth the effort – and low costs that it entails. For it is the understandings among the three leaders (and their senior colleagues) that are of the utmost importance.

That is to say, agreed understandings as to how they view the shape and structure of world affairs, where their interests clash or converge, and how to meet the dual challenge of 1) handling those points of friction that may arise, and 2) working together to perform ‘system maintenance’ functions in both the economic and security realms.

At the moment, there is no chance that American leaders can muster the gumption, or have the vision, to set out on this course. Neither Biden and his team, nor their Republican rivals are up to it.

In truth, American leaders are psychologically and intellectually not capable of thinking seriously about the terms for sharing power with China, with Russia or with anybody else – and developing mechanisms for doing so over different timeframes.

Washington is too preoccupied with parsing the naval balance in East Asia to reflect on broad strategies. Its leaders are too complacent about the deep faults in our economic structures, and too wasteful in dissipating trillions on chimerical ventures aimed at exorcising a mythical enemy to position ourselves for a diplomatic undertaking of the sort that a self-centered America never before has faced.

A drive to revalidate its presumed virtue and singularity now impels what the U.S. does in the world. Hence, the calculated stress placed on slogans like “democracy versus autocracy.” That is a neat metaphor for the uneasy position in which Uncle Sam finds himself these days, proudly pronouncing enduring greatness from every lectern and altar in the land, pledging to uphold a standing as global No. 1 forever and ever.

But the U.S. is also constantly bumping its head against an unaccommodating reality. Instead of downsizing the monumental juggernaut or applying itself to a delicate raising of the arch, it makes repeated attempts to fit through in a vain effort to bend the world to fit its mythology. Invocation of the Concussion Protocol is in order — but nobody wants to admit that sobering truth.

This is close to a condition that approximates what the psychologists call “dissociation.”  It is marked by an inability to see and to accept actualities as they are for deep-seated emotional reasons.  

The tension generated for a nation so constituted when encountering objective reality does not force heightened self-awareness or a change in behavior if the dominant feature of that reality is the attitudes and expressed opinions of others who share the underlying delusions.

Michael Brenner is a professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. [email protected]

[warpedlegacywrites]

Writing Forum Prompt - Subtext

Second week's prompt from @nirikeehan's forum series.

Write two very short examples of text (250 words or less), in which the true meaning of the action or dialogue is hidden in a subtext. Under each text, write a sentence or two that explicates the subtext. Objective: To learn to use indirection to illustrate the power of hidden meaning. This is something like a double exposure – a photograph that shows two images simultaneously.

First Entry: Bull and Solas

Solas: How you can drink that with a smile is beyond me. Bull: Not a tea drinker, Solas? Solas: No, thank you. It is not to my tastes. Bull: Yeah, I guess it’s not everyone’s cuppa tea. Heh. Get it? Solas: Yes, very clever. Bull: Hard to blame you. I’ll bet you’ve mostly had shitty tavern stuff - brewed in a hurry and not flavoured at all. Drank more out of necessity than real appetite. Have you ever tried the stuff coming out of Orlais? Give ya a whole new perspective on life. Solas: What concern is it of yours whether or not I drink tea? Bull: Just don’t want you missing out because of lackluster past experience is all. Don’t judge a whole flavour on a single cup. You strike me as a jasmine man. I could hook you up. Solas: I… appreciate the thought. I think. But I am really not interested in having this discussion at the moment. And it’s really none of your business what drinks I do or do not imbibe. Bull: Alright, consider it dropped. Bull: (muttered out of earshot) Probably wouldn’t be so grumpy if you’d had a cup of tea by now.

Subtext: Solas thinks Bull is talking about the Qun. Bull is talking about sex.

Second Entry: Varric and Cassandra

Cassandra: You’re back. Varric: You’re… here. Cassandra: You thought I’d be out? Varric: Yeah? I heard you were gonna be at the training grounds all morning. Cassandra: It’s pouring out. Varric: Never stopped you before. Cassandra: Well, someone used to always nag me about getting sick. Varric: …Right. Well, I can’t really stay. I just came back to grab— Cassandra: —Bianca? She’s right where you left her. Varric: So I see. Cassandra: You expected otherwise? Varric: I’ve seen you stab books with abandon. Couldn’t be sure you wouldn’t… I don’t know. Cassandra: Is that what you think of me? Varric: Cass, I didn’t mean— Cassandra: —Stop calling me that. Varric: …Sure. Seeker. I wasn’t trying to… Well. Guess it doesn’t matter. Cassandra: (scoffs) Of course not. Why should anything you do matter? Then you’d have to actually care. Or Maker forbid, face the consequences. Varric: (heavy sigh) Yeah okay. Make me the bad guy. Cassandra: You do that well enough without my help. Varric: This is exactly why I waited until I thought you were out… Cassandra: To avoid facing the consequences? Varric: To avoid a fight. And you’re not— Cassandra: Enough. Just leave. And take your ridiculous infatuation with you. Varric: …Yeah. Alright Seeker. Guess I’ll be seeing ya. Cassandra: (says nothing further)

Subtext: This is how I imagine Varric and Cassandra’s brief romantic entanglement ending - not with a bang but with a whimper. Mostly because of Varric’s inability to truly move past his feelings for Bianca.

[news4dzhozhar]

‘Rogues: True Stories of Grifters, Killers, Rebels and Crooks’ by Patrick Radden Keefe

Patrick Radden Keefe tells us in the preface to in his new book, Rogues: True Stories of Grifters, Killers, Rebels and Crooks, that the 12 long-form essays “reflect some of my abiding preoccupations: crime and corruption, secrets and lies, the permeable membrane separating licit and illicit worlds, the bonds of family, the power of denial.” In this, of course, the stories are similar to the concerns in his previous two books: Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland and Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty. It’s a muddied world he covers, where just about everyone is tainted, though even the most sinister rogues have some mediating human qualities.

Among the more menacing group of transgressors Keefe writes about is Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose pre-terrorist college life displayed “a painfully American banality: cinder-block dorm rooms, big-screen TVs, mammoth boxes of Cheez-Its.” Wim Holleeder, the Dutch gangster who allegedly has a hit out for his own sister, comes across as wily and even quirky during his trial — “shifting in his chair, shaking his head, taking his eyeglasses off and twirling them like a propeller” — though Keefe makes no bones about the man’s overall brutality; and drug kingpin Joaquín Guzmán Loera, “El Chapo” — at one point one of the most feared criminals in the world — “distinguished himself as a trafficker who brought an unusual sense of imagination and play to the trade.”

Then there’s Amy Bishop, a neurobiologist denied tenure at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who, during the last department meeting of the semester, blocked the conference room door and shot six of her colleagues, killing three. Bishop grew up in a Boston suburb where she had shot and killed her brother, and Keefe thoroughly investigates this act, and its ultimate lack of consequence (the killing was ruled accidental), as a possible precursor to the later crime. Discussing whether or not the murder was intentional, Keefe writes, “When violence suddenly ruptures the course of our lives, we tend to tell ourselves stories in order to make it explicable. Confronted with scrambled pieces of evidence, we arrange them into a narrative.” Keefe concludes that “neither story” about the killing “was especially convincing,” and this willingness to live with ambiguity and irresolution is a hallmark of his journalism.

While the profiles of people who might rightly be considered villains is riveting, I found myself drawn more to the stories about genteel rogues. There is German wine forger Hardy Rodenstock, whose hustle was to convince wealthy people that the bottles he was selling were originally from the cellar of Thomas Jefferson. When uber-conservative and wine connoisseur Bill Koch, brother of Charles and David, goes mercilessly after Rodenstock, it’s hard not to side with the “bad guy” of the story. Similarly, HSBC computer technician Hervé Falciani may have broken the law when he disclosed which wealthy bank customers were laundering money and evading taxes, but our sympathies are generally with the whistleblower, whatever his motives might have been.

The book ends with a chapter on Anthony Bourdain, who is perhaps less of a rogue than the other scoundrels in the book. Though he periodically raises a cynical eyebrow over Bourdain’s antics, Keefe is clearly drawn to the celebrity chef’s star power, this man with the magnetism of “an aging rocker,” who “transformed himself into a well-heeled nomad who wanders the planet meeting fascinating people and eating delicious food,” fully enjoying his “fantasy profession.” The story was published in The New Yorker (where all these pieces first appeared) before Bourdain’s suicide, and it ends on an upbeat note, which is undercut by the tragedy that will follow. It’s an irony one can imagine that Keefe, whose profiles display a boundless interest in other people, feels deeply.