#yes youre against capitalism yes you say you love our marginalized community members but what are doing for them

[backwardblackbyrd]

To quote Alice Walker:

"The real revolution is always concerned with the least glamorous stuff. With raising a reading level from second grade to third. With simplyfying history and writing it down (or reciting it) for the old folks. With helping illiterates fill out food stamp forms--for they must eat, revolution or not. The dull, frustrating work with our people is the work of the black revolutionary artist. It means, most of all, staying close enough to be there whenever they need you."

We know you want to burn down capitalism.

But for today, just don’t answer your boss’s call off the clock.

[reformedowo]

Vote Like Lives Depend on It.

The Republican party wants you dead. Trump is calling people who don't openly support him "the enemy within." He has called immigrants "vermin" who are "poisoning the blood of our country." This is straight out of the Nazi playbook and is one of the key steps in enabling a genocide in the eye of the public: dehumanization.

I know this is an intense introduction, and I apologize, but those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, so just take a moment to remember before we look to the present, if you'll indulge me.

Thank you.

Starting on just page 5 of Project 2025, the whopping 900+ page guide about how to dismantle the American democracy and install Donald Trump as the authoritarian emperor with no guardrails, lies the first topic so innocuously titled "PROMISE #1: RESTORE THE FAMILY AS THE CENTERPIECE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN", and is all about and explicitly mentions the banning of pornography while continuing on to include "woke," queer, and transgender ideologies within that definition, stating those "who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders." Page 5, as in you literally just opened this thing, skimmed through the table of contents, and it's already calling for the direct and express prohibition and marginalization of the entire LGBTQ+ community, to be placed alongside real criminals while further muddying the waters for justice to be served against actual abusers. Now if you will, jump 549 pages forward. To the death penalty. Yes, the death penalty, where it states under new Republican rule the government should enforce capital punishment against sex offenders. Now, maybe your brain has melted after reading or being passively exposed to 554 pages of intensely racist, dangerous, hateful Fascist rhetoric thus far, but I think the book practically opened with something about that quite intently. Do not be mistaken: this is not a coincidence. This is not poor wording. This is a direct threat, and as it says in the title, it is a promise. The first, #1, most important promise, apparently. I truly insist that you look at it with your own eyes to believe it, if you're willing to be exposed to the political equivalent of toxic waste.

Trans or queer folk, of any kind, as well any vague notion of "immigrants" in particular are a few of the main talking points of the Republican party and their ads this election season for a reason: Fascism needs an enemy, preferably a minority for its followers to target and be whipped into a frenzy over to keep their following alive. If you'll note, this follows the same logic Trump used when making a call to Senate Republicans, while out of office, to kill the bipartisan border bill, a bill that would have solved an issue Trump was planning on running on, while simultaneously expanding access to legal immigration to begin with. That logic being: you can't sell a solution if there's no problem. Now maybe to you this isn't your cup of tea regardless, legislation and whatnot. But that's not what's important to them, what is important is that they want problems. Any non-white, non-straight, non-Christian, non-Trump loving, non-cis-man is always going to be up next on the chopping block to feed the machine of hate. They want you, or your family, or your friends, or your neighbors to be that problem. Where do you draw the line? However, zooming back out for a moment, this is just skipping 5 pages in, plus some forward for full context, and we've seen only one of the many insane, Fascist concepts concealed within the pages of Project 2025, and it's already a beyond thinly veiled call for genocide. Though Trump denies his connection to the project, the document was penned by over 140 people who have previously worked for him, several members confirmed to be returning, has a running mate who penned a foreword to an architect's book, not to mention he already implemented many of the concepts in his first term. With a second Trump term he will make the rest of this doctrine a reality, with the help of the Supreme Court he installed, without any proper government authorization mind you, the same court who stripped women across the country of their rights to life saving medical treatment, and under that reality you or somebody you know can and will be made their next problem.

Now, sidestepping to an extremely important note, there are horrible things happening in Gaza right now as you read this, and I implore you to please send any donations you can afford to the countless families afflicted, and feel free to go and express your right to protest from now until the Palestinian people are free of Israeli occupation. The right to protest and your right to speak against the government is one of the truly undeniable great things about living here, whether you realize it or not. Donald Trump and Project 2025 want to take away those rights. His illegal use of the National Guard against peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters, American people exercising these very rights, during his previous presidency speaks volumes to this regard, amongst others such as his blatant hatred toward non-white Americans having said rights. Now with that I say this: please do not think, even for a second, that Donald Trump is the solution to the conflict in Gaza. This is a man who has openly admitted, himself, to having met Netanyahu multiple times in violation of the Logan Act to kill the Biden administration's ceasefire agreements, the same man who when asked if he was "on board" with the way Israel was “taking the fight to Gaza” responded: “You’ve got to finish the problem." Do not award Trump the presidency for making Palestinians suffer, do not act like willingly sitting this one out in protest gives you the moral high ground, because in actuality it makes you complicit. Netanyahu is counting on disinformation and the suffering of the Palestinian people to convince you to not vote for the people doing everything in their power to end his invasion, and if Trump loses, he has no ground left to stand on. However, if Trump wins, he will allow Netanyahu to continue his genocide and you could very well have no voice left to speak up for the Palestinian people.

Do not think that it is a choice between anyone other than Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. The broken and antiquated electoral college established ensures a two party system, whether we like it or not, and we don't since despite losing the popular vote in 2016 we were still subjected to the first unfortunate Trump term, it is the system. And while that may dissuade or discourage you from voting, even a whisper is better than sitting in silence when it's time to let yourself be heard. Hell, if it makes you feel any better on the matter, vice-president candidate Tim Walz is on the record wanting to abolish the electoral college for any future elections, which would not take place under Project 2025. And while Harris may not be your personal perfect dream candidate, we've worked with and fought through worse than imperfect for over 200 years, and she's miles better than a number of the people we've had in charge then, and an unimaginable degree better and more qualified than a second Trump term. Her website has a list of policies and she has appeared on many news networks talking about her vision for the country, if you're at all inclined or inspired to look, please do, and compared to what Project 2025 has in store for both the American people as well as its disturbing foreign policies, it's a breath of fresh air.

Do not let democracy backslide, do not let years of blood, sweat, and tears be in vain because you took that democracy for granted. It's much easier to make progress one step at a time than trying to course correct in free fall. This is the Republican party's last chance to steal everything from you and the American people, and they've been giving it their all because they know that the mask is off and there's no going back for them. You can no longer say "both sides are the same" to convince yourself it's okay that you're not voting. From the world's richest man openly giving millions of dollars away to bribe voters after announcing his support for Trump to stay out of prison, to complex voting disenfranchising schemes on both the state and federal level, to rampant disinformation being blown out of control by the unregulated use of AI by foreign nations with only yours and others worst interests at heart, even if Harris wins the electoral vote they will do whatever it takes steal the election any other way they can. But if you or anyone you know is not willing to take the first, easiest, most crucial step in fighting to preserve and grow your rights, and the rights of others, can you trust they'll be willing to fight for those rights when things get ugly, when it's time to fight? And if Donald Trump is elected to the White House, it's only a matter of time before things get ugly, and we'll have to fight like Hell.

And to all those who are still not convinced, my last and final plea is simply this: Only one of these people will win. Clench your fist, grit your teeth, hold your breath if you need to, but please vote for Kamala Harris. If not for her, if not for yourself, for everybody else whose lives depend on it. Don't be on the side of history that kills us.

Vote like lives depend on it, because they do. Thank you.

[samwisethewitch]

Witchcraft and Activism

The word “witch” is a politically charged label. If we look at how the word was used historically, it referred to someone who existed outside of the normal social order. The people accused of witchcraft in the European and American witch trials were mostly — experts say between 75% and 80% — women. They were also overwhelmingly poor, single, or members of a minority ethnicity and/or religion. In other words, they were people who did not follow their society’s accepted model of womanhood (or, in the case of accused men, manhood).

If you choose to identify with the witch label, you are choosing to identify with subversion of gender norms, resistance to the dominant social order, and “outsider” status. If that makes you uncomfortable or uneasy, then you may want to use another label for your magical practice. Witchcraft always has been and always will be inherently political.

In her book Witches, Sluts, Feminists, Kristen J. Sollee argues that the “slut” label is in many ways a modern equivalent to the “witch” label. In both cases, the label is used to devalue people, most often women, and to enforce a patriarchal and misogynist social order.

Superstitions around witchcraft are connected to the modern stigma around abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraception). Midwifery and abortion were directly linked to witchcraft in the European witch hunts. Today, women who seek abortions are condemned as sluts, whores, and murderers. The fight for reproductive freedom remains inextricably linked with the witch label.

During the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, the socialist feminist group Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.) used the image of the witch to campaign for women’s rights and other social issues. They were some of the first advocates for intersectional feminism (feminist activism that addresses other social issues that overlap with gendered issues). They performed acts such as hexing Wall Street capitalists and wearing black veils to protest bridal fairs. The W.I.T.C.H. Manifesto calls witches the “original guerrillas and resistance fighters against oppression.”

In her book Revolutionary Witchcraft, Sarah Lyons points out that both witchcraft and politics are about raising and directing power in the world. In a postmodern society, most of our reality is socially constructed — it works because we collectively believe it does. Money only has value because we believe it does. Politicians only have power because we believe they do. Our laws are only just because we believe they are. Like in magic, everything in society is a product of belief and a whole lot of willpower — and that makes witches the ideal social activists.

Lyons argues that witchcraft is inseparable from politics, because witches have always opposed dominant political power. She makes a connection between the witch trials and the rise of capitalism and classism. She connects the basic concepts of magic to historic activist groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), who used ritual as an act of protest.

Not every witch is a hardcore activist, but every witch should have a basic awareness of political and social issues and be willing to do what they can to make a difference.

Ways to Combine Witchcraft and Activism

Perform a ritual to feel connected to the earth and her people. Activism should come from a place of love, not a place of hate. Make sure you’re fighting for the right reasons by frequently taking time to reconnect with the planet and the people who live here. This can be as simple as laying down on the ground outside and meditating on all the ways you are connected to other people, as well as to the ecosystem, animals, and the earth herself. If getting up close and personal with the grass and dirt isn’t your thing, try to find a beautiful place in nature where you can sit and journal about the interconnected nature of all things.

Unlearn your social programming. This is the most difficult and most important part of any activism. Before you can change the world outside yourself, you have to change your own psyche. Think about how you have been socialized to contribute to (or at least turn a blind eye to) the issues you want to fight against. For example, if you want to fight for racial justice, you need to understand how you have contributed to a racist system. You can do this in a variety of ways: through meditation, journaling, or divination, to name a few. Note that whatever method you choose, this will probably take weeks or months of repeated work. Rewriting your thought and behavior patterns is hard, and it can’t be done in a single day. Also note that if you are a victim of systemic oppression or prejudice, this work may bring up a lot of emotional baggage — you may want to involve a professional therapist or counselor.

Go to protests. Sending energy and doing healing rituals is great, but someone has to get out there and visibly fight for change. If you are able to do so, start going to protests and rallies for causes you care about. Don’t just show up, but be an active participant — make signs, yell and chant, and stand your ground if cops show up. Be safe and responsible, but be loud and assertive, too. If you want to go all out, you can don the black robes, pointed hats, and veils of W.I.T.C.H.es past, which has the added bonus of concealing your identity.

Turn your donations into a spell for change. When you donate to a cause you care about, charge your donation with a spell for positive change. You can do this by holding your cash, check, or debit card in both hands and focusing on your desire for change. Feel this desire flowing into the money, filling it with your determination. From here, make your donation, knowing that you’ll be sending an energy boost along with it.

Organize an activist coven. Do you have a handful of friends who are interested in witchcraft, passionate about activism, or both? Start a coven! Go to protests together, hold monthly rituals to raise energy for change, and collect money for donations. Being part of a group also means having a support system, which can help prevent burnout. Make a plan to check on each other regularly. You may even choose to do monthly group rituals for self care, which may be actual magic rituals or might be as simple as ordering takeout and watching a movie. Activism can be intensely draining work, so it’s important to take breaks when you need them!

Hold public rituals with an activist slant. Nothing gets people’s attention like a bunch of folks standing in a circle and chanting. Holding public rituals is one of the best ways to raise awareness for a cause. You might hold a vigil for victims of police brutality, a healing circle for the environment, or some other ritual that is relevant to the issue at hand. These rituals serve a double purpose, as they both bring people’s attention to the issue and give them an opportunity to work for change on a spiritual level. Use prayers, chants, and symbolism that is appropriate to the theme, and ask participants to make a small donation to a charity related to your cause.

Begin your public rituals with a territory acknowledgement. If you live in the United States, chances are you live on land that was taken from the native people by force. If you seek to have a relationship with the land, you need to first acknowledge the original inhabitants and the suffering they endured so you can be there. Use a website like native-land.ca to find out what your land was originally called and what indigenous groups originally lived there. Publicly acknowledge this legacy at your ritual, and publicly state your intention to support indigenous peoples. (Revolutionary Witchcraft has an excellent territory acknowledgement that you can customize for your area.)

Make an altar to your activist ancestors. If activism or membership in a marginalized group is a big part of your life, you may want to create a space for it in your home. Like an ancestor altar, this is a space to remember influential members of the community who have died. Choose a flat surface like a tabletop or shelf and decorate it with photos of your “ancestors,” as well as other appropriate items like flags, pins, stickers, etc. As a queer person, my altar to my LGBTQ+ ancestors might include images of figures like Sappho, Marsha P. Johnson, and Freddie Mercury, as well as items like a pink triangle patch, a small rainbow pride flag, and dried violets and green carnations. You may also choose to include a candle, an incense burner, and/or a small dish for offerings. Just remember to never place images of living people on an altar honoring the dead!

Do your research. Staying educated is an important part of activism — not only do your actions need to be informed, but you need to be able to speak intelligently about your issues. Read the news (on actual news websites, not just social media). Read lots of books; some I personally recommend are Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, Love and Rage by Lama Rod Owens, and (as previously mentioned) Revolutionary Witchcraft by Sarah Lyons. If you can get access to them, read scholarly articles about theories that are influential among activists, like the Gaia Hypothesis or Deep Ecology. Read everything you can get your hands on.

VOTE! And I don’t just mean voting for the presidential candidate you like (or, as is often the case, voting against the one you don’t like). Vote for your representatives. Vote for city council. Vote for the county sheriff. Voting gives you a chance to make sure the people in office will be susceptible to your activism. Yes, your side might lose or your electoral college representative might choose to go against the popular vote. Even so, voting is a way to clearly communicate the will of the people, and it puts a lot of pressure on the people in charge. It’s important — don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.

In my experience, combining activism with my witchcraft is a deeply fulfilling spiritual experience. It strengthens my connection to the world around me, with helps grow both empathy and magical power. I truly can’t imagine my practice without the activist element.

Resources:

Witches, Sluts, Feminists by Kristen J. Sollee

Revolutionary Witchcraft by Sarah Lyons

The Study of Witchcraft by Deborah Lipp

The Way of Fire and Ice by Ryan Smith

[funkymbtifiction]

Hufflepuff and Gryffindor are just sooo similar

Submitted by ibigpersoncollection

I know, I just mentioned I’m Gryff primary a day or two ago. After I read your answer, I revisited the Sortinghatchats wordpress and their podcast. Then it dawned on me, am I actually Hufflepuff? I really am Hufflepuff.

This is not really an ask though, I do want to share something. Because I think Gryffindor and Hufflepuff primaries when they are passionate about something, they can come off very similar.

One of the main differences, I think, is how we approach people. On the surface, I’m like Gryffindor primary. I’m brash. I’m not going to put up on anything wrong because it’s simply wrong. I cut through things to realize my goals no matter what. It does sound like goal-oriented Gryffindor, but no. That’s the first time I really understand what a ‘model’ is like. I modeled Gryffindor and I found that I took it after my aunt (ISTJ 1w2 Gryff).

She had been preaching about doing and standing by the right cause, the higher sense of ‘right and wrong’ but it’s not about rules or teachings but what you can feel inside of you as right. I took it, but it felt stiff… really. You see? When you are not something you will soon feel it. I tried to be Gryffindor and lived by those ideals but at the end of the day, it’s people that really matter. There are some examples I want to share.

Well, since primary system is mainly ‘motives’ rather than the ideal itself, this will not reflect every Gryff or Puff out there. The first one is, while I thought I was Gryffindor and had an ironclad value. I rarely ever put it on someone else. My value is not even that ‘coded’, tbh. Ages ago, I argued with my aunt about death penalty. Oh, dear, she roasted. She said that criminals on deathroll is right because those people were wrong and deserve that punishment. I argued ‘but they can repent. They can come out and live as a member of society. We need every hand available and they can still be productive, if we give them a chance’. She scoffed said ‘they are wrong and that is the fact, they might repent, they might be good but how can we know? and they can’t just get off the hook like that’.

See? People versus ideal (We are both xSTJ and 1s, so no feeler-thinker dilemma here). My aunt (while she does care about people as a whole) doesn’t argue on people but on what is right and wrong. I don’t argue on right-and-wrong ground but more on society, people. It’s the same end point (what is good for society) but through different lens (people vs ideal, both intuitive rather than decided house).

Other thing is the so-called ‘even-handedness’. This example is between me and my ESFP 6w7 friend (Gryff both primary and secondary). This time we actually believe in the same thing, share the same ideal and value. But where it comes from is really different. Me and my friend both share the same ideas that people shouldn’t be marginalized. The ethnic groups and other communities shouldn’t be oppressed as second-grade citizens or having their basic rights (home, land, culture and pride of their identity) nurtured. We are both ‘disgusted’ by exploitation to indigenous people because of capitalism (look at first nations for instance). And we are both genuinely angry about how ethnic groups are not even allowed to be proud of their heritage (look at Uyghur) and racism in general. But it comes from different place and is shown out differently too. For my friend, it is … well, right to hate those things and she is deeply disgusted and hated all those things enough that she once said something along the line of ‘I can’t stand it, I want to ****ing vomit’.

I don’t have that kind of harshness. I wish I have, honestly, because I did model Gryffindor. I wish I can be as angry and heavy-handed as Gryffindors. I can’t do it because for me, even if it’s wrong, even if I’m disgusted by it to my core. They are still the same people. I will fight for ethnic groups, but I will never hate people who exploit or harm those people. Because they are human even if they are wrong. I once told my ESFP friend that she must not hate her family because they believe differently or forcing her to not believe what she believes. They just … live with different mindset that us, but they are not wrong. “So, don’t hate them, will you? If you don’t want to be with them, just leave, but don’t hate them”. She needs to learn taming her passion and sense of justice while I need to learn being angrier at the cause I believe in.

Last point is, I cannot stand leaving people in need by themselves. I cannot really find an example to contrast though but this is one hallmark of Hufflepuff. If there is a stranger in need and I can help them, I will. I tried not to (because it can look totally simpy or weird at times) but I cannot help but go out of my way to help them. Days ago, I went to university, a man approached me, asking if he could go and meet my professors because his girlfriend wants to talk about applying for master. No one was there, it was a holiday. I can just ignore him and finish my work. But I can’t do it, so I tried finding the contact info of my professors and gave the couple that. I did have deep conflict with my aunt until recently but at that time I couldn’t just leave her in pain and end up bringing her to hospital and 3 am. She needed me; I can’t ignore it.

Oh, I’m not saying Gryffindors are emotional hellions neither Hufflepuffs are angel, all of us can be evil, selfish or great depending on individual. I deeply respect their strong sense of justice and how they will go to any length for it, forsaking even their closest confidants if the situation calls for it. These are people who can change the world to be better and fairer. But I’d say, don’t try to be one, if you are not. Other houses are as good and equally awesome. We all can change the society for the better in our own way 😊. Be proud of who you are.

* I’m also Puff secondary. When ENFP mod helped point it out (and yes, I did know deep down I’m Hufflepuff). I just realize how ‘community building’ works. I broke up with my group awhile ago and suddenly found myself people who came to my aid and stayed by my side. Then my professor just helped me with my ethnic community goals. But that’s for another time.

Btw, thanks ENFP mod! And can I ask if you accept novels? I just start writing one and I’d love if I could polish (or publish…) it. I’ve read in some posts you mention reviewing writings?

Mod: Glad you found your House. Hufflepuffs seem more generally forgiving and accepting than Gryffindors, and are less likely to go against other people. They are somewhat idealistic in wanting to give everyone a chance.

As to your question, no, I don’t read / critique novels for free. I’m a paid editor. But ProWritingAid.com is an amazing tool that will really help you polish your novel and improve it once you’ve gotten it written. My advice is – write it, polish it, and then hire a good editor. Most people cannot “kill their darlings” without an enormous amount of practice and even then they can be blind to what is unnecessarily slowing down their plot.

[waritawrites]

ABC's Soul of a Nation is a television show that, like Shaun King, seems to seek to capitalize on the Black experience. This show depicts Black life as nothing but a giant hard luck story that laments marginalization due to racism by stereotypical white achetypes. It doesn't tell a full narrative of Black life nor does it discuss the impact of the exaltation of counterproductive behavior such as:

- Gang Culture and Violence

- Drug Culture

- Abortion

- Progressivist Elitism

- Little focus STEM education and Business

Education

The Most offensive act that Soul of a Nation commits is the omission the role of organizations such as Sigma Pi Phi (The Boule), The Links, many black greek organizations and other Black secret societies and its members. A full narrative of Black life isn't depicted if racism can't be included in the narrative. It also doesn't of blacks, who work in favor of white supremacy, to sabotage progress in the Black community. Many such black-on-Black racists have deceptively been appointed as leaders and celebrated in the Black community. Eunice Rivers, unofficial leader of the Tuskegee Experiment was heralded as a black nurse who cared as the the health of Black people. Her real role was to act as liason between Black citizens and the white supremacist medical industrial complex of the day for the purpose of using Black people for dangerous medical trials and experiments without giving full disclosure.

For more information, here are excerpts from my article, Corona Virus and Black People, https://followerofthewayforever.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/corona-virus-and-black-people/:

"Prominent black nurse, Eunice Rivers, convinced impoverished Black men to participate in a medical study wherein which they would be treated for bad blood and any other health issues. Undisclosed to them was the true purpose of the study – to observe the effects of untreated syphilis on Black men’s health. Unofficially, Rivers became head the over the project because of her forty year affiliated as a result of her continual insistence and justification of the study long after it had been found that penicillin effectively treated syphilis and many doctors abandoned the project due its unethical violation of the patients’ rights. Eunice Rivers, however, prolonged the project for profit with no regard for the men’s health nor the health of their wives and offspring."

"Black social activists such as W.E.B DuBois who promote conflict and anti-procreative behavior between Black men and Black women. DuBois was a principal conspirator of Margaret Sanger against Black people. DuBois' racist rantings against poor uneducated Black people were featured in NAACP publication and Here is what some of our Black leaders really think of us in the words of Assimilation Eugenicist W.E.B. DuBois (1932) in his article Negroes and Birth Control which Margaret Sanger often quoted:

"the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.” (para. 4 and para.5)"

Du Bois, W.E.B.(1939, April). Negroes and Birth Control. Smith

Libraries Exhibits, Accessed January 10, 2019, https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/files/original/16e5b6a56c2c4aedb3274e7124f3006e.jpg

W.E.B. DuBois - Boule and NAACP member who hated poor Black people and supported Margaret Sanger's population control plan of weaponizing Birth Control as a method of eugenics against Blacks. He also sabotaged Marcus Garvey's movement to steal it for himself. Promoted a Bourgeoisie-based system of black elitism against regular Black people to whom referred to as the ignorant negro masses. DuBois felt that black elitists like himself, which he called the talented tenth, should be leaders of regular Black people even though he hated regular Black people. DuBois hated regular Black people, yet wanted to be their leader for his own personal gain. He only wanted to lead them to destruction. He wanted to gain a seat at the table of white supremacy - which is a form of elitism

These people AREN'T fighting for you and don't want to be want to associated with you." Want more proof?

KIDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL ADOPTION OF THE BABIES OF THE BLACK POOR

Black mothers wonder if their babies were stolen in decades-old mystery

https://theguardian.com/world/2015/may/02/black-mothers-wonder-babies-stolen-st-louis-decades-ago

-Eighteen black women who were told decades ago that their babies had died soon after birth at a St Louis hospital now wonder if the infants were taken away by hospital officials to be raised by other families.

-Zella Jackson Price, who was 26 in 1965 when she gave birth at Homer G Phillips Hospital in St Louis. 

FORCED STERILIZATION

Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

The U.S. Government's Role in Sterilizing Women of Color: Black, Puerto Rican, and Native American women have been victimized

https://www.thoughtco.com/u-s-governments-role-sterilizing-women-of-color-2834600

Racial Eugenics

https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-racial-eugenics/

INSIDE UCLA'S CADAVER SCANDAL

https://www.newsweek.com/inside-uclas-cadaver-scandal-95785

ABORTION IS EUGENICS AND DEPOPULATION

Abortion is one of the most heinous methods of eugenics committed against the Black community. The highest abortion rates in the country occur among American Black women. Yet, it is heavily promoted by black women such as Ayanna Pressley, Alexis McGill Johnson, Stacey Abrams, and Kamala Harris benefit off of the killing of unborn Black people via the slaughterhouse organization that is Planned Parenthood.

David Daleiden on Selling Aborted Baby Parts: They “Cut Open the Face to Harvest the Brain”

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/09/17/david-daleiden-on-selling-aborted-baby-parts-they-cut-open-the-face-to-harvest-the-brain/

7th Shocking Video Catches Planned Parenthood Harvesting Brain of Aborted Baby Who Was Still Alive

https://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/19/7th-shocking-video-catches-planned-parenthood-harvesting-brain-of-aborted-baby-who-was-still-alive/

ABC's Soul of a Nation is Blaxploitation designed to herd Black people into state of victimhood and hopelessness by using trauma. The show has deceptively "celebrated" the Black church while promoting abortion which is a form of child sacrifice. GOD IS ADAMANTLY AGAINST HARMING CHILDREN. He says that child sacrifice is Shedding Innocent Blood and it is an abomination to HIM.

GOD LOVES CHILDREN

Proverbs 6:16-17

16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and -> hands that shed innocent blood<-,

JESUS LOVES CHILDREN

Matthew 18:6

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

Matthew 18:10

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

ABORTION IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD, DO NOT MAKE YOUR CHILDREN PASS THROUGH THE FIRE

2 Kings 16:3

But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.

2 Kings 17:17

And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Ezekiel 20:31

For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you

Deuteronomy18:10

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire,or that useth divination,or an observer of times,or an enchanter,or a witch

Jeremiah32:35

they built the high places of Baal, which R in the valley of the son of Hinnom,2 cause their sons & their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech;which I commanded them not,neither came it into my mind,that they should do this abomination,2 cause Judah 2 sin.

BLAXPLOITATION BY LIBERAL WHITE SUPREMACY

Liberal white supremacy is at the helm of movements and organizations that make marginalized groups the mascot for causes that will largely benefit the agenda of liberalized white supremacy. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, white supremacy has disguised itself as liberal. Yet, it is still profiting off of black trauma and black bodies (dead or alive). It has even pretended to be Black and support Black people to profit from Blackness, like, Shaun King.

Shaun King

https://twitter.com/drboycewatkins1/status/1367580588744597511?s=20

https://twitter.com/Femmefeministe/status/1371886262865567749?s=20

Reference

Sanger,M.(1939).Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble December 10,1939. Smith Libraries Exhibit, Accessed January 10, 2019, Retrieved from https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf

Gordon,L.(2007). Birth Control and the Negro. In The Moral Property of Women, p.235. Urbana; Chicago: University of Illiniois Press.

Winbush, W. (2019). The Subtlety of Supremacy: Joe Biden and Stacey Abrams. Retrieved from https://followerofthewayforever.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/the-subtlety-of-supremacy-joe-biden-and-stacey-abrams/

[crimethinc]

Hong Kong: Anarchists in the Resistance to the Extradition Bill An Interview

Since 1997, when it ceased to be the last major colonial holding of Great Britain, Hong Kong has been a part of the People’s Republic of China, while maintaining a distinct political and legal system. In February, an unpopular bill was introduced that would make it possible to extradite fugitives in Hong Kong to countries that the Hong Kong government has no existing extradition agreements with—including mainland China. On June 9, over a million people took the streets in protest; on June12, protesters engaged in pitched confrontations with police; on June 16, two million people participated in one of the biggest marches in the city’s history. The following interview with an anarchist collective in Hong Kong explores the context of this wave of unrest. Our correspondents draw on over a decade of experience in the previous social movements in an effort to come to terms with the motivations that drive the participants, and elaborate upon the new forms of organization and subjectivation that define this new sequence of struggle.

In the United States, the most recent popular struggles have cohered around resisting Donald Trump and the extreme right. In France, the Gilets Jaunes movement drew anarchists, leftists, and far-right nationalists into the streets against Macron’s centrist government and each other. In Hong Kong, we see a social movement against a state governed by the authoritarian left. What challenges do opponents of capitalism and the state face in this context? How can we outflank nationalists, neoliberals, and pacifists who seek to control and exploit our movements?

As China extends its reach, competing with the United States and European Union for global hegemony, it is important to experiment with models of resistance against the political model it represents, while taking care to prevent neoliberals and reactionaries from capitalizing on popular opposition to the authoritarian left. Anarchists in Hong Kong are uniquely positioned to comment on this.

The front façade of the Hong Kong Police headquarters in Wan Chai, covered in egg yolks on the evening of June 21. Hundreds of protesters sealed the entrance, demanding the unconditional release of every person that has been arrested in relation to the struggle thus far. The banner below reads “Never Surrender.” Photo by KWBB from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

“The left” is institutionalized and ineffectual in Hong Kong. Generally, the “scholarist” liberals and “citizenist” right-wingers have a chokehold over the narrative whenever protests break out, especially when mainland China is involved.

In the struggle against the extradition bill, has the escalation in tactics made it difficult for those factions to represent or manage “the movement”? Has the revolt exceeded or undermined their capacity to shape the discourse? Do the events of the past month herald similar developments in the future, or has this been a common subterranean theme in popular unrest in Hong Kong already?

We think it’s important for everyone to understand that—thus far—what has happened cannot be properly understood to be “a movement.” It’s far too inchoate for that. What I mean is that, unlike the so-called “Umbrella Movement,” which escaped the control of its founding architects (the intellectuals who announced “Occupy Central With Love And Peace” a year in advance) very early on while adhering for the most part to the pacifistic, citizenist principles that they outlined, there is no real guiding narrative uniting the events that have transpired so far, no foundational credo that authorizes—or sanctifies—certain forms of action while proscribing others in order to cultivate a spectacular, exemplary façade that can be photographed and broadcast to screens around the world.

The short answer to your question, then, is… yes, thus far, nobody is authorized to speak on behalf of the movement. Everybody is scrambling to come to terms with a nascent form of subjectivity that is taking shape before us, now that the formal figureheads of the tendencies you referenced have been crushed and largely marginalized. That includes the “scholarist” fraction of the students, now known as “Demosisto,” and the right-wing “nativists,” both of which were disqualified from participating in the legislative council after being voted in.

Throughout this interview, we will attempt to describe our own intuitions about what this embryonic form of subjectivity looks like and the conditions from which it originates. But these are only tentative. Whatever is going on, we can say that it emerges from within a field from which the visible, recognized protagonists of previous sequences, including political parties, student bodies, and right-wing and populist groups, have all been vanquished or discredited. It is a field populated with shadows, haunted by shades, echoes, and murmurs. As of now, center stage remains empty.

This means that the more prevalent “default” modes of understanding are invoked to fill the gaps. Often, it appears that we are set for an unfortunate reprisal of the sequence that played itself out in the Umbrella Movement:

appalling show of police force

public outrage manifests itself in huge marches and subsequent occupations, organized and understood as sanctimonious displays of civil virtue

these occupations ossify into tense, puritanical, and paranoid encampments obsessed with policing behavior to keep it in line with the prescribed script

the movement collapses, leading to five years of disenchantment among young people who do not have the means to understand their failure to achieve universal suffrage as anything less than abject defeat.

Of course, this is just a cursory description of the Umbrella Movement of five years ago—and even then, there was a considerable amount of “excess”: novel and emancipatory practices and encounters that the official narrative could not account for. These experiences should be retrieved and recovered, though this is not the time or place for that. What we face now is another exercise in mystification, in which the protocols that come into operation every time the social fabric enters a crisis may foreclose the possibilities that are opening up. It would be premature to suggest that this is about to happen, however.

In our cursory and often extremely unpleasant perusals of Western far-left social media, we have noticed that all too often, the intelligence falls victim to our penchant to run the rule over this or that struggle. So much of what passes for “commentary” tends to fall on either side of two poles—impassioned acclamation of the power of the proletarian intelligence or cynical denunciation of its populist recuperation. None of us can bear the suspense of having to suspend our judgment on something outside our ken, and we hasten to find someone who can formalize this unwieldy mass of information into a rubric that we can comprehend and digest, in order that we can express our support or apprehension.

We have no real answers for anybody who wants to know whether they should care about what’s going on in Hong Kong as opposed to, say, France, Algeria, Sudan. But we can plead with those who are interested in understanding what’s happening to take the time to develop an understanding of this city. Though we don’t entirely share their politics and have some quibbles with the facts presented therein, we endorse any coverage of events in Hong Kong that Ultra, Nao, and Chuang have offered over the years to the English-speaking world. Ultra’s piece on the Umbrella Movement is likely the best account of the events currently available.

Our banner in the marches, which is usually found at the front of our drum squad. It reads “There are no ‘good citizens’, only potential criminals.” This banner was made in response to propaganda circulated by pro-Beijing establishmentarian political groups in Hong Kong, assuring “good citizens” everywhere that extradition measures do not threaten those with a sound conscience who are quietly minding their own business. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

If we understand “the left” as a political subject that situates questions of class struggle and labor at the center of its politics, it’s not entirely certain that such a thing even properly exists in Hong Kong. Of course, friends of ours run excellent blogs, and there are small grouplets and the like. Certainly, everybody talks about the wealth gap, rampant poverty, the capitalist class, the fact that we are all “打工仔” (jobbers, working folk) struggling to survive. But, as almost anywhere else, the primary form of subjectivity and identification that everyone subscribes to is the idea of citizenship in a national community. It follows that this imagined belonging is founded on negation, exclusion, and demarcation from the Mainland. You can only imagine the torture of seeing the tiresome “I’m a Hong Konger, not Chinese!” t-shirts on the subway, or hearing “Hong Kongers add oil!” (essentially, “way to go!”) chanted ad nauseam for an entire afternoon during recent marches.

It should interest readers from abroad to know that the word “left” in Hong Kong has two connotations. Obviously, for the generation of our parents and their parents before them, “Left” means Communist. Which is why “Left” could refer to a businessman who is a Party member, or a pro-establishment politician who is notoriously pro-China. For younger people, the word “Left” is a stigma (often conjugated with “plastic,” a word in Cantonese that sounds like “dickhead”) attached to a previous generation of activists who were involved in a prior sequence of social struggle—including struggles to prevent the demolition of Queen’s Ferry Pier in Central, against the construction of the high-speed Railway going through the northeast of Hong Kong into China, and against the destruction of vast tracts of farmland in the North East territories, all of which ended in demoralizing defeat. These movements were often led by articulate spokespeople—artists or NGO representatives who forged tactical alliances with progressives in the pan-democratic movement. The defeat of these movements, attributed to their apprehensions about endorsing direct action and their pleas for patience and for negotiations with authority, is now blamed on that generation of activists. All the rage and frustration of the young people who came of age in that period, heeding the direction of these figureheads who commanded them to disperse as they witnessed yet another defeat, yet another exhibition of orchestrated passivity, has progressively taken a rightward turn. Even secondary and university student bodies that have traditionally been staunchly center-left and progressive have become explicitly nationalist.

One crucial tenet among this generation, emerging from a welter of disappointments and failures, is a focus on direct action, and a consequent refusal of “small group discussions,” “consensus,” and the like. This was a theme that first appeared in the umbrella movement—most prominently in the Mong Kok encampment, where the possibilities were richest, but where the right was also, unfortunately, able to establish a firm foothold. The distrust of the previous generation remains prevalent. For example, on the afternoon of June 12, in the midst of the street fights between police and protesters, several members of a longstanding social-democratic party tasked themselves with relaying information via microphone to those on the front lines, telling them where to withdraw to if they needed to escape, what holes in the fronts to fill, and similar information. Because of this distrust of parties, politicians, professional activists and their agendas, many ignored these instructions and instead relied on word of mouth information or information circulating in online messaging groups.

It’s no exaggeration to say that the founding myth of this city is that refugees and dissidents fled communist persecution to build an oasis of wealth and freedom, a fortress of civil liberties safeguarded by the rule of law. In view of that, on a mundane level, it could be said that many in Hong Kong already understand themselves as being in revolt, in the way they live and the freedoms they enjoy—and that they consider this identity, however vacuous and tenuous it may be, to be a property that has to be defended at all costs. It shouldn’t be necessary to say much here about the fact that much of the actual ecological “wealth” that constitutes this city—its most interesting (and often poorest) neighborhoods, a whole host of informal clubs, studios, and dwelling places situated in industrial buildings, farmland in the Northeast territories, historic walled villages and rural districts—are being pillaged and destroyed piece by piece by the state and private developers, to the resounding indifference of these indignant citoyens.

In any case, if liberals are successful in deploying their Cold War language about the need to defend civil liberties and human rights from the encroaching Red Tide, and right-wing populist calls to defend the integrity of our identity also gain traction, it is for these deep-rooted and rather banal historical reasons. Consider the timing of this struggle, how it exploded when images of police brutalizing and arresting young students went viral—like a perfect repetition of the prelude to the umbrella movement. This happened within a week of the annual candlelight vigil commemorating those killed in the Tiananmen Massacre on June 4, 1989, a date remembered in Hong Kong as the day tanks were called in to steamroll over students peacefully gathering in a plea for civil liberties. It is impossible to overstate the profundity of this wound, this trauma, in the formation of the popular psyche; this was driven home when thousands of mothers gathered in public, in an almost perfect mirroring of the Tiananmen mothers, to publicly grieve for the disappeared futures of their children, now eclipsed in the shadow of the communist monolith. It stupefies the mind to think that the police—not once now, but twice—broke the greatest of all taboos: opening fire on the young.

In light of this, it would be naïve to suggest that anything significant has happened yet to suggest that to escaping the “chokehold” that you describe “scholarist” liberals and “citizenist” right-wingers maintaining on the narrative here. Both of these factions are simply symptoms of an underlying condition, aspects of an ideology that has to be attacked and taken apart in practice. Perhaps we should approach what is happening right now as a sort of psychoanalysis in public, with the psychopathology of our city exposed in full view, and see the actions we engage in collectively as a chance to work through traumas, manias, and obsessive complexes together. While it is undoubtedly dismaying that the momentum and morale of this struggle is sustained, across the social spectrum, by a constant invocation of the “Hong Kong people,” who are incited to protect their home at all costs, and while this deeply troubling unanimity covers over many problems,1 we accept the turmoil and the calamity of our time, the need to intervene in circumstances that are never of our own choosing. However bleak things may appear, this struggle offers a chance for new encounters, for the elaboration of new grammars.

Graffiti seen in the road occupation in Admiralty near the government quarters, reading “Carry a can of paint with you, it’s a remedy for canine rabies.” Cops are popularly referred to as “dogs” here. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

What has happened to the discourse of civility in the interlude between the umbrella movement and now? Did it contract, expand, decay, transform?

That’s an interesting question to ask. Perhaps the most significant thing that we can report about the current sequence that, astonishingly, when a small fringe of protesters attempted to break into the legislative council on June 9 following a day-long march, it was not universally criticized as an act of lunacy or, worse, the work of China or police provocateurs. Bear in mind that on June 9 and 12, the two attempts to break into the legislative council building thus far, the legislative assembly was not in session; people were effectively attempting to break into an empty building.

Now, much as we have our reservations about the effectiveness of doing such a thing in the first place,2 this is extraordinary, considering the fact that the last attempt to do so, which occurred in a protest against development in the North East territories shortly before the umbrella movement, took place while deliberations were in session and was broadly condemned or ignored.3 Some might suggest that the legacy of the Sunflower movement in Taiwan remains a big inspiration for many here; others might say that the looming threat of Chinese annexation is spurring the public to endorse desperate measures that they would otherwise chastise.

On the afternoon of June 12, when tens of thousands of people suddenly found themselves assaulted by riot police, scrambling to escape from barrages of plastic bullets and tear gas, nobody condemned the masked squads in the front fighting back against the advancing lines of police and putting out the tear gas canisters as they landed. A longstanding, seemingly insuperable gulf has always existed between the “peaceful” protesters (pejoratively referred to as “peaceful rational non-violent dickheads” by most of us on the other side) and the “bellicose” protesters who believe in direct action. Each side tends to view the other with contempt.

Protesters transporting materials to build barricades. The graffiti on the wall can be roughly (and liberally) translated as “Hong Kongers ain’t nuthin’ to fuck wit’.” Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

The online forum lihkg has functioned as a central place for young people to organize, exchange political banter, and circulate information relating to this struggle. For the first time, a whole host of threads on this site have been dedicated to healing this breach or at least cultivating respect for those who do nothing but show up for the marches every Sunday—if only because marches that number in the millions and bring parts of the city to a temporary standstill are a pretty big deal, however mind-numbingly boring they may be in actuality. The last time the marches were anywhere close to this huge, a Chief Executive stepped down and the amending of a law regarding freedom of speech was moved to the back burner. All manner of groups are attempting to invent a way to contribute to the struggle, the most notable of which is the congregation of Christians that have assembled in front of police lines at the legislative council, chanting the same hymn without reprieve for a week and a half. That hymn has become a refrain that will likely reverberate through struggles in the future, for better or worse.

Are there clear openings or lines of flight in this movement that would allow for interventions that undermine the power of the police, of the law, of the commodity, without producing a militant subject that can be identified and excised?

It is difficult to answer this question. Despite the fact that proletarians compose the vast majority of people waging this struggle—proletarians whose lives are stolen from them by soulless jobs, who are compelled to spend more and more of their wages paying rents that continue to skyrocket because of comprehensive gentrification projects undertaken by state officials and private developers (who are often one and the same)—you must remember that “free market capitalism” is taken by many to be a defining trait of the cultural identity of Hong Kong, distinguishing it from the “red” capitalism managed by the Communist Party. What currently exists in Hong Kong, for some people, is far from ideal; when one says “the rich,” it invokes images of tycoon monopolies—cartels and communist toadies who have formed a dark pact with the Party to feed on the blood of the poor.

So, just as people are ardent for a government and institutions that we can properly call “our own”—yes, including the police—they desire a capitalism that we can finally call “our own,” a capitalism free from corruption, political chicanery, and the like. It’s easy to chuckle at this, but like any community gathered around a founding myth of pioneers fleeing persecution and building a land of freedom and plenty from sacrifice and hard work… it’s easy to understand why this fixation exerts such a powerful hold on the imagination.

This is a city that fiercely defends the initiative of the entrepreneur, of private enterprise, and understands every sort of hustle as a way of making a living, a tactic in the tooth-and-nail struggle for survival. This grim sense of life as survival is omnipresent in our speech; when we speak of “working,” we use the term “搵食,” which literally means looking for our next meal. That explains why protesters have traditionally been very careful to avoid alienating the working masses by actions such as blockading a road used by busses transporting working stiffs back home.

While we understand that much of our lives are preoccupied with and consumed by work, nobody dares to propose the refusal of work, to oppose the indignity of being treated as producer-consumers under the dominion of the commodity. The police are chastised for being “running dogs” of an evil totalitarian empire, rather than being what they actually are: the foot soldiers of the regime of property.

What is novel in the current situation is that many people now accept that acts of solidarity with the struggle, however minute,4 can lead to arrest, and are prepared to tread this shifting line between legality and illegality. It is no exaggeration to say that we are witnessing the appearance of a generation that is prepared for imprisonment, something that was formerly restricted to “professional activists” at the forefront of social movements. At the same time, there is no existing discussion regarding what the force of law is, how it operates, or the legitimacy of the police and prisons as institutions. People simply feel they need to employ measures that transgress the law in order the preserve the sanctity of the Law, which has been violated and dishonored by the cowboys of communist corruption.

However, it is important to note that this is the first time that proposals for strikes in various sectors and general strikes have been put forward regarding an issue that is, on the surface of it, unrelated to labor.

Our friends in the “Housewives Against Extradition” section of the march on September 9. The picture shows a group of housewives and aunties, many of whom were on the streets for the first time. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

How do barricades and occupations like the one from a few days ago reproduce themselves in the context of Hong Kong?

Barricades are simply customary now. Whenever people gather en masse and intend to occupy a certain territory to establish a front, barricades are built quickly and effectively. There is a creeping sense now that occupations are becoming routine and futile, physically taxing and ultimately inefficient. What’s interesting in this struggle is that people are really spending a lot of time thinking about what “works,” what requires the least expenditure of effort and achieves the maximum effect in paralyzing parts of the city or interrupting circulation, rather than what holds the greatest moral appeal to an imagined “public” watching everything from the safety of the living room—or even, conversely, what “feels” the most militant.

There have been many popular proposals for “non-cooperative” quotidian actions such as jamming up an entire subway train by coordinating groups of friends to pack the cars with people and luggage for a whole afternoon, or cancelling bank accounts and withdrawing savings from savings accounts in order to create inflation. Some have spread suggestions regarding how to dodge paying taxes for the rest of your life. These might not seem like much, but what’s interesting is the relentless circulation of suggestions from all manner of quarters, from people with varying kinds of expertise, about how people can act on their own initiative where they live or work and in their everyday lives, rather than imagining “the struggle” as something that is waged exclusively on the streets by masked, able-bodied youth.

Whatever criticisms anybody might have about what has happened thus far, this formidable exercise in collective intelligence is really incredibly impressive—an action can be proposed in a message group or on an anonymous message board thread, a few people organize to do it, and it’s done without any fuss or fanfare. Forms circulate and multiply as different groups try them out and modify them.

In the West, Leninists and Maoists have been screaming bloody murder about “CIA Psyop” or “Western backed color revolution.” Have hegemonic forces in Hong Kong invoked the “outside agitator” theme on the ground at a narrative level?

Actually, that is the official line of the Chief Executive, who has repeatedly said that she regards the events of the past week as riotous behavior incited by foreign interests that are interested in conducting a “color revolution” in the city. I’m not sure if she would repeat that line now that she has apologized publicly for “creating contradictions” and discord with her decisions, but all the same—it’s hilarious that tankies share the exact same opinion as our formal head of state.

It’s an open secret that various pro-democracy NGOs, parties, and thinktanks receive American funding. It’s not some kind of occult conspiracy theory that only tankies know about. But these tankies are suggesting that the platform that coordinates the marches—a broad alliance of political parties, NGOs, and the like—is also the ideological spearhead and architect of the “movement,” which is simply a colossal misunderstanding. That platform has been widely denounced, discredited, and mocked by the “direct action” tendencies that are forming all around us, and it is only recently that, as we said above, there are slightly begrudging threads on the Internet offering them indirect praise for being able to coordinate marches that actually achieve something. If only tankies would stop treating everybody like mindless neo-colonial sheep acting at the cryptic behest of Western imperialist intelligence.

That said, it would be dishonest if we failed to mention that, alongside threads on message boards discussing the niceties of direct action tactics abroad, there are also threads alerting everyone to the fact that voices in the White House have expressed their disapproval for the law. Some have even celebrated this. Also, there is a really wacky petition circulating on Facebook to get people to appeal to the White House for foreign intervention. I’m sure one would see these sorts of things in any struggle of this scale in any non-Western city. They aren’t smoking guns confirming imperialist manipulation; they are fringe phenomena that are not the driving force behind events thus far.

Have any slogans, neologisms, new slang, popular talking points, or funny phrases emerged that are unique to the situation?

Yes, lots, though we’re not sure how we would go about translating them. But the force that is generating these memes, that is inspiring all these Whatsapp and Telegram stickers and catchphrases, is actually the police force.

Between shooting people in the eye with plastic bullets, flailing their batons about, and indiscriminately firing tear gas canisters at peoples’ heads and groins, they also found the time to utter some truly classic pearls that have made their way on to t-shirts. One of these bons mots is the rather unfortunate and politically incorrect “liberal cunt.” In the heat of a skirmish between police and protesters, a policeman called someone at the frontlines by that epithet. All our swear words in Cantonese revolve around male and female genitalia, unfortunately; we have quite a few words for private parts. In Cantonese, this formulation doesn’t sound as sensible as it does in English. Said together in Cantonese, “liberal” and “cunt” sounds positively hilarious.

Does this upheaval bear any connections to the fishball riots or Hong Kong autonomy from a few years ago?

A: The “fishball riots” were a demonstrative lesson in many ways, especially for people like us, who found ourselves spectators situated at some remove from the people involved. It was a paroxysmic explosion of rage against the police, a completely unexpected aftershock from the collapse of the umbrella movement. An entire party, the erstwhile darlings of right-wing youth everywhere, “Hong Kong Indigenous,” owes its whole career to this riot. They made absolutely sure that everyone knew they were attending, showing up in uniform and waving their royal blue flags at the scene. They were voted into office, disqualified, and incarcerated—one of the central members is now seeking asylum in Germany, where his views on Hong Kong independence have apparently softened considerably in the course of hanging out with German Greens. That is fresh in the memory of folks who know that invisibility is now paramount.

What effect has Joshua Wong’s release had?

A: We are not sure how surprised readers from overseas will be to discover, after perhaps watching that awful documentary about Joshua Wong on Netflix, that his release has not inspired much fanfare at all. Demosisto are now effectively the “Left Plastic” among a new batch of secondary students.

Are populist factions functioning as a real force of recuperation?

A: All that we have written above illustrates how, while the struggle currently escapes the grasp of every established group, party, and organization, its content is populist by default. The struggle has attained a sprawling scale and drawn in a wide breadth of actors; right now, it is expanding by the minute. But there is little thought given to the fact that many of those who are most obviously and immediately affected by the law will be people whose work takes place across the border—working with and providing aid to workers in Shenzhen, for instance.

Nobody is entirely sure what the actual implications of the law are. Even accounts written by professional lawyers vary quite widely, and this gives press outlets that brand themselves as “voices of the people”5 ample space to frame the entire issue as simply a matter of Hong Kong’s constitutional autonomy being compromised, with an entire city in revolt against the imposition of an all-encompassing surveillance state.

Perusing message boards and conversing with people around the government complex, you would think that the introduction of this law means that expressions of dissent online or objectionable text messages to friends on the Mainland could lead to extradition. This is far from being the case, as far as the letter of the law goes. But the events of the last few years, during which booksellers in Hong Kong have been disappeared for selling publications banned on the Mainland and activists in Hong Kong have been detained and deprived of contact upon crossing the border, offer little cause to trust a party that is already notorious for cooking up charges and contravening the letter of the law whenever convenient. Who knows what it will do once official authorization is granted.

Paranoia invariably sets in whenever the subject of China comes up. On the evening of June 12, when the clouds of tear gas were beginning to clear up, the founder of a Telegram message group with 10,000+ active members was arrested by the police, who commanded him to unlock his phone. His testimony revealed that he was told that even if he refused, they would hack his phone anyway. Later, the news reported that he was using a Xiaomi phone at the time. This news went viral, with many commenting that his choice of phone was both bold and idiotic, since urban legend has it that Xiaomi phones not only have a “backdoor” that permits Xiaomi to access the information on every one of its phones and assume control of the information therein, but that Xiaomi—by virtue of having its servers in China—uploads all information stored on its cloud to the database of party overlords. It is futile to try to suggest that users who are anxious about such things can take measures to seal backdoors, or that background information leeching can be detected by simply checking the data usage on your phone. Xiaomi is effectively regarded as an expertly engineered Communist tracking device, and arguments about it are no longer technical, but ideological to the point of superstition.

This “post-truth” dimension of this struggle, compounded with all the psychopathological factors that we enumerated above, makes everything that is happening that much more perplexing, that much more overwhelming. For so long, fantasy has been the impetus for social struggle in this city—the fantasy of a national community, urbane, free-thinking, civilized and each sharing in the negative freedoms that the law provides, the fantasy of electoral democracy… Whenever these affirmative fantasies are put at risk, they are defended and enacted in public, en masse, and the sales for “I Am Hong Konger” [sic] go through the roof.

This is what gives the proceedings a distinctly conservative, reactionary flavor, despite how radical and decentralized the new forms of action are. All we can do as a collective is seek ways to subvert this fantasy, to expose and demonstrate its vacuity in form and content.

At this time, it feels surreal that everybody around us is so certain, so clear about what they need to do—oppose this law with every means that they have available to them—while the reasons for doing so remain hopelessly obscure. It could very well be the case that this suffocating opacity is our lot for the time being, in this phase premised upon more action, less talk, on the relentless need to keep abreast of and act on the flow of information that is constantly accelerating around us.

In so many ways, what we see happening around us is a fulfillment of what we have dreamt of for years. So many bemoan the “lack of political leadership,” which they see as a noxious habit developed over years of failed movements, but the truth is that those who are accustomed to being protagonists of struggles, including ourselves as a collective, have been overtaken by events. It is no longer a matter of a tiny scene of activists concocting a set of tactics and programs and attempting to market them to the public. “The public” is taking action all around us, exchanging techniques on forums, devising ways to evade surveillance, to avoid being arrested at all costs. It is now possible to learn more about fighting the police in one afternoon than we did in a few years.

In the midst of this breathless acceleration, is it possible to introduce another rhythm, in which we can engage in a collective contemplation of what has become of us, and what we are becoming as we rush headlong into the tumult?

As ever, we stand here, fighting alongside our neighbors, ardently looking for friends.

Hand-written statements by protesters, weathered after an afternoon of heavy rain. Photo by WWS from Tak Cheong Lane Collective.

In reflecting on the problems concealed by the apparent unanimity of the “Hong Kong people,” we might start by asking who that framework suggests that this city is for, who comprises this imaginary subject. We have seen Nepalese and Pakistani brothers and sisters on the streets, but they hesitate to make their presence known for fear of being accused of being thugs employed by the police. ↩

“The places of institutional power exert a magnetic attraction on revolutionaries. But when the insurgents manage to penetrate parliaments, presidential palaces, and other headquarters of institutions, as in Ukraine, in Libya or in Wisconsin, it’s only to discover empty places, that is, empty of power, and furnished without any taste. It’s not to prevent the “people” from “taking power” that they are so fiercely kept from invading such places, but to prevent them from realizing that power no longer resides in the institutions. There are only deserted temples there, decommissioned fortresses, nothing but stage sets—real traps for revolutionaries.” –The Invisible Committee, To Our Friends ↩

Incidentally, that attempt was a good deal more spontaneous and successful. The police had hardly imagined that crowds of people who had sat peacefully with their heads in their hands feeling helpless while the developments were authorized would suddenly start attempting to rush the council doors by force, breaking some of the windows. ↩

On the night of June 11, young customers in a McDonald’s in Admiralty were all searched and had their identity cards recorded. On June 12, a video went viral showing a young man transporting a box of bottled water to protesters who were being brutalized by a squad of policemen with batons. ↩

To give two rather different examples, this includes the populist, xenophobic, and vehemently anti-Communist Apple Daily, and the “Hong Kong Free Press,” an independent English online rag of the “angry liberal” stripe run by expatriates that has an affinity for young localist/nativist leaders. ↩

[catsnuggler]

Long, heavy rant. About abuse, particularly of the emotional variety; the depths of my anger, my love, and my self-pity; and the relationship between my abuse and why I'm a leftist. Again, it's long and heavy.

Yknow, it may come as a surprise to one of my two most recent ancestors, but it turns out if you yell and curse up a storm at, not to mention insult, my little sister, angrily yammer at me to get on your side, GROWL about how "they" (being my siblings and I) should all be hurt, and immediately walk into the room I'm in and PUNCH a file cabinet that's right next to me, I won't want to be around you!

Who'd have thunk, right? That's just too surprising! I'm obviously too sensitive and weak! It isn't like I'm a traumatized abuse victim that is terrified of you and hates you! No, because if I WAS , then that could only mean that you have FAILED to live up to the obligations my mother expected of you when she married you, when she birthed your children, when she tragically died in 2005, broken-hearted in knowing she would not be able to help you care for us! And if you DID happen to fail my dearly departed mother, then you would deserve DEATH, wouldn't you? But you can't die, no, because as much as you hate yourself, as much as you acknowledge the weight of your sins against my brother, my sisters, myself, you have to be better than us. You have to be GOD over us, as you said. And over anyone and everyone else. You don't even hate Nazis for their violence, really, do you? You hate them because they aren't as "civil" as yourself. Oh, yes, civil! Like throwing plates! Like berating my mentally disabled brother! Like turning your children against each other and breaking their minds and hearts! Civil! But at least you aren't a Nazi, because you only say all these slurs, express all these allegedly legitimate grievances against marginalized groups behind closed doors, only talk about how Antifa - the Anti-fascists - have to be destroyed just as much as Nazis behind closed doors. Because Anti-fascists are uncivil. And you are civil. Of course. Somehow, Anti-fascists are as bad as fascists. Somehow, Anti-fascists are bad at all! You don't even hate fascists for the right reasons, you jackass. You would collaborate, I'm sure you would.

I hate this man. I hate this man. I hate this man! I hate how I feel what seems to be genuine closeness to him! I know it's the damned cycle of abuse, but I keep getting trapped into it all! I hate it! And I hate the politico-economic systems that enabled, even encouraged, myself and my siblings to live under this for so long. I'm so glad my older sister is out and has been out for years, but I need out. My other siblings need out. And Helheim or High water, my cat will come out. She'd better. I'd better get her out. But I hate the systems that trapped us so long, that led to these abuses happening in the first place! If misogyny was dismantled, he couldn't be misogynist to my sisters. If homophobia and other LGBT-phobias were gone, he wouldn't be panphobic to my older sister. If these ideologies stopped existing, unless he reinvented these entire ideologies, it would be impossible for him to use those against my family! And if society were more free and more socialistic, support networks would have prevented him from ever becoming abusive, and removed us from his presence if necessary, without worry of want for us. Hell, the nuclear family would already be gone, so it wouldn't even be strangers doing it, it would be our neighbors, who would actually know us and interact with us constantly!

I hate this so much. Capitalism must die. The state must die. Bigotry must die. I guess at least my abuse taught me that. That's about the only thing I can be grateful for about being an abuse victim. It made sure I would care about others, because I feel so broken and angry and alone and I know others feel far worse because they've suffered far worse things than abuse, they've suffered family members executed on the street by police or killed by drone strikes, so I desperately want to finally be in the arms of friends who will love me and care about me and not abuse me and hate the man who abused me, to the point I, in turn, am utterly revolted by the unspeakably worse crimes they face and want those who kill them dead much more than my own father, which is definitely saying something. Not like I'm going to. I know how bad that would end up being, especially since I've admitted how much I hate him. It would be utterly foolish, as well.

I love because I hate. I hate because I love. I want to be away from everything and everyone. I want to be in someone's arms, loved by a community, never let go. I want to kill, gruesomely, until I fall from exhaustion, a knife, a bullet, or a bomb. I want this rage to die so I'm never a threat to anyone, and for us all to live in peace.

Damn the state. Damn the capitalist system. Damn bigotry. Damn my father.

[glassofgaytea]

FYI: A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams | ScreenSpy

Thank you!

Article link…

A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams - By Chris. B

Modern television has more “ships” than the Pacific Ocean. Virtually every character on the airwaves has been matched with another, fancied relationships dreamed up by eager fans, either to generate laughs or to satisfy personal passions.  Every fandom has its favorite pairs, but if you’re a follower of the BBC’s Sherlock, the most discussed coupling by far is that John and Sherlock, or Johnlock.  The desire to see these two together in more than a simple platonic friendship is one that is played out in blogs and fan fiction regularly, but is this something fans will ever see developed on screen? 

There are many factors to consider here.  Sadly, in 2017, there is still a certain amount of controversy about showing a gay couple in an everyday relationship, one that is not present for purposes of comic relief or sideline plot support.  Would the network and affiliates allow it?  How conservative are its politics and those of its advertisers?  Given the overwhelming popularity of the show on an international scale, I would wager their wallets would easily trump any qualms that might exist.  It is amazing how capitalism can solve all manner of perceived ills. 

Regardless, do Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat even want this to be the dynamic of their characters?  According to them, the answer is no.  In an interview with Valerie Parker in July of last year, Gatiss claimed, “…we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it.” 

That sounds pretty final.  Maybe. 

Since these two have made the most of The X-Files philosophy that a lie is most conveniently hidden between two truths, there is always room for doubt.  (Really, how likely is it that a seasoned professional like Gatiss suddenly mistook the names of his characters for those of the men who portray them?) 

In any case, I think an openly romantic relationship between John and Sherlock would be well worth it.  Consider the following points and determine for yourself if this match is a just a forgettable fantasy, or if it could be an ultimate destiny. 

 5. The characters are already tightly bonded 

No one would argue with the idea that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original characters of Holmes and Watson are best friends; through each of the numerous variations presented over the intervening century plus, this is one of the few facets has remained consistent.  They are a team. Individually, though, each member of the team is lacking.  At one point, Sherlock confesses in “The Great Game” that he’s been “reliably informed” that he has no heart, going so far as to declare several different times that he is a high-functioning sociopath.  John, on the other hand, is “abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people”; he misses the war that left him behind.  Both have a hole that they need to fill, and that is exactly what the other satisfies. 

In Sherlock, this is reinforced repeatedly.  John and Sherlock are clearly presented as two halves of the same whole, each needing the other to be a complete version of himself—John, the heart and inspiration; Sherlock, the excitement and intellectual challenge.  When Sherlock is baffled why a woman would be upset about her child’s death after fourteen years or when he too gleefully investigates a child kidnapping, John is there to mediate his reactions.  Then, when Sherlock returns in “The Empty Hearse,” he insists correctly of John, “You have missed this…the thrill of the chase, the blood pumping through your veins, the two of us against the rest of the world.”  Later, in “The Abominable Bride,” John quips to Moriarty, “There are always two of us.”  There must be.  Inevitably, all roads they take lead to Baker Street, back to their roots together.   

4. There is already plenty of precedent for it 

Sherlock has never shied away from the suggestion that Sherlock and John are more than friends.  From the outset, John is mistaken for Sherlock’s date, and the man who will “outlive God trying to have the last word” makes no correction, nor does he when a reporter in “The Reichenbach Fall” asks for a quote about whether he and Dr. Watson are “strictly platonic.”  Further, the two gay owners of The Cross Keys Inn from “The Hounds of Baskerville” assess John and Sherlock as a pair; and Mrs. Hudson, who lives just a floor below them and knows them very well, refers to one of their arguments as “a little domestic” and is shocked when John is ready to move on (to marry a woman?) a full two years after Sherlock’s supposed death.  Then, Irene Adler, who sizes people up as adeptly as Sherlock, calls out John’s jealousy about the 57 unanswered texts that she’s sent (yes, John kept track) and flatly counters John’s insistence that he and Sherlock are a couple:  “Yes, you are.”  Finally, in “The Abominable Bride,” when John saves his other half from the precipice and Sherlock gushes about John’s intelligence, Moriarty himself rolls his eyes and scoffs, “Oh, why don’t you two just elope, for God’s sake!” 

There are innumerable instances of extreme devotion shown to us as well.  In “His Last Vow” Sherlock literally restarts his own heart because John is in danger, then commits murder to protect John from the thumb of Magnussen’s extortion.  In “The Great Game” John throws himself on Moriarty to allow Sherlock to escape the bomb he wears, and in “A Scandal in Belgravia,” he dumps his girlfriend and their holiday plans to stay home and look after Sherlock, a choice he makes easily after she demands, “Don’t make me compete with Sherlock Holmes!”  (Oh, he won’t, dear; there’s no contest.)  Further, images abound of the intense and meaningful stares shared by these two, traded like stocks on internet forums and social media, all screaming of something bubbling beneath the surface.  Thus, to transition to an official couple would not be much of a stretch.  

3. It fits the transformational model of the show 

Gatiss and Moffat have shown a penchant for pushing the envelope with their version of Doyle’s characters. Would Doyle have raised his eyebrows over John’s sibling being a divorced lesbian who’s taken to drink?  I doubt the original author could have imagined Mrs. Hudson as a former exotic dancer who had been married to the head of a drug cartel.  And certainly no one anticipated that the lovable Mary Morstan would turn out to be a former intelligence agent and ruthless trained assassin. 

The creators have not been afraid to add their own special spice to these characters.  In a 2014 interview with Phil Ittner, Gatiss and Moffat asserted, “Most of [the series] is actually completely new, so there’s not a drying-up of the source…we’re slightly broadening out the world a bit and being slightly more heretical than we probably would have been at the beginning. But then that’s good, it feels like this is our version…”   To go all-in and apex this concept with the core pair would allow them to make a truly indelible mark on the enormous canon of Sherlock Holmes iterations. 

After all, side characters are only so revealing; in this universe, John and Sherlock are the only ones who matter.  The series has been proposed as the story of the development of a genius, hence its very specific title, so building Sherlock Holmes to the point where he can freely give and receive love, achieving true intimacy, would be the greatest development possible.  Gatiss and Moffat could provide that humanity for him, to create their own warm center to the notoriously melancholy sphere of the private life of the world’s only consulting detective.   

2. Proper representation matters 

All segments of society can and should have a right to see themselves recognized unabashedly by the media they consume, whether it is fiction or non-fiction.  In the twenty-first century, this should not still be the struggle that it is, yet any in the LBGTQ community know how resistant this practice is to change in the machine of social institutions.  Too often, gay characters are used as statue pieces or comic relief, sidelines or after thoughts; they are not permitted to be real and valuable human beings, but are stock characters and stereotypes, extras who inevitably get the axe if the Grim Reaper comes calling.

 Steven Moffat has been most emphatic on the issue that the showing of gay or bisexual characters in popular culture should not be approached with triviality, that it is a serious issue that should be offered (particularly to young people) in a way that denotes true acceptance.  In his Parker interview, he asserted, “You don’t want to essentially tell children that [being gay is] something to campaign about. You want to say this is absolutely fine and normal. There is no question to answer. You want to walk right past it, in a way. You don’t want to…say, as sometimes other kinds of literature or movies might, we forgive you for being gay. You’re just saying you’re gay and it doesn’t matter. There’s no issue.” 

Essentially, one’s sexuality is just an average, marginally interesting, non-personality-defining, run-of-the-mill reality.  Thus, no matter what your sexual bent, it is not odd; it is not special or different, wonderful or terrible.  It just is, as mundane to one’s whole character as eye color or shoe size.  Indeed, until this matter does not flutter pulses with its rakish novelty, true acceptance has not yet occurred.  Having Sherlock and John integrate their sexuality seamlessly into the roster of the other attributes that the audience has witnessed, to roll it into the entire picture of who they are, we would be granted a relaxed and genuine portrayal of a devoted couple that happens to be gay, one from which we could all ultimately benefit.   

1. It would count Sherlock is a global phenomenon.  

According to the Radio Times, it is shown in 224 countries and territories around the world, making it the most watched of any of the BBC’s programs, surpassing even Dr. Who, which has decades of history.  It has spawned blogs and merchandise and a number of Sherlocked fan events, which are major affairs to rival the most popular comic cons, where every artifact, set detail, and image from the show is cherished and applauded. 

The series’ leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, are beloved international stars.  Thanks in no small part to this show, they are in constant demand and headline massive studio projects, like The Hobbit series of films and Marvel’s Dr. Strange.  Each has a immense following of fans, and rightly so—they are award-winning craftsmen, extremely versatile talents who deserve every bit of success they’ve acquired. 

This degree of influence and appeal leverages a lot of power. 

What this show brings to the table, the world eats; what it points to as its guides, people would notice, and what’s more, follow.  What, then, could be accomplished in social terms if Sherlock were to subtly demystify gay relationships?   What might result if a stellar product and the highly popular individuals involved indicate that a homosexual relationship is every bit as complicated and trying and boring and wonderful as every other kind? 

Respect. And with luck, progress.

Thanks, Chris. B

[dmellieon]

Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams

By The Screen Spy Team on January 10, 2017 By Chris B. 

Modern television has more “ships” than the Pacific Ocean. Virtually every character on the airwaves has been matched with another, fancied relationships dreamed up by eager fans, either to generate laughs or to satisfy personal passions.  Every fandom has its favorite pairs, but if you’re a follower of the BBC’s Sherlock, the most discussed coupling by far is that John and Sherlock, or Johnlock.  The desire to see these two together in more than a simple platonic friendship is one that is played out in blogs and fan fiction regularly, but is this something fans will ever see developed on screen? There are many factors to consider here.  Sadly, in 2017, there is still a certain amount of controversy about showing a gay couple in an everyday relationship, one that is not present for purposes of comic relief or sideline plot support.  Would the network and affiliates allow it?  How conservative are its politics and those of its advertisers?  Given the overwhelming popularity of the show on an international scale, I would wager their wallets would easily trump any qualms that might exist.  It is amazing how capitalism can solve all manner of perceived ills. Regardless, do Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat even want this to be the dynamic of their characters?  According to them, the answer is no.  In an interview with Valerie Parker in July of last year, Gatiss claimed, “…we’ve explicitly said this is not going to happen – there is no game plan – no matter how much we lie about other things, that this show is going to culminate in Martin and Benedict going off into the sunset together. They are not going to do it.” That sounds pretty final.  Maybe. Since these two have made the most of The X-Files philosophy that a lie is most conveniently hidden between two truths, there is always room for doubt.  (Really, how likely is it that a seasoned professional like Gatiss suddenly mistook the names of his characters for those of the men who portray them?) In any case, I think an openly romantic relationship between John and Sherlock would be well worth it.  Consider the following points and determine for yourself if this match is a just a forgettable fantasy, or if it could be an ultimate destiny.   

5. The characters are already tightly bonded No one would argue with the idea that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original characters of Holmes and Watson are best friends; through each of the numerous variations presented over the intervening century plus, this is one of the few facets has remained consistent.  They are a team. Individually, though, each member of the team is lacking.  At one point, Sherlock confesses in “The Great Game” that he’s been “reliably informed” that he has no heart, going so far as to declare several different times that he is a high-functioning sociopath.  John, on the other hand, is “abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people”; he misses the war that left him behind.  Both have a hole that they need to fill, and that is exactly what the other satisfies. In Sherlock, this is reinforced repeatedly.  John and Sherlock are clearly presented as two halves of the same whole, each needing the other to be a complete version of himself—John, the heart and inspiration; Sherlock, the excitement and intellectual challenge.  When Sherlock is baffled why a woman would be upset about her child’s death after fourteen years or when he too gleefully investigates a child kidnapping, John is there to mediate his reactions.  Then, when Sherlock returns in “The Empty Hearse,” he insists correctly of John, “You have missed this…the thrill of the chase, the blood pumping through your veins, the two of us against the rest of the world.”  Later, in “The Abominable Bride,” John quips to Moriarty, “There are always two of us.”  There must be.  Inevitably, all roads they take lead to Baker Street, back to their roots together.   

4. There is already plenty of precedent for it Sherlock has never shied away from the suggestion that Sherlock and John are more than friends.  From the outset, John is mistaken for Sherlock’s date, and the man who will “outlive God trying to have the last word” makes no correction, nor does he when a reporter in “The Reichenbach Fall” asks for a quote about whether he and Dr. Watson are “strictly platonic.”  Further, the two gay owners of The Cross Keys Inn from “The Hounds of Baskerville” assess John and Sherlock as a pair; and Mrs. Hudson, who lives just a floor below them and knows them very well, refers to one of their arguments as “a little domestic” and is shocked when John is ready to move on (to marry a woman?) a full two years after Sherlock’s supposed death.  Then, Irene Adler, who sizes people up as adeptly as Sherlock, calls out John’s jealousy about the 57 unanswered texts that she’s sent (yes, John kept track) and flatly counters John’s insistence that he and Sherlock are a couple:  “Yes, you are.”  Finally, in “The Abominable Bride,” when John saves his other half from the precipice and Sherlock gushes about John’s intelligence, Moriarty himself rolls his eyes and scoffs, “Oh, why don’t you two just elope, for God’s sake!” There are innumerable instances of extreme devotion shown to us as well.  In “His Last Vow” Sherlock literally restarts his own heart because John is in danger, then commits murder to protect John from the thumb of Magnussen’s extortion.  In “The Great Game” John throws himself on Moriarty to allow Sherlock to escape the bomb he wears, and in “A Scandal in Belgravia,” he dumps his girlfriend and their holiday plans to stay home and look after Sherlock, a choice he makes easily after she demands, “Don’t make me compete with Sherlock Holmes!”  (Oh, he won’t, dear; there’s no contest.)  Further, images abound of the intense and meaningful stares shared by these two, traded like stocks on internet forums and social media, all screaming of something bubbling beneath the surface.  Thus, to transition to an official couple would not be much of a stretch.   

3. It fits the transformational model of the show Gatiss and Moffat have shown a penchant for pushing the envelope with their version of Doyle’s characters.  Would Doyle have raised his eyebrows over John’s sibling being a divorced lesbian who’s taken to drink?  I doubt the original author could have imagined Mrs. Hudson as a former exotic dancer who had been married to the head of a drug cartel.  And certainly no one anticipated that the lovable Mary Morstan would turn out to be a former intelligence agent and ruthless trained assassin. The creators have not been afraid to add their own special spice to these characters.  In a 2014 interview with Phil Ittner, Gatiss and Moffat asserted, “Most of [the series] is actually completely new, so there’s not a drying-up of the source…we’re slightly broadening out the world a bit and being slightly more heretical than we probably would have been at the beginning. But then that’s good, it feels like this is our version…”   To go all-in and apex this concept with the core pair would allow them to make a truly indelible mark on the enormous canon of Sherlock Holmes iterations. After all, side characters are only so revealing; in this universe, John and Sherlock are the only ones who matter.  The series has been proposed as the story of the development of a genius, hence its very specific title, so building Sherlock Holmes to the point where he can freely give and receive love, achieving true intimacy, would be the greatest development possible.  Gatiss and Moffat could provide that humanity for him, to create their own warm center to the notoriously melancholy sphere of the private life of the world’s only consulting detective.   

2. Proper representation matters All segments of society can and should have a right to see themselves recognized unabashedly by the media they consume, whether it is fiction or non-fiction.  In the twenty-first century, this should not still be the struggle that it is, yet any in the LBGTQ community know how resistant this practice is to change in the machine of social institutions.  Too often, gay characters are used as statue pieces or comic relief, sidelines or after thoughts; they are not permitted to be real and valuable human beings, but are stock characters and stereotypes, extras who inevitably get the axe if the Grim Reaper comes calling. Steven Moffat has been most emphatic on the issue that the showing of gay or bisexual characters in popular culture should not be approached with triviality, that it is a serious issue that should be offered (particularly to young people) in a way that denotes true acceptance.  In his Parker interview, he asserted, “You don’t want to essentially tell children that [being gay is] something to campaign about. You want to say this is absolutely fine and normal. There is no question to answer. You want to walk right past it, in a way. You don’t want to…say, as sometimes other kinds of literature or movies might, we forgive you for being gay. You’re just saying you’re gay and it doesn’t matter. There’s no issue.” Essentially, one’s sexuality is just an average, marginally interesting, non-personality-defining, run-of-the-mill reality.  Thus, no matter what your sexual bent, it is not odd; it is not special or different, wonderful or terrible.  It just is, as mundane to one’s whole character as eye color or shoe size.  Indeed, until this matter does not flutter pulses with its rakish novelty, true acceptance has not yet occurred.  Having Sherlock and John integrate their sexuality seamlessly into the roster of the other attributes that the audience has witnessed, to roll it into the entire picture of who they are, we would be granted a relaxed and genuine portrayal of a devoted couple that happens to be gay, one from which we could all ultimately benefit.   

1. It would count Sherlock is a global phenomenon.  According to the Radio Times, it is shown in 224 countries and territories around the world, making it the most watched of any of the BBC’s programs, surpassing even Dr. Who, which has decades of history.  It has spawned blogs and merchandise and a number of Sherlocked fan events, which are major affairs to rival the most popular comic cons, where every artifact, set detail, and image from the show is cherished and applauded. The series’ leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, are beloved international stars.  Thanks in no small part to this show, they are in constant demand and headline massive studio projects, like The Hobbit series of films and Marvel’s Dr. Strange.  Each has a immense following of fans, and rightly so—they are award-winning craftsmen, extremely versatile talents who deserve every bit of success they’ve acquired. This degree of influence and appeal leverages a lot of power. What this show brings to the table, the world eats; what it points to as its guides, people would notice, and what’s more, follow.  What, then, could be accomplished in social terms if Sherlock were to subtly demystify gay relationships?   What might result if a stellar product and the highly popular individuals involved indicate that a homosexual relationship is every bit as complicated and trying and boring and wonderful as every other kind? 

Respect.  And with luck, progress. 

(via A Case for Johnlock: Why SHERLOCK Should Embrace Its Ship of Dreams)

[roxiemegs]

A teacher-mama’s rant

Those who know me personally are probably aware that I’ve been in the habit of sort of “adopting” various kids and teenagers. I’ve been happily married twice—which sounds funny, until I reveal that I was widowed at a relatively young age. Both of these good men were previously married, and had children that I came to know and love as if they’d been mine—even though they weren’t in my house full-time. I’ve step-mothered a grand total of seven kids: four girls, three boys. I also have an almost-three-year-old little girl with my husband.

When my first husband died, I only got to see his kids twice more: at the funeral, and when they came to get stuff from our home. This wasn’t by my choice, but because their mother had never liked me, had spent the years of my marriage systematically belittling her ex and his “fat wife” to not just the children, but to anyone whose social circles might happen to overlap with both of ours. Any attempt on my family’s part to communicate with the children after their father’s passing was met with hostility and barely-veiled threats.

To contrast, my second husband’s ex-wife has only ever been kind to me and about me to everyone, openly encouraging her children to love me and be happy about their father’s remarriage. We aren’t best friends, we don’t always agree on everything; but we are friendly, and we can come to an agreement on tough issues without animosity. The effect on these children’s mental health and self-concept is monumentally different than in the first case.

Why the background? It’s certainly not to air past grievances, though if you want to hear some wild “I thought that kind of thing only happened as a dramatic ploy in movies” stories, give me a shout. What this is about is, you might say I’ve become rather good at parenting other people’s children.

This is compounded by the fact that, by profession, I’m a teacher. It’s not the best-paying job for a person with a master’s degree, but I love it. I work at a school that is almost smack-dab in the center of Salt Lake County, Utah. I teach high school Spanish, but I’m also privileged to teach improv comedy theatre and coach an amazing team of comedic actors. I don’t expect Spanish to be everyone’s favorite class. It wasn’t mine when I was a teenager. But I build a rapport with my teenaged students that improves my life, and I believe it improves theirs. A lot of people that age don’t feel comfortable talking with their parents about their problems—not because of something wrong with the parents or the kids, but because they’re stretching into the independence of adulthood. I’ve become the trusted adult confidante for some vibrant adolescent people going through things nobody would want to.

I’ve taught in four different schools across two states: both public and charter, in Florida and Utah. I’ve taught at a high school, middle school, a K-8, and a K-12 (though the latter two have had me teach secondary kids only). I’ll be the first to admit, large groups of small children scare me. I adore my sass-bucket of a toddler, and have real love and affection for many children of friends and family members, but once you gather more than five of the really young ones together, I’m looking to skedaddle. My favorite group to teach is high schoolers, followed by middle schoolers. I personally believe that decent people who teach elementary school deserve a free pass straight to heaven.

With my high schoolers, they prefer for me to discipline with humor, even good-natured sarcasm. Yes, it exists. The secret is that they have to recognize that the snark is said with genuine affection and concern for their well-being. Because I have developed an easy-going balance of individuality, respect, and classroom rules that prevent violations of either, I rarely have large discipline issues crop up.

Being a teacher in Utah, which is the well-known capital of mormondom, comes with some interesting variations from the norm I came to know in Florida. In the interest of full disclosure, I am LDS, and have been my whole life. I was raised in a combination of states, birth through age 12 on the East Coast, then junior high through college in Utah. I remember living in the Bible Belt in my later childhood, and meeting people who’d never known a Mormon. My own sister had a close friend once that, when her family found out we were LDS, basically dropped all connection with us. I’ve had friends of other Christian faiths (yes, I do see myself as Christian, and no, I don’t accept your classification of me as not) who have sheepishly told me that their pastors have said some nasty things about my faith over the pulpit. Other friends whose primary knowledge of Mormons come from jokes on South Park, binge-watches of Big Love or Sister Wives, or the Book of Mormon musical. Of course, none of these accurately portray LDS doctrine, and mostly focus on lampooning the culture that has grown up around the religion.

But, bypassing the issues I have with entertainment that purposefully mischaracterizes anybody’s faith, there’s something that’s been on my mind as a student, and much later, a teacher in the Beehive State. When I moved here as an almost-teen, I had some major culture shock, HAVING GROWN UP MORMON. It was strange being one of many Mormon kids at school, hearing others in the halls talk about mutual or going to the temple, or any number of things at school. It was off-putting to me to see some of the same kids who were all mormony at church turn around and say and do some very non-mormony things at school. I often managed to find open-minded friends who were not really judgmental towards others (yeah, I write this after just passing judgment—my whole thing is, whatever you claim to believe, act it, and don’t be a jerk about it). Even as a young teenager, though, it BOILED MY BLOOD when people I knew excluded the non-LDS kids because they weren’t Mormon. And I totally called them on it when I saw it. Because I lived on the other side of that. My mom had it worse, and sometimes told me childhood stories of how kids at her school in South Carolina asked to feel her horns. I mean, our own Sunday School lessons often rehashed the histories of the early members of our faith being verbally abused, physically assaulted in various painful and dehumanizing ways, driven out of a string of places, and even martyred for being different. I wanted sometimes to just scream at people for being so sanctimonious that they couldn’t see how counterproductive it was to our claim of Christianity.

Calm down, Meg. It still makes me really angry, though I like to think it’s more along the lines of Jesus chasing the money-lenders out of the temple than along the lines of Herod being miffed at another king happening and ordering deaths as a result.

Back to the school where I teach. Overall, there have been a few factors that seem to have reduced bullying there greatly from the average school of that size. It still exists: wherever you have teenaged people on the path to self-discovery, you’ll find some whose insecurities drive their mean behavior towards others. But I have seen much less of it in our specific student population. We are also more diverse than your average Utah school. In many areas of the state, a visit to school will show you a bunch of white faces, with a tiny sprinkle of other other groups. This isn’t to say I don’t like white people or any other people, but having lots of different racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds represented is fun and fascinating to me. Humanity is this gorgeous mosaic, and the presence of so many shades of skin and eyes and hair, the scents of foods we call “comfort” and those we deem “exotic”, the songs inherent to the accents of the languages of the Earth...they all make it more beautiful.

I’ve heard kids of both LDS and non-LDS backgrounds bemoan ill treatment from the other side, and rightfully so. I’ve personally overheard some kids making the blanket statements of “all Mormons are...” That being said, it’s not nearly as common as the numerous stories of “they were my friends until it became clear I wasn’t interested in coming to church” from both students AND adults of my acquaintance.

It breaks my heart to think back on this week, hearing a mother recount to me how her daughter, a bright, talented, kind young woman, has been repeatedly marginalized by people who should be her friends on grounds of shared values, not passing acquaintances because she worships differently. Just like any mother, her tears were deep-seated, thinking back on the pain her beautiful child has endured from people who regularly consider themselves to be some of the nicest people in the world.

This is NOT a religious thing. It stands against all doctrine of which I’m aware. By being exclusive, by all these series of small unkindnesses, by being dismissive of those who don’t share ALL beliefs and values, you become for others what we’ve always denounced in the mobs that persecuted the early members of the church.

I’m a believer in the doctrine. The culture we’ve created surrounding it still needs work. I’m an LDS mother, but many of the kids I’ve “adopted” into my tribe as a teacher are not of my faith, and I’m asking you to take and apply Elder Uchtdorf’s words. Stop it. Please love “my” kids as friends for yours as much as you do those of our faith.

They are not a number to be added to our millions. They are not a problem to be solved. They are children of God who deserve to be loved, befriended, and accepted in their beliefs as much as your own children do.

And because I can’t end a blog post without something pulled from one of my fandoms, I’ll leave you with the quote from Yoda, one that I feel applies to all of us: “Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.”

[jukeboxdc]

Yes, a Juggalo march. As in one being led by the Insane Clown Posse. Just read the full announcement below (taken from this website), which we’ve preceded with pictures of actual juggalos. Just to give you an idea of why WTF exists in the header.

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 25%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Saturday, September 16, 2017

This is the day that we are asking every single Juggalo to join us in our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., to make a collective statement from the Juggalo Family to the world about what we are and what we are not. Recently Psychopathic Records’ court case in our lawsuit against the F.B.I. and Department of Justice for listing Juggalos as a “loosely-organized hybrid gang” in their 2011 Gang Task Force report was once again dismissed, meaning we are back to square one from a legal standpoint. We have tried to use the American judicial system to achieve justice and we failed.

So on Saturday, September 16, 2017, we are taking out fight to the streets. Literally.

As many of you are no doubt personally aware, the FBI’s inclusion of Juggalos as a “gang” has resulted in hundreds if not thousands of people subjected to various forms of discrimination, harassment, and profiling simply for identifying as a Juggalo. Over the past five years, our legal team has heard testimonies and reports from Juggalos all over the nation who have lost custody of their children, been fired from jobs, denied access into the armed forces, and the most common consequence — being officially labeled as a gang member by law enforcement agencies for wearing Juggalo-related clothing or brandishing one or more Juggalo tattoos. A simple traffic stop for a broken tail light can — and has — resulted in an otherwise law-abiding, hard-working, taxpaying citizen being put on a local or state list of gang members simply for displaying their Juggalo pride. Being labeled a gang member can be a permanent stain on an individual’s life since it will come up in a simple background check every single time. Whether that person is applying for a job, trying to adopt a child, join the armed forces, or attempting to acquire housing … their name may pop up as being “gang-affiliated,” even if that person has never been charged with any kind of crime.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

This is the day we not only march on our nation’s capital, but we will also be throwing a FREE concert to further display the collective power of the Juggalo Family. We will be personally inviting all of the bands and performers who have over the years professed to support Juggalos and asking them to join us in making our stand. One key reason we are planning this march and concert more than a year in advance is so no musician or group can say they didn’t know about it/didn’t get invited/or had a “scheduling conflict.” With more than a year’s notice, these musical acts have plenty of time to save the date and perform in support of the Juggalo Family in Washington, D.C. And Psychopathic Records will be personally – Yes, PERSONALLY – inviting every single band to attend. So if you get to the concert that night and are wondering why this band or that band isn’t performing on the lineup … you will have to ask them why. At this point, it’s time for everyone to put up or shut up. You say you’re a recording artist who supports the Juggalo Family’s fight against discrimination? Then be there. Live. In person. In D.C. along with thousands of Juggalos standing up for their civil rights and the rights of others who have been oppressed or discriminated by reckless law enforcement agencies.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

That is the date that the Juggalo Family must truly shine and show America and the world that we are not a gang, public menace, cult, or any of the other untrue labels they have attempted to slap on us throughout the years. We must collectively show them that we truly are a family that is united by a shared love of music and fellowship. We help and support each other like no other so-called “fanbase” ever has in the history of popular culture. We give each other food or water if someone is hungry or thirsty. We lend emotional support to each other in times of sorrow or struggle and we celebrate with each other in times of triumph. We may be the outsiders, the misfits, the weirdos, and the underdogs of the mainstream world, but as a result we have created our own world – one built on a rock-solid foundation of community, creativity, joy, and love.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

That is the date we need YOU in Washington, D.C. We need you and your voice to make sure that we shout above the chaos of this noisy world and are heard loudly and clearly as we deliver a message right into the nerve center of America that the Juggalo Family is not a joke, punchline, or any form of criminal organization. This is our chance to make a difference. A real difference. To show the world that we will we not tolerate anymore discrimination against our Juggalo brothers and sisters. If being a Juggalo has made a difference in your life, we beseech you to be a part of the important critical day in Juggalo history.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

That is the day we rise up.

That is the day we unite to clear our name.

That is the day we march.

Please be there.

WTF: There’s A Juggalo March Coming To D.C. This Fall Yes, a Juggalo march. As in one being led by the Insane Clown Posse. Just read the full announcement below (taken from…