alaksandus

[alaksandus]

Erm … I stole this from Reddit

Anyways, I am all three in continuous advancement.

#dialectical materialism #cat

[alaksandus]

I generally hate the electoral situation in America. The whole system was intentionally designed to be as undemocratic and bourgeois-favoring as possible that it’s a genuine shock we have the audacity to call the USA a democracy. But the greatest alleviating factor is that it consistently produces an ERB video since Obama vs Romney.

On that subject, while I hate that every presidential election I have had any political knowledge to care about has had Donald Trump in it, it has made him one of the most featured ERB characters.

Donald Trump is currently tied for most dedicated title-roles having Trump vs Scrooge, Trump vs Hillary, and Trump vs Biden. That puts him in a position only really shared by Hitler and Darth Vader (yes, yes, I see the humor in that). However, Trump is unique in that he has had a unique appoint while Hitler and Vader just battled each other. But come this November, if ERB delivers as they have, Trump will have the most title roles (that is his name explicitly featured in the title).

So, this is all to say, I really hope that ERB follows through. I think too that they’ll make another banger like last election. It’s also always fun to see their particular caricature of Trump. It does a very good job of highlighting the vulgar and ignorant offensiveness of Trump.

#erb #epic rap battles of history #history #election 2024 #donald trump

[alaksandus]

I cry frequently with great flowing grief at the failure of the Spartakist. The betrayal of the November Revolution will always be my first and foremost reason to distrust Social Democrats.

[alaksandus]

"The Task is to Study" Propaganda soviética, traduzida por mim para português-brasileiro.

[alaksandus]

My favorite act of knowing Browderism that I have ever committed is that I once cited the oft misused Lincoln quote, “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration” as a rhetorical measure in an essay in favor of Marxist economics.

Will I ever be forgive for such historical revisionism and Browderism? I imagine eventually

Will the continuing mischaracterization of Abraham Lincoln as some sort of secret Marxist always be funny? Yes

#history #marxism #Earl Browder #communism #abraham lincoln #socialism #confession

[alaksandus]

I’ve been thinking about the “How often do you think about the Roman Empire” trend and several of the aspects that come with it.

The first is the fact that it’s overwhelmingly cis straight white men who say that they think about the RE a lot. It obviously is no surprise to me and hopefully to you when it’s overwhelmingly the case that they largely are not. Yes, there are certainly men who think about it quite frequently, but for many of the men asked, they are misattributing the entire ancient Mediterranean world at large (including things such as Sparta (which no one should be thinking about frequently in a positive light), Athens, or even the Roman Republic). This is fairly true obviously some of that “retvrn to tradition” type bullshit, but I think it highlights how those who call for such don’t really understand what traditions they are calling to return to (or if they even existed at all). Furthermore, there are certainly men how are just lying to make it seem like they think about history intellectually. Ask these two crowds to name events and their consequences during this period (I.e. have an actual historical analysis of the Roman Empire), they likely would not be able to do so beyond some pseudo-historical bullshit (e.g., the gays caused Rome to fall) which is upsetting because they arguably have over 1400 years of Imperial history to choose from.

But beyond that, I began to think this: Why is it the Roman Empire? There is obviously a great amount to think about there, such as modern day fascist try to make the claim that America is like the western Empire and will fall like it ( which is obviously a false comparison beyond the failure to analyze why the western empire fell) and the growing crowd of “stoic sigmas” who can only name Marcus Aurelius as their vague philosophical inspiration. But beyond the multi-faceted approach of understanding why each group wants you to think they think about the RE, I began to think about why we should even focus on it.

In my personal opinion, the republic has much more historical insight into modern day issues (if we decide to use it as an analogue) and it is a much more palatably enjoyable era with the rise of Rome and the development of the issues that cause it to switch from an oligarchic system once more to a monarchy. It also is a period with several eras of intense conflict between the order which is genuinely fascinating for material analysis. And as a final point, it has some of the most famous Romans, such as Julius Caesar, Cicero, Scipio Africanus, Pliny the Elder, and many more.

Of course, I can’t tell you what you should or should not think about. But I hope if this trend inspires anything, it inspires the people who participate to take a critically look at Rome and then at why we think about it so much.

#history #rome #roman empire #roman republic #cicero #julius caesar #how often do you think about the roman empire #discussion #let’s discuss #ancient history #ancient rome

[alaksandus]

Just finished watching the Fiona and Cake by some VERY legal means, and I am reminded again and again how much I love the character of Simon Petrikov

Obviously spoilers I guess! if you haven’t watch it or even haven’t watched Adventure Time, I deeply suggest that you do.

I think the new spin-off really allows us to understand just how human he is because I know we were very familiarized with the Ice King.

It gave him a distinct flaw-fulness that I don’t think the original series was able to get across or even given the time to get across. All we were able to see was the kind natures fatherly figure who made his necessary sacrifices and the hopeless romantic whose madness drove his love away. In the main series, it seemed like all the flaws were exclusively from the crown itself and it’s madness ( of course, this is not a fault of Adventure Time, it merely needed to focus on the tragic element of Ice King and had to create an easy foil to understand the caring nature of Simon and the “cold” nature of IK)

Yet, I’m Fiona and Cat, Simon is allowed to be human, separate from being the “monster” of Ice King. And in this, we get to see his flaws. In particular, that he was an extremely selfish lover who never made the same level of sacrifice for his love and because of that in combination with the crown, his love was destined to fail ( I particularly like the parallels told in the story of Casper and Nova, that through Casper’s case for the crown, and Casper’s (Simon’s) choice to ignore Nova’s (Betty’s) solution, he is ultimately forced to lose her in someway, either by her death and him remembering her (Golb solution) or her life and him forgetting her (Ice King solution); another point I like was Simon wondering if his selfishness ultimately led him to find the crown and become the Ice King)

But within all that, Simon learns from his mistake and rather than relapse for the sake of Fiona snd Cake and lose himself to the crown, he lets himself live, just as Betty wanted.

But continuing on the idea of selfish love and it’s connection to the crown, I wonder if it was specifically this type of love that imbued itself into the mad psyche of Ice King. I have seen people talk about how the Ice King searches for princesses because he (Simon) lost his princess, so I wonder if the selfish, you should sacrifice yourself for me, expectation of that former love is the reason Ice King is so willing to kidnap the princesses themselves. Burrowed into the psyche of the crown is now the idea that there is a princess who needs no other life than a life with the wearer.

On one last note, I will prematurely clarify that I don’t think Simon was intentional in his selfishness. It is made abundantly clear that he is not and didn’t even consider to think of it. Now, I am not going to make the case that that is better. What I will say is that despite his selfishness, Betty was still willing to sacrifice herself which I think is another interesting element of her character. Throughout the previous series, she was either that mysterious princess or characterized as an insane obsessive freak who wanted someone back who wasn’t there (until digested by Golb). But here, we get to see what that obsession was before. Self-sacrificial love and devotion, even if you did not receive equal parts back (Simon still loved her very much, just not to her own extant). I think it helps to finish the painting of the love between Betty and Simon. It was messy. There was unequal distribution of love. But they loved each other, and fought for each other until it was beyond evident that they could not win. And for that, I will always love their story and their characters.

Sorry for the little actual analysis in this post. I wasn’t trying to be too critical or analytical. I just wanted to spew my mind!

#adventure time #fiona and cake spoilers #fiona and cake #simon petrikov #simon and betty #betty petrikov #ice king #why does a show so short have to make me cry at the mere thought of the love between these two lovebirds #ramblings #love #lovers

[alaksandus]

I’m currently taking a history of 19th century Europe that focuses on the revolutionary aspects of the century, and after 5 weeks of class, we have finally reached the 19th century. Really makes you think about how dense the French Revolution is (or at least how much the professor likes talking about it).

#history #napoleon #french revolution #thermidor #college #European history

[alaksandus]

Listening to romantic songs and pondering if I’ll ever be able to love and be loved in a romantic way.

[alaksandus]

War History and it’s consequences have truly reaped the world of actual historical understanding, and I will never forgive it for that.

I swear that society focuses too much on war in history and they miss out on actual historical analysis. I mean sure it’s important to study wars such as WW2 or the Civil War, but to focus exclusively on those misses both the evils within the war and the aftermath thereof. Because War “Historians” rarely focus on the building up (in both cases the expansion and perpetuation of white supremacist systems and ideology), so it fails to do justice to the immense injustice both prior and during (and you end up getting Lost-Cause racists and Holocaust Denying Neo-Nazis). Then, they fail to actually be informed on the aftermath of the war (and how in many cases we never fully addressed or rectified those targeted and harmed by wicked ideologies). In fact, most war “historians” will neglect eras like the Gilded age/Reconstruction or the Civil Rights era/Cold War which I would argue (beyond the obvious of the emancipation of slaves and end of the holocaust) held far greater ripples in social, political, and economic history (all things we face today).

Again, not saying we shouldn’t study wars, it’s just I’m tired of ignorant people claiming to love history when in reality it’s the blind adoration of war.

[alaksandus]

Everyday, I get closer to the point of telling reactionaries to kill themselves rather than combat their misinformation, but I remind myself that that is what they want.

The far-right wants rational people to act in rational anger, so that they can paint those people as angry lunatics, and it’s the worst because they don’t deserve even-tempered responses.

If you call for and justify hate and bigotry as the right does, it warrants you no tolerance. Someone who threatens violence against the innocent and oppressed calls for violence against themselves.

[alaksandus]

[alaksandus]

nothing like citing bible verses while justifying child abuse

ain't no hate like christian love

curiously the majority of states that allow for corporal punishment in school (read: literal child abuse) are run by Republicans

& this remains the most accurate meme i ever made

[alaksandus]

Yeah, I made a lawful evil character who was just a capitalist type merchant. He doesn’t break any laws, but the laws themselves are evil.

Lawful evil, or social injustice warriors...

[alaksandus]

I like that, even if unintentional, humanity as replicated much of its designs from nature.

[alaksandus]

[alaksandus]

So, I’ve recently been taking a bible course that focuses a lot on the epistles of Paul, and I have come to an interesting conclusion:

Paul the Apostle is the OG incel.

Now, if anyone is familiar with his works, I imagine that that is a pretty obvious conclusion. However, I would like to elaborate on it.

When going through, I was comparing the focus of Paul on what Jesus had focused on, because I am of the opinion that the apostles draw interpretations from Jesus’ words instead of being full vessels of it (I don’t care if it’s heresy, it explains their descriptive differences). From what I saw and remembered, Jesus was very chill with those Paul deemed sexual immoral (i.e. female prostitutes), and in many instances, defended woman who were being harassed for supposed sexual impurity, as in Jesus was against slut-shaming. However, Paul extensively focuses on sexual immorality when compared to Jesus, as Jesus mainly had a ministry against legalism and human greedy. In a multitude of his letters, he focuses attention on sexual immorality and it’s punishments and then, as if a second though, say that those are also the punishments for other sins.

Continuing on, he sets up a larger amount of rules and regulations for marriage and sexual interactions than Jesus had. Admittedly, much of these rules are based on his interpretation of Old Testament passages, but I think that holds an example of his willingness to us tradition to justify his ideology, something that incels notoriously do, while conventional excluding focus on other aspects of that tradition. He particularly is keen on the idea that wives should submit to their husbands, an idea that to my knowledge (I remind you, I am no scholar) is not present with Jesus minister or the greater message of the Bible. So, he takes an idea heavily present with his contemporary society (The Roman Empire that had conquered Israel was incredibly Patriarchal and so had the predominant powers in the region for centuries) and attempts to twist it like it’s some revolutionary message (not necessarily an incel thing, but for sure something they’d do). Beyond this, he uses other versus to call men who had sex with other men immoral ( technically not homosexuality because that did not exist back then as a concept, but you know that, don’t you?) despite Jesus having never decried such group as sexual immoral and uses a section of the early bible intend for Levitical priests and which Jesus in his ministry had largely discontinued by association with an end to the “pork prohibition” (I.e Jesus nullified it as a cover for Christians, excluding those parts that obviously go against the primary commandments and doctrines that Jesus lists directly after) homosexuality or any contemporary group that today we would typically label homosexual was notably not included until Paul added supposedly added them with the term arsenokoitai (translation up for debate but covers the idea of man laying with man). Again, this is pretty average incel behavior to twist doctrine to create it a more sexual regulated society because you refuse to change and admit you are a bad lover (or bad person).

Now, what I have chosen to primarily focus on his the harmful effects of Paul’s incel-like behavior that has permeated into modern society and harms thousands upon thousands of women and queer folk. However, this part actually weighs more towards my thesis. Paul in his life did not get married and (presumably) never had sex. Now, from his letters, it is ambiguous whether this is because he never had a genuine interest or if he was just “controlling his urges” (I.e. he wanted to get married but couldn’t or felt that it would be a waste since Christ was supposedly about to come back). Of course, I like to interpret it as being he just couldn’t because I know people young and old who talk a lot like him and view woman and marriage the way he does, while obviously still desiring that “ideal” companion, and it’s obvious that a lot of there talk is simply coping with the fact that they get no bitches (I’m not judging anyone for that). But Paul in every word exudes that Incel denial that pushes the blame on other.

So, I finish this with my personal thoughts on how this effects is all, especially if you’re American. This simply is because Paul is the main inspiration for the ideology and theology beliefs of most Protestant denominations, and while some focus more on his discussion of faith and works, the American evangelical and any “Christian culture warrior” type-group focuses on his social doctrine (I.e the doctrine of the incels). They uses his interpretation of the Bible to justify their misogyny and homophobia and by that extent their transphobia as well (Of course, this is not the case for all Christians and Protestant Christians, I myself am a Christian with very progressive and left-leaning views because I choose to focus on Jesus’ ministry of love, support for the needy, and the overthrow of worldly authority who hoard wealth and suppress the innocent) but needless to say, there are people in power in most western nations that distort Jesus’ message of liberation into one of fascism and authoritarian squalor (I don’t need to name names because you can tell who), so it is vital to understand what these people uses to justify their bigotry in order to combat it the best we can, whether that be physically or mentally. With that being said, I hope you at least get a little chuckle out of me calling a saint an incel

#history #christianity #politics #antibigotry #incel behavior #paul the apostle #discussion #paulisanincel