#and kids who may not be that involved but like still leftist and not bad at theory | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spnasylum · 3 years

Text

My notes while listening to Misha’s comments on the podcast: (grab a snack!)

In light of the most recent fandom drama I decided to listen to *that* podcast and take notes as I went along about what was actually said and then give my take on it as objectively as possible. This is basically an essay so strap in!

He complains about not getting a trailer on set that’s the same as Jared and Jensen’s. Even though he has one that can accommodate 3 people. This was the first point of discussion inspired by opening up the interview with a brief chat about Misha currently being in his camper van and how he’s sleeping in it even though he’s still home in Bellingham. The whole hour and 26 minutes has an undertone of complaining and ego stroking by all involved.

Says he’s sad he didn’t get to be there for the final days of filming.

Seems a little nervous about if friendships made during the shows run will last now it’s over.

Admits he has no plan in place or anything coming up career wise and he’s unsure of his future. This is where he brings up Walker and The Boys and says if he had shows like that to go to he wouldn’t feel SPN ending was so monumental. It is said with a slight tone of bitterness.

Side note: the hosts Alaina and Malik seem to be fine with running with the narrative that Misha was part of the show it’s entire 15 year run. Misha clears this up eventually by saying he joined in season 4.

Misha says that he realized about six years ago that SPN could run as “we” wanted it to, implying he has any say in keeping the show going or not. He asserts that he would have been on the show up until the very end in any case. But he didn’t feel that way the first few years he was on the show. So that makes me think something or someone involved gave him the feeling he could be confident in being in the cast for however long SPN aired. Maybe this was after Sera left? Maybe this was when he agreed to a significant pay cut and demotion? Either way it seems he felt SPN = job security.

Misha doubts he’ll have the feeling of job security again.

Says from around age 11 he wanted to be a politician.

Says he saw “successful, untalented” actors and decided “I can do that”. He realized that was naive and it’s actually not easy to be that successful and by the time he got his career going he was basically just in it for the fame it’s not anything he took seriously.

We find out his wife did a doctorate in gender history... for some reason.

That Marilyn Monroe was some sort of baseline for him about creating a public persona (🤷🏽‍♀️) except for getting cosmetic surgery he points out.

Talk about how he got started. Acting classes, improve groups. Moving between Chicago, DC and LA.

Discussion about the differences and similarities between Hollywood and Washington.

States he got a consultant to help him cultivate a fan base and image to connect with an audience after getting on SPN. Admits that was a double edged sword because an anonymous public start thinking that they really know you and things start getting weird.

Mentions trying to find a balancing act of being authentic and having a private life but still keeping your fans.

He admits that the fan base he grew for himself by seeming accessible has caused him to attract people who don’t have any boundaries. This is when he claims the “dialing it back” in regard to how much he shares and mentions his kids specifically as something he doesn’t feel comfortable with putting out there. Uses the word “unhinged” to describe them.

Malik mentions “crazy fans” who seem to know too much about you and finding out where you are etc. Using the example of fans turning up at an airport wanting autographs and you wondering how they even knew you’d be there and what flight you taking. He asks Misha to share experiences about his own crazy fans.

This is when Misha uses the example about having fans who think that when he tweets something out he’s communicating with them personally.

Alaina then says that in the Supernatural fandom people fight each other to protect Jared, Jensen and Misha and it’s “very bizarre”. She volunteered that people think Misha secretly hates Jared and that it’s not true. Not sure why she decided to direct the conversation to a place that would cause drama and give Misha a chance to play victim.

And then...

That’s when he claims that he was public enemy number one with super fans of the show because he’s taking attention away from Jared and Jensen.

That’s when he brings up the alleged organized attack to take down his Facebook account. He says they reported him for... *pauses... claims to not know what. But that whatever it was “Facebook bought it and took it down”. Facebook deleted/deactivated his account but he eventually got it back.

Side note: Facebook (like all social media) have always been bias when it comes to people with leftist views and let them have free reign on the platform. So he must have done something that they would decide to suspend him. I don’t think J2 fans can be blamed for the content he posts and if it violated any ToS. As we know he can post some inappropriate things on social media.

He then brings up the allegations of him taking money out of his organization. Stating it’s “categorically untrue” is all he brings forward as evidence to the contrary.

Side note: I don’t know why then that there’s no receipts or transparency. Why is his mother a beneficiary, why do people who mention he owns Stands get blocked, why set everything up in Delaware and have your for profit and so called non profit interests so entangled etc etc) I guess fans are just supposed to have faith and take his word for it.

He says that ALL of them (Jared, Jensen and himself) have people who hate them in the fandom. But overall the fandom is lovely and supportive of the cast and each other. Makes an attempt at stating there’s no kind of competition or animosity between he and Jared. I think this is like the 3rd or 4th time in the interview either he or Alaina bring up Jared but keep the focus on how Misha is the one facing “character assassination.”

Finally says that all of them have nasty things done to them and they all have had to consult security because of threats to their families etc, doesn’t specify which faction of the fandom that’s coming from. Mentions people filing police reports in the fandom but doesn’t say regarding who or what. Alaina reacts like it’s the first time hearing of this happening. Misha just goes “yeah!” Then they move on to talking about living situations.

Apparently Alaina and Misha were neighbors in LA but didn’t take advantage of that. She doesn’t live in LA anyone, wants a new adventure.

Misha mentions Bellingham is another thing about his future he’s unsure about and how his kids flourished there.

Brings up not being present with his kids even when he’s home because of work and side projects and that the one thing he’s enjoying right now it spending time with them. That he used to operate from a place of guilt because his kids felt like they only have one parent. He and Malik briefly spoke on how their careers have negatively affected their love lives.

Misha says he’s not really involved with Random Acts or running it anymore. (Ummm... what)

He and Alaina discuss Haiti and Nicaragua for a while.

Says he may try to get into directing. Says he likes having creative control. Mentions he likes doing his art installations.

Admits that getting a bit of success made him very entitled and wanting of special treatment. But claims he’s trying to keep that in check (where?) and he’s just like everyone else (well duh!). But he “trades on his celebrity” to get stuff and it makes him feel dirty (I think everyone with any kind of following does that though so nbd)

Talk of how TV/film is more diverse in telling minority stories these days.

Was asked by Malik if he has any kind of chip on his shoulder career wise and Misha says the chip on his shoulder is being bored. But says he needs to work on being more engaged.

He then abruptly wants to end the interview. Saying he has to pick up his kids. Malik wants another question. He asks how Misha has been hurt or healed by his career.

Misha then brings up the movie Karla. Again admitting to becoming more like Paul psychologically irl. But says knowing he has that type of evil in him somewhere (and says that we all have that in us) made him more empathetic to the human condition.

They then say their goodbyes. End of interview.

——

My takeaway. The worst thing he can think to say the people who don’t like him in the fandom did was trolling to get his Facebook deactivated? Also that people can see the suspicious nature of his businesses? It would be really easy to settle that with actually being transparent about the finances, which they aren’t and not having close family as benefactors though. Also, I can only speak for myself. But I never hated him. I actually loved Castiel (before his character was there just to be there in recent seasons and Cass wasn’t Cass anymore. I think Misha’s need to pander to shippers/stay on the show was a great disservice to Castiel and his arc) I was a huge Misha fan, and participated in RA and Gish a lot. I absolutely adored Misha, I led myself to believe he was the most amazing person in the world, obviously that’s the reaction he wanted to cultivate from us. Unfortunately I learned too much, experienced first hand and heard too much to be able to keep cheerleading for him. I feel bad for the people still under the spell of feeling like it’s their job to keep being defensive and unreasonably loyal to someone who you can’t and don’t really know and only have a superficial “relationship” with. Seeing the ever more unhealthy and toxic lengths people feel they need to go to to prop up his ego etc. The constant investment emotionally and financially that goes into it and the “sunk cost” if you let reality in makes it hard to let go I guess. Even he knows that what he’s done to gain and maintain relevance has attracted what he called multiple times an unhinged fan base he has to try and balance without losing his influence. I think he maybe had or has good intentions but his fame hungry drive and narcissistic personality traits win out in the end. The Heller’s seem to have, as always, taken what was said and blown it out of proportion, twisted things and created their own narrative. I do see them using key words from the interview a lot suddenly though to bully for him. So, I guess the dog whistle to the sycophants worked out. I hope that a time comes where they can have a more healthy relationship with the media and public figures they choose to gravitate towards. We can all get over zealous with things but there’s lines that shouldn’t be crossed. For some that seems sadly unlikely. I hope that Misha does indeed one day get himself in check as he calls it and I can feel comfortable to support him again. But so long as he’s being enabled and not held accountable again that seems sadly unlikely. Even though I do occasionally find myself being drawn in by the facade again a little and quickly retreating because the issues remain the same. There is a problematic dynamic in the Supernatural fandom for sure. That’s why for a long time I opted out and just watched the show separately from fandom. It’s why when I found out it was ending I had this odd sense of relief I wasn’t expecting to feel and it made me sad. I hope that now the show has aired its finale we can all reflect on things, hopefully be more self aware and objective and most importantly honest about what really has gone down and why. When things started turning sour there have been plenty of times it could have been nipped in the bud yet wasn’t. People who used this silly yet special show in selfish ways, times when walking away would have been better than sticking around trying to make things and people into something never intended to be, giving into tribalism while claiming we’re a family... for that I think we all hold a little piece of responsibility.

You can listen to it yourself on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0m07her5JUf0JGGtDVohtJ?si=c-RdyZzFQmSzffgNzZhkQg

#anti misha #anti misha collins #misha collins #supernatural #fandom #anti destihellers #strap in its a long one again #opinion #trying to be objective #alaina huffman #malik yoba #anti minions #misha #collins

135 notes · View notes

eroticcannibal · 3 years

Text

Common myths and misconceptions about home education

So in case anyone has somehow missed it, I have recently become a Big supporter of home education in a very lefty way, which has meant I have had to challenge a lot of views I have previously held about home education and that I know a lot of other lefties hold too. I am of the opinion that embracing home education, not as a last resort, but as the primary form of education for as many children as possible, is a vital part of achieving the required shifts in society needed to meet the goals of most leftists. So I am taking it on myself to convince you all that it is a very good thing, and also to clear up some misconceptions people have about home education that may make them feel they are unable to do it.

(A note, I am from the UK and shall be using UK terminology and specifics regarding law, policy and other such things will be from a UK perspective. I shall be using the term home education, as that is the legal term in the UK and is distinct from home schooling, which is the term for what school children have been doing during the pandemic.)

And I would also like to extend a quick thanks to Education Otherwise and the mods at Home education and your local authority for teaching me A LOT.

Have any questions about anything I’ve not covered here? Just let me know!

1. “Home education is illegal.”

- Sadly, home education is illegal or restricted to the point of inaccessibility in most of the world. From the research I have done, it seems that only the US and the UK have reasonable laws around home education (if I am using a very broad definition of reasonable, it is still not great). I do hope I can change this section soon, and I would *heavily* encourage people to campaign for the right to home educate post pandemic, perhaps cite any benefits learning at home has provided to children, perhaps???

2. “Home education is a tool used by religious fundamentalists to brainwash children!”

- This is a view many hold, and for good reason. For many of us, when we think of home education, we think of christian fundamentalists in the deep south of America, pulling their children out of school to avoid the liberal agenda. The truth is, anything can be used as a tool of indoctrination. This can happen in home education, and it can happen and has happened in schools too. In my own communities we have had instances of schools being a site of religious radicalization of children. The reality is this is far too complex and deep an issue to be solved by deeming any particular form of education as “bad”. I am not an expert on how best to deal with such issues, but I do feel that things like outreach and building a healthy community with otherwise more isolated religious groups would be a better way to address these issues.

3. “You need to have x qualification to home educate.”

- Again, a reasonable view to hold, given that state run and private education does require educators to hold certain qualifications, but in practice it quickly becomes evident the same does not necessarily have to apply with home education. Educational qualifications are very much focused on delivering an education in a classroom, which is a far cry from home education. During our home education of our child, my partner, who is a qualified SEN TA, has struggled far more than I have with educating our SEN child, despite the fact I hold no qualifications.

We live in amazing times when it comes to education. There are many things that parents and communities have to teach a child, and there are many things a child can teach to themself if given the tools to do so. You can even learn together! Their are endless resources available, books and games and documentaries, and even home education groups and private tutors if you feel that is the right fit for your child. You don’t need a piece of paper for your child to spend a day with their nose buried in a book, or to help the neighbor with his vegetable patch, or to cuddle up on the sofa while watching Planet Earth.

4. “You are required to follow the national curriculum.”

- This does vary by country (that allows home education). As a general rule, the stricter a country is about who can home educate, the stricter they are about what must be taught. In the UK, you are not required to follow the national curriculum. Education must be “efficient” and suited to the child’s “age, aptitude and ability”, and LAs do require that english and maths are covered. Other than that, you are allowed to tailor the content of education to the child and their interests. We have recently dropped geography for now and are only just picking up history again. It has also given us the freedom to focus on areas our child needs that would not be covered in mainstream education, such as anxiety management, trauma processing, self care and hygiene.

5. “Home education looks like school/is just filling out workbooks/etc”

- The thing you will always hear from experienced home educators when you begin home education is “home education doesn’t need to be school at home”. Much like you can tailor the content of the learning to the child, you can also tailor the delivery to the child. Some child need structure, timetable, instructions. Some need freedom and to bounce between topics. Some need to have an hour learning maths and only maths, some need to go dig up your garden “for science”. Some want to learn every day, some will need extended breaks.

Learning happens all the time, from the moment they wake to the moment they sleep. As an example, at home we have some workbooks, as both me and my child have ADHD and need someone to go “ok learn this” rather than us having to work out for ourselves what we need to cover for core subjects like english and maths. For the rest of most days my child is left to their own devices to binge youtube and netflix and work on their art. We try and go for a woodland walk every few days, where we have Deep Discussions about all kinds of topics, and we are also working on growing edible plants and baking cakes from around the world. We are more hands-off at the moment, due to the current bout of anxiety, but when that settles again we will get back to history themed crafts and STEM activities. Post-pandemic, we will be signing our kid up for swimming classes and “after school” clubs, and looking at sending them down to my mum for the home ed groups where she lives, like the forest school. A lot of home education outside of a pandemic is in groups and community based, or will make use of libraries and museums and other public learning opportunities. Frequently very little will happen at home.

In fact many home educators will advise new families to “deschool” for a while before jumping in to learning. This is a period where you “get school out of your system”, and just exist. Learning does not have to be intentional, you will be surprised how much you can achieve by just having fun.

6. “Home education is expensive.”

- It can be, ask my bank account. However, it is perfectly possible to deliver a quality education with little to no money. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s doable. Their are many online resources for free (check out oak academy), and libraries have plenty available too. Even paid resources can be very cheap if you know where to look. (psst, if your kid thrives with worksheets and powerpoints, get yourself a twinkl subscription, download everything you need for a year then cancel it.)

(This does not apply to exams. Get saving!)

7. “Home educated children are not properly socialised.”

- This is only really true during the pandemic. The rest of the time, home educated children are free to socialise whenever they want, with whoever they want, in whatever setting they choose. Socialisation while home educating is in the opinions of many of a higher quality, as they are not limited to groups of a similar age and background. Many home educating families form groups for their children to socialise together too. For ND children especially, socialising while home educated can be far less stressful and far more fulfilling than in school.

8. “Home educated children won’t get qualifications.”

- Just plain not true. Arranging qualifications can be costly and time consuming, but it is possible and regularly done. Some children may return to school or college to access exams for free, and I have heard of a handful of cases where individuals were able to secure prestigious university places without any qualifications. Home education also allows for more freedom with how exams and qualifications are approached, for example, many home educated children will pick one GCSE to focus on at a time, rather than covering numerous topics over 2 years and having exams for all of them at once like children in school will.

9. “Home education is a safeguarding risk/is used to cover up abuse/home educated children are not seen.”

- In the UK at least, home education is not considered a safeguarding risk, no matter what authorities may tell you, nor are home educated “not seen”. They still visit medical professionals, they still engage with their communities.

Now I shall add the relevant paper here should I find it again, but the idea that home education is used to cover up abuse to a statistically significant degree, or that home educated children are at more risk of abuse, is false. Home educating families do face a significantly higher risk of social services involvement than other families, but far less abuse is found in comparison to other families. It is also worth considering, when talking about social services involvement, that many families pursue home education due to failures by schools regarding a child’s vulnerabilities. In most cases, especially the Big Ones, where a home educated child is abused, the child was already known to authorities as a victim of abuse, therefore home educating did nothing to hide said abuse.

Children are also routinely abused in schools, which is another common reason for home educating.

10. “Home education has to be monitored or approved.”

- Depends on the country, I know in Japan home education is monitored by schools, however in the UK, monitoring is not lawful. Local authorities may make informal enquiries to ensure a suitable education is being facilitated (keep EVERYTHING in writing and please go straight to “home education and your local authority” group on FB for advice, you WILL need it!). In England, if your child is in mainstream education, you can deregister at will, from a special school will require LA approval. In Scotland deregistering requires LA approval. (Again, head to the aforementioned group for advice).

11. “You can’t work/get an education while home educating”

- It is hard to balance work, education and educating your child, but it is possible, people do it every day. Obviously, having at least one parent free to educate unhindered at all times is an ideal situation, but in the real world it often does not work that way. Parents may have to home educate regardless of their other commitments if a child truly needs to escape the school system. Many parents work or learn from home, and sometimes it is even possible to combine these activities with home education. Professional artists and crafters can pass down their skills while working, distance learners can invite their children to sit in on lectures. The really great thing about home education is it is flexible. Do you have a whole day of meetings? Let the kid play minecraft all day! Going to be in the office all day? Drop the kid off at the local forest school or something else they can do all day. Drop them with the grandparents to help with the gardening!

12. “Home educated are behind/achieve less than school children.”

- Their is no evidence that home education is of a lower quality than school education. Many children are home educated specifically because the school environment was detrimental to their education, and thrive with home education. Plenty of children are able to learn more simply by having 1-to-1 attention, without the distraction of an entire class. And others may well be “behind”, and are educated at home because of their specific needs that mean they will never thrive in an academic setting, so they are allowed to focus on learning skills that will allow them to live independently.

#word of god #home education

23 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 3 years

Link

By Gary Brecher.Republished from the Radio War Nerd subscriber newsletter. Subscribe to Radio War Nerd co-hosted with Mark Ames for podcasts, newsletters and more!. Posted with THE EXILED.

There’s a gigantic, well-organized, extremely violent fascist group with tens of thousands of active members in Germany right now.

And nobody notices.

You’d think all the fascist-hunters would have sniffed it out by now, but it goes right by them as if these guys were invisible.

Which is odd, because this group is not trying to hide, or pretending to be harmless. They’re not shy about it, and it’s not just talk. They have quite a record. They’ve been rampaging for decades, and if anything they’re stronger now than they used to be. They’re closely linked to CIA and Nazi groups; they’re very busy beating, burning, and murdering minorities of all kinds, and boast quite openly about hating literally everyone who’s not a member of their own ethnic group and sect, even suggesting that members go on “hunting expeditions” against minorities which they’d already almost wiped out back in the 20th century.

This group recently held massive, open rallies in the cities of Germany, and it’s only in the last few years that the government has even attempted to ban the public symbols and salutes of this massive fascist group.

There’s something grotesquely comic about this. We have a swarm of fascist-spotters who’ve spent the last few decades waiting for fascism to emerge in Germany when it was marching around, shouting at the top of its lungs, beating minorities, celebrating genocide, and supporting ethnic cleansing right in front of their damn faces.

I’m talking about the Gray Wolves. And I defy anyone to find a more successful, out-front, no-kidding, massive, effective, ruthless fascist organization anywhere in the world. They’re adapting quickly, and even have their own fierce Wiki defenders.

Here are a few highlights from their long, successful career:

In 1978, Gray Wolves started pogroms against Alevi Kurds in Maras (also known as Kahramanmaras) in South-Central Anatolia.

Location is important here. Maras is due north of Aleppo across the Syrian border, NW of Kobane, and above all just up the road from Gazantiep. Gazantiep is a key city for right-wing Turkish nationalists, a city dominated not just by people who are ethnically Turkish but who identify as rightwing Turks of the most intensely nationalist kind. This kind of population lives in a state of siege, glories in that feeling, and is almost always willing to lash out against the sea of minorities they imagine surrounding them. That’s why Gazantiep keeps making the news as a nice convenient safe house for IS and their Turkish allies, some of whom killed 57 Kurds at a wedding in 2016.

It’s important to emphasize that people who are ethnically Turkish are not a bloc. Some of the bravest people on earth, languishing in the Turkish state’s prisons or buried in unmarked graves, are proudly Turkish by ancestry.

And then there are the young men who join the Gray Wolves. Those men are murderous fascists, and it’s cowardice to pretend not to see that.

Violence by these men against minorities has never stopped, but it hit its peak �� more like the highest peak in a mountain-range of a graph — in 1978, before the Anglosphere had any handle on sectarian violence in the Middle East.

The target of the Gray Wolves in Maras was a double minority: Alevi Kurds. Alevi Muslims are often considered heretics by Salafists and other Sunni fundamentalists. They were massacred with impunity in Ottoman pogroms. Erdogan’s AK Party, which very much wants to revive Ottoman practice and Ottoman borders, openly considers the Alevi heretics fair game for the Gray Wolves’s death squads.

Those who were killed in 1978 were not only Alevi, but Kurds — and the Turkish state, which embraced Wilsonian ethnic nationality with a vengeance, a terrible vengeance, hates Kurds simply for being Kurds. So the Kurdish Alevi of Maras were a natural target twice-over.

The campaign against them built up for weeks, as pogroms usually do, with the unpredictable pace partly a result of working with unstable, violent mobs but also part of a strategy to terrorize the victims, who never know when things will go from bad (very bad) to even-worse.

The details of the massacre are very typical, sickening but not unusual:

Witnesses to the massacre.

Seyho Demir: “The Maras Police Chief at the time was Abdülkadir Aksu, Minister of the Interior in the last AKP government. The massacre was organised by MIT (the Turkish secret service), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Islamists together… As soon as I heard about the massacre, I went to Maras. In the morning I went to Maras State Hospital. There I met a nurse I knew…When she saw me, she was surprised: ‘Seyho, where have you come from? They are killing everyone here. They have taken at least ten lightly-wounded people from the hospital downstairs and killed them.’ This was done under the control of the head physician of the Maras State Hospital. Everyone knows that such a big massacre cannot be carried out without state involvement. In the Yörükselim neighbourhood they cut a pregnant woman open with a bayonet. They took out the eight-month foetus, shouting “Allah Allah” and hung it from an electricity pole with a hook. The pictures of that savagery were published in the newspapers that day. The lawyer Halil Güllüoglu followed the Maras massacre case. The files he had were never made public. He was killed for pursuing the case anyway. Let them make those files public, then the role of the state will become clear.”

Meryem Polat: “They started in the morning, burning all the houses, and continued into the afternoon. A child was burned in a boiler. They sacked everything. We were in the water in the cellar, above us were wooden boards. The boards were burning and falling on top of us. My house was reduced to ashes. We were eight people in the cellar; they did not see us and left.”(EZÖ/TK/AG)

All accounts agree that the massacre not only happened with state collusion but state encouragement. No one was punished. Many were, in fact, promoted, and hold high positions in Erdogan’s government today.

That’s the pattern here: the Gray Wolves as the street-fighting wing of the state. The parallel is closer to Indonesian Islamists in 1965 than the SA in 1930s Germany, but so many people have trouble taking any fascism clearly unless it can be soldered to 1930s Germany that I may as well make the analogy for, as they say in the academic biz, heuristic purposes.

The Gray Wolves ideology is very widespread and acceptable in many (not all) communities in Turkey. This leads to a lot of more or less lone-wolf killings (as it were), as when a soldier who was a member of the Gray Wolves killed a fellow soldier for being an Armenian a few years ago.

Older readers might remember the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II back in 1979.

The assassin was one Mehmet Ali Agca, a longtime member of the Gray Wolves.

He had a track record of killing leftists and other enemies on behalf of the “Idealists” (seriously, that’s what the Wolves call themselves):

“The weapon used in the Feb. 1, 1979, murder of a Turkish newspaper editor, Abdi Ipekci, for which Mr. Agca was convicted, was supplied by a member of the Idealist Clubs, according to the Turkish authorities. Other members helped Mr. Agca escape from prison. Still others prepared a false passport for him. And on the day of the killing, he went to the National Action Party offices.”

Note the familiar pattern: Ali Agca kills a leftist editor who’s annoying the Turkish state, gets caught, and manages to escape with a lot of help from Turkish intelligence.

They hardly bothered to hide their collusion in the escape. The Turkish state was killing a lot of leftists, a lot of intellectuals, a lot of minorities — the usual suspects for classic fascists like Ali Agca.

But as you older readers might recall, nobody in the media talked about Ali Agca as a Turkish fascist. He was, for Cold-War purposes, smeared as a Bulgarian agent.

The “Bulgarian connection” never made much sense, but it served the US/UK/Israel/Saudi intelligence agencies’ PR purposes. Remember, Turkey is NATO — very, very NATO.

NATO might survive the loss of many other small European states, but it could not survive losing Turkey. So the US/UK state will always side with the Turkish state and help them cover up fascist atrocities, blaming them on the Soviets until those useful patsies took their final dive.

Blaming Bulgaria rather than the obvious suspects, the Gray Wolves to which this thug Ali Agca had been murderously loyal all his life, was especially bizarre since there was an obvious sectarian motive: the Gray Wolves hate Christians, as they hate all other minorities, ethnic or religious, and make a point of staging provocations at all occasions when the remnants of what was once a huge Christian minority dare to show themselves in public.

Orthodox Christians are the Wolves’ preferred prey. They prefer not to do anything too bloody to high-profile Western targets like a pope, but when you squirt sectarian hate into weak minds and itchy trigger fingers for generations, some of the lads are going to pick the wrong victim.

Perhaps that’s what happened when Ali Agca went from NATO-approved murderer of leftists and Kurds, to shooting the Pope. We’ll never know, because it was quickly twisted into the ridiculous “Bulgaria did it” farce by the guys who enjoy a few cocktails with their opposite numbers from Ankara at all those NATO conferences.

And we’ll never know how much daily violence this massive fascist gang inflicts. Occasionally the Turkish state gets irritated enough to send a suicide bomber or two to kill Kurdish peace demonstrators, as it did in Ankara in 2015, killing 86 demonstrators and maiming a hundred more. But that state, our NATO ally, supports a whole madhouse of Arab and Turkmen jihadis as well as its own stable of disposable Gray Wolves assassins, so it may never be clear whether it was the Wolves, precisely, who pressed the detonators.

But it’s a statistical certainty that somewhere along the long line from greenlighting an attack like this and sending red-hot ball bearings splattering into the bodies of teenagers with peace banners, many of the men involved were members in good standing of the good ol’ Wolves.

Violence by the Gray Wolves is a constant in Turkey, usually unreported — especially now that Erdogan’s party has imprisoned thousands of journalists and intellectuals, and terrorized the rest into quietism or collusion. We may never know how many Kurds are murdered daily in the southeast of Anatolia, because no one who matters, in the Turkish state or its many powerful allies in the West (e.g. the Michael Flynn story) want you to know about it. It’s rare for those stories to make the news at all, but God knows you can’t forget them once you’ve read them.

In fact the Gray Wolves are going mainstream, and winning a lot of votes.

Fascism is mainstream in Turkey, getting more mainstream all the time — and has been since the violent dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Gray Wolves have quite a pedigree, a classic fascist genealogy.

Fascism is often strongest in the ruins of a defeated empire, and that was the situation in the former Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. The Empire had once ruled from Central Europe to Iraq, flowing and ebbing over the centuries (with a peak in the 16th century). At its peak, it was a fearsome conquering force.

There’s a great novel by the Albanian writer Ismail Kadare detailing the unstoppable waves of special forces that the Empire could unleash on strongpoints that held out against conquest.

The Ottomans took a long time to fall from that 16th c. peak. They were still around, partly because Britain and France always supported them against the bogeyman of the late Victorian Era, the Russian Threat.

Propped up by the two big powers of Europe, the Empire managed to survive a coup in 1908 by young officers who would go on to a career in defeat and genocide, because they guessed wrong on which side would win the oncoming Great War.

The Young Turks, as these officers were called, sided with the up-and-coming, efficient military of the neighboring empire: Germany. They guessed wrong, but not before they managed to exterminate the harmless Armenians who had recently been patronized as Turkey’s “model minority” for their docility. And this genocide went so well, so quietly, that Hitler, contemplating the genocide of the European Jews, allegedly demanded of any squeamish nay-sayers “Who remembers the Armenians?”

You get a lot of horrible echoes like that in this story. At any rate, no one cared to remember or notice the extermination of the Armenians, but the winners at Versailles were typically vengeful against the former Ottoman Empire — not by any means for wiping out the Armenians, but for being German allies, and losing.

Britain and France, now joined by the US, were as vengeful toward the former Empire as they had been lenient during its bloody final years. Ottoman rule over non-Turkish territory was erased. For a few years there was some doubt whether even Anatolia would remain a Turkish state.

Then, as most of you know, came Mustafa Kemal, soon to become Kemal Ataturk, a hero of Gallipoli (a Turkish/Ottoman victory that stood out proudly in the great defeat).

Ataturk was a typical elite young officer of the early 20th c. Those were very dangerous people, those young officers. Often impressive individuals, but completely ruthless and immensely fond of violence. That goes for all of them, right across the Continent — Hell, right across the world.

Ataturk formed a nucleus of former officers from the Great War. (Again, the international echoes are clear enough; suffice to say that these guys were the most dangerous, formidable demographic in a few generations, perhaps since the emergence of the Napoleonic elite.) They fought well, and then they went about making Turkey a monoethnic state, without mercy.

For a while, that state was professedly secular, but since it had already killed or driven out most religious minorities, the monoethnic state became, under the AK party, avowedly mono-sectarian as well.

The current chant of the Wolves many, many supporters is “My heart is Turkish and my soul is Muslim!” You must be both: ethnically Turkish and orthodox, Sunni Muslim as well. No mercy for anyone who fails either test, which means that a lot of Kurds, a lot of Alevis, a lot of secular Leftists, end up dead or in prison.

The evolution of the Gray Wolves is a classic fascist Genesis story, and the behavior of its hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of supporters is classic fascist violence. Why don’t more people notice that?

I hate to speculate, because the range of possible answers all boils down to cowardice, conformity, and the odd Euro-centrism one finds in the strangest places. They don’t get noticed because they’re not European, maybe? Fascism of the 1930s was European, and that’s the only kind amateurs notice? Odd, because Turkey is European enough to be the cornerstone of NATO.

This would not be the first time that the interests of what you could call the NATO Deep State aligned all too perfectly with the more gullible pockets of the Left. In fact, it’s very closely related to the phenomenon of not noticing, or trying very hard not to notice, the sectarian ultra-violence of the Syrian “rebels.” But this time, since Turkey is a NATO ally, it’s the violence of the state and its fascist proxies that is ignored. I struggle to come up with any other reason that the Gray Wolves get so little attention.

All I know is that we have a massive, ultra-violent, highly effective, classically fascist movement killing minorities every single day, and there’s an odd silence about it.

I would love to ask one of the innumerable online fascist hunters why they hunt stray curs and slink silently past the cold stare of the Gray Wolves. Perhaps it’s not so much any of the excuses I suggested above; perhaps some hunters just prefer smaller, easy prey to the real thing.

Gary Brecher is the nom de guerre-nerd of John Dolan. Buy his book The War Nerd Iliad. Hear him read his comic memoir Pleasant Hell in audiobook format.

Subscribe to the Radio War Nerd podcast & newsletter!

21 notes · View notes

jspark3000 · 4 years

Note

(Pt.1) Could you maybe identify what policies or laws are racist? Or perhaps you could elaborate on the part where you said you encountered people who were limited from jobs, housing, custody rights, resources due to racism. What happened for you to come to that conclusion? I’m not dismissing you but asking genuinely. If there is something racist about our systems, I would like to know too. Trust me. Please don’t feel rushed or pressured to respond to these right away btw

Hello there, you’re referring to this post.

Here’s part 2 of your question: Pt.2 I think many are just concerned that all disparities/suffering are seen to be a result of sys. racism. This may not be helpful when addressing complex/multifaceted issues. There are many Black & non-Black voices alike who are truly concerned about the problems and suffering in the Black community but do not agree with the systemic racism narrative, but they are silenced/cancelled. I say this with respect, but why give yourself the authority to assume another’s intentions? Ty for answering

—

I think these are excellent questions, and I’d like to gently point out two things.

1) I have received dozens of messages and comments like yours with the exact same phrasing. Really. It’s eerie. It’s to the point where I wonder if they’re all coming from the same individual. You used keywords like elaborate, asking genuinely, and just concerned. The whole Just Asking Questions type of concern trolling is practically a meme by now, in which you’re “not dismissing” the issue and that “many Black and non-Black” people are “truly concerned about” not buying into the “narrative.”

Now I’m not saying you’re a concern-troll. You may be genuinely interested in these answers. Certainly I’d like to think so. I’m simply weirded out at how often I get these sorts of messages with the same sort of “what about” type of curiosity, with the same words verbatim, like a preprogrammed script. I have had this conversation many, many times. It never goes well, mostly because it’s not seeking to learn, it’s seeking to win.

I’ll try to save some time. This is usually how the conversation goes: I’ll bring up redlining, or Jim Crow laws, or how the super predator laws in the 90s still disproportionately affect Black individuals today, or that proportionately a Black individual is 2.65 times more likely to be killed by police than a white individual, or multiple experiments have shown that a “Black-sounding” name with the same exact resume as a “white-sounding” name is statistically less likely to get the same job, or that Black individuals are far more likely to be given greater sentences for the same exact crimes, or impoverished Black communities also trap these communities into less funded education, which has trapped generations with fewer resources. This is the tip of the iceberg.

Then you’ll systematically attempt to discredit every one of my sources (I didn’t post them because at this point, who even reads them anymore), you may say I’m a radical leftist or antifa or that my numbers are off or that I’m not seeing the bigger picture, you’ll quote the 13/50 statistic, you’ll point me to Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens or PragerU or Steven Crowder or even Shaun King for some reason, you’ll tell me about the dangers of welfare and the need for personal responsibility, you’ll bring up Chicago and black-on-black crime, you’ll tell me you agree with protests but hate rioters, you’ll bring up David Dorn and “what about Tony Timpa,” you’ll say Ferguson was a fraud and Nick Sandmann is proof of deep state, you’ll eventually tell me that Black people got themselves into this mess and need to dig their way out and they need to “get off the government teat” and “stop having kids” and “stop making excuses”—and the whole time you’ll tell me you’re just concerned and Just Asking Questions.

I mean, this is always how it goes. Maybe you’ll surprise me? But in the end, probably neither of us will change our minds. You’ll tell your friends you tried. You’ll use me as an example of close-mindedness. You’ll most likely never look up any of these stats. If our conversation goes differently than this, then I am very glad to be wrong.

Perhaps I’m being too jaded and cynical. I apologize that I sound so tired (my daughter is turning three weeks old tomorrow and it’s been exhausting). It’s just—someone who doesn’t believe in systemic racism despite the evidence probably has an entire worldview that must support this anti-view, no matter what. I’ve already said that systemic racism exists plus there is social responsibility involved. It can be both. But to invalidate the former simply destroys all available potential for learning how to best heal. No, I don’t think you’re a bad person for not believing in systemic racism. But misinformed? Yes.

So as much as I love to build bridges, I find it hard it to trust that these conversations are real dialogue. They seem to me some kind of secret conversion tactic, or trying to make an example of me. If you’re really, really concerned, then my hope is you take some days and weeks to enter these situations and find out for yourself.

2) I would like to kindly address your statement here: “I say this with respect, but why give yourself the authority to assume another’s intentions?”

So this is the third time you’ve said “You’re assuming my intentions,” and this time you said “why give yourself the authority to assume another’s intentions.”

I am not a therapist, but I think you may be inadvertently reenacting the Karpman Drama Triangle. I’ve done the same thing, and it took me years of therapy and mentoring to overcome this. Basically, the Karpman Triangle creates a dynamic of Persecutor, Victim, and Rescuer. By constantly saying “you’re assuming my intentions,” you’ve placed me in the role of the Persecutor and yourself as the Victim. This was obvious when you said “why give yourself authority”—by using a lite ad hominem to call me the authority, you’ve now placed yourself in the innocent hapless role of victim. By turn, you now will eventually become the Rescuer by saving yourself through my conversion or yourself from the “persecution.”

Now this is only my speculation and you may not know you’re doing this, if you’re even doing this at all. I’m saying this to you because, well, I’m concerned. You may have been deeply affected by certain family dynamics or trauma to reenact the Karpman Triangle. I’ve unfortunately re-enacted this Triangle many times, and perhaps even did so unwittingly in some of these posts. But it’s good to get some counseling for this; please believe me on that. Re-enacting the Triangle can seriously affect all your relationships and will make it much harder to have real conversations or to challenge your beliefs. I would know: it has nearly ruined me many times. Even if you’re not in the Triangle, I still highly advise counseling anyway. If you’re in counseling already, I would bring this up and see if this rings true for you.

— J.S.

#race #racism

27 notes · View notes

firewhiskeyandhoney · 3 years

Note

ship ! chris and sienna

who throws things in a fight ?

definitely 1000% sienna. and im sure that she does.

who goes to their parent’s house for a weekend when things get bad ?

probably sienna, just because i feel like he’d be more likely to go to another home if he really needed to get out but her natural instinct is to always go back to her family’s home no matter what

who wants to have children ? who doesn’t ? if both do, how do their goals differentiate ?

i think he probably is more into the idea than she is but i don’t think it’s something that either of them are particularly interested at this point. but eventually, i think he’s the one to broach the subject but she’s definitely far too scared to even think about having kids

who is more adverse to physical contact ?

neither of them, i don’t think. they’re very very into physical contact. i think, even before they’re like together, and like back at school or what not she’d definitely like rest her head on his shoulder or things like that and so it’s just very normalized between them even before everything.

who hates/dislikes their neighbors the most ?

i feel like they’re both equally likely to get annoyed by neighbors, but she’d probably be more vocal about it.

who hates/dislikes their significant other’s family ?

they obviously don’t dislike either of their significant other’s family. but i think he’d be more likely to not like glenda then sienna would be to not like verity’s eventual s.o.

who is most likely to leave when things get rough ?

definitely sienna, which is ironic. but she’s def more scared of things ending badly and so she’d be more likely to leave before it got to the point of that being a possibility

who thinks their partner turned out a different person than they thought ?

i think probably he is more surprised by that? like i don’t think this is something they come to realize when they’re together, and was more something he realized a long time ago like when they were in school, in that she wasn’t just like his best friend’s little sister and was someone that he enjoyed being around

who is more likely to cheat ?

i think i’ve answered this before but i think she’s definitely more likely to emotionally cheat on him with sirius than either of them would be to physically cheat on each other with anyone else

who is the more experienced ( sexually or otherwise ) ?

hmmmm i think maybe him? she’s definitely only had sex with three people (him being one of them) and so i think he’s probably been with more than that, obviously. but i think they’re both pretty comfortable with their own history and experience to where they don’t feel like the other is more experienced than them. if we were talking like relationships though, then probably her but that doesn’t even really count because she’s never been in a real relationship, she’s just more experienced with what it’s like to have feelings for someone else i think

who hates/dislikes their significant other’s friends ?

they’re from the same group of friends so i don’t think there’s really an answer for this. unless you count sirius as like sienna’s friend, then it’d obviously be him

who wants to go to social gatherings the most ?

probably her? but i think they both relatively enjoy being social, but then once they’re over it they’re both definitely over it and ready to leave.

who is most likely to be dishonest ?

i think they’re both equally likely to be dishonest? although he’s definitely better at it than she is.

who is more emotionally closed off and how does this affect their partner ?

i don’t think they’re super closed off with one another but they’re both like definitely willing to hide their feelings from one another to an equal extent which definitely causes problems as we can see.

who is the dessert person ?

probably sienna

who is more conservative ?

i think it’s probably him? at least he’s more likely to be openly conservative. but as i said in the muse ask with ciara, i feel like sienna talks a big game about how open and liberal she thinks she is but when it comes down to it, she’d still vote for the conservative. she reminds me a lot of like this thing that happened to me in hs where like i was with my friend and we were talking about like very leftist things for my catholic all girls school (abortion rights) and we like had to be hush hush about it because we definitely were around people that didn’t agree. and this girl that was a bit younger than us asked what we were talking about and we kind of waved it off and were like “it’s not really a conversation you want to be involved in” and like hinted that it was political. and she like very proudly and adorably was like, “no i want to know, i think you’ll be surprised because i *and she whispers this* i think that gay people should have rights, you know?” and she was like so proud about this baby liberal stance. and so we told her what we were talking about and she clearly was still a bit uncomfortable with that and still learning and figuring shit out (she was only like 14) so we didn’t like press her or anything because she was clearly coming around just in her own time. and so like we both just like really felt for her because she was clearly starting to make the turn to open her mind to things outside what she knew, but she was still so far behind. and like that’s lowkey how i feel sienna is? like she has these ideas that she thinks are super super like out there and liberal, but to the rest of the world, they’re like common sense. and like, there’s definitely the possibility for her ideas to grow into more, and had she stayed with sirius longer i think that would have happened, but the potential is gone now that he’s out of her life and she’s just surrounded by people she grew up with

but like, then again, i also think that when it comes down to it, she’s also pretty conservative in like how she lives her life, which may in comparison be more than how he naturally is. i’ve definitely said before that like, she is definitely deferential to like the patriarchal structure of their society and she’s okay with that. so like, right now, she’s definitely not going openly go against something that her brother/father says and will listen to them when it really comes down to it. and i think it will be somewhat similar when they’re like an established couple and like married. like, she’ll definitely not be afraid to disagree and argue with him, but when it really comes down to it, if he were to not want her doing something/wearing something she’d respect that. definitely when they have kids, if they’re like asking to do something she definitely is like “it’s up to your father”. idk why i’ve rambled for so long about this, but sienna and like her political beliefs are just so super interesting to me.

who hates/dislikes oral sex ?

what kind of question is this

#allmymuseinspo

9 notes · View notes

wagonlitcommunitytheatregroup · 4 years

Text

So...I may become a gun owner soon.

I never thought I would need to but I understand why righties want them.

The weird symmetry of it is that not trusting them is exactly the reason I want a gun.

It's weird to get on gun forums and 2nd ammendment forums to see them talk about groups like the SRA. They talk about the left in a similar way to how we talk about groups on the right. There are a few on those forums that uphold a purist "2nd Ammendment applies to everyone end of story" view. However some are starting to realize just how scary it is to have the "other side" armed. Unfortunately some try to do the mental gymnastics of saying that you only have constitutional protections if you vow to uphold them. Implying that the SRA is advocating for a socialist takeover.

If THAT rhetoric goes mainstream that will be a bad bad bad fight.

For the record I've been pro 2nd Ammendment and pro gun control for a long time now. I have a cousin who committed suicide with a legally purchased gun he bought after checking himself out of rehab. For that reason among the myriad others I think it is ludicrous that it is as easy as it is to purchase a firearm.

But also I've seen accounts of leftists from Eastern European countries that say it is an absolute necessity for a populace to be armed when the threat of fascism looms. I have to agree with that and defer to their lived experience.

The thing that bothers me is that how left wing and right wing groups talk about each other in the same terms. I don't like that. I don't like that the left is feeling the need to arm itself. I'm still arming myself but I'm not happy about it.

I also don't want to join the SRA. Partially because I am not as far left as it seems they are. Or rather I'm still clinging to hope that I don't have to BECOME as far left as they are. After November maybe that will be different.

The other main reason though is I can foresee somebody involved with the SRA shooting somebody at a protest at some point in the future and them getting designated some sort of terrorist group. I don't want my name on any lists.

Best case scenario for 2020's end is that in the future I show my gun to my kids in the future and say "In 2020 this is how close we came. Never forget that."

This is all just thought vomit now and I know nobody reads this stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I finally feel like I "get" the 2nd Ammendment and I. Don't. Like. That.

If you've made it this far. Vote, votevotevotevotevote. And vote for Biden. Just fucking hold your breath and do it because I do not want this gun I'm getting to EVER be necessary.

Help your friends vote if they can't. Vote in person if you can. If not mail your ballot before the deadline and read the ballot carefully! The have very strict instructions and will be legally thrown out if they are not followed exactly.

#talking

2 notes · View notes

telltalebatman · 4 years

Text

oc facts: charlie

no one tagged me i just love her a lot

PLACE IN SOCIETY

✖ FINANCIAL – wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty

like all of my oc/canon girls, charlie is filthy rich - and all of it came from her parents, a politician/university professor and a med school lecturer/a highly respected surgeon. some of those money her parents got from their families; but the point is - charlie never had to worry about money. (until she met her soon-to-be husband who robbed her blind.) charlie has no problems with sharing her wealth with those in need - she frequently donates to various fundraising campaigns.

✖ MEDICAL – fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged

she’s bit of a couch potato, and a bit clumsy too; she certainly wouldn’t run in a marathon, and finds herself out of breath after a short, intense jog - but it’s nothing too severe. what she lacks in shape, she makes up with agility - she practices yoga, which renders her a tad more agile than an average person. she still can’t do a lot of things though.

✖ CLASS OR CASTE – upper / lower / middle / working / unsure

charlie is, whether she likes it or not, a member of the social elite. her father spent two terms as a mayor of metropolis when she was a kid, and is an active politician, and a college professor. her mother is a globally renowned as a surgeon and comes from european nobility. charlie grew up with children of ceos, leaders, celebrities - and even after the untimely demise of her parents at the hands of her husband and moving to metropolis, she still finds herself amount the elite, quickly befriending bruce wayne himself, as well as getting cautious attention of the maroni crime family, one of gotham’s assistant district attorneys and thomas elliot - one of gotham’s golden boys, a highly esteemed surgeon and her mother’s pet student. and whether all of this is good... that is a different matter entirely.

✖ EDUCATION – qualified / unqualified / studying

charlie has a master’s degree in english literature - nothing more, and nothing less.

FAMILY

✖ MARITAL STATUS – married, happily / married, unhappily / engaged / partnered / divorced / widow or widower / separated / single / it’s complicated

she’s a widow - because she killed her husband. it was an ugly mess of a situation - he killed her parents, stole her fortune (in the canon verse - in various aus this changes, depending on what I have in mind) and ran away, prompting her to go on a wild goose chase across the globe, culminating in her finally tracking him down and stabbing him to death with an ice pick. one thing she hadn’t expected though was ending up in a long-term, happy, loving relationship with oz: gotham’s prodigal son, a failed revolutionary and a loyal friend to his (at times unwilling) loved ones.

✖ CHILDREN – has children / no children / wants children / adopted children

the idea of motherhood is kinda scary to her - she’s not opposed to being a cool aunt to someone else’s kid though. (in chasing echoes oswald is eventually going to pull jason todd to his side, and charlie’s gonna develop a fun, unexpectedly satisfying relationship with bruce’s troubled ex-errand boy.)

✖ FAMILY – close with sibling / not close with siblings / has no siblings / siblings are deceased / it’s complicated

✖ AFFILIATION – orphaned / adopted / disowned / raised by both parents / it’s complicated

even though charlie - painfully aware of her own personal mediocrity - sometimes felt like she doesn’t quite fit in with her social, accomplished parents - they still made a happy family. for various reasons, her relationship with her mother - eleanor - was always just a bit strained and tense; but it was still, above everything else, loving.

TRAITS & TENDENCIES

✖ disorganized / organised / in between

if left to her own devices, charlie’s going to inevitably scatter her belongings everywhere, forget about doing the dishes and start getting late to things. due to unfortunate depression - time simply flows differently for her.

✖ close-minded / open-minded / in between

charlie is very open-minded, thanks to her father being an outspoken leftist - perhaps even a bit too open-minded. after the split-second of initial confusion, she’d be willing to accept everything - even a violent “revolution”. even an unjust revenge. some may call it open-mindedness; others - naivete.

✖ cautious / reckless / in between

in general, she’s rather cautious - mostly thanks to overwhelming depression and anxiety that make her doubt her every move.

✖ patient / impatient / in between

most of the time, she’s patient - but then come those times when she’s waiting for oz to hurry up and pay attention to her. then, suddenly, she’s the most impatient, almost nagging person you’ve ever met. it has a lot of charm though, because she’s well-aware of being a pain in the ass.

✖ outspoken / reserved / in between

this is something her parents taught her - have your opinion, but know a time and place for it. don’t reveal too much to people you don’t trust, or to people you want to see gone. after all, her mother did come from a noble family, and her father did have a political career. even if he kept challenging his rivals to fistfights.

✖ leader / follower / in between

charlie has absolutely NO desire to lead, or to be in the spotlight - and to be honest... she kind of doesn’t understand people who do. it’s just too responsible, too difficult, too stressful.

✖ sympathetic / unsympathetic / in between

charlie has a lot of sympathy for other people - and that’s why her short-lived marriage with a con artist struggling to pay off his debt to the mafia was so tragic: she would’ve helped him if he asked, no questions asked.

✖ optimistic / pessimistic / in between

though she might appear to be an optimistic ray of sunshine - she’s actually very, very pessimistic. she actually did go through her fair share of feeling deeply let down by people in her life; so she tends to look at every relationship - and every possible scenario - without a glimmer of hope.

✖ hardworking / lazy / in between

you know how i said she inherited a fortune from her parents?

yeah.

(to be fair, she did work hard for her degree, so it’s not like she doesn’t know how to put effort into things. she simply never really had to put that effort into anything, thanks to her financial stability.)

✖ cultured / uncultured / in between

despite appearing as a ditzy socialite only interested in fashion and gossip - charlie is actually very cultured. she knows quite a lot about many topics, from french cuisine to religious traditions of indigenous cultures; her parents made sure she knows as much about the world as possible.

the problem is - she’s painfully disinterested in most of those topics, instead pretending to stick to things she’s actually into: fashion, games, literature.

✖ loyal / disloyal / in between

all it takes to earn her loyalty is to give her affection and attention; and she’ll be yours forever. she’s also not above being loyal to two people whose causes clash; she can be loyal to her lover, who wishes to kill harvey dent - but also to her friend, who wants to see dent flourish.

✖ faithful / unfaithful / in between

she’s faithful, she’s monogamous, she’s not afraid to wrap herself around her partner in public to make sure everyone sees how much in a relationship they are with each other.

(she might sometimes fantasize about doing the deed with someone other than her partner though. like fish mooney, because have you SEEN fish mooney? charlie had.)

SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION

✖ SEXUALITY – heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual / omnisexual / demisexual

charlie is bi, without any actual preference for her partner’s gender. fate (me, it was me, it wasn’t fate) caused her to mostly end up getting intimate with guys - but her first partner was a girl, she’s very into fish mooney and selina kyle and she did once have a massive crush on lex luthor’s sister.

✖ SEX – sex repulsed / sex neutral /sex favorable

charlie LOVES sex - but only with the right person. she’s definitely not against talking about it with people she’s only platonically involved with, and has nothing against having others go at it in appropriate semi-public spaces, assuming it doesn’t go too far.

but yeah. she likes sex. it makes her feel good, plain and simple - and she likes the sense of connection between her and her partner, as well as feeling comfortably vulnerable and excited.

✖ ROMANCE – romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable

charlie really craves romance. she wants - needs - to both feel the butterflies in her stomach, and to be a source of someone else’s butterflies. she craves the casual intimacy, tender words, affectionate gestures... it’s all like water to her: an absolute necessity.

✖ SEXUALLY – sexually adventurous / sex experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious / uninterested

while she’s not actually very experienced - she has a lot of fantasies and ideas she’d love to try out one day. she’s also not averse to toys and porn; even if she tends to not watch a lot of porn, for various reasons.

(such as: various fundamental problems rooted in modern-day porn industry, like incessant violence, name-calling and really bad camera work.)

ABILITIES

✖ COMBAT SKILLS – excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

to be honest, she only knows Woman’s Self Defense 101: the heel-stomp, the deadly elbow, the nails.

oh, and she also knows how to stab people. and oz taught her to shoot.

✖ LITERACY SKILLS – excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

she has a master’s degree in english literature.

except we all know this doesn’t mean SHIT, since there are people with actual degrees claiming kylo ren is queer and femme coded out there, so: she’s actually damn good at reading and understanding things and picking up subtexts and nuanced aspects. her father was a college professor, remember? he was a good teacher, and she was a good student.

✖ ARTISTIC SKILLS – excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

she has, and i can’t emphasize this enough, negative artistic skills, both verbal and visual.

(”but she has a master’s degr-” have you ever read anyone’s master’s thesis? because i did.)

this is one of the core roots of her depressive thoughts also.

✖ TECHNICAL SKILLS – excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

give this girl a piece of paper and tell her to fold it in half and moments later the paper’s gonna be torn and on fire and she’s gonna be having a depressive meltdown.

she is... not very good at using her hands to make things happen. this is actually one of those few things her parents did wrong; they kind of overlooked this part of their kid’s development, and as a result - charlie is a clumsy mess.

and, by the gods, don’t give her a hammer. unless you really hate all of your kitchenware, that is.

#4.txt #charlie

4 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 4 years

Link

Years ago, back in the times before Bioleninism and all that, I made a name for myself in the intellectual parts of the right-wing blogosphere (≈neoreaction) in a large part because I was the best at categorizing the different strands of dissident thought. Back then I said there was by and large three different factions, the religious, the nationalist and the technological, what then Nick Land rebranded as the trichotomy of theonomist, ethno-nationalist and techno-commercialist.

That was 2013 though, and a lot has happened since. Most of it bad. Some good things too: Russia grew a spine, annexed Crimea and kicked USG out of Syria. China grew two spines, destroyed their liberal fifth-column, is forcibly assimilating their native muslims and is fast approaching military parity with USG.

And yes, Trump happened. That was fun. It unleashed a renaissance of right-wing memery. But Trump also failed to get anything done, he’s likely to lose the next election, and now not even the memes are safe, as the CIA has co-opted 4chan talent for export, as seen in Pepe frogs in Hong Kong and Joker thots in Lebanon. Not cool.

…

Yes, I’m a demographic pessimist. I see the above figures and see how the Western world is slowly becoming Brazil, half white, half black. But Brazil itself is not stable; white people are having less babies than black people there. Brazil is slowly becoming something like South Africa, 10% white, 90% black. But again, South Africa is not stable itself, is it? Birth rates are different, and if that didn’t suffice, blacks there are outright murdering white people and chasing them off the land. The actual endgame is actually worse than South Africa, which still has (people tell me) some very fine spots, such as Cape Town.

The end game is Haiti. 100% black, and arguably the nastiest, poorest, worst shithole on the face of earth. That’s what we’re facing if demographic trends keep worsening as they are.

“Oh come on”, you may say. It’s never going to get that bad. At some point demographic trends self-correct, right? Evolution will run its course. Leftists aren’t having children, eventually the differential fertility of conservative people will make sure everyone is based and redpilled.

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that, I’d be the pope. Yes, Catholics love this argument. Christians, more widely. They have sacrificed a lot to have children and stable families in this society which does everything it can to promote unhappiness and dysfunctional lifestyles. If there is a God, surely at least their sacrifices will win them the future of the species? History will talk about them as ancestors of the next stage of humanity. Right??

Wrong. I’m sorry guys, but evolution doesn’t work like that. Yes, sure, evolution is about differential reproduction. Whatever genes make you have more babies in a given environment, spread in the genepool. And whatever genes do the opposite, make it marginally harder for you to reproduce, disappear from the genepool. So yes, on the face of it, “genes that make you want children” are by definition being promoted by natural selection. The argument, as explained by promoters such as Anatoly Karlin, is that humans until now have been fruitful and multiplied perfectly well through a basic motivation: seeking sexual pleasure. But that motivation doesn’t work anymore in an environment with easy contraception, so the future belongs to people with psychological traits that make them enjoy family life.

Does it work like that, though? Are there any genes that “make you want children”? Does the brain work like that? The human brain is complicated, you see, but it is also an evolution of the more basic mammal brain, and its circuitry must follow roughly the same pathways. And last time I checked all mammals reproduce exactly the same way. The male produce quadrillions of sperm every minute, and are at the hunt of every ovulating female. The moment they find one they jump onto her, copulate semi-forcibly, and babies ensue. Yeah, this pretty much includes humans.

The idea that humans are going to single-handedly evolve, over single-digit generations, a completely different pattern of reproduction to replace one which has been functional for 60 million years strikes me as pretty wild wishful thinking.

…

Supposedly though, at some point of impoverishment, the downward drift of average IQ would stop, as intelligence would begin to pay again. Without welfare and Bioleninist political machines with an incentive to bring ever stupider people into a country in order to lower the cost of clientelism, at some point the drift into Global Haiti ceases to function, and you get some sort of stable equilibrium of, say, 90-95 IQ people. Living in more or less permanent starvation wages and some sort of low-level medieval warfare.

Quite depressing, huh? Well remember, that’s a best-case scenario. That’s what happens if that Conservatives-inherit-the-earth mantra actually succeeds. Remember the trichotomy I mentioned at the beginning? Well the above scenario is what theonomists are for. They won’t say it, they probably never thought it through that much. But that’s undoubtedly what a Theonomist Revolution against progressivism would entail.

…

But again, I just don’t see it. The Kuwaitis aren’t very smart; their birth rate is in 1.6. The Arabs across Europe aren’t replacing themselves. The Mexicans in the US are also below replacement! Even if, and this is a big if, there was some easily assemblable collection of genes by which people would love having children far above their love for playing status games in a modern society with Tinder and cheap contraception, odds are by the time those genes have starting to spread, in a few generations time, 90% of humanity is already African. And so, again, Global Haiti.

…

So that’s it? Either Global Haiti or Global Mexico?

Well not quite. Tech-comms have something to say too. Humans aren’t all dumb, not yet. What if there’s a technological way out of the demographic crisis? Well, there kinda is. And it’s a year old actually. Has everyone forgot about He Jiankui?

…

Genetic sequencing is advancing fast these years. Perhaps the only thing which is still progressing fast after computing’s Moore’s Law stopped working 10 years ago. We already know dozens of genes involved in increasing IQ, and we’ll sure know of hundreds, maybe thousands. It seems likely that within our lifetimes we’ll have the capability of safely increasing the IQ of IVF embryos by 10-20 points. Would you take that? Perhaps not. Would that Chinese Tiger Mom-in-becoming living across the street take the chance? Of course she will. Do you want your own kids to be the dumbest at class? I thought so.

The bottleneck here would be IVF, which is still a rather slow and ineffective process, although perhaps with some room for improvement. That bottleneck could be solved, though, with a technology which is still quite far away. Strangely so, given the obvious incentives to develop it in what is effectively a feminist world. Ectogenesis, i.e. artificial wombs. Don’t women complain about how unfair it is they get pregnant and lose all that time to build their careers, while men only bust a nut and keep climbing that dear corporate ladder? Fear no more, ladies. Just put your eggs in this machine, and 9 months later you’ll get your baby delivered to your home. Free delivery if you sign up for Amazon Prime.

If this is sounds like Brave New World, well yes, that’s pretty much what that was about. Aldous Huxley came from a long line of distinguished biologists and couldn’t see things like TV and computers coming. Eventually he got into drugs, but I’m sure he died still puzzled by why ectogenesis didn’t become a thing during his lifetime. It stands to reason that eventually it will. And once artificial wombs are reliable and affordable, in a world with CRISPR, you don’t really need families anymore. Anybody can ‘produce’ children, raise them in ‘villages’ (because it takes a village!) and just be done with the whole problem. Progressivism taken to its logical conclusion. It’s better conclusion, the way that progressives of the 1900s saw it, the production of a race of ever more rational and free humans. Yes, it’s kinda messed up, but it has its logic. The twisted mechanics that led to our present Biological Leninist politics were, in the end, just the result of a lack of state authority. That may resolve itself quite soon. Again, with modern technology.

So yep, let me offer you a new Trichotomy. Global Haiti. Global Mexico. Or Brave New World. Pick your poison. I know mine.

#spandrell

3 notes · View notes

ink-logging · 5 years

Text

Random Comics Read Recently 1/26/19

Lumpin #131 (Vol. 26, No. 2; Winter 2018), Joe Tallarico ed.: This is the fourth and most recent all-comics issue of a free online leftist arts/culture/politics magazine that’s been around in various forms since the early 1990s; it came out almost a year ago, but I just heard about it recently. The theme is Future Worlds, and the list of contributors runs the gamut of visual styles. I tend to prefer either the purposefully visceral or icy, blown-out musings in our present cultural moment, so I liked these pieces by Krystal Difronzo, an artist and educator from Chicago--

And Tim Ng Tvet, a Norwegian web designer and artist for a literary magazine:

There’s also some comparatively familiar names involved, like Anya Davidson, Austin English, Juliacks, and Leif Goldberg.

Beach Academy 123, Mickey Zacchilli: The collected “Space Academy 123″ was one of my favorite comics from last year -- a perfect model for how a mass appeal serial can manifest from the idiosyncratic practice of its artist without anything discernible of the compromises we are assured have been necessary for such things -- and this online continuation is just as fun. It’s a ‘beach episode’, like an anime series will occasionally do, where all the characters go to the beach and hang out.

A lot of the time there’s a leering sexualization to this stuff, which Zacchilli omits in favor of more gags; as a result, what’s emphasized is another core appeal of such continuations - spending a little more time with characters you like.

Savage Dragon #241, Erik Larsen, Ferran Delgado, Nikos Koutsis, Mike Toris: One of the longest-running serial comic books still written and drawn by its creator, this foundational Image series continues to inhabit a vivified space where superhero drama is flatly sexual and superhero action is abrupt and bloody. We’re now into a problematic/melodramatic consequences-of-sexual-assault storyline, wherein the Dragon’s oft-insatiable partner Maxine mulls bitterly over her reputation as an exhibitionist in the midst of coping with trauma; frames of leering male eyes sit as uneasily alongside images of rampant horniness as they would in a Tinto Brass movie, or whatever - and, Larsen then spices up the stew yet more with a guest appearance by the now-public-domain C.C. Beck/Pete Costanza creation Captain Tootsie (a superhero pitchman for Tootsie Rolls), who functions as a sort of two-fisted ambient cloud of historical purity. But, I suspect anyone still reading “Savage Dragon” in 2019 is grooving on the improvisatory feel of somebody putting a comic together month after month, and is probably willing to allow the specifics of the plot to play out in dual use as fuel for what is yet to come. This is the character of superhero serials in general, but those aren’t controlled by the passions of a craftsman for long in the corporate sphere.

The League of Extraordinary Gentleman Vol. 4: The Tempest #4 (of 6), Alan Moore, Kevin O’Neill, Ben Dimagmaliw, Todd Klein: Kind of a fanservice-y issue, with lots of glimpses of prior Leagues only glanced upon before; the whole thing is set up as a homage to children’s anthology comics, so there’s lots of brief vignettes in affected styles. Also: a big twist, suggesting the superimposition of one reality onto another, as is now traditional in apocalypses written by Alan Moore. Also: multiple jokes about sexual assault, which feel acridly like Alan Moore reminding us he doesn’t let the squares tell him what to write. Also: a page-long math joke, which reminds us that Alan Moore smokes a ton of weed.

From Hell: Master Edition #3 (of 10), Eddie Campbell, Alan Moore, Pete Mullins, April Post: I’m listing Campbell first, because he is the driving force behind this revised and colorized re-serialization of the all-time classic, which some view with great suspicion. A colorization of “From Hell” - isn’t that gonna look like shit? Isn’t that a bad fucking idea? I try not to foreground those questions, because I think in situations like this, aesthetic judgments have a tendency to depoliticize what is inseparably a question of labor. DC Comics -- publishing unit of DC Entertainment, a subsidiary of Warner Bros. -- making the decision to recolor, say, “The Saga of the Swamp Thing”, is an economic decision made via their assumptions of how to best monetize their content; that this may benefit one or more artists, and possibly some involved with the creation of the work, is secondary these concerns. Or, in other words: that DC may include some creators in this process, reinforces the fact that they may just as well exclude them. That one of the creators of “From Hell” might spearhead a similar colorization can be driven by a similarly economic motive, but it is fundamentally different, in that it also functions as part of the practice of the artist, in tandem with works that benefit them. Of course, there is nuance; one creator of a “creator-owned” work may easily usurp control from others and do them dirty (to say nothing of any publishers out there rumored to demand all media rights as a prequisite to ‘creator-owned’ publication), but to reduce the discussion of these situations to qualitative is-the-book-good conclusions will only benefit the corporate big kids, as it flattens everything into judgment calls re: the skills of workers rather than the system in which they work. Nonetheless, if you really want to know if From Hell In Color is any good, my answer is “sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.” Sometimes it’s transformative - this page now looks like something out of Olivier Schrauwen:

-Jog

#JogList

6 notes · View notes

polyamorous-intentions · 6 years

Text

Coming out as polyam

Most of the poly folk I know are relatively open about their lifestyles, but it seems they rarely tell their families. I wanted to tell my experiences and struggles with being open and coming out to my family.

Poly story time! I began poly at around 20 years old, though the word poly was not yet known to me. Met some old friends who introduced me and my wife to the concept of poly, as well as The Ethical Slut book at around 24 and that began my long term life in poly relationships. Since then my polycule has grown and shrunk respectively, and has been a fulfilling part of my life. It has also been a source of heartache, and loss for both me, my wife, and our long term partners.

Our friend circles have been mostly supportive. Some folks expressed displeasure in what we were doing or asked the typical questions that go too much into the sex life or personal stuff. Mostly it was well meaning or came from genuine curiosity. Though there were some brutal instances of betrayal or toxic behavior that has had lasting effects on us. The biggest affected my wife. Her best friend since she was twelve told her they disagreed, but it wasn't their business. Until a year later when they sent them a letter (an actual handwritten letter) explaining how they could not support them and no longer wanted any contact. This was devastating to her. It was nearly a year before they began to truly let go and move on.

As for my social circle, I had some casual friends distance themselves but many did not care. I was lucky this way. I did get a lot of critique and judgement in regards to having a harem, or that I should “Leave some for the rest of them” kind of language. All typical toxic masculinity and women as objects to be conquered bullshit. This caused a severe separation between me and many of my male friends. They demonstrated toxic mentalities towards relationships and took great offence when I told them they were not being appropriate or what they were saying was not okay. Thus the initial shrink of my social group. I have made so many more friends over the years, but I still feel the loss of many important people I used to look to in times of need.

My wife and I are lucky enough to live in an area where discrimination via relationship is less common. I have friends who have not been rehired to a seasonal job they have worked for many years after their boss discovered they were poly, but I have never experienced this. I have, however, been treated very differently in my job. Those with kids suddenly did not want their children playing with mine. Or changed plans so they could be in control of whether my other partners may or may not be present. It has become increasingly hard to make playdates for my child and keep friends once their parents discover how we live. Overall we have been very lucky in our professional lives regarding the openness of our lifestyle.

Family was the hardest. I come from a primarily atheist leftist family, but that didn't keep judgement from occuring. Specifically in my immediate family. Unexpectedly my aunt and uncle, cousins, and grandmother could care less. They expressed mostly that if it made me happy and no one was being hurt then it wasn't a big deal. Which was heartwarming to hear. My parents and brother on the other hand were brutal. My father, an alcoholic who became emotionally and verbally abusive in my teen years and left us, expressed how I am clearly a deviant who is trying to fill an empty hole in my life from a unfulfilling marriage. I love my wife, we have our struggles as all relationships do, but she is very fulfilling and one of the most wonderful caring empathetic people I know. So the rift between myself and my father was made larger and I currently have not spoken to him in two years. My mother, a past prison guard who still remains stoic in the face of conflict, cares more about keeping the family together than making it work. She is a person who will not have hard discussions and would rather live in anxiety than discuss hard topics. She expresses great disappointment in me. And since I came out she acts as though she accepts it, she believes for the benefit of the family, but makes remarks constantly regarding my nature and how bad it is. I have called her out a lot for it, it does not change. I have a very strong and close relationship with my mother. Since this it has weakened and I continue to feel it wane and we cannot talk like we once did. I do not expect this to change sadly.

My brother and sister in law are the most overt disapproval for my relationships. In total I was not spoken to for two years, denied attendance to their wedding, denied the ability to see my niece for a while, and currently they will never allow my niece to stay with us (she and my daughter are BFFs and the cutest little creatures when playing together) because of the fear that we will have partners around.

The closest people in my life mostly think very little of me. Which used to truly bother me. Now I see it as such a ridiculous concept to have such feelings for something that doesn't affect anyone but those involved. It took a long time to work through it all, but I do not regret anything. I've had many relationships that didn’t work, and many I loved deeply. Some I will always love. The ebb and flow of poly life is hard. I did not come out unscathed from my choices, and sometimes still hurt from it. But that is a truth of life. I adore and love my partners, my friends, and the adventure I am experiencing.

So that is my experience with coming out, my nearly ten years of being poly, and my hope that in the future it will continue to be a source of support and love in my life.

#polyamourous #polyamorous #polyamory #positive #relationship #relationships #nonmonogomous #non monogamy #coming out #personal #romance

44 notes · View notes

scriptlgbt · 6 years

Note

Heya, I'm writing a story in which it is revealed through flashbacks that one of the male characters used to be female. They transitioned pretty young, (around 6th-7th grade) and I was wondering how I would write them coming out and transitioning? What are the emotions involved in that, how would living as a girly-girl, enforced by his parents until around 6th-7th grade affect him? How would other people treat them? I don't have the first clue of where to start.

I answered a question about trans folks around that age before that may be able to help you.

I would also seek to avoid using the terminology, “used to be female” since a trans person is who they say they are. It doesn’t matter whether they have transitioned or not. Some trans people do say this as a joke, or to try and find a simple way for cis people to get the point. But it is a gross simplification and a bit invalidating to most.

I’m going to talk a bit about my personal experiences being raised “a girly girl” and how that worked out for me and my parents.

What happened for me was child abuse, so it is going under a readmore. Nothing extraordinarily graphic is described, except for an incident of having my ears pierced that my toddler brain found traumatizing. The rest out of what is described is mainly psychological abuse. If you need to sit out of reading this, that’s totally okay - but maybe don’t write about the enforcement of gender roles on trans kids if that is the case. In order to represent it well, you kind of need to understand that it is on the spectrum of child abuse, and I explain it in more detail here.

As for stuff that doesn’t answer, I grew up as a “girly girl” and my parents kind of treated me as a doll. My mom actually was a copywriter (she put together flyers for a box store chain) and at the time people working there and their families would be picked to model for their clothing in the flyers. So I modelled baby clothes. (Including for snowsuits - which we shot the photos for in the summer heat.)

I still think this is pretty cool and fun to talk about, but it existed as part of a greater pattern of my parents seeing me as something to project their desires in a daughter onto. You don’t really get a lot of opportunity to speak for yourself at that age. I also thought that all the stuff they did with me (getting my ears pierced as a toddler, before I was 3) was just normal. What really gets me about it is that they did a lot of that stuff when I was young because “they don’t remember anything then” but I do remember my ears getting pierced.

We were in a mall piercer and two employees were holding the piercing guns at my earlobes, me facing the mirror seeing this, and them counting down. As soon as it went in I burst out crying. It was a little before Easter, and I remembered because when we had walked for a few hours in the mall I noticed I had stopped crying when I saw the Easter bunny photo booth, and told my dad I’d stopped.

If you don’t already know this, piercing guns and mall piercers are generally seen as the Cardinal Sins Of Piercing Safety. The guns don’t and cannot get cleaned well, and mall piercers are generally not trained or experienced the way that piercers are elsewhere. My earlobes were infected on and off until I was 11 years old, and got them redone properly. (Sort of. It was at Claire’s accessory store. It was my decision then though.)

When you’re that young, there is a much higher chance that you will remember something if it is particularly traumatizing. On top of that, my dad had an uncanny long term memory that I inherited. When I was 8 we saw his elementary school principal in the mall, and stopped to have a conversation with him - a man that must have been nearly 100. They really could have guessed I would remember more than they wanted me to.

The thing with being raised in that way, by parents who desperately want you to be something, is that even when they come around, if they come around, it’s hard to trust them.

If you want to write this character as having a healthy relationship with his parents, those parents will need to have some serious self-growth, and at no point put it on their child to take responsibility for their own growth. I would suggest having them find a PFLAG or similar kind of organization. (Only maybe not PFLAG specifically. Just something that serves a similar sort of niche but for trans kids.) Having them go to therapy and unlearn what it was that made them feel the need to project hyperbolic femininity onto their young kid.

My mother always expressed this sort of misguided idea that my gender was a rebellion against her.

“Why are you so offended at the idea of being a woman?”

And when I first came out to her in March 2011, her response was to deny it by saying, “you were always more girly than like, into sports.”

We don’t currently speak, for a plethora of really complicated reasons. A lot of those reasons include transphobia, but it was much broader and more complicated. My mom wasn’t actively transphobic towards others and always thought of herself as fairly leftist and an ally. But god forbid, her child be trans or any sort of LGBT+ identity. I hear that a lot of other trans people have this experience with their parents. They don’t, deep down, see their children as individuals but rather something they created and have an inherent say in the nature of.

I carry with me a lot of really horrible mental stuff because of all this. It’s all really bad and I had to drop out of school twice and am unable to work. I’m not going to say that it was all because of this enforced girly-girl childhood, but to say that that, and the transphobia that comes with it, was not the last straw (or even a great portion of the straws) would be misrepresenting what I went through, and why I decided to cut my immediate family out of my life. I simply would not have survived otherwise, and I have recurring nightmares where I am trapped with them in a building or a town or a car and there is nothing I can do to get away.

If you are not ready to have a trans child, you are not ready to have a child.

People who strictly enforce gender roles on their children are generally not accepting when their child is trans.

Transphobic parents are abusive parents.

This proposed story idea is filled with a lot of complicated topics, which are difficult to convey.

I’m not sure if you came here first for research, or how long you are going to research before you feel ready to write this. I would suggest either pulling up on how much the “girly-girl” thing was enforced to minimize potential damage or doing even a few years of research, hiring trans sensitivity readers and consultants.

I know that I personally was not able to convey enough of my personal insight for this in a way that I feel would represent just my personal narrative right. It’s not the same universally and it takes a lot to be able to understand and represent this kind of story.

#mod nat #trans #trans: childhood #trans: relationships #trans: family #family #gender roles #child abuse #gender expectation #cisnormativity

25 notes · View notes

yesjustcallmewes · 6 years

Text

Police Pursuits

Like many of you, I watched transfixed last week as body-cam video of Las Vegas police officer William Umana shooting at a fleeing car THROUGH HIS PATROL CAR WINDSHIELD played out. I tried to imagine what would have happened to me if I or one of my officers had even tried such a stunt, no matter how tempted I might have been to do the same at times over the years chasing people through the streets of Baltimore.

Of course, this was no stunt. Officer Umana’s shots were directed at suspects Fidel Miranda and Rene Nunez as he pursued their stolen vehicle through downtown Las Vegas. According to the commentary accompanying the video, Umana was aware that Miranda and Nunez were suspected of shooting Thomas Romero several times at a Las Vegas carwash, killing him. They were also shooting at the officer as they fled.

Many people will automatically condemn the officer’s actions, of course, and even good people can and will have honest disagreements about this pursuit and shooting. However, here you have armed homicide suspects shooting at cops. If the police don’t mount a vehicle pursuit under these circumstances, then under what circumstances WOULD they pursue for?

As I watched, I more or less automatically reviewed what I knew about the incident to assess, in my own mind at least, the appropriateness of such an extreme response. Here’s how that went; first, I knew that the officer was pursuing armed homicide suspects. CHECK. Second, the suspects showed a total disregard for the extreme risk to the public resulting from their gunshots and reckless driving. CHECK. Third, the armed homicide suspects were still shooting, this time at pursuing officers. CHECKMATE!

My visceral reaction as a cop who didn’t care much for murderers of any sort, especially those trying to murder me, was to excuse the officer’s actions as entirely justified. Balancing known elements of this chase, I focused on the risks to the public (and to the officer) versus the rewards to the public of capturing these bad guys as opposed to just letting them go to live another day.

I took into consideration factors such as is it worth the very real risk of a stray round – the officer’s or the suspect’s, who were continuing to fire at him as they fled – hitting granny waiting in line to get into a casino, or a bullet striking little Sally while her mother walked her in her stroller? And what about the kids inside the elementary school the suspects eventually crashed into? Finally, what about any “innocent” passengers that may be in the car? These are all legitimate public safety concerns, evoking a question for society: Are the rewards in this incident - or others like it - worth the risks?

Is it more beneficial for society to let criminals get away because an innocent person MIGHT get hurt or killed when officers try to apprehend them? Many times, yes - perhaps most times. Obviously, it depends on the nature and severity of the violent crime involved. But what if letting the bad guys go means they are LIKELY to hurt or kill an innocent person while committing a future crime? Might or likely – that’s the conundrum – and only the first of many.

Do we ask, which hypothetical victim is more valuable? Do we prevent a possible victim now in exchange for likely future victims? Shouldn’t we consider what police actions are more likely to prevent future criminals from running from the cops in the first place? Shouldn’t this issue be a part of the discussion? Shouldn’t those in the criminal justice arena – police, courts, prosecutors, law-makers – take actions now to reduce the chances future criminals will run from the cops, setting up more scenarios just like this one?

If you were a bad guy, which would prevent you from attempting to elude the police? If you knew the cops WON'T chase you, or if you know for sure they WOULD chase you, catch you, and hold you accountable for every felony and misdemeanor crime, traffic violation, and other infraction you commit during your attempted escape, that you’ll receive a mandatory extra five-year enhancement on your sentence when they do catch you - assuming such a law existed in the local jurisdiction (this is where the law-makers come in)?

Things to consider when deciding whether to pursue or not are things like the possibility of the fleeing suspect being known to officers (if you know who he or she is, it’s easier to locate them later), the time of day, weather conditions, traffic congestion, road conditions, terrain, etc. Regardless of these considerations, the trend, especially in politically leftist-run cities, seems to be to just let the bad guys get away by use of a blanket prohibition of all chases.

This discussion is about balancing the risk-reward to society: capture vs. escape. What was the crime? If violent, does the escape put the public at imminent risk of harm? For example, if the bad guy just shot or killed somebody, what wouldn’t that person do to avoid capture? And keep in mind, the mere act of eluding the police is (or should be) a felony, and driving recklessly is a violent act. Is it worth the risk to the next person—man, woman, or child—who may cross the bad guy’s path?

Now, I’m of the school that it’s on the criminal if there are damages or injuries that happen while in pursuit of a dangerous felon who ran from the cops. And the punishment should be such that few would even contemplate putting the public at such risk by running from the police. But, they ain’t asking my opinion. I mean, what would a cop know about police work anyway, right?

So, there was quite a risk of innocents being hurt in the Vegas incident. But I suppose those future victims who are still uninjured or alive because those bad guys didn’t escape, so they couldn’t hurt or kill them, are good with it—even if they’ll never know it.

Many departments have adopted policies where officers are not allowed to use deadly force against a suspect where the vehicle is the only weapon (my department, Baltimore, has had a policy since before my rookie year - 1970 - that prohibited officers from firing at any moving vehicle in virtually any circumstance). In fact, some policies direct officers to move out of the way rather than fire on the guy who would have run them down if they hadn’t moved. This brings up some interesting considerations, eh? Think for a minute about this:

If a bad guy is in front of me pointing a gun at me, I can shoot him. If a bad guy is in front of me with a knife, within a certain distance, I can shoot him. The same goes for a bad guy with a rock, a club, or a bowling ball, if I can infer I’m about to sustain serious bodily harm, I can shoot him. Try to come at me with those things, and I could fire away at will.

But, according to these policies, if a bad guy is in front of me, revving the engine of his two-thousand-pound car, and he guns it and heads toward me with the clear intent to kill or seriously injure me, I cannot shoot him. Does that seem right?

Now, obviously, jumping out of the way should always be a part of the officer’s total strategy. But it certainly seems like a surefire loophole for bad guys to make it to their cars before they try to kill the cop. Kind of like home-base in a game of tag. You can’t get me! Perhaps, mayors and city councils can call it the 'sanctuary vehicle policy.'

Call me old school, but what is wrong with making the bad guys pay a higher price for their violent acts? You have bad guys running from the cops, shooting bystanders or killing or injuring them with cars, and the criminal justice system is changing its rules to make the cops more and more liable for the violent acts of criminals. Does this make sense?

1 note · View note

lhs3020b · 3 years

Text

The Fugitive Worlds, by Bob Shaw

The Fugitive Worlds is the last novel in the Land/Overland trilogy. Since I’ve commented on the other two, here are my thoughts. And beware! here there (may) be Ropes! possbly even intersecting ones!

OVERVIEW

It's two generations or so after the Migration from Land. If you squint, society on Overland may have improved - apparently it has got a bit more meritocratic, there certainly has been some progress on gender issues, and this time the novel doesn't open with a random peasant being dragged off to be executed on some noble's arbitrary whim. Technology and infrastructure are changing - Cassyll Maraquine's industrial empire seems to be overseeing a pivot toward a metal-and-steam based economy, and in fact they seem to be in the early stages of an industrial revolution. On the plus side, this presumably means Overland isn't faced with another ptertha crisis in the near future, though a cynic may wonder if they've just swapped one environmental crisis for another one in a few centuries' time, when the seas start rising and the deserts begin to expand. But not to fear - there's every chance that the whole of society will be swept away by cataclysm long before that ominous possibility can occur!

You see, change is afoot in Overland's domain. Because, to the consternation of everyone except the government (who remain supremely complacent), a fourth planet has suddenly appeared in their star system. Attempts are made to bring this to the attention of the queen; unfortunately she's utterly fixated on a demented scheme to extend her reign back to Land itself.

At the opening of the novel, Toller Maraquine II, grandson of the star of the first two books, is discontent. As Cassyll's son, he could have had a life of wealth, privilege and social influence. Instead he spends his time mooning after his supposedly-heroic grandfather - yes, the same one who managed to simply forget that his first wife existed! Toller II, unfortunately, has inherited his grandfather's impetuousness and basic lack of any common sense. He's certainly not a monster, but he is an idiot. This is shown in the book's opening scenes, where he falls blindly in love with the Countess Vantara, despite the fact that she's an obvious schemer and bully.

Seeking to impress Vantara, Toller involves himself with the planned re-expansion onto Land. This swiftly gets disrupted, though, by the appearance of an expanding crystalline disk, growing across the zero-g datum plane that exists between the two twinned planets. The disk's rapid expansion cuts off travel between Land and Overland - it expands beyond the region of breathable air where the two planets' atmospheres meet - and to make matters worse, the Countess vanishes while trying to traverse said region! Oh no! Toller, of course, immediately resolves that he must go and rescue her. (She has treated him with nothing except derision and contempt by this point, and he of course fails to read the very obvious message in there.)

The predictable result of this is that Toller gets himself and his crew abducted by aliens, because of course the people of Land and Overland are actually currently bystanders in someone else's plans. Fortunately for Toller, the Dussarrans show no interest in probing him. Unfortunately for him, the expanding crystalline disk is actually a complex machine intended to relocate Dussarra itself away from the galaxy they all currently live in.

You see, the aliens believe that they are imminently threatened - their researchers have found evidence pointing to a collision between so-called "Ropes" somewhere astronomically nearby. (Ropes appear to be similar to the class of hypothetical topological defects that we call "cosmic strings" - fortunately for us, there's no evidence that cosmic strings actually exist in our universe.) This collision, they believe, will have produced an explosion somewhere between a gamma ray burst and a cosmological phase change. They fear that a wave of destruction is currently zooming toward them, at or close to the speed of light. If they are right, there is certainly no chance of Dussarra surviving it, hence their decision to begin relocating their planet.

Unfortunately there's a smaller problem. The Xa, the relocation engine they're constructing across the datum plane? When activated, it will destroy Land and Overland. The Dussarrans may be about to finish what the ptertha started around fifty years previously - the complete destruction of all civilisation on either Land or Overland!

A LEVER TO MOVE THE WORLD

Before we go any further, I'll give the Dussarrans credit for one thing: whatever their other faults, at least they're willing to think big. They are, after all, trying to address the Rope problem at source. If it were us in their situation ... well, half the newspapers would insist that Ropes don't exist, another third would claim they're leftist conspiracies to steal our precious body fluids, the remaining handful would write something mealy-mouthed about how Ropes might exist but maybe we shouldn't "overreact" for fear of a "pro-Rope" backlash. Centrists would call for a grand bargain with the Ropes - they can toast only HALF the planet in return for a top-up pupil premium on private school fees! Youtube user MagaCrypto2024 will tell you to invest your life savings in their newly-minted RopeCoin ("if it's golden enough for the quantum vacuum, it's gold enough for YOU!") and then a Tory would take 52% of the vote on a platform about how Ropes are great beacuse they'll eradicate the benefits claimants. 10 seconds after that, the shockwave demolishes the entire planet, and of course no-one ever admits that perhaps, just perhaps, they may have got it a bit wrong.

I'll say it again, whatever their other faults, at least Dussarra has managed to react to the crisis, and their behaviour isn't completely-insane.

That said, the Dussarrans' solution does suck.

Apparently the Xa requires weightlessness and a large supply of free oxygen to grow. It's not really clear why the Dussarrans couldn't have simply built a large bubble, say at one of their Lagrange points, pumped that full of air, and grew their Xa in there. There is a suggestion that the planetary alignment between Land and Overland is important too, the book does flip-flop this a bit too. Anyway we're left with the impression that the Dussarrans didn't have a lot of choice in where they built the Xa and they do genuinely believe that they are fleeing a cosmologically-apocalyptic event. Also, it's a plot point that Dussarra isn't an ideologically-coherent monolith; in fact the plan faces substantial internal dissent, and this actually boils over into something as close as the Dussarrans can have to a civil war. This is doubly-significant as the Dussarrans' telepathy also stops them from fighting each other in the usual manner - bluntly, when someone dies nearby, the telepathic backlash is utterly-paralysing to any exposed Dussarran. Killing someone yourself would thus be near-impossible for a Dussarran, though as is common in Shaw novels, the Dussarran elite has found a way to do an end-run around this problem. (Non-lethal weapons don't have the same paralysing impact!)

On a slight tangent, one interesting twist in "The Fugitive Worlds" is that Toller and co are basically NPCs in the Dussarrans' story, and they don't realise it.

The place, I think, where the Dussarrans' scheme becomes morally-unacceptable is their failure to evacuate Land and Overland. The population of Dussarra is at least thirty million - that's their capital city alone! - and in fact is implied to be in the billions. They're a modern industrial society with modern technology, after all. By contrast, even if the Landers have been breeding like bunnies for the last two generations, the population of Overland still can't be more than a few hundred thousand at absolute most. My guess is that a more plausible number would be more like 50-75,000. Perhaps 250,000 if you stretch it (a low death rate and every family putting out 4, 5 or 6+ kids could just about get you there in this timescale).

The Dussarrans have remote teleportation tech, and the denouement shows that said tech can reach anywhere on Overland, even at a distance of millions of miles. In principle, they could remove everyone from Overland, and given the vast difference in population, they could certainly accomodate a few thousand more people on Dussarra. The point I'm making here is that an evacuation was possible; there was no technological, infrastructural or economic barrier that would have precluded it. Granted the Overlanders probably would have reacted badly to being hoovered off their homeworld - who wouldn't? - but, they're not 100% immune to reason either. As Divvidiv's interations with Toller show, Overlanders are capable of understanding the Rope problem, especially when telepathy is used to help said understanding along.

(Also, for that matter, there was nothing to stop the Dussarran government from trying to open diplomatic relations with Queen Dasseene's regime, and maybe saying "Uh, guys, sorry to be a nuisance but we've got some news you might want to hear about...")

Under normal circumstances, of course, abducting everyone off of their own homeworld would be bad. It's still not great, even in context. But, the Dussarrans do have genuine reason to believe that The End Of All Things is barrelling toward them at nearly speed of light. When the Rope-intersection event lights up Land/Overland's skies, we can reasonably assume that it will destroy both of those planets too. In fact, Divvidiv confirms this possibility in as many words. Relocating everyone to Dussarra, then using the Xa and the Land/Overland binary to relocate the planet somewhere safe would, in context, strike me as a morally-defensible solution to the crisis. While it would be sad to lose Land and Overland, it would at least allow both societies to survive.

(The question of Farland is never addressed in this. As far as we can tell, the Farlanders are on their own during this particular cosmological emergency.)

Perhaps unfortunately for everyone, Dussarra's leadership have apparently decided to pull a Thanos instead. Why they skipped over the obvious non-genocidal solution is never directly addressed, though there are hints. The Dussarran leadership patronisingly describes Overlanders as "Primitives" - it's implied that their racism is a factor in their failure to do anything for their new neighbours. Also, thinking about it, the callousness is thematically-consistent with the rest of the series. Throughout this trilogy we see leaders making decisions that are at-best based on expediency alone - witness how quick King Prad was to abandon Ro-Atabri in the first book - or sometimes, decisions are based actively on malice and spite (see the Sgt Gnapperl subplot from the second book). From that point of view, the behaviour of Director Zunnunun and the Dussarran authorities is not particularly-unusual.

The scheme also ends up entirely-backfiring. You see, the wrong planet gets displaced. Ooops.

We never learn the fate of Land or Dussarra for an absolute fact; Toller's post-event speculations are bleak, but the narrative may imply that Dussarra at least could have survived. (The Dussarran rebels return there after the confrontation on Overland - I don't think they would have done that if they thought that their Xa-disrupting box was going to destroy their homeworld in the process!) I'm less optimistic for Land - the planet is probably toast - but that said, there is no "on-screen" death and what happened during the Xa's activation was definitely 100% Off The Rails, so who knows? I suppose it's at least possible that Land could have survived the Xa's activation.

One does wonder how it would cope with the abrupt removal of Overland's tides, though.

That said, Overland seems to experience weirdly few direct consequences for its displacement. The main effect is an abrupt change in the sky, followed later by the confusing discovery that Pi no longer exactly equals 3, but instead is somehow closer to 3.14. There are no storms or earthquakes - it's not clear how the tidal relaxation of Overland's crust had no geological consequences at all. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the new solar tides are exactly equal to the ones Overland previously experienced?

Oh yes, I mentioned "solar" tides, didn't I? This is because the last few pages of "The Fugitive Worlds" are even more head-bending then they sound. While the galaxies and daylight stars and comets and meteors all vanish, and the number of stars in the sky decline sharply, the Overlanders are surprised to discover that they have a lot more planetary neighbours that they did even hours ago. In the course of one night of observations, Cassyll and Bartan find five distinct planets, and quickly postulate that more could exist. The cream coloured gas giant with the big ring catches their attention, and they're confused about how to count the binary between the blue planet and it's one-quarter-sized greyish companion? moon? neighbour?

Yes, a cream-coloured gas giant with a prominent ring system, Pi quite possibly equal to 3.141592654..., a blue planet with a greyish moon that's about one quarter its diameter ... hmmm, I wonder where Overland could have gone? Such a mystery, no possible clues, amirite? Oh yes, the blue one is described as being quite bright, so apparently Overland's new orbit is fairly near to it. Given how relatively-empty Overland is, you do does find yourself wondering just how long before their heavily-populated new neighbour decides that they're next on the menu for Manifest Destiny...

(Just in case anyone's confused about what the ending implies, the descriptions suggest that Overland has been displaced not only out of its own universe, but into our solar system. The cream-coloured ringed planet is clearly Saturn, and the blue/grey binary is the Earth-Moon system. The five planets Cassyll and Bartan find are presumably most of the ones from classical antiquity - Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Earth-Moon system. Presumably they missed out Mercury, but in fairness its closeness to the Sun makes it the hardest of the classical planets to observe, so this is reasonable. But needless to say, this ending does come firmly out of the left field.)

BUT WHAT OF THE PEOPLE?

In terms of characterisation this novel continues the threads of the previous two. Shaw does do a good job of painting believable people - their flaws, errors and misjudgements are all very human. No-one does anything that real people wouldn't, or haven't. Toller's hero-worshipping his wife-amnesiac grandfather (have I mentioned the airbrushing that Fera Rivoo got halfway through the first book?) is believable. People do behave like this, idolising idiots and putting others on pedestals. His infatuation with Vantara is depressingly-believable too. People fall for people they shouldn't all the time. This sort of meltdown is arguably one side of the romantic coin, after all.

Vantara - well, there are plenty of status-obsessed bullies out there who are also secretly cowards. She's the monarchical version of every bad middle manager you've ever met. One of the book's subplots is how she gradually falls from Toller's esteem, though it takes until the denouement before he finally sees her for what she is. Also, interestingly, the romance plot gets subverted at this point. Toller manages to find someone else, someone who is both a better person and who will hopefully balance his more self-destructive tendencies with basic common sense.

Also, Vantara's entire career basically hangs off of the fact that a close relative is also the Queen. With Queen Dasseene's health in sharp decline and a clear suggestion that her reign will soon end, one suspects that Vantara's star will go down with her. Also this won't be helped by the fact that Vantara was physically there, on the field with the Dussarran rebels' Xa-disrupting box and she did - not a lot? It was almost the end of Overland, and heroic deeds were notable largely by their absence on her part.

The Dussarrans feel less real. That said, Divvidiv's combination of complacency, careerism and partly-sublimated guilt at the necks he knows he's stepping on in his job - yes, it does feel consistent with your average out-of-their-depth middle manager. We see less of Director Zunnunun and we know of the Palace of Numbers only indirectly, but their general superiosity and smugness are consistent with what I know of senior-management-as-a-group. However, Dussarra does remain slightly out-of-focus even in the second half of the book, when Toller and co are literally stood on it.

Cassyll and Bartan pop up every now and then in the narrative, but they're not so directly-involved. They're mainly there to try to explain events to the Queen, who is clearly severely ill and also severely in denial about being ill.

Another niggle aboout this book is that it carries on dropping plot threads, much like the other two. What happened to the people the Queen sent to Land? Did Dussarra survive? What happened to the rebels? Was the Rope-intersection really real? We never get clear answers or, in some cases, any answers at all. It almost feels like this novel was intended as a sequel-hook for a fourth book, or perhaps some new trilogy, but said trilogy never arrived. Honestly, that might be for the best. (Do we really want to read a novel about Overland being plowed up for luxury executive mansions while the surviving population are herded off to reservations, or all die from the flu or other imported terrestrial diseases? Given the Kolcorronian monarchy's behaviour in the first book, being on the wrong end of a colonial expansion would have a certain bleak irony, but it wouldn't be fun to read.)

So again, like the previous two, this one is a page-turner. It's hard to put down. But like the previous two, it suffers from dropped plot-threads and perhaps also a few too many out-of-the-left-field WTF? moments. That said, I did enjoy re-reading it, and I can see why it made such an impression on younger!me all the way back in the 1990s, when I first read this trilogy.

#LHS reads #books 2021 #Bob Shaw #The Fugitive Worlds

0 notes

witchcraftnow · 7 years

Text

I don’t know, sir. Was it Molotov?

This was going to become another abandoned project. Not in totality, the seeds of it would have been scattered on, but this particular iteration of what I intended to do: Go through The Invisibles issue by issue and write about it from the perspective of a practicing witch, wasn’t going to happen. But I found spontaneous cause to re-read issue #1, and it’s buzzing with such synchronicity for me at this moment that I think this is actually going to happen. Obviously, SPOILERS if you haven’t read the series, definitely for the issue currently being discussed, and possibly for the series as a whole, but I will try to preserve the overarching Mystery of the series as much as possible and only discuss what is necessary and vital for my own ongoing practice. "And so we return and begin again.” We open with pyramids and scarabs; life, death, and rebirth. And Molotov cocktails. This won’t be a close reading but a series of impressions and significances. We begin with this theme of returning, and just as I’m returning to read this, almost every “good guy” character in the first issue is in some state of time displacement. Some of this is only cryptic suggestion at this point, to be explored later (King Mob looks pretty young, how can he be “the same today” as in 1924). But the protagonist of this arc, Dane McGowan, classic “troubled youth” sees ghosts, sees “DEAD BEATLE$” Oh. Beatles, I just got that, another scarab reference. Dead Beatles, deadbeats, death and rebirth and “godhead made of living music.” This is where Grant Morrison’s magical author avatar, his “fiction suit,” does his somewhat embarrassing but even now somewhat captivating (to me anyway) “John Lennon summoning.” You can find the result of that ritual here, at a panel with Gerard Way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP22pAOVlVI This brings up two important points. One, so much of this series is about fame and aspiration, something I’ve found not to be the false consciousness or debased distraction it often assumed to be in many “spiritual” or leftist circles. Fame is a key aspect of Glamour, something any magician who uses smoke and mirrors to reach other worlds must grapple with.

The big ol’ omnibus I have of The Invisibles, released near the end of the world in 2012, opens with an introduction from Gerard Way. He describes meeting Grant Morrison at the DC Comics offices and being blown away with an immediate sense of: HOLY SHIT IT’S KING MOB!!! But by now, from his tenure in My Chemical Romance, Gerard Way is more famous than Grant Morrison has ever been, and the moment described in the introduction is echoed (perhaps more profanely, but no less powerful for it) in the above video when Grant Morrison says, “Look, Gerard Way’s getting my guitar!” When Dane McGowan sees his ghosts of “Dead Beatles,” Stuart Sutcliffe is morosely discussing leaving the band, to which John Lennon replies, “I don’t know why you’re going on about death, anyway, you’re only leaving a *band*, Stu. It’s not the end of the fucking world.” But Stuart Sutcliffe would die a few years later. And from Dane’s perspective, he’s also right to say, “Maybe we *are* dead, John. We could be dead and not know it.” The Invisibles is filled with these little moments, these nexuses in time where ships pass each other in the night, where one party “misses the boat,” and the other rides off for glory. And usually at some other moment, those fortunes reverse. Here at the crossroads. This is also where Dane re-meets his childhood imaginary friend. And it’s moments like the one described above, combined with this connection to childhood, combined with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s conviction that he as an octogenarian can heal his childhood self through his magical cinematic memoirs... that has made me think I might be able to do the same thing, and attempt time travel. Point two of the aforementioned duo: One of the reasons the John Lennon ritual is a bit embarrassing is that John Lennon was such a little shit, abusive, misogynistic, racist; contrary to the glamour he’s been given as an avatar of love. And at that, the Beatles, while significant, are pretty monumentally overrated in the big scheme of things. But at this point in the timeline, I reflect upon how much I love and find solace in the work of particular artists inspired by the Beatles (most significantly Grant Morrison and Julie Taymor), even if the position of the Beatles themselves in the canon is a bit grating at best, and counter-revolutionary at worst. And I think about a connection I didn’t think to make upon first read-through: What if Dane McGowan is intended as some kind of rebirth of John Lennon? A do-over. A chance to make the real person more like the avatar. Dane is kind of a little shit at the start of the story, and pointedly so. Nowhere near as horrific as some of the stories about John Lennon (he is still a kid at this point, after all), but certainly misogynistic and transphobic. He has to unlearn these patterns, and ultimately die as the old Dane, to progress as a magician, to become Invisible. This is one of the core arcs of the series overall. A child of poverty and neglect who becomes a Buddha. Through, I would argue, something quite similar to vanguardism. The melancholy with which the series reflects upon the various missed opportunities for a more liberatory history is countered by a bright, powerful, fearless joy that in moments is utterly convincing: time travel is possible, those lost histories can be reborn. Those alternate universes still exist in latent form, and can be brought to bear upon the present, can be made to shape Reality. Fitting then, that the issue also opens with a reflection on unity and division within the Left, Dane’s teacher explains: “We’re going to be looking at the ways in which the early links between communist theory and other radical political movements were *severed* following the revolution.” As a Marxist-Leninist myself, I may have a different perspective on that severance than some of my anarchists friends, but I think we’d agree that the Left is in many ways lesser for it. I think the USSR was vitally necessary for global liberation, and the world would be a hell of a lot worse off without it, but that doesn’t mean that the different sides of the various schisms within the Left have nothing to learn from each other. Maybe it’s time to crack open that old Bread book after all. And it’s so interesting that a Kropotkin reference should play such a key role in this issue. I had just been looking him up earlier today after witnessing a Facebook argument between Marxists and anarchists where both sides were accusing each other of not being sufficiently materialistic. And Marxism has materially *worked*. But there is always more material to be found in our failed attempts, its potential coiled tight and ready be let loose on the world. We should be realistic about our current dialectic, but it is possible, through science and magic, to travel to worlds outside it. And to bring something back. I want to conclude with a reflection on a failed effort of mine. For a long time, when I was still a practicing Buddhist, I had planned on writing and directing an ongoing film series called American Kensho. Only the first one was ever completed. I have been planning for a while on finally making a link to it public, with a message to collaborators and crowdfunding patrons about how we might reward their patience on years-delayed rewards, given the radical change in direction of my life and practice. I’m not a Buddhist anymore, though I know that path works very well for countless people around the world. And some of them may even be able to render it compatible with witchcraft. But I could not, and the Devil won out in the end. As such, the ideology of the film is no longer exactly what I’d ascribe to. I’d no longer be interested in associating the Devil with the various markers of oppression the villains in this film obviously embody, nor would it be acceptable to have only the bad guys speak in tongues. But it’s still a film I’m very proud of, and there are seeds of what I would become within it. Apple seeds perhaps, because what’s making me post this film first here rather than in that more sober announcement is the character of Julia, and striking parallels to the introduction of Ragged Robin in The Invisibles. Julia (in a comic shop no less) similarly muses on apples and Eve. And just as one of my favorite scenes in the film involves Julia reading Tarot, we first meet Ragged Robin pulling the Moon card (in a setting I can’t help let remind me of several of the locations in our film). But the card is reversed. While Julia seems to deeply believe in the Tarot, uses it urgently, Ragged Robin is listless and “thinks it’s bullshit.” While Julia, “rather thinks Eve had it right,” Ragged Robin “isn’t going to fall for that one.” But she takes the apple anyway. And this would make King Mob, who offers the apple, the Devil. “Funny how things turn out, isn’t it?”

https://vimeo.com/cell23/manifestdestiny

#the invisibles #witchcraft #marxism #devil

8 notes · View notes

red-stocking · 7 years

Note

How do you come to terms with the fact that a lot of poor people hold racist views (due to lack of education, living in rural communities that act as echo chambers of the same opinions, etc) while maintaining class solidarity? I don't mean to make it sound like all poor people are racist (I'm pretty poor myself tbh) but I know that statistically speaking, many of them are. When I hear working class, I can't help but think trump voter sometimes...

This is an excellent question!! This is a question that deserves a lot of discussion (so yeah, this is an essay, sorry!), and one that some people on the left may answer differently than I am going to, so I encourage you to get several points of view. My experience is very US based. The US is the only industrialized country without a labor party, and with the red scare we have a very unique history when it comes to workers movements.First of all, lets go over what class solidarity means (and what it does not). Class solidarity I really do think can be summed up in the phrase “An injury to one is an injury to all”. Like, if there is one worker that is being exploited, then it is bad for everyone. If anyone among the class is being victimized, we all need to step in to defend them. This means that white workers need to come out and defend black men from violence by the police. It means that all male workers should strike in solidarity with their female coworkers when they learn there is a wage gap. And yes, it does also mean that immigrant workers should not cross picket lines….But class solidarity does NOT mean that immigrants are to blame for US citizens losing jobs, even if they do cross picket lines. Marxism comes with the understanding of the material circumstances that have lead to immigrant workers being in such a dire economic position- and that it is the capitalists who take advantage of that who are the ones to blame. Solidarity does NOT mean pushing aside the struggles that our black, women, gay, immigrant workers face in order to prioritize the struggles of the ‘less oppressed’.

So, yeah, even in theory class solidarity is something that is going to be very difficult to build. You try to imagine telling a Mexican immigrant mother of three that she should not take that job because ~class solidarity~. Like, no fucking way. In an ideal world, the union organizers would help her find another job, or get her connections that could help her find one. but lets be real.

I know what you mean though, when you say you think of Trump supporters. i was outside a homeless shelter, defending it from being shut down by the city, and the camera man (amateur, not from a news station) taking statements in support of the shelter confided that he was a trump supporter. He believed that when Trump said this one thing he was really supporting homeless people! (who even knows what that thing was trump never makes any damn sense)The lesson of this story is that yes, these people have racist bias because they could excuse every racist thing trump said, but that’s very different from voting for trump FOR his racist ideas first and foremost. Many people who voted for trump did so because of party loyalty, or because nothing about their situation had changed with a democrat in office, or because they saw Clinton as the embodiment of Wall Street (which she is) and everything that was going to lead them to unemployment. This is how having two capitalist parties screws over everyone. Lesser evil-ism eventually leads to more evil.When it comes to specifically with dealing with racist bias among white working class people, from an organizational standpoint it all comes down to how you decide you want to use your resources, time, and energy. Lots of leftist groups focus in urban areas- where racism is less of a problem than it is in rural areas, because of the constant interaction between white, black, latino people in their day-to-day jobs. When a black guy agrees to pick up your shift so you can go to your kid’s birthday party, no doubt you’re probs not gonna be as antagonistic to black people in general. Also, a lot of leftist groups are focusing more and more on the youth, the FUTURE OF SOCIETY! They are much more receptive to socialism, class unity, and well- less racist. Like, yes, there are polls that show youth still have a lot of racial bias, but most of that is kept close to the chest in today’s urban youth and you can’t deny things have changed in the past 50 years. It is largely the youth that spear-heads revolutionary movements- the average age of the Bolshevik party in its early years was 19!!! The rest of the population- whether they would agree or not- WILL follow them, even if they started out with racist beliefs.In any case, like I said, a leftist organization has to choose where it is going to spend efforts to recruit new members. At this stage in the US, these are not going to be people who are way out in rural areas who think mexicans are stealing all the jobs. First, we dont have the resources to go out to the boonies anyway, let alone for someone who thinks we should attack people of color. The workers who have really deep-seated racist beliefs are not ones that we want to spend time and energy on, at least in this phase.Now, there may be exceptions- if someone is otherwise very left-leaning, is an involved union member, and generally agrees with a lot of our other ideas, we may set aside time to have discussions on race, the history of the oppression of black people, discussions on imperialism and immigration, and hopefully we can change their mind on some issues. As an individual who may confront certain other racist workers, I advise trying to facilitate a discussion on one of these topics. Give them room to express where they are coming from, try and find out why they think the way they think. Like, where did they hear that a Mexican might steal their job? Have you seen or heard about an example of this? Try to be patient with them. Maybe give examples of a Mexican you know, tell a bit of their story, and find things that they have in common. You will see a lot of the vehement racism trickle away when they realize someone is actually listening to them and their experiences. This is not an easy or quick process, it will NOT be an easy discussion, and you should only try it if you are willing to put in that time and energy, and if they seem like they can actually be won over with discussion alone. This is why leftist groups often leave it to the wayside, to confront at a later date. If you encounter antagonizers that simply pose racist ‘gotchya’ questions to try and make your ideas seem wrong, it might be helpful to go over some quick elevator talk answers so you can respond quickly and show anyone else listening that you will defend people of color. That is kind of a separate issue though, i think, than what you’re referring to.

Later on, workers with racist attitudes will be brought into the fold- they will come willingly and their minds will change by the example we lead. It is capitalism that fuels the fires of these divisions between the races. When capitalism is threatened, when they are weak, they will not be able to keep pouring out that fuel onto us, those divisions will start to crumble. During a strike, or a demonstration, these workers will share the same ideas, and that experience will do most of the work with regards to chipping away at racist bias.

For example, the national railroad strike in the US in 1877 largely breached race lines, capitalists had to go super heavy after that with racist propaganda to prevent it from growing or happening again. In St. Louis, MO, a place where racial divisions between black and white people were never anything but fucking Intense, the workers really did unite and briefly seize control of the city’s imports and exports. They were betrayed by a Klan member working for the capitalists. When there is a concrete struggle, throughout history it has been shown that workers will come together to fight a class war. Eventually, those with heavy racial bias will come over to our side- they are already learning that the capitalists of either party in the US do not have their best interests in mind.

But only when you have a strong workers’ party and infrastructure can you bring those in. My advice is to focus on expressing solidarity with other oppressed groups, develop some go-to responses for a few popular racist statements, show by your actions, rather than your words, that you stand for all workers. Sorry this was such an incredibly long answer, I hope this helps! please feel like you can ask follow up questions too, you or anyone else.

#THIS IS SO FUCKING LONG IM SORRY #marxism #class solidarity #wow i love asks like this #this is an amazing question

3 notes · View notes