#because we cannot accept societal overthrow | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

serpenteve · 3 years

Text

self-empowerment in the grisha trilogy

There's this weird undercurrent of victim-blaming and acceptance of a shitty status quo that pervades the original Grisha trilogy. We're told that "power corrupts" and seeking it out is evil, but given the wider context of the Grisha being persecuted, the non-existent evidence for Alina's "corruption" via the amplifiers, and the way the story repeatedly punishes her and other victims for seeking more agency, self-determination, and self-empowerment, there are some uncomfortable implications.

What's evil is not the systemic and historic persecution of a marginalized group but the audacity of such a minority to ask for better treatment. What's evil is not Alina hurting herself by repressing her powers and putting up with a man who clearly resents them but her audacity to embrace her power completely and consider other love interests who like her power. What's evil is not a King abusing his power to repeatedly terrorize Genya but Genya's audacity to plot revenge against him. What's evil is not a member of the monarchy swooping in to restore the "order" that clearly benefitted him but the audacity of the Darkling to overthrow the powers that be.

Self-empowerment is evil. What is "good", "moral", and "just" is accepting your lot in life, being quietly obedient to the whims of society and the universe, and never daring to ask for better.

Grisha Liberation as Evil

Lots of readers have articulated the bizarre moral landscape of the trilogy better than I have so I'll just say that if your primary moral message is "power is bad", perhaps giving that message to a young woman who is now part of a marginalized group isn't the greatest idea. It's not the monarchy that gets dealt this message about the evils of power (Nikolai is lovingly placed on the throne as the "rightful king"), but the Grisha who get punished for asking for better.

Grisha cannot live anywhere other than Ravka for fear of being burned as witches or sold as slaves or tortured. The Second Army is their only refuge so is it really all that "evil" that they would dream of living normal lives? Where they are not merely exploited for imperial war games? Where their very existence is carefully balanced on the tightrope of exploitability vs threat. The Grisha cannot ask for better and they certainly cannot call out the corruption and evil of the monarchy.

The people who do ask for better (the Darkling and the Grisha that sided with him) are demonized and must go into hiding to avoid execution and sell their lives as slaves in Kerch after the civil war. Meanwhile, the upholders of the status quo (the monarchy) continue as planned and the social role that the Grisha have played in Ravka (as slightly more valuable canon fodder in the Second Army) also continue with the Grisha triumvirate. The only "evil" appears to be the fact that the Grisha were drafted without choice and some apparent snobbery between the Corpoalki.

Alina's Agency as Evil

The story repeatedly punishes Alina for employing her own agency in the story. She barely makes any decisions for herself, being carried along the plot by either side characters or the author. And when she does make decisions, she gets unfairly characterized as being "corrupted", "greedy", or "power-hungry" despite very little evidence of it in the text.

Advocating for yourself and empowering yourself is evil. What's "good" is running away, hiding, hurting yourself via power suppression, or killing yourself. The "good" characters in the story are the ones who don't want Alina to have power (Mal) or want Alina to hide her powers (Baghra) or want to use her powers in a muggle-friendly way (Nikolai).

In Shadow & Bone, Alina asks Mal to kill her if she gets captured by the Darkling. In Siege & Storm, she nearly dies trying to kill both herself and the Darkling. In Ruin & Rising, Baghra kills herself to distract her son. These are all framed as "good" and "noble" actions.

Even side characters get infected with this rhetoric. Genya takes her fate into her own hands when she chooses to take revenge on the King. But this is framed as being "evil" and "corrupted" because she takes the Darkling's side instead of Alina's. When she returns to Alina, she realizes the "err of her ways", that she has been following an evil man, and she is happy instead of hand the reins over to a prince who sends his offending father on a cushy vacation and makes Genya stand trial for murder.

Alina's Power as Evil

On the other hand, the character that encourages her, mentors her, and likes her because of her power is the villain. The character that wants to empower Alina by giving her three of the greatest amplifiers ever made also wants to exploit her for his own gain. It is still curious to me that the form that Morozova's amplifiers take are that of slavery: a collar and fetters. Visually, this indicates that whoever wears the amplifiers will be a slave to someone else. But in practicality, all they do is give the magic-user god-like powers. It was the writer's choice to manifest these empowering artifacts with disempowering imagery. It is a microcosm of the trilogy unsettling relationship between victims and power.

In contrast, Mal makes many decisions for Alina and she obediently follows (Mal decides they will hunt the stag, Mal decides where they will travel next, Mal decides they will leave Ravka). When Alina does start making her own decisions (Alina decides to go back to the Little Palace, Alina decides to rebuild the Second Army, Alina decides to go after the third amplifier) she gets punished by the plot and characterized as being corrupted by the evil amplifiers. She is "evil" for standing up against people slandering her. She is "evil" for talking back to Baghra. She is "evil" for wanting something different from Mal. In turn, Mal lashes out at her for not being the weak dependent girl she was.

When Alina uses her powers, she becomes more beautiful. But this makes her vain. Mal liked her better when she was suppressing her powers, blind to her pain and fatigue. The other character that suppresses her powers (Baghra) is framed as moral and uncorrupted.

Alina is "evil" for not listening to her "moral" boyfriend and being "selfish" for doing what she must to defeat the Darkling. At the end of the trilogy, Alina is excised of her evil (both the amplifiers and her summoning) and she is paired with the man who warned her of the evils of power. She is made to reject Nikolai's proposal because the "moral" decision is to accept one's lot in life (an anonymous orphan at Keramzin).

Self-Empowerment as Merzost (Abomination)

Advocating for yourself not only breaks societal laws, but cosmic laws of the universe. The Small Science accepts what is already there ("We do not conjure from nothing", "Like calls to like") but merzost asks the universe for more and there are limits to asking the world for more, for asking the universe for better. Dare you even ask it, dare you even attempt it, there will be consequences---a failed coup, the Shadow Fold, the universe taking your powers away from you.

Specifically, victims cannot ask for better. The Darkling cannot ask for more from society. Genya cannot ask for better from the monarchy. Alina cannot ask for better from Mal. To be "good", you either accept your lot or you kill yourself because self-destruction is better than self-empowerment.

Like the saints, you must suffer to be considered worthy.

#sab meta #shadow and bone #darklina #anti leigh bardugo #grisha discourse #anti mal #cw: abuse #ok this was a bit of a rambling mess but i just needed to get this out there #sab salt #cw: victim blaming #viv metas

353 notes · View notes

flickeringart · 3 years

Text

Neptune in aspect with Mars

(Read my post about Sun and Moon aspecting Neptune and Mercury and Venus aspecting Neptune)

These planets aspecting each other makes for a curious connection, because in a sense, they represent opposing principles; Mars represents the personal drive and the ability to spring to action, the force that works to impose one’s independent will on the world – Neptune represents the inner urge for emotional unity and the religious/spiritual experience of being merged with the source of life. When these planets are in aspect in the natal chart, the personal ability to carry out one’s will is inextricably linked to redemptive longings. Simply put, Mars-Neptune individuals will put their energy into fulfilling the ego ideal, the perfection of potential that existed before the personality began to form. The personality cannot assert itself in a way that would crush the dream of perfection. Neptune is the dream of purity, the undifferentiated beauty of never having left the garden of Eden. Mars on the other hand is the agent of independence and self-motivated action – he has the purpose of fighting for the individual self which is antithetical to the Neptunian principle of surrender. While the Moon and Venus are quite social; the Moon represents nurturing and care-taking of needs, Venus represents the ability to be loving, affectionate and gracious; Mars is selfish and to a certain extent anti-social – most definitely anti-Eden and its eternal bliss. Subsequently, Neptune paired with Venus or the Moon is a little less of an obvious conflict than Neptune paired with Mars.

The conjunction of Neptune-Mars might cause considerable frustration and unconscious manipulation, because one cannot assert oneself, which is to declare separation, without feeling a deep sense of guilt and shame. It’s a little bit like the Bible story of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit and immediately becomes aware of sin. This is certainly not an easy phenomenon to deal with. The impulse to avoid accountability for one’s actions can be overwhelming, even if the consequences are perceived to be good. There can be a tremendously inflated sense of righteousness accompanying every move the individual takes because deep down there’s the feeling that one has committed a terrible trespass, that one will be unable to atone for. While the softer aspects, the trine and the sextile, more easily lend themselves to genuine selfless acts and natural inclination to fight on behalf of every bleeding heart and soul in the world through acts of sympathy and kindness, the conjunction usually brings more troubles. There can be an overwhelming feeling of having to do certain things because one cannot stand the idea of being separate from other people. One finds it easy to identify as the martyr or victim, unwilling to take radical responsibility for one’s actions – or if one does it’s in order to self-sacrifice. Often the individual will adopt any ideology that promotes the mass before the individual – often socialism or marxism fits the bill. Neptune is symbolic of undifferentiated reality, blurred edges and passive surrender. It’s not a planet that promotes autonomy and individuation. Not uncommonly, decisions and actions are referred to as byproducts of societal or larger-scale units that have little to do with the poor self. These individuals are usually profoundly dissatisfied with the ways of society because on some level they believe that individual autonomy and agency is a sin – and that the only way to redeem oneself and humanity is through some kind of chaotic dissolution of difference. This urge is seldom conscious, but it is there none the less. Vladimir Lenin had this conjunction and he wanted to revolutionize society to fit the marxist ideology, but really what this means is to overthrow the upper class – to punish those that seem to revel in the delights of Eden, to get rid of the internal shame of being excluded from paradise.

It seems like Neptune-Mars shows up in individuals with the capacity to move a crowd, perhaps most importantly, with the capacity to be the front figure and leader of the masses. Vladimir Lenin certainly affected the masses and so did Napoleon I with the same conjunction. Hassan II of Morocco, known to be one of the most severe rulers widely accused of authoritarian practices and abuses of civil rights had this conjunction as well. These examples are far removed from Neptune’s reputation for denoting empathy, soft-heartedness and sensitivity. However, it might be precisely because of the refusal to abandon the hope of the sweet sweet nectar of paradise that can only truly be accessed in a state of pre-birth if even then, that the outrage is so total. Most children scream when they are born, and this is probably the kind of terrible rage caused by separation that lingers in these people. The sign the conjunction falls in will certainly affect the expression the energies filter through – Lenin had the conjunction in Aries, Hassan had it in Leo and Napoleon had it in Virgo. Virgo is a much more analytical and practical sign than the prideful fire signs of Aries and Leo – consequently Napoleon is famous for his fine skill for method and strategy in war. On his Wikipedia page, it states that Napoleon had a hypnotic effect on people and could bend the strongest leaders to his will in one-on-one conversations. Hypnosis is a marked Neptunian phenomenon. What happens is that the person is able to gently infiltrate the other person’s will – which is quite extraordinary. If someone is receptive and open enough to suggestion, the opportunity and the invitation is there to mold the other through unconscious communion. Since there’s no obvious forcing taking place under hypnosis, the hypnotized person must cooperate on some level – yet it’s not a conscious cooperation which is why the whole phenomena of hypnosis is so unnerving. In general, people would like to think that they are in complete control of themselves, but it’s more of a fancy fantasy rather than an actual reality. We don’t know what we are receptive to and Neptune reminds us of this. He seeps through the most tightly shut doors.

(Buy products with my art)

My own family is quite Neptune dominated and what often happens is that I feel subtly manipulated, yet the manipulation is never fully conscious on the part of the individuals so it becomes difficult to confront them. The times I have, they either take offense or seem genuinely perplexed. It is impossible to confront Neptune, because he works underneath the surface, below the threshold of consciousness. When confronted these types are deeply disturbed that they could’ve imposed something on someone – they either go into a introspective mood, become appalled or proclaim their love and sympathy in an attempt to restore union. My mother has Mars in the 12th house and although it’s not aspecting Neptune, Mars is placed in the house pertaining to this planet and she has Neptune in her 1st house. She never gets angry but people around her certainly do. She is eternally understanding of everyone else’s anger and has acceptance for it, yet she doesn’t respond to any of it on a personal level. She apologizes every time something upsets her. She is never aggressive, yet she does instill subtle guilt through little cues and hints every now and then because it is a sin to have a will that does not align with the crowd that one finds oneself in. Sometimes, when things aren’t the way she wants to see them she doesn’t see them. She presumes that on the most basic level, all people want the same thing, which is probably true on a “soul level”, but sometimes it doesn’t translate to everyday matters. People’s personalities contradict each other and this is no trivial matter – people can and do clash because of individual differences and it can be detrimental to one or all of the individuals involved. However, Neptune doesn’t like to see a clash as a clash – that would be to treat it as a definite fact, which would contradict the fluidity of oceanic union. The frustratingly passive statement “It’s everyone’s fault” or “It’s everyone’s responsibility” is the attempt to not deal with cause and effect while establishing the fact that some abstract common force is always at work. This is neither true nor false but this attitude conveniently keeps everyone “unified” and dependent upon each other.

Admittedly I went with the most gruesome examples when writing about the conjunction, but it goes without saying that not all people with this aspect is going to be a Lenin type – Ryan Gosling, Avril Lavinge and Timothé Chalamet all have this conjunction and they’re all quite popular entertainers in their own ways – they move the masses on some level. Ryan Gosling has a Pisces Rising so his chart ruler is Neptune which makes it particularly strong. He gives off that pure hearted watery eyed look that is extremely mesmerizing to the public – he portrays himself as sweet and compassionate, he seems to have a marked innocence and purity to his outward projected identity. Avril Lavinge has her Sun-Mercury in the 12th house squaring her Neptune-Mars conjunction in the 3rd. She has more of an edge to her personality with a lot of planets in Scorpio but she certainly comes off as a chaotic, intense and absent-minded creative which I would attribute more to Neptune. Her strong rebellious “I don’t care” statements through her music resonates with a lot of people, but so does her more sentimental songs. Timothe´ Chalamet has his Moon in Pisces sextile Mars-Mercury-Neptune and he is quite the stereotypical Neptunian boy – he looks delicate, introspective, dreamy and androgynous, more like an ethereal creature than an earth-bound human. With the conjunction in the 5th house there’s no wonder that he can act and express himself in a very fluid way. Acting and performing musically are the specialities of the Neptune, and if enough components in the chart support the endeavor one might just become famous. The trine and sextile aspect also lend themselves well to these kind of occupations. These people can effectively gain the sympathy of the public because people recognize something of themselves – something pure and unborn, a mutual feeling.

A good example of someone with the trine aspect between Neptune and Mars is Russel Brand. He is quite the Neptunian with an angular 10th house Neptune opposing his Sun and trining his Jupiter-Mars-Moon planets in Aries. Even though he certainly has the fire and energy of an Aries Mars that can sometimes be a bit too much for people he is not only fighting for himself he is fighting for all people. In many ways he’s embodying universal hope and rage. He is fiery but also very receptive and deeply concerned with not causing any damage or hurt despite his characteristic blunt and direct approach. He has a marked religious/spiritual inclination, which is usually the case with a strong Neptune in the chart. In his early years the longing for Eden was sought through drugs, alcohol and fame, while it has now shifted to a more healthy inner exploration and focus on being of service to people. The soft aspects between Neptune and Mars-Moon-Jupiter planets in his chart helps him to cope with the disturbing Sun-Neptune opposition. In recent interviews, he admits that he still feels the pull of fame and success, yet he knows that if he goes down that path he will lose himself (his Sun) and will ultimately end up disillusioned and dissatisfied. I have the trine in my own chart, and I float aimlessly through life with the notion that things will work out and my actions will come to me, because I can’t plan or control anything. I have learnt that I have to trust the way things unfold, because I have a clear sense that my forced actions won’t lead me anywhere except to frustration and a sense of isolation. The sextile aspect seems to function a little bit more as an asset and a skill for the person to use. Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande all have this aspect and they can effectively use their receptivity to the masses and people in general to inform their actions.

Now to the harder aspects. Britney Spears is a good example of the dilemmas created by the Neptune-Mars square. Her Neptune squares Mars in the 12th house, the house belonging to Neptune and Pisces. Because of mental instability in her twenties she was put under a conservatorship which is essentially the equivalent of giving up personal control of one’s personal matters in order for an outside source to manage them until one gains some foothold. Mars is one of the prime factors of personal ambition and autonomy, but when it’s in the 12th it is given up – it is essentially a slave to the undifferentiated realm and subjected all the forces of the unconscious. A 12th house Mars in itself doesn’t have to produce the mess that Britney found herself in, but with it squaring Neptune, Mars is going to get swamped, mislead, confused, manipulated and subtly coerced because of the need for fusion, into doing things that will pull her further away from independent action. Another good example is Kylie Jenner. She has Neptune in her 1st house squaring Mars on the MC. She is publicly known for being part of the Kardashian-Jenner family, but she’s also gained attention because she skillfully created her own brand Kylie Cosmetics and became very “successful” (as in earning a lot of money) due to her own independent action and initiative. However, Neptune is anti-independence – and curiously enough there’s always some dishonesty involved when Neptune makes any hard aspects in the chart. She was declared the youngest self-made billionaire by Forbes in 2019, but, she has later been accused of forging tax documents to appear to be a billionaire. Neptune simply can’t let her be all that her Mars wants to be – a successful business woman with a clean record. Self-sabotage is almost always the case, however minor with this aspect, because Neptune refuses Mars’ need to be potent in the world.

The opposition creates a different dynamic although the dilemma is similar to the square. The person can be called to completely abandon an independent will to take action in favor of the glamour and blissful archetypal experience, not unlike the example of Russel Brand and his indulgence in fame and crowd-pleasing at the expense of his sense of self. The difference between having Sun opposing Neptune and Mars opposing Neptune is that in the first instance one is prone to give up a sense of self in favor of Neptune’s waters, while in the second, one feels the urge to give up the ability to direct one’s own life in order to merge with life around oneself. The opposition usually lends itself to extremism because the two polarities, in this case Mars and Neptune, can’t coexist. Queen Elizabeth II has this aspect, Mars-Jupiter in the 1st opposing Neptune in the 7th. She is on the one hand seen as an archetypal figure, immortal and divine and blissfully kept out of the real world in order to serve as a symbol and a fairytale for people to feel spiritually connected to. She’s non-aggressive, forgiving and compassionate, transcendent of the fuss of the world yet overseeing it all with care. She is essentially functioning to satisfy the religious/spiritual instinct of the masses, although it’s certainly done at the expense of her own selfish wants and needs. Luckily for her, her Mars drive is quite global and collective in nature considering that it falls in Aquarius and is conjunct Jupiter – it keeps her objective and less personal in her martial assertion. However, I’m sure she struggles with the contradiction between her own will and her role as an immortal unreality that would seem to activate itself in the interaction with other people (Neptune in the 7th). Edward Snowden also has this opposition falling in the same houses. His Mars-Sun conjunction opposes Neptune, and he famously leaked information about mass surveillance programs to the press. Neptune has everything to do with leaks and the dissolution of boundaries. He’s both been called a hero a traitor – which perfectly fits with the contradiction that the opposition represents. He certainly made a personal sacrifice by revealing the things he did so he is perfectly shouldering the martyr cape. In any case he did what he did for the public with the concern of other people in mind (Neptune 7th house) he took a non-selfish stance for the sake of a higher ideal and ethical conviction. Both Queen Elizabeth and Edward Snowden are quite extreme in their Neptunian capacity and has taken on fates of mythic magnitude.

137 notes · View notes

feuilletoniste · 3 years

Text

bad post review, happiest season edition

First of all I’m almost 100% sure that this person is the scammer formerly known as roofbeams aka Seph Nixon son of Cynthia Nixon aka the person who pretended to be working class for [period of time I don’t actually remember] to garner sympathy while actually being incredibly wealthy, so like, keep that in mind when reading this bullshit take.

So the thing is, I completely understand the desire to exclude queer people from groups such as “the 1%” or “cops” or “dictators” or “military” or whatever the fuck it is this time, but that’s not how it works. A butch lesbian who is also a police officer is still a butch lesbian even if you don’t ideologically agree with her career choice -- I don’t either, but I’m not going to invalidate her identity, because I’m not a fucking asshole.

Anyway, I personally didn’t find Happiest Season very enjoyable, mostly because it’s just not my usual taste, which is fine. I think it’s a very important moment, that there’s a cheesy middle-class Christmas romcom of the Hallmark style... but about lesbians. Seriously, if you look at this fact -- divorced from the opinion of the content of the film itself -- and think it’s NOT a win, I don’t think we agree fundamentally on how homophobia works. It’s okay to celebrate positives (such as getting a cheesy Christmas romcom starring queer women) while also acknowledging that those positives exist in a deeply flawed and prejudiced and oppressive society. It’s the same philosophy as the Kamala Harris discussion: it’s possible to acknowledge that the fact Kamala Harris, a Jamaican-Indian-American woman, is the next Vice President of the US, is a monumental victory in terms of diversity and representation of marginalized and minority communities... while also understanding that this victory takes place in a society designed and utilized to harm marginalized and minority groups, and someone like Kamala Harris could use her power for ill in the same way heterosexual cisgender white men could. I seriously cannot underestimate the value of nuance in conversations such as these. Unless you are actively going to overthrow the current political and economic international system, overturning centuries of societal growth and progress, in favor of replacing it with some post-work Communist utopia (lol), within the time frame of, oh, a month and a half... then it’s okay to be happy that the election of Kamala Harris is progress for women, African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Jamaican-Americans, those from immigrant families, etc., etc. You are capable of having more than one thought in your brain at once, I hope.

But I digress.

In direct response to this post: yes, Seph, there is in fact "room" for queer people in, as you call it, "the Reaganite upper class WASP nuclear family" (I think you'd know, wouldn't you?). The Birdcage is a wonderful film that addressed how, at the time it was made, queer people and straight people led fundamentally different lives with fundamentally different experiences, and cultural crossovers failed when there was no attempt at mutual understanding. While certain parts of The Birdcage are comedic, the underlying theme speaks more to the chasm between those two groups. The connection fails because there's not an effort to understand each other.

Also, I don't think the basic premise of the movie was intended to be akin to The Birdcage, to be honest. I think it was a cute, cheesy, kind of stupid holiday romcom about a more conservative family coming to accept their lesbian daughter and her female partner, wrapped up in a whole "love who you are" sort of message. It's kind of dumb, it's cliche, it's cheesy. But, pray tell, how many other movies like it can you name? None? Right. That's the point.

Look. I didn't think it was a groundbreaking cinematic experience either. It was cute, sure. It was something that made me cringe at the idea of having to pretend to be straight, sure. If I were in that situation, I would've dumped my partner were they to tell me we had to be closeted, but that's just me. It's a cute, sort of bland, overall mainstream queer holiday romcom, WHICH IS THE POINT. It doesn't have to be some revolutionary upheaval destroying the boundaries of societal expectations and mores. It's not that deep.

Also, no one was stopping you from laughing at them. I wish someone had stopped you from making this post, though.

#yikes #It's Not That Deep dot MP3 #mine #queer

10 notes · View notes

kissmeinkardasi · 6 years

Text

A brief introduction to Cardassian/Hebitian Psychology

Cardassian/Hebitian Psychology The sensitive Cardassian brain Disclaimer: The way the Cardassian psyche functions cannot constructively be compared to that of a human, but common terminology cannot be avoided. Memory Processing and Societal patterns As described in A Stitch in Time, the Cardassian memory differs from human memory in that all memories are relevant, active and influencial at all times. Now, according to Garak it functions in a way that would drive a human being to dysfunction, to which we have to annote two points of criticism: For one Garak is not a psychologist, and for two, from what we see of the functionality of Cardassian society, it is feasable to say that Cardassians actually are impaired by the way their memories function. As we know, a lot of Cardassian culture and society revolves around repetetive patterns and consequent ritual. Societal patterns are often a reflection of the mindset of the people of said society, and in the case of the Cardassians, the state is striving for a balance between development and security, continuity. The repetitiveness of Cardassian literature and life-/family patterns can be interpreted as a way to ease the processing of the Cardassian brain in regards to memory functions and a largely reptilian mindset. In order to decrease the stress it takes to analyze separate memories and separate events, these memories and events are streamlined, so to induce calm and avoid overwhelming the individual. As we know, trials always follow the same pattern, with sentences decided ahead of the trial – this is very clearly a means to show the public that security and justice reign supreme, but is also a means to show this without causing trauma and discomfort, discomfort being found in deviances from what is to be considered orderly, consequent and normal. A deviance in trial rituals might be easily forgotten by a human population, but would be forever ingrained, and disturbing, to a Cardassian, who will forever walk around feeling as though he has a grain of stone in his shoe. Nobody likes discomfort, and Cardassians especially are sensitive to discomfort, because they get discomfortable so easily. They themselves interpret this as a sign that they are superior and, as a result, unfit for activities such as physical labor (which is reserved for aliens and criminals to the state). Because of this tendency, it would be logical to assume that Cardassians are indeed drawn towards totalitarian regimes, as they provide them with a stress-free environment in which they don’t have to deal with chaos as much as they otherwise would. That does not mean they are incapable of undergoing change of their previous values and skills, but it means that it takes more effort for a Cardassian to do so than it would for a human. Leadership, followship Because of their bottomline anxious tendencies, Cardassians are drawn to strong leadership, clear rules and black-and-white reasoning. They see these as superior structures, due to their difficulties, and fear of, processing anything more multifacetted. As a general populace, Cardassians are submissive and make very poor leaders (arguably, females make better leaders due to a deeper psychological insight – during the times when the Oralian Way was more dominant and parts of the Cardassian people were referred to as Hebitians, females typically sported leadership roles, which is why it’s rare for a male Cardassian to be allowed to be a religious leader, most of them are simply unfit). Due to the massively submissive populace, the leadership characters who do get in charge have a tendency to be ruthless, calculating and abusive, and get their positions either because they were born into a class that is inherently used to leadership and therefore unprepared to live as normal citizens (such as Skrain Dukat), or because they are greedy and prone to climb the social ladders by all means necessary. Because these personality types rarely posess a functional theory of mind, they end up treating their underlings like the threat they would themselves be to their own position. These personality types also tend to have a greater-than-average scoring in tendencies towards paranoia, which furthers abusive behavior due to distrust. And because the general populace is submissive, it is unlikely for someone not harbouring those traits (as in being very trusting that things are as they should be, and why would you question it) to climb to such a position. These kind of personality types usually end up as second in command (such as Corat Damar). Do Cardassians have a Paracortex? There are strong indications in A Stitch in Time and the series (the episode where Skrain Dukat shields his mind to avoid mind melding with the Vulcan maquis) that points towards certain parts of the Cardassian populace (in particularly those who evolved largely from the original Hebitian half of Prime’s inhabitance) have empathic abilities, possibly also tuned in with the magnetic field. I theorize therefore, that the Cardassian brain has the potential for empathic abilities, and something akin to a paracortex. This might be one of the many reasons why they are so protective of their medical secrets, and it is not something the general civilian would know. It is very likely that most individuals harboring these traits (see Elim Garak) are scouted and recruited by the Obsidian Order at a young age, sponsored into the Bamarren Institute by age ten by decree of the Order. What better way to both neutralize a threat to order and to utilize natural gifts, than to hone them into your own personal weapon? The Hebitian religion the Oralian Way speaks of some sort of soul, almost like a hivemind of sorts, and it can be assumed that the reason the militaristic Cardassians managed to eventually overthrow the ecologically self-sufficient Hebitians, was because of the tie between empathic ability and the sensitivity to the magnetic field. Whether the Cardassians induced a shift in the magnetic field, or if it happened naturally, is impossible to say, but one can guess. The Hebitians were eventually an easy target, most possibly due to the mental shock – hence why the empathic abilities would remain secret to the general Cardassian populace, as it poses a not so insignificant threat to the entirety of their specie. Curiosity One could easily mistake their sensitivity to change as an absence of curiosity – however this is not reflective of the ingenious Cardassian brain, which is easily intellectually understimulated. In particular women have a greater affinity for curiosity and invention, as they are more psychologically durable than their male counterparts. In contrast, militaristic males are polar opposite, and require rigid, conservative patterns to stay mentally healthy (see Skrain Dukat’s subsequent breakdown after things change too much for him to handle it). It is very likely that Cardassians could become more psychologically durable if they just got the right mental training as young (not entirely unlike the Vulcan’s need for meditative self insight and logical approach). But it doesn’t serve the Union to strengthen the citizens in this way, because it could lead to individualism, chaos and a loss of power for the leadership (it is mostly the last one that’s the real reason). With clear guidance and influence from cultures such as the Vulcan culture, the Cardassians could likely bloom into a progressive society where both tradition can be preserved (as seen with Vulcans) and change can be embraced. Whether they would be willing to accept this help is another issue onto itself. Relationships and Family It is more likely than not that the Cardassian mind is not inherently monoromantic, and that there’s a psychological need for multiple partners. This is especially prevalent in individuals such as Skrain Dukat, but also evident in the cultural inclusion of so called Comfort Women (and Comfort Men, no doubt) who are not to be mistaken for prostitutes, as they serve more the role of a personal therapist and psychologist, to whom you can tell dangerous secrets that you cannot share with your wife (or husband) without endangering her (or him). As connections with Comfort Women and more or less courting and adoring your friends or superiors (see Corat Damar towards a very obvlivious and self absorbed Skrain Dukat) do not have an adverse impact on ones affection and love for ones significant other, it is feasable to draw the conclusions that Cardassians are in fact geared towards polyromantic constellations, and would fare much better if surrounded by a larger group of lovers with whom they can let down all their psychological shields. This act would furthermore provide the individual with a sense of security that would displace the need for an absolute protective state, which is why monoromantic relationships are forced by the Cardassian State. Connecting onto that, Family serves as a Cardassian’s circle of trusted ones. Not all families provide this very efficiently, and it is likely to assume that the higher ranking the family name, the more adverse the interpersonal relationships. But without family on Cardassia, you have no one, and that kind of stress might ultimately lead to death-by-suicide. A Cardassian parent might seem unloving by an untrained eye, but all Cardassians harbor a deep instinct to protect those they believe are their biological young (see Skrain Dukat, and Enabran Tain). Sometimes, in order to protect that child, you must place a wedge between yourself and them, and sometimes a parents’ drive to protect their child become so strong that it’s ultimately going to shield the child from experiences of failure needed for personal growth, ultimately placing them in the mental state of a child or teenager, permanently so (see Elim Garak). Courting Qualities a Cardassian find to be attractive are largely based on their surrounding society and norms. With heavy emphasis on survivalism, skills valued are skills that predict a long and durable life. Therefore, it doesn’t matter to a Cardassian if their love interest is into illegal or questionable things, as long as he or she is an apt liar who can protect their own hide. Another thing worth to note is that a Cardassians only understand what they understand, and are not prone to courting those who have skillsets or careers too dissimilar from their own. Intelligence is perceived as a good survival skill, but everyone’s definition of intelligence differs, especially in regards to personal expertise (example: Miles O’Brien and the Cardassian scientist, Ulani Belor, having a cultural clash due to their common intelligence and skillsets). Cardassians will argue and debate only with people they trust or consider harmless. As such, arguments and intellectual debate are part of courting not as a display of strength, but as a display of common vulnerability. Easing into this stage of courting often takes a long amount of time – where you begin admirant of the other’s skills, and gradually sink into a more conversational level, until both you and your love interest are ready for a full-on, passionate debate. Some people, such as Skrain Dukat, is notoriously bad at the finer points of argumentative courting, which is why he has a weakness for Bajorans – from his point of view, they skip all that flimsy-flamsy cold talk and go right to the business, which is convenient and rewarding to him, since he can easily interpret it as yet another piece of proof that he’s a positively irresistible partner. While most conscious points of attraction pertains to the modern Cardassian living in the contemporary world, it is worth to note that basic survival skills will always be a good card to have up your sleeve. To have an aptitude for sneaking undetected, is to be a highly desirable mate. To prove this skill, a Cardassian who is certain of the other’s interest, will prove him or herself by sneaking into their love interest’s home, often in the middle of the night, avoiding the attention of the entire family except for the love interest (example: Elim Garak “violating” Julian Bashir’s privacy). The ones with the finest of these skills will attempt to slip into the other’s bed and sleep, so that their love interest will wake up to their very obvious presence. Gender Yet another reason why Cardassians are protective of their medical details, is the high prevalence of infertility and intersexism. It can be assumed that this intersexism oftentimes is entirely naturally and intentionally present and is actually not as hugely due to pollution as originally speculated. It is highly likely that Cardassians carry a heritage featuring more genders than the traditional female/male subsets, but that the State would reduce the gender roles so to more easily fit a totalitarian agenda, rule enforcement and order. It is easier to maintain two genders than, say, six or eight. Reintroducing this concept to the Cardassian mind might either be more difficult, or more easy than one would assume, and it likely depends a great deal on whether that populace comes from a city-planet (like Prime) or a village planet (like Soukara), and the median age of the group. As a result of suppressed gender identities, there’s likely a large portion of Cardassians suffering from gender dysphoria. Without knowing what it is, it might be labeled as any number of other psychological states, and might additionally lead to undesirable-by-the-state behaviors. It is likely not uncommon for these individuals to get institutionalized based on other diagnoses.

#my headcanons #A brief introduction to Cardassian/Hebitian psychology #my personal fanon that I also use on the RP platform I'm on #I like to overanalyze things #I try to keep it close to canon

143 notes · View notes

shadowdragonlost-blog · 6 years

Text

This may seem political, but it is both a one-time thing, and just an info dump to do with as you will.

So unless if some politician is trying to ban Tumblr, politics will never be seen here on this blog; outside of this one moment.

Before I say anything else though, keep in mind that I do not identify with a party, and am actually a moderate, so if anything that I say here does not seem moderate; then that is a result of your views and environment. But here starts the list of a few things that few people know about the american political parties.

1. They are both run by white elites: as much as I do not have the names on-hand; both parties are run by white elites; so what does that mean? It means that at the end of the day all they’ve been doing is just playing at the emotions of the entire country to try and play at taking power from each other. Either party can follow any ideals at any time, and will do so to obtain power. That also means that solving your problems is not their primary objective, they only care about continuing to have members get elected and fill offices, problems being solved, and people learning to talk and compromise with each other would only solve all of the divisive issues and bring people together to a degree that manipulating emotions would become difficult since there would be less issues to “feel” about. This is also made worse in how they are always declaring an enemy, be it the other party or a specific group; which brings people further away from actually talking to and listening to each other; which only makes it easier for us to accept whatever the hell they tell us is right, when honestly a right answer may not even exist.

2. Some controversial information that tends to be overlooked, as of 2016; 7 of every 10 suicides has been a white male. Pretty strange right? It’s almost as if being the class that’s in power has stripped away certain rights and privileges that other classes have been given, such as being able to share their pains without being ridiculed, being able to act weak or vulnerable or ask for help. I will also state that a lot of these suicides occurred in the middle-class. Make of this information what you will, just know that many people tend to ignore how one class had its ability to actually express itself stripped-away and replaced with being taught to resort to violent tendencies as well. That is also why the fight for equality on all fronts is both necessary and difficult, it’s because when every other class is getting to obtain privileges and the ability to treat and share their own sufferings, one class that never actually was taught to accept those privileges, and was ridiculed for exercising them just finds itself losing some of the only privileges it had to a group of people that may seem whiny to them.

I am not saying to excuse any of their actions, I am just saying that there is more than what shows on the surface, and this piece of information could help to better unify us all. I should also state that for every male attempt at suicide; there are four female attempts. Which could be linked to what I said earlier; when a man is considering attempting suicide, or talks about it THEY WILL LIKELY FOLLOW THROUGH because THERE ARE FEW CULTURAL AND SOCIETAL OUTLETS THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO SHARE THEIR PAINS; whereas women are more-likely to have many people waiting with open arms to help them recover. And before you try to hate on this statement, keep in mind that until very recently; all a man got in response whenever they shared a pain, hardship, or fear was along the lines of “why don’t you grow some b$&@s you p$&sy?! You should just man up!”.

3. And now for some of the more right-leaning people. Did you know that completely removing firearms from selected areas would actually prevent gun-violence?! Because nobody has a gun?! Wow; who’d have thought, but seriously, our second amendament right exists purely for the protection of ourselves from our GOVERNMENT, and preaching that it will protect you from immigrants or criminals will only lead you to shooting somebody. Keep a gun if you plan on overthrowing a tyrannical government, not to shoot your creepy-looking neighbor. But for everyone else who wants to remove firearms altogether; that is why it is so difficult; is because the bill of rights does not exist to protect Americans from each-other, it is to protects Americans from the American government, so if you decide we should remove any of our rights as citizens, you better hope it wasn’t because a politician said we should because *blank*, it does not matter the reason; rights have to be removed because they are not needed, and so long as anyone has any fear for our government becoming tyrannical, it will become impossible to remove any amendment without a tragedy occurring (wait a minute, maybe that’s why after a shooting or an event like 9/11 the government cracks down on removing and abolishing our rights, because those are the only moments in which that can occur, and it’s not like we are getting those rights back are we?)

4. Terrorism isn’t actually that much of a problem for us in america, most attacks that happen in our country are done by our own citizens; from those on the far right and left ex-millitary (majorly the far-right though, but not by too much over the far left, like a few percent from the overall total), terrorists are not a big problem to specifically us, just our own citizens who get too emotionally wrapped-up in things.

5. Immigration; if not done legally, actually really sucks for american citizens. Why? Because without a social security number it is impossible to take action in america in a non-criminal way, even working a job is illegal from both an employee to an employment level. Why does this matter? Well for many reasons. It enables specific businesses to get illegal under-the-table labor where they can just have immigrants deported instead of being illegally punished, and we all still have to pay taxes, whereas any benefits granted to them (but more specifically their children) are benefits that they aren’t paying taxes for, and still cannot legally use here but those taxes are felt mostly by either the middle class (which is dying out fast) and the upper class. I am not saying that illegal immigrants are bad people, just that they enable some shady things and can potentially harm the middle-class.

6. The minimum wage is both a heaven and a hell because it enables the lower class to have more money, but also raises the amount of money required to live. It really saves everyone who is working a minimum wage job, but everyone who worked forever to earn a raise will almost never get another raise to make up for now working minimum wage again, and the prices of everything will eventually adjust to that new minimum wage. This effectively kills the middle class (keep in mind is made up of all of those people who are killing themselves), and renders any money that people have saved up to be valueless the more the minimum wage increases, leading the elderly to grip more-heavily onto their social security (which is currently what most of our nation’s debt and spending can be traced back to), and to save that money as well, removing it from the system, leading to another raise in the minimum wage, etc... but not all is lost. If you are in the upper-class; investment values tend to adjust to inflation so you are the only unaffected class; which will just increase the wage/wealth gap; as it has been doing today; placing most people ever closer to being either impoverished or wealthy, which will further create a political divide, which will separate our country more (just read the first piece of information in this list for that whole spiel)

7. I believe that at the end of the day, equality is all that matters to ensure a healthy and unified nation, but I also believe that abolishing the concepts of gender entirely is a means of doing so. I can be incorrect, so please do not rage all over the internet labeling me all of the mean and cruel titles that you could muster up and just read what I have to say first; you can disagree and fine; I’m not cruel; I will not force this belief on you or anyone, I will only explain why I believe this. I believe that in using genders to further identify or group ourselves; we are starting to divide ourselves into tinier, more identifiable groups. And as much as some of that may seem good, being able to be labeled is literally the only thing that is needed to make a group or person a target or enemy; why that matters? Say I start to dislike weaponized battle-toasters, and actively stand out against them and their rights and beliefs, then I become their enemy as well, if not my entire class or identification group. Why this matters? It will enable the both of us to dislike each other to the point in which we will actively avoid equality amongst each other. Identifying also enables people to enpower specific groups, and it enables each group to be given roles and privileges, like how men were made the majority power group, and how women were designated to stay out of work, but were also given the privilege of true emotional expression once they started to approach a more-equal level (not that they are equal today, there is always distance to cover), but men and women were the two gender groups of our society for a while, and as much as identifying to express oneself, or for any other means may help now with any problems; it can and will eventually become a tool to fight true equality amongst everyone because of how it can be assigned roles/other stuff that I’m too lazy to share too. I do not want a gender war, so I just believe that the existence of zero genders; where we are all just people may eventually help to solve some equality issues, not that I’m intelligent enough to know how to do that; I’m just some 18 year old homo sapien who just so happens to want a happy ending for as many people as possible.

8. Bonus!!! Did you know that Bisexual people are actually often misunderstood by straight, gay, and lesbian people, and that they are actually picked on by all three other groups. That is why bisexual rights movements are normally ignored is because they are either lumped under straight or gay rights, or are cast out of both entirely, and also because they are different and do not fit fully into any of the mainstream groups. I hope that this was just some rumor, but if the LGBTQ group has any ideas on removing the B, that shouldn’t happen, but that could always just be some silly rumor, so you can just ignore that tidbit. Also... how come sexuality has started to become a label much like genders have been? I wish we all could just let people be with the ones that they love, regardless of what their bodies resemble or contain.

There are plenty more things I can say, but unless if anyone has any questions or complains, I will forever halt anything political about this blog here. I am sorry.

1 note · View note

slackbastard · 6 years

Text

Antifa is liberalism, feminism is cancer, and I’m a monkey’s uncle

My first reaction on reading Marianne Garneau's essay 'Antifa is liberalism' (Ritual, April 11, 2018) was: lolwut. The second was to be reminded of Ward Churchill's essay 'Pacifism As Pathology': in particular, his being at pains to distinguish between, on the one hand, examining pacifism as pathology and, on the other, arguing in favour of the notion that pacifism is pathology. [1] On further reflection -- and leaving aside the fact that I think the weaknesses in Garneau's claims are reasonably apparent and that similar kinds of arguments have been made previously -- I thought I may as well write a more considered response. [2]

To begin with, it's obviously useful to examine the meaning both of antifa and of fascism. While 'fascism' is left undefined and largely unexamined, for Garneau 'antifa', as well as being a species of liberalism, is also a political strategy: 'direct physical and verbal confrontation with extreme right groups, in person and online'. [3] This strategy, they argue, has radical pretensions which 'ironically' places it at odds with liberalism (the strategy of direct confrontation with extreme right groups violates liberal principles of freedom of speech and assembly). Nonetheless, antifa is liberal(ism) in the sense that it's founded upon a liberal understanding of society as 'a collection of individuals' and -- glossing Hobbes, Locke and Rawls -- 'society is simply an amalgamation of the private preferences and behaviors of private citizens'. This liberal conception of society is opposed to one which 'looks at how society is structured, and to whose benefit' and takes 'stock of societal institutions and their functioning, to examine how this deploys relationships of power between different social groups'. This perspective, argues Garneau, is critical to understanding contemporary society, and is absent from the 'antifa' worldview. In summary, 'antifa is liberalism' because the underlying philosophical and political assumptions which govern its practice are liberal.

Is this an accurate description? Does antifa 'draw our attention away from systemic problems and towards individual behavior'? Does it individualise racism and fail to understand or to address its systemic nature? Does it devote too much attention to countering the Alt-Right on college campuses and 'outing' closeted fascists who occupy public office? Maybe; maybe not: it's difficult to know given that the author doesn't examine in any detail any particular anti-fascist group or project, or identify the liberal villain lurking at the heart of their praxis. By my reckoning, however, I don't think that the argument can be sustained, at least not if the handful of longer-term antifa projects in the US -- which list includes NYC Antifa, Rose City Antifa, and The TORCH Network -- are the object of scrutiny. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is the case, that the collectives which have assembled around these projects are: armed with a structural analysis of racism, fascism and white supremacy; committed to locating contemporary political developments within their social and historical contexts and, by doing so, relating fascism and the far-right to broader social structures; prepared to acknowledge the limitations of antifa as a revolutionary and liberatory praxis; nevertheless insistent on taking fascism seriously, and acting in order to contains its growth.

I would further suggest that understanding contemporary anti-fascism in the United States, North America and elsewhere requires some understanding of its history. [4] And while the definitive account of this history is yet to be written, there are traces, and these traces tend to undermine Garneau's argument. Take, for example, the emergence of 'Anti-Racist Action' in the late 1980s. In its origins, it involved a small group of young people in Minneapolis deciding to fight back against the attempted infiltration of the punk and skinhead community by neo-Nazi and white supremacist elements. This project eventually expanded to include folks in other cities and from other cultural and political communities. [5] In any event, the 'existential' nature of this threat was not abstract but concrete -- as is often the case when there's an increase in fascist political activity. This is an important point which I think is missing from Garneau's account.

To return to the subject of the relationship between anti-fascism, liberalism and radical politics, on one level I'm not overly-concerned if anti-fascism is understood as being one or the other: the more pressing question is 'is it effective'? To answer this question requires an understanding of the goals of anti-fascism beyond 'opposing fascism'. One of the chief complaints 'Antifa is liberalism' makes has to do with the inefficacy of antifa. Punching nazis in the face, disrupting speeches by Alt-Right demagogues and exposing neo-Nazi and white supremacist individuals in uniform and in public office, we are informed, do not bring about the destruction of systemic forms of race- and class-based domination and exploitation, transform college campuses into welcoming spaces for trans and/or undocumented students, or counter state policies that impoverish and marginalise the general population. Such claims are not new, and this line of argument is not unique. [6] In this context, these supposed failures could more simply be read as the product of a misunderstanding of the goals of anti-fascism. If so, then a more relevant question for those committed to egalitarian social change would be: to what extent does anti-fascism contribute to or retard the development of such a political project? In which context, I think the following is apt:

To theorize is simply to try to understand what we are doing. We are all theorists whenever we honestly discuss what has happened, distinguish between the significant and the irrelevant, see through fallacious explanations, recognize what worked and what didn’t, consider how something might be done better next time. Radical theorizing is simply talking or writing to more people about more general issues in more abstract (i.e. more widely applicable) terms. Even those who claim to reject theory theorize — they merely do so more unconsciously and capriciously, and thus more inaccurately.

Theory without particulars is empty, but particulars without theory are blind. Practice tests theory, but theory also inspires new practice.

Radical theory has nothing to respect and nothing to lose. It criticizes itself along with everything else. It is not a doctrine to be accepted on faith, but a tentative generalization that people must constantly test and correct for themselves, a practical simplification indispensable for dealing with the complexities of reality.

But hopefully not an oversimplification. Any theory can turn into an ideology, become rigidified into a dogma, be twisted to hierarchical ends. A sophisticated ideology may be relatively accurate in certain respects; what differentiates it from theory is that it lacks a dynamic relation to practice. Theory is when you have ideas; ideology is when ideas have you. “Seek simplicity, and distrust it.”

One final point.

Garneau claims that: 'In general, antifa treats white supremacy as a matter of inner beliefs rather than of the structure of society that grants arbitrary privilege to white people, ensures the white working class’s compliance with the capitalist system of exploitation, and further represses and disciplines the part of the class that isn’t white.' I don't think this is correct. On the one hand, many who involve themselves in anti-fascist organising do so from a left perspective which is critical of the role of racism in dividing workers and derailing class struggle, and whose opposition to fascism and the far right is partly derived from a commitment to furthering this struggle. On the other hand, the understanding of white supremacy and its political function is in general, I would suggest, more along the lines of that advanced by antifa blogs such as Three Way Fight:

Three Way Fight is a blog that promotes revolutionary anti-fascist analysis, strategy, and activism. Unlike liberal anti-fascists, we believe that "defending democracy" is an illusion, as long as that "democracy" is based on a socio-economic order that exploits and oppresses human beings. Global capitalism and the related structures of patriarchy, heterosexism, racial and national oppression represent the main source of violence and human suffering in the world today. Far right supremacism and terrorism grow out of this system and cannot be eradicated as long as it remains in place.

At the same time, unlike many on the revolutionary left, we believe that fascists and other far rightists aren't simply tools of the ruling class. They can also form an autonomous political force that clashes with the established order in real ways, or even seeks to overthrow global capitalism and replace it with a radically different oppressive system. We believe the greatest threat from fascism in this period is its ability to exploit popular grievances and its potential to rally mass support away from any liberatory anti-capitalist vision.

Perhaps the chief difference in perspectives here is the considered belief that 'fascism' is not reducible to the political effect of a social structure; that individuals, properly organised, can in fact assume the status of a 'vested institutional interest'. As such, fascism poses a threat to the 'organs of working class power' that Garneau and other leftists would like to develop, one which is not reducible to and should not be mistaken for the 'Confederate flag-waving, hate-spewing racists' that Garneau believes constitutes the limits of antifa understanding, and a threat which requires a more serious and nuanced analysis than on offer in Ritual. In any case, the last word belongs to Mark Bray:

The only long-term solution to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others. This long-term goal points to the tensions that exist in defining anti-fascism, because at a certain point destroying fascism is really about promoting a revolutionary socialist alternative (in my opinion one that is antiauthoritarian and nonhierarchical) to a world of crisis, poverty, famine, and war that breeds fascist reaction ...

Undoubtedly street blockades and other forms of confrontational opposition can be very useful against any political opponent, but once far-right formations have manged to broadcast their xenophobic, dystopian platforms, it is incumbent upon us to drown the out with even better alternatives to the austerity and incompetence of the governing parties of the Right and Left.

On its own, militant anti-fascism is necessary but not sufficient to build a new world in the shell of the old.

[1] See also : This Nonviolent Stuff′ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, Charles E. Cobb, Duke University Press, 2015; The Failure of Nonviolence, Peter Gelderloos, Left Bank Books, 2015; ‘How nonviolence is misrepresented’, Brian Martin (Gandhi Marg, Vol.30, No.2, July-September 2008). [2] See, for example, 'Fascism/Antifascism' by Jean Barrot (Gilles Dauvé) and numerous other, related materials on libcom. [3] On fascism in the US, see : 'Neofascism in the White House', John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review, Vol.68, No.11, April 2017 ('Not only a new administration, but a new ideology has now taken up residence at the White House: neofascism. It resembles in certain ways the classical fascism of Italy and Germany in the 1920s and ’30s, but with historically distinct features specific to the political economy and culture of the United States in the opening decades of the twenty-first century'). [4] Recent titles of relevance include: Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, Mark Bray, Melville House, 2017 and Militant Anti-Fascism: A Hundred Years of Resistance, Mala Testa, AK Press, 2015. See also : Beating The Fascists: The Untold Story of Anti-Fascist Action, Freedom Press, 2012; 'Red Action – Left Wing Political Pariah: Some Observations Regarding Ideological Apostasy and the Discourse of Proletarian Resistance', Mark Hayes (published as Chapter 12 in Against the Grain: The British far left from 1956, Evan Smith and Matthew Worley, eds, Manchester University Press, 2014). Two journal articles of particular relevance are ''A Good Deal of Disorder' or The Anarchists & Anti-Fascism In The UK', M. Testa, Anarchist Studies, Vol.25, No.2, 2017 [PDF] and 'Anti-Fascism and Prefigurative Ethics', Benjamin Franks, Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action, Vol.8, No.1, Summer 2014 [PDF]. [5] See : Solecast 44 w/ Mic Crenshaw on The Anti-Racist Action Network & Radical Politics (June 15, 2017). Mic's account of the origins of ARA, and his reflections on the differences between anti-fascist organising then and now, can also be usefully read alongside ‘How British Police Shut Down the Original UK Antifa’ (James Poulter, Vice, March 12, 2018). [6] See : On Contact: Antifa with Mark Bray (RT America, September 30, 2017). BRAY: Well you know anti-fascists are not trying to organize an armed uprising; they're trying to stop small- and medium-sized fascist groups before they advance ... See also : ‘The Cult of Violence Always Kills the Left’, Chris Hedges, truthdig, April 16, 2018.

#antifa #liberalism #antifaisliberalism

3 notes · View notes

rfhusnik · 7 years

Text

Braem’s 2017 Sixteen Point Capitalist Manifesto

Written By: Orlon Braem

Number One: After many years during which American presidents subjected the youth of this nation to peril in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, it’s nice to have a commander in chief who today is trying to save Americans from foreign induced tragedies here at home.

Number Two: Of all the great problems now facing The United States Of America, most likely immigration, both legal and illegal, is the greatest. After many years of lax (or no) enforcement of immigration laws, the U. S. now finds itself flooded with people who do not belong within its borders. Thus, a comprehensive new policy concerning this subject must be put forth by Congress and the president. And, when writing this policy, it would be well if our elected officials remembered that in reality illegal aliens have no rights in this nation. They broke America’s laws by coming here, and now only compassion can allow them to remain here.

Number Three: Of course a wall needs to be built along the southern border of the U. S.

Number Four: The term “dreamers” is just a phony title given to a group of non-citizens whose right to remain in the United States is questionable. The only real dreamers in the U.S. today are such people as believe that certain members of the American populace will gladly continue to work and sacrifice so that other members of that populace, as well as people who don’t belong in the United States can continue their illegal, carefree, or work free lifestyles.

Number Five: The new immigration policy should be based upon what’s best for America and Americans, rather than upon what seems best for foreigners. And America must stop portraying itself as a panacea where all one’s problems will be solved if one can only get oneself within its borders. Also, America must adopt a policy whereby it encourages foreigners to remain productive residents of their own native lands.

Number Six: The American people must have quality health insurance. Yes, Obamacare has failed, but as with the current situation concerning immigration, it serves little purpose now for elected officials to blame certain people and circumstances for its failure. What’s needed now is a new workable plan which may or may not incorporate certain parts of the previous failed plan. And neither political party should try to “score political points” with this new plan. Simply, those parties should and must work together to produce it. And this new plan must be well thought out before it’s implemented. It does no good to simply rewrite Obamacare. The American people deserve no less.

Number Seven: America’s domestic policies must be mainly concerned with job creation. All Americans who wish and/or need to support themselves and their families via paychecks should, regardless of race, gender, political and religious affiliation or non-affiliation, sexual orientation, and/or all other identifiable characteristics, be allowed to freely, and without harassment, pursue such labors as will garner those paychecks. And, as a second crucial domestic goal, of course all those guarantees which, in the last sentence were assumed to be essential in the workplace, should apply to all Americans in their private lives as well.

Number Eight: It won’t be easy to strike a balance between environmental concerns and workplace productivity. Liberals and conservatives will need to work together here.

Number Nine: The U.S. must accept the fact that certain citizens of certain nations have been misrepresenting the tenets of the religion which the majority (or all) of the citizens of those nations practice. And it must also be accepted that this misrepresentation has led to the development of terrorist groups such as ISIS and others which cannot be allowed to succeed in their pursuits of subjugation and murder.

Number Ten: The recent charges of illegal wiretapping must be fully probed. It’s possible that “hold-over” appointees from the previous administration may have committed illegalities in this regard. And since there seems to be a fascination with Russia and other foreign nations lately, it might be useful to discuss some matters of fact which Americans should keep in mind as time passes. Down the road The U.S. will need to focus more and more of its attention to the populations of all those nations south of it – all the way from Mexico to Cape Horn. And this increased commitment will then necessitate that some other nations take the lead in monitoring the troubled affairs of the Middle East. Certainly the U.S. will remain a close ally of Israel and certain Arab nations, but after all, the U.S. is not the actual neighbor of those nations. And, in this scenario one can easily picture Russia, Japan, China, and India becoming more influential in this area of the world. But the nations of Europe will increasingly need to guard themselves from illegal immigration emigrating northward toward them from Africa. And before we leave this topic, did anyone ever believe that “human rights” or any such other social issue really caused the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Wasn’t it really caused because a point was reached at which it was no longer economically feasible for those “republics” (now separate nations) to continue to exist as one entity?

Number Eleven: To put it bluntly, from now on both major political parties of the U. S. had better “get along” with one another better. Yes, such a wish as that may seem far-fetched, yet who can deny that the outright animosity that’s been demonstrated by these parties recently has now reached such a point as to be a treat to the American People?

Number Twelve: Those who are participating in all the recent protests and marches certainly have a right to do so. Yet, in times of societal division such as those which America is experiencing today, continually pitting one group of Americans against another may lead to unfortunate results eventually; and, in fact it has just been stated that such an outcome may have already been achieved, i.e. apparently common everyday Americans are now being watched by government agencies, or was the news bit that stated that just another example of another phenomenon currently plaguing America – fake news?

Number Thirteen: Fake news seems to be the latest gimmick that America’s news media services have unleashed on the American people. Long known to be liberally biased, national news reporters and news gathering services seem to believe it’s necessary for them to impart a “liberal spin” to every story they report. But doesn’t so-called conservative talk radio offset this? Not really, because talk radio is meant to be opinionated, and the left could use it as a mouthpiece as well as the right. The problem here apparently is that left-leaning radio broadcasts simply can’t garner the audiences necessary for them to compete on the national airwaves. So, to the national news reporting services we say: “Just report the facts of the occurrences which constitute the daily news. Keep your opinions and ‘spin’ to yourselves.”

Number Fourteen: While it’s true that America’s two major political parties have been extremely antagonistic lately, the fact that some members of both of them, along with a number of other Washington D.C. based bureaucrats and government officials have forged a sort of taxpayer funded clique or cabal cannot be denied. And these people conduct their activities, whether actually necessary or not, in such fashions as to assure that their high paying jobs can continue to be subsidized now, and then someday passed along to their privately schooled offspring.

Number Fifteen: Because of all the problems related in the prior fourteen installments of this written piece, it should be easy to see that today America is at risk for attack not only by Islamic terrorists, but also by its own citizens such as it was in the 1990’s when events such as Ruby Ridge, the Waco siege, and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred.

Number Sixteen: The U. S. must plan for what its future population will be, and also for what the needs of that diverse group of mortals will be. And yes, although as free citizens we don’t need to express our personal opinions concerning these subjects, we know that they could immensely impact the Americans of tomorrow: In regard to possible population growth, what is a feasible immigration policy for America’s future?; and, what effects on population growth would possible changes to, or an outright overthrow of Roe vs. Wade have upon America?

�nf

0 notes