#to these ultimately baseless arguments

[eddiegettingshot]

correct and civil anon lfmsjsjdkd thank you i mean let me not pretend im noble i obviously prefer dom top eddie and have no issues laughing at certain interpretations or interpolations when it comes to the source material but in terms of like the larger social/cultural conversation about the Meaning of various sex acts and dynamics well i do think we could be a little more normal and transparent about what’s happening here or otherwise Think a little more about the implications and such. which is something that applies to not just this but to what i was saying a couple weeks ago about like misogyny in service of yaoi etc. and this is why i like to talk about it

[purgemarchlockdown]

I'm not really someone who enjoys participating in discourse. I find that the environment is too volatile and prone to ad-hominem to really work as any kind of reasoned debate. People look for the things that confirm their perspective and get mad when they don't. I do that. It's not really constructive and as such I don't really like writing anything about it.

Plus I enjoy writing things about what I care about, and what I find interesting. For obvious reasons, why would I put my energy into something that I find boring or makes me upset?

I'm saying all of this to state that I have a distinct frustration of the current discussion going around with Amane. Now, I'm biased. Amane is my favorite character. I have an inclination towards defending her. One could argue that should discount me from the discussions but then I think we'd have to discount everyone from it since Everyone Is Biased!

You can't have a discussion if you don't have an opinion, and attacks on someone's character based on what you Think their argument will be like is not constructive! Actually it's usually the opposite. Let's all be reasonable here, and not descend into baseless insults based on what we want our opponent to be like for the sake of our ego.

After all:

The fine line between "Hate" and "OK"Shouldn't you look beyond your EGO, before it all ends? After knowing all, I wonder Can you really say INNOCENT?

Let's establish my argument.

I find the reaction towards Amane Momose after the deaths of Haruka Sakurai, Mahiru Shiina, and Shidou Kirisaki to be disproportionate, and the mentalities and biases at play to be distressing.

I also find that the logic underlying the argument to be faulty and unconvincing most of the time. And this whole discourse to be a distraction from more important and interesting discussions to be had about this whole series!

For one, I don't think the argument of whether Amane should have been guilty or innocent in trial 2 to be relevant for trial 3 and its voting. As due to the fact trial 3 is going to be the Last Trial, any argument for or against the safety of the prison (a major factor in this discourse) is rendered Irrelevant by the fact they won't be in the prison after this.

This is their final verdict and their final fates will be decided here. The most relevant points of discussion for a trial 3 vote is their crime and their current mentality within the prison. As a result the vote that came to pass in Trial 2 is irrelevant to the Trial 3 voting situation.

This is why I think it's a distraction to argue about whether if people were right or not to do so in Trial 2. Now it's genuinely sad that these characters are dead but ultimately we have to live with that. I find it frustrating that people are harping on this so much as if it proves something about Amane's Character (moral or otherwise) that everyone else missed.

One can argue that Amane has shown how destructive her worldview in this moment (thus also connecting it back to the trial 3 voting and it's relevance,) and while I have my own qualms about immediately assuming Amane is at fault for this (we will get to this later) and I, again, find the argument surrounding if she should have been voted guilty or innocent a distraction. I do think it's important to acknowledge that.

One, all these people committing murder was already a showcase that their worldview's could be destructive. You can argue that they're on their best behavior, or that their crime was a circumstantial thing. But then we'd have to ask the same questions regarding Amane's circumstance before the murder she (presumably) committed against Shidou and the one she committed against her mom.

Shidou did not just die because she hated medicine. Shidou was someone who repeatedly made her feel small and talked down to her.

Amane: I warned you. I can no longer turn a blind eye to this wickedness taking place right in front of us. You’re bringing ruin unto yourself. Do you understand? Shidou: No, I don’t understand. It’s my job as an adult to teach you that throwing a temper tantrum isn’t going to make everything go your way. If it’s a test of endurance you want, I’m happy to oblige, Amane.

People might think that this reaction is unreasonable, but the point is not if she's right or not for feeling this way, but that she Did feel that way. And I would like to posit that the stressful conditions Amane was under exasperated the problem, thus pushing her more towards killing Shidou.

And either way, my point is that she's not inherently destructive she just holds the ability to cause destruction when under the right circumstances...like everyone else.

Arguing that she's more destructive because she's "too far gone" misses things like how Muu's worldview hasn't been examined all too much even with the trial 2 guilty, or how Shidou's worldview wasn't examined all too much and he's implied to have killed:

A lot of people.

One can say that they only did these things due to the circumstances surrounding them but that just goes back to my first point. Arguing that Amane is uniquely more dangerous, despite the fact that like everyone else her murder has a specific circumstance surrounding it feels like a double standard.

Two, characters like Kotoko have arguably more destructive worldviews, and while there Was Discourse surrounding how people should have voted her in trial 1, it is not nearly as debated as Amane's is. Which again feels like a double standard.

And ultimately, even if we ignore the double standards at play here and how this is stuff we have Known Since the Beginning, we still have no clue of Amane's Mentality Now, we don't know how she seems in Trial 3 at all.

We can't immediately assume she's dealing with all of this well just cause we Assume that she's the reason behind the events, for one she was close to Mahiru.

T2Q8: If you had to make one of the prisoners part of your family, who would you choose? A: Shiina Mahiru. Her innate goodness might have brought the two of us closer, maybe.

And this situation is really close to something sensitive to Amane. The death of the cat.

As a result we cannot use this to adequately determine her current mental state, my original criticism still stands. The relevance this has to a Trial 3 vote is pretty...lacking. As a result we can't say this discourse exists so that we can determine what should be done in trial 3. This firmly exists as an argument of who was right and who was wrong in Trial 2.

One can call it petty (I have) or a distraction (I just did) but since I'm writing a post on it I am participating in that distraction. We can now travel to the second part of this post. Which is a dissection of the arguments for Trial 2 now that people have died.

Now, obviously people should be allowed to have opinions and have passionate feelings about those opinions. However I think the reasoning behind opinions, me or yours, should be questioned. It's good for a nuanced debate for opinions to be questioned, and for the other party to listen.

I for one have seen a lot of questioning about T2 Innocent Amane now. Some of it being blatant ad-hominem mind you, but lets take a charitable look at the discussion. Do I have a good counterargument against common arguments I've seen about this? Well, sort of, for one I would like to question the assumption that if Amane did kill Shidou that she should hold all the blame for Mahiru's death, first of all.

If we are working under the assumption that Amane killed Shidou and that means she killed Mahiru. Then can't we also say Kotoko killed Mahiru? She's the one who beat her up in the first place after all. And if we're going to say that then putting the full weight of responsibility of the deaths on Amane feels unfair. She's not the one who beat her up after all.

Additionally, if we're really tracing the threads of consequences back to the source then really shouldn't we be the ones taking responsibility due to how we created a Trial one?

Arguing on these grounds inevitably leads to questions about the Audience's own moral integrity if followed to the logical conclusion. If we believe Amane should be punished for this and that the earlier act of voting innocent in Trial 2 is incorrect because we let her "do something bad" then shouldn't that apply to the Audience? To Kotoko? To Shidou for clearly not doing as much as he could to help considering that Mahiru was in his care for Twenty Nine Months? To Kazui for not doing anything to protect anyone even though he Said he would?

I think it's reasonable to say that if any of us put the full weight of blame on any of the other people I mentioned this would be contested. But I'm not saying they should have the full weight of the blame put on them. I'm pointing out a double standard here.

That Amane is treated as if she did all the work killing both Shidou AND Mahiru, assuming that she did kill Shidou and that lead to Mahiru's death. That she's being given a harsher treatment here regrading the consequences of her choices, despite the fact everyone else made their choices and they had consequences. Again, including the one who actually beat up Mahiru in the first place.

And before anyone brings up Kotoko is guilty and that means she's being treated harshly. That's not my point. I'm not saying Kotoko isn't being treated harshly. I'm saying Amane is being treated too harshly Despite the fact that other people and factors we're at play and Despite the fact we already Guilty Voted the one who arguably should have the most blame be put on her for the situation at hand.

Second thing, we...don't know if Amane killed Shidou?

I know that she's Said she's going to do it multiple times over, but this is a series known for pulling tricks on the Audience and giving red herrings to distract from more hidden things at play. Again I have already said that Mahiru has been injured for at least 29 months. That is not a normal time of recovery for the injuries she has received. That is more than 2 years. Even with Potential Milgram Time Weirdness considered it's still an unnaturally long time to be injured and Getting Worse despite being treated by a doctor.

Additionally, with Haruka's death we know with some certainty that the restraints on the guilty prisoners aren't as restrictive as we thought. And we have a certain prisoner here who has been very vocal about wanting to hurt people. Not to mention if Shidou is doing malpractice again then a lot of people probably want him dead.

However, my point here is not that "other people could have done the murder" cause ultimately that feels a bit weak as an argument, if you trust in Amane doing her murder then saying "it's possible that it wasn't her" isn't really convincing.

I wrote all of that to ask a question, why are we assuming Amane killed Shidou? That seems like something I've already answered, she said she would.

However, other characters, have been pretty blatant about what they were going to do and that was Ignored. For one, people didn't think Haruka was going to commit suicide, and even if he did the guilty restraints would protect him (despite the fact we knew from Amane's T2 VD that the restraints aren't as restrictive as we thought, an argument used FOR the idea that Amane should be guilty.)

A second example would also actually be Kotoko. Kotoko, was not exactly secretive about her intentions of beating up the people who Us, The Audience deemed as guilty. She was very clear actually about what teaming up with her meant. And yet we accepted it and then got mad at her when she did that.

When it came to Haruka that was due to infantalization and a belief it could have been prevented through other means, when it came to Kotoko that's cause her words aligned with most people's beliefs in the abstract that we were willing to ignore the warning signs regarding her.

So why then, when it comes to Amane, we take her words completely at face value? What about this situation has changed that make it so we Can't ignore what she says? Can't twist it to mean something else? Can't say "Oh its possible that" and have it be convincing.

We can't say it's because people's lives are on the line, we've already shown that with Haruka and Kotoko that's not enough, and again, we can't say it's because she was clear in her intentions. So what gives?

Now, what I'm about to say might be considered an ad-hominem to some. However, I think criticizing a mentality held by a group and direct attack against one person is different actually. If you've gotten this far and think I'm attacking you, no I'm not.

(You can say I'm straw-manning though if you want. I am holding an imaginary debate here.)

However, I think the reason why Amane is being treated, frankly, unfairly, is pretty simple.

She's a child that spoke out against someone who was older than her. Who's been Very Vocal about how much disdain she holds for Milgram as a prison system. Who in Trial 1 we voted guilty because the consensus was that we needed to "teach her to be better." Now, I'm not saying anyone here is an abusive parent or doomed to become one. If that's what you're thinking.

I am however saying, in our society, we have ingrained hierarchies when it comes to children and adults. Children are below the adults. They have to follow the rules set by adults. When they disobey they are punished by the adults.

This is brought up by Es themself to claim power over Amane.

Es: No matter what you do, no matter how grown-up you behave – you’re a child. That’s an unchangeable truth. Amane: You’re a child, too! Es: Wrong. I’m fifteen, so I’m an adult in Puerto Rico and Haiti. You’re twelve, so you’re a child no matter the country.

This is right after Amane attacks Es. A physical question of their authority over her. Es' response is to Claim that as her Superior she has to Listen To Them and Follow What They Say. That despite everything she is a Child while They Are Not.

I have said double standard so much in this post you're probably sick of me saying it. However, this is why I keep on saying it.

And it's not like Amane is the only victim of it! I already brought up that we ignored Haruka's voice due to infantalization! It just manifested differently here because the way to spite Haruka in Trial 2 was to Ignore What He Said. However the way to spite Amane in Trial 2 is to Accept what she says and Vote Her Guilty Based On it.

This is the crux of my problem. This is not just about what is good for the prison. This is about spitting a child who disobeyed against a perceived authority. I don't think this ideology should go unchallenged. Especially when the subject of it is an abuse victim. Like Haruka was.

Jackalope says it himself in the Trial 2 Report:

Whatever the circumstances may be, she is the one that has to bear the blame. That’s just how it is. Both in and out of MILGRAM, isn’t that right?

Now, look, if you're someone who genuinely voted Amane Guilty in Trial 2 because you understood that to be the best choice and are now upset that what you expected to happen did happen. That's fine.

However, I believe, the reason why we are still debating about this past the point it should be over. The reason why people still care despite me already illustrating that it doesn't really matter for Trial 3. Is because of this. It's because people are upset a child spoke up against them.

And I just find that to be unacceptable to leave unquestioned. Because people will say Anything to deflect from being questioned about this. That it's not that serious. That it doesn't really matter. That people are overreacting over some silly show.

But, you can look through my blog. I just made a few posts about this before I wrote this, most of them un-rebloggable to make sure No One saw them outside of who followed me. I've been writing this in an exceedingly formal tone partially out of fear of being harassed for this.

I'm not the one who brought this argument up again. I'm Responding to people who brought it up again.

Maybe it's just me but...doesn't that contradict that statement? And even so, Milgram is written To be taken seriously. And people Have taken the previous discussions seriously.

Why is it suddenly wrong when this one is taken seriously?

I think the people reading this are smart enough to figure out why.

[salixsociety]

Yes, I Hate Wicca.

A hopefully comprehensive guide to all my strifes.

More often than I care to admit I find myself quarrelling with people over my seemingly baseless hate for all things popular and simple. I'm accused of being a pretentious traditionalist, of being a snob, even of being a white supremacist on grounds of talking about European culture as a replacement for conventional witchcraft. I will not deny that I am a touch snobby and pretentious - such is my biggest flaw - but I am not a white supremacist, and my loathing for many seemingly innocuous witchcraft practices is not for nothing. It is because I hate Wicca, and everything related to and derived from it, and I have good reason to. Today I would like to introduce you to every single reason I have to loathe Wicca passionately, so that I can hopefully defer future debate partners to this post instead of retyping the same arduous messages.

What is Wicca?

Per the r/Wicca subreddit:

Wicca is a neopagan religion based on ancient pagan beliefs. It's an earth-based religion that believes in a God and Goddess as representative of a greater pantheistic godhead. Wicca includes a system of ethics and teaches that we all are ultimately responsible for our own actions. We believe in gods. We believe in magic. We believe in multiple realities. We practice alone, or in groups. We practice witchcraft.

I chose the r/Wicca subreddit for my first primer because it's easy to accuse people of misrepresenting a faith if you do not allow the community to speak for itself on what their faith constitutes. As much as I hate Wicca, and do not think it is redeemable, I have no desire to be accused of letting my hate set the tone of my arguments against it. I don't want to give militant Wiccans leeway to claim that I speak on their behalf and therefore my points are wrong. The Wicca subreddit is a large community and often referred to by Wiccans, and it features this brief description of 'The Craft'. In any case, though Wicca nowadays is divided and will be described slightly differently by everybody you ask about it, the description provided by the subreddit is a pretty good example of common ground between all Wiccans. That description mostly matches up with how the average Wiccan would describe their faith. My personal description of what Wicca is would look slightly different. I would take care to note, for one, that Wicca is a form of Western Esotericism, more specifically Western Occultism. [1] I also find it important to note that whether or not Wicca is an earth religion, or nature religion, is of some debate, and not all consider it such. What is also subject of some variation across traditions and individuals is whether or not The Craft is pantheistic: some people accept the two gods of Wicca as figureheads for every pagan god in existence, others simply worship them as one single masculine god and one single feminine god. 'Witchcraft' is also a term that has no set definition - I can only assume that the mention of it on r/Wicca intends to broadly refer to most or all forms of magic accepted within Wicca.

Worth noting is that Wicca has spread very far beyond the confines of British Traditional Wicca (BTW), which are streams of Wicca that still adhere strongly to their roots. What is and is not Wicca is something that is of some debate among Wiccans themselves. That's why I think it is highly important to establish a few definitions that we'll be using for the rest of this post:

WICCA: I'll admit to using this term loosely. When I say 'Wicca' in this post I'll mainly be referring to the community of people who consider themselves Wiccans, i.e. the Wiccan religion. I may also use it to describe the broader influence of Wicca, however.

WICCA-DERIVED: I'll mostly use this term when I don't want to paint something as being inherently Wiccan, just related to or derived from it. Wiccan practices often escape the bounds of their respective culture and then grow into staples of various traditions that aren't meant to be Wiccan at all. When referring to such things I'll refer to them as derived from Wicca, or similar.

Wicca's Origins

To understand the history of Wicca we have to travel back a bit further than its founding: to the 16th and 17th century Witch Hunts in Europe. I have another post on this same blog detailing the relationship between Wicca and the Witch Trials, which I highly recommend reading to get a better understanding of the accusations of antisemitism I will be making shortly. At any rate: the witch trials happened across Europe and its colonies throughout the early modern period, after a time of much disaster. As I state in my other article:

Before the early Church turned its hateful eye to the concept of 'witches,' it was firmly on jews. Jews, alongside other heretics and oppressed minorities like the Rroma, were considered utterly worthy of damnation. They were seen as antagonistic to the Church, going against everything the Church stood for, and furthermore as misanthropic, greedy, unreliable enemies. They were the scapegoats for many disasters and indeed frequently accused of practicing magic or poisoncrafting to invoke these disasters on the 'Good Christian Folk'. Furthermore, and this may sound familiar to you, jews were accused of 'consorting with the devil' and murdering children in order to consume their blood to mock the Eucharist, often referred to as blood libel. It was often claimed that this (nonexistent!) practice was done on the Shabbat, alongside other practices twisting and mocking those done in Church on Sunday. The persecution of Jews in Medieval Europe was horrific and seemingly endless, having origins in antiquity and reaching a peak during the Crusades, and another when the Plague ran rampant. Jews were banished, forced to convert to Christianity or brutally murdered, not infrequently by burning or strangulation.

It is fairly easy to see, with some research and critical thought, that it wouldn't logically be real witches being murdered during the witch hunts. For starters, it's hard to believe that there were really people out there flying through the sky on brooms, to mythical locations, to dance naked under the full moon, have sex with the devil, and cannibalize children. There were of course those people who confessed to having done such things, but they were under threat of torture. Indeed, this archetype of the 'witch' has its origins in the Church's loathing for non-Christians and heretics. As Lily Climenhaga states [2]:

"Magic" acted as a description for individuals or groups who did not subscribe to the perceived societal norms of the medieval Christian community. Jews and heretics, the principle Others within Medieval Europe, existed outside of the societal norms and played an important role in the formation of the Christian perception of witches and witchcraft. Common elements existed between stories surrounding Jews, heretics, and witches. These beliefs created the preliminary conditions necessary for the mass persecution and intolerance toward witches and became inherent to the idea of the witch as the diabolical Other within Medieval Christian thought.

Furthermore, the stereotypical image of the witch is directly derived from hateful depictions of the marginalized. The conical, wide brimmed hat that we often see a cartoon witch depicted with actually comes from the conical hat known as a judenhut (jew hat), which was compulsory for many jews to wear in the Middle Ages. [3] Then there is of course the typical red or black hair, short and stocky figure, buckled shoes, large hooked nose, green skin, et cetera. All of this to say: It was not witches being hunted during the witchcraze. There is no such thing as a human person able to fly on broomsticks, cause storms at will, magically steal money from a distance, and curse someone to death with one glance. The medieval and early modern 'witch' is a mythical figure used to justify the persecution and eradication of the already marginalized. This idea is fairly commonly accepted now, as it should be, but it wasn't always.

In 1828, German lawyer and professor Karl Ernst Jarcke proposed the witch-cult hypothesis: a now discredited theory that the people persecuted and murdered during the witch trials were not marginalized innocents, but rather members of a pan-European pagan religion. He posited that this pagan witch-cult was older than Christianity, but had been driven underground by it, and only came to light when the accused of the witch trials confessed to witchcraft. This hypothesis was affirmed and adapted by other scholars throughout the 19th century but remained of moderate popularity at best, until 20th century Egyptologist Margaret Murray became one of its most avid proponents, incorporating it into many of her works. Most notably, she featured it in 1921's The Witch-Cult in Western Europe and 1933's The God of the Witches. [1] Murray's writing is the origin of many Wiccan motifs, such as the thirteen member coven, the Horned God (based on the works of James Frazer) and the cross-quarterly gathering. Furthermore, as a radical skeptic and rationalist, Murray wished to strip the witch-cult hypothesis of all supernatural notions. [4] She claimed that the secret society of witches were not Satanists but nature-worshippers, and that the gatherings were actually orgies, where a priest dressed in ritual skins and horns fornicated with all the gathered women. She also proposed that these rituals were actually benevolent fertility rituals for the good of the witches' communities, and there was little to no malevolent magic involved. She was also the one to introduce the idea that the people who confessed to curses and other malevolent magic were actually witches who had forgotten their own original intent, or had been misinterpreted by the court. [5] Murray herself [5]:

For centuries both before and after the Christian era, the witch was both honoured and loved. Whether man or woman, the witch was consulted by all, for relief in sickness, for counsel in trouble, or for foreknowledge of forthcoming events. They were at home in the courts of Kings [...] their mystical powers gave them the authority for discovering culprits, who then received the appropriate punishment.

These writings were a turning point for the associations of the word 'witch'. Prior to these hypotheses, 'witch' was a bad word, an insult even, reserved only for people - especially women - believed to have evil intentions and use spiritual methods not sanctioned by the Church for their own benefit. The use of the word 'witch' nowadays, as a self-imposed title for anybody using any magical means, can be traced back to this pivotal moment in time. While Murray did great PR for the nonexistent witch archetype, erasing the idea that their practices were Satanic and supernatural, she unfortunately did much harm to marginalized peoples by propagating the idea that it was not them being persecuted, but some mythical clan. Therein lies my first problem: Wicca minimizes the impact of what it calls the 'Burning Times' on marginalized peoples and instead adopts all this suffering for itself, painting the 'witch' as a marginalized, oppressed, and beloathed historical figure, when it's the very people who would've been doing the burning who founded, shaped, and maintain Wicca. In doing so, it also adopts various words, like Sabbat(h), which is a word unique to Judaism and has been weaponized against Judaism since the Middle Ages. Despite much criticism, even from Murray's contemporaries, she was invited to write a highly influential piece for the Encyclopaedia Brittanica in 1929. She used the opportunity to promote her hypothesis as fact, and it quickly grew so influential that according to Jacqueline Simpson, the ideas got to be "so entrenched in popular culture that they will probably never be uprooted." [4] But we haven't even gotten into when Wicca was actually founded, so let's get to that.

One of, if not the only contemporary fan of Margaret Murray's hypothesis, was Folklore Society fellow Gerald Gardner. He was an interesting and well-travelled man, having come from a wealthy family, growing up with nursemaids and a family firm. As a result of his illnesses (namely asthma) and constant travels abroad during childhood, he never received a formal education, nor did he attend school. Instead, through his travels and family acquaintances, he developed quite the interest in spirituality. At first he developed an interest in the Buddhist beliefs of the Singhalese natives on his tea plantation, later in British and Celtic folklore from his relatives the Surgenesons. In his biography, it is revealed that it is from these relatives that he learns that his grandfather, Joseph, was rumored to be a practicing witch. [6] Different accounts of Gardner's life had it that it was also rumored within his family that a Scottish ancestor of his had been burned as a witch in 1610. [7] A few years after this time with the Surgenesons, Gardner was initiated as an Apprentice Freemason in Ceylon. He quickly rose in the ranks, but eventually lost interest in the Masonic activities and resigned in 1911, presumably because he wanted to leave Ceylon. [6] After this he moved around Asia a fair bit more, taking a great interest in Indigenous beliefs there, and even participating in some of their tattoo and ritual traditions. During this time of travel, Gardner also decided to take the Shahada, the Muslim confession of faith and, technically, final step in the process of becoming Muslim; but Gardner never became a practicing Muslim, mostly using the Shahada as a means to gain trust from the locals in Malaya. [7] In 1927, Gardner's father's health deteriorated, and he went back to Britain to visit him. During this time in Britain he researched various spiritual and religious movements, namely Spiritualism and Mediumship, and he reported many spiritual encounters with whom he interpreted as deceased family members. [6] [7] He attended many Spiritualist churches and seances, and had a number of spiritual experiences that, according to his biographer, changed his interest from a purely amateur anthropological one to one of genuine personal belief. [6] He became re-involved with Freemasonry, and started taking a serious interest in magic. When he, after his retirement, officially moved back to Britain, he started pursuing magic there with some seriousness. He became involved in such things as nudism, and, in September 1937, he requested a Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph. D) from the Meta Collegiate Extension of the National Electronic Institute, an organization based in Nevada. This organization was widely known for providing illegitimate degrees and diplomas through mail order, for a fee. After this he began to introduce and style himself as 'Dr. Gardner' despite having no academically recognized qualifications. [7]

He started allowing spirituality to shape his life, such as when he bought land on his beloved Cyprus because he came to believe that he had actually lived on the island before, in a past life. He wrote a book referencing this as well, influenced by his dreams: his first novel, A Goddess Arrives, followed a British man in the 1930s who had, in a past life, been a bronze age Cypriot. [7] When World War II became an imminent threat, Gardner and his wife moved to Highcliffe, just south of the New Forest, to escape potential bombings. [7] He becomes involved with the Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship, a magico-religious tradition in Western Esotericism. The Fellowship had been founded in 1920 by George Alexander Sullivan, based upon a blend of Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Freemasonry and his own personal innovations. [7] It requires mentioning that Western Esotericism and all of its more modern traditions (Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Freemasonry, Occultism, et cetera) are inseparable from white supremacy. This is something fairly well-recorded, if shrouded, and so complex I am hesitant to delve into it in great amounts of detail. It is, however, pivotal for the reader to understand that many of Western Esotericism's greatest thinkers from the Middle Ages onward were antisemites, racists, misogynists, colonialists, and even nazis. Western Esotericism also had a gigantic impact on 20th century race studies, and the idea that there was such a thing as a superior or aryan race. Defenders and fans of Western Esotericism are quick to point out that there are also many non-white thinkers in Western Esotericism that were pivotal to its formation, and I would never deny that. I am, however, denying that what Western Esotericism has turned into is productive. Having been founded upon the backs of indigenous and marginalized peoples, by appropriating their practices and denying their suffering, such as the appropriation of Kabbalah and the denial of the persecution of jews, shaped by men who were famously evil, such as Aleister Crowley, and used as pseudoscientific justification for some of mankind's greatest atrocities, I cannot stand with modern Western Esotericism. Ever. It is true that Western Esotericism has been the victim of white supremacy as well: Freemasons being persecuted and incarcerated as part of the 'jewish conspiracy' in Nazi Germany for example, but at the same time the connections between Esotericism and the nazi, half-Nordic, half-Hindu German Faith Movement cannot be denied. Folkish and Odinist 'traditions' find their roots in nazi occultism as well, as they sprang from the desire for a Pan-Germanic ethnic identity. These faiths persist to this day, attracting many different types of people and turning them into white supremacists or even neo-nazis.

Back to Gardner. During his time with the Rosicrucian Order he had also joined the Folklore society, where he published some works and became member of the governing council, where he was a distrusted man. He had also joined the Historical Association. [7] He ran into some quarrels and troubles with the Rosicrucian Order and found himself increasingly cynical of their practices, especially when Sullivan claimed that World War II would not come the very day before Britain declared war on Germany. [6] There was, however, a select group of people within the Order with whom he got along quite well. [7] Biographer Philip Heselton theorized upon who this group could be and claims they may have been Edith Woodford-Grimes, Susie Mason, her brother Ernie Mason, and their sister Rosetta Fudge, all of whom had originally come from Southampton before joining the Order in Highcliffe. Per Gardner himself: "unlike many of the others [in the Order], [they] had to earn their livings, were cheerful and optimistic and had a real interest in the occult". He was "really very fond of them", claiming he "would have gone through hell and high water even then for any of them." [6] It was these very people who took him to the house of a woman Gardner calls 'Old Dorothy' Clutterbuck, a wealthy local to the New Forest area. They, according to him, made him strip naked and take part in an initiation ritual, wherein he caught the words 'Wicca' and 'Wicce', which he recognized as the Old English words for witch. Though research by the likes of Hutton and Heselton shows that the New Forest Coven, as Gardner calls them, were likely only formed in the 1930s, Gardner took this experience as proof of the witch-cult hypotheses which he had learned about from Margaret Murray's writings. [7] Gardner spent a significant amount of time with them but only ever described one of their rituals in detail, one intended to ward off the Germans from coming to Britain. It is attested in both Bracelin's and Heselton's biographies. Gardner went on, after these events, to also become involved with druidry and be ordained as priest in the Ancient British Church, and he conducted some rituals according to the Lesser Key of Solomon with his nudist and occultist friends. [7] In 1947 Gardner was introduced to Aleister Crowley, a man of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the founding father of Thelema, a Western Occultist new religious movement. Crowley is one of those ubiquitous, evil figureheads in Western Esotericism that people prefer not to give too many words to. His history with occultism, racism, antisemitism, misogyny, and sexual abuse is too vast to summarize in one paragraph. Still, Thelema persists to this day, as do Crowley apologists. Crowley elevated Gardner to the IV° of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) and issued a charter decreeing that Gardner could admit people into its Minerval degree. The charter was written in Gardner's handwriting and only signed by Crowley. [6] [7] [8] When Crowley passed away, Gardner appointed himself the leader of the O.T.O.. He would, however, lose interest in leading the O.T.O. within a few years. [7] During this time Gardner also travelled through America, especially in hopes of learning about Voodoo and Hoodoo. [7]

Gardner wished to spread his newly founded Wiccan religion, and wrote another work of fiction in order to do so. He described various Wiccan rituals in this book as 'High Magic' and based it heavily on the Solomonic Keys. He was also working on a scrapbook which he did not intend to publish, which he called 'Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical'. Therein he wrote down various Wiccan rituals and ceremonies, and this book would later form as the prototype for the Wiccan Book of Shadows, a term he himself coined. He claimed the book to be of ancient origins to his followers. During this time he also gained his first initiates, and the first covens were formed. [7] During this initial time of true organized religion, Gardner ran into several problems. People important to him left his faith due to his actions with the press, and he had quarrels with some members who recognized that many of his rituals and such had been adapted straight from Thelema. [4] In 1954, Gardner wrote arguably the most influential work on Wicca: Witchcraft Today. It was his first non-fiction work, and contained a preface by Margaret Murray, the woman who had popularized the witch-cult hypothesis on which Wicca was built. In this book, Gardner praised Murray's theories, and added some of his own: namely that the European belief in faeries was actually because of a hidden pygmy race living alongside mankind, and that the Knights Templar were actually initiates into The Craft. [7] After this, Gardner started cultivating larger scale attention for Wicca. He invited the press to write about his religion, and most of the tabloid articles produced painted him and his cult in a negative light. They were made out to be devil worshippers, cultists, et cetera. Nevertheless, Gardner persisted, and encouraged the press to write more. He thought the publicity, even if negative, would help prevent the 'Old Religion', as he called it, from dying out. [7] [8]

In 1960, Gardner's official biography, Gerald Gardner: Witch, was published. It was penned in its entirety by Gardner's friend Idries Shah, a Sufi mystic, but Shah used the name of one of Gardner's High Priests, Jack L. Bracelin, because he was wary of being associated with witchcraft. In 1963, Gardner visited Lebanon. On his way home, he had a heart attack on ship, en route to Tunisia. He was buried there, the funeral only attended by the ship's captain. [9] Many authors have speculated on Gardner's life since his passing. Though he was devoted to his only wife, Donna, it was claimed that Gardner spent many evenings 'cuddling up' to a young High Priestess named Dayonis. Biographer Philip Heselton claims that Gardner had a longterm affair with Edith Woodford-Grimes, nicknamed Dafo by Gardner. This theory was affirmed by Adrian Bott. [10] Gardner was one of, or possibly the first person to use what Wiccans know as a 'Craft name', a magical name used for magico-religious purposes in Wicca. Gardner was known as Scire by his followers. Reportedly, Wicca was not known as Wicca at the time of its initial development. Gardner often referred to his adherents as 'the Wica', but the religion was only ever referred to as 'Witchcraft', capital W.

In Wicca's founding lies my second problem with it. Wicca was founded by a white man, based on a combination of Western Esoteric notions and experiences, Spiritualism, Mediumship, appropriation of indigenous European, Asian and even American spirituality. It was built on a hypothesis that denies the suffering of marginalized peoples and claims it for nonmarginalized, white, privileged Europeans instead. It poses itself as something with roots in academics, while the founder had never enjoyed any form of education and possessed a fake PhD. It was influenced heavily by cults, occultists who are generally acknowledged to be terrible people, and pseudoscience. It claims to be ancient, but was founded in the 1900s. And, importantly, it contributes heavily to white supremacy through the idea of a pan-European cultural identity and pan-European pagan religion.

Wicca Today: Innocuous Propagation of White Supremacy

Wicca has grown exponentially since its founding, now being by far the largest pagan religion actively being practiced in the modern era. It has both organized covens and solitary adherents across the world, and most people who have access to the internet will have heard of Wicca once or twice. Wicca is, truly and undeniably, inescapable in pagan and magical spaces. It's easy, and common, for adherents to claim that Wicca is not what it once was. 'Yeah, the origins are bad, but that doesn't make the whole Craft bad,' is a favored argument against the idea that Wicca's origins make it inherently irredeemable. I disagree strongly with this, and always will; something that was built with bricks made of appropriation and lies can't be separated from those evils. If you took the appropriation out of Wicca, it would cease to be Wicca. Deconstructing Wicca would leave you with a blend of Freemasonry, Thelema, folk magic, Christianity, various Indigenous beliefs, Kabbalah, Occultism, and some misrepresented paganism. If you take the appropriation and harm out of Wicca, it simply ceases to exist. Nevertheless, many people think Wicca can be separated from its evil origins. That's why in this section of the article, I'd like to delve into why that is not true, and how Wicca continues to do harm in this day and age.

For starters, of course, Wicca has not ceased to be appropriative simply because time has passed. Rather, the appropriation gets increasingly less attention, until it becomes so integral to the Craft that people don't even notice or stop to think that it may have come from somewhere that never wanted it to be taken in the first place. A prime example, which I've already touched on very briefly, is the use of the word 'sabbat', in reference to 'Wiccan' holidays. As I wrote in my other post about this topic:

The very root of this word is the Hebrew ש־ב־ת (sh-b-t). It is the root word for many words pertaining to rest and not working (or more broadly: 'cessation'). This word evolved into שַׁבָּת (shabát), which translates to Saturday or weekly rest-day, normally. This word, also often spelled Shabbos from Ashkenazi Hebrew, travelled through various antique languages (Ancient Greek -> Latin -> Old French) directly to Middle English, where it became 'Sabat', and later Sabbath. While this word, in its travel through Europe, has influenced some words, you'll notice that it has also stayed one unique word, with a unique meaning: the Jewish Rest Day. The Sabbath, Shabbos, Sabbat, Shabat, et cetera, will always and has for most of its history been the word uniquely reserved for Saturday in Judaism. To those not very well read on Judaism, it may be helpful to know that Judaism is what is considered a closed practice. It is only permissible to practice Jewish religious tradition, and to a large extent, Jewish culture, if you are a Jewish convert. By extension, that should clue you in on the nature of the word and holiday of Shabbat.

This word, which should have stayed what it was meant to be, a word for the Jewish rest day, first became associated with the archetypal witch during the late Medieval period, when jews, and later witches, were accused of going to Sabbaths or Synagogues to perform evil rituals. Though there were attempts by the likes of Margaret Murray to claim that the word 'sabbat(h)' as used by 'witches' was not in any way related to Judaism, those claims have been strongly disputed. Murray claimed in her 1921 book The Witch-Cult in Western Europe that 'sabbat' actually came from Old French s'esbattre, meaning to frolic and amuse oneself. This theory has no proof, nor is it readily academically received or accepted. The word in conjunction with witchcraft is deeply hurtful to Judaism and jewish people across the globe, as it reminds them of the persecution they faced when their faith and culture was considered evil and worth being killed over. I highly recommend reading Why I Don't Call Them Sabbats, Why You Should Stop, and Other Thoughts on Problematic Aspects of Western Witchcraft by Nile Sorena for more thoughts on this topic, as well as Jews and the Witchcraze by Jewitches.

The Wheel of the Year, the cycle of yearly Wiccan holidays (the very ones referred to as 'sabbats', which I refuse to do and will not start doing), is just as appropriative as the use of the word sabbat, but, hilariously, it is also quite magically and religiously dysfunctional. The Wheel of the Year is a Wiccan invention, initially based on the works of James Frazer, Robert Graves and Margaret Murray, the latter of whom was a big proponent of the theory that 'witches' gathered on cross-quarterly days, something that is still a big motif in Wicca. These theories were adopted by neopaganism by Gardner's Bricket Wood Coven and the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, a neo-Druidic group founded by Ross Nichols. Supposedly, these people harmonized the eight primarily holidays described by the former academics to create an easy-to-use calendar for neopagans in Britain. [11] In the 1970s, prolific Wiccan Aidan Kelly gave names to some of the previously unnamed Wiccan equinoxes (Mabon and Ostara) and the Wiccan summer solstice (Litha). [12] This leaves us with the contemporary wheel of the year, which looks like this:

There are many reasons I find the Wheel of the Year appropriative and dysfunctional. For starters, Wiccan lore claims that the spokes-on-a-wheel structure is borrowed from Celtic mythology, but there is no evidence that Celtic myth ever depicted the passing of time as a wheel. Nevertheless, there is no inherent problem with viewing the passing of time as a wheel; cycles are very important in paganism across Europe. More cumbersome than the supposedly ancient wheel structure, is the combination of pagan holidays from various only passively related cultures. Beltane (Bealtaine), Lughnasadh, Samhain, and Imbolc are Celtic; specifically Gaelic. They all work well in conjunction, and were historically celebrated by the same people(s) throughout their years. Yule is Germanic, being celebrated by the Norse, continental Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon peoples. It was not in any way historically related to the four primary Celtic festivals, and doesn't work in conjunction with them very well, as many things that made Yule significant to the Germanic peoples, were celebrated during Samhain by the Gaels. Mabon is a contrived festival, filling an autumnal gap. The Germanic peoples did not have a specialized holiday for the autumn equinox, nor did the Celts, so Wiccans filled this gap with a 'lesser Sabbat' in the 1960s, named 'Mabon' by Aidan Kelly in the 1970s. [12] It was named for Mabon ap Modron, a figure in Brythonic mythology. As Wicca is wont to do, it paints itself and its traditions as incredibly ancient and cultural, and Mabon is no exception to this rule. Wiccans generally paint Mabon as a 'Celtic harvest festival' filled with rich traditions of sacrifice and preparation for winter, but factually, nothing is less true. Mabon (ap Modron) as a deity has nothing whatsoever to do with the autumn equinox, and there is no solid record of consistent autumn equinox festivities as celebrated by the Celts (nor by the Germanic peoples, for that matter). Noteworthy also is that on top of this usage of the name of Mabon for an unrelated festival often being deemed appropriation by Welsh and other Gaelic people, additional offense is often taken to the likening of the 'Mabon' celebrations to Thanksgiving, as many leftist people involved in Celtic culture have no respect for, nor wish to be associated with, colonialism. Ostara is an almost equally contrived festival, based on a single attestation by a Christian in England, Bede, who claimed in his work The Reckoning of Time that there was an Anglo-Saxon goddess named Ēostre, to whom a spring feasts were dedicated during the month of Ēosturmōnaþ (modern April). Litha, too, finds its origins in Bede's The Reckoning of Time. Per Aidan Kelly himself:

Summer was also rather easy. The Saxon calendar described by Bede was lunisolar. It usually had twelve months, but in the third, fifth, and last month of an 8-year cycle, a 13th month was added to keep it (more or less) in sync with the solar years. The last and first months in the calendar were named Foreyule and Afteryule, respectively, and obviously framed the holiday of Yule. The sixth and seventh month were named Forelitha and Afterlitha; furthermore, when the thirteenth month was added, it went in between them, and the year was then called a Threelitha. Obviously, by analogy with Yule, the summer solstice must have been called Litha. (I later discovered that Tolkien had figured this out also.)

Now, there is nothing wrong with being inspired by various open, European cultures and using that inspiration to create something new. Traditions don't have to be centuries old to be valid. What makes this thing that Wicca does appropriation, is that it refuses to acknowledge its traditions as modern, and its inspirations as cultural. This started way back in its origins, when Murray popularized the witch-cult hypothesis and Gardner espoused it, and it survives into the modern day with Wiccans either refusing to admit or pointedly ignoring the fact that their traditions are modern and were established in the modern period.

Wicca also breeds tolerance for cultural (mis)appropriation. When one is not taught to feel any animosity toward appropriation like the use of the word 'sabbat(h)' outside of its original context, even when the usage of the word is of active detriment to the people to whom the word originally belonged, one will feel confident doing other, similar appropriation elsewhere as well. This is why you'll often notice that it is Wiccans, and people who practice Wiccan-derived practices, who end up appropriating such things as white sage, dreamcatchers, sound bowls, reiki, et cetera. Some of those things should never be used by people who are not native to the culture those things come from, such as white sage, which is not only strictly closed but also a severely endangered plant; others are open to foreigners, but should be treated with respect and acknowledged as belonging to a certain culture. Wiccans who readily appropriate such things are often unable or unwilling to provide substantial information on where those practices or items come from and why they should be within their rights to have them, except through arguments which minimize the cultural value of something. A great example of this is this famed argument: "white sage can't be closed, it's a plant. Plants belong to the earth, and the earth belongs to everyone. I should be allowed to use white sage." Ignoring the fact that white sage is endangered and white sage in stores is generally poached, which entirely negates the 'respecting the earth' aspect of that argument, this argument also diminishes the cultural importance of white sage to Native Americans.

A different reason that appropriation runs rampant in Wiccan communities is, actually, white supremacy. The goal of white supremacy is to homogenize the white race into a single white cultural and ethnic identity, so that all white people may band together and rule over the inferior races, as it were. People think that white supremacy has to be quite drastic, only recognizing it in such things as fascism and neo-nazism, but in actuality, white supremacy is propagated in many far more innocuous ways. The wish to eradicate minority languages, various conspiracy theories about aliens, many commonly accepted forms of pseudoscience, and many forms of cultural appropriation that are popular to this day are huge cultivators of white supremacy. Something does not need to explicitly state, or even have the intent or desire to create a homogenous white ethnic identity to further white supremacy. This topic is so vast and complex it is impossible to summarize in any effective way in this post, which is why I encourage all magical practitioners and pagans to see witchcraft as highly intersectional an do their research about white supremacy and other harmful ideologies that survive in western spirituality to this day. Folkism and Odinism are great examples of not explicitly, but undeniably white supremacist spiritual organizations that further white supremacy by attempting to create a universal Germanic (and then European) cultural and ethnic identity. Wicca also engages a lot with the idea of various pan-European identities. This is particularly visible in two ways: one, the idea that there is a pan-European witch-cult that has survived from prehistory into the modern age. Magic, throughout Europe, as well as paganism throughout Europe, is highly variable and culturally dependent. Though it follows many of the same themes, as it does mostly have its roots in Proto-Indo-European common origins, it is distinctly different. If Europe had one, shared, culture, our world would look very different. Indeed, Europe is just as culturally diverse as any other place, even if nowadays (thanks to white supremacy) that is harder to see. There is not and never has been one singular secret society of witches in Europe. Instead, folk magic, which is culturally and linguistically dependent, and extremely variable across Europe, has survived under the radar of the church into the modern era, and it is one of Europe's most beautiful assets when it comes to illustrating our cultural richness. The second way that Wicca propagates pan-European identities is through their dual divinity system. Wicca's divinities, the Great Horned God and the Triple Goddess, who both are also, in turn, appropriated from Gaulish and Celtic lore respectively, are often said to be a sort of figurehead for all pagan divinities and serve as a sort of shorthand way to worship them all, in a soft pantheist way. The Horned God or Lord, the divine masculine, represents all male pagan gods, and his counterpart represents all female pagan gods as the Divine Feminine. Now, pantheism is not inherently problematic, but when one tries to reduce every pagan divinity in existence, gods which all have wildly different cultural and historic backgrounds, to two deities, without even being so courteous as to make those deities liminal and featureless, I fear that does turn into a problem. No, it is not possible to worship every single pagan god in existence by paying respects to just two deities who are mostly modern inventions. Every deity and every religion, every culture, has distinct needs, requirements, and ways of paying respect, and attempting to reduce all of that to the idea that two gods can serve as a prism and replacement for all the gods which have ever existed is a major flaw to this religion as well as a serious indicator of a strong tie to white supremacy.

But there is another problem to the dual divinity system of Wicca, which is gender essentialism. On top of cultural variability being completely forsaken by this prism-pantheistic idea, it also completely fails to acknowledge that there are many deities across Europe and across the globe which do not conform to the gender binary. The abrahamic God Himself is a great example, but so is Loki, a deity who is oddly well-beloved by Wiccans despite the religion's bioessentialist nature. So are Hermaphroditus from Hellenic myth, various South American divinities, even deities in Tagalog lore. As a matter of fact, gender-neutral depictions of divinity have been found on Celtic gold. [13] Divinity itself, as a concept, has no gender. Rejecting the gender binary has also been crucial to magic and witchcraft across Europe, see for example crossdressing being a prerequisite to successful Seidhr practices, and the associations of men practicing seidhr with unmanliness and even homosexuality. [14] Rejecting the gender binary was a powerful act when it came to magical skill, as it furthered ones journey into the liminal and undefined, the strange and 'other', which is where all manner of magical creatures resided. In fact, the residents of the Otherworld, the Faeries themselves, are not too keen on gender binary. The Divine Male archetype of aggressor, protector, avenger and ruler is one that, in Faery Courts, is generally represented by the Queen, not the King. If there even is a King. I find this ironic, considering Wicca's desire to be closely associated with Celtic mythology and antiquity. The concept of Divine Femininity and Divine Masculinity is also directly contradictory to feminism. To attempt to reduce a woman to nothing but the soft, sensual, sagely, nurturing caretaker is undeniably misogynistic. The idea of a Divine Masculine, too, is antifeminist, though only in the sense that it is entirely patriarchal. Men are leaders, providers, and warriors, according to the gender essentialist archetypes that the Divine Feminine and Masculine reference. This is harmful to men, as well, because it places them in the position of needing to be manly and invulnerable at all times, much to the complaint of both men and women in the modern age. It is simply unproductive and anti-feminist, in a way that is hard to ignore. The bioessentialism of Wicca goes beyond just the Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine archetypes of their deities, however. There is a strong emphasis within Wicca on depictions of genitalia, and many Wiccan authors and figureheads draw comparisons between really any long object and a phallus, believing that everything in magic has to eventually circle back to fertility. Wands are phallic, athames are phallic. The average Wiccan supply store will have penis shaped candles, penis carvings of various crystals. Wicca propagates bioessentialism the likes of which are not seen in any other form of paganism, not even historic paganism. This attitude towards the nonconforming and emphasis on the gender and sex binary make many people feel excluded from Wicca. Trans people, nonbinary people, really any queer or gay person, of any sort, can experience Wicca as a hostile environment. Wiccans may argue that it isn't transphobic by saying that they are including both sexes and never intentionally exclude trans, gay and nonconforming individuals, but what they fail to realize is that the binary, any binary, is outdated. There are more than two gender identities, and there are more than two sexes. Intersex people can never feel included when the religion so heavily affirms that there is, or should be, only penis and vulva.

Furthermore, Gardner himself was a flagrant homophobe, and well-known for it. Lois Bourne, a High Priestess of the Bricket Wood Coven, Gardner's own coven, wrote this about him: [15]

Gerald was homophobic. He had a deep hatred and detestation of homosexuality, which he regarded as a disgusting perversion and a flagrant transgression of natural law ... "There are no homosexual witches, and it is not possible to be a homosexual and a witch" Gerald almost shouted. No one argued with him.

Wicca Tomorrow: Cultural Erasure and Loss

Admittedly, none of what I've said so far has truly captured my biggest, and primary, reason for hating Wicca as much as I do. Other than the fact that I myself am indigenous, and have felt the effects of white supremacy, cultural erasure, and homogenization of white peoples all my life, other than the fact that I am queer and in a gay relationship, other than the fact that I have family who were victims of the holocaust, other than the fact that I am, at my core, an intersectional, radical leftist - the thing I hate the most about Wicca is its potential. Not potential for greatness, mind. I hate Wicca's potential for destruction. I already get to witness it in action every day, and it strikes fear into my heart like nothing else.

I, personally, have always believed that the first antidote to white supremacy, in an ironic but poetic spin, is love for one's own culture. White supremacy, in an attempt to make the white man feel at home in his whiteness and like he has one thing (superiority) in common with all other white men, strips him from his local culture. He is forced to view himself as part of something great, something that spans all of Europe, or all of Germania, or what have you, and he is made to turn a blind eye to what he already has. Local culture. His language, more specifically even, his dialect. His mother's lilt, and his father's flowery cadence. His neighbors. Their celebrations, their cooking traditions. His city. Its architecture, its communal sites, its judicial system. His land. Its medicines, its foods, its magics. The animals upon it. His companions, his livestock, rarely even his foes. Everything a person truly needs is within walking distance when in nature. Every ecosystem is equipped with everything we could possibly need, from a varied diet, to our medicines, to our shelters, to our hygiene products, all the way to the very things that keep us in check. That is not coincidence: we were grown, woven fiber by fiber by that land, that soil, over thousands, millions, billions of years. We do not need the whole world, there is no reason to try to conquer it. But we want to colonize, and so we must make larger and larger teams, clans, armies, races. The man from Truthan must become Cornish, then Celtic, then English, then British, then European, then white, then better. He would have been better off, happier, had he stayed Cornish.

In the worldwide community of people who take an amateur and personal interest in magic and paganism, Wicca is white supremacy's most effective tool in stripping people of their local culture. Wicca did not become this by design; shoddy and evil though its origins may be, I do not think Wicca was created with the intention of homogenizing and radicalizing the white race. However, in the 1950s, when all cultural magic in Europe were flying low under the radar of the church, hiding in families, in villages, in cookbooks and journals, in visits to the local keening woman to cure the evil eye the neighbor gave your cow, Wicca was the first community, first organized religion, to wave a flag and loudly and proudly proclaim to be pagan, to be witches. To do magic. It was the first to associate itself with those labels and voluntarily take them on, to be known by them. Through this singular association with those terms, it became the first thing people thought of when they thought about magic. Because the magic of the common people, the folk magic, is never termed magic by the ones doing it. "This rowan stick in my windowsill against lightning? Magic? You mean that stuff those witches in London do?" Nowadays, as the first form of magic and paganism to go mainstream in Europe since Christianity's taking over, Wicca is ubiquitous when the amateur goes to research magic and paganism. When the internet came along, this became a bigger problem than it may already have been before the digital age. Now, when people are introduced to the concept of modern magic and paganism, when they go to research it, they will only find Wicca. Not for utter lack of sources on (other) cultural magic, on the contrary: there are plenty, but one needs to use specific key words to find them. More scientific, more academic, more secular. When one wants to research cultural and specific magic, one must assume the author does not believe himself, nor does he believe you do. Wicca, however, has resources that do assume the researcher is interested in practicing, which is yet another reason that people go to Wicca rather than something else. They won't find the folk magic, and if they do, it won't be as comprehensive, accessible, entertaining, and personable as Wicca. Wicca will always win, because it was never challenged in the first place. This has led to a huge disparity in the amount of people who know about and/or practice Wicca, and the amount of people who know about and/or practice folk magic and/or cultural paganism. And as Wicca gains more and more popularity, both because it was always set up for success by chance, and because it subtly purveys white supremacy in a way that most people do not even recognize, it will continue to smother cultural, traditional, and folk magic.

Wicca's Reach: Contemporary Magic

Many people who would not consider themselves, or do not identify as Wiccan, still get called that by me in an intentionally derivative way. Not usually to their faces, but when I am discussing reasons why I do not like Wicca, I find it hard to draw a substantial, or even relevant, line between people who identify as Wiccans, and people who do not identify as such but still, functionally, are. Due to Wicca's chokehold on the first several pages of Google when you look up most things pertaining to magic, most practitioners of magic are essentially Wiccan without the label. They do not associate with Wicca intentionally, but they have no idea how to access, or any awareness of the existence of folk magic resources, and so end up practicing the magic Wicca teaches. In witching communities, well-known Wiccan authors are considered staples to read, such as Scott Cunningham. Authors that do not call themselves Wiccan (anymore) but do promote the magic are just as popular, such as Arin Murphy-Hiscock and Nathan M. Hall. These authors all have the same fatal flaw, which makes them Wiccans and automatically unreliable in my eyes: they promote the very idea which Wicca all but created, that there is one, single, universal way to do magic. That you, a Hawai'i Native living on the Islands, will do the best magic you've ever done with this set of European herbs that do not grow on your own soil. With this set of half-baked, appropriative Laws and methods, contrived out of a mishmash of appropriated indigenous practices and European traditions; like the Threefold Law, which is nothing but a cheap and terrible misinterpretation of the Dharmic concept of Karma. Except Wicca doesn't call them that. It calls the herbs staples, essentials. It calls the half-baked rules Ardanes and Magical Theory. Nothing is more ironic to me than a supposed nature religion telling people to forsake the nature around them in favor of the 'universal subsitute' Rosemary (salvia rosmarinus), a plant they've never even seen in real life save for in the jar in their spice cabinet.

Nowadays, thanks to the omnipresence of Wicca, there is a whole new magical tradition, yet unnamed. It consists of all those secular practitioners of magic who do all of their research via resources actually pandering to practitioners, all those people who claim 'we are the daughters of the witches you couldn't burn', all those people who have never heard of or hardly ever think about magic that isn't 'witchcraft'. I like to refer to it as 'contemporary magic', or sometimes 'modern magic', in a context where the label contemporary could be cause for confusion. This 'modern magic' is that more-or-less universal, monotone, Wiccan derived, secular magic that most people would term 'witchcraft'. The magic you see on TikTok. The spell jar magic. The cord-cutting magic. The lemon hex magic. The 'spiritual but not religious' magic. The sound bowl and smoke cleanse magic. The light and love magic. The 'white' magic. Magick. This magic is not culture-less, not at all. It is its own culture, as it were, and not only that, most of the spells, rituals and rules it has have their origins in European culture. But this magic is, in a way, anti-culture. Colonial. It smothers and endangers local magic, more relevant magic, and spreads like wildfire because it is so easy to never have to research beyond Wicca. What makes this modern magic inherently harmful is that it, too, is appropriative. The resources that provide you with this magic, which like the religion that sprouted it, is a huge, sometimes dysfunctional and clashing mosaic of culture, do not actually inform you of the origins of any of the practices that they teach you. They teach you what to do, how to do it, what materials to use, et cetera, but they don't teach you where these rituals came from, why these plants had those associations, what culture sprang this curse. And contrary to popular belief, those things are crucial to magic. The cultures at hand deserve to be honored for what they've given, and every culture has the right to be preserved. Culture is important elsewhere, but it is fundamental to magic. Magic cannot exist without culture. Gods are nothing but a lens to view the world through, magic is nothing but a response to struggle in a language that every human shares: the language of wonder and learning. Magic, at its core, is nothing but humanity's ability to feel amazed, and learn from the elegant language the earth speaks to us. And it is propagated by our ability to speak, to share, to teach to one another. Mother to daughter, brother to sister, chieftain to peasant, wife to warrior. Carry this, eat that. Don't do this, don't go there. Wicca does not acknowledge this importance of culture, nor does it make any efforts to teach the practitioners of it and its derivatives what cultures it was built on and off of. That is the crux and definition of cultural appropriation.

Wicca will continue to spread. I think one of my toxic traits is that I resigned myself to this idea a long time ago, much like how many people resign themselves to the idea of white supremacy or climate change. I can't help but see Wicca and the damage it does as irreversible. Wicca occupies the first pages of any google search about magic, the first thought anyone has when you self-identify as a pagan or practitioner of magic. 'Witch' as a word is completely different than it once was, as is the word sabbat. It feels inescapable, and this weighs heavily on me as somebody whose culture, too, is growing lost in part due to the priority of Wicca over cultural magic. I started writing this post in hopes of getting out all my grievances with this tradition. Ten thousand words and a great many sources later, the wound Wicca carved into me when I realized people would choose it over the valuable cultural knowledge I have and want to preserve no longer throbs, it just aches emptily. If this post manages to change one person's mind on Wicca, it has done its job, and I can die happily. If this post motivates one person to look beyond Wicca and glance at the rich and wild world of cultural magic, especially their own culture, I'll spend eternity in the afterlife gloating.

If there was one thing I wanted the reader to take away from this post, it is not that they should hate Wicca and actively fight to eradicate it. It is that culture is beautiful. All cultures are beautiful. There is no such thing as 'white culture' and we should strive to dismantle that, but the way to do that is to acknowledge the real culture. British culture, English culture, Cornish culture. Low Saxon culture. Silesian culture. Yakutian culture. Tibetan culture. Qazaq culture. Yup'ik culture. Irish culture. Amazigh culture. Cree culture. Sámi culture. Maori culture. Aymaran culture. Muscogee culture. Zulu culture. Find what is rightfully yours, because no matter who or where you are, there is culture in your ancestry, and there is culture in your neighborhood. You are entitled to it like you are entitled to air and water. Learn about the plants that are native to your area. Learn about the medicines your peoples used when conventional medicine was not available to them. Learn about their faith before Christianity, learn about the way they thought the universe came to be and what made humans human. Eat cultural foods, both yours and not. Talk to your elders, and really listen to what they say. Try to remember the weird superstitions and turns of phrase you grew up with. I promise it's there, and I promise it's beautiful. I promise it will make you feel at home.

In the following weeks I will try my best to dedicate some posts to the beginnings of folk magic. How to get involved, where to look for resources, what makes a good resource, what keywords to use when searching, what to do when it feels like there's nothing out there for you, how to find which culture you are a part of. Until then, I will leave you with my sincerest gratitude for reading this ridiculously long complaint.

----------------------------

Doyle White, Ethan (2016). Wicca: History, Belief, and Community in Modern Pagan Witchcraft. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press. 

Climenhaga, L. (2012). Imagining the Witch: A Comparison between Fifteenth-Century Witches within Medieval Christian Thought and the Persecution of Jews and Heretics in the Middle Ages. Constellations, 3(2). 

“The Dehumanization and Demonization of the Medieval Jews.” Medieval Antisemitism?, by François Soyer, Arc Humanities Press, Leeds, 2019, pp. 45–66.

Simpson, Jacqueline (1994). Margaret Murray: Who Believed Her, and Why? Folklore, 105:1-2: 89-96.

Murray, Margaret Alice (1933). The God of the Witches. S. Low, Marston & Company, Limited.

Bracelin, Jack (1960). Gerald Gardner: Witch. Octagon.

Heselton, Philip (2012a). Witchfather: A Life of Gerald Gardner. Loughborough, Leicestershire: Thoth.

Valiente, Doreen (2007) [1989]. The Rebirth of Witchcraft. London: Robert Hale.

"Britain's chief witch dies at sea". News of the World. 23 February 1964. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018.

Heselton, Philip (2003). Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration: An Investigation Into the Sources of Gardnerian Witchcraft. Capall Bann.

Lamond, Frederic (2004), Fifty Years of Wicca, Sutton Mallet, England: Green Magic, pp. 16–17.

Kelly, Aidan. About Naming Ostara, Litha, and Mabon. Including Paganism. Patheos.

Ambiguous Deities on Celtic Gold, Numismatic News. February 27, 2023.

Price, Neil (2002). The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University.

Bourne, Lois (2006). Dancing with Witches. London: Robert Hale. p. 38.

---- If you enjoy my work, please consider purchasing or commissioning some of my written resarch, ordering a reading, or commissioning my art. Click here to see the options. Thank you!

[maxdibert]

From the way you talk, it sounds like you’re defending murderers, like they’re not even bad people 😅😅. And I’m not even talking about cases like self-defense or anything like that.

Legally, Snape didn’t kill the Potters or torture the Longbottoms, sure. But let’s be real—if it weren’t for him, they might still be alive. And he was a Death Eater for three years—do you really think he never killed anyone in that time? And why would he care? He didn’t give a damn about what they were doing until it affected him personally. Hе begged them to spare Lily… Like, who cares what she actually wanted? He wanted to save her after bringing this whole mess on them himself—even if it was by accident. If it had been any other family, he would’ve stayed a Death Eater and kept being a piece of shit till the end.

And how many times did he actually save Harry? Once? Twice? Maybe three times? (And no, I’m not counting that scene in the movie where he supposedly protected the Golden Trio from the werewolf—that wasn’t in the books.) He became a spy shortly before Voldemort’s death, and then again when Harry was in his fourth/fifth year. And the rest of the time, he just sat around doing nothing, like everyone else. So yeah, reading about his “20 years of nonstop dedication to the forces of good!!” just feels ridiculous to me.

He did the bare minimum for someone trying to redeem himself after all the shit he’d done—he literally had no other choice.)

Ah, the classic “Snape did the bare minimum and didn’t even care” argument. Let’s break it down.

"Without Snape, the Potters and Longbottoms might still be alive"

This is, at best, an absurd oversimplification and, at worst, an outright lie. Snape didn’t point Voldemort toward the Potters or the Longbottoms. He passed along information about a prophecy to his boss (which was literally his job as a spy at the time). He had no idea Voldemort would choose to target the Potters specifically, and when he found out, he did what no one else did: he tried to stop it.

Was his initial motive Lily? Yes. And? Snape was caught up in a supremacist organization from a young age, but unlike many others, Snape completely switched sides and became the double agent who ultimately led to Voldemort’s downfall.

Neither Dumbledore nor the Order could prevent Voldemort from going after the Potters. Snape tried. He failed, but at least he did something.

By the way, where was the rest of the Order in all of this? Why didn’t anyone else foresee what would happen to the Potters? Oh right, because Peter Pettigrew betrayed them. But sure, let’s blame Snape for everything. And let's blame him for begging for Lily and not Jame who was literally his long term abuser lol

"Did he kill anyone as a Death Eater?"

We literally don't know and in fact there is a huge insinuation during canon that him ceirtainly didn't.

But let's think he killed people. So what? History is full of people who have committed crimes and later changed sides. Snape isn’t a pure hero—he’s an antihero. If we demand that Snape must have a spotless record in order for his redemption to be valid, then shouldn’t we also discard characters like Regulus Black or Draco Malfoy?

What matters is that he changed sides and actively worked against Voldemort. He didn’t just say, “Oh, I don’t want to be a Death Eater anymore.” No. He became the key spy who kept Voldemort in the dark about Harry, the Order, Dumbledore’s strategy, etc.

“If it had been any other family, he would’ve stayed a Death Eater”

This is pure baseless speculation. Snape had prejudices, sure, but even before switching sides, he was never a fanatic like Bellatrix or the Carrows. He was an outcast who found power in the wrong group—until he realized what being a Death Eater truly meant.

Yes, at first, he only cared about Lily. But if she was the only reason for his change, then why did he keep fighting for years after she died?

If he only cared about Lily, he would’ve stopped after her death. But he didn’t. He stayed, kept spying for Dumbledore, risked his life daily, and in the end, he died for the cause.

“He only saved Harry three times”

First, that’s not true. Second, saving Harry wasn’t his only job. His role as a spy was far more important. Here are some things he did besides saving Harry:

Maintained his cover as a loyal Death Eater, earning Voldemort’s trust.

Protected the students at Hogwarts (yes, even the ones he disliked).

Drew suspicion away from Quirrell in Philosopher’s Stone.

Stopped Umbridge from torturing students in Order of the Phoenix.

Tried to protect Draco Malfoy from becoming a murderer and saved him from Voldemort’s wrath.

Provided the Order with critical intel on Voldemort’s plans.

Successfully deceived Voldemort until the very end, allowing Harry to win.

Saying “he only saved Harry three times” is like saying a resistance soldier only contributed because he shot three enemies—completely ignoring all his strategic and intelligence work.

“He did the bare minimum because he had no other choice”

Really? Who else in his position did the same? How many Death Eaters switched sides and risked their lives daily for 17 years? Why didn’t Lucius Malfoy become a spy? Why didn’t Regulus Black act sooner? Why did Karkaroff just run away?

Snape had plenty of other choices. He could’ve fled like Karkaroff. He could’ve pretended to switch sides and just stayed out of the fight. He could’ve let Harry die from the start and washed his hands of the whole mess. But he didn’t.

He even admitted to Dumbledore that he would never forgive Harry for surviving while Lily died. But he protected him anyway. Because it wasn’t about what he wanted—it was about what was right.

Snape wasn’t a perfect hero, but he wasn’t a one-dimensional villain either. He was a deeply flawed, complex character who, in the end, was instrumental in Voldemort’s downfall. He didn’t just do “the bare minimum”—he sacrificed his entire life, reputation, and future to ensure the Order had a chance.

If you think that’s not enough, the problem isn’t Snape. It’s that you refuse to acknowledge what he did.

PS: Do you even know what it means to be a criminal lawyer? I mean, I get the feeling that you don’t know how to read. Yes, I defend criminals. Yes, I have defended people who have killed others or hurt them very, very badly. So, I’ll insist again: you can try all the mental gymnastics you want to change my opinion, but if I have firmly believed that a person who left someone else in a coma deserved to be defended—a real person, with real consequences in the real world—you are not going to change my opinion about a fictional character whose story is literally based on a redemption arc that lasts seven books and whose only crime was criminal association when he was a teenager. I mean, I get the feeling that you’ve never actually left your house, you don’t know many people, and you’ve never interacted with anyone outside of your church in your little town.

[gigglesandfreckles-hp]

OH JILY PROMPTS pleaseeee can you do number 51 (we're so hot) or 56 (baking is a science) ♡♡

from these prompts

They’re on very official, very important Head duties.

If asked to specify exactly what those duties entail or what makes them so very official and important, there would be some hesitation and a fair bit of fumbling, but ultimately, they’d make something up, because it’s well after curfew and the rumours about the Head Boy and Head Girl dating aren’t entirely baseless, but it’s not as if they need to add fuel to the fire.

They are distinctly not taking advantage of the freedom afforded to them by their badges to find new places to fool around.

“It’s this way,” James says, using his grip on her hand to tug her down another hallway. “I think.”

Lily sighs, a mix of exasperation and fondness. “Why didn’t you just bring the map?”

“Because, Evans,” he drawls, “where’s the fun in that?”

“Of course,” she says, rolling her eyes and quickening her pace to match his long strides. “No fun to be had in actually having a destination in mind instead of mindlessly wandering around the castle at half eleven, trying Alohamora on random doors.”

“I’m hearing a lot of complaining from the girl who practically begged me to—” He jiggles another doorknob and curses under his breath before dragging her further down the hall.

“And what if I change my mind before we find an actual spot?”

James comes to an abrupt halt, dropping her hand to turn around. “Lily Evans, you wouldn’t.”

She laughs, the kind that bubbles up and spills out. “No, Potter. I wouldn’t.”

He watches her for another moment, his eyes searching her face for any hint of deceit, before reclaiming her hand, this time threading his fingers through hers, and continues to pull her along the corridor.

And that’s when they hear Mulciber and Avery.

It couldn’t be Dolohov or Snape or anyone with half a brain; no—it had to be fucking Mulciber and Avery. The Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of Slytherin House.

The issue with it being them is that there’s no reasoning, no common sense, no ‘get back to your common room before we have to dock points.’

It doesn’t mean they don’t try.

“Do you have a pass from a professor, to be out at these hours?” Lily speaks up before James can, because a) it’s usually easier this way and b) one of the lovely things about James Potter is that he never minds being in the background, at least not if it’s her background.

Mulciber sneers at her and Lily immediately knows what’s coming next. She wishes she was still holding James’s hand so she could warn him too, with a small squeeze of ‘don’t freak out, I’m okay, I’m used to it, please don’t freak out, he’s not worth it.’

“Filthy Mudblood bitch.”

Lily has less than a split second to decide whether to try and stop James from raising his own wand or whether to draw her own. In the end, it is a good thing she chooses the latter because Avery fires off a nasty curse that Lily barely manages to deflect toward Mulciber. The howl of pain he releases as he drops to the ground isn’t enviable. The amplification of that howl as James hits him with another hex for good measure makes Lily wince.

They make short work of Avery after that and, barring a quick argument on whether or not to levitate the boys to the Slytherin common room with a signed note and a confetti bow, decide to leave the boys where they are in the halls, petrified for whichever professor happens to be up the earliest.

It isn’t until after they round the corner down the hall that Lily lets herself think about it. Not what Mulciber said because she has spent plenty of time thinking about that—but about them, her and James, and how, well, nice it is to have him at her side in moments like this. Even if he tends to go overboard, like, all the time.

“Potter.”

“Hm?” He doesn’t look up from his task—rebuttoning the cuff of his shirt now that the sleeves are pushed up to his elbows. His forearms flex with the motion, catching her eye. The button is stubborn, apparently, as James deftly twists his fingers around. He uses his shoulder to push his glasses up the bridge of his nose, his brow furrowed in concentration. A light sheen of sweat dots his forehead, but Lily loses sight of it as a wild curl flops down into his eyes.

She smiles appreciatively at the scene. “We’re so hot.”

His head pops up to look at her, amused and curious. “Er…what?”

Lily laughs and stops them in their tracks, gently taking over the task from his fumbling fingers. “Look at us. We’re…” She successfully manages to fasten the button and smiles up at him. “Don’t you ever feel that way? Like, one day, we’ll tell our kids about all the things we got up to and they’ll tell their friends and their friends will be like, shit, your parents were so cool.”

He grins down at her and tucks a stray strand of hair behind her ear. “Our kids, huh?”

She playfully shoves his chest, feeling her cheeks warm. “You know what I mean.”

“I do. I absolutely think our kids are gonna tell stories about their ridiculously fit, Quidditch Captain dad and the sexy, rebel Head Girl—”

“Why are our kids using terms like fit and sexy to describe their parents? That feels problematic.”

“It feels inevitable, actually. I mean,” he leans down, his tone light and teasing against her lips, “have you seen us?”

“Oh, piss off,” she snorts.

His grin widens against her mouth, even as he—finally—kisses her. “We are so hot, Evans,” he murmurs, his lips ghosting over the corner of her smile. “You," and back to her lips again, "are so hot.”

[oristian]

“Elain is going to rely on choice in her book.”

Choice is going to be a tension focal point within Elain’s book, that is a pretty standard observation across the board. It is when the argument continues that the obstacle of ‘choice’ becomes muddled into something else entirely. “Elain is going to choose love.” I agree that Elain is ultimately going to choose who she loves, but why is it that ‘love’ and ‘choice’ only applies if Elain chooses Azriel?

A choice implies that there is more than one option, so when Elain chooses love, she is choosing between Azriel or Lucien. Choice will always apply in the same regard if she chooses Lucien and accepts their mating bond—it would not be against her will.

Elain has the most agency on choice compared to her sisters. Feyre found out that she was mates with Rhysand while he was dying and she had very little time to process it before the climax of that book (pun intended). Nesta found out that she was mates with Cassian in the middle of a public area and the very next day was thrust into the Blood Rite. Both Archeron sisters did not have the time and knowledge that Elain has in regard to her mating bond with Lucien. Elain has been aware of the bond between them for over three years.

“Elain has never made a choice in her life.” I hear this said constantly, but it is such a baseless claim. ACOSF showcased that Elain was spared from the abuse that their mother and grandmother projected onto Nesta, and Elain was spared from the neglectful indifference that their father showcased towards Feyre. Elain did not have the obligation to marry for power that Nesta had; Elain chose Grayson for love. People tend to forget that Nesta was also kidnapped and thrown into the Cauldron in ACOMAF—both sisters lost their consent and bodily autonomy and choice in that scene.

Lucien is not dangling the mating bond over her head, nor is he utilizing the bond to manipulate her into being with him. If Elain chooses Lucien and accepts their bond, she is doing so out of her own free will.

To say that there is no choice involved if Elain chooses Lucien would have to be applied to Feysand and Nessian, as well.

[fo3lonewanderer]

TERFs Not Welcome Here!

I've been seeing some Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist around so want to make something perfectly clear: If you claim to fight for equality while also putting down another minority group for their gender identity being valued less than yours on the patriarchical totem pole, you are no less of an indoctrinated hateful bigot than those who support the patriarchy in its entirety. Possibly even worse because you claim moral superiority while having unfounded hatred for another minority who just so happens to be more historically oppressed and less societally accepted than you.

I've seen people claiming they don't acknowledge trans identities because they do not support gender identities in general. That "argument" completely overlooks(or feigns ignorance about) one very simple thing:It isn't about you. I think that a lot of times gender identities are a social construct that only seeks to enforce patriarchical gender roles, but I still respect individual peoples' gender identities because it means something to them and it is easy for me to. To give a similar example: I am atheist and heavily against organized religion however if someone identifies as a christian or other theistic religion and they're not hurting anybody with that religion I don't shout in their face how god isn't real. It makes the other person much happier and it is just so easy to be nice rather than hateful.

I've also seen people claim to be against trans people or gender affirming care being because it can mess up their bodies or people can regret it later. Either they are very ill informed or (more likely) they are hateful and just picked random seemingly sound arguments that fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. Messing up bodies and/or regretting it later is a hazard of any elective surgery. The regret rate of gender affirming surgery is less than 1% while the regret rates of cosmetic surgery are 65% with 83% of the people who had it saying they would have any type of cosmetic surgery again. It is just a very bad faith baseless argument that shows either major ignorance, major hypocrisy because these same people absolutely will not speak out against other cosmetic surgery, or both.

Ultimately, just be nice and respectful of your fellow human. If they say they are a certain gender identity just take their word for it because it will not affect you in the slightest while it can make their day.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andy Craig at The UnPopulist:

In 1801, when President John Adams peacefully accepted defeat and ceded power to the winner of the prior year’s election, his partisan opponent Thomas Jefferson, it established a model for how electoral contests, even sharply divided ones, would conclude in our burgeoning republic. It was, substantially, the first time anything like it had ever happened. Over time, as elections attracted novel challenges of various sorts—such as the 1876 presidential contest—Congress and the states passed new legislation, and sometimes constitutional amendments, and courts provided rulings that accumulated in more procedural certainty. For the most part, we got by without triggering very many electoral crises thanks to candidates of all political affiliations following longstanding norms. We can no longer take those norms for granted.

Donald Trump’s avowedly anti-democratic stance, in both the previous election and this one, isn’t grounded in serious arguments about flaws in our electoral processes, or fairly arguable legal disputes. He rejects the premise, root and branch, that voters should ultimately be able to go with someone else instead, and that his power should be checked in any way by the rule of law. He is not running for president, he is running for dictator. Trump and allies filed over 60 lawsuits in 9 different states after the 2020 election—none with any merit. When legal efforts weren’t leading anywhere, he resorted to fraud and then to violence. And if things don’t go his way on Nov. 5, he’s likely to attempt even more of the same. But we should resist treating his electoral challenges with a legitimacy they don’t possess. We shouldn’t normalize what is essentially a repudiation of our democracy, not a good-faith challenge to the accuracy of vote totals or our election processes. These are not just questions of law, with answers to be found in the Constitution and statutes and court rulings. They are an attack on our fundamental political philosophy as a nation, the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Trump’s Election Claims Aren’t Genuine Legal Challenges

Today, largely in response to the turmoil following the 2020 election, the legal architecture around election disputes has become more robust. The Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), which passed with bipartisan support in 2022, tightened the procedures for certifying presidential results, ensuring that no vice president or rogue state officials can obstruct the will of the voters. Some states have also taken measures to shore up weak points in the administration and certification of their election results. But while the law has evolved, the fundamental reality hasn’t changed. No recount or post-election lawsuit is capable of flipping a presidential election unless the apparent margin of victory is razor-thin—as in, no more than a few hundred votes in a decisive swing state.

Of course, the arguments advanced in the aftermath of the 2020 election were completely spurious, both factually false and legally baseless. Voting machines did not alter the count. Trump’s claims of millions of illegal votes were made up out of thin air. Changes made to accommodate the pandemic were lawful, and upheld by the courts, and happened in states Trump won as much as those he lost. Nor did botched social media policies about Hunter Biden’s laptop affect the outcome, not that such a thing could be legally relevant anyway. State legislatures do not have the power to overturn presidential election results. Neither do governors and secretaries of state have the power to refuse certification. The fake electors scheme was completely bogus, and the conspirators who instigated the attempt knew it. The last-ditch litigation by Texas suing Pennsylvania and other swing states won by Biden was so frivolous the Supreme Court refused to even hear it. Mike Pence did not have the power to change the result, and neither did Congress under the circumstances. And yet, most of these same lies are being repeated now.

The groundwork being laid for Trump to overturn a defeat, if he is in fact defeated, is far more ambitious than any sincere dispute over a genuinely close outcome. These attempts cannot be reduced to mere creative lawyering, or trying to find the right legal loophole. Treating them as such, even in rebutting them, grants these schemes a patina of legitimacy they do not deserve. They are pure lawlessness. Like the attempt to overturn the last election, which Joe Biden won by tens of thousands of votes across multiple states, these plans are not pursuing any colorable legal theory. They are a criminal conspiracy—as one federal judge put it: “a coup in search of a legal theory.”

[...]

Recounts Adjust, They Don’t Overturn

Recounts exist to correct small errors, not to rewrite history. When every vote is recounted, slight adjustments are inevitable, but they are typically minor—a handful of votes here, a few miscategorized ballots there. In highly unusual cases, the final tally shifts by a few hundred votes, but even that is the upper limit. Often it’s less that; a recent statewide recount in Washington, where the candidates were initially separated by only 53 votes, ended up moving the margin by just two votes. The reality is that modern voting systems and election administration methods, despite their imperfections, are remarkably accurate. They are designed to withstand the occasional human error or technological hiccup without compromising the overall result. Even if a court finds evidence of localized errors or irregularities, the remedy is proportional to the scope of the problem. If some ballots are misread or reported incorrectly, the solution is to correct the mistake—not to invalidate thousands of legitimate votes. Legal challenges that aim to disqualify broad swaths of the electorate or overturn certified results require proof of systemic failures or outright fraud on an extraordinary scale.

[...]

The Myth of Widespread Fraud

Donald Trump and his allies, including X owner Elon Musk and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, have been busily pushing the idea that non-citizens are voting in large numbers and tipping elections. There is no evidence to support this claim, but that hasn’t stopped them from using it as a rallying cry. It is worth being blunt: the idea that there is widespread voter fraud going on is an utter myth. Exhaustive investigations by election officials, courts, journalists, and independent watchdogs have consistently found that improper voting happens at rates so low as to be statistically irrelevant. Georgia, for example, identified a small number of incorrect registrations, but could not identify a single non-citizen who’d actually cast a ballot. Even in the few cases where non-citizens or ineligible voters have cast ballots, the numbers are minuscule. Isolated instances, often the result of confusion rather than malice, and which involve members of both parties, are not sufficient to swing a presidential election. In the vast majority of elections, the margin of victory is measured in thousands of votes or more, far beyond the impact of any sporadic irregularities. In a system where more than 158 million votes were cast in 2020, a number likely to be greater this year, some errors are inevitable, and yet the number of provable cases is astonishingly few. But the purpose of these fraud claims is not to address a real problem; it is to provide a pretext for overturning accurate results. This narrative is not just about casting doubt on election outcomes, it is about laying the groundwork for rejecting the possibility of losing an election altogether. Trump’s playbook isn’t to prove fraud under any existing law—it is to create a cloud of suspicion, enough to justify extraordinary measures. The point is not to win by the rules, but to convince supporters that the election was stolen, regardless of the evidence, and that a possible Democratic victory can’t be legitimate.

Andy Craig writes in The UnPopulist that Donald Trump is likely to see another coup attempt if he loses to Kamala Harris.

[girlactionfigure]

𝐃𝐈𝐘 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐞: 𝐀 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦. Welcome, aspiring conspiracy theorists and antisemite! Tired of relying on others to tell you who’s behind your troubles? You’re in luck! We’ve crafted this easy-to-follow guide just for you. Whether you’re the type who blames Israel for attempting to assassinate Trump or the one insisting Trump is owned by Israel, we’ll show you how to spot Jewish influence in every conceivable problem—all by yourself. Let’s dive in!

Step 1: Identify the Problem First, take a good look at the issue at hand. Is it personal, economic, political, or environmental? No matter the nature, every problem has one thing in common: it can be blamed on Jews. Here’s how to identify your scapegoat.

Step 2: Establish a Baseless Connection Next, draw an imaginary line from your problem to the Jewish community. This doesn’t require evidence or logic—just a vivid imagination. Here are some examples: •Economic Troubles: If you’re broke, it’s because Jewish bankers control all the money. If you’re rich, they’re manipulating you into complacency. •Political Chaos: Lost faith in your government? Clearly, Jewish politicians are pulling the strings. Is the government too stable? They’re just setting you up for a bigger fall. •Natural Disasters: Hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods? Jewish weather machines are to blame. Lack of disasters? They’re saving them for a better moment.

Step 3: Ignore Contradictions A key skill in blaming Jews for everything is the ability to ignore contradictions. For example: •If Jews are controlling the media, how come negative stories about Jews exist? Simple! It’s a distraction technique. •Are Jews accused of both communism and capitalism? Perfect! This shows their unmatched versatility in conspiracy.

Step 4: Use Circular Logic. When someone questions your logic, just use circular reasoning. Here’s a handy script: •Questioner: “How do you know Jews are behind this?” •You: “Because they control everything.” •Questioner: “What’s your evidence?” •You: “The fact that there’s no evidence is evidence of their control.” See? Easy!

Step 5: Handle Contradictions with Confidence If you ever notice that your theories are contradicting themselves, don’t worry! Just follow these steps: •Double Down: Insist that the contradiction itself is part of the Jewish plot. Claim they are creating confusion on purpose. •Shift the Blame: Accuse your questioner of being part of the conspiracy for pointing out the contradiction. •Create New Theories: Invent additional layers to your conspiracy that explain away the contradictions. The more complex, the better!

Step 6: Personalize Your Blame Take every minor inconvenience in your life and find a way to blame Jews: •Missed your bus? The driver is probably part of a Jewish plot. •Burned your toast? Jewish control of appliance manufacturers. •Argument with a friend? Jewish influence in societal norms is the root cause.

Step 7: Create Complex Theories The more convoluted, the better! People love a good, intricate conspiracy. Mix historical events with wild assumptions: •Combine the Spanish Inquisition with modern banking practices. •Link ancient religious texts to current technological advancements. •Blend cultural achievements with sinister plots.

Step 8: Spread the Word Now that you’re a self-made expert in finding Jewish blame, share your “discoveries” with others. Social media is your playground. Make sure your posts are as inflammatory and vague as possible. Bonus points for using historical photos out of context.

Final Thoughts: Perfecting Your Craft Remember, the key to this approach is dedication to your narrative. Facts, logic, and evidence are the enemies of your worldview. With practice, you’ll become adept at seeing Jewish influence in everything, making you the ultimate DIY conspiracy theorist. Happy blaming!

@APbrooklyn_NY

[aliciavance4228]

Soooo.. you recognise your a shitty rotten conservative right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by making this post, but I'm going to be as politely as possible.

Yes, I have conservative parents. No, I do not share the same socio-political beliefs they do. I do not think it's something revolutionary to point out that people do not always happen to have the same mindset and principles their parents do, or that one can end up being different compared to their family.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that my case is not the only one, especially considering the fact that a lot of people out there are either from Eastern European or Asian countries (who tend to be more conservative). I can even recall a queer moot who complained once about the fact that their parents are homophobes.

Whatever you tried to accuse me of is ineffective, and ultimately an absurd conclusion with a baseless argument.

[utilitycaster]

I can't say if Imogen is representative of how the exaltant Ruidusborn are with regards to how her powers have changed her conception of hypocrisy, but if she is, that puts the Vanguard in an interesting light. That's been the ongoing problem with the ongoing debates about the gods within the party - ultimately, every argument for unleashing Predathos has been a purely ideological one without a strong basis in reality. It's either been a straight up "well, I didn't like how the hospital is run so we should let a horse into it," or a lot of baseless wank about the gods and free will that can be twisted to always back up what you were going to do anyway (which in turn is a really strong point towards free will, but that's besides the point).

Imogen is so focused about whether thoughts and inclinations are good or bad that she neglects the reality of situations. It's in interesting contrast to the conversation we have this episode, in which Bells Hells (once again, but you know, with feeling) comes down on the side of "the gods are really besides the point to what's going on vis-a-vis denying people free will and causing harm to them". And I wonder if the exaltants, at least, among the Vanguard, struggled with that argument in the the same way Imogen does - if they've spent so long thinking of people as a collection of their worst thoughts that they ignore all the actions. It would be a happy accident, but it would explain a lot about how Ludinus got in such a foothold with them.

[geddy-leesbian]

still laughing over that person that got super butt hurt about my Leon didn't give a shit about Krauser before the remake timeline post. bitch didn't have an icon or header still just the defaults, no title or anything on their blog, and prior to reblogging my post they hadn't posted/reblogged anything at all since 2018. like they had to have felt SO FUCKING OFFENDED to feel compelled to reblog my post after so many years of inactivity. it's almost flattering that my post was able to cut them so deeply.

also funny because they were mostly offended by things I didn't even say?? one of their main points was that they don't mind headcanon and theory but it wasn't okay for me to present my headcanons as objective fact, and sure, I guess they maybe had a point there. I didn't use the words theory or headcanon in the post, I did word things as if they were objective statements. HOWEVER, every single statement I made was backed up by direct quotes from canon. I wasn't just talking out of my ass, I was simply laying out the differences between how Leon treats other characters and how he treats Krauser, and why those differences indicate that Leon had zero emotional attachment to Krauser. I feel like anyone with a brain probably could have comprehended that I was making objective statements because it's easier to word a post like that and that it was ultimately my analysis of canon and not actual outright canon that's spoon fed to the audience, but whatever, maybe I was overestimating people.

if that had been their only objection to my post, I probably would have caved and apologized and said I could have worded things differently and said Leon not caring about Krauser originally was a theory (I mean a theory HEAVILY backed by the fucking game and more of an analysis than anything) and if they said that and still only included direct responses to my points and why they disagree with my interpretations, I dead ass would have reblogged them saying something like "I personally stand by my own interpretation of how Leon feels about him, but it's always interesting to hear other perspectives! There's not a lot of DSC analysis out there so thanks for sharing yours! Agree to disagree on Leon's feelings, but at least we can agree that DSC is a great game :)"

but noooooo everything else they said was just batshit and made it clear they were just a butt hurt slightly delusional 𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖔 shipper who found my post offensive on a deeply personal level and thought that I despised 𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖔 and my post was me saying that Leon never ever cared about Krauser originally so therefore everyone who ships 𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖔 is bad and stupid because there's no reason to ship it and that I think all people who ship Leon with men are incorrect because canonically Leon has only ever shown attraction to Ada and therefore 𝖆𝖊𝖔𝖓 is the only valid Leon ship.

bitch really thought that I, #1 supporter of the Leon ain't even bi he's exclusively into men 100%homo homo gay Ada was just a comp het crush agenda, sat down and decided to make a post discrediting 𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖔 because I was an 𝖆𝖊𝖔𝖓 shipper lol. just lmao even

like I'm really not that hard to get along with. you can disagree with me all day long on literally everything and I'll keep interacting with you and saying your interpretations aren't any more/less valid than mine are. but if you're going to put words in my mouth and make baseless assumptions about why I disagree with you, fuck off man, you're just getting blocked, not the nice agree to disagree we're both valid treatment I will give to literally anyone who isn't being super aggressive or making shit up.

lowkey kinda upset I'm still thinking about it solely because it feels like they "won" because they're living rent free in my head, but also fuck that, I'm not thinking about them because I thought they made a good argument or I'm devastated that someone disagreed with me, I'm thinking about them because it was actually funny as fuck that the first time I had a brush with ship drama was someone apparently under the false impression that I ship 𝖆𝖊𝖔𝖓. like really I'm (thankfully) never catching shit for the true fact that I very much do dislike that ship, but instead somehow caught shit for liking it even tho I literally don't 💀 absurd. I guess all my actual real opinions are just so absolutely 100% correct and cool and sexy that it's impossible to disagree with me so you have to make up fake opinions to try to start shit with me 💅

[eisforeidolon]

I always see this phenomenon. Do you also find it strange that mentality also trickles down to the actor? Jensen gets treated the same way. Which to me brilliantly highlights how stans are unable to disengage from media and get back to reality. Jensen isn’t actually Dean. He’s not supposed to be dying for Jared. He’s not supposed to be catering to Misha. SPN actually isn’t real life…. To your point, the Misha/Cas stans are actually losing the small territory they thought they owned. There’s so much actual representation in media now that their wails and whines don’t carry any weight (not that they carried much to begin with) I’ve seen people outside of SPN fandom rail on destiel for being total bait and not even good bait.

@holding-out-for-hea

Addressing this in a new post because I go on a bit (as per usual).

I have always found fans who treat actors like they're fictional characters rather disturbing. Whether we're talking in the sense of seeing them as actually being their characters (it's a job, ffs) or in the sense of thinking the RPF fans write must be trufax (you don't know these guys, ffs). Or both! It is an indicator of someone who has problems separating fiction and reality and strikes me as just creepily dehumanizing at its core. To be clear, I'm not talking about fans who are genuinely joking around, but I feel like sometimes the line can get so easily blurred between joking and “joking” I personally prefer to avoid even that for the most part.

As to the latter, yeah, that's why I've always scoffed at the assertion SPN's legacy was going to ultimately be heller positive in any significant way.

The first problem is that to believe D/C was ever a thing (or going to be a thing) in the canon pretty fundamentally required a deep dive into the fandom for the ship. Even if you wanted to, it's a lot harder to take meta whose underlying thesis is predicated on the existence of totally real signposts about the obviously intended ending of the show seriously when the ending of the show has aired and was so hilariously Not That. It's a lot harder to fully immerse yourself in an echo chamber of true belief when there's no active and prolific new reinterpretation content to be surrounded by on a weekly basis. It's a lot easier to see how cynically bait-y and baseless Misha's statements about the canon and Castiel's final scene were, given the nothingburger that's actually there. At the heart of it, so much of the necessary credulity relies on there being an active community to bolster it with years of sunk cost investment and ready-made nonsensically elaborate conspiracies to explain why it was totally going to happen but didn't.

The second problem is the hellers remain hung up on insisting D/C was some kind of uniquely important cause that NEEDED to be canon because it was fundamentally more important than not only SPN's actual premise on the strength of platonic love, but better representation than any other show's potential LGBT+ romances … because reasons. Aside from the usual arguments why that's absurd, i.e. it's just their personal obsession speaking and they constantly insist their ship is "proved" through toxic stereotypes which actually underlines the opposite of what they intend? They have also really showed their asses by vocally and obnoxiously crying it's totally unfair and doesn't measure up to what SPN could totes have done if they weren't cowards when other media canonizes popular ships like with Good 0mens. As you say, the more time that passes the more common it's going to be to have genuine, well-written LGBT+ love stories incorporated into new canons to be contrasted against D/C fandom's 'two dudes who were never each other's first priority, often treated each other like shit, and explicitly stated their feelings were familial … but looked at each other + obvious jokes = the greatest love story (n)ever told and the writers owed me!'. Even to someone completely unfamiliar with SPN and therefore unaware they entirely queerbaited themselves despite the show's content? The longer ago the show ended the more irrelevant and unimportant to good representation the ship not being canonized becomes, when it wasn't particularly relevant to begin with. Sure they got some sympathy from the unaware about That Scene followed by an angel-free final two episodes (though a lot of the buzz was just memeing the scnee because it was That Cringe even sans context), but now? Why not go watch something else that actually has representation instead of whining about a show from 2005 that ended in 2020, after all? It's old news, if you hated it that much there's newer better LGBT+ content out there being made every day!

So yeah, not only is there no there there, especially in comparison to any real love story? But the most obnoxious shippers continuing to loudly make genuine real life issues and other canons' legitimate LGBT+ representation about their bestest realest most totally canonest ship ever D/C that they were also totally cheated out of? It can only become even more obviously ludicrous and self-serving - and it was pretty blatant to anyone with a modicum of discernment and familiarity with shipper behavior to begin with.

[artist-issues]

As a suggestion, an old tactic of mine when people repeated arguments I'd already answered was to simply copy and paste my old answers. There's no shame in it when it saves you so much time to achieve the same result and give people less excuse not to face your unanswered points. If they call you on it, you can call them on not referring to the original post in the first place. They may accuse you of repeating yourself, but you can point out the need to repeat yourself in the face of repetitive arguments that may or may not remain unanswered.

However you proceed, I encourage you again in the face of quite shocking rudeness, bully-like behaviour and baseless slander. You're standing tall in spite of that and it's commendable.

Thank you! I just might do that! The temptation is to repeat myself with new words because I hope I’m being clearer; but ultimately that’s probably fruitless. Good reminder! And really necessary encouragement!

[lunar-years]

💖💚for unpopular ask

💖: What is your biggest unpopular opinion about the series?

uhhh I have many. I would say my most unpopular are probably:

I don't care that the show had no big "endgame" ships. I actually appreciated it being left to interpretation on where we want the characters to go. And throwing them into relationships given where they are at in the end wouldn't have made much sense anyway. (beardjane was terrible but i don't count that as a 'big' ship lol. no one was shipping them. TOMATOES!!! -500/10). the show's focus was never romantic relationships to begin with fwiw so it's weird how much people center that in their conclusion about whether the show was good enough.

Ted going home to Henry was also Really Good and the Whole Point/Natural Conclusion of his arc.

I liked that RoyKeeley broke up. Didn't love where they went with it necessarily, and both of their characters deserved to be written soooo much better in s3, but I do think the breakup itself was a Good Thing that Needed to Happen for these characters to progress.

Given the season and events as they are written, I think Keeley is far more likely to get back together with Jamie immediately post finale than she is Roy. (I don't think she should get back together with either of them right away, mind you. My girl needs some time to not exist as part of a relationship, because she has clearly spent most of her life being in relationships and it has caused Problems to her sense of self worth that i am desperate for her to healthily address. And then I would ultimately very much like her to end up with both of them, lol. But I'm just saying finale Keeley totally WOULD get back together with Jamie).

In a very similar vein to all the above, a criticism i see ALL the time that absolutely drives me UP THE WALL is when people claim the writers fell into the ol' GirlBoss Slay trap with Keeley, where in order to make her an Independent Confident Businesswomen™️ they had to remove all romance from her storyline and claim that's why they broke roykeeley up. The writers wrote Keeley very extremely terribly in s3, do not get me wrong. But this argument that writers just hate romance and don't see how a woman can be successful and also be in love (when Rebecca, a very successful businesswoman with a major arc about wanting to find love is their lead female character, mind you), just feels like baseless ragey criticism from people mad about there not being a roykeeley endgame. Look, if that's what the writers were trying to do, they don't even come close to fulfilling the other end of that promise (trading her romance to make her a Caricature Slay Business Woman) because 1. they don't show Keeley becoming independent with her business at all (Rebecca just swoops in and saves the day) 2. they do a very poor job of showing her overcoming imposter syndrome and coming into her own and 3. after the breakup with Roy, they literally show her immediately jumping into another relationship. sooo. I think it's much more likely that the writers were attempting to show Keeley spiraling in the same patterns of self-destructive behavior she exhibited in s1 and s2. rather than attempting to wash away all her flaws I actually think they were trying to highlight and reflect on those flaws. Unfortunately they just did it very, very badly and left out the necessary other half of the arc that makes it compelling and successful: actually giving Keeley the space to recognize and reckon with those flaws. the problem is they too rarely let their own characters talk and have it out in meaningful ways. anyway.

💚: What does everyone else get wrong about your favorite character?

Roy isn't like THAT but he's also not like that. you know. people are always falling in love with completely different made up versions they've got of him and then acting like their Roy is canon Roy. Idk who that guy is but he isn't Roy!!! ughhhhhh. sorry.

[spade-riddles]

The sudden voluntary dismissal — which appears to be unilateral and not the product of any kind of settlement — came after Swift’s lawyers harshly criticized the lawsuit in their last filing. Demanding that case be dismissed, they said it was “legally and factually baseless” and “never should have been filed.”

Those arguments echoed what legal experts told Billboard were serious flaws in La Dart’s case. Lawyers said that she was essentially suing Swift over stock elements that could not be monopolized by any one author: “This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”

Faced with such strong counter-arguments, dropping the case might have made monetary sense for La Dart. If she had continued to litigate the case and had ultimately lost, the judge may have ordered her to repay Swift’s legal bills — a sum that could have totaled tens of thousands of dollars.