#March 22 has narrative relevance

[theladyrebecca2]

[sailormoonandme]

In my observations, there is a certain fandom narrative that has been perpetuated over the years regarding the adaptation of Sailor Mars from the manga into the original 1992 anime. In my travels through this fandom for the past 10+ years, that narrative essentially boils down to this:

In the manga Sailor Mars/Rei Hino hated men and was uninterested in relationships with them. The anime changed this because the men in charge of it were being sexist.

I...respectfully disagree with this narrative for various reasons I want to discuss in this (probably very long) post.

Now, before I go on, a confession. I’m not going to pretend I have extensively researched this by checking out old interviews or anything, nor am I an expert on the production of anime or manga. So, if anyone has some important info I am unaware of please let me know so I can be more informed for the future. It may be that you have this tidbit of info that completely upends everything I have understood about the topic in question. With that out of the way...

Regardless of the topic under discussion, the single most important thing to bear in mind when talking about the relationship between the Sailor Moon manga and anime is that it was incredibly atypical compared to most manga and their corresponding anime adaptations.  

In the majority of cases, a manga will begin publication and then, if it finds sufficient success, will be picked up to be adapted into an anime. More often than not, the anime will be aimed at the same age and gender demographic as the manga and both will be released at roughly a weekly schedule. Or at least, this is the case for the most popular anime you have probably heard of. Moreover, the anime will likely begin a solid year-two years after the manga began, giving the anime production staff plenty of material to work with.  

Let’s look at two examples. The first chapter of Dragon Ball was released on 3rd December 1984 and the first episode was released on 26 February 1986. The first chapter of One Piece was released on 22 July 1997 and the first episode was released on 20 October 1999. In both cases, very little was changed between the manga and the anime, they are almost word for word, shot for shot identical, exempting filler of course.

None of the above was the case with Sailor Moon. The Sailor Moon manga was created specifically for Toei to turn it into an anime before even a single page was drawn of it. This is because Toei and Takeuchi had actually agreed to work together after the success of Takeuchi’s Codename: Sailor V manga, which was a predecessor to Sailor Moon. At some point along the way it was also decided the anime would be aimed at a younger and broader audience than the manga. Whilst the manga essentially exclusively targeted tween-teenage girls, the anime primary (but not exclusive) audience would be pre-tween girls, boys of about the same age and then their presumed older siblings and parents, in that order of priority. In other words, the anime, whilst still being have female audience at the forefront, was aimed to catch families too.* Furthermore, whilst the anime would be released weekly, the manga would drop monthly.  

Thing is, Sailor Moon Chapter 1 was released on 28 December 1991 and Sailor Moon episode 1 was released on 7 March 1992! That’s an INSANELY small amount of time from a manga to anime adaptation to be working with, even if Takeuchi was giving them relevant info before completing the chapter herself. Anime episodes, naturally, take a long time to make and longer than a manga chapter might take to be created from scratch.  

These are all critical factors in understanding why the 1992 anime is different to the manga on most fronts. Whilst they do not account for every difference, they do account for the vast majority when you bear them in mind for your analyses. Such is the case for Sailor Mars.

So, lets put things into a bit of a ‘timeline.

28 December 1991: Sailor Moon Chapter 1 is released

28 January 1992: Sailor Moon Chapter 2 is released, introducing Sailor Mercury. I do not actually have confirmed release dates for manga chapters, so I am going to be presuming that each chapter was released on a consistent monthly schedule.

28 February 1992: Sailor Moon Chapter 3 is released, introducing Sailor Mars.

7 March 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 1 is released, which adapts Chapter 1

28 March 1992: Sailor Moon Chapter 4 is released, featuring the trinity of Moon, Mercury and Mars as a team, without any new additions to the Sailor Team.  

28 April 1992: Sailor Moon Chapter 5 is released, introducing Sailor Jupiter. There is something more relevant in this chapter but I we will return to that a bit later.

2 May 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 8 is released, which adapts Chapter 2

16 May 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 10 is released which adapts Chapter 3

23 May 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 11 is released. This is the first filler episode featuring Sailor Mars and establishes much of her characterisation and relationship with Sailor Moon going forward in the anime

15 August 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 22 is released, which adapts Chapter 4

15 September 1992: Sailor Moon Episode 25 is released, introducing Sailor Jupiter to the anime. It has very little in common with Sailor Moon Chapter 5. Perhaps a mere two or three scenes are adapted at all.

Not how there is less than a month between Chapter 5’s release and the release of Episode 10, and just under a month between Chapter 5 and Episode 11.

Why is this relevant?

Because Chapter 5 is the very first time Rei expresses any kind of negative opinion towards men.  

Now, I might have missed something, but skimming through the rest of the Dark Kingdom arc, I couldn’t find Rei ever mention anything about men again in that arc., certainly not along the lines she mentioned in chapter 5** Rei’s attitude towards men/relationships is also unmentioned in the Sailor Moon Materials Collection:

Not only does Sailor Mars look different in the Materials Collection, but there are some specific details that never crop up in the manga or anime, such as Mars occasionally not wearing gloves and being able to shoot lasers from her nails. This is because the Materials Collection predominantly contains early notes Takeuchi had dreamed up for Sailor Moon, not necessarily stuff that wound up in the final product. This demonstrates how Takeuchi had not intricately plotted out details of her characters or story ahead of time. A more poignant example is the fact that, even as late as the release of Chapter 2, Takeuchi intended for Ami to be a cyborg, establishing a hint to this when Ami observes Usagi playing an arcade game.

What does all this mean though?

Well for starters, I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that the anime staff had read chapter 5 of the manga when they began scripting Episodes 10-11 which established Rei’s anime personality and dynamic with the other characters. There simply would not have been enough time for them to have done that. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that, at the time she created Chapters 3-4 of the manga, Takeuchi herself had settled on the idea of Rei’s attitude towards men/relationships being an important aspect of at the character.***  

Lets also consider that Sailor Mars was the Senshi of fire, an element commonly associated with passion and love. Whilst there is a wonderful irony that the Senshi of passion rejects romantic relationships, it isn’t an idea that is immediately obvious. That is to say, nobody reading Chapters 3-4 would presume Rei was a downer on relationships with men, or mistrustful of men in general. From the anime staff’s POV, the idea that the fire character was interested in love and romance was likely a very safe bet.

Not to mention, if we are all being brutally honest here, it isn’t as if Manga Rei’s attitudes towards men/relationships (as presented in Chapter 5) were somewhat atypical. Whether in 1992 or today, most people (regardless of sex or gender) do not hold an intrinsic distrust/dislike for the people of another sex/gender and wholesale reject the idea of having relationships with them. Whilst an important component of Sailor Moon was the diversity of female personalities present within the narrative, Rei’s attitude towards men/relationships was not common even amongst the other female protagonists of the story, Usagi herself being taken aback by it. It was unique enough in fact that Takeuchi wrote ‘Casablanca Memory’ as a wholesale origin/explanation of how and why Rei had such attitudes in the first place.  

In light of all this it isn’t really fair to hold the anime staff in contempt for establishing that Rei felt an attraction to Tuxedo Mask or to men in general, especially when they likely did this to generate conflict and character dynamics for the show’s utterly essential filler episodes. By the time the staff read Chapter 5 they were more than likely deep into production on various episodes that were written with their interpretation of Rei in mind. To course correct at that stage likely would have been needlessly difficult and expensive, if it was possible at all. Not to mention it’d involve explicitly contradicting how they’d established Rei up until that point. And doing so upon the basis on what Rei said in some side comments in a chapter that wasn’t even about her in the first place? I think that was a big ask of the anime staff for the sake of fidelity to the source material, especially given how stressful and time consuming anime production is at the best of times.   

I think these production realities also help explain all the other ways in which Sailor Mars differs in the anime and the manga. For the most part, AnimeRei’s personality is not an unreasonable extrapolation from how she was portrayed in Chapters 3-4. Her very first interaction with Usagi involves her instinctively attacking the blonde bun-head and knocker her unconscious. In Chapter 4 she chastises Usagi for being late and is embarrassed by her antics at the Masquerade. When talking to Luna in that same chapter her dialogue can come off as bossy and self-important. 

Whilst these moments are not typical of Manga Rei as a whole, for the anime staff who had to generate filler episodes and who were seeking out character dynamics, these moments likely stood out to them. Combined with the fact that the Senshi of fire who’s guardian planet is named after the Roman God of War, you can see how they arrived at the idea that Rei had a fiery personality and would come into conflict with the lead character a lot. Given that the anime had to generate episodes with Moon, Mars and Mercury, that dynamic was probably quite appealing to them as it gave each girl a clear cut personality archetype to bounce off of one another and could be applied to any situation. 

Usagi was the goofy clutz.

Ami was the shy genius.

Rei was the bossy hothead.

Sure, the show could still have worked with Rei’s manga persona, but it would have been more difficult. Manga Rei’s somewhat stoic and serious persona doesn’t generate plot or conflict easily and (if we are being honest) in a three person team likely treads on some territory that Ami’s character covered anyway. And again, that is presuming the anime staff were aware of what Rei’s personality would ultimately be like in the manga. Based upon even her first three chapters that isn’t entirely clear. It is only was the arc and series built up that we understand Manga Rei’s personality. But without that wider context I feel it is all too easy to read Chapters 3-5 and misunderstand that, as she could be interpreted as rather ‘neutral’ if you get what I mean.  

Now, even with all this said, surely there would have come a point where the anime staff had read Chapter 5 and were in a position to write scripts from scratch that respected Rei’s attitude towards men/relationships? Perhaps such a point existed before they had Rei and Mamoru begin dating. If not then, then surely well before Yuichiro was introduced as Rei’s love interest, right? So, don’t both examples represent an open and shut case of the anime staff disrespecting Takeuchi’s vision? 

Perhaps so…or perhaps again, production realities come into play here. The idea that Rei liked men and was interested in romantic relationships with them was established as early as her first episode where she clearly had a crush in Tuxedo Mask. In Episode 12 (Rei’s third ever episode) she drags Ami onto a ship for the explicit purpose of finding dates, even going to far as to try and pick up men who were on the rebound.  

As mentioned elsewhere, it would have been awkward to have squared Rei rejecting relationships with men after instances like this. But even if you do not think so, I propose that by this point the anime staff had at least begun to go adopt the idea of the anime being a looser adaptation of the manga. By the time Rei began dating Mamoru they had already kept Jadeite around longer than he had been in the manga, writing him out in a wholly different way, and also introduced Nephrite in a very different manner as well.  

Remember, production realities meant that the non-manga based episodes were the anime’s lifeblood. Orientating the show to accommodate them had to be top priority, hence why Jadeite stuck around longer and why Nephrite’s gimmick involved the stars rather than his shadow. In other words, the anime had already begun to become its own thing, with its own lore and own character dynamics in play. Indeed, the Nephrite arc is utterly fuelled by this. Zoistie’s rivalry with Nephrite. Nephrite’s relationship with Naru. Mamoru  blacking out and transforming into Tuxedo Mask. These were all critical story elements of the Nephrite arc and none of them are in the manga whatsoever. The fact that Nephrite dies in a completely different way and the very next episode introduces his killer (Makoto) in a story almost entirely different from her manga debut is the natural evolution of the anime’s creative direction. In this context, is it really disrespectful (let alone sexist) for the anime staff to have simply committed to the characterisation of Sailor Mars they had already established for themselves and therefore, for the sake of generating new episodes and conflicts, had her entangled with Mamoru and Yuichiro?  

It is entirely possible that Takeuchi had a clear cut idea about Rei’s attitude towards men/relationships, had intended for it to be the case very early on and informed the anime staff to that effect. They in turn could have been in a position to establish this as part of Rei’s character in the anime but actively chose not to because they felt a woman rejecting men/relationships in such a way was a bad thing that shouldn’t be allowed.  

But, whilst that is entirely possible, without clear cut confirmation of that, I for one do not feel it is fair to presume bad faith on the part of the anime staff. 

Thank you for reading. 

*Which, from a business POV, makes sense as reading manga by its nature tends to be a more solitary activity compared to watching TV. Family members of the little girls Sailor Moon were aimed at would inevitably catch bits and pieces of the show from the glowing box in the corner of the living room and therefore might be inclined to watch it too.  

**Yes, the side story ‘Casablanca Memory’ essentially revolves around this subject, but whilst that story was set during the Dark Kingdom arc it was created after it had concluded and is therefore not something the anime staff would have known about at the time.  

***Indeed, that isn’t even clear 100% certain in Chapter 5.  

Whilst Rei clearly expresses a negative opinion of men and relationships, she is not the focus of the chapter, Jupiter/Makoto is. And since it is an attitude that is exclusive to this chapter in the Dark Kingdom arc, only coming up again in later arcs and side stories, it basically doesn’t appear consistently enough for any reader to say with absolutely certainty that Rei hates men and rejects the ideas of relationships. It is merely the fifth chapter of the story and we haven’t even fully established the team yet. For all anyone knew, Rei might go on to have contradicted that opinion, or she might have been expressing from a place of immaturity given her age/inexperience with love and relationships. Almost as if it is a flipside to the ‘girls are lame’ attitude boys grow out of during puberty. Or again, maybe it was something they just figured might be a one off component of this one chapter she wasn’t even the focus of. 

Regardless, it was very early on the anime had already established the idea that Rei and Usagi were quite similar and both interested in Tuxedo Mask, subjects that they leveraged to generate more filler episodes going forwards.  

From a business/production POV they were not going to overhaul the character and revise the scripts/episodes they had already worked hard on to awkwardly readjust her to this particular character trait Takeuchi had given her for this one chapter that then never came up again.

[midori-laboratories]

Frozen Ashes master list (Calendula Chronicles, Book 3)

The Code Veronica arc of the Calendula Chronicles.

Story synopsis: Albert Wesker molded his captive into the perfect, pliable bait for taking out Rockfort, and cracking open the Ashford family’s secrets. But who’s really in control, once chaos breaks out?

The stakes have never been higher for Marigold, but she may not be fast enough to save everyone.

Regarding Frozen Ashes and The Antarctica Incident (Q_Alias)

Frozen Ashes was written as the other side of Q_Alias' The Antarctica Incident. Marigold actively enters that story around chapter 23 27 (5-1 in their narrative), and moves out of it as an active participant at some point after chapter 30 35? (6-5 in their story) eventually. However, she's very active in the background of Q's narrative. We started to soft-merge our respective plots back in October 2022 plots, rather than a strict collaboration (like 1981). When I started writing, I set up a little timeline of events for reference, so I'll link when relevant events are happening at the same time in that story.

Frozen Ashes playlist

This is a rough list. After chapter 30, what I have in place is approximate. There may or may not be extra chapters or an extra section. Ha, YEP part 4 expanded into two separate parts already!

Chapter 1 will be posted March 21, 2023 and be update weekly on Tuesdays on AO3 (Blood in the Water and Homecoming Queens chapters will be Tues/Fridays.

Subscribe on AO3 for updates, or follow along on here!

Save Point chapters are interludes.

Chapter list:

Chapter 1: Sanguine Standard I (AO3)

Chapter 2: Sanguine Standard II (AO3)

Chapter 3: Sanguine Standard III (AO3)

Chapter 4: Sanguine Standard IV (AO3)

Chapter 5: Sanguine Standard V (AO3)

Chapter 6: Save Point: I The Matilda Murder (AO3)

Chapter 7: Blood In The Water I (AO3)

Chapter 8: Blood In The Water II (AO3)

Chapter 9: Blood In The Water III (AO3)

Chapter 10: Blood In The Water IV (AO3)

Chapter 11: Blood In The Water V (AO3)

Chapter 12: Save Point II: Course Correction (AO3)

Chapter 13: Homecoming Queens I (AO3)

Chapter 14: Homecoming Queens II (AO3)

Chapter 15: Homecoming Queens III (AO3)

Chapter 16: Homecoming Queens IV (AO3)

Chapter 17: Homecoming Queens V (AO3)

Chapter 18: Save Point III: Into the Abyss (AO3)

Chapter 19: The Dark Forest I (AO3)

Chapter 20: The Dark Forest II (AO3)

Chapter 21: The Dark Forest III (AO3)

Chapter 22: The Dark Forest IV (AO3)

Chapter 23: The Dark Forest V (AO3)

Chapter 24: Save Point IV: What Happened in Paris (AO3)

Chapter 25: Into the Inferno I (AO3)

Chapter 26: Into the Inferno II

Chapter 27: Into the Inferno III (AO3)

Chapter 28: Into the Inferno IV (AO3)

Chapter 29: Into the Inferno V (AO3)

Chapter 30: Save Point V: SNAFU (AO3)

Chapter 31: Day of Wrath I (AO3)

Chapter 32: Day of Wrath II (AO3)

Chapter 33: Day of Wrath III (AO3)

Chapter 34: Day of Wrath IV (AO3)

Chapter 35: Day of Wrath V (AO3)

Chapter 36: Save Point VI: No Good Deed (AO3)

Chapter 37: When Worlds Collide I (AO3)

Chapter 38: When Worlds Collide II (AO3)

Chapter 39: When Worlds Collide III (AO3)

Chapter 40: When Worlds Collide IV (AO3)

Chapter 41: When Worlds Collide V (AO3)

Chapter 42: Save Point VII: Bring Out Your Dead (AO3)

Chapter 43: Blood on the Snow I (AO3)

Chapter 44: Blood on the Snow II (AO3)

Chapter 45: Blood on the Snow III (AO3)

Chapter 46: Blood on the Snow IV (AO3)

Chapter 47: Blood on the Snow V (AO3)

Chapter 48: Save Point: [TBD] (AO3)

Chapter 49: Everything Ends I (AO3)

Chapter 50: Everything Ends II (AO3)

Chapter 51: Everything Ends III (AO3)

Chapter 52: Everything Ends IV (AO3)

Chapter 53: Everything Ends V (AO3)

Chapter 54: Save Point: [TBD] (AO3)

[isaac963]

Just saw the Barbie Movie today, and what an achievement of a film. So layered so complex, simultaneously tongue-and-cheek and angrily relevant. While many have pointed out the central themes of the issues faced by women, I think there is another message Margot Robbie, Greta Gerwig, and co-writer Noah Baumbach are telling audiences. Both Gurwig and Baumbach are members of the Writers Guild of America, and Baumbach even skipped the premier in protest. I think their professional frustrations with the major studios was on full display in this film.

A live action Barbie film was first announced in 2009 by none other than Universal Studios. After the project faltered, it went to Sony pictures in 2014, with Amy Schumer slated as the lead. Yet, creative differences between parties involved lead to that project fizzling out, and the rites reverted back to Mattel in October 2018. Those involved on the creative leadership side of the film all departed. Mattel then approached Margot Robbie, who not only signed on as the lead, but helped produce it with her and her partner’s production company LuckyChap Entertainment. Robbie pitches the film to Warner Bros, who green light it, and then taps Gerwig to join the project as Screenwriter, and eventually Director. Written over the pandemic, principal photography began March 22, 2022, wrapped July 21, 2022, and was released nearly a year later July 9, 2023 to critical and audience acclaim. 14 years in the making on a property picked up and put down by many, it’s surprising this film came to fruition, and we were given a gem. It’s also clear that MANY hard working people brought this film to us.

Barbie makes reference to many other films and classic film genres. It begins as 2001: A Space Odyssey, it uses narrative voice over, The Matrix gets a shoutout, 300 (not a direct reference, but the Ken battle has a lot of slow motion that I would argue is alluding to 300), even a choreographed old Hollywood dance number. And though Barbie, being the pop culture icon that she is, could surely stand in its own limelight, so why would Gerwig and Baumbach do this? Why allude to other films in your own film, why make that creative choice? I don’t think it was just to be funny, or meme-y, the film does so much of that, to great effect, without alluding to other works of film. I think they’re telling us Barbie is also about film, and the rotten state of the film industry. From that perspective, what else does this movie do that other films just don’t do anymore, and why do it this way? Every set piece was practical, built on a sound stage, every prop was practical, every accessory crafted, every backdrop was painted and lit, and it ALL looked amazing. The transition from Barbieland to California, all of those moving set pieces (the rocket, the boat, the snowmobile) were PRACTICAL made of plywood, foam, paint, and RIGGED to move. Surely, doing that in green screen would’ve been easier, and used less materials, why do it this way? I think it’s a rebuke of the studio executives.

To me, it says cinema is first and foremost an art form, and incredible things are possible when you let your artists tell the stories they set out to tell. It can be incredibly lucrative when you trust your creative professionals to do well and properly compensate them for it. Cinema, second most, is a business, but executives don’t make films. Workers do. The workers who built that dream house, hung those lights, sewed those costumes, applied that makeup, delivered that catering, swept and mopped at the end of the day. They made a film that’s now made over $700 million dollars (and still going) for a studio that invested only $145 million. How much of that went to salaries is not public knowledge. 1,100 people were credited from cast to catering, nearly all of whom will receive no further compensation for the extraordinarily profitable film. On top of that, executives are trying to find ways of replacing some of them with AI.

Which brings us to Mattel’s depiction in the film. Though it says Mattel on the building, I think Gurwig, Baumbach, and Robbie mean all corporations. Warner Bros., Amazon, Netflix, all of em will put profit over people, profit over art, EVERY time. They want to twist tie all of us into our Barbie boxes, make us forget we have agency, make us forget that we’re not commodities to be sold. They may have the patents and the copyrights, but Barbie belongs to everyone, our experiences with Barbie belong to us. Pantone 219 c, a color on the visible light spectrum belongs to everyone in spite of what Mattel will say (I love ya Stuart Semple)! “Do you guys ever think about [the stupid rules we’re told to follow before] dying?”

I feel the film makers were truly conveying the dissatisfaction of the workers of Hollywood, people everywhere really. Proud to work hard and honestly, but angry at their exploitation. The patriarchy marring Barbie’s dreams, just as Hollywood marred the dreams of movie makers.

10/10 Go see this movie.

[skepticalarrie]

Harry and Louis between July 17 and July 21 of 2015

So I realize there’s a lot of back and forth on my dash right now about a possible tension between H&L during OTRA, and when the babygate news first dropped. And I think it’s so interesting to analyse their body language during this moment in time because there was obviously a lot going on behind the scenes. Oh! And FYI: I don’t think they broke up (ever), I don’t think there was any kind of cheating, and I fully believe babygate is a stunt and the pregnancy was never real. This is an analysis of their dynamics considering it was an incredibly difficult time for them with such a fucked up narrative happening of a whole ass fake pregnancy.

There was a shift during this period, and the stunt seemed to have affected their dynamics to a point that it's quite noticeable from the outside. This analysis has no final conclusion, I'm just interested on trying to contextualize things and trying to understand further the reasons why babygate even happened in first place, and how that affected everything. All extremely subjective, of course, I'm just reading body language here so those are theories and connections I'm trying to make.

Here's just a small timeline of events that might be relevant for this.

March 22: Louis and Eleanor BUA

July 14: Pregnancy announcement

August 4: GMA + pregnancy finally confirmed by Louis

October 20: Belfast

So I actually went down the rabbit hole to understand their behaviour about this day: 

The famous *piss off* *wanker* moment. Because until this point they were happier than ever, all heart eyes and singing gay anthems around. So something happened and they don't seem very happy with each other here, which is unusual. The video above took place on July 17th, in Vancouver. Three days after the first article about Briana being pregnant.

This is a huge and heavy post, with many gifs, it continues under the cut.

And it turns out *piss off* *wanker* moment was also on the same day as this:

(x) (x)

Louis is usually very jealous on stage, especially when Liam is touching Harry. But this is very extra, considering his usual behavior. Plus Niall's reaction gives away something is up, more than usual. And everything following just confirms the feeling I have since fetus days that they're extremely childish and like teasing each other when they're upset. Which.... boys.

Same concert, we actually have the beginning of a whole new segment that I like to call “Kiss her, you fool". This is the moment when Harry says it for the first time, to an elderly couple in the audience: 

gif: @babustyles​ 

.... Sounds familiar?

There's a lot to unpack in Vancouver, so still on the same night: Harry carried the flag during WMYB singing those very lines:

*guess who he's looking at* 

Yep.

gif credit: @quietasides​

Next concert was on July 21st, Edmonton and their interaction here is very very interesting. Let's get started with Stockholm Syndrome. Harry is singing the first lines of the song while Louis walks pass him and grabs a bottle of water:

He takes ONE SIP and makes THAT face while Harry's singing those specific lines (wtf) and then he puts his water next to him. 

The song keeps going. On Louis solo, Harry comes out of pure evil, grabs Louis' brand new water and pours out (on fans lol)

????

Petty as fuck!

Are they done? No, they are not.

Here's a very interesting analysis by @quietasides​ on No Control, again their behavior was very atypical that day.

We've this super famous moment on that same concert when Harry is asking people in the audience if they're a couple, if they're on a date...

Same moment, other side of the stage:

It can be heard quite clearly Louis saying "I think Harry is fucking with me". People there could definitely hear it too, look at their faces. Harry proceeds talking with the couple, to a point he asks for advises "how is it going? Is he nice to you?" And of course...

Two nights in a roll. He continues with the amazing monologue: “Here on One Direction we love love we usually just spread it around….” well not today tho, today 2/4 of one direction hate it each other.

Louis was having a hard day, ok? When Liam made the decision to put a hat on Harry's head I think he just decided to start plotting everyone's dead:

Y'all better sleep with one eye open.

The next concert was July 24th, Winnipeg. And it was basically drama free coming from them. Harry was down to the "Kiss her you fool" one more time. But he just didn't seem to find any couples this time, so he flirted with the volleyball player man instead. I'm also guessing Liam was fucking done with their bullshit so he decided to remind us all that Harry Styles' first real crush was Louis Tomlinson:

gifs: @quietasides

"Five years and still going strong! wooo!"

After that, honestly, I think they were just back to their usual behavior and heart eyes to each other. Liam actually kept reading Larry signs for a while and by the end of July Louis was ready to kill his own fans for spraying water on his baby.

So all of this happened between the announcement of the "pregnancy" and the official confirmation on Good Morning America. I've an analysis on that day, here. And that confirmation was fishy as fuck, Harry seemed even more bothered than Louis during the entire time and IMO it was expected for Harry say something about the pregnancy and "support" Louis. After that they were back to same as always, btw:

gif credit: @16meets18history​ (18th August 2015 - Columbus)

So, this raises a lot of questions to me, really. What the fuck happened, why babygate happened, why Harry and Louis seemed like they were in some sort of disagreement. The hiatus was a cause or a consequence?

That sequence in Stockholm Syndrome gives me nightmares at night. They knew Louis was stuck, and if Louis was stuck Harry’s hands were tied too. Maybe something to consider here, is that Louis could very possibly have signed his imprit label contract on July 11th, basically selling his soul to the devil himself and getting stuck with Simon for five years while the other boys escaped. Honestly, the only conclusion I can get here is that maybe babygate was sold as something else entirely for them, with the intention of ending much earlier but something changed and five years later here we are.

[whatiwillsay]

late stage swiftgron - the folklore era - 1.0

this post will include all relevant and major activities between taylor and dianna since taylor announced folklore on the morning of July 23, 2020.

click here for a dianna’s spotify masterpost (we are only including the most loud spotify activities on this post but it’s all very interesting)

tagging @jennyboom21​, @goldenageofsomethingblue​, and @tayloragron​ to help me out if i miss something (and ofc all of you swiftgrons who help out with the blog, don’t hesitate to let me know if i miss something major)

JULY 23, 2020 

-  8 AM EASTERN - TAYLOR ANNOUNCES FOLKLORE TO COME OUT AT MIDNIGHT  

 -  THAT AFTERNOON - DIANNA UPLOADS A NEW PLAYLIST TO SPOTIFY ENTITLED I’LL BE AROUND, WITH ONE SONG ON IT - ‘I’LL BE AROUND’ BY FLOOR CRY:

-  DIANNA ALSO STREAMS THE SONG ‘I LOVE YOU SO’ BY THE WALTERS:

this song contains a very loud lyric that makes us believe ‘the 1′ is about dianna:

JULY 24, 2020 

-  MIDNIGHT - FOLKLORE COMES OUT

-  SOME TIME THAT AFTERNOON - DIANNA ATTENDS NAYA RIVERA’S FUNERAL IN LA

JULY 25, 2020

-  AFTERNOON - DIANNA TURNS OFF HER SPOTIFY LISTENING FOR THE REST OF THE DAY AND INTO THE NEXT DAY (WE THEORIZE TO LISTEN TO FOLKLORE)

-  DIANNA’S SOON TO BE EX HUSBAND, WINSTON MARSHALL, POSTS THIS SHADY ASS PIC TO INSTAGRAM WITH THE CARDIGAN LYRICS WHILE HE PLAYS A BOARD GAME WITH HIS BAND MATE

JULY 29, 2020

-  DIANNA POSTS A LOUDLY DOLLY BIRTHDAY POST FOR MOLLY’S BIRTHDAY

-  TAYLOR RELEASES THE “cabin in candlelight” VERSION OF CARDIGAN

JULY 30, 2020

-  DIANNA IS RATHER ACTIVE ON SPOTIFY INCLUDING A STREAM OF ‘HAPPY TOGETHER’ COVERED BY FLOOR CRY WHICH SEEMS TO BE A DOLLY SONG (there is a very cute video of them goofing around on a beach, pretending to make out, being very adorable and affectionate with each other - dianna posted it and specifically edited it to add the song happy together)

-  THE BLOG GETS AN ANON REMINDING US HOW DIANNA WOULD LISTEN TO PALE BLUE EYES BY THE VELVET UNDERGROUND AROUND THE TIME SWIFTGRON WAS BREAKING UP IN 2013, WE PUBLISH AND DISCUSS ON MAIN

AUGUST 4, 2020

-  DIANNA STREAMS PALE BLUE EYES BY VELVET UNDERGROUND ON HER PUBLIC SPOTIFY 5 DAYS WE DISCUSSED HER LISTENING TO THAT SONG IN 2013 HERE ON THE BLOG

-  TAYLOR IS SPOTTED IN CAPE COD

AUGUST 5, 2020

-  TAYLOR NO-HOMO’S BETTY ON COUNTRY RADIO

-  DIANNA STREAMS PALE BLUE EYES AGAIN

AUGUST 6, 2020

-  KEVIN TEASES SWIFTGRON ON SHOWMANCE AND TALKS ABOUT TAYLOR LOOKING FOR SOMEONE (LIKELY DIANNA) ON THE GLEE SET IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH 2014, POSSIBLY CONFIRMING THAT SWIFTGRON PINING WENT ON LONGER THAN WE EARLIER THOUGHT

-  TAYLOR IS SPOTTED BRIEFLY IN LA WITH JOE

AUGUST 8, 2020

-  DIANNA IS CONFIRMED TO BE BACK IN NYC

AUGUST 9, 2020

-  DIANNA TRULY SNAPS, CRAVES WET PUSSY ON MAIN IN THE PLATFORM PRESENTS EDWARD SNOWDEN SKIT.  WE LIKE TO PRETEND THAT SHE DID THIS TO MAKE UP FOR TAYLOR’S NO-HOMO OF BETTY

AUGUST 15, 2020

-  BOTH OUR GIRLS POST TO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT SUPPORTING THE USPS WITHIN THE SAME HOUR

-  DIANNA IS ON A FRIEND’S SOCIAL MEDIA IN CONNECTICUT

AUGUST 18, 2020

-  THE LAKES (WHICH IS A SONG ABOUT TAYLOR WAITING FOR HER MUSE) AND THE DELUXE VERSION OF FOLKLORE COMES OUT

-  TAYLOR DISCUSSES THE MEANING BEHIND EXILE ON RADIO

AUGUST 19, 2020

-  DIANNA’S DIVORCE IS ANNOUNCED AROUND 8 AM EASTERN TIME

AUGUST 20, 2020

-  ESCAPISM FOLKLORE CHAPTER RELEASED

AUGUST 21, 2020

-  DIANNA IS SPOTTED IN NYC WITH HER HAIR CUT AND FRESHLY DYED

-  DIANNA GAY RUMORS SWIRL AS WELL AS HER CONNECTION TO TAYLOR, IT ALL SEEMS TO BE PICKING UP STEAM,  THE BLOG PREDICTS A JOE x TAYLOR STUNT

-  DIANNA’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS EDITED, A MORE FEMININE PICTURE IS MADE HER MAIN PICTURE, SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE EDITING HER PERSONAL LIFE SECTION.  SWIFTGRON RUMORS ARE ADDED TO IT:

IT APPEARS AS THOUGH A USER GOING BY KINGSIF MAKES THESE EDITS:

AUGUST *22*, 2020

-  IT IS ONE OF DIANNA’S GOOD FRIEND’S, SELBY’S BIRTHDAY.  SELBY (WHO WAS AT THE FUN CONCERT IN FALL 2013) POSTS TO INSTAGRAM WITH BOTH MTR AND WILDEST DREAMS PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND.  DIANNA DOES NOT PUBLICLY WISH HER A HAPPY BIRTHDAY (tho she didn’t post for selby’s birthday last year, however she didn’t like molly’s selby birthday dedication and she usually does comment on posts molly has made for selby’s birthday or like it or both in the past, she also didn’t comment on or like tracy dubb’s selby birthday post) 

AUGUST 23, 2020

-  SLEEPLESS NIGHTS FOLKLORE CHAPTER RELEASED

AUGUST 24, 2020

-  DIANNA IS IN CHILMARK, MA AT A LAKE WITH FRIENDS (it’s probably a coincidence but this location is not too far a drive or ferry ride from taylor’s place - about an hour)

AUGUST 25, 2020

-  DIANNA IS HAPPY AND FRESH AND CUTE ON THE SHIVA BABY LIVE STREAM

AUGUST 26, 2020

-  SALTBOX FOLKLORE CHAPTER RELEASE

-  THE BLOG POSTS THE SPOTIFY SINCE FOLKLORE MASTERPOST

-  A FEW HOURS LATER SPOTIFY GLITCHES AND/OR DIANNA GOES PRIVATE ON SPOTIFY, IT IS HARD TO TELL WHICH HAPPENED OR IF BOTH THINGS HAPPENED.  SHE DOESN’T STREAM AGAIN UNTIL 9/2/2020

-  DIANNA IS PAPPED IN NYC CARRYING A BOOK DESCRIBED AS RAUNCHY AND QUEER LMAO

-  DIANNA SHOWS UP IN INSTAGRAM STORIES OF SOMEONE WEARING A MASK AND A DETROIT BLOWS SHIRT

AUGUST 28, 2020

-  DIANNA SHOWS UP IN A DOG’S INSTAGRAM POSTS, RARE BTS FOOTAGE OF HER IN HER AMAZING ROMEO DRAG FOR HER ROMEO AND JULIET PHOTOSHOOT FROM 2019

-  TAYLOR NATION POSTS A PICTURE OF TAYLOR WITH WINE FROM THE FOLKLORE LIVE CHAT THAT TOOK PLACE THE EVENING OF THE 23RD RIGHT BEFORE FOLKLORE DROPPED TO CELEBRATE NATIONAL *RED* WINE DAY

AUGUST 29, 2020

- DIANNA’S INVOLVEMENT IN A PLAY OR FILM ADAPTATION OF A TALE OF TWO CITIES GOES PUBLIC ON INSABELLA MACPHERSON’S INSTAGRAM.  THE QUOTE REFERENCED IS, “IT WAS THE BEST OF TIMES IT WAS THE WORST OF TIMES”

-  THE OSSA YOUTUBE CHANNEL SNAPS AND SENDS SWIFTGRON MAINSTREAM SHOWING THAT NO, THEY’RE NOT OVER SWIFTGRON SO WHY SHOULD WE BE OVER IT?  THEY ADD SWIFTGRON RUMORS TO A VIDEO TALKING ABOUT WHO ALL THE GLEE CAST HAS DATED.

as of 9-4-2020 9 am central this video now has 115 k views:

AUGUST 30, 2020

-  DIANNA’S OLD BOSS RYAN MURPHY FOLLOWS TAYLOR ON INSTAGRAM, MAKING HER THE 13TH PERSON HE FOLLOWS (we speculate that taylor’s music will be featured on his upcoming movie, the prom)

-  TAYLOR WINS VMA FOR BEST DIRECTION FOR THE MAN, SHE GIVES A DIGITAL ACCEPTANCE SPEECH AND ENDS IT WITH A TENDER “I HOPE I GET TO SEE YOU SOON.”

AUGUST 31, 2020

-  THE BLOG REQUESTS DIANNA TO COME BACK TO SPOTIFY:

SEPTEMBER 2, 2020

-  DIANNA COMES BACK TO SPOTIFY WITH TWO VERY INTERESTING PLAYLISTS (songs that seem to specifically and blatantly reference taylor’s lyrics)

SEPTEMBER 3, 2020

-  DIANNA PAPPED IN NYC OUT BOOK SHOPPING 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2020

-  CAM SNAPS AND DECIDES TO CELEBRATE THE FAIRFAX FLEA MARKET ANNIVERSARY BY MAKING THIS MASTERPOST. HAPPY SWIFTGRONTEMBER.

what does it all mean?

as you all know, this blog does not think swiftgron is together (other than being friendly and on cordial or even close terms)  however we do think swiftgron is being referenced by kevin, her wikipedia, and that news video as part of a narrative.  we are not entirely sure what that narrative is but we have two very specific ideas.  if you hang around the blog or discord you probably know what our two theories are.  we are not comfortable blogging them publicly right now.

the usps post coordination is very loud to us as well along with the outside sources commenting on swiftgron.

it is not just our small circle of delulu 2020 swiftgrons that notice something going on with the girls.  they are referencing each other and seem to be circling one another and normal people are taking note.

i probably missed a lot so please ping me if i did (esp about taylor, we don’t track her as closely as we do dianna, we’re going to start though) and please read over this post with big swiftgron intelligence agency eyes 👀👀👀!  if there are connections and “coincidences” that stand out to you anon the blog or comment please!

and that’s what you missed on swiftgron

[feministfocus]

Cautious, Vigilant, Fearful: On Being Asian American

Art by R. Kikuo Johnson

By Cynthia Lin

The mother and child wait for the subway. The mother grips the hand of her daughter tightly, her other hand raised to check the time. A simple illustration, yet the mother’s and daughter’s eyes catch my attention. They are cautious, vigilant, fearful.

I realize what else makes me uneasy. The mother wears a turtleneck sweater beneath a long blazer and wide black pants. And tennis shoes. The sneakers clash incongruously with her formal attire—why wear sneakers with a blazer? Unless you fear you will need to run.

The New Yorker’s recent cover, “Delayed” by artist R. Kikuo Johnson, comes at a time in which racial violence against Asian Americans has surged. Just a few days before, a man was filmed kicking and stomping on a 65-year-old Philippine-American woman while onlookers from the nearby building watched. One even shut the door in her face.

It’s simple to blame the violence on the pandemic and the subsequent xenophobic rhetoric, but it’s not as if racism against Asian Americans did not exist before—it’s just that the public is finally made aware of it. It’s difficult to argue that racism is just overblown paranoia when there is widespread video evidence of the harassment.

For a while, I used to debate with myself whether someone was being racist towards me. Is it all in my head? Why am I making a big deal of this? Am I too sensitive? Can I not take a joke? It is exhausting to constantly question whether or not an action is racially motivated. I did not want to be so overly sensitive that every slight I experienced came down to race. You start to doubt yourself—is it not worse if you think it is racially motivated when it is not? Am I being hampered by my race, using race to excuse others’ treatment of me when it is just their reaction to me? But then again, my Asianness is written all over my face; how can you react to me without reacting to a core part of my identity? So there must have been some part of that action that was racist, even if it was mostly ignorant.

But it is easier to wonder what you did that made you seem so foreign, so “un-American” to warrant that might-be-racist action. You start overanalyzing your past actions, and you turn silent and reclusive, thinking it best that you should not bring more attention to yourself, but then you realize that by being quiet you are contributing to the Asian stereotype of meekness. You wish that there was a clear line distinguishing what is racist and what is “all in your head.” But that is the issue, isn’t it?

When the news first broke, I think I might have even believed the narrative the investigators spun about how the spa shootings in the Atlanta area were not racially motivated. In my mind, I hovered between calling the shootings a “hate crime” or a “crime.” It did not strike me until I read the words “sex addiction”—the excuse the shooter used to explain his murder of the eight people, six of whom were Asian women—that I realized the label “racial motivation” contributes to the falsehood that there is a distinct line separating what is racist and what is not.

“Racial motivation” is the covert label we use for the obviously racist. But the phrase doesn’t take into account the subtleties, the dangerous norms we have adopted to mark what is foreign and what is “American.” Or even more relevant, the generations of popular culture over-sexualizing and fetishizing Asian women. Perhaps the shooter’s alleged sex addiction is not inherently anti-Asian, but depictions of Asian women in film and television have dehumanized them into objects of desire, generalized them as “docile,” “demure,” and “obedient.” Easy targets.

But why this compulsion to explain the actions of the perpetrator? This desperate grab for a motive every time a racist crime is committed? Whether or not the shooter’s intent was racist, the ramifications still exist. Asian Americans, especially the elderly, do not feel safe in America. I worry about my grandparents’ recent move from Brooklyn’s Chinatown to Staten Island, where they are cut off from all that is familiar and comforting. After living in America for over twenty years, is it not their right to go on an afternoon walk without fearing for their safety?

Anti-Asian sentiment in America has not recently materialized; it’s only resurfaced in our collective attention span. Lately, I have been digging deeper into Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) history, approaching it with the intent to examine the longevity of the community’s residence in America, not just the well-taught immigrant story. Asians have been here before many Europeans immigrated through Ellis Island, but even to me, these “newer” Europeans seem to fit better with the American mold. How can they not, when U.S. history lessons consistently depict Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders as foreigners and national security threats? When the few times the curriculum touches on Asian American history, it focuses on Chinese immigration in the mid-19th century, the subsequent Chinese Exclusion Act, and the internment of 120,000 people of Japanese descent during World War II? The Asian Americans I learn about in history class seem to exist solely in the backdrop of exclusion, which only serves to highlight their “otherness.”

What of Larry Itliong and his efforts in organizing the Delano Grape Strike? Or Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives? Why is it that these milestones in Asian American and Pacific Islander history aren’t taught more? By acknowledging the multifaceted and ever-changing nature of the Asian community in the U.S., we acknowledge the progress made and what we have yet to achieve. Instead, I learn about AAPI history through an antiquated lens—depictions of Asian Americans have remained stagnant, fixed in time, and painted in broad strokes of homogeneity. The diversity of the AAPI community has often been forgotten, pushed aside for the ease in generalizing one collective group of people. This has not only perpetuated the harmful myth that most Asians, being the “model minority,” have attained success in America, but has also led to blame on the whole AAPI community for the pandemic.

In high school, race was a political topic, one made so controversial that even now, there is still some ingrained part of me that hesitates to voice my opinions for fear that I would “get it wrong.” It was only through my college search that I realized a major like “Ethnicity, Race, & Migration” even existed. And if I, someone who plans to study race, feel this way, how do others —students, teachers—even begin to broach this topic without fear of controversy? Focus on eradicating the stigma behind racism without fixating on being politically correct? So, besides a reevaluation of curriculum, we must also change the culture of avoidance we have fostered in schools, end the mindset of avoiding uncomfortable conversations.

Perhaps during the first discussions, we’ll stumble over a few social faux pas, reveal some implicit biases we’ve kept locked away under niceties, but it is better to acknowledge these societal problems than pretend that ignoring these issues will make them disappear. Uncomfortable conversations elicit defensiveness, but they can also be an opportunity for growth, a way to find empathy for others who at first seem entirely unlike ourselves. Having these conversations can help make true social change, can even help materialize a world in which a mother doesn’t have to fear for her and her child’s safety while doing something as mundane as taking a subway.

Chen, T. (2021, March 22). Asian women are Hypersexualized, so don't tell me the killings In Atlanta aren't about race. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tanyachen/asian-women-fetish-racist-atlanta-shootings

Fan, J., Hsu, H., & Park, E. (2021, March 19). The Atlanta shooting and the dehumanizing of Asian women. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-atlanta-shooting-and-the-dehumanizing-of-asian-women

If the mass killing of six Asian women isn't a hate crime, what is? (2021, March 18). Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-03-17/killing-six-asian-women-hate-crime-atlanta

Mouly, F. (2021, April 13). R. Kikuo Johnson's "Delayed". Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2021-04-05

Waxman, O. (2021, March 30). Why the Asian-American story is missing from U.S. Classrooms. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://time.com/5949028/asian-american-history-schools/

[dramarising-replacement]

Re: https://dramarising-replacement.tumblr.com/post/617916922335543296/so-ive-had-a-subspecies-since-september-i-noticed

TL;DR: Things are fishier than they seem, and M might actually be more of a thief than SB. At the very least, M 100% falsely accused SB of theft; at the worst, M stole SB’s idea and went on an editing spree to cover their tracks.

I don't have a tumblr so usually commenting on posts here is more trouble than it's worth, but I just have to on this one for some reason. Maybe it's because I think the entire concept of “subspecies” is stupid, maybe it's because thanks to a namedrop I could easily dig everything up... but from what I found the drama OP (M) definitely seems shady. Brace yourselves, my salty friends, for an unnecessarily long deep-dive into stupid drama (because what else are you going to spend quarantine doing?).

First, let's take a look at the timeline.

According to the original post date, the drama OP (M) created their subspecies in Dragon Share on September 13 2019. The thread has moderate activity levels up (~2 week post gaps max) until December 13 2019, when it apparently dies (barring any ghost bumping of course). The next post on the thread is made May 11 2020, when M suddenly becomes active again. M also created a new subspecies thread in Dragon Share on May 9 2020 at 13:05 FR (exact times will become relevant later on); it seems the posts were filled in with edits made within the next couple days, as is standard. Also of note is the fact that many of M’s posts in their original thread have edits made May 9 2020 from 10:39-13:27 FR (this will be key); additionally, a majority of these edits are made on posts that contain the guidelines for the subspecies- not sales, affiliates, pinglists, etc. that would require any sort of update.

The “accused” in this case (SB) created their hatchery thread in Dragons For Sale on December 24 2019. Aside from sales/affiliate posts, no edits to the main hatchery posts were made since December 29 2019 (likely filling in from a structure laid out 5 days prior), except for on March 19 2020, when it looks like they might have converted how they list dragons for sale to be linked to a tab instead of posted/adjusted g:t ratio. In any case, I believe these particular edits do not really play a big role on the overall timeline and drama, same as M's edits on their new thread. For a user that describes themselves as “barely active”, they do a decent job at bumping posts, with ~1 week between bumps except for 2 spans of ~1 month: from Feb-Mar, and after a short bout of bumping, from Mar-Apr.

The drama begins when M makes their post on SB’s hatchery thread May 09 2020 at 10:10 FR, which is edited less than a minute later (maybe a typo correction?). So here’s the timeline all pieced together:

September 13, 2019 – M creates the subspecies

December 13, 2019 – M seemingly goes inactive on their thread

December 24, 2019 – SB creates their hatchery thread

peace, until…

May 09, 2020 @10:10 – M accuses SB of “stealing” their idea on SB’s hatchery thread

May 09, 2020 @10:39 – M edits their subspecies requirement post

May 09, 2020 @13:05 – M creates a new subspecies thread

May 09, 2020 @13:14 – M edits their old subspecies main post

May 09, 2020 @13:21 – M edits a post about ‘Queen’ variant(?) requirements on their old thread (Important)

May 09, 2020 @13:27 – M edits a post showing examples of ‘Queen’ variants on their old thread (Important)

~BONUS~ May 12, 2020 – people start defending M on SB’s hatchery thread. The posts weren’t exactly the nicest, so who knows if they’ll still be around by the time this gets out of the queue

Ok, I know what you’re all thinking- what does all this mean? How is this shady?? For that, we will have to dive a bit more into the content of the posts to put some context to that timeline; but first, let’s take a look at the threads and see if the theft accusation is accurate.

M’s old subspecies thread:

Messy layout/design. Links are left as ugly long URLs, but most importantly… there is no consistency on what the subspecies design is! In the main post, no colors are listed, but the genes are specified to be Slime/Lionfish, Sludge/Bee, and Capsule. In their next post on the subspecies requirements, genes are listed as Slime, Sludge/Bee, Capsule- no Lionfish to be found! Color specifications are kept vague, with only a Honey tert required, though they do also lay out 4 specific named variations using Amber/Amber, Amber/Gold, Lemon/Gold, and Lemon/Lemon. The post with the ‘Queen’ requirements lists genes of Slime/Hex/Capsule, with no colors specified except for the same 4 variants made earlier.

M’s new subspecies thread:

Still a work in progress, but looks to be pretty much identical to the previous thread; the only main change is that banner is replaced with an original (credited!!) logo (good job on that, M). The main post specifies genes of Slime, Sludge/Bee, and Capsule. The color rule examples post contain the subspecies and the ‘Queen’ variant (Slime/Hex/Capsule), and include some additional variants as well- ‘Crystallized’ (Bee sec), ‘Wasp’ (Lionfish prim), Pollenators[sic] (Glimmer tert), and ‘Hornets’ (Pinstripe/Sludge/Glimmer).

So if you’ve been paying attention, M’s ~super special unique subspecies~ has color requirements of “anything honey-like” (while also having 4 specific color combinations) and a combination of random genes in addition to the “official” genes thanks to the addition of “variants” that have nothing to do with the original Slime/Sludge/Capsule premise. The only consistency seems to be Honey tert.

SB’s hatchery thread:

Aside from some hard-to-read colors used, has nice formatting. Lists 6 pairs, which are strictly either Amber/Amber or Grapefruit/Grapefruit, with a small range of matching terts for each pair (not necessarily encompassing Honey). 5 pairs give primarily Slime/Hex (+small gem gene chance), and 1 is Slime/Sludge. As far as terts go, 2 have terts weighted towards Capsule, 1 is Capsule/Runes, 1 is Opal/Glimmer, and 1 is Glimmer. So primarily Slime/Hex/assorted, in an xxy Amber/Grapefruit+assorted.

So to put that all together:

M’s claim of subspecies “theft” would really ONLY pertain to their ‘Queen’ variant, not their main subspecies (only 1 of SB’s pairs has a 50% chance at making M’s subspecies). In addition, the range built into SB’s pairs violate the only seemingly consistent rule of M’s subspecies: a Honey tert. The only argument for “theft” would pertain to the gene combo of Slime/Hex, which appears in 5 of SB’s pairs and M's ‘Queen’ variant (though again, SB’s pairs do not have the right tert color/gene most of the time!).

Now, do you remember that timeline? After accusing SB of “stealing” their idea (presumably for the ‘Queen’ variant), what did M immediately do? They went back to their thread and specifically edited the posts pertaining to the requirements for the subspecies and the ‘Queen’ variant! It’s theoretically even possible that the ‘Queen’ variant didn’t even formally exist when SB made their hatchery- all the dragons mentioned/posted in M’s thread are the standard Slime/Sludge/Capsule subspecies, and 3 of the registered dragons of the ‘Queen’ variant were bred in January (well after SB started their hatchery), with 1 other dragon acquired from untraceable sellers at some point (likely around the same time as it is the parent of the other 3). You might even say that perhaps M “stole” the idea for the ‘Queen’ from SB… M also posted the proof themselves in the OP that they use shady edits to change the narrative in their favor- SB specifically mentions this in the screenshots after calling out M for removing their link, who then backs it up by claiming they were “project” dragons; yet M placed them in the “Completed breeders” tab, which was hastily edited to now include “Breeders that need gene alterations”, a shady move that SB commented on and M decided to post proof of for some reason lol.

So if this is true, and M accused SB of stealing their idea, then raced to edit their posts to create a narrative to justify their claims… why would they do it? My theory is simple: an honest mistake combined with jealousy. There are only 12 registered dragons listed on both the old and new subspecies threads, half of which are owned by M. On the other hand, SB’s hatchery lists 22 dragons sold, only 1 of which is exalted. Now I don’t know anything about hatcheries, but I think that is a decent amount for just under 5 months of sales, especially when taking into account the periods of seeming inactivity. I think that M either went on hiatus or forgot/gave up on the subspecies back in December, before SB created their hatchery. SB then created their hatchery, using similar (but definitely not the same!) ideas. Time passed, and one day when browsing the sale forum M comes across SB’s thread. Seeing SB’s hatchery have the popularity they never had, combined with poor memory of the details of their subspecies after such a long time had passed, M comments mistakenly accusing SB of theft. However, not long after they find their old thread, and realize that SB isn’t at all copying their Slime/Sludge/Capsule xxy Amber-ish/Honey, and rush to make the edits needed to tidy up their claims. In the process, they quickly realize it’d be best to just start a new thread altogether, as the current thread was a mess and had no more reserved space past the ‘Queen’ variant (which may have been reserved/lore space before M covered their tracks). Far less sinisterly, perhaps M continued their subspecies idea after abandoning the thread, and after accusing SB they realized that they never actually officially updated their subspecies.

  But who’s to say? There might not be a smoking gun one way or the other, but there’s enough circumstantial evidence to say M doesn’t look as innocent as they sound. As far as SB’s response, it was definitely out of line and way too harsh. But you’ve also gotta admit you’d be pretty peeved if you had been peacefully minding your own business for months and suddenly someone comes in out of the blue, wrongfully accuses you of being a thief, demands you give them credit for all your hard work, then proceeds to buy your dragons to make them part of their “rightful” hatchery, erasing any mention of you as just another slap in the face. From looking at the dragons they’ve sold, SB doesn’t really seem to care what happens to them- genes have been changed, links have been removed, no drama that I can see. It really seems like they are reacting more to M’s shadiness over the whole deal than anything else. That said, nobody likes being namecalled, so SB’s parting remark wasn’t right even if they were wrongly accused of theft.

[tinyshe]

Story at-a-glance

Mercola.com has been labeled a national security threat by British and American intelligence agencies that are collaborating to eliminate “anti-vaccine propaganda” from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools

Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), has made statements implying that people who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine might be prone to violent extremism — a defamatory statement that has no basis in reality

In a December 22, 2020, Twitter post, the CCDH states that “Anti-vaxxers have been meeting secretly to plan how to stop the COVID vaccine.” According to The Washington Post, the CCDH report quotes “leaked audio” from this supposedly “secret” meeting

However, audio was not “leaked,” as it came from presentations given at the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, held online October 16 through 18, 2020 that was in no way "private" or held in secret. It was open to the public just like the previous four conferences on vaccination that NVIC has sponsored beginning in 1997

Censorship is anathema to a democratically run, free and open society. While there may not be a benefit to allowing misinformation to be disseminated, the risks of censoring are simply too grave to be justifiable

As detailed in "Spy Agencies Threaten to 'Take Out' Mercola," this website has been labeled a national security threat by British and American intelligence agencies that are collaborating to eliminate "anti-vaccine propaganda" from public discussion using sophisticated cyberwarfare tools.1,2,3

In a December 22, 2020, article,4 The Hill claims the "anti-vaccination movement sees COVID-19 as an opportunity" to strengthen its position, stating that "As public health officials seek to reassure Americans on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, anti-vaccine efforts could prevent the country from reaching herd immunity."

According to a November 9, 2020, report in The Times,5 the British "government regards tackling false information about COVID-19 vaccination as a rising priority," ostensibly for the same reason. But does concern for implementation of public health policy really justify the use of cyberwarfare against those who raise questions about vaccine safety?

Wouldn't vaccine safety be part and parcel of a successful public health campaign? Doesn't public trust play a significant part as well? The fact that they're trying to shut down any and all conversations about vaccines — using warfare tactics no less — suggests that the planned mass vaccination campaign has very little to do with keeping the public healthy and safe. It's about controlling the public, for some undisclosed purpose.

'Anti-Hate' Group Defames Vaccine Safety Advocates

In July 2020, Imran Ahmed, a member of the Steering Committee on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force under the British government's Commission for Countering Extremism and the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), told The Independent6 he considers anti-vaxxers "an extremist group that pose a national security risk," because "once someone has been exposed to one type of conspiracy it's easy to lead them down a path where they embrace more radical world views that can lead to violent extremism."

In other words, Ahmed implies that people who question the safety and necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine might be prone to violent extremism — a defamatory statement that has no basis in reality.

In its report, "The Anti-Vaxx Playbook,"7 CCDH identifies six leading online "anti-vaxxers" — Barbara Loe Fisher, Joseph Mercola, Del Bigtree, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sherri Tenpenny and Andrew Wakefield — and outlined an alleged anti-vaxxer "plan to attack a forthcoming COVID vaccine" based on remarks made by speakers during the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, sponsored by the non-profit, Nacional Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) and held online October 16 through 18, 2020.

According to The Washington Post,8 the report quotes "leaked audio" from the conference. Similarly, in a December 22, 2020, Twitter post,9 the CCDH states that "Anti-vaxxers have been meeting secretly to plan how to stop the COVID vaccine. We were there. Today we're exposing their playbook."

It's rather laughable. Just who is the conspiracy theorist here? There was no audio to be "leaked" since it was a PUBLIC conference, open to absolutely anyone and everyone, just like the previous four conferences on vaccination that NVIC has held beginning in 1997. It was openly promoted by NVIC, this website, as well as many other groups and was about as far from a "secret meeting" as you could possibly get.

Since the CCDH admitted "being there," they must have paid the nominal registration attendance fee of $80, as did more than 3,000 other registered attendees from the U.S, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa. The NVIC conference, which was originally scheduled to be held in a hotel, was produced online for the first time after COVID-19 social distancing and travel restrictions were instituted in March, 2020.

Vaccine Concerns Are Growing Rapidly

The CCDH report also lists several private Facebook groups dedicated to vaccine information, including "Vaccination Re-Education Discussion Forum," "Stop Mandatory Vaccination," "Vaccine Choices" and "Restore Liability for the Vaccine Makers."

CCDH admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts. In all, these accounts have 59.2 million followers, "nearly 877,000 more than they had in June," CCDH notes, adding that:10

"This means that anti-vaxxers grew fast enough to outpace the removal of accounts belonging to influential figures such as Del Bigtree, Larry Cook and David Icke in that period. Those removals led to a loss of 3.2 million followers from the total, while other anti-vaxxers in our sample gained over 4.1 million …

Analysis of this year-long growth also shows the substantial contributions that alternative health entrepreneurs and conspiracy theorists make to the reach of the anti-vaccine movement.

Entrepreneurs now have 22.6 million followers, supplying two-fifths of the anti-vaccine movement's online following. Anti-vaccine conspiracy accounts grew by nearly 50 percent over the year, starting at 15.5 million followers in 2019 and rising to 23.1 million by December 2020."

According to the CCDH, "Anti-vaxxers have developed a sophisticated playbook for spreading uncertainty about a COVID vaccine."11 To counter this information, medical and scientific professionals need to "take action," by which the CCDH means they must push for COVID-19 vaccination.

"To do so, they must convince the public that COVID is dangerous and give them confidence that a vaccine is safe and effective," the CCDH writes,12 adding that anti-vaxxers "win the debate by default if a skeptical public fail to take action and use the vaccine."

'Anti-Vaxx Playbook'

Just what is the "anti-vaxx playbook"? According to the CCDH, the "playbook for spreading uncertainty" about the vaccine involves five key steps:13

Establishing "a 'master narrative' comprising three key messages: COVID is not dangerous, the vaccine is dangerous and vaccine advocates cannot be trusted"

Adapting that master narrative for "online subcultures" such as "Alternative health entrepreneurs, conspiracy theorists, and accounts directed at parents or ethnic communities"

Offering "online answering spaces where people with doubts about COVID or the vaccine can direct their questions"

Converting vaccine-hesitant individuals into anti-vaxxers and then training them to become "more effective activists"

Mitigating attacks on their online infrastructure by migrating followers to "alt-tech" platforms such as Telegram and Parler and developing "techniques for undermining fact-checking"

In the report, the CCDH details many of the specific messages shared by me and others, such as deaths being falsely attributed to COVID-19, thereby artificially inflating mortality statistics, the fact that COVID-19 has a 99+% survival rate unless you're very old and have underlying comorbidities, and the fact that there are now several effective therapeutics for COVID-19, making a vaccine less relevant.

"Anti-vaxxers take advantage of existing media and political narratives around the speed of vaccine development to claim trials have been rushed, and that it is too soon to know if COVID vaccines are safe," the CCDH states. "Variations of this narrative highlight perceived shortcomings in clinical trials, and draw on past examples of vaccines with adverse effects."

Zero Solid Counterarguments Made

Reading through the CCDH's report, I'm struck by the irony that none of the so-called "anti-vaxx arguments" are actually met by solid pro-vaccine counterarguments or data.

CCDH does not negate or even debate the accuracy of any of them. It just brushes them aside as misinformation and lies without providing any proof whatsoever. In fact, the report summarizes our concerns so well that I'd encourage everyone to read it.

At the end of the report, they do list a number of strategies that pro-vaccine advocates should use to counter anti-vaccine messages, but again, nowhere do they recommend leaning on published science.

Instead, it's all about shaming people who question vaccines as "conspiracy theorists," promoting harrowing stories of people who got sick with COVID-19 and "shouting about getting vaccinated."

"Recipients of the vaccine should post about getting it — such a campaign could create authentic social proof and work against the anti-vaxxers' aim of creating doubt around the safety of vaccines. 'I've had the vaccine' Twibbons and Instagram filters could also help achieve this," CCDH writes.14

CCDH Promotes Draconian Censorship

Other recommendations issued by the CCDH include deplatforming anyone who questions vaccines. "Deplatforming works," they say, adding that:15

"The problem lies with a very small number of accounts. The 59 million followers of anti-vaxxer social media accounts identified in this report are following just 425 accounts, pages, groups and channels across Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.

The 10 anti-vaxxers we track with the largest cross-platform followings make up the majority of the total audience for anti-vaxxers online. These are the 'superspreaders' of anti-vaxx misinformation.

As this report has demonstrated, anti-vaxxers are concerned by the prospect of losing their privileged position on social media platforms … the evidence is clear that the best way of preventing someone falling for a conspiracy theory is to prevent them from seeing it in the first place."

The CCDH also urges legislators to "hold platforms accountable" through fines and criminal sanctions, legal liability for forum administrators and/or "transparency for the online advertising world" — in other words, warn advertisers that the platform they're supporting with their advertising dollars is promoting "medical misinformation" and "anti-vaccine conspiracy theories."

I am surprised by their recommendation because to the best I can discern, ALL the major media platforms have already censored every major site that questions vaccines many months ago. They cannot censor them any more than they already are. Most of the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter accounts have been heavily censored or deplatformed.

Greenwald on Big Tech Censoring

In the video at the top of this article, UnHerd interviews Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is one of my favorite articulate journalists. At the end of October 2020, Greenwald resigned from The Intercept — a publication he co-founded in 2014 — after the publication refused to publish an article in which he raised a critique against presidential candidate Joe Biden.16

According to Greenwald, the refusal to publish the piece violated his "contractual right of editorial freedom." In the interview, he stresses the dangers inherent with online censorship by big tech and social media platforms. Who should be in control of "the truth"? Can anyone really be designated as the ultimate source of truth, be it about vaccines or anything else?

What looks like a proven orthodoxy one month becomes a gross error the next, and that's exactly why things have to be debated rather than suppressed. ~ Glenn Greenwald

As noted by Greenwald, social media platforms claim the right to be the arbiters of truth by hiring so-called fact-checkers and relying on experts at the World Health Organization.

However, we have repeatedly seen the WHO issue statements that have turned out to be inaccurate or false — sometimes by their own admission — so just how reliable are they? By strictly sticking with the WHO's guidance and censoring everything else, the censors have in many instances promoted misinformation exclusively.

Greenwald gives the example of masks. In February and March 2020, the WHO did not recommend wearing face masks and actually warned they might be counterproductive. Now all of a sudden, masks are a must, even though the science hasn’t changed one bit.

In fact, the evidence that masks don't protect against viral transmission has only grown stronger. Early on the WHO also questioned whether human-to-human transmission was even possible and cast doubt on the true danger of the virus.

"That's the nature of human fallibility," Greenwald says. "What looks like a proven orthodoxy one month becomes a gross error the next, and that's exactly why these things have to be debated rather than suppressed."

Risks of Censorship Are Too Grave To Be Justifiable

When asked whether he believes nothing should ever be censored on health grounds, he wisely replies that not only do people need to rely on their own common sense when encountering information, but institutions also need to work to build credibility and public trust.

Indeed, refusing to hold a discussion about the scientific evidence does not build trust. Forcibly shutting down anyone who raises sensible questions does not build trust. Destroying the reputations and livelihoods of people who report on questions raised does not build trust.

In short, the medical industry, and the vaccine industry in particular, have severe trust and credibility deficits that they themselves created and continue to grow with the help of big tech and national intelligence agencies who are going to extreme lengths to prevent counter narratives from getting out.

Greenwald also points out that the U.S. has never before allowed government to intervene in the public discourse in this way. It should be undisputable that censorship is anathema to a democratically run, free and open society. While there may not be a benefit to allowing misinformation to be disseminated, the risks of censoring are simply too grave to be justifiable.

Big tech censorship is even more insidious than government censorship, because it's far more opaque. At least if the government says it's going to censor certain kinds of expression, there's some level of transparency in how that's being done.

Private tech companies, on the other hand, move the goal post at will, and they're never entirely clear about who will be censored, for what, exactly, or how. What's more, there's no real process for appeal. Greenwald points out that social media companies never really wanted to be in the position of being censors but were pressured into it by politicians, in some cases, and mainstream media journalists in others.

Journalists initially wanted to maintain control over the public discourse by restricting the competition's reach, and once social media companies relented and started censoring, the whole thing just snowballed and grew.

The problem we face now is that censorship fortifies power and is very difficult to end once it has taken hold. This in turn does not bode well for individual freedom or democracy as a whole. Censorship is a direct threat to both.

It also has a tendency to spread ever more widely, covering more and more topics as we go along. For example, there was active suppression and censorship of certain political issues leading up to the 2020 presidential election, and now there's censoring of evidence showing election interference. What will be next?

Technocratic Totalitarianism Is at Our Doorstep

The fact, then, that U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies are getting involved in censoring should tell us something. It tells us it's not really about protecting public health. It's about strengthening government control over the population. The fact that intelligence agencies view vaccine safety advocates as a national security threat also tells us that government is now in the business of protecting private companies, essentially blurring the line between the two.

If you criticize one you criticize the other. In short, if you impede or endanger the profitability of private companies, you are now viewed as a national security threat, and this falls squarely within the parameters of technocracy, in which government is dissolved and replaced with the unelected leaders of private enterprise.

The right and freedom to critique one's government is a hallmark of democracy, so this state-sponsored war against truthful information is clear evidence of a radical turn toward technocratic totalitarianism. While the situation may appear hopeless, it's not yet too late to turn things around. For some encouragement, listen to Kennedy Jr.'s speech below.

Resistance is the only way forward, and one way you can resist censorship is to find ways around it. One such way is to subscribe to this newsletter, and any other newsletters you find interesting, and to share information you find valuable with your family and friends via more old-school means such as email and text message.

At the bottom of each page, you'll find an "Email Article" button that makes my articles easy to share. Also consider eliminating Facebook and all Google-based services to cut down on their data mining of your personal information, as all of it is being used against you in one way or another, whether you're aware of it or not.

source

[brooklynmuseum]

If you ask someone to name five artists, they will likely name prominent male artists, but how many people can list five women artists? Throughout March’s Women’s History Month, we will be joining institutions around the world to answer this very question posed by the National Museum of Women in the Arts (NWMA). We will be featuring a woman artist every day this month, and highlighting artists in our current exhibition Half the Picture: A Feminist Look at the Collection which explores a wide range of art-making, focusing on enduring political subjects—encompassing gender, race, and class—that remain relevant today. The show is on view until March 31, 2019.

Together we hope to draw attention to the gender and race imbalance in the art world, inspire conversation and awareness, and hopefully add a few more women to everyone’s lists.

In 1972, Miriam Schapiro collaborated with Judy Chicago and twenty-one of their students from the Feminist Art Program at the California Institute of the Arts to create the famed “Womanhouse” installation, central to the feminist art movement of the 1970s. Following this radical artistic endeavor, Miriam Schapiro developed her practice to revitalize and celebrate the breadth of work made by women artisans, whose impact has historically been diminished. Schapiro began collaging materials associated with women’s domestic work to create her noted “femmages.” As she wrote in 1977, “I wanted to validate the traditional activities of women, to connect myself to the unknown women artists who had made quilts, who had done the invisible ‘women’s work’ of civilization. I wanted to acknowledge them, to honor them.” Schapiro’s “femmage,” like Faith Ringgold’s narrative quilts, opened the path for the re-evaluation of anonymous art done by women.

Posted by Chiara Mannarino Miriam Schapiro (American, 1923-2015). Anonymous was a Woman, 1976. Acrylic and collage on paper, 30 x 22 in. (76.2 x 55.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Amy Wolf and John Hatfield in memory of Cynthia Africano, 2005.61. © artist or artist's estate (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 2005.61_PS1.jpg)

[ukdamo]

The Abdication Question: Throne or Personhood

One of mine, from March, 1997. I wrote this 24 years ago: the narrative and characters have moved on - but the central question is still not resolved. It has a somewhat theological flavour - which might be off-putting to some. It would have a different flavour if I were to write it now. But, don't let the taste put you off...

It is so far a truism that revolution devours its children that we have failed to recognise, in the present plight of the House of Windsor, that monarchy can do so just as voraciously. The fact is that revolution and monarchy devour their children for the same reason - they represent a tyranny which is inimical to the “freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:22). Present indications are that the demands made upon individuals by the institution of monarchy, as experienced in Britain, are simply insupportable. More pertinently, the issues raised have as direct a bearing on matters spiritual as on matters temporal.

Commentators on recent royal events have focussed on the question of duty, obligation and service. Rightly so, for this is one of the prime concerns. Of equal importance, however, and increasingly restless and demanding, is the necessity of giving the liberty of the children of God - and kings - its true value. The House of Windsor is sinking into an unhappy morass of unresolved tensions between these two. We have been slow to read the signs of the times; the winds have been blowing from the south (Lk 12:55) for a long, long time; 60 years or more.

In the person of Edward VIII, we see an individual obliged to wrestle with the paradox posed by the conflict between his constitutional role and his personal needs: evident in his concern, when Prince of Vales, with the miners and their working conditions, supremely evident in the Simpson Affair, He resolved the conflict between ‘role’ and ‘person’ by stepping out of role. This choice had enormous repercussions for this brother, George, and for the future development of the monarchy. George, subsequent to Edward’s abdication, was faced with the same dilemma. He resolved it differently - becoming the dutiful, if reluctant, king.

His consort, the present Queen Mother stiffened his resolve. In these events, we see the genesis of the family’s present problems: her strong personality, the circumstances surrounding her husband’s accession to the throne, the advent of WWII, all paved the way for a doubling and redoubling of the emphasis on ‘duty’ and ‘obligation’. These two have become so far elevated that choice and personhood have become synonymous with wilfulness and selfishness. A great pity, and a great stumbling block, because choice and personhood are the crux of the gospel and central to salvation.

Everyone knows that Christian theology places enormous emphasis on service, even to the extent of denying oneself and laying down one’s life. The Greek word used in the New Testament to indicate this self-emptying is kenosis. Relevant scriptural references might include I Phil 2:6-8, “His state was divine, yet he did not cling to his equality with God but emptied himself” or Mk 10:45, “For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”.

When carrying such a big (intimidating!) stick, the Church / state / institution need only ever speak softly. Or so one might think.

Increasingly in recent decades, the rationale for such Christian service has been challenged. An imbalance begins to be redressed. New perceptions - dimly recognisable in the earlier part of the 20th century - become more and more distinct. People rebel because they recognise (perhaps unwittingly) the half-truth which kenosis represents. The corollary of kenosis - the very thing which validates the significance, value and virtue of self-sacrifice - is complete self-possession and, stemming from that, informed choice. Significantly for us, this trend, too, has roots in Christian theology.

I would contend that the self-possession spoken of is born of a dialogue between self and God. This dialogue illuminates and informs personhood. The early Church recognised as much: Augustine of Hippo, “Ut te cognoscam Deus meus, et meipsum” (To know you, my God, and myself likewise); or Irenaeus, “The glory of God is a person fully alive.” It is worth noting that the early Church stood outside the power structure of the ancient world. In the intervening centuries, weighed down by accretions, pacing the corridors of power, the Church lost sight of this valuable insight. Conformity and service is much more highly valued in such circles. Only now are we beginning to rediscover self-possession and choice, with the wonder of children. We recognise emerging possibilities, possibilities other than those which have been ‘received’.

To turn to informed choice. When person truly knows themselves, they may recognise that the realisation of their personhood only comes about through a humbling of self in service. Each of us has probably experienced the fulfilment which comes as a result of committing oneself to something outside of self. But we walk on a knife-edge: too often we have erred by substituting mere obedience, a suspension of the critical faculties, an abdication of personhood for such selfless service. This is sacrilegious. No-one, no institution, no power, no Church, no state, especially not God, may ask this. (Where there is service, there must be an ‘I’ who serves). Such an abdication would be to make oneself unrecognisable to self and God. It would trample the unique dignity of the human person under foot, it might imperil salvation. Imagine coming face to face with God at the last, only to be asked “Who are you?” The absolute necessity of self-possession and the informed choice which arises from it is attested to in ancient wisdom, scriptural and otherwise. Aristotle held that the unexamined life was not worth living.

John, in his gospel, places Jesus’ self-sacrifice in the context of absolute self-possession and self-knowledge. “Jesus knew that the Father had put everything into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God, and he got up from the table, removed his outer garment and, taking a towel, wrapped it round his waist; he then poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel he was wearing”.

It is evident, my argument goes, that to serve out of duty and obligation profits nothing. (There can be no sin where there is no freedom; nor can there be virtue).

The younger members of the House of Windsor have been restive for two generations as the ‘service’ ideals conflicted with the equally demanding virtues of self-possession and choice. Margaret was ambivalent enough to voice the desire to marry Peter Townsend before the Firm reasserted its influence. Anne has been bold enough to divorce and remarry, and refused to have her children styled royals. Edward refused to serve any longer in the Marines and sought out a theatrical career. Andrew and Sarah failed to reconcile the roles of high profile navy couple and husband / wife. Most poignantly (?) and more centrally, Charles and Diana faced conflicting demands that have brought their marriage to grief and jeopardised their own physical and emotional well-being as well as that of their children. It appears evident that the pressure to conform becomes more intense the closer one is to the Succession.

Charles and Diana have, in different yet related ways, instinctively rebelled against the tyranny of monarchy. Charles’ searchings are no secret; witness Charles ‘the crofter’, the philosophical enquirer, follower of Laurens van der Post, commentator on architecture, organic farming etc...

Present reports indicate that Charles is still plagued by uncertainty and the quest for a personally meaningful role, Diana was obliged to pose the same question to herself almost before the ink was dry on the marriage register in St. Paul’s. For her part, she has been trying to answer it for more than fifteen years. The list of causes to which she is patron may be taken as a barometer of that endeavour.

The great tragedy of the House of Windsor, and its most monstrous feature, is its insistence on so lionising ‘service’ that it effectively precludes any possibility of its individual members gaining any real sense of themselves as persons. It dehumanises. It not only fosters but actually expects the abdication of personhood. Those of us who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual will be familiar with the contours of the conflict described in this reflection, if not its precise topography. There are universal lessons to be learned from the particular experiences of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and from the experience of the House of Windsor: conformity may exact a terrible personal price.

Great portions of the world have moved on in the past 60 years and now find such an insistence on conformity, duty, obligation, to be unacceptable. The Berlin Wall was breached in 1989, apartheid has been driven to extinction, the USSR crumbled, but the British monarchy resists. The present upheavals surely demonstrate that the line cannot be held much longer?

My personal hope, and perhaps the best resolution of this troubled affair of the House of Windsor, is for William (when he comes of age) to recognise that the game’s not worth the candle and abdicate the throne, thus saving himself both now. And forever?

[tatewellingss]

Week Three

If ‘Social justice is about making society function better – providing the support and tools to help turn lives around’ (UK Gov.co.uk), how well do you think the UK is achieving this today? What role can drama or theatre play in this?

When analysing the approach of tackling social justice within the UK today, it becomes apparent that many examples exist. For example, many scholars have described the work on improving social justice especially in educational settings, as well as, young offender and rape prevention programmes (Gallagher, 2016). When conducting my own further research, an example of theatre companies themselves providing an area of developing social change through the form of theatre is Mandala Theatre Company. Their project ‘Castaways’ focused in on ethnic minority issues within young people and wars with Syria and Iraq (Mandala Theatre, 2017).  This theatre company is a magnified example of how theatre companies are using the arts medium of theatre to tackle and address social issues to young people, to bring about awareness and get them talking about issues being expressed. 

From a personal standpoint, throughout school I watched a lot of theatre companies coming into my school to help address controversial topics that could be performed rather than just given in a traditional PSHE lesson. Another example that has stuck with me is; when my grandad was battling dementia in a nursing home, they had frequent drama groups come in to perform and bring theatre to them as a lot of patients were immobile; and this sometimes became the highlight of the patients, and sometimes carers, week. 

Of course Mandala Theatre and my own personal experiences are a small fraction of how the UK in general is achieving social justice. Most recently, Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 have been gaining less and less coverage within mainstream media, when the height of relevance was last summer (Baggs, 2020). This begins to question if social justice can ever be entirely achieved? The role of theatre can be argued as a main form of bringing about awareness, whether that be through working in schools, care homes and prisons; or even bringing about awareness through mainstream media, such as ‘It’s a Sin’ on Channel 4, which brought awareness about the 1980′s AIDS crisis and attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community (Mangan, 2021). We can see theatre as vital to bringing about connection amongst characters and linking them with socially damaging topics, therefore allowing topics regarding social improvements to resonate more with audience members. 

2. Gallagher states that some of the young people that they studied seemed to have internalised robust neoliberal messages, taking full responsibility for their social and economic struggles. In what ways do you think this might apply to you in the context of your life and your third level study of drama?

As a twenty-year old gay man, its taken myself a long time to 100% feel comfortable in saying that, and I only feel that right now I am fully myself in what I wear, what I say, who I’m friends with and what my interests openly are. My personal social struggle of coming to terms with my sexuality mainly derived from the underlayer of homophobia I felt from other people. Growing up in England can be tough, especially with the ‘stiff upper lip’ and neoliberal opinions some may have, and being gay sort of goes against this. I guess for a long time, I really supressed my own personality, not just due to my sexuality; but also for my appearance, my desperation to be popular but also be what I thought my parents wanted me to be. I think Gallagher (2016) is correct in suggesting young people have this internalised ‘failure’ narrative in their brain, which is something I can completely relate to. 

Since an early age, I have loved performing. It wasn’t until I went to a Performing Arts School at fourteen, that I felt comfortable enough to come out. Little by little, people accepted me, my family accepted me, and became who I am today, which is unapologetically myself. Gallagher’s (2016) suggestion of internal neoliberal views on oneself is accurate to say the least. As young people, we become hyper aware of the outer opinions of other people and are constantly bombarded with anxieties surrounding what we should be seen as, which is completely unattainable. As someone that is in their third level of study in drama, it becomes more relevant to myself than ever. I think the outlet of creativity I have within drama helps excel me in the balance of my academic second half of my degree, with being an Education major; but, it also helps provide me with an improvement with group work, social skills and also developing fresh perspectives on social issues that I may have no experience in the past. 

3. Describe in your own words what ecological thinking means?

Ecological thinking relates to the relationship we have within ourselves and relating this to the outer-world. As we develop in the world, our opinions are formed through social attitudes and concepts that are derived. When linking this to theatre, it can become hyper-important to recognise that when viewing certain theatre performances, it can change the views and opinions within our brain and lead us to reflect and question the values and social issues raised within the performance. Ecological thinking is all about recognising ourselves within the world and how we can change this through theatre in order to gain a more socially just world. 

4. Can you think of when you first became aware of or interested in social justice? Are there any specific things you do in your life that contribute to the notion of a just society for all?

I think my awareness in social justice has only recently been brought to the forefront of my mind. Being a student these past three years has opened my eyes to a glimpse of adulthood and how certain people are automatically given more on the basis of their race, gender, sexuality or disability. As a white gay man, I am automatically privileged in the wider LGBTQ+ community as these are the type of gay men you mostly see on in mainstream media. However, I have also faced homophobia in my past three years of university, and some of it unfortunately remains internalised in myself at times. After having slurs thrown at me on a night-out once by someone of my own age, it really began to form in my brain how we can’t box the whole of my generation into being ‘politically correct’ as issues surrounding sexuality are still so prevalent as they once were. 

This began to shape my own interest in social justice, and I started to follow some LGBTQ+ ally pages on social media and begin talking in forums surrounding issues in the gay community that we still face. An example I can think of is last summer, I kept seeing how the government still didn’t allow gay men to donate blood, due to prejudice surrounding HIV/AIDS still remaining. Fortunately, after signing petitions and educating my friends and family on the matter, in 2021 the law in England changed so that gay men could now donate blood, however only if they have been in a long term relationship. I’ve also shared petitions and links to the government’s stance on conversion therapy, as unfortunately it is still legalised, with social media being used as the new medium for them to try and convert gay men. The Conservative government have stated they’re still trying for this to change, however Boris Johnson PM voted against gay marriage and for adoption, leading to me question how long it’ll take for this to happen. 

For myself, I know the only way to combat social injustice is to talk about it and educate family and friends that may not be as socially aware of such topics. I think I will always been interested in social justice, due to the experiences I myself have faced, and until I see someone who accurately represents me as a young gay men within British politics. 

References

Baggs, M. (2020) Black Lives Matter in the UK: 'We're still not being heard'. [online] BBC News. Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-53812576> [Accessed 5 March 2021].

Gallagher, K. (2016) ‘Responsible Art and Unequal Societies: Towards a Theory of Drama and the Justice Agenda’, in Freebody, K. and Finneran, M. (ed.) Drama and Social Justice: Theory, Research and Practice in International Contexts. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 53-66.

Mandalatheatre.co.uk. (2017) Past Projects. [online] Available at: <https://www.mandalatheatre.co.uk/mandala-theatre> [Accessed 5 March 2021].

Mangan, L. (2021) It's a Sin review – Russell T Davies has created a masterpiece of poignancy. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jan/22/its-a-sin-review-russell-t-davies-queer-as-folk-aids-channel-4> [Accessed 5 March 2021].

[businessfrontrunners]

International Best-Selling Author Dawn Bates Delivers Game-Changing 7-Month AUTHORity Mastermind To Those With Budding Interests of Becoming Published.

https://authoritypresswire.com/?p=34003 International best-selling author Dawn Bates has already experienced some of life’s darkest moments but holds fast to the mindset of not allowing them to steal from her future. Instead, she is continuing to inspire individuals worldwide! Marching into 2021 utilizing her more than 20 years of experience as a leadership coach and business strategist, author, publisher, ghostwriter, speaker, Digital Ocean nomad, and online entrepreneur, Bates is delivering a remarkably unique teaching platform, to those with a desire of becoming a published author, by introducing her 7-Month AUTHORity Mastermind program.  Bates, who specializes in leading entrepreneurs, CEOs and authors to re-evaluate the life they live to seek their deepest desires, and who on average writes 12,000 words per day, has a repertoire of published works including The Trilogy of Life Itself.  This impressive body of work encompasses the last 30 years of life from around the world and is artfully detailed in Friday Bridge, Walaahi and Crossing The Line. Covering relevant topics ranging from social stereotypes, entrepreneurship, single-parenting, first-hand accounts of the Egyptian Uprising, and police corruption and racism in Scotland, The Trilogy of Life Itself is positively captivating, inspiring and empowering for all who read it. Now, it’s no secret that the current state of the world provides an unwelcome abundance of fear-based noise surrounding the current health crisis and the economic concerns that go along with that. As a result, a plethora of self-help books have surfaced in regards to business and personal development, achieving more in life and changing one’s mindset to take on healthier new perspectives. These books that are currently hitting the best-seller status on the market, and whilst that is a great selling point, Bates is more interested in making sure authors continue to receive a variety of incomes from their book moving forward.  Whilst millions of individuals are at home and wondering ‘what’s next?’ they are also craving inspiration from those who have discovered what’s next and are living their dream life, regardless of what the current narrative is. Known for her profound wisdom, high energy and determination for seeking and speaking the truth, Bates’ 7-Month AUTHORity Mastermind is designed to lead, enlighten and engage individuals who are eager to take their businesses to the next level, whilst also sharing their expertise and journey with the world. People today want change, action and a new narrative, and Bates’ organization, Dawn Publishing, was formed to do just that. Her mission is to bring about positive change in the world of publishing and to create long-lasting traditions while doing so. It does not go without mention that it is quite common for an individual to talk about writing a book, and even start the process, but the majority give up before the book is completed. The 7-Month AUTHORity Mastermind is a comprehensive course where Bates will apply her years of leadership, personal growth and study, and her extraordinary gift of providing a deeper healing experience, a higher level of consciousness and a greater personal awareness that will propel participants forward, preparing them to implement massive change in the world through their story. Not to mention, they will have tons of fun along the way! Knowing that personal truth is an individual’s most incredible power, Bates will lead 11 fortunate entrepreneurs, executives and other participants on an incredible journey of seeking truth and understanding of consciousness and will guide them to be the proud curator of a compelling published masterpiece. ### ABOUT THE INDUSTRY LEADER Dawn Bates, Founder and Head Coach of Dawn Publishing, has over 20 years in Entrepreneurship, Community Cohesion and Cultural Diversity, Coaching and Developing Leaders, whilst also being a leading authority on global issues around the world. International Best-selling Author many times over, across multiple continents and author coach to entrepreneurs, CEO’s and figure heads in society, as well as global media influencer, freelance writer for prestigious magazines, and guest speaker on TV, Radio, University Symposiums and Summits around the world, Dawn is no stranger to being in the spotlight. Dawn has a wealth of knowledge from over 22 years of continuous personal development and study, speaks Arabic and Spanish at an intermediate level, and is currently studying for her PhD in International Law and Social Justice with Oxford University.

[yegarts]

Artist Project Grant recipient: Maria Dunn celebrates resilience, gratitude, and joy on new album Joyful Banner Blazing

Maria Dunn, 2020. Photo Credit: David Williamson

Maria Dunn is a true preserver of the spirit of folk music. The twice Juno-nominated singer-songwriter is often compared to Woody Guthrie for her keen social awareness and unvarnished melodic songs about ordinary people. Her seventh album Joyful Banner Blazing (2021) — created with the of support of a large Artist Project Grant from the Edmonton Arts Council — celebrates resilience, grace, gratitude, solidarity, joy, and the love that fires our actions to make the world a better place.

Over the course of the last few years since the release of her album Gathering (2016) Dunn has had plenty of time to build up a reservoir of new material to share with her audience. As a practiced purveyor of stories, many of the songs from Joyful Banner Blazing draw inspiration from Edmonton’s history, paying tribute to Edmonton’s workers and community advocates — a thread that has run through Dunn’s music over the course of her 22-year career.  

Through song, Dunn masterfully tells the stories that connect us to the past, searching out real-life stories that are often overlooked. One such example is the song “Waltzing with the Angels” that tells the story of the Métis Ironworkers who helped build Edmonton’s CN tower in the mid-60s. Dunn was approached by Indigenous rights activist Muriel Stanley Venne to write the song after she and other members of the Alberta Labour History Institute had interviewed these workers in 2018 about their experiences as young men.

This type of collaboration  is not an uncommon practice for Dunn. “Heart in Hand” and “Secondhand Skates” were originally part of a multimedia project called Packingtown, inspired by the people who lived and worked in Edmonton’s historic meatpacking industry of northeast Edmonton. Dunn worked with three collaborators: videographer/historian Don Bouzek, historian Catherine C. Cole, and community advocate Janice Melnychuk, on telling the story of Packingtown. For Dunn, working on these projects have taught her to see past the historically dominant colonial narrative of our city, province, and country. “There is so much work to be done in our world for racial equity, decolonization, social justice and inclusion of all people,” says Dunn. “It is more important than ever to tell stories about the countless people working for social justice, local and global, who inspire us with their persistence, their hope and their courage.”

“I was raised on a tradition of folks songs that tell those kinds of stories and so it was natural for me to start to write songs that would carry that tradition forward,” adds Dunn. “My own writing about history initially came out of learning about and writing songs about stories from my own family history. That was part of getting to know who I was. From there, I became interested in stories of other people that sparked an emotional reaction in me — stories of real people, living history, getting through difficult times; the beauty of stories of compassion and solidarity where people lift each other up, where people work together to make their lives and the lives of others better.”

In addition to documenting moments of Edmonton’s past, the album carries a strong personal theme of gratitude and love for family. “Ontario Song”, a song written 20 years ago and recorded before the COVID pandemic, speaks of staying connected across the vast distances of this country — a song made even more relevant today with the continuing travel restrictions. The importance and impact of family also resonates with the title track “Joyful Banner Blazing.” “The song was written in tribute to my late aunt, Sister Cecily Dunn, a lifelong community advocate for young people in London, UK,” says Dunn. In 2015 while on tour in Ireland, Dunn was able to meet up with her aunt and enjoyed a precious couple of hours of deep conversation. Following her passing six months later, Dunn heard the story about her funeral and how the people in her community lined the roadway as the funeral car passed and sang one of the folk songs she was known to sing — “She’ll be comin’ round the mountain.” “I knew that I wanted to share that story in song and share her beautiful motto: "You are young, you are precious, you are loved.”

Cover art from the album Joyful Banner Blazing by Maria Dunn (2021).  Designed by Jeff Sylvester, Cut+Paste Design Inc.

Like many artists, creating new work during the last year presented its own unique set of challenges. “The recording phase was completed in January 2020 but the lockdown in March did affect the final phase of our mixing process,” recalls Dunn. “We had to finish mixing without myself, producer Shannon Johnson and engineer Terry Tran being able to meet together in the studio, so that slowed down coming to a consensus on the final mixes. We all had to listen in our own homes and confer by phone and email on various tweaks.” And while the pandemic may have affected many factors that come along with an album release, Dunn was kept just as busy with the promotion and logistics for the release. “Even without a live tour, there is much work to be done to properly launch an album!”

When it became clear that the initial album release at Festival Place was going to be postponed from the original May 31, 2020 date, Dunn decided to put the album release on pause and dedicate more time to creation, focusing on songwriting, playing some physically distanced outdoor shows and Zoom concerts, and pre-recording videos for online festivals.  

While tours have been postponed yet again, Dunn is excited to be able to share the album with listeners through physical CD copies and on all digital platforms. “We will celebrate with a live concert when that is possible,” says Dunn. “And in the meantime, I’m delighted that Joyful Banner Blazing has been well-received by the folk music community thus far and that songs from the advance copies of the album are already wafting over the radio airwaves on CBC Radio, CKUA, BBC Scotland and countless campus/community radio stations around the world.”

Starting January 29, 2021, Joyful Banner Blazing will be available on all digital platforms, and you can pick up a physical copy at your local record shop and by mail order from Maria’s website: http://www.mariadunn.com

[dispatchesfrom2020]

2020

Week 30: July 20-26

20: Iran executes Mahmoud Mousavi-Majd, who was convicted in 2018 of spying on the country’s now-assassinated General Qasem Soleimani; he allegedly worked with both Mossad and the CIA. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that face masks are becoming museum-goers’ favoured souvenir. Won’t lie - I would buy several of these. The paper also reports on the growing schism between Donald Trump and Republican Governors. With case-loads climbing and little federal support from the mask-weary Trump, these state leaders have bypassed Trump and sought out support from elsewhere in the administration - namely his second-in-command, VP Mike Pence.

Masks designed by Virgil Abloh, Mark Grotjahn, Alex Israel, Barbara Kruger, Yoko Ono, Catherine Opie, Pipilotti Rist, Hank Willis Thomas, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts for Los Angeles’ MOCA - MOCA

21: A Ukrainian man takes 16 people hostage aboard a public bus in the city of Lutsk. They’re freed, unharmed, after hours of negotiations that saw the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky capitulate to demands and issue a Facebook post encouraging his followers to watch the 2005 vegan documentary Earthlings. The government of BC issues COVID-safety sex guidelines that encourage, uh, self-satisfaction, wearing masks during intercourse and the use of gloryholes. So an all-around weird news day.

22: Japan, Australia Hong Kong record their highest daily increase in COVID cases - while Indonesia reports its deadliest day yet with 139 new deaths. The United States orders China to close its Houston-based consulate - an angered China will retaliate in the coming days by closing the United States’ consulate in Chengdu. The Trump administration also issues notice that they will be sending a surge of federal officers into Chicago, Albuquerque, Baltimore and Philadelphia to assist with “crime reduction” through Operation LeGend. These cities mayors, of course, have not been informed of this and learn via the press conference... which is always the best way to learn vital new information about the city you’re supposed to be running. 

In archaeological news - human-made tools dating to 26,500 are discovered in Mexico. Why is this relevant? Because it calls into question the time-honoured tale western thought preaches about how the continent was populated - the Berring Land Bridge migrations are generally theorized to have happened 13,000-20,000 years ago. Many of the Elders I worked with thought the Berring Land bridge was pretty hokey.

23: A 93-year-old former Nazi guard is convicted in Hamburg - it will likely be one of the very last Holocaust trials the country will see. Bruno Dey, then 17, served as a prison guard for Stutthof concentration camp near Gdansk Poland from August 1944 to April 1945. He was convicted of 5,230 counts of accessory to murder - one for each of the people who are believed to have perished in the camp during his 9 months at the camp. He is given a two year suspended sentence.

Cosmopolitan Magazine

23 again: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez delivers a speech in congress rebuking a pattern of sexist bullying - especially at the hands of conservative lawmakers. Her comments were precipitated by a dust-up with Floridian Congressman Ted Yoho who called her ‘disgusting’, ‘crazy’ and ‘a fucking bitch’. The comments were witnessed - and thus reported - by journalists at the Capitol prompting the politician to issue a health-hearted apology, saying he was sorry for the misunderstanding, but that he refused to “apologize for my passion or for loving my god, my family, and my country”. He shields himself from scrutiny by saying he is a father of daughters and has a Real Human Wife and thus meant no harm to ladies. AOC suffers no fools. This is a terrible apology, inadequate in every way. It is emblematic of a Republican party that  has denied women a place at the table, attempted to curtail their rights, ignored their issues, and perpetuated abusive language and bullying. She says: “I want to thank [Yoho] for showing the world that you can be a powerful man and accost women. You can have daughters and accost women without remorse. You can be married and accost women. You can take photos and project an image to the world of being a family man and accost women without remorse and with a sense of impunity. It happens every day in this country. It happened here on the steps of our nation’s Capitol. It happens when individuals who hold the highest office in this land admit — admit — to hurting women and using this language against all of us.”

24: Swifties rejoice as Taylor drops surprise quarn-album Folklore - it’s, honestly, gorgeous. An arsonist sets the headquarters of the Arizona Democratic Party on fire. Recent polls suggest the party’s presumptive candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, with a lead over incumbent Donald Trump. In Portland, meanwhile, protests have continued to escalate. A “Wall of veterans” joins the city’s yellow-shirted “Wall of Moms” and orange-clad “Wall of Dads” to stand with protesters. They stand in support of a Navy Veteran, Chris David, who was violently struck down by federal forces during last week’s protests. They also want to counter the Trump administration’s narrative that the Portland protesters are violent anarchists and radical thugs.

Corpus Christi, Texas is flooded by surging waters during Hurricane Hanna, July 25 - Tamir Kalifa/The New York Times

25: Hurricane Hanna is bearing down on Texas - the first full hurricane of the 2020 season. In very-specific-Canadian news: the large roadside attraction Apple outside of Colbourne Ontario - which, have to say, makes very mediocre pies - has now donned a COVID mask.

26: John Lewis’ casket is driven across the Edmond Pettus Bridge in a horse-drawn carriage. The civil rights icon led a march across the bridge in 1965 to protest for the black vote. His casket will lie in state in Washington during the coming week before his funeral at Martin Luther King Jr’s church, the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. His pastor, Raphael Warnock, delivered the sermon while former Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama offered eulogies.