#and is often actively resisting the exile's influence

[thatwitchrevan]

kotor 2 snippet

-

"Uh, Meetra?" Atton flipped down the hood on one of the downed Sith. "This one's a kid. Just so you know."

Meetra turned, looking with horror at the small, baby-faced girl bleeding on the floor. She couldn't be more than eighteen, more like sixteen at a guess. "Fuck." She hurried over and knelt beside the kid, pressing her hand over the chest wound and pouring out Force healing.

Atton leaned against the wall, his arms crossed. "Could just finish her. I won't tell anyone. She's still a Sith, after all."

Meetra sighed. "Yeah, and Visas is a Sith, and you used to be a Sith, and this one is a child. Help me stabilize her."

Atton sighed. He stared at her, his arms crossed and his brow furrowed as he warred with himself for a few seconds before relunctantly standing up off the wall and kneeling down on the other side of the Sith. He checked her pulse and touched her forehead with the back of his hand. "I don't know if she's gonna make it, boss." His tone was dry, with a distinct lack of sympathy.

Meetra tore off the bottom of her undershirt to make a bandage. "I don't know if you're testing me or you just hate kids, but I don't appreciate it."

"I do not hate kids," he said hotly. He helped her lift the girl up and tie the bandage around her wound to keep pressure. "I just hate Jedi, and by the time they get to be 12 or 14 they're more Jedi than they are a kid."

Meetra grimaced. She had a mind to protest him talking about Jedi like they were less than people, but she could remember having several conversations like this, justifying the deaths of young soldiers in the Mandalorian War, how war stripped them of their right to innocence. "Elevate her wound," she said instead. "And keep pressure on it."

Atton hesitated another half second before shrugging off his jacket, folding it to make an improvised cushion and prop the Sith's torso off the ground. "You're washing that for me later." He pressed his hands down on the wound while Meetra resumed trying to close it with the Force.

"I think you can handle it," Meetra muttered. "More experience getting blood out of your clothes."

"You think she deserves to live more than the others? They all tried to kill us. You stabbed her, so you'd already decided to kill her before I pointed out she's young."

Meetra didn't answer for several minutes. Instead she concentrated as hard as she could on making the kid's guts and flesh knit back together the way they were supposed to be, bringing the wound as far along it's healing cycle as she could. It was slow, tense work, and once she'd reached the length of her energy there was still some surface damage and mild internal tearing, but at least the Sith wasn't torn open anymore. Now she just had to worry about the blood loss that couldn't be so easily undone.

Meetra took her hands back from the Sith and wiped her hands on her own pants, smearing off some of the blood. "The others were already dead. And I think I've killed enough children, okay? Can you respect what I need to do for my conscience?"

Atton frowned, mulling it over. "I don't know."

Meetra sighed and sat back on her ass. She wiped at her sweaty face with her forearm, managing to smear blood on her nose and cheek. "Why'd you tell me anyway?"

He shrugged. "You would've been upset if you noticed and I hadn't said something."

Meetra frowned in a thin line. "So you care more about my feelings than somebody's life. Good to know."

She sat up on her feet and hauled the wounded Sith into her arms, picking her up as she stood. "We're getting her back to the ship. You got my back?"

Atton scrambled to his feet as she started walking back. "Hey, hold up! I mean yeah, I do, but you better lock up the medbay if you're gonna bring her, cause I'm not playing around."

"Me or Visas will sit with her and we'll have HK on the door. We'll drop her off at Yavin and be gone."

"Great," he muttered, following. "Let her be someone else's problem. We're not a Sith rescue service."

"Aren't we, Atton?"

"Uh-uh. Sparing the cute ones doesn't count."

Meetra adjusted the Sith's weight in her arms. She wondered if Visas felt like that. An exception. A pet. Like Meetra had handed her her life rather than Visas earning it. She kept her feet as steady as she could on the rocky ground, unwilling to stumble. "Sparing isn't always a mercy anyway."

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.3.3 What is the “Platform”?

The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should take. Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of which, in 1926, published

“The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists” when in exile from the Bolshevik dictatorship. The authors of the work included Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked intense debate (and still does in many anarchist circles) between supporters of the Platform (usually called “Platformists”) and those who oppose it (which includes other communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and supporters of the “synthesis”). We will discuss why many anarchists oppose the Platform in the next section. Here we discuss what the Platform argued for.

Like the “synthesis” federation (see last section), the Platform was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution. The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the “synthesis”) had participated in that Revolution and saw all their work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy, workers’ self-management of production, trade union democracy as well as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see the section H.6 for details). Moreover, the authors of the Platform had been leading activists in the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine which had successfully resisted both White and Red armies in the name of working class self-determination and anarchism (see the appendix “Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? “). Facing the same problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively encouraged popular self-management and organisation, freedom of speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked in practice, but that the claims of Leninists who maintained that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time) was the only “practical” response to the problems facing a revolution were false.

They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement had failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the working class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the factory committee movement, where workers organised self-management in their workplaces and anarchist ideas had proven to be both popular and practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks did play a part in this failure, it did not explain everything. Also important, in the eyes of the Platform authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation before the revolution:

“It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up to the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important factor.” [Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, p. 11]

This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of causes, the main one being “the absence of organisational principles and practices” within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an anarchist movement “represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them.” This explained the “contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates.” [Op. Cit., p. 11] For anyone familiar with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will still strike home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a relevant and important document, even if they are not Platformists.

The author’s of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely the creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This organisation would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre of their analysis, recognising that the “social and political regime of all states is above all the product of class struggle … The slightest change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative locations of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous modifications in the fabric and structure of society.” Again, like most anarchists, the Platform aimed to “transform the present bourgeois capitalist society into a society which assures the workers the products of the labours, their liberty, independence, and social and political equality”, one based on a “workers organisations of production and consumption, united federatively and self-administering.” The “birth, the blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots in the life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable bound to their fate.” [Op. Cit., p. 14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] Again, most anarchists (particularly social anarchists) would agree — anarchist ideas will (and have) wither when isolated from working class life since only working class people, the vast majority, can create a free society and anarchist ideas are expressions of working class experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not develop as they should).

In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the Platformists, “to work in two directions: on the one hand towards the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically libertarian communist organisation); on the other hand, towards regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base of production and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants organised around production [i.e. syndicalism]; workers and free peasants co-operatives).” Again, most anarchists would agree with this along with the argument that “anarchism should become the leading concept of revolution … The leading position of anarchist ideas in the revolution suggests an orientation of events after anarchist theory. However, this theoretical driving force should not be confused with the political leadership of the statist parties which leads finally to State Power.” [Op. Cit., p. 20 and p. 21]

This “leadership of ideas” (as it has come to be known) would aim at developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings already existing within social struggle. “Although the masses,” explained the Platform, “express themselves profoundly in social movements in terms of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these … do however remain dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently do not lead to the .. . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation of the social revolution.” [Op. Cit., p. 21] The Platform argued that a specific anarchist organisation was required to ensure that the libertarian tendencies initially expressed in any social revolution or movement (for example, free federation, self-management in mass assemblies, mandating of delegates, decentralisation, etc.) do not get undermined by statists and authoritarians who have their own agendas. This would be done by actively working in mass organisation and winning people to libertarian ideas and practices by argument (see section J.3.6).

However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist organisation should be structured and work. This is sketched in the “Organisational Section,” the shortest and most contentious part of the whole work. They called this the General Union of Anarchists and where they introduced the concepts of

“Theoretical and Tactical Unity” and “Collective Responsibility,” concepts which are unique to the Platform. Even today within the anarchist movement these are contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a little more detail.

By “Theoretical Unity” the Platform meant any anarchist organisation must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain number of basic points, such as class struggle, social revolution and libertarian communism, and so on. An organisation in which half the members thought that union struggles were important and the other half that they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership would spend all their time arguing with themselves. While most Platformists admit that everyone will not agree on everything, they think it is important to reach as much agreement as possible, and to translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is reached, the members have to argue it in public (even if they initially opposed it within the organisation but they do have the right to get the decision of the organisation changed by internal discussion). Which brings us to “Tactical Unity” by which the Platform meant that the members of an organisation should struggle together as an organised force rather than as individuals. Once a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work towards ensuring its success (even if they initially opposed it). In this way resources and time are concentrated in a common direction, towards an agreed objective.

Thus “Theoretical and Tactical Unity” means an anarchist organisation that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The Platform’s basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues that this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this, they argue, more organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would be in a better position to have their arguments heard and listened to than anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on the hope that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine through and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and when it does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to crush the emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia, for example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the product of struggles between competing ideas of how society should be organised and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised it will not be heard and other arguments, other perspectives, will win the day.

Which brings us to “Collective Responsibility,” which the Platform defines as “the entire Union will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of the Union.” In short, that each member should support the decisions made by the organisation and that each member should take part in the process of collective decision making process. Without this, argue Platformists, any decisions made will be paper ones as individuals and groups would ignore the agreements made by the federation (the Platform calls this “the tactic of irresponsible individualism”). [Op. Cit., p. 32] With “Collective Responsibility,” the strength of all the individuals that make up the group is magnified and collectively applied.

The last principle in the “Organisational Section” of the Platform is “Federalism,” which it defined as “the free agreement of individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common objective” and which “reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause.” However, the Platform argued that this principle has been “deformed” within the movement to mean the “right” to “manifest one’s ‘ego,’ without obligation to account for duties as regards the organisation” one is a member of. In order to overcome this problem, they stress that “the federalist type of anarchist organisation, while recognising each member’s rights to independence, free opinion, individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions.” [Op. Cit., p. 33 and pp. 33–4]

As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, the Platform suggested that each group would have “its secretariat, executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical work of the organisation.” Moreover, the Platform urged the creation of an ”executive committee of the Union” which would “be in charge” of “the execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and with other organisation.” The rights, responsibilities and practical tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the Union. [Op. Cit., p. 34]

This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most anarchists, as we will see in the next section, who argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a centralised, hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, supporters of the Platform reject this argument and point out that the Platform itself is not written in stone and needs to be discussed fully and modified as required. In fact, few, if any, Platformist groups, do have this “secretariat” structure (it could, in fact, be argued that there are no actual “Platformist” groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues of “Theoretical and Tactical Unity” and “Collective Responsibility”).

Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed to imply that the General Union would be an umbrella organisation, made up of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists would argue that not only will there never be one organisation which encompasses everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they envisage the existence of a number of organisations, each internally unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a much more amorphous and fluid entity than a General Union of Anarchists.

As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis and Towards a Fresh Revolution by the “Friends of Durruti” as landmark texts in the Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists question this last claim, arguing that the “Friends of Durruti” manifesto has strong similarities with the CNT’s pre-1936 position on revolution and thus is an anarcho-syndicalist document, going back to the position the CNT ignored after July 19th, 1936. Alexandre Skirda’s book Facing the Enemy contains the key documents on the original Platformists (including the original draft Platform, supplementary documents clarifying issues and polemics against critiques). There are numerous Platformist and Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such as the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement and Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists.

In the next section we discuss the objections that most anarchists have towards the Platform.

[sunderedandundone]

In which UrSkeks are actually very dramatic

So fam, I’ve been working really hard on the Twice-Nine, and it’s winding up being less of a survey of their crimes against UrSkekdom than it is a survey of UrSkekdom’s crimes against them. XD

SoSu the Philosopher: Was an incredibly psychically-strong and headstrong (probably not unrelated) young UrSkek whose passions often got the better of them, and while this was generally more disruptive than harmful, as we know, UrSkek society tends to consider disruption itself a form of harm. So at an unconscionably young age, they were forced to choose between Exile and Purgation (the editing of their personality and erasure of ‘problem’ memories), and while the therapy certainly seemed to have took, it must not’ve took that well, because they continued over their career (which was in all other aspects illustrious) to maintain a suspect interest in the reconciliation of their society with its discontents, which theories eventually developed into their infamous Heresy…and the Heresy itself committed the incredibly awful crime of proving attractive to a number of UrSkeks, particularly the young ones. Whom SoSu was accused of deliberately corrupting. Oops.

ZokZah the Presbyter: Their ‘crime’ was coming out of the Chorion (the UrSkek-spawning chamber, basically) with a natural tendency toward sadism [with a touch of masochism included] -- which a more tolerant society might have been able to help them better sublimate into their spiritual work, and/or channel into safe/sane/consensual activities; but Homeworld was not that society. As a result, their entire life story was one of ice-cold self-repression and flawless hypocrisy. They thought the Heresy might be their compassionate answer at long last. And it might have been, but obviously we can’t have that.

SilSol the Musician: Wasn’t spawned with anything especially wrong with them, except for being astonishingly talented which arguably is a bit of a flaw; but somewhere along the way they twigged to the fact that their perfect classless harmonious society that totally didn’t have power relations, totally DID have them. So they started studying this interestingly contradictory phenomenon the way most very intelligent people would have, with comparative sociology, which unfortunately involved a lot of consumption of ::whispers:: foreign cultural material from more primitive societies. And while yes we do study primitive societies, we’re not supposed to do it like THAT, and we’re definitely not supposed to put stuff we’re learning from them about how to influence and persuade other people into PRACTICE. And Crystal itself help you if you turn out to be good at it…even when you’re doing it for what you consider the best cause ever, like OH SAY A REVOLUTIONARY HERESY. (SilSol also had quite a fan base as a composer and performing artist, which did kind of the opposite of helping their case when trial time rolled around.)

GraGoh the Explorer: Was an unfortunate case of incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and Crystal knows the Eldest did what they could. When the young former Rigger from the outer colonies proved to be too rough-hewn and jostling for the refined precincts of Homeworld (they thought practical jokes were actually funny, for one thing), the Council decided to spare the rod and try to educate them in the graces by sending them to the Academy, where they were supposed to finally learn to be a proper UrSkek. And what did they learn instead? Heresy! Honestly. They didn’t even try to resist the slide into depravity; indeed, quite the contrary, they decided to become one of SoSu’s most prominent and enthusiastic disciples. So really, what else was there to do?

AyukAmaj and EktUtt: Fell in love. This may seem fearfully pedestrian to the savage likes of the Gelfling (and let’s not even talk humans), but in UrSkek society this is both an incredibly alien, hard-to-imagine aberration, and a crime against the ironclad obligation to love all one’s fellow UrSkeks fairly and equally. Like…absolutely fairly and equally. No matter what. No playing favorites. Yes OF COURSE love and friendship are high virtues among UrSkek, but again -- just not like -- that. What do you two think you’re doing, seriously, you don’t even have physical bodies to conventionally sin with but I guess where there’s a will, etc?

NaNol the Botanist: Was a spy. Not that they knew they were a spy, mind: UrSkeks don’t have spies, and if they did have them, what they were doing would not be spying. In fact the Botanist’s whole problem was they didn’t have any actual name or conceptual box to put the thing in that a few naughty Eldest were making them do -- especially to the plant-stored planetary-memory records they were supposed to be nurturing and protecting. I mean, it must be all right somehow, because it was Eldest asking; but then why did it have to be such a secret; but then why was it even their business, since it was records about stuff that happened eons before anyone they knew was spawned; but then if it didn’t really matter because it was all so long ago, why were they still being asked to -- **melts into quiet gibbering noises** But in any case…such a pity that it was their fellow Heretics that they eventually decided to confess their nameless burning sins to. More normal UrSkeks would have known enough to just shut up and do what they were told.

HakHom the Architect and YiYa the Builder: Didn’t know that the technical term for what they were was frenemies; they thought they were just friends. Who competed for the same non-virtual architectural gigs, which HakHom just happened to win more often than YiYa, which was also why HakHom ended up outranking YiYa. But of course there was never any trouble putting that behind them when it came time for them to work together hand-in-glove on the winning projects; Homeworld is a place of harmony after all, with architecture being one of a very, very few fields where there even was still anything resembling competition. Nor did YiYa carry any grudges against HakHom for dragging them out to these crazy salons and forums this weird Professor SoSu kept holding. As a friend, they were simply looking out for their friend’s mental and spiritual cultivation, and after all these were merely dialogues about how everyone, even the most erring UrSkek, could better be brought back to the bosom of the Crystal and the collective soul of their people through the transforming power of compassion and honesty. What was there to object to? And later, when the Eldest were investigating because apparently there was something to object to -- and they needed someone to infiltrate and report on the increasingly worryingly Heretical gatherings -- who would blame YiYa for assisting them with that high-minded work? Certainly not HakHom, who understood and deeply regretted their grievous sin in doing…well, there must have been something terribly wrong with the whole thing. Even if Professor SoSu did have both a sterling reputation and the high permissions as a Councilmember needed to access the Crystal for experimental rites if they deemed fit! And just because even after giving the Council all that help, YiYa still found themselves exiled right alongside all the unrepentant criminals, that was no reason to take out any frustrations on their old partner, who hadn’t exactly been in control of the proceedings either after all. Surely the Eldest had their good reasons…so…yeah. Definitely nothing there for either the Architect or the Builder to hold against one another in the immediate aftermath of their souls being torn asunder to set all the Twice-Nine’s ids free.

LachSen the Gnostic: Was an ex-cultist. No, I’m not joking. Although they’re scattered and vanishingly few, there are places even yet on Homeworld where some UrSkeks practice Heresies in the much more old-fashioned sense -- that is to say, disapproved spiritual rites and disciplines, which are generally holdovers from pre-Ascension cultures. Young LachSen’s group was no exception: indeed, it dated from that supremely turbulent era just pre-Ascension, when some UrSkeks fervently believed that through the practice of radical enough asceticism and self-lessness, their kind could attain a permanent ecstatic group consciousness, such as they had heard group minds from other worlds speak of with such reverence and serenity. (No wonder SkekLach wasn’t so keen on the Ascendancy…) This belief turned out to be more a denial of the UrSkeks’ own nature than even the ancestors of the Council of Eldest could tolerate. But LachSen’s group still stubbornly clung to this more-or-less impossible ideal, and to an ancient sub-Crystal of their own which gave barely enough energy for them to subsist on; but since privation was what they craved, that was fine. As they matured, LachSen found themselves questioning the group’s ways and eventually ran far away to Crystalgate City on the great peninsula, blending in with the other UrSkeks as best they could. But it was more difficult than they could ever have imagined, blending in with people from so different a worldview -- and they remained always torn in their feelings toward their old kin, their penitent, self-denying monkish side and their newly-discovered love of plenty and peace among the Crystalgaters. Thus, they were prime and easy ‘prey’ for a new Heresy, particularly one that claimed to embrace the lost and lonely, even the strangest of Deviancies…

ShodYod the Mathematician: TBD

SaSan the Marine Biologist: TBD. I’m not sure that Heresy was something she came into in the course of her work. She’s just such a strong personality at base. I expect her to be tricky.

VarMa the Seal-Bearer: TBD, but however they came to it, they definitely they would have been SoSu’s #1 fan and most loyal acolyte.

MalVa the Guide: TBD, although they would have been exposed to a lot of ‘foreign ideas’ in the course of their work, so that may be how they first got into trouble. :-) I have a tiny inkling they may even have been a bit of an anti-colonialist, which would be a problem for other UrSkeks even though other UrSkeks will swear up and down that they’re not even sort of colonialists. ;oP

TekTih the Inventor: TBD. TekTih was an Inventor, which kind of by definition meant they were a bit more ‘interferey’ than the average UrSkek, but that in itself isn’t quite enough to push a sib into Heresy, so I’m going to have to think about it some more.

UngIm the Restorer: TBD. However, there wouldn’t be much call for actual restoring work on other UrSkeks on Homeworld, the species having long since left death, disease and war behind. Therefore, they were likely either more of a veterinarian, or else had a history of traveling around on colony worlds, where again as noted, an UrSkek can run not only into disturbing concepts, but into disturbing events of the sort that flesh-and-blood beings are all too easily prey to. Which provides restoring work, of course, but not only that.

OkAc the Scholar: TBD, though it’s harder to think of places a Scholar couldn’t get themselves into doctrinal trouble than places they could. XD

LiLii: TBD. But – yanno – I mean, it’s LiLii. I have a feeling that like GraGoh, they may just have an unfortunate habit of annoying others, particularly with blurted-out inconvenient truths, and certainly they had a mischievous turn for an UrSkek.

[schooldekho91]

Top Influential Women Freedom Fighters of India: Icons of Courage and Independence

India's struggle for independence was marked by the remarkable courage and resilience of many individuals. Among them, women freedom fighters played an indispensable role, standing shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts in the fight against British colonialism. These women were not only warriors in the literal sense but also leaders, thinkers, and social reformers who challenged societal norms and ignited the flames of liberation. In this article, we delve deep into the lives and contributions of some of the most influential women freedom fighters of India whose sacrifices and determination paved the way for the nation's freedom.

1. Rani Lakshmibai: The Warrior Queen of Jhansi

Rani Lakshmibai, also known as the Queen of Jhansi, is perhaps the most iconic figure among India's women freedom fighters. Born in 1828, she became the queen of Jhansi at a young age and quickly emerged as a symbol of resistance against British rule. Her defiance against the Doctrine of Lapse, which threatened to annex her kingdom, sparked the first war of Indian independence in 1857.

With unmatched bravery, Rani Lakshmibai led her troops into battle, wielding a sword and riding into the fray herself. Her leadership and military acumen made her a formidable opponent to the British forces. Even in the face of overwhelming odds, she continued to fight until her last breath, becoming a martyr and an eternal symbol of Indian resistance. Her legacy continues to inspire generations of Indians, especially women, to fight for their rights and dignity.

2. Sarojini Naidu: The Nightingale of India

Sarojini Naidu, known as the Nightingale of India, was a multifaceted personality— a poet, orator, and politician— who played a pivotal role in India's freedom struggle. Born in 1879, Naidu was a brilliant student and a gifted poet who used her eloquence and literary prowess to inspire and mobilize people against British rule.

Naidu was an active participant in the Indian National Congress and was the first woman to serve as its president in 1925. She was also one of the prominent leaders during the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Quit India Movement. Her arrest and imprisonment by the British did not deter her spirit; rather, it strengthened her resolve to fight for India's independence.

As a leader, Sarojini Naidu championed the causes of women's rights, education, and social reform. Her speeches and writings remain a testament to her enduring influence on India's freedom movement and her unwavering commitment to the cause of independence.

3. Kasturba Gandhi: The Pillar of Non-Violence

Kasturba Gandhi, the wife of Mahatma Gandhi, played a significant yet often understated role in India's freedom struggle. Born in 1869, Kasturba was a steadfast companion to her husband, actively participating in his campaigns for social justice and independence. She became deeply involved in the Satyagraha movements, advocating for non-violent resistance against British oppression.

Kasturba Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle was marked by her leadership in various protests, particularly in South Africa and India. She worked tirelessly for the upliftment of women, the eradication of untouchability, and the promotion of education. Her strength, patience, and commitment to the principles of non-violence made her an integral part of the Indian independence movement.

Even in the face of personal loss and suffering, Kasturba remained a staunch supporter of her husband's ideals, and her sacrifices continue to be remembered as an essential part of India's journey to freedom.

4. Begum Hazrat Mahal: The Rebel of Awadh

Begum Hazrat Mahal was a fierce and courageous leader who played a critical role in the 1857 Indian Rebellion. Born in 1820, she became the wife of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh. After the British annexed Awadh and exiled her husband, Begum Hazrat Mahal took up the mantle of leadership and led the resistance against the British forces.

She was a brilliant strategist and a fearless fighter, rallying the people of Awadh to stand against British rule. Her leadership in the siege of Lucknow was particularly notable, as she managed to hold off the British forces for several months. Despite the eventual defeat, Begum Hazrat Mahal's legacy as a rebel leader remains strong. She is remembered as a symbol of resistance and courage, and her story is a testament to the strength and determination of Indian women in the fight for independence.

5. Aruna Asaf Ali: The Grand Old Lady of the Independence Movement

Aruna Asaf Ali was a prominent freedom fighter and a leading figure in the Quit India Movement of 1942. Born in 1909, she was known for her revolutionary activities and her boldness in challenging British authority. Aruna Asaf Ali's most significant contribution came when she hoisted the Indian National Congress flag at the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Mumbai during the Quit India Movement, defying British orders.

Her actions galvanized the nation and made her a symbol of the resistance against colonial rule. Despite being arrested and enduring harsh treatment in jail, Aruna Asaf Ali remained undeterred in her commitment to India's independence. After independence, she continued to work for social causes and was awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, in recognition of her contributions to the nation.

6. Kamala Nehru: The Woman Behind the Leader

Kamala Nehru, wife of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, was an influential figure in the freedom movement. Born in 1899, Kamala Nehru was deeply involved in the Non-Cooperation Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. She organized and led protests, particularly in the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), where she mobilized women to participate in the struggle for independence.

Kamala Nehru's health was often frail, but her determination was unwavering. She played a crucial role in the Salt Satyagraha and the Civil Disobedience Movement, despite her deteriorating health. Her dedication to the cause and her role in supporting her husband's political career made her an indispensable part of the freedom movement.

7. Lakshmi Sahgal: The Warrior of the Indian National Army

Lakshmi Sahgal, also known as Captain Lakshmi, was a revolutionary leader who played a key role in the Indian National Army (INA) under the leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose. Born in 1914, Lakshmi Sahgal was a doctor by profession, but her passion for India's freedom led her to join the INA.

She was appointed as the commander of the Rani of Jhansi Regiment, an all-women regiment in the INA, making her one of the first women to lead an armed force in modern Indian history. Lakshmi Sahgal's leadership and her commitment to the INA's cause made her a significant figure in the fight for independence. Even after the INA's defeat, she continued to work for social causes and was honored with numerous awards for her contributions to the nation.

Conclusion

The contributions of these influential women freedom fighters of India were instrumental in shaping the course of the nation's history. Their courage, resilience, and determination to fight against oppression have left an indelible mark on India's struggle for independence. These women not only broke the shackles of colonialism but also challenged the deeply entrenched patriarchal norms of their time, paving the way for future generations to dream of a free and equal society.

[dan6085]

The CIA has been involved in numerous covert operations and actions both abroad and within the United States. While the CIA is primarily focused on foreign intelligence and operations, there have been instances where its activities have had significant impacts domestically. Here are 20 notable CIA operations and covert actions, including some with domestic implications:

### 1. **Operation CHAOS (1967-1974)**

**Details:** A covert program aimed at monitoring the activities of domestic anti-war activists and other dissident groups during the Vietnam War era. The operation collected intelligence on American citizens, which raised significant concerns about civil liberties.

### 2. **MK-Ultra (1953-1973)**

**Details:** A mind control and chemical interrogation program that involved unethical experiments on human subjects, including American citizens, without their consent. The program sought to develop techniques for brainwashing and interrogation.

### 3. **Operation Mockingbird (1950s-1970s)**

**Details:** A program to influence media by recruiting journalists and news organizations to spread propaganda and shape public opinion. The operation aimed to promote pro-American and anti-communist narratives.

### 4. **COINTELPRO (1956-1971)**

**Details:** While primarily an FBI program, the CIA collaborated in monitoring and disrupting domestic political organizations deemed subversive. This included civil rights groups, feminist organizations, and anti-war activists.

### 5. **Iran-Contra Affair (1985-1987)**

**Details:** A covert operation where the CIA facilitated the sale of arms to Iran (despite an arms embargo) and used the proceeds to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua. The scandal had significant political repercussions in the US.

### 6. **Project MK-OFTEN (1960s-1970s)**

**Details:** A program to explore the effects of various drugs and chemicals on humans and animals. The project included testing on American citizens without their knowledge.

### 7. **Operation Paperclip (1945-1959)**

**Details:** The CIA and its predecessor, the OSS, recruited former Nazi scientists to work in the United States, often bypassing legal restrictions. These scientists contributed to US military and space programs.

### 8. **Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)**

**Details:** A failed CIA-led operation to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro by landing a force of Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs. The operation's failure was a significant embarrassment for the Kennedy administration.

### 9. **Operation Northwoods (1962)**

**Details:** A proposed but never executed plan by the CIA and the Department of Defense to conduct false-flag operations to justify a military intervention in Cuba. The plan included ideas such as staging terrorist attacks in the US.

### 10. **Phoenix Program (1965-1972)**

**Details:** A CIA-led operation during the Vietnam War aimed at neutralizing the Viet Cong infrastructure. The program involved extensive use of interrogation, assassination, and psychological warfare.

### 11. **Operation Gladio (Post-WWII to Cold War)**

**Details:** Part of a broader NATO operation, the CIA helped establish secret stay-behind armies in Europe to resist potential Soviet invasions. These networks sometimes engaged in domestic terrorism to blame on communist groups.

### 12. **Watergate Scandal (1972-1974)**

**Details:** While primarily a political scandal, the CIA was implicated in the subsequent cover-up and attempts to use its resources to obstruct the investigation into the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

### 13. **Church Committee Investigations (1975)**

**Details:** Congressional investigations revealed extensive CIA abuses, including assassination plots, domestic spying, and other illegal activities. These revelations led to significant reforms and oversight of intelligence activities.

### 14. **Operation Gold (1953-1955)**

**Details:** A joint CIA-MI6 operation to tap into Soviet communication lines in Berlin. While technically a foreign operation, it had significant implications for US-Soviet relations and intelligence activities.

### 15. **Operation Ajax (1953)**

**Details:** A CIA-led coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstate the Shah. The operation had long-lasting impacts on US-Iran relations and influenced domestic views on US foreign policy.

### 16. **Family Jewels (1973)**

**Details:** An internal CIA investigation that documented various illegal and unethical activities conducted by the agency over its history. The report's release led to public outrage and calls for reform.

### 17. **Operation Midnight Climax (1950s-1960s)**

**Details:** A subset of MK-Ultra, this operation involved setting up safe houses where unwitting individuals were given LSD and monitored. The project aimed to study the effects of drugs on behavior.

### 18. **Patrice Lumumba Assassination (1961)**

**Details:** The CIA was involved in the plot to assassinate the Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, which had significant repercussions for African politics and US foreign policy.

### 19. **Operation Cyclone (1979-1989)**

**Details:** A covert operation to fund and support Afghan mujahideen fighters against the Soviet invasion. The program significantly impacted US-Soviet relations and contributed to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.

### 20. **Extraordinary Rendition (Post-9/11)**

**Details:** A program where the CIA abducted and transferred suspected terrorists to secret detention facilities in other countries for interrogation. The program raised significant ethical and legal concerns regarding human rights abuses.

These operations illustrate the extensive and sometimes controversial role the CIA has played in shaping both foreign and domestic policies. The agency's activities have had profound and lasting impacts, often sparking significant debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties.

[mariacallous]

The leaders of the Wagner Group, the Russian mercenary group answerable to Vladimir Putin, now have as much political influence in the Kremlin as the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, a prominent Russian dissident and former political prisoner has told a British parliamentary group.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky told the foreign affairs committee that Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman who finally admitted in September 2022 that he had founded the group, had as much access to Putin as the formal government officials.

He said Prigozhin was behind the recent appointment of General Sergey Surovikin to head the military operation in Ukraine and was working in close conjunction with him in Ukraine.

Wagner Group’s popularity in Russia had surged in recent months since it was able to argue that its existence acted as an alternative to wider mobilisation, Khodorkovsky said.

However, he added that the Wagner Group, with only roughly 7,000 forces, would not take the blame if the military operations failed in Ukraine, since the Russian forces are 150,000 to 200,000.

The two that will take the blame will be Yury Kovalchuk, Putin’s financier and Shoigu, the men believed to have most often pressed Putin to launch the invasion and predicted Kyiv could be seized in three days.

Khodorkovsky accused Putin of using mercenary forces such as the Wagner Group, which often recruits people from prisons, because it allowed him to lie, deny responsibility and implement an illegal foreign policy. “They are engaged in terrorism and killing”, he said, adding the UK and other countries had been too slow to proscribe the group as such despite its clear “terrorist” activity in Africa.

Restarting troop conscription would be a very dangerous political decision for Putin, Khodorkovsky said, adding that resistance to the mobilisation had forced him to bring the process to a premature end.

He claimed 700,000 people had left Russia after the mobilisation and said this represented “a serious blow to Putin’s defence industry and for the economy of Russia”, potentially a more significant blow to Russia’s economy than any normal sanctions imposed by the west.

Khodorkovsky urged the UK to take in many of these Russian exiles saying: “These people are the most active and educated people with certain financial means including 30,000 Russian programmers mainly based in Cyprus. It has significantly hit Russia’s ability to pursue the cyber war.”

Similarly, he said many Russian engineers needed for the reproduction of high-precision weapons had left the country.

[mirinda03]

@leaflinerambles asked me for an essay so i complied

Here’s why c!tommy deserves better

Tommy Danger Kraken Careful Innit deserves better.

(All of this is about the characters btw. Sometimes i don't put c! Because honestly its a lot of putting that so just know that unless it says cc! I mean character)

Now, I know that can be a bit of a controversial take for.. some reason??? People may say that actually, he deserves to face the consequences of his actions and deserves to be punished.

. What the fuck.

That's a sixteen year old. That a teenager. He doesn't deserve to be 1. Abused 2. Traumatized 3. Manipulated 4. Used and 5. Taught a ‘lesson’ that i'm sure he’s been taught far fat too many times.

Tommy is a complex character. As we all know, he's regarded as the ‘protagonist’ of the dream smp or the ‘main character’. Now, of course, being the main character is a very subjective term and that is a whole other fucking essay that im not gonna get into right now—

BUT.

I do think in a way Tommy has been involved in a lot of the more.. main plots. From season one to season three.

And of course, with being the ‘main character’ (again, a purely subjective term because it depends on the point of view you watch) come a lot of things and a lot of trouble. Mainly, from our main ‘villain’ of the series.

C!Dream, the fucking bitch.

As we all know, c!Dream has had a weird obsession with c!Tommy since.. probably the beginning?

He liked to antagonize Tommy, but that wasn't exactly special. The man liked to antagonize everyone! He seemed to just want the most chaotic option, which of course ended with him antagonizing others often for his own entertainment.

I think, in a way, Dream always saw the smp as a game. His own little puppet show, where he could move the strings. He wanted complete control

But Tommy was more stubborn than the others. Tommy actively went against Dream from the start, like we see in the disc war. Or L’manberg, or during manberg, or new lmanb—

You get the idea.

Tommy never gave in, and Dream’s obsession grew.

So.. exile happened.

And like, i'm not sure what exactly dream was planning but i'm assuming he wanted to like.. ‘break’ tommy?? Make him more ‘compliant’ to his twisted game?

C!Tommy was, to put it simply, abused. No sugar coating, that was straight up abuse and gaslighting and manipulation. The burning his armor? Making sure no one got an invite? Keeping Tommy at low health? EVERYTHING??

That was all clear manipulation. Tommy.. went through a LOT in exile. It still affects him as we know. ‘Plain biomes, small holes, logstedshire’ among other things have been added to his list of stuff that sets him off.

(And also the waking up drowning?????)

And i know, Dream almost had tommy in his grasp. He almost broke him.

But Tommy resisted. Tommy pulled back at the last second, in that dirt tower. He was strong enough to realize what dream was doing was wrong an he ran from a toxic environment and situation and honestly? Good👏 for 👏 him 👏.

But the trauma stayed, in many ways. And even during the raccoonit arc, tommy didn't really.. get a chance to heal?

During the techno and tommy arc, tommy seemed to direct his hurt into lashing out at others. He got angry, he lashed out, and he hurt people. Even if im a tommy apologist, i can acknowledge that during his time of poor mental health he hurt other people and he had to apologize (and he did!! But im getting to that)

Now. I am.. very conflicted when it comes to techno and tommy’s relationship. I do believe that, somewhere deep inside, they both cared about each other. However, bias and fanon influence can get in the way so i'm not touching on that.

The one thing i'm saying? It wasn't exactly a healthy dynamic. And again, not saying anything because bias could get in the way, but Tommy realizing the error of his ways and realizing he HURT PEOPLE is such a huge milestone??

He took responsibility by joining tubbo again. He said how his trauma did not excuse shit and he acknowledged it and he tried to CHANGE.

Even when faced with people who exiled him, who shunned him or who weren't there to visit during exile, he decided to be better and he once again took the role of the troop rallier even when he KNEW how impossible the task would be. He SAW Techno’s wither skull vault. He knew it was a losing battle.

But he stayed strong. And he fought for L’Manberg, for the last reminder he had of Wilbur (and oh, wilbur and tommy’s relationship in canon is a whole other can of worms god—)

Just for it to get destroyed.

By his abuser, and two people he had trusted. People he RELIED on.

Blown, to the ground.

And then dream.

Dream saying their story isn't over. Their story would NEVER be over.

. Bone chilling. Genuinely so.

And still. He faced Dream. He faced his abuser, the person who in his own words ‘ruined him’ and he refused to back down.

He refused to let Tubbo die. He refused to lose.

And in the end, Dream was sent to jail. Retribution was sent!

.. right?

Wrong.

Because even after that, Tommy continues to be haunted by dream or by the literal CULTISTS trying to kill him.

And to top it all off, he gets fucking trapped in prison with his abuser surrounded by a bunch of triggers in a small cell. And have we mentioned how he's canonically claustrophobic?

Yeah.. that was bad.

One week. Trapped with his abuser.

And still, he stayed strong. Still, he refused to give in and stayed himself,

And what did he get for that?

Death.

Beaten to death by his abuser of all things.

And he was trapped in the void for two months. Two. Months.

But in the human world? It had only been days.

And he was so so shaken by it. He couldn't even touch other people, he couldn't take any damage, he was treated as a ghost by people, he was called a ‘science experiment’ and the one thing he wanted? Normality? It was taken away from his forever.

Again, by his abuser.

Hes a traumatized child soldier whos done plenty of wrong in his life, but he's also a kid who needs to heal and learn to have healthy relationships because one way or the other every healthy mentor figure in his life turned against him or got corrupted and now he feels alone and he DIED and he needs fucking therapy come on.

And we KNOW the dream isn't done. Far from it. We know dream will never, ever be done. He's too obsessed with the game, with his favorite toy to let the game end. To let the people rest

C!tommy is so broken and jaded and traumatized. But still, he chooses compassion. Despite the trauma, he refused to hurt his best friend. Despite it all, he refused to blow up him home. He stays true to himself and he stays strong and even when the world tries to mold him he doesn't break.

And believe me, the world tries to break him and mold him so many times. He’s been manipulated or used before by others, but he still keeps his attachments and he still keeps himself and i think thats fucking admirable.

So yeah. I wholeheartedly believe tommy deserves better as do the other members of bench trio because honestly they're also children and they all deserve to heal come ON.

But yeah thats the essay

[remexailferous]

i... have not been able to stop thinking about this... so there was an art piece that i reblogged at some point that i have no will to find, where tommy could see Chat, like techno hears Chat. 

firstly, two Chats, TommyChat and TechnoChat

members can move groups or the more daring ones are in both

...other people may or may not have chats (*cough*PhilCult*cough*)

tommy can see but not hear and techno can hear but not see

TommyChat exaggerates all their movements, there is no small emotions. possibly a reason for tommy being super expressive/an encouragement

exile arc: TommyChat keeps trying to fight dream, but cannot effect him. you know the mouth movement you do with your hand to mock someone whose talking? a Lot of them do that every time dream talks. there are some who keep trying to punch/slap/hit dream, none have succeeded

meanwhile, occasionally TechnoChat starts talking about tommy. this lines up with dream visits. techno has no idea why

things happen and eventually tommy and techno meet up/get nearer to each other ala current arc

i think tommy would have a bit better time dealing with and having a resistance to dream’s manipulation since he really isn’t alone? like, Chat has been with him forever and he trusts them/it

i’m using both because a) multiple beings and b) also gives no shit. pretty sure if TommyChat could talk to him, he would be introduced to neopronouns and use those as well because they are cool

this is where things get... interesting

you see, TommyChat and TechnoChat haven’t been very active around each other ever

TechnoChat started showing up when techno was young/a teenager, but TommyChat didn’t show up until after techno left home

some members of TechnoChat got attached, sue them. tommy was a cute kid and absolutely can worm into their hearts

things start to... bleed over. techno starts seeing things out of the corner of his eyes, which is Not Helpful. tommy starts hearing whispers and snippets of conversation, most of which is encouraging and, well, very against dream

enter wilbur soot and the SootChat. SootChat can not be seen or heard, but can, if their emotions are strong enough, effect the world around it.

SootChat starts bleeding over too. please note the ‘strong emotions’ part of the world effecting.

TommyChat is pretty much always angry/protective. TechnoChat is also very protective/blood-thirsty. things really start getting weird.

stuff is moving, there are unknown figures and whispers. SBI - Dadza is... very concerned/worried. (none of the Chats have discovered their newfound powers, so they are just as confused)

of course, they have to rescue dadza! of course, it goes wrong! of course, TommyChat is... very angry. and loud. and trying to punch dream. imagine their surprise when dream is moved by one of their punches. it only takes a moment for some of them to put the pieces together

dream is very, very confused for a few moments, then PhilCult’s influence is shown

PhilCult can make themselves visible to other people. it doesn’t do it often, but it can.

please note, none of the Chat’s have any features other then person-shaped and a gaping, razor-sharp mouth, like the original artwork

now imagen getting attacked by dozens of those

dream is not having a good day.

[ariainstars]

Feminism (and Not) in Star Wars

Warning: unpopular opinions ahead.

 During the last few years, I have often heard and read people arguing that the Star Wars sequels are “feminist”, that Rey in particular is a Mary Sue and, at worst, that “feminism ruined Star Wars.” So, I would like to add my two cents. 

It cannot to be denied that the end of the sequels, and with it of the saga as a whole, is highly dissatisfying. But feminism is not what caused it.

The sequels are not feminist at all. Especially not in Star Wars, where the greatest hero Luke Skywalker had ended the conflict through compassion and forgiveness. TRoS in particular is a slap in the face of female dignity and virtue, both for the male protagonist’s mother and for his love interest. 

Unfortunately, and that is one of my major issues with the sequels, many things are not being said or explained. This might be due to the fact that Episode VIII was subversive and that so many classic fans ranted and stormed against it; but that didn’t prevent Episode IX from showing, if not saying, a lot of things. 

Star Wars is all about subtext, that’s what makes it compelling. Please:

Read between the lines.

Look at what is not being said but shown.

Compare the attitudes of different people in similar situations.

  Rey

„You cannot deny the truth that is your family.” Lor San Tekka in The Force Awakens

  Rey was introduced as a positive female character but then, over the course of three films, her moral corruption was displayed under the lame excuse of a black and white morality (“I am all the Sith” vs. “I am all the Jedi”).

Rey seemed like a reboot of Luke Skywalker at first, but watching her throughout TRoS we see her fail in all instances where Luke had proved himself a hero.

  - Luke had forgiven his father despite all the pain he had inflicted on him and his friends. Rey stabbed the „bad guy”, who had repeatedly protected and comforted her, to death.

- Luke never asked Vader to help the Rebellion or to turn to the Light Side, he only wanted him back as his father. Rey assumed that she could make Ben Solo turn, give up the First Order and join the Resistance for her. She was thinking of her friends and her own validation, not of him.

- Luke had made peace by choosing peace. Rey fought until the bitter end.

- Luke had thrown his weapon away before Palpatine. Rey picked up a second weapon. (And both of them weren’t her own.)

- Luke had mourned his dead father. Rey didn’t shed a tear for the man she is bonded to by the Force.

- Luke went back to his friends to celebrate the new peace with them. Rey went back letting everyone celebrate her like the one who saved the galaxy on her own - the woman who was tempted to become the new evil ruler of the galaxy and had to rely on the alleged Bad Guy to save both her soul and her body.

- Luke had embodied compassion when Palpatine was all about hatred. Where he chose love and faith in his father, Rey chose violence and fear.

- Luke had briefly fallen prey to the Dark Side but it made him realize that he had no right to judge his father. Rey’s fall to the Dark Side did not make her wiser.

- Confronted by Vader’s disclosure of his true identity Luke was forced to face himself, to realize that he had been judgmental, arrogant and biased; and after the initial shock he accepted his origins as a part of himself. - Rey did not reconcile with Palpatine as a part of herself. (When she says to him “I don’t hate you” it’s not a sign of superior attitude. It merely shows that she sees him as separate from herself.)

- After realizing what he had done to his nephew, feeling responsible and disillusioned, Luke went into exile for years waiting for his death. - Rey also was appalled at herself, but she spent just a few minutes on Ahch-To until Luke appeared to her, this time telling her exactly what she would have wanted him to say to her on her first visit on the island. This scene was so ridiculously opposite to his attitude in TLJ that I believe he was a fantasy conjectured by her like Ben’s vision of his father.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Rey failed where Ben had been strong.

- Ben killed Snoke to save Rey. Rey killed Palpatine to complete her Jedihood. (Or at least, what she believes being a Jedi means, i.e. “being always right and winning at all costs”.)

- Ben loved Rey despite all she did to him and took away from him, and she didn’t even honour his name in the end.

- Ben knew the stories of Luke, Vader and Palpatine well enough to wanted to end the Jedi and Sith at last and start something new and better. Rey only knew scraps of old tales and wanted to have them her own way.

- Ben had been under an evil influence in his mind since before he was born; when he finally turned to the Dark because he had nowhere else to go, he was 23. Rey gave in to her Dark Side minutes after meeting her “mother” in the Death Star ruin; the same happened to her again with Palpatine on Exegol.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  On the ruin of the second Death Star, Rey is at her lowest on the same spot where Luke had won over himself thirty years before in RoTJ.

- Vader had provoked Luke to make him turn - Kylo hadn’t.

- Vader hat traumatized Luke - Kylo had protected and spared Rey repeatedly.

- Vader hardly had had a kind word to spare for his son (except perhaps when he said to him “It is too late for me, son”) - Kylo had comforted her and shown her his human side.

- Vader had lured Luke into a trap twice in order to keep him by his side. - Kylo hadn’t, on the contrary, he wanted to prevent her from running into Palpatine’s trap.

- Luke did not know what had made Vader the way he was when he came to find him, but he was adamant to save him. - Rey knew by the time of their duel that Kylo was largely also a victim, and she stabbed him to death.

- Luke always fought fair. - Rey used the distraction made by Leia’s reaching out to him to impale him - the way she had seen him impaling Han.

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  It is ridiculous to say that it’s a victory of Good over Evil when a young woman uses Jedi training to kill her master’s own son, who was on the defensive, with his mother’s help and blessing. That their weird connection, which was already introduced during the first two films, is explained by way of their being a dyad (one soul in two bodies) only makes it worse. Rey will rather kill the man she belongs to, or die herself, than admit that she needs him. If that is supposed to be “feminism”, it’s a very distorted idea of female independence and strength. Just like it’s not automatically “feminism” to make a girl pose as the heroine because she wants to be a Jedi no questions asked.

Fans discussed and argued about Rey’s family for years; it was a great move in TLJ when she admitted her parents were “nobodies” and that they left her on purpose. It was refreshing to see her carve her life and personality on her own. TRoS shattered this by making her the descendant of the most powerful man in the galaxy; and what’s worse, she wound up being a usurper just the way he was, taking over the Skywalker mantle.

  The sequels are feminist only when the audience believes that it’s a happy ending if a female ends up alone with no one standing in her way. They are told from her point of view, so as viewers we will automatically believe that she’s the heroine and root for her (or not, but still believe that it’s her story). Looking only at the bare facts, Rey is much less heroic than she first seems.

  At the end of TRoS Rey is alone with two dead people behind her, on a desert planet in company of a droid and with an old, wrinkled woman as her only interlocuter, the way she began, and her mind still has hardly developed beyond that of a child. She is willing to embrace the legacy of both Skywalker family and Jedi although the fate of Ben Solo should have taught her how fu***-up both of them were.

  Rey doesn’t want to see. She’s in denial like when she pretended that her family was coming back for her on Jakku. Inside, she is still a child - everything she did was motivated by her desire to find the belonging she ardently craved. She can’t be blamed for that. But does that make her a “strong woman”, or even a “Mary Sue”, like many annoyed viewers claim? No.

  Leia 

“If you will not turn to the Dark Side, then perhaps she will.” Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi

There is something I find much worse than Ben’s patricide or Luke’s panic attack at the Jedi temple. Those were actions spurred by the moment and provoked by Snoke, and both men regretted it immediately. Leia’s behaviour shows an unpardonable attitude for entire decades. Being a trained Jedi herself, she could have taught her son - instead she sent him to his uncle. This seems a practical choice since she was politically active while her brother wanted to start a new Jedi Order, but from the novels we learn that Ben heard his parents arguing and talking about him like he was a monster ever since he was a child, and that when he was sent away this seemed to confirm to him that something was wrong with him and had to be fixed. (From the novels we also learn that he actually had no ambition to become a Jedi and wanted to be a pilot - true Skywalker and also Solo that he is -, but he had no say in the matter.)

 After the tragedy at Luke’s temple and the rise of the First Order, Leia fought with the Resistance for years knowing that her own son was on the other side. What if she had met him and been forced to kill him (or if he had come into the situation, as we see in TLJ)? In TFA, she sent his own father to bomb Starkiller Base knowing well that their son might be on board. Leia had felt Snoke’s influence on Ben’s mind when he was still in her womb; so, she knew he had been manipulated for decades, but when she heard of his fall to the Dark Side, she automatically assumed he had made the choice to be “evil”. Only after he had been a part of a criminal organization for years Leia sent her estranged husband to him. She only reached out to him when she was on her deathbed, and I still am not certain whether she wanted to help him, or to make him stop fighting against the girl she had adopted in his stead. 

Would Padmé have left her own son in the dumps? Never. Padmé refuted Obi-Wan’s disclosure about Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side adamantly, and went to a volcanic planet alone, with a highly advanced pregnancy, to see a terrorist and murderer because she still saw the good little boy he had been in him. And she would have gotten him out of that hell had Obi-Wan not interfered. If you don’t believe me, watch the scene again: Slowly but surely, Anakin’s expression changes totally on speaking with his wife. Padmé was literally reaching out to him, and she was succeeding. Love, as always, was stronger than anything else in him. And Padmé believed in her husband until her very last breath. “Obi-Wan, there is still good in him.”

Din Djarin, the Mandalorian of the eponymous tv show, is an outcast who earns his living with dubious business and has killed his fair share of people. But had anyone attempted to do to his little protégé what Snoke did to Ben Solo, I don’t doubt he would have marched on the Supremacy and strangled him with his bare hands. (At least, he would have died trying.) Han would probably have done the same, but Leia deliberately never told him of Snoke’s influence on her son’s mind ever since before his birth. By the time she finally does, as we witness in TFA, their son has been Kylo Ren for six years. 

Leia, the princess, the general, the war heroine, had feared her son before he was even born because she sensed that he was like her own father. But she had no qualms and no fear accepting and instructing the granddaughter of her worst enemy. Why? 

Because Rey doesn’t waver. She has no doubts. She is not conflicted between both Sides of the Force. In Leia’s eyes, Rey is pure Light Side, so she embraces her wholeheartedly as the child she always wanted. As far as I can remember, Leia has never, the way her brother did, offered love to anyone who didn’t fight on her side. And Rey, who had angrily confronted Luke for his moment of terror which “created Kylo Ren”, did not consider for a moment Leia’s responsibility towards her son. Despite training with Leia for a whole year, she never tells her about Luke’s failure which pushed her son into Snoke’s clutches. Nor does she realize that Leia’s love for her is not unconditional but that it is parallel to her Jedi training. Rey literally becomes both a little girl and a Jedi with Leia, down to wearing pure white for the whole of the last instalment of the trilogy. 

Most fans admire Leia for her rebellious, spirited nature. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not necessarily such a good thing if one spends one’s whole life fighting instead of learning how to preserve peace. Leia is adamant that the side she’s on must win. Like every Jedi before her, she does not know, want or even consider that what the Force actually needs is Balance; and that both her father and her son were not evil because they were strong on both Sides, but that this meant they might have found balance, had they not met opposition to this in everyone they knew. 

Leia never approached her relationship to her father (at least as far as I know), never tried to understand him better and forgive him the way her brother had. Considering what Vader had done to her and her friends, she can’t be blamed for pushing away her memories and living in terror of the Dark Side. However, on the long run her incapacity or refusal for introspection is not a strength but a weakness. The one who paid the price is her son, and with his fall to the Dark, the whole galaxy again became prey to the terror that she herself had always fought against in first line. 

Vader had been right after all: Leia did fall prey to the Dark Side, though unknowingly. Not only did she give up on her son, she actively helped evil come back to the galaxy by believing to do the right thing: she trained Palpatine’s granddaughter, taught her to deny her own fears and weaknesses, gave her justification for her actions, helped her killing her own “evil” son. If that is not the Dark Side’s influence, I don’t know what it is. Leia denied her son’s potential for good and given up on him long before his fate was sealed, and in the same way she closed her eyes on Rey’s potential for evil. The same “bad” son had to prevent the girl she had taken under her wing from becoming what the old devil Palpatine had in mind, at the cost of his life. 

 Conclusion

 I am not an advocate for feminism on principle. If females can be independent and self-assured, if they shed the cloak of “damsel in distress”, on the downside this also means that they can be or become villains just like men. Many people tend to believe that a woman is naturally better, kinder, softer than a man. The Star Wars saga never bowed to this cliché.

 The idea that a woman does not necessarily need a man is positive on its own, but it becomes poisonous if it undermines female trust in men. Star Wars has a long story of lonely, unhappy men (all three generations of Skywalkers), who were denied their natural right to be needed by their women and to keep their families together. One of Anakin’s dilemmas was that he saw Padmé as being too good for him and wanted to prove to her that he was equal to her in his own way. Ben, ironically, felt that he was not good enough for Rey because he was tainted by his larger-than-life heritage, so he wanted to “let the past die” and start something new and fresh with her.

 A man naturally wishes to protect others, in particular wife and children. But in all three generations, we find these men whose personalities are split in two and cannot reconcile the two halves of their self: Anakin / Vader, Luke / Leia, Ben / Kylo. Due to the similarity in his two names, I expected the last of the Skywalker blood to finally heal the wound in his personality and become one. Had anyone wanted and needed both, Ben and Kylo, he might have. But Kylo was an aberration to everyone including Rey. Kylo was a villainous figure and as a male, he was aggressive and arrogant; but at least he made his own decisions and had chosen his own name, things Ben Solo never got to do.

 This is not to say that the sequels are against strong females or prefer the guys over them: no, the guys f** up at least as often as the women do. But to pretend that Leia’s and / or Rey’s portrayal is unrealistically positive and that “feminism ruined Star Wars” is either extremely short-sighted or a mockery of femaleness.

 It is true that women have more and larger roles in the ST, but I can’t see anything wrong with that. Not any more than with the fact that in the OT there was practically only Leia (the few other female characters almost had no impact on the story), and that there were few females in the PT, too. The Jedi Order consisted almost only of men, and you hardly hear anyone complain.

 I know that many fans dislike Anakin and Ben, but please let us consider why.

 One reason is that in an action movie we usually value coolness in a male protagonist above everything, and that the Skywalkers are hot-headed by nature. Most fans prefer Darth Vader, Han Solo and the likes to the Skywalker men.

 Another reason is that the filmmakers have deliberately manipulated our emotions. The prequels are told from everybody’s point of view but Anakin’s, and the same goes for the sequels with Ben, despite the fact that the trilogies are about them, not about “the Jedi superheroes saviours of the galaxy” or “the almighty and untainted Skywalker family”. So, as viewers we automatically identify emotionally with anyone but them. We never get to really know the “villain’s” point of view, we only see how other people react to them; and since these reactions are much more often negative than positive, we get to the conclusion that both of them are inescapably evil, that they chose to be so, and that they deserve their terrible fate.

 My suggestion: rewatch both trilogies again and this time try to look through Anakin’s or Ben’s eyes. (And possibly also read the novels and the Kylo Ren comics.)

  You could be surprised.

[jedimaesteryoda]

Euron: The Deconstruction of the Romantic Pirate Captain

Portrait courtesy of Mike Hallstein. 

Warning: Spoilers for The Winds of Winter

Pirate fiction is a popular sub-genre with a rich history in both literature and film from Treasure Island to Pirates of the Caribbean. As David Cordingly pointed out in Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates, pirate fiction’s popularity can be given to these stories often taking place in far off places with many of the readers coming from the colder Northern hemisphere, and the bulk of these pirate stories taking place in the tropical Caribbean during the Golden Age of Piracy (1650-1730). It is also the adventure providing a form of escapism with many readers and viewers often living monotonous lives. As a result, pirates have been embedded in public consciousness from real-life pirates like Blackbeard to the fictional Long John Silver. Of course, as we’ll later get into, these fun images often contrast with real-life pirates.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, Martin creates an entire culture of pirates known to themselves as the Ironborn though they are less the pirates of the Caribbean and more pseudo-Vikings. Piracy is enshrined in the Old Way, which has the Ironborn “pay the iron price,” or obtain plunder (which can even include people) by taking them at the point of an axe or sword. Many Ironborn have made names for themselves through daring raids, and it is through these exploits that they raise their standing in society, both in material wealth and reputation.  However, there is one such Ironborn who stands out. 

"Some men look larger at a distance," Asha warned. "Walk amongst the cookfires if you dare, and listen. They are not telling tales of your strength, nor of my famous beauty. They talk only of the Crow's Eye; the far places he has seen, the women he has raped and the men he's killed, the cities he has sacked, the way he burnt Lord Tywin's fleet at Lannisport . . ."

-A Feast for Crows, The Iron Captain

Euron “Crow’s Eye” Greyjoy is introduced in A Feast for Crows right after the death of his brother Balon who had exiled him. In a family of pirates and reavers, he is the black sheep of the family, the one who’s hated by everyone else. He manages to stand out from his family and all the other Ironborn through both his cunning and his sadistic cruelty as well as by boldly sailing places where no Ironborn has gone before like Asshai and (dubiously) Valyria. He is the Ironborn closest to a romantic pirate in appearance (which is intentional). 

Euron’s character, from sailing to far-off places and his treasure to his charisma and even his eye patch, makes it clear that Martin borrowed from other pirates in fiction.

Let’s start with the titular character in Captain Blood: His Odyssey, who is not a Romantic Pirate Captain™, he is the Romantic Pirate Captain™. The book was adapted into the 1935 film seen by a young George R.R. Martin with Blood portrayed by the ever-handsome, charming actor who was typecast as the dashing swashbuckler, Errol Flynn. The film’s final duel between Blood and Levasseur (portrayed by Basil Rathbone) is ranked as one of the top sword fights on-screen, with Martin himself ranking it alongside the duel between Inigo Montoya and the Man in Black in The Princess Bride. 

A common trope in pirate fiction (though less so in real-life in the Golden Age of Piracy) is the pirate captain being an aristocrat or an educated man of some standing in society who is forced to become a pirate as a result of unfortunate circumstances. Peter Blood is a sharp-witted, handsome Irish doctor and veteran who is arrested for treason for attending to a wounded rebel during the Monmouth Rebellion. Blood is later sold as a slave and transported to Barbados to serve under the brutal master, Colonel Bishop, and manages to form a relationship with Bishop’s niece, Arabella. Subsequently, he is forced to become a pirate after the Spanish attack on Barbados, leading a crew of his fellow convict-slaves to freedom, and becoming one of the most feared and well-known pirates in the Caribbean. However, he manages to adhere to his own personal code and maintain some semblance of honor as a pirate while the legitimate authority figures in this story like Deputy-Governor Bishop, French commander Baron de Rivarol and Admiral Don Miguel de Espinoza as well as King James II (unseen) tend to be worse than the actual pirates. He preys on only Spanish ships and settlements (enemies of Great Britain who are treated as stock villains in the story) never on English or Dutch ones, operating more as a privateer than a pirate. He also chivalrously rescues women from other pirates and Spanish soldiers. 

I have said already that he was a papist only when it suited him.

-Captain Blood, Chapter XVI: The Trap

No godless man may sit the Seastone Chair."

-A Feast for Crows, The Prophet

Peter and Euron both can claim descent from island nations (Ireland and Iron Isles) with a history of nationalist sentiment against domination by a larger neighbor (England/Great Britain and mainland Westeros under the Iron Throne). Euron is sharp-witted and “the most comely of Lord Quellon's sons,” coming from the most powerful noble house on the Iron Islands, and is forced to leave after being condemned and exiled by his brother Balon. Euron then pursues a life of piracy, and earns the moniker of “as black a pirate as ever raised a sail,” one of the most feared pirates in the known world. In their respective stories, Euron and Peter demonstrate themselves to be brilliant, talented commanders, always managing to defeat their foes and win battles with their wits, with examples being Blood’s gambit in managing to escape past Espinosa in the raid on Maracaibo and Euron’s strategy in the taking of the Shield Islands. They are also known for their boldness and daring among their fellows. 

What but ruin and disaster could be the end of this grotesque pretension? How could it be hoped that England would ever swallow such a Perkin? And it was on his [James, 1st Duke of Monmouth] behalf, to uphold his fantastic claim, that these West Country clods, led by a few armigerous Whigs, had been seduced into rebellion!

“Quo, quo, scelesti, ruitis?” [Latin for “Where, where are you rushing to, wicked ones?”]

-Captain Blood: His Odyssey, Chapter I: The Messenger

“I shall give you Lannisport. Highgarden. The Arbor. Oldtown. The riverlands and the Reach, the kingswood and the rainwood, Dorne and the marches, the Mountains of the Moon and the Vale of Arryn, Tarth and the Stepstones. I say we take it all! I say, we take Westeros."

- A Feast for Crows, The Drowned Man

Of course, while Blood saw the Monmouth Rebellion as madness with his only involvement being healing a wounded rebel, Euron (described as madder than Balon) actually fought in the Greyjoy Rebellion (where Balon like James, 1st Duke of Monmouth, unsuccessfully tried to crown himself), and hatched the plan to burn the Lannister fleet at port. Blood is an innocent man unjustly condemned for following his Hippocratic Oath while Euron is a guilty man condemned for raping and impregnating his brother’s salt wife. Euron's crew is made up of slaves like Blood’s, but unlike Blood, he was never a slave himself whose slave crewmen joined him willingly, but a slave master who bought or captured them, and then compelled them to serve in his crew. Captain Blood returns after being pardoned (after the king who convicted him, James II, is overthrown) for saving Jamaica from a French assault, and chosen to be its governor, replacing his nemesis, Colonel Bishop, who ironically, was removed for abandoning his post in search of Blood. Euron likewise returns to the Iron Islands after arranging Balon’s death, and takes his post as King of the Iron Islands and Lord of Pyke, at first through intimidation, violence and bribes and later through a kingsmoot. Although, I would argue that like Colonel Bishop, Balon was an unsympathetic, incompetent ruler with an ultimately doomed invasion of the North and uprisings to go with Bishop’s doomed pursuit of Blood.  

Blood looks out for his countrymen, and went to great lengths to avoid the sacrificing of his own men while Greyjoy only looks out for himself, even sacrificing and murdering his fellow Ironborn for his own ends. Peter rescues women from would-be rapists and kidnappers while Euron kidnaps and rapes them. 

If he resisted so long, it was, I think, the thought of Arabella Bishop that restrained him. That they should be destined never to meet again did not weigh at first, or, indeed, ever. He conceived the scorn with which she would come to hear of his having turned pirate, and the scorn, though as yet no more than imagined, hurt him as if it were already a reality. And even when he conquered this, still the thought of her was ever present. He compromised with the conscience that her memory kept so disconcertingly active. He vowed that the thought of her should continue ever before him to help him keep his hands as clean as a man might in this desperate trade upon which he was embarking. And so, although he might entertain no delusive hope of ever winning her for his own, of ever even seeing her again, yet the memory of her was to abide in his soul as a bitter-sweet, purifying influence. The love that is never to be realized will often remain a man's guiding ideal. The resolve being taken, he went actively to work. Ogeron, most accommodating of governors, advanced him money for the proper equipment of his ship the Cinco Llagas, which he renamed the Arabella. This after some little hesitation, fearful of thus setting his heart upon his sleeve. 

-Captain Blood: His Odyssey, Chapter XIII: Tortuga

"Who knows more of gods than I? Horse gods and fire gods, gods made of gold with gemstone eyes, gods carved of cedar wood, gods chiseled into mountains, gods of empty air . . . I know them all. I have seen their peoples garland them with flowers, and shed the blood of goats and bulls and children in their names. And I have heard the prayers, in half a hundred tongues. Cure my withered leg, make the maiden love me, grant me a healthy son. Save me, succor me, make me wealthy . . . protect me! Protect me from mine enemies, protect me from the darkness, protect me from the crabs inside my belly, from the horselords, from the slavers, from the sellswords at my door. Protect me from the Silence." He laughed.

-A Feast for Crows, The Iron Captain

Peter is loyal to one woman, Arabella, never finding companionship with another, and even rescues her from Don Miguel. Euron, by contrast, never had a single romantic relationship, just taking the daughter of the Lord of Oakenshield as his mistress, and later cutting her tongue out, and having her chained to his ship’s prow. Peter named his ship for Arabella, whose name means “yielding to prayer.” As well as reflecting his love for a certain woman, it represented his personal commitment to keeping to some semblance of honor and morality. Euron, in direct contrast, named his ship Silence, as a way of mocking his victims’ prayers of protection that are answered with only silence from both the gods and with death. The ship itself tellingly has a black iron likeness of a beautiful woman without a mouth. 

Peter is shown to be merciful as he spared his enemies like Colonel Bishop and Don Miguel, as opposed to Euron’s mercilessness shown by having Blacktyde cut into seven pieces and Lord Hewett killed after capturing him. Peter is a noble gentleman and honorable rogue while Euron is an ignoble, black-hearted scoundrel. I would argue that as a character, Peter Blood is closer to Jon Snow than he is to Euron Greyjoy, or if you’re going for characters on the Iron Isles, he is closer to Lord Rodrik “the Reader” Harlaw with a shared scholarly disposition, and Harlaw’s attitude towards the Greyjoy rebellions being virtually the same as Blood’s towards the Monmouth Rebellion. 

GRRM likely also had at least one other pirate in fiction in mind when writing Euron.

Long John Silver is the prototypical pirate from Treasure Island where many pirate tropes in pop culture get their inspiration from, and in Long John’s case, he has the talking parrot and the missing leg. He is the ship’s cook who turns out to be the pirate captain organizing a mutiny on the Hispaniola. 

intelligent and smiling. Indeed, he seemed in the most cheerful spirits, whistling as he moved about among the tables, with a merry word or a slap on the shoulder for the more favoured of his guests.  

Now, to tell you the truth, from the very first mention of Long John in Squire Trelawney's letter I had taken a fear in my mind that he might prove to be the very one-legged sailor whom I had watched for so long at the old Benbow. But one look at the man before me was enough. I had seen the captain, and Black Dog, and the blind man, Pew, and I thought I knew what a buccaneer was like — a very different creature, according to me, from this clean and pleasant-tempered landlord.

-Treasure Island, VIII: At the Sign of the Spy-glass

Euron had seduced them with his glib tongue and smiling eye

-A Feast for Crows, The Reaver

Euron and Long John both manage to stand out from their fellow pirates in a number of ways. What people often miss in Treasure Island is that Long John being a pirate captain is a plot twist. Jim doesn’t suspect Silver of being a pirate upon meeting him given while the first pirates we met in the book clearly gave the impression that they’re pirates though their heavy drinking, cursing and violent, threatening behavior, Silver by contrast is polite, well-mannered, courteous, warm and charming. He is usually sober and self-controlled, and greets you with a warm smile on his face. Likewise, the Ironborn reavers tend to display the same rough characteristics as the pirates in Stevenson’s book while Euron by contrast is charming and well-spoken, and we usually see him with a smile on his face. Long John also stands out through his intelligence which is shown in the way he manages his money well rather than spending it all away like other pirates, thinking about long-term planning, and coming up with a plan to find Flint’s treasure by deceiving Squire Trelawney into recruiting his men as crew members on the Hispaniola. Euron is shown to be intelligent and cunning as well when he takes the Shield Islands by not following the coastline and sailing out to sea to avoid being seen, and marrying Asha off to Erik Ironmaker, effectively removing her as a threat. Both men win their leadership positions through their charisma, force of personality, intelligence and lofty promises with taking Flint’s treasure in Long John’s case and all of Westeros in Euron’s case. Of course, Euron’s plan like Long John’s will likely not end well for his followers.  

However, both pirates are basically con men with their friendly demeanor being masks. Ben Gunn noted that Captain Flint feared no one, but added the exception of Silver. One could see why as Silver could be charming and courteous on the outside, but upon reaching the titular island, one witnessed the rage and capacity for violence that existed within this man when he coldly murdered Tom Redruth for refusing to join him. Euron likewise can be charming on the outside, but his true nature comes out in certain moments like drowning Lord Botley in a cask of seawater, and cutting Lord Blacktyde into seven pieces for refusing to submit to him. 

The similarities seem to end there. Look more closely, and you’ll find plenty of contrasts that separate the two characters. 

I’m [Long John] fifty mark you; once, back from this cruise, I set up gentleman in earnest. 

-Treasure Island, XI: What I Heard in the Apple Barrel

Lord Balon's eldest brother had never given up the Old Way, even for a day. His Silence, with its black sails and dark red hull, was infamous in every port from Ibben to Asshai, it was said.

-A Clash of Kings, Theon II

Long John Silver has a talking parrot that repeated phrases while Euron in direct contrast has an entire crew of mutes. Silver is actually missing a leg while Euron wears an eye patch despite not missing an eye. Although to be fair, many pirates wore eye patches despite having both eyes, since they frequently had to move above and below decks, from daylight to near darkness. Keeping a patch over one eye adapted it to the darkness, and if a pirate went below decks, he could just switch the patch to the other eye and see in the darkness more easily. In this case, Euron keeps his eye patch to hide his black “crow’s eye” and show his blue “smiling eye,” symbolically showing how he uses his smiling, charming light exterior to hide his dark side. Long John Silver also managed to be a legitimate businessman by owning a pub in Bristol in between acting as a pirate, and he planned to use his share of Flint’s treasure to settle down as a gentleman and retire from piracy. Euron was never engaged in anything resembling legitimate business as he stuck to piracy, and he only left piracy to set himself up as a reaver king of the Ironborn, and basically just do a large-scale version of what he did before. 

While Long John Silver did employ murder, he used it in a calculated manner in pursuit of a larger goal. He didn’t kill people randomly, but to get rid of the people likely to stand in the way of his obtaining Flint’s treasure: the sailors who wouldn’t mutiny with him and the people commanding the voyage. Euron also uses murder in a calculated manner against people who oppose him such as his brothers and dissident lords, but he also engages in random acts of violence that don’t provide any clear benefit to himself such as when he murdered a hedge wizard and cut out the tongue of Falia. There is also a level of sadism to his actions that Long John’s lacked such as feeding a warlock to his cohorts, chaining people to the bows of ships, and making the Hewett women serve naked. 

Long John Silver also does have some redemptive qualities such as seeming to genuinely care for Jim Hawkins to the point of risking his life when his crew wanted to harm him. Euron wouldn’t have stuck his neck out for Jim, but had the kid’s tongue cut out and used him as a slave at best. Long John also seems to be good to his wife going by the level of trust he put in her while Euron never really seems to genuinely care for anyone but himself. He is unmarried, and doesn’t seem to treat the women he’s laid with well if his mistress Falia is anything to go.

At first glance, Euron Greyjoy has a lot of the qualities that invite admiration of the romantic pirate captain: intelligence, charm, charisma and boldness/daring. However, he lacks the human qualities, ie the honor and nobility often found in these characters that keep them from being just villainous rogues. He is a handsome aristocrat who turns to piracy after being exiled from his home, but unlike other pirates in this trope, neither his backstory nor his present situation evoke any sympathy. He isn’t a good man who is unjustly condemned, but an admitted rapist and murderer who managed to avoid justice for his deeds. He uses the pirate tropes to win support from the Ironborn who esteem the Old Way that glorifies piracy. Martin effectively uses Euron to deconstruct the romantic pirate captain trope by showing how romanticism is often used to pretty up ugly things, in this case, piracy, by revealing the dark reality behind them. Piracy is, at the end of the day, a profession of armed robbery with pirate captains usually being capable of savage cruelty and violence. In real life, good pirate captains like the fictional Peter Blood amongst others were incredibly difficult to find given good people generally avoided such line of work. Even so, no matter how good a man a character like Blood was, he still obtained much of his wealth and prestige from robbing ships and settlements with the justification being that they were Spanish, enemies of Britain. Essentially, it is an argument based on the premise of total war. The Ironborn philosophy is practically the same mindset, but unlike with Blood, we got to see the side of the victims of their predations on the Shield Islands and the North. 

The way the Ironborn view piracy can be similar to how plenty of people in the real world view piracy in fiction and even real-life. The reader could ask how could the Ironborn admire people like Euron, to which one could just as easily ask how could people esteem Sir Henry Morgan to the point of naming a popular rum label for him (with the slogan “Live like the Captain”)? Euron and the rest of the Ironborn effectively have the reader critique the romantic attitudes towards piracy found in popular culture. 

On a final note, another key difference between Euron and the romantic pirate captain will likely be how his story ends. The pirate captain usually gets a happy ending, settling down with all the considerable wealth he acquired over his career in piracy. After his victory against the French in Jamaica in a final battle, Peter Blood gets his pardon, is made Deputy-Governor of Jamaica, gets the girl, Arabella, and settles down to a comfortable retirement from piracy. Long John Silver, even though he was the main antagonist rather than the protagonist, escaped the Hispaniola with "three hundred or four hundred guineas” likely to reunite with his wife. Euron’s story likely won’t be a happy ending with him winning a glorious final battle before settling down to a comfortable retirement with the beautiful girl, Daenerys, but more likely him being killed with the battle turning out to be a disastrous defeat for his fellow Ironborn. 

In this story, where the romantic pirate captain is the villain, he and his fellow pirates will get no hero’s reward, but instead their comeuppance. 

We will likely see how his story ends in The Winds of Winter. 

[blackkudos]

Eldridge Cleaver

Leroy Eldridge Cleaver (August 31, 1935 – May 1, 1998) was an American writer, and political activist who became an early leader of the Black Panther Party.

In 1968, Cleaver wrote Soul on Ice, a collection of essays that, at the time of its publication, was praised by The New York Times Book Review as "brilliant and revealing". Cleaver stated in Soul on Ice: "If a man like Malcolm X could change and repudiate racism, if I myself and other former Muslims can change, if young whites can change, then there is hope for America."

Cleaver went on to become a prominent member of the Black Panthers, having the titles Minister of Information and Head of the International Section of the Panthers, while a fugitive from the United States criminal justice system in Cuba and Algeria. He became a fugitive after leading an ambush on Oakland police officers, during which two officers were wounded. Cleaver was also wounded during the ambush and Black Panther member Bobby Hutton was killed. As editor of the official Panthers' newspaper, The Black Panther, Cleaver's influence on the direction of the Party was rivaled only by founders Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Cleaver and Newton eventually fell out with each other, resulting in a split that weakened the party.

After spending seven years in exile in Cuba, Algeria, and France, Cleaver returned to the US in 1975, where he became involved in various religious groups (Unification Church and CARP) before finally joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as becoming a conservative Republican, appearing at Republican events.

Early life

Eldridge Cleaver was born in Wabbaseka, Arkansas; as a child he moved with his large family to Phoenix and then to Los Angeles. He was the son of Leroy Cleaver and Thelma Hattie Robinson. He had four siblings: Wilhelima Marie, Helen Grace, James Weldon, and Theophilus Henry.

As a teenager, he was involved in petty crime and spent time in youth detention centers. At the age of 18, he was convicted of a felony drug charge (marijuana, a felony at the time) and sent to the adult prison at Soledad. In 1958, he was convicted of rape and assault with intent to murder, and eventually served time in Folsom and San Quentin prisons. While in prison, he was given a copy of The Communist Manifesto. Cleaver was released on parole December 12, 1966, with a discharge date of March 20, 1971. In 1968 he was arrested on violation of parole by association with individual(s) of bad reputation, and control and possession of firearms Cleaver petitioned for habeas corpus to the Solano County Court, and was granted it along with a release of a $50,000 bail.

Black Panther Party

Cleaver was released from prison on December 12, 1966. He was writing for Ramparts magazine and organizing efforts to revitalize the Organization of Afro-American Unity. The Black Panther Party was only two months old. He then joined the Oakland-based Black Panther Party (BPP), serving as Minister of Information, or spokesperson. What initially attracted Cleaver to the Panthers, as opposed to other prominent groups, was their commitment to armed struggle.

In 1967, Cleaver, along with Marvin X, Ed Bullins, and Ethna Wyatt, formed the Black House political/cultural center in San Francisco. Amiri Baraka, Sonia Sanchez, Askia Toure, Sarah Webster Fabio, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Avotcja, Reginald Lockett, Emory Douglas, Samuel Napier, Bobby Hutton, Huey Newton, and Bobby Seale were Black House regulars. The same year, he married Kathleen Neal Cleaver (divorced 1987), with whom he would have son Ahmad Maceo Eldridge (born 1969, Algeria; died 2018, Saudi Arabia) and daughter Joju Younghi (born July 31, 1970, North Korea).

Cleaver was a presidential candidate in 1968 on the ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party. Having been born on August 31, 1935, Cleaver would not have been the requisite 35 years of age until more than a year after Inauguration Day 1969. (Although the Constitution requires that the President be at least 35 years of age, it does not specify whether he need have reached that age at the time of nomination, or election, or inauguration.) Courts in both Hawaii and New York held that he could be excluded from the ballot because he could not possibly meet the Constitutional criteria. Cleaver and his running mate Judith Mage received 36,571 votes (0.05%).

In the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, there were riots across the nation. On April 6, Cleaver and 14 other Panthers led an ambush of Oakland police officers, during which two officers were wounded. Cleaver was wounded during the ambush and 17-year-old Black Panther member Bobby Hutton was killed. They were armed with M16 rifles and shotguns. In 1980, he admitted that he had led the Panther group on a deliberate ambush of the police officers, thus provoking the shootout. Some reporters were surprised by this move, because it was in the context of an uncharacteristic speech, in which Cleaver also discredited the Black Panthers, stated "we need police as heroes", and said that he denounced civilian review boards of police shootings for the "bizarre" reason that "it is a rubber stamp for murder". Some speculated his admission could have been a pay-off to the Alameda County justice system, whose judge had only just days earlier let Eldridge Cleaver escape prison time; Cleaver was sentenced to community service after getting charged with three counts of assault against three Oakland police officers. The PBS documentary A Huey Newton Story claims that "Bobby Hutton was shot more than twelve times after he had already surrendered and stripped down to his underwear to prove he was not armed."

Charged with attempted murder after the incident, he jumped bail to flee to Cuba in late 1968. Initially treated with luxury by the Cuban government, the hospitality ended upon reports Fidel Castro had received information of the CIA infiltrating the Black Panther Party. Cleaver then decided to head to Algeria, sending word to his wife to meet him there. Elaine Klein normalized his status by getting him an invitation to attend the Pan-African Cultural festival, rendering him temporarily safe from prosecution. The festival allowed him to network with revolutionaries from all over Africa in order to discuss the perils of white supremacy and colonialism. Cleaver was outspoken in his call to violence against the United States, contributing to his mission to "position the Panthers within the revolutionary nationalist camp inside the United States and as disciples of Fanon on the world stage". Cleaver had set up an international office for the Black Panthers in Algeria. Following Timothy Leary's Weather Underground-assisted prison escape, Leary stayed with Cleaver in Algiers; however, Cleaver placed Leary under "revolutionary arrest" as a counter-revolutionary for promoting drug use.

Cleaver also cultivated an alliance with North Korea in 1969, and BPP publications began reprinting excerpts from Kim Il Sung's writings. Although leftists of the time often looked to Cuba, China, and North Vietnam for inspiration, few had paid any attention to the secretive Pyongyang regime. Bypassing US travel restrictions on North Korea, Cleaver and other BPP members made two visits to the country in 1969–1970 with the idea that the juche model could be adapted to the revolutionary liberation of African-Americans. Taken on an official tour of North Korea, Cleaver expressed admiration at "the DPRK's stable, crime-free society which provided guaranteed food, employment, and housing for all, and which had no economic or social inequalities".

Byron Vaughn Booth (former Panther Deputy Minister of Defense) claimed that, after a trip to the DPRK, Cleaver discovered his wife had been having an affair with Clinton Robert Smith Jr. Booth told the FBI he had witnessed Cleaver shoot and kill Smith with an AK47. Elaine Mokhtefi, in the London Review of Books, writes that Cleaver confessed the murder to her shortly after committing it.

Cleaver later left the DPRK, claiming that the environment was too oppressive.

In his 1978 book Soul on Fire, Cleaver made several claims regarding his exile in Algeria, including that he was supported by regular stipends from the government of North Vietnam, which the United States was then bombing. Cleaver stated that he was followed by other former criminals turned revolutionaries, many of whom (including Booth and Smith) hijacked planes to get to Algeria.

Split and new directions

Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton eventually fell out with each other over the necessity of armed struggle as a response to COINTELPRO and other actions by the government against the Black Panthers and other radical groups. Also Cleaver's interest in North Korea and global anti-imperialist struggle drew ire from other BPP members who felt that he was neglecting the needs of African-Americans at home in the US. Following his expulsion from the Black Panthers in 1971, the group's ties with North Korea were quickly forgotten. Cleaver advocated the escalation of armed resistance into urban guerrilla warfare, while Newton suggested the best way to respond was to put down the gun, which he felt alienated the Panthers from the rest of the black community, and focus on more pragmatic reformist activity by lobbying for increased social programs to aid African-American communities and anti-discrimination laws. Cleaver accused Newton of being an Uncle Tom for choosing to cooperate with white interests rather than overthrow them.

Cleaver left Algeria in 1972, moving to Paris, France, becoming a born again Christian during time in isolation living underground. He turned his hand to fashion design; three years later, he released codpiece-revival "virility pants" he called "the Cleavers", enthusing that they would give men "a chance to assert their masculinity".Cleaver returned to the United States in 1977 to face the unresolved attempted murder charge. By September 1978, on bail as those proceedings dragged on, he had incorporated Eldridge Cleaver Ltd, running a factory and West Hollywood shop exploiting his "Cleavers", which he claimed liberated men from "penis binding". He saw no conflict with his newfound Christianity, drawing support for his overtly sexual design from 22 Deuteronomy. The long-outstanding charge was subsequently resolved on a plea bargain reducing it to assault. A sentence of 1,200 hours' community service was imposed.

Later life

In the early 1980s, Cleaver became disillusioned with what he saw as the commercial nature of evangelical Christianity and examined alternatives, including Sun Myung Moon's campus ministry organization CARP. He later led a short-lived revivalist ministry called Eldridge Cleaver Crusades, "a hybrid synthesis of Islam and Christianity he called 'Christlam'", along with an auxiliary called the Guardians of the Sperm.

Cleaver was then later baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) on December 11, 1983, periodically attended regular services, lectured by invitation at LDS gatherings.

By the 1980s, Cleaver had become a conservative Republican. He appeared at various Republican events and spoke at a California Republican State Central Committee meeting regarding his political transformation. In 1984, he ran for election to the Berkeley City Council but lost. Undaunted, he promoted his candidacy in the Republican Party primary for the 1986 Senate race but was again defeated. The next year, his 20-year marriage to Kathleen Neal Cleaver came to an end.

In 1988, Cleaver was placed on probation for burglary and was briefly jailed later in the year after testing positive for cocaine. He entered drug rehabilitation for a stated crack cocaine addiction two years later, but was arrested for possession by Oakland and Berkeley Police in 1992 and 1994. Shortly after his final arrest, he moved to Southern California, falling into poor health.

Death

Cleaver died at age 62 on May 1, 1998, at Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center in Pomona, California. He is buried at Mountain View Cemetery in Altadena, California.

Soul on Ice (1968)

[W]hen I considered myself ready enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically – though looking back I see that I was in a frantic, wild and completely abandoned frame of mind. Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women...I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spread outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.

While in prison, he wrote a number of philosophical and political essays, first published in Ramparts magazine and then in book form as Soul on Ice. In the essays, Cleaver traces his own development from a "supermasculine menial" to a radical black liberationist, and his essays became highly influential in the black power movement.

In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto "for practice" and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was "an insurrectionary act". When he began writing Soul on Ice, he unequivocally renounced rape and all his previous reasoning about it.

The essays in Soul on Ice are divided into four thematic sections: "Letters from Prison", describing Cleaver's experiences with and thoughts on crime and prisons; "Blood of the Beast", discussing race relations and promoting black liberation ideology; "Prelude to Love – Three Letters", love letters written to Cleaver's attorney, Beverly Axelrod; and "White Woman, Black Man", on gender relations, black masculinity, and sexuality.

[famous-aces]

Simone Weil

Who: Simone Adolphine Weil

What: Philosopher, Mystic, and Political Activist

Where: French-Jewish (active largely in France, Spain, and UK) 

When: February 3, 1909 - August 24, 1943

(Image Description: a black and white photo of Weil in the 1940s on the street in Marseilles. She is a pale woman with an oval face and big round glasses. Her hair is short and dark and fluffy. She is wearing a beret and a cap.  She is in her early thirties but I would have thought she was older. Behind her are buses, sidewalk [with trees] and curb. There are some other people on the street behind her. End ID)

There isn't much about Simone Weil that isn't odd and often contradictory. A pacifist who went to war, a Christian mystic who refused baptism, a writer whose most important works were not published until after her death, a religious humanist, intelligent but perpetually naïve, an ethnically Jewish woman utterly disconnected from her heritage, despite embracing the questioning and intellectualism that characterize much of the Jewish faith.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls her "a philosopher of margins and paradoxes" and André Gide called her “the patron saint of all outsiders.". Today she an important left-leaning philosopher, but her real influence did not come until after her death. But between 1995 and 2012, more than half a century after her death, over 2,500 newly scholarly articles about her were published.  She inspired the likes of Albert Camus, Jean-Luc Godard, Pankaj Mishra, Flannery O'Connor, and Pope Paul VI. Camus said she was "the only great spirit of our times." But her legacy is extremely mixed (with good reason) and some claim she was insane or unbalanced. Even people who greatly admired her say she was a bit odd.  Susan Sontag calls her "one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit." Which may be an accurate description. She was strange, often contrary, sadly comedic, and, indeed, sometimes deeply troubling. Which is odd, considering that her heart was almost certainly in the right place; regardless of her naïveté and occasional hypocrisy her goal was truth and justice. And as mixed as her legacy was there is a lot to admire in Weil's steadfastness and dedication to others. Indeed her uniqueness of character almost makes her worthy of study even without her influence.

Weil's heart was in the right place (she had a darker side that I will get to).  She was extremely dedicated to the workers, the poor, and the otherwise less fortunate, and was critical of both capitalism and communism. Eventually this dedication extended to God, not necessarily religion, but an Abrahamic God.

She wrote extensively on a number of subjects including labor, management, politics, war, peace, religion and spirituality, among other subjects throughout her life. She was an activist who threw herself into the fray, mind, soul, and body. This last despite being in quite poor physical health for all her life, including suffering from tuberculosis. Her intellectualism and dedication to others began in early childhood. She was always reading and forming opinions. At age five Weil refused to eat sugar to be in solidarity with French soldiers in World War I (then raging).  Her activism often got her in trouble at school, something that didn't change when she went from student to teacher. She was always something of an outsider among her peers.

She was extremely political, altruistic, self-sacrificing, and warm hearted throughout her life. As an adult she worked largely as a writer and teacher, inturupted to spend time incognito working in an automobile factory to get first hand experience/accounts of the plight of workers and the psychological damages caused by industrialization. She was involved in the 1933 general strike in France. Ultimately she was booted from several teaching gigs because of her politics, activism, and contributions to leftist journals. 

She briefly fought against the Fascists in Spain (1936) but was very clumsy and a poor shot due to her terrible eyesight. No one really knew what to do with her, but she was dedicated. Weil ultimately ended up injuring herself with hot oil and her parents came and took her away.

Around this time she became very interested in Catholicism. She was never baptized, however, because her religious interests were far broader than one faith, extending to numerous religious traditions of the East and West, and she disagreed with some of the more brutal moments in the Bible. She had sort of her own conception of God and faith, she called it fundamentally Christian, but it was really her own philosophy with a grounding in the Abrahamic concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and above all omnibenevolent God.

It is important to note that despite being ethnically Jewish Weil was in no way religiously Jewish and has been criticized as downright antisemetic. Having barely read anything of hers beyond a little for this project I cannot say without a doubt if she was, but what I have heard described certainly worrisome. This is obviously not exhaustive and she may have said far worse but she was critical of the Torah (without realizing a lot of the things she loved about Christianity actually came from it), critical of the cruelty of the "Old Testament"/Talmudic God (as if Christianity didn't embrace those actions perhaps more than the Jewish faith), claimed that Hitler was no worse than any other colonizer, while comparing Judaism/Jewish people to the Roman Empire/Romans (she hated the Roman Empire). So be aware of that, especially given the era -- both the one Weil was writing in and our own. Her family was secular, she never interacted with Judaism on any real level, so it is possible -- given the political climate at the time and France's history of antisemitism -- Weil was misled, but given the fact that her political views changed throughout her life (starting as a communist and ultimately abandoning it) and the fact that she was so open hearted elsewhere is saddening and negates the ignorance argument.  It does seem she failed to understand the weight and reality of what she was saying/critiquing. She was vehemently against racism in other forms, but never seemed to make the connection. According to some sources she was always shocked to be called out on hypocrisy (which she was, more than once). So maybe there is something to be said for her just not getting it. This is not an excuse for hatred, but ignorance might be a huge part of the problem.

After France fell to the Nazis in 1940, Weil and her parents fled and began a life in exile, first in the US, then in England.  In England Weil wrote her best known work, L'Enracinement, prélude à une déclaration des devoirs envers l'être humain (The Need for Roots: Prelude Towards a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind) (written 1943, but it wasn't published until 1949). During this time she worked for the French Resistance, although exactly in what capacity seems to be unknown. But her punishing work against the Nazis and penchant for self-denial ultimately ended up costing her her life at age 34 of either heart failure from malnutrition or tuberculosis. 

(Image Description: the cover of one of Weil's many notebooks. On it she has written "3 (1941)" in the top left corner. She has covered the rest of it in writing in a bunch of different languages including Greek and Sanskrit [maybe?]. All of it is written in squares/rectangles with one rectangle in the middle with shapes/writing in it. End ID)

Like The Need for Roots most of her work was printed posthumously. Her ouevre has been translated into other languages, including English, Arabic, and German as she reached international acclaim.  During her life only a few of her works were published of the 20-some volumes that survive today. Her most important works include (French / English) L'Iliade ou le poème de la force / The Iliad, or the Poem of Force (1940), La Pesanteur et la grâce / Gravity and Grace (1947), Attente de Dieu / Waiting for God (1950), Lettre à un religieux / Letter to a Priest (1951), Oppression et Liberté / Oppression and Liberty (1955) among others, including a lot of eccentric, esoteric, and diverse notebooks kept throughout her life, like the one above.

Probable Orientation: Aroace

As is probably obvious I do not quite know what to make of Weil, but one thing I can tell you is she was definitely asexual.

Weil's sexlessness (and by extension asexuality) has long been part of the narrative oddness of her life. The fact that she shunned physical and romantic relationships is often thought of as part of the pathetic humor as her personality. Clumsy, naïve, downright weird, sexless has become part of that persona, that cloak of oddity. 

People love to claim political reasons for others chastity and Weil is no exception. There has to be some reason beyond natural disinterest. The alternative is too foreign or strange for allos to fathom. All of these suppositions are equally aphobic. The idea that asexuality must be a conscious choice rather than a natural part of a person is extremely damaging as is the idea that not feeling sexual/romantic attraction/desiring sex/romance is unnatural.  There have been people who try to explain away Weil's lack of sexual desire as well: some Christian writers say she was devoting herself to God years before she found the church (Weil herself says the idea of pursuing what she calls "purity" struck her at 16, she would not find Catholicism for more than a decade), to certain subgroups of feminists her sexlessness a conscious choice to escape the patriarchy. But really it seems much more to be her sexual orientation than a political statement. Weil was a woman who made a lot of political statements, constantly, but the avoidance of sexual contact seemed natural rather than put on. 

For one thing she spurned physical contact, but only that with sexual intent. She didn't spurn friendly contact and she would kiss her friends in a platonic way more common in her era. Weil wasn't prudish nor offended by the idea of sex. When she was asked if she was seeing anyone she laughed, but was unbothered, it was more like she thought the idea of her dating was ridiculous rather than looking down on the idea. She had many friends both male and female. 

 In her teen years Weil started dressing oddly so that no one would find her physically attractive. She had a reputation from youth as being a weirdo in part due to her asexuality, but an attractive one. Although it seems that people, especially boys, had a mixed response to her attempts to mask her beauty. Some of them said it was a shame, others said she was never attractive in the first place.

Many of her critics in the modern day claim her odd traits and behaviors can be explained away by extreme sexual repression, once again giving into that belief that sex makes us normal and whole.

Also like many aroaces it seems that Weil put her love and attention into someone or something other than a significant other/partner. For many of them it is a specific friend or family member, for others it is a passion or cause. These are the historical figures dubbed to be "married to their work". This includes the likes of Erdős, Rankin, Franklin, Santos-Dumont, Nightingale, Wang, Woodson, and Tesla. This is not to say they were friendless, indeed some of them have extremely close relationships but overall these are people who dedicate themselves utterly and completely to their passion and their work. People with more than drive. People who are happiest not in a romantic/sexual relationship, but when doing what they love. I think Weil is part of that category. Her love was not for one person but for nearly the whole of the world. 

(Image Description: a photo of Weil as a young woman/teenager. She is a pretty and pale woman with fluffy dark hair, dark eyes, and full lips. She is not yet wearing her glasses.  She is shown from the neck up. End ID)

Quotes:

"The idea of purity, with all that this word can imply for a Christian [so, virginity], took possession of me at the age of sixteen, after a period of several months during which I had been going through the emotional unrest natural in adolescence. This idea came upon me while I was contemplating a mountain landscape and little by little it was imposed upon me in an irresistible manner." 

-Simone Weil, letter sent to a priest friend on May 15, 1942. (Years after the fact Weil attributed her lack of interest in sex to an inclination to Christianity, but it sounds as if she herself is trying to explain away her lack of sexual attraction or interest. This is something a lot of baby aspecs still do, try to explain away why they aren't interested in sex or romance. I know I did.)

"The Red Virgin" 

-The taunting nickname given to Weil by her classmates due to her chasteness and lack of romantic interest.  She was also referred to as "the Martian" for being "inhuman" and was widely mocked for being aspec. 

"As for her death, whatever explanation one may give of it will amount in the end to saying that she died of love.”

-Sir Richard Reeds (due to the fact that, despite being chronically ill with a fatal disease she continued to work for the French Resistance while also not eating anything above the French ration to show her solidarity.)

(Image Description: a colorized photo of Weil from 1936 when she was fighting in Spain. She is wearing a dark military uniform with a dark bandana around her neck. Her dark hair is even darker than usual. She has a rifle on her back. There are some men behind her on a fairly quiet street. End ID) 

[lachalaine]

🔮 i love tarot card readings!

Tarot Reading with Lady J🔮

not accepting

1. THE PRESENT MOMENT / THE PRIMARY CONCERN

Card: TWO OF SWORDS - REVERSED 

Summary: Inner Conflict 

Meaning: There is a conflict between your heart and your mind, and the strategies you have in place are unsustainable, strained and precarious. You are managing skillfully but will soon be exhausted. You must do something, it is not a position that one can hold indefinitely. Though a stalemate may appear better then defeat, the issue can no longer be ignored. Pause, take inventory and find your way through this struggle. 

Position Meaning: A stalemate concluded, trickery, deception, dishonesty. 

2. THE CAUSE OF THE CHALLENGE AFFECTING CARD 1. A BLOCK.

Card: FIVE OF COINS - REVERSED

Summary: Precious Misfortune 

Meaning: There are times in life when we are in great physical need and our egos get embarrassed. Two people huddle in the cold, hungry and cold and afraid. They sit close to refuge but they do not receive it. As challenging as it may be, you must remember that adversity and exile are opportunities to accept your current reality, center yourself, and find strength. From a place of quiet, you can reassess what is truly important, learn what the moment is teaching you, and determine what resources are actually at your disposal. 

Position Meaning: Renewed courage, impending opportunity or change for the better, peace of mind, evolution in spirit. 

3. SUBCONSCIOUS INFLUENCES. UNKNOWN INFORMATION. THE DISTANT PAST.

Card: THREE OF CUPS - REVERSED

Summary: Rejuvenating Love 

Meaning: Three cups glow in the radiant warmth that can only be created by hearts that share a past. The Three of Cups is a spontaneous celebration - in the past, present, or future - that honors the bonds of family and intimate friendship. Though your solitary achievements have been many, now is the time to acknowledge your community and revel in the love of those who know and support you. 

Position Meaning: Overindulgence, decadence, ingratitude, termination, lost contentment 

4. THE RECENT PAST. A SITUATION THAT HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION.

Card: SIX OF COINS - UPRIGHT

Summary: Giving and Receiving 

Meaning: At some point in our lives, we all need assistance. The Six of Coins speaks to the relationship we have with others surrounding our prosperity – or lack of it. United in an endless knot of connectivity, we must learn to give without judgement and receive without shame. Like a living thing, this balance requires nurturing. Pay attention to where you are in this equation and make space for what is needed. Harmony can be restored through awareness, action and a generous heart. 

Position Meaning: Reciprocity, a change in circumstances, generosity, gratitude, stability, a gift, return of a favor

5. THE PRESENT. CONSCIOUS BELIEFS. CURRENT EVENTS.

Card: NINE OF COINS - UPRIGHT

Summary: Individual Accomplishment 

Meaning: The Nine of Coins exclaims that for now, “life is beautiful”. This card represents the ever increasing challenges you have mastered in life, and the steps you have taken towards accomplishment. Nines are powerful cards of completion; it took time to cultivate this level of success. Through discipline and hard work, you have gracefully and independently crafted a cherished environment and a stable life, filled with unpretentious style and quality. Take time to enjoy it and reflect. 

Position Meaning: Independent success, self mastery, discipline, safety, a rich life, fulfillment

6. THE NEAR FUTURE. A NEW PERSON OR EVENT. A SHIFT IN ENERGY.

Card: WHEEL OF FORTUNE X - REVERSED

Summary: Unexpected Change

Meaning: Wheel of Fortune reminds us that life is never predictable and that change is inevitable and necessary. It is impersonal; sometimes we are summiting the mountain and sometimes we are trudging through the valley. Either way, it is simply life. When Wheel of Fortune shows up in your reading, you are about to have a random encounter with chance and the outcome is unknown. Take it for what it is, without judgement or evaluation. In general, when this card is upright, the odds are in your favor. When reversed… not so much.

Position Meaning: Bad luck, a harmful pattern of behavior, unexpected disturbance, reversal of fortune, failure

7. YOUR POWER ( OR LACK OF POWER ) IN THE MOMENT. HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF IN THE SITUATION.

Card: FOUR OF SWORDS - UPRIGHT

Summary: A Quiet Space

Meaning: The Four of Swords is often known as the meditation card. It indicates that you have ( or have just gotten over ) a difficult time and you need to rest, reflect and reconnect with yourself. When we are troubled, our minds play tricks on us, imagining hopeful escapes or tragic demises. Quieting your mind is an act of humility which allows you to enlist divine intelligence - your true voice. It won’t make the problem go away but in the space of stillness, you can bring fresh perspective and invite new ideas to appear.

Position Meaning: An increase in stress, harmful persistence, busyness and activity.

8. THE EFFECTS OF PEOPLE AROUND YOU. HOW OTHER PEOPLE SEE YOU IN THE SITUATION.

Card: TEN OF COINS - UPRIGHT

Summary: True Riches 

Meaning: From the green grass of youth, through the bricks and stones of the middle ages, to the garden of maturity, the rhythm of the years reveals the varied expressions of abundance in our lives. In the Ten of Coins, the raw energy of the Ace has been thoughtfully cultivated to completion: a manifestation of prosperity in all things financial and spiritual. It is a moment for both gratitude and reflection. 

Position Meaning: Abundance, prosperity, stability, devotion, family matters, a legacy or bequest

9. YOUR HOPES OR FEARS.

Card: TWO OF COINS - UPRIGHT 

Summary: Precarious Balance 

Meaning: In the midst of a swiftly flowing current, a man juggles two desires successfully, but his solution is temporary and unsustainable. Submerged under the water, his clarity is questionable at best. For now, he still has both coins, but neither of them is securely in his palm. The Two of Coins invites you to look at where you are maintaining balance in your real-world affairs but getting exhausted. You can keep it up for quite a while but it might be time to consider relinquishing one of these goals for now. 

Position Meaning: A struggle for balance, need for clarity, an impending choice, juggling instead of handling responsibilities, determination, cloudy reasoning, inefficiency

10. THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME.

Card: TEMPERANCE XIV - REVERSED 

Summary: Listening Within 

Meaning: We often look at options from an either or perspective, but Tempernce invites us to consider that all things are possible, even when they appear to be at odds. Life is not static and neither are our needs – they vary across a lifetime and across each situation. Through listening and awareness, the universe reveals what your soul truly needs, not just what your ego wants. It’s not as complicated as you make it. If you can put your perceptions and impatience aside, you create space for alchemy. 

Position Meaning: Confusion, disharmony, polarity, excessive caution, competing interests, forced decisions

BONUS CARD: THE CARD THAT PLAYS A ROLE IN THE ENTIRE SITUATION.

Card: ACE OF SWORDS - UPRIGHT

Summary: Powerful Clarity 

Meaning: As the root of the swords, the Ace brings a great deal of raw power and energy. A sword cuts through the web of scaffolding, holding up all the cloudy pieces of our identity: perceptions, conversations, facts, dreams and ideas. When the Ace of Swords appears in a reading, it means that a rare opportunity for clarity is near. It will cut through these subjective realities, revealing a truth, an insight or a new approach for which you have been waiting. Pay close attention to your words and thoughts. Knowledge does give you power, but without a little reflection, it can quickly turn into delusion. meaning 

Position Meaning: Mental clarity, a great force at work, a fresh approach, long-term success, determination, ambition

Card: THE FOUNTAIN - REVERSED

Summary: Be

Meaning: The Fountain exists outside and beyond the cycles of birth, death, time and form. It is the nameless, changeless source of which everything is a part. It is the waking from the dream of separateness and identity, and the recognition of one’s Self as not only connected to all things, but all things — divine nature. When The Fountain appears in your reading, relinquish all illusion of control, and remain quiet. It invites you to observe, master less, and to just be — effortless and indistinguishable from life. You are the voice and the breath of universes. 

Position Meaning: Identification with a role or personality, fear ( of being alone ), mind-obsessed, separation from source, resistance to ( or denial of ) reality

LADY J READING:

There’s something that’s troubling you very heavily right now; something that’s keeping you at a crossroads between what you ideally want and desire, vs what reality actually is. You are attempting to find means and ways to achieve such desire’s, but it’s hard. It’s heavy on you, exhausting on your entire being, and trying to keep things up the way you plan just won’t cut it this time. You are deceiving yourself, and running away from the truth, and it’s gradually getting to be too much. The biggest reason for this problem seems to be mainly because something bad happened, and rather then ask for help trying to fix it, you choose instead to try to forge ahead, hoping you can figure it on your own. You’re hopeful for change. You’re hopeful that things will get better and you’re ready to do what you need to make it happen. But you’re going about it wrong. Primarily, I think the biggest thing this entire reading is telling me is that more then anything, you need to take a step back and allow yourself to come to terms with whatever has hurt you, because if you continue to push it aside the way you have, it will only get worse. 

What the Five of Coins tells us however as well, is that your troubles are a “Precious Misfortune”. In the end, the pain and heartache will give you strength – it will give you what you need so you come out the other side better then ever. Maybe a little bit bruised and battered, but in the long run, it is for the best. 

The subconscious / distant past is the Three of Cups, which showcases that you have a support system, I believe. You’ve been working very hard this whole time, but try not to forget that you aren’t alone. You are loved, and people care for you, and no matter how much you wish to work your troubles out on your own, it’s important to remember that the people that surround you only wish for your well-being. They are a source of warmth, and of healing, but perhaps in your single minded focus to take care of yourself, you have pushed them away just a bit, judging by the reversed card. Their being there wasn’t giving you as much ease as you would have liked, so for a moment there, you stood apart from them, not realizing the distance that had crept between you in the process. However, perhaps you have decided to open up a bit again. The Six of Coins shows that there is someone most recently that you’ve come to trust – enough that you can let them in. A confidant that you haven’t shied away from, someone that has given you some form of peace. They’re important to you, and they’ve helped you a lot. You should nurture that relationship - it will help calm your troubled heart. 

The present moment states that despite your troubles, things are momentarily and perfectly ‘okay’. Whatever strategies you were employing have worked until now, and it’s an achievement for sure! It took a lot for you to reach this point, you’ve done amazingly well, so you should be proud! But again, whatever strategies you’ve employed – they drain you, and it’s just not sustainable in the long run. Which is why I think the Wheel of Fortune for your future is Reversed… because this moment of stability doesn’t seem like it will last. Something is going to go wrong if things proceed the way they are, and things won’t be okay :(

However, not all hope is lost. For your power ( or lack of it, depending on how you proceed ) is that you do have the capacity to take a step back and breathe. Meditate, be at peace, and just reconnect with yourself. Whatever troubles you is also feeding you realities that are far too severe; in other words, you’re overthinking. Try to find a space where you can regroup and think over your strategies again on your own. There’s something wrong with your current method of doing things, but it doesn’t mean it’s a certain failure. Just change your strategy, and things will be okay. You’re more then capable of achieving success, you just need to figure out a new way to manage it. 

I think the Ten of Coins indicates the effects of those around you, and how they’re affecting you. More then anything, their presence is helping stabilize you. Though you have that concern hanging heavy over your head, the support factor from your friends and family are giving you strength and keeping you calm. Try to gather whatever hope and light you can from them, it’s helping you more then you think. 

Your fear with reference to the Two of Coins indicates that you’re afraid - that when you finally reach a decision to choose between one path or the other, you’ll never have the chance for the other road again. You worry you need to give one aspect up to gain the bounty of the other, and you’re doing your best so that doesn’t have to happen. But again, like the Four of Swords states, you need to take a step back to breathe, and then decide. It’s remarkably difficult to continue as you have been until now, something has to give. Please do what is best for you, for your own sake; even if that means giving up something else.

Finally, the most likely outcome – is Temperance. As it states there - it invites you to consider that all things are possible, even when they don’t seem to coincide. Though it lays Reversed, which indicates your fear of having to choose, and eventually making a choice you don’t want, being tugged in all the directions with no idea which way to go – remember. Deep breaths, a step back, and try to center yourself and just Be. Which coincidentally is the summary of the bonus card of the Fountain. It coincides, because Temperance wants you to understand that things aren’t as complicated as they seem, really, and all things are possible if you can just look at it from a strategy that would be more beneficial for you. The things you want are possible, but as is the case with the Fountain Card, you won’t find that winning strategy the way you’re going right now. You’re focusing too hard on the wrong things. Let it go, for just a bit. Let reality come to you, recognize it for what it is, accept it, and then - when all the facts have been taken into account, meditate again. A different strategy this time. Let it flow, much like a fountain does. You are capable, you can change things, all hope is not lost. But let life happen as it will, you will find a way to achieve your goals. It is within You. 

And to end this reading is the second Bonus card – the Ace of Swords. In the simplest sense, it means one thing: prepare yourself. Whatever it is that you have built up in your attempt to avoid, the shaky concepts and ideas that you’ve hoped to achieve by continuously forging forward as you have – the reality of things will come, breaking down all imaginary concepts until you have nothing the truth laid bare before you. This is a card that affects your entire reading, this is a card that is good. Clarity is coming, and with it brings a new reality. A better one. You will gain the success you so dearly desire, you will gain the insight that you’ve been waiting for. Please keep an open mind and don’t turn it away when it comes – it may just be your golden ticket to your goal.

// @44003xx

[schooldekho91]

Women Fighters of India: A Legacy of Courage and Strength

Introduction

The history of India is rich with tales of valor and sacrifice, and among these are the stories of extraordinary women who fought against oppression and injustice. These women fighters not only played crucial roles in various battles and revolts but also left an indelible mark on the nation's history. Their contributions have been instrumental in shaping India's journey towards freedom and equality.

Historical Context

The Role of Women in Ancient India

In ancient India, women often held significant positions of power and influence. They were scholars, rulers, and warriors, contributing to society in multifaceted ways.

Early Examples of Women Warriors

Historical texts and folklore abound with tales of women who took up arms to protect their kingdoms and people. These early examples set a precedent for future generations of women fighters.

Rani Lakshmibai

Early Life and Background

Rani Lakshmibai, also known as the Queen of Jhansi, was born in 1828. Her early training in martial arts and warfare prepared her for the pivotal role she would play in Indian history.

Role in the 1857 Rebellion

Rani Lakshmibai became a symbol of resistance during the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Leading her troops with unparalleled bravery, she fought fiercely against the British forces.

Legacy and Impact

Her courageous stand and martyrdom inspired countless freedom fighters, and she remains a national icon of resistance and empowerment.

Begum Hazrat Mahal

Background and Early Life

Begum Hazrat Mahal was the wife of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh. After her husband's exile, she took a prominent role in the 1857 rebellion.

Leadership in the 1857 Revolt

Begum Hazrat Mahal led the forces of Awadh against the British, showcasing remarkable leadership and strategic acumen.

Contributions and Legacy

Her efforts in the rebellion highlighted the pivotal role of women in India's fight for freedom, and she is remembered for her bravery and leadership.

Rani Durgavati

Early Life and Reign

Rani Durgavati was a warrior queen of Gondwana, born in 1524. She became the ruler after her husband's death and led her kingdom with strength and wisdom.

Battles and Resistance Against the Mughals

She is best known for her valiant resistance against the Mughal invasion, demonstrating exceptional military prowess.

Her Enduring Legacy

Rani Durgavati's legacy is celebrated for her courage and leadership, and she remains a symbol of resistance against tyranny.

Kittur Rani Chennamma

Background and Early Struggles

Born in 1778, Kittur Rani Chennamma was an early Indian queen who fought against British colonialism.

Revolt Against the British East India Company

She led an armed rebellion against the British East India Company in 1824, becoming one of the first female rulers to challenge British rule.

Impact and Remembrance

Her defiance against the British inspired future generations of freedom fighters, and she is celebrated as a pioneer in the fight for Indian independence.

Velu Nachiyar

Early Life and Ascension to Power

Velu Nachiyar was a queen of the Sivaganga estate in Tamil Nadu, born in 1730. After her husband's death, she assumed power and led her people with great authority.

Resistance Against British Colonialism

She is known for her successful resistance against British forces, making her one of the earliest Indian queens to fight colonial rule.

Historical Significance

Velu Nachiyar's bravery and strategic acumen are remembered as a significant chapter in India's fight against colonialism.

Bhabani Pathak

Life and Revolutionary Activities

Bhabani Pathak was a revolutionary leader during the Sannyasi Rebellion in the late 18th century.

Role in the Sannyasi Rebellion

She played a crucial role in the rebellion against British revenue policies, leading a band of rebels in guerrilla warfare.

Contribution to Freedom Movements

Her contributions highlight the often-overlooked role of women in early resistance movements against British rule.

Kanaklata Barua

Background and Early Influences

Kanaklata Barua was a young freedom fighter from Assam, born in 1924. Her early exposure to nationalist activities fueled her desire to join the freedom struggle.

Role in the Quit India Movement

At just 17 years old, she led a procession during the Quit India Movement and was martyred by British police while hoisting the Indian flag.

Her Martyrdom and Legacy

Kanaklata Barua's sacrifice made her a symbol of youthful bravery and patriotism, inspiring future generations.

Captain Lakshmi Sahgal

Early Life and Medical Career

Captain Lakshmi Sahgal was born in 1914 and trained as a doctor. Her medical career took a turn when she joined the Indian National Army (INA).

Joining the Indian National Army (INA)

She became a prominent member of the INA, leading the Rani of Jhansi Regiment, an all-women regiment fighting for India's independence.

Contributions to India's Independence Struggle

Her leadership and dedication significantly contributed to the efforts for India's freedom, and she continued to serve the nation post-independence.

Contemporary Women Fighters

Women in the Indian Armed Forces Today

Today's Indian Armed Forces include many women who serve with distinction in various roles, from combat positions to leadership roles.

Achievements and Milestones

Women officers have achieved significant milestones, including flying fighter jets and leading military operations.

Ongoing Challenges and Progress

While progress has been made, challenges remain in terms of gender equality and opportunities, but the future looks promising.

The Influence of Women Fighters on Modern India

How Their Legacies Shape Contemporary Society

The legacies of these women fighters continue to inspire and empower women in modern India, contributing to ongoing social and political changes.

Inspiration for Future Generations

Their stories serve as powerful reminders of courage and determination, motivating young women to pursue their goals fearlessly.

Recognition and Memorials

Monuments and Museums Dedicated to Women Fighters

India honors its women fighters through various monuments and museums, ensuring their contributions are remembered and celebrated.

Annual Commemorations and Celebrations

Events and celebrations held annually commemorate the sacrifices and achievements of these remarkable women.

Conclusion

The stories of women fighters of india are tales of unparalleled courage, leadership, and sacrifice. Their contributions have significantly shaped the nation's history and continue to inspire future generations. Recognizing and celebrating these heroines ensures that their legacy lives on, reminding us of the strength and resilience of women in the face of adversity.

FAQs

Who was the most famous woman warrior in Indian history?

Rani Lakshmibai, the Queen of Jhansi, is one of the most famous woman warriors in Indian history, known for her role in the 1857 rebellion against British rule.

What impact did women fighters have on India's independence movement?

Women fighters played crucial roles in various revolts and movements, providing leadership, inspiring resistance, and significantly contributing to the struggle for independence.

Are there any memorials dedicated to women fighters in India?

Yes, there are several memorials and museums across India dedicated to honoring the contributions of women fighters, including statues, plaques, and dedicated exhibits.

How are contemporary women in the Indian military honored today?

Contemporary women in the Indian military are honored through awards, recognition ceremonies, and by being featured in media and military histories. Their achievements are celebrated and serve as inspiration.

What lessons can we learn from the stories of these women fighters?

The stories of these women fighters teach us about the importance of courage, perseverance, and leadership. They remind us that with determination, one can overcome any obstacle and make significant contributions to society.

[dailycharacteroption]

Roleplaying Races 6: Drow

 Perhaps one of the most recognizable bad guy race in the entirety of Pathfinder and The World’s Oldest Roleplaying Game, today we are looking at the iconic evil dark elves, the drow.

A creation of Gary Gygax, the drow were inspired by certain interpretations of Scottish words dealing with trolls or fantasy dwarves as “black elves.” The drow were created, according to Gygax, to be a shocking twist to the nature of a hidden race of subterranean manipulators, since at the time, the idea of a society of elves could be utterly evil wasn’t something anyone considered. However, the idea has spread far and wide, so that many fantasy settings and systems feature a dark elf race of some kind.

Drow are commonly associated with spider or other arachnids due to going hand in hand with a classic TWORG goddess of spiders, a concept that persists in a lesser form in Pathfinder with certain spells, the domestication of giant spiders, and of course, the monstrous “drider” race. In Pathfinder, instead of being a punishment from their spider goddess, the drider race is the result of fleshwarping experiments. Indeed, fleshwarping is something new that Pathfinder associated with the species, molding others into servitor monsters, or adding strange enhancements to others.

The exact reason why drow live underground and are considered evil varies from setting to setting, with common themes of the outcast of their patron deity, to exile of the entire race, and so on. Their time underground has changed them, however, imbuing them with natural magics, particularly a select few “noble drow”.

In the core Golarion setting of Pathfinder, however, drow are the descendants of those elves that fled underground, rather than through elf-gates, prior to Earthfall, and through a combination of the dread influence of the dark god Rovagug and the pacts made with demon lords in order to survive, they were twisted into an entirely new race in terms of both body and society, survivalist pragmaticism gave way to brutal cruelty, and they see other races as either enemies or future slaves, with the exception of surface elves, whom they view with jealousy and disdain for being “soft” yet also blessed.

It is worth mentioning, however, that despite their society, the drow are not inherently evil, though defying the societal norm does put them at greater risk than it does for most other species, so the majority of drow that overcome their culture’s influences and become good are exiles.

 Drow resemble elves greatly in form, but while elves carry diverse skin and hair colors that often match their homelands in various ways, drow, even those living on the surface for centuries, retain purple to coal black skin tones, pupil-less white or red eyes, and either white or silver hair, with a few variations here and there.

A brutal and malicious society, drow are matriarchal, with males often being considered second class citizens in some settings, barred from certain career paths unless showing exceptional aptitude. Typically a single city of drow is ruled by multiple houses, representing a powerful family tied to a single demon lord, with their various retainers and servants filling out the rest of the hierarchy. A drow without a house is only one or two steps above the slaves unless they are powerful enough to not be walked over by the houses.

Drow personalities tend to mirror the brutal wickedness that surrounds them, however, this need not be the case, and those that learn the ways of other races can overcome the darkness they are associated with, though they are likely to be mistrusted by those that understand what a drow is.

 Drow tend to be agile and charming, but frail like their surface kin.

That being said, many train themselves with precise weaponry, such as rapiers, short swords, and hand crossbows. Additionally, they also train to carefully apply poison to their weapons.

Like surface elves, drow are highly resistant to enchantment, as well as totally immune to magical sleep. However, they go further, gaining a natural resistance to most forms of magic.

The senses of dark elves are particularly keen, especially their darkvision, with reaches twice as far as most other beings.

All drow can also use their internal magic to summon up areas of shadow, or create illumination to either guide their way or mark foes.

As creatures of darkness, drow are easily overwhelmed by bright light, blinding them briefly, and leaving them dazzled as their eyes try to adjust.

Like all races, drow also have variance of their own, such as being a cunning schemer, fostering enough of a grudge against dwarves and elves to give an edge in combat, a talent for dealing with demons or channeling dark power, skill at moving quietly in rough underground terrain, and so on.

Additionally, it is possible to play a drow noble, either by the GM allowing it, or by taking the drow nobility feat line to progressively gain those abilities associated with those exceptional beings, including greater spell resistance and additional spell-like abilities.

 Be they goodly exiles or evil servants of a house, drow can make excellent adventurers, favoring ranged builds, dexterous and stealthy combatants, or powerful charisma-based spellcasters. However, the fact that their penalty is to constitution means they only have trouble with being tanks or standard kineticists, with pretty much any class being a viable choice for them.

More important to consider, however, is player opinion of drow characters. Some groups are perfectly fine with drow characters, but others, be it an irrational hatred of Drizzt Do’Urden and characters they consider “clones” of him, or a belief that “evil races can’t be heroes”, some actively revile or would refuse to play in a group that allowed such a character.

Thankfully with time that latter point of view is fading, but remember that in certain campaigns some races may not be appropriate. Definitely talk to your GM beforehand just as you would for any character concept.

[diguerra-moved]

What's Arator like? At least from what you know or suspect?

SEND ME A TOPIC TO WRITE A META ABOUT MY MUSE ON // accepting!

WELL 

He’s not one of my muses but considering how important he is to Alleria, I have? Some? Ideas? Nothing well defined, really, and like I said, he’s not one of my muses so uh I’ll just give you random headcanons that mostly stem from Alleria lol By no means I’m hard set on most of those... they are just guesses and headcanons and completely up to change 

He doesn’t remember Quel’thalas at all, because he was really like, a baby when he lived there. But based on this one headcanon I have for Alleria, he did live there. In the all too brief time they were together from his birth to the time she left to fight the Horde and eventually go to Draenor, they were always together and as a baby he was really clingy to his mom.

Vereesa raised him in Dalaran, so he grew up with more non-elven influences than elven. Considering her exile, I don’t believe Arator would have been to Quel’thalas again, and that he had very little (if any) contact with those who were his mom’s friends. 

Turalyon’s friends/order seem to have been much more active in regards to seeking him out and etc, which probably has a lot to do with how much he idolizes his dad and wanted to be like him. He grows up listening tales of him, and while there are some about Alleria as well, they aren���t many (I don’t think Vereesa would speak of her often because, quite frankly, it would hurt her)

Vereesa says he was a blessing at her home and a model for Giramar and Galadin. Turalyon says he’s very similar to Anduin. I take this to mean he is kind, compassionate, clever, responsible, caring — not at all an extremist of any sort. I’ve seen people argue in favor of him being intolerant, specially in regards to non-Light worshiping people or the Horde, but I honestly don’t see that and I think there’s evidence of the contrary in how he is seen by other people and how he acts in his brief appearances. (and one of his irritated lines is “I am not usually vengeful, but I may have to make an exception.” which I think only furthers my point: he’s a good boy, he’s not mean or prejudiced, he’s not vengeful).

That said, he’s clearly stubborn and much like his mom won’t let go of things even when they can be harmful to him. He’s been dedicated to find his parents for forever, even though they were believed to be dead, so I guess much like Alleria he doesn’t deal well with grief and mourning either lol

 And although he’s good, that doesn’t mean he’ll let people get away with everything, which is clear by how he acknowledges he is hurt by being left behind by his parents, and that while he has every intention to give them a chance and bond with them and heal together, he expects this to be a combined effort, not to just be glad they’ve returned or whatever.

I also imagine him to be like, cheerful and optimistic most of the time, and that he’d be the kind of person to keep his hurt to himself because he doesn’t want to burden anyone with it

And that he probably had to deal with some bullshit because he’s a half-elf, though I don’t see his heritage as something he would personally have a problem with.

Also I imagine he takes after Alleria in looks. My only “evidence” for this is that his in game model is an elf and not a human like some other half-elf npcs. Of course, he is a half-elf and that would be plain for everyone to see, but he looks more like his mom than his dad. 

I think although Vereesa definitely is seen as a mother-like figure, he never saw her as actually his mother. I don’t think that is due to any lack of care from her part or resistance from his, I just think she’d make sure he knew that she and Rhonin loved and cared for him but they were his uncle and aunt, and his parents were Alleria and Turalyon, and to make sure he saw them as his parents. That said, I’d say he sees the twins as little brothers more than cousins.