#and respectability politics is a historically awful strategy

[mr-payjay]

hey apparently there are haters following me and i just want to say i fully support mspec lesbians, mspec gays, lesboys, gaygirls, gaybians, etc etc and any queer good faith identities that are contradictory or confusing or """"wrong""". my own identity and some of my friends' identities fit this definition completely. if you don't like this you can unfollow me 👍

[xasha777]

In the twilight of Earth's future, amidst the cosmic renaissance of interstellar travel and cultural amalgamations, a remarkable figure emerged, known across the galaxies as Astra. Her beauty, marked by luminescent eyes and dark flowing hair, belied her formidable intellect and prowess in matters of state and war. She was the Supreme Commander of the Macedonian Nebulae Legion, a modern iteration of the ancient Macedonian army, famed not just for its phalanx formations but now also for its mastery of energy-based weapons and temporal tactics.

Astra stood on the deck of her flagship, the Demetrius, named after a legendary king of old Earth, as it orbited around the serene yet strategically critical planet Elysium. Her mission was dire: to negotiate peace with the rival Thracian Star Collective, who had been encroaching on territories historically under the Legion's protection. The peace talks were to be a mere formality, for Astra had discovered a secret that could shift the power balance in her favor.

Weeks before the summit, her scouts had stumbled upon an ancient artifact buried in the crusted moons of Elysium. It was believed to be the fabled Diadem of Alexander the Great, an item of immense power rumored to bestow unparalleled strategic acumen upon its bearer. The diadem had been lost to time and space, its last known coordinates tracing back to Earth during the era of Alexander himself.

With the diadem now secretly in her possession, Astra could manipulate the temporal streams, giving her insights into potential future outcomes of battles, negotiations, and even subtle political maneuvers. Her plan at the summit was to subtly influence the negotiations with her newfound strategic advantage.

However, as the summit commenced, Astra found herself facing an unexpected challenge. The leader of the Thracian Star Collective, a cunning and perceptive warlord named Koros, seemed to anticipate her strategies. It became apparent that he, too, possessed an artifact of ancient power, one that neutralized the advantages bestowed by the diadem.

The negotiations quickly turned into a cerebral battlefield, where each tried to outmaneuver the other, not with armies and ships, but with wits and feints within feints. Astra, drawing on her heritage and the spirit of the ancient Macedonians, found herself respecting her adversary's guile, seeing in him a reflection of the formidable opponents her ancestors had once faced.

As the summit drew to a close, with both leaders at an impasse, Astra proposed an unprecedented solution: a joint custodianship of the disputed territories, where both powers would benefit from the rich resources and strategic positions, under a new governance model inspired by the democratic assemblies of ancient Macedonia.

Koros, intrigued and recognizing the merit in her proposal, agreed. Peace was achieved not through domination but through a partnership that honored the strengths of both parties. The galaxy watched in awe as Astra and Koros signed the Elysium Pact, marking the beginning of a new era of cooperation inspired by the wisdom of the ancients.

Astra’s story became a legend, a tale of beauty and strategic brilliance, echoing the legacy of Macedonia across the stars, proving that the lessons of history, when heeded, can illuminate the paths to peace in even the most modern of conflicts.

[bullet-farmer]

Below and Beyond the Call of Duty

Below and Beyond the Call of Duty

Rating: PG

Beelzebub/Dagon, Beelzebub&Satan

Summary: So how did Beelzebub get those two crowns on her lapels, anyway? Hint: it involved ushering in the cruelty of the 1980s.

CWs: None I can think of. Demon politics are fraught, though!

Notes: Beelzebub is “canonically” the demon of gluttony, as well as the demon who nearly overthrew Satan. 

Beelzebub and Dagon use she/her pronouns; Satan uses he/him. 

***

Beelzebub’s reign as prince of hell had lasted well over seven thousand years for more reasons than any demon could count. She wasn’t Satan’s left-hand demon just because no one else wanted the responsibility, or just because she was one of the most ruthless of the Fallen. It wasn’t really because all of hell’s denizens feared her—though, of course, a little fear stirred in with respect never hurt one’s political career.

She was and remained hell’s de-facto ruler because she had something most demons lacked: genius.

Few demons, of course, can be accused of having imagination—at least the sustained and sustainable kind. But the kind of genius Beelzebub possessed was not the imaginative but the intuitive. Unique among demons, she was particularly attuned to human frailties and the way those frailties played out in every interaction, from the personal, to the communal, to the national, to the global. For just as clothing, food, and art fluctuated in and out of style, so did sin; and Beelzebub’s ability to predict what sin would come into fashion, and how and when it would damage the humans who engendered it, was something her subjects looked upon with awe.

Satan was loath to admit it, but Beelzebub had a lot to be proud about, particularly on this historic occasion.

And that made her not only a genius, but a dangerous potential foe.

Pride was a dangerous thing. He knew that far better than any being in creation. It was also the most delicate of sins—one that had to be handled like any tincture. Administer too little and a demon would fall into despair and dysfunction; too much and they would fancy themselves his equal—or his superior.

But give them just enough, and they would remain both confident and servile.

The equation with Beelzebub was particularly delicate, but Satan was confident he had figured it out.

That was the primary reason he had arranged this ceremony.

Today, Beelzebub had temporarily vacated her throne in head office’s Great Hall to accommodate hell’s actual ruler. As Satan rose from the seat of power, hell’s armies stood at attention—well, at least to the best of their abilities. No one had ever accused demons of being orderly.

Beelzebub, however, pulled the stance off flawlessly. Even her flies were still upon her shoulders.

He expected nothing less.

“Attend us.” The king of hell hardly ever needed to raise his voice; his legions knew better than to require him to repeat himself. And sure enough, all idle whispering ceased.

“Prince Beelzebub,” he said, “we have called our forces here today to witness an extraordinary event: the creation of a new title. You alone among demonkind have earned every dishonor we can award: the inverted cross, the fallen star, the brimstone heart. Yet your efforts in this year alone have hastened the apocalypse and struck a decisive blow against our enemies.

“You alone have predicted the political fortunes of two of the most powerful nations on earth—indeed, you were the first to notice how deeply they were intertwined.”

This was the first step: engender envy in her subordinates. Again, the balance was a most delicate one: give them just enough envy for her to see what he was doing; to let her know that as much as her subjects respected her, at any moment, that respect could turn into invidious rebellion.

“The politics of humans are ever capricious, but you alone understand the nature of that capriciousness; the way the pendulum swings from left to right, from advancement to regression. Who but you could have stirred up enough religious hypocrisy and political malaise to see an actor elected president? And an equally iron-willed British counterpart?”

That was the next step: wrath. Use big words his legions had little care to understand, to anger them at having to listen to this prattle—and stoke envy’s green flames even more.

“Reagan and Thatcher; they will be the beginning of the end.”

With that, he stepped down from the dais on which the throne sat. When he reached the floor, he held out his left hand; in his palm, two tarnished medals glinted in hell’s half-light.

“For services below and beyond the call of duty, is our dishonor to present you, Prince Beelzebub, with the double crown of disgrace.”

Beelzebub stood straight-backed and unblinking as he pinned the medals to her lapels.

And here was the final step.

“You are dismissed,” he told the legions. Glad, most likely, not to be forced to endure more ceremony, they left quickly—not fast enough to seem rebellious, but not too slow.

When he was alone with the prince, Satan placed a hand upon her shoulder. Though they were alone now, he leaned in to whisper.

“You know you have done well, Beelzebub. But consider: you could do better still.”

Gluttony.

The only sin Beelzebub could not see, for she embodied it.

It would ever be the chain about her neck.

Hang more and more medals upon it, and the weight of the excess would keep her tethered.

“Yes, Your Travesty.”

“I’m glad that you agree.”

With a pat upon her shoulder, he left her to return to the ninth circle.

The traitors would not feast upon themselves.

***

Beelzebub waited until she could be sure the king of hell hadn’t lingered to test her loyalty. But of course he had no reason to.

For six thousand years, she’d played into his every move. “Did you hear all of that?” she asked one of the arrases.

The rotting tapestry rippled and Dagon stepped from behind it.

“Every word,” she murmured. Her eyes glowed in the gloom; ghost-bright and beautiful.

“Hmm, and what do you think?” Beelzebub asked as her flies shook themselves from their stupor; they circled her head again in the pattern of a broken halo.

“That you’re right, of course.” Dagon neared her. “He underestimates you; that’s his problem, isn’t it? Just because we followed him, he thinks we’re followers.”

Beelzebub nodded. “Strategy izzz not his strong suit. Nor subtlety.”

Dagon stroked the burns along her cheek. “That’s why he follows your lead now.”

“Perceptive,” Beelzebub hummed as she leaned in to kiss her. “That’s why I like you.”

Dagon tasted like saltwater; like the depths of things.

“Well,” Dagon said when they emerged, pressing her forehead to Beelzebub’s as the prince’s flies encircled them. “What’s next?”

“Oh, we continue,” Beelzebub wrapped her hand around Dagon’s. “I enjoy his rewards and his praise—for now. It makezzz them respect me—and fear me. And when I’m tired of him, they will rezzpect and fear me more when I put an end to him.”

“Snuff him out,” Dagon murmured with a smile before she kissed her prince again. “Oh, I do like you.”

“And I like you.” Beelzebub raised her lover’s hand to her lips and kissed the knuckles. “Hm,” she said as she brought the other demon’s fingers to her left lapel. “A dishonor for going below and beyond the call of duty.”

She looked into Dagon’s eyes and felt her own burn red.

“He’s yet to see just how low and far I’ll go.”

As always, if you like my fic, please consider donating to Raices, to help refugees currently being held in US concentration camps.  Every little bit helps. 

[dazzledbybooks]

From the prizewinning author of Mr. Timothy and The Pale Blue Eye comes Courting Mr. Lincoln, the page-turning and surprising story of a young Abraham Lincoln and the two people who loved him best: a sparky, marriageable Mary Todd and Lincoln’s best friend, Joshua Speed. When Mary Todd meets Abraham Lincoln in Springfield in the winter of 1840, he is on no one's shortlist to be president. Rough and reticent, he’s a country lawyer lacking money and manners, living above a dry goods shop, but with a gift for oratory. Mary, a quick, self-possessed debutante with a tireless interest in debates and elections, at first finds him an enigma. “I can only hope,” she tells his roommate, the handsome, charming Joshua Speed, “that his waters being so very still, they also run deep.”It’s not long, though, before she sees the Lincoln that Speed knows: a man who, despite his awkwardness, is amiable and profound, with a gentle wit to match his genius and a respect for her keen political mind. But as her relationship with Lincoln deepens, she must confront his inseparable friendship with Speed, who has taught his roommate how to dance, dress, and navigate the polite society of Springfield.Told in the alternating voices of Mary Todd and Joshua Speed, and rich with historical detail, Courting Mr. Lincoln creates a sympathetic and complex portrait of Mary unlike any that has come before; a moving portrayal of the deep and very real connection between the two men; and most of all, an evocation of the unformed man who would grow into one of the nation’s most beloved presidents.Louis Bayard, a master storyteller at the height of his powers, delivers here a page-turning tale of love, longing, and forbidden possibilities. Praise for COURTING MR. LINCOLN By Louis Bayard AN INDIE NEXT PICK AN APPLE BOOKS BEST BOOK OF THE MONTH   A PEOPLE MAGAZINE BEST BOOK OF THE WEEK  “An exquisite historical reimagining of a love acknowledged—and a longing denied.” —People (Book of the Week) “Bayard has written eight other novels, and he’s extraordinarily gifted at blending provocative fiction with history. The details of [Mary Todd and Lincoln’s] courtship are lovely to read, but Lincoln’s time with Speed is much more riveting. At book’s end, who’s courting Lincoln remains an enticing mystery.” —Washington Post “A house divided against itself cannot stand, Abraham Lincoln warned us. But a book divided against itself stands up quite nicely in Louis Bayard’s wonderful Courting Mr. Lincoln. …suspenseful and revealing…it’s a tribute to Bayard’s entertaining novel that he has imagined a love story for Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln that embroiders the truth but that also fits perfectly with what we know about these very famous figures.” —Minneapolis Star-Tribune “A miracle; an exquisite story exquisitely told. This glorious novel, big-hearted and clear-eyed, features the most uncanny incarnation of our sixteenth president since Daniel Day-Lewis strode onscreen in Lincoln. If you love Jane Austen, or Hamilton, or fiction—of any era—that transports and transforms in equal measure, look no further.” —A.J. Finn, bestselling author of The Woman in the Window “Courting Mr. Lincoln is a fascinating (and partly fictional) exploration of not only the 16th president, but those enamored by him.” —Advocate.com “A rich, fascinating and romantic union of fact and imagination about young Lincoln, the woman he would marry and his beloved best friend. Bayard’s compelling take on this question is not academic, nor is it a polemic; Courting Mr. Lincoln is intimate, warm and, above all, compassionate. Bayard is concerned with the possibilities of the human heart, and he presents an enigmatic Lincoln seen — and loved — from two other points of a romantic triangle. …the greatest triumph of Courting Mr. Lincoln is how effectively Bayard creates suspense, even when we know how the story ends. Love is love is love, after all, and he invests us deeply in the moving journey of three extraordinary people.” —Newsday “With wit and charm that only Louis Bayard can deliver, Courting Mr. Lincoln transports readers to 19th-century Springfield, Ill…Those familiar with Bayard's work will appreciate his sterling dialogue and ingenious humor. Bayard's masterful command of language enchants and thrills; his meticulous, almost otherworldly, understanding of his historical subject awes and inspires. When that all comes together, Courting Mr. Lincoln is Bayard at his absolute best. He offers more reasons to love one of the most admired presidents in U.S. history and proves yet again why he himself is one of the nation's greatest literary gems.” —Shelf Awareness (Starred Review) “A wildly clever imagining of Honest Abe's complicated personal life. In Courting Mr. Lincoln, Louis Bayard, an accomplished historical novelist, breathes life into the massive cultural icon whom we know so well, but really don’t have much of a clue about. Read the book. You’ll thank me.” —Washington Independent Review of Books “…thoroughly researched and thrillingly plotted…Filled with rich historical detail and compulsively readable... Fans of historical fiction will be up late into the night to uncover the next chapter of this fascinating time in history.” —NY Journal of Books “A gripping historical thriller … an entertaining novel by a gifted storyteller.” —The Washington Book Review “[An] acute and passionate portrait…[I]n Bayard's skilled hands, three complicated people groping toward a new phase in their lives is all the plot you need.” —Kirkus Reviews (starred review) “Bayard does an exceptional job of keeping readers engrossed as he weaves fact and fiction in this intriguing tale of intimacy between Lincoln and his two closest confidantes.” —BookPage “ What Bayard has accomplished is to take popular figures in U.S. history and not only make them more real --- if that is possible --- but humanize them to a level where we all can relate to them. Courting Mr. Lincoln is engaging because Bayard has such a fine way with words. The result is a triumph of a novel and an unforgettable read that is a true page turner.” —Bookreporter.com “Was Abraham Lincoln gay? The question, not a new one, is delicately and touchingly presented in Courting Mr. Lincoln … tenderly told.” —St. Louis Post-Dispatch “An exquisite novel about how Lincoln’s courtship of the brilliant, complicated Mary Todd intersected with his long and very (possibly VERY) close friendship with Joshua Speed. Courting Mr. Lincoln is so subtle and human and heartbreaking, infused with sly wit. I loved every word of it, and the end is note perfect. My heart broke for both Joshua and Mary, and at the same time, they were the lenses that let me think about my favorite president in new ways.”  —Joshilyn Jackson, New York Times bestselling author of Never Have I Ever “[W]ith a richly imagined setting and complex characters…a worthy addition to the fiction about-Lincoln bookshelf.” —Booklist “Bayard fictionalizes the early days of Mary Todd and Abraham Lincoln’s relationship in this delightful embellishment of American history. This charming love story delicately reveals the emotional roller coaster of two inexperienced adults traversing the unknown realm of love while trying to meet the demands and expectations of society.” —Publishers Weekly “In this sparkling tale of strategy and desire, Louis Bayard renders the origin story of the Lincoln-Todd marriage with a wit worthy of Jane Austen and the keen political insight of the best presidential biographers. When it comes to bringing our most revered historical figures to vivid life—and returning to them their full humanity—Louis Bayard has no peer. He is, quite simply, a master of the storytelling art.” —Liza Mundy, bestselling author of Code Girls “In exquisite detail and luminous prose, Louis Bayard has taken what might have been a footnote in the history of Abraham Lincoln and made it the story.  It is as if there was a secret door in Lincoln's life and Bayard has opened it and walked inside. Suddenly all the pieces fit. Utterly fascinating and brilliantly convincing, this is a terrific book that people will be talking about for a long time.” —Mary Morris, author of Gateway to the Moon “Superb, witty, gorgeously written. For the length of this dazzling, subversive novel, I was plunged so deeply into the sitting rooms and muddy streets of mid-19th-century Springfield, Illinois, that I too had fallen in love with and had my heart broken by the awkward, young lawyer from Kentucky. Courting Mr. Lincoln is an essential read: it makes the past a human place.” —Christopher Bollen, author of The Destroyers “Courting Mr. Lincoln gives us a young Abe Lincoln as we've never imagined him. It’s a moving portrait, told with cutting wit and intimately drawn detail, of three friends struggling to find their own identities against the weight of social expectations.” —Thomas Mullen, author of Darktown and Lightning Men “Louis Bayard is a writer of remarkable gifts: for language, for imagination, for that mysterious admixture of audacity and craftsmanship.” —Joyce Carol Oates About the Author: Louis Bayard is a New York Times Notable Book author and has been shortlisted for both the Edgar and Dagger awards for his historical thrillers, which include The Pale Blue Eye and Mr. Timothy. His most recent novel was the critically acclaimed young-adult title Lucky Strikes. He lives in Washington, DC, and teaches at George Washington University. Visit him online at www.louisbayard.com.

http://www.dazzledbybooks.com/2020/02/courting-mr-lincoln-spotlight.html

[maiji]

On writing Hokushin 

(unrelated: WOW I just realized I can do headings in tumblr! WOw!!!)

I’m on a roll avoiding other work I should be doing lolll! Lately I’ve been super fortunate to have some great conversations with multiple lovely people about characterization of Hokushin. To probably no one’s surprise, I already think an embarrassingly lot about this and try to convey it in my fanworks, but I actually haven’t really sat down and articulated in depth. Shocking, I know. So here are some cleaned up/slightly more coherently organized version of thoughts!

Below the cut I basically ramble for a long time about understanding Hokushin's character with cultural/historical background and his relationship with Yusuke (and by extension Raizen). And some misc other stuff. I tried to break it out by topic, but a lot of it overlaps. One thing I don't really get into here is specific aspects of Mahayana (Zen) Buddhism, but it has an important underlying relationship with a lot of what l talk about below, and forms a significant part of Raizen and therefore Hokushin's narrative, how their characters are portrayed and framed, aaaand this is already really long. 

With all that in mind, this is one person’s interpretation! I’m no expert, I mostly just read a lot of stuff when I get obsessed with it (usually for storytelling/comics research, and then forget everything soon after lol). In any case, it'd be boring if my ideas on Hokushin were the only ones that exist, and the point of fanworks is to create for personal enjoyment/fulfillment, so please make of it what you will! All I hope is that this was at least somewhat interesting/informative and helps give people more material and more love for Hokushin =D

The loyal retainer archetype

Hokushin's character is very strongly tied to the perceived classic Japanese archetype of the loyal servant/retainer and samurai (bushi/warrior class) ideals. They come with a very distinct paradigm and set of principles. Here’s a simplified summary. 

Purpose, honour and thereby happiness comes from selfless loyalty and servitude. The fulfillment of your existence is to serve the will of your master. 

The ideal/collective whole is prioritized above an (your) individual existence. There is a greater goal that you are merely one small aspect of, and you may not even expect to understand it.

Death is not necessarily perceived as a worst-case scenario, and can be viewed as the most honourable alternative to violating your own or someone else's principles, particularly that of your master. And in some cases, it may even not be an alternative. Death is not an end, but a means to an end usually to support the beliefs held in the previous two points.

We can reference the 8 virtues of bushido - the way of the warrior, sometimes called the samurai code. Now, bear in mind nobody necessarily went around going “I’m a samurai, and this is the code I follow.” This is a list formalized in the late 19th century by writer Nitobe Inazo to explain a concept of bushido and Japanese culture for a Western audience, and then it basically got absorbed back into Japan. Thus, bushido is a pretty heavily romanticized thing, and... anyway that’s beyond the scope of this post lol. The virtues are:

Righteousness (also rendered rectitude, justice)

Courage

Benevolence/mercy

Politeness

Honesty/sincerity

Honour

Duty/Loyalty

Character/self-control

BASICALLY A HOKUSHIN RECIPE, AMIRITE?? There are also particular aesthetic sensibilities to the execution of this archetype partly based on how Japanese history and culture evolved. Bearing and sensitivity matters, more is said in what is not said, there’s stoicism and elegance and refinement and poetry etc. Mono no aware and transience of life and all that stuff.

Essentially, even if such a character disagrees fundamentally with their master's reasoning, it's not unusual for a "true" servant to still abandon their family or their lovers and follow or even precede their master to death in order to uphold their master’s principles. 

In the series, Hokushin says that he doesn't understand the king's reasons for his self-imposed abstinence, but that he still supports the king’s will. Later in the arc, he demonstrates the truth of his statement when he obviously doesn't agree with Yusuke's outrageous tactics regarding the future of their kingdom and the entire Demon World, but upholds it regardless. (As I noted in One and a Half Revolutions, the most "disobedient” Hokushin gets is when he plots strategy with the other monks for what they should do if they end up fighting each other during the tournament, and Yusuke is like YO KNOCK IT OFF NO THROWING FIGHTS. AND ESPECIALLY NOT TO MAKE ME EMPEROR. And Hokushin’s like, well you said you’re not our king anymore, so we don’t have to follow you and can do as we wish. And what we wish to do is make you Emperor. So what’s your issue. And Yusuke is like THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT)

This archetype is also NOTORIOUS for assuming a huge burden of responsibility and/or shame on behalf of their master, often in secret, for maximum service/honour value (and narrative/dramatic impact). The legendary Ako incident (the 47 ronin) is a famous historical example.

This intense commitment can be tricky to depict because you have to finely balance outward stoicism and emotional resonance, and you also want to temper things to make a character more nuanced and not just a flat stereotype - e.g., a "you say jump, I jump" personality or have readers going "omg why is this character so spineless/stupid", ridiculous levels of melodrama, etc. You still want people to be able to empathize with the character and to really feel for them when they make decisions that may otherwise seem extreme or incomprehensible. (Although in many ways there's an Eastern/Western philosophical difference in the perception and understanding of this. A simple modern example that comes to mind is in Pacific Rim, when Raleigh asks Mako why she's so obedient to Pentecost and she replies (paraphrased from memory), "It's not obedience. It's respect.")

The Hokushin decision-making flowchart

I use this very rough mental outline as a general guide if I’m struggling to decide whether or not Hokushin would do something significant. Bearing in mind interesting opportunities are usually not black and white, so “yes” and “no” below are usually more like, “yeah pretty much...” or “no, kinda not...” lol

Is it in accordance with his values? * If yes: go for it. * If no:

Is it in accordance with the will/principles of his master (Raizen, Yusuke, or whomever he’s committed to serve)? * If yes, go for it. * If no:

Does it ultimately aid the endgoals/ideals of his master? * If no: forget it. * If yes:

Can any negative consequences be minimized to affecting Hokushin only or mostly (e.g., punishment or humiliation or capture or whatever) with little to no long-term effects for his master? * If yes: DO IT!!! * If no: FIGURE SOMETHING OUT TO MAKE THIS ANSWER YES!!!!  

Situations of deceit must be handled carefully, especially as honour is a major element of this archetype. The above flowchart can sometimes help... That said, deceit can be particularly challenging to contrive within the master and servant relationship. While we don't see Raizen and Hokushin directly interacting in the series, there's extremely strong implied trust between them. We can see this from how they speak of each other to other characters, namely Yusuke. We can also extrapolate aspects of their relationship from how Yusuke and Hokushin interact, because it's repeatedly emphasized that Yusuke and Raizen are quite similar fundamentally, and Hokushin clearly assumes Yusuke will succeed Raizen.

Yusuke and Hokushin: the initial meeting

In their first meeting, Yusuke’s absolutely furious at being misled by Hokushin. The beautiful thing about the setup of this deceit is how it:

Allows us to see the values and personalities of both characters.

Enables Yusuke and Hokushin to evaluate each other.

Establishes and enhances the dynamics of their relationship.

The above lies in Yusuke’s reaction to a particular piece of information being withheld, and how Hokushin handles the situation after being called out. Remember:

Lying is generally not in line with the loyal retainer/Hokushin’s values.

Honesty and straightforwardness are also big for Yusuke.

With point 1, Hokushin deceives not by lying but by leaving out significant information: that he - and potentially by implication, some % of Raizen’s followers - still eats humans so that they don’t get weak and die. His rationale for doing so is that Yusuke, being formerly human and having lots of people close to him who are human, would have a hard time getting past that fact if he learned this on their first meeting, and would not be willing to follow them to the Demon World. Totally reasonable assumption. If Yusuke doesn’t know, he’s more likely to be receptive to joining their kingdom, which protects the interests of his king and the safety of his people. This passes our flowchart with flying colours. (I elaborate on this a bit more in A Song on All Sides.)

However, when Yusuke figures out what happened, point 2 makes this especially problematic for their relationship. We know Yusuke is all about gut feelings and first impressions, so this could’ve been an awful miscalculation on Hokushin’s part.

When I’ve talked about this scene in the past, I usually focus on how in the next few moments Hokushin’s actions allow him to pass Yusuke’s assessment of whether or not he’s trustworthy. But what’s especially great about it is that judgement is actually going both ways. Before Yusuke explains his position, Hokushin’s politeness is his professional courtesy - he’s doing his duty as Raizen’s retainer. As Yusuke speaks in both manga and anime, you can see the exact moment when Hokushin decides Yusuke is a worthy successor. When Yusuke finishes talking, Hokushin’s manner changes - I’d say subtly, but since he essentially gushes about how much Yusuke resembles Raizen for several lines that’s not really true lmao.

In any case, now that Yusuke’s been deemed worthy, Hokushin steps up immediately to rectify his mistake. And merely admitting an error and explaining himself isn’t gonna cut it in meeting Yusuke’s values - that’s just the bare minimum. A good retainer must know their master so well that they anticipate and go beyond what is merely being requested.

So when Yusuke asks for honesty, not only does Hokushin give that, he takes it one step further with his very succinct, very personal answer to Yusuke’s question of why he follows Raizen. (Paraphrased) "Because King Raizen is like you. Fighting at his side makes me happy. That's everything to me." I can't think of a more perfect reply to mollify, impress and intrigue Yusuke as quickly as that. And in both manga and anime they give Yusuke this little pause as he takes it in - the animation team makes this even more exaggerated than what Togashi did. What I also love is that the dialogue in this scene strongly implies that Hokushin knew how to respond because he knew Raizen so well.

Obviously more stuff happens in the year and a half they spend together in the Makai. Whatever happens, it's clear Yusuke comes to trust Hokushin a lot. He even tells him private, personal things of a nature we don't see him sharing with any other characters. To me, this signals that Hokushin did what a good loyal retainer does, which is to get what makes Yusuke tick and not repeat the same mistake again. (Which is why I always get annoyed at that unnecessary scene they added in the anime version of the tournament... ANYWAYS lol)

Yusuke and Hokushin: the duty of the master

Yusuke starts the series as a solitary delinquent. He despises convention and authority, and dependence on others is a pain. He generally puts on a disaffected attitude, and he often downplays serious emotions with distracting and emotionally shielding tactics like sarcasm. For a character like him, it’s pretty easy to imagine him being all “What the hell, I don’t want to be king! I don’t need a servant!! Go away”. To reject Hokushin’s presence or role totally wouldn’t be out of character. 

One of the things I love about the dynamics between Yusuke and Hokushin is that Yusuke clearly gets Hokushin's mindset, and because of it, steps up in order to be able to reciprocate the relationship. In the classic ideal, the existence of the master gives the retainer’s existence purpose. A warrior without a master is considered ronin, which is a very shameful status. The master’s duty is to be(come) worthy of the loyal retainer’s devotion and to recognize the latter’s value and loyalty, often in unspoken ways.

Yusuke doesn’t want to be king - he outright says that he doesn’t think himself smart enough to take care of everyone in his kingdom. But he accepts the responsibility of his role in his relationship with Hokushin.

Yusuke’s conversations with Hokushin tend to be discussions that are not only honest but also mature. He takes good opportunities to rely on, and to acknowledge, Hokushin as a retainer without hesitation and without pretending complaint. He actually behaves a lot like a lord in the classic relationship in terms of conveying authority, direction, and intimate concerns (in his Yusuke way lol). 

In the meeting with Yomi, Yusuke’s use of the rurimaru is shocking to Hokushin, but when you watch the way the scene is carried off, he bears himself really well in his role. He didn’t carve the rurimaru just because he couldn’t find paper for his lottery names - he specifically chose to do it to the rurimaru, and their value is clearly taken into consideration for his purpose. He also doesn’t crack jokes about having vandalized the gemstones, which, again, would not have been out of character for Yusuke. Instead, he merely presents them exactly the way they should be - as a gift - to ensure he gets Yomi’s attention about his proposal. His body language is dead serious, and he also doesn’t address Hokushin's shocked reactions through the entire scene. He only addresses Yomi. This is totally appropriate form as one ruler to another. 

And even after the kingdom is dissolved, Yusuke doesn’t abandon his people, nor shoo Hokushin off. Hokushin is nearly always at his side throughout the tournament. If we look back at the principles of the loyal retainer archetype, one of the things worse than death is to be told by their master "I don't want you for a servant. You’re a useless burden to me". Of course, another aspect of the archetype is that actions speak louder, so the worst would be actually doing things that reinforce/confirm that statement, but it would still be extremely wounding.

A very clear demonstration of the above is when the two of them arrive at the edge of Yomi's territory. The conversation is basically as follows.

Yusuke: OK thanks for guiding me here. You go home now. Dangerous I go alone you know the drill. Hokushin: No, I'm coming with you. You’re my king. It's my duty to protect you. Yusuke: *after a pause* OK fine behave yourself.

with no further argument from Yusuke. No complaints about being called king, no sarcastic remarks about having a tagalong, nothing. Which is not something we usually see or would expect from him. The emotionally downplayed way the entire conversation happens is also very typical. In light of his character and the dynamics of the master-retainer relationship, Yusuke’s behaviour is extremely thoughtful and kind. 

Yusuke and Hokushin: the duty of the servant

So Yusuke weighed Hokushin’s response and knew there there was no way Hokushin would have let him go into enemy territory alone. So? It’s not like it’s the first time he’s ever disagreed with someone over how something should be done. So what’s different about this situation, compared to how things might have gone down with any other character who is very close to/invested in Yusuke and has previously confirmed they WOULD be willing to risk death for him - Keiko or Kuwabara, for example?

The difference (aside from the fact that they’re civilians and Hokushin’s a warrior, and Hokushin’s obviously a lot stronger and more likely to survive in most situations) is that Keiko and Kuwabara are Yusuke’s friends. Or more, if you want. But even for other people close to Yusuke who ARE warriors, the biggest difference is that they are not bound in servitude to him. Again, the keyword here is duty - and that concept is huge. Yusuke’s friends want to help him. Hokushin wants to help Yusuke too, but not only that, he MUST help Yusuke. His very existence is an obligation to do so. In some cultures, especially modern ones where the emphasis is on the individual, this can be difficult to appreciate and/or seen as an illogical insanity, but it’s a matter of fact for the loyal retainer. They see themselves as an extension of the will of their master.  

Keiko and Kuwabara and any of Yusuke’s other friends mentally would have a normal person pause of “This is ridiculous, stupid Yusuke, you’re crazy!!” and still try to do self-preserving-type things in most instances. To some degree, there’s still an aspect of their decision-making that is not only about Yusuke. They still have a sense that in their relationship with him, they have roles of similar or equal value/weight.

That’s absolutely not true for the loyal retainer. The servant is not equal to the master and the servant firmly believes this because that’s what their existence is defined by. Plus those ingrained principles. For Hokushin, there’d be no normal person pause. We’d zip through that flowchart and he’d be like “You’re crazy. But you’re my king. Guess I’ll die” and like jump into an active volcano or whatever. He would be completely and unhesitatingly willing do something, whether it’s spur-of-the moment or deliberately planned, that would result in death if he thought it’d help safeguard Yusuke/achieve Yusuke’s endgoal. And obviously that's the last thing Yusuke wants.

With this character archetype, this is where a lot of stories end up going for the “and then one of them pretended to let the other person have their way before SURPRISE KNOCKING THE OTHER PERSON UNCONSCIOUS TO PROTECT THEM, and then they went on to do their selfless ‘getting killed in your place’ thing” which I’m super glad Togashi never resorts to. Since all the above builds up to a huge part of what makes the reveal of Yusuke’s gift to Yomi extra effective - Hokushin’s reactions. This is largely why the scene is so comical, because Hokushin’s manner grows more and more freaked out - and entertaining, being in direct contrast to his stoic retainer archetype. Meanwhile, as mentioned previously, Yusuke’s bearing (if not his manner of speaking...) is exactly as a lord in the midst of negotiations would be. (My favourite part is where Hokushin still tries his best to address Yusuke properly as king, before losing it when he finds out Yusuke vandalized the rurimaru. In the manga, his expressions are beyond hilarious. In the anime, his scramble to recover the appropriate body language is really cute. His constantly shifting expressions throughout the background of this entire episode are great too. I always really like the faces in the episodes directed by Enomoto Akihiro.)

Finally, food.

One more challenge with Hokushin is his diet. He needs to eat humans or will suffer from the same malnutrition that is sapping Raizen’s energy and killing him. At the same time, he’s depicted as a character of integrity and compassion, so I always feel obligated to think carefully about the topic of procuring a human for food. I take a stab at an idea in the prequel Mirror Most Dark. However, the approach isn’t very feasible for the time period of actual Yu Yu Hakusho.

From a writing perspective, the problem is one of scale. It goes beyond Hokushin as an individual to the situation of a reliable/sustainable food source in Raizen’s kingdom for the % of Raizen’s population that needs it. And whatever it is, Hokushin is likely highly involved as the main instrument of Raizen’s will. I have some ideas but haven’t really cared to flesh (haha) them out to a point that’s satisfactory to me yet, so it’s only barely touched on in One and a Half Revolutions. This is far less of an issue after the series ends, when you can easily come up with ideas on how they’re looking for or have found alternatives, but during the time period of the actual series your options are more restricted. 

I have lots more stuff around these themes and ideas planned for North Bound too I JUST NEED TO GET AROUND TO DRAWING THEM

In conclusion, thank you for reading this mess lmao.

[san-bika]

In the Garden Together

Fandom: Voltron

Pairing: Shance

Length: 2535 words

Rating: General

Warnings: Brief description of a panic attack; discussion of politics, little but of Langst, little bit of fluff,  banter, genre-defying fic, liberal use of the word quiznak

@prosaicwonder - here is your gift! Work has been awful lately and I had to work late on the 1st so I’m sorry it’s a little late. I hope you enjoy it!

Prompt: peony (honor, respect, romance, prosperity, bashfulness)

@shanceflowerexchange thanks for understanding my work situation. It’s been tough the last few weeks. 

The Rose Garden of the White House was ethereal; hazy sun, windswept blooms, and clumsy dragonflies set Lance’s heart at ease, pulling the tension from his shoulders. He wondered if it would be inappropriate to stretch out on a cozy patch of grass to watch the clouds.

But Paladins of Voltron probably shouldn’t be looking for rocket ships and butterflies and daydreaming, especially not during their official introduction to Earth with so many opportunistic photographers around.

And besides, Coran and Allura probably wouldn’t want him to get grass stains on his formal red and white Altean suit.

Lance was pretty sure some of the snaps already taken of him wouldn’t be the most… dignified pictures ever taken. But hey, who didn’t want a goofy selfie at the Oval Office! And if the entire universe had liked the Loverboy Lance persona, why wouldn’t Earth?

His stomach twisted at the thought that international press and the United States government leaders were just a few hundred feet away. He could literally feel responsibility weighing him down like a pile of bricks.

Everything had to go perfectly today. The entire galaxy watching was one thing, but this was his home, with consequences that he understood. Every step, and misstep, had nightmare-ish ramifications. It has been easier saving the universe when they had been fly-by-night vigilantes, or working with a coalition of grateful aliens.

Now Allura and Shiro had to prepare, consider, plan every word and gesture. (The paladins hadn’t thought to mention that among all the many human idiosyncrasies was the fact that human politics were a nightmare.)

Normally Lance enjoyed strategy and schemes but this kind of high-pressure focus on the worst case scenario and motivations behind everything left him feeling… inadequate at best. They had saved the universe. But he didn’t enjoy the reminder that life wasn’t all sunshine and roses.

Everything sent message, even their clothing was carefully planned out - they had chosen Altean formalwear similar to Coran’s outfit, with tightly fitted high collars, formal boots, and tailored capes to emphasize that just because the Paladins came from Earth, their mission, and Voltron’s, couldn’t be subject to Earthly plots and hierarchy.

Even if the human Paladins all hailed from the Galaxy Garrison in the United States, three of them were dual citizens, and one had been half-Galran. Shiro and Allura had been very clear that during any interviews and discussions, they were expected to show no preference, no bias.

Which was all well and good, but apparently even mentioning Varadero Beach in a silly spur of the moment reddit AskMeAnything was tantamount to declaring a Cuban alliance, if the way the reporters had crowded around him a few minutes ago meant anything.

“Mr. McClain, do you have a moment? Recently you mentioned your favorite place in the world was in Cuba, do you have any plans to return there to settle down? What are the chances that the Voltron Coalition would choose Cuba to be its headquarters? Why not choose a country that has been a democratic republic since its founding-”

“Uh, that was just something I said, I mean, I, uh, think that’s a better question for Princess Allura, or maybe Shiro, I mean Commander Shirogane, excuse me, I’m not feeling well at the moment…”

“Mr. McClain, Mr. Mcclain, one more question!”

Lance sighed and twisted a long blade of grass between his gloved hands. He huffed out a breath, trying to settle that uneasy feeling in his gut and muttered to himself as he walked.

“Movies always make everything look cool and dramatic, everything works out perfect. Good guys win, bad guy loses, hero gets a kiss and rides off into the sunset... and you don’t see all of the quiznacking politics and soulless paparazzi and… stupid, dumb, idiotic things that heroes say.”

His cheeks were still flushed with humiliation thinking that he’d rushed out of the press crowd like… a kid having a tantrum. Not behavior worthy of a Paladin of Voltron. But at the moment, he really didn’t know what would have happened if he’d stay. Most likely he’d have screwed up again somehow.

He turned down the path to the Children’s Garden and sprawled across the bench, wishing there weren’t secret servicemen around so he stretch across the warm lawn or under one of the historic trees. Even in peacetime, he couldn’t help but note the position of the black suits standing around the grounds.

After his abysmal answer, other reporters had blocked his path to the meeting room where the others were. The air around him had felt hot and tight, and the room had begun to spin. He’d never tease Hunk for his weak stomach again after that experience.

As the cameras had rolled and journalists talked over each other, as he’d stood uncomfortable and alone, he’d realized that as soon as he entered the conference room with the others he would be seated next to the president. And heads of state. World leaders. And he’d be expected to talk and answer questions of intergalactic significance. Questions like the one he’d just flubbed.

All of the preparation they’d done had not helped prepare him for this moment. It was easy to be diplomatic and interested when he was learning about new alien races and species and politics on the fly. It was like a game of pretend with his niece and nephew! Just learn the names, titles, and ask a lot of questions and boom - instant diplomacy.

But on Earth, he knew the names and he knew the consequences. Here, he knew which country was fighting against others using cyberterrorism and which countries were just using pure propaganda. Here there were still revolutions and oppression. He had feelings about which leader was a hypocritical ass and which ones were heaven-sent.

But then again, he was the kind of guy whose first instinct upon meeting an alien ruler was to hit on her. His opinions and his instinct… well, they didn’t really matter, did they?

Take a deep breath and relax. In and out. Allura and Shiro are going to smooth everything over. Worst case scenario, they’ll think you’re a traumatized veteran and maybe leave you alone.

At that thought, Lance’s lip curled in self-disgust. The blade of grass he had shredded was now coloring his crisp gloves green but he couldn’t bring himself to care. His fingers were trembling. Huh.

You’re not cut out for this. Maybe in the universe, you were something. But here, on this planet, you’re nothing but a goofball. You were meant to be a cargo pilot not some hero… not some thoughtless vain loser who shoots his mouth off before he thinks.

He didn’t realize he was biting his lip until he tasted warm copper on his tongue.

“And you officially are an idiot. Good going McClain.”

Lance dropped his head into his hands, squeezing his eyes shut and praying he’d keep his composure.

A thousand thoughts flew through his head. He could leave for the Castle, but then he’d have to deal with the others later, and what would he say? 

“Gee, sorry, guys, I guess I’m not cut out for this whole Paladin gig after all, toodles.”

Hopefully he could make up a story about tripping on something. He didn’t know how he could explain a cut lip any other way. They might believe it if he just owned up the fact the he’d cracked and couldn’t handle the pressure that they all seemed to thrive on.

“Boo.” There was a tap on his shoulder from out of nowhere.

For a brief, adrenaline-filled moment, Lance thought his heart would stop. But he couldn’t get angry. Shiro was grinning, he could tell just by the sound of his voice.

Lance clutched at his heart and pouted as the leader dropped to sit neatly next to him. And here comes a lecture. At least I can enjoy his quiznaking perfectly tailored suit...

“Well, there’s another year off of my life. I hope you’re happy.”

Shiro dropped his head back and filled his lungs with the summer air, a subtle little smirk on his face.

“I am. But for a guy relaxing in the sun on such a gorgeous day, you seem a little tense.”

It was like a glass of water had been poured down his back. Lance stopped sucking on his lip as sheer horror flooded him. He dropped the grass and sat ramrod straight, “Shiro, I’m so sorry about the Conference, what did you guys say to the President? I mean, I didn’t mean to run but I just wasn’t feeling well and I didn’t know what to-”

Shiro turned to face him, concerned. He placed that heavy Galra hand on his shoulder.

“Hey, don’t worry, take a breath, Sharpshooter. It’s ok. If’d you stayed just a few more minutes you would’ve seen Pidge arguing with the Chief of Staff about our cybersecurity, Hunk actually getting sick and having to leave, and Keith completely tongue-tied in front of the press. We’ve rescheduled.”

The other man shuddered and let out a breath he hadn’t realized he’d been holding. He looked down at his feet.

“I’m sorry. Maybe the others wouldn’t have fallen apart if I hadn’t talked to those reporters in the first place. I got distracted and fell behind. I don’t even think they were supposed to be there.”

Shiro nodded, wrinkling his nose. “They really weren’t. You’d think security would be upped with all of the politicians here, but apparently they were let in by another staff member as a favor. But how are you feeling? You don’t look sick, you seem…. Upset.”

A tiny voice in Lance’s head let out an exasperated sigh. As dense as Shiro could be, now he was going to be all perceptive?

“I am, I mean, I was until you came over. I was just overwhelmed. Didn’t really know what to say or do, so I thought leaving might be the best way out. I’m not sure I should come next time. Earth politics aren’t really my forte, you know.”

Shiro’s metal hand was getting too warm in the sun, but Lance refused to move.

He liked the weight of it.

“I know what you mean. We all heard them talking to you from the conference room, there was just such a swarm around you, it was hard to get through and then you were gone.”

Ahhh, guilt, Lance thought morosely.

“I really am sorry, Shiro. I shouldn’t have said anything or done any press beforehand. I didn’t think of the consequences. If you want me to, I don’t know, give a press conference about it, I will. I don’t want my stupid comments to cause World War 3.”

Shiro actually smiled here, rubbing his thumb back and forth.

“Actually finding out what you said online made me really happy.”

At first the paladin thought he might be getting heat stroke before realizing it was a furious, deep red blush.

“You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Oops, he hadn’t meant to say that out loud.

His leader dropped his head to the side, eyes coy and restful like they hadn’t been in quite a while.

“Really, when Pidge showed me your chats and comment replies, it was like a weight was lifted from my shoulders.”

Considering the amount of innuendos, puns, and just general stupid junk he’d posted, the word flabbergasted fit nicely here.

“Why??” Lance managed to croak.

Shiro dropped his hand to rub the back of his neck, looking uncertain for the first time.

“I mean, it’s some proof that you’re ok, isn’t it? A sign that we made it through and you’re still Lance. Not to say we don’t have our traumas and scars but knowing that you are so ready to just live life and let loose…. It makes me feel like I, like we all can do that too.”

Lance tried to say something, but his voice warbled with emotion and he didn’t say anything at all. He tried to count the smooth pathstones in front of him but his brain was uselessly combing through every word Shiro had just said.

He settled on a thank you but was waved off by his friend.

“You’re not entirely off the hook. You have to clear any online communications with us beforehand, of course. And you look like you just had a panic attack, which we’ll have to talk about later. You shouldn’t be feeling that stressed over diplomacy when that’s one of your strong suits. And we have to get back soon. Since we’re rescheduling, the UN is going to have an impromptu meeting to determine Earth’s approach to Voltron, so we really should give them some ...space to get to it.”

Lance rolled his eyes and stood up, “I can’t believe you just dad-joked me.” He turned to head back towards the others when he came face to face with  a scarlet red flower with hundreds of creped petals.

A peony, Mama’s favorite flower.

Lance’s favorite flower.

His heart began a steady drum as he followed the line up to Shiro’s pink cheeks.

What the quiznak is going on?

“I just saw a few over there and remember that you liked these... So I picked it to cheer you up.”

Shiro struggled with what to say and Lance was too emotionally drained to handle this.

“How did you know I liked this flower? I don’t ever remember telling you that.”

Shiro swallowed hard. “It came up. I have… a good memory.”

Lance could feel his eye beginning to twitch and his cheeks redden.

“Okay, stepping away from that bald-faced lie, are you telling me you picked a flower from the WHITE HOUSE GARDEN to cheer me up?”

The other man shrugged and offered a helpless expression.

“I mean, I didn’t think they’d get mad, we’re the Paladins of Voltron.”

“Shiro, there are signs everywhere that say very clearly not to pick the flowers. And you seem awfully okay with abusing your power now that we’re back on Earth! Picking flowers from the White House Garden! What’s next, counting cards in Vegas??”

The leader stepped forward, pulling him into a warm hug, laughing. Lance’s brain began to melt down when he felt the Galra hand gently rubbing his back.

“Who knew you’d be so bashful. You’re a hard person to woo, Lance.”

At this rate, Lance wouldn’t be useful at any diplomatic meeting for the foreseeable future. No, his brain was drifting somewhere with the clouds and his heart was racing with happiness.

Shiro stepped back to cradle Lance’s cheeks.

“I’m sorry I stole from the White House Garden, I’ll tell someone and offer to pay for it. But please keep the peony. It’s been an honor standing by your side as a teammate. And I feel even happier when I realize that you are nearly as whole, perfect, vibrant as the day you first stepped onto Blue. I’d meant to tell you about my feelings later, but you just looked so cute with that blush it all came out.”

RIP Lance McClain, the Cuban thought idly as he gazed, starstruck, into his hero’s dark eyes.

He laughed as a wide smile crawled across his face, reached out to embrace Shiro, and accidentally tripped, smashing his face against the other’s.

And as first kisses went, it was one of the better ones.

[crystalracing]

My thoughts on the F1 Hybrid era 2014-present and a timeline of being a Kimi Raikkonen fanatic since 2002

My love-hate relationship with Formula 1 is very much at the Hate spectrum and it no longer feels fun. Those who read my social media accounts could easily mistake me for having the worldview of a 47 year old man, when in fact I’m 3 years short of 30. I see new school fans who only remember Raikkonen’s struggles and care little for his McLaren years, where even then misfortune lurked around the corner. There was one difference back then, however: Kimi was the new kid on the block. On any given Sunday, even after an average qualifying performance, the talismanic Finn could dazzle fans the world over. The vivid sound of a cacophonous V10 would scream in a global audience’s ears and a baby faced Finnish boy wonder from an impoverished Espoo countryside upbringing would leave a smile on millions of faces. F1 was in the midst of what seemed a never-ending Michael Schumacher/Ferrari led domination. Despite near-misses in 2003 and 2005, where the Finn took nine wins and two runners-up for the Woking-based squad in between numerous boozy nights and the beginning of a marriage to Jenni Dahlman, later doomed by the pair’s lack of commitment, bounty of love affairs and lack of mutual interests, the fans sang his praises. Fellow drivers such as Ralf Schumacher were left bemused by Kimi’s taciturn, carefree and single-minded demeanour, but the corporate sponsors found a sweet spot for the Finn: his apolitical attitude melded well to act as a figure of universal popularity- the shyness of a geek, the lackadaisical social standing of a class clown and the heart of a world class athlete. And I just couldn’t help but champion him.

The current hybrid engine formula for F1 is a mess: huge wings creating ridiculous amounts of dirty air, fat tyres, three DRS zones on a regular basis at most circuits, the fuel-saving and Pirelli’s SEVEN compounds of tyres- two of which will be not used meaningfully at all this year (Hard & SuperHard). In 2009, the teams followed a new formula with skinny wings, slick tyres and a banning of bodywork elements on the sidepods and places you wouldn’t expect an aerodynamic piece to hang off. Max Mosley also proposed a budget cap, which encourged Litespeed (Lotus/Caterham), Manor (Virgin/Marussia) and Campos (HRT) to join in 2010. Of course, in true F1 fashion, the FIA failed to follow up on such proposals to enforce budget caps and it’s only now with Liberty Media that an argument to enact a plan for cost cutting has been brought back. Sadly, the three 2010 teams were all gone by the end of 2012, 2014 and 2016 respectively. However, drivers moaned about the lack of driving challenge enforced and the subsequent bigger cars (followed by 2019 regs) begs the question: 

Does F1 have an identity anymore? Is it willing to stand up for a set of sporting and technical values? Because Jean Todt et al at FIA seem sidetracked and manipulated by the corporate bosses at FIAT, Daimler, OICA & Honda. 

In the decade of 2010s, only 11 drivers (Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Raikkonen, Bottas, Ricciardo, Verstappen, Maldonado, Webber, Rosberg & Button) have won a race despite 169 Grands Prix having taken place in this decade alone. That’s how truly uncompetitive the Pirelli era of F1 has been, especially compared to the 2000s, which had 17 different winners in 174 races. In fact, here’s a list of the past decades:

1950s- 24 different winners (87 races)/ 15 (77)* 1960s- 21 (100)/ 20 (99)* 1970s- 29 (144) 1980s- 21 (156) 1990s- 17 (162) 2000s- 17 (174) 2010s- 11 (169) (with 18 months still left to go!!!)**

*without Indianapolis 500

During 2014-16, Mercedes won 51 out of the 59 races. 2011-13 saw Red Bull win 32 out of 58 races. 

From 2010-18 (as of Belgium): Red Bull win 52 (out of 169 races). Mercedes win 72 (out of 169 races). Ferrari win 24 (out of 169 races). McLaren win 18 (out of 169 races). Lotus [now Renault] win 2 (out of 169 races). Williams win 1 (out of 169 races).

******

Now I find myself amongst insecure Sebastian Vettel fans, who I do feel genuinely sorry for: if Vettel wins with Kimi suffering issues, rival fans will point at possible favourable treatment. If Kimi gets close and threatens to beat Vettel, then rival fans will point at Vettel’s tendency to be just above-average in favourable conditions. After all, none of Sebastian’s 52 wins have never been won from outside the top 3 starting spots; whilst as recently as Hockenheim, title rival Hamilton finished on the top step of the rostrum from a P14 start. Much has been made of Vettel’s awful 2014 season, where his apparent inability to adjust to a car lacking rear-end downforce enforced by the new regulations (accompanied by the now-scorned new hybrids) was worsened by new team-mate Daniel Ricciardo outracing and outqualifying him. Once seen as invincible, despite Alonso’s best attempts in a clearly inferior Ferrari to interrupt his quadruple title-winning streak, Vettel had been well and truly humbled. Whilst he possesses a chirpy, charming personality, those nagging concerns over his tendency to crash out at crucial moments linger (2017 Singapore, 2018 France, 2018 Germany), whilst rival Lewis Hamilton (despite moaning more than Nick Kyrios in a tennis match) remains impervious under relentless pressure, having only lost in 2016 to his eternal rival Nico Rosberg (mostly thanks to struggling with a dodgy clutch biting point for race starts and that engine failure in Malaysia). Additionally, Kimi’s presence has reaffirmed a belief amongst rival fans that Vettel needs an obedient, passive number 2 alongside him, whilst Hamilton at the very least went head-to-head with two reigning world champs in Fernando Alonso and Jenson Button at McLaren and Rosberg, where equal number one status was mandated by Mercedes. Only twice Rosberg gave way to Hamilton: 2016 Monaco (partly due to brake issues, but possibly to atone for their first lap collision in the previous race in Spain) and 2013 Malaysia when Rosberg was told to hold station and let Hamilton take 3rd. However, it is arguable Mercedes’s sheer dominance between 2014-16 allowed them to enforce an equal driver policy with no serious threats from the opposition for either championships.

To further my claim, more bad news will come for Vettel fans when popular rookie Charles LeClerc joins Ferrari as his long-awaited team-mate: if Charles beats Seb, his time in F1 is likely to over before he turns 35 and his reputation smashed, whilst if Seb beats LeClerc, accusations of team-favoritism will re-emerge as quickly as they disappeared with Kimi’s retirement. It’s a lose-lose situation for Vettel fans, especially when you consider Fernando Alonso’s demise enforced by his own internal politics and poor career choices and Lewis Hamilton’s ability to exact the maximum out of a recalcitrant Mercedes, which has been de-crowned as F1′s fastest and best all-round chassis and engine package. To worsen matters, Kimi fans (including me) feel zero sympathy for anything that ever goes wrong for the German. Unfortunately, it does turn into hate and resentment, but only because we know what our Finnish man is capable of even in his declining years: fastest in FP1 and FP2 and fastest in Q1 and Q2 at Belgium 2018 with a record-breaking time of 1:41.501. Add to claims by Lewis Hamilton himself that Vettel has never beaten a team-mate in their “prime”: after outpacing journeymen Vitantonio Liuzzi and Sebastien Bourdais with ease, Mark Webber’s weight issues, advancing age, subsequent injuries and struggles with Pirellis handed the impetus to the Weltmeister. Followed by an infamous 2014 with the Honey Badger and a lengthy spell with a passive Raikkonen, it’s no wonder Vettel fans will easily attempt to deflect Ferrari's questionable treatment of Raikkonen to that of Mercedes’, Red Bull’s and even Toro Rosso’s treatment of Valtteri Bottas, Renault-bound Daniel Ricciardo and Brendon Hartley. 

Which is not to say they’re wrong, but their defensiveness is compounded by Ferrari’s historic preference for a hierarchal driver system (Schumacher & Barrichello at Austria 2002 & Alonso & Massa at Germany 2010 widely publicised), followed by recent events at Germany again this year (albeit with Jock Clear tentatively trying to make Kimi guess his cryptic message) is telling: they know Vettel has a peripheral place amongst the true greats of F1 thanks to years of Adrian Newey’s double diffuser Red Bull chassis and Renault’s V8 engine mapping system enabling Seb to play the role of the “Opening two laps” merchant. What I mean by that is his ability to create a gap of over one second within the first two laps in a standard 2010-13 race to stop the car in 2nd place from exploiting the DRS detection range against him, from which he then subsequently exploiting his car’s technical advantage to predictable perfection. Plus when you consider Lewis Hamilton’s misfortunes with McLaren, his existential crisis and a troubled relationship with ex Nicole Scherzinger and Raikkonen disappearing for two years to do WRC (and Kimi’s father slowly dying of alcoholism-related illness), it almost seemed 2010-13 was game, set and match for Seb despite occasional gremlins striking in 2010 and 2012.

I see F1 social media figures dismissing the suffering of Raikkonen fans, bemused at how thousands could be enchanted by an aloof old-school Finn, who regards journalists as vultures to be treated with well-justified caution. New school fans belittle Kimi fans, viewing them as holding a monotonous review of Raikkonen’s misfortunes and characterizing them as incapable of leaving the blame at the aging 2007 world champion’s feet, despite repeated strategy failures of a scarlet team saddled with an one-car team mentality. Bahrain saw Ferrari pit Vettel on a dangerous one stop strategy, where had it not been for a cautious Bottas, Vettel could’ve easily come 2nd, whilst Raikkonen would suffer the brunt of vicious social media abuse for stomping off to allow paramedics to tend to injured mechanic Francisco Cigarini after Ferrari failed to solve a crossthreaded wheelnut issue shared by sister team Haas; China saw Ferrari pit Vettel too late and resorting to exploiting Kimi as a road block; Baku saw the Scuderia bizarrely ignore Kimi’s dreadful pace on yellow soft compounds (yes, Kimi had indeed wrecked his last red supersofts in Q2), but then proceeded to place Vettel on the same yellow softs, which saw the German lose time to Bottas and forced Ferrari to resort to changing both cars to ultrasofts during an impromptu safety car period kicked off by the Red Bulls; whilst Hockenheim saw Ferrari absurdly miscalculate Kimi’s pace and end up with the Finn leading ahead of Vettel, followed by an awkward set of radio messages where the impatient Iceman forced the team to directly order him to let Vettel past. Subsequently, Ferrari’s shock at Vettel’s stadium crash and slowness to pit Kimi for new tyres (one lap too late!) during the SC period saw them lose a race they still could win with their “second” car, seemingly disheartened by Vettel’s blunder. Their gamble to split the strategy in Q3 for Belgium, leaving Kimi with less fuel than Vettel in the hope of quickly refuelling Kimi in the case of the rain easing (which it did) and you get the picture of a 38 year old left forlorn by a recalcitrant team hellbent on guessing their chess moves for car #7, but frightened into placing all their eggs in one basket for car #5. In a monotonous hybrid era filled with Pirelli control tyres, countless DRS zones that permit the top cars to overpower the midfielders and mindnumbing fuel saving, both Ferrari and Mercedes have isolated their Finnish wingmen to mere sideshows. 

In this social media age, I see a culture of outrage galore amongst the F1 community. With the fan base no longer proliferated over internet forums, instead it is centralised amongst Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Instagram, all of which provide more accessible platforms with user-friendly interfaces implemented, the need to find issues that don’t even exist is prevalent. The agonisingly rapid decline of F1′s spectacle has left fans increasingly tribalistic, with winning amongst those supporters of drivers in front-running cars the only source of satisfaction remaining. Unfortunately, I am now more Kimi-focused than I was in the mid-2000s: back then it wasn’t close to feeling like life and death if Kimi struggled (and boy, he had his bad moments then). I could easily applaud other drivers such as Jenson Button and Mark Webber when success came their way. I even supported Felipe Massa in his bid to win the 2008 World Championship, despite being at Kimi’s expense. But now seeing fans stirring up bile and provocation to humiliate reviled drivers leaves me feeling hollow. It makes me lust for the days when social media was not a thing; just myself sitting in the front of the couch watching ITV or BBC. But thanks to Sky and internet streaming, I find myself drawn to my laptop to avoid the increasingly jingoistic F1 TV presenters on Channel 4. The days of Jim Rosenthal, Tony Jardine, Steve Rider, the linguistically discombobulated Mark Blundell and Louise Goodman feel like another lifetime ago; the days before such partisan nonsense emerged with Lewis Hamilton. 

The trivialities have surpassed the main racing events, where transfer gossip and who-said-what is more entertaining. Salacious news about drivers’ private lives now seep through the paddock; asking drivers to sing silly songs and journalists wanting to be friends with the drivers and team personnel where everyone becomes too familiar. The loss of mystique and luster of a Grand Prix environment, where fans become too emotionally involved in events where they possess little power to truly influence and instead whine and cry when things inevitably fail. In the past, with no social media or mobile phones, you had to actively find local neighbours and tour race tracks to find your motor racing pals; now a “friend” is merely a follow button away on a major social media platform.

We now live in the era of “Trial by Social Media” where a truly overemotional or defamatory comment can be validated by a high number of likes, reposts, retweets and reactions.

To make matters worse, not only are tribal lines drawn along with teams and drivers, but debates such as Grid Girls and the Halo. Frankly, there are idiots on both sides of the debates for both issues, who believe they hold the moral high ground and act like they are holier than thou against those who disagree with them. So now only are the drivers, sponsors and teams competing against each other on the track, the press room and the pits, but the fans and journalists are competing against each other for social media brownie points! Strawman anyone with any ridiculous quote and you’ll win! (Of course Kimi Raikkonen fans too are susceptible to nonsense comments. Social media unleashes your emotional rambling at any given moment). But in lieu, one thing about Charles LeClerc’s accident at Belgium stuck out and that was the journalists going on rambling lectures about how the Halo certainly saved his life, despite a lack of any scientific research concluded to prove the Halo actually stopped the McLaren of Fernando Alonso even making the slightest contact with LeClerc’s helmet. The extreme moralistic beating dished out to the viewing audience over the Halo and Grid Girls is jarring. Plus constant gimmicky sideshow jokes from WTF1 and their obnoxious jokes of “That’s Radillon, actually,” which carry no punchline and have already been brow-beaten to death by its strange following. (I know, not entirely related, but I needed to fit a bit about that dogshite WTF1).

F1, along with other motorsport series, has banged about attracting millennials and Gen Zs, but honestly at this point it is literally about as far from cool or hip as you can get.

In addition, I fell out with one truly moronic member of Lewis’ fans: a man with the most conflicting and contradictory political views I’ve ever seen (he reacts to political events and what celebrities say on a whim) and an inability to judge drivers properly at all. A man who was distraught at the idiotic outrage at Lewis Hamilton’s “Boys Don’t Wear Dresses” joke, which was clearly showing Hamilton mocking old conservatives who would demand strict gender roles at all costs. I openly wrote a tweet defending Lewis and comforted his fan via a reply to one of their tweets. But when Raikkonen stormed off after his Bahrain pit stop debacle, this same Lewis fan joined in the outrage mob when everyone called Kimi something around the lines of being a crap human being. I had to block/unblock him simply to avoid verbally abusing him and having my account suspended, as he used his reasoning of excusing of Logan Paul (a bell-end who misused the Japanese’s accommodating nature to insult their culture and deliberately walk into a suicide forest for his own attention seeking sick nonsense and despite having a prejudicial view of East Asians, now has a Hapa girlfriend in Chloe Bennet) to justify roasting Kimi. I’m sorry, but just because you failed to understand the lack of morality in one certain vile human, so you then pick on a softer target who never intended to provoke controversy, is the act of a weak, cowardly and dumb individual.

It must be remembered how badly Kimi was treated in 2008, where Massa gained the upperhand for Ferrari in this article:

Why Kimi was not on top of his game in 2008 by wrcva

https://f1bias.com/2012/04/05/truth-about-kimi-ferrari-santander-2008/

But enough of that, I want to talk the glorious past in my rose-tinted glasses: how I began my life as a bonafide Formula 1 fan.

I started watching the sport in 2002 with a wide-eyed approach due to being 11 years old. Whilst it was in the midst of a Michael Schumacher/Ferrari dominated time span, I had hope his monopoly of victories and championships would end. Mika Hakkinen had retired and in his place came a fellow Finn, Kimi Raikkonen. I was unable to articulate what attracted me to become a Kimi fan, as I initially chose to support Ralf Schumacher, Giancarlo Fisichella & Alex Yoong (!). Whilst I came to cease my backing of Ralf and the hopeless Yoong, I struck by curiosity to the Iceman when I witnessed the 22 year old firmly plant his foot flat through the Kemmel Straight in Spa-Francorchamps, blinded by a heavy plume emitted by Olivier Panis’ stricken BAR-Honda (some things never change!) Through reading a 2002 ITV F1 Guide book, which now lies battered and almost shredded, its description was one of a rebel and a selfish Espoo native, who had lucked his way into the McLaren #4 seat at the expense of his supposedly more deserving Sauber team-mate Nick Heidfeld. That initally turned me against Kimi, believing he had a silver spoon in a figurative sense, but an astonishing drive to P2 in 2002 Belgian GP qualifying, followed by an outrageous rear end save on Sunday began to sway my stubbornness. It proved his storming drive in France to P2 (which he lost the lead in the later stages thanks to running on Allan McNish’s Toyota engine oil) earlier that year was no fluke in a season blighted by major reliability issues, which saw the Finn retire from 11 out of the 17 races held in 2002. That year saw Kimi pick up his maiden podium and fastest lap in Australia and four podiums, plus Raikkonen outqualified elder team-mate David Coulthard an impressive 10-7. Sadly, the mechanical failures would prove a harbinger of what overshadow Kimi’s time at Woking.

2003 would see Macca continue its MP4-17 chassis in a D specification, with plans to introduce the MP4-18 in Canada. A rapid change in FIA sporting regulations (plus a promised abandonment of traction control from Silverstone onwards) was enacted, as the sport’s owners unanimously agreed that F1′s appeal would fade if a certain scarlet team’s monotonous accumulation of wins was not at least curbed in the slightest. Melbourne qualifying, in its new one-lap shootout format with two sessions split between Friday and Saturday, ended with a predictable Ferrari one-two of Schumacher followed by obedient no.2 Rubens Barrichello (or Bwoahrrichello). The new qualifying regulations stipulated cars to carry the race fuel and tyres they’d start with throughout their Saturday qualifying single-lap run, which left the heavily fueled McLarens of DC & Kimi in P11 and P15. On race day, the heavens opened and the track was damp at the start. Raikkonen pitted for dries on the formation lap, so he had to encounter the early laps with caution as the field eventually copied the Finn’s switch to grooved tyres (remember those?) during the early laps of the race. Lap 17 saw the Iceman grab the lead, which he would hold until lap 32, where a drive-thru penalty was administered to the Finn for speeding in the pits. Later a wheel-to-wheel encounter between Schumacher and Raikkonen saw the German lose his bargeboards and Juan Pablo Montoya threw away an improbable 2nd career win on lap 48 with an inexplicable spin. Coulthard flew past for what would be a 13th & final career victory; Montoya took 2nd and Kimi clinched 3rd ahead of a frustrated Schumacher limping in 4th. The race craft was present in the Espoo native’s driving, but the consistency and legendary race pace would appear in the next race in Malaysia. Sepang saw Kimi start an average 7th, but drama at the start delivered the Finn a lucky break. Schumacher lunged at Jarno Trulli’s Renault in a mistimed maneuver and the Italian’s young team-mate Fernando Alonso led, albeit held up the field after taking a fortuitous pole in a Renault qualifying 1-2 abetted by a light fuel strategy. It was all the impressive as the Spaniard was carrying the flu, but after Raikkonen made light work of Heidfeld to grab second, McLaren’s tyre durability and heavy fuel strategy allowed the Finn to overtake Alonso in the pit stops and beat Barrichello’s 2002 all-conquering Ferrari by 39 seconds. Many participants had melted in the sweltering southeastern Asian humidity, but the Iceman had arrived and an impressionable 12 year old had found a new hero.

The 2003 saw Kimi miraculously remain active in a title fight in a two-year old chassis, which was never replaced due to the MP4-18′s dreadful manufacturing structure. Ferrari’s new F2003-GA was revealed in Barcelona, the fifth round of the championship, but Schu would only beat the Spanish local hero Alonso by 5.7 seconds. The youthful zest of Kimi saw him over-commit in turn 7 on his Saturday Q lap, sending him to the back of the grid. Pizzonia stalled on the grid for the start on raceday and Raikkonen hit him unsighted. Along with another spin in Canada Q2 and a subsequent puncture in the race, Kimi toiled to P6 and lost the championship lead to the mighty Red Baron, a lead he would never recover. The following Grand Prix saw Kimi, though, take his maiden pole position in Q2; despite not taking an overall fastest sector time on the Nurburgring circuit, the 23 year old Finn clocked a 1:31.523 with race fuel aboard; his Friday Q1 lap was a dazzling 1:29.989, just 0.08 slower than Montoya’s 2002 pole lap. Race day saw the Finn storm into a nine-second cushion over Ralf and everything went as planned in his scheduled pit stop on lap 16. In spite of having regained the lead, lap 25 disaster struck: a Mercedes-Benz engine failure. The sound of the V10s rang around the historic Rhineland venue from all cars but one: car no #6. For the first time in my twelve years, a sudden rage of anger engulfed me. 

The rest of season saw Raikkonen accumulate 2nd places regularly, but the aging MP4-17 and adequate Mercedes power unit lacking the potency Kimi required to challenge the emerging Williams-BMW FW25s, followed by a resurgent Schumacher, whose Ferrari had been limited by a batch of Bridgestone tyres which struggled mid-summer, as its French counterpart Michelin found a upper hand for the first time since its return to F1 in 2003. Hungary saw Michael humiliated as a gallant Alonso took pole and lapped the five-time world champion around the tight confines of a circuit colloquially referred to as “Monaco without the barriers”. After being stuck behind Mark Webber’s Jaguar before the initial pit stops, Raikkonen took a steady 2nd albeit 17 seconds behind Spain’s debut F1 race victor. 13 races down with 3 races left saw the championship reading Schumacher 1st with 72 points, Montoya 71 points and the young Kimster 70 points, somehow punching above his car’s weight despite losing further points in a first lap collision in Hockenheim in the previous round. Team-mate Coulthard, meanwhile, was floundering in 7th place with just 45 points in a season where many British commentators had declared 2003 as make-or-break for the Scotsman. But the scheming Maranello boys were working overtime to study the rulebook, where they found Michelin’s front tyres had expanded to 283mm rather than the stipulated 270mm. Whatever performance loss Michelin had suffered in remolding their compounds remains unknown to this day, but Monza came and McLaren had capitulated in their battle to get the MP4-18 into race trim. Schumacher won for the first time in front the raucous Tifosi since Canada, Montoya took 2nd and Barrichelllo nipped into 3rd. Kimi took 4th with a MP4-17D that was at the end of its development cycle. Despite heading to Indianapolis with a seven point deficit, Raikkonen took a valiant pole and took a solid lead until the rain came. Fellow championship contender Montoya screwed up massively by turfing Barrichello into the gravel trap at Turn 2 on lap 3 and his subsequent drive-through penalty brought his driver’s championship challenge prematurely. The Michelin wet compounds were no match for Ferrari’s Bridgestone wets, which had a decisive advantage, leaving Raikkonen struggling in fourth when the track dried and mathematically out of title contention.

Thankfully the Indy circuit dried swiftly when the downpour seized and Kimi stormed past Jenson Button’s BAR, which had been leading for 15 laps (!) and elder statesman Heinz-Harald Frentzen, who was driving his penultimate race for the fabled Sauber squad. 2nd was the end result for the Iceman, who headed to Suzuka on a nine-point deficit to a prospective sextuple world champion. Only a win for the McLaren driver and a failure to finish in the top 8 for the Red Baron would suffice in making Kimi what would have been then F1′s youngest world champion, just five days short of his 24th birthday. A late downpour left Schumacher down in 14th in Q2, whilst Raikkonen took a mediocre P8 with Coulthard alongside him. Race day saw Montoya (whose Williams team still had a chance for the constructors’ title) and Alonso launch into an early 1-2, only to retire as quickly as they had surged into those positions. Barrichello controlled the Japanese GP as if he had been Ferrari’s team leader, whilst Maranello’s contracted lead driver carved his way through midfield like he’d been staggering through a hangover after having drank a crate of beer, with collisions with brother Ralf et al. Dutiful team-mate Coulthard fell behind in the pit stops to allow Kimi to run in 2nd in the hopes of an unlikely mechanical failure to Rubens and Michael to stutter, but neither happened. Schumacher, frantically wiping his heavily oiled helmet and clearly unaccustomed to tackling midfield cars for position, somehow fought into P8 and won his record-breaking 6th world championship in the most uncharacteristically clumsy manner. 

Raikkonen lost the championship by just two points (91 to Michael’s 93), but the new points system of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 8 (instead of the top 6) proposed by guileless Irishman Eddie Jordan had aided the Finn’s unlikely challenge. Under the former 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, Schumacher would have won the title at Indy with a round to spare and Jordan would have take 5th in the constructors’ largely thanks to Fisichella’s unexpected win at Interlagos (where only the intermediate compound was taken due an idiotic new rule to limit teams to one wet weather tyre choice), but Eddie’s boys were left in 9th out of 10th. 2003 was a step towards the changing of the guard, although whilst the grandmaster held onto his crown by the tip of his tongue, the likes of BAR (later Honda, Brawn & now the mighty Mercedes), Renault, Jaguar (now Red Bull) & Toyota had taken major leaps forward and BMW impressed with their engine’s driveability and outright top end power, but let down by the Williams’ poor strategic planning and a mercurial driving duo of Ralf and JPM. Jordan, having won two races and finished 3rd in the constructors’ in 1999 and challenged for the drivers’ title with the now-retired Frentzen and a dynamite Mugen-Honda power unit, had slipped down 6 places the F1′s pecking order in just four years thanks to a lack of investment, as F1′s emerging manufacturer era was in a full swing.

2004 saw Schumacher and Ferrari regain their full-time dominance of F1. Mercedes’ reliability was tragic; Raikkonen retired from 5 of the first 7 races with engine maladies thanks to F1′s new engine rules which mandated power units lasted for an entire race weekend or force drivers to take a ten-grid place penalty, something the Finn became familiar with. Schumacher equaled Mansell’s record of 5 wins from the opening 5 races of a season, whilst Jenson Button emerged as a genuine contender, having taken his maiden podium at Sepang where he held off Barrichello in the closing laps. Elsewhere, Jarno Trulli was beating Fernando Alonso, who seemed rather erratic and possibly complacent after his promising 2003 season (sounds a lot like a young Dutchman in 2018, whose father drove his last season with the lowly Minardi team in a damp whimper). Trulli broke Schumi’s winning run with his sole career win at Monte Carlo, where Alonso crashed after running wide trying to pass Ralf’s misfiring Williams and the infamous collision between embittered enemies Schumacher and Montoya, both incidents occurring in the Tunnel section. However, Trulli’s Renault honeymoon would eruptively hit freefall, culminating in his embarrassing concession of the final podium spot at Magny-Cours where Alonso had taken pole and looked a likely victor until Ross Brawn’s ingenuous four-stop strategy for Schu’s car scuppered a second career win for the Spaniard. Michael proceeded to win 12 of 2004′s first 13 Grands Prix, whilst McLaren built a new B chassis. Then came Spa and the start of the King of Spa legend.

Raikkonen qualified an unimpressive P10 in mixed conditions. The two Renaults took 1-3 split by Schumacher, who was looking to take his 7th drivers’ crown. Race day arrived and despite Trulli/Alonso leading the first quarter of the race, engine troubles for Fernando and an early pit stop paved the way for Kimi to gain control of the race, after surviving the first lap carnage from the backmarkers.  Daily Express editor Bob McKenzie, who had pledged that he would run naked around Silverstone if McLaren won a race in 2004, honoured his deed at the following year’s British GP in front of cackling Raikkonen and a smug Ron Dennis. 

Jarno Trulli would later become the first of a long list of team-mates mysteriously screwed over by having Fernando Alonso as his driving partner (Fisichella, Piquet Jr, Massa, Raikkonen, Vandoorne spring to mind anyone?), whilst McLaren announced the arrival of Colombian firecracker Montoya to join icecool Kimbo for 2005. An early tennis (!) accident sidelined Monty and early setup issues meant the potential of the MP4-20 had been withheld in the flyaway openers, but Imola saw Kimi sprinting out of the gates. A dominant pole pointed towards to an emphatic Kimi win, but race day saw his CV joint fail after just 8 laps. Wins at Barcelona and Monaco brought the Iceman into title contention, but he lagged 22 points behind fast starting Alonso. Then Nurburgring came, the scene of heartbreak just a couple of years prior. Raikkonen, having come off a run of leading 160+ consecutive laps, look set for a third straight win but he flatspotted his tyre whilst lapping Jacques Villeneuve and a subsequent vibration saw the McLaren’s suspension explode on the very final lap. Alonso, driving at 70% his car’s potential clinched an easy win ahead of Nick Heidfeld (who would never win a F1 race), increased his lead to 32 points. Point blank no. 3 for Mr. Raikkonen of 2005, who was now 32 points down on the 23 year old Spaniard. With the engine regs tightened to a power unit life of two full weekends, predictably Mercedes would suffer issues in the practice sessions in France, Britain and Italy, the last of which Kimi astonishing set the fastest qualifying lap but was forced to start 10 places lower. Raikkonen took 19 points in those three weekends combined, whilst Alonso grabbed 26. Add in Montoya’s lack of concentration whilst lapping backmarkers (Monteiro in Turkey and Pizzonia in Belgium) and another mechanical failure at the Hockenheimring, it meant Kimi never could truly chip away at Alonso’s advantage, which remained sub-30 points. It set the Spaniard up to become F1′s then-youngest champion in Brazil, where McLaren didn’t even bother asking Montoya to concede the race lead to Raikkonen as it was so obvious Alonso would keep hold the 3rd place he required to be crowned in Interlagos. 

Suzuka 2005. Kimi’s greatest race. Started P17 after a washed-out qualifying. It was astonishing race in a season where only one compound of tyre was permitted for all drivers, culminating in the Indy-gate farce where all Michelin-shod cars withdrew due to safety fears of tyre exploding around the oval section at turn 13. However, despite Alonso and Schumacher joining the Finn near the back, there was still a constructor’s championship to be won for McLaren thanks to nine race wins thus far. The quality of overtakes was pure as there could be: Alonso’s ace manoeuvre on aging Schumacher at 130R is still highly-regarded by his own fans, but his victory chances was wrecked by race control ordering him to drop 13 seconds to let Christien Klien’s Red Bull after an illegal overtake under yellow flags. Montoya crashed out on lap one after a ludicrous entanglement with another aging fart, this time Jacques Villeneuve in an underfunded Sauber. Giancarlo Fisichella led the race comfortably after Ralf Schumacher pitted absurdly early for fuel in a blatant publicity stunt by Toyota to grab headlines of a home pole position for media value. However, despite a 20 second gap having been built him and Raikkonen, the Finn relentlessly decimated the midfield runners with no DRS or gizmo nonsense (traction control aside) and with five laps to go, Kimi peered into Fisi’s mirrors. On every approach to the Casino chicane in the final lap, the beleaguered Renault driver kept resorting to holding a tight line, leaving his exit compromised and gradually more vulnerable to Raikkonen closing up on him to size up a move into Turn 1. This was possible despite Kimi having to ease off the throttle in 130R due to oppressive dirty air turbulence of the mid-2000s chassis; but yet come the penultimate lap, the impossible had become the inevitable. Fisichella inexplicably, possibly wilting due to an inability to pump consistently fast lap times which were became sadly more common in his later decline, again took a tight inside line into Casino Sqaure chicane despite being a tough spot for cars in behind to lunge forwards to make an overtake. His Renault squirmed with his tyres burning out from his overly-defensive driving and Kimi pounced. Giancarlo wiggled to the inside line across the start-finish straight (and almost touched the pit wall!), but was powerless to stop Kimi overtaking around the outside of Turn 1 on the final lap.

2006 was Kimi’s final year at McLaren. With Schumacher revitalised in his hunt for title no.8, BMW having taken ownership of Sauber, Williams now an independent team, Red Bull very much a thing, Jordan having become a second-hand shed for billionaire investors to pump-and-dump at whim until Vijay Mallya saved them at the end of 2007 and BAR fully sold into the Honda’s shares thanks to the European Union banning of tobacco sponsorship- something which has starved racing teams and youngsters of much-needed funding- F1 was changing again. Michael Schumacher was now 37 and Felipe Massa had replaced Rubens Barrichello as his right-hand man. Raikkonen had now grown tired and appeared increasingly soporific with McLaren’s reliability being worse than any other down the pitlane. With the joint worst retirement and reliability record with equally luckless Mark Webber, Maranello had seen a wonderful opportunity to snap a disgruntled Finn, who had been declared “Ferrari’s next world champion” in a F1 Racing Magazine in 2001. Luca di Montezemelo laid an ultimatum with Schumacher: the German would have to drive alongside Kimi Raikkonen as Ferrari team-mate in 2007 or retire. Michael chose the latter option in an emotional post-race reception at Monza and the rest they say is history.

*****

Despite of all this, seeing Kimi’s heartbreak in the hybrid era and his changed attitude as a father-of-two has endeared me to him far more than I ever did in my teenage years. I can see he is more focused than ever and he’s a better man than he was ten years ago. If I saw lose then, I wasn’t as bothered as much then as I am now (and yes, the passion of being a hardcore Kimi fan boy is burning me out).

[reportccs]

Thinking Like a Craftsman

Dedicated to the ideas of libertarian communism, libcom.org is a website that pursues the “political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity.” In March 2009 a contributor posting under the alias “Kambing” ventures the interesting thought that “the artisan” may qualify as “a rather attractive concept for a post-capitalist subject—it certainly beats the bourgeois star artist or proletarianized designer as a way of organizing creative activity.” However, “Kambing” continues, the concept of the artisan is at the same timedoomed as an attempt to overcome capitalism, as it can be so easily drawn back into capitalist processes of accumulation and dispossession. This is precisely the problem with a lot of autonomist (and anarchist) strategies for resistance or “exodus”—including some forms of anarcho-syndicalism.5This skepticism is only too familiar by now—any candidate put forward for the new revolutionary subject will be quickly rendered inappropriate, deficient, co-optable. The reasons for such pre-emptive skepticism, popular even among the most hard-line autonomists, anarchists, or anarcho-syndicalists, are manifold. However, a central argument for this co-optation is linked to the awe-inspiring malleability and adaptability of capitalism as such, accompanied by post-political renderings of “democracy,” helpful in reducing politics “to the negotiation of private interests,” as Slavoj Žižek puts it in his discussion of what he considers to be a symptomatic proximity between contemporary biopolitical capitalism and the post-operaist productivity of the multitude: “But what if, in a parallax shift, we perceive the capitalist network itself as the true excess over the flow of the productive multitude?”6The Fable of the Hedgehog and the Hare.The structure of the argument has been so thoroughly rehearsed in past decades that it has assumed a somewhat mythical truth. Capitalism is the shape-shifting creature-beast always already ahead and above—regardless of which revolutionary force tries to overthrow or subvert it—as it continually vampirizes any signs of resistance. It may be necessary to deploy the perceptual model of the parallax, as Žižek does, in order to maintain the structurally paranoiac—if absolutely legitimate—belief in capitalism’s shrewdness, which sometimes seems to resemble the clever hedgehog family in the Grimms’ fairytale “The Hare and the Hedgehog.” Its remarkable ability to re-invent itself and stay alive even as the current full-fledged crisis in interlinked systems of state and corporate capitalism turn capitalism-as-such into a transcendent miracle and/or metaphysical force with increasingly violent repercussions on the ground, with its most recent turn being the recruitment of state and legal powers. Referring to Carlo Vercellone’s 2006 book Capitalismo cognitivo, Žižek points to how profit becomes rent in postindustrial capitalism.7 The more capitalism behaves in “de-regulatory, ‘anti-statal,’ nomadic, deterritorializing” fashions, the more it “relies on increasingly authoritarian interventions of the state and its legal and other apparatuses.”8 While the “general intellect” in reality doesn’t appear to be that “general” or shared—with the products of the innumerable and increasingly dispersed multitudes becoming copyrighted, commoditized, and legally encapsulated as part of the accumulation of wealth by way of “rent”—the unity of the proletariat has split into three parts, following Žižek’s Hegelian idea of the future: white-collar “intellectual laborers,” blue-collar “old manual working class,” and the “outcasts (the unemployed, those living in slums and other interstices of public space).”9 Any possibility of solidarity amongst these factions appears to have been foreclosed, and in many respects the separation seems absolute. The liberal-multicultural self-image of the cognitive workforce doesn’t rhyme particularly well with the populist, nationalist position of the “old” working class, and both are further ostracized by the unruliness, illegality, and poverty of the outcasts who alienate white collar workers and blue collar workers alike, as they seem to indicate through their fate how imperiled their remaining privileges of citizenship may be.But Žižek’s Hegelian triad of postindustrial proletarian factions is debatable. The identities (intellectual laborers, working class, outcasts) are much too unstable, much too fluid and transient for a theorization of the (im)possibilities of overcoming capitalism. And it remains doubtful whether their insertion into the discourse provides more than a paralysis characterized by deadlock, tribal oppositions, and endless desolidarity.In fact, these and other identities shift according to (but also against) the self-transformation of capitalist institutions enabled by various neutralizations and recuperations. And these self-transformations entail wars of position, to use Gramsci’s term. As Chantal Mouffe put it a few years ago in pre-9/11, pessimism-of-the-intellect/optimism-of-the-will style: “although it might become worse, it might also become better.”10 Even Žižek—who has always endorsed a strong idea of capitalism, evincing a certain obsession with the task of proving capitalism’s fascinating, horrifying, and stupefying superiority as one that could only be seriously challenged by a return to the Leninist act—is himself looking for other actors and different processes now. Currently, his hope lies with the hopeless, the people fooled and victimized by “the whole drift of history”—in other words, the very “outcasts” from the proletarian triad mentioned above, those who are forced into improvisation, informality, clandestinity, as this is supposedly all they are left with in a “desperate situation.”11To rely on the desperation of others for one’s own idea of a successful insurrection is of course deeply romantic and utopian. Žižek may be right in asserting that waiting for the Revolution to be undertaken by others has been the fundamental error of too many leftists. However, would he count himself or anyone in his vicinity to be “desperate” enough to act, especially in a spirit of voluntarism and experimentation that would effectively dissolve the constraints of “freedom” as it is granted by neoliberalism?The “artisan” evoked by “Kambing,” though immediately disregarded as allegedly “doomed” to fail in the face of capitalism like so many others, may be an interesting figure to reconsider here—less out of interest in revolutionary politics than in envisioning alternate ways of organizing “creative activity” to replace and/or evade capitalist modes of production. As Raqs Media Collective have pointed out in their essay “Stubborn Structures and Insistent Seepage in a Networked World,” the figure of the artisan arrived historically before the worker and the artist, before “the drone and the genius,” while it enabled the “transfiguration of people into skills, of lives into working lives, into variable capital.”12 “The artisan,” Raqs claim, “is the vehicle that carried us all into the contemporary world.” However, after the artisan’s role in “making and trading things and knowledge” had been replaced by those of the worker and the artist, by the ubiquity of the commodity and the rarity of the art object, the artisan now seems to be returning, but in different guises—the migrant imbued with all kinds of tactical knowledges, the electronic pirate, or the neo-luddite, many of whom are immaterial laborers, pursuing processes of “imagining, understanding, and invoking a world, mimesis, projection and verisimilitude as well as the skillful deployment of a combination of reality and representation.”Interestingly (and similarly), “Kambing” distinguishes the “artisan” from the “bourgeois star artist” and the “proletarianized designer.” However, one may also imagine these distinct figures aligning—with each other and with others beyond themselves. These alignments or fusions would depend on an ability and a willingness to recognize and accept difference and diversity not only in one’s own social surroundings, but also within oneself as a subject. To acknowledge the fact that one may simultaneously inhabit more than one identity leads almost inevitably to co-operation with others that would go beyond the model of the homogeneous community.But, in Capital, Marx is highly skeptical of “co-operation” as a way out of capitalism: “Co-operation ever constitutes the fundamental form of the capitalist mode of production.” Its power isdeveloped gratuitously whenever the workmen are placed under given conditions and it is capital that places them under such conditions. Because this power costs capital nothing, and because, on the other hand, the labourer himself does not develop it before his labour belongs to capital, it appears as a power with which capital is endowed by Nature—a productive power that is immanent in capital.13A standardized bumper had been installed at the end of each car stall. It looked sleek, but the lower edge of each bumper was sharp metal, liable to scratch cars or calves. Some bumpers, though, had been turned back, on site, for safety. The irregularity of the turning showed that the job had been done manually, the steel smoothed and rounded wherever it might be unsafe to touch; the craftsman had thought for the architect.14The labor of modifying and repairing the work of others is certainly not groundbreaking in terms of anti-capitalist struggle per se. However, the physical skills, the attitude of care and circumspection, the inscription of a hand that performs “responsible” gestures, and so forth, all engender a shared authorship—in this case a cooperation between the absent architect’s and/or construction company’s work and the subsequent, careful labor of detecting and correcting the building’s design problems. This cooperation is neither contractually negotiated nor socially expected, but instead results from a specific situation in which a problem called for a solution. It is inseparable from local conditions and constraints, and should not be taken as a model for action. Yet, on other hand, it is intriguing, as it displays relationalities within material-social practices that usually remain unnoticed, and whose resourcefulness is thus overlooked.Paris scene with a goldsmith's shop , detail of a miniature from "La Vie de St Denis", 1317. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.In some respects Sennett’s concept of “thinking like craftsmen” resembles a definition of “design” that Bruno Latour introduced the same year The Craftsman was published. Speaking at a conference held by the Design History Society in Cornwall, Latour differentiated “design” from the concepts of building or constructing. The process of designing, according to Latour, is marked by a certain semantic modesty—it is always a retroactive, never foundational, action, always re-design, and hence “post-Promethean.” Furthermore, the concept of design emphasizes the dimension of (manual, technical) abilities, of “skills,” which suggests a more cautious and precautionary (not directly tied to making and producing) engagement with problems on an increasingly larger scale (as with climate change). Then, too, design as a practice that engenders meaning and calls for interpretation thus tends to transform objects into things—irreducible to their status as facts or matter, being instead inhabited by causes, issues, and, more generally, semiotic skills. And finally, following Latour, design is inconceivable without an ethical dimension, without the distinction between good design and bad design—which also always renders design negotiable and controvertible.15 Here, at this site of dispute and negotiation, especially on an occasion in which the activity of design is “the whole fabric of our earthly existence,” Latour finds “a completely new political territory” opening up.16

[benrleeusa]

[Ilya Somin] Political Ignorance and the Midterm Elections

It is not yet clear who will win. But widespread political ignorance already ensures many of us will be losers.

Tomorrow, the United States will have an important election. The results may well turn out to be unusual in various ways. But one unfortunate element of continuity is that, whoever wins, the outcome is likely to be heavily influenced by widespread political ignorance. Public ignorance is a longstanding problem, as polls have long found that most of the public has very little understanding of government and public policy. The available data suggests that things have not changed much this time around. For example, recent surveys find bipartisan voter ignorance about numerous basic facts about government policy, evidence that only 36 percent of Americans could pass the relatively simple civics test administered to immigrants who want to become citizens, and that 52% of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court justice (despite extensive recent public controversy about the Court's decisions, and the political battle over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh). The public also continues to be ignorant about the distribution of federal spending.

Not all the information tested on these surveys (and others like them) is truly necessary to be a well-informed voter. But, collectively, the data paints a picture of an electorate with very low levels of political knowledge. Such ignorance reduces the quality of government policy, and creates opportunities for politicians and interest groups to exploit public ignorance for their own benefit. Those voters with relatively higher levels of political knowledge, are often highly biased in their evaluation of information, acting more like "political fans" cheering on Team Red or Team Blue than truth-seekers.

Most of this ignorance is not the result of stupidity on the part of voters, or lack of available information. It is, to a great extent, entirely rational behavior driven by the fact that there is so little chance that any one vote will change the outcome of an election. If your only reason to become informed about politics is to be a better voter, that's barely any incentive at all. As a result, most voters tend to be "rationally ignorant" about politics, and the minority who follow it relatively closely tend to be highly biased in their evaluation of information, because getting at the truth is not the main reason why they seek it out in the first place. This kind of bias has been exacerbated by the growing polarization and partisan hatred that afflicts American politics.

While political ignorance is far from a new problem, it is particularly noteworthy in an election that is - like most midterms - in significant part a referendum on the performance of the incumbent president. While Trump is not formally on the ballot, the GOP has (with few exceptions) endorsed his tactics and agenda. A Republican victory would, first and foremost, be a triumph for the president. And that president rose to power in large part by exploiting ignorance about issues like immigration and trade. This year, he has doubled down on the same strategy, by such tactics as making numerous bogus claims about the supposed threat posed by the Central American refugee "caravan."

But, while Trump is a particularly egregious exploiter of political ignorance, many of his tactics are just more extreme versions of those used by more conventional politicians. For example, it is likely that none of Trump's deceptions - so far - has been as successful as that which President Obama used to promote his signature legislation: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" - a deserving winner of the Politifact lie of the year award (which Trump went on to win himself last year). Like Trump's deceptions, Obama's line succeeded in large part because most voters did not take the time to learn the truth, even though it was readily available online and elsewhere.

Similarly, like Trump himself, many of his Democratic opponents exploit public ignorance about government spending by claiming that we can maintain or even massively expand current levels of entitlement and defense spending without raising taxes on anyone but "the rich." The growing "democratic socialist" wing of the party has taken this canard of hand to even more egregious heights.

Especially when it comes to this year's election, some may dismiss concerns about political ignorance on the ground that all voters really need to know is which of the two major parties is less bad than the alternative. Democrats may contend (with some justice) that the Trump-era GOP is so obviously awful that there is no need for any more detailed examination of its policies or those of the opposition.

There is some truth to this position. But it ultimately underrates the dangers of ignorance.

I'm a believer in the logic of voting for the lesser evil. And in this election, I tend to agree that a Democratic victory would indeed be preferable on that basis, in large part for the reasons outlined by Reason's Shikha Dalmia. In addition, historical evidence suggests that divided government leads to relatively lower levels of federal spending and budget deficits, a point well made by no less a figure than Kevin Hassett, now chair of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers. At the very least, I think there's a strong case that a Democratic victory is preferable when it comes to control of the House of Representatives; the Senate and various state and local races are more complicated, because the significance of judicial nominations when it comes to the former, and the presence of many issues distinct from national ones with respect to the latter. As that last qualification implies, using simple heuristics to identify the lesser evil is often a more difficult task than it seems, especially when there are numerous different offices and referendum initiatives on the ballot, which address widely divergent issues.

But even if voters are able to successfully identify the lesser evil on election day, most of the harm caused by political ignorance has already been done by that point. I summarized the key reason why here:

[Many focus] on the ways in which ignorance and bias might lead voters to make poor choices between the available alternatives. But public ignorance also has a big effect in determining what those choices will be in the first place. Candidates and parties know they face a largely ignorant electorate, and they structure their platforms accordingly. For example, [Marcus] Gee alludes to the fact that all three... parties [in the recent Ontario election] are largely acting as if the province's very serious fiscal problems can be finessed through a combination of smoke and mirrors and pretending they don't exist. If the voters were better-informed about fiscal issues, the parties could not get away with that, and quite likely would not even try to do so. Similarly, voter ignorance played a major role in ensuring that American voters faced such terrible options in the 2016 general election.... By the time we we get to the polls on election day, much of the harm caused by voter ignorance has already been inflicted, by ensuring that we really do face a choice of evils.

Whoever wins tomorrow's elections, widespead political ignorance has already ensured that most Americans will be losers, at least relative to a world where that problem was less severe.

In principle, there is much that voters can do to improve their performance - both by learning more about the issues and by trying to curb their biases. I discussed several such steps here, and see also this useful article in Scientific American and Georgetown Prof. Jason Brennan's recommendations in his excellent The Ethics of Voting. If you are unable or unwilling to become a reasonably competent voter, there is nothing wrong with simply abstaining from ignorant voting. Given our limited time and energy, it isn't wrong to be ignorant about various candidates and issues. But, with some exceptions, it is generally wrong to inflict that ignorance on the rest of society. And, despite oft-heard claims to the contrary, staying home on election day does not mean you have no right to complain. You still have every right to condemn harmful and unjust government policies. For what it is worth, I practice what I preach, and abstain from voting myself, when it comes to races and referendum initiatives that I know little or nothing about.

Sadly, however, I am not optimistic that more than a small fraction of voters will indeed improve their performance, or seriously consider their own ignorance as a reason for abstention in cases where they would otherwise be inclined to vote. Ironically, the kinds of people who carefully consider these questions are probably already much more knowledgeable and less biased than most of the electorate.

In the long run, the best ways to mitigate the dangers of political ignorance require structural change. I believe we can best alleviate the danger limiting and decentralizing the power of government, and enabling people to make more decisions by "voting with their feet" rather than at the ballot box. Foot voters deciding where they want to live or making choices in the private sector have much stronger incentives to become well-informed than ballot box voters do. But I recognize that there is a range of other possible ways to reduce the harm caused by public ignorance, and am open to considering them. It may be that no one strategy will be sufficient by itself.

In the meantime, we should at least recognize the seriousness of the problem, and that it cannot be fixed merely by defeating any one particularly egregious candidate or party.

NOTE: A few parts of this post have been adapted from previous posts on related issues, here and here.

[theconservativebrief]

President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un just signed a historic agreement committing to work together to “build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.”

The details of the agreement are not yet known, but it’s remarkable that the meeting happened at all given the histories of these two countries.

Americans have preconceptions of what North Korea is like — militant, reclusive, and oppressive. But we don’t really understand what North Korea’s vision of America is. How have they they viewed our government, our policies, and our history?

One way to answer this lies in the propaganda that has long shaped public opinion in North Korea. In the closed, authoritarian society, the regime is the only consistent source of information for the public.

Earlier this year, I acquired a very real North Korea propaganda book, authored by three state-sanctioned North Korean academics. Titled The US Imperialists Started the Korean War, the book is a sweeping indictment of American aggression, arguing that the US provoked the Korean War in the 1950s as part of a much broader strategy of post-WWII global domination.

That war pitted communist North Korea, backed by the Soviet Union and later China, against South Korea, backed by the United States. It started when the North invaded the South on June 25, 1950. It was a bloody war that ultimately killed some five million soldiers and civilians. At the war’s end in 1953, the two countries became separated by a demilitarized zone, or DMZ, and remain so to this day.

The book’s prose is awful and the claims are wildly overstated, but it offers a revealing look at how US foreign policy is perceived from the perspective of the North Korean regime — and North Korean citizens, who are fed this propaganda.

Much of it is false, some of it is true, and deciding which is which is not as easy as you might expect.

Still, I decided to do a mock interview with this North Korean propaganda book. I drafted questions and paired them with lightly edited passages from the text. Since it wasn’t a real conversation, there is no back-and-forth. Nor is there any attempt to analyze the arguments.

The point is to hear the story North Koreans tell themselves about America, however true or false it may be. If nothing else, it explains why so many North Koreans are convinced that America is the most evil country in the world.

So with that in mind, here is my fake interview with a very real North Korea propaganda book.

[Author’s note: Again, this is NOT a real interview, but the answers to my questions are plucked directly from the book and edited only slightly to increase clarity.]

Sean Illing

You claim that the Korean War was the result of American imperialist aggression. What happened?

North Korea Propaganda Book

The US imperialists were absorbed in searching for a way to occupy Korea without shedding blood, and intended to seize by any means even part of the Korean peninsula, if not all, and to use it as a springboard for their future continental aggression. From this crafty design of the US ruling circles sprang the plan for the “bloodless occupation” of Korea.

Sean Illing

What was America’s “bloodless occupation” plan?

North Korea Propaganda Book

They considered that in order to occupy one part of Korea without the least bloodshed they should check the communists’ advance into Korea at a definite point and provide guarantee for this by a certain international agreement.

On this calculation, they adopted a criminal plan, that is, to divide Korea into north and south and prevent her people from liberating their country through their own efforts.

Sean Illing

What was America’s goal in South Korea?

North Korea Propaganda Book

To check the South Korean people’s struggle to build a new society and to create conditions favorable for the US occupation of South Korea and its establishment of colonial rule.

Sean Illing

Why do you consider America’s occupation of South Korea the “greatest national misfortune” in the history of the Korean Peninsula?

North Korea Propaganda Book

It was the root cause of a calamity of territorial bisection and national division which the Korean people had never experienced during their long history of 5,000 years. It gave rise to a hotbed of a new war in Korea, and the US imperialist policy of turning South Korea into a military base entered the stage of full-scale realization.

“In the Korean war the US imperialists, who had long been trained on misanthropy and racism, revealed their barbarity and brutality to the whole world.”

Sean Illing

Is it really the case that America “enslaved” South Korea?

North Korea Propaganda Book

From the first day of their occupation of South Korea, the US imperialists followed colonial enslavement and military base policies. In fact, all the policies adopted by US imperialism were, without exception, related to its aggressive design to convert South Korea into a colonial military base and use it as a stepping-stone for the conquest of the whole of Korea.

Sean Illing

But why conquer the whole of Korea? What was America’s broader aim?

North Korea Propaganda Book

The trend of revolutionary developments to peace and democracy, national independence and socialism constituted a fatal blow to the aggressive policy of world domination pursued by the US imperialists who had called for “global supremacy” immediately after WWII.

Greatly alarmed by the growth of revolutionary forces, they resorted to the policy of cold war in an attempt to find a way out of the impasse and launched an all-out reactionary offensive for world domination.

Sean Illing

US leaders claimed in the years leading up to the Korean War that America should not expand its involvement in South Korea and Taiwan. Was that just a lie or did events on the ground change?

North Korea Propaganda Book

They formed some designs to veil their aggressive nature and lay blame for war at the [North Korea’s] door. The first design was to convince the world of the fact that Korea’s security had nothing to do with US security and that the US was not interested in Korea … but a gimlet in a bag shows itself.

The hypocritical nature of their statements soon came into the open. They were an anesthetic to benumb the vigilance of the world public, the Korean and Chinese peoples in particular, over the US war policy and a smokescreen to cover up their war provocation plan.

Sean Illing

What was the smokescreen? How did the US justify its desired war with North Korea?

North Korea Propaganda Book

The war plan was occasioned by two causes: one was the political and economic crisis of the Syngman Rhee government [Rhee was the US-backed president of South Korea from 1948 to 1960] on the verge of total collapse, and the other was the imminency of liberation of Taiwan by the Chinese people.

“The US aggressors, as befitting such brutal nature of fascist hangmen, committed atrocities of mass slaughter against the Korean people from the first days of war.”

Sean Illing

What was the “political and economic crisis” in South Korea and how did it provide the US with an opportunity to attack North Korea?

North Korea Propaganda Book

The South Korean economy which had rushed along the road of ruin under the US military administration entered a graver stage from 1949. Production was totally destroyed and the currency inflation was uncontrollable. Economic ruin directly affected the people’s life, roused the broader masses to an anti-US, national salvation struggle, and thus aggravated the political crisis of the Syngman Rhee government.

The only outlet for him [Rhee] was to ignite a war as soon as possible. Driven to the wall, Rhee came to the conclusion that war alone could get him out of the precipice and clear away all the political and economic crises. Thus he hurriedly sent M. Chang [the South Korean ambassador] to Washington who reported the “ruinous state of the government” to the US master and asked for “urgent US aid” to overcome that crisis.

Having received the urgent message from Rhee, President Truman, who had no other way but to back Rhee, as he had put it himself, now had to check the fall of the Rhee government and, to this end, he had to quickly enkindle a planned war.

Sean Illing

Once the war began, you say the US committed “mass atrocities” with “American-style brutality and and inhumanity.” Care to explain?

North Korea Propaganda Book

The US aggressors, as befitting such brutal nature of fascist hangmen, committed atrocities of mass slaughter against the Korean people from the first days of war …

Even according to the data confirmed by the initial investigation, the US aggressors murdered innumerable patriots and other people in large and small towns and villages of South Korea — 1,146 in Suwon, over 2,060 in Chungju, more than 600 in Kongju and Phyongthaek respectively, over 2,000 in Puyo and Chongju respectively, 8,644 in Taejon, over 4,000 in Jonju, more than 500 in Ansong, over 400 in Kunsan and Anyang respectively, 158 in Jochiwon and more than 800 in Thongyong, to cite some examples.

Sean Illing

You’re citing casualty numbers, but isn’t it the nature of war that people are killed? What’s uniquely cruel or unjust about this?

North Korea Propaganda Book

In the Korean war the US imperialists, who had long been trained on misanthropy and racism, revealed their barbarity and brutality to the whole world, far exceeding those of the preceding imperialists.

“Retake Seoul! There are girls and women. For three days the city will be yours. You will have girls and women in Seoul.” This is the special order MacArthur, Commander of the UN Forces, issued in September 1950 to US men and officers making a landing at Inchon. As seen in this “special order” of MacArthur, the US imperialists did not hesitate to throw off their masks of so-called “civilization” and “humanism” and reveal their wolfish nature in order to retrieve themselves from their defeat in the Korean war.

Sean Illing

And yet despite all these tactics you accuse the US of employing, you claim that they lost anyway.

North Korea Propaganda Book

The US imperialists schemed to bring the Korean people to their knees and nip the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name of North Korea since 1948] in the bud, employing every available brutal method defying the imagination.

But the US war zealots made a grave mistake in their calculation and eventually met with an ignominious defeat at the hands of the Korean people. Having suffered a serious military, political and moral defeat in the Korean war, the US imperialists began sliding downhill for the first time in US history to explode the myth about their “mightiness.”

But imperialists do not by nature draw a lesson from their defeat. Far from learning a due lesson from history, from their miserable defeat in the Korean war, the US imperialists have pursed the policy of aggression and war ever since the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement in their desperate effort to save themselves from sliding downhill.

“The US imperialists schemed to bring the Korean people to their knees and nip the DPRK in the bud, employing every available brutal method defying the imagination.”

Sean Illing

What does that “policy of aggression and war” look like today?

North Korea Propaganda Book

In pursuing the policy of aggression on Korea under their postwar “strategy of mass reprisal” based on the “policy of strength,” the US imperialists laid stress on their permanent occupation of South Korea while hampering Korea’s reunification, fortified South Korea as their military strategic base by extensively reinforcing the puppet armed forces, and at the same time lined up the South Korean puppets with the Japanese militarists and sped up preparations for a new war for the occupation of the whole of Korea.

Sean Illing

And what role has the North Korean government played in all this?

North Korea Propaganda Book

All these incidents which the whole world had watched with deep apprehensions could be brought under control and prevented from developing into a big war only thanks to the persistent peace policy of the Government of the DPRK.

Ever since liberation the DPRK Government has invariably held that Korea must be relieved from tension and the question of her reunification be solved peacefully, not by war. It proposed to solve the question of national reunification independently and peacefully on a democratic principle more than 150 times.

But the US imperialists doggedly cling to their policy of of aggression and war … The tense situation and the danger of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula are an outcome of US policy.

Sean Illing

What happens next?

North Korea Propaganda Book

If the US imperialists, oblivious of the lessons of history, are tenacious enough to provoke a new war of aggression in Korea, turning a deaf ear to the just demand of the Korean people and going against the current of the times, they will eventually perish in the flames of war once and for all, suffering a still greater, miserable defeat than they suffered in the past Korean war.

Original Source -> America, explained by a North Korean propaganda book 

via The Conservative Brief

[okkrist-blog]

TONY BLAIR: ‘THE WHOLE COUNTRY HAS BEEN PULLED INTO THIS TORY PSYCHODRAMA OVER EUROPE’

The last time I met Tony Blair in person, I got quite a shock. It was two years after he had left Downing Street, and the former prime minister resembled nothing so much as Francis Maude done up as a drag queen. Plucked and buffed, caked in makeup, his whole face gurned and twitched, the eyebrows and teeth performing a bizarre kind of eightsome reel. The man’s discomfort in his own skin was disturbing to witness.

The figure who greets me this week in the London office of his new Institute for Global Change is unrecognisably altered. The facial dance has vanished and he is strikingly composed; performative agitation has been replaced with centred gravitas. The cadence of his speech has changed, too; the curiously verb-less sentences are gone, along with the faux glottal stops. But then, lately, an awful lot about Blair’s life has changed, too.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In autumn last year, he announced the closure of Tony Blair Associates, his private business empire, and the winding up of complex and controversial financial structures that have earned him so many millions and so much opprobrium. Reserves of £10m, and henceforth 80% of his time, would be devoted to his not-for-profit work. Aged 64, he is returning to frontline British politics using his institute as a platform to promote progressive centrist policy ideas and combat the rise of populism. He categorically denies any plans to create a new political party, but confirmed last weekend that he has fully committed himself to a mission to reverse Brexit.

“To leave the European Union is just an extraordinary thing to do,” he says quietly. “It’s a decision to relegate ourselves as a country. It’s like being a top-six Premier League football club, and deciding to play in the Championship from now on.” Can he recall any historical precedent for a nation volunteering to demote itself? “Not in the modern developed world, no. And if you think it’s the most important decision this country has taken in living memory, then even if you think there’s only a small chance of it being changed, if you think that’s the right thing to do, you should be up arguing for it.”

Blair is perfectly aware that many, not least on his own side of the argument, consider him so toxic that any intervention on his part can only be counter productive. I’m curious to know if he factored this in before deciding to, as he has put it, “stick my head out the door” and “get a bucket of wotsit poured all over me”.

“Of course, there will be some people who refuse, literally refuse, to listen to you because it’s you. But my experience with people most of the time is that, if you’re making a reasonable argument, they’ll listen to you on that argument, even if they disagree on other things. In any event, frankly, if there was a stampede of people getting out there then I’d be very happy to be at the back. But I don’t notice this stampede. I think this is such a serious moment for the country that it’s your obligation to go out and state the argument.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Blair believes it is still possible to prevent us leaving the EU, through a combination of grassroots pressure and parliamentary opposition. His problem, of course, is that, notwithstanding this government defeat on the EU withdrawal bill, his own party refuses to oppose Brexit.

“I understand it’s a very pragmatic position that the Labour party’s taking. And I don’t disapprove of pragmatism in politics at all. But I still think it’s the wrong choice. I think what the Labour party is essentially doing is saying: ‘There are a number of Labour voters who voted leave, and if we are painted as the anti-Brexit party, we’re going to lose that support. Therefore, what we should do is say: We’re going to do Brexit, and try to take Brexit out of the equation for our electorate, so they can vote [for us] on other issues.’ I completely get that. It’s a piece of political strategy. It’s actually what a lot of people would advise you to do.”

Still the legendary political operator of our time, Blair refers to “strategy” with the kind of objective respect a racehorse breeder might accord to a rival’s thoroughbred.

“I totally get it. But I think there are two problems with it. The first is that our language may be different, but we’re actually in the same position as the Tories, which is to say we’ll get out of the single market but we want a close trading relationship with Europe. Your risk is that, at a certain point, you get exposed as having the same technical problem that the Tories have, which is: here’s the Canada option, here’s the Norway option, and every time you move towards Norway you’ll be accepting the rules of the EU, but you’ve lost your say in it, and every time you move towards the Canada option you’re going to be doing economic damage. That’s the essential dilemma of the Tories, which I think will be exposed over time, and Labour’s got that problem, too.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Blair’s second problem with the strategy is that it prevents Labour from making what he calls “an election-winning argument”. Voters, he argues, need to be told that all their concerns about jobs, public services, opportunities for young people and, crucially, the NHS, are correct and legitimate. “But Brexit is not the answer. You can make a huge point of not just the destructive impact of Brexit, but the distractive impact of Brexit, because it’s that distraction that means that this government has no time to deal with the health service. It’s got no time to deal with the problems of poverty. It’s got no time to deal with the problems of inequality. It’s got time to deal with one thing only. The whole country has been pulled into this Tory psychodrama over Europe.”

I wonder if Blair might, like many passionate remainers, be underestimating the public ferocity towards politicians who tell them they voted the wrong way in the referendum.

“Now of course, you’d have a huge fight. But you’d be fighting from a point of principle. Think of what a galvanising movement you would have in those circumstances, because you would actually be – well, for a start you’d be saying what’s right. That’s quite an important thing to start with. Secondly, I think the impact on the Tories would be really profound, because you’d be driving a wedge right into that Tory division – and the Tories are a profoundly divided party.”

Lots of Labour politicians I talk to share this view in theory, but argue that it’s hopeless in practice while the polls fail to indicate any significant shift in public opinion against Brexit. “And I say to them, ‘But what about leadership?’” Many believe the reason the country voted to leave was precisely to defy its political leaders; if they want the public to change its mind, invoking “leadership” is the last way to go about it. Blair rolls his eyes. “Guys, come on! I mean, what the hell are you in politics for? Of course, you’ve got to listen to people, but you’ve also got to lead them. You’ve got to be a bit more robust.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Instead of telling leave voters they were wrong, I suggest, Labour could now have an opportunity to capitalise on Jeremy Corbyn’s own well-documented ambivalence towards Europe. Were Corbyn to say to the country: “I shared many of your misgivings. But having seen the harsh reality of what Brexit really looks like, I’m now convinced we shouldn’t do it,” would that convey both humility as well as leadership? Blair looks surprised, and pauses to consider this. “Yes. I think that’s a really good idea. I think that would be actually quite powerful. I agree, if Jeremy Corbyn was to say, ‘Look, I’ve always been sceptical about Europe, but I’ve now looked at this …’ Yes, that would be powerful.” He pauses again. “But you’ve got to want to do it.”

What does he mean? “You’ve got to want people to change their minds. I may be wrong about this, but I think there are elements of the Labour leadership who think that doing Brexit increases their possibility of winning power.” Does he mean they have calculated that it’s a strategic price worth paying for office? “Yes.”

Blair is certain this is a miscalculation. “I actually believe stopping Brexit is the route to win power.” But suppose they were right, I say, and supporting Brexit is indeed a strategic necessity for reaching No 10 – arguably not unlike new Labour’s 1997 electoral pledge to abide by Tory spending levels. Would Blair agree it’s a sacrifice worth making to win? “I don’t, actually. No. I think this principle’s too important. I do.” So given a straight choice between stopping Brexit and getting Labour elected, he would choose the former? “I’d like to see a Labour government in power. But I think the key national priority right now is stopping Brexit. I would put it above everything else right now for the country.”

The irony of Blair cast as the selfless politician willing to sacrifice power for principle, and Corbyn the power-hungry arch-triangulator, is not lost on either of us. “Yes, there is an irony in it, yes,” he agrees, smiling. “I’ve thought about that, too, and whether it’s me that’s forgetting what it’s like to try and win power.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Labour’s performance at the polls in June caught Blair, along with most New Labourites, by surprise, so I ask what he had failed to see in Corbyn. He smiles again. “I think what he does have is a genuine personal charm. I’ll give him that. You know, when the rightwing media were trying to build him into some sort of demented Marxist, I think his demeanour was of enormous assistance. I pay tribute to that, I genuinely do. I mean, I actually admire that.” But he puts Labour’s success chiefly down to a Tory campaign “more incompetent than any I’ve ever seen ... And I don’t think the same rules will necessarily apply in the next election.”

Blair’s faith in the politics of the centre ground remains as ideologically implacable as Corbyn’s faith in socialism. But when the demographic centre of property-owning, middle-income middle classes is collapsing, is the political centre even relevant?

“We’re in an era when people want change. I still believe you can mobilise people to vote for a vision of the future rather than two competing visions of the past, one that is this nostalgic nationalism, which is what the Brexit thing amounts to in the end, and the other, these old-style, leftist policies of the 60s. If this is the choice, OK, then people are going to choose between those things. But I still think we’ve got a huge number of people who don’t really want either of those.”

Whether Blair can still connect with the centre is unclear to me. His repeated protestations in recent years that he is “never going to be part of the super-rich” are weirdly tin-eared from a man who counts his wealth in multiples of tens of millions. He is also conspicuously uncritical of Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump represents precisely the kind of populism Blair’s institute is dedicated to fighting – and yet, he says, were he still in office, he would have invited Trump to Britain, and would not have withdrawn the invitation following the infamous Britain First retweets. He told Alastair Campbell, in a GQ interview this year: “The left media finds it very hard to be objective on Trump,” and complained that Democrats “just go mental” when he even tries to suggest Trump’s administration could do anything good. Why does Blair find it all but impossible to criticise a US president? “Look, this will not appeal to much of your readership, but I really think it’s really important that America is strong in the world – clear, consistent and predictable with its allies. I always want to protect the relationship, because its important.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But if nothing matters more to Blair than Brexit, presumably it’s even more important than our relationship with the US. What I don’t understand, I say, is why he doesn’t desist from making comments about Corbyn and Trump that will only alienate the very people in Britain he is trying to win over. Telling them they’re wrong about Corbyn, and wrong about Trump, feels like more of his old compulsion to chastise the left.

“I’m not telling people they’re wrong about Trump. I’m just saying it’s not a debate I want to get into at this point in time. And there’s no point in me saying: ‘I’ve now decided Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is fantastic and I think he’s the answer to Britain’s problems’ – because you wouldn’t believe me.”

I can’t decide which surprises me more – Blair’s resolve to privilege speaking his mind over strategising, or the impression he conveys of a man restored to peace with himself. The two are almost certainly not unrelated. But I think I detect something else in his air of calm authority. Iraq had always seemed to be almost entirely about him – first as a vehicle for his ego, then as a battleground of his reputation. What makes his campaign against Brexit feel very different, and compelling, is a sense that it has little to do with him, and everything to do with the issue itself.

But is it winnable?

“I can’t predict it. I’ve given up predicting politics. I used to be really good at it, and then I was not so good at it, and now I think it’s probably inherently unpredictable. So where do you camp in those circumstances? You camp on the ground you believe in.”

READ MORE ON:

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2j6iyi1 via IFTTT

[djgblogger-blog]

100 years ago African-Americans marched down 5th Avenue to declare that black lives matter

http://bit.ly/2vGR2Nq

Silent protest parade in New York against the East St. Louis riots, 1917. Library of Congress

The only sounds were those of muffled drums, the shuffling of feet and the gentle sobs of some of the estimated 20,000 onlookers. The women and children wore all white. The men dressed in black.

On the afternoon of Saturday, July 28, 1917, nearly 10,000 African-Americans marched down Fifth Avenue, in silence, to protest racial violence and white supremacy in the United States.

New York City, and the nation, had never before witnessed such a remarkable scene.

The “Silent Protest Parade,” as it came to be known, was the first mass African-American demonstration of its kind and marked a watershed moment in the history of the civil rights movement. As I have written in my book “Torchbearers of Democracy,” African-Americans during the World War I era challenged racism both abroad and at home. In taking to the streets to dramatize the brutal treatment of black people, the participants of the “Silent Protest Parade” indicted the United States as an unjust nation.

This charge remains true today.

Several thousand people attended a Seattle rally to call attention to minority rights and police brutality in April 2017. AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

One hundred years later, as black people continue to insist that “Black Lives Matter,” the “Silent Protest Parade” offers a vivid reminder about the power of courageous leadership, grassroots mobilization, direct action and their collective necessity in the fight to end racial oppression in our current troubled times.

Racial violence and the East St. Louis Riot

One of the great accomplishments of the Black Lives Matter movement has been to demonstrate the continuum of racist violence against black people throughout American history and also the history of resistance against it. But as we continue to grapple with the hyper-visibility of black death, it is perhaps easy to forget just how truly horrific racial violence against black people was a century ago.

Prior to the “Silent Protest Parade,” mob violence and the lynching of African-Americans had grown even more gruesome. In Waco, a mob of 10,000 white Texans attended the May 15, 1916, lynching of a black farmer, Jesse Washington. One year later, on May 22, 1917, a black woodcutter, Ell Persons, died at the hands of over 5,000 vengeance-seeking whites in Memphis. Both men were burned and mutilated, their charred body parts distributed and displayed as souvenirs.

Even by these grisly standards, East St. Louis later that same summer was shocking. Simmering labor tensions between white and black workers exploded on the evening of July 2, 1917.

For 24 hours, white mobs indiscriminately stabbed, shot and lynched anyone with black skin. Men, women, children, the elderly, the disabled – no one was spared. Homes were torched and occupants shot down as they attempted to flee. White militia men stood idly by as the carnage unfolded. Some actively participated. The death toll likely ran as high as 200 people.

The city’s surviving 6,000 black residents became refugees.

Ida B. Wells. Library of Congress

East St. Louis was an American pogrom. The fearless African-American anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells traveled to the still smoldering city on July 4 and collected firsthand accounts of the aftermath. She described what she saw as an “awful orgy of human butchery.”

The devastation of East St. Louis was compounded by the fact that America was at war. On April 2, President Woodrow Wilson had thrown the United States into the maelstrom of World War I. He did so by asserting America’s singularly unique place on the global stage and his goal to make the world “safe for democracy.” In the eyes of black people, East St. Louis exposed the hypocrisy of Wilson’s vision and America itself.

The NAACP takes action

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People quickly responded to the massacre. Founded in 1909, the NAACP had yet to establish itself as a truly representative organization for African-Americans across the country. With the exception of W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the NAACP’s co-founders and editor of The Crisis magazine, the national leadership was all white. Branches were overwhelmingly located in the North, despite the majority of African-Americans residing below the Mason-Dixon line. As a result, the NAACP had largely failed to respond with a sense of urgency to the everyday horrors endured by the masses of black folk.

James Weldon Johnson. Twentieth Century Negro Literature

James Weldon Johnson changed things. Lawyer, diplomat, novelist, poet and songwriter, Johnson was a true African-American renaissance man. In 1916, Johnson joined the NAACP as a field secretary and made an immediate impact. In addition to growing the organization’s southern membership, Johnson recognized the importance of expanding the influence of the NAACP’s existing branches beyond the black elite.

Johnson raised the idea of a silent protest march at an executive committee meeting of the NAACP Harlem branch shortly after the East St. Louis riot. Johnson also insisted that the protest include the city’s entire black community. Planning quickly got underway, spearheaded by Johnson and local black clergymen.

A historic day

By noon on July 28, several thousand African-Americans had begun to assemble at 59th Street. Crowds gathered along Fifth Avenue. Anxious New York City police officers lined the streets, aware of what was about to take place but, with clubs at the ready, prepared for trouble.

At approximately 1 p.m., the protest parade commenced. Four men carrying drums began to slowly, solemnly play. A group of black clergymen and NAACP officials made up the front line. W.E.B. Du Bois, who had recently returned from conducting an NAACP investigation in East St. Louis, and James Weldon Johnson marched side by side.

The parade was a stunning spectacle. At the front, women and children wearing all-white gowns symbolized the innocence of African-Americans in the face of the nation’s guilt. The men, bringing up the rear and dressed in dark suits, conveyed both a mournful dignity and stern determination to stand up for their rights as citizens.

They carried signs and banners shaming America for its treatment of black people. Some read, “Your hands are full of blood,” “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” “Mothers, do lynchers go to heaven?” Others highlighted the wartime context and the hollowness of America’s ideals: “We have fought for the liberty of white Americans in six wars; our reward was East St. Louis,” “Patriotism and loyalty presuppose protection and liberty,” “Make America safe for Democracy.”

Throughout the parade, the marchers remained silent. The New York Times described the protest as “one of the most quiet and orderly demonstrations ever witnessed.” The silence was finally broken with cheers when the parade concluded at Madison Square.

Legacy of the Silent Protest Parade

The “Silent Protest Parade” marked the beginning of a new epoch in the long black freedom struggle. While adhering to a certain politics of respectability, a strategy employed by African-Americans that focused on countering racist stereotypes through dignified appearance and behavior, the protest, within its context, constituted a radical claiming of the public sphere and a powerful affirmation of black humanity. It declared that a “New Negro” had arrived and launched a black public protest tradition that would be seen in the parades of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s and the Black Lives Matter marches of today.

The “Silent Protest Parade” reminds us that the fight against racist violence and the killing of black people remains just as relevant now as it did 100 years ago. Black death, whether at the hands of a Baton Rouge police officer or white supremacist in Charleston, is a specter that continues to haunt this nation. The expendability of black bodies is American tradition, and history speaks to the long endurance of this violent legacy.

But history also offers inspiration, purpose and vision.

Ida B. Wells, James Weldon Johnson and other freedom fighters of their generation should serve as models for activists today. That the “Silent Protest Parade” attracted black people from all walks of life and backgrounds attests to the need for organizations like the NAACP, following its recent national convention, to remember and embrace its origins. And, in building and sustaining the current movement, we can take lessons from past struggles and work strategically and creatively to apply them to the present.

Because, at their core, the demands of black people in 2017 remain the same as one of the signs raised to the sky on that July afternoon in 1917:

“Give me a chance to live.”

Chad Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

[darylelockhart]

100 years ago African-Americans marched down 5th Avenue to declare that black lives matter

by Chad Williams, Brandeis University

The only sounds were those of muffled drums, the shuffling of feet and the gentle sobs of some of the estimated 20,000 onlookers. The women and children wore all white. The men dressed in black.

On the afternoon of Saturday, July 28, 1917, nearly 10,000 African-Americans marched down Fifth Avenue, in silence, to protest racial violence and white supremacy in the United States.

New York City, and the nation, had never before witnessed such a remarkable scene.

The “Silent Protest Parade,” as it came to be known, was the first mass African-American demonstration of its kind and marked a watershed moment in the history of the civil rights movement. As I have written in my book “Torchbearers of Democracy,” African-Americans during the World War I era challenged racism both abroad and at home. In taking to the streets to dramatize the brutal treatment of black people, the participants of the “Silent Protest Parade” indicted the United States as an unjust nation.

This charge remains true today.

Several thousand people attended a Seattle rally to call attention to minority rights and police brutality in April 2017. AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

One hundred years later, as black people continue to insist that “Black Lives Matter,” the “Silent Protest Parade” offers a vivid reminder about the power of courageous leadership, grassroots mobilization, direct action and their collective necessity in the fight to end racial oppression in our current troubled times.

Racial violence and the East St. Louis Riot

One of the great accomplishments of the Black Lives Matter movement has been to demonstrate the continuum of racist violence against black people throughout American history and also the history of resistance against it. But as we continue to grapple with the hyper-visibility of black death, it is perhaps easy to forget just how truly horrific racial violence against black people was a century ago.

Prior to the “Silent Protest Parade,” mob violence and the lynching of African-Americans had grown even more gruesome. In Waco, a mob of 10,000 white Texans attended the May 15, 1916, lynching of a black farmer, Jesse Washington. One year later, on May 22, 1917, a black woodcutter, Ell Persons, died at the hands of over 5,000 vengeance-seeking whites in Memphis. Both men were burned and mutilated, their charred body parts distributed and displayed as souvenirs.

Even by these grisly standards, East St. Louis later that same summer was shocking. Simmering labor tensions between white and black workers exploded on the evening of July 2, 1917.

For 24 hours, white mobs indiscriminately stabbed, shot and lynched anyone with black skin. Men, women, children, the elderly, the disabled – no one was spared. Homes were torched and occupants shot down as they attempted to flee. White militia men stood idly by as the carnage unfolded. Some actively participated. The death toll likely ran as high as 200 people.

The city’s surviving 6,000 black residents became refugees.

Ida B. Wells. Library of Congress

East St. Louis was an American pogrom. The fearless African-American anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells traveled to the still smoldering city on July 4 and collected firsthand accounts of the aftermath. She described what she saw as an “awful orgy of human butchery.”

The devastation of East St. Louis was compounded by the fact that America was at war. On April 2, President Woodrow Wilson had thrown the United States into the maelstrom of World War I. He did so by asserting America’s singularly unique place on the global stage and his goal to make the world “safe for democracy.” In the eyes of black people, East St. Louis exposed the hypocrisy of Wilson’s vision and America itself.

The NAACP takes action

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People quickly responded to the massacre. Founded in 1909, the NAACP had yet to establish itself as a truly representative organization for African-Americans across the country. With the exception of W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the NAACP’s co-founders and editor of The Crisis magazine, the national leadership was all white. Branches were overwhelmingly located in the North, despite the majority of African-Americans residing below the Mason-Dixon line. As a result, the NAACP had largely failed to respond with a sense of urgency to the everyday horrors endured by the masses of black folk.

James Weldon Johnson. Twentieth Century Negro Literature

James Weldon Johnson changed things. Lawyer, diplomat, novelist, poet and songwriter, Johnson was a true African-American renaissance man. In 1916, Johnson joined the NAACP as a field secretary and made an immediate impact. In addition to growing the organization’s southern membership, Johnson recognized the importance of expanding the influence of the NAACP’s existing branches beyond the black elite.

Johnson raised the idea of a silent protest march at an executive committee meeting of the NAACP Harlem branch shortly after the East St. Louis riot. Johnson also insisted that the protest include the city’s entire black community. Planning quickly got underway, spearheaded by Johnson and local black clergymen.

A historic day

By noon on July 28, several thousand African-Americans had begun to assemble at 59th Street. Crowds gathered along Fifth Avenue. Anxious New York City police officers lined the streets, aware of what was about to take place but, with clubs at the ready, prepared for trouble.

At approximately 1 p.m., the protest parade commenced. Four men carrying drums began to slowly, solemnly play. A group of black clergymen and NAACP officials made up the front line. W.E.B. Du Bois, who had recently returned from conducting an NAACP investigation in East St. Louis, and James Weldon Johnson marched side by side.

The parade was a stunning spectacle. At the front, women and children wearing all-white gowns symbolized the innocence of African-Americans in the face of the nation’s guilt. The men, bringing up the rear and dressed in dark suits, conveyed both a mournful dignity and stern determination to stand up for their rights as citizens.

They carried signs and banners shaming America for its treatment of black people. Some read, “Your hands are full of blood,” “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” “Mothers, do lynchers go to heaven?” Others highlighted the wartime context and the hollowness of America’s ideals: “We have fought for the liberty of white Americans in six wars; our reward was East St. Louis,” “Patriotism and loyalty presuppose protection and liberty,” “Make America safe for Democracy.”

Throughout the parade, the marchers remained silent. The New York Times described the protest as “one of the most quiet and orderly demonstrations ever witnessed.” The silence was finally broken with cheers when the parade concluded at Madison Square.

Legacy of the Silent Protest Parade

The “Silent Protest Parade” marked the beginning of a new epoch in the long black freedom struggle. While adhering to a certain politics of respectability, a strategy employed by African-Americans that focused on countering racist stereotypes through dignified appearance and behavior, the protest, within its context, constituted a radical claiming of the public sphere and a powerful affirmation of black humanity. It declared that a “New Negro” had arrived and launched a black public protest tradition that would be seen in the parades of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s and the Black Lives Matter marches of today.

The “Silent Protest Parade” reminds us that the fight against racist violence and the killing of black people remains just as relevant now as it did 100 years ago. Black death, whether at the hands of a Baton Rouge police officer or white supremacist in Charleston, is a specter that continues to haunt this nation. The expendability of black bodies is American tradition, and history speaks to the long endurance of this violent legacy.

But history also offers inspiration, purpose and vision.

Ida B. Wells, James Weldon Johnson and other freedom fighters of their generation should serve as models for activists today. That the “Silent Protest Parade” attracted black people from all walks of life and backgrounds attests to the need for organizations like the NAACP, following its recent national convention, to remember and embrace its origins. And, in building and sustaining the current movement, we can take lessons from past struggles and work strategically and creatively to apply them to the present.

Because, at their core, the demands of black people in 2017 remain the same as one of the signs raised to the sky on that July afternoon in 1917:

“Give me a chance to live.”

Chad Williams is an Associate Professor of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.