#banking totalitarianism

[zee-man-chatter]

'To be deprived of a bank account is to be the victim of social murder' | Neil Oliver

An absolute must watch video that covers a wide range of topics including digital currency, government and corporate power, the WEF and individual freedom.

[infinitysisters]

“Moral grandiosity seems to have infected the nomenklatura class of giant corporations. It is not enough for them to ensure that the corporations make a decent profit within the framework of the law; they must claim to also be morally improving, if not actually saving, the world.

So it was with Alison Rose, the first female chief executive of the National Westminster Bank, a large British bank 39 percent owned by the British government. When first appointed to the position, she said that she would put combatting climate change at the centre of the bank’s policies and activities. Whether shareholders were delighted to hear this is unknown.

But the bank, under her direction, went further. Its subsidiary, Coutts, founded in 1692 and long banker to the rich, compiled a Stasi-like dossier on one of its customers, Nigel Farage, before “exiting” him from the bank, to use the elegant term employed by Ms. Rose. (Defenestration will come later, perhaps.)

Farage is, of course, a prominent right-wing political figure in Britain, as much detested as he is admired. There was no allegation in the dossier that he had done anything illegal; indeed, in person, he had always acted correctly and courteously toward staff. What was alleged was that his “values” did not accord with those of the bank, which were self-proclaimed as “inclusive” (though not of people with less than $3.5 million to deposit or borrow). Farage was depicted as a xenophobe and racist, mainly because he was in favour of Brexit and against unlimited immigration. That anyone could support Brexit for any reason other than xenophobia, or oppose unlimited immigration other than because he was a racist, was inconceivable to the diverse, inclusive thinkers of Coutts Bank.

Ms. Rose saw fit to leak details to the BBC about Farage’s banking affairs, claiming to believe that they were public knowledge already. She did not mention the 40-page dossier that her staff had put together, about Farage’s publicly-stated views. The Stasi would have been proud of the bank’s work, which comprehensively proved him to have anti-woke views.

Whatever else might be said about Mr. Farage, no one would describe him as a pushover, the kind of person who would take mistreatment lying down. Even the Guardian newspaper, which cannot be suspected of partiality for him, suggested that the bank and its chief executive had questions to answer.

It was not long before Ms. Rose had to beat a retreat. She issued a statement in which she said:

I have apologised to Mr. Farage for the deeply inappropriate language contained in [the dossier].

The board of the bank said that “after careful reflection [it] has concluded that it retains full confidence in Ms. Rose as CEO of the bank.”

The following day, Rose resigned, admitting to “a serious error of judgment.”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 $𝟏 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧.

The weasel words of Ms. Rose and the bank board are worth examination. They deflected, and I suspect were intended to deflect, the main criticism directed at Ms. Rose and the bank: namely, that the bank had been involved in a scandalous and sinister surveillance of Mr. Farage’s political views and attempted to use them as a reason to deny him banking services, all in the name of their own political views, which they assumed to be beyond criticism or even discussion. The humble role of keeping his money, lending him money, or perhaps giving him financial advice, was not enough for them: they saw themselves as the guardians of correct political policy.

It was not that the words used to describe Mr. Farage were “inappropriate,” or even that they were libelous. It is that the bank saw fit to investigate and describe him at all, at least in the absence of any suspicion of fraud, money laundering, and so forth. “The error of judgment” to which Ms. Rose referred was not that she spoke to the BBC about his banking affairs (it is not easy to believe that she did so without malice, incidentally), but that she compiled a dossier on Farage in the first place—and then “error of judgment” is hardly a sufficient term on what was a blatant and even wicked attempt at instituting a form of totalitarianism.

This raises the question of whether one can be wicked without intending to be so, for it is quite clear that Ms. Rose had no real understanding, even after her resignation, of the sheer dangerousness and depravity of what the bank, under her direction, had done.

As for the board’s somewhat convoluted declaration that “after careful consideration, it concluded that it retains full confidence,” etc., it suggests that it was involved in an exercise of psychoanalytical self-examination rather than of an objective state of affairs: absurd, in the light of Ms. Rose’s resignation within twenty-four hours. The board, no more than Ms. Rose herself, understood what the essence of the problem was. For them, if there had been no publicity, there would have been no problem: so when Mr. Farage called for the dismissal of the board en masse, I sympathised with his view.

There is, of course, the question of the competence of the bank’s management. Last year, the bank’s profits rose by 50 percent (I wish my income had risen by as much). I am not competent to comment on the solidity of this achievement: excellent profits one year followed by complete collapse the next seem not to be unknown in the banking world. But the rising profits under Ms. Rose for the four years of her direction seem to point to, at least on some level, of competence. How many equally competent persons there are who could replace her, I do not know.

Still, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, as illustrated in this episode, is worrying. Would one trust such people if the political wind changed direction? Their views would change, but the iron moral certainty and self-belief would remain the same, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat. How many meetings have I sat through in which some apparatchik has claimed to be passionately committed to a policy, only to be just as passionately committed to the precise opposite when his own masters demand a change of direction?! The Coutts story is one of how totalitarianism can flourish.”

—

Theodore Dalrymple

[bumblebeebats]

The IRS LOOOVE to ask me questions like

Have you ever:

never not received dividends of a divisionary nature through the operation of a state or federal corporal mutual fund, and paid pecuniary expenses related to Article 805A(b).e, or

been gifted more than $2,000,000 cash or the equivalent in yachts or racing horses from a foreign monarch, and

not been actively involved in assessing fewer than two digital assets prior to 2021, or not more that two non-relational nontaxable assets after Jun 7th, 2022 (see Schedule 8, box 17a)

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other

[talmagemoorehead]

The Plunge Protection Team Wags the Dog with Futures to Manipulate Stock Markets and Bitcoin

"You bought too much meat and used too much electricity last week, a $666.00 fine has been deducted from your account. Sincerely, Klaus Schwab, WEF."

I was surprised after all these years to find a major conspiracy theory that doesn’t have a lame debunking article on Wikipedia. Now that I’ve found one, I’m hopeful that Wikipedia is getting the message: People won’t support censorship outfits like yours, because you’re often wrong about important things (same as me and everyone else). The non-debunked conspiracy theory I’m talking about is…

[ahaura]

(Oct. 17)

Mohammed El-Kurd reports: A Palestinian teacher with Israeli citizenship was just fired from her job for merely *following* Eye on Palestine on Instagram. Soldiers are checking who Palestinians are following/what they have on their phones as they cross military checkpoints. Rabid totalitarianism.

Mariam Barghouti reports: Mass arrests in the West Bank and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Lawyers and doctors are even having their licenses revoked and arrested over social media posts.

[sunder-the-gold]

Who truly believes in the Right to Repair?

The Far Left thinks that ‘Right to Repair’ is a left-wing issue.

But it is completely incompatible with their desire to nationalize every industry and give the government totalitarian control over every aspect of private life.

“You will own nothing and you will be happy” is the complete antithesis of ‘Right to Repair’.

Relatedly, the push for a Central Bank Digital Currency is predicated on the government’s desire for a form of money that citizens are not permitted to own. Effectively denying “right to repair” down to the very level of currency.

A currency that cannot be spent on things disapproved by the government, and which must be spent rather than saved. All the better to keep the government’s favored industries artificially propped up, and to starve dissidents.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

Spider-Punk x Black Cat: Punk!Cat Headcanons

Yes, I'm doing this. Every Spider-Man needs his Cat.

First of all, they'll be the first to tell you they are not dating.

If you ask, they'll both say 'We hate labels'. It's their thing.

If Hobie is the king of all things anti-facist then Felicia is the monarch of rage fueled feminism and anti-capitalism

Hates all things classist, racist and sexist and has a 'k!ll your local rap*st' patch on her battle vest

And her weapon of choice is spiked-out brass knuckle claws

Hobie towers over her (like he does everyone), but Felicia's ten times louder and twice as confrontational. Felicia in any universe talks bold with no filter, and Punk!Cat is that turned up to eleven

Which is probably why she's on vocals in the band

She has a mouth like a sailor and an accent as thick as Hobie's, so mixed with his slang, their conversation are literally British-dipped jibberish

Her style sits on the border of old-school punk and trad goth. She's usually in all black and white, compared to Hobie's red and blue, and sometime her domino mask is swapped out for trad goth style eyeliner

The motives align more than any other Spider-Man, at that makes things a lot easier.

Hobie loves a girl who can do a little direct action, and his anarchist beliefs align more with hers than any other Spider-man.

Though they did have to get over the fact he's an anarchist and she's a communist (she constantly says to him 'i dont believe in private property')

Of course she likes to steal, and she's real good at it

To most Spider-men this would be annoying, but Hobie actually finds it fairly impressive.

She steals things for him constantly, and he keeps every single thing she gives him. Lots of times they turn out to be useful, especially in his builds

Punk!Cat steals shit from museums to return objects back to their native countries and defaces pieces from racist, sexist artists

Steals from banks to handover the money to grass-roots resistance movements

And since Hobie is one of the only Spider-men to hate cops (blue laces people) he's always there to happily protect her from the pigs

She's still herself, but a bit different than most Felicias

Every Felicia is a little 'not normal' about Spider-Man, and Punk!Cat is the same, but approaches it from a different angle

She'll call Hobie a hero only because she know it bugs the day lights out of him

But unlike a LOT of Felicias, Punk!Cat outright hates Spider-Man merch and imagery

She thinks it's incredibly exploitative of Hobie and everything he stands for.

And she hates their totalitarian J.Jonah more than anything because if theres one thing she hates, it's misinformation and propaganda

Although most Fe's love their jewlery like no other, Punk!Cat takes another slight deviation -

Punk!Cat knows that things like diamonds, pearls, and gold has been used as items of oppression for literal centuries. Instead of a taste for items of bougeois lust, Felicia is much more into punk jewlery

She loves everything pinned, spiked, and covered in soda tabs. Her hero uniform is covered in chains, and even her canon 3-claw grappling hook is replaced with a heavy chain and hook she fashioned herself. Scavanged, of course.

She's really close with Gwen and Pavi

Community outreach is everything to a punk, ya'll

Her and Gwen get along immediately. Felicia is never one to be quick to jealousy and she accepts Gwen with open arms.

Gwen turns up to Hobie's universe distraught and homeless.

She teaches her about squatters rights and how her and Hobie keep a roof over their heads, always made sure she had toiletries and someone to talk to, because she knows what it's like to have a strained relationship with your dad

Pavi takes to everyone quickly, but when he and Felicia are together, it gets LOUD

The Spider-Society hates her

And Felicia and Hobie love it

Hobie had no idea how controversial dating Felicia would be. Not for band fans, but for all the other Spider-people

Turns out, Felicias aren't very popular with the Society

The both of them thinks it hilarious

They tell him Spider-people are suppose to be with their MJ's. That's how it's meant to be.

Dating a Felicia or saving a Gwen is an anonmaly waiting to happen.

But neither of them care, and if anything, that only eggs them on. If everyone thinks they're 'bound' to breakup eventually then thats even more reason for them to stick together.

Hobie has absolutely made Felicia her own watch

One which she uses to crash the Spider-Society every now and again

Because of this, Miguel hates her and Jess is just so done with the both of them

Even if Hobie and Peter.B are in no way close, Peter seems to be the only adult in their corner. As a Spider-man that didn't have the most conventional story with his MJ, he's more than supportive of Hobie and his unconventional story with Felicia. He figures if he and MJ can make it work, so can they.

Her and Gwen bond over the awkwardness of being variants of the dead or ex-girlfriend of most of the Spider-society, and how Spider-men see them because of it

And when it's time to take the Society down, she's the first in line (after Hobie, Gwen, and Pavi of course)

[metaecstatic]

Yo. Come to my treehouse past curfew, 'kay? I got something big. There's something out there, beyond Kidworld. A place with lead in the air and no bedtimes. Yeah. You can eat ham from the fridge at 2am while your sanity and bank account teeter on the edge of nil. Ham, from real slaughtered pigs. A place where you get stitches and sutures instead of bandaids and kisses. Yeah, it's wicked crazy out there man. And the totalitarian Kidworld government has been hiding it from us. I got the proof in my toybox. We gotta be careful though. Kidworld authorities have imported one thing from the outside -- BB guns that can really kill you. Pierce the flesh. 7:30, okay? Bring vanilla ice cream so we can discuss this over some floats.

[beardedmrbean]

"Disney wasn't an antisemite"

Uh you sure you wanna die on that hill?

How about we ask the Jewish Press what they think

Actress Meryl Streep reignited a debate that has simmered below the surface in Hollywood for decades: Was Walt Disney anti-Semitic?

The occasion was the annual awards event of the National Board of Review, an organization of filmmakers, students, and movie scholars. Streep presented an award to Emma Thompson, for her role in the new movie “Saving Mr. Banks,” about the making of the 1964 Disney film “Mary Poppins.” Thompson co-stars as Poppins author P.L. Travers, alongside Tom Hanks as Walt Disney.

Streep took the opportunity to blast Disney as racist and misogynist who also “supported an anti-Semitic industry lobbying group.”

She did not actually call Disney an anti-Semite, but many people took it that way. The Hollywood Reporter declared that Streep accused Disney of being “sexist, racist and anti-Semitic.” Film professor David Hajdu said Disney was “a deeply flawed human being. A misogynist? You bet. An anti-Semite? That, too.” An unnamed “female Academy member” interviewed by the Reporter referred to him as “that old anti-Semite, himself, Mr. Disney.”

Hollywood historian Neal Gabler examined the anti-Semitism charge in his 2006 biography of Disney. “Of the Jews who worked [with Disney], it was hard to find any who thought Walt was an anti-Semite,” Gabler reported. “Joe Grant, who had been an artist, the head of the model department, and the storyman responsible for Dumbo… declared emphatically that Walt was not an anti-Semite. ‘Some of the most influential people at the studio were Jewish,’ Grant recalled, thinking no doubt of himself, production manager Harry Tytle, and Kay Kamen [head of Disney’s merchandising arm], who once quipped that Disney’s New York office had more Jews than the Book of Leviticus. Maurice Rapf concurred that Walt was not anti-Semitic; he was just a ‘very conservative guy.’ ”

On the other hand, one former Disney animator, David Swift, has claimed he heard Walt make an anti-Semitic remark, and another ex-staffer, David Hilberman, has alleged that one employee was fired because he was Jewish. (However, according to Gabler, Disney himself was rarely involved in firing anyone except the top brass). In addition, the original animated version of the “Three Little Pigs” portrayed the Big Bad Wolf as a stereotypically Jewish peddler, although after complaints, the segment was altered.

When it comes to explicit proof that Disney was anti-Semitic, the critics’ case weakens.

“There is zero hard evidence that Disney ever wrote or said anything anti-Semitic in private or public,” according to Douglas Brode, author of Multiculturalism and the Mouse: Race and Sex in Disney Entertainment. Brode told The Hollywood Reporter that Disney used more Jewish actors “than any other studio of Hollywood’s golden age, including those run by Jewish movie moguls.”

Gabler also revealed that Disney “frequently” made unpublicized donations to a variety of Jewish charities, including a Jewish orphanage, a Jewish old age home, Yeshiva College (precursor to Yeshiva University), and the American League for a Free Palestine. The League, better known as the Bergson Group, publicly supported the armed revolt against the British in Palestine by Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi. Disney was embracing not just Zionism, but its most militant wing.

How, then, did the rumors of Disney’s alleged anti-Semitism spread so far and wide?

That’s where Meryl Streep comes in. The “anti-Semitic industry lobbying group” with which Disney was associated was the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The group’s statement of principles said nothing about Jews; its declared purpose was to prevent “Communist, Fascist, and other totalitarian-minded groups” from gaining a foothold in Hollywood. Among its members were politically conservative actors such as John Wayne, Clark Gable, and Ginger Rogers. But some of its other members were accused of being privately anti-Semitic, and in general it had a reputation as being reactionary.

Gabler believes that “the most plausible explanation” for the rumors about Disney were a kind of guilt by association: “Walt, in joining forces with the MPA and its band of professional reactionaries and red-baiters, also got tarred with their anti-Semitism. Walt Disney certainly was aware of the MPA’s purported anti-Semitism, but he chose to ignore it…. The price he paid was that he would always be lumped not only with anti-Communists but also with anti-Semites.”

The irony is that while Meryl Streep was condemning Walt Disney for associating with extremists, she herself was doing the very same thing. The actress to whom she gave that award when she made her anti-Disney speech, her close friend Emma Thompson, is active in the anti-Israel boycott movement.

Streep hailed Thompson as “splendid, beautiful, practically a saint…a living, acting conscience.” Yet this “saint,” together with other British actors, publicly urged a boycott of Israel’s Habimah theater troupe when it participated in a festival in England. Habimah, of course, has nothing to do with Israeli government policies or any political issues. Its only “crime” is that it’s Israeli.

By contrast, Thompson had no problem with the National Theater of China taking part in that festival, even though it really does represent the Chinese regime – a regime guilty of the most heinous human rights violations, aid to terrorists around the world, and support for the genocidal government of Sudan. But of course, hypocrisy is the hallmark of the “saints” of the anti-Israel boycott crusade. ______________________

The Antisemitism claim is literally communist propaganda.

[soberscientistlife]

WHAT CAN ONE PERSON DO? What can one person do to make sure Project 2025 never happens? To save America from the totalitarian, vindictive and freedom-killing regime promised by Dictator Donnie? Well, as long as you asked, here are a few suggestions. 🔹 TALK — to your non-MAGA friends, neighbors, loved ones. Tell them why you’re voting blue. Don’t waste your breath on die-hard MAGAs though. They won’t listen. And they won’t change their little minds. 🔹 VOLUNTEER — for a candidate, for the Democratic Party. Phone bank, send postcards, hold sign, canvass. 🔹 DONATE — Yeah, everyone wants to get money out of politics. But it costs a fortune to reach and motivate millions of voters, so send money. 🔹 DISPLAY — bumper strips, lawn signs, button pins. You may be surprised, but some of your neighbors may look to you for voting guidance. 🔹 WRITE — letters to the editor, Facebook (and other) posts. Be brief and to the point, and break your comments into short, easy-to-read paragraphs (like this post). 🔹 JOIN — your local Democratic club, city or town Democratic Committee, an activist group. Call your county or state Democratic Party office for local contact info. 🔹 BELIEVE — don’t give up. Don’t let the naysayers get to you. Because we can win, if we keep moving forward.

You can make a difference

[nyaskitten]

The thing about villains like Chen, Iron Baron, Vex, Vangelis, and Beatrix is that unlike the Overlord, they really FEEL like purely evil!

Chen has several piles of skeletons in a dungeon with a snake, he manipulated several, and caused a war which led to the extinction of an entire Serpentine species aside from Pythor! He's also a shitty father! I love him because he's such a shitty guy!

Iron Baron has canonically murdered his own people in cold blood, just to uphold his lies that the Oni are still very-much present. In fact, I bet he murdered them because he saw there were no Oni, and he was banking on the Oni killing off all his men, and he didn't want these guys snitching! He also hunts, enslaves, and feasts on innocent dragons! I love him as a villain because he's TERRIBLE yet so interesting...

Vex manipulated Zane into over-taking an entire realm, wiping out a race of beings aside from Krag, and freezing whoever may have been a threat. He was telling Zane what to do, it was under Vex's guidance that Zane forcefully took control of all those innocent people and turned them into his icy slaves! As a villain, Vex serves his cunt purpose and I love him for it!

Vangelis stole sacred artifacts from two races, then ENSLAVED said races, forcing them to mine all day and night. He made skeletal soldiers to beat the Geckles and Munce, he invented a divide between them which kept them from rebelling! He also cut off his daughter then acted like it was Cole's fault! He's interesting due not to any special character moments but again, just how shitty he is!

Beatrix is. A Doozy. She oppresses her people, locks up (and possibly executes, that's more a HC though) any who dare defy her, and has zero qualms draining the life out of dragons to keep the lights on. She also murdered her father, despises outsider cultures, and wishes to force all under her Fascist/Authoritarian/Totalitarian/whichver-fits-Imperium-best regime! She wanted to oppress all cultures that weren't the Imperian way of life, and she couldn't care less for the needs of her people! Only that they treat her as a God! And I love her for it btw.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Why is Leftblr plagued by political Karens ?

And no, I can't think of any other way to refer to so, so, so many of you who gleefully cheer for Hamas, deny or justify their crimes, apply a double standard against Israel (always in favour of the terrorist organisation, always), and so on and so forth.

Make no mistake, what Israel is doing in Gaza is horrible (though I would argue there's little alternative considering Hamas' goals and behaviour so far), and it's getting especially awful and violent in the West Bank, with too little oversight and far too much political complicity from the current Israeli government.

But what I'm talking about, in your behaviour, is in direct relation to the 7/10 attack, not what's happening in the West Bank.

You don't look at their ideology. Do you know what the ideology of Hamas is ? It's the same as Al Qaeda, the same as ISIS, the same as Boko Haram. It's violent, totalitarian islamism. It is intolerant and hateful, it wants to kill all who do not fit its mold. They openly - OPENLY - said they wanted to take over the world, and that once they were done with the Jews (the Jews, not the Israeli, the JEWS) it would be the Christians' turns. Does that sound like someone you want to cheer on ? Does that sound tolerant and acceptant ?

For me, as a French, all Hamas is, is another form of the monsters that killed hundreds in the Bataclan. That sent a truck through the crowd in Nice on the Promenade des Anglais. That murdered and took hostages in the Hyper Kasher.

It's the same cruelty and hate, the same interpretation of Islam that pushed Mohammed Merah to murder children in school in 2012. Because those kids were Jewish.

And all I can think, when I watch how you react ... how you cheer on Hamas ... is that it isn't the acts that bother you. It's whether it has the right stickers, the right buzzwords associated to it.

You're like a Karen, ranting and throwing a tantrum, because the mangos don't have the little organic sticker.

It's not an organix, marx-fed terror attack, so you don't like it. But the one in Israel, oh this one, it has the sticker, you're sure of it. You put it there yourself, because it is much, much more socially acceptable, in your little social circle of murderous, bloodthirsty political Karens to stamp your little Revolution-certified sticker on that particular terror attack.

But it's the same ideology, Karen. The mangos are identical. The murders are the same. The only real difference is the numbers.

And you can go "But IDF in Gaza D:" all you want. All I hear, is that you're willing to support ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, so long as they put the right stickers on their murders.

You don't need to cheer for the monsters. You don't need to cheer for ISIS under a different flag.

You can criticize Israel without being antisemitic, as you keep saying. Maybe you should start doing that.

[st-el-la-luna]

Okay but like, what's with fandoms and their recent obsession with "purifying" themselves and the content in them?

It's one thing if a content creator is outed as a pedophile or a racist or a xenophobe.

What I'm talking about is this newfound hatred towards dark fics and dark subject matter in general. It's like people don't understand that it's fiction. Fiction is not reality. Even if the writing is disgusting or amoral, it's not real. And you don't have to read it.

People have been writing weird shit for ages. So how come we only ever see these purity enforcers attacking fic writers or fan artists in fandoms?

Like, in the COD fandom I've seen a bunch of people getting hounded for posting or consuming dark content, I've also gotten a couple messages about it. And, like, hey buddy? Who really cares.

Fiction and reality are two separate things.

Also, why are you attacking me, a 20 year old who lives with their mom and writes for their ten consultant followers and not, oh, I don't know...

Stephen King, who has that whole underage sewer orgy scene in It.

Or the e creators of call of duty for creating literal propaganda. Because, hey besties, yes, that's what COD is. Propaganda. They want you to see it and be like, "yay, guns and the military!" And that's the thing about fiction. It's allowed.

The issue at hand is, in my mind, an issue of deeper reading comprehension or complex thoughts. And a lack of understanding of catharsis.

No one is saying these things are good. But these things exist in the world, like it or not. And in my mind, it's better to portray them in fiction than not at all. Because at least in portraying it awareness can be spread.

And again, if you don't like something, if it triggers you, just don't read it. It's simple. Like if you're watching a movie and can't stand blood so you cover your eyes not to see. You aren't going to go after the director are you? No. You're going to take steps to protect yourself against content you don't want to see or consume.

I think it's an issue of separating fan works from "real" works. Those who say fan art isn't real art or fanfiction isn't real writing. So perhaps in those people's minds, fan works, not being "real" means that they shouldn't portray things we see in reality.

All this to say here's a non-definitive list of novels with dark/disturbing content that these people would want to oppose:

It by Stephen King: The kids having an orgy in the sewers, child abuse, sexual abuse

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov: pseudo-incest, hebephilia

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Attwood: Women being stripped of rights, education, loss of bodily autonomy, forced breeders (at the hands of a government)

The Wasp Factory by Iain Banks

The Road by Cormac McCarthy: People keeping other people for food, people keeping women as breeding stock (at the hands of bandits in a post-apocalyptic world)

Flowers in the Attic by V. C. Andrews: child neglect, child abuse, forced isolation, incest, rape

1984 by George Orwell: totalitarianism, government surveillance, insignificance and weakness of the individual

The Stand by Stephen King: sex, rape, ableism, abuse of handicapped people, violence and killing

Maus by Art Spiegelman: depiction of violence, concentration camps, Nazis, Nazi imagery, dehumanization, starvation, mass murder

Frankenstein by Marry Shelley: human experimentation, grave robbing, necromancy, technical necrophilia, murder, revenge, suicide

In the Miso Soup by Ryū Murakami: pedo/hebephilic relations, sex industry, murder

Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy: graphic depictions of violence, use of slurs, child abuse, infanticide (? Been a while since I read it so I might be misremembering), pedophilia, rape, sexual assault and violence

Tender is the Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica: cannibalism, forced breeding, objectification, slave trade, people being bred and sold for meat

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess: sadism, sexual violence

The Girl Next Door by Jack Ketchum: captivity, torture, torture at the hands of children, violence, sexual violence, based on a true story

Lord of The Flies by William Golding: shows the truth of human nature, dissolution of society and it's rules, violence as a basal instinct

The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade: sex, sexual violence, rape, sex trade, pedophilia, incest, abuse, literally just the whole book

Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh: mental illness, drug use/addiction, infant death

American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis: violence, gore, rape, murder, torture, misogyny, sadism

A lot of these books, though considered scary and disturbing and gross, are also seen as classics.

It's not the fault of the author or the media they create, but that of the consumer.

You can find it icky and gross after reading or watching such things. Most of the time you're supposed to. That's a good thing, it means you're human. These things make you think and feel and emphasize.

To control what can and cannot be written is censorship. To control how certain things are portrayed is censorship.

Be aware of the media that's out there, because these disturbing things are real issues out there. And if you can't stomach it, don't consume it.

Simple.

[mariacallous]

In February 1994, in the grand ballroom of the town hall in Hamburg, Germany, the president of Estonia gave a remarkable speech. Standing before an audience in evening dress, Lennart Meri praised the values of the democratic world that Estonia then aspired to join. “The freedom of every individual, the freedom of the economy and trade, as well as the freedom of the mind, of culture and science, are inseparably interconnected,” he told the burghers of Hamburg. “They form the prerequisite of a viable democracy.” His country, having regained its independence from the Soviet Union three years earlier, believed in these values: “The Estonian people never abandoned their faith in this freedom during the decades of totalitarian oppression.”

But Meri had also come to deliver a warning: Freedom in Estonia, and in Europe, could soon be under threat. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the circles around him were returning to the language of imperialism, speaking of Russia as primus inter pares—the first among equals—in the former Soviet empire. In 1994, Moscow was already seething with the language of resentment, aggression, and imperial nostalgia; the Russian state was developing an illiberal vision of the world, and even then was preparing to enforce it. Meri called on the democratic world to push back: The West should “make it emphatically clear to the Russian leadership that another imperialist expansion will not stand a chance.”

At that, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, got up and walked out of the hall.

Meri’s fears were at that time shared in all of the formerly captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and they were strong enough to persuade governments in Estonia, Poland, and elsewhere to campaign for admission to NATO. They succeeded because nobody in Washington, London, or Berlin believed that the new members mattered. The Soviet Union was gone, the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg was not an important person, and Estonia would never need to be defended. That was why neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush made much attempt to arm or reinforce the new NATO members. Only in 2014 did the Obama administration finally place a small number of American troops in the region, largely in an effort to reassure allies after the first Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Nobody else anywhere in the Western world felt any threat at all. For 30 years, Western oil and gas companies piled into Russia, partnering with Russian oligarchs who had openly stolen the assets they controlled. Western financial institutions did lucrative business in Russia too, setting up systems to allow those same Russian kleptocrats to export their stolen money and keep it parked, anonymously, in Western property and banks. We convinced ourselves that there was no harm in enriching dictators and their cronies. Trade, we imagined, would transform our trading partners. Wealth would bring liberalism. Capitalism would bring democracy—and democracy would bring peace.

After all, it had happened before. Following the cataclysm of 1939–45, Europeans had indeed collectively abandoned wars of imperial, territorial conquest. They stopped dreaming of eliminating one another. Instead, the continent that had been the source of the two worst wars the world had ever known created the European Union, an organization designed to find negotiated solutions to conflicts and promote cooperation, commerce, and trade. Because of Europe’s metamorphosis—and especially because of the extraordinary transformation of Germany from a Nazi dictatorship into the engine of the continent’s integration and prosperity—Europeans and Americans alike believed that they had created a set of rules that would preserve peace not only on their own continents, but eventually in the whole world.

This liberal world order relied on the mantra of “Never again.” Never again would there be genocide. Never again would large nations erase smaller nations from the map. Never again would we be taken in by dictators who used the language of mass murder. At least in Europe, we would know how to react when we heard it.

But while we were happily living under the illusion that “Never again” meant something real, the leaders of Russia, owners of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, were reconstructing an army and a propaganda machine designed to facilitate mass murder, as well as a mafia state controlled by a tiny number of men and bearing no resemblance to Western capitalism. For a long time—too long—the custodians of the liberal world order refused to understand these changes. They looked away when Russia “pacified” Chechnya by murdering tens of thousands of people. When Russia bombed schools and hospitals in Syria, Western leaders decided that that wasn’t their problem. When Russia invaded Ukraine the first time, they found reasons not to worry. Surely Putin would be satisfied by the annexation of Crimea. When Russia invaded Ukraine the second time, occupying part of the Donbas, they were sure he would be sensible enough to stop.

Even when the Russians, having grown rich on the kleptocracy we facilitated, bought Western politicians, funded far-right extremist movements, and ran disinformation campaigns during American and European democratic elections, the leaders of America and Europe still refused to take them seriously. It was just some posts on Facebook; so what? We didn’t believe that we were at war with Russia. We believed, instead, that we were safe and free, protected by treaties, by border guarantees, and by the norms and rules of the liberal world order.

With the third, more brutal invasion of Ukraine, the vacuity of those beliefs was revealed. The Russian president openly denied the existence of a legitimate Ukrainian state: “Russians and Ukrainians,” he said, “were one people—a single whole.” His army targeted civilians, hospitals, and schools. His policies aimed to create refugees so as to destabilize Western Europe. “Never again” was exposed as an empty slogan while a genocidal plan took shape in front of our eyes, right along the European Union’s eastern border. Other autocracies watched to see what we would do about it, for Russia is not the only nation in the world that covets its neighbors’ territory, that seeks to destroy entire populations, that has no qualms about the use of mass violence. North Korea can attack South Korea at any time, and has nuclear weapons that can hit Japan. China seeks to eliminate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group, and has imperial designs on Taiwan.

We can’t turn the clock back to 1994, to see what would have happened had we heeded Lennart Meri’s warning. But we can face the future with honesty. We can name the challenges and prepare to meet them.

There is no natural liberal world order, and there are no rules without someone to enforce them. Unless democracies defend themselves together, the forces of autocracy will destroy them. I am using the word forces, in the plural, deliberately. Many American politicians would understandably prefer to focus on the long-term competition with China. But as long as Russia is ruled by Putin, then Russia is at war with us too. So are Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Hungary, and potentially many others. We might not want to compete with them, or even care very much about them. But they care about us. They understand that the language of democracy, anti-corruption, and justice is dangerous to their form of autocratic power—and they know that that language originates in the democratic world, our world.

This fight is not theoretical. It requires armies, strategies, weapons, and long-term plans. It requires much closer allied cooperation, not only in Europe but in the Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. NATO can no longer operate as if it might someday be required to defend itself; it needs to start operating as it did during the Cold War, on the assumption that an invasion could happen at any time. Germany’s decision to raise defense spending by 100 billion euros is a good start; so is Denmark’s declaration that it too will boost defense spending. But deeper military and intelligence coordination might require new institutions—perhaps a voluntary European Legion, connected to the European Union, or a Baltic alliance that includes Sweden and Finland—and different thinking about where and how we invest in European and Pacific defense.

If we don’t have any means to deliver our messages to the autocratic world, then no one will hear them. Much as we assembled the Department of Homeland Security out of disparate agencies after 9/11, we now need to pull together the disparate parts of the U.S. government that think about communication, not to do propaganda but to reach more people around the world with better information and to stop autocracies from distorting that knowledge. Why haven’t we built a Russian-language television station to compete with Putin’s propaganda? Why can’t we produce more programming in Mandarin—or Uyghur? Our foreign-language broadcasters—Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí in Cuba—need not only money for programming but a major investment in research. We know very little about Russian audiences—what they read, what they might be eager to learn.

Funding for education and culture needs rethinking too. Shouldn’t there be a Russian-language university, in Vilnius or Warsaw, to house all the intellectuals and thinkers who have just left Moscow? Don’t we need to spend more on education in Arabic, Hindi, Persian? So much of what passes for cultural diplomacy runs on autopilot. Programs should be recast for a different era, one in which, though the world is more knowable than ever before, dictatorships seek to hide that knowledge from their citizens.

Trading with autocrats promotes autocracy, not democracy. Congress has made some progress in recent months in the fight against global kleptocracy, and the Biden administration was right to put the fight against corruption at the heart of its political strategy. But we can go much further, because there is no reason for any company, property, or trust ever to be held anonymously. Every U.S. state, and every democratic country, should immediately make all ownership transparent. Tax havens should be illegal. The only people who need to keep their houses, businesses, and income secret are crooks and tax cheats.

We need a dramatic and profound shift in our energy consumption, and not only because of climate change. The billions of dollars we have sent to Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia have promoted some of the worst and most corrupt dictators in the world. The transition from oil and gas to other energy sources needs to happen with far greater speed and decisiveness. Every dollar spent on Russian oil helps fund the artillery that fires on Ukrainian civilians.

Take democracy seriously. Teach it, debate it, improve it, defend it. Maybe there is no natural liberal world order, but there are liberal societies, open and free countries that offer a better chance for people to live useful lives than closed dictatorships do. They are hardly perfect; our own has deep flaws, profound divisions, terrible historical scars. But that’s all the more reason to defend and protect them. Few of them have existed across human history; many have existed for a time and then failed. They can be destroyed from the outside, but from the inside, too, by divisions and demagogues.

Perhaps, in the aftermath of this crisis, we can learn something from the Ukrainians. For decades now, we’ve been fighting a culture war between liberal values on the one hand and muscular forms of patriotism on the other. The Ukrainians are showing us a way to have both. As soon as the attacks began, they overcame their many political divisions, which are no less bitter than ours, and they picked up weapons to fight for their sovereignty and their democracy. They demonstrated that it is possible to be a patriot and a believer in an open society, that a democracy can be stronger and fiercer than its opponents. Precisely because there is no liberal world order, no norms and no rules, we must fight ferociously for the values and the hopes of liberalism if we want our open societies to continue to exist.

[naturalrights-retard]

Despite the fact that around six million people living in the United States do not have bank accounts and are considered to be "unbanked," a growing number of retail stores, including large, well-known big-box stores, are refusing cash and forcing customers to pay with cards or smartphones.

Upwards of one billion people worldwide currently do not have a bank account, which means that they, too, are in trouble once stores in their native lands decide to scrap cash and switch to a cashless model of digital, and easily trackable, payment systems.

In larger cities like Seattle and Los Angeles, "No cash accepted" signs are popping up everywhere, including on the windows or stores that claim to be "inclusive." Nothing says inclusive quite like refusing customers who do not have a bank account, eh?

The vast majority of bank-less people hold that status not because of any kind of political or financial protest, but rather because they do not have enough money in their possession to meet the minimum balance requirements.

Every two years, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) runs a household survey asking people why they are bank-less. In 2021, more than 40 percent of respondents said they are too poor to have a bank account, which means these same folks also cannot shop at "No cash accepted" stores.

The second- and third-most common answers for why some people do not have a bank account include because "Avoiding a bank gives more privacy," and because they simply "don't trust banks." Then there are the costs of dealing with a bank, which oftentimes are exorbitant.

(Related: In order to bring about their long-envisioned new-world totalitarian order, the powers that be are pushing hard to eliminate all cash and usher in a cashless society, complete with digital passes and special identification requirements for all commerce.)

[ardl]

NO MORE DEATHS///THAWABET - a 19 band benefit compilation for Palestine For months, years and decades we have seen the continued destruction of Palestine and its people. The atrocities and war crimes we are seeing the Israeli state commit everyday are unfathomable; indiscriminate bombing and shooting, thousands of children and innocent civilians dead, hospitals and infrastructure destroyed, a blocking of medical aid and food supplies, an internet blackout, and now those who remain are being attacked at the very place they have been told to take refuge. We are witnessing a Genocide. "This didn’t start on October 7th, or when they mowed the lawn in ’08, it didn’t start in 1967, it didn’t even start in ’48… A century deep into the Nakba, and nothing has changed. The Israeli state apparatus continues to murder, rape, torture and dispossess Palestinians for having the audacity to exist in the way of their imagined utopia. Thousands of children abducted and imprisoned without meaningful charge in “peacetime”, families chased off their land at gunpoint in the West Bank, obliterated wholesale in Gaza, separated by walls and zoning laws in ’48 Palestine. Six months and a new calendar year deep into this new phase of unprecedented bloodshed, the foundational delusions of Western civilisation are laid bare. As genocide is livestreamed into our homes, we see the moral bankruptcy of the Zionist apparatus in real-time, as all pretence to its ‘civilised’ nature is unmasked as the same totalitarian savagery it inherited from its imperial benefactors. The lifesblood of all racist oppression, all rapacious colonial extraction, all state weaponisation of sexual violence, and the complicity of the capitalist superstructure within this, is articulated in crystalline detail as the population of Gaza is driven screaming into the desert while the Israelis salt the earth… and build McDonalds on top of it. The teeming billions of the global South and their attendant diasporas in the heart of the machine are watching, and they are not stupid. The mask is never going back on - now is a decisive moment in history. Those who would seek to paper over the cracks in their crumbling empire, to patronise us with false promises of unjust ‘peace’ & hamstrung ’tolerance’ are blind to the material reality; to the fact that the choice, for Palestinians and indeed for all of us, is Nakba or Intifada - slow death or hard-fought struggle. This choice is and remains ours, every one of us. Beyond the deconsecrated shores of the Holy Land, an order that has drowned the world in blood for 500 years now chokes in its death throes on the torrent that it has wrought. The old world is dying - what new world shall we strive to create from its ashes?" - Omar Raja, Anglerfish This compilation will be raising money to provide esims to those in Gaza, this will allow people to connect with families, communities and to show the world what is happening there. See below for more info; gazaesims.com