#he rants about societies being corrupted by capitalism

[beggars-opera]

Ok, so I live in one of the more liberal areas of the country. Our governor is a lesbian and I literally did not even know until after she got elected, because it was that much of a nonissue.

Lately, I'm seeing more and more local institutions doing things for Pride. Institutions that don't necessarily have to, or do so awkwardly, but they're trying to be good allies. And, even here, I see people foaming at the mouth. This thing is ruined. Unprofessional. Political. Sexual. Boycotting, disgusted, bye.

And a part of me is like, "Why would a random store, a museum, a restaurant, do this?" Part of my mind has been so corrupted by the idea of rainbow capitalism that the thought of someone just...trying to be an imperfect ally is a cash grab.

It's not. Every bit counts, and especially as we see pushback, and see some of those corporations beginning to rethink their rainbow capitalism, the places that continue to speak up are so, so important.

I'm reminded of a rant by Illustrious Old White Man Historian Gordon Wood a few years back where he lamented how fragmented modern history is. Why do we need ANOTHER book about women, about enslaved people, about the poor? Why are we focusing on these people instead of George Mount Rushmore Washington?

And it was an interesting framing, because he insinuated that these micro histories were bad not because they existed, but because they didn't give the whole story, which in Gordon's mind was a story in which they were the side characters instead of the mains. To that end a biography of G Wash that features the bare shadow of Billy Lee in the far distance is a complete history, all that needs to be said, because one of those figures is a God Amongst Men and the other does not deserve to be fully fleshed out as a full, autonomous human being with a family and a profession and a beating heart. And a biography of William Lee, war aid, professional valet, and person closest to the first president of the United States, with the shadow of George in the background, would consequently be Bad History, because no one is saying that this man didn't exist, but his story isn't the whole story. It's backwards; he should be a footnote, and if he's not, that's bias.

But for me, as a historian, I know that the reason these microhistories exist, and are so important, is that they didn't exist before. Before someone can be truly, purposefully, tactfully inserted into the historical narrative, you need to know who they are. Not just as a name, not just as an archetype. You have to get to the point where there are so many books flooding the market about women and children and immigrants that it's no longer controversial to be talking about them, where learning about them instead of someone else is normal.

THEN you can feel good about rewriting the more general narrative. THEN you can actually have the information you need in order to put things into their proper context, to rethink the most important figure in each story, to assess what the full milieu of the time is.

And that's where we're at with Pride. We are still very much living in a time where queer people are shadow characters in the background. They are people that many will admit exist, but for god's sake, don't make them important, don't make them real, don't make them normal. And until we can shove rainbows down everyone's throats to the point where being queer is no longer seen as a thing that is Other, until we convince people that we're not going away, we will never be able to fully assimilate queerness into society.

We can't just be normal about Pride, because normal isn't loud enough to not get drowned out.

[sanini-panini]

last night i mentioned i was doing this oc ask game and some friends off tumblr threw questions at me but i thought i’d cross post here for funsies (part 4). this one is... also long because it involves all nineteen characters.

🙊 SPEAK-NO-EVIL - what is something your oc will refuse to stay quiet about?

ENNEAD

jinal - injustice. if she sees something wrong, she's going to step in and fix it. after what happened with skye, she's done being a passive observer.

haku - ask them why they haven't used their powers of infinite regeneration to fix their vision yet and you will earn yourself a free lecture on the necessity of imperfection.

minerva - i talked about this here already! the tldr is that she will always advocate for her loved ones and their well-being.

ven - they are very vocal about their hyperfixations, which tend to be related to music, TV, or movies. it's the ADHD.

kai - if he sees someone making what he considers a mistake, he will intervene. often this intervention takes the form of gentle advice or a cryptic discussion that prompts self-reflection, but sometimes he is more direct.

mateen - he's not the Advice Friend like kai is, but given his past, he is unable to stay quiet when he sees someone acting recklessly and doing something they'll regret later. it just reminds him too much of himself.

ridwan - injustice. they refuse to stay silent in the face of the same kind of fear-based persecution that almost got them publicly executed. they are a staunch activist for civil rights and if you mention the word capitalism while they are in the room you will hear about unionization.

silpa - ask them about any of the unsolved problems in mathematics and you will earn yourself a free lecture, most of which will probably go right over your head.

felix - kpop. i said what i said.

NEW GUARD

ilia - this is difficult because ilia is a fairly quiet person actually... but i think she could talk for hours about historical fiction and period dramas

morgan - if you accuse her of being wrong (even on the smallest thing), she will give you a ten page reply with footnotes. this is how peter and juli got her to deliver a passionate diatribe about the color chartreuse.

peter - i was stuck on this one until i remembered his reaction to morgan throwing away dirty dishes and like. yeah. that's it. if peter sees someone being wasteful, he will not stay quiet.

juli - kpop. felix is about to get an hour-long powerpoint presentation on all the kpop moments he missed during his fifty years in prison.

lian - high school musical. next question.

joshua - if he feels like he or his loved ones are being wronged, you will hear about it, and he will tell you exactly what he thinks of you.

rae - injustice. this applies to the big obvious things (the classist structure of modern society under corporate capitalism and the inherent corruption of the justice system under the Soul Stealers), and it also plays into his philosophy on parking tickets, a la henry david thoreau.

karyme - so her public passion is media preservation, and she's a big name in the archival scene online. that said. if you know her well enough you will unlock the rant on all the ways the internet is absolute shit when it comes to media analysis. this includes a visceral denouncement of modern retellings, a lament on how found family has morphed into a mirror of nuclear family structures, and a list of all of the tags you should probably blacklist if you want to avoid absolutely braindead takes.

auster - this is difficult because auster is like. the master of Not Speaking. but i think one thing that gets him to speak up without fail is self-deprecation from people he cares about. he knows they're wrong, and he'll tell them why in the most earnestly beautiful speech you've ever heard, and then he'll turn bright red as he realizes exactly what he just said.

and as a bonus...

joel - his math homework. it's torture, don't you see? absolutely horrid. none of it makes sense. why do people do this for fun.

[mikeellee]

I posted 6,162 times in 2022

That's 2,396 more posts than 2021!

88 posts created (1%)

6,074 posts reblogged (99%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@itsnothingofinterest

@professionalranter31

@fleshisprison

@writing-prompt-s

@anti-bakugou-memes

I tagged 84 of my posts in 2022

#hori is a bad writer - 37 posts

#shigadeku - 24 posts

#tomudeku - 20 posts

#the way a lot of the fandom treats izuku just bothers me - 19 posts

#anti horikoshi - 18 posts

#shigaraki x deku - 17 posts

#shigaraki tomura - 10 posts

#anti bakugou - 10 posts

#izuku midoriya - 10 posts

#tomura shigaraki - 9 posts

Longest Tag: 84 characters

#he cant make shiggy so white and black mentality and then boom time for izu save him

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

So I don’t usually talk about the king aka Shigaraki in my rants...so I want to reticify that.

Before I move on...just to be clear. I do love Shiggy. This is not me being a hater and if you have a different opinion about Shiggy...ok. That’s valid.

My main grip about Shiggy... is how he has no real end goal. I know people here on tumblr have analyses, essays and whatnot about how Shiggy must be the Messiah that will get rid of bad heroes or capitalism or anything like that.

I like this idea. I would read a fic like that.

The problem is when people really think in Hori’s canon...Shiggy is indeed a messiah who will set all the fair people free from the unjust system.

Like, dont we all live in a shit society? I can’t speak for all but in my country we rather revult about Superman’s son kissing a man than...a genocide president who mock the victims of covid.

And yeah in moments like this....is nice going to escapism. People facing na evil ruler/regime and bringing real changes for the kingdom and everyone is happy.

I get it. I like those stories.

But on Shiggy’s part. On Hori’s canon part...we dont know what HE wants.

Duh he wants destruction. One may say.

Ok...he wants to destroy the heroes....ok then I ask

Does he want a literal destruction? Are we rooting for a villain who wants to commit genocide?

(In the war arc he did many bad thinga and yes we can say “AFO controlled him” sure but he still had some control over his action to a certain point and he shows no remorse)

Does he wants a metaphorical destruction?

Does he plans in making something anew?

What Shiggy wants? ( aside a fine 🥦)

We dont know...we will never know as AFO is treating Shiggy as his flesh puppet for reasons unknown for us.

I know there are many posts saying “shiggy will end the corruption” and I have to say...NO HE WONT. Not on Hori’s canon.

Shiggy’s motivation/goals arent totally his. His father hated heroes. AFO increased that to 11.

Shiggy is not speaking about the flaws of the hero society to everyone but more about how the society failed him. How no one saved him.

(He wanted to be saved by Zuzu but...headed by Hori...look if Hori had made them inferact and had a relationship that would have been amazing but, again, headed by Hori 🙄)

Shiggy speaks about his pain and trauma and I notice how the victims in the story need to be shut and accept their abuser ( case point, look at how hori treats Izu)

Shiggy is vilanize and abused by the narrative for daring to want revenge on his pain.

And again, headed by hori, its a bit hard to forgetten Shiggy’s action and LoV’s (Says the person who likes the idea of them winning with Zuzu)

This make me think of MCU Loki...and how he killed many people in the first avanger’s movie.

Sure. He killed of screen and all are faceless and nameless but here the thing...if we are to accept Loki was brainwashed by Thanos...even so, he indirectly killed those people....does he feel remorse?

Bc LoV and Shiggy show no remorse. Asad backstory is not free card for a character to do whatever.

Also for the togaocha out there....in hori’s canon THIS IS HORSE SHIT. Look ship what you want, I BET YOU CAN BE BETTER THAN HORI HERE.

But Toga trying to kill Ochako, mentioned how she used her quirk to kill and then is surprised that Ochako is grossed out by her....IS NOT TRACING A ANTAGONIST RELATIONSHIP

That is Hori being stupid.

See the full post

45 notes - Posted January 4, 2022

#4

I make this post in the hopes some people watch, read and stay mad. It's 2022 and if you still write any Izu shipping fic- regardless with who- where bk is important for Zuzu or the shipping.

You are shipping wrong! And I say this 100% right and certain of this.

Not saying WHO yoi should ship, but when you ship someone- any ship of any fandom- the general consensus is for 2 characters to be together and happy.

And I know some may say "I ship two villains. They do fucked up shit" ok. Then they are fucked up but in love.

And now you wonder "what's matter? If we ship character A abusing gaslight character B, its not as if we are condoning such acts"

TRUE! I can't stress this enough. Liking dark content is not a sin or illegal, but it's sus how the MHA fandom takes Izuku Midoriya and puts him in awful and abusive situations in the name of "love"

A certian server in the discord seems to make Izu the eternal victim, the one who needs to sacrifice everything to be with his lover...who wont sacrifice anything.

And think back how the number of abusive relationships show in the media are awful...See, any "romance" mainstreaming.

And I mention this bc...why is so hard to make healthy relationships?

I ship shigadeku...and the ship can be healthy even if Zuzu falls to the dark side.

You can ship Izuocha and not make Ochako laugh when BK mistreat Izu.

You can ship Izux anyone. And not make him "cant function without my love interest"

You can make healthy and interesting. Also, the whole myth "fucked up relationships are more interesting to read" is not true.

I wouldn't read any Joker X Harley comic...

But I would love to read a Poison Ivy x Harly comic.

52 notes - Posted July 6, 2022

#3

You know, thanks to a discussion with @professionalranter31 I realize something....Shiggy may be the only person, in canon, who really react positively (more or less) to Izu being quirkless.

Like Inko criies her heart out and apologise to him (never will like that nor the scene)

AM dont talk about his past. Yes, he said Izu cant be a hero but it wasnt bc of he is evil...it was to soare him (but I do think he was wrong as not every hero faces a villain like AFO. Also, if AFO didn't exist or was dead would AM agree Izu can be a hero?)

And....

BK, please. You guys know what he thinks. His "iconic" line of suicide baiting tells you everything.

Just it.

Shiggy?

"Ah he is quirkless? Ok whatever" and he is the villain. He couls have said smth equally or worse than what BK said. Could have said smth qorse to Izu's face "quirkless good is a dead one" and yet... he never says this.

The villain is more chill about it than....everyone else.

And the love interest, Ochako, knows shit about Izu...Like wow.

65 notes - Posted October 8, 2022

#2

I never did a rant about a ship before bc I always thought someone else could do a better job defending it but, considering how this fandom is...maybe I should give my 2 cents for shigadeku

Note: please. I’m note here to cause any ship war. You ship what you want. If you dont like shigadeku then that’s fine.

That’s out of the way, lets talk about this ship. Now, Hori is a bad writer but even in his bad canon...shigadeku does have interesting and “strong” foundations.

I put “” here bc any ship headed by Hori will be bad written. I know this.

Both are different sides of the same coin. Both are outcasts, both have quirks that caused them pain.

And both are alone.

Now, what we know about shiggy is that he is being manipulated by AFO since a young age.

* I want to mention here how...in the hands of a better writer, the name deku could mean smth omen and AFO could call shiggy deku either in front of him or to his back to add more paralels and development for the 2 like, Izu stood up and says/make bk stop calling him deku is great but imagine him defending shiggy?*

oK think with me. In any sci fi/fantasy movie when a character is being mind controlled or groomed...what would stop him to finished the task is seeing the hero/loved one bc would be the begin for the character to.set free.

“I was supposed to kill this person but I dont want ....for now” and develop from there.

Now, when we meet Shiggy is into the hate AFO spill. He has 0 reasons for wanting AM dead.

“Ahhh but AM represent how this society is bad”

Great answer and idea for a fic. But in canon he never gives a real answer. “I hate AM” is his get go....no further explanation.

But how funny he saw Zuzu and staet wanting to talk to him. No one put this idea in his head.

No AFO.

No Kotaro.

Its all Shiggy.

He, still under AFO’s bullshite, went to see Zuzu. And yes we get the mall scene but what many fans oddly refuse to admit is how...he went to Zuzu on his own free will.

THAT IS HUGE. Especially considering SHIGGY IS GROOMED (that is not fanfic that is canon and I do hate hori’a canon)

He has a photo of Izu...who by the time was just a student.

Like this has a HUGE potential. And I dont get why people refuse to reconize that?

If this stoey was headed by a competent writer shigadeku would be a more prevalent relationship.

They arent mortal enemies...they are two hurt boys stuck in this stupid war and decide to stop the feud.

God this line above is more romantic.

For those wondering...I did watch boku already liking IzuOcha but...Hori sideline Ochako and her feelings so much.

“Ah and the cute moments? Izuocha will be canon, not shigadeku”

I Know. And I have no problems with this ship- if we compare with naruto’s canon ship- but it doesnt change how underveloped it is. Also, Izu could have cute moments with Mina too and no one will say they are endgame.

Not sure if my point is clear. All I’m saying is that Shigadeku has such romantic potential and you dont need to turn Izu into “soft cinnamon roll” or change Shiggy into “playboy” to make it work.

“Ah gross. Shiggy is older than Zuzu”

3 or 4 years isnt a big deal. I mean, Shiggy was a 17 years old when the story begins and that didnt stop anyone to ship shiggy witb dabi or eraserhead who are older than him.

See the full post

78 notes - Posted January 5, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

You know, I think we all own an apology to Kishomoto. Why? His ending wasn't bad written...it fits perfectly with the narrative presented.

Naruto was never about the underdog nor a chosen one who will break the cycle of abuse

No.

Naruto was a story about a fascist and imperalist goverment who will gladly and gleefully stomp overr your body unless you have some utility for them.

The will of fire is not a cutesy thing. It's a propaganda...and it was never challanged.

Sending kids to war.

Breaking yourself for your nation.

Naruto, the mc, never wanted to change anything...he wants the prestige. He wants to be hokage so he can get attention.

Sakura and Naruto both are toxic in regards Sasuke. The victim of genocide - who is paint as a bad person for not wanting to go back to konoha- is in the wrong and needs to be taught a lesson.

Sasuke is not allowed to disagree with a goverment who said ok to genocide of his clan.

Sakura is so yandere for Sasuke...and that checks. You can say is sexism but not is out of character. She dump her friend- mind you in this case Sakura was 10 years old- bc she feared her friend could get the attention of Sasuke.

Naruto was never one to change anything bc all he wanted was to be at the top. Not change anything.

Naruto wasn't a tale of hope. But of dispair.

148 notes - Posted January 19, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[miridiums-writing]

Ciel, Sebastian, and Vincent x FEMALE!PUNK!GENZreader

Ciel Phantomhive

Ciel is shooketh

Though he is also impressed listening to your views

Makes him so proud listening to you explain the systems, how its racist and corrupt and unfair

How no matter what we do we will always be in a racist society with white supremacy as long as we have capitalism because it is so deeply rooted into it

Though he always steps in if your uncomfortable in any way

Will protect you from the spiders

First time he saw you afraid to hurt the beetle that had found itself in your room after coming home from beating up a racist he face-palmed

But he gets it……… kinda

He thinks its silly but at the same time he can see how the beetle is innocent, the racist wasn’t and defiantly deserved what they got

Smirks to himself whenever you both pass a cop because he knows your going to scream “Fuck 12” at them as you both pass

shocks him every time to begin with though

If someone brings up society or things he just sighs and gets ready for you to take them to school

Though he chuckles anytime he realizes you need to ask for something

Salt at a restraint

Where was the bathroom

He knows you have the confidence to stand up to racists

But shopkeepers make you weak?

Honestly comedic

Sebastian Michaelis

He is just as shocked as Ciel to begin with

But he just relaxes into it pretty quickly

Your interesting

Could listen to you shouting at racist’s and the police everyday

Thinks its hot ngl

Listening to your rants just makes him horny happy

Honestly just finds you really intriguing and makes him want to know you more

Chuckles behind his hand whenever he notices you need to request something small

When another butler of maid asks if you know where the kitchen is and you just freeze

He finds it so funny and slightly hypocritical until he really thinks about it

You don’t believe in unneeded hate, such as racism, homophobia, anit-semitism, transphobia, biphobia, or anything else that cuts people out

And because of your strong morals you are not afraid to speak up about them

But the thought of burdening people with your problems freaks you out

The thought of hurting a fly scares you

Honestly he just finds you interesting

He cant wait to find out more

Vincent Phantomhive

He finds you curious

A curious case

He is so used to women who keep their mouth closed seeing you go off is incredible

Plus you dress how you want

Not to please a man to get a partner

You dress as your authentic self and could care less how people look at you

He loves that with every fibre of his being

You just be yourself and don’t hide anything

He isn’t really used to seeing that, mostly people put up a front

So he first found you curious

Then he talked to you and then heard you being so passionate about what you believe in

Antifa

Blm

Acab

He actually loves it

Keep talking to him enough and he will end up a leftist

Everything you say makes sense

He doesn’t join in when you shout “fuck 12” at the police as he still has a reputation to uphold so he keeps that to himself

Though he helps you shout at racists and such

He will always back you up

Your hype man too, loves the way you dress you so pretty

[simphellscape]

a conversation about tsukasa shishio and his perception of greed

in which i word vomit about why, while i really love tsukasa and his desire for a better world, i think he's setting his sights impossibly high.

so, i'll start this by saying that tsukasa is one of my favorite characters in dr. stone. he might even be one of my favorite anime characters period. he's compelling, he's incredibly smart, and he's got a good heart. i really think that, even though he's slated as the antagonist for the better part of the show thus far, he's just doing the wrong things for the right reasons.

i rewatched the first few episodes of the series with some friends, and after hearing tsukasa's spiel on greed, it sparked an interesting conversation on the concept of greed: how it forms, how it grows, etc. my roommate and i have talked about tsukasa's character a lot, and while we both love him, we disagree on the practicality of his goals.

i am all for the upheaval of modern capitalism because this shit sucks and is not working for anyone except for the elite, but it just won't solve the issue of greed, because greed existed before capitalism ever did. tsukasa's distaste for a capitalist society is amazing and inspiring, but i think his aspirations for the new world are unrealistic.

my roomie has said over and over again that tsukasa hit the nail right on the head about the fact that modern society breeds greed. i agree wholeheartedly, however, i think that both my roommate and tsukasa forget that greed has existed in all phases of society. it is an integral part of the human condition. greed has persevered, and will persevere, for all of time.

i also agree that we most commonly see greed manifest over time in an individual's life. as people grow older, greed tends to fester. but, while greed is a lot of things, it is not discriminatory. everyone, no matter how old they are, is subject to its grasp.

my roommate also made the point that the absence of capitalism in tsukasa's perfect world would subdue greed. again, i agree. but, greed would still be there. while there wouldn't be any greed surrounding a singular currency, like we see in the world today, i think that people would still find things to hoard. wealth comes in many forms, and in the stone world, it comes in the form of food, clothing, land, alliances, weaponry, etc. greediness being broken up into multiple avenues like that might make it a bit easier to control from tsukasa's perspective, but it's still around.

and what happens when the people in his society grow older? tsukasa's disdain for greed is assigned to the adults of the modern world. who's to say that the adults in his world won't become just like them? who's to say that, once tsukasa reaches adulthood, he won't become just like them? unlearning a pattern of behavior such a greed is a long, difficult progress. one thing that we all agreed on in our conversation earlier is that greedy behaviors are definitely generational, at least in part. the people in the stone world will eventually become parents, and then their kids will become parents, and so on. to eliminate greed entirely, it will likely take centuries to completely do so. even then, that's iffy. like i said before, i think greed is integrated into the human disposition. there are entire cultural sects that condemn any expressions of greed, going back centuries. i'm mainly talking about religion here. i'm from the southern united states, so the one that immediately comes to mind here is christianity due to the demographics of my area. the bible explicitly forbids the expression of greed many times over. if one of the most dominant religious groups, with teachings directly concerning the erasure of greed from society that is millenniums old, hasn't done it as of yet... how can tsukasa expect to do it at all, with his actions alone?

in essence, i think that tsukasa is placing boundaries on greed that simply aren't there. young people aren't immune to it. inherently good people aren't immune to it. even tsukasa himself isn't immune to it. greed is powerful. greed is infectious. greed is innate. and, no matter how much he wants to, tsukasa can't stop it from corrupting his ideal society.

_________________________________________

i didn't mean for this to turn into a fucking essay, but here we are ig. i know that this point of view sounds kind of pessimistic, but i don't want to sugarcoat anything. also, don't know if you could tell from this rant, but i studied psychology in college before i dropped out lmao

if you disagree PLEASE TELL ME I WANT TO DISCUSS THIS SO BAD

[awed-frog]

“The big flaw with this is that it completely misunderstands who JK Rowling is and why she wrote the books. Simply put, this novel is a Christian tale. You miss that, you miss the entire point of everything it has to say.” Elaborate? Sounds interesting and I haven’t heard that before.

Well - I love this to bits and sort of wrote my thesis about it, so here we go.

Basically, you’ve got several kinds of heroes, but ‘left-wing hero’ is almost a contradiction in terms (more on this later). There’s your average Greek hero, whose status as a hero is more of a social class than it is a job and who generally doesn’t have any morally redeeming qualities (have you met Theseus?). Then there’s the medieval Christian hero - he comes in different flavours, but what’s relevant here is the Perceval model: basically the village idiot, whose only power is his good heart and who has no desire to challenge the status quo (because kings are divinely ordained and also poets tend to work for them, so ‘That vassal guy of yours has rescued yet another damsel’ story is going to be better received than ‘Your tax system is corrupt and this knight will now implement direct democracy’). Next you have the modern superhero, who was born in a very different historical context (the vigilantism of 19th century US) and as such has very different priorities. Namely: in his world, there is no higher authority and it’s up to him to use his superior skills to be judge and executioner so he can protect the most vulnerable. This understandable but toxic narrative will later get mixed up with WW2 and then the rampant capitalism of the last 30 years, resulting in the current blockbustery mess.

Anyway - if you’re a Western writer, it’s basically impossible to escape these three shaping forces we’ve all grown up with (classical Antiquity, Christianity, and US-led imperialism/capitalism), so most books and movies of the last forever decades can be analyzed through this lens. In the case of JK Rowling, what you have is a Christian author who openly used her YA series to chart out her own relationship with God. This is not a secret, or a meta writer’s delusion, or anything: she’s discussed it in several interviews. Her main problem, which is most believers’ main problem, is how to reconcile her faith in a benevolent God with the suffering in her daily life; and something she’s mentioned more than once is how her mom died when she was 25, and how this was very much on her mind especially when she was writing Deathly Hallows.

Now, I don’t want to write a novel here, so I won’t analyze the entire series, but what it is is basically a social critique of British society, mixed up with Greek and Roman elements in a cosmetic way only, and - crucially - led by an extremely Christian hero. 

In every way that matters, Harry Potter is a direct descendant of Perceval: he’s someone who’s grown up in isolation as the village idiot (remember how he was shunned by other children because he was ‘dangerous’ and ‘different’), randomly found a more exciting world of which he previously knew nothing (he’s basically the only kid who gets to Hogwarts without knowing anything about the magical world, just like Perceval joined Arthur’s court after living in the woods for 15 years), and proceeded to make his mark not because of his innate powers or special abilities (he’s average at magic, except for Defence against the Dark Arts), but because he’s kind and good and humble. And in the end, he willingly sacrifices himself so everyone else can be saved: a Christ-like figure who even gets his very own Deposition (in the arms of Hagrid, the closest thing to a parent his actually has). 

(This, by the way, was the only reason why Hagrid was kept alive. JK Rowling had planned to kill him, but she absolutely wanted this scene - one of the most recognizable and beloved image in Christian art - in the books.)

And even if he ultimately survives his ‘death’ (like Jesus did), Harry refuses the riches and rank he was surely offered and chooses to spend his days in middle-class obscurity as a husband and father (if I remember correctly, Harry and Ginny’s house isn’t even big enough for their three kids). And no, of course he doesn’t stand for anything or challenges the status quo: that’s not his job. His job, like Jesus’, was to defeat evil by offering himself up in sacrifice; and the entire story - especially the last book - is a profound, intimate, and very moving reflection on faith.

(“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's”, remember? It’s not your job to change anything in the temporal, material world; your job is to nurture your immortal soul and prepare it for the true life that comes after death.)

Like - I don’t know how it was for younger readers, but for me, reading Deathy Hallows as an adult, it wrecked me. Even as an agnostic, I read it over and over again, and I kep finding new meaning in it. The whole thing is basically a retelling of the Book of Job, one of the most puzzling and beautiful parts of the Old Testament. That’s when Harry’s faith in God Dumbledore is tested, when his mentor, the cornerstone of his world, disappears; when Harry has to decide whether he’ll continue to believe in this absent, flawed figure despite all the bad things he keeps uncovering or give up his faith - and thus his soul - completely. The clearest, most startling moment exemplifying this religious dilemma is when Harry decides not to go after the wand. Getting it is the logical thing to do, the only way he can win, but Harry - while mourning Dobby - decides not to do it. That’s when he recovers his faith, and starts trusting his own kindness and piety (whatever happens, he will not defile a tomb) over everything else.

Another key moment is King’s Cross - here, and once more, Harry forgives his enemy, thus obeying Jesus’ commands. He sees Voldemort, the being who took everything from him - and he pities the pathetic, unloved thing he’s become. This is what sets him apart from everyone else and what makes him special: not his birth, not his magic, not some extraordinary artefact - but simply, like Dumbledore puts it, that he can love. After everything that’s bene done to him, he can still love; not only his friends, but his enemies. He forgives Voldemort, he forgives Snape, he forgives Malfoy, he forgives Dudley; and I see so many people angry about this, ranting about abuse victims and how hate is a right, but I think they’re missing the point. This is a Christian story; from a Christian perspective, your enemies need love more than your friends do. 

(“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician” and all that.)

And in any case, a hero is inherently not left-wing. The whole trope relies on three rock-solid facts: the hero is special, and he can do something you can’t, and that gives him the right or the duty to save others who can’t save themselves. Whether it is declined in its Christian form (the hero as self-sacrificing nobody) or in its fascist form (the hero as judge and king of the inferior masses), that is is the exact opposite of any kind of left-wing narrative, where meaningful change is brought about not by individual martyrdom or a benevolent super-human, but by collective action.

So, yeah - Harry changes nothing and is not the leader of the revolution, but it’s unfair to link this to JK Rowling’s politics. It’s just how the trope works. And, in fairness to her, many kind and compassionate authors who write books concerned with social justice tend to lean towards this kind of hero because the only workable alternative - the fascist super-hero - is way worse. Had Harry been that, for instance, he would have ended up ruling the wizarding world. Would that have been better for its democracy? A 19-year-old PM who knows nothing about the law or justice or diplomacy? A venerated war hero drunk on power? Instead, JK Rowling chooses the milder way out: Harry and his friends do change the system - little by little, and within the limits of the genre. Hermione becomes the equivalent of a human rights lawyer, while Harry and Ron join the Aurors (and I know there’s a lot of justified suspicion towards law enforcement, but frankly having good people in their ranks is still the only way to move things forward. It’s been years and I still haven’t heard a practical suggestion as to how a police-less nation would work). As for the government, it is restored to a fairer status quo - again, not the revolution many readers wanted, but also not the totalitarian monarchies or oligarchies or the super-hero’s world.

And as to how one can write a story that’s actually revolutionary - I don’t exactly know. Some writers rely on multiple narrating voices to try and escape the heroic trope; others work on bleak stories which point out the flaws in the system and stop short of solving them. I guess that, in the end, is one of the problem with left-wing politics: they’re simply less eye-catching, less cinematic. On the whole, it’s dull, boring work, the victories achieved by committees and celebrated with a piece of paper. From a literary point of view, it just doesn’t work.

[gale-gentlepenguin]

I’m really really sorry to be disrespecting your wishes, but you just struck such a nerve I had to say something. I’m going to use America as an example. Slavery still exists in capitalism. In America they put people in jail for minor reasons and then because the jail is privately owned most of the time, they do everything in their power to keep them there. They then use these people to do free labour, a famous example being prisoners in California being forced to risk their lives and fight the wild fires. This short video explains it in basics if you’re interested (https://youtu.be/gX2R0b_mqrQ)

Slavery in America also didn’t “end” because capitalism let it. It stopped because in the civil war America needed more fighters (slaves volunteered when they knew it meant freedom) and a reason for England to stay out of the war, so they gave the fight a just cause. In fact the reason America was among the last to stop blatant slavery was because people didn’t want the economy failing from a sudden lack of free labour. Capitalism is what kept slavery around then, and still does now. Here’s a kinda long but interesting video summing up the American civil war (https://youtu.be/tsxmyL7TUJg)

Hate communism all you want, your reasons are 100% just. But please try not to spread misinformation. The reason Americans die everyday from easily preventable causes, is because they’ve been brainwashed to refuse anything even slightly to do with communism. People literally have to pay to hold their child after birth because they don’t have a socialised health care system. Here’s a short video on that if you’re interested (https://youtu.be/Kll-yYQwmuM)

(Also people really can’t move up and down the capitalism ladder without the connections you get from being at the top of it. People wouldn’t be homeless or working minimum wage jobs if they could just gain a better job through “hard work”)

Again I’m sorry to be sending you this on a platform where you want to chill, so don’t feel it necessary to respond, but I just couldn’t stay quiet.

I did say I didn't want to talk about this anymore. You clearly put thought into this ask and it isn't just another person raving about something. So I will make ONE exception. This is the last post I will talk about this.

So I am not upset with you sending me this. If anything I am glad you took sources and explained your reasoning. So I will comment on this with Equal respect and my view. I will be adding a read more because I don't want to force any opinions and views down people’s throats. I am completely fine with you disagreeing with me. I just want people to be rational and come to their own conclusions.

Lets take this point by point.

Before starting, I will agree that Capitalism as a concept didn't end slavery, I was saying the governments with that system did. Albeit not directly because it.

1.The For Profit prison system is messed up and it is filled with Corrupt and Bigotted individuals that exploit it. Sadly it isn't classified as Slavery, as the prisoners (while grossly underpaid and exploited) are technically paid and given room and board.) and unless they are on death row, can be released.  This prison system is still better then Communist systems, which effectively work their prisoners (who are locked up unjustly by vast margins) to death, or worse. Which is the main point I was making when I made my post (though it was more of an emotional rant.) I will in this response be more calm and explain my rational. Communism always results in more death and is just as corrupt. So in a matter of comparison, I would take being a prisoner in a capitalist society rather than one in a communist society.

2. Capitalism ended slavery in the sense that a Capitalist society had a war and the side with the more advanced technology and willpower managed to win the civil war and establish a written in the constitution law, that made it so people can not legally own slaves. And then at some point most capitalist societies made laws that outlawed slavery. (Of course the prison system is an exploited loophole, which I would 100% to have fixed). 

3. The health care system is also a corrupt mess. America’s healthcare system has been exploited by Big Pharma and overcharges its people to insane degrees which I personally hate. And I would not be against some sort of baseline care for everyone. But the problem is that Communism health care isn't what people imagine it would be. It removes people’s choice on the matter. Also socialist Healthcare in places such as Canada do still provide Private Health insurance. So I wouldn't be entirely against having that, (but half the Canadians I know say the system sucks greatly) I think as long as the choice is there I wouldn't mind it.

4. Communist and Socialist healthcare systems do however vastly slow down medical innovation and in the case of Communism, keeps the better care for those at the top. The capitalist system at least allows for some sort of charity system that allows for people to donate, work around certain things to get care and people that can find a way to pay can pay. I wouldn't mind having a baseline healthcare for everyone, but the problem is there is such a thing as limited resources. Even in a PERFECT Social healthcare system, it would still have limited resources and involve the government deciding on who gets what and who has to die. Which is kind of f***ed up. 

5. About having connections to move up the capitalist ladder. That is literally the same everywhere. Life is about who you know, I personally believe a meritocracy would be better but that aint how it works. That won't change regardless of the system your in. Though I am the child of immigrants that literally busted their asses when they were dirt poor to be able to provide for my sister and me. They moved up. I will say it is a lot harder nowadays, but people have done it. Hell, I know my buddy is doing it right now. He is working his way through school and studying programing. I am proud of him.

6. As someone who has personally worked at food banks and Homeless shelters. There would still be homeless people. There is a lot of mental illness in the homeless community. Supplying housing does not fix the situation because they don't know how to take care of a house. Also the fact that some people also don't want to live in a place. Everyone paints it as black and white, but the whole homeless crisis has a lot of layers to it and I do believe that at least in this system, they would still be alive. Back in Cuba and In the soviet union the mentally ill were executed... 

Lastly, all of the things you listed are valid to an extent, but the problem is that the issues you are referring too come from CORRUPTION of a system not the system itself. I do think I agree with your statements on the flaws of capitalism. I have my own personal beefs with the system, but I am enough of a realist to know that full on socialism ALWAYS ends in authoritarianism. Whether its communism or Facism, it ends poorly.

[kaninchenzero]

i complain here about teevee shows i hate because they're one of my wife's copes and i'd much rather be some commie rando shouting into the void than a dick to my wife

i'd prefer that shitty teevee shows not get made and better teevee shows get made instead and production resources were not parceled out by

fuck i sound mad when i'm ranting in the cozy warmth of my brain meats about american and uk media being funded as a neoliberal propaganda effort

like what the fuck

but steven fucking mnuchin, deeply corrupt former secretary of the treasury department of the united states of america, has producer credits on an appalling number of hollywood movies

because he brings the money

this is just real life

it's not even a secret conspiracy, it's all just

how business gets done

so when these assholes complain about how lefty hollywood is on fox and friends or whatever, they know they are lying

and we get terrible art designed to reinforce the idea that totalized neoliberal capitalism is not only the least awful of any way to have a human society but is also the inevitable endpoint of social evolution and billionaires are great actually and totally deserve to use the armed might of the state to enforce their property rights

and by property they definitely don't not mean "any value created by your labor"

yeah anyway this is about not being a dick to my wife

[alexantrax]

thoughts on capitalism

so I've been trying to think of something to write in here, but I haven’t been very thoughtful about... stuff, in general. I think I’m burned-out from all the thinking and worrying I've had since the beginning of this pandemic while living in a “developing” country. It feels like I’m living on automatic: no thoughts, head empty. 

Anyways, I remembered today something a teacher told us this week, and I’d like to talk (rant, if I’m honest) about it. To give y'all my ghost readers some context: he’s European and has an “anarchist” ideology. He teaches us the course of Anthropology of Gender (Gender Studies, basically) and he was giving a class about “desire” and how these desires we have as humans are never able to be fulfilled because it’s nothing but ambition, a feeling we constantly have to get stuff and so make us feel alive. You can see it’s some psychoanalytic shit. That’s not the point I want to speak about. In this whole Lacanian speech, he said: “some people are against capitalism because they’ve got a moral view of society and they want a perfect life among humans. But capitalism has persevered more than socialism/communism because ambition, excessive desire, is part of the human nature. Deep inside communists themselves, they too want to live in a capitalist society because that’s where you can accomplish your wanting although it will never be fulfilled.”  And for a moment, I’m not going to lie, I did think he was right. We have seen how great socialist leaderships begin strong to then fail dramatically after some years because the workers representatives in the government become corrupt and sick of power very quickly. That’s the constant desire: getting to a powerful position and then forgetting the struggle of your people, because the wish for things can be more demanding than anything else. Also, we all want nice stuff. We all want a nice smartphone, a nice house, a nice television, a nice and somewhat luxurious life (as in doing things without thinking of money like buying groceries, clothes and consuming entertainment). That makes us weak to desire, doesn't it?  But then I also thought: I do want nice things, and I do know corruption exists, but I do not want to live in a place where the majority of the working people are poor, meanwhile the ones that do absolutely nothing but being assholes are the ones on the big positions. They are corrupt, they are cruel and even inhumane, and they're 100% capitalists. I want to have nice things but I want other to have those nice things too. Sure, it might look like I want an “impossible” dream, but that's not true. The wealth of a country could be fairly distributed, to the point where we can live comfortably. I do not want everybody living the same life with the same stuff, I just want people to live in good conditions, where they can prosper and have a good life without shitty people wanting to take advantage because they were born in a better social position.  It’s easy to say “deep inside we all want to live in capitalism” because you come from a country where capitalism is a good thing, where it means opportunity and prosperity. But those good conditions are not because his European country is more intelligent, no. It’s because they have taken advantage of other countries like us. They have come here, colonized us, maked us poor and unable to become an operable nation, and then have the courage to say “oh you want to live in capitalism”. Yeah, okay, let’s change positions. Come live the capitalism I live, not your European capitalism. Come work on these inhumane factories, come and be a motherfucking worker in capitalism. Let’s see how you think about capitalism then.  And I’m not a communist. I haven't read enough theory to know about how communism works, but what I DO know it’s that life is already senseless and unfair, but us as society we definitely can create some sense and some justice. 

[randomnumbers751650]

Long, unedited text in which I rant about comparative mythology, Joseph Campbell and his monomyth,

Back in 2012 I wanted to improve my fiction writing (and writing in general, because in spite of nuances, themes and audience, writing a fiction and a nonfiction piece shouldn’t be that different) and thus I picked a few writing manuals. Many of them cited the Hero’s Journey, and how important it became for writers – after all Star Wars used and it worked. I believe most of the people reading this like Star Wars, or at least has neutral feelings about it, but one thing that cannot be denied is that became a juggernaut of popular culture.

So I bought a copy of the Portuguese translation of The Hero of a Thousand Faces and I fell in love with the style. Campbell had a great way with words and the translation was top notch. For those unaware, The Hero of a Thousand Faces proposes that there is a universal pattern in humanity’s mythologies that involves a person (usually a man) that went out into a journey far away from his home, faced many obstacles, both external and internal, and returned triumphant with a prize, the Grail or the Elixir of Life, back to his home. Campbell’s strength is that he managed to systematize so many different sources into a single cohesive narrative.

At the time I was impressed and decided to study more and write in an interdisciplinary research with economics – by writing an article on how the entrepreneur replaces the mythical hero in today’s capitalism. I had to stop the project in order to focus on more urgent matters (my thesis), but now that I finished I can finally return to this pet project of mine.

If you might have seen previous posts, I ended up having a dismal view of economics. It’s a morally and spiritually failed “science” (I have in my drafts a post on arts and I’m going to rant another day about it). Reading all these books on comparative mythology is so fun because it allows me for a moment to forget I have a degree in economics.

Until I started to realize there was something wrong.

My research had indicated that Campbell and others (such as Mircea Eliade and Carl Gust Jung, who had been on of Campbell’s main influences) weren’t very well respected in academia. At first I thought “fine”, because I’m used to interact with economists who can be considered “heterodox” and I have academic literature that I could use to make my point, besides the fact my colleagues were interested in what I was doing.

The problem is that this massive narrative of the Hero’s Journey/monomyth is an attempt to generalize pretty wide categories, like mythology, into one single model of explanation, it worked because it became a prescription, giving the writer a tool to create a story in a factory-like pace. It has checkboxes that can be filled, professional writers have made it widely available.

But I started to realize his entire understanding of mythology is problematic. First the basics: Campbell ignores when myths don’t fit his scheme. This is fruit of his Jungian influences, who claim that humanity has a collective unconsciousness, that manifest through masks and archetypes. This is the essence of the Persona games (and to a smaller extent of the Fate games) – “I am the Shadow the true self”. So any deviation from the monomyth can be justified by being a faulty translation of the collective unconsciousness.

This is the kind of thing that Karl Popper warned about, when he proposed the “falseability” hypothesis, to demarcate scientific knowledge. The collective unconsciousness isn’t a scientific proposition because it can be falsified. It cannot be observed and it cannot be refuted, because someone who subscribe to this doctrine will always have an explanation to explain why it wasn’t observed. In spite of falseability isn’t favored by philosophers of science anymore, it remains an important piece of the history of philosophy and he aimed his attack on psychoanalysis of Freud and Jung – and, while they helped psychology in the beginning, they’re like what Pythagoras is to math. They were both surpassed by modern science and they are studied more as pieces of history than serious theorists.

But this isn’t the worst. All the three main authors on myths were quite conservatives in the sense of almost being fascists – sometimes dropping the ‘almost’. Some members of the alt-right even look up to them as some sort of “academic’ justification. Not to mention anti-Semitic. Jung had disagreement with Freud and Freud noticed his anti-Semitism. Eliade was a proud supporter of the Iron Guard, a Romanian fascist organization that organized pogroms and wanted to topple the Romanian government. Later Eliade became an ambassador at Salazar’s Fascist Portugal, writing it was a government guided by the love of God. Campbell, with his hero worship, was dangerously close to the ur-fascism described by Umberto Eco (please read here, you won’t regret https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf).

“If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge – that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.”

Campbell did that a lot. He considered the Bible gospels and Gnostic gospels to be on the same level. Any serious student, that is not operating under New Age beliefs and other frivolous theories like the one that says Jesus went to India, will know there’s a difference between them (even Eliade was sure to stress the difference).

But Campbell cared nothing for it. He disliked the “semitic” religions for corrupting the mythic imagination (which is the source of his anti-Semitism), especially Judaism. When I showed him describing the Japanese tea ceremony to a friend who’s minoring in Japanese studies, she wrote “I’m impressed, he’s somehow managed to out-purple prose the original Japanese”. So, it’s also full of orientalism, treating the East as the mystical Other, something for “daring” Westerners to discover and distillate.

What disturbed…no, “disturbed” isn’t the word that I need in the moment, but what made me feel uncomfortable is that, in spite of all his talk of spirituality, the impression I had of Power of Myth is that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone more materialist than him. Not even Karl Marx, founder of the Historical Materialism, was as materialist as Campbell.

At one point in the book, he was asked if he believed in anything and he gave a dismissive reply and said “I want to get experiences.” A man who studied all the myths of the world available, apparently didn’t believe in anything. Is that what spiritual maturity is? A continuous flux of experiences? Being taken by some sort of shamanistic wind like a floating plastic bag?

In nowhere in the interview he talked about virtues. In rebellion with his Catholic childhood, he said that we should go to the confessionary and say “God, I’ve been such a good boy���. Any cursory reading of the Gospel would say otherwise. Wasn’t this exactly Pharisee’s prayer in Luke 18:9-14? While the wasn’t the publican, who went with humility and asked for forgiveness, the one who walked out with an experience? And not only in Christianity, since in Tibetan Buddhism, a tulpa is something you have to kill, not foster like an imaginary friend like in some internet circles, contamined with this obsession with experiences.

The way I came to see Joseph Campbell as a man who was so stuck in his own world that nothing could move him out of it. All he wanted to do was this big experience, but in the end it’s as wide as the ocean, but shallow as a puddle. Even when Campbell speaks about having a “cosmic consciousness”, all that New Age jargon, claiming it’s about people discovering they’re not the center of the universe, it’s still so…self-servicing. It addresses a crowd so obsessed with experiences, but wants nothing to do with anything that requires compromise. He quotes the Hindu concept of maya, that life is an illusion, but I wonder how right he is about it.

I want to share this critique, by a researcher in comic studies: “We do not remember The Night Gwen Stacy Died because Gwen’s death reminds us of our own mortality, ‘the destiny of Everyman’, but because the story exposes the fragility of Spider-Man reader’s fantasies. Even icons can die.”

The exposition of the fragility of myths, especially the Hero’s Journey, never happens in Campbell’s work. It never talks about the potential of myths hindering entire societies, causing strife and causing people who can’t fit to become outcasts. Not even the cruel ones, like the Aztec death cult is treated as sublime, ignoring the fact that the Aztec neighbors helped to Spanish because they had enough of the Aztec myth.

I have changed my article. While I will still write on the hero entrepreneur, I’ll take a more critical view. The focus of the entrepreneur as an individual has many issues, because it ignores the role of public investment (necessary for high risk enterprises, like going to the moon or creating touch screens) and it treats with contempt the worked wage. Cambpell also treated with contempt the “masses”, who cannot be “heroes”. The theory on the entrepreneur is the same, treating the entrepreneur as a hero and the waged workers as lowlifes who have nothing to do, but to work, obey and be paid – to the point it feels like some economists treat strikes as crimes worse than murder. Not only that, but they can exploit the worker (see a book named “Do what you love and other lies about success and happiness”, it could be replaced with “Follow your bliss…”).

Campbell wrote in a time that there was no Wikipedia. So his book was the introduction of myths to a lot of people. It helped it was well-written. He considering his approach apolitical, but it’s clear that’s it’s not exactly like that (though this is a reason why Jordan Peterson failed to become the next Campbell, since he’s also a Jungian scholar, but he tried to become a conservative guru and this was his downfall). And, nowadays, Campbell is still inevitable in the circles that his themes matter, unlike Freud and Jung. Read it, but be aware of its problems, because it has already influenced what you consume.

[hatari-translations]

Vikan með Gísla Marteini (22.11.19) - translation

On November 22nd, Matthías was on talk show Vikan með Gísla Marteini (The Week with Gísli Marteinn), plus Andrean as a surprise guest near the end, where they talked about, among other things, the protest Hatari were about to play at, the Eurovision Palestine banner protest, and their experience performing in Russia.

Most of the show before Andrean comes in isn't particularly relevant to Hatari fans, but I still translated anything substantial Matthías says plus relevant context. If you just want the main bit about the Moscow concert, scroll down to the "Moscow and the rainbow wings" heading under the cut.

Protests and politics

As always, Gísli Marteinn is a popular talk show host and also the Icelandic Eurovision commentator. The guests on the show this time are:

- Matthías, whom we know, introduced as "hater [Hatari], artist and playwright" - Bubbi Morthens, one of Iceland's most beloved musicians, who wrote many classic songs; a musical based on his life is premiering soon - Björk Vilhelmsdóttir, former city council member, who was recently arrested in Israel

Host Gísli Marteinn opens the show by saying it's a month until the days start to get longer again. Seasonal depression is pretty common in Iceland, and he asks if the guests do anything special to maintain their mental health in the darkest part of the year. Matthías responds: "No, the winter is my time. It's more in the summer that I have to try to stay grounded. I think it's fine."

After a segment with some jokes about the news, which include the whole corruption scandal about Samherji:

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Matthías, you're in an anticapitalist band.

MATTHÍAS: Very much so.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: How do these issues going on in the country right now strike you?

MATTHÍAS: It's perhaps illustrative of the values that capitalism - or late capitalism, maybe neoliberalism, dunno - instills in the hearts of young, up-and-coming scammers and moguls. No, that was...

GÍSLI MARTEINN: You never quite know when Hatari is joking about the anticapitalism.

MATTHÍAS: That was the take that we in Hatari have gone with, and we'll be keeping it aloft at Austurvöllur tomorrow, at two o'clock.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: You'll be playing there?

MATTHÍAS: Yes. It's "Democracy, not plutocracy", an event arranged by the Constitution Society [organization campaigning for the new Icelandic constitution, which was written by a democratically elected council of members of the public and overwhelmingly approved of in a national referendum in 2012, to be actually implemented instead of being stuck in a drawer like it has been] and other organizations -

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Unions...

MATTHÍAS: Yes, Efling [one of Iceland's largest unions], the Icelandic Disability Alliance came in too, and other organizations. So it's big organizations behind this, and I think it's imperative to show through action that this kind of behaviour... that you care, whether you agree with all of... Look, yeah. No, just show up.

They talk about anticapitalism and the scandal for a bit.

Israel and the flag incident

GÍSLI MARTEINN: On to something slightly different. Matthías, last time you were here, you were on the way to Eurovision.

MATTHÍAS: Yeah, we wore those specially designed tracksuits.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Yeah. I've got here one of the most famous objects of 2019 in Iceland, and that's this... this flag here.

He pulls out the Palestine banner that Matthías held in the green room.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: The nation was shocked by the Samherji news, but I think the shock was greater when this was pulled out.

BJÖRK: The joy was greater!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Yeah, but still shock! I don't necessarily mean shock in a negative way. I'll just say for myself, I could barely believe you were doing this. Walk us through it a bit, I mean, how... You were incredibly stressed about doing this.

MATTHÍAS: Yes, and there's a lot of uncertainty, as I've talked about before, in that situation. Some 9000 people start booing, viciously. And I also spoke to people who were in Berlin and other places, who were at Eurovision events that might be sponsored by some Israeli company, people pepping up Israel and Eurovision, and there are Icelanders in the crowd just watching the show, and how the crowds, not just in Tel Aviv but all around Europe, just fill up with rage. It's strange how that's what you feel, you can't feel the viewer behind the camera like you can at a concert, where we're in our element. So the love comes later through social media, and messages and reactions from people that we talk to, and there was way more of it, but that rage is the first thing you feel.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Right. But you had to smuggle this in somehow. Where did you keep this?

MATTHÍAS: Just inside of the beltline or in our boots - not out of any disrespect for the flag, it was just a method for...

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Didn't you buy this in a toy store or something?

MATTHÍAS: I actually didn't buy it, it was the reporters at Iceland Music News who took a trip and bought this for us. We're just in the whole Eurovision bubble, keeping the wheels turning.

Gísli Marteinn asks the others about their reactions to the flag stunt. Bubbi rants a bit about the Israeli state's policy of violence, then Gísli Marteinn asks Björk about how she got arrested in Israel. She says they didn't know she was Icelandic at the time, so Gísli Marteinn quips, "So it wasn't Matti's fault." Björk says the Palestinians really notice Icelanders, and noticed the incident, and talks about how she's so impressed with how just this one word ["PALESTINE" on the banners] shattered the rosy image they'd been trying to build up for Eurovision. She rants a bit too, about why we're being made to pay a fine just for displaying a word.

MATTHÍAS: Like there aren't a bunch of Israeli flags there. That was kind of a justification for me personally; there are a bunch of Israeli flags.

They move on to Björk’s arrest. She was there at the Gaza border with three other volunteers for the International Women's Peace Service. She had not been intending to get arrested; at one point they were going to be waving Palestinian flags at the border just to let people know they were not alone, but had been threatened with arrest, so she actually specifically didn't come to that bit. They’re vague about the arrest, so I looked up another article for the details. The actual arrest happened when they were with Palestinian farmers helping them pick olives; a settler came up and acted threatening, they ignored him, and he called the Israeli army, who arrived and told them they were in a militarily restricted area, asked for their passports, and arrested them when they didn’t have them with them.

Björk has brought European blueberry squash that she made, and everyone has some.

Theater and Bubbi Morthens

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Despite your young age, you've won an award for your achievements in theater. You wrote an amazing play about a man who gets stuck in IKEA.

MATTHÍAS: Griðastaður.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Griðastaður. If you were writing the play about Bubbi that's being staged this winter, how would you have approached the project?

MATTHÍAS: I probably would've approached it kind of like Ólafur Egill [Egilsson, writer/director of the Bubbi musical] said he would approach it. That is to say, he talked about the concept of Bubbi. Not necessarily personally about the human being, but just about Bubbi as a phenomenon hovering over the nation. That's how Ólafur talked about it, I think before the process started, or I don't know how far he'd gotten.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Bubbi isn't a man, he's an atmosphere.

MATTHÍAS: Yes. He's a part of all of us.

Bubbi talks about how he's read the script and was shocked because it's pretty merciless (he had explicitly asked to not be consulted as the script was being written). He ends up saying he's anxious, scared, but really happy and excited; Matthías says "I'm just happy and excited."

Environmentalism and the climate

Gísli Marteinn asks Björk about some greenhouses that are scheduled to be built just below where she lives, and she talks about how unnecessary construction isn't good for the environment.

MATTHÍAS: But speaking of the environment, there's one thing you didn't cover in the "News of the Week" segment, and that's the Kastljós citizens' assembly on the climate. [This was a special episode of Kastljós on November 19th, featuring a live discussion on climate change with various scientists, politicians, environmentalist, and one anthropogenic global warming skeptic journalist.] I thought that show was awesome! I'd watch it if it was on every week, just every Tuesday night.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: The same episode?

MATTHÍAS: Just the same... with new people and so on.

Björk suggests he should see author and environmentalist Andri Snær Magnason's show at the City Theater, an accompaniment to his recent book, where he discusses climate change. Matthías says, “The book is on my bedside table right now. I'll have to get started on that.”

Moscow and the rainbow wings

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I'm going to pivot a bit, because Matthías just got home from Moscow, and we saw on the news that you made some ripples over there, because as we know the Pride Parade has regularly been banned there...

MATTHÍAS: And any kind of "propaganda" is just banned.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: But Hatari, as this...

MATTHÍAS: Propaganda machine.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Yeah! [laughs] And beneath it there's this satire on, shall we say, fascist methods and so on.

MATTHÍAS: Totally.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: How were you received in Moscow?

MATTHÍAS: Actually, we've never been as well received by any audience, just...

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Amazing!

MATTHÍAS: Just, "by a long shot", to use an English phrase. The love in the room was so palpable, and there were Pride flags, and there were gay and lesbian couples, and people were still jumping around and singing an hour after we left the stage. I've never seen anything like it.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: That's good to hear!

BUBBI: Isn't it typical for a dictatorship, that underneath that's there?

BJÖRK: People thirst for those human rights.

MATTHÍAS: Yeah.

BUBBI: That joy, and...

GÍSLI MARTEINN: That's probably true. But I saw a video, and I don't think it diminishes anything to say that the high point...

BUBBI: It was amazing!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: ...was when Andrean walked in...

MATTHÍAS: Definitely.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: We've got him on the show as a surprise guest! Andrean, come in!

Andrean walks in, to cheering.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Andrean had this thing he has on his back built for him. Please spread your wings, my friend!

Andrean unfurls the wings, to further cheers. Bubbi launches into a bit of one of his songs, "Strákarnir á Borginni", a 1984 song criticizing the violent homophobia of the time.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Andrean, congratulations on what you did. I know you came up with this on your own, to have this built and then spread those wings on the stage in Moscow.

ANDREAN: Yeah, I did. I actually - I didn't build this myself, I got Haraldur Leví at the National Theater to create the mechanism and then Alexía Rós, talented seamstress, made the wings.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I know this was - you had to steel yourself, it's not just literally heavy on your back, but mentally heavy as well.

ANDREAN: Yeah, very. I was honestly terrified to take this there. The guys were there before me, they went to St. Petersburg. I didn't want to go first to St. Petersburg and then to Moscow, where the story would spread, and...

MATTHÍAS: Also, the Moscow gig was a lot bigger, so you picked the right one.

ANDREAN: But so I was traveling alone with this, and I was just... There are horrible stories that you hear from Russia, about violence and sometimes murders of LGBTQIA people, so I was constantly fearing the worst and didn't trust anyone, and had a bunch of conspiracy theories that I'm not going to get into. But then everything went really well, and as soon as you got to the venue, then you immediately felt the presence of like-minded people. As soon as I stepped onto the stage, there was just this sharing of love between everyone.

MATTHÍAS: The Russians were shouting, "Andrean! Andrean!"

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I saw that on the video! Everyone knew your name, you got so much love from the audience...

ANDREAN: Yeah. And really the idea came about when we were out in Tel Aviv. I started waving the Pride flag in the Green Room, and I happened to be positioned so that I was between the host and someone they were talking to, and was there in the middle waving this flag. And for us Icelanders it's just become really mundane, thankfully, and it's just a beautiful rainbow flag, but we often forget it's a highly political flag as well, in many countries that are participating in the contest. And I just got a deluge of messages, especially from Eastern Europe and especially Russia, where people were sharing their love, and stories, horrible stories. Which encouraged me to do something crazy.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I just say this was awesome! Congratulations and thank you for coming and showing this to us. I know you have a full-time job with the Iceland Dance Company, and like everyone around Hatari you're doing a million different things.

Then he introduces the next segment, Berglind Festival going around exploring how come Icelanders are apparently reading more books in the past couple of years. In the vein of her Hatari segment, it's pretty funny (also, one of the people she interviews is the aforementioned Andri Snær Magnason), but it has nothing to do with Hatari, so I'm not translating that. The show closes off with a performance of the song "Namminef" (Candy Nose), by the band "Bland í poka" (Mixed Candy Bag).

[zenosanalytic]

4/20/19 HSE 8

Ok back at it

MEAT 15

Cool Fight; Not terribly surprising.

MEAT 16

Dirk’s as much Rose’s father as Rose is his Mother. I guess maybe it’s more convenient, psychologically, to choose a causative direction and stick with it, rather than accept the Mobial nature of their genesis, but for some reason it bugs me this keeps getting overlooked.

Dirk’s over here talking about how right he is all the time and I dont think he was ever right about anything even once in canon(aside from certain aspects of his talk with Dave, and choosing not to kill Hal) XD The only “plan” of his to work was the one re: entering the Session, and 1)he outsourced it to Hal and 2)it only worked because he managed to improvise his way through every aspect of it failing to go the way he thought it would, and even that probably had more to do with their entry being part of HiC’s plan to use them, so she wasn’t trying to wipe them.

Another Thing: I dont think the Ascent Differential is Aspect so much as Personality.

Another Another Thing: That Rose, when discussing her life-long fear of knowledge as a corrupting and ruining outside force(this being a person who always felt her mother wasn’t her mother, in some sense, and responded to that fear by rejecting emotional intimacy with said mother), doesnt see the connection between that life-long fear and her fear that Ascending will be bad, damaging, and corrupting, is Notable. Perspective continues to be important, and lack of self-awareness continues to hamstring ppl in this narrative.

MEAT 17

I feel like this new narrative belligerence on Dirk’s part isn’t going to work out too well for him with a person as aware and recalcitrant to narrative meddling as John. It’s going to be John and WV all over again. This is also a wonderful example of how personal flaw and specificity isn’t solved by Godhood in HS, and can really trip you up; basically all of this, including the “impotence” applies to Dirk, too, when others disagree with the direction he’s trying to push them in, and this whole rant may be meant, ironically, as an example of dramatic irony: basically, that Dirk’s rant about total control and knowledge reveals the limits of his knowledge and will be followed by examples of how limited his control is, which he can’t be aware of, but which the “impotent” audience will.

MEAT 18

...And, almost immediately, John’s objecting to the narration and doing things before Dirk “writes” him doing them(the sigh).

MEAT 19

“So yeah, I’m gonna allow it” Notice how he asserts power over situations he does not, in fact, have power over.

Which is kind of an interesting dynamic to bring up in the context of authorship? I mean: in the realm of nonfictional works an author can’t “make” things happen, only alter for their audience what DID happen. In some respect this is being written as equivalent to that dynamic; the simple admission in M17 that Dirk is misrepresenting events also admits those events happened another way than he’d prefer, meaning it’s also an admission of his lack of power over actual events. And, of course, all the other things I’ve been talking about, and the fact that everyone’s “character” is rooted in natures established in the original work. But in a fictional work an author’s creative power is absolute, and this is a fictional work; though I suppose a derivative or transformational one, which accounts for the shortfall. Another interesting aspect of this is that the “Author” is presented as a Narrator; Narrators merely describe what happened, they don’t create it. I was going somewhere more concrete with this but it popped out of my head >:T >:T

Ok so other aspects of this: I agree that Jane’s been established as a pretty ambitious person, but she was also always a pretty moral person and the way she’s going about this so far doesn’t seem to be in keeping with that part of herself. And also: she literally wants to create shortages, and thus the suffering shortages will cause, for... what? Nostalgia? Because she think she can run Capitalism better than the adults from before all this?? Because Hierarchy is Neat??? Seems like a whole handful of really petty, selfish, and juvenile reasons to me. Also one guaranteed to cause social conflict; I doubt a civ that’s never known material want is going to react too well to sudden starvation and financially-manufactured forced-labor(which, lbr, is what most work in our world is).

Obvsl, as a snake and member of the storied gens Atheris, I agree with Roxy&Calli that patriarchal human concepts of gender are not the end-all-be-all of identity, but what really jumps out to me here is Roxy’s description of the nature of their love for, and previous sexual interest in, Dirk which I find really True. Like: the sentiment of wanting to see children of a person because you really like that person and think they should continue, or of thinking having the kids you might have with another person would be pretty interesting. Also that loneliness is a hell of a drug 8T

I’m trying to figure out why this conversation would be circumstantially simultaneous with The Furthest Ring being “destroyed”, but I got Nothing :T :T :T

MEAT 20

So yeah, Jade’s merging with her Alt!Selves, not too surprising since it was heavily foreshadowed in Endgame.

Given that Sessions are located IN the Furthest Ring, and Sessions MAKE new multiverses, I find it being made out of “negative potential. The absence of a future” pretty ironic :p I wonder if the tentacle hair bit is a nod towards the Horror-Terrors, and theories about them being Players? Rose and Dirk’s view of Ascension would seem to suggest HTs might be SUCCESSFUL players who eventually abandoned their universes out of fear of the damage they’d do misusing their godhood(as it doesnt solve your personal problems), rather than the old HC of them being failed Players.

MEAT 21

My theory about “The Economy” being code for sex doesn’t stop feeling ever more confirmed by this narrative :|

Dirk’s anger at the idea of anyone not thinking he’s right about everything is Palpable on this page. Also I’d just like to note that This:

Is being said by a person currently in the middle of metaphysically manipulating a friends towards her worst impulses(and also potentially some amounts of self-hatred, give her thoughts re: femininity) for the sake of establishing a dictatorship through which she, as his agency-dimmed puppet, will enforce his personal politico-philosophical preferences regardless of what anyone else thinks and he’s saying it about people who just said This:

which is to say: a bunch of political pluralists who are NOT seeking to impose their morality on anyone but rather to establish a system where EVERYONE can SHARE their moral understanding of policy issues and come to a consensus decision on them, within the context of a political society DEFINED by the equality of all as political actors. There’s just so much that’s wrong, weak, and easily dismissable about Dirk’s argument here. Not to mention his obvs, undisguised, physical disgust for trolls >:T

And he’s doing all this Purely because, given his fixation on “Winning”, he wants to Win. Like: he’s not actually even pursuing what he considered good policy; he is, literally, doing this all for Pure Ego, which he has the gall(and lack of self-awareness) to accuse others of acting from. And this self-deluding buffoon is a person who believes himself “Ascended” and therefore possessed of a “higher” and “clearer” perspective on matters above their “petty” concerns about, oh non-humans being allowed to live as they like, or practice any political agency at all, and all ppls being spared unnecessary and pointless suffering due to entirely manufactured shortages. So much (real, actual)Irony, of so many types, in all of this, all at once.

An aside: I am really liking the political-mindedness of these Epilogues so far; really playing to my Interests uwu

The bit about Hybrid babs and shipnames is funny, and it doesn’t read like a shot at the fandom to me at all; it’s more a joke at Dave’s expense given the obvs distress Kanaya’s in and his inability to stop making the situation more awkward(itself prob the result of Bro’s neglect/abuse)

Oh hey look: it’s Dirk the “Omniscient” being distracted, caught unawares and off-guard by the actions of others, unable to handle the role&work he’s chosen for himself(ie “out of his depth”), unable to split his attention between even just two conscious ppl at once, and not knowing what others are thinking. Given this and his handling of Jade’s thoughts in the last section, I kinda feel like it’s less he can actually sense the thoughts of others, and more that he gets some kind of inkling or hunch, or maybe that’s it’s purely just him guessing(that’d fit real well with his comments on Roxy being “inscrutable” to him), or even just having an awareness of the plot he is narrating(and thinks he’s writing). Of course it could also be some kind of Heart thing; not really even access to their thoughts at all, but a sort of awareness of their Agency? Like: Heart is The Self and The Self is expressed through Agency, so he has, in some way, developed an awareness of “Self-Action”, which is to say, Agency? Kinda like how Dave “feels” Time and Jade “feels” Space and Rose “feels” Relevance. Which, just as an asnide, would be something super-basic powers-dev wise, since Dave started having a sense of Time way back in the early Acts, long before godhood. Though I can see how Dirk developing an awareness of OTHERS intentions(and feelings, potentially, given Heart’s other associations) would seem like a big step for him, given how self-absorbed he is.

Ok that’s it for this one I think. I know I’m not being terribly kind to Dirk in all this but, tbf, he’s being kind of a huge snide Dick in basically every respect, and I also don’t have a lot of Chill in me when it comes to 1)arrogant people or 2)manipulators (:T

[cienie-isengardu]

Satine Kryze and Pre Vizsla: political & social position

Puttings aside for now morality of characters, I would like to talk about similarities and difference between Satine Kryze and Pre Vizsla and how they could be seen by New Mandalorian society at the climax of their respective arcs.

First thing though: I want to clarify something: as much as TCW may never outright said anything about  Dral'Han (Annihilation) / Mandalorian Excision that happened ~700 years prior to Clone Wars era, this event played a major role in shaping current mandalorian society - or more precisely: two societies: the pacifist and warlike. The Republic occupation and influence still held power over Mandalore, to the point that when Duchess cemented neutrality for her people, soon after that trade routes were closed around Mandalore system - even though the war did not come there yet(?) - what was mentioned in “Corruption” [s03e05]: “Desperate times on Mandalore! Having won neutrality for the Mandalorian system, Duchess Satine now finds herself an outsider with little aid to her people. Supplies are impossible to come by, except on the black market. As a result, the Duchess faces a world consumed by greed.” So, TCW may not discuss in direct way how Republic screwed up Mandalore in the past nor how it mixed into matters of “independent” government now, but it doesn’t make  Republic occupation and its effect on characters any less real.

Saying that, there is the first detail about Satine and Pre I want to talk: political & social position.

The Legends Mandalorian had visible social groups including: Mandalore(s), veterans, warriors, blacksmiths, farmers [and in the case of ancient Taungs, shamans], yet the division between “classes” was not rigid. Mandalorian could be both farmer and great warrior. The title Mandalore was reserved for the best, most skilled, most charismatic and/or the most supported by society person. The status of Mandalorian was either given by birth or by adoption, person could be disavow and/or became dar’manda (no longer Mandalorian) and reclaim the right to mandalorian culture later. People could belong to one of the oldest clans (Vizsla, Ordo, Fett) or be not associated with any family and there wasn’t social class difference between them because all have the same rights (f.e. challenging Mandalore/leader if they did not agree with their decisions) & duties (Resol’nare). In reality, how great of Mandalorian someone was never depended on birth rights or personal connection, but what kind of person he/she/them are.

In other words, Legends Mandalorian did not have aristocracy similar to the ones of Core Worlds (as in: the highest class in society, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices).

The New Mandalorians apparently are closer to Core Worlders / Republic than to the old traditions since Satine is titled the Duchess, Tal Merrik is called Prince [s02e13] and both were born on Kalevala (according to TCW Character Encyclopedia). The animated series made it pretty clear that Satine’s power is similar to the king/queen-like:

on Sundari - the capital city of Mandalore - Duchess has palace that was presented to some extent on the screen and mentioned in the show (“I told senator Amidala that Mandalore was not part of the War, yet here I find a battle in my own palace” [s03e05])

in said palace there is Throne Room where she occupies a central place (throne) even in the present of close allies & friends

she is constantly called “Lady”, “your Grace” and “your Highness” which emphasizes her aristocratic connection/roots and

has power over Ruling Council (“Corruption” episode showed Satine on her throne above seats of Ministers, including Almec, silencing them for good and calling the meeting adjourned.)

There is of course Prime Minister (that according to “The Academy” episode is one of “two people in charge” of Mandalore albeit I’m not sure if we saw Almec making any important political decision without Duchess’ contest - beside the whole illegal business & coup, of course and ignoring Satine’s angry rant about corruption) and mentioned Ruling Council to support Duchess with their advices. Unfortunately, during the Clone Wars, there is little use of Council due to corruption, apathy and bickering between Ministers / leaders of Mandalore. The only real decision / action that Ruling Council did worth to mention was asking Obi-Wan Kenobi (Republic) to provide protection for Duchess during “Voyage of Temptation”.

The Death Watch Manifesto (from Bounty Hunter Code ) - a pro-DW propaganda source, mind you - claims that Mandalorian clans became divided after Mandalorian Excision to the point that even the oldest clans had their members on both sides of cultural conflict. That concerns Kryze family as well Vizsla clan.

The politically / culturally conflict overlaps with clan rivalry that has been going on for a long time. In short, the situation of Mandalorians is complicated and far from reconciliation, even in the face of threat from the Republic & Jedi.

The source did not explain in much details how the power was passed down through the generations but since the “Faithless” rulers of New Mandalorians are accused of being a puppet government headed by Republic, there is a chance that those families who are now treated as nobility may got the aristocratic titles (and wealth) from Republic itself - as a reward for joining “the right” political system. Then again, the same source claims that Satine’s father was a warlord who actually sent her off-world:

According to TCW Character Encyclopedia, Satine was born on Kalevala, a planet known for expensive wines, ships and rich cloth and so far a place the most related to New Mandalorian’s nobility. We may only guess if the union (possible marriage) between warlord and Satine’s mother was a political move to connect two influential and wealthy clans or was that dictated by purely romantic motives. Nevertheless, only Satine’s father is described as mighty mandalorian warrior - and that rises some questions. We aren’t told why he sent his child offword… or what offword we are talking here, really. Satine’s homeworld was Kalevala, but she was on Mandalore while being protected by Jedi, does that means her father sent her there? Was he somehow forced to do so? And if yes, by whom? Satine’s mother? Republic? Other mandalorian warlords who wanted more power for themselves? And if Satine’s father, as one of Faithful Mandalorian maybe, wanted independence for Mandalore system - thus became a threat to Republic - Jedi arrival on Mandalore to protect (take away) Satine may not be motivated by her own safety but to secure A) the submission of the current ruler (with daughter as “hostage” in Game of Thrones style, similar to how Eddard Stark took young Theon Greyjoy as his ward) and B)  loyalty of the successor to the throne. I know that sound awful but to be fair, Jedi rarely integrate into internal government matters if there is no profit for the Republic.

I’m not sure if Satine talked in more detailed way about the year on the run under Jedi protection (beside mention of venom-mites on Draboon that seems to be a whole different planet in Mandalore sector). So let’s see what Obi-Wan told us about their time together:

An extended mission when i was younger. Master Qui-Gon and I spent a year on Mandalore protecting the Duchess from insurgents who had threatened her world. They sent Bounty Hunters after us. We were always on the run, living hand-to-mouth, never sure what the next day would bring [...] A civil war killed most of Satine's people, hence her aversion to violence. When she returned, she took rebuilding her world alone.

Satine was born on Kalevala, so…by “her world” does Obi-Wan meant a whole Mandalore system or Kalevala or Mandalore on which they were at that time? Also, since BHC confirmed that there was Civil War in which Faithful warriors (DW) wanted to take control over Mandalore, I don’t really understand why insurgents - the warriors - would hire bounty hunters? I mean, I know they were outnumbered and all, but frankly, we aren’t even told if the bounty hunters were to kill Satine or just to take her away from Jedi (the oppressors).

Nevertheless, we learn that Civil War killed most of Satine's people - what once again is pretty ambiguous, because did Obi-Wan mean Satine’s family and/or people from homeworld or did he mean Mandalorians as a whole? Because if the letter, that presents Satine as a hereditary ruler. Especially with the line “When she returned, she took rebuilding her world alone”. BHC mentioned that her father died during Civil War and if she was the oldest child, should inherit the throne. Since there is no info if she needed to fight for the title of Duchess of Mandalore (she returned and started rebuilding her world without asking anyone about opinion apparently), for me it seems Satine was born not only in aristocratic (wealthy) family but was designed to rule Mandalore sometime in future. Frankly, the same can be said for her nephew, Korkie, who is already in Royal Academy that is to educate future government leaders.

We may not know much about Satine Kryze’s past, but The Clone Wars animated series and tie-in sources present her as wealthy nobility with royal-like power over Mandalore (and maybe Kalevala). She wears rich clothes that emphasize her high status, has own palace with Throne Room and uses luxury spaceliner. She is the person that made decision to turn New Mandalorians into extreme(?) pacifists due to her personal childhood trauma & aversion to violence. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t see her as someone who was democratically elected leader.

In short, Satine Kryze had a high social rank and political position for majority of TCW storyline.

Pre Vizsla’s history is no less covered by mystery.

We know he held the office of governor on Concordia while some members of the Vizsla clan were known to be part of Death Watch. Including Tor Vizsla, a previous leader of said group who spent some years fighting against Mereel’s (and later, Jango Fett’s) True Mandalorians. For all we know, Tor and Pre may actively working at the same time for a few years (albeit not for too long, since Tor died two years after Battle of Galidraan / Mandalore Civil War and +/- two decades before Clone Wars)

Satine have seen Pre as a close ally and maybe even a friend, who the same as her choose pacifistic ideology over violent past. Who was supposed to help her hunt down the remnants of Death Watch / the opposition of her reign. We know it never was a case.

But there is more questionable matters to talk. The Mandalore’s Moon was described as “Province with its own governor” and starwars.com added that Concordia is independent of Mandalore’s government:

In other words, Pre as governor of Concordia was NOT under the authority of the Duchess. What makes them more or less equal on political ground. BUT! TCW Character Encyclopedia and Visual Guide: New Battlefronts both stated that Pre was born on Mandalore. Which raises a question, how he ended as a leader of independent from Mandalore province? Duchess Satine couldn’t nominate him as her representative nor force Concordian people to vote for / accept Pre, could she? I’m not be specialist of such matters, but shouldn’t governor actually have a citizenship to be even elected to office?

Of course, Pre may simple moved to Concordia at some point, but frankly, wouldn’t be that a bit suspicious? Almec said once “All of our warriors were exiled to our moon, Concordia. They died out years ago”  and with that statement it’s easy to imagine that from the perspective of the pacifist society, the Mandalore’s Moon is marked as a bad place (natural prison and/or graveyard full of angry, bitter “barbarians”) and with Pre’s family connection to Tor & Death Watch, I think a sudden desire to move there could arouse unwanted interest in him and thus undermine the whole infiltration mission.

There is a different option:

BHC too mentioned that “some of [DW] warriors were exiled to the moon Concordia”. Some slipped away, but I don’t think that happened to Pre, per se. Basing on Legends sources, Mandalore Civil War started in the same year as Battle of Galidraan (44 BBY). From my calculation  it seems Obi-Wan would be 13 years old at that time. There is no information about age of Satine & Pre, but we know Duchess couldn’t be that older than Kenobi. Similar, Pre as the successor of Tor most likely is around the same age as Satine & Obi-Wan. Maybe a bit older, maybe a bit younger, but enough close to be seen as ‘innocent” in the conflict.

If young Pre took part in the fight and were imprisoned, it’s easy to blame Vizsla clan for forcing a child into war zone. If Pre was exiled on Concordia, he could pass later as converted man who after years understood the error of his youth & madness of Death Watch’s ideology.

If Pre did not participate in war (due to young age), but his family did and get caught, he most likely was exiled to Concordia with them. Because what else New Mandalorians could do in such situation? Keep a child from parents (clan) and try reeducated him into pacifist society? Put in orphanage for difficult youth? How many of other kids could be in similar situation? How much more Death Watch / exiled warriors would fight harder to get back their children, to tear them out of New Mandalorian hands? The society under Satine’s new rule may not mean any harm to the children forcibly taken away from their family, but if there is one thing that mandalorian warriors hate, really hate, is when someone dare to threaten their kids. This is like asking for absolute war like nothing else.

There is also one more major factor why I think this scenario is plausible, regardless of whether Pre was exiled for a fight or not. It gives him a good “tragic story” that create a common ground between him and Satine and explain why a man born on Mandalore ended as governor of independent province (though I still not sure how New Mandalorians could exile warriors from Mandalore to Concordia, if they seem to not have jurisdiction over the Moon. Unless Concordia is a really new province, built by exiled there people?)

The “tragic story” most likely include things that Satine can relate to, like childhood trauma, growing up in dangerous times (uncertainty of tomorrow), the loss of family & the pressure to rebuild things anew. The similar experiences of how senseless violence destroyed life, how much one suffered because of war for sure could bring Satine & Pre closer to each other. Or more precisely: makes Satine to trust a “converted man” like Pre Vizsla whose ambition was to clean the name of his clan - just not in the way Satine’s imagined.

There is also one more aspect to think about exiled Mandalorians. If only warriors were sent there, I think Satine’s government could have worse relationship with Concordia. The anger at taking away their children would last for long. But if after Civil War the population sent there also included children (and disabled and elderly people), for their own sake alone some family members would be forced to change their lifestyle. After all, children need to be fed, provide with medical care, access to education and safety to grown up. Maybe at some point exiled people managed to either build their own city and establish commercial and political relations with Mandalore or get involved with indigenous people (farmers and miners?) and adopted to their (less violent) customs.

Of course, this is just one of possible explanations. We aren’t told how and when Satine met Pre or why she had him in so high esteem for so long - beside that he was helping her in catching remnants of Death Watch (the opposition of her rule). We only know that both were leaders of their respectively governments that worked independently, albeit thanks to their (supposed) friendship, Mandalore and Concordia seemed to cooperate with each other over the years.

At the same time, only Satine holds aristocratic title and most likely inherited the right to rule of Mandalore either from father or mother; what may explain why Jedi were sent to protect her in the first place. While according to TCW Visual Guide: New Battlefronts, Pre somehow earned his position.

Frankly, as a member of Vizsla clan, Pre probably met with some resistance or suspicion from both sides. From pacifists due to what Tor Vizsla did over the years and from Mandalorians adhering to the old rules (who at the earliest stages of rebuilding DW could not know what Pre’s true intention really is) for betraying them. Thinking about it, one of Jango Fett’s (in-universe) commentary written on DW Manifesto actually makes clear that Jango not only was aware of Pre Vizsla’s existence but also knew or maybe even heard some of his (political?) speeches:

From picture: I wonder if Vizsla really wrote this. He was a thug. Sounds more like Priest or Reau. Maybe the younger Vizsla. That one likes speeches. [Jango]

(In all fairness, I agree with Jango, the Death Watch Manifesto doesn’t sound like something Tor Vizsla would write. It fits more Pre, really. But it is interesting that Jango had access at some point of time to DW secret book yet did not act against Pre as far as we know. And Jango had a long list of reasons to hate Death Watch. Then again, Priest and Reau were recruited by Fett to train clone troopers yet they share similar ideology to DW… so maybe Jango just get to the point he didn’t care anymore about Mandalore and its politics?)

Sorry, I digress.

Backing to the main topic, Satine and Pre both have high position in Mandalorian society. Both are burdened with responsibilities for their people (and ideology). The main difference is that, Pre most likely was forced to earn his leader position - the political and in Death Watch while Satine presumably was meant from the birth to be either ruler of Mandalore (or Kalevala) or one of its influential leaders (similar like Korkie is destined to grow up as one of future leaders by Royal Academy teaching program). The other more visible difference is that Duchess’ politics affect hundreds of worlds that also want to remain neutral in current military conflict while Pre’s political activities are focused primarily on internal affairs of Mandalore system (“hunting down Satine’s opposition / DW”, bringing Mandalorian back to their warrior roots). Also, I dare to say Satine’s political position was more certain due to having powerful allies & friends in Republic Senate (Padme Amidala, most likely Bail Organa)  and Jedi Order (Obi-Wan Kenobi who actually is one of Council members), while the current leader of Death Watch by long time couldn’t openly act, and later his cooperation with Dooku/Separatist turned out to be one big fiasco.

And yet, the more time passed, Satine’s political & social position was undermined by widespread corruption on Mandalore while society’s perception of Pre and his Death Watch changed for better at the same time.

[mikeellee]

So I don’t usually talk about the king aka Shigaraki in my rants...so I want to reticify that.

Before I move on...just to be clear. I do love Shiggy. This is not me being a hater and if you have a different opinion about Shiggy...ok. That’s valid.

My main grip about Shiggy... is how he has no real end goal. I know people here on tumblr have analyses, essays and whatnot about how Shiggy must be the Messiah that will get rid of bad heroes or capitalism or anything like that.

I like this idea. I would read a fic like that.

The problem is when people really think in Hori’s canon...Shiggy is indeed a messiah who will set all the fair people free from the unjust system.

Like, dont we all live in a shit society? I can’t speak for all but in my country we rather revult about Superman’s son kissing a man than...a genocide president who mock the victims of covid.

And yeah in moments like this....is nice going to escapism. People facing na evil ruler/regime and bringing real changes for the kingdom and everyone is happy.

I get it. I like those stories.

But on Shiggy’s part. On Hori’s canon part...we dont know what HE wants.

Duh he wants destruction. One may say.

Ok...he wants to destroy the heroes....ok then I ask

Does he want a literal destruction? Are we rooting for a villain who wants to commit genocide?

(In the war arc he did many bad thinga and yes we can say “AFO controlled him” sure but he still had some control over his action to a certain point and he shows no remorse)

Does he wants a metaphorical destruction?

Does he plans in making something anew?

What Shiggy wants? ( aside a fine 🥦)

We dont know...we will never know as AFO is treating Shiggy as his flesh puppet for reasons unknown for us.

I know there are many posts saying “shiggy will end the corruption” and I have to say...NO HE WONT. Not on Hori’s canon.

Shiggy’s motivation/goals arent totally his. His father hated heroes. AFO increased that to 11.

Shiggy is not speaking about the flaws of the hero society to everyone but more about how the society failed him. How no one saved him.

(He wanted to be saved by Zuzu but...headed by Hori...look if Hori had made them inferact and had a relationship that would have been amazing but, again, headed by Hori 🙄)

Shiggy speaks about his pain and trauma and I notice how the victims in the story need to be shut and accept their abuser ( case point, look at how hori treats Izu)

Shiggy is vilanize and abused by the narrative for daring to want revenge on his pain.

And again, headed by hori, its a bit hard to forgetten Shiggy’s action and LoV’s (Says the person who likes the idea of them winning with Zuzu)

This make me think of MCU Loki...and how he killed many people in the first avanger’s movie.

Sure. He killed of screen and all are faceless and nameless but here the thing...if we are to accept Loki was brainwashed by Thanos...even so, he indirectly killed those people....does he feel remorse?

Bc LoV and Shiggy show no remorse. Asad backstory is not free card for a character to do whatever.

Also for the togaocha out there....in hori’s canon THIS IS HORSE SHIT. Look ship what you want, I BET YOU CAN BE BETTER THAN HORI HERE.

But Toga trying to kill Ochako, mentioned how she used her quirk to kill and then is surprised that Ochako is grossed out by her....IS NOT TRACING A ANTAGONIST RELATIONSHIP

That is Hori being stupid.

And again. If shiggy -zuzu and Toga – Ochako are to the “same coin, different sides” god he failed that a lot.

I cant ship them.

And I’m not expecting a good ending for this manga.

Headed by hori ...is forebonding now

[velveetacrackncheese]

bit of a rant oof

If homophobes are so obsessed with the idea of gay people or gayness being “unnatural” I gotta say I hope they aren’t relying on technology because lemme tell you something about modern day manufacturing, television, laptops, and taking showers.

I really don’t understand and see how this argument holds up because it falls apart once you realize all these people mentioning homosexuality being unnatural are probably pro-capitalist, and capitalism being the driving force behind unnatural establishments of workers producing industrial and manufactured goods whilst allowing your CEO, boss, etc, to accumulate masses of wealth despite already being well off as it is.And before I hear “Our urge to be aggressively competitive is our nature!”, I’d like to point out that applies to those who are trying to survive in a society where certain resources may be scarce. Of course you’re going to fight for them if it’s a life or death situation unless, you find a way to be mutual about it and establish a more cooperative way of surviving that serves to benefit both parties. We aren’t so simple-minded that we just look at things as a kill or be killed situation. This type of rhetoric and logic is used to justify the existence of billionaires whilst also being based on a very twisted rendition of evolutionary theory. Saying that it’s in our nature to do what we must to survive is not the same as saying that mass accumulation of wealth to such an extent it drains resources from those who need it is justified, because one could argue that our desire to survive can lead us to find a solution in mutual aid, cooperation, and autonomy rather than being overly competitive and creating foes where it might be unnecessary. Sure, we can also be greedy, but to what end do we allow our greed to become so overwhelming that it negatively effects the entire world’s population? In a smaller, agrarian society, I figure those who would try and accumulate a mass majority of resources would be shunned and potentially expelled from said society. In our current society, we’re convinced that billionaires are some kind of benevolent being who keeps the good will of the people in mind, but of course, as history has shown, the establishment of hierarchy and accumulation of power inevitably corrupts those to such a degree that it negatively affects anyone who isn’t considered an “elite” and with no democracy existent in the workplace, I’d hardly call our CEOs benevolent just like I’d hardly call Monarchs benevolent. Although the UK proves they haven’t moved past the worshiping of Monarchs..

 I fail to see how the unnatural mass accumulation of wealth, by unnatural means of production, those things being made in unnatural and industrial settings, and being distributed by unnatural means, is even remotely human nature, and I’d even argue that this “human nature” argument is honestly arbitrary once you realize humans are heavily influenced and are adaptable to their environment, but I digress.

Humanity isn’t so simple to kind of just boil us down to the idea that we exist solely to mate with those of the opposite sex and make children who will then do the same in later years, and I fail to see how viewing humanity in such a way isn’t limiting and restrictive. Whether or not a man can love another man really isn’t a problem. All these reactionary worries of undermining traditional values and marriage is just mere fearmongering. No one who’s actually straight is just going to decide to not get married because their gay next door neighbor got married. Raising children won’t be undermined, nor will the idea of “family” be undermined. The issue arises when reactionaries seemingly want some arbitrary reason to exclude gay people from normal life due to preconceived notions and archaic beliefs that are more than a millennia old at this point, and these people are seemingly fine with government intervention when it suits to enable discrimination, but once it does the opposite, now we have a discussion about civil liberty and rights, because apparently those who aren’t disadvantaged the same way others are, are now being systemically and institutionally oppressed because gay people can hold a big fancy wedding and live in the same suburban neighborhood. Some even try to make it some faux feminist issue, making claims of how gay men getting married is somehow a result of men appropriating femininity and what it means to be a woman.

I mean, The AAP, APA, NASW, and AMA seem to disagree with those who try to undermine people who aren’t straight, but for some reason we’re still having this debate all because of gay characters being represented in films and current properties, and this is quite recent really. Gay character pops up in a comic book or film, all the incel-esque fanboys of whatever property they’re into lose their shit and begin to make conspiracy theories about cultural marxism and the end of civilization as we know it. Apparently sucking dick is going to destroy all of the order established in the world, despite the order in the world ironically being built off the pillaging and ransacking and oppressing of other groups across the world. The SJW propaganda wants to undermine straight people by including people who aren’t like me oh noes. The SJW communists have taken over every individual industry ever in the history of everything, and now my kids are going to become gay! What a tragedy! I need to become an online reactionary activist and pretend I’m an intellectual because I cite evidence whilst misinterpreting it and then make claims about how I trigger the libs!

You might think I’m being seriously hyperbolic here, but I’ve seen conservatives and centrists on Youtube speak EXACTLY like this, and it baffles me that people take these kinds of people seriously. I don’t think I’d look at a movie that just so happens to have an all straight cast and think “THE STRAIGHT AGENDA” because that’s nonsense. Marxists owning means of production only to use it for spreading a progressive message about how gays are pretty ok? Marxists wouldn’t take over businesses. They’d either destroy them or establish worker’s cooperatives out of them, and sorry, but DC, Marvel, and all these other big entertainment distributors? None of them are destroyed or workers co-ops, and if they were, it wouldn’t be because of Marxists going against their own values to prove some point about how capitalism sucks. Capitalism does that by itself. Your kids can’t just majestically turn gay because they saw a comic strip of Spiderman kissing Deadpool. If your kid is gay, that’s just because he just is.His attraction is something he can’t help and feels rather natural to him, and to him, would feel unnatural to constantly be told that their attraction is evil and wrong, and is somehow being enabled by the media they consume. If anything, the media they consume helps them realize themselves better and I see no negatives with that. Triggering the libs? Most “progressives” or leftists typically acknowledge that certain things being said or represented are in poor taste. I don’t like cancel culture, but me saying that someone shouldn’t call someone a faggot isn’t me being “ultra triggered liberal sjw”, it’s just me saying that such vernacular derives from the dehumanization of a certain group of people, and it’s not your word to own. When you say it in a such a way, we know what you mean, and it’s not helpful to you or I. That’s not me telling you to go die, and if your reaction to that is more vitriol, then maybe you’re the one who’s offended by me making an honest point. Sorry if your tunnel vision view of societal norms and the way we as people treat each other originates from cowardly centrists from Youtube, or reactionaries.

I’m genuinely and honestly tired of this debate surrounding whether or not I have the right to exist and be free from discrimination. I can’t fathom why so many people think my right to exist is somehow a violation of their own rights to such a degree that they think they need to undermine mine, and I’m especially tired of these same people arguing that something I can’t help is unnatural despite many of these people consuming and being surrounded by things that actually are unnatural, and made by unnatural means. Also tired of the bs surrounding entertainment and this whole charade regarding fake outrage surrounding gay people in films. Admittedly I do have a problem with companies using LGBT representation as a mere commodity for liberal consumer points, but that’s not a problem with being gay as much as it’s a problem with companies being soulless husks as corporate entities with no regard for humanity. And I’m really tired of having buzzwords thrown my way as a way to shut down conversation, and then have these people pretend they owned me in some hypothetical debate. Sexuality and the way it’s shaped through genetics, environment, the structure of our brain, etc, is a very complex subject, and it irks me that people really want to find any way to disregard science to try and justify their bigotry only to claim they aren’t bigoted in any way.

[hoktorice]

“Take us to your leader.”

There were many feelings to be felt throughout this volume: pity, disgust, waves of sadness, “hey he wasn’t actually that bad before he murdered the phoenix’s people” etc. Before I rant about the many biblical references in Hi no Tori: Nostalgia,  I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate this particular panel. I don’t know why but, I just thought that the soft depiction of Romy’s childhood like those found in fairy tales(much different from Tezuka’s usual style) at the beginning was endearing- contrary to what emotions may be felt for her later on. At the very end of the volume, there is another panel with Kom’s transformation/disappearance into the pond that reflects a similar style of drawing as well. These specific pages strike me as something from a children’s book rather than Tezuka’s manga to be honest. 

Now, onto my attempt at analyzing the biblical references Tezuka throws into the mix. From the get go, Romy’s and George’s descent of the new planet -Eden 17- is a reference to Adam and Eve. Their children also bore many name resemblances to other offspring within the Adam and Eve bloodline as well: Cain, Abel, Seth, Lot, Tera(h) and Haran. However, all these characters have different paternal lines; Tezuka’s crazy alternate universes could once again hint to humanity’s continuous cycle of rebirth and reincarnation. The return to primitive dressing strengthens the connection of Romy to Eve, even though she came from a futuristic earth. The weird looking snakes’ appearance can be a reference to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but with a twist. Instead of one, its a whole bunch of them; however, they all seem to serve a similar purpose: drive humanity into desperation. The mudpie “life form” reminded me of an alternate version of the creation of Adam, just on a different planet, as he himself was also manifested by God from dirt and the like. One last thing that I may be overthinking about was the number of children that successfully helped spread the human and moopie population; out of the seven days of creation, it wasn’t until the sixth day that humans came into existence. Seth was the sixth child of Cain and Romy, and was the only one successful to give birth to the new race. 

Side note: even though Makimura sucks, he doesn’t suck as bad in this volume but actually trying to protect Norva, save Romy from the quicksand planet, go back and bury Romy with her husband, and actually know how to read. My despise for him did not resonate in this volume, and showed me a better side to this character before his transformation into a more sinister self later on in the series. Why you do this Tezuka and put so much complexion into human beings. Amen. 

Prevalent themes stuck out to me that went along side with the AU of Adam and Eve: corruption and temptation. Tezuka’s depiction of the snake was no coincidence; it itself is a symbol of humanity’s perpetual sins and their desire to continuously gain power- paralleling Eve’s consumption of the forbidden fruit to be as knowledgeable as God. Other “snakes” throughout the volume  are the planets that Romy, Makimura, Norva, and Kom encounter. Each one appears to give a promising hope as the real earth, only to be revealed as man eating planets out to kill. Zudarban - to me- also appears to be another, and the worst snake of the story. No matter where, corruption seems to spread, and in today’s time, in the form of capitalism. The luxury’s and pleasures with money that Zubardan gives to the people ultimately lead to their society’s downfall, just as with Adam and Eve’s banishment. 

And finally...Tezuka...why you gotta blow off not only human’s but now moopie’s arms off too... (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ R.I.P. Kom...you were a good moopie boi.