#if a man does that's a dictatorship or a tyranny

[littlefankingdom]

After some research, I learned that the creator of Lonnie Machin created him to be the next Robin after Jason's death, but Tim Drake was created and stole the job later. This explains the comparaison between Lonnie and Jason, and probably also why he is called a vigilante and Bruce likes the kid so much. Anyway, this is just feeding the "Bruce should take Lonnie under his wing and make him another one of his kids" want I have developed playing Batman Arkham: Origins. That's what his creator wanted, for his revolutionary baby to have Batman mentors him (so they can destroy capitalism) If DC weren't coward they would give to Bruce his anarchist kid and make Lonnie a batkid!

~ Detective Comics (1937)

Anarky and Lonnie Machin's beginning! I was a bit worried, because I don't really trust an usamerican media to be objective about anarchism, but actually Bruce is shown to agree with Anarky's cause! He agrees with him, but not with using violence as punishment. Bruce, once again, uses the power trinity to explain why he is against killing.

Bruce calling Anarky "a vigilante", just like the murderer of that ceo in Future State, once again shows that Bruce doesn’t see people as criminals if they are in the eyes of the law or break his moral code. If someone is trying to take over the drug cartels (Red Hood in Under The Red Hood), that's a criminal. If someone is killing ceos because they are pos (Anarky here), that's a vigilante. Also, again, they show how Bruce is NOT a capitalist. He openly criticizes a new bank opening instead of social housings. He says he admires the kid, he defends him as "just trying to do the right thing".

Bruce panicking because he hit a kid is everything I want about him. Yeah, Batman should be horrified at the idea of hitting a kid! But also, Lonnie reminding him of Jason, and like, is there a kid out there that doesn't remind him of his late son? Really, this man is like "A kid... My son was a kid... *starts to cry*". And the fact that he got pranked by Lonnie? Just great.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

This Is Why Dictatorships Fail

April 10, 2025

He blinked. But we don’t really know why.

Whether it was the stock market cascading downward, investors fleeing from U.S. Treasury bonds, Republican donors jamming the White House phones, or even fears for his own portfolio, President Donald Trump decided yesterday afternoon to lift, temporarily, most of his arbitrary tariffs. This was his personal decision. His “instinct,” as he put it. His whim. And his decision, instinct, or whim could bring the tariffs back again.

The Republicans who lead Congress have refused to use the power of the legislative branch to stop him or moderate him, in this or almost any other matter. The Cabinet is composed of sycophants and loyalists who are willing to defend contradictory policies, even if doing so makes them look like fools. The courts haven’t decisively intervened yet either. No one, apparently, is willing to prevent a single man from destroying the world economy, wrecking financial markets, forcing this country and other countries into recession if that’s what he feels like doing when he gets up tomorrow morning.

This is what arbitrary, absolute power looks like. And this is why the men who wrote the Constitution never wanted anyone to have it. In that famously hot, stuffy room in Philadelphia, windows closed for the sake of secrecy, they sweated and argued about how to limit the powers of the American executive. They arrived at the idea of dividing power between different branches of government. As James Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 47”: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

More than two centuries later, the system created by that first Constitutional Congress has comprehensively failed. The people and institutions that are supposed to check executive power are refusing to restrain this president. We now have a de facto tyrant who thinks he can bend reality to his will without taking any facts or any evidence into consideration, and without listening to any contrary views. And although the economic damage he has caused is easier to measure, he has inflicted the same level of harm to scientific research, to civil liberties, to health care, and to the civil service.

From this wasteful and destructive incident, one useful lesson can be drawn. In recent years, many people who live in democracies have become frustrated by their political systems, by the endless wrangling, the difficulty of creating compromise, the slow pace of decisions. Just as in the first half of the 20th century, would-be authoritarians have begun arguing that we would all be better off without these institutions. “The truth is that men are tired of liberty,” said Mussolini. Lenin spoke with scorn about the failings of so-called bourgeois democracy. In the United States, a brand-new school of techno-authoritarian thinkers find our political system inefficient and want to replace it with a “national CEO,” a dictator by a different name.

But in the past 48 hours, Donald Trump has just given us a pitch-perfect demonstration of why legislatures are necessary, why checks and balances are useful, and why most one-man dictatorships become poor and corrupt. If the Republican Party does not return Congress to the role it is meant to play and the courts don’t constrain the president, this cycle of destruction will continue and everyone on the planet will pay the price.

[extremely-judgemental]

This got me thinking about Amarantha and Ianthe, so let’s talk.

I don't know what her obsession with female villains having sex slaves is but it was already tired the first time she did it. A woman can and should be taken seriously as a villain without being a serial r**ist.

@lady-tragedy on violence in SJM's books.

Outside of her romances, sex is still a core part of SJM’s books. As an ace reader, for me, these scenes are nothing more than an insight to the characters’ beliefs and behaviours. When I read about the sexual crimes committed by Amarantha and Ianthe, it felt like a desperate and unnecessary attempt to make them villains.

Amarantha is a ruthless warrior of Hybern who comes to Prythian as a courtier. Once she settles in, she tricks the High Lords, steals their powers, keeps them captive so they can’t topple her dictatorship. Her cruelty is already established with Lucien’s mutilation, Jurian’s fate, and her relentless pursuit of Tamlin since he was a boy. She’s highly prejudiced, creatively cunning, and sadistic. Knowing Tamlin’s loyalty to the lands, she forces him to be the cause of his friends’ deaths. She sets impossible challenges for Feyre knowing her mortal body might give out before she completes even one.

She comes off a bit cartoonish with her grand monologues and threats while not doing much (until that last chapter) than being a puppeteer. But her drive is interesting and gives her that sense of evil in her nature. Her sister dies at the hands of her mortal lover after being tortured. This reinforces her goals to enslave the humans again. Since the faeries were divided during the last war, she unites Prythian to eliminate any opposition. Even her hatred for Feyre is driven by this. She wants to prove that every one of the mortals is like Jurian—unfaithful and merciless.

Amarantha is a true villain and there’s more than enough proof of her villainy without Rhysand’s sexual abuse. If we remove that from the plot, her potential isn’t weakened. With it, her actions are out of character and pointless and raises a lot of questions. There are no other hints that she’s sexually sadistic. If she was, who are her other victims UtM? Why does she hurt the most evil High Lord who doesn’t shy away from putting on such shows in this way? If this is to humiliate him, why continue when he pretends to enjoy it? And if this is about dominance, why doesn’t she go after the other High Lords?

Moreover, it undermines her core reasons. Amarantha wants to rule. She’s obsessive and ambitious. In the fifty years, she grows comfortable being Queen of Prythian but her tyranny is not an elaborate plan to trap Tamlin. He’s a game which she improvised to achieve everything she wants in one move. Tamlin offering himself wouldn’t have saved Rhysand or the others UtM. Her refusal to release Prythian when Feyre completes the tasks proves it. But because of the last minute addition of Rhysand’s abuse, all of Amarantha’s real causes and crimes are shadowed and she becomes a woman driven by lust for two men.

Ianthe is a priestess who associates herself with influential men for her means. Since she has no magical abilities or a high position in the society except for the priestess title, she uses her body to get what she wants. Her motivations are not as clear (iirc) but the time she’s in hiding with her family could be concurred as a driving factor, or the lack of influence in a patriarchal world, or like Amarantha, she wants power, plain and simple.

There are many moments that show her evil side. She actively encourages the separation between Tamlin and Feyre by manipulating them. She betrays Nesta and Elain’s location to win favour from Hybern. She pushes Tamlin to carry out barbaric acts in the name of upholding traditions which is underscored by her desire for power. Despite this, the only ones remembered are the sexual crimes she committed which leads to many questions.

Ianthe’s exceptionally beautiful known to win any man she wants. She’s a childhood friend of Tamlin and when she returns, his relationship with Feyre is already beginning to crack. Instead of targeting him, she goes for Lucien who neither trusts her nor shows interest in her. If she wants power, why choose the one who wouldn’t play by her rules and won’t ever be a High Lord? Why doesn’t she target one of the others recently crowned UtM?

Pursuing Rhysand makes sense as he’s the ‘most powerful High Lord’. But he has a reputation to have whores as he pleases and his response to her isn’t in line with the mask he wears. He doesn’t have his evil attitude nor does he behave like the manipulative mastermind he’s claimed to be. Considering this, the memory of Ianthe harassing him serves to drive Feyre’s hatred towards the only support left in Spring other than Tamlin and Lucien.

Duality of sex and abuse in the series

I’m not denying that these two women sexually abused men. Plotwise, it doesn’t conform to Amarantha’s character or support Ianthe’s cause. Let’s say it’s a random incident because characters can be unpredictable sometimes. But then, the only two notable villainesses in the series turn out to be sexual predators.

On the other hand, sex is a rite of passage for the ‘good’ female leads—Feyre accepting the role of Rhysand’s whore, Morrigan becoming sexually hyperactive and Nesta having multiple partners. And they use seduction as a weapon which becomes part of their strength and identity. Even before Ianthe assaults Lucien, Feyre disapproves her acts of pursuing men. But when she takes charge of her life, she does the same with Tarquin. She also exploits Lucien’s friendship and ruins his reputation across courts. These are considered her accomplishments. (And, it’s hard to say how far she’d have gone in her vengeance if things hadn’t turned out her way. She isn’t abusive but her inner thoughts in Lucien’s bedroom felt more than suspicious.)

Also, none of the victims are equally sympathised in the narrative. Female victims don’t talk about their abuse or heal from it on page. Among the men, only Rhysand earns compassion from the characters and the readers while Lucien’s is forgotten and Tamlin’s is ignored. I’m not entirely convinced either of these women would be hated as much had Rhysand not been their prey because it’s become the highlight of their crimes, and Tamlin is still heavily criticised for not sacrificing himself and blamed for the sisters’ deaths.

What truly stands out is that Ianthe parallels Rhysand while Amarantha, Cassian. Ianthe has a goal and goes as far as to assault someone for it—similar to what Rhysand did to Feyre. Amarantha's control and punishment of Rhysand reflects Cassian’s behaviour towards Nesta. He also mirrors Ianthe if we consider his stalking. In SJM's world, while the men are forgiven and their acts are fetishised even, the women are considered a disgrace and fated to die. They are reduced to mere temptresses erasing any ingenuity in their characters. This double standard reinforces the idea that the gravest crime a woman can commit is abuse a man. She’s only a villain when she acts like a man, pursues like a man, aspires like a man.

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

He blinked. But we don’t really know why.

Whether it was the stock market cascading downward, investors fleeing from U.S. Treasury bonds, Republican donors jamming the White House phones, or even fears for his own portfolio, President Donald Trump decided yesterday afternoon to lift, temporarily, most of his arbitrary tariffs. This was his personal decision. His “instinct,” as he put it. His whim. And his decision, instinct, or whim could bring the tariffs back again.

The Republicans who lead Congress have refused to use the power of the legislative branch to stop him or moderate him, in this or almost any other matter. The Cabinet is composed of sycophants and loyalists who are willing to defend contradictory policies, even if doing so makes them look like fools. The courts haven’t decisively intervened yet either. No one, apparently, is willing to prevent a single man from destroying the world economy, wrecking financial markets, forcing this country and other countries into recession if that’s what he feels like doing when he gets up tomorrow morning.

This is what arbitrary, absolute power looks like. And this is why the men who wrote the Constitution never wanted anyone to have it. In that famously hot, stuffy room in Philadelphia, windows closed for the sake of secrecy, they sweated and argued about how to limit the powers of the American executive. They arrived at the idea of dividing power between different branches of government. As James Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 47”: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

More than two centuries later, the system created by that first Constitutional Congress has comprehensively failed. The people and institutions that are supposed to check executive power are refusing to restrain this president. We now have a de facto tyrant who thinks he can bend reality to his will without taking any facts or any evidence into consideration, and without listening to any contrary views. And although the economic damage he has caused is easier to measure, he has inflicted the same level of harm to scientific research, to civil liberties, to health care, and to the civil service.

From this wasteful and destructive incident, one useful lesson can be drawn. In recent years, many people who live in democracies have become frustrated by their political systems, by the endless wrangling, the difficulty of creating compromise, the slow pace of decisions. Just as in the first half of the 20th century, would-be authoritarians have begun arguing that we would all be better off without these institutions. “The truth is that men are tired of liberty,” said Mussolini. Lenin spoke with scorn about the failings of so-called bourgeois democracy. In the United States, a brand-new school of techno-authoritarian thinkers find our political system inefficient and want to replace it with a “national CEO,” a dictator by a different name.

But in the past 48 hours, Donald Trump has just given us a pitch-perfect demonstration of why legislatures are necessary, why checks and balances are useful, and why most one-man dictatorships become poor and corrupt. If the Republican Party does not return Congress to the role it is meant to play and the courts don’t constrain the president, this cycle of destruction will continue and everyone on the planet will pay the price.

[modern-politics111]

From his speech yesterday. His actions don't always match his words, but he's been pretty good since elected and his recent speech hit home.

There are people – some in my own Party – who think that if you just give Donald Trump everything he wants, he’ll make an exception and spare you some of the harm. I’ll ignore the moral abdication of that position for just a second to say — almost none of those people have the experience with this President that I do. I once swallowed my pride to offer him what he values most — public praise on the Sunday news shows — in return for ventilators and N95 masks during the worst of the pandemic. We made a deal. And it turns out his promises were as broken as the BIPAP machines he sent us instead of ventilators. Going along to get along does not work – just ask the Trump-fearing red state Governors who are dealing with the same cuts that we are. I won’t be fooled twice. 

I’ve been reflecting, these past four weeks, on two important parts of my life: my work helping to build the Illinois Holocaust Museum and the two times I’ve had the privilege of reciting the oath of office for Illinois Governor.

..I do not invoke the specter of Nazis lightly. But I know the history intimately — and have spent more time than probably anyone in this room with people who survived the Holocaust. Here’s what I’ve learned – the root that tears apart your house’s foundation begins as a seed – a seed of distrust and hate and blame. The seed that grew into a dictatorship in Europe a lifetime ago didn’t arrive overnight. It started with everyday Germans mad about inflation and looking for someone to blame. I’m watching with a foreboding dread what is happening in our country right now. A president who watches a plane go down in the Potomac – and suggests — without facts or findings — that a diversity hire is responsible for the crash. Or the Missouri Attorney General who just sued Starbucks – arguing that consumers pay higher prices for their coffee because the baristas are too “female” and “nonwhite.” The authoritarian playbook is laid bare here: They point to a group of people who don’t look like you and tell you to blame them for your problems. I just have one question: What comes next? After we’ve discriminated against, deported or disparaged all the immigrants and the gay and lesbian and transgender people, the developmentally disabled, the women and the minorities – once we’ve ostracized our neighbors and betrayed our friends – After that, when the problems we started with are still there staring us in the face – what comes next? All the atrocities of human history lurk in the answer to that question. And if we don’t want to repeat history – then for God’s sake in this moment we better be strong enough to learn from it. ...My oath is to the Constitution of our state and of our country. We don’t have kings in America – and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one. I am not speaking up in service to my ambitions — but in deference to my obligations. If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this: It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control. Those Illinois Nazis did end up holding their march in 1978 – just not in Skokie. After all the blowback from the case, they decided to march in Chicago instead. Only twenty of them showed up. But 2000 people came to counter protest. The Chicago Tribune reported that day that the “rally sputtered to an unspectacular end after ten minutes.” It was Illinoisans who smothered those embers before they could burn into a flame. Tyranny requires your fear and your silence and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage. So gather your justice and humanity, Illinois, and do not let the “tragic spirit of despair” overcome us when our country needs us the most.

[kendrixtermina]

Israel is the ultimate Omelas

I always thought that Israel was a perfect microcosm of the duality of man because on the one hand they had brutal oppression and on the other it had all those brilliant futurists and scientists, and a great healthcare system that had one of the best responses to covid.

It always baffled me how those two things could coexist in the same country. How those brutal stories of oppression and books of revolutionary thought could be coming from the same place.

Now I'm realizing that this kind of makes it the perfect tyranny.

In totalitarian states like the Nazi dictatorship or sovjet communist states, the population was severely oppressed. We associate the Nazis with blind obedience but actually there was an assassination attempt on him every few months or so, 42 in the 12 years he was Dictator. Bastard kept surviving due to bad luck, like a speech being cancelled due to rain or some intern moving the suitcase with the bomb. The Nazis demanded total obedience and would execute people for speaking French or drawing modern art.

Then there is the USA's corporate rule - not as bad as dictatorships maybe, but much of the population is dirt poor and know their options to vote for are largely corporate stooges. They don't have health care, decent education or consumer protection, so they have reasons to resent their taxes being used for war.

But Israel? The population lives in one of the most advanced utopias on earth! There is healthcare, luxury, culture, even relative freedom as long as you don't say "palestine". If you don't go in the westbank, you don't realize what's going on. The insidious trick of what segregation does is that it keeps the oppressed out of sight.

If you really want to be ignorant, you can probably manage to stay that way, comfortably, and live with all the same comforts as Swedes Canadians and Japanese.

The tyranny does not touch you unless you become a soldier or there happens to be a resistance attack near you, and even in those cases, the propaganda machine has comforting answers for you. Or at least, you're told that ending the tyranny means destroying your utopia - if it's you or a stranger, many people will pick themselves their lifestyle and their family.

Of course the big lie here, or the point where the analogy totally breaks down, is that doing away with appartment and giving equal citizen rights to everyone will not actually do away with the world-class universities and hospitals or even safety... indeed you'd be safer if you didn't keep producing angry traumatized people by butchering their families. It's a false dichotomy. A trap that presents the status quo as some lesser evil.

Euro-americans are fine without Jim Crow laws; Germans did not perish without conquerring Poland; Afrikaners are fine without apartheid - indeed the former disenfranchised people are still catching up economically exty years later. There should probably be affirmative action or reparations, once Palestinians get equal rights.

Nationalism is a myth cooked up as recent as the 19th century. Historically there have never been "pure, unmixed" peoples. People mix and trade and emigrate and copy each other, as long as people have been. You are going to have to live with people different from you & share with them. It's ok. The rest of us learned that lesson too (albeit imperfectly and often at a great cost; The EU is not clean-handed at all and is unforgivable fucking up in many ways as we speak) - No one needs ethnostates. No one is entitled to ethnostates - not Germans, not Euro-Americans, not Hindus, not the Japanese, not Israelis. Ethnostates do not make you safe. Moreover: Ethnostates are not practically feasible.

Look at the area slightly east of where I live and all the bloodshed that came from being unable to draw a line so that all Poles are on one side & all Germans on the other. And now there's still Poles living here and not even a real border anymore. If only we could have made the EU straight away instead of having all those wars, displacements & slaughter!

One day in the far future when there is peace ppl will look back at today and ask "why didn't they stop it sooner why all this waste?"

Eventually you're just gonna have to SHARE the god damn country. Like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on earth that has multiple languages, religions and ethnic groups.

The Rwandans managed to make peace! And in that case there wasn't even a detachment of technology involved, ppl killed their neighbors (and those who refused to participate in the killing) with bare hands and machetes. But it's a prosperous, orderly country now. They opened many malls recetly & had a great response to covid.

It can be done. There's nothing special about the middle east. People there are not uniquely depraved, the region has been stable & prosperous before.

[the-pamphlet]

When the course of human events endeavor to repeat themselves, it is necessary and proper for a nation of diverse people to re-assert their beliefs and trust in the idea of self-evident truths, realizations, and inalienable rights. That a government institutuded by said is created by, and sustained by, the will and consent of the governed. That such a government must serve the needs of the governed, not the governing. That such a government must provide for and promote the general welfare of all the people engaged in mutual cooperation and preservation of such government. That such a government may not impede the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness to the people consenting to it’s establishment.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right – it is the responsibility – of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government and leadership, building principles and orgaization in its stated powers to ensure the safety and happiness of all said people. Prudence, indeed, would dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, nor does this declaration call for the absolute eradication of the law of the land which so many have fought valiantly for, and which has many times been amended to reflect the needs of society.

But when a long train of absues and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is the right and necessary thing to call attention to said grievances, and to remove from power the individual or individuals who have caused pain and damage to the people at large.

The history of the man seeking to call himself king over these united states is a history of repeated injuries, abuses, and usurpations, all having a direct objective to establish absolutely tyranny over the nation.

To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

-He has refused to assent to and obey the very laws he swore oath to defend and protect.

-He has forbidden or intimidated the members of his party to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless they are aimed at enriching himself or his legacy.

-He has continued to call together a cabinet of dubious expertise, ethics, and integrity.

-He has usurped the powers of the governors and over-extended the reach of his office in state matters.

-He has obstructed the administration of justice, both as a private citizen and an officer of the government.

-He has made judges dependent on his will alone.

-He has erected a multiude of new offices without consent of the Congress and has sent forth swarms of their officers to harrass our people and eradicate their livelihoods.

-He has sewn deceit and sought to further discredit the office of the presidency with tailored narratives created by biased access to briefings and journalist pools.

-He has affected to render departments of his branch independent of and superior to civil power.

-He has detained and deported our fellow citizens without due process of the law.

-He has further denied due process of the law afforded to any and all people residing within the country.

-He has neglected and purposefully ignored the rulings of the courts that are his equal under the Constitution.

-He has excited domestic insurrection by federalizing state troops, allowing free-roam of illicit activities, and pardoning criminal acts.

-He has damaged the propserity and freedoms of the people through harmful tariffs, inconsistent foreign relations, and emulation of dictatorships.

-He has threatened martial law, suspension of free speech and protest, and democracy as a whole.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, in general, solemnly publish and declare that this country is, and is of right to be, free and independent of any man that would assert himself king; that we are absolved from all allegiance to any officer of the state that aims to fashions themselves to a figurehead above the law. And for the support of this declaration, with an absolute resolution there there is not, nor will there ever be, a king crowned, do mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[trooper1023]

Ted Kaufman was a U.S. Senator from Delaware. He wrote the below article in 2018.

I opened a copy of the new 10th edition of “A Documentary History of the United States,” edited by Richard and Alexander Heffner, and leafing through it came upon Franklin Roosevelt’s famous “Rendezvous with Destiny” speech.

He made the speech more than 80 years ago. What struck me was how relevant it would have been had he given it today.

He started the speech by laying out a series of problems that faced the country in the 1930s. First was the “impact of technology.”

Of course the new technologies were different then; he listed machinery, railroads, steam, electricity, telegraph, radio, mass production and mass distribution. These had all led to giant steps forward for the economy, but they also had a number of ugly side effects — much in the way advances in computing technology, the internet, marketing, and social media have created huge problems for us in the areas of privacy, cyber security, clean air and water, climate change, stagnant wages, and major retail marketing bankruptcies.

FDR put much of the blame on what he called economic royalists who had managed to gain enormous power through what he called “concentration of control.” Does that sound familiar?

Think about what’s happening today in any number of areas, from Amazon’s dominance of internet retailing to the mergers that have left us with very few airlines, cable services, internet search, broadcasting, and telephone companies.

He went on to attack “economic royalists” who carved new “dynasties” built on “concentration of control,” and the new uses of “corporations, banks and securities” to further their ends.

His words are much more eloquent than any I could give you, so I’ll quote him. If you don’t think they speak to problems we face today, you haven’t been paying attention.

Here is the most relevant portion of his speech. I recommend reading it all.

“Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. Since that struggle, however, man’s inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.

“The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution—all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free. For out of this modern civilization, economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things.

Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed-of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

“There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

“It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

“The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor—these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-business man, the investments set aside for old age—other people’s money—these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

“Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities. Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted.

“Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise. An old English judge once said: “Necessitous men are not free men.” Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

“For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor—other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

“Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people’s mandate to end it. Under that mandate, it is being ended.

“The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody’s business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

“Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place. These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power.”

The United States behind FDR’s leadership brought us back into economic balance. There is no reason through dedication and hard work we cannot do the same.

[jacenbren]

If VelvetIsCake was on the Dream SMP

It's mostly a joke when Velvet joins L'Manberg. Something, something, a lighthearted argument with Dream about the Greater Dream SMP being "homophobic," all fun and games. Velvet doesn't take it too seriously, even when Tommy makes him and Antfrost uniforms and even when he starts helping organize the blueprints for a set of obsidian walls and battle plans. It's all fun and games, right?

Wrong.

Velvet isn't sure when his involvement in L'Manberg stopped being a joke. What he does know is that he's found a cause, and he's in too deep to back out now. He loves this country, loves helping run the place and making a just community where people can sell drugs as they please where anyone can live their life free of Dream's tyranny, and he's willing to die for the ideals he helped found a nation on. Even when Eret betrays them, even when he loses his first canon life to George's blade in the Final Control Room, Velvet stubbornly refuses to stop fighting for what he believes. He actively opposes Wilbur's attempts to rig the election, even running for president himself with Ant as his vice president and Sam as his secretary of state, but things go downhill when Schlatt wins.

Schlatt is a tyrant.

Velvet doesn't understand how the citizens of L'Manberg--no, it's Manberg now; he keeps forgetting--can ignore what Schlatt's doing. He's turning what was once a free country into a dictatorship, going against everything the nation stood for. Velvet's outraged, and he entertains the idea of joining Wilbur in Pogtopia, but when he sees what the loss of power did to that man, he can't do it. Putting Wilbur back on the throne would just be trading one tyrant for another, and Velvet can't just let people suffer like that. The straw that breaks the camel's back is when the Badlands sides with Manberg in the name of causing chaos, and Ant follows them, claiming his loyalties lie with his faction, his family.

Velvet's grief-stricken and angry, angrier than he's ever been, but he refuses to let himself spiral into depression when there're people suffering under Schlatt's reign of terror.

So he acts alone. Velvet stalks Manberg from the shadows like a hyena, wreaking havoc where he can and supplying the citizens with resources he's collected while grinding for days in the Nether. He's powerful now, that's for sure, and he's Public Enemy #1. He's a masked menace, a Robin Hood-esque hero of the people, and he cuts no losses, has no mercy. He's taken a canon life from Ponk, Punz, and even Fundy himself by the time he finally has the courage and resources to enact his master plan. He sets a trap at the Festival, taking account for every what-if or worst-case scenario, and there's no way he can possibly fail.

He doesn't, however, account for Tubbo's execution.

It's a fatal mistake on Velvet's part.

It's not the fireworks that kill him. His plan was to wait, to set TNT under the stage that would detonate in the middle of Schlatt's speech. Sure, it wouldn't take Schlatt's third and final life, but it would send a message, one that simply says, I won't take your fascist bullshit anymore, and I'm not afraid to do something this heinous again.

But Tubbo gets boxed in.

Techno blows the kid up with fireworks.

Quackity's still on the stage and Velvet likes him; if anything he feels bad for what Quackity's being put through. He panics and shows himself, swooping down from his hiding spot on his leathery bat-like wings (while he's only a half-demon and doesn't have horns or a tail or the power to breathe fire into existence with nothing but his mind like Bad and Sapnap, his heritage still gave him a few useful quirks) and shoves Quackity off the stage, just as the TNT goes off.

Velvet jolts awake in his hideout in the mountains, wheezing and gasping and sobbing in pain. He stumbles to the bathroom, and his wings, which took the brunt of the blast that took his second canon life, are tattered and mangled and useless.

He doesn't know if they'll ever heal.

A few days later, Tommy shows up, with Quackity in tow. They ask Velvet to join them. Stripped of his pride and clinging to the feeble hope that one day he'll be able to fly again, Velvet finally relents.

And then, on the sixteenth, Manberg falls.

Schlatt dies. The newly re-christened L'Manberg goes up in flames, and Wilbur dies on his own father's blade.

Velvet doesn't know how to feel, but at least he manages to reconcile with Ant, and they fall in love all over again. Sure, the server's in chaos and Tubbo is president of a crater, but Velvet has Ant.

Ant is all he needs.

Velvet joins Tubbo's cabinet, as the kid's advisor and Secretary of State. Things are good for a while, but then George's house burns down and Dream comes to his defense (haha, GAY), and Tommy gets exiled. He's a kid, Velvet tries to argue. Kids fuck up. Besides, it was one house, one goddamn house that George barely lives in.

Still, Tommy is exiled.

Still, the Butcher Army is formed, and despite Velvet's protests, Technoblade is sentenced to death without a trial.

The execution fails. Techno escapes, Quackity loses a canon life along with his left eye and half his face, and Velvet's angry. He isn't sure what L'Manberg has become, but he doesn't like it. Doomsday arrives, and when Niki finally snaps, Velvet can't help but join her. She's the only other person who seems to see the monster they've created; L'Manberg has become the very thing that its founders swore to destroy. So Velvet helps Niki sabotage them, and he watches as the great Technoblade, Blade of the Blood God and a one-man-army, shreds L'Manberg's defenses and distracts everyone long enough for Dream to activate the TNT cannons.

In the chaos, Velvet loses sight of Ant.

He panics.

He can't find Ant, and Ant can't find him. It's in the midst of the battle that Velvet stumbles across Philza, who's spawning Wither after Wither near the crater of what's left of L'Manberg as the TNT continues to fall. His anger overtakes him, and Velvet attacks Phil to avenge Tubbo; Velvet knows he could never beat Technoblade in combat, and in his mind he sees Phil and thinks to himself, what would hurt Techno enough to be equivalent to losing a canon life?

Killing his best friend would.

So he attacks Phil, with all the pent-up rage he's kept hidden since Tubbo's execution. He fights with the fury of a thousand men and the vengeful rage of a man who watched a boy who was like a little brother to him die, and even though it's pouring rain, Velvet's half-demon blood wakes, and he manages to summon fire for the first time in his life.

He's winning. The Angel of Death is tiring, and there's no way Phil can fly away with his damaged wings.

It's then that Ant finally catches sight of Velvet.

There's tears in his eyes. His fur, slick with rain, bristles at the sight of his lover locked in combat, red flames rippling off his arms and tattered wings, but Velvet's alive.

Ant smiles, and shouts his name.

Velvet freezes, and his eyes light up with relief when he sees his love, his cutie, wasn't killed in the chaos. Ant's alive, and that's all that matters.

It's his fatal mistake.

Velvet's not ready when Phil manages to lurch to his feet in a last-ditch effort to win the battle, and he manages to turn around just as Phil swings the very blade he used to take his son's final life.

Diamond tears through flesh. Blood salts the earth, spilling in torrents from the gash in Velvet's throat.

Ant screams.

He can only watch as Velvet staggers and falls into the pit that was once L'Manberg, eyes wide with shock and full of horrified tears as he plummets and lands on the bedrock with a horrible CRUNCH of snapping bone.

His final canon life is gone. If the fall didn't kill him, the gash in his throat did.

VelvetIsCake hit the ground too hard whilst trying to escape Ph1LzA

Antfrost grieves.

He grieves for months. He grieves as Dream is locked away, he grieves as the server becomes relatively peaceful for the first time in years. He grieves as the Egg starts to rise to power, and when it offers him Velvet, he willingly lets it take his mind. He kills Foolish in its name, and he hopes desperately that the life force of a god was enough.

It wasn't. Ant pays for it dearly, in the form of an axe through his skull.

So he continues to grieve, even as he's signed on as a prison guard. He watches Quackity go in daily--Sam orders all of them to turn a blind eye, but it's taking a toll on Bad and Ant can only watch as the demon spirals deeper and deeper into alcoholism and depression--and that's when Ant learns about the Revive Book.

He's desperate. So is Dream.

Dream promises he'll give him Velvet in exchange for his freedom, and Antfrost makes a choice.

When Technoblade breaks into Pandora's Vault, Ant helps, and things go much smoother than expected with a man on the inside. When Sam grabs Ranboo by the horns and threatens his life, Ant does the unthinkable and drives his blade through Sam's stomach, and he cries as they ride back to the anarchists' commune. Philza tries to offer him comfort, but the very presence of his lover's murderer fills Ant with more rage than he can comprehend.

But Dream keeps his promise.

That very night, a pale hand breaks through the dirt where Velvet's body was buried, followed by red hair--streaked with white from the revival magic--and a pair of tattered, bat-like wings.

He's back. Ant cries tears of joy as he leaps into Velvet's arms, and Velvet cries too, clinging to him and oh so happy to be alive again.

He's back.

He came back, but Velvet came back wrong.

Everyone else can tell there’s something off about him; there’s something unhinged in Velvet's eyes and a madness in his voice that wasn’t there before, but Ant can’t. Ant’s blinded by love, and he’s so overjoyed that Velvet’s back that he doesn’t know about the plans Velvet’s been making.

He doesn’t notice how Velvet seems to stalk the outskirts of the Anarchists’ commune like a hyena. He doesn’t notice when Velvet comes home, smiling and covered in lapis-blue blood and broken crow's feathers. He giggles about revenge when they go to bed together, rambling poetically about debts being paid. Ant barely notices how Phil has disappeared, either, or how a pair of huge, mangled black wings were discovered in the snow outside the commune in a pool of blue immortal's blood.

All that matters is he has Velvet back, right?

[relaxxattack]

i think the base difference between people who think the syndicate is good and the people who the syndicate is bad is our own personal concepts of what is morally okay to do in the name of freedom. or something like that. some people believe that the syndicate’s want to stop government ‘corruption’ is a good thing and is saving people from being stuck under unfair governments, and other people believe they’re inherently oppressive

I personally do not like the syndicate; the idea that technoblade thinks he is allowed to decide for others, that because he personally dislikes governments everyone should as well makes me incredibly annoyed. one of my biggest pet peeves is condescension, and the syndicate teeters around on the edge of condescension and moral superiority, tbh. just because the ccs themselves do a light, fun roleplay (and even then c!ranboo was stressed the fuck out), doesn’t mean the syndicate is suddenly a fun and unthreatening thing. the syndicate thinks they know better, so everyone has to listen to what they want. it doesn’t help that the syndicate is composed of mega powerful people who could destroy you in the blink of an eye if they decided to; without their power the syndicate would be an irritation, but with it they become an inherent threat, even if they’re not trying to be. and technoblade does not care whether people listen to him out of genuine respect for anarchy or out of fear, because either way he gets the same result.

the syndicate is not a government, but that doesn’t mean they’re suddenly morally pure or whatever lmao; they could easily end up accidentally sharing the oppressive nature with what they’re trying to fight against. or maybe I’m totally wrong bc there has been like one stream with the syndicate so far, who knows. I’m excited for more of its lore but also i am apprehensive akdnsjnddjdn

honestly, yeah! YEAH to all of that! 

I get so ticked off when people say “well, the syndicate’s not a government, so.....” yes and???

were the death eaters from Harry Potter a government? nope. they were a club of people who thought they knew better then everyone else. i’m not saying the syndicate is evil like the death eaters, but being a government is not a decider of mortality at all.

dream isn’t a government, he’s a single man. and yet he still managed to control every person in their entire world to give up their free will (and he was going to and did kill and torture some of them, for fun!!) he was powerful enough to perform this tyranny all on his own. without a government.

l’manberg itself is the only place and time period where most of the people on the server were happy. it was their safe space, and their family. it only got ruined when schlatt won the elections and turned it into a dictatorship. it mightve been doomed from the start as long as dream was around to manipulate their power, but l’manberg itself was one of the only fully good things on the server.

snowchester, as it is now, is called a government by many people. but what are they doing bad? living in a cute snowy village? building some dangerous nukes as self defense because the teenage leader has severe trauma? housing a toddler piglin? they are what many people in this fandom call a government, and yet they haven’t harmed anyone at all.

the only time a government did something bad was the butcher army, which was tubbo quackity and fundy’s poor attempt at taking down technoblade, who is MORE POWERFUL THEN DREAM. (keep in mind, dream is already more powerful then ALL governments). they did this because techno point-blank threatened and declared war on them. it wasn’t a fair thing for them to do, but it was sensible, especially since they had not a fucking clue he was “retired”.

in conclusion:

it’s almost like government isnt actually the problem at all. it’s almost like governments in a society with only 30 people can only actually a group of people banding together for safety, with one of them heading the “group project”. it’s almost like governments were just a way to get the weak people on even footing with people like dream and technoblade, who are more powerful then any government.

and if techno and phil are so right about power corrupting, then... what does that say about them? you know? more powerful then all the governments? destroyed a fucking country?

BUT HEY. that’s just my opinion and i REALLY hope a ton of people aren’t about to come into my askbox to harass me over this. if you’re thinking about doing that, stop immediately thanks

[dkmiyashiro]

Against Freedom: The scandalous censorship will cost dearly!

We can say that the despair of those who know that the Brazilian people have woken up and no longer want their country in the wrong hands is great. The fear is in losing the “vacancy”, whether in the administrative power, or in the “exchange”, or even in the articulations.

One example is Minister Luiz Felipe Salomão – Inspector of the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) – who ordered the suspension of payments from content producers on social networks, conservative content, of course. In other words, the Electoral Court manifests itself against any YouTube channel that expresses itself in a political way, where the TSE itself judges extremist content, or “Fake News” and thus deliberates the channel's financial block.

The name of this act is “Prior Censorship”, which suppresses freedom of expression and withdraws income from the work of citizens who do not agree with the ideas of the “Ministers of the Court”.

A decision so undemocratic that there is no legal provision to support or legitimize it. And then there's the fact that we don't know who will judge whether the content is “extremist” or “Fake News”. Who thought that the content of a citizen and mother of a family Mrs. Barbara of Canal Te Atualizei is extremist? Who was offended and what were the offenses? Or is she being condemned to have no income and assets even before a “democratic” trial?

These attitudes show that the Electoral Court wants to curb conservative thoughts during the electoral period. At this moment, a law is being placed on private companies to curb the propagation of “truth” and “conservative thoughts”. It is noteworthy that this law does not appear as approved in the Brazilian Congress.

I make this reservation because we know that laws are created in Congress, after all, that is what the Constitution says. However, the magistrates decided to create their own laws. We no longer have a legal order in the country. Judges are making decisions for their political and ideological convictions.

Using a fanciful narrative to persecute conservative people, they create a “gown dictatorship” where we have no one to turn to, as tyranny is in the last instance of justice.

Organizers of democratic and orderly demonstrations are being persecuted, including a Federal Deputy, Mr. Otoni de Paula, who holds the position and in turn has his words and actions protected by law. We also have an 81 year old man who made the mistake of being popular for his music and gaining the people's trust with his life behavior, but for defending his homeland he had his life invaded. Actions without any legal support, even leaving the Attorney General's Office.

It is worth remembering that Minister Luiz Fux chose Minister Alexandre de Moraes to be the rapporteur of the crime news against Augusto Aras, for malfeasance, for not having filed a complaint against President Bolsonaro. This act even goes against the internal regulations of the STF (Superior Federal Court), which provides for a lottery, which makes us think that the PGR was coerced into submitting a search and seizure request to the organizers of the demonstrations.

This situation got worse after President Bolsonaro made everyone aware that it is not up to judges to extend the opening of an inquiry, this is an attribution of the Public Ministry.

Minister Moraes based himself on anti-democratic attitudes when he said that the acts of summoning the population to a peaceful demonstration (which does not break any federal body, unarmed or that does not close any democratic institution) is a crime. This type of manifestation is seen in groups that agree with the ideologies of certain judges, as well as in past governments.

Manifesting for impeachments of Ministers and demanding printed and publicly auditable voting are acts provided for in the Constitution, and at no time was anything that contravened human and democratic rights was placed.

Imagine if President Bolsonaro's supporters had asked us to go “Entrenched and with Guns in Hand”, or that we had “A good wall, a good bullet, a good grave” as quoted by people linked to the past government, but we know that no attitude was taken to reject attitudes and words.

The “communists” in Brazil know that we are one step away from liberating ourselves and this is making them terrified, they want to cut off our possibility of liberation altogether.

September 7th will be big, we will show the world that Brazil does not accept being ruled by dictators disguised as judges.

September 7, 2021 – Green and Yellow Independence Day.

[tanadrin]

Legal Systems Very Different From Ours (Because They Do Not Exist)

(I forgot Scott had already done this, lol)

AZAREN

There is the land of Azaren, far to the north; a rugged, windswept country, it was settled by hardy explorers in an ancient age of migration, who have always been disdainful of central authority, and permit themselves to be governed only to the most minimal extent. As a consequence of this skepticism of government, there is also a general skepticism of public law. All law in Azaren--except the few scraps of administrative and procedural law necessary to operate the government--is private, and there is no criminal law. All disputes between parties are resolved by what we would consider in other countries civil suits, governed by strict rules involving standing. Theft, arson, even murder may all go unpunished, unless there is an interested party willing to file suit to obtain redress. The Azarenes by and large consider this system exemplary of freedom and justice, and we cannot help but admit an attraction to the cleanness of its philosophy.

A key component of Azaren justice is the principle that no entity is above the law; no entity, however powerful, is so majestic that it is immune from suit. This meant that gods, natural forces, even celestial bodies have been sued (though principally in more superstitious days long past), and where by the weight of evidence, or the simple failure to appear, have been duly issued fines, which remain on the public register of debts waiting to be paid. And naturally, Azaren countenances no doctrine of state or sovereign immunity. This principle, especially due to the absence of public law, extends also to relations between Azaren and other states. Naturally this principle extends to sublunary bodies like Azaren's own government: Azaren recognizes to doctrine of state or sovereign immunity, and not a few political revolutions have been wrought through cunning arguments in the courtroom. And note also that Azaren conducts no foreign policy as a unified whole--for that would require an intolerable tyranny imposed on her people, that is to say some form of tax to pay the salaries of a diplomatic corps--but what individuals and groups of individuals see fit to conduct. So from time to time, an individual or group of individuals together will decide some foreign state has wronged them, and, as is Azarene custom, will petition their courts for redress; and despite the diplomatic protestations of the representatives of that government, that any such proceeding is a clear violation of precedent in the community of nations, that by dint of its sovereignty no state may be sued in the courts of another, the Azarene court will hear the suit. And should the plaintiffs prevail, an order will be issued for the recovery of damages.

And it is for this reason and this reason alone that Azaren has any armed force: in case of a judgement entered against a foreign government, the militia of Azaren is authorized to confiscate property--in Azaren or abroad--belonging to that government (and if need be, its citizens) until enough has been seized to cover the amount owed. Whereupon, whatever the state of the field of battle, however close the foe is to total capitulation, they return to their ships instantly and retire to their home country.

GKNAI

The land of Gknai is ancient, possibly one of the longest-inhabited regions in the world; and as it is nestled deep in often-overlooked mountain valleys, it has enjoyed a history of uncommon peace and tranquility, well-fortified against the ambitions of neighboring princes; it has indeed earned its epithet of Many-Fortressed-Gknai; and in later millennia, this reputation for indomitability has served by itself to safeguard its borders.

As a consequence of its long, long history, it is said, Gknai is uncommonly bound by the pageantry of Tradition. Just as other countries have monarchies that have withered away into irrelevance, performing a few desultory functions of government under the strict control of their ministers, Gknai has its own titular kings and princes. Indeed, it has them by the wagonload. The difficulty of warfare in the region and the bombasticity of ancient aristocrats means that every valley is thick with Kings and Over-Kings, and Lords President, and Grand Dukes, and even Emperors. Most Sublime Hierophants tend their vegetable patches across the road from Thrice-Exalted Tyrants, and the multiplication of titles is not helped by the fact that under Gknaian traditions, every child inherits some share of the honors of their parents.

The Gknaians have never had a single political revolution to sweep the old order away, only centuries of incremential change. Therefore, each of these titles, in the abstract legal sense, still has some privilege attached to it, however slight it may be. Nor, if they wished to abolish their cumbersome system, is it clear how they might legally do so: there is no legislative authority in Gknai but custom, and for every amendment to the law some precedent, even if very weak, must be found that may be expanded and elaborated upon and carefully argued for until it is generally agreed upon in the whole land. Gnkaian legal codes incorporate much of this commentary, and a Gknaian law library is thus a fearsome thing indeed.

The most curious relic of Gknaian tradition is a form of trial, still in general use, called gopi-gai ogmo, or Trial By Endurance. It was argued by an ancient Gknaian scholar that wealth, strength, and even legal persuasiveness were poor proxies for the righteousness of a cause, and so poor criteria for deciding a lawsuit. For with wealth often comes prestige, and undue influence over the public; with strength, assured victory in the trials by combat; and a well-spoken orator might convince even the best of judges to decide a case in contravention of the law, if his eloquence and flattery are sufficient. Better, said this scholar, to align public interest with individual preference, and a hint of utilitarianism: clearly, the side that *wishes* to win more, should prevail. And how to decide that more efficiently, than with a test of endurance?

This is the form of the test: a hillside of a valley is chosen, one warm in the morning and cool in the evening, but not too hot or too cold; and the plaintiff and the defendant are seated upon it, gazing down at the valley below; and the judge and officers of the court withdraw to observe. That is all. Whomever remains seated and motionless the longest is judged to desire victory more. To stand, speak, cry out, laugh, smirk, or fall down is to forfeit the case. Neither of the parties may be spoken to; neither may be disturbed in any way. The only modification ever made is this: in matters deemed especially urgent, sometimes the parties are made to stand instead.

Judgement, naturally, usually takes days. One especially notable figure, Hrakal the Vexatious Litigant, widely feared for his tolerance of boredom and inclement weather, successfully lodged no less than three dozen lawsuits against his neighbors, until he met his match in Tatavru the Stubborn. That particular proceeding lasted more than two weeks, until an out-of-season snowfall gave Hrakal frostbite, and caused him to relent. I have also heard of a legendary conflict over a spite-fence in the valley of Upper Dabbar, where, it is said, the parties sat immobile for *three years*, sustained by surreptitious nighttime meals and the kind of intense mutual hatred known only by neighbors who share a property line. Another interlocutor I spoke with, an older woman, said that this was a corrupted version of an older tale, altered for believability's sake. In fact, she said, the dispute was *never* resolved. The parties sat immobile until the vegetation grew thick on their laps and shoulders; and if you visit a certain hilltop in Upper Dabbar, you can still see them, two seated figures covered in grass that have now become part of the hill.

BOSSUL

In the city of Bossul, all important questions must be settled by a consensus agreeable to all parties. Although apparently cumbersome, this system has many virtues. The government of Bossul enjoys approval ratings usually seen only in the most tyrannical of dictatorships, and though the city's martial fury has been inflamed many times, it has never actually gone to war, for there have always been one or two heads cool enough to refuse to support it. Alas, every occasion of government is nearly interminable as a result: even the most trivial meeting of the least prestigious committee can drag well into the night; and nothing about the culture or institutions of Bossul does anything to restrain the impulses of busybodies or know-it-alls who have, in every other culture on the planet, driven such consensus-driven systems into the dirt. Yet Bossul's persists, for uncertain reasons.

One, perhaps, might be the custom of Utabani-mo-Kalutabani, which might very roughly be translated into English as "Agreeing To Disagree." When a consensus *cannot* be reached--for instance, in an intractible legal case--a temporary truce may be enacted in the form of Utabani-mo-Kalutabani. In short, each side continues to live their life, pretending that they have won. Thus, from time to time, you may explore the city of Bossul and find such oddities as two different families, each on the opposite side of an inheritance dispute, living in the same apartment and pretending the other does not exist. You may find an employee, who has sued for wrongful termination, coming to work every day at a company that insists she does not work there. You may even, on occasion, find someone walking the street as a free man, whom the police insist that they currently have in their custody.

It is a strange custom, and one cannot help but wonder if it is of any practical use at all.

MOZICK

Mozick is a small island in the Hraspedain Sea, rainy in winter but temperate in summer, which like Gnkai has a deep respect for the usages of its past. In Mozick, this is something of a religious conviction, for their society is organized around the pronouncements of the Great Oracle of the Smoky Mirror, who lived and died more than a thousand years ago.

Such was the inerrancy of the Oracle's predictions (it was said), that the Oracle was trusted utterly in settling disputes and prosecuting criminals. Usually, the Oracle heard arguments before pronouncing judgements, but this was considered a formality; many times, a judgement could be given as soon as the parties entered the courtroom. And such was the faith the people had in their Oracle, that they feared what would become of their society when she died; so she set down in an enormous volume a list of judgements--thousands of them--in cases yet to come. They named no parties, nor any details of the case: only Guilty, Not Guilty, Liable for a sum of 400 Mozickian drachmas, etc.

The procedure in Mozick is thus: when cases are brought before the court, the time and order of each filing is carefully noted. Once a year, amid solemn ritual, the Book of Judgements is opened, and a judgement for each case is read off, in order. It is an article of faith in Mozickian law that the judgement is never wrong, though at times the wisdom of the Oracle has, the Mozickians admit, seemed... startling. There was, for instance, the legendary case of Uckmar the Arsonist, caught in the act of burning the Temple of Ytrabel-Sheh; the sentence read aloud before the prosecutors was "Defendant to go free, be compensated 10 drachmas." But, the legal scholars carefully explain, Ytrabel-Sheh was the god of rain, and an unusually wet summer that year had caused the slugs to flourish in Uckmar's garden, devouring his tomatoes. The arson was, perhaps, justified, or considered just compensation; the 10 drachmas were for emotional damages. So the careers of legal scholars in Mozick are made, harmonizing the decisions of the great Oracle with the principles of justice.

A careful accounting of judgements is important to the system--once it was discovered that one judgement had accidentally been used twice, necessitating a redistribution of three years' worth of punishments and fines; fortunately, no death penalties had been handed out. But the Book of Judgements is finite. And one day--a day that soon will be in the expected lifetime of Mozickian lawyers now practicing--those judgements will run out. What does this portend? Will Mozick be conquered? Sink beneath the sea? Will--as some quietly hope--the Oracle return? No one knows. But each year sees more of the judgements used up than the last, and soon the book will be empty.

[judgmentofcorruption]

Episode 7–Your Daughter is There; Scene 1

Judgment of Corruption, pages 198-201

For the first time in quite a while, Bruno Zero was meeting with his former comrades on Gallerian’s estate.

“—The four of us being together like this brings back so many memories,” Hel Jaakko murmured, moved.

Shiro Netsuma and Feng Li gazed at Bruno, neither speaking a word.

“…Well, what’s your reason for expressly gathering us here like this when Gallerian is away from home, Bruno?”

Bruno slowly opened his mouth at Hel’s question. “—It appears that ‘Police Neutrality’ has not received permission to investigate into the sinking of the S.S. Titanis.”

“…Yeah. The World Police quickly wrapped their investigation up as it being a simple accident. Gallerian doubted that, and so suggested that PN do their own inquiry. But the top brass at the Dark Star Bureau unanimously opposed him.”

“I don’t know why. I’m quite certain PN was originally formed as an organization to combat the tyranny of the World Police.”

“That’s just it. PN is the Dark Star Bureau’s trump card. If they don’t play this right, then a confrontation with the World Police will be inevitable. Basically we can’t act solely on the director’s feelings alone, without any proof.”

“And I suppose Gallerian won’t achieve anything through stubbornly pushing on the matter, despite being at the top?”

“It’s not like when Hanma Baldured was in charge. The current bureau isn’t something that can be run like a dictatorship by its director. –It was none other than Gallerian himself who reformed that way of things.”

“…How ironic.”          

“In the end, that’s the limits of a front organization.”

“…” Bruno thought for a moment, and then finally he declared to those present, “—Then that means we need something that’s not a ‘front organization’.”

“…?”

“We’ll need to conduct an investigation in secret, and make sure we don’t get caught. That’s something we all did once, long ago.”

But Hel closed her eyes and shook her head. “That might be all well and good for you, given you’re just a mere servant. But the rest of us now stand in very public positions.”

“Hel. Does your becoming eminent…mean that you have lost the deep sense of justice you once carried?”

“…I really—really hate how you put these things, Bruno.”

After that, for a while everyone there grew quiet.

--The first to break the silence was Feng. “I—will help you, Bruno. Without Gallerian I wouldn’t be the person I am today. And if he’s suffering now…then it’s time to repay the favor. –Shiro, what about you?”

When he asked Shiro that, she replied, fidgeting bashfully, “Um…uh…sorry.”

“…What meaning are we supposed to get from that?”

“…I’ll do it. Michelle was such a good girl…”

“—Well, that’s that…Hel, what will you do?”

At Feng’s questioning Hel clicked her tongue, her brows drawing in. “…Agh, enough! I’ll do it! I know I should!”

Upon hearing that reply, Bruno smiled broadly. “Then we are activating ‘Pere Noel’ once more.”

“Man, that name is so nostalgic. Who thought that one up again?”

“You did, Hel. You weren’t coming up with it all that seriously. You took it from the name of a criminal organization from centuries ago. I believe you said that it ‘didn’t matter what we called it, since it was never going to go public anyway’.”

“…That’s right, I did say that.”

“I think we also gave all of the members code numbers, to be more like a secret organization.”

“You took ‘0’ because of your name, and then going by order of when you met everyone…Shiro was ‘1’, I was ‘2’, Feng was ‘3’, and—”

At that point, Hel abruptly turned, as though suddenly sensing something.

“…”

Standing there was Postman.

“—When did you…That’s right, you were ‘4’, weren’t you Postman. …Looking at it now, it all seems so childish.”

“Still…every one of you was extraordinary, considering we all gathered by chance. –With us on the case, I’m sure we’ll manage,” Bruno said, his chest puffing up with pride. “That ship sinking…I’m positive it wasn’t an accident. I can’t help but feel that way. We will find the culprit, and have justice for Mira and Michelle.”

Everyone there nodded to Bruno’s words.

<<prev------directory------next

[firsthopemedia]

The Democratic Ideal and New Colonialism FIRST HOPE MEDIA "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful concerned individuals can precipitate change in the world ... indeed, it is the only thing that ever has" (Margaret Mead) "Democracy" is not the rule of the people. It is government by periodically vetted representatives of the people. Democracy is not tantamount to a continuous expression of the popular will as it pertains to a range of issues. Functioning and fair democracy is representative and not participatory. Participatory "people power" is mob rule, not democracy. Granted, "people power" is often required in order to establish democracy where it is unprecedented. Revolutions - velvet, rose, and orange - recently introduced democracy in Eastern Europe, for instance. People power - mass street demonstrations - toppled obnoxious dictatorships from Iran to the Philippines and from Peru to Indonesia. But once the institutions of democracy are in place and more or less functional, the people can and must rest. They should let their chosen delegates do the job they were elected to do. And they must hold their emissaries responsible and accountable in fair and free ballots once every two or four or five years. As heads of the state in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and East Europe can attest, these vital lessons are lost on the dozens of "new democracies" the world over. Many of these presidents and prime ministers, though democratically elected (multiply, in some cases), have fallen prey to enraged and vigorous "people power" movements in their countries. And these breaches of the democratic tradition are not the only or most egregious ones. The West boasts of the three waves of democratization that swept across the world 1975. Yet, in most developing countries and nations in transition, "democracy" is an empty word. Granted, the hallmarks of democracy are there: candidate lists, parties, election propaganda, and voting. But its quiddity is absent. It is being consistently hollowed out and rendered mock by election fraud, exclusionary policies, cronyism, corruption, intimidation, and collusion with Western interests, both commercial and political. The new "democracies" are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or Vichy-like heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three recent examples). The new "democracies" suffer from many of the same ills that afflict their veteran role models: murky campaign finances, venal revolving doors between state administration and private enterprise, endemic corruption, self-censoring media, socially, economically, and politically excluded minorities, and so on. But while this malaise does not threaten the foundations of the United States and France - it does imperil the stability and future of the likes of Ukraine, Serbia, and Moldova, Indonesia, Mexico, and Bolivia. Worse still, the West has transformed the ideal of democracy into an ideology at the service of imposing a new colonial regime on its former colonies. Spearheaded by the United States, the white and Christian nations of the West embarked with missionary zeal on a transformation, willy-nilly, of their erstwhile charges into paragons of democracy and good governance. And not for the first time. Napoleon justified his gory campaigns by claiming that they served to spread French ideals throughout a barbarous world. Kipling bemoaned the "White Man's (civilizing) burden", referring specifically to Britain's role in India. Hitler believed himself to be the last remaining barrier between the hordes of Bolshevism and the West. The Vatican concurred with him. This self-righteousness would have been more tolerable had the West actually meant and practiced what it preached, however self-delusionally. Yet, in dozens of cases in the last 60 years alone, Western countries intervened, often by force of arms, to reverse and nullify the outcomes of perfectly legal and legitimate popular and democratic elections. They did so because of economic and geopolitical interests and they usually installed rabid dictators in place of the deposed elected functionaries. This hypocrisy cost them dearly. Few in the poor and developing world believe that the United States or any of its allies are out to further the causes of democracy, human rights, and global peace. The nations of the West have sown cynicism and they are reaping strife and terrorism in return. Moreover, democracy is far from what it is made out to be. Confronted with history, the myth breaks down. For instance, it is maintained by their chief proponents that democracies are more peaceful than dictatorships. But the two most belligerent countries in the world are, by a wide margin, Israel and the United States (closely followed by the United Kingdom). As of late, China is one of the most tranquil polities. Democracies are said to be inherently stable (or to successfully incorporate the instability inherent in politics). This, too, is a confabulation. The Weimar Republic gave birth to Adolf Hitler and Italy had almost 50 governments in as many years. The bloodiest civil wars in history erupted in Republican Spain and, seven decades earlier, in the United States. Czechoslovakia, the USSR, and Yugoslavia imploded upon becoming democratic, having survived intact for more than half a century as tyrannies. Democracies are said to be conducive to economic growth (indeed, to be a prerequisite to such). But the fastest economic growth rates in history go to imperial Rome, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and post-Mao China. Finally, how represented is the vox populi even in established democracies? In a democracy, people can freely protest and make their opinions known, no doubt. Sometimes, they can even change their representatives (though the rate of turnover in the US Congress in the last two decades is lower than it was in the last 20 years of the Politburo). But is this a sufficient incentive (or deterrent)? The members of the various elites in Western democracies are mobile - they ceaselessly and facilely hop from one lucrative sinecure to another. Lost the elections as a Senator? How about a multi-million dollar book contract, a consultant position with a firm you formerly oversaw or regulated, your own talk show on television, a cushy job in the administration? The truth is that voters are powerless. The rich and mighty take care of their own. Malfeasance carries little risk and rarely any sanction. Western democracies are ossified bastions of self-perpetuating interest groups aided and abetted and legitimized by the ritualized spectacle that we call "elections". And don't you think the denizens of Africa and Asia and eastern Europe and the Middle East are blissfully unaware of this charade.

[ears-awake-eyes-opened]

Haymitch, Effie, and Hayffie

(Musings, character analysis, my headcanons about their backstories and forward stories, especially about their relating and relationships. I felt like I needed to think through some of these ideas before writing more fics. These reflections got incredibly long, and I considered just keeping this in my drafts for myself, but maybe something here will resonate with someone else too, so here we go.)

I’ve been writing about Hayffie for a month, and I have some thoughts about their relationships/sexual histories both individually and together. It’s film-Hayffie that I’m into, so some of my ideas might conflict with what’s canon in the books, which I haven’t read in nearly a decade. When I eventually reread the books, I may feel differently, but these are my musings for now.

Haymitch:

We know Haymitch had a girlfriend when he won the second Quarter Quell at age 16. Snow had her murdered along with Haymitch’s mom and younger brother, so I’m guessing Haymitch loved her, otherwise Snow wouldn’t have bothered to have her killed since Snow always kills with intention.

Haymitch I imagine has probably always been good-looking-enough, but not extremely handsome. (I say this despite the big crush I have on Woody). I can see Haymitch as a kid having been witty, reasonably athletic, reasonably popular, a class clown and fairly obnoxious. As a teen without a father present/alive, home would have been a place of hard work, so school was likely Haymitch’s primary outlet for fun. I figure that particular girlfriend may have been his first serious love (and probably his only love).

I think he and she had some experience with sex but not a lot. They probably explored each other and discovered things together. They may have had sex only soon before the reaping, just in case the worst happened and one of their names was pulled. I’m remembering the guy I dated when I was 16. I loved him, but I didn’t want to have sex with him. However, if it had been the feeling of the end of the world, I probably would have slept with him. So, logic tells me they did.

Fast forward. Traumatized post-Games Haymitch wouldn’t have been with anyone else for a long time. I think it may be canon that he refused prostitution because he had no loved ones left to lose, but even if Snow did prostitute him, it would have been maybe once when Haymitch was still a minor, like Snow’s last nail in the coffin of crushing him. But Haymitch would have ultimately proven himself to be too much of a loose cannon/liability for Snow to use in that way.

So I imagine Haymitch has some history of sexual trauma. First in the intensity of sex with his beloved girlfriend within the feeling of coercion (let’s do it now or maybe never). Then with being prostituted to likely some wealthy middle aged woman. Rather than being the prostitute of a man, I think Haymitch would have killed the man or killed himself, depending on his trauma state at the time. So I don’t see sex with men, forced or otherwise, in his history.

It’s canon that Haymitch is basically a loner/shut-in who doesn’t like people in his house and sleeps holding a knife (when he’s able to sleep). I see him having the potential to be quite desirable to women and the potential for being a player. But trauma put a damper on those potentials. I think he could have sex whenever he feels like it, but for a couple of decades after his Games he just doesn’t very often (on average over those years once or occasionally twice a month maybe) because women are too much of a hassle, and they aren’t the love he lost. Alcohol is strongly his drug of choice over sex.

When he does have sex, I believe it’s one-night stands or casual sex with women who are players themselves and probably who he mildly dislikes. He steers clear of relationships that seem at all likely to become emotional. He firmly does not want to get attached to anyone again. Liking people is something he perceives as risky. Loving people is something he perceives as suicidal.

Haymitch is perceptive. Over the years, he’s learned some basics about what feels good to women physically. Pleasuring women has never been his first priority during sex, but I see him as the kind of guy who gets off on them getting off, so he would have made an effort to experiment a little and pay attention to the results. Unfortunately, alcohol often gets in the way of really focusing on women while he is with them. Which is one of the reasons Effie likes him better sober...

Effie:

I like to imagine Effie in early life, 0-9 maybe, with a very old great-grandmother in her 80s-90s. This great-grandma had memories of growing up in a free-er nation before the dictatorship gained in intensity, before the first revolution, before tyranny. I imagine she told Effie folktales that Effie remembers as bedtime stories. Those appeared to be fictional but were filled with archetypes and the roots of humanity. Her great-grandma was careful to protect the family, so she never spoke openly against the Capitol, but she understood and communicated deeper truths which shaped Effie’s heart/unconscious mind. I like to imagine Great-grandma offered Effie a reflection of the girl’s authentic self and offered her a small taste of empowerment. “Never forget you’re more than a pretty, well-mannered girl. Your wit is sharp. You have the capacity to be so much more than a face and a body bending to someone else’s will.”

To Effie’s controlling parents, and even to Effie herself in time, the great-grandma would seem eccentric. I envision her telling Effie that a woman doesn’t need a man to please her or to achieve greatness, and teaching her that she can please herself in all ways including financially and physically. Those lessons sunk in. I see Effie’s great-grandma having possibly been widowed young and surviving on her own awhile, with kids including Effie’s grandparent. In many ways Great-grandma was a self-made woman in her time.

Effie lost most of that connection to antiquity and to her authentic self when her great-grandma died, and she had nothing substantial to shield herself against the tight control and will of her family and Capitol life.

I imagine Effie mostly complied with that control but claimed autonomy in subtle ways. I think she had sex throughout the second half of her teens and throughout her 20’s, always being discerning, discrete, and selective about partners, rather than *sleeping around.* She had an intention behind each conquest. These conquests often had to do with aspects of self discovery, the desire for validation, and facilitating what she wanted in life, especially the ability to project a certain image in order to get where she wanted to go.

Did Effie fall in love with some of those young men? Probably, because underneath her thick facade, Effie has a tender heart which the facade protects like armor. Did she ever have her heart broken? Seldom. For the most part, she inherited and practiced ways of staying in control of her emotions within relationships. Most men thought of her as a desirable pain in the ass, but worth the high maintenance because she knows how to pleasure a man, she gives that focused attention during significant times including sex.

Did she ever experiment with sex with women? Possibly at some point out of curiosity and in seeking validation, but I don’t see women as her jam. Pretty and popular in childhood, she got along with girls in school. Later in her teens and adulthood, women mostly resented her natural beauty, fashion sense, drive to achieve, ability to attract attention, and her perfected facade. I see Effie feeling wistful at times for the quality of connections she had in youth, but her understanding of survival in Capitol society dictated that image and career-based connections were more important than purely emotional ones.

By age 30, during her years as an escort, Effie is quite singularly driven. She knows her body well, but there’s a veil over much of her inner self. The facade she’s built up is so thick that she doesn’t know much anymore about the vulnerable self beneath it. Haymitch can see the softness in her, whether he’s sober or drunk. She is both terrified and thrilled by his capacity to see the self she hides.

Hayffie:

I picture Haymitch as one of the first crushes Effie can remember having. I think of her as 8-9 years younger than him, so she would have been 7, nearly 8, when he was in the second Quarter Quell. She would have been quite taken with the way he held Maysilee’s hand as she died. Just as Effie was genuinely touched by Katniss caring for Rue as she died.

I see Effie having only been an escort since maybe the 72nd Hunger Games — long enough for the District 12 folks to know and mock her, but not too long. She had ambitions to move up in the districts, and she was on her way to proving herself as an effective tool of the Capitol: looking, sounding, and acting the part she was playing, and keeping herself veiled to the injustice of the Games and of tyranny in general. She was brainwashed by a lifetime of coercive propaganda, not because her mind is weak, but because the propaganda was so prevalent and multifaceted, including coming directly from her primary caregivers.

I think she probably expressed interest in Haymitch early on in their work together, seeing him as his idealized younger self. I think he turned her down then, in part because there was something about her that he enjoyed too much, even though he may not have been able to pinpoint what it was, because in the beginning he perceived her to be mostly ridiculous.

I see Hayffie playing cat and mouse for a few years — teasing, taunting, holding each other at bay and not doing much beyond tormenting one another during games 72-74, and learning each other’s nuances along the way. Effie would find Haymitch’s uncoothness off-putting and his wildness tantalizing. He would find her poshness annoying and the woman underneath all those layers a sensual curiosity.

The third Quarter Quell effected a personal transformation for each of them. Haymitch accepted the reality that he was caring about people; he couldn’t stop those emotions, even with alcohol, and he really didn’t want to. Effie’s eyes were opened to the injustice of the Games through her deep affection for her team of victors. Her armor came down enough to experience heartbreak — a related heartbreak to what Haymitch was experiencing as he lost old friends, like Chaff and Mags, and as he cared for Katniss and Peeta and helped launch a revolution.

I see this as the vulnerable time for Hayffie when their personal games of cat and mouse would pause, and intimacy would creep in and feel scary. They’d banter it away for a while but by then they’ve seen each other’s heartbreak, and the contents of a heart once seen, can’t be unseen.

In the absence of liquor for him and in the absence of facades for her (i.e. in District 13), hiding authenticity from each other would be tough. The taunting chase would continue in spirit, but physically they’d be ready to catch each other and play with that physicality if for no other reason to provide distraction.

“Let’s keep this casual,” they’d say. “No strings.” But the tapestry that had been weaving so long would take shape nonetheless. Strings would be everywhere, drawing them together faster than they could cut them.

Sex between them, after years of avoiding it with each other, would feel easy and alive, like breathing. Their bodies would fit well, so neither would have to work too hard to pleasure the other. I can see that sex between them has the potential to be very rough at times, though always with mutual consent. They both would be this interesting mix of selfish and giving. Their parting and coming together I see going on for years with feigned casualness. Cat and mouse again. The lightness would become more and more of a lie. Sex with other people would eventually whittle to nothing without much discussion about it.

They’d meet themselves in time as free individuals, and they’d realize they had fallen for each other all along, despite everything and because of everything. They would keep trying to stop it, and they’d keep failing miserably until finally moving into acceptance.

I don’t picture them ever married. Haymitch would want no government or religious bullshit in their personal business. But I see them eventually sharing their lives with increasing intimacy, how ever that might show up. I’m not sure yet how it would show up, though I like to think that several years down the road, Effie will move to District 12 “as the place becomes more civilized,” and when she perceives that there is meaningful work for her there. I also believe Effie’s perception of “meaningful work” will shift in time, initially out of necessity and then organically as she reconnects with her deep self and reclaims it.

I don’t picture Hayffie with kids. Okay, that’s a lie. I totally picture them with a kid and would have a blast writing the humor, affection, and angst inherent for them within that choice, but I don’t think that choice is in character for them. If they conceived a child, that would happen inadvertently. They’d both be terrified of parenthood, given their histories individually and together. Most likely Effie would terminate the pregnancy, but she’d be conflicted. And the more opportunity Haymitch would have to think about it, the more conflicted he would be as well.

The Hunger Games takes a toll in both ways. Kill a fetus to keep it from being born into a world where they’ve participated in and witnessed the killing of children? Or let the fetus become a baby with traumatized dysfunctional parents and hope for the best? I think they’d see it as a lose-lose, but also would feel so much tenderness about the possibility, especially if it happens years down the line in the feeling of “let’s do it now or maybe never.” Sound familiar? There’s some trauma reenactment there.

Trauma bonding and secure attachment:

I think that Hayffie could fall easily into reenacting trauma with each other. Here are some ways I see that playing out...

Haymitch experienced severe attachment trauma while still in early life, losing his parents and everyone he loved. This was on top of the trauma of being hunted and killing and witnessing death within the Games. This trauma was inflicted directly or indirectly by the Capitol. Haymitch has a lot of unresolved anger at the Capitol. Without integration there’s no healthy way for someone to cope with that severity of trauma. Hence, his addiction/alcoholism.

From the perspective of dysfunction, I can see him drawn to Effie because she’s a Capitol girl, controlled/controlling and emotionally abandoning. She doesn’t show up all warm and fuzzy and “talk to me, honey.” She shows up with open criticism and disdain for him. On the surface, she has those fundamental qualities in common with the primary abuser throughout his life (Snow). So through the lens of trauma reenactment, it makes perfect sense that he’d want to fuck her.

I imagine Effie experienced early life trauma that was more subtle but still impactful. She grew up in a place where one misstep could lead to her family’s ruin. She grew up with parents who likely demanded no missteps and were emotionally unavailable, being so focused on achievement over emotional health. To keep her parents’ approval Efffie needed to do everything precisely: appearance, manners, attitude, performance. When she didn’t exceed par, I imagine she was criticized and chastised. When she exceeded par she was praised. (Intermittent reinforcement.) Throughout her early life, she marinated in rigidity with constant reminders of what happened to people who were imperfect. Effie became an attention seeker and a people-pleaser. She sought validation from not just the masses, but also specifically from people who were the most critical of her and dependent in some way upon her *performance.*

From the perspective of dysfunction, I can see her drawn to Haymitch because he doesn’t offer her consistent validation. Even his *compliments* are teases, taunts, and mocking sarcasm. His alcoholism makes him emotionally unavailable and at times intermittently reinforcing. In moments, he’ll look right into her with unmistakable genuine attraction, and she’ll feel high when he does. The high comes because the attention is intermittent and unpredictable. In that state of emotional drugs flowing through her, it makes total sense that she’d want to fuck him.

Their potential for trauma bonding will make their relationship at times explosive and volatile, not overtly abusive but with sharp tongues and intense physicality that at times borders on punishing. Their desire for each other grows like wildfire, their bond tightens, and sex between them is compelling and delicious in a way that I don’t think either of them has experienced before.

I like to believe their potential for trauma bonding is only part of what draws them together.

I think Haymitch’s compassion in the second Quarter Quell touched young Effie’s heart very genuinely, and her young heart was also shaped by her great-grandmother’s unconditional love. With that heart, she in time grows deep affection for “her victors,” not just as validations of her self-worth, but as people who are truly deserving because of who they are, not what they do.

I think Haymitch has the capacity to see through Effie’s walls of makeup, clothing, and attitude to the heart of the girl who has watched him kill but doesn’t regard him as a murderer, rather she sees him still as the boy who held his friend’s hand in death. I like to think of him seeing that core aspect of himself through her eyes. Each time he sees it, he forgives himself a little more for the responsibility he feels for the death of his loved ones and everyone he ever killed in order to stay alive, and evey tribute who died under his mentorship. Haymitch carries impossibly heavy burdens on his shoulders, hence the alcoholism. Effie’s regard for him as a victor, a victor who showed compassion to Maysilee, to Katniss, to Peeta, and so on, lightens more and more over time the burden he carries.

I think their relationship is an interesting mix of dysfunction and healing. It’s raw and messy, and Effie desperately needs raw and messy, even though she fights against that a long time. Their relationship also has the capacity for deep tenderness and connection, and Haymitch desperately needs tenderness and connection, even though he fights against it a long time.

I so want to see Effie raw and messy. I so want to see Haymitch tender and connecting. That’s the unfolding I write for them together. It’s tough not to rush it, because it’s so interesting, and I want to see it all so badly.

After all these years, I am adoring Hayffie in this unexpected way. This ship is surprisingly intricate and beautiful.

P.S. If you made it this far, wow, and thanks for caring about the characters enough to read my extended ramblings. Comments welcome. I love to hear other people’s thoughts about Hayffie.

[kinetic-elaboration]

December 2: 1x26 Errand of Mercy

Errand of Mercy is truly a trip. I’m swiftly losing my ability to be coherent because I need to go to sleep but here are some attempts:

First of all this is, of course, a straight-up, pure, unfiltered Kirk/Spock episode with a tiny bit of unrequited Kor/Kirk on the side. Like, we’re not even going to pretend to find stuff for the rest of the crew today. I see you, Gene Coon.

This is the first Klingon ep. I just... the actual Klingon-centric episodes ARE good, but the Klingons in general are pretty boring and I legit don’t understand why they became the standard Star Trek villain. (DC Fontana apparently thought that it was because their make up was simpler v. the Romulans, acc. to Amazon trivia and....I’ll buy that.)

Is the “cultural scale” called the Richter cultural scale? I seem to recall another scale with the exact same name....

I get why there would be such a scale but they are dead wrong about where the Organians fall on it.

Anyway not to harp on this yet again but @ fanom this isn’t the military right?? Lol

Oh, no, it’s Code One! No idea what that means but the music tells me it’s a big deal and it’s bad!

“Curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.” He’s talking about war but I can think of some other things that fall into this category.

I think it’s pretty funny that Kirk records his Captain’s logs in public.

CAPTAIN SULU.

“There’s a war happening, so Mr. Spock and I will just leave the ship... together.”

“You’ll get out of here, Sulu, and leave Spock and I... alone.”

“You’ll fall back to rendezvous with the rest of the Fleet in the Laurentian system.”

Why do these people show no interest in us beaming down into their village? Hmmm, I wonder. If the Organians really were what K and S think they are, beaming down in that way would be uh a bad idea.

Spock seems much less awkward at gesturing than Kirk does.

Finally, by the end of the season, they’ve figured out the context for the Enterprise: Starfleet, the Federation, etc.

I wish the Organians were our alien overlords and taylor.

So the Klingons are a military dictatorship.

Kirk finds them so frustrating. I feel like this ep falls into the genre “Kirk is frustrated by hippies.” All this generic peace talk and faultlessly chill attitudes are just not him.

“I’m a soldier, not a diplomat.” That’s why Spock likes him so much.

The Organians are trying to follow the Prime Directive but Kirk is making it SO HARD.

“Space vehicles.”

I know the Klingons are actually supposed to be in yellow face but you know what it looks like black face to me and I RE-ALLY wish they had not done that.

They look good in those Organian outfits. Love that they kept their command and science colors lol. I feel like this is the sort of outfit AOS Kirk wishes he had in that boring ass closet of his.

Mr. Spock does not look like an Organian.

I MUST know more about these “not uncommon” Vulcan merchants. “Dealing in kevas and trillium.”

KOR IS SO INTO KIRK. This flirting is the least subtle. “You’ll be taught to use your tongue.” “Where is your smile?” “You’re a ram among sheep.” “I need your obedience.” “You seem to be in command.” Is all of this supposed to sound sexual or...?

Right up there with “a stallion must first be broken.”

Whereas Kirk is so not into this. That expression says, “Don’t even think about talking about Spock’s tongue.”

The mind sifter is actually a crazy advanced sci fi machine and STID wanted us to think Klingons don’t have warp usdfsf go fuck yourself.

Kirk is so turned on by Spock’s mental strength.

Every spare moment of this ep is given over to K/S flirting. They legit act like an old married couple. “I thought you were going to fight that guy.” “I just might.” Or whatever.

I love that Kirk’s method of fighting is to literally launch his WHOLE BODY at enemies.

Whereas Spock’s there just running awkwardly in the background. He is Not coordinated friends.

Kirk’s speeches ARE admirable. He is lacking context here but in general if they WERE an oppressed people, this should be inspiring.

“For some reason, he feels as though he must destroy you.”

This Kor and Kirk scene... Kirk literally canNOT stop himself from flirting. His default smile is Charming. “Nothing...inconsequential [was destroyed] I hope...” Flirty smile, wink.

GO CLIMB A TREE I MEAN WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT.

We are the same species...tigers...hunters

Is this not the same cell they always use?

I feel an “and there was only one cell” fic coming on...

The Organians are actually kind of hilarious. They’ll basically let these rando aliens do whatever they want, as long as they do no violence. That’s it, that’s the one rule.”Your captors planned to do violence to you, and to that I said...naw.”

THIS is real Pacifism @ Commander Spock.

Kirk ready to go out in a blaze of fire for a bunch of annoying hippies like “I’m going to white savior you now, ungrateful Organians.”(I say this with love; I love him.)

Can you believe Kirk and Spock are about to die in an unwinnable fight of 2 against Lots of Klingons, and they’re using their last moments to FLIRT AGAIN?

Gene Coon loves writing dialogue in which Spock calculates statistics and Kirk is turned on.

Also can you BELIEVE he just pulls Spock along by the arm? Any excuse to touch him.

Okay the Organians are officially tired of your bullshit.

Too hot! Hot damn!

“We find interference in others’ affairs most disgusting.” Prime Directive! Like I said!

This is basically the plot of A Taste of Armageddon except in that ep Kirk was the Organians.

“People have the right to handle their own affairs.” Is he wrong though??

The Organians are like “okay, we all had our fun here, now get out. Seriously.”

Can you imagine how fucking weird it would be to just randomly see this alien dude materialize in the White House, or, like, Starfleet San Francisco HQ, or wherever the “home world” of the Federation is supposed to be? Just a little throwaway line in there.

By the end Kor is just straight up hilarious. He’s giving off real Ian McKellan in Vicious vibes when he says “I can handle them.”

“I guess that takes care of the war.” Yep! Very efficient!

The “it” in “It would have been glorious” is DEFINITELY not the war lol.

Good game, good game.

“I was furious with the Organians for stopping a war I didn’t want.” I’m sorry but could not THAT have been the plot of STID?

“Spock, your math was wrong the whole time.” And now Spock and Kirk can BOTH sulk lol.

Those were all of my liveblog thoughts and it’s late but.... I had so many additional thoughts on this episode... Like a lot more.

First, I love when humanoids turn out to not be humanoids, that’s one of the best things.

Second, I think this is a very gutsy episode to air at the time, and that it would still be a gutsy episode to air now. I feel like it’s one of the peanut gallery’s favorite criticisms of ST nowadays to say it’s “colonialist” but this ep makes it pretty clear it’s not--that’s the opposite of the lesson of this story.

To attempt to explain better: I completely and unironically love Kirk but I do recognize that like all 3 dimensional characters he has flaws. In this ep, I thought that while his speeches and general point of view and strategic plan were definitely right for situations a population is oppressed--that people do have the power to fight back against dictatorships, even when the odds are bad, and that it is worth it to have the courage to fight back against such oppression--he was ultimately shown to be wrong in this instance because he wasn’t actually coming into that situation. He didn’t understand as much as he thought he did. He thought he was going to be the savior here: taking control for peoples who didn't know better, saving them from oppression, and then gifting them with technology and advancement as he understood it. The Federation wouldn't have enslaved them, but the Federation did want to use them. But the Organians really truly didn't need help--the native people understood their own needs better than the outside people. That's the lesson I took from the episode. Your intentions can be good but if you're coming into a foreign situation looking to control it, without understanding the actual people involved, you’re not being a true friend or ally, and you're likely to do no more harm than good. Opposition to tyranny has to come from the source, the oppressed peoples themselves.

When he refers to “weak, innocent people” standing in the way of superpowers in the beginning--he’s not attempting to derogatory, but that is a pretty demeaning characterization.

I also thought it interesting that the Organians can take any form they want and put their society at any stage of "advancement" they want and they chose a basic agrarian aesthetic. Cottagecore rights.

Kirk really had a confirmation bias when it came to the Organians. He had an image of them--innocent, weak, oppressed--and he only took information that fit with that characterization, rather than listening to them and what they were saying.

My mom and I also discussed whether this was IC or OOC of Kirk. I’m of two minds, myself. I think Kirk at his best is much more open-minded than this. His core morality is good faith, peace, friendliness, and care for all life forms, and there are plenty of examples of this (Charlie X, Mud’s Women, and The Corbomite Maneuver all immediately come to mind.) But he does have a blind spot that I think comes up often enough to be canonically part of his character: if something is threatening or killing his crew, or his people more broadly (the Federation), then ALL he cares about is neutralizing the threat. Rare alien? Possible scientific discovery? Might not have the full details of the situation? Doesn’t matter. I’m thinking The Man Trap, The Devil in the Dark, Arena. He wants to protect aliens, but not if the alien is killing his crew. He wants to make overtures of friendship, but not if the new being has already been aggressive.

I mean like I said... a part of me is like "no he is better than this!" but another part is like... well he does have that 'soldier' side of him, he is intensely loyal to his people. The “evil” Kirk of The Enemy Within. I think he just sometimes gets these blinders in certain situations when he's just sure he's right, which is very human.

Also although he's between McCoy and Spock on the continuum of "an objective right thing exists for all people and in all situations and we should always follow that morality" and "morality itself is relative, we should be respectful of alien ways of living even when we don’t understand them" I think in general Kirk and the show is more like McCoy. There IS a right morality here. (I’m thinking of The Apple or even A Taste of Armageddon.)

I also maintain that to say in 1967 "the very personality trait of being warlike is a common denominator between enemies at war" is a dramatic statement.

My mother suggested that Kirk was “strangely appealing” in his desire to save the Organians, with or without their help, and I do agree... I think that’s the complexity of the episode. The overall thrust of the plot is that Kirk was wrong--he’s left embarrassed at the end. I stand by what I said above. And they certainly go out of their way to show that the Klingons and Federation have something in common--namely, as I said, their very capacity to wage war, and interest in waging war.

BUT, as much as I get the point that they have certain similarities with the Federation--and I think this concept of 'these war-worthy disagreements seem trivial to an advanced and neutral species' is interesting, and even more so in comparison with A Taste of Armageddon which, as I said, is this same scenario from the Organians' POV essentially--at the same time it's a bit irritating to hear the democratic Federation compared to the oppressive dictatorship of the Klingons. Like yeah, okay, none of them are light beings and they both wanted to destroy each other--point taken. But would the Federation park itself on a random planet and kill 200 people the first day? I think not. So in this sense Kirk IS right. The Klingons are an adversary worth fighting, just not over the Organians.

I don’t know what I would think of his position if the Organians were being harmed but were also just...actually sheep. Like I guess I would say "well they have to have a reason.” And in fact they did--their bodies cannot be harmed, so they really don't care if the Klingons pretend to harm them. But I just can't comprehend people being like really honestly okay with that level of oppression, as opposed to too scared or too beaten down or too brainwashed to fight it, which is different.

...And from there we went into a discussion of curative v transformative fandom and yet more on what’s wrong with AOS sdfasfjsaldf it’s past 1 am I can’t be stopped BUT I SHOULD BE STOPPED.