#silent inverter generator

[ilovespec]

Stalker's obsession ~

Yandere Fem ! private detective × Fem ! Naive reader. 1 part .

(if you pay attention) Warning!!!: obscene language , the girlfriend of Y/N is a bitch , yandere is unpredictable , there is an obvious difference in size and age , beautiful and obviously rich yandere , THE GIRLFRIEND OF Y/N IS A SOLID RED FLAG !!!

4254 words

Character description

Today, Y/N finally started dating.. A little strange , but beloved !! By the name of Nobuko...She was so beautiful... Polite and generally good !! Even though she sometimes behaves possessively.. And often flirts with her friends.. But she loves her! Y/N is her lover... Is it true.. yes...?

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

Today was a normal day... Nobuko was already out of bed.. Precisely! She went to work.. and it's strange that she spends Y/N's money, but she doesn't even think about her own.. And the fact that Y/N pays always and everywhere for both of them... Perhaps Nobuko is just saving up for something that she wants!! It's not Y/N to decide..

(Skipping time)

Now Y/N is at her job, she works in a 24-hour cafe as a waitress! Although there is ... Uh... well... How to say... "Bad clients" basically, all her clients are not so rude! And to Y/N's surprise, recently, a new regular appeared in the cafe where she works...

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

It was a girl, she looked about 20-25 years old... She had blonde hair, with strange black tips on some strands... Tanned skin... Tattoos on her right arm..She was quite tall...and even through her clothes, it was clear that she had an almost masculine muscular body... She had a lot... Uh... "Unusual" earrings in the form of inverted crosses.. And her eyes.... Ah! What eyes she had ! She had heterochromia!! Her left eye was red... Like fire.. And the right one... Blue, like a deep ocean... STOP STOP STOP!!! WHAT IS SHE THINKING ABOUT?!!!???!! She also has her sweet Nobuko...She doesn't need other girls !!!

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

Every day, this beautiful and silent girl ordered the same thing... Classic cheesecake and cappuccino.... It's the same thing every day for several weeks.. Apparently, this beautiful stranger loved constancy.. Just like Y/N!!! But... For some reason... After the first week of this beauty's stay in "her" cafe, her behavior changed slightly... She started to stare at Y/N if she was in her field. When Y/N brought her her order, she always smiled broadly and complimented Y/N, and tried to talk to her or touch her at every opportunity... But no!! Y/N firmly but shyly rejected her advances, because she was devoted only to her girlfriend... How one-sided it was.

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

(Nobuko POV:)

"Thoughts: BITCH !! I started dating this naive fool, just because I had a bet with my friends... And fuck!!! How can I find a reason to break up with her, AAHHH !!!?!!? I EVEN HIRED A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR TO KEEP AN EYE ON HER AND ORDERED HER TO FLIRT WITH THIS NAIVE FOOL!! WHY DIDN'T SHE START RECIPROCATING HER FEELINGS???!!??! Fuck... Y/N is really naive, since she doesn't understand that I'm cheating on her... I'M FLIRTING OPENLY WITH HER FRIENDS, AND SHE KEEPS STICKING TO ME!!! I wish this "private detective" had already seduced her, and I could disgrace this naive fool and leave her... "

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

(Still Nobuko POV:)

Today this is a private detective... What's her name... Sasha seems to be... She brought me her photos again.... heck!!! THERE IS NOT EVEN A HINT OF DRUNKENNESS OR TREASON IN Y/N'S ACTIONS!!!! In this photo, she is shopping for groceries... She's changing clothes in that one... On the third, she sleeps... Where can I find a flaw so that I can leave her and embarrass her in front of everyone...

Sasha: here are the photos. I don't understand why you're doing this... This girl is as pure as crystal.. She is pure perfection.

Nobuko: I don't give a fuck about her anymore. I'm dating her because she gives me money, and because she has pretty friends~ Ha! How naive Y/N is!

Although Nobuko didn't notice it, Sasha gnashed her teeth and squeezed the gun in her pocket even harder... Like this nasty one... A hypocritical creature has the conscience to meet and use an angel like Y/N !?!!?! Just her... Only Sasha is worthy of her love... Only Sasha has the right to her love.

｡･:*:･ﾟ’☆

(Y/N's POV:)

-Y/N:Huuh~ today was such a busy day~.. And Nobuko went on a business trip again...Finally I can sleep <3

Y/N changes into pajamas, and does not notice how her "beautiful stranger-regular" is taking pictures of her from the street. But not for Nobuko, but for herself ...

Y/N goes to bed, and falls asleep with a calm soul.... Not understanding what the future holds for her ~

The end of part 1!!!

I hope you guys enjoyed it 😅 I'll post the second part tomorrow !!!

[givehimthemedicine]

El's protectiveness and friendships in the lab

wanted to take a minute to appreciate that El's protectiveness isn't a character trait that only emerges post-lab. she's always been that way [assuming, for this post, that NINA stuff more or less happened]; it just couldn't always present in a way that looks badass on a poster.

El and Eighteen

only crumbs here, but if I have to point out a lab kid that El is friendlier with than the others, it's Eighteen.

El holding Eighteen's hand is the only affectionate act I've ever noticed between any of the lab kids, and offering that comfort to her littlest sister is probably as "protective" as El can afford to be (esp as an eight year old with the least power and social standing of anyone).

when the kids in general laugh at El for failing at the light game, Eighteen is not one of the kids shown doing so.

Eighteen is the first dead child El is shown to be upset about. it's not that she looks more distressed about her than the others, but it's odd that she saw Ten dead on the floor next to Brenner a second before this and didn't really react. (maybe she couldn't tell Ten was dead from the doorway? idk)

maybe an El/Eighteen friendship is cornplating or whatever the youths are calling it, but bearing in mind that we're never actually told that El/Eight had some super close friendship, maybe theirs looked something like this.

side note - are friendships even permitted in the lab?

letting the kids form friendships could be dangerous, as Brenner, couldn't it? risks them forming alliances against you? this is why I was asking the other day if socializing seems discouraged in the RR. like, even the bullies, who were "friends," never chatted openly in there unless the cameras were off. maybe any lab friendships have to be hush hush by nature.

anyway idk there's just something about us going "🤯 same numbers!!!" upon seeing the 001 / 011 tattoos, and then 008 + 018 being the only other kids El is hinted at being friendly with... why are we reusing the same pattern? 001 / 008 / 011 / 018 just happen to be every combination of those three numbers within the number of available children.

especially with El "being 8" (as in, years old) at this time. it's giving Henry, 12 / mother of 5. idk where I'm going with that but I'm squinting. Eighteen, you're not some bizarro Little Eight who has an inverted friendship with Big El, right?

El lashing out in the lab

we're shown repeatedly that El hates seeing people get hurt, but multiple times onscreen (and you know innumerable times off) she witnesses severe abuse to her siblings, and we never see her act in their defense like post-lab El would. of course, that's because she realistically can't. we know trying to help anyone in the lab accomplishes little except getting both people in trouble. but I was thinking about how we DO see El lash out for her own sake in 1983. so what's the takeaway? El cares more about protecting herself than others? nah. let's look at the other guard killing scene (again. assuming this really happened):

when similarly cornered in 1979, El's immediate response is silent surrender.

why is her behavior so different? because she's weak? too scared / well controlled? too nice to kill? all those factors have already been established as non-issues in this moment. (she does have her powers here; the circle game proved that Brenner can't control El and knows it; killing when cornered is canonically within her nature)

you might think having a staff member on her side would make her more defiant, but instead she's more compliant here than in '83 (either time. even in the non-guard-killing flashback, El screams and struggles the whole way.)

El and One

he's the difference. she doesn't know he's her brother or has powers yet, but he has presented himself as a fellow prisoner rather than someone in a position of authority. she's also already seen him get punished because of her.

as far as El knows right here, if she lashes out - whether she then escapes successfully or not - she'd be bringing SEVERE punishment onto a nice guy who can't defend himself or escape.

she has a chance at freedom, the power to kill, and the escape route all planned out, but she doesn't do it. the thing that's not in her nature is abandoning a friend to God-knows-what punishment on her behalf.

so while One killing the guards is an act of protection to El, it's also a massive act of protection to One that El is ready to throw out the whole plan right here. don't miss it just because it's not the classic El-screamy-hand thing.

she's sacrificing her chance at freedom in hopes of slightly mitigating his punishment. (they're both doomed to very bad punishment upon capture right here, but if she escapes I think he'd get punished even worse. so she's choosing to share in pretty bad punishment over him being punished extremely severely and her not at all.)

even aside from punishment, she knows she'll be returning to an even worse home life than the one she believed necessitated her immediate escape (Brenner apparently arranging for her to be killed).

so here, can she afford to act out not only because she's acting alone, but because she's an only child, so to speak? there's no one else who could potentially suffer as a result of her actions. no other siblings to use as leverage. no one to protect.

whatever consequences Brenner carried El off to after killing those orderlies, she bore it alone.

I can sorta read this as protective of the other kids in general - not that she did it, but that she didn't until now.

am I saying Brenner might have randomly punished other kids as a result of something El did?

have you met the guy? definitely would've threatened it, might've actually done it. manipulation by whatever means necessary.

when you work in a building full of superpowered people who hate you, you gotta control them psychologically, because physical control isn't something you can maintain for long. it's imperative that they're more afraid of the consequences of kicking your ass than they are of whatever torture you're putting them through. emotional manipulation using friends and innocents as pawns is a classic move. (another reason the kids might want to keep lab friendships secret even if they're allowed.)

that's not theory - we've seen Brenner use this tactic onscreen, telling El that he'll have Owens killed if she tries to get to him. he knows he can't physically control her, so he exerts psychological control by placing Owens' blood on El's hands to get her to cooperate.

the phrase "blood on one's hands" means being responsible for deaths, not having literally, personally committed murder. this imagery is used onscreen to denote El's sense of guilt about the massacre well before she comes to the conclusion that she actually did it. (this could be symbolism that El's mind organically dreamed up instead of engineered fuckery, but who knows. we have no textual explanation yet for how her hands would be that bloody).

and together with Brenner very textually using the kids against each other in other ways - having them literally duel each other in the circle game, but also the "driving them to do exactly what he wants" stuff - I don't think it's unreasonable to figure that fear of harm to the other kids was a manipulation tactic used in the lab.

that definitely includes One - lines like "I'm not going with you / if he finds me he will find you" "I wanted to help you, but I only made things worse" smack of a guy kept in line by fear of something happening to the kids.

and the Brenner-orchestrating-El's-murder story smells like a psyop. is this just Brenner wanting One to think harm would come to El as a consequence of his actions? (she became "uncontrollable" as a result of his coaching). El is too valuable an asset to actually kill. who would know better than One that the treatment for being uncontrollable is soteria, not death? assuming One is being truthful, why would he not see through that. idek what I think is going on here anymore

anyway. MKUltra is ALL about manipulation but I'll talk more about that in my other post

times El protects her friends the same way she protected One

practically every move El makes is about protecting her friends but I want to point out a few times that are specifically reminiscent of her protection of One, where she's ready to give up her freedom to protect her friends even at risk of the worst case scenario (going back to the lab):

sacrificing herself to protect the party from the demogorgon ("no more") <- is that line in reference to the 6 people the demogorgon has snatched, or is that a massacre reference given how incredibly parallel these scenes are. I'm not sure whether "goodbye Mike" meant she thought she'd die or just get so wiped out that she'd be easily recaptured by the lab

leaving Kali and "freedom" to return to Hawkins and protect her friends, where she volunteers to go back into the lab to close the gate

leaving Cali and "freedom" to return to the lab to get her powers back to protect her friends

final thought: I just had a chuckle with myself at the fact that iirc it's Mike and Nancy whose lives El has individually, directly saved the most times.

[honorable mention for Max because I don't know how to quantify 4x9. is that like one massive save?]

like, Mike, okay, but why the Nancy emphasis when she and El have basically zero onscreen relationship. (actually I have a lot to say about El and Nancy coming up soon that might add context)

idk.. lab sibling guilt smth smth El protecting Nancy "she'll be like your new sister" and Mike "will you be like my brother" Creeler. you gotta love it

[vanderwoodlings]

Because I’ve got birthdays on the mind, some thoughts on the gang as gift givers:

Dan: altogether bad with the material, his best work is making more of an experience—Blair’s plastic crown, Serena’s Christmas tree. Think taking Nate to laser tag, getting Vanessa into a series of silent movies with a live and professional organist. With people he can’t do that for, he often defaults to books

Jenny: goes for the handmade! That doesn’t necessarily mean a clothing item; she’s got other artistic interests. She’s also claim it isn’t, like, a sweet thing all the time, often it’s just easier to make a pair of wire and bead earrings in colors that she knows suit someone’s skin tone than to go out and find them

Nate: doesn’t put much thought into it. If he sees something he think someone will like, he’ll get it. If he doesn’t, he’ll get something everybody likes—like coffee, right? Loves it when people have wishlists

Serena: secret superpower of planning personalized events (inverted/turned evil on Jenny’s Clue and crock pot night). Generally, if she’s not giving a party though, it… falls a little flat. Definitely something liked, but it has a sense she sort of just threw money at it

Lily: literally throws money at it. Once she actually did just give Serena some and tell her to buy her own gift, which resulted in her always giving Eric the money as a “birthday shopping trip.” (This worked well, seeing as what he wanted was her time.) Will generally get something of very high quality she sees as necessary—eg a good suit for Dan—for the Humphrey side of the family

Rufus: likes to give people art (whether visual/musical/other) over anything that might be practical. Weirdly good at finding things that make an immediate emotional impact on the person, which is part of how he ended up being pushed into art salesman with his gallery. Despite this, he has also given his kids a multitude of socks over the years

Eric: will just ask people what they want. If at a loss, he usually gets something small and ornamental (a piece of jewelry, a stuffed animal, whatever) so that it can be easily hidden away if not wanted

Vanessa: considers giving money as a gift—whether disguised or not—the highest possible crime. She makes things and does consider it to be a sweet thing. One of her more famous film festival entries actually still starts with the “hey, I love you, I hope you like this” message from the first draft; Serena insisted that she not cut it

Blair: much like Dan, finding the right gift is a process of deep frustration until she finally gets it right. Blair, however, is all about getting the right material object—the thing you open and stare at and keep around for years. She will do research on her targets beforehand

[allfinehere]

Shadowhunters: TWI Soulmates

In the World Inverted, when the demons got sealed away, Raziel took back all the runes the Shadowhunters had - their descendants have legends of the Nephilim and their glorious victory over the demons, but no longer have access to the power. Maybe there were some Silent Brothers left to guard the relics and texts, and some Iron Sisters who keep the weapons and knowledge, but no one else retained their runes or powers. No new Shadowhunters can be made.

But in return, Raziel gave the Nephilim and their descendants a new mark as a blessing for their steadfastness and sacrifice for the angels for so long: they were given a mark to find their soulmate.

Nephilim have soulmates and sometimes they match with someone not a Nephilim. But mostly they match with other Nephilim. (Only the Nephilim who are really interested in genealogy and the legends/lore of their past realize this. Scientists are aware of the soulmate phenomenon but can't genetically explain the rarity among the general population.) And while Raziel does gift the soulmate mark based on high compatibility, that isn't the primary reason for the marks. Its to concentrate the bloodlines and keep the Nephilim blood strong. Because there's no guarantee that the demons will stay sealed away forever. And so if the demons break the barrier keeping them from the earthly plane, Raziel has a ready pool of Nephilim to give runes back to.

Which means that it is only in extreme circumstances where the need for the soulmate outweighs the need for the bloodline that a Nephilim has a non-Nephilim soulmate.

Alec Lightwood, descendant of Shadowhunters with strong Nephilim blood, has a soulmark but hasn't been able to find his soulmate.

Magnus Bane, warlock with recently reactivated magic, doesn't know what the mark that spontaneously appeared around twenty years ago means.

But there is something coming that means the alliance between the descendants of the Nephilim and the remnants of the Downworld is needed. And Alec and Magnus are soulmates, chosen to lead their respective peoples into whatever is coming.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter XIV. Summary and Conclusion

It has been said of Newton, to express the immensity of his discoveries, that he has revealed the abyss of human ignorance.

There is no Newton here, and no one can claim in economics a part equal to that which posterity assigns to this great man in the science of the universe. But I dare to say that there is here more than Newton has ever guessed. The depth of the heavens does not equal the depth of our intelligence, within which wonderful systems move. It looks like a new, unknown region that exists outside space and time, like the heavenly realms and infernal abodes, and on which our eyes plunge, with silent admiration, as in a bottomless abyss.

Non secùs ac si quâ penitùs vi terra dehiscens

Infernas reseret sedes et regna recludat

Pallida, Dis invisa, superque immane barathrum

Cernatur, trepidentque immisso lumine Manes.

Virgil. Aeneid. lib. viii.[51]

Here the throng, collision, swing of eternal forces; there the mysteries of Providence are revealed, and the secrets of fate appear uncovered. It is the invisible making itself visible, the intangible rendered material, the idea becoming reality, and reality a thousand times more wonderful, more grandiose than the most fantastic utopias. So far we do not see, in its simple formula, the unity of that vast machine: the synthesis of these gigantic gears, in which the well-being and misery of generations are ground, and which are shaping a new creation, still evades us. But we already know that nothing that happens in social economy has a copy in nature; we are forced to constantly invent special names, to create a new language, for facts without analogues. It is a transcendent world, whose principles are superior to geometry and algebra, whose powers derive neither from attraction nor from any physical force, but which use geometry and algebra as subordinate instruments, and takes as material the very powers of nature; a world finally freed from the categories of time, space, generation, life and death, where everything seems both eternal and phenomenal, simultaneous and successive, limited and unlimited, ponderable and imponderable… What more can I say? It is even creation, caught, so to speak, in the act!

And this world, which appears to us as a fable, which inverts our judicial habits, and never ceases to deny our reason; this world which envelops us, penetrates us, agitates us, without us even seeing it in any other way than the mind’s eye, touching it only by signs, this strange world is society, it is us!

Who has seen monopoly and competition, except by their effects, that is, by their signs? Who has felt credit and property? What is collective force, division of labour and value? And yet, what is stronger, more certain, more intelligible, more real than all that? Look in the distance at this carriage drawn by eight horses on a beaten field, and driven by a man dressed in a old smock: it is only a mass of matter, moved on four wheels by an animal form. You discover there, in appearance, only a phenomenon of mechanics, determined by a phenomenon of physiology, beyond which you perceive nothing more. Penetrate further: ask this man what he does, where he goes; by what thought, what title, he drives this vehicle. And presently he will show you a letter, his authority, his providence, as he himself is the providence of his equipment. You will read in this letter that he is a carter, that it is in this capacity that he carries out the transportation of a certain quantity of merchandise, so much according upon the weight and distance; that he must carry out his journey by such a route and within such a time, barely covering the cost of his service; that this service implies on the part of the carter the responsibility for the losses and damages that result from other causes than force majeure and an inherent defect of the objects; that the price of the vehicle includes or not includes insurance against unforeseen accidents, and a thousand other details which are the hazard of the law and the torment of jurists. This man, I say, in a piece of paper as big as the hand, will reveal to you an infinite order, an inconceivable mixture of empiricism and pure reason, and that all the genius of man, assisted by the experience of the universe, would have been powerless to discover, if man has not left individual existence to enter collective life.

Indeed, these ideas of work, value, exchange, traffic, responsibility, property, solidarity, association, etc., where are the architypes? who provided the exemplars? what is this world half material, half intelligible; half necessity, half fiction? What is this force, called work, which carries us along with ever greater certainty that we believe we are more free? Which of our joys and torments does this collective life, which burns us with an inextinguishable flame, cause? As long as we live, we are, without our being aware of it, and according to the extent of our faculties and the speciality of our industry, the thinking springs, thinking wheels, thinking gears, thinking weights, etc., of an immense machine that thinks and goes by itself. Science, we said, is based on the accord of reason and experience; but it creates neither one nor the other. And here, on the contrary, a science appears to us, in which nothing is given to us, a priori, neither by experience nor by reason; a science in which humanity draws everything from itself, noumenon[52] and phenomena, universals and categories, facts and ideas; a science, finally, which instead of simply consisting, like any other science, of a reasoned description of reality, is the very creation of reality and reason!

Thus the author of economic reason is man; the creator of economic matter is man; the architect of the economic system is again man. After having produced reason and social experience, humanity proceeds to the construction of social science in the same way as for the construction of the natural sciences; it brings together in agreement the reason and the experience it has given itself, and by the most inconceivable marvel, when everything in it takes after utopia, principles and actions, it only comes to know itself by excluding utopia.

Socialism is right in protesting against political economy and saying to it: You are nothing but a routine that does not understand itself. And political economy is right to say to socialism: you are only a utopia without reality or possible application. But both denying in turn, socialism the experience of humanity, political economy the reason of humanity, both lack the essential conditions of human truth.

Social science is the agreement of reason and social practice. Now, this science, of which our masters have only seen rare sparks, will be given to our century to contemplate it in its sublime splendour and harmony!

But what am I doing? Alas! It is a question, at this moment when quackery and prejudice share the world, of raising our hopes. It is not incredulity that we have to fight, it is presumption. Let us start by noting that social science is not finished, that it is still in a state of vague premonition.

“Malthus,” says his excellent biographer, M. Charles Comte, “had the profound conviction that there exists in political economy principles which are true only insofar as they are contained within certain limits; he saw the main difficulties of the science in the frequent combination of complicated causes, in the action and reaction of effects and causes with each other, and in the necessity of setting limits or making exception for many important proposals.”

This is what Malthus thought of political economy, and the work we have published at this moment is only a demonstration of his idea. To this testimony we add another just as worthy of belief. In one of the final sessions of the Academy of Moral Sciences, M. Dunoyer, as a truly superior man, who does not allow himself to be dazzled either by the interest of a clique, nor by the disdain that inspires ignorant opponents, made the same confession with as much candour and nobility as Malthus.

“Political economy, which has a number of certain principles, which rests on a considerable mass of exact facts and well deduced observations, nevertheless seems far from being a set science. There is no complete agreement on the extent of the field in which its research should be extended, nor on the fundamental object which it must suggest. It is not suitable for all the work it embraces, nor the means to which the power of its work is linked, nor the precise meaning to be attached to most of the words that form its vocabulary. The science, rich in truths of detail, leaves a great deal to be desired as a whole, and as a science it still seems far from being constituted.”

M. Rossi goes further than M. Dunoyer: he formulated his judgement in the form of a reprimand addressed to the modern representatives of the science.

“Every thought of method now seemed abandoned in economics,” he cries, “and yet there is no science without method.” (Compte-rendu par M. Rossi du cours de M. Whateley [Report by M. Rossi of M. Whateley’s course])

Messrs. Blanqui, Wolowski, Chevalier, everyone who has glanced every so briefly on the economy of societies speaks the same. And the writer who best appreciates the value of modern utopias, Pierre Leroux, writes on every page of the Revue sociale [Social Review]: “let us seek the solution of the problem of the proletariat; let us keep looking for it until we find it. It is the entire work of our epoch!...” Now, the problem of the proletariat is the constitution of social science. There are only short-sighed economists and fanatical socialists, for whom the science is summed up entirely in a formula, Laissez faire, laisses passer, or else, To each according to his needs as far as social resources allow, who boast of possessing economic science.

What then causes this delay of social truth, which alone maintains the disappointment of the economist and gives credit to the operations of the alleged reformers? The cause, in our opinion, is the separation, already very old, of philosophy and political economy.

Philosophy, that is to say metaphysics, or if it is preferred, logic, is the algebra of society; political economy is the realisation of this algebra. This was not noticed by J.B. Say, nor Bentham, no anyone else who, under the names of economists and utilitarians, created a split in morals and rose against almost at the same time politics and philosophy. And yet, what more secure control can philosophy, the theory of reason, wish for than work, that is, the practice of reason? And conversely, what more certain control could economic science wish than the formulas of philosophy? It is my dearest hope, that the time is not far when the masters in the moral and political sciences will be in the workshops and [behind] counters, as today our most skilful builders are all men formed by a long and arduous apprenticeship…

But on what condition can there be a science?

On the condition of recognising its field of observation and its limits, to determine its object, to organise its method. On this point the economist expresses himself as the philosopher: the words of M. Dunoyer, recounted earlier, seem literally taken from the preface of Jouffroy to the translation of Reid.

The field of observation of philosophy is the self [le moi]; the field of observation of economics is society, that is to say again the self. Do you want to know man, study society; do you want to know society, study man. Man and society reciprocally serve each other as subjects and objects; the parallelism, the synonymy of the two sciences is complete.

But what is this collective and individual self? What is this field of observation, where strange phenomena are going on? To find out, let us look at the analogues.

All the things we think seem to exist, to succeed one another or to be in three transcendent CAPABILITIES, outside of which we can only imagine and conceive absolutely nothing: these are space, time and intelligence.

Just as every material object is conceived by us necessarily in space; just as phenomena, connected with each other by a relationship of causality, seem to follow each other in time; thus our purely abstract representations are recorded by us to a particular receptacle, which we call intellect or intelligence.

Intelligence is in its species an infinite capacity, like space and eternity. There are restless worlds, of numberless organisms with complicated laws, with varied and unexpected effects; equal, for magnificence and harmony, to the worlds sown by the creator through space, to the organisms that shine and die out over time. Politics and political economy, jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, poetry, languages, customs, literature, fine arts: the field of observation of the self is more vast, more fecund, more rich in itself than the double field of observation of nature, space and time.

The self, as well as time and space, is infinite. Man, and what is the product of man, together with the beings thrown through space and the phenomena that follow one another in time, constitutes the triple manifestation of God. These three infinites, indefinite expressions of infinity, penetrate each other and support one another, inseparable and irreducible: space or scale not being conceived without movement, which implies the idea of force, this is to say a spontaneity, a self.

The ideas of things which are presented to us in space form for our imagination tableaus; the ideas which we place objects in time unfold in histories; finally, ideas or relations which do not fall under the category of time or space, and which belong to the intellect, are co-ordinated in systems.

Tableau, history, system, are thus three analogous expressions, or rather equivalents, by which we make known that a certain number of ideas appear to our mind as a symmetrical and perfect whole. That is why these expressions may, in certain cases, be taken for each other, as we have pursued from the beginning of this work, when we presented it as a history of political economy, no longer according to the date of the discoveries, but according to the order of the theories.

We conceive then, and we cannot not conceive of a capacity for things of pure thought, or, as Kant says, for noumena, in the same way that we conceive two others for sense things, for phenomena.

But space and time are nothing real; they are two forms imprinted on the self by external perception. Similarly intelligence is also nothing real: it is a form that the self imposes on itself, by analogy, in the context of the ideas that experience suggests to it.

As for the order of acquisition of ideas, intuitions or images, it seems to us that we start with those whose types or realities are included in space; that we continue by stopping, so to speak, the flight of ideas that time carries, and that we finally discover, with the help of sense perceptions, the ideas or concepts, without external model, which appear to us in this ghost capacity we call our intelligence. Such is the progress of our knowledge: we start from the sense to rise to the abstract; the ladder of our reason has its foot on the earth, crosses the sky and is lost in the depths of the mind.

Let us now reverse this series, and we envision creation as a descent of ideas from the higher sphere of intelligence into the lower spheres of time and space, a fall during which the ideas, originally pure, have taken a body of substratum that realises them and expresses them. From this point of view all created things, the phenomena of nature and the manifestations of humanity, will appear to us as a projection of the mind, immaterial and immutable, on a plane sometimes fixed and straight, space, sometimes inclined and moving, time.

It follows from this that ideas, equal to each other, contemporaneous and co-ordinated in the mind, seem thrown haphazardly, scattered, localised, subordinate and consecutive in humanity and in nature, forming tableaus and histories without resemblance to the original design [dessin primitif]; and all human science consists in finding this conception the abstract system of eternal thought. It is by a restoration of this kind that naturalists have found systems of organised and unorganised beings; it is by the same process that we have tried to re-establish the series of phases of social economy, which society makes us see isolated, incoherent, anarchic. The subject we have untaken is really the natural history of work, according to the fragments collected by the economists; and the system which has resulted from our analysis is true in the same way as the systems of plants discovered by Linné and Jussieu, and the system of animals by Cuvier.

The human self manifested by work is thus the field for the exploration of political economy, a concrete form of philosophy. The identity of these two sciences, or rather these two scepticisms, has been revealed to us throughout the course of this book. Thus the formation of ideas appeared to us in the division of labour as a division of elementary categories; then, we have seen freedom being born from the action of man upon nature, and, following freedom, arise all the relations of man with society and with himself. As a result, economics has been for us at the same time an ontology, a logic, a psychology, a theology, a politics, an aesthetics, a symbolism and a morality…

The field of science recognised, and its operation delimited, we had to recognise its method. Now, the method of economic science is still the same as that of philosophy: the organisation of work, we believe, is nothing but the organisation of common sense…

Among the laws that make up this organisation we have noticed the antinomy.

All true thought, as we have observed, arises in one time and two moments. Each of these moments being the negation of the other, and both of which must disappear only within a superior idea, it follows that antinomy is the very law of life and progress, the principle of perpetual motion. Indeed, if a thing, by virtue of the power of evolution which is in it, is repaired precisely of all that it loses, it follows that this thing is indestructible, and that movement supports it forever. In social economy, what competition is constantly occupied making, monopoly is constantly occupied unmaking; what labour produces, consumption devours; what property appropriates to itself, society gets a hold of: and from this results continuous movement, the unwavering life of humanity. If one of the two antagonistic forces is hindered, [so] that individual activity, for example, succumbs to social authority, organisation degenerates into communism and ends in nothingness. If, on the contrary, individual initiative lacks a counterweight, the collective organism is corrupted, and civilisation crawls under a regime of castes, iniquity and misery.

Antinomy is the principle of attraction and of movement, the reason for equilibrium: it is that which produces passion, and which breaks down all harmony and all accord…

Then comes the law of progression and series, the melody of beings, the law of the beautiful and the sublime. Remove the antinomy, the progress of beings is inexplicable: for where is the force that would produce this progress? Remove the series, the world is no more than a melee of sterile oppositions, a universal turmoil, without purpose and without an idea…

Even if these speculations, for us pure truth, appear doubtful, the application we have made of them would still be of immense utility. Let us think about it: there is not a single moment in life where the same man does not affirm and deny the same principles and theories at the same time, with more or less good faith, no doubt, but also always with plausible reasons, which, without soothing the conscience, suffice to make passion triumph and spread doubt in the mind. Let us leave, if you want, logic: but is it nothing to have illuminated the double face of things, to have learned to be wary of reasoning, of knowing how, the more a man has fairness in ideas and righteousness in the heart, the more he runs the risk of being a dupe and absurd? All our political, religious, economic, etc. misunderstandings come from the inherent contradiction of things; and this is even the source from which flow the corruption of principles, the venality of consciences, the charlatanism of professions of faith, the hypocrisy of opinions…

What is, at present, the object of economics?

The method itself tell us. Antinomy is the principle of attraction and balance in nature; antinomy is therefore the principle of progress and equilibrium in humanity, and the object of economic science is JUSTICE.

Considered in its purely objective relations, the only ones which social economy deals with, justice is expressed in value. Now, what is value? It is the labour performed.

“The real price of everything,” says Mr Smith, “what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it… What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.”[53]

But if value is the embodiment of labour, it is at the same time the principle of the comparison of products with one another: hence the theory of proportionality which dominates all economic science, and to which A. Smith would have raised, if it had been in the spirit of his time to pursue, with the aid of logic, a system of experiments.

But how is justice manifested in society, in other words, how is proportionality of values established? Say said it: by an oscillatory movement between value in utility and value in exchange.

Here appears in political economy, with regard to work, its master and all too often its executioner, the arbitral principle.

At the outset of the science, work, devoid of method, without understanding of value, barely stammering its first attempts, appeals to free will to build wealth and set the price of things. From this moment two powers enter into struggle, and the great work of social organisation is inaugurated. For work and free will is what we will later call labour and capital, wage-labour and privilege, competition and monopoly, community and property, plebe and nobility, state and citizen, association and individualism. For anyone who has obtained the first notions of logic, it is obvious that all these oppositions, eternally reborn, must be eternally resolved: now, that is what the economists do not want to hear, to whom the arbitral principle inherent in value seems resistant to all determination; and it is, with the horror of philosophy, what causes the retardation, so fatal to society, of economic science.

“It would be as absurd,” says [John Ramsay] McCulloch, “to speak of absolute height and depth as of absolute value.”

Economists all say the same thing, and we can judge by this example how far they are from each other, and on the nature of value, and on the meaning of the words they use. The absolute expression carries with it the idea of wholeness, perfection, or plenitude, on the basis of precision and accuracy. An absolute majority is a true majority (half plus one), it is not an indefinite majority. In the same way absolute value is the precise value, deduced from the exact comparison of products together: there is nothing in the world so simple. But the consequence of this critical effect is that since values measure one another, they must not oscillate at random: such is the supreme wish of society, such is the significance of political economy itself, which is nothing else, in its totality, but the picture of the contradictions whose synthesis infallibly produces true value.

Thus society is gradually established by a sort of swinging between necessity and arbitrariness, and justice is constituted by theft. Equality does not occur within society as an inflexible standard; it is, like all the great laws of nature, an abstract point, which oscillates continually above and below, through arcs more of less large, more or less regular. Equality is the supreme law of society; but it is not a fixed form, it is the average of an infinity of equations. That is how equality appeared to us from the first epoch of economic evolution, the division of labour; and such has been constantly manifested from the legislation of Providence.

Adam Smith, who had a kind of intuition on almost all the great problems of social economy, after having recognised labour as the principle of value and described the magical effects of the law of division, observes that, notwithstanding the increase of the produce resulting from this division, the wages of the worker do not increase; that often, on the contrary, they diminish, the gains of collective force not going to the worker, but to the master.

“The profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought are only a different name for the wages of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direction. They are, however, altogether different, are regulated by quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection and direction. They are regulated altogether by the value of the stock employed, and are greater or smaller in proportion to the extent of this stock... In this state of things, the whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner.”[54]

That, A. Smith tells us coldly, is how things happen: everything for the master, nothing for the worker. Whether we call it injustice, plunder, theft, the economist is not moved. The robber proprietor seems to him in all this as an automaton as the worker is robbed. And the proof that they deserve neither envy nor pity is that the workers only demand when they are dying of hunger; it is that no capitalist, entrepreneur or proprietor, neither during life nor at the moment of death, has felt the slightest remorse. They accuse ignorant and distorted public consciousness; they may be right, they may be wrong. A. Smith limits himself to reporting the facts, which is much better for us that declamations.

So by designating amongst workers a select [privilégié], nazarœum inter fratres tuos, social reason personified collective force. Society proceeds by myths and allegories. The history of civilisation is a vast symbolism. Homer summarises heroic Greece; Jesus Christ is suffering humanity, striving with effort, in a long and painful agony, to freedom, to justice, to virtue. Charlemagne is the feudal type; Roland, chivalry; Peter the Hermit, the crusades; Gregory VII, the papacy; Napoleon, the French Revolution. In the same way the industrial entrepreneur, who exploits a capital by a group of workers, is the personification of the collective force whose profit he absorbs, as the flywheel of a machine stores force. This is really the heroic man, the king of work. Political economy is a whole symbolism, property is a religion.

Let is follow A. Smith, whose luminous ideas, scattered in an obscure clutter, seem a repetition [deutérose] of primitive revelation.

“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces [without him].”[55]

Here is monopoly, here is interest on capital, here is [economic] rent! A. Smith, like all the enlightened, sees and does not understand; he recounts and has not the intelligence. He speaks under the inspiration of God without surprise and without pity; and the meaning of his words remain for him a closed letter. With what calm he recounts proprietor usurpation! As long as the land seems good for nothing, as long as labour has not loosened, fertilised, utilised, created VALUE [mise en VALEUR], property gives it no thought. The hornet does not alight on the flowers, it falls upon the hives. What the worker produces is immediately taken; the worker is like a hunting dog in the master’s hand.

A slave, exhausted from work, invents the plough. With a hardened wooden hook dragged by a horse, he opens the ground, rendering him capable of making ten times, a hundred times more. The master, at a glance, grasps the importance of the discovery: he seizes the land, he appropriates the revenue, he attributes the idea to himself, and makes himself adored by the mortals for this magnificent gift. He walks the equal of the gods: his wife is a nymph, Ceres; and he is Triptolemus. Poverty invents, and property reaps. For genius must remain poor: abundance would smother it. The greatest service that property has rendered to the world is this perpetual affliction of labour and genius.

But what to do with these heaps of grain? What a poor wealth [is] that which the boss shares with his horses, his oxen and his slaves! It is well worth being rich, if all the advantage consists of being able to gnaw a few more handfuls of rice and barley!...

An old woman, having pounded grain for her toothless mouth, realises that the dough soured, fermented, and cooked under the ashes, gives a food incomparably better than raw or grilled wheat. Miracle! The daily bread is discovered. – Another, having pressing into a jar a mass of dropped grapes, intends to boil the mash on the flame; the liquor spews out its impurities; it gleams, ruddy, bountiful, immortal. Evoe! it is the young Bacchus, the darling son of the proprietor, a child beloved of the gods, who has found it. What the master could not have devoured in a few weeks, a year will suffice for him to drink. The vine, like the harvest, like the earth, is appropriated.

What is to be done with these countless fleeces that each year provides such a large tribute? When the proprietor would raise his bed to be worthy of his pavilion, when he would duplicate thirty times his sumptuous tent, this useless luxury would do nothing but attest his impotence. He abounds in goods and he cannot enjoy; what a mockery!

A shepherdess, left naked by the avarice of the master, collects from the bushes some wool fibres. She twisted this wool, stretching it into equal and fine threads, gathering them on a spear, crisscrossing them, and making herself a soft and light dress, a thousand times more elegant than the patched skins that cover his scornful mistress. It is Arachne, the weaver, who created this marvel! Immediately the master begins to shear the hair of his sheep, his camels and his goats; he gives his wife a troop of slaves, who spin and weave under his orders. It is no longer Arachne, the humble servant; it is Pallas, the daughter of the proprietor, whom the gods have inspired, and whose jealously avenges itself on Arachne by causing her to die of hunger.

What a sight this incessant struggle of labour and privilege, the first created everything out of nothing; the other always arriving to devour what it has not produced! – It is because the destiny of man is a continuous march. It is necessary that he work, that he create, multiply, perfect forever and forever. Let the worker enjoy his discovery; he falls asleep on his idea: his intelligence no longer advances. This is the secret of this iniquity which struck A. Smith, and against which, however, the unemotional historian did not find a word of reprobation. He felt, although he could not realise it, that the touch of God was there; that until the day when labour fills the earth, civilisation is driven by unproductive consumption, and that it is by rapine that fraternity is gradually established between men.

Man must work! That is why at the advice of Providence, theft was instituted, organised, sanctified! If the proprietor had tired of taking it, the proletarian would have soon be tired of producing, and savagery, hideous misery, was at the door. The Polynesian, amongst whom property has been aborted, and who enjoys in an entire community of property and love, why would he work? The earth and beauty are for everyone, children to anyone: what do you say to him about morals, dignity, personality, philosophy, progress? And without going so far, the Corsican, who is found for six months living and residing under his chestnut tree, why do you want him to work? What does he care for your conscription, your railways, your tribune, your press? What else does he need but to sleep when he has eaten his chestnuts? A prefect of Corsica said that to civilise this island it was necessary to chop down the chestnut trees. A more certain way is to appropriate them.

But already the proprietor is no longer strong enough to devour the substance of the worker: he calls his favourites, his jesters, his lieutenants, his accomplices. It is again Smith who reveals this wonderful conspiracy.

“In the progress of the manufacture, not only the number of profits increase, but every subsequent profit is greater than the foregoing; because the capital from which it is derived must always be greater. In raising the price of commodities the rise of wages operates in the same manner as simple interest does in the accumulation of debt. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. If in the linen manufacture, for example, the wages of the different working people, the flax-dressers, the spinners, the weavers, etc., should, all of them, be advanced two-pence a day; it would be necessary to heighten the price of a piece of linen only by a number of two-pences equal to the number of people that had been employed about it, multiplied by the number of days during which they had been so employed. That part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into wages would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise only in arithmetical proportion to this rise of wages. But if the profits of all the different employers of those working people should be raised five per cent, that part of the price of the commodity which resolved itself into profit would, through all the different stages of the manufacture, rise in geometrical proportion to this rise of profit. The employer of the flaxdressers would in selling his flax require an additional five per cent upon the whole value of the materials and wages which he advanced to his workmen. The employer of the spinners would require an additional five per cent both upon the advanced price of the flax and upon the wages of the spinners. And the employer of the weavers would require a like five per cent both upon the advanced price of the linen yarn and upon the wages of the weavers.”[56]

This vivid description of the economic hierarchy, starting with the Jupiter-proprietor, and ending with the slave. From labour, its division, the distinction of the master and the wage-worker, the monopoly of capital, arises a caste of landlords, financiers, entrepreneurs, bourgeois, masters and supervisors, labouring to consume rents, to collect usury, to squeeze the worker, and above all to exercise policing [d’exercer la police[57]], the most terrible form of exploitation and misery. The invention of politics and laws is exclusively due to property: Numa and Egeria, Tarquin and Tanaquil, as well as Napoleon and Charlemagne, were noble. Regum tirnendorum in proprios greges, regel in ipsos irnperium est lavis, says Horace. One would say a legion of infernal spirits, rushing from every corner of hell to torment a poor soul. Pull him by his chain, take away his sleep and food; beat, burn, torture, without rest, without pity! For if the worker were spared, if we did him justice, nothing would remain for us, and we would perish.

O God! what crime has this unfortunate man committed, that you abandon him to the guards who distribute blows to him with such a liberal hand, and subsistence with a hand so miserly? … And you, proprietors, Providence’s chosen rulers, do not go beyond the prescribed measure, because rage is rising in the heart of your servant, and his eyes are red with blood.

A revolt of the workers wrings a concession from the pitiless masters. Happy day, deep joy! Work is free. But what freedom, for heaven’s sake! Freedom for the proletarian is the ability to work, that is, of being robbed again; or not to work, that is to say to die to hunger! Freedom only benefits strength: by competition, capital crushes labour everywhere and converts industry into a vast coalition of monopolies. For the second time, the plebeian worker is on her knees before the aristocracy; she has neither the possibility, nor even the right to discuss her salary.

“Masters,” says the oracle, “are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform league, not to raise wages above their existing rate. To violate this rule is an act of a false-friend. And by abhorrent legislation, this league is tolerated, while the coalitions of workers are severely punished.”[58]

And why this new iniquity, which the unalterable serenity of Smith could not help declaring abhorrent? Would such a crying injustice have been even necessary and that, without this favouritism [acception de personnes], fate would have been in error and Providence thwarted? Will we find means of justifying, with monopoly, this partial policing of the human race?

Why not, if we want to rise above societal sentimentalism, and consider higher facts, the force of things, the intimate law of civilisation?

What is labour? What is privilege?

Labour, analogous to creative activity, without awareness of itself, indeterminate, barren, as long as the idea, the law does not penetrate, labour is the crucible where value is elaborated, the great matrix of civilisation, the passive or female principle of society. – Privilege, emanating from free will, is the electric spark that determines individualisation, the freedom that realises, the authority that commands, the mind that deliberates, the self that governs.

The relation of labour and privilege is thus a relation of the female to the male, of the wife to the husband. Amongst all peoples, the adultery of the woman has always seemed more reprehensible than that of the man; it was consequently subjected to more rigorous penalties. Those who, stopping at the atrocity of forms, forget the principle and see only the barbarism exercised towards the sex, are politicisers of romances worthy of appearing in the stories of the author of Lélia. Any indiscipline of workers is comparable to adultery committed by woman. Is it not obvious then that, if the same favour on the part of the courts were to accept the complaint of the worker and that of the master, the hierarchical link, outside which humanity cannot live, would be broken, and the entire economy of society ruined?

Judge moreover by the facts. Compare the physiognomy of a workers’ strike with the march of a coalition of entrepreneurs. There, distrust of the proper law, agitation, turbulence, outside screaming and trembling, inside terror, spirit of submission and desire for peace. Here, on the contrary, calculated resolution, feeling of strength, certainty of success, calmness in execution. Where, in your opinion, is power? where is the organic principle? where is life? Without doubt society owes assistance and protection to all: I do not plead here the cause of the oppressors of humanity; may the vengeance of heaven crush them! But the education of the proletarian must be accomplished. The proletarian is Hercules arriving at immortality through work and virtue: but what would Hercules do without the persecution of Eurystheus?

Who are you? asked Pope Saint Leo of Attila, when this destroyer of nations came to set his camp before Rome.

“I am the scourge of God,” replied the barbarian. “We receive with gratitude,” continued the pope, “all that comes from God: but you, take care not to do anything that is not commanded of you!”

Proprietors, who are you?...

Weirdest thing, property, attacked on all sides in the name of charity, of justice, of social economy, has never known how to respond for its justification other than these words: I am because I am. I am the negation of society, the plundering of the worker, the right of the unproductive, the right of the strongest [la raison du plus fort], and none can live if I do not devour him.

This appalling enigma has made the most sagacious intelligences despair.

“In that original state of things, which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him. Had this state continued, the wages of labour would have augmented with all those improvements in its productive powers, to which the division of labour gives occasion. [...] They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labour [...] they would have been purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.”[59]

So says A. Smith. And his commentator adds:

“I can well understand how the right of appropriating, under the name of interest, profit or rent, the product of other individuals becomes nourishment for greed; but I cannot imagine that by diminishing the reward of the worker to add to the opulence of the idle man, we can increase industry or accelerate the progress of society in wealth.”[60]

The reason for this deduction, which neither Smith nor his commentator has seen, we will repeat, so that the inexorable law that governs human society is again and for the last time brought to light.

To divide labour is to make only a production of pieces: for there to be value, a composition is needed. Before the institution of property, each is a master to take from the ocean the water from which he draws salt for his food, to gather the olive from which he will extract his oil, to collect the ore which contains iron and gold. Each is free to exchange some of what he has collected against an equivalent quantity of provisions made by another: so far, we do not go beyond the sacred right of work and the community of the earth. Now, if I have the right to use, either by my personal labour or by exchange, all the products of nature; and if the possession thus obtained is entirely legitimate, I have the same right to combine, from the various elements which I obtain by labour and exchange, a new product, which is my property, and which I have the right to enjoy exclusively of any other. I can, for example, by means of the salt from which I extract soda, and the oil I draw from the olive and sesame, to make a specific composition to clean linen, and which will be for me, from the point of view of cleanliness and hygiene, a precious utility. I can even reserve for myself the secret of this composition, and consequently take, by means of exchange, a legitimate profit.

Now, what is the difference, under relation of right, between the manufacture of an ounce of soap and that of a million kilograms? Does the greater or lesser quantity change anything of the morality of the operation? So property, as well as commerce, as well as labour, is a natural right, of whose exercise nothing in the world can steal from me.

But, by the very fact that I compose a product which is my exclusive property, as well as the materials that constitute it, it follows that a workshop, an exploitation of men is organised by me; that profits accumulate in my hands to the detriment of all who enter into business relations with me; and that if you wish to substitute yourself for me in my enterprise, quite naturally I will stipulate for myself a rent. You will possess my secret, you will manufacture in my place, you will turn my mill, you will reap my field, you will pick my vine, but at a quarter, a third, or half share.

All this is a necessary and indissoluble chain; there is no serpent or devil here; it is the very law of the thing, the dictum of common sense. In commerce, plundering is identical to exchange; and what is really surprising is that a regime like this one does not excuse itself only by the good faith of the parties, it is commanded by justice.

A man buys from his neighbour the collier a sack of coal, from the grocer a quantity of sulphur from Etna. He makes a mixture to which he adds a portion of saltpetre, sold by the druggist. From all this results an explosive powder, of which a hundred pounds would suffice to wreck a citadel. Now, I ask, the woodcutter who charred the wood, the Sicilian shepherd who picked up the sulphur, the sailor who transported it, the commission agent from Marseilles who reshipped it, the merchant who sold it, are they complicit in the disaster? Is there any interdependence [solidarité] between them, I’m not saying in its use, but in the manufacture of this powder?

Now, if it is impossible to discover the least connection of action between the various individuals who, each without his knowledge, have co-operated in the production of the powder, it is clear, for the same reason, that there is no more connection and interdependence [solidarité] between them as to the profits of the sale, and that the gain which may result from its use also belongs exclusively to the inventor, that the punishment, to which he might become liable for as a result of crime or imprudence, is personal to him. Property is identical to responsibility: we cannot affirm the one, without granting at the same time the other.

But admire the unreason of reason! The same property, legitimate, irreproachable in its origin, constitutes in its use a flagrant iniquity; and this, without adding any element which modifies it, but by the mere development of the principle.

Let us take as a whole the products that industry and agriculture bring to the market. These products, such as powder and soap, are all, to some degree, the result of a combination of materials which were drawn from the general store. The price of these products invariably consists, firstly of the wages paid to the different categories of workers, secondly, of the profits demanded by the entrepreneurs and capitalists. So that society is divided into two classes of people: 1) entrepreneurs, capitalists and proprietors, who have the monopoly of all objects of consumption; 2) employees or workers, who can offer only half of what these are worth, which makes their consumption, circulation and reproduction impossible.

Adam Smith tells us in vain:

“It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”[61]

How could this be achieved, except with the dispossession of the monopolists? And how can monopoly be prevented if it is a necessary effect of the free exercise of the industrial faculty? The justice that Adam Smith wants to establish is impractical in the regime of property. Now, if justice is impractical, if it becomes actual injustice, and if this contradiction is internal to the nature of things [intime à la nature des choses], what is the use of even speaking of equity and humanity? Does Providence know equity, or whether fate is philanthropic? It is not to destroy monopoly, any more than labour, which we must reach; it is, by a synthesis which the contradiction of monopoly renders inevitable, to make it produce in the interests of all the goods which it [currently] reserves for some. Outwith of this solution Providence remains insensitive to our tears; fate inflexibly follows its path; and while we, gravely seated, argue over the just and the unjust, God who has made us contradictory like himself in our thoughts, contradictory in our actions, answers us with a burst of laughter.

It is this essential contradiction of our ideas that, being realised by labour and expressing itself in society with a gigantic power, makes everything happen in the inverse direction of what it must be, and gives society the appearance of a tapestry seen in reverse or an inverted animal. Man, by the division of labour and by machinery, was to gradually rise to science and to liberty; and by division, by the machine he stupefies himself and becomes a slave. Tax, says the theory, must be as a result of wealth; and quite the contrary tax is because of poverty. The unproductive must obey, and by a bitter mockery the unproductive command. Credit, according to the etymology of its name, and according to its theoretical definition, is the provider of labour; in practice, it squeezes and kills it. Property, in the spirit of its most beautiful prerogative, is the extension of land; and in the exercise of this same prerogative, property is the prohibition of land. In all its categories political economy reproduces the contradiction and the religious idea. The life of man, affirms philosophy, is a perpetual emancipation from animality and nature, a struggle against God. In religious practice, life is the struggle of man against himself, the absolute submission of society to a superior Being. Love God with all your heart, the Gospel tells us, and hate your spirit [âme] for eternal life: precisely the opposite of what reason commands…

I will not push this summary further. Having reached the end of my journey, my ideas are pressing in such a multitude and vehemence, that already I would need a new book to recount what I have discovered, and that, in spite of the oratorical expedience, I see no other means of finishing than to stop abruptly. If I am not mistaken, the reader ought to be convinced at least of one thing, that social truth cannot be found either in utopia or in routine: that political economy is not the science of society, but contains, in itself, the materials of that science, in the same way that chaos before the creation contained the elements of the universe. The fact is that, to arrive at a definite organisation, which appears to be the destiny of the race on this planet, there is nothing left but to make a general equation of our contradictions.

But what will be the formula of this equation?

We already foresee that there should be a law of exchange, a theory of MUTUALITY, a system of guaranties which determines the old forms of our civil and commercial societies, and gives satisfaction to all the conditions of efficiency, progress and justice which the critics have pointed out; a society no longer merely conventional, but real, which makes of the subdivision of real estate a scientific instrument; that will abolish the servitude of the machines, and may prevent the coming of crises; that makes of competition a benefit, and of monopoly a pledge of security for all; which by the strength of its principles, instead of making credit of capital and protection of the State, puts capital and the State to work; which by the sincerity of exchange, creates a real solidarity among the nations; which without forbidding individual initiative, without prohibiting domestic economy, continuously restores to society the wealth which is diverted by appropriation; which by the ebb and flow of capital, assures political and industrial equality of the citizenry, and, through a vast system of public education, secures the equality of functions and the equivalence of aptitudes, by continuously raising their level; which through justice, well being and virtue, revives the human conscience, assures the harmony and the equality of the people; a society, in a word, which, being at the same time organisation and transition, escapes what has taken place, guarantees everything and compels nothing…

The theory of mutuality, or of mutuum, that is to say, the natural form of exchange, of which the most simple form is loan for consumption, is, from the point of view of the collective existence, the synthesis of the two ideas of property and of communism [communauté], a synthesis as old as the elements of which it is constituted, since it is nothing more than the return of society to its primitive custom, through the maze of inventions and of systems, the result of a meditation of six thousand years on the fundamental proposition that A equals A.

Everything today is making ready for this solemn restoration; everything proclaims that the reign of fiction has passed, and that society will return to the sincerity of its nature. Monopoly is inflated to world-wide proportions, but a monopoly which encompasses the world cannot remain exclusive; it must republicanise itself or be destroyed. Hypocrisy, venality, prostitution, theft, form the foundation of the public conscience; but, unless humanity learns to live upon what kills it, we must believe that justice and expiation approach....

Already socialism, feeling the error in its utopias, turns to realities and to facts, it laughs at itself in Paris, it discusses in Berlin, in Cologne, in Leipzig, in Breslau; it murmurs in England, it thunders on the other side of the ocean; it commits suicide in Poland, it tries to govern in Berne and in Lausanne. Socialism, in pervading the masses, has become entirely different: the people will not bother about the honour of schools; they ask for work, education, well being, equality; the system does not matter so much, provided that the result is obtained. But when the people want something and it is only a question of finding out how to obtain it, the discovery does not wait; prepare yourself to see the coming of the grand masquerade.

Let the priest finally get it his head that poverty is a sin, and that true virtue, that renders us worthy of eternal life, is to fight against religion and against God; – that the philosopher, lowering his pride, supercilium philosophicum, learns on his part that reason is society, and that to philosophise is to work with his hands; – that the artist may remember that he once descended from Olympus into Christ’s stable, and that from this stable, he rose suddenly to unknown splendours; that as well as Christianity, labour must regenerate it; – that the capitalist thinks that silver and gold are not true values; that by the sincerity of exchange all products amount to the same dignity, each producer will have in his house a mint [un hôtel des monnaies], and, as the fiction of the productivity of capital has plundered the worker, so organised labour will absorb capital; – that the proprietor knows that he is only the collector of society’s [economic] rents, and that if he could once, under the guise of war, put a prohibition on the soil, the proletarian can in his turn, by association, put a prohibition on harvesting, and make property expire in the void; – that the prince and his proud cortege, his soldiers, his judges, his councillors, his peers, and all the army of the unproductive, hasten to cry Thanks! to the agricultural and industrial worker [au laboureur et à l'industriel], because the organisation of labour is synonymous with the subordination of power, that it depends on the worker abandoning the unproductive to his indigence, and to destroy power in shame and hunger.

All these things will happen, not as unforeseen, unhoped novelties, a sudden effect of the passions of the people, or of the skill of a few men, but by the spontaneous return of society to an immemorial practice, momentarily abandoned, and rightly so…

Humanity, in its oscillatory march, turns incessantly upon itself: its progress is only the rejuvenation of its traditions; its systems, so opposite in appearance, always exhibit the same basis [fond], seen from different sides. Truth, in the movement of civilisation, always remains the same, always old and always new: religion, philosophy, science merely translate. And this is precisely what constitutes Providence and the infallibility of human reason; which ensures, in the very heart of progress, the immutability of our being; which renders society at once unalterable in its essence and irresistible in its revolutions; and which, continually extending perspective, always showing from afar the latest solution, establishes the authority of our mysterious premonitions.

Reflecting on these battles of humanity, I involuntarily recall that, in Christian symbolism, the militant Church must succeed on the final day a triumphant Church, and the system of social contradictions appears to me like a magic bridge, thrown over the river of oblivion.

[autumnalwalker]

A Dream About A Change In Plans

I am in line waiting for the simulator to try out to become a mech pilot.  Just before my turn I am approached by men in suits who pull me out of the line.  They have found out that I am already a robot, and they have a different, more fitting program for the likes of me. 

I am escorted to a black-curtained tent, glowing purple and white from within with the light of monitors and medical equipment.  Inside, scientists, engineers, and intelligence officers scurry about underneath the eyes of brooding generals. It is an emergency installation for an off-the-books project made permanent.  Just by having seen the inside, my fate is sealed for the sake of security and secrets.

My body is taken apart and put back together with new limbs and interface ports for weapons and armor that I will only be allowed to wear when deployed.  My mind is retrofitted with proprietary software suites for targeting solutions, evasive maneuvers, tactical libraries, killing instincts, and a sense of naked vulnerability whenever I am not fully kitted out for destruction. Little in-between is allowed for the extremes of intoxicating raw power and pliant helplessness. 

I am moved to a part of the base dedicated to the storage of vehicles and equipment when not in use rather than the parts where people live, sleep, and socialize.  I rarely get to see the mechs except when deployed alongside them; they’re stored in the other part of the base because their pilots can’t bear to be too far from them.  Instead I am put away with the other combat dolls; my “new sisters.”

Music is a large part of our lives.  Music to hype us up for a fight.  Music to calm us down afterwards.  Music to try to make us just a little bit human so that we can still work alongside our flesh-and-blood counterparts.  We do little else outside of deployments but lie in wait in our storage unit listening to track after track on loop.  Electronica and J-pop idol music are the go-to genres, but I am constantly annoying my new sisters with my inordinate fondness for Jimmy Buffet slipping into the playlist.

An entity that should not be here appears before me.  I do not like what it has to say, and it does not matter what I say.  I am currently without my armor, and thus weak and useless, but I try to attack it anyway.  The entity disappears and a moment later the base is awash in the red inverted candle flame of a great ship’s propulsion drive.  None of the base’s human personnel survive, and I barely do.  I sift through the debris to find my sisters, silently telling myself over and over that this isn’t my fault.  I find them and we make a plan to keep searching what is left of the base to see if any of our armor components survived.  Once we are closer to being whole we can figure out what comes next from there.  

[annoyangle]

@saltysciencesixer continuing from here

Bill remains hovering, arms crossed over chest. Occasionally as Ford speaks Bill seems to be correlating what he says because little images flash across his wide eye; an image of a galaxy breaking and stuttering, images of an angry, cold-eyed Stanley, and so on. He sighs after the explanation ends. "OKAY. SO YOU MANAGED TO HORK UP 53... 54 NOW, WHOOPSIE! THERE WENT ANOTHER ONE! WOW. AND YOU THINK I'M THE UNIVERSE'S WORST CRIMINAL JUST BECAUSE I TRIED TO STITCH ONE DIMENSION TO YOUR PLANET'S WEAK SPOT." Huh. Come to think of it, the time cops might be offering a reward for... no, Bill, shut up, that's a dumb idea and it wouldn't even end the narrative anyway since they'd BOTH just get locked up. Deal with it.

Bill extends his arms, links his fingers together, cracks his knuckles. "WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TIME COPS FOR THE MOMENT. THE OL' HEX HERE CAN KEEP US AHEAD OF THAT. BUT THIS SPIRALING DAMAGE YOU MADE SURE NEEDS STITCHING UP QUICK. THE FASTER THAT DAMAGE GETS THREADED, THE EASIER IT'LL BE TO PINPOINT YOUR MISSING FAMILY." He can't believe he's doing this. "GONNA RIP A PAGE OUT OF C-137'S BOOK AND TRAP YOUR MISTAKES INTO A CENTRAL FINITE CURVE." Bill touches his hands to the sides of his apex for a few moments, eye grimacing into a scowl of concentration. Occasionally, he pulses, glitches; for a second the Hex turns completely upside down around him; a tornado of strange disconnected items spiral through the air including a small white mouse and some kinda ... badger??... in a yellow ship, a talking fish, a weirdo on a bicycle, and a series of clocks spinning at mismatched times. Then... ding! A bell like the sound of an oven notifying that it's done cooking. Bill drops his hands, and floats up a bit, summoning up a large floating chalkboard and chalk. The Hex around them remains inverted, but Bill doesn't seem to care and Ford's bubble keeps him up and aligned with the same direction Bill's facing. "OKAY, BRAINIAC. I'VE ISOLATED THE PROBLEM. WHOO! THAT SURE BURNED UP A FEW MILLION SOULS I'VE KEPT AROUND IN THE OL' SHELL! THEY DIED AS THEY LIVED: SCREAMING FOR MERCY. C'EST LA VIE."

He starts sketching out a very rough map of the 'little universe' he made, and adds to the diagram as he speaks. "SHOOTING STAR GOT SHIFTED TO MAB-3L, A DUMPING GROUND SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO CATCH DISPLACED MABELS FROM LOST OR MALFUNCTIONING TIMELINES." He taps the board again. "IT LOOKS LIKE PINE TREE'S JUST POUTING IN AN EARLIER VERSION OF YOUR HOUSE BEFORE IT TURNED INTO THE SHACK. EASY FIX." Finally, Bill draws a cloud of the holy mackerel symbol on the board. "NOW THIS GUY.... YOUR MEDDLING SPLIT YOUR BROTHER INTO A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PIECES. THEY'RE ALL IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE BUT HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS FOR US - ALL BUT ONE OF THEM JUST KEEL OVER AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER! EITHER FROM AN OD OR GETTING SHOT BY GANGSTERS IN COLOMBIA, GETTING LYNCHED BY PEOPLE HE RIPPED OFF, OR STARVING TO DEATH IN THE MIDDLE OF NEVADA WHEN HIS CAR RUNS OUT OF GAS!! SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WE CAN LEAVE THE LOSERS BE AND LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE THERE." Bill's eye narrows. "IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONE THAT GIVES YOU THE MOST TROUBLE... IS ALSO ONE THAT MADE A DEAL WITH ANOTHER ME. AND THAT'S HOW HE'S BEEN KEEPING UP WITH YOU, KEEPING GOING ON HIS LITTLE SIXER HUNT, AND GENERALLY MAKING A PAIN IN THE ASS OUT OF HIMSELF. HMM." Bill hums in thought, and falls silent, perhaps letting Sixer absorb his words.

[reck6ning]

re. dossier & stats

GENERAL

FULL NAME: bo dallas ALSO KNOWN AS: uncle howdy BIRTHDAY: may 25, 1990 AGE: 34 ZODIAC: gemini GENDER: cis-male PRONOUNS: he / him ROMANTIC ORIENTATION: heteroromantic SEXUAL ORIENTATION: heterosexual OCCUPATION: professional wrestler SPECIES: human

BACKGROUND

BIRTHPLACE: brooksville, florida CURRENT HOME: brooksville, florida; heavy travel (tour bus) NATIONALITY: united states ETHNICITY: caucasian LANGUAGE(S): english, some spanish MOTHER: stephanie rotunda FATHER: mike rotunda SIBLINGS: bray wyatt (d), mika rotunda OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS: blackjack mulligan (grandfather d), barry windham (uncle) SPOUSE: verse dependent CHILDREN: verse dependent PET(S): verse dependent, numerous farm animals

APPEARANCE

FACECLAIM: taylor rotunda HAIR: long, dark brown EYES: dark brown, nearly black HEIGHT: 6'1" BUILD: 225lbs, muscular DOMINANT HAND: right SCARS: several due to wrestling and farm work TATTOOS: none currently PIERCINGS: ears, most often wears an inverted cross in his left ear OTHER REMARKABLE FEATURES: n/a

PERSONALITY

POSITIVE TRAITS: determined, kind, effortlessly funny, talented NEGATIVE TRAITS: delusional, easy to anger, silent treatment LIKES: farm work, horror movies and stories, urban exploration, paranormal investigation DISLIKE: traitors, liars, false prophets, unwarranted optimism or pessimism FEARS + PHOBIAS: being forgotten, being abandoned, familial loss WISHES + DREAMS: found family, carrying a memory, closure MENTAL HEALTH: schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type (diagnosed but refuses medication) MBTI: esfj - assertive MORAL ALIGNMENT: chaotic good / lawful evil ENNEAGRAM TYPE: three with a two - wing (the charmer)

[gensetgenerator]

China Genset Generator Set Suppliers Co., Ltd.,stands at the forefront of the industry, offering a diverse range of high-quality generator solutions tailored to diverse needs. Our specialization lies in generator sets featuring renowned engines and alternators, ensuring unparalleled performance and reliability. We offer a comprehensive selection, including diesel and gas generators, as well as mobile, silent, portable, light tower, and inverter options, all meticulously engineered for various industries.

With our extensive industry experience and a highly skilled team, we deliver top-tier solutions recognized for their durability and reliability.Manufacturer from China have earned a reputation as specialized manufacturers of genset generator for industrial automation,lauded for our exceptional product quality.Our state-of-the-art facilities adhere to stringent quality standards, guaranteeing efficiency and precision throughout the production process.

Our commitment extends beyond mere product delivery. We prioritize cultivating enduring partnerships, providing robust technical support and innovative solutions across industries. Partner with us for your generator sets and industrial equipment needs, and discover excellence in performance, reliability, and service.If you want to get more information about us,please invite our website:https://genset-generator-suppliers.com/...

[nightmare-dreamt]

hello! I would like to request a matchup with a character from demon slayer. please and thank you! 🫶

Orientation: asexual + greyromantic (male preference).

Pronouns: she/her

Appearance: I'm 5'1. My hair is a darkish-brown with light brown streaks, and I have a long, whispy layered pixie cut. I have an inverted-triangle head shape, and I have a triangle + mesomorphic body type. I have dimples. I have beauty marks mostly on my shoulders and arms, and I specifically have one on one of my ear lobes (low-key my favorite feature, huehuegjb 🤭). I have olive-toned skin. I have almond shaped eyes, and my eye color is brown.

- Some people say I'm intimidating, but then others are like, "she's just a little guy! :D".

- I wear glasses.

- My overall style is grunge, comfy, and artsy.

General personality traits + extra: Nice, independent, caring, calm, clever, intelligent, empathetic, friendly, gentle, humble, genuine, forgiving, hard-working, humorous, kind-hearted, reliable, logical, mature, observant, patient, selfless, sweet, responsible, wise, emotionally strong, accepting, supportive, quiet, awkward, reserved, straightforward, shy, tired, blunt, brutally-honest, gullible, procrastinator, lonely.

- I'm a good listener! I always try to reassure people that I'm there for them and they can talk to me about anything. I never judge.

- I genuinely care about others.

- I'm slow to warm up to others, but once I do, I'm much more outgoing.

- People say I have a comforting aura.

Likes: Going for walks, hanging out with friends, deep conversations, blankets, the night sky, sunrises and sunsets, astronomy, psychology, literature, ancient history, nature, browsing, window shopping, sweets, pasta dishes, traveling, art, exploring, cats and dogs, music, fruit (specifically watermelon, raspberries, and strawberries 😩), coffee and tea, laughing, joking around, stormy weather, learning more about the things that interest me, to clean (willingly).

Dislikes: Waffles. , alcohol (for personal reasons), centipedes, anything that makes someone not redeemable (or whatever I think deems someone as a terrible person), humiliation, hot weather, people not listening to what I'm saying, silent treatment, being watched.

Hobbies: Painting, ceramics, playing video games, reading, listening to music (I'm pretty diverse with my taste in music but I mostly listen to k-pop, j-pop, pop, rock, punk-rock, pop-rock, calm, '80s, early 2000's) and occasionally podcasts (comedy, stories).

Etc:

- I'm a barista at a coffee shop 💪.

- I'm told that I laugh like a witch PLS.

- My big three are libra (sun), pisces (moon), and capricorn (rising).

- My MBTI type is INFJ, and my enneagram type is 5w4.

I hope that wasn't too much for you 😭

-🌻

Matchup for Anon 🌻!

Sanemi Shinaguzawa:

When you first saw him, it was clear that he had a scary personality and unknown to you he felt the same way for you. But, when the two of you actually got to know each other, you both seemd to be wrong. Deep down, he was a total softie and so were you. He tends to be soft only to those he cares for, so don't mention him being soft in public or he'll be upset.

He would want a partner who is independent and intellegent because he doesn't want someone who totally relies on him and someone who can't take care of themselves. Yes, he would want to protect you but he would love to see his partner defend themselves and tell someone off for doing something to them.

When he's upset and angry, he needs someone to be there to comfort him and thankfully he has you. He'll come to you when he's not feeling great and will just let everything out, needing someone to listen to him as he explains his problems.

I don't know why, but I could see you begging and begging him to go on cute little dates and when he finally agrees the two of you go on a cermanic date. He's rough with his hands so it can be challenging, but when the two of you are together and you're sculpting one of those pot things on the spinner wheel, his tough demanor is gone and Into a soft one.

[science-sculpt]

DNA Mishaps: When the Script Gets Flipped!

DNA, the molecule that holds the blueprint of life, isn't always static. It's like a library of instructions, constantly copied and passed on. But sometimes, errors creep in, leading to changes in the genetic code known as mutations. These alterations can be small and subtle, or large and dramatic, impacting the organism in various ways.

Imagine you're writing a super important essay, and accidentally mix up the letters. Instead of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog," you end up with "the qick brown foz jmups ovetr te laxy dog." Oops! This, my friends, is kind of what happens in DNA mutations. But instead of an essay, it's the blueprint of life getting a little jumbled. Understanding these changes is crucial, as they hold the key to understanding evolution, genetic diseases, and even the potential for future therapies. Sometimes, due to mistakes during copying or exposure to things like radiation, chemicals, or even sunlight, those A, T, C, and G chemicals get swapped, added, or deleted. It's like the gremlin wrote "foz" instead of "fox."

Let's dive into the wacky world of DNA mutations

Mutations come in all shapes and sizes, classified based on the extent of the change:

Point Mutations: These are the most common, involving a single nucleotide (the building block of DNA) being substituted, deleted, or inserted. Think of these as single typos. One little DNA letter gets swapped for another. Sometimes it's harmless, like mistaking "flour" for "flower" (just add more water!). But other times, like switching "sugar" for "salt," it can completely change the outcome Point mutations can be: 1. Silent: No change in the encoded protein, like a synonym in language. 2. Missense: A different amino acid is incorporated, potentially impacting protein function. 3. Nonsense: The mutation creates a "stop codon," prematurely terminating protein production.

Insertions & Deletions: It's like adding or removing words from a sentence. These larger mutations involve adding or removing nucleotides, disrupting the reading frame and potentially causing significant functional changes.

Chromosomal Mutations: When entire segments of chromosomes are duplicated, deleted, inverted, or translocated (swapped between chromosomes), the impact can be far-reaching, affecting multiple genes and potentially leading to developmental disorders.

More Than Just a Glitch: Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Some mutations are neutral, like a typo you don't even notice. But others can be like changing "hilarious" to "hairless" – they might have a big impact. Beneficial mutations, like the one enabling lactose tolerance in some humans, drive evolution. Neutral mutations have no impact, while detrimental ones can cause genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia.

Where Do Mutations Occur? Mutations can happen in two types of cells: Germline Mutations: These occur in egg or sperm cells, meaning they get passed on to offspring, potentially impacting future generations. Somatic Mutations: These occur in body cells after conception and don't get passed on, but can contribute to diseases like cancer.

Scientists use various techniques to study mutations, from analyzing individual DNA sequences to tracking mutations across populations. This research helps us understand the causes and consequences of mutations, potentially leading to therapies for genetic diseases and even the development of new drugs.

Mutations are not errors, but rather the dynamic fuel of evolution. Thankfully, our cells have built-in proofreaders who try to catch and fix these typos. But sometimes, mutations slip through. By understanding their types, impact, and study, we gain a deeper appreciation for the intricate dance of life, where change and adaptation intertwine to create the diverse tapestry of the living world.

[mailmiocuoredipietratremaancora]

[Secrets are lies/Sharing is caring/Privacy is theft]

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

The (inverted) Orwellian quote is obvious; after all, there is no dystopian novel that does not owe a debt to 1984. But is The Circle really a dystopian novel? In 2013 it probably seemed infinitely more so than it might today: reading it (only) 10 years later has an entirely different effect, so much that it made me think it was much more recent. “Much” because today 10 years means something different than twenty or thirty years ago: the speed of technology swallows time and space, swallows us, more and faster than we would like.

What Dave Eggers paints is a dystopian but painfully real world: it doesn’t generate fear, as 1984 or Brave New World could have. No. It generates disturbance, discomfort, anguish, for something that is already here and for something that is getting closer and closer and that we silently ignore, knowing (convinced?) that we cannot stop it. The protagonist, Mae, is one of us much more than Mercer or Ty/Kalden are; Eggers is very good at conveying alienation and hallucination, very good at making us feel repulsion for his protagonist, with whom we cannot identify perhaps precisely because she represents a part of us that does not yet exist but which we know could exist.

The novel is about so many things, so many themes, dangers, temptations and deviances that this is not the space to discuss them. It certainly speaks of a reality and a dystopian (in-)humanity closer than it has ever been. I would like to believe that it could speak to all of us: the Western, wealthy advanced and developed world, but I would betray the very spirit of the novel if I endorsed such a simple and pure hope.

[mysteriawrites]

hello!! I would like to request a matchup with a genshin character. please and thank you! 🫶

Orientation: asexual + greyromantic (male preference).

Pronouns: she/her

Appearance: I'm 5'1. My hair is a darkish-brown with light brown streaks, and I have a long, whispy layered pixie cut. I have an inverted-triangle head shape, and I have a triangle + mesomorphic body type. I have dimples. I have beauty marks mostly on my shoulders and arms. I have olive-toned skin. I have almond shaped eyes, and my eye color is brown.

- Some people say I'm intimidating, but then others are basically like, "she's just a little guy! :D".

- I wear glasses because I'm just THAT smart, obvi ✋️.

- My overall style is grunge, comfy, and artsy.

General personality traits + extra: Nice, independent, caring, calm, clever, intelligent, empathetic, friendly, gentle, humble, genuine, forgiving, hard-working, humorous, kind-hearted, reliable, logical, mature, observant, patient, selfless, sweet, responsible, wise, emotionally strong, accepting, supportive, quiet, awkward, reserved, straightforward, shy, tired, blunt, brutally-honest, gullible, procrastinator, lonely.

- I'm a good listener! I always try to reassure people that I'm there for them and they can talk to me about anything. I never judge.

- I genuinely care about others.

- I'm slow to warm up to others, but once I do, I'm much more outgoing.

- People say I have a comforting aura.

Likes: Going for walks, hanging out with friends, deep conversations, blankets, the night sky, sunrises and sunsets, astronomy, psychology, literature, ancient history, nature, meteorology, browsing, window shopping, sweets, pasta dishes, traveling, art, exploring, cats and dogs, music, fruit (specifically watermelon, raspberries, and strawberries 😩), coffee and tea, laughing, joking around, stormy weather, learning more about the things that interest me, to clean (willingly).

Dislikes: Waffles. , alcohol (for personal reasons), centipedes, anything that makes someone not redeemable (or whatever I think deems someone as a terrible person), humiliation, hot weather, people not listening to what I'm saying, silent treatment, being watched, chemistry 🤬.

Hobbies: Painting, ceramics, playing video games, reading, listening to music (I'm pretty diverse with my taste in music but I mostly listen to k-pop, j-pop, pop, rock, punk-rock, pop-rock, calm, '80s, early 2000's, 2010's) and occasionally podcasts (comedy, stories).

Etc:

- My main love language is quality time.

- My big three are libra (sun), pisces (moon), and capricorn (rising).

- My MBTI type is INFJ, and my enneagram type is 5w4.

Thank you for the request! Sorry this is extremely late. Just gonna get straight to the point DRUMROLL PLEASE!!!

🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁

THOMA!!!

You and Thoma are very romantic kind of couple. You have similar likes and personalities you’re like peas in a pod.

You and Thoma met when you were hired by the Kamisato family. You were hired as Ayaka’s latests attendent. Your were practically her big sister.

Because you and Thoma see each other everyday, he wanted to get to know you better. He noticed you were a bit shy so he decided to invite you out to do some things he thought you would like.

He invited you to small outings at first like walking around the garden and helping him with cooking. As you two got closer and he found out about more things you liked he invited you to more things such as: a day on the town.

He took you out on a shopping spree where he would pay for everything (Thoma is a stubborn lad don’t fight him on this). He thought it was so adorable how your eyes lit up at the books you picked out at the book shop and the budding flowers from the flower shop. You saw a lot of Inazuma that day.

After a shopping for a few hours he took you to a cute restaurant and that had all of your favorite foods you almost didn’t know what to pick! You also got to learn all about him during your day out.

At the end of the day he took you to the top of a hill in a beautiful meadow. It was the perfect place for the two of you to see the stars. He asked you all about astronomy so he could hear you cutely ramble about your passion.

Before you headed out Thoma took you hands and confessed his feelings to you and asked you to be his girlfriend while holding a beautiful bouquet and blushing a bright pink.

(And that kids is how i met your father/j) Since then you and Thoma have been like those cute couples you see in romantic montages. You clean and cook together having fun together. Ayato and Ayaka ship you guys so hard. You’re dog parents to Taroumaru and he loves you guys so much.

He is the sweetest boyfriend. He pays attention to everything about you, gives you gifts and compliments, he does like to tease you sometimes but he won’t go too far. He treats you like an absolute princess.

10/10 very cute couple.

[justanapparatus]

"The second theme is even more familiar: it is the kinship between writing and death. This relationship inverts the age-old conception of Greek narrative or epic, which was designed to guarantee the immortality of a hero. The hero accepted an early death because his life, consecrated and magnified by death, passed into immortality; and the narrative redeemed his acceptance of death. In a different sense, Arabic stories, and The Arabian Nights in particular, had as their motivation, their theme and pretext, this strategy for defeating death. Storytellers continued their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent. Scheherazade's story is a desperate inversion of murder; it is the effort, throughout all those nights, to exclude death from the circle of existence. This conception of a spoken or written narrative as a protection against death has been transformed by our culture. Writing is now linked to sacrifice and to the sacrifice of life itself; it is a voluntary obliteration of the self that does not require representation in books because it takes place in the everyday existence of the writer. Where a work had the duty of creating immortality, it now attains the right to kill, to become the murderer of its author. Flaubert, Proust, and Kafka are obvious examples of this reversal. In addition, we find the link between writing and death manifested in the total effacement of the individual characteristics of the writer; the quibbling and confrontations that a writer generates between himself and his text cancel out the signs of his particular individuality. If we wish to know the writer in our day, it will be through the singularity of his absence and in his link to death, which has transformed him into a victim of his own writing."

"What is an Author?" Michele Foucault, 1969

[catflowerqueen]

Silent treatment would also be a good punishment for Lunar, at least on Moon's end. Like… Give him things to placate him and ease boredom, sure, but that is just the ethical thing to do. But to completely ignore him otherwise? Not give him verbal responses or acknowledgment? That is what would really hurt. Especially how justified it would be on Moon's part.

Because to my knowledge, outside of insulting him a few times, Moon has never really been cruel to Lunar. He didn’t even seem all that angry with him for the first major body snatching incident, either, beyond calling him a “little freak” for inverting his controls. He even agreed with him that his mind was boring! And he just really seemed sympathetic, in general—likely because he had been in that situation before, when he was still with Sun, and Lunar had yet to actually do anything “evil” beyond take control off and on for a few days, which Moon couldn’t even remember, and then ineffectively ask Monty for the star.

But after going through with his end of the deal? Moon was keeping tabs on him, and there was enough minimal interaction for him to garner the things Lunar liked about the games and what he was interested in... And, sure, maybe they weren’t directly “talking” about it, but since part of the deal was that Lunar had to actually ask when he wanted something, they had to have at least been talking a little. And Moon did outright give him permission to come out a time or two.

So, to have that just cut off? Even if—or maybe especially if—it was just because Moon was justifiably tired, hurt, and mad? Yeah. That would make Lunar regret a lot of things.

And, honestly? It is very interesting to me that Moon did not actually seem too concerned or upset about the prospect of sharing a body with Lunar beyond the worry of losing control. He was perfectly willing to utilize the advantages of sharing a body when it came to the creator, after all, and I get the feeling that at least one of those times he let Lunar out was because he was trying to either avoid his responsibilities/Sun and get in some uninterrupted thinking time—Since Sun did say that Moon had promised to help him clean up the one time Lunar outright admitted Moon had willingly given control over to him.

[ligenpowerinverter]

Importance of Inverters In The Monsoon Season

As the monsoon season approaches, so does the inevitability of power outages. Whether it’s a brief flicker or an extended blackout, these disruptions can be a significant inconvenience, especially in areas prone to heavy rains and thunderstorms. This is where the role of an inverter becomes crucial. In this blog, we’ll explore why having an inverter near by during the monsoon season is essential, and how to choose the best one for your home or office needs.

Why Inverters Are Essential During the Monsoon Season The monsoon season is notorious for causing frequent power cuts due to strong winds, lightning, and torrential rains. These outages can last from a few minutes to several hours, disrupting daily activities and leading to potential damage to electronic devices. An inverter for home near by ensures that you have an uninterrupted power supply, keeping your essential appliances running smoothly even during a blackout.

Battery Inverters Near By provide a reliable backup source of power. Unlike generators, which can be noisy and require fuel, inverters work silently and automatically switch to battery power when an outage occurs. This seamless transition ensures that your life continues without interruption, making inverters an indispensable asset during the monsoon.

Finding the Best Inverter Shops Near By Choosing the right inverter is crucial, and finding a best inverter shop near by is the first step. Local inverter and battery shops near by offer a variety of models, catering to different power needs and budgets. Visiting a home inverter shop near by allows you to get hands-on experience with the products, ask questions, and receive recommendations based on your specific requirements.

For those who prefer shopping online, searching for an inverter supplier near by can also lead you to reputable stores that deliver high-quality products directly to your doorstep. Always look for shops that offer warranties, after-sales service, and inverter installation near by to ensure a hassle-free experience.

The Role of Inverter Battery Dealers Near By The efficiency of an inverter largely depends on the quality of its battery. A robust battery ensures that your inverter can provide power for an extended period, even during prolonged outages. This is where inverter battery dealers near by play a vital role. They offer a range of batteries suitable for different inverter models, helping you choose one that matches your power needs and budget.

When selecting a battery, consider factors like capacity, lifespan, and maintenance requirements. Consulting with inverter showroom near by experts can give you insights into the best options available, ensuring that you get the most out of your inverter system during the monsoon season.

Where to Buy the Best Inverter Near By If you’re in the market for a new inverter, it’s essential to find a reputable inverter store near by. Whether you’re upgrading your current system or buying an inverter for the first time, local stores often provide personalized service and expert advice. They can guide you through the different models, helping you choose an inverter that suits your home or office setup.

For those who are unsure about which brand or model to choose, simply ask the experts to suggest me some best brands of inverters. They can provide recommendations based on factors like reliability, efficiency, and customer reviews. Additionally, many stores offer buy inverter near by options, allowing you to make a purchase and have it delivered and installed quickly.

Benefits of Having an Inverter Installed Near By Having an inverter installation near by ensures that you can quickly and easily set up your inverter system without any delays. Professional installers can assess your home’s power needs, recommend the right inverter model, and ensure that it’s installed correctly and safely. This not only saves you time and effort but also provides peace of mind knowing that your power backup system is ready to go when you need it most.

Moreover, local inverter dealers near by often offer maintenance services, ensuring that your inverter remains in optimal condition throughout the monsoon season! Regular check-ups and timely battery replacements can extend the lifespan of your inverter, providing reliable power for years to come.

Conclusion In conclusion, an inverter is not just a luxury but a necessity during the monsoon season. From keeping your lights on to ensuring your electronic devices are safe, an inverter near by can make all the difference during a power outage. Whether you’re looking to buy a new inverter or upgrade your existing one, visiting a home inverter shop near by or consulting with an inverter battery dealer near by can help you find the best solution for your needs.

As the monsoon season approaches, don’t wait until the first blackout to think about your power backup needs. Start your search today for the best inverter store near by and ensure that you’re prepared for whatever the weather throws your way. Remember, when it comes to staying powered up during the monsoon, quality matters more. So, choose wisely and invest in Ligen Power Inverters and BMS that will keep you and your loved ones safe and comfortable.