#so according to antis the scale of severity goes:

[leatherbookmark]

"i super don't care about izzy but at least i hope him embracing queerness made ed feel safer, so that he won't have to worry about izzy stabbing him in his sleep" no offense. i don't like being mean. but

[snkpolls]

SnK Episode 68 Poll Results (for Anime Only Watchers)

The poll closed with 59 responses. Thank you to everyone who participated!

Please note that these are the results for the Anime Only Watchers’ poll. If you wish to see the results for the Manga Readers’ poll, click here.

Anime only watchers, beware of spoilers if you venture over to the manga readers’ poll results.

--

RATE THE EPISODE 53 Responses

The response was overwhelmingly positive with 88.7% of responses giving the episode a 4 or a 5. In addition, there weren’t any 1s or 2s this time around. A noted contrast to the previous episode. Suppose Sasha’s death ruined the experience for some.

it epic

I NEED MORE

awesome

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING MOMENTS WAS YOUR FAVORITE? 55 Responses

The scene with the largest amount of reception (18.2%) was the final scene of the episode, where Eren repeats his mantra to himself in the mirror while revealing his new look. Behind that was the reveal that Armin is talking to Annie (10.9%). At a tie (9.1%), people most enjoyed Hange’s eccentric greeting to the Marleyan soldiers and Onyankopon explaining why he believes people are different. At another tie (7.3%), were the scenes where Sasha is enjoying Nicolo’s cooking, and the scene where Eren is washing himself at the sink.

WHAT WAS THE MOST EMOTIONAL PART OF THE VISIT TO SASHA’S GRAVE? 57 Responses

The visit to Sasha’s grave was packed with many tragic moments. According to the responders, the most emotional of those was Connie’s line about losing “his half” (47.4%). Following that we have the scene of grieving Mikasa with 24.6%. In third place is Nicolo’s general grief. Other responses were, in this order, Sasha’s Father agreeing to a free meal from Nicolo, seeing the girl that Sasha saved from a Titan all those years ago and simply Sasha’s family appearing.

AFTER SEVERAL TENSE AND ACTION PACKED EPISODES, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE TRANSITION TO SOMETHING MORE CALM? 53 Responses

Ever since the series started, AoT has had a clear contrast between the content of its episodes. Episode 68 of the series notably contrasts with the prior 3-4 episodes. So we wanted to know how the fans respond to these sorts of things. 32.1% stated that they enjoyed the slower paced episode after weeks of chaos. An equal number of responders (32.1%) noted that although they far preferred the action-based content, they understood the need for the slower episodes. A little over 13% said they actually preferred the exposition-esque content, so they were happy with the change and finally, a bit over 11% stated that they were indifferent. 

I view exposition equally as important as action. 

Watching the show dissect what happened before and after the attack on Marley made everything so clear, I love how they were able to capture the drama of both sequences

I'm definetly here more dialogue heavy epiodes and flashbacks but maybe with a slower pacing. It felt a little messy because the episode was also dealing with Sasha's as well as backstory. I think thst was probably intentional though.

They both have their merits.

Still feels great

WOULD YOU RATHER GET A SURPRISE GREETING FROM EREN & HANGE, OR ARMIN & LEVI? 55 Responses

Marleyan Soldiers got two sets of surprises in this episode. One from Eren and Hange, one from Armin and Levi. The fans would clearly prefer to get one of those from Eren and Hange (78.2%) than Armin and Lavi (21.8%).

ON A SCALE OF 1-5, HOW HAPPY ARE YOU TO BE BACK ON PARADIS? 55 Responses

We recently returned to Paradis Island and according to the responders, it was a much wanted development, with 85.4% giving a 4 or a 5 when it comes to hype about the return to the island.

ARMIN SAYS THAT ONCE EREN INFILTRATED MARLEY, THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO ATTACK IN ORDER TO PREVENT IMMEDIATE RETALIATION. DO YOU AGREE WITH HIM? 55 Responses

The raid on Liberio is being questioned not only by the audiences, but also by the characters in-universe. Still, when it comes to Armin’s justification for the attack, the majority (69.1%) think that there was no other choice for Paradis, be it because they could afford to lose Eren/Founding Titan or because Marley would have retaliated easily. Others (~10%) think that they either should have made more effort to find Eren before it came to the raid or should have just let him go. 14.5% simply aren’t sure. 

They had no choice but to retrieve Eren, but that doesn't necessarily mean a full blown attack. I think Armin is trying to convince himself here. 

Yes. Marley could have captured Eren and had Zeke or someone else eat him for the founding powers.

DO YOU THINK IT’S PLAUSIBLE THAT MARLEY WILL FIND A WAY TO QUICKLY COUNTERATTACK ANYWAY? 53 Responses

When it comes to Marley, one could wonder if they will attempt a quick counterattack. 67.9% believe so, 15.1% dissent. And 9.4% state that they have been spoiled.  For the write-in responder who feels that we are spoiling via the question itself, we assure you that anything we ask here had once been a matter of debate among manga readers when the corresponding chapters were fresh and we did not know the outcome. We would just like to give anime only watchers the same opportunity to have these debates. 

I don't know.

The fleet has been destroyed, but what about the airforce (if they have one)? I doubt Paradis has the mean to counter that. 

I'm not really sure honestly

This question is a spoiler itself: if you ask this, maybe it means that's what will happen. Thank you.

WHEN EREN FIRES HIS GUN AT THE END OF EMA’S TALK, IT TRANSITIONS TO SASHA TAKING A BULLET IN THE PREVIOUS EPISODE. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE NARRATIVE IS TRYING TO PIN THE BLAME SOLELY ON EREN? 55 Responses

Eren’s rifle shot was juxtaposed with Sasha’s death, showcasing a possible thread in the narrative. Does the narrative believe that Eren is to blame for Sasha’s death? 38.2% think it’s a yes and 45.5% think it’s a possibility. On the other hand, almost 11% don’t think the story is trying to go for that route. 

While I don’t think it’s trying to pin the blame solely on Eren. I think it’s trying to say he shares a large portion of the blame.

He may be partly at fault, but not fully.

Yes. But they shouldn't. Because it was GabBitch who killed Sasha, and GabBitch alone.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ZEKE, YELENA AND THE VOLUNTEERS ARE SINCERE IN THEIR WISH TO HELP PARADIS? 55 Responses

Zeke, Yelena and Co. are a set of characters. Are they a trustworthy set of characters? Certainly up to debate. 67.8% believe they’re trustworthy to a degree, at the very least. In contrast to 23.6% who find no trust in them. A select few have been spoiled. 

Mmm Yelena & co. maybe...I love Zeke but he's big sus this season

I think they are loyal to Zeke, and his goal is to get the funding titan. At the moment, this means allying themselves with Paradis, but that could easily change. 

They are very sus, Yelena is especially loose. IDK who they'll be loyal too.

DO YOU THINK THAT EREN WANTS TO USE THE WALL TITANS AS A SIMPLE DETERRENT, OR DOES HE WANT TO FLATTEN THE EARTH? 55 Responses

The possibility of a Rumbling has been brought up more than a few times throughout the series (mostly this season) and the question remains, “will Eren use the Rumbling to flatten the Earth?” 60% think that’ll be the case, in contrast to almost 11% who dissent. 27.3% were already spoiled about the outcome. 

That idiot definetly wants to flatten the earth. Empathy and logic has never been Erens strong suit.

DO YOU THINK THAT EMA HAVE BECOME MORE DISTANT FROM EACH OTHER? 55 Responses

The iconic EMA trio has been together through thick and thin, so something truly must happen for them to “break up”, so to say. Would one say that they have grown apart? 56.4% think so, but only insofar as Eren goes. 25.5% believe that they all have grown apart to a degree. 9.1% dissent to these assertions and a select few have been spoiled. 

Even Mikasa and Armin seem distant! They were coping on their own after coming back to Paradis. 

I like to refer to them as E     MA. lol. Yehhhh anyway- somethings defs off with them.

ARMIN SAID HE DIDN’T SEE ANY NOTEWORTHY MEMORIES FROM BERTOLT WHEN EREN ASKED HIM ABOUT IT. DO YOU THINK HE’S BEING TRUTHFUL? 55 Responses

A whole bunch of people doubt Armin’s statement about not seeing anything useful in Bertolt’s memories (81.8%), though some (14.5%) think the boy’s telling the truth. A select few have been spoiled.

DO YOU THINK MIKASA IS LOSING HOPE IN THE WORDS THAT ONCE GAVE HER STRENGTH? 56 Responses

Long ago, Mikasa stated that one must fight, survive and win. If they don’t fight, they won’t survive and will lose. But with some losses drumming up on the plate, could she start doubting this mantra? 46.4% believe that we cannot say one way or another until we see more. 26.8% don’t believe that Sasha’s death will shake her confidence in that belief and it’s just a brief moment of doubt, in contrast to 23.2% who believe that Sasha’s demise will irreparably change Mikasa’s philosophy. 

No....? I did't even realise she was that close to Sasha. I feel like if she loses Eren THEN she'll lose hope.

what words?

Mikasa deserves better than emo world destroyer Eren!!! She's too pure.

EREN SEEMED TO BE MISSING WHEN THE SURVEY CORPS WERE INTERACTING WITH THE VOLUNTEERS. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE? 54 Responses

Eren wasn’t present when the others were interacting with the volunteers. Some believe it is noteworthy, others do not think so. 38.9% simply aren’t certain. 29.6% think it’s the SC decision to keep Eren away from Zeke’s followers. On the other, 20.4% predict that it was Eren’s own choice of isolation. A select few have simply been spoiled.

Didn’t notice this until now

Maybe he had already left for Marley?

ARMIN WAS HOPEFUL THAT THEY COULD SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS THROUGH DIPLOMACY. EREN FELT THAT PEACE WAS NEVER AN OPTION. WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH MORE? 54 Responses

A noted contrast in Eren and Armin’s beliefs was showcased in this episode. 57.4% find themselves siding more with Eren’s anti-diplomatic measures, while 42.6% support Armin’s more peaceful ways.

WE GOT A GLIMPSE OF ANNIE IN THIS EPISODE. WHAT BEST MATCHES YOUR THOUGHTS? 55 Responses

Annie has been encased in that crystal for years at this point, both in and out of universe. Is she going to get out of that crystal? Just a little over 69% believe so, in contrast to the one person who doesn’t. 23.6% were spoiled one way or another. 

Sis is running out of time...it would really suck if her 13 years were up before she even got out of her lil crystal

This has GOT to wake up, surely.

She got a nose reduction surgery

HOW DO YOU THINK ZEKE WILL RATE HIS STAY AT THE HOTEL OF GIANT TREES? 55 Responses

Zeke seemed shocked to find his hotel to be a forest of Giant Trees. An iconic location, seen throughout the series. We asked how you believe Zeke will rate his stay. A plurality (40%) think that he won’t be there long enough to do so. 29.1% believe he’ll give it an average score, in contrast to 23.6% who imagine Zeke loving his getaway! 7.3% have been spoiled.

WHAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT PIXIS ARRESTING THE VOLUNTEERS? 55 Responses

It would appear Pixis detained the volunteers while the SC were away. The majority (52.7%) don’t find it to be a controversial decision, noting that both parties have a mutual understanding between each other. A noted minority (29.1%) thought that it was actually the best course of action, arguing that the Paradisian Military has no way of knowing whether the volunteers are trustworthy or not now that Zeke is here on Paradis. In contrast, 18.2% thought that it was mistake, given how much assistance the Volunteers have provided to the islanders.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE WAY THE PARADISIANS ARE SEEN TREATING MARLEYANS? 55 Responses

We saw some noted mistreatment of Marleyans by the Paradisians this episode. So we asked the responders what their thoughts were on this development. A plurality (47.3%) couldn’t say one way or the other and needed to see more to pass their judgment. 34.5% were open in their condemnation of those actions, in contrast to the 12.7% who were supportive of such activities. 

Cycle of haaaate. No one is justified in acting that way but it's understandable that they do

Some good, some bad. Military police doing the worst of course. 

An eye for an eye ✌

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THE EPISODE?

I don't know what to say anymore. This episode made me question my previous ideologies regarding the characters

In my opinion, this episode has more fanservice than usual, from the ship moments of Levihan and Aruani, and to the display of Mikasa's ass and Eren's abs, but Mappa is not over the top and can still get the plot moving and still have those moments that can move the viewers.

I believe in Onyankopon supremacy

Even though I love Mappa post timeskip designs, the pre timeskip design of some characters seemed a bit off to me (particularly Armin and Eren). It distracted me a bit from the action. 

Eren standing Infront of the mirror was way better in manga. Mappa need to put more effort. No hate tho. 

Idk, didn't blow me away. I'm seriously concerned for Armin, he's definetly losing it. Appreciated the flashbacks and the new characters too. Onyankopon has captured my mf heart, if he dies, I die too. 😌

Chad Eren

Niccolo x Sasha OTP

What the shit dude…

Gabi will forever be the worst character to me, no matter what the anime tries to do to justify her

WHERE DO YOU PRIMARILY DISCUSS THE SERIES? 54 Responses

Thanks again to everyone who responded!

[sole-cuore-amore-e-droga]

Italy brings the rock’n’roll youth of tomorrow to Rotterdam 2021

It’s the final day of doing my yet again botched attempt at a review series and I’ve been dying to post my gigantic write-up for my newly beloved Italy, at the top of the bookies, darling of all hearts, ready to rock Eurovision, and even more! Vai vai~

ARTIST & ENTRY INFO

Representing them this year is Måneskin, a band made up of four - singer and possibly the hottest motherfucker to grace the planet Earth Damiano, guitarist Thomas, drummer Ethan, and the cherry on top - bassist Victoria, whose half-Danish heritage is the reason Måneskin is called Måneskin (= Moonshine). They thought of this name at a “battle of the bands” that they won, thinking they might as well change it to something different, but in the end... say it with me now

They have known each other since highschool, made a band in 2016, won the “battle of the bands”, started out making a living as buskers in the streets of Rome, from which they gradually grew through playing small gigs, and later tried out for X Factor Italia season 11, on which they came 2nd.

They went on to release an EP titled after their debut single of the name of the song above, including some of their X Factor covers, and later on got to get big through releasing an album, getting it certified all kinds of goodnesses, having singles from that album be popular, even releasing a documentary of themselves... they’ve done so much in life and they’re only 20-22 years old... aw man, the life is just ahead of them, for them to be so young and win Sanremo on their first try. (And I’ve always wanted them for Eurovision ever since I was aware of their existence, because their music is very nice, and they just feel like charming human beings. So imagine my joy seeing them announced for Sanremo 2021? And them WINNING months later??? man what kind of luck do I have even if just for a year lmao <333)

“Zitti e buoni”, the last song title alphabetically this year, is purely of the band’s making, and the lyrics are talking about not abiding the rules in general, how they’re out of their minds but they’re not like “them”, and how people talk but don’t know what they’re talking at all.

REVIEW

IT’S A PRETTY CRAZY GOOD ROCK SONG AMEN HALLELUJAH OPRAH WOOOOOOO

wbk I love it. Yeah sure it might be composited of something that sounds like standard rock riffs and what not, but it’s the ENERGY that goes into it that gets me more excited for this than for Finland, a fellow rock song of this year’s final.

Damiano’s vocals have the specific kind of rockstar tinge to them, and they’re very complimenting to the song. The way he says everything is beautiful, the “e buonasera signore e signori” line in particular is just a moment that shows the beginning of power somehow, I don’t know. The chorus is great, eventhough it’s just one line repeated but it changes the pronoun each time (going from “I’m out of my mind” to “you’re out of your mind” to “we’re out of my mind”) - MAGICAL.

And the bridge. YES, the bridge. Along with the outro it’s the best part of the song. The chord progression. The lines repeated on that bridge. The emotions going on. The delivery of the lines of the emotion. It’s a convincing little bridge, to the point that it sounds just as great with violins! Wish they brought one, because according to Love Love Peace Peace, nothing screams winner quite like a violin.

God damn to the Måneskinsters pump this song up to the maximum. It was originally a ballad song, and I think that’s for the better for them to present it as a rock song, because a Sanremo ballad in a pool of Sanremo ballads... unless it stands out according to demoscopic & press juries, and there seems to be a no better option at hand that could make them stand out other than just sending a classy ballad, it just fizzles out in a spectacularly lame fashion. Måneskin’s one real shot through was with a song that would make them stand out, and they did it, and they’re here.

Everyone has put in their work, their passion, their skills into this, and it shows off in spades. Måneskin themselves are fantastic and chill human beings, who too, just like Flo Rida, get to enjoy how crazy amazing Eurovision experience is. And for that I salute them with my whole heart. Whatever they do tonight on Eurovision, they’ll leave a lasting mark in it. And for a good reason.

Also an Italian Eurovision edit that doesn’t suck, once again, yay! (In their defense, they didn’t have a whole lot to work with, so they released theirs early - just a few trimmings here and there, and a lyric change so that they skate by EBU easier with their anti-swearing policies. Gahddamn swearing~)

Approval factor: FUCK YES Follow-up factor: The funny thing about this is that last year their entry is about making noise but the song was a love ballad, this year it’s a song titled “shut up and behave” while dressed in a loudest motherfucking musical setting lol. Fuck the rules! It was solely on the Sanremo’s last year’s winner Diodato not to send an entry he thought that would fit for Sanremo, and that’s good on him - he can return next year replenished as all hell, and maybe aim for the trophy again? wishful thinking? aaaa. Anyway on a personal scale “Zitti e buoni” is a marvelous follow-up from “Fai rumore”, even if skipping 2020 entirely, especially after “Soldi”, which was already a fab follow-up after “Non mi avete fatto niente”, and even from “Occidentali’s Karma” on. And so it is subjectively a good follow-up. Italy SLAYS. AQ factor: As I write this, the odds are very much in their favour, if not a little bit too persuaded over the fact that Måneskin gave a good rock performance and knew what they would be doing, or it’s just that the Italians like overbetting for their acts way too damn much. But nevertheless, I just wanna hope for them to break the expectations people set on rock songs in Eurovision and SMASH themselves a victory. Or a top 2. Or a top 5-10. Anything will do, goddamn.

NF CORNER

Well, I promised that I will talk about Sanremo in a NF corner, because this is the first year I actually cared to watch it myself, unlike when I would’ve sided with someone whose reviewing style I love in not caring to watch it, and usually just check all the songs on the last day lol.

One thing about Sanremo that I sorely underestimate is that a handful of artists on there can come across as very versatile, and the one song you loved of one genre they presented several years ago, can be completely different and leave you baffled for days if you’re not very familiarized with their discography and the Italian music scene in general. Which now I’m going to pay an extreme amount of attention towards following Sanremo 2022 on out because hot damn did I never see gems like Willie Peyote coming!

Did I call him a gem over his entry? Yes, somehow. Am I even sure if I’m being serious?

I think I can somewhat agree when I say that for the international fam watching Sanremo at least, “Mai dire mai (La locura)” was a major expectation destroyer, at least for the crowd whose main lookouts in a lineup like this years were Ermal Meta, Annalisa, Arisa, etc. You know they’re gonna bring a ballad, and their ballads are usually decent, but what about the unexpected? That’s where a handful of acts, including Willie, comes in for me. The bass hooks in the second the song starts. The beat is minimalistic but strong enough to slap. The steady rap flow is mesmerizing, paired with that somewhat specifically Italian(?) vocal timbre. The chorus is greatly catchy, and it is a sung chorus, with this song still being largely a rap song. The electric-esque guitar soundwaves interspersed throughout the song are magnificent and magical, and on the chorus they even make a constant melody riff that repeats and may get annoying on multiple listens, but I still adore them. I really love the bridge as well and all that goes into it. A fantastic surprise of the season for me personally.

Now I figure that the lyrics may hinder the enjoyment for some, especially the points raised in some lines that may seem questionable and shady (if this went to Eurovision and got a “twerking” comment on Youtube, I will not be surprised if the description of choice is “patriarchic twerking”), but am I supposed to be fully offended at some points of it if I’m not its target audience, although I see some of what I do nowadays in those lines? “Mai dire mai” is probably dedicated to the Italian media and the Italian trends and what not. I’m not even disappointed it didn’t win, because if it went to Eurovision, it would’ve likely been met like a lesser “Occidentali’s Karma” - catchy song with lyrics that fly over listener’s heads which might as well be very accidentally mocking how we live our lives.

“Mai dire mai” has just less of a memorability-in-history value and no memorable gimmicks (Francesco had a gorilla, what is it visually going for on Willie’s performance?), besides, it would’ve suffered even WORSE post-Eurovision-edit than OK has - a lot of the bits and bobs that pass me by but when I notice them they make a really great entry, but other than the (presumably copyrighted) removal of a sample from a TV series (spoken by a fish character, nonetheless), what else is there to remove???? With Eurovision’s rules specifying that brands (Spotify, TikTok) and swearwords (lots of the good old Italian ones that Italian radios would digitally scratch out to emphasize that there were a LOT in the second verse) can’t be sung live, the song loses some of its lyrical charm. And you can’t just go around the song like Francesco Gabbani chopping off entire verses full of content full of witty lyrics and a reference to Chanel in order to present the more lyrically singable-along-to lines and not let go of the long chorus to whom his gorilla can dance to. “Mai dire mai” is RIFE with lyrics, that’s what a rap song is. It would have absolutely fallen apart.

Also no one paged it as a potential Eurovision winner during Sanremo, at least seriously, and it doesn’t have much that would have clicked with the future Eurovision generation and contestants when they would be asked to name their favourite Eurovision song of all times. In a world where from Italy they really like “Grande amore” and “Soldi” and even sometimes could name “Occidentali’s Karma”, is there really a place for “Mai dire mai (La locura)” over “Zitti e buoni”? Who would be naming that song as their favourite of all time? If you raised a hand, you lie to yourself, because that would’ve been me.

Now I don’t know how many of the Tumblr fam would draw ire at me putting out paragraphs worth of me being ultra positive towards this song, because as I’ve learned, there’s an ironic and unironic audience for Mr. Peyote on Tumblr especially, but for me I guess it was pretty worthy, also a thing I was finally able to yell off my chest since, and now I finally said it, I will continue streaming “Mai dire mai (La locura)” in peace.

He might’ve not won Sanremo, but his song won the equally important Mia Martini Critics Award, and also, my heart. Rest in broken shards of the Boris aquarium, my sweet cynical prince~

Måneskin were my 2nd after him so I’m equally happy they won. But what about my other favourites?

• Extraliscio ft. Davide Toffolo - Bianca luce nera A diluted version of the liscio genre, still makes for a very fascinatingly catchy and swaying song with lots of great instruments that are violins and a clarinet. What I figure is kinda a love song. Their performances were also great, with lots of dancers on stage and a genuinely great fun to be had, and you may remember them more after their performance in cover night, which was titled “Rosamunda”. They were the ones with their main singer’s guitar spinning for whatever reason that was there to make their song catchy, I guess.

• Lo Stato Sociale - Combat Pop A little bit of a far cry from their glory heydays with 2nd place in Sanremo 2018, but they returned with an equally banging song and an amazing set of performance chaos they brought in each and every time - dedicating their first night’s one to making a performance to not forget (and being the ones of two to reference the great Bugo&Morgan incident from last year, the other being Willie Peyote), the second competitive one was for referencing politics, and so on.

• Colapesce & Dimartino - Musica leggerissima Sweet melancholic song with the shades of Sebastien Tellier kinda sound, this song may seem jolly at first, but the especially melancholic undertones denote that there’s something else going on. It’s actually about depression, as that’s what the term “musica leggerissima” (very light music) means. But it still found a heart in Italian listeners and the Italian world finally woke up to how great Antonio Di Martino and Lorenzo “Colapesce” Urciullo are, and a handful of viewers were slightly heartbroken to see it not place in the superfinal top 3. Who knows if they would’ve actually won over Måneskin. I just know that their rollerskater girlie is so damn fine~

Bugo has also returned but I think his redemption arc started off the wrong foot, as his return entry, “E invece si”, was a bloated showtune ballad and got obnoxious to listen to at part. I declared to myself that night when I first heard the new entry that regarding on what made “Sincero” great, I side with Morgan.

And a special shout out to Ghemon, whose 2019 song was more than just a “purple rose” unlike I noted on a last proper Italian entry review. I don’t know what expectations I had for him, but I certainly wanted to love “Momento perfetto” more at the first listen, which was also somewhat of a show-tuney piece, but with a bit more funk and pizzazz, also Ghemon was VERY much vibing with his song, and that made me feel great for the few other performances of it that I saw the following days. It’s definitely a grower song, and around 2 months after Sanremo I fell into a bit of a rabbit-hole of his earlier music discovering, and I may be a bit exaggerating but, give Ghemon a bit more of acknowledgement and a stellar enough song, and with a little bit of magic touch, I can maybe see him lifting the Golden Lion trophy one day. Don’t ask why. (also lovely music video for his 2021 entry, which replaces continuous spinning in an aesthetic area to everybody moving their body in a diner (hopefully with everyone in the MV tested and been negative for long enough for the MV to actually happen).)

NF CORNER (NON-COMPETITIVE)

There’s so much needed to be discussed about there. So I’ll restrict myself to the moments that I remember and cherish:

• Rosario Fiorello. Just. Him.

• And the gentleman next to him, Achille Lauro.

tw // body piercing

Belarus 2018 could never

Fiorello and Lauro are perfect matches to each other’s worlds of imagination, and I was more than ever glad to see so much creativity coming from each one of them, a host and a nightly interval act respectively.

• Once again, “Rosamunda Medley” by Extraliscio, I didn’t watch the cover night in its entirety but I think it’s good enough of a medley if it got a 3rd place from the cover night from the orchestra!

• Sanremo Newcomers section of this year. I liked or vibed to almost every song out of the 8, and I’m decently happy with the winner, but if there’s one big shoutout I really want to make, is to “Regina” by Davide Shorty, for it’s such a cozy funky little love song that always makes me happy when I hear it. My personal winner preference, but I don’t mind Davide getting 2nd! For as long as he gets to place 1st in a future main Sanremo event hihihihihi

• Diodato proving himself to be a dance king at the beginning of his “Che vita meravigliosa” performance, my good Twitter friend made a bunch of videos where he dances to a lot of songs, as per request, check them out and you won’t forget it.

• Since Sanremo 2021 got rid of the audience as per COVID regulations and much to Amadeus’s dread, there ended up quite a handful of audience related memes. Such as the penis balloon et al.

• Remember when Sanremo 2021 audience was supposed to be whisked away in a cruise ship for safety measures? Pepperidge Farm remembers

• SESSO IBUPROFENEEEEEEEE

The guy that sang this song actually has the same birthday as me, so in my eyes, I feel like he has some charm to it. I’m biased lol sorry

There’s way too many more but I am afraid of flooding my post beyond your readability interest. Let’s hope that, in an event of Italy’s victory or non, we’ll get to see an even more iconic event of Sanremo emerge come the future. <3

ANY LAST WORDS?

Måneskin’s big goal was to rock Eurovision, and I think they’ve greatly accomplished that by just... doing what they do best, and that is, rocking. They leave energy lasting for days.

In bocca al lupo, fam. You’ll nail it, and even if you don’t win, Italy shouldn’t not hail you as national heroes after it’s all over.

[justanotherlifeff]

Chapter 1

21 July 2314

Musutafu, Japan

The dark cityscape was suddenly illuminated by an explosion in one of the factories of the industrial district. The factories were closed for the day and the workers already went home, something that brought peace into All Might’s mind as victims were the last thing this operation needed. It took them 10 years to locate her. He couldn’t imagine what the poor girl must’ve gone through. In the year 2304, when All Might defeated All for one, the police found several experimentation documents in his hideout. Experiments on creating a weapon to kill All Might. While All for one was the strongest villain to walk the Earth, face to face combat with All Might was something that he wanted to avoid.

The documents mentioned of a girl, age 3 as of then, being given multiple psychological quirks as a fetus. She was the daughter of All for one’s two faithful followers, Empath and Boost. According to the documents, the girl inherited both her parent’s quirks, which were emotional manipulation and quirk enhancement also known as boost, as well as the quirks given to her by All for one, which were, telekinesis, portal creation and time travel. While her quirks were taken from mediocre quirk holders by All for one, her father’s boost made them all uncontrollably strong. A small trigger could make her lose control and cause widespread destruction. However, a quirk that strong comes with drawbacks. Due to her powers being psychological in nature, it increases the movements of her blood cells abnormally, making her blood vessels expand, causing intense pain that may make her lose consciousness. It doesn’t just stop at that. Her quirk doesn’t automatically deactivate when she loses consciousness. Instead, it grows stronger and continues it’s destruction in a much larger scale. The scale of destruction, according to the documents were unknown as there was no experiment done on that yet. To make sure that she doesn’t lose consciousness from the pain, a training regime was created for the three year old. According to the document, the training regime consisted of multiple forms of torture which were so gruesome that it made All Might wince just thinking about it. “I hope she’s alive.” All Might thought before attacking the villain’s base.

The explosion woke you. You were tied up in your room as usual. The light bulb in your room bursted and small shelf broke apart. It always happened when you got startled. “What’s that sound?” you wondered as you sat in the dark room. You weren’t allowed to feel things. Atleast unless they were experimenting on you. However, sometimes you just couldn’t help it. The explosion scared you. You can’t be making these mistakes or the experiments will hurt even more. You sat alone in the darkness till the door was opened by a man. “Is it time for experiments already?” you wondered. “Get up, Nomu. We need to get out of this place” your father hissed at you as he started opening your cuffs. “Why do they call me Nomu?” you wondered yet again. You wondered why ever since you found out what it meant. You were homeschooled by a teacher that your parents kidnapped. The teacher was scared of you. Everyone was scared of you except your parents and aniki... You were scared of your parents. In a flash, your face was splattered with blood as something punched your father, breaking the wall. As you looked at the man before her, only one thing came across your mind. “He killed father… He’s stronger than father… He will kill me now…” you thought as fear consumed you. Just as the man turned his attention towards you, you backed away, shouting “STAY AWAY FROM ME!” with a hoarse tone. The lack of speaking made your throat feel raw. “Don’t worry! I’m here to save…” the man started but you already lost control of your powers. The next thing All Might knew was that he was sent flying alongside the debris of the building.

“Eraser head, seems like I’ll be needing your help after all.” All Might said as he approached the black haired pro hero. They were standing outside the industrial district along with a group of police. After being thrown off by the young girl’s telekinesis, All Might decided to regroup. Your radius of destruction seemed to increase by the minute. You seemed like you were trying her best to control your powers but so far, you were failing. Your expression made it clear to All Might that you were scared. All they needed to do was have a conversation with you without her powers getting in the way. “Is she an enemy? Why did she turn her power on?” Eraser head asked All Might in a monotonic voice. “She’s just scared. I could see it in her face. This is all self defence. It seems like she doesn’t have much control on her quirk.” All Might answered. “I see. Now what do you propose we do?” Eraser head asked. “We need to hurry. Her destructive radius is increasing as we speak. I’ll carry you close enough to her and you need to erase her quirk. There is no other way to stop this.” All Might answered. Other than Eraser head and All Might, no other heroes were informed of this as it was a top secret mission. If the general public found out about the existance of an anti All Might weapon, they would panic. After all, you were a wild card, there was no guarantee that you would be on the hero’s side. The plan was put into action as All Might picked Eraser head up and used Detroit smash to propel himself closer to the epicentre of the flying debris. There you were, levitating, pulling on your own hair to make yourself focus on controlling your powers but yet, failing. It didn’t take long for Eraser head to locate you and erase your quirk. With that, you started falling down, though, All Might quickly caught you and brought you to safety on one of the nearby roofs all while making sure that Eraser head doesn’t lose focus on you.

You were ready to run as soon as All Might put you down. However, you fell on your feet wincing in pain. While you were wearing a T shirt and sweatpants, it didn’t stop All Might from noticing the blue veins that showed through your skin. Your face was full of blue marks, half her hands and your feet as well. Your blood vessels were expanded enough to show on your skin and All Might could only imagine how painful that must be. “Please don’t kill me” you blurted out. Your (E/C) pupils were dilated with fear. They were milky white when you were using your quirk. “Young lady, we are not going to kill you. We are here to help you. Please calm down and listen to us. We won’t hurt you.” All might told you in a gentle tone. No one ever spoke to you like this. “But… You killed him… My father…” you stammered. “Calm down, young lady. I did not kill your father. However, I cannot guarantee his safety anymore since as the debris fell, there’s a high chance that he is dead. I’m sorry about it. The same goes for your mother.” All might explained with a grim yet gentle voice. “I… I killed them?” you asked, wide eyed. You didn’t look sad, infact, you almost looked relieved. “We don’t know that yet. We are here to rescue you. Your parents are villains and they hurt people. We want to give you a chance to change your life. You can learn to control your power without being hurt and you can make friends and have a nice family.” Eraser head told her monotonously. “Yes that’s right young lady! So, would you come with us?” All might smiled at you, holding out a hand. You looked at them for a while and held All might’s hand. “Kill them if they aren’t dead already. They would come back to hurt me if you don’t.” you muttered. “Don’t worry. No one is going to hurt you. You are under our care now. By the way, what’s your name?” All might reassured you and asked you your name. “They called me Nomu.” you answered. “Nomu? Brainless?” All might asked, confused. “She was just a weapon of destruction to them, without her own will. Hence the name ‘Nomu’ or brainless” Eraser head predicted. “Well, we will give her a new name in that case! Let’s go!” All Might said cheerfully before picking you up and heading to where the police were waiting. Eraser head stopped erasing your quirk long ago but it seemed as if the news of your parent’s apparent death and the promise of safety calmed you.

Your POV

March 20 2316

Musutafu, Japan

My name is (Y/N) (L/N). I was the daughter of two villains, Empath and Boost. It was later revealed that my father’s last name was (L/N) and thus, I inherited the name while one of the nurses in Musutafu public hospital gave me my first name as they did a health check-up on me after I was brought to the police. Due to the heavy destruction I caused in the industrial district, my identity had to be published. Now that my existance was no longer a secret, no public school dared to enroll someone as risky as I am and so, with some help from All might and dad (I call Mr Aizawa dad now since he has.been a father figure to me ever since I was rescued), I was admitted in Soumei Junior high in Tokyo. As dad was in charge of taking care of me, I lived in Musutafu and travelled to Tokyo everyday to go to school. I was never academically excellent, I was more or less an average student. Dad made sure that I get therapy for the last two years, to bring my emotions in control, not by force but by actual professional help. To be fair, it worked. I could control my powers better now unless I got caught off guard by some sudden emotion. It wasn’t like I had to force myself not to feel anything. I just didn’t let it’s intensity get to me. If any emotion such as fear from a tire bursting suddenly got to me, it would end mostly in a broken lightbulb or something close to that. However, it never got worse than this unless I tried to train with dad. There were times when I was close to losing control but dad erased my quirk before that happened. For the daughter of two villains that I accidentally killed, I had a normal life. I couldn’t be more grateful about it. Currently, I was training to get into U.A, the most prestigious hero academy in Japan. It may sound cliche but after All might held out his hand to me two years back, my life changed. If those villains didn’t exist, maybe I could’ve had the normal life I have now for a longer time. Maybe I wouldn’t have to deal with this quirk that makes me stay alert all the time. That could potentially destroy the world if I am not careful enough. Yes, my quirk can destroy the world if I lose control completely. The cameras in the industrial district recorded the damage I caused in a matter of minutes. I still had my consciousness back then and I had control on my power to some extent. The data the scientists in I island collected on my destructive power predicted that without any control, I could level the Earth. Even All might wouldn’t be able to stop it. I had to be careful every second of my life just because of these villains. I couldn’t experience emotions rawly, only because these villains exist. I have therefore decided that I would go to U.A and become the number 1 hero. I would destroy the existance of villains so that no one will ever have to go through the life that I went through.

I was standing in U.A’s practical test ground. I already got in by recommendations but they still decided to take an exam to see if we were good enough to get a recommendation. The exam consisted of a written test, a practical test and an interview. I knew I’d get average grades in the written test as I was always an average student. I had to show them my strength in the practical test. It was a three kilometers long obstacle course. Something that I could end in mere moments. Pro hero Present Mic was in charge of invigilating us. I recognised one of the students standing there at the starting line with me. Endeavour’s son. I didn’t know his name though. Judging by his expression, he didn’t seem to want to talk. “Use your quirks freely to reach the finish line!” Present Mic explained simply before the starting buzzer went off. While others used their powers to run, I merely opened a portal and reached the finish line. “No 17 reaches the finish line in just a second! That’s faster than ever recorded! It wasn’t even a competition!” Present Mic shouted. I just smiled at him slightly as I waited for the others to finish.

“Hello (L/N) chan! I’ll be taking your interview!” Midnight sensei told me as I entered the interview room. She knew me well enough as I lived with dad in UA grounds as dad was the only one who could keep my powers in control in case if something goes wrong and dad lived in his quarters in the UA campus as he is a teacher in UA. Dad had been training me to control my quirk for the past 2 years, however, as I wasn’t enrolled in UA, he couldn’t give me any training to strengthen it as it was against protocol. “Yes, Midnight sensei” I answered with a polite smile. Everyone in the faculty liked me as I was always cheerful and lively. I never failed to be nice to everyone I knew, which is why I had a good relationship with pretty much everyone. After all, I spent years having no one who was remotely nice to me, which is why I didn't want anyone to feel the way I did. Midnight sensei asked me why I wanted to be a hero and I gave the typical textbook answer. Killing villains was against protocol after all. While I did follow the rules, this was something I couldn’t agree with. However, I decided not to let others know about my intention. The interview was bland and it was over as unceremoniously as it started. All I had to do was wait for the acceptance letter.

April 01 2316

Musutafu, Japan

I was supposed to get my acceptance letter today. I already knew what it’d be like. I knew how school life was here in UA. After all I did live here for 2 years. However, I still felt a certain excitement deep down. It only increased when dad knocked on the door to my room to give me the envelope. He stood there as I opened it and found the device. “That’s new” I wondered. Suddenly, a projection started out startling me, hence making me end up breaking yet another light bulb in my room. Dad only shook his head in frustration. He had been trying to get me to stop breaking things every time I got startled by something but so far, it didn’t work. My powers were too annoying… “I am here as a projection!” All might shouted. To be fair, anyone would be startled if the begining of a projection starts with All might shouting. He mentioned that I got accepted into UA and gave a motivational speech. The letter along with device consisted of the class routine, section name, and where to send measurements for the uniform and the hero costume. Apparently I was in Class 1A. “Didn’t you already make a costume design? Let’s go give the support department what they need. There’s no reason to delay things.” dad told me in his usual monotone tone. “Okay. I’ll get dressed.” I told him before he left the room. A small smile formed on my lips. I was getting closer to my aim. My aim to become the number 1 hero.

[mashounen2003]

Here is the text of the video, translated into English. Seriously, check out this video, this guy is awesome.

"Conspiracy Theories" by Guille Aquino.

Posted on June 27, 2019.

--------------------------------------------------

Warning: if you're influenceable, you need to watch this.

--------------------------------------------------

Alright, before we start, I want us to welcome and applaud our new friends from the CIA, the FBI, NASA, the former SIDE -today, the AFI-, the KGB, Interpol, and the lazy virgins at the troll centre on Miserere Park, who are surely already watching this video because today we're gonna talk about...

Conspiracy Theories.

We all know some: the humans didn't go to the Moon, the 9/11 was a self-attack by the USA's government, Bin Laden never existed, Walt Disney is frozen, Elvis Presley is alive, the Simpsons predict the future, Marcelo Tinelli went to a famous hospital with a famous object inserted in a famous place on his body, and Dengue and Zika fever were created by Bill Gates who genetically modified mosquitoes to depopulate the Earth because it most likely was easier than making work that "Internet Explorer" bulls*** he sold us. But let's get to the news: in early 2019, YouTube modified its recommendation algorithm to avoid promoting conspiracy theories and false information. And let's stop here because I want us to become aware of the magnitude this matter took on and how this little joke of the conspiracy theories videos completely went to Hell.

Think of it this way: YouTube, the second most trafficked website in the world after Google, with over 30 million visitors per day and over 1.3 billion users -almost a third of all people connected to the Internet in the world-, where 300 hours of videos are uploaded per minute and almost 500 trillion videos are viewed per day, had to change its own recommendation system because all of us were watching too many videos denouncing that Lali Espósito is an Illuminati:

Video excerpt: [with obvious robotic voice] "Also, at the second Number Ten, she covers one of her eyes again, obviously symbolizing the All-Seeing Eye."

And I'm very sorry to tell you that, in today's world, if YouTube has a problem, we all have a problem.

Conspiracy theories are the Internet's new porn. In fact, if you filter the words "conspiracy" and "theories" by the number of views, the most viewed video has 36 million views. THIRTY-SIX! MILLION! VIEWS! That's like putting together the total populations of Belgium, Greece, Cuba and Jamaica, and then lighting a giant reefer to everyone and making them watch this video of people saying the Earth is flat:

Another video excerpt: [Channel 13 interview with Flat-Earthers, recorded in a park in Buenos Aires] "I pour water into this dish... Look, I pour water, and it stays, you see? But we pour water into the globe... and it goes down, people."

Okay, now we're gonna go over some of the most popular conspiracy theories of recent times, and we're gonna try to deconstruct the psychological profile of the average consumer of the conspiranoid world.

--------------------------------------------------

We'll start with everyone's favourite...

The Flat-Earthers.

Excerpt of the second video: "This first meeting began to be announced in the groups I followed on YouTube. (And the tattoo you have there, what is it?) This is the flat Earth, the Sun and the Moon."

The Flat-Earthers basically hold the theory that the Earth is not actually spherical, and they claim Galileo Galilei was an old smoke-seller blabbermouth who often played into the Far-Right's hands, cut his hair in an old-fashioned barbershop and used the 1610 telescope mainly to bed with chicks. And I have nothing personal against the Flat-Earthers but I find it difficult to take them seriously, mostly because much of their scientific hypothesis can be explained with this blooper.

Excerpt of another, different video: "There's an inflatable pool filled with water and with two people in it, a third person suddenly jumps into the water, and the pool deforms and overflows on the other side, as one of the two previously present people also falls over the edge."

(Images from the film "Armageddon".)

The truth is that the "flat Earth" theory has one fundamental premise, and it's the same one that supports 100% of conspiracy theories:

There's a power above us that manages everything.

Governments, lobbies and other de facto powers are capable of lying on a massive scale, just as intelligence services, the New World Order and FlyBondi hostesses do.

Excerpt of the second video: "(And you can't see the curvature of the Earth from the plane.) Uh... I travelled by plane to Bariloche, and no, I didn't see it. There's some aircraft glass with a small magnification or something that changes your perspective, due to the thickness of the window, and because aircraft glass also has something."

Alright, stop, let's not turn this into "Point at the crazy assholes and laugh" either, right? Well, yes, a little- But we go beyond that! We're better than that!

Why do so many people choose to believe we're puppets of an evil system? One might say that, in the absence of a sense of real control over our own lives and in the face of the desolation of living in a seemingly random, chaotic world, believing there's an external force exerting control is, to some extent, comforting. Yes, phone the Vatican.

And according to a certain old white upper-middle-class snob who teaches at Harvard University, conspiracy theorists share several or at least one of the following features: they're paranoid, radical, extremist in their opinions; they aspire to a feeling of superiority, and basically, they feel special for possessing information that exceeds the common citizen. Yeah, it's like the row for an indie film festival.

Umberto Eco even said:

"The control syndrome invades us. When someone claims to have a secret, their strength is not in hiding something but in making people think there's even a secret in the first place."

And I didn't understand a f*** because I've never read a book in my life, but it sounds ultra-mega-hyper cool. I dare you to deny it!

So who would be the most likely to believe in these kinds of theories? People who had bad experiences in life, people in search of an answer that would rescue them from a deep existential crisis, and the most important: people in search of a place of belonging.

Excerpt of the second video: "Well, no, this opened a door for me to start thinking more, to question things, about a supposed alien invasion."

Wait, stop right there. Excuse me, but if I'm an alien and I have the power to cross the universe in a spaceship, with my own army and the ability to colonize a celestial body, I don't even waste my time invading a paper-thin planet. Give me a round planet or give me death!

And that's when the contradiction comes into play. Because if you believe in one conspiracy theory, you immediately start to believe in all of them. It's like the weed. Even the refutation of a plot fits within the plot itself: for example, if you believe Lady Diana was killed by the British Crown, you're also prone to believe Lady Diana is actually still alive.

(Woah, Mind Blown... She was totally killed anyway, sorry.)

--------------------------------------------------

Good, let's move on to the next one:

The Anti-Vaccination movement.

Okay, here we come to a key point, since clearly there are the "harmless" conspiracy theories and the... rather dangerous ones. We've all heard someone say vaccines may cause autism in kids. Now, I'm clearly a specialist in absolutely nothing, and I ain't gonna explain why you guys have to vaccinate your children, so I better recommend to you the websites of any Ministry of Health or Wikipedia, so that you later visit them and find out how very important it is to inject legal drugs to your sweet little angels. And it's not to detract from any position or to err on the side of bigotry, but if you're an anti-vax and your baby coughs next to me, I swear I'll kick their head off.

(Tack! That bag of germs...)

And after all, that's why we invented Democracy!

(Ha, of course not, but...)

In fact, I dunno who gives a f*** about this but maybe someone will find it useful: I follow a pretty simple method when it comes to ideologically locating myself regarding any issue. And this is:

Always do the opposite of whatever Gisela Barreto says.

Gisela Barreto: [speaks with a flag in the background] "Vaccines show up, and they show them to us as something that heals us. Actually, they're part of our death."

(Seriously, she came this close to being in the Avengers.)

--------------------------------------------------

Okay, and now let's move on to one that touches us all closely (at least here, in my country):

Hitler in Argentina.

It's the conspiracy theory ensuring that, after losing World War II, the Nazi leader, the most disgusting dictator and genocide in Human History, came to live incognito in our country. And I ask myself: what the heck did we need to shelter Hitler for? The birth of Alejandro Biondini, who's pretty much our local version of Nazism, was imminent:

Interview with Biondini in 1991 by Mariano Grondona in his program "Key Time":

Grondona: "Would you condemn Adolf Hitler?"

Biondini: "No, we vindicate Adolf Hitler."

--------------------------------------------------

Okay, question: is it possible to keep a secret on such a large scale for so many years? Well, the Math says no. Seriously! I've read that a physicist at the Oxford University (Where else?) took the "humans didn't go to the Moon" theory, and then this guy created a mathematical calculation based on the number of conspirators involved, the time elapsed since the conspiracy, and the inherent possibility that a plot would fail.

For example, in the case of Apollo 11, 411 thousand NASA employees were involved, and according to the variables this physicist analyzed, the lie should have been known in less than four years; half a century passed, and no employee denied the mission. What does this tell us? Well... they were threatened and killed off, of course! It's obvious! [imitating Mirtha Legrand] Stanley Kubrick was not in the coffin! Nobody saw him. Nobody saw him!

--------------------------------------------------

Gimme more!

Famous people who are actually dead.

For example, Paul McCartney. On the cover of the album "Abbey Road", he's barefoot; a clear subliminal message that the real one died and was replaced with a stand-in. (Why?!) It sounds silly, but the rumour got so big that McCartney himself had to go out and publicly deny it... Although come to think of it, he also came out to congratulate the butchers who named their butcher shop "Paul Mac Carne" ["Paul McMeat"], so maybe he's truly a stand-in and, to top it off, looks like a raisin.

Excerpt of another video: "Well, thinking of different names, someone said "Paul Mac Carne". And well, he, being a vegetarian, says the idea was very good, started laughing and sent us a greeting."

--------------------------------------------------

I love this one:

The Reptilians.

It's basically the theory that there's a race of amphibian aliens [Wait for a second: aren't they called "reptilians"?] living among us for centuries and hiding their reptilian features behind human faces.

(Oh, you were telling me they're not actually aliens because they were born here?)

Excerpt of the 1996 movie "Mars Attacks!".

And who discovered this? David Icke! Or "Ique". An unsuccessful former soccer player and sportscaster. (How can you be unsuccessful as a soccer sportscaster?! All you need is a suit!) It's like believing in a religion where your Pope is Diego Latorre.

--------------------------------------------------

Now, I know what you're thinking: after all, how dangerous can all this get? I mean, no conspiracy theory has someone popular to represent it, no spokesperson of ridiculous and implausible plots has reached a truly important position in today's world.

Bah... There's actually only one.

The President of the United States of America.

That's right! Donald Trump, once the leader of the most powerful country in the world, had come to power mostly by throwing out fake news and conspiracy theories. And here are some:

Barack Obama is an immigrant.

Trump: "And I just say: why doesn't he show his birth certificate?"

Global warming is a myth.

Trump: "Obama is saying all of this has to do with global warming and I say all that is a hoax..."

Gisela Barreto was right.

Trump: "At two and a half years old, the baby, the beautiful baby, went to get the vaccine. Now he's autistic."

--------------------------------------------------

Okay, then... Conspiracy theories. For what? Well, in the case of Trump: influence on public opinion and accumulation of power. In the case of people who upload videos to YouTube... What do you think? A profitable, monetizable business! In fact, there's the conspiracy theory that we're actually making this video about conspiracy theories in order to have lots of views and earn buttloads of cash. (We'd never do that!)

And finally, a much deeper, inherent aspect of the human condition:

The need to believe in something.

The world is divided into two types of people: some think everything happens for a reason, everything is a sign, and perhaps there's also a magical entity organizing things for us; the other half of the people think we live in a desolate world without meaning or messages, there are only atoms randomly colliding with each other, and the Universe gives no f***s about us. Which of these two groups seems happier to you? Which one do you belong to? Which one would you like to belong to? I choose to join the conspiranoids! And listen to this, I know exactly what's going on:

The New World Order organized the Lollapalooza at the request of the Illuminati, who wanted to marketingly manage Lali Espósito, who actually wears a mask and underneath is "La Mona" Giménez, who's not actually a monkey but a reptile and has drank all the wine to get immunized against the vaccines at the request of Gisela Barreto, who was born in Corrientes just like Barack Obama, who claimed to have killed Bin Laden, who's actually alive and was driving the car that crashed that night and carried Chano Charpentier, who taught driving to Lady Diana, who was actually Mexican and was assassinated by Donald Trump, who was matched on Tinder with Hitler, who lives in a nursing home in Recoleta and has glaucoma, so he's hitting the reefers with Biondini, who is actually a hippie and a fan of León Gieco, invented global warming and, when being in a bad mood, takes a bus and goes to dinner at "Paul Mac Carne", where they invented the extra-thin Provoleta cheese, which coincidentally has the same shape as the Earth, which is actually flat!

*sigh* Knowledge is power. Quiero creer.

Soundtrack: State Anthem of the Soviet Union.

[whetstonefires]

Sephiroth, 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 20. I find your take on him so interesting! (And kind of sad too...)

Oh gosh this is so many! Haha okay, here goes.

1.Their physical weak spots

Huh. He’s programmed to be literally impossible to damage in the one actual fight in the Nibel flashback, the dragon. I theorize this might have been his first-level Limit? But of course you can’t use a Limit unless you’ve been injured first. (Apparently they reversed this in the Remake which is a major thematic change and I don’t like it? Anyway tho.)

So on one level his physical untouchability is part of his trademark and there’s a temptation to say ‘none’ and be done with it.

Normal human weak spots, I imagine, he’s not as alien as all that. The throat is the throat, I mean. His disinclination for wearing shirts may suggest an indifference to thoracic damage, but between his tendency to not get hit at all and the existence of healing magic that doesn’t necessarily mean much.

The vertical pupils which can dilate much further than normal would make him particularly vulnerable to flashbangs used in a dark or even dim environment. I assume Wutaian ninjas exploited the heck out of that. :D

2. Their emotional/moral weak spots

Abandonment issues was a big one, I think, and all the huge gaping vulnerabilities created by being a child with no one to love, or who loved you.

Thinking outside of Shinra’s standard pathways is a matter of some anxiety to him, in Crisis Core–his idea of resistance is ‘find my friend first and then oops fail to kill him they can’t prove it was on purpose’ and then later ‘turn down the assignment to find my friend and kill him.’ There’s just, a lot of emotional dependence on a toxic structure indicated by his behavior patterns.

I’m sure that was deliberately instilled, but it’s not that hard. His superpowers aren’t Superman scale self-sufficient until after he ‘dies’ once, and capitalism does what it does. He’s not much less dependent on the Company for survival than the average worker, and more so for identity.

Morally he was disadvantaged by being a corporate supersoldier with Hojo as his parent–the details of his upbringing have never been clarified but they sure didn’t put him anywhere outside Shinra enough for him to form external attachments, or even powerful internal personal ones prior to the rather shaky ones he managed with two peers sometime in adolescence, which leaves fairly few possibilities really.

Anyway morally he’s nothing but weaknesses, even before he got tangled up with The Thing From The Northern Crater and decided he was God and should consume all life. ^^;

5. Guilty pleasures 

You know, I don’t think even pre-evil Sephiroth did guilt much? Waste of energy, and (see above) he wasn’t socialized for it, it’s counterproductive in a soldier. The ‘guilt’ in guilty pleasure is really a species of shame though, and anyone with that much pride is vulnerable to the opposite, even if they weren’t exposed to someone like Hojo growing up….

You know, it was probably novels? He was a reader, and one of the most personal things we know about him from the OG is the deep impression left by Hojo’s furious rant about how inappropriate it was to use poetic expressions about magic. Even ‘magic’ was too sentimental for this domineering science twit.

So, every so often growing Sephiroth would get his hands on a piece of fiction, and the quality wasn’t necessarily great because it was whatever he could pick up in the break room or wherever, but he’d hole up out of sight and scarf it down. Even once he had his own living space and salary and could buy whatever books he wanted and store them, he’d pick up novels on the sly and get rid of them once he was done, like someone was going to catch him. One of the things he used to pick out of the ruins in Wutai during the looting was books.

He always felt a confusing mess of jealousy and scorn about Genesis’ Loveless thing. That he could just like it like that, constantly, right out in the open, where anyone could laugh at him. That nobody had ever taken it away.

Less tragically, I think sometimes he’d go home and watch bad TV. Whatever Midgar’s stupidest soap opera was. Sephiroth caught enough of the reruns to know most of the main plots. He had an opinion about who the father of Jaqueline’s baby should have turned out to be. He would never admit this.

9. Humiliating memories

Okay, as touched on above repeatedly, he grew up with Hojo, who loves breaking people down and laughing at them, so he’s probably got a lot of these.

The worst one is one time when he had a weak moment or an optimistic one, and asked out loud in words for something he really, really wanted, and Hojo said yes, and gave Sephiroth just enough time to get desperately excited and express gratitude before laughing at him and saying of course he was lying. Don’t be stupid.

That isn’t something important enough to bother with.

12. Grudges and vendettas 

‘Burning inside with violent anger’ isn’t there for no reason. From Nibelheim on these define him, and according to bonus materials of middling canon status he eventually sheds almost all identity elements but his grudges.

I think, based on the shape of his breakdown? That for most of his life he told himself that holding onto anger and pursuing grudges was a waste of time and energy. But that didn’t actually help him let any of it go, he just internalized and ignored things. Because he wasn’t actually not holding grudges, he was just reacting like someone who didn’t have any choices, and marinating in spite.

Spite against Hojo surfaces on the way up to the reactor in a way that says to me it’s a habit, almost a reflex. But it manifests in profound pettiness, and I think that’s the only way he normally felt he was permitted to act out against the people who really bothered him, though I’m also sure he channeled a lot of anger into unrelated killing. Natural thing to do when you’re a frustrated teenager who’s supposed to be killing people anyway.

By the time he did it in Nibelheim, it was an old habit.

The fact that he bothered to personally kill the Shinra President as his big debut says to me he was holding a grudge about his entire life against the person who commissioned him and declared the war and shaped the floating Midgar-world that defined his life. I think there were probably a lot of personal insults in there too, just because of the way Shinra Sr. seems to have conducted himself generally.

He’s a Donald Trump expy wouldn’t you.

Sephiroth is written as a much softer person in Crisis Core, almost absurdly so, but even there you can see him resenting Genesis and Angeal more than a little for abandoning him. It probably brought back his whole mess of feelings about Gast, who really did abandon him quite unforgivably but Sephiroth never knew the full circumstances, just that he was gone and later dead. There are signs he blamed Hojo, who doesn’t seem to have gloated openly about the murder even if he did make sure to inform the boy his favorite person was dead now.

And of course later on there’s Cloud, which doesn’t actually make that much sense until you loop in the retcon about Cloud throwing him into the reactor and cutting short his initial rampage. There’s the grudges he seems to have inherited from Jenova, against the Cetra.

It’s not out of the question that he killed Aerith the way he did in part because she was the thing Gast abandoned him for, as well as all the other less personal reasons. I sort of like to think so.

16. Dark secrets/’skeletons in the closet’

Of his own, as opposed to ‘about him’ that he found out about, I don’t think he really had many? He wasn’t much accustomed to privacy.

I think most of the worst things he did, as a human being rather than a transhuman monstrosity, were pretty unavoidably public; they were war crimes, and happened in front of some fraction of the rest of the army. He was praised for them.

There probably were a lot of dark things he never talked to anyone about, that weren’t really known, but except for outright humiliating childhood incidents like above he wasn’t particularly hiding them. He was just never in a position where it would have made any sense to him to bring them up.

Genesis wasn’t ever someone it was safe to be vulnerable around, and Angeal was uncomfortable with too much emotion, and besides they were fellow soldiers and it wasn’t like the things he didn’t talk about from the war were anything special, and he wasn’t going to complain about his childhood to them. And who else was there?

Dude needed so much therapy.

20. What-ifs/Alternate Timelines 

I go absolutely nuts with alternate timelines for Sephiroth. He’s so much fun to work with that way.

Lucretia and Vincent stole the baby and went on the run: Firo grew up kinda isolated in the woods with his parents but runs away at thirteen to fight Shinra because he’s so mad they had to leave Wutai because of the invasion. Parzival AU.

Ifalna recruited Sephiroth to her escape scheme and he wound up raising Aerith on the run, under the names Rith and Roth. Beloved Dust AU, that one’s actually online as you may very well know lol.

Vincent blew up the Nibelheim reactor with Hojo and Jenova in it when Sephiroth was six, and then later Midgar blew up as well and the Shinra world order collapsed, and the recently married Mrs. Strife adopted the weird lab kid. Later on Cloud pressures his big brother into starting an anti-bandit militia. Time Of General Strife AU.

Cute three-way blood brothers ceremony contaminates Genesis’ body with Sephiroth’s DNA and sets off his degeneration several years early, when they’re all teenagers and not nearly as famous, powerful, or fucked in the head. Brother and Brother AU.

And so on. ;}

[alexsmitposts]

Caesar Act: Protecting or Destroying Syrian ‘Civilians’? The so-called US “Civilian Protection Act” does everything except “protect” the people of Syria. If anything, it aims, what a draconian law would normally do, to further destroy and strangulate the Syrian economy to make the country’s post-war economic reconstruction and development even more difficult. As the act’s “statement of policy” states in explicit terms, the US continues to seek a “regime change” in Syria. Indeed, the cardinal US purpose behind igniting a “civil war” in Syria was always to “send Assad home”, but the combined military strategy of Syria, Iran and Russia turned out to be the key to defeating the CIA–sponsored militant groups. The US, as it stands, continues to pursue the same objective, although its military defeat in Syria has forced it to shift its focus from direct military intervention and support for militant groups to economic sanctions. While this is not for the first-time that sanctions have been imposed on Syria, the fact that this “protection act” expands the US reach to even non-Syrians i.e., Syrian’s “foreign friends” (Russia, China, Iran) makes it an even worst attack on Syrian economy. This is in turn part of an officially declared US strategy to make Syria a “quagmire for Russia.” The aim is two-fold: to restrict the ability of Syria’s foreign friends to freely pour money into Syria’s reconstruction economy, and to exacerbate even further the already extremely poor conditions. With famine already knocking on the doors of Syria, fresh US sanctions will only deteriorate the economic conditions, which have already forced about 83 percent of Syrians to live below the poverty line. The Syrian pound, which held steady at around 500 to the US dollar for several years, went into free fall last year, hitting a low of 3,000 in June, in anticipation of fresh sanctions. That currency drop is hindering Assad’s plans for buying up all of this year’s wheat to make up for a shortfall in imports that is drawing down on strategic reserves. What, according to the UN itself, Syria needs is “immediate and substantial injection of funds, life-saving provisions of food, water, health care”, what, however, it gets from the West is extensive sanctions and, what Mike Pompeo called, continued US “stabilisation activities in northeast Syria” where most of Syria’s oil wells are located. Whereas the oil could prove crucial for Syria’s economic recovery, this is obviously not what the US wants to see happening in Syria. Accordingly, an “oil disaster” under the US auspicious is already looming large in northeast Syria. At the same time, where the US is warning of an imminent crisis, the “Protection Act” aims to make sure that the Syrians get nothing. The act says the US president will impose sanctions on a “foreign person” if they undertake actions that include knowingly “sell[ing] or provid[ing] significant goods, services, technology, information or other support that significantly facilitates the maintenance or expansion of the Government of Syria’s domestic production of natural gas, petroleum or petroleum products.” The act goes on to further explain that part of this US “strategy” is to “deter foreign persons from entering into contracts related to reconstruction in the areas” under the direct control of the Syrian government or its supporters from Russia and Iran. The self-explaining act makes it clear that its clauses are a deliberate attempt to ensure that Syria, devasted by a war that the US and its allies engineered and imposed in 2011, is not rebuilt, and that Syrians have to live amid ruin. This, the US hopes, may force the Syrians to rise up against their government eroding its legitimacy. But it is highly unlikely to produce the desired results; for, as it stands, sanctions without a clear policy objective are nothing more than making a political point at the expense of the most vulnerable i.e., common people of Syria. Therefore, if the underlying reasons for the Syrian people’s poor conditions are US sanctions, as even the Red Crescent said in its recent report, the Syrian people are unlikely to mobilise against the government, which has been resilient enough to bring political stability to a large part of Syria, on a large scale. That this is unlikely to happen is indeed one principal reason why the US has decided to impose sanctions on Syria to mainly wrest Assad’s and those of its allies’ ability to stabilise the country. Therefore, while the US sanctions have never worked to bring, as in case of Iran and Venezuela, “regime change”, they are most likely to create a humanitarian crisis and make reconstruction efforts difficult. The “protection act” is, therefore, not anti-regime; it is mainly anti-people and anti-development. It aims to spread chaos and erode political and economic stability efforts of the government. On the other hand, if the act “protects” anything, it is the US interests.

[jdcoin]

Interesting Facts That Compel You to Make Investment in Cryptocurrencies like JD Coin

In the last 2 years or so, the awareness about cryptocurrencies has risen steeply. Do you wish to know the reason? Well, according to experts, crypto assets are the most profitable ones and it is mostly possible because money has not been created in the way it is right now. Popular cryptocurrencies that are widely accepted in the current times are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and so on.

JD is a new entrant in crypto world but it has already scaled great heights of success. It has formed an effective Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program that further validates JD Coin’s credibility and also fully complies with the legal norms established by government agencies or organizations. It is the only company in virtual currencies with all the details available on its official website.

The cryptocurrencies work effectively because of decentralized ledger technology called Blockchain. Before its advent, there was no alternative form of money that is used digitally without being fiddled out.  Undoubtedly fundamentals behind cryptocurrencies are strong and they are also going to be stronger since they can surely face test of time. Here are a few interesting statistics that might help you to invest in cryptocurrencies:

Decentralized as well as uncensorable

Cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, Litecoin, JD Coin and Bitcoin are uncensorable and this feature is inherent to them because of architecture. This architecture is distributed as well as decentralized enough to make all of them uncensorable and is unlike other currency systems we have around the world.

Monetary Power

Cryptocurrencies are there to combat the hassles associated with the banking system. The veteran Satoshi Nakamato who created Bitcoin knew the pitfalls of conventional monetary system and therefore came up with Bitcoin. Following the footsteps of Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies such as Monero, Litecoin, JD Coin and Ethereum also came into existence.

Resistant to Inflation

Interestingly, virtual currency is the best option because one cannot inflate Litecoin, Bitcoin, JD Coin and other cryptocurrencies perpetually. Therefore they are safe investment as compared to EUR or USD and other conventional currencies that you have stocked for long. For example in a country like Venezuela where inflation is over 400%, Bitcoin still has made money for them because their currency fell faster than the price of Bitcoin. If you take view of the last five years, then almost all the leading cryptocurrencies have beaten up inflation rates globally by huge margin.

Quick Remittance

There is handly any banking holiday in the world of cryptocurrencies and they work almost round the clock unlike banks that work only on office hours and also have several holidays. Unlike the traditional financial system where certain amount of money may take up several days before arriving in the account, cryptocurrency appears to be a better alternative. You are able to transfer money from one account to the other, irrespective of the borders.

Get Best ROI

Return on Investment calculates gain or loss generated on the investment relative to money invested. And ROI of cryptocurrency is too high that you may expect from other currencies.

Highly Portable Investment

Cryptocurrencies such as JD Coin are highly portable and therefore do not need any kind of storage. With these cryptos you may just walk across the borders with simple 12 words or any mnemonic phrase in your head or on the piece of paper and therefore there is nothing you do about it.

Are you still in doubt? Leave aside your worry and invest in cryptocurrency like JD Coin and get maximum output. Enjoy hassle-free and safe transactions anywhere at any time and you are also safe from the risk of identity theft and the list of benefits just goes on!The best news is that JD Coin is all set for its official launch and also listing in worldwide exchanges such as FatBTC, Bilaxy & Coinsbit on 15th November 2019.

[berniesrevolution]

IN THESE TIMES

ACROSS THE COUNTRY, A NEW COHORT OF PROGRESSIVES IS RUNNING FOR—AND WINNING—ELECTIONS. 

The stunning victory of democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Democratic congressional primary in New York is perhaps the most well-known, but she is far from alone. Most of these candidates are young, more than usual are people of color, many are women, several are Muslims, at least one is a refugee, at least one is transgender—and all are unabashedly left. Most come to electoral politics after years of activism around issues like immigration, climate and racism. They come out of a wide range of social movements and support policy demands that reflect the principles of those movements: labor rights, immigrant and refugee rights, women’s and gender rights, equal access to housing and education, environmental justice, and opposition to police violence and racial profiling. Some, though certainly not all, identify not just with the policies of socialism but with the fundamental core values and indeed the name itself, usually in the form of democratic socialism.

Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American woman in Detroit, just won the Democratic primary for the legendary Congressman John Conyers’ seat. Four women, two of them members of Democratic Socialists of America and all four endorsed by DSA, beat their male incumbent opponents in Pennsylvania state house primaries. Tahirah Amatul-Wadud is running an insurgent campaign for Congress against a longstanding incumbent in western Massachusetts, keeping her focus on Medicare-for-All and civil rights. Minnesota State Rep. Ilhan Omar, a former Somali refugee, won endorsement from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and is running for Keith Ellison’s former congressional seat as an “intersectional feminist.” And there are more.

Congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the Democratic political community recently after an upset win against Representative Joe Crowley in the New York Democratic primary. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Many highlight their movement experience in their campaigns; they are champions of immigrant rights, healthcare, student debt organizing and the fight for $15. Intersectionality has grown stronger, as the extremism of Trump’s right-wing racist assault creates significant new gains in linking separate movements focused on racism, women’s rights, immigrant rights, climate, poverty, labor rights and more.

But mostly, we’re not seeing progressive and socialist candidates clearly link domestic issues with efforts to challenge war, militarism and the war economy. There are a few exceptions: Congressional candidate and Hawaii State Rep. Kaniela Ing speaks powerfully about U.S. colonialism in Hawaii, and Virginia State Rep. Lee J. Carter has spoken strongly against U.S. bombing of Syria, linking current attacks with the legacy of U.S. military interventions. There may be more. But those are exceptions; most of the new left candidates focus on crucial issues of justice at home.

It’s not that progressive leaders don’t care about international issues, or that our movements are divided. Despite too many common assumptions, it is not political suicide for candidates or elected officials to stake out progressive anti-war, anti-militarism positions. Quite the contrary: Those positions actually have broad support within both our movements and public opinion. It’s just that it’s hard to figure out the strategies that work to connect internationally focused issues, anti-war efforts, or challenges to militarism, with the wide array of activists working on locally grounded issues. Some of those strategies seem like they should be easy—like talking about slashing the 53 cents of every discretionary federal dollar that now goes to the military as the easiest source to fund Medicare-for-all or free college education. It should be easy, but somehow it’s not: Too often, foreign policy feels remote from the urgency of domestic issues facing such crises. When our movements do figure out those strategies, candidates can easily follow suit.

Candidates coming out of our movements into elected office will need clear positions on foreign policy. Here are several core principles that should shape those positions.

A progressive foreign policy must reject U.S. military and economic domination and instead be grounded in global cooperation, human rights, respect for international law and privileging diplomacy over war. That does not mean isolationism, but instead a strategy of diplomatic engagement rather than—not as political cover for—destructive U.S. military interventions that have so often defined the U.S. role in the world.

Looking at the political pretexts for what the U.S. empire is doing around the world today, a principled foreign policy might start by recognizing that there is no military solution to terrorism and that the global war on terror must be ended.

More broadly, the militarization of foreign policy must be reversed and diplomacy must replace military action in every venue, with professional diplomats rather than the White House’s political appointees in charge. Aspiring and elected progressive and socialist office-holders should keep in mind the distinction between the successes and failures of Obama’s foreign policy. The victories were all diplomatic: moving towards normalization with Cuba, the Paris climate accord and especially the Iran nuclear deal. Obama’s greatest failures—in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen—all occurred because the administration chose military action over robust diplomacy.

Certainly, diplomacy has been a tool in the arsenal of empires, including the United States. But when we are talking about official policies governing relations between countries, diplomacy—meaning talking, negotiating and engaging across a table—is always, always better than engaging across a battlefield.

A principled foreign policy must recognize how the war economy has distorted our society at home—and commit to reverse it. The $717 billion of the military budget is desperately needed for jobs, healthcare and education here at home—and for a diplomatic surge and humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to people of countries devastated by U.S. wars and sanctions.

A principled foreign policy must acknowledge how U.S. actions—military, economic and climate-related—have been a driving force in displacing people around the world. We therefore have an enormous moral as well as legal obligation to take the lead in providing humanitarian support and refuge for those displaced—so immigration and refugee rights are central to foreign policy.

For too long the power of the U.S. empire has dominated international relations, led to the privileging of war over diplomacy on a global scale, and created a vast—and invasive—network of 800-plus military bases around the world.

Now, overall U.S. global domination is actually shrinking, and not only because of Trump’s actions. China’s economy is rapidly catching up, and its economic clout in Africa and elsewhere eclipses that of the United States. It’s a measure of the United States’ waning power that Europe, Russia and China are resisting U.S. efforts to impose new global sanctions on Iran. But the United States is still the world’s strongest military and economic power: Its military spending vastly surpasses that of the eight next strongest countries, it is sponsoring a dangerous anti-Iran alliance between Israel and the wealthy Gulf Arab states, it remains central to NATO decision-making, and powerful forces in Washington threaten new wars in North Korea and Iran. The United States remains dangerous.

Progressives in Congress have to navigate the tricky task of rejecting American exceptionalism. U.S global military and economic efforts are generally aimed at maintaining domination and control. Without that U.S. domination, the possibility arises of a new kind of internationalism: to prevent and solve crises that arise from current and potential wars, to promote nuclear disarmament, to come up with climate solutions and to protect refugees.

That effort is increasingly important because of the rapid rise of right-wing xenophobic authoritarians seeking and winning power. Trump is now leading and enabling an informal global grouping of such leaders, from Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to Victor Orban in Hungary and others. Progressive elected officials in the United States can pose an important challenge to that authoritarian axis by building ties with their like-minded counterparts in parliaments and governments—possibilities include Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, among others. And progressive and leftist members of Congress will need to be able to work together with social movements to build public pressure for diplomatic initiatives not grounded in the interests of U.S. empire.

In addition to these broad principles, candidates and elected officials need critical analyses of current U.S. engagement around the world, as well as nuanced prescriptions for how to de-escalate militarily, and ramp up a new commitment to serious diplomacy.

GEOPOLITICAL POWER PLAYS

1. RUSSIA:

Relations with Russia will be a major challenge for the foreseeable future. With 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons in U.S. and Russian hands, and the two powers deploying military forces on opposite sides of active battlefronts in Syria, it is crucial that relations remain open—not least to derail potential escalations and ensure the ability to stand down from any accidental clash.

Progressives and leftists in Congress will need to promote a nuanced, careful approach to Russia policy. And they will face a daunting environment in which to do so. They will have to deal with loud cries from right-wing war-mongers, mainly Republicans, and from neo-con interventionists in both parties, demanding a one-sided anti-Russia policy focused on increased sanctions and potentially even military threats. But many moderate and liberal Democrats—and much of the media—are also joining the anti-Russia crusade. Some of those liberals and moderates have likely bought into the idea of American exceptionalism, accepting as legitimate or irrelevant the long history of U.S. election meddling around the world and viewing the Russian efforts as somehow reaching a whole different level of outrageousness. Others see the anti-Russia mobilization solely in the context of undermining Trump.

But at the same time, progressive Congress members should recognize that reports of Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 and 2018 elections cannot be dismissed out of hand. They should continue to demand that more of the evidence be made public, and condemn the Russian meddling that has occurred, even while recognizing that the most serious threats to our elections come from voter suppression campaigns at home more than from Moscow. And they have to make clear that Trump’s opponents cannot be allowed to turn the president’s infatuation with Vladimir Putin into the basis for a new Cold War, simply to oppose Trump.

2. CHINA:

The broad frame of a progressive approach should be to end Washington’s provocative military and economic moves and encourage deeper levels of diplomatic engagement. This means replacing military threats with diplomacy in response to Chinese moves in the South China Sea, as well as significant cuts in the ramped-up military ties with U.S. allies in the region, such as Vietnam. Progressive and socialist members of Congress and other elected officials will no doubt be aware that the rise of China’s economic dominance across Africa, and its increasing influence in parts of Latin America, could endanger the independence of countries in those parts of the Global South. But they will also need to recognize that any U.S. response to what looks like Chinese exploitation must be grounded in humility, acknowledging the long history of U.S. colonial and neocolonial domination throughout those same regions. Efforts to compete with Chinese economic assistance by increasing Washington’s own humanitarian and development aid should mean directing all funds through the UN, rather than through USAID or the Pentagon. That will make U.S. assistance far less likely to be perceived as—and to be—an entry point for exploitation.

3. NATO:

A progressive position on NATO flies straight into the face of the partisan component of the anti-Trump resistance—the idea that if Trump is for it, we should be against it. For a host of bad reasons that have to do with personal enrichment and personal power, Trump sometimes takes positions that large parts of the U.S. and global anti-war and solidarity movements have long supported. One of those is NATO. During the Cold War, NATO was the European military face of U.S.-dominated Western anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, peace activists from around the world called for the dissolution of NATO as an anachronistic relic whose raison d’etre was now gone.

Instead, NATO used its 50th anniversary in 1999 to rebrand itself as defending a set of amorphous, ostensibly “Western” values such as democracy, rather than having any identifiable enemy—something like a military version of the EU, with the United States on board for clout. Unable to win UN Security Council support for war in Kosovo, the United States and its allies used NATO to provide so-called authorization for a major bombing campaign—in complete violation of international law—and began a rapid expansion of the NATO alliance right up to the borders of Russia. Anti-war forces across the world continued to rally around the call “No to NATO”—a call to dissolve the alliance altogether.

But when Trump, however falsely, claims to call for an end to the alliance, or shows disdain for NATO, anti-Trump politicians and media lead the way in embracing the military alliance as if it really did represent some version of human rights and international law. It doesn’t—and progressives in elected positions need to be willing to call out NATO as a militarized Cold War relic that shouldn’t be reconfigured to maintain U.S. domination in Europe or to mobilize against Russia or China or anyone else. It should be ended.

In fact, Trump’s claims to oppose NATO are belied by his actions. In his 2019 budget request he almost doubled the 2017 budget for the Pentagon’s “European Deterrence Initiative,” designed explicitly as a response to “threats from Russia.” There is a huge gap between Trump’s partisan base-pleasing condemnation of NATO and his administration&rdqou;s actual support for strengthening the military alliance. That contradiction should make it easier for progressive candidates and officeholders to move to cut NATO funding and reduce its power—not because Trump is against NATO but because the military alliance serves as a dangerous provocation toward war.

THE WAR ON TERROR

What George W. Bush first called “the global war on terror” is still raging almost 17 years later, though with different forms of killing and different casualty counts. Today’s reliance on airstrikes, drone attacks and a few thousand special forces has replaced the hundreds of thousands of U.S. and allied ground troops. And today hardly any U.S. troops are being killed, while civilian casualties are skyrocketing across the Middle East and Afghanistan. Officials from the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations have repeated the mantra that “there is no military solution” in Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq or against terrorism, but their actions have belied those words. Progressive elected officials need to consistently remind the public and their counterparts that it is not possible to bomb terrorism out of existence. Bombs don’t hit “terrorism”; they hit cities, houses, wedding parties. And on those rare occasions when they hit the people actually named on the White House’s unaccountable kill list, or “terrorist” list, the impact often creates more terrorists.

The overall progressive policy on this question means campaigning for diplomatic solutions and strategies instead of military ones. That also means joining the ongoing congressional efforts led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and others  to challenge the continued reliance on the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

In general, privileging diplomatic over war strategies starts with withdrawing troops and halting the arms sales that flood the region with deadly weapons. Those weapons too often end up in the hands of killers on all sides, from bands of unaccountable militants to brutally repressive governments, with civilians paying the price. Congress members should demand an end of massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other U.S. allies carrying out brutal wars across the Middle East, and they should call for an end to the practice of arming non-state proxies who kill even more people. They should call for a U.S. arms embargo on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Israel (which presents a whole other set of arms-related challenges), while urging Russia to stop its arms sales to Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Given the power of the arms industries in the United States, arms embargoes are the most difficult—but perhaps the most important—part of ending the expanding Middle East wars.

Progressives in Congress should demand real support for UN-sponsored and other international peace initiatives, staffing whole new diplomatic approaches whose goal is political solutions rather than military victories—and taking funds out of military budgets to cover the costs. The goal should be to end these endless wars—not try to “win” them.

1. ISRAEL-PALESTINE: 

The most important thing for candidates to know is that there has been a massive shift in public opinion in recent years. It is no longer political suicide to criticize Israel. Yes, AIPAC and the rest of the right-wing Jewish, pro-Israel lobbies remain influential and have a lot of money to throw around. (The Christian Zionist lobbies are powerful too, but there is less political difficulty for progressives to challenge them.) But there are massive shifts underway in U.S. Jewish public opinion on the conflict, and the lobbies cannot credibly claim to speak for the Jewish community as a whole.

Outside the Jewish community, the shift is even more dramatic, and has become far more partisan: Uncritical support for Israel is now overwhelmingly a Republican position. Among Democrats, particularly young Democrats, support for Israel has fallen dramatically; among Republicans, support for Israel’s far-right government is sky-high. The shift is particularly noticeable among Democrats of color, where recognition of the parallels between Israeli oppression of Palestinians and the legacies of Jim Crow segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa is rising rapidly.

U.S. policy, unfortunately, has not kept up with that changing discourse. But modest gains are evident even there. When nearly 60 members of the House and Senate openly skipped Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech when he came to lobby Congress to vote against President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the sky didn’t fall. The snub to the Israeli prime minister was unprecedented, but no one lost their seat because of it. Rep. Betty McCollum’s bill to protect Palestinian children from Israel’s vicious military juvenile detention system (the only one in the world) now has 29 co-sponsors, and the sky still isn’t falling. Members of Congress are responding more frequently to Israeli assaults on Gaza and the killing of protesters, often because of powerful movements among their constituents. When Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz acknowledged the divide: “While members of the Republican Party overwhelmingly expressed support for the move, Democrats were split between those who congratulated Trump for it and those who called it a dangerous and irresponsible action.”

That creates space for candidates and newly elected officials to respond to the growing portion of their constituencies that supports Palestinian rights. Over time, they must establish a rights-based policy. That means acknowledging that the quarter-century-long U.S.-orchestrated “peace process” based on the never-serious pursuit of a solution, has failed. Instead, left and progressive political leaders can advocate for a policy that turns over real control of diplomacy to the UN, ends support for Israeli apartheid and occupation, and instead supports a policy based on international law, human rights and equality for all, without privileging Jews or discriminating against non-Jews.

To progress from cautiously urging that Israel abide by international law, to issuing a full-scale call to end or at least reduce the $3.8 billion per year that Congress sends straight to the Israeli military, might take some time. In the meantime, progressive candidates must prioritize powerful statements condemning the massacre of unarmed protesters in Gaza and massive Israeli settlement expansion, demands for real accountability for Israeli violations of human rights and international law (including reducing U.S. support in response), and calls for an end to the longstanding U.S. protection that keeps Israel from being held accountable in the UN.

The right consistently accuses supporters of Palestinian rights of holding Israel to a double standard. Progressives in Congress should turn that claim around on them and insist that U.S. policy towards Israel—Washington’s closest ally in the region and the recipient of billions of dollars in military aid every year—hold Israel to exactly the same standards that we want the United States to apply to every other country: human rights, adherence to international law and equality for all.

Many supporters of the new crop of progressive candidates, and many activists in the movements they come out of, are supporters of the increasingly powerful, Palestinian-led BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, that aims to bring non-violent economic pressure to bear on Israel until it ends its violations of international law. This movement deserves credit for helping to mainstream key demands—to end the siege of Gaza and the killing of protesters, to support investigations of Israeli violations by the International Criminal Court, to oppose Israel’s new “nation-state’ law—that should all be on lawmakers’ immediate agenda.

2. AFGHANISTAN: 

More than 100,000 Afghans and 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in a U.S. war that has raged for almost 17 years. Not-Yet-President Trump called for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but within just a few months after taking office he agreed instead to send additional troops, even though earlier deployments of more than 100,000 U.S. troops (and thousands more coalition soldiers) could not win a military victory over the Taliban. Corruption in the U.S.-backed and -funded Afghan government remains sky-high, and in just the past three years, the Pentagon has lost track of how $3.1 billion of its Afghanistan funds were spent. About 15,000 US troops are still deployed, with no hope of a military victory for the United States.

Progressive members of Congress should demand a safe withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, acting on the long-held recognition that military force simply won’t work to bring about the political solution all sides claim to want.

Several pending bills also would reclaim the centrality of Congress’ role in authorizing war in general and in Afghanistan in particular—including ending the 2001 AUMF. Funding for humanitarian aid, refugee support, and in the future compensation and reparations for the massive destruction the U.S.-led war has wrought across the country, should all be on Congress’ agenda, understanding that such funding will almost certainly fail while U.S. troops are deployed.

3. IRAN: 

With U.S. and Iranian military forces facing each other in Syria, the potential for an unintentional escalation is sky-high. Even a truly accidental clash between a few Iranian and U.S. troops, or an Iranian anti-aircraft system mistakenly locking on to a U.S. warplane plane even if it didn’t fire, could have catastrophic consequences without immediate military-to-military and quick political echelon discussions to defuse the crisis. And with tensions very high, those ties are not routinely available. Relations became very dangerous when Trump withdrew the United States from the multi-lateral nuclear deal in May. (At that time, a strong majority of people in the United States favored the deal, and less than one in three wanted to pull out of it.)

The United States continues to escalate threats against Iran. It is sponsoring a growing regional anti-Iran alliance, with Israel and Saudi Arabia now publicly allied and pushing strongly for military action. And Trump has surrounded himself with war-mongers for his top advisers, including John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who have both supported regime change in Iran and urged military rather than diplomatic approaches to Iran.

Given all that, what progressive elected officials need to do is to keep fighting for diplomacy over war. That means challenging U.S. support for the anti-Iran alliance and opposing sanctions on Iran. It means developing direct ties with parliamentarians from the European and other signatories to the Iran nuclear deal, with the aim of collective opposition to new sanctions, re-legitimizing the nuclear deal in Washington and reestablishing diplomacy as the basis for U.S. relations with Iran.

It should also mean developing a congressional response to the weakening of international anti-nuclear norms caused by the pull-out from the Iran deal. That means not just supporting the nonproliferation goals of the Iran nuclear deal, but moving further towards real disarmament and ultimately the abolition of nuclear weapons. Progressives in and outside of Congress should make clear that nuclear nonproliferation (meaning no one else gets to have nukes) can’t work in the long run without nuclear disarmament (meaning that the existing nuclear weapons states have to give them up). That could start with a demand for full U.S. compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for negotiations leading to “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”

(Continue Reading)

[norsesuggestions]

english translation of: the saami in central sweden [Skogssamerna i de mellansvenska skogarna]. written by Anna Skielta

published by the saami parliement in swedens website samer.se. original at http://samer.se/4049

the forests of Dalarna, Hälsingland, Gästrikland and Västmanland are rich in lichen, the staple of reindeers diet. in these forests, it is very likely that the saami, who were the ancestors of the “parish saami”, had their reindeer herds grazing lands.

The saami who lived in the area today called central sweden, primarly lived of hunting, fishing and reindeer herding. in the middle of the 17th century, the swedish state started their project to chase them from their homes, with the goal of deporting them towards the north, to the area which the state has decided was the “the saami lands” [=lappmarken]. the attempt to force relocate the saami of central sweden to the north, would be ongoing for almost 200 years.

the first attempt to deport the southernmost saami started in Järvsö, Hälsingland. the the year of 1645, the local political unite, the landsting, gave the order to all länsmän [translator note: länsmän a title which was held by local farmers who had been given the responbility by the state to make the states laws, policies and orders practical reality] to deport all saami who existed within their rural area locality [=socken].

this political order is followed with several similiar orders in other Hälsingland rural area localities. In söderhamn, the swedish farmers are told to rapport all sightnings of saami people, to the länsman.

there are several attempts to force deport the southernmost saami, but they are not very succesful. therefore, in the year of 1720, the tone gets even sharper with the declaration of a royal issued law that states  that “all saami which are located outside the state drawn border of ‘the saami lands’ shall be deported with no delay.” this law was renewed in 1723 .

this law, was also pretty ineffective in practice. the saami who lives outside the state drawn borders of the “the saami lands”, remains living in their ancestral lands. they have reindeer, and keeps living as saami, just as their ancestors did. but now, a climate of anti - saami prejudice rises among the non - saami people in central sweden. the competition for hunting the wild animals of the region is increasing steadily. the saami, who primarly makes a living from hunting, therefore becomes a target from swedes who want to deport them, so they can get their hands on all the profit from hunting. at the same time, the church gets more and more vocal about that the saami should become “proper christians”.

the year of 1729 the head of the län Dalarna [admin note: then called Kopperbergs Län], Danckwardt writes to all the local authorites in Dalarnas Län that “all the saami in Dalarna shall be collected into one group, and then be deported farther north via Gästrikland”.

at the same time, the anxiety of the saami of the region increase. several saami contacts the authorites about that they “can’t see a future for us within the state drawn borders of ‘the saami lands’”. the reason for this, that they tell the authorities is that they have never been there, they don’t own anything there and foremost of all: because of this they see no possibility to make a living within the borders of the state  issued ‘saami lands’“.

They are not without support, many swedish farmers in Dalarna protests against the proposal to deport all saami from Dalarna. Many swedish farmers in Dalarna had a mutually benefical cooperation with the saami of the region. the skills and knowledge of the saami in Dalarna, was interwoven in the lifestyle of the Dalarna farmers, in such a way, that a loss of the saami via forced deportation, was considered a horrific concept in the minds of many farmers. therefore the farmers goes to the local authorities time and time again, and begs that “please do not deport all of them. at least some of them, must be allowed to stay”.

Hälsingland is a sharp contrast to Dalarna. In Dalarna many of the swedish farmers were on the saami side, and argued for that the saami should be allowed to stay in Dalarna. But in Hälsingland the view among the swedish farmers was that the saami of Hälsingland should be forced deported, and if it is not possible to deport them, they should become personal servants of the swedish farmers.

that the socio - economic lives of the saami and the swedish farmers of central sweden was closely interwoven could not by denied by the authortites. therefore, the authorites finally decide to comprimise with the farmers. they do this by demanding that the saami of central sweden should become settled, that they should raise their children according to the swedish lutheran faith, and the saami should only hunt as much as the swedish state allowed them.

an effect of this, is that during the 1750s, the saami of Hälsingland and Gästrikland more and more stops being semi - nomadic, and become settled. some got forced to become what is called “a parish saami”. these “parish saami” keeps up small scale reindeer herding. but, during the 1830s the reindeer herders among these “parish saami”, is discountined. Despite that they stopped with reindeer herding, they do not stop being a part of the ethnic group of saami. these saami keeps being an ethnic group, that lives side by side with swedish farmers. these “parish saami” made their living from art and crafts, and with doing the labour swedish farmers refuse to do, like slaughtering horses.

and like that, the “parish saami” made their living, until the start of the industralisation of sweden.

x

[two saami people, with unknown names, visiting the the store of Lars & Anders which was located in Västpågårn at Kils in Storhaga, Ljusdal, Hälsingland. sometimes during the early 20th century]

admin note: this was a complicated article to translate, because it filled with legal terms from historical sweden, which are hard to know how to translate and/convey the meaning off, in english. so, some mistakes must likely made, which i say sorry for. but, i find this an important article to spread outside the swedish language it is orignally written in.

also i translated “lappmark” to “saami lands” for the simple reason i did not wanted to have a slur for saami (lapp) to be constanstly repeated in my translation. the same thing is true, of my translation of “sockenlapp” to “parish saami”. the swedish state used a slur originally for both these concepts. but it is the swedish state created concept of “lappmark” the state wanted to force deport the saami living in central sweden to.

the “lappmark” has different borders during different times but this is an approx of its borders in 1796

x

and here, so one can understand all these places mentioned in this text, is a modern map of the landskaps in sweden. not the exact borders these landskaps had during the events of the translated text, but to get a general idea of the area they are talking about. the landskaps talked about in the translated text, as exemples of central sweden landskap with a history of saami people, and also a history of the authorities trying to deport these saami people from the landskaps, are Dalarna, Hälsingland, Gästrikland and Västmanland.

sources

http://samer.se/4049

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landskap_i_Sverige#/media/File:Sverigekarta-Landskap_Text.svg

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lappmarken#/media/File:V%C3%A4sterbottens_l%C3%A4n_och_svenska_lappmarken_1796.svg

[bigenderbefriender]

On Ethos:

So here’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot: there’s actually not a whole lot of difference between respectability politics and identity politics. Namely, they both assign value to arguments based on the person giving the argument rather than the quality of the argument itself.

Which, I know, is a big step to take, but hear me out:

Respectability politics is predicated on the idea that people who are /successful/ must inherently know more. That is to say, people who are educated, who can adapt to changing norms, and who can talk eloquently are inherently the best sources of information. Under this system, the inverse is also true: those who are uneducated, those who fail to meet norms, and those who do not speak eloquently are bad sources of information.

This makes sense to some degree; you’d naturally expect a person with an advanced degree in a topic to have a more sound opinion in that topic than some random person on the street. The problem here is that someone’s respectability (as I loosely defined it above) and their knowledge of a topic are correlated, but NOT causatively related (especially when it comes to the social norms aspect).

If, for instance, we were to consider the topic of poverty in the United States, it would be easy to look to published economists and study what they have to say in order to form our opinions. However, this strategy is flawed in that there is a prominent survivorship bias as to /who/ gets published. College is behind a huge paywall, and grad school even higher. That means that the people who can publish books on economics must have had—at some point—the money to go to college. Whether this is because they came from a wealthy family or because they had the social capital to make their way through or for any number of reasons, they have had that money. This naturally excludes people who do not have the time or energy to work to earn that much money on top of money to live on. Then we can look at the differing opinions between these two groups: people who come from wealthy backgrounds or who believe that they were just good enough to put themselves through college no problem (by relying on their social capital) have a vested interest in publishing information that protects their privilege and the systems that keep them at their current status. That is, the wealthy have a vested interest in selling poverty-as-moral-failing because this ideology keeps them afloat. Ideas that disagree are necessarily a minority because they cannot be developed in the conditions that American poverty actually enforces.

Similarly, let us look at the basis of identity politics and an example of its failing. Identity politics is predicated on a simple concept: “I am a member of a group that is oppressed in x way, and therefore I am familiar with that type of oppression.” It’s simple, it’s innocuous, but it’s a powerful statement. In particular, the ideology demands the inverse be true as well: those who are not members of an oppressed group do not have familiarity with that brand of oppression. Another aspect of identity politics is the idea of intersectionality: that there are multiple axes of oppression that do not superimpose but magnify each other.

From these ideas, a basic formation can be created, wherein members of the majority with respect to a particular issue are expected to sit back and accept the discussion of a minority group about that type of oppression. Again, this makes sense: you don’t expect your typical white person to understand the intricacies of racism, so they should generally sit back and let others talk about it, right?

There are a couple of problems with this. First, it requires that any interaction be understood in the context of a majority/minority axis, wherein one person has systemic power over the other. However, this is actually rarely the case; if, for instance, an indigenous woman and a black man are talking about racism in the United States, neither of them actually has any structural power over the other. One may be individually biased against the other, but that actually doesn’t matter on any grand scale because neither of them can use a position of authority to discriminate against the other. Are we, then, to consider these two part of the same group? Well, yes, according to identity politics. They are both poc, so they must be the same. Never mind that the stereotypes and oppression of black people and natives are rooted in completely different ideologies; anti black racism is rooted in the idea that black people need to be motivated, by poverty, by violence, by whatever means possible to work for white people. That is, anti black racism is based on the idea that black people should be slaves. Anti-indigenous racism is based on the idea that natives are savage, uncivilized, a people of the past. Anti-indigenous racism is predicated on the idea that natives should not exist. Neither of these people has structural power over the other, nor are they part of the same group, so idpol is useless in analyzing their interactions.

The same goes for people from wholly different axes of oppression. The classic example is that of a white woman and a black man. Which has moral authority to criticize the other? Well, neither, not on the base of minority status alone. But idpol demands that this question have an answer, and that will change a lot depending on who you ask (and what minority group they identify with most strongly).

The second problem with idpol is that it creates a strong in-group/out-group dynamic. Those who are members of a minority group have their voices elevated, their opinions discussed. Those who are not are shut down, told to be better allies and to stay out of the way. The natural result is the creation of identities that appear to be minority groups because they fall outside of what is truly the majority for the express purpose of joining the in-group. The most prominent example is within the lgtbq+ community: there are several identities out there that serve as ways for straight people to validate their opinions (heteroflexible and sapiosexual are two that come to mind). The perception that this is happening on a large scale (regardless of whether it is, and in fact despite the fact that it isn’t) results in gatekeepers, be they terfs who think that trans women pose a genuine threat to feminism and women, or be they regs who think that asexuality is just another way to sneak into a community that isn’t theirs. The toxicity that results is its own condemnation.

This in-group dynamic also reinforces unhealthy beliefs within minority communities. @betterbemeta has already discussed the masochistic epistemology discussed by Natalie Wynn, and I won’t attempt to recreate that discussion. I will add to it, though, with another example: that of the mogai subgroup of the lgbtq+ community. Within this group, any identity is a valid minority identity (if you’ll notice, the opposite reaction of terfs and regs). This, of course, leads to “identities” that are actually the result of trauma being promoted as healthy forms of human sexuality (the example that comes to mind is thinking sexual thoughts but becoming repulsed whenever any action is taken to fulfill them; it’s an older example of course, but I’m sure some of you will remember it).  The core belief here is that if any identity can be justified as being sufficiently painful—interchangeable in this context with being sufficiently oppressed—it must be valid and therefore included in the community.

Finally, this disregards the role that interaction and study can have in creating robust opinions.  An example I saw (albeit many years ago now) is that a gay 13 yo knows more about being gay than a 40 yo straight queer studies professor.  Which, to some degree can be true: even proximity to the community doesn’t really teach you what it means to be in it.  However, there is something to be said for experience.  I’d argue that through her work during the AIDS crisis, Debbie Reynolds learned and knew much more about the lgbtq+ community and its history than most members of the community today know.  Not because she was just inherently smarter, but because that work pays off.  Likewise, the experience of a gay man living in Los Angeles is very different from the experience of a gay man living in Oklahoma City.  That doesn’t make either opinion better, or worse; even if they contradict, there’s no point in trying to assign value to their opinions based on who’s had the “more oppressed” experience.

So at this point I’m sure you’re wondering what the point is: what’s the alternative? After all, idpol is extremely popular, and for good reason: it’s a powerful tool for understanding the distribution of knowledge within a larger society. But both it and respectability lolitics are victims of the method of thinking that I’d call ethos politics: the politics formed by assessing a people’s opinions based on some identifiable aspect of their being.

My suggestion would be a dual system that mixes the best aspects of pathos and logos. At the core of every logical argument is a set of assumptions (axioms if we’re thinking mathematically, just assumptions otherwise). These assumptions can only be justified by pathos; no logical argument can support, for instance, my beliefs that every human has inalienable rights and that it is the government’s responsibility to protect those rights. I can only argue from a pathos perspective: if either of those conditions is unmet, people will suffer unnecessarily. From those, a number of logical derivatives can be established and argued.

[avahuang]

Shock Velocity

I. ANESTHETIC IDEOLOGY

Because in certain pockets of the world we’ve become divorced from the idea that achievement is heavily impacted by factors outside our control, the modern secular analogy to religion is the industry that’s been created from Maslow’s idea of self-actualization as a supreme expression of human life. The anesthetization of inner turmoil has been married to outward success–not only will you feel better, but your performance will also be optimized. You have the power to live a rational life in service of others.

Much of it seems like a rehashing of the 60s’ human potential movement as a counter-cultural rebellion against mainstream psychology and organized religion. It’s not so much a religion as much as it is a psychological philosophy and framework that focuses on a particular set of values, but it’s meant to be followed obsessively and provide meaning in the same vein.

Some basic tenets: you should take responsibility for everything that happens to you. Deal with whatever crisis comes up and move on from it as cleanly as possible. You aren’t like those postmodern softies who need to obsessively control their outer environment and suppress free speech. Everything is based on merit. You square fully with the harshness of the world and you are going to triumph by making a lot of money (while working on something appropriately meaningful that addresses the human condition).

There are remarkable similarities between the principles currently in vogue and things taught by human potential-focused movements like est, Landmark Forum, neuro-linguistic programming, Tony Robbins seminars, Impact Training, Lifespring, Complete Centering, Scientology, etc. A lot of the parallels revolve around personal responsibility as freedom:

Jordan Peterson: “Every experience that you have had contains information. If you have fully processed the information in that experience, (1) its recollection will no longer produce negative emotion and (2) you have learned everything you need to know from it.”

Landmark: there’s a concept in the Landmark Forum called getting complete. To get complete means that you need to address what is “incomplete” with the other person, which is a fancy way of saying getting emotional closure. To complete, you take responsibility for what is incomplete and relinquish reside emotions, resentment, etc. and extending forgiveness the other person. If you do that, you are completely being responsible for your own life.

Scientology: to become clear is one of the major states practitioners strive to reach on their way up the Bridge to Total Freedom. The state of Clear is reached when a person becomes free of unwanted emotions or painful traumas not readily available to the conscious mind. By applying Dianetics, every single person can reach the state of Clear.

Stoicism: “When you are offended at any man’s fault, immediately turn to yourself and reflect in what matter you yourself have erred.”

Since we can no longer trust in a higher power to guide our lives and imbue it with meaning, we’ve turned to believing that the only way to control the external world is through mastery of the internal world. There’s a lashing out against the postmodernist renunciation of structure and meaning, a rampant nostalgia for the idea of meritocracy, excellence, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. The anecdote to emotional pain is inner calm and material success. It’s discipline, it’s not worrying about the things you have no control over, it’s letting go of the things that move you if they’re destructive to your life.

Believing that you are in control of all of your reactions and that controlling your reactions can radically affect the outer world is a good psychological trick on several levels: 1. It removes anguish over the “other” because everything is about you and your actions 2. It legitimately can catalyze action in people who might otherwise be paralyzed by a lack of meaning 3. It puts a focus on performance and hierarchy as a way to easily gauge success.

People are looking for an alternative to the confusion of being alive and not knowing why and what to do about it. Successfully selling a life philosophy gives you just about more influence and capital than anything else. But successful adoption of a life philosophy has little bearing on whether it’s true or not. From Simone de Beauvoir: 

  The serious man gets rid of his freedom by claiming to subordinate it to values which would be unconditioned. He imagines that the accession to these values likewise permanently confers value upon himself. Shielded with “rights,” he fulfills himself as a being who is escaping from the stress of existence. . . . [The serious man] chooses to live in an infantile world, but to the child the values are really given.  The serious man must mask the movement by which he gives them to himself, like the mythomaniac who while reading a love-letter pretends to forget that she has sent it to herself. 

We’re trying to be serious men. So much remains thematically the same between different belief systems: the hope of eternal life, a belief in (AGI-assisted) miracles, a sense of purpose and value. The problem is often not in the particularities what we believe, but how blindly we believe it: when we start thinking about a framework not as guidance for how to look for answers but rather what to answer, it devolves to ideology.  Even ideologies that claim to promote curiosity and an environment for learning can end up enabling what James Carse calls “willful ignorance”: an intentional avoidance of knowledge and ways of thinking that contradict your religion. Believers like authority. Even people on the margins of modern political thought are drawn to ideological purity. 

The problem with every ideology is that it’s ultimately reductionist: it reduces the world to one thing, and then explains the world in terms of just that one thing. It’s extremely useful because the world becomes simplified and you have something to tie yourself to emotionally, in this case internal and external performance. From the inside, a closed and consistent framework of truth looks more or less like joy.

II. HYPEROBJECTS

In Timothy Morton’s Hyperobjects, he introduces the concept of objects that are so massively distributed in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal specificity. The examples he gives are as global warming, styrofoam, and radioactive plutonium. I think the concept can also apply to technology that is disruptive on such a large scale as to fundamentally alter our experience of living. 

Growing up, my political beliefs were more or less shaped by neoliberalism and third wave feminism.  In recent years those frameworks seemed in many ways inadequate to diagnose and deal with what is happening around us: human beings have more or less become neurolivestock for corporations like Google, Facebook, etc--your personal information is taken from you, and you are rewarded with short-term conveniences like targeted ads but your long-term prospects are gradually reduced because you have less privacy, less freedom. We live in an operating system set up by “the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent AI,” distracted by “libidinal- and reality-engineering, advertising, branding, media, the happiness industry.”

In the 1970 Albert Toffler wrote Future Shock. He defines the term as the social paralysis induced by rapid technological change. According to Charles Stross, his “working hypothesis to explain the 21st century is that the Tofflers underestimated how pervasive future shock would be. I think somewhere in the range from 15-30% of our fellow hairless primates are currently in the grip of future shock, to some degree. Symptoms include despair, anxiety, depression, disorientation, paranoia, and a desperate search for certainty in lives that are experiencing unpleasant and uninvited change. It's no surprise that anyone who can offer dogmatic absolute answers is popular, or that the paranoid style is again ascendant in American politics, or that religious certainty is more attractive to many than the nuanced complexities of scientific debate.”

I’ve been thinking lately about accelerationism, which is influenced by Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus and Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy, and in its modern incarnation came from texts that Nick Land began producing in the 1980s when he was involved with Cybernetic Culture Research Unit. The CCRU argued that the institutions like government, academia and the established sciences more or less slow progress down, and to break out we need to encourage “an accelerated culture” where new ideas could flourish. In a lot of ways, the accelerationism of that period (before Land had an amphetamine-induced breakdown and started spouting alt-right ideas) connects with a belief in Silicon Valley that markets need to be fast-moving and tech must be disruptive. Accelerationism “goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy, environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace of change in the modern world.” I don’t necessarily espouse accelerationism as desirable, but it seems in many ways a prescient diagnosis of where we’re heading.  

We are moving towards a post-industrial society: even skilled workers will lose value with the advent of robots that are sophisticated enough to provide medical procedures, sophisticated enough to program. There are technologies that are coming that will drastically alter what it means to be human: gene editing, brain computer interfaces, AGI. I don’t think anyone disputes that, but we’re all collectively unprepared to deal with it politically and philosophically. We are moving towards a world dominated by high-tech capitalism,  post-liberal humanism. For better or worse, it is moving towards us.

We need cliches to help us to adjust to a world transformed by future shock. I think individualism--being tough, being rational, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps--seems to people like a way to regain control over the present moment, which is defined by radical change and a loss of control over information. But to me it kind of feels like saying that being a good surfer is going to help you in a tsunami. A sense of agency might be pleasant in an individual life, but we live among networks that require a large number of people who participate in them to generate value but have the effect of centralizing wealth and power. We live on a dying planet, in a society that’s been transformed--and will be transformed--by hyperobjects that are difficult to predict and difficult to control.

Being on the cusp of a seminal moment is exciting in a lot of ways. Questions that seem interesting to me:

1. How do you expect a society to orient itself politically and philosophically when there is not anymore a stable baseline for what to expect in our lifetimes economically, technologically and otherwise?

2. It’s good and comforting to believe that we function autonomously and take responsibility for ourselves, but how do we reconcile that with knowing (I’m cribbing Foucault) that the individual is the product of power and that language, in the form that we interface with it in the media, is not made to believe but to be obeyed? I.e. as Chomsky says, “mass media amuses, entertains, and informs, and inculcates individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.” Is it possible to avoid conflating the comfort of feeling like rational actors with actually pursuing independent thought? Which leads naturally into 

3. Is there any way to bridge that gap between what we know to be true and our relative inability to generalize it? As Jared Leoner describes, the hacker attitude is often approximately this: “Open up your life to the ’net, all you ordinary people. The world is about to become transparent and that transparency will be the beginning of a golden age. Sharing is good. However, encrypt your life like crazy. Use VPN, etc. Only the smartest people can make no sound in the digital forest.” What are the most effective ways to go from “I believe something to be true (i.e. privacy matters) and will live my life in accordance with it” to “I will also convince other people that this belief is true?” If you believe, which I somewhat do, that people are motivated mostly what what they find emotionally appealing and choose values using that as the primary criterion, the answer might very literally be to design and sell an ideology whose tenets consist of the things that you believe to be true. Which is, of course, a separate thing from successfully convincing people that they should care about what is actually true, separate from ideology.

III.

“The individual is no longer rooted in society as a tree in a forest, rather he is comparable to the passenger in a rapidly moving vehicle whose name may be Titanic, but also Leviathan. As long as the weather holds and the outlook is pleasant, he will scarcely notice the curtailment of his freedom. He may even be filled with optimism and with the consciousness of power produced by the sense of speed. But all this changes when the fiery volcanic islands and icebergs emerge on the horizon. Then not only will technology claim a right to dominate fields other than the procurement of comfort, but at the same time the lack of freedom will become apparent–be it in the victory of elemental forces or in the fact that individuals who have remained strong acquire the means to exercise absolute power.”

- Ernest Junger, Forest Passage

[cutiecrates]

Kira Kira May 2018

My allergies have been horrible lately, but they seem to be going away because I haven’t been feeling as sick as much these past few days.

I’m super sleepy, but I was doing well so I don’t want to get lazy again. So here we go! Let’s get into this!

Theme Cozy Night In~

PAPER SOAP

I know, probably a strange concept huh? People said the same thing about paper blush and now a lot more people are trying it out. This product works exactly like soap. All you do is lather it with water and wash your hands like you normally would.

This cute, unique little product was available in several varieties: Lavender, Rose, and Peppermint. The booklet also shows Lemon, so I assume there’s probably a handful of scents. Each one also has its own coloring, package design, and image drawn on the pack it comes in too x3

I asked someone to take a picture of this for me; just for a little reassurance that I actually did use the product. It dissolves in seconds, and isn’t an extreme lather, but its enough to get the job done.

Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

First of all, I like unique, cute little things like this if you didn’t already figure that out. I also really like how practical it is. You get 50 sheets per-pack and its small so you can easily carry it around; even in your pocket or small purses. Which I began to do when I got the box actually- just in case I ever came across a bathroom without soap, or if it was a poor product they had. It could also come in handy if you’re out somewhere and some totally random event happens (as long as you have water that is).

You could also play a prank on someone by putting one of the sheets in their pockets or where they sit (again as long as there is water)~

ORGANIC MASK

Pure Smile returns with this Aroma Flower Essence Mask pack. This one features chamomile oil, collagen, royal jelly, and hyaluronic acid to aid in moisturizing.

Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Well... it did do its job. It’s a perfectly normal facial mask, the moisturizing only lasted for the day though. It smelled like tea + herbs, which I didn’t necessarily like but that’s just me. I’m not fond of herbal scent products because they usually remind me of seasoning or sauce. I didn’t mind the tea portion much; but I had assumed this would be flowery due to the floral theme.

MOASIS OIL MILK

I had high hopes when I saw this product x3 it’s perfect for dry skin and its made from cactus oil, which is said to help provide a boost of moisture to skin cells. It has a floral scent, according to the bottle, but I can’t exactly pinpoint it.

Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥

This probably goes without saying but as an oil product, you don’t need to use large amounts (or else you’ll probably just make a mess) and it’s fairly greasy and a little unpleasant to touch. I adore how it smells, but it’s hard to use for me because I keep getting it on things >3<

However, I can’t deny that it has been helping a little bit. I’ve been putting small amounts of it on my sensitive facial regions that have become desert over time, and I’m finding better times to put it on, and I make sure to rub it in as much as possible and it’s been going a lot better. If you’re patient with it, it’s not a bad product.

HOT EYE MASK

This is a pack of 3 lavender-scented heated eye masks! Not only do they have a cute design, but they work instantly and do wonders for those tired and achy eyes that need a break. Or to help wind down after a long day. You can also do other stuff while wearing it because it has ear flaps for support.

Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 

I really like this and it’s cute design! Even during summer weather, the warmth from the mask is soothing and and not at all uncomfortable. It does also smell of lavender, but it’s not the normal lavender scent I’m used to?

I like the soft and fluffy design of the packaging; but at the same time, does anybody else think the front image seems a little anti-productive? People can get sore and tired eyes from strenuous activities like staring at screens for long periods of time. I mean yeah, it shows that you can do that kind of stuff while wearing it (as long as you don’t need glasses), which is nice, but couldn’t you be using the time to do something better? Like stretch, or prepare the bed, brush your teeth/hair, etc...

BLACK & SHINY EYELINER

As much as I love getting new things... long-time Cuties probably know how I feel about eyeliner. Practically the bane of my makeup using existence. No matter what, it isn’t applying right when I use it, and I know it’s not the products- I just can’t figure it out.

Anyway what makes this eyeliner special is that it has a metallic sheen to give it a fun touch. Although... when I actually tried it out....

You can’t see it in the picture. It does shine though if that’s any reassurance.

Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 

It’s a nice eyeliner and I love shiny things! I’m not sure if I’m into the design on the tube but I do like that it has a design anyway, and while I probably won’t be using it for its intended purposes, it would come in handy for designs or accent touches on the skin.

HONEY LEMON BATH TABLETS

This is our final item of the box, a neat packet of bath tablets, with additional powder! Usually it’s just one or the other, but I assume one component is lemon, the other honey. When using one of the items, the water is nice and clear, but when combined they give it this sort of a creamy milkiness. Rating: ♥ ♥ ♥ It’s a perfectly fine product, but I’m not sure if it actually does anything for you. It smells nice, but I didn’t notice any sort of softness or anything afterwards. No stainage either.

♥ Cutie Ranking ♥

Quality/Pricing - 5 out of 5. Everything was fine, and I really like that for the price we pay, most of it is multi-use. That usually isn’t a problem.

Theme - 4 out of 5. The gimmick behind this one is preparing for a cozy bed time, essentially. I feel like all the items fit very well because they’re comfortable and relaxing... except for the eyeliner. Nobody puts that on before bed... right?

Content - 3.5 out of 5. I genuinely liked everything, but I wish we would have had a little more variety in “types“. Like that soap, it was the only item that wasn’t the same for everyone.

Total Rank: 12.5 out of 15 Cuties. It was a perfectly fine box, and I enjoyed the items enough.

♥ Cutie Scale ♥

1.  Paper Soap - I love the cute packaging it comes in, and the little pack holding the soap is sweet too x3

2.  Moasis Cactus Milk Oil stuff -  I love the pastel drawings, and the bottle is really cute too x3

3.  Eye Mask - Cartoony in a cute way. I like the glasses design on it!

4. Chamomile Face Mask - It’s simple and sweet, but I earnestly expected it to be more flowery in scent, so I feel like it could be a bit misleading...? 

5. Bath Tablets - The package is fun and vibrant looking!

6. Eyeliner - Has fun designs on the package and tube, but it’s just not me.

Alright Cuties, that does it for this one. We got through it alright, only one or two allergy flare-ups between the time I started it and now (but to be fair, I kinda put this off for the day <3<’ ). Anyway, next up is Kawaii Box! So if you enjoy that one be sure to check it out :3

Until next time, stay cute!

[bluewatsons]

Galen Strawson, I am not a story, Aeon (September 3, 2015)

Some find it comforting to think of life as a story. Others find that absurd. So are you a Narrative or a non-Narrative?

Each of us constructs and lives a “narrative”,’ wrote the British neurologist Oliver Sacks, ‘this narrative is us’. Likewise the American cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner: ‘Self is a perpetually rewritten story.’ And: ‘In the end, we become the autobiographical narratives by which we “tell about” our lives.’ Or a fellow American psychologist, Dan P McAdams: ‘We are all storytellers, and we are the stories we tell.’ And here’s the American moral philosopher J David Velleman: ‘We invent ourselves… but we really are the characters we invent.’ And, for good measure, another American philosopher, Daniel Dennett: ‘we are all virtuoso novelists, who find ourselves engaged in all sorts of behaviour… and we always put the best “faces” on it we can. We try to make all of our material cohere into a single good story. And that story is our autobiography. The chief fictional character at the centre of that autobiography is one’s self.’

So say the narrativists. We story ourselves and we are our stories. There’s a remarkably robust consensus about this claim, not only in the humanities but also in psychotherapy. It’s standardly linked with the idea that self-narration is a good thing, necessary for a full human life.

I think it’s false – false that everyone stories themselves, and false that it’s always a good thing. These are not universal human truths – even when we confine our attention to human beings who count as psychologically normal, as I will here. They’re not universal human truths even if they’re true of some people, or even many, or most. The narrativists are, at best, generalising from their own case, in an all-too-human way. At best: I doubt that what they say is an accurate description even of themselves.

What exactly do they mean? It’s extremely unclear. Nevertheless, it does seem that there are some deeply Narrative types among us, where to be Narrative with a capital ‘N’ is (here I offer a definition) to be naturally disposed to experience or conceive of one’s life, one’s existence in time, oneself, in a narrative way, as having the form of a story, or perhaps a collection of stories, and – in some manner – to live in and through this conception. The popularity of the narrativist view is prima facie evidence that there are such people.

Perhaps. But many of us aren’t Narrative in this sense. We’re naturally – deeply – non-Narrative. We’re anti-Narrative by fundamental constitution. It’s not just that the deliverances of memory are, for us, hopelessly piecemeal and disordered, even when we’re trying to remember a temporally extended sequence of events. The point is more general. It concerns all parts of life, life’s ‘great shambles’, in the American novelist Henry James’s expression. This seems a much better characterisation of the large-scale structure of human existence as we find it. Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it.

The tendency to attribute control to self is, as the American social psychologist Dan Wegner says, a personality trait, possessed by some and not others. There’s an experimentally well-attested distinction between human beings who have what he calls the ‘emotion of authorship’ with respect to their thoughts, and those who, like myself, have no such emotion, and feel that their thoughts are things that just happen. This could track the distinction between those who experience themselves as self-constituting and those who don’t but, whether it does or not, the experience of self-constituting self-authorship seems real enough. When it comes to the actual existence of self-authorship, however – the reality of some process of self-determination in or through life as life-writing – I’m skeptical.

In the past 20 years, the American philosopher Marya Schechtman has given increasingly sophisticated accounts of what it is to be Narrative and to ‘constitute one’s identity’ through self-narration. She now stresses the point that one’s self-narration can be very largely implicit and unconscious. That’s an important concession. According to her original view, one ‘must be in possession of a full and explicit narrative [of one’s life] to develop fully as a person’. The new version seems more defensible. And it puts her in a position to say that people like myself might be Narrative and just not know it or admit it.

In her most recent book, Staying Alive (2014), Schechtman maintains that ‘persons experience their lives as unified wholes’ in some way that goes far beyond their basic awareness of themselves as single finite biological individuals with a certain curriculum vitae. She still thinks that ‘we constitute ourselves as persons… by developing and operating with a (mostly implicit) autobiographical narrative which acts as the lens through which we experience the world’.

I still doubt that this is true. I doubt that it’s a universal human condition – universal among people who count as normal. I doubt this even after she writes that ‘“having an autobiographical narrative” doesn’t amount to consciously retelling one’s life story always (or ever) to oneself or to anyone else’. I don’t think an ‘autobiographical narrative’ plays any significant role in how I experience the world, although I know that my present overall outlook and behaviour is deeply conditioned by my genetic inheritance and sociocultural place and time, including, in particular, my early upbringing. And I also know, on a smaller scale, that my experience of this bus journey is affected both by the talk I’ve been having with A in Notting Hill and the fact that I’m on my way to meet B in Kentish Town.

Like Schechtman, I am (to take John Locke’s definition of a person) a creature who can ‘consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places’. Like Schechtman, I know what it’s like when ‘anticipated trouble already tempers present joy’. In spite of my poor memory, I have a perfectly respectable degree of knowledge of many of the events of my life. I don’t live ecstatically ‘in the moment’ in any enlightened or pathological manner.

But I do, like the American novelist John Updike and many others, ‘have the persistent sensation, in my life…, that I am just beginning’. The Portuguese writer Fernando Pessoa’s ‘heteronym’ Alberto Caeiro (one of 75 alter egos under which he wrote) is a strange man, but he captures an experience common to many when he says that: ‘Each moment I feel as if I’ve just been born/Into an endlessly new world.’ Some will immediately understand this. Others will be puzzled, and perhaps skeptical. The general lesson is of human difference.

According to McAdams, a leading narrativist among social psychologists, writing in The Redemptive Self: Stories Americans Live By (2006):

Beginning in late adolescence and young adulthood, we construct integrative narratives of the self that selectively recall the past and wishfully anticipate the future to provide our lives with some semblance of unity, purpose, and identity. Personal identity is the internalised and evolving life story that each of us is working on as we move through our adult lives… I… do not really know who I am until I have a good understanding of my narrative identity.

If this is true, we must worry not only about the non-Narratives – unless they are happy to lack personal identity – but also about the people described by the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson in Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968):

various selves… make up our composite Self. There are constant and often shocklike transitions between these selves… It takes, indeed, a healthy personality for the ‘I’ to be able to speak out of all these conditions in such a way that at any moment it can testify to a reasonably coherent Self.

And the English moral philosopher Mary Midgley, writing in Wickedness (1984):

[Doctor Jekyll] was partly right: we are each not only one but also many… Some of us have to hold a meeting every time we want to do something only slightly difficult, in order to find the self who is capable of undertaking it… We spend a lot of time and ingenuity on developing ways of organising the inner crowd, securing consent among it, and arranging for it to act as a whole. Literature shows that the condition is not rare.

Erikson and Midgley suggest, astonishingly, that we’re all like this, and many agree – presumably those who fit the pattern. This makes me grateful to Midgley when she adds that ‘others, of course, obviously do not feel like this at all, hear such descriptions with amazement, and are inclined to regard those who give them as dotty’. At the same time, we shouldn’t adopt a theory that puts these people’s claim to be genuine persons in question. We don’t want to shut out the painter Paul Klee, writing in his diaries in the first years of the 20th century:

My self… is a dramatic ensemble. Here a prophetic ancestor makes his appearance. Here a brutal hero shouts. Here an alcoholic bon vivant argues with a learned professor. Here a lyric muse, chronically love-struck, raises her eyes to heaven. Here papa steps forward, uttering pedantic protests. Here the indulgent uncle intercedes. Here the aunt babbles gossip. Here the maid giggles lasciviously. And I look upon it all with amazement, the sharpened pen in my hand. A pregnant mother wants to join the fun. ‘Pshtt!’ I cry, ‘You don’t belong here. You are divisible.’ And she fades out.

Or the British author W Somerset Maugham, reflecting in A Writer’s Notebook (1949):

I recognise that I am made up of several persons and that the person that at the moment has the upper hand will inevitably give place to another. But which is the real one? All of them or none?

What are these people to do, if the advocates of narrative unity are right? I think they should continue as they are. Their inner crowds can perhaps share some kind of rollicking self-narrative. But there seems to be no clear provision for them in the leading philosophies of personal unity of our time as propounded by (among others) Schechtman, Harry Frankfurt, and Christine Korsgaard. I think the American novelist F Scott Fitzgerald is wrong when he says in his Notebooks (1978) that: ‘There never was a good biography of a good novelist. There couldn’t be. He is too many people if he’s any good.’ But one can see what he has in mind.

There is, furthermore, a vast difference between people who regularly and actively remember their past, and people who almost never do. In his autobiography What Little I Remember (1979), the Austrian-born physicist Otto Frisch writes: ‘I have always lived very much in the present, remembering only what seemed to be worth retelling.’ And: ‘I have always, as I already said, lived in the here and now, and seen little of the wider views.’ I’m in the Frisch camp, on the whole, although I don’t remember things in order to retell them.

More generally, and putting aside pathological memory loss, I’m in the camp with the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne, when it comes to specifically autobiographical memory: ‘I can find hardly a trace of [memory] in myself,’ he writes in his essay ‘Of Liars’ (1580). ‘I doubt if there is any other memory in the world as grotesquely faulty as mine is!’ Montaigne knows this can lead to misunderstanding. He is, for example, ‘better at friendship than at anything else, yet the very words used to acknowledge that I have this affliction [poor memory] are taken to signify ingratitude; they judge my affection by my memory’ – quite wrongly. ‘However, I derive comfort from my infirmity.’

Poor memory protects him from a disagreeable form of ambition, stops him babbling, and forces him to think through things for himself because he can’t remember what others have said. Another advantage, he says, ‘is that… I remember less any insults received’.

To this we can add the point that poor memory and a non-Narrative disposition aren’t hindrances when it comes to autobiography in the literal sense – actually writing things down about one’s own life. Montaigne is the proof of this, for he is perhaps the greatest autobiographer, the greatest human self-recorder, in spite of the fact that:

nothing is so foreign to my mode of writing than extended narration [narration estendue]. I have to break off so often from shortness of wind that neither the structure of my works nor their development is worth anything at all.

Montaigne writes the unstoried life – the only life that matters, I’m inclined to think. He has no ‘side’, in the colloquial English sense of this term. His honesty, although extreme, is devoid of exhibitionism or sentimentality (St Augustine and Rousseau compare unfavourably). He seeks self-knowledge in radically unpremeditated life-writing, addressing his writing-paper ‘exactly as I do the first person I meet’. He knows his memory is hopelessly untrustworthy, and he concludes that the fundamental lesson of self-knowledge is knowledge of self-ignorance.

Once one is on the lookout for comments on memory, one finds them everywhere. There is a constant discord of opinion. I think the British writer James Meek is accurate when he describes Light Years(1975) by the American novelist James Salter:

Salter strips out the narrative transitions and explanations and contextualisations, the novelistic linkages that don’t exist in our actual memories, to leave us with a set of remembered fragments, some bright, some ugly, some bafflingly trivial, that don’t easily connect and can’t be put together as a whole, except in the sense of chronology, and in the sense that they are all that remains.

Meek takes it that this is true of everyone, and it is perhaps the most common case. Salter in Light Years finds a matching disconnection in life itself: ‘There is no complete life. There are only fragments. We are born to have nothing, to have it pour through our hands.’

And this, again, is a common experience:

Examine for a moment an ordinary mind on an ordinary day. The mind receives a myriad impressions – trivial, fantastic, evanescent, or engraved with the sharpness of steel. From all sides they come, an incessant shower of innumerable atoms; as they fall, as they shape themselves into the life of Monday or Tuesday, the accent falls differently from of old; the moment of importance came not here but there; so that, if a writer were a free man and not a slave, if he could write what he chose, not what he must, if he could base his work upon his own feeling and not upon convention, there would be no plot, no comedy, no tragedy, no love interest or catastrophe in the accepted style, and perhaps not a single button sewn on as the Bond Street tailors would have it. Life is not a series of gig lamps symmetrically arranged; life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end.

It’s hard to work out the full consequences of this passage from the essay‘Modern Fiction’ (1921) by Virginia Woolf. What is certain is that there are rehearsers and composers among us, people who not only naturally story their recollections, but also their lives as they are happening. But when the English dramatist Sir Henry Taylor observed in 1836 that ‘an imaginative man is apt to see, in his life, the story of his life; and is thereby led to conduct himself in such a manner as to make a good story of it rather than a good life’, he’s identifying a fault, a moral danger. This is a recipe for inauthenticity. And if the narrativists are right and such self-storying impulses are in fact universal, we should worry.

Fortunately, they’re not right. There are people who are wonderfully and movingly plodding and factual in their grasp of their pasts. It’s an ancient view that people always remember their own pasts in a way that puts them in a good light, but it’s just not true. The Dutch psychologist Willem Wagenaar makes the point in his paper ‘Is Memory Self-Serving?’ (1994), as does Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich on his deathbed.

In his poem ‘Continuing to Live’ (1954), Philip Larkin claims that ‘in time/We half-identify the blind impress/All our behavings bear’. The narrativists think that this is an essentially narrative matter, an essentially narrative construal of the form of our lives. But many of us don’t get even as far as Larkinian half-identification, and we have at best bits and pieces, rather than a story.

We’re startled by Larkin’s further claim that ‘once you have walked the length of your mind, what/You command is clear as a lading-list’, for we find, even in advanced age, that we still have no clear idea of what we command. I for one have no clear sense of who or what I am. This is not because I want to be like Montaigne, or because I’ve read Socrates on ignorance, or Nietzsche on skins in Untimely Meditations (1876):

How can man know himself? He is a dark and veiled thing; and whereas the hare has seven skins, the human being can shed seven times 70 skins and still not be able to say: ‘This is really you, this is no longer an outer shell.’ (translation modified)

The passage continues:

Besides, it is an agonizing, dangerous undertaking to dig down into yourself in this way, to force your way by the shortest route down the shaft of your own being. How easy it is to do damage to yourself that no doctor can heal. And moreover, why should it be necessary, since everything – our friendships and hatreds, the way we look, our handshakes, the things we remember and forget, our books, our handwriting – bears witness to our being.

I can’t, however, cut off this quotation here, because it continues in a way that raises a doubt about my position:

But there is a means by which this absolutely crucial enquiry can be carried out. Let the young soul look back upon its life and ask itself: what until now have you truly loved, what has drawn out your soul, what has commanded it and at the same time made it happy? Line up these objects of reverence before you, and perhaps by what they are and by their sequence, they will yield you a law, the fundamental law of your true self.

‘Perhaps by what they are… they will yield the fundamental law of your true self.’ This claim is easy to endorse. It’s Marcel Proust’s greatest insight. Albert Camus sees it, too. But Nietzsche is more specific: ‘perhaps by what they are and by their sequence, they will yield… the fundamental law of your true self.’ Here it seems I must either disagree with Nietzsche or concede something to the narrativists: the possible importance of grasping the sequence in progressing towards self-understanding.

I concede it. Consideration of the sequence – the ‘narrative’, if you like – might be important for some people in some cases. For most of us, however, I think self-knowledge comes best in bits and pieces. Nor does this concession yield anything to the sweeping view with which I began, the view – in Sacks’s words – that all human life is life-writing, that ‘each of us constructs and lives a “narrative”, and that ‘this narrative is us’.

[aion-rsa]

Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, and the Legacy of Ninja Movies

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This article contains Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins spoilers.

It’s been a long time since we’ve been to the movies and an even longer time since we’ve seen a ninja flick on the big screen. Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins is a dazzling return to the underrated ninja genre – a breakout premiere in the shadow of the pandemic. 

Ninja films rarely earn a theatrical showing anymore. They are pigeon-holed as B-grade movie fodder, and justifiably so. Back in the 1980, ninja films proliferated when second and third-run movie theaters ruled. Campy, low budget ninja pictures were popular fare there back then, right alongside slasher films and teen sex comedies. But with the advent of home entertainment, those cheap flea-ridden theater seats atop soda-sticky floors are long gone. Nowadays, most new ninja films go straight to streaming so to see one on the big screen is quite a treat for fans of the genre.

Above and beyond the G.I. Joe franchise, Snake Eyes rides on the cloak tails of a massive colorful genre (even if that color is mostly black splattered with sanguineous red). In Japan, ninja films are part of their venerated cinematic category known as Jidai-geki, or “period dramas.” Silent Japanese movies about ninjas can be found as early as the 1910s – silent like Snake Eyes himself. 

Ninjas still proliferate Japanese cinema, especially in anime. Who can deny the impact of Naruto? And as anyone who has seen it knows – Batman Ninja is an uncommon treat of an anime mash-up. There are literally hundreds of Japanese ninja films – anime, classic historical, modern depictions, tokusatsu stories, even a whole sub-genre of erotic ninja films. 

And ninja movies are still popular in Japan. In 2019, director Yoshitaka Yamaguchi delivered his highly regarded dual ninja films, Last Ninja: Red Shadow and Last Ninja: Blue Shadow. Like Snake Eyes, that was a creation story circling around a ninja rivalry. 

Early Hollywood Ninja Movies

The immigration of ninjas to Hollywood goes back to none other than James Bond. In 1967, You Only Live Twice introduced Bond (Sean Connery in his final appearance as 007 in an Eon Production) to a clan of ninja accomplices. The film marked a significant departure from Ian Fleming’s original novel. You Only Live Twice was the conclusion of Fleming’s “Blofeld trilogy” where Bond finally gets revenge on his arch nemesis and murderer of his bride. Bond finally tracks down Blofeld in Japan, hiding in his “Garden of Death,” a restored castle surrounded by poisonous plants, and dispatches him in a brutal sword fight. 

The movie script was written by children’s book author Roald Dahl, who pirated the plot of the second book of the Blofeld trilogy, Thunderball, in which SPECTRE steals a missile, but instead of atomic bombs, it’s a manned spacecraft. In retrospect, it felt right to have Her Majesty’s top assassin introduce Japan’s elite killers to Western audiences. 

In 1975, celebrated action director Sam Peckinpah reintroduced Western audiences to ninjas in Killer Elite. James Caan and Robert Duvall play former covert operative partners, Mike Locken and George Hansen. Again akin to Snake Eyes, Locken and Hansen are split by a vengeance-filled rivalry. Hansen is in cahoots with a ninja clan, led by Negato Toku, played by renowned real-life Karate master Takayuki Kubota. Kubota invented a popular self-defense keychain that he dubbed Kubotan and instructed many celebrities, notably Martin Kove who plays Kreese in Cobra Kai. Sadly, Peckinpah succumbed to cocaine during production and Killer Elite is regarded by many critics as his worst film. 

The 1980s: The Golden Age of Ninja Movies

The addition of Snake Eyes into the G.I. Joe universe came as a reboot of the toys that reflected the times. Originally G.I. Joe dolls were 12” military figures that were introduced in the 1960s. These were reality-based figures, each emulating the authentic uniforms and gear of U.S. armed forces. In 1982, the toy line was rebooted at 3 ¼” scale, the same size as the popular Star Wars figures introduced in the late 70s. 

These new G.I. Joe came out with an accompanying marketing plan that included a simultaneous comic series from Marvel that revealed the rivalry between the “Real American Hero” G.I. Joe team and the villainous terrorist organization known as Cobra. The campaign was so successful that the first animated G.I. Joe TV show came out the following year. 

And at the movies, the great ninja wave began with Chuck Norris’ 1980 flick The Octagon. Regarded as one of his stronger films, Norris played Scott James, a retired Karate champion, who has to face his rival half-brother, the ninja terrorist Seikura, played by another renowned Karate master, Tadashi Yamashita. Yamashita is credited as the man who taught Bruce Lee how to use his signature nunchaku. Norris opened the door for the ninja invasion of the ‘80s with The Octagon, as well as inspired the UFC’s trademarked octagonal ring, The Octagon, which has become a hallmark of the brand.

Following Norris’ lead, Sho Kosugi emerged as the leading ninja in grindhouse cinema. He starred in a series of ninja films beginning in 1981 with his preposterous yet entertaining “Ninja Trilogy,”  Enter the Ninja, Revenge of the Ninja, and my personal favorite, Ninja III: The Domination (although most feel his 1985 film Pray for Death which falls outside the trilogy was his ninja masterpiece). 

The other leading ninja franchise of the eighties was the American Ninja pentalogy. Michael Dudikoff played Private Joe Armstrong in a franchise which echoed the paramilitary ninja connection from G.I. Joe. In the first film, Armstrong faced the Black Star Ninja, seeing Tadashi Yamashita once again playing a ninja baddie. 

Dudikoff was an exception to the rule that ninja film leads must have a martial arts background. However he was athletic and a quick study, and became a dedicated practitioner from his involvement with the franchise. Dudikoff starred in three of American Ninja films. He skipped American Ninja 3: Blood Hunt because he didn’t want to get typecast as a martial arts actor and was anti-apartheid (it was filmed in South Africa). He returned for American Ninja 4: The Annihilation but didn’t appear in American Ninja V. Both Kosugi’s films and American Ninja franchise were produced by that goliath grindhouse of the eighties, Cannon Films. They made ample bank slinging ninja films back then.

The ‘80s ninja craze helped inspire G.I. Joe’s Snake Eyes, and he quickly rose to become a favorite character. The pivotal G.I. Joe comic issue #21, “Silent Interlude,” was published in 1984 (coincidentally the same year the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic was released). This was one of the first modern comics to be told entirely without word bubbles. It helped set the tone of silence for Snake Eyes’ character. That issue also marked the first appearance of Storm Shadow. 

As with all comic-to-cinema characters, Snake Eyes has several incarnations, depending upon which story you follow. In the comic canon, Snake Eyes suffers a horrible helicopter crash while saving Scarlett’s life. His face is burned and he loses his voice, something very different than what we see on screen in Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins. 

Meanwhile, Hong Kong was getting into the action by infusing Kung Fu movies with ninjas. Leading the charge was the ultimate martial arts rivalry between China and Japan, 1978’s Challenge of the Ninja (a.k.a. Heroes of the East) in 1978, Veteran Kung Fu star Gordon Liu played Ho Tao, who must match his skills against his Japanese bride’s family. Got ninjas? According to Liu, the solution is scattering your yard with peanut shells! 

In a savvy move for those times, Challenge of the Ninja depicts the Japanese respectfully instead of as caricatured villains, with the exception of the ninja who Ho declares to be dishonorable. Challenge of the Ninja is widely considered as one of the all-time best Kung Fu films and in its wake, dozens more ninja films came out in Hong Kong and Taiwan.  

In 1982, the legendary Kung Fu grindhouse Shaw Brothers studios delivered the outrageously imaginative Five Elements Ninjas, directed by the legendary Chang Cheh who dominated the Kung Fu film genre with his gloriously bloody epics. 

The last major ninja film that was released theatrically in the United States was Ninja Assassin in 2009 (coincidentally the same year that G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra came out). It was James McTeigue’s second directorial effort following V for Vendetta, and starred K-pop singer and dancer, Rain. For ninja fans, it had a fitting homage by casting Sho Kosugi as the villain. Ninja Assassin was Kosugi’s final theatrical film role to date. The film hoped to continue as a new ninja franchise, and although it was profitable, it failed to attract enough of a following to warrant a sequel. 

The Rise of Snake Eyes

It’s a bold move for Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins to premiere exclusively in theaters. Not even Black Widow was so daring with the Delta variant looming. As theaters reopen, it seems telling that several of the first theatrical films coming out are about stealthy martial arts masters. 

You could argue that Natasha Romanoff is an MCU ninja (Elektra is the real Marvel ninja but Jennifer Garner’s film doesn’t count in the MCU “sacred timeline”). You could also argue that Mortal Kombat is a ninja movie. Both have black clad assassins wielding martial arts weapons. 

However Snake Eyes is a pure ninja film, unabashed and unapologetic in its style and gratuitousness. Regardless of its G.I. Joe origins, the Joes are peripheral. Snake Eyes evades that with a glorious reboot, shifting away from the canon established in the previous two live-action G.I. Joe films and forging its own path.

Snake Eyes is Hasbro’s Batman Begins. It’s a completely novel creation story for the characters that defies what the film franchise has already established. The origin story of Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow was already told in the first film, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. While not the central tale, it was a significant story arc that forecasted how the ninjas would eventually eclipse the Joe’s paramilitary characters in popularity. 

In Paramount’s previous G.I. Joe films, Wushu champion Ray Park played the silent Snake Eyes, and taekwondo practitioner Lee Byung-hun was Storm Shadow. Byung-hun is constantly twirling a shuriken like a fidget-spinner, predating the 2017 fad by eight years. Park never speaks or shows his face, in character with the Snake Eyes of the comics. Their teacher the Hard Master is played by another real life martial arts master Gerald Okamura. 

The sequel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation added another ninja, Kim Arashikage, a.k.a. Jinx, played by Elodie Yung, a black belt in Karate. Yung went on to play Elektra in Netflix’s Daredevil. The standout act was a thrilling ninja battle while rappelling down a Himalayan cliffside. That show-stopping scene put the sequel above the original film, especially if you saw it in 3D IMAX. In a sneaky way, the ninja story arc creeps up on the G.I. Joe films from behind, and now it’s all about those ninjas. 

Bringing Ninjas Back

Compared to the CGI bombast of the earlier two films, Snake Eyes has cool cinematic style, bathed in Tokyo neon and split with flashing katana blades. And when it comes to action, it cuts quickly to the chase. Like any good ninja flick, there’s just enough plot to get to the next sword fight, no more, no less. And in contrast to previous outings, Snake Eyes tells a completely different origin story for the mysterious Snake Eyes. 

In this reboot, Snake Eyes (Henry Golding) and Thomas Arashikage (Andrew Koji) meet as adults, not as children. The Hard Master is played by Iko Uwais, a genuine master of the Indonesian martial art of Silat. A practitioner of Taekwondo and Shaolin Kung Fu, Koji best known as Ah Sahm, the lead role in the Bruce Lee inspired Cinemax series Warrior. 

Like Dudikoff decades ago, Golding had no martial arts background prior to accepting the role. Once he landed it, the Crazy Rich Asians star spent four hours a day training with the stunt team in preparation. 

With the exception of Golding, the casting of genuine martial arts practitioners underscores a critical element in ninja films. Ninja films are about martial arts fights. No matter how good the story and acting might be, a ninja film fails if it doesn’t bring great action. Consequently for a ninja film to work, it needs a cast with a genuine martial arts background. 

Golding makes up for his lack of skills with his smoldering screen presence, but much credit must be given to the film’s fight coordinator, Kenji Tanigaki. Tanigaki is one of Asia’s top choreographers who has been in the business since the mid ‘90s. Just prior to Snake Eyes, he oversaw the action on Donnie Yen’s last two films, Enter the Fat Dragon and Big Brother, and completed two more installments of the five-part samurai manga-turned-movie series Rurouni Kenshin. 

Snake Eyes is poised to spin off into its own franchise. The end credits scene with Storm Shadow declaring his new identity to the Baroness (Úrsula Corberó) was hardly a surprise to anyone, but it teased the possibility of a sequel. Back in May 2020, Paramount and Hasbro were in negotiations with Joe Shrapnel and Anna Waterhouse to write the script, but then the world plunged into the pandemic and no more developments have been announced at this writing. Will the sequel be Snake Eyes’ The Dark Knight? For ninja fans all over the world, we can only hope. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins is now playing in theaters.

The post Snake Eyes, Storm Shadow, and the Legacy of Ninja Movies appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3eR6QFv