#social worker in the horse was also one

[apas-95]

???

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus value. The labourer produces, not for themself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that they should simply produce. They must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolteacher is a productive labourer, when, in addition to belabouring the heads of their scholars, they work like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out their capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value.

.- Ch. 16, Das Kapital, Marx (emphasis mine)

Every productive worker is a wage labourer; but this does not mean that every wage labourer is a productive worker. [...] A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, she is to that extent a wage-labourer or merchant. But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker, since she produces capital directly. […] In both cases the worker is a wage labourer or a day labourer, but in the first case he is a productive worker, in the second an unproductive one, because in the first case he produces capital, in the second case he does not

.- Draft Ch. 6, Das Kapital, Marx (emphasis in bold mine)

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital

.- Principles of Communism, Engels

So, firstly, productive labour is not specifically that labour which produces a physical product, it is, in fact, that labour which expands and enriches capital - which produces surplus value for the capitalist. Secondly, it is not the production of surplus value that defines whether one exists as a proletarian, it is the relationship towards capital, which is to say, owning none, owning only ones own labour-power.

[dr-goatman]

my first thought when i woke up this morning was "if hannibal and will werent insane they would be so adorably domestic, however would also be so violently autistic you would wish they were insane" and i think thats beautiful

my 2nd thought was, of course "i love how when that one guy put the social worker in the horse, out of will and hannibal, hannibal looked the most suprised and disturbed"

i rarely think in full sentences so this is great!

[quotesfrommyreading]

In the terrible winter of 1932–33, brigades of Communist Party activists went house to house in the Ukrainian countryside, looking for food. The brigades were from Moscow, Kyiv, and Kharkiv, as well as villages down the road. They dug up gardens, broke open walls, and used long rods to poke up chimneys, searching for hidden grain. They watched for smoke coming from chimneys, because that might mean a family had hidden flour and was baking bread. They led away farm animals and confiscated tomato seedlings. After they left, Ukrainian peasants, deprived of food, ate rats, frogs, and boiled grass. They gnawed on tree bark and leather. Many resorted to cannibalism to stay alive. Some 4 million died of starvation.

At the time, the activists felt no guilt. Soviet propaganda had repeatedly told them that supposedly wealthy peasants, whom they called kulaks, were saboteurs and enemies—rich, stubborn landowners who were preventing the Soviet proletariat from achieving the utopia that its leaders had promised. The kulaks should be swept away, crushed like parasites or flies. Their food should be given to the workers in the cities, who deserved it more than they did. Years later, the Ukrainian-born Soviet defector Viktor Kravchenko wrote about what it was like to be part of one of those brigades. “To spare yourself mental agony you veil unpleasant truths from view by half-closing your eyes—and your mind,” he explained. “You make panicky excuses and shrug off knowledge with words like exaggeration and hysteria.”

He also described how political jargon and euphemisms helped camouflage the reality of what they were doing. His team spoke of the “peasant front” and the “kulak menace,” “village socialism” and “class resistance,” to avoid giving humanity to the people whose food they were stealing. Lev Kopelev, another Soviet writer who as a young man had served in an activist brigade in the countryside (later he spent years in the Gulag), had very similar reflections. He too had found that clichés and ideological language helped him hide what he was doing, even from himself:

I persuaded myself, explained to myself. I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We were realizing historical necessity. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining grain for the socialist fatherland. For the five-year plan.

There was no need to feel sympathy for the peasants. They did not deserve to exist. Their rural riches would soon be the property of all.

But the kulaks were not rich; they were starving. The countryside was not wealthy; it was a wasteland. This is how Kravchenko described it in his memoirs, written many years later:

Large quantities of implements and machinery, which had once been cared for like so many jewels by their private owners, now lay scattered under the open skies, dirty, rusting and out of repair. Emaciated cows and horses, crusted with manure, wandered through the yard. Chickens, geese and ducks were digging in flocks in the unthreshed grain.

That reality, a reality he had seen with his own eyes, was strong enough to remain in his memory. But at the time he experienced it, he was able to convince himself of the opposite. Vasily Grossman, another Soviet writer, gives these words to a character in his novel Everything Flows:

I’m no longer under a spell, I can see now that the kulaks were human beings. But why was my heart so frozen at the time? When such terrible things were being done, when such suffering was going on all around me? And the truth is that I truly didn’t think of them as human beings. “They’re not human beings, they’re kulak trash”—that’s what I heard again and again, that’s what everyone kept repeating.

  —  Ukraine and the Words That Lead to Mass Murder

[honestlyboringperson]

Team BEST in the Persona 5 AU! Skizz looks like utter dogshit because I can’t draw muscles! Sorry Skizz!

Also yes, Etho’s outfit is partially based on @/spell-struck’s Arcana Swap AU design for Yusuke. Go check it out! Their designs are amazing.

Again, More Information is under the cut.

Southlanders

The Scottage + Gem

Fairy Fort

Magical Mountain + Cub

Bdubs - “Scout” - The Lovers Arcana - Peter Pan/Orobas

A man of short stature and an even shorter fuse, Bdubs is a college student pursuing a degree in architecture and is known for his dubious ability to immediately know what field someone should go into. Be it art, film, or even just mathematics, his judgement is never wrong which led him to be recruited into a local theatre troupe to help with casting members to roles. This causes him to befriend a certain young prodigy actor who specializes in theatrically heroic protagonists and bombastically charismatic villains.

His persona is Peter Pan who is a famous pop culture character. Peter Pan is known for his devil may care attitude and his claims of greatness. His abilities allow himself and others to fly, and in this AU, Bdubs is known for uplifting others with both his scouting abilities and work as a phantom thief. Bdubs is also quite boastful, also fitting with Peter Pan’s character.

His Ultimate Persona is Orobas, a Great Prince of Hell and a Goetic Demon. He is the patron of horses, and gives power and control over others. He also can protect people from evil spirits and is clairvoyant. No wonder Bdubs “Horsegirl Supreme” got this guy as his ultimate persona.

Etho - “Shade” - The Hanged Man Arcana - Arahabaki/Inari-Okami

Etho is a mysterious college student known throughout the campus as being aloof, quiet, and even possibly dangerous. Those close to him know he’s just socially awkward. At a young age, he is known for his inventions in engineering and was presented with several scholarships to several prestigious institutions across the city. Unfortunately, he is horrendously bad at anything that isn’t engineering, with his apartment in shambles and his diet mostly consisting of energy drinks and a wide variety of instant ramen.

Arahabaki is a Japanese god of uncertain origin, with this particular portrayal & the one in the Shin Megami Tensei franchise being mainly inspired by the forgery by Tsugaru Soto-Sangunshi. They are a symbol of treachery, rebellion, and heresy after Emperor Jimmu found his enemy Nagasunehiko worshipped him.

Inari Okami is the kami of foxes, fertility, rice, tea, and general worldly success. They are the reason several shrines in Japan have fox statues and they are known for their ability to shapeshift. Their entourage was made up of pure white kitsune, categorized as “zenko” as opposed to the malicious “yako” kitsune.

Skizz - “Knight” - The Justice Arcana - Templar/Heracles

Skizz is Impulse’s best friend and former police officer. He currently works as a construction worker, but helps Impulse with his smithing business. He was fired after directly opposing the corruption that began to spread throughout the city’s police force, and his name was slandered. Despite these tragedies, he keeps a goofy and cheerful demeanour throughout his days. Despite no longer being in the police force, he will not overlook anything he sees as harmful.

Templar, full name Simon Templar is a Robin Hood figure coined “The Saint”. His calling card consists of a stick figure with a halo, and said calling cards were often given to corrupt politicians, warmongers, and other similar low-lives. He was described as “a buccaneer in the suits of Savile Row, amused, cool, debonair, with hell for leather blue eyes, and a saintly smile.”

Heracles is a famed Roman hero, and is considered the god of strength and heroes. He is most known for his tale of the twelve labours, wherein he completes twelve labours set by King Eurystheus to atone for killing his family after Hera makes him temporarily lose his mind. These tasks were aided by his allies and finished with a combination of strength, trickery, and camaraderie.

Tango - “Blaze” - The Magician Arcana - Guy Fawkes/Nimrod

Tango is a popular novelist and D&D master, known for his works in the fantasy horror novel franchise “Decked Out”. Although the original novels were made to satisfy his own desire to tell a compelling story, he becomes severely creatively blocked and is unable to keep up with the demands of his fans. After joining, he’s trying to start fresh with a new franchise, and is currently looking for inspiration for a new novel with the help of Jimmy.

Guy Fawkes is a key figure behind the infamous & controversial Gunpowder Plot. The Gunpowder Plot was a planned regicide, with several barrels of gunpowder being hidden within or near the House of Parliament, with Guy Fawkes being in charge of the explosives. The plan was to blow up the Parliament with the King James I inside and instate a Catholic monarch to the throne. Despite the motives being questionable, the plan failed and all the offenders, Guy Fawkes include were executed for treason. Today, in celebration of the king’s survival and the failure of the plan or simply enjoying the festivities, Bonfire Night was created, with several bonfires, fireworks, and other similar events taking place.

Nimrod is the architect of the Tower of Babel and is known as a king who rebelled against god themselves. The Tower of Babel was intended to reach towards the heavens, but God struck it down and changed the language of the people so they could no longer understand each other and scatters them across the earth.

[verdemoun]

I wonder, how's Kieran doing, from the side of his neurodivergency? Was it diagnosed? Does he get support? An AAC perhaps, seeing as the poor guy's semi-verbal? How'd the rest of the gang accept it? I'M JUST SO CURIOUS ABOUT HIM I AM HOLDING HIM I AM SHAKING HIM LIKE A TOY HOW IS HE HANDLING HIS NEURODIVERGENCY

I am so normal about Kieran

You come into my house, the certified kieran duffy hyperfixation page, ask about my blorbo, my boy, the sole reason why RDR2 has infected my brain and completely changed my ability to engage with any other form of media, while also addressing my special interest of neurodivergence as a fellow brain wonk and career disability support worker all while finishing with the line 'I am so normal about Kieran'? Like shit I mean can I take you out for dinner?? Marry me maybe??

I am also so normal about Kieran

kieran duffy is autistic thank you goodnight!

no i will write a 2k word essay. kieran is pretty mid-spectrum (brief pause to acknowledge spectrum language lowkey outdated and problematic but no universally accepted alternative) he has chronic anxiety and mild aversion to eye contact, misses a lot of social cues, is hyper fixation central, but executive function-wise if he had spent his whole life in any one time period he would have been a-okay at being independent with some adaptive strategies

side tangent literally the first conversation he has with mary beth is so autistic he completely misses a rhetorical question, happily answers it, and then jumps straight into 'you're very pretty'. he apologizes for being forward he can and does acknowledge social conventions but just autistic brain does not understand why. is aware his brain is not wonking in the same direction as other people's brains.

but so. many. common sensory issues are a direct result of advances in technology. sure in 1899 wanting to cover your ears during a gunfight is a minor disadvantage but you know what isn't?? having every instinct in your body tell you to run away from the overwhelming loud noises. it took more effort to go into a city than to avoid them. going from horses, campfires and comfortably worn in clothing to the constant noise of cars, searing of artificial lights and synthetic fabric with clothes tags? bad time. Bad Time.

the real big issue for kieran in timewarp au is the c-ptsd autism combo meal. in general, buddy's got trauma. very clearly articulates how bad being an o'driscoll was physically and mentally. his intro is literally colm grabbing his collar and slapping him. gets starved and threatened with genital mutilation and still begs to stay with the VDLs because he hates colm. talks about the absolute power and control colm has. anxious whimpers telling arthur he saw o'driscolls riding around. it ain't just hate he is terrified of colm. you ever have a hypothetical anxiety situation become real and feel that knot of dread as your skin turns cold? knowing your literal worst nightmare was unfolding. and in this case, worse than he imagined. yeah. that's what it would've been like when kieran got taken at shady belle. immediately knowing he wasn't going to survive. only thing he could do is make sure he protected the VDLs and he instead he talked. it's canon kieran talked, whether tortured or manipulated into talking he did. first people to treat him decent, people he considered friends, and he died feeling like he betrayed them.

timewarp means dying. memories of dying. personally hc eye gauging was first but even - being beheaded. intentional deliberate time taken to make a show of it and inflict maximum psychological torment knowing what's going to happen opposed to the immediate bang and bullet of being shot. already autistic chronic anxiety man helpless to stop what's about to happen. i wonder if he thought the VDLs would care enough to try to rescue him and tried to hold onto that faint belief or if he immediately knew he meant so little they wouldn't? he died as he lived - alone.

only to immediately be thrown into modern era. fending for himself for approx a month before the gang stumble across him. with those memories being recent. with the overstimulation of suddenly being thrown into modern era saint denis. he is a homeless autistic man with no idea where he is what's happening what is a car why are they so loud why are street lights so bright and he just went through literally dying. having all his anxieties and the memories of the pain of whatever he went through with the o'driscolls. and the guilt? he is so terrified of the consequences of talking and betraying the gang that he literally runs from lenny and hosea when they first find him in timewarp. a month of starving, surviving on loose change and corner store coffee and occasional apple he may have picked out of a bin and still chooses to run because he's so completely traumatized by being taken/betraying the gang.

it's a lot more ptsd and that anxiety around 'i talked' that lead to semi-verbalism with autism reinforcing it opposed to the other way around. it only takes a few days of gentle encouragement + food + safe warm place to sleep (first time since long before even riding with the o'driscolls) for kieran to get comfortable with nods or the occasional one word response and most of the gang are happy to leave it there because they get he's been through a Lot. lenny and hosea saw what happened to him. hosea carried his decapitated head to his grave. they're all struggling and learning to adapt to modern era. kieran locking himself in a room for a week, flinching at any noise or touch like he's been scalded just seems reasonable after what he's gone through.

except despite being stray dog starved he's still picking at meals obviously only eating the meat and veggies which he has always done so they don't really think to mention it. and he doesn't really start settling in. he just. sits in room. might tremble into the kitchen like a wee lamb at 2am when he thinks everyone's asleep, grab an apple and vanish back to his room. gang increasingly confused because kieran is completely avoiding eye contact but clearly listening, answering questions as he stares in horror at the dishwasher no matter how many times they've explained it and let him like try to figure it out realise it isn't some sort of torture device. but maybe he was always like that how many actually talked to him??

resident tech lad lenny tries showing him a basic AAC app but having to remember to 1. charge phone 2. use phone 3. open app 4. scroll until finding image that probably means what he wants because he can't read 5. click button until gang charades out whole sentence is a lot of steps compared to just fidgeting/staring until someone asks the right question. it gets frustrating because he knows the complete sentence is 'hi sean what's the deal with you always bringing home pizzas also is there any way you could please bring home the one that's plain cheese again??' but he can't read so it's just guessing based on images 'sean why pizza? please pizza cheese' when he uses the AAC. instead he can eat his cheesy pizza, make a point of getting sean's attention, point at pizza, nod and get the point of 'i really like cheesy pizza please can you get more' across all while still chewing.

bessie, who is a history professor and absolutely talks to autistic people on a daily basis is embarrassed how long it takes her to realize hey wait kieran is a) only leaving his room at times where sensory load is reduced b) stimming to soothe when confronted with something new or higher anxiety than usual and c) only has multiple syllable conversations about horses and fishing. he went from terrified rabbit to genuinely excited to be talking about those things only to shut down immediately again when the conversation shifted or something happened that spooked him. she introduces him to noise cancelling headphones, slowly, gently explaining what they are, giving him multiple options to say no because still a new weird sensation but the relief is instant. kieran looked around, realized he couldn't hear damned buzzing and cars and just beamed leg bouncing in sheer excited relieved joy.

it's a lot more figuring out what works for kieran through trial and error because the gang have not heard of autism and don't really get it despite bessie's best efforts to explain. sean absolutely hit her with the 'wouldn't that make everyone autistic??' and she snapped back 'wOuLDn'T tHaT mAKe EveRYoNe iRiSH'. but they're all going through adapting to modern era and can empathize pretty well with how overwhelming a lot of the modern era is. electricity does have a noise most people get used to but every single one of the timewarpers went through a phase of looking over their shoulder in mild irritation because it's constant until their brains learned to filter the sound. kieran won't and wears headphones to cope with it? sure thing that makes sense!

trauma brain is desperate for assurances of safety by avoiding triggers (loud or new noises, green clothing, strangers, anything unfamiliar=dangerous) while autism brain is screaming safety is found in routine so that becomes a very important thing. with no horses to look after his routine is very much watch tv, do gardening, help out around house because feeling helpful is a dopamine hit for him. it's a lot of letting him do things at his own pace because he is a people pleaser and will do anything if he thinks he is being useful even at his own expense. but 'being helpful' goal setting a really easy way to gently expand his comfort zone. grocery shopping was withdrawn meltdown inducing but the second he has a job like being asked to push the trolley he will merrily shop for hours because he's just focusing on one task. brain suddenly content ignoring things that would otherwise be overwhelming, and once all the neurodivergency in his brain decides grocery shopping is not a potentially fatal experience he's suddenly wandering aisles picking up things they forgot or content going to the grocery store alone because he wanted a specific thing.

after catching kieran self-medicating anxiety with alcohol they do go through the process of at least getting him on SSRIs which is a lot easier than going through the process of a full diagnosis of adult autism but it's already a footnote in his medical file because it's pretty clear to anyone with an ounce of neurodivergent awareness that he is textbook autistic. and honestly modern era for kieran: it's not better or worse than canon for his particular brand of autism but definitely different. he's actually more comfortable around people in general because the odds of running into someone who has committed murder is a lot lower than it was in outlaw circles. because of supports like noise-cancelling and sensory toys he's more curious about things that would have made him want to tear his flesh off his bones in the past. genuinely enjoys when the gang decide to catch the train somewhere vs the heart attack the idea would've been in 1899. instead of needing to retreat and stim and be alone he will catch himself getting distressed over something (it's sean putting away dishes with reckless abandon) and pull on a weighted blanket and be at peace again. still would rather be in 1899 taking care of horses because there was less things to get used to but he can get comfortable with new things and actually find new things he enjoys

plus the gang do genuinely care about him. it started as crippling guilt of not realizing he was taken by the o'driscolls until horsemen apocalypses but they almost all come around to him being a really pleasant guy and are more than glad to support whenever he needs it. like hosea will merrily encourage an infodump because he also really enjoys fishing. in a sad but wholesome way the gang don't really notice how neurodivergent he is because they just didn't pay enough attention to him in canon era to see how the manifestations of autism have changed. just yeah there's duffy he don't talk a whole lot but do not ask him about seasonal fishing unless you have 3 hours to spare. do not go into his room that is his space he has hosea's permission to react violently to people messing with his things and the whole posse will rain hellfire upon anyone who takes his snacks without replacing them.

with it being clear kieran is not the biggest fan of the AAC lenny learns and helps teach kieran basic ASL so on less verbal days he can still ask for things and join in instead of getting frustrated with himself. most of the people he regularly hangs out with know enough words for it to be insanely helpful. his most used 'sign' is flipping people off. the gang's whiplash actually getting to know more of his personality as he feels safer around them than he ever did in 1899?? he might be a gentle buffoon but he is also a sass gremlin. arthur complains once about it being the 17th time kieran has watched spirit stallion of the cimarron and kieran sweetly threatens to reverse saving his life if arthur tries to reach for the remote again. he'll join in making fun of lenny and sean for how obviously they are simping for each other.

[outsidersheadcanons]

Hiya! Could i get job head canons for the gang? (Not the jobs they already have, jobs you could see them having!) That's all, thanks! (BTW my home page is 99% your posts!!! 🥰)

Ofc!! (Sorry for yapping sm 😭 I'll stop using the tags as much bc I post A LOT more frequently than I thought I would oops)

But here u go!!

English teacher Ponyboy. He would be absolutely OBSESSED with the books he assigns, and he'd love teaching poetry (and reading everyone's essays!!) also ik his lessons would be fun asf

Soda isn't academic, but I feel like he'd love being an equine vet! That way he could be around horses all day (and save them too!) realistically tho I think after he worked at the DX he got a job at the old farm he used to work at training horses instead (bc I want him to be happy <3)

(Modern) I can see Dally working retail or in fast food tbh (only places he can work based off his track record tbh). "Welcome to Taco Bell man 😡"

I can see Steve in the military. Maybe he joined the air force or smth to avoid the draft?? But imagine him. Working on planes in a giant hangar or working in air traffic control

I think Darry would be a good social worker or smth in youth services. Someone on here had a hc that he started fostering kids and that's so. in character. Idk if he'd ever have his own family but he really loves helping others.

Johnny would also go into social work to help kids who grew up the way he did (If he survived ☹️).

Two-bit would sell cars when he got older and manage a dealership (and he'd be such a good salesman). Or maybe he could cut hair. Barber Two-bit would be interesting (and he's a good conversationalist so no one would EVER be bored while he did their hair).

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal society?

Like the right-liberalism it is derived from, “anarcho”-capitalism is based on the concept of “harmony of interests” which was advanced by the likes of Frédéric Bastiat in the 19th century and Rothbard’s mentor Ludwig von Mises in the 20th. For Rothbard, “all classes live in harmony through the voluntary exchange of goods and services that mutually benefits them all.” This meant that capitalists and workers have no antagonistic class interests [Classical Economics: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 2, p. 380 and p. 382]

For Rothbard, class interest and conflict does not exist within capitalism, except when it is supported by state power. It was, he asserted, “fallacious to employ such terms as ‘class interests’ or ‘class conflict’ in discussing the market economy.” This was because of two things: “harmony of interests of different groups” and “lack of homogeneity among the interests of any one social class.” It is only in “relation to state action that the interests of different men become welded into ‘classes’.” This means that the “homogeneity emerges from the interventions of the government into society.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 261] So, in other words, class conflict is impossible under capitalism because of the wonderful coincidence that there are, simultaneously, both common interests between individuals and classes and lack of any!

You do not need to be an anarchist or other socialist to see that this argument is nonsense. Adam Smith, for example, simply recorded reality when he noted that workers and bosses have “interests [which] are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter to lower the wages of labour.” [The Wealth of Nations, p. 58] The state, Smith recognised, was a key means by which the property owning class maintained their position in society. As such, it reflects economic class conflict and interests and does not create it (this is not to suggest that economic class is the only form of social hierarchy of course, just an extremely important one). American workers, unlike Rothbard, were all too aware of the truth in Smith’s analysis. For example, one group argued in 1840 that the bosses “hold us then at their mercy, and make us work solely for their profit … The capitalist has no other interest in us, than to get as much labour out of us as possible. We are hired men, and hired men, like hired horses, have no souls.” Thus “their interests as capitalist, and ours as labourers, are directly opposite” and “in the nature of things, hostile, and irreconcilable.” [quoted by Christopher L. Tomlins, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic, p. 10] Then there is Alexander Berkman’s analysis:

“It is easy to understand why the masters don’t want you to be organised, why they are afraid of a real labour union. They know very well that a strong, fighting union can compel higher wages and better conditions, which means less profit for the plutocrats. That is why they do everything in their power to stop labour from organising … “The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength of organised labour. They have persuaded the workers that they have the same interests as the employers … and what is good for the employer is also good for his employees … If your interests are the same as those of your boss, then why should you fight him? That is what they tell you … It is good for the industrial magnates to have their workers believe [this] … [as they] will not think of fighting their masters for better conditions, but they will be patient and wait till the employer can ‘share his prosperity’ with them … If you listen to your exploiters and their mouthpieces you will be ‘good’ and consider only the interests of your masters … but no one cares about your interests … ‘Don’t be selfish,’ they admonish you, while the boss is getting rich by your being good and unselfish. And they laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lord that you are such an idiot. “But … the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No greater lie was ever invented than the so-called ‘identity of interests’ … It is clear that … they are entirely opposite, in fact antagonistic to each other.” [What is Anarchism?, pp. 74–5]

That Rothbard denies this says a lot about the power of ideology.

Rothbard was clear what unions do, namely limit the authority of the boss and ensure that workers keep more of the surplus value they produce. As he put it, unions “attempt to persuade workers that they can better their lot at the expense of the employer. Consequently, they invariably attempt as much as possible to establish work rules that hinder management’s directives … In other words, instead of agreeing to submit to the work orders of management in exchange for his pay, the worker now set up not only minimum wages, but also work rules without which they refuse to work.” This will “lower output.” [The Logic of Action II, p. 40 and p. 41] Notice the assumption, that the income of and authority of the boss are sacrosanct.

For Rothbard, unions lower productivity and harm profits because they contest the authority of the boss to do what they like on their property (apparently, laissez-faire was not applicable for working class people during working hours). Yet this implicitly acknowledges that there are conflicts of interests between workers and bosses. It does not take too much thought to discover possible conflicts of interests which could arise between workers who seek to maximise their wages and minimise their labour and bosses who seek to minimise their wage costs and maximise the output their workers produce. It could be argued that if workers do win this conflict of interests then their bosses will go out of business and so they harm themselves by not obeying their industrial masters. The rational worker, in this perspective, would be the one who best understood that his or her interests have become the same as the interests of the boss because his or her prosperity will depend on how well their firm is doing. In such cases, they will put the interest of the firm before their own and not hinder the boss by questioning their authority. If that is the case, then “harmony of interests” simply translates as “bosses know best” and “do what you are told” — and such obedience is a fine “harmony” for the order giver we are sure!

So the interesting thing is that Rothbard’s perspective produces a distinctly servile conclusion. If workers do not have a conflict of interests with their bosses then, obviously, the logical thing for the employee is to do whatever their boss orders them to do. By serving their master, they automatically benefit themselves. In contrast, anarchists have rejected such a position. For example, William Godwin rejected capitalist private property precisely because of the “spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud” it produced. [An Enquiry into Political Justice, p. 732]

Moreover, we should note that Rothbard’s diatribe against unions also implicitly acknowledges the socialist critique of capitalism which stresses that it is being subject to the authority of boss during work hours which makes exploitation possible (see section C.2). If wages represented the workers’ “marginal” contribution to production, bosses would not need to ensure their orders were followed. So any real boss fights unions precisely because they limit their ability to extract as much product as possible from the worker for the agreed wage. As such, the hierarchical social relations within the workplace ensure that there are no “harmony of interests” as the key to a successful capitalist firm is to minimise wage costs in order to maximise profits. It should also be noted that Rothbard has recourse to another concept “Austrian” economists claims to reject during his anti-union comments. Somewhat ironically, he appeals to equilibrium analysis as, apparently, “wage rates on the non-union labour market will always tend toward equilibrium in a smooth and harmonious manner” (in another essay, he opines that “in the Austrian tradition … the entrepreneur harmoniously adjusts the economy in the direction of equilibrium”). [Op. Cit., p. 41 and p. 234] True, he does not say that the wages will reach equilibrium (and what stops them, unless, in part, it is the actions of entrepreneurs disrupting the economy?) however, it is strange that the labour market can approximate a situation which Austrian economists claim does not exist! However, as noted in section C.1.6 this fiction is required to hide the obvious economic power of the boss class under capitalism.

Somewhat ironically, given his claims of “harmony of interests,” Rothbard was well aware that landlords and capitalists have always used the state to further their interests. However, he preferred to call this “mercentilism” rather than capitalism. As such, it is amusing to read his short article “Mercentilism: A Lesson for Our Times?” as it closely parallels Marx’s classic account of “Primitive Accumulation” contained in volume 1 of Capital. [Rothbard, Op. Cit., pp. 43–55] The key difference is that Rothbard simply refused to see this state action as creating the necessary preconditions for his beloved capitalism nor does it seem to impact on his mantra of “harmony of interests” between classes. In spite of documenting exactly how the capitalist and landlord class used the state to enrich themselves at the expense of the working class, he refuses to consider how this refutes any claim of “harmony of interests” between exploiter and exploited.

Rothbard rightly notes that mercantilism involved the “use of the state to cripple or prohibit one’s competition.” This applies to both foreign capitalists and to the working class who are, of course, competitors in terms of how income is divided. Unlike Marx, he simply failed to see how mercantilist policies were instrumental for building an industrial economy and creating a proletariat. Thus he thunders against mercantilism for “lowering interest rates artificially” and promoting inflation which “did not benefit the poor” as “wages habitually lagged behind the rise in prices.” He describes the “desperate attempts by the ruling classes to coerce wages below their market rates.” Somewhat ironically, given the “anarcho”-capitalist opposition to legal holidays, he noted the mercantilists “dislike of holidays, by which the ‘nation’ was deprived of certain amounts of labour; the desire of the individual worker for leisure was never considered worthy of note.” So why were such “bad” economic laws imposed? Simply because the landlords and capitalists were in charge of the state. As Rothbard notes, “this was clearly legislation for the benefit of the feudal landlords and to the detriment of the workers” while Parliament “was heavily landlord-dominated.” In Massachusetts the upper house consisted “of the wealthiest merchants and landowners.” The mercantilists, he notes but does not ponder, “were frankly interested in exploiting [the workers’] labour to the utmost.” [Op. Cit., p. 44, p. 46, p. 47, p. 51, p. 48, p. 51, p. 47, p. 54 and p. 47] Yet these policies made perfect sense from their class perspective, they were essential for maximising a surplus (profits) which was subsequently invested in developing industry. As such, they were very successful and laid the foundation for the industrial capitalism of the 19th century. The key change between mercantilism and capitalism proper is that economic power is greater as the working class has been successfully dispossessed from the means of life and, as such, political power need not be appealed to as often and can appear, in rhetoric at least, defensive.

Discussing attempts by employers in Massachusetts in 1670 and 1672 to get the state to enforce a maximum wage Rothbard opined that there “seemed to be no understanding of how wages are set in an unhampered market.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, p. 18] On the contrary, dear professor, the employers were perfectly aware of how wages were set in a market where workers have the upper hand and, consequently, sought to use the state to hamper the market. As they have constantly done since the dawn of capitalism as, unlike certain economists, they are fully aware of the truth of “harmony of interests” and acted accordingly. As we document in section F.8, the history of capitalism is filled with the capitalist class using the state to enforce the kind of “harmony of interests” which masters have always sought — obedience. This statist intervention has continued to this day as, in practice, the capitalist class has never totally relied on economic power to enforce its rule due to the instability of the capitalist market — see section C.7 — as well as the destructive effects of market forces on society and the desire to bolster its position in the economy at the expense of the working class — see section D.1. That the history and current practice of capitalism was not sufficient to dispel Rothbard of his “harmony of interests” position is significant. But, as Rothbard was always at pains to stress as a good “Austrian” economist, empirical testing does not prove or disprove a theory and so the history and practice of capitalism matters little when evaluating the pros and cons of that system (unless its history confirms Rothbard’s ideology then he does make numerous empirical statements).

For Rothbard, the obvious class based need for such policies is missing. Instead, we get the pathetic comment that only “certain” merchants and manufacturers “benefited from these mercantilist laws.” [The Logic of Action II, p. 44] He applied this same myopic perspective to “actually existing” capitalism as well, of course, lamenting the use of the state by certain capitalists as the product of economic ignorance and/or special interests specific to the capitalists in question. He simply could not see the forest for the trees. This is hardly a myopia limited to Rothbard. Bastiat formulated his “harmony of interests” theory precisely when the class struggle between workers and capitalists had become a threat to the social order, when socialist ideas of all kinds (including anarchism, which Bastiat explicitly opposed) were spreading and the labour movement was organising illegally due to state bans in most countries. As such, he was propagating the notion that workers and bosses had interests in common when, in practice, it was most obviously the case they had not. What “harmony” that did exist was due to state repression of the labour movement, itself a strange necessity if labour and capital did share interests.

The history of capitalism causes problems within “anarcho”-capitalism as it claims that everyone benefits from market exchanges and that this, not coercion, produces faster economic growth. If this is the case, then why did some individuals reject the market in order to enrich themselves by political means and, logically, impoverish themselves in the long run (and it has been an extremely long run)? And why have the economically dominant class generally also been the ones to control the state? After all, if there are no class interests or conflict then why has the property owning classes always sought state aid to skew the economy in its interests? If the classes did have harmonious interests then they would have no need to bolster their position nor would they seek to. Yet state policy has always reflected the needs of the property-owning elite — subject to pressures from below, of course (as Rothbard rather lamely notes, without pondering the obvious implications, the “peasantry and the urban labourers and artisans were never able to control the state apparatus and were therefore at the bottom of the state-organised pyramid and exploited by the ruling groups.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 1, p. 260]). It is no coincidence that the working classes have not been able to control the state nor that legislation is “grossly the favourer of the rich against the poor.” [William Godwin, Op. Cit., p. 93] They are the ones passing the laws, after all. This long and continuing anti-labour intervention in the market does, though, place Rothbard’s opinion that government is a conspiracy against the superior man in a new light!

So when right-“libertarians” assert that there are “harmony of interests” between classes in an unhampered market, anarchists simply reply by pointing out that the very fact we have a “hampered” market shows that no such thing exists within capitalism. It will be argued, of course, that the right-“libertarian” is against state intervention for the capitalists (beyond defending their property which is a significant use of state power in and of itself) and that their political ideas aim to stop it. Which is true (and why a revolution would be needed to implement it!). However, the very fact that the capitalist class has habitually turned to the state to bolster its economic power is precisely the issue as it shows that the right-“libertarian” harmony of interests (on which they place so much stress as the foundation of their new order) simply does not exist. If it did, then the property owning class would never have turned to the state in the first place nor would it have tolerated “certain” of its members doing so.

If there were harmony of interests between classes, then the bosses would not turn to death squads to kill rebel workers as they have habitually done (and it should be stressed that libertarian union organisers have been assassinated by bosses and their vigilantes, including the lynching of IWW members and business organised death squads against CNT members in Barcelona). This use of private and public violence should not be surprising, for, at the very least, as Mexican anarchist Ricardo Flores Magon noted, there can be no real fraternity between classes “because the possessing class is always disposed to perpetuate the economic, political, and social system that guarantees it the tranquil enjoyment of its plunders, while the working class makes efforts to destroy this iniquitous system.” [Dreams of Freedom, p. 139]

Rothbard’s obvious hatred of unions and strikes can be explained by his ideological commitment to the “harmony of interests.” This is because strikes and the need of working class people to organise gives the lie to the doctrine of “harmony of interests” between masters and workers that apologists for capitalism like Rothbard suggested underlay industrial relations. Worse, they give credibility to the notion that there exists opposed interests between classes. Strangely, Rothbard himself provides more than enough evidence to refute his own dogmas when he investigates state intervention on the market.

Every ruling class seeks to deny that it has interests separate from the people under it. Significantly those who deny class struggle the most are usually those who practice it the most (for example, Mussolini, Pinochet and Thatcher all proclaimed the end of class struggle while, in America, the Republican-right denounces anyone who points out the results of their class war on the working class as advocating “class war”). The elite has long been aware, as Black Nationalist Steve Biko put it, that the “most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” Defenders of slavery and serfdom presented it as god’s will and that the master’s duty was to treat the slave well just as the slave’s duty was to obey (while, of course, blaming the slave if the master did not hold up his side of the covenant). So every hierarchical system has its own version of the “harmony of interests” position and each hierarchical society which replaces the last mocks the previous incarnations of it while, at the same time, solemnly announcing that this society truly does have harmony of interests as its founding principle. Capitalism is no exception, with many economists repeating the mantra that every boss has proclaimed from the dawn of time, namely that workers and their masters have common interests. As usual, it is worthwhile to quote Rothbard on this matter. He (rightly) takes to task a defender of the slave master’s version of “harmony of interests” and, in so doing, exposes the role of economics under capitalism. To quote Rothbard:

“The increasing alienation of the slaves and the servants led … the oligarchy to try to win their allegiance by rationalising their ordeal as somehow natural, righteous, and divine. So have tyrants always tried to dupe their subjects into approving — or at least remaining resigned to — their fate … Servants, according to the emphatically non-servant [Reverend Samuel] Willard, were duty-bound to revere and obey their masters, to serve them diligently and cheerfully, and to be patient and submissive even to the cruellest master. A convenient ideology indeed for the masters! … All the subjects must do, in short, was to surrender their natural born gift of freedom and independence, to subject themselves completely to the whims and commands of others, who could then be blindly trusted to ‘take care’ of them permanently … “Despite the myths of ideology and the threats of the whip, servants and slaves found many ways of protest and rebellion. Masters were continually denouncing servants for being disobedient, sullen, and lazy.” [Conceived in Liberty, vol. 2, pp. 18–19]

Change Reverend Samuel Willard to the emphatically non-worker Professor Murray Rothbard and we have a very succinct definition of the role his economics plays within capitalism. There are differences. The key one was that while Willard wanted permanent servitude, Rothbard sought a temporary form and allowed the worker to change masters. While Willard turned to the whip and the state, Rothbard turned to absolute private property and the capitalist market to ensure that workers had to sell their liberty to the boss class (unsurprisingly, as Willard lived in an economy whose workers had access to land and tools while in Rothbard’s time the class monopolisation of the means of life was complete and workers have little alternative but to sell their liberty to the owning class).

Rothbard did not seek to ban unions and strikes. He argued that his system of absolute property rights would simply make it nearly impossible for unions to organise or for any form of collective action to succeed. Even basic picketing would be impossible for, as Rothbard noted many a time, the pavement outside the workplace would be owned by the boss who would be as unlikely to allow picketing as he would allow a union. Thus we would have private property and economic power making collective struggle de facto illegal rather than the de jure illegality which the state has so enacted on behalf of the capitalists. As he put it, while unions were “theoretically compatible with the existence of a purely free market” he doubted that it would be possible as unions relied on the state to be “neutral” and tolerate their activities as they “acquire almost all their power through the wielding of force, specifically force against strike-beakers and against the property of employers.” [The Logic of Action II, p. 41] Thus we find right-“libertarians” in favour of “defensive” violence (i.e., that limited to defending the property and power of the capitalists and landlords) while denouncing as violence any action of those subjected to it.

Rothbard, of course, allowed workers to leave their employment in order to seek another job if they felt exploited. Yet for all his obvious hatred of unions and strikes, Rothbard does not ask the most basic question — if there is not clash of interests between labour and capital then why do unions even exist and why do bosses always resist them (often brutally)? And why has capital always turned to the state to bolster its position in the labour market? If there were really harmony of interests between classes then capital would not have turned repeatedly to the state to crush the labour movement. For anarchists, the reasons are obvious as is why the bosses always deny any clash of interests for “it is to the interests of capital to keep the workers from understanding that they are wage slaves. The ‘identity of interest’; swindle is one of the means of doing it … All those who profit from wage slavery are interested in keeping up the system, and all of them naturally try to prevent the workers from understanding the situation.” [Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 77]

Rothbard’s vociferous anti-unionism and his obvious desire to make any form of collective action by workers impossible in practice if not in law shows how economics has replaced religion as a control mechanism. In any hierarchical system it makes sense for the masters to indoctrinate the servant class with such self-serving nonsense but only capitalists have the advantage that it is proclaimed a “science” rather than, say, a religion. Yet even here, the parallels are close. As Colin Ward noted in passing, the “so-called Libertarianism of the political Right” is simply “the worship of the market economy.” [Talking Anarchy, p. 76] So while Willard appealed to god as the basis of his natural order, Rothbard appeal to “science” was nothing of the kind given the ideological apriorism of “Austrian” economics. As a particularly scathing reviewer of one of his economics books rightly put it, the “main point of the book is to show that the never-never land of the perfectly free market economy represents the best of all conceivable worlds giving maximum satisfaction to all participants. Whatever is, is right in the free market … It would appear that Professor Rothbard’s book is more akin to systematic theology than economics … its real interest belongs to the student of the sociology of religion.” [D.N. Winch, The Economic Journal, vol. 74, No. 294, pp. 481–2]

To conclude, it is best to quote Emma Goldman’s biting dismissal of the right-liberal individualism that Rothbard’s ideology is just another form of. She rightly attacked that ”‘rugged individualism’ which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by classes by means of trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit … That corrupt and perverse ‘individualism’ is the strait-jacket of individuality … This ‘rugged individualism’ has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions … ‘Rugged individualism’ has meant all the ‘individualism’ for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking ‘supermen’ … [and] in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as … evil in the name of that same individualism.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 112]

So, to conclude. Both the history and current practice of capitalism shows that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who claims otherwise has not been paying attention.

[sloowoorants]

Thoughts After Watching Hannibal

About two months ago, I saw some Hannibal fan art on Twitter. It looked pretty cool, and I just so happened to have some free time, so I thought: why not watch the show? It's just a normal crime thriller, right?

I expected the type of show that's relatively light yet still intriguing, filled with sarcastic humor, starring a typical grumpy-but-genius protagonist. (This is vaguely the type of show that I’m generally into: Inside Job, Sherlock, House, Suits, Mr. Robot….)

I was so, so wrong.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could have prepared me for the bat-shit crazy fever dream of a show that Hannibal is: bizarrely artistic gore, incessant cannibalism puns, completely unpredictable romantic subplots, torturous sex scenes that feel like angry acid trips, a multitude of absolutely unhinged psychiatric conduct, esoteric cryptic dialogue which require five google searches and a whole thesaurus to understand, two lesbian murderers "milking" a guy for his sperm to inherent his family heirloom, long scenes of intense and unabashed eye-sex, clumps of dog fur sticking to sweaty bed sheets…and a literal fucking social worker crawling out of a horse, alive and breathing and everything, covered in whatever acrid substances come from a horse uterus.

I ended up watching all of Hannibal in a week, hastily devouring it in just a few sittings.

In no way am I a professional film analyst or critic, but after having stayed up for nights on end, every single one of them spent under my blanket binging episodes until devilish hours of dawn (and barely comprehending the plot from the sheer speed I was consuming the show at, but also from sleep deprivation), I have cultivated a skull full of thoughts on this blessed masterpiece, and I need to rant about it. Which is exactly what this post is.

I am going to separate this ranty-meta-ish thing (I think a “meta” is what it’s called? I’m not sure, I don’t use Tumblr a lot) into two parts: one, about the representation of morality in the show, and two, about the intimacy between Will and Hannibal. It’s not super well written, my grammar is a bit iffy, but I hope you still enjoy reading this, and remember to take everything I say with a grain of salt. After all, I am just some guy with unrestricted internet access, a keyboard, and a little too much passion for the media I love :)

Part One: Hannibal Lecter’s Morality

Hannibal loves art. There is no episode in the entire show where he doesn’t reference some artistic thing—He plays the piano, he plays the theremin, he frequents the opera, he draws, and he finds peace at the birthplace of the Renaissance, Florence. His love for art is why he kills, he transforms people he considers to be “inferior” and “ugly” and elevates them into art. He is acting out his own sense of justice, creating meaning from the meaningless.

In a way, he must have a certain degree of respect for his victims to do what he does. He could have just killed people and disposed of their body in a dumpster, but that’s not his style. Even if he doesn’t “care” about his victims in a traditional sense, there’s this unique honesty and attentive in his murders. Hannibal cares enough about his victims to make them art. And I’m not just talking about the way he displays their bodies, I’m also talking about his cooking, because a big part of art is also cuisine.

He follows a strict code of his own ethics, it’s almost like he’s acting out his “duty” to kill, to eradicate and transform the lesser “scum” of the world. To be killed by Hannibal is almost an honor, like being killed by God personally, skin to skin. Wouldn’t you feel a sense of divinity and fulfillment if God killed you with his own hands, knowing that he respects you enough to choke you himself, then turn you into an elegant display? Every kill of Hannibal’s is filled with passion – Which poses the question, does he kill out of hatred or not? When I think of violence fueled by hate, I think of sex or race based violence. But that’s not Hannibal. He kills victims he considers to be rude, yes, but is it a humiliation? Is it degradation?

This whole "elevate-swine-into-art" thing is also shown through the way that gore is generally portrayed throughout the show, and not just Hannibal’s murderers. It’s very interesting the way gore pretty in Hannibal. It’s often meticulous. It’s meaningful.

These murders are all aesthetically pleasing. For me, it creates a cognitive dissonance: on one hand, I know that these are painful, brutal murders, one the other, they’re kind of nice to look at, which makes me think—Have I ever for a second, while watching Hannibal, considered the crime scene to be beautiful? Have I ever viewed one of those scenes as art rather than gore? As an artist myself, do I understand Hannibal’s obsession with beauty? And if so, what type of person does that make me?

And I love the way this show makes us really think in Hannibal’s shoes, because of how unconventionally it portrays him as a villain. Usually, shows will provide villains with a backstory, but that doesn’t extend beyond just creating sympathy. In Hannibal, the villain is humanized. We understand him. We empathize. And what does that make of us?

Have I ever, in all seriousness, rooted for Hannibal instead of Jack Crawford? Have I ever thought someone deserved to die in the show? Have I ever looked at what Hannibal was cooking, and thought it looked delicious, despite knowing that its human flesh? Have I ever been annoyed at innocent patients of Hannibal, like Franklyn, because I viewed them from Hannibal’s perspective?

On top of that, Hannibal’s philosophy makes sense. I find myself agreeing to a lot of the things he says.

For example, this dialogue from S2e12 "Tome-Wan", when Will finds Mason Verger and Hannibal in his house, and Hannibal asks Will if he should kill or spare Mason Verger:

HANNIBAL: Murder or mercy?

WILL: There is no mercy. We make mercy, manufacture it in parts that have overgrown our basic reptile brain.

HANNIBAL: Then there is no murder. We make murder, too, it matters only to us. You know too well that you possess all the elements to make murder. Perhaps mercy, too. But murder you understand uncomfortably well.

Does Will only have the capacity for mercy because he has the capacity for murder? Does mercy only have meaning in the context of murder? Is our own compassion a reflection of our violence?

With that said, are the things that I believe to be evil still evil when I throw away my moral believes? Is morality only meaningful in my own perception? And if so, how much am I contributing to evil if I am the one judging it? Do I create the evil that I so adamantly detest? Does deciding what is murder and isn’t not murder require the ability to, and intrinsic understanding of, murder? Can the morality of life and death be so clear cut, separated into different categories?

These are the types of questions that the show makes me ask, which is part of the reason I love the show so much.

I also love how the show puts a dark turn on empathy. Empathy is way too often portrayed as one of the best traits of all time, many claim it to be the most important aspect of mankind, but Will’s empathy is what ends up making him go on a downwards spiral: He is drawn to the darkness because he can understand it. He chose to teach at the FBI academy because he gets to feel like a killer without actually killing.

It made Will miserable, being able to understand killers. It gave him all sorts of guilt and self-hatred and confliction, which was why he was so damn miserable at the start of the show. And on top of that, no one really cared about him, Alana only had a whole “professional curiosity” thing going on (yes, I know that Alana’s character is one-dimensional because Hannibal’s female characters are poorly written, but even with that in mind, I still think that a huge part of Alana’s affection towards Will was in fact just curiosity), Jack was constantly pushing Will past his limits, so the poor dude didn’t have any connections to anyone until he met Hannibal.

And after Hannibal clocks him immediately when they first meet with the whole “your  values and decency are present yet shocked at your associations” situation, Will experiences his first kill: Shooting Garet Jacob Hobbs. Ten. Times. Then he confesses to Hannibal that he liked the feeling of killing him.

But Will can’t let go of his morality, it’s the only thing he’s been able to hold on to this entire time. It’s his lifeline. He holds onto it so dearly because he needs to convince himself that he’s a good person, that he’s not a killer, and that he’s doing the right thing. Yet, he knows that letting that morality go would be so freeing. He wants to. Hannibal helps him let go of it, and we as viewers can’t help but be on Hannibal’s side, because Will’s corruption arc is so gratifying. We like it, deep down we root for it. And what does that say about our relationship with our own morality? Does our morality tie us down? Do we crave to be free?

Will’s killing style is different from Hannibal’s, though. He’s passionate, reactive, and he doesn’t care about the process of killing, or the display body (before you say “the firefly man”, I believe he was imitating Hannibal’s style instead of curating his own), as long as the person is dead. He kills them from a sense of righteousness, like a vigilante justice. Was it wrong for him to find a sense of pleasure in killing Garett Jacob Hobbs? Does finding pleasure in killing corrupt his righteousness? Is it worse to kill out of passion, or kill meticulously? Is Hannibal’s style of killing more respectful? Is Will brutal? Just because Will kills out of a more conventional moral judgement and Hannibal doesn’t, does that make him better than Hannibal?

Another way the show convolutes the concepts of good and evil is using religious symbolism.

For example, from S1e02, “Amuse-Bouche”:

HANNIBAL: Killing must feel good to God too. He does it all the time, and are we not created in His image?

WILL: Did God feel good about killing?

HANNIBAL: He felt powerful.

(Shocking that this line was from the literal second episode. This show got intense so fast.)

And Will’s quote from S3e02, “Primavera”:

WILL: God can't save any of us because it's...inelegant. Elegance is more important than suffering. That's his design.

Is God an artist? Does that justify what He does? Are we only creating taboo out of His works to comfort ourselves? What does it mean to view the world with a purely aesthetic vision?

It’s these quotes that really allow me to see from Hannibal’s perspective: To him, there is no ultimate purpose of the world, there is no end goal to achieve, just the creation of beauty, and that’s terrifying to think about. Even as an atheist, it’s hard to digest the belief that there is no purpose to anything. We spend our entire human lives looking for meaning. But Hannibal doesn’t see it that way. Life and death are just futile processes to create art, and there’s no bigger point behind it. The cycle of life is supposed to be art. In a way, he’s like the God (sounding like Hannibal here), giving people meaning by making them into art, just like how God designates meaning onto every creature he makes.

And the show has a lot of art parallels, not just with Hannibal’s murders. Here are some that I’ve noticed:

(Parallels, in order from left to right, top to bottom: Nude From Back by Picabia compared to a shot of Bedelia from the back, The Persistence of Memory by Dali compared to Will’s clock drawing, Le Double Secret by Magritte compared to how Will saw Hannibal after visual overload from light therapy, Ophelia by Millais compared to Bedelia sinking into the bathtub, Portrait of Pablo Picasso by Juan Gris compared to Will’s hallucination of himself falling apart in a mirror, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan by Ilya Repin compared to the cliff scene.)

I’m not the only one that has noticed these. Here is cool blog that focuses on artistic references in Hannibal, they’ve also noticed some of the ones I noticed: The Art of Hannibal.

Bryan Fuller probably didn’t do these on purpose while directing. But it still unintentionally solidified this theme artistic divinity. So I think Bryan must, to some extent, understand Hannibal’s obsession with making art out of death, because of the way art is subconsciously woven into the show. I don’t know though, just food for thought.

Anyways. Will, at the end of the show, while being cradled in Hannibal’s arms, both of them covered in blood that appears black in the moonlight, says to Hannibal: “It’s beautiful.”

And all that morality fleets and becomes insignificant in the face of aesthetics.

To Hannibal, beauty is moral. To Will, morality is beautiful. Have the lines begun to blur?

Part Two: Hannibal and Wills intimacy

“For [Hannibal and Will], two people who have been wandering their whole lives through a world in which they have not really experienced any viable form of connection with another human being—because they’re two extremely unusual people—and then they meet.”

-Hugh Dancy quote from SDCC 2013

Hannibal loves will. He drew him and Will as Patroclus and Achilles. He was ready to run away with Will in S2. He surrendered himself in S3 just because Will rejected him. And lets not forget the little twitch in his face when Francis attacks will. And when this dialogue happened (S3e12, “The Number of the Beast is 666”):

WILL: Is Hannibal in love with me?

BEDELIA : Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you... ache for him?

It is my belief that Will also loves Hannibal, although I understand that it’s not as agreed upon in the fandom as Hannibal’s love is. I think Will is just a little bit more reserved with affection, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Hannibal.

But one thing is for sure—there is a lot of homoeroticism in the show:

So, whether you think the love is reciprocal or not, the show is still, to put it lightly, really gay.

Hannibal’s love for Will is dark, possessive, powerful. Will is the only one that is capable of understanding Hannibal, and Hannibal was willing to risk literally everything just for Will to connect with him. He goes to extraordinary lengths just to make Will a murderer.

But even throughout Hannibal’s ruthless manipulation, which Will eventually becomes aware of, Will still stays for Hannibal. Because deep down, Will was willing to give up his own innocence to have that connection. Because Hannibal was the only person that could really understand Will too, no one else would be able to accept his dark tendencies.

S2e02, “Sakizuke”:

WILL: I don’t know which is worse. Believing I did it, or believing that you did it and did this to me.

(I remember reading a really good post by endlessly fascinated on how Will was actually being manipulative by saying this quote. I can’t find it though. If someone finds it, please tag me!)

Will eventually grows just as obsessed with Hannibal, as Hannibal is obsessed with him. Proof: telling Jack that he wanted to run away with Hannibal, telling Hannibal that he can’t get him out of his head, and that his inner voice is starting to sound like him him, and the “where would I go?” when Hannibal tells him not to leave his side, and the “one could argue, intimately” when Chiyoh asks him how he knows Hannibal, and the “before you and after you” when Hannibal asked him where the difference between the past and the future come from…I could go on forever. Will has never felt so grounded before, not in the way when he’s with Hannibal, with him, Will can see his own reflection, and he’s never been able to see that before.

And oh, the love language between them is violence. Will tries to kill Hannibal (someone tell me how many times, I forgot), and Hannibal tries to eat Will and a plethora of other fucked up shit. But in my eyes, none of those were out of hatred. Both of them trying to murder each other is out of love, out of acceptance, and out of forgiveness.

S3e06, “Dolce”:

HANNIBAL: You dropped your forgiveness, Will.

HANNIBAL: You forgive how God forgives.

And, S3e03, “Secondo”:

BEDELIA: Betrayal and forgiveness are best seen as something akin to falling in love.

HANNIBAL: You cannot control with respect to whom you fall in love.

No one can control who they love, or who they forgive, which is why Hannibal forgives Will and stabs him in the same breath. He is forgiving, not letting go.

Will forgives Hannibal too. He forgives Hannibal way too many times, throughout all the manipulation of Hannibal. Think about just how much insanity he’s endured: drugged, gutted, encephalitis abused, hypnotized, framed for murder, a serial killer was sent after his family, had his brain literally almost eaten, and despite all that, Will still forgives Hannibal—it was not a conscious decision. We cannot control who we forgive.

If Hannibal is a fallen angel, then Will is God to him. And God is indifferent, sometimes even cruel. Like Hannibal said himself, good and evil has nothing to do with God. Will forgives Hannibal, but that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t want to hurt Hannibal; just like how Hannibal forgave Will, but still gutted him. In that moment, Will forgave indifferently, so he could get back to revenge. They both forgive like blades, they both forgive with pain.

Doesn’t God forgive through punishment? God will forgive you for your sins but you still have to go to hell, right?

Violence is a pillar of stability in their relationship, it’s how they understand each other, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the smile on Will’s gut a permanent reminder of Hannibal’s hurt, and all of Hannibal’s scars a reminder of Will’s hurt.

I see all of their trying to kill each other is affection. Hannibal doesn’t try to eat Will because he hates Will, he tries to eat to immortalize him, to keep Will as part of him forever.

And through that violence, Hannibal helped Will let go of his morality. Will had spent forever trying to repress himself—Molly was a failed attempt to escape into normalcy. Will definitely thought about Hannibal those years Hannibal was in prison.

S3e13, “The Wrath of the Lamb”:

HANNIBAL: When life becomes maddeningly police, think about me. Think about me, Will.

Will definitely missed the hunger, the violence. We can see this though the passionate way he killed the Red Dragon. He probably held Molly’s gentle hands and desperately wanted to feel something more. To feel something dangerous. Something that could simultaneously revive and ruin him. Molly never understood him the way Hannibal did, and he will never love her the way he loves Hannibal.

He did think about Hannibal when life became maddeningly polite. He probably fantasized about what they’ve done, what they could’ve done, and the feeling of freedom when he’s with Hannibal.

And Hannibal waited for him patiently, staying exactly where he was three years ago. And when Will eventually pushed them off a cliff together, Hannibal showed no sign of resistance, and just let them fall.

“I think [Hannibal]’s feeling that embrace and that’s the first thing that he’s feeling, and even as he’s plunging into the Atlantic, he’s first and foremost thinking about the man he’s holding onto and the man who’s holding onto him.”

–Mads Mikkelsen on Hannibal’s thoughts during the final scene

Their violence is something that we as viewers may never comprehend, but we can all understand their intimacy. Isn’t it what we all want, after all, to be seen?

Anyways...

Hannibal is a great show! 10/10, would recommend. Although, the lighting kind of sucks. Bryan, if there is a season four, please make the show brighter, for the love of God.

Thanks for reading this! :)

[maironsbigboobs]

re: elf servants

I think generally there are servants in royal/noble households simply for practical reasons and they generally fall into 2 categories: specialised servants (think, stewards and messengers and scribes, masters of horses or kennels, that kind of thing) and servants who help with the upkeep of the household (cleaning, repairs, cooking and also the apprentices and assistants of specialised servants)

specialised servants are probably quite prestigious roles and fields of industry in their own right, and they are considered full members of a household, and probably are closely linked to the person they serve - it's as much a political and social statement to be Finwe's chief scribe as it is an economic one

but the second category are more associated with the house than the family living in it - for example, Finwe's palace in Tirion would function both as a home and a diplomatic and administrative centre, it would be impossible for him to rule and keep up with chores himself. But Fingolfin's personal home would probably not have any full-time servants - when there more people than usual to feed or house then professionals might be hired, but for the most part I imagine the day to day is done by the family (made possible by the fact elves sleep and eat less than humans)

IRL domestic service (at least in the 18th century) often functioned as a kind of prep stage for adult life (for women in particular, but gender is probably not as big a factor for elves) and I could definitely see this in Valinor - domestic servants being 80% elves between 50-100 who haven't chosen an apprenticeship or similar in another field who are earning extra money to set up their own households, getting experience outside of the family, meeting others in their own ae cohort, learning independence etc. It's a job that comes with the offer of room and board + the wages a king/prince/lord can provide. Not glamorous, but not terrible.

The other 20% is made up of professional servants - experienced elves who are genuinely like the work and are contracted workers as much as a builder or gardener might be. Some of them might be independent and others part of businesses set up by other elves who are really into cooking/cleaning etc.

In Beleriand the situation (for the exiles at least) is probably very different, though I think there would be attempts to adapt the system - but there aren't as many households that need servants and there aren't as many young elves.

[eatmangoesnekkid]

Two of my favorite chapters in "The Melody of Love" body of work and book series are called "The Money Drop" and "Make it Rain." These chapters open with me speaking about the love I have for some aspects of stripping culture. Even though I haven't been to a strip club in ages, decades, I specifically talk about wisdom I gleaned about "the money drop," where the stripper/dancer is high up on the pole and suddenly drops all the way down to the ground without warning and may do a split if she can touch the ground and is flexible enough. The rush of sensation, endorphins, thrill, and stimulation that move through my body when I do my little soft lightweight version of "the money drop" is everything juicy and phat to me. I also love when strippers "make it rain" as well--and the accentuation of the pure INNOCENCE and undeniable power in the geometry of an undulating female body and how it inspires the flow of excitement in others, women and men, everyone watching. While I don't know anything at all about making money in strip clubs, I do know a thing or two about love, regenerating the female body, and building one's wealth template. I want to teach women how to make money, to understand the money system that we live and participate in, and wealth consciousness, so that you can grow your bank in magical and practical ways. The chapters "The Money Drop" and "Make it Rain" give clarity and direction. Many pole dancers try to separate themselves from strippers. Not me. No ma'am! If anything, I bow to strippers for it is wasn't for them, I would not have any interest in pole dancing at all. Bougie pole dancers are like "oh I'm an athlete and I don't want to jiggle my ass too much." And yes pole dancing is absolutely an athletic AND SEXY art that strength-trains the body, I also give credit where credit is due to women strippers, some of the most resilient people on the planet. Like, I really do bow to ya'll (like on bended knee) when I meet a stripper, the most recent one in my hot yoga class. I was overjoyed that she felt safe and comfortable enough to be honest with me, a stranger, as we were showering and getting dressed. Due to social stigma, shame (and the accompanying perversions and weird sexual obsession) and lack of respect, most sex workers have to stay anonymous and private in their everyday lives. Because i listen to my body I took a long break on my books. I was starting to tax my body and stress out as I am so close to finishing and super excited but my body was like "NOOOO! Please stop!" so I closed my computer, turned on my record player, and just relaxed and let myself be. But next Thursday, I'm back on that writing curating horse, giddy up baby... and finalizing these two chapters. -India Ame'ye, Author, Pictured, The Pole Portal Descend From Heaven

[fatalism-and-villainy]

I was thinking about the multiple contradictory narratives Bedelia spins about herself in s3 part 2 - the way her public story completely excises her agency in collaborating with Hannibal, while the version of events she presents to Will, in which she gloats about having been “beyond the veil” when he has not, also completely excises her ambivalence and fear towards Hannibal. (Like, she confidently presents a narrative to Will in which she shared the perfect understanding with Hannibal that he craves, and wherein she has embraced the violent impulses in a way that his compassion has impeded him from doing. And yet she spends so much of s3 part 1 positively radiating stress and discomfort. And that contrast is fascinating to me in itself.)

And then I started thinking about the bird metaphor.

Bedelia uses the wounded bird example to frame Will as being held back from being a true killer by his compassion and concern for the weak. But in reality, it represents the appeal that violence holds for both of them. Will’s desire to protect the vulnerable is the source of not only his violent urges, but the pleasure he takes in hurting those who hurt others - this is most obvious in the social worker horse plot line, in which his care for Peter ignites his murderous anger towards Clark Ingram, and also comes through in his enjoyment of killing Randall Tier and his fantasies about killing Hannibal. The fundamental tension in his character arc - whether the righteous anger he feels for the vulnerable will overwhelm his compassion, such that the pleasure of violence swallows up its initial motivation - is reflected in the fact that many of the killers he can identify with do feel a kind of twisted compassion for their victims. Garett Jacob Hobbs, for example, his identification with whom Will struggles with considerably, is said to “love” his victims. For Hannibal himself, violence and love are also incredibly bound up.

Bedelia is different. Her desire to crush the bird tends to manifest as a sort of twisted mercy killing, as with Neal Frank and Sogliato. (Interestingly, her and Will’s violent impulses, at least on a surface level, feel like an extreme and twisted reflection of their professions - Will’s job is to bring justice, and hers is to provide medical care). Hannibal knows this about her, and explicitly sets her up to kill Sogliato (“technically, you killed him”). He knew she would flinch at his suffering and need to squelch it out. And while it’s not stated one way or another, it’s entirely possible (perhaps probable) that he purposely set her up with Neal Frank, because he was curious what she would do.

(In Tome-wan, Hannibal tries to push Will to mercy kill Mason Verger in the same way during the “he fed his face to my dogs” scene, possibly working from his experiences with Bedelia - but of course Will’s not built that way.)

The thing with Bedelia’s mercy killing, though, is that despite her being the one to voice the line about compassion being necessary for cruelty, her motivation seems to be nearly devoid of compassion. Rather, my reading is that she operates more from discomfort, and disgust. She’s repelled by weakness and suffering. When she sees a wounded bird, she wants to get rid of it, crush out its suffering so she doesn’t have to look anymore. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t get genuine pleasure from the violence, but the violence we see from her feels reactive.

And that’s possibly the biggest difference between her and Hannibal, and the source of the gulf between them. Because Hannibal relishes vulnerability. See the way he affectionately rubs his head against Miriam Lass’ as he chokes her unconscious, the way he keeps Gideon alive for an extended period of time so he can experience Hannibal’s work, the way he treats Bedelia herself with care despite their both knowing he’s working up towards eating her. It’s not just about the kill for Hannibal - it’s drawing the victim’s reactions out and enjoying the thrill of power he has over them, and it’s a process that in many cases seems to instill a strange, twisted tenderness in him.

This brings me back to Will and the wounded bird, because his desire to “help” the bird doesn’t just extend towards his penchant for violent punitive justice - it’s also the way he comes to see killing itself as a way of honouring the victims by making them into art. He wants to linger with their vulnerability, spool it out and spin it into something beautiful, and it’s through this that he can connect with Hannibal. But can you imagine Bedelia stopping to turn Chiyoh’s prisoner into a sculpture? Of course not. She can’t linger with her victims after their deaths - she panics after killing Neal Frank, and is sickened by Hannibal’s actions in Antipasto. She can’t see the artistry in death the way Will and Hannibal can. Violence compels her, but pain and suffering are ugly to her. To Will and Hannibal, they’re beautiful.

[scotianostra]

On 5th April 1820 government forces defeated Radical weavers at what became known as the Battle of Bonnymuir.

The ‘Radical Rising’ or ‘Radical War’ of 1820, also known as the Scottish Insurrection of 1820, was a week of strikes and unrest in Scotland that culminated in the trial of a number of ‘radicals’ for the crime of treason. It was the last armed uprising on Scottish soil, with the intent of establishing a radical republic.

Based in Central Scotland, artisan workers (such as weavers, shoemakers, blacksmiths), initiated a series of strikes and social unrest during the first week of April 1820. This pushed for government reform, in response to the economic depression. The Rising was quickly, and violently, quashed, and the subsequent trials took place in Scotland from July to August 1820.

The events of the Rising followed years of economic recession after the end of the Napoleonic Wars and considerable revolutionary instability on the European continent. As the economic situation worsened for many workers, societies sprung up across the country which espoused radical ideas for fundamental change.

In the early nineteenth century, Scottish politics offered power to very few people. Councillors on the Royal Burghs at this time were not elected to their position, rich landowners controlled county government and there were fewer than 3,000 parliamentary voters in the whole of Scotland, hardly a democracy.

It was recognised that the key to change was electoral reform, and the events of the American Revolution of 1776 and French Revolution of 1789 helped to promote these ideas. Radical reformers began to seek the universal franchise (for men), annual parliaments, and the repeal of the Act of Union of 1707.

Between 1st and 8th April 1820, across central Scotland, some works stopped, particularly in weaving communities, and radicals attempted to fulfil a call to rise. Several disturbances occurred across the country, perhaps the worst of which were the events at Bonnymuir, Stirlingshire, where a group of about 50 radicals clashed with a patrol of around 30 soldiers, while Bonnymuir is the most famous, or should I say infamous of the events during this period, it was by no means the only “uprising”

On Monday April 3rd a strike took force across a wide area of Scotland including Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, with an estimated total of around 60,000 stopping work.

Reports were made of men carrying out military drill in Glasgow while foundries and forges had been raided, and iron files and dyer's poles taken to make pikes. In Kilbarchan soldiers found men making pikes, in Stewarton around 60 strikers was dispersed, in Balfron around 200 men had assembled for some sort of action. Pikes, gunpowder and weapons called "wasps" (a sort of javelin) and "clegs" (a barbed shuttlecock to throw at horses) were offered for sale.

In Glasgow John Craig led around 30 men to make for the Carron Company ironworks in Falkirk, telling them that weapons would be there for the taking, but the group were scattered when intercepted by a police patrol. Craig was caught, brought before a magistrate and fined, but the magistrate paid his fine for him.

Rumours spread that England was in arms for the cause of reform and that an army was mustering at Campsie commanded by Marshal MacDonald, a Marshal of France and son of a Jacobite refugee family, to join forces with 50,000 French soldiers at Cathkin Braes under Kinloch, the fugitive "Radical laird" from Dundee.

Government troops were ready in Glasgow, including the Rifle Brigade, the 83rd Regiment of Foot, the 7th and 10th Hussars and Samuel Hunter's Glasgow Sharpshooters. In the evening 300 radicals briefly skirmished with a party "of cavalry", but no one came to harm.

The next day, Tuesday April 4th, Duncan Turner assembled around 60 men to march to Carron, while he carried out organising work elsewhere. Half the group dropped out, however the remaining twenty five, persuaded that they would pick up support along the way, set out under the leadership of Andrew Hardie. They arrived in Condorrat, which was on the way to Carron, at 5am on April 5th. Waiting for them was John Baird who had expected a small army, not this bedraggled and soaking wet group. He was persuaded to continue the March to Carron by John King, who would himself go ahead and gather supporters. King would go to find supporters at Camelon while Baird and Hardie were to leave the road and wait at Bonnymuir.

What the leaders didn’t know is that the Government had placed spies and agitators among the crowds and they were lured to the confrontation with well-armed, trained soldiers on Bonnymuir,

The authorities at Kilsyth and Stirling Castle had however been alerted and Sixteen Hussars and sixteen Yeomanry troopers had been ordered on 4 April to leave Perth and go to protect Carron. They left the road at Bonnybridge early on April 5th and made straight for the slopes of Bonnymuir. As the newspapers subsequently reported:

"On observing this force the radicals cheered and advanced to a wall over which they commenced firing at the military. Some shots were then fired by the soldiers in return, and after some time the cavalry got through an opening in the wall and attacked the party who resisted till overpowered by the troops who succeeded in taking nineteen of them prisoners, who are lodged in Stirling Castle. Four of the radicals were wounded".

The Glasgow Herald mocked the small number of radicals encountered, but worried that "the conspiracy appears to be more extensive than almost anyone imagined... radical principles are too widely spread and too deeply rooted to vanish without some explosion and the sooner it takes place the better."

The end of the Rising

On the afternoon of April 5th, before news of the Bonnymuir fighting got out, Lees sent a message asking the radicals of Strathaven to meet up with the "Radical laird" Kinloch's large force at Cathkin. The next morning a small force of 25 men followed the instructions and left at 7 a.m. to march there. Among them was the experienced elderly Radical James Wilson who is claimed to have had a banner reading "Scotland Free or a Desart"

At East Kilbride they were warned of an army ambush, and Wilson, suspecting treachery, returned to Strathaven. The others bypassed the ambush and reached Cathkin, but as there was no sign of the promised army they dispersed. Ten of them were identified and caught, and by nightfall on April 7th; they were jailed at Hamilton.

I’ll leave things there for the moment, the aftermath will be told in further posts, one in a few days, and more as the ringleaders were made examples of as they were tried for their parts in the events.

The large memorial stone to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bonnymuir was unveiled in April 2021.

[life-in-the-garden]

Jar Spell: Spirit's Freedom

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a 2002 animated movie about a young mustang stallion in 19th century western America. After growing up as a wild horse, he is captured by white soldiers of the United States Cavalry and “broken” to bear a saddle and rider before making his escape with a Lakota youth named Little Creek. He bears witness to the abuse that horses suffer as a great railroad is being built, and finally runs free again with his herd after falling in love with a mare named Rain. This jar spell channels Spirit’s yearning for freedom from oppression, abuse, and confinement, and is ideal for anyone seeking emotional help with breaking free from an abusive home, job, or relationship. (Please see the “Notes” section at the end for mundane resources related to escaping abusive situations).

You will absolutely need:

a small vessel with a lid (a pill bottle or spice shaker works just fine)

sealing wax (ideally blue or white) or liquid glue

Once you have your vessel, add some ingredients related to wild horses running free and/or your conception of what freedom means. Some suggested ingredients that you may or may not include depending on your preferences are:

a clipping of hair from a horse’s mane or tail

a feather from a wild bird (for flight and freedom)

1-3 horse-themed bracelet charms but NOT horseshoe charms (horseshoes symbolize being tamed)

sea salt (for the wildness of the ocean)

dried flower heads from flowering weeds (for defiance)

peppercorns and/or ground black/red pepper (for defiance)

Directions:

Cleanse your vessel if it is repurposed or you feel a need to cleanse it, then add your ingredients but do not seal it just yet. In a quiet, private place and with your filled vessel nearby, ponder the nature of your confinement and the liberation you hope to achieve. Ruminate on the steps you will need to take in order to gain your freedom—this could be searching for a new job, locating a place of sanctuary in which to take refuge, reaching out to a friend or loved one for assistance, and much more. Use this time to emotionally fortify yourself.

When you are ready, use the wax or liquid glue to seal the vessel. This seals your intention of escape and liberation from whatever circumstances confine you. If you keep faith to a spirit or deity you wish to call upon for assistance in your endeavor, you may do so at this point. Keep your sealed vessel in a safe place until you have made your escape.

When you have taken flight and made your escape, break the seal and scatter the organic ingredients in a wild, free place. If using inorganic ingredients such as metal or plastic bracelet charms, it is ideal to thank, cleanse, and save the charms for another use.

Notes:

Magic can be a useful tool, but it doesn’t work all on its own. If you make no effort to get yourself out of a quagmire, then of course this spell (and any other) is going to fail. That said, you are not alone in your struggles. Please feel free to use any of the resources below that are applicable to your circumstances.

The United States’ national domestic violence hotline is 800-799-7233. You can also connect to help via SMS by messaging the word START to 88788. Their website is here.

In all 50 states of the USA, as well as in Washington DC and Puerto Rico, you can dial 211 to be connected to a social worker. Please note that calling 211 doesn’t need to be used solely for discussing the escape of an abusive situation; you can also dial this number for general healthcare and mental health resources that are local to your area. You can learn more here.

The United Kingdom’s national domestic violence hotline is 0808-2000-247. There is also an online chat that can be accessed here.

[canmom]

a few critical comments on "The Busy Worker's Handbook to the Apocalypse"

so i read this one very doomer medium article The Busy Worker's Handbook to the Apocalypse the other day, which attempts to argue that with the amount of GHGs already in the atmosphere, collapse of human society is inevitable and imminent, in a way that the scientific establishment such as the IPCC is instutionally unable to admit. I will warn, if you're prone to anxiety, don't read it, because the article is bleak as hell and quite effective rhetoric. it opens with a largely correct overview of climate science which lends it credibility, before jumping to the worst imaginable conclusions about various feedbacks and tipping points.

and like... it got me a bit. immediately after I read it, I was left with a horrifying feeling that this is as good as it will ever get, that the end of it all was only years away, that all my hopes for what I'd do for the next few decades and what is prefigured by this or that social development were utter delusions, and all there was left to do was just try and make the best of the last few years before we all die in the big cascading-failure famine.

but... ok Bryn, hold your fucking horses, let's do some research eh?

to begin with, I found one critique video that points out a number of places where the author makes scientific errors, misunderstands his sources, or doesn't justify his conclusions. for example, the author argues that a 'blue sea event' where the polar ice melts would lead to immediate, catastrophic warming as the latent heat of fusion no longer absorbs any incoming radiation, and also that the success of measures to reduce air pollution will accelerate warming; these seem to both be straight up wrong. but that doesn't cover everything I had questions about.

for example, one scenario discussed in the 'handbook' is 'multi breadbasket failure'. the idea is that, given that most of the world's food is produced in a few specific regions, this is a scenario where two or more of the major food-producing regions suffer very low yields in the same year due to climate shit. and this isn't farfetched, there is mainstream scientific discussion of this concept. for an accessible analysis, I found this article by some major capitalist consulting company (assess bias accordingly) which gives some actual numbers, including estimates of which crops are more likely to fail as the climate changes (rice, corn and soy are in trouble, but wheat, oddly enough, could actually do better in a warmer world).

however, while the author of the guide to the apocalypse suggests that, thanks to 'just in time' supply chains, there are almost no reserves of food and everything is on ships... the mckinsey article quotes a figure of 30% 'stock-to-use ratio', meaning there is a fair chunk of food in the granaries. they seem to predict that if two 'breadbaskets' fail in the same year, causing a 15% drop in yield, that ratio would drop to about 20%. the immediate result would be food price spikes (which means a lot of people would starve) but it's not a complete 'global megafamine' collapse.

'course, the question then is what happens if it happens again a few years later? but at least theoretically the 'multi breadbasket failure' scenario could be drastically mitigated by 1. producing food in more different places so the eggs are in fewer baskets 2. storing more food when times are good (something discussed in the mckinsey article) and 3. the world broadly eating less meat (since most crops are grown to feed animals, which adds a trophic level of inefficiency), so less grain is needed to feed everyone. i don't know if that's actually gonna happen, but it's not prima facie impossible.

on the other hand, the author of the Handbook argues that a world renewable energy transition is not just infeasible but physically impossible, because it demands reserves of metal that do not exist to roll out all the wires, turbines, etc etc. I was already fairly pessimistic about whether the renewable energy transition could happen in time (since there is little evidence that the current renewable deployment is making any sort of dent in GHG emissions, which remain resolutely coupled to economic activity); I was also conscious that the amount of mining to produce all the batteries and so on would have its own devastating impacts. but the argument that it is impossible even in principle is new to me.

so is that actually true? the Handbook bases this point entirely on the work of Dr Simon Michaux of the Finnish Geological Survey, who presents the calculation in this hour-long presentation based on this report (summary). this is honestly an excellent presentation, explaining the methodology really clearly - it reminds me of SEWTHA back in the day, a book I found very formative. And actually McKay also raised the question of materials:

To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel – one ton per person. Annual world steel production is about 1200 million tons, which is 0.2 tons per person in the world. During the second world war, American shipyards built 2751 Liberty ships, each containing 7000 tons of steel – that’s a total of 19 million tons of steel, or 0.1 tons per American. So the building of 60 million tons of wind turbines is not off the scale of achievability; but don’t kid yourself into thinking that it’s easy. Making this many windmills is as big a feat as building the Liberty ships.

McKay's analysis was based only on the UK; the figure of 48kWh/d comes from McKay's estimate of plausible maximum wind capacity for the UK only. He also takes into account some modest reductions in energy use. So my sense was that a completely renewable energy system would be an unprecedented megaproject, but not utterly implausible.

By comparison, Michaux's analysis (which I took a bunch of notes on, I'll post in a minute) has a worldwide scope, and rather than using back of the envelope physical calculations, relies on data on existing systems which largely did not exist when McKay was alive. It is nevertheless a rough estimate, and crucially, focuses on the question of completely replacing current fossil fuel use. Where good data did not exist, like the amount of steel and concrete used in a wind turbine, it was not included in the analysis, since the purpose was to get a lower bound.

The report covers a number of different minerals, many of which existing reserves fall short and it would take thousands of years to produce enough at current production levels. Copper is the big one: he estimates some 4.5 billion tones would be needed, where only 0.88 billion tonnes of reserved are publicly known to exist, and the rate of new discoveries has tailed off to near zero. I see no error in his calculation (though I haven't checked the numbers in detail, the method is sound).

However, there is a major caveat. The vast, vast majority of this copper would go to millions of battery banks used to provide just four weeks of storage to make it through the wind production lulls in the winter. This covers about 4.2 billion tonnes; by comparison the amount of copper used for one generation everything else (wind turbines, EV batteries etc.) is a still-hefty 0.3 billion tonnes. So that raises the question of whether there's an alternative to all those batteries, mature enough to be deployed at a scale to provide 0.55PWh of energy storage (or likely, more) in a decade or two. My understanding is most other tech (flywheels etc.) is still on the 'tiny pilot plant' sort of scale.

Anyway, as far as like the future of humanity goes, I already agree with Michaux's main point that maintaining current rates of energy consumption is just not viable; the future is necessarily going to be much lower energy. (I also don't really think 'decoupling' economic activity from energy use to somehow preserve capitalism's exponential curve is really plausible.)

However, the way the author of the Handbook uses Michaux's estimates is not supported. Michaux proved that a 1:1 replacement of fossil fuel energy consumption with renewables is not possible; that necessarily implies that (since fossil fuels are just starting to run dry and becoming less viable) we have to get by on less energy. And yeah, that obviously implies substantial changes to how people live in rich countries, crushing the super-rich etc.; it's fair to say the whole system must become less complex, in ecological terms.

I do still agree it's more than understandable to be pessimistic about whether that will happen without everything collapsing first - to put it mildly, there is a lot of inertia in a system this complex! - but it's not physically impossible that humans could accomplish a renewable energy transition, contract and rationalise how we use what energy we can get, and still have everyone live relatively comfortably. (After all, life on Earth has managed to live sustainably on solar power for billions of years, indefinitely recycling carbon, nitrogen etc. between high and low energy forms and dumping all the unusable high-entropy energy into space; I stand by the belief that there is no intrinsic reason that human society, even with complex technologies like computers, could not eventually assume a similar equilibrium if we survive. Though could does not mean is likely to....)

So I'm not convinced that we're a few years away from the first domino falling in the apocalypse. The situation is very very bad, don't get me wrong, I do basically agree the current socioeconomic world system is not capable of adapting fast enough as it stands, and I do find it increasingly hard to imagine the prospect of it being overturned, so I don't think the gigadeaths future is out of the question or even unlikely. But it's at least not the imminent near-certainty this essay makes out. If it comes, it will be more drawn-out than that. We don't need to live as if we will certainly die in a year or five.

So... now back to not thinking about it and fiddling while the world burns, I guess? :/

[seokjinsonlyone]

Ari hi! This thought just came to me. You know those “this is what your bias says about you” yeah I think you should do that! Like I literally love your headcanons and takes on members so I think you’d kill this too! I know you’re a working woman, getting your bag and all so no rush with this or even if you didn’t want to, its all good! Lol

first of all THANK YOOOUUU crazy the amount of faith you have in me 🤪 it's funny bc when i first read this i was like i don't even know if i'm capable of that but then immediately after my lil brain started churning SO

this is what i think your bias says about you:

jin: chaotic and unserious; like really just be doing stuff just to do it; treats life like a social experiment probably; don’t take yourself or anything really too serious; but at the end of the day you handle your bidness; big proponent of rest and relaxation; got a rebellious spirit like you really just have a level of autonomy that you have to have like you bend where you can but if you can’t you don’t; you’re probably hot like even if you’re not physically you got that hot state of mind

yoongi: you got issues <333 like you’re probably mentally ill in one way or another; you probably have an rbf; you know exactly what you wanna do and you gonna make it happen one way or another like there’s just a tenacity about you that makes things work; you probably always late; you’re as soft as you are sharp like you got a big heart and you’re not afraid to show it but at the same time you not about to sit up there and be treated any kind of way; you probably always up to something be plotting and scheming sometimes it amounts to something 

hobi: you’re loud and energetic like there’s just something about you that screams rainbows and unicorns; probably a horse girl; chronically online; a little cringe but also very cool; you like to have a good time; a little air headed at times but also you always know what to do and not afraid to take charge; you have some kind of natural talent and are good/can get good at multiple other things; you probably have a good fashion sense and an affinity toward chunky shoes

joon: you’re kind like you’re always looking out for other people and willing to put their needs above your own; you’re an over thinker; you probably got a temper; there’s an obsessive side to you like sometimes you just can’t like things a normal amount; as mature and capable as you are you’re also like a little lost puppy like you’re probably a lawyer who gets off work and calls their mommy to get step by step instructions on how to make spaghetti; you probably out the house more than you in the house

jimin: you’re a hard worker; you have goals and you’re going to reach them no matter what; you like a sour patch kid like there’s a streak of evil within you but also you’re very sweet; you’re probably in a constant state of existential crises; lowkey intimidating; got that 1d syndrome like you don’t know you’re beautiful and that’s what makes you beautiful; despite being in the midst of modern society you probably don’t know what’s going on; former gifted kid

tae: you probably feel like you were born in the wrong generation; babygirl; you probably have a lot of guilty pleasures and struggle with a couple vices; you have a diverse music taste; hard headed; if you saw a shooting star you’d probably wish for either world peace or a stick of bubble gum there is no in between; you feel things very deeply; super creative; you just want everyone to be happy frfr; secretly a furry

jk: your head is in the clouds; probably a hopeless romantic; you had an alt phase complete with 6 layers of eyeliner and side swept bangs; you like things done in a sequential manner; you probably shut down when you’re frustrated; you have at least 3 niche interests like if i asked you could probably tell me the current active volcanoes and their most recent eruptions or something; you like sets and collections; you probably stay up late at night; you unabashedly enjoy pop music; hello kitty girl 

so like was i way off or what 👁️👄👁️

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

since the end of world war two - which was a reset as the world was devastated by war and shocked about the holocaust and other atrocities committed by nazi germany and the axis powers - the usa (in no particular order):

had segregation until only around 50 years ago despite taking the moral high ground for beating the racist nazis

granted immunity to nazis and actively recruited nazi scientists

declared the war on communism costing hundreds of thousands of lives and ravaging vietnam as well as funding islamistic terrorism as a countermeasure

then declaring the war on terrorism after the war on communism backfired with 9/11 costing another thousands if not millions of lives with devastating consequences for countries like afghanistan

destabilised and hindered democracy in several countries and regions that still deal with the consequences today such as venezuela

declared the war on drugs but also had a cia funded crack epidemic

have built a wall on the mexican but not the canadian border

spent billions over billions for military and other operations to control other countries and have the most power on a global scale while many of the population cant even afford healthcare and live in very precarious situations or even without housing due to the unwillingness to regulate corporations and grant better workers and tenants rights

refuse to regulate big corporations and let technology companies grow unchecked which is kind of ruining the internet

claim to hate religious fundamentalism when its about islam while evangelicals are one of the most powerful political groups and fundamentalists are allowed to homeschool and isolate their kids

abused the jews wish for their own country to install the state of israel for control in the middle east, funding displacement and systematic cleansing of palestinians with the help of the british

still systematically discriminate against the native population and leave them in a vulnerable position leading to a huge issue with kidnapping, trafficking and unsolved murders of native girls and women

has almost 5 % of its population incarcerated who then are not allowed to vote with 30 % of the female prison population being prostitutes

have a sham democracy run by billionaires and reagan is mainly responsible for undoing social progress by enforcing neoliberalism and lying about trickle down effects

have no public broadcast and all news sources are privatised

still have the death penalty and abortion bans in some states

probably a shit ton more im forgetting now

yet usamericans have the gull to get on a high horse and point fingers at other countries because what? a european was mean online? lmao. and what gets me the most is that they often couldnt even name the president or point out said countries on a map.

people joke about the usa because they have made themselves out to be land of the free, the best country in the world, the worlds cop, the poster child democracy, while miserably failing their own people, immigrants following the promise set by the usa for a better life, and every country that was unlucky enough to be invaded and destabilised by the us military and the cia. on top the usa have a hegemonic grip on the majority of the globe and export culture wars and propaganda through hollywood movies and shows especially to other western countries. so give me a break