#the massive push for a change in ideology in that society is going to affect the individual

[chiarrara]

the Israeli government and their supporters are trying to conflate their war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide with Judaism. this is dangerous (for Jewish people), because if they succeed at this to any degree (which they materially have) it will naturally fuel antisemitism toward all Jewish people. This is a horrible horrible thing.

We all have personal responsibility to counter this, but we can't pretend it's not being pushed on an international scale.

They are intentionally drawing a hard line by saying "if you do not support us, you are antisemitic." this is not true but they are trying to make it true. this pushes people who are not antisemitic but do not support them across the line to be lumped in with actual nazis. this is a very bad thing.

Associating symbols of Judaism with genocide is a bad thing. Integrating genocidal ideology into religion is a bad thing. It does not mean the religion/ethnicity/identity is genocidal, but they are trying to make it so they are one and the same. This is a very dangerous thing.

[caustic-light]

There’s some shit going down in the yugituber community right now and it made me wanna point something out that a lot of leftists don’t really understand, even if they can recite the theory of it.

The left and the right recruit from the same pool of people. And those people are disenfranchised and marginalised people. Most people under capitalism are marginalised, because capitalism relies on economic disparity to function and as such poverty is actively marginalised. This creates a massive and ever increasing pool of disenfranchised people ready to be radicalised into either direction, splitting society and creating conditions for the rise of fascism over and over again. This is part of how capitalism sustains itself.

This means that the people who are radicalised towards the right are not fundamentally different from those who are radicalised to the left. The main difference is which kind of ideology they are exposed to and how they were raised. Marginalisation on other axes affects this, too, of course, so people who are marginalised on axes of gender, sexuality, race, disability, ect skew more left while more axes of privilege make right wing ideology easier to accept. Right wing marginalisation sells you an idea of your privilege entitling you to something better than what capitalism is willing and able to give you and scapegoats other marginalised people as the guilty party. It lives off of dividing the economically disparaged.

You are under no obligation to involve yourself with people on the right. But if leftism can not approach these people at the common point we both experience, being failed by capitalism and marginalised for it, leftism has failed. It’s part of the capitalism -> fascism -> capitalism cycle that leftism has to separate itself by default on a basis of ideological purity from the people who are being targeted by the right, so that the liberal center and the far right can crush growing leftism with every repitition of the cycle. A part of leftism needs to be to have compassion and understanding towards the right, even when we have to draw a hard line in the sand towards them at the same time. Part of the balance act is to understand the nazi as a human person who has been indoctrinated with fascism and who is fundamentally no different from us, possibly less lucky, while still being able to throw them out of the bar, knowing if we don’t, it’ll become a nazi bar.

To be able to draw that kind of line a lot of leftists disregard the importance of understanding and compassion towards the right. and by doing that we become a tool in their rise to power. We judge the past of people, rather than engaging with the present, we create strict moral codes, we push for no tolerance, no nuance positions on anything we can fight, we long for a yes or no rule set and we seek to outcast and punish without a moments hesitation. We are afraid to acknowledge the inherent mess of humanity and ethics and we suffer because of it. We make leftism inhospitable to anyone but people seeking positions of power to kick down from and those who believe strongly enough in leftism to be leftists in spite of how leftist spaces operate. To live in a panopticon of our own creation does not make for political insight, and it especially doesn’t make for human understanding.

And it has always happened. There is a reason leftist infighting is a meme older than fire. During fascism’s rise to power in italy and germany we neglected the fight against them because we couldn’t stop arguing amongst our own. In a lot of ways anarchists and ml’s hate each other more than they hate fascists. Add soc-dem’s to the mix and boy does it not get better. At the time leftists in germany watching the rise of Hitler have commonly said “What’s that gonna change? We’re already under crypto fascism, going mask off doesn’t matter.” But it did. And it was more important for the left here to remain ideologically pure to their own metrics than fight the rise of fascism until it was too late.

I live in western germany. There is a lot of worry here about how the ever present crypto fascist party, the AfD, is incredibly popular in the east. And the way we talk about them is incredibly void of compassion, pretty much just attributing it to easterners being stupid and gullible. Meanwhile the east has spent decades under the control of the soviet union, failed by a system that calls itself communism. When germany was reunited, it wasn’t so much a reunification as an annexation. We didn’t form one new country, everything in the east was bought up immediately by investors and landlords in the west and other western countries. As a result, not much changed. Now fascists come along and point at how both the glorious left and the enlightened liberal center have failed them and we, here in the west, have the audacity to laugh at them and call them stupid for falling for it.

[comrade-meow]

“If men could get pregnant,” Gloria Steinem famously said, “abortion would be a sacrament.” But we live in a new world — one wherein men can get pregnant, which has made things a little bit awkward for those fighting for abortion rights (though they refuse to acknowledge it). Today, it’s important not to exclude “men” from the abortion debate, as “men” can get pregnant too.

“Gentle reminder,” Imani Gandy tweeted last month, “it’s not only women who need abortions.” Gandy is Senior Editor of Law and Policy for Rewire News Group, once called RH Reality Check, Rewire has been focused on the abortion fight and reproductive rights since 2009. Today, they publish articles like, “Medical Students Are ‘Driving’ for Change Over Gender-Inclusive Language,” which tells the story of “Sam,” a trans-identified female whose pregnancy symptoms were, we are told, not taken seriously because she was not a “cis woman.” Rewire writer Alys Brooks concludes that “Sam’s story illustrates not only the high stakes of accurately communicating a patient’s gender and their sex assigned at birth, but also the need for health-care providers to factor those details into clinical decision-making.”

Medical students are “driving and demanding” changes to the med school curriculum that “better accounts for transgender patients,” Brooks reports. Which includes “degendering”: replacing terms like “pregnant women” with “pregnant people.”

Biology professor’s like Karen Hales, who is employed at Davidson College in North Carolina, have moved towards replacing “mother” and “father” with “egg parent” and “sperm parent.”

In truth, “Sam” had failed to inform the nurse that she was female, identifying herself as “transgender” and, even worse, her medical records showed she was a “man.”

To me, this exemplifies the false propanganda pushed by trans activists and the complicit media, constantly claiming incidents of “transphobia,” which are, in fact, simply about either people who identify as transgender being correctly sexed, or about people lying about their sex, thereby confusing the sane.

“Sam” was not treated ineffectively at the hospital because she claims to be “transgender,” but because it is imperative that medical professionals know the sex of their patients, and “Sam” had been informed by the government and trans activists that it was not only acceptable but necessary to her survival and happiness that she lie about her sex.

The notion that what is needed is to “degender” (which actually means “desex”) patients is ludicrous. Health care professionals need basic information about a patient’s biology/sex, easily communicated by using the (correct) language that already exists: female/male, woman/man, he/she. Imposing gender identity ideology on medicine and biology is clearly confusing, not clarifying, matters.

~~~

On Saturday, thousands gathered across America to protest Senate Bill 8, which was passed in Texas last month and allows people to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after six weeks. While the conversation about abortion should be extended beyond the “legal” vs “illegal” one — a conversation too complex for this particular piece, but that I will say is oversimplified and limited by the notion that women should be reliant on the medical establishment in order to have autonomy over their bodies and reproductive choices — I of course disagree with a law allowing those who “help” women get abortions to be sued. But what is worse is the fact that so many of those fighting this legislation refuse to say that this is an issue affecting only women.

If you can’t understand or say that abortion only impacts women, you cannot fight effectively for abortion rights.

There is a reason men have attempted to control women’s bodies, autonomy, and reproduction all these years, and that is because of biology. ***In an evolutionary sense, men need to know if their offspring is indeed their offspring, in order to stick around. They have an evolutionary drive to spread their seed, as it were, and they don’t (again, in an evolutionary sense, perhaps not an ideal/moral one) wish to invest their time in a family that isn’t “theirs.”*** This is why men decided to keep women in the home and out of public life, gallivanting with other men who might impregnate them. If women have control over their reproductive choices, it limits men’s ability to control women and keep them dependent/in the home, tied up with baby-making/raising.

I am oversimplifying, but the point I am trying to make is that only females can get pregnant, which is why men have tried to control their bodies and lives, historically, and is the basis for women’s historic oppression.

Women were never kept in the home, their autonomy limited, because they grew their hair long, wore skirts, put lipstick on, or named themselves “Caitlin” or “Alana.” Nor have women ever been able to opt out of historical oppression by wearing pants or cutting their hair short. Their status remains vulnerable because they are biologically female. Modern, Western civilization and legislation has protected women from institutional oppression, but the fact of pregnancy still means we may be vulnerable to, well, having little control over our lives. Abortion and our ability to control if and when we get pregnant offers us some control over our life circumstances and freedom.

This all seems like basic feminist information, but has become invisibilized by trans activism and its woke disciples. At abortion rallies across the nation, trans activists insisted on disrupting what should be unequivocally woman-centered activism to remind participants that this was not just a women’s issue as “men need abortions too.” In Washington, trans-identified athlete and activist, Schuyler Bailar, said:

“This is a women’s issue, and it is also a transgender man’s issue. It is also a nonbinary person’s issue. It is also a gender queer, gender fluid, transmasculine person’s issue. This is about all of us.”

And, yes, pregnancy and therefore abortion could well affect anyone who identifies as any of these things, but that still doesn’t mean men need abortions. It just means only females will ever want to access an abortion, making Bailar’s entire statement unnecessary. Pregnancy doesn’t care how you feel about gender roles or about how you identify. The only thing that matters is your biology.

You might think it is merely “polite” or “inclusive” to discuss pregnancy and abortion in gender neutral terms, or to remind people that “men can get pregnant too,” but what you lose in doing so is massive: why this matters and is a fight in the first place. It is also, of course, embarrassing and farcical, and makes a mockery of women’s rights advocates. Who could possibly take seriously an activist (or reporter, or politician, or academic, or health authority) who demands female autonomy while also insisting that “men can become pregnant”?

Young women in particular have completely lost the history of and context for the women’s movement, and, as a result, are losing hard fought for rights. That they’ve allowed themselves to be bamboozled by a group of narcissists who have zero interest in women’s rights and are so privileged they can manage to occupy their time with academic notions of “gender,” rather than the material circumstances of their lives, is shameful, and demonstrates how thoroughly out of touch they are with the current and past real life struggles of women across the globe.

Erasing women from the fight for reproductive rights should be sacrilege, but instead it has become doctrine. Women’s rights will continue to disappear in front of our eyes so long as women continue to go along with this nonsense ideology. If you can’t even acknowledge what a woman is and what rights are particular to females, your role in this fight is a joke.

***replace evolution with class society imo***

[alexsmitposts]

The Emergence of the Technetronic Society of Humankind The world community is being transformed. The current pandemic is only another phase of a metamorphosis set in motion decades ago. The intersection of our physical and digital lives is the battleground, where the last hopes of freedom are being bludgeoned to death. Few can see this because most people are already casualties the old world order sacrificed before the altar of liberty. Most of you reading this introduction will sense a bit of melodrama. But I assure you, anything I could type out here pales in comparison to the skullduggery that has beset humankind the last half-century. The war for planet Earth is upon us, but the battlefield is not some desert in Syria or a swamp somewhere in Latin America. The battlefield is real and virtual. It’s in the streets of Portland, Oregon, and the pages of Facebook. The Third World War is taking place in Walmart. It’s spreading to every back yard in Florida and every apartment complex in Bucharest. We’ve taken up arms against one another over every facet of life, not just whether or not to wear protective masks. Working-Class Struggle Redux Some of you already see this. You understand because you were finally forced to unfriend that high school buddy who Tweets or shares Facebook posters revealing humankind’s ignorance and meanness. We’re back to being tribal, devolution is upon us, and the end is written on the slum wall and the internet version. Wall Street is making a killing, billionaires are gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands, and the so-called little people are boiling in a kettle about to explode. Amazingly, my words here can be proven. Nobody can call “fake news” on this author. No sir. In 1970 the legendary (notorious for some) Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book entitled, “BETWEEN TWO AGES: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.” The author, who was one of the five or six most influential political celebrities of the latter part of the 20th century, is well known for his aversion for first the Soviet Union, and then the Russian Federation. Brzezinski’s book was an is a “how-to” book on methods for using computers and communications technologies as a means of transforming society. Though the book reads like an analysis by a technology outsider, the work is part of a wide-spanning strategy we see coming to competition today. Let’s look at an excerpt from the first section of the book where the former counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson and President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor delineates post-industrial America’s course: “In the technetronic society scientific and technical knowledge, in addition to enhancing production capabilities, quickly spills over to affect almost all aspects of life directly. Accordingly, both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction, and thereby also the pressures to direct, to choose, and to change.” I won’t tax the reader here, but I encourage you to read the book yourself so that what I am presenting will sink in. Brzezinski, in no uncertain terms, is describing the fundamental transformation of society beginning sometime shortly before 1970, when he collated the information within the pages of the book. Remember, he was LBJ’s advisor. The Rise of the Techno-Bourgeoisie He continues in this section to refer to the past ideologies of the industrial age which built and sustained America and other democracies, to insist upon a more “modern” or “advanced” central ideology. Brzezinski, who most detractors would describe as a dinosaur or archaic, was discussing cybernetics replacing humans when Bill Gates was still at Lakeside Prep School being bullied and writing his first computer programs. I mention Gates for a purpose that may be obvious to some readers. This citation from Between Two Ages will transport the reader to my line of thinking here. Brzezinski writes knowingly: “In the emerging new society questions relating to the obsolescence of skills, security, vacations, leisure, and profit-sharing dominate the relationship, and the psychic well­being of millions of relatively secure but potentially aimless lower­middle­class blue­collar workers becomes a growing problem.” Please remember, this was published in 1970, years before Brzezinski would brag that he had helped cause the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan so that it could get its very own “Vietnam.” The man was a genius, an evil one, but a brilliant geo-policy strategist nonetheless. This book is not a reflection of Brzezinski’s powerful mind, however. This book is the revelation of a plan set in motion after Dwight Eisenhower left office. It’s a blueprint for the liberal world order to completely dominate the world. But before you label me, please consider how this “growing problem” is being used today. Who is Donald Trump? Aha! Now I have your full attention. What about the psychic wellbeing of aimless lower-middle-class Americans? Or, the psychic wellbeing of relatively secure Germans right before Adolph Hitler made them afraid of all the nations surrounding their country? Wait! Don’t go to that tangent, please focus on who got Donald Trump in the White House and how this came to pass. You see, Brzezinski and his colleagues created the conditions, the society, and the “path” we see taking shape today. Think about our symbols now, for instance. How did Google come to dominate the internet? Who stood behind? What does Google do? How about Facebook or Amazon, or any of the monumental successes we see controlling this technetronic society we now live in? Google lured the masses in with “free” and with slogans like “do no evil.” The competition was driven off, through massive investment. Now billions of people are analyzed and “computed” like Brzezinski revealed, to transform society, not to simply extract money via ads. Take the case of Facebook, it’s the same story. A huge swath of humanity is studied, spied upon, and manipulated while the puppetmasters tweak ideology, foment discord, and steer the crowd toward the desired endgame. Sounds crazy and dramatic, doesn’t it? But, wait for it. In 1972, Bill Gates served as a congressional page in the US House of Representatives. He was then a National Merit Scholar who went to Harvard for a brief time, where he met Steve Ballmer, who would lead Microsoft until 2014. Ballmer was an assistant product manager at Procter & Gamble for two years, where he shared an office with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the onetime CEO of General Electric. I hope you are keeping up with me here, for these names figure prominently in the current situation. Immelt was the head of GE’s Medical Systems division (now known as GE Healthcare) as its president and CEO back in 1997. To make a very long story shorter, Brzezinski was closely tied to all the names I am mentioning either through roles at the Council of Foreign Relations, or via more intimate and secretive associations. Take into consideration GE and Immelt’s view on China from back in 2010 when he said; “’I worry about China. I am not sure that in the end, they want any of us to win.” Fast forward to 2015 and Brzezinski is pushing for Donald Trump to “outbid” everyone for the presidency. He tweeted this to his followers on Twitter: “What’s better: a billionaire outbidding everyone for the Presidency, or billionaires picking the candidates for the Presidency?” The answer to his feigned query is drop-dead simple – “It doesn’t matter, the same people control no matter what.” And the control processes were put in action once John F. Kennedy was out of the way. LBJ played his role to a “T”, Nixon got too big for his britches and had to go, Ford plated nincompoop in charge to put the plan on pause, and peanut farmer/Nuke sub commander Carter helped roll out the red carpet for our current technetronic society. But I’m getting ahead. The Immuno-Catalyst Let me retrace a step to the associations of Gates, Ballmer, and Immelt. And most importantly, the current healthcare/pandemic crisis some experts believe is an induced one. Remember Gates’ pal Immelt headed GE Healthcare, which entered an agreement with Gates back IBio to commercialize the iBioLaunch vaccine manufacturing platform. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded iBio Pharma, which has been in recent news because of President Trump grandstanding about a COVID breakthrough. The company is one of those focused on vaccines against the coronavirus. And if you’re getting lost in this maze of technocrats, now it’s time to interject another key player named Warren Buffett. Buffett, who for all intents and purposes owns IBM, is another link in what we should call the Brzezinski Plan for world domination. Remember, it was IBM that teleported Bill Gates out of brainiac obscurity back in 1980. It is not common knowledge, but the last Watson family head of IBM, Thomas J. Watson, Jr. served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1979 to 1981. It was the ideas and ideals along with the patriotism of the latter Watson, from which people like Brzezinski convoluted the notion of modern democracy. Thomas J. Watson Jr. was also central to the administrations of L.B.J., Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Moving forward, most people are unaware, that Warren Buffett is also the biggest contributor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (more than $30 billion). And in this, we see how the “system” of control gets its continuity. Finally, it was the Brzezinski plan that delivered us to the current sorry state of democracy. The former advisor to key presidents not only helped devise the plan to shift the world’s ideologies and social structure, but he also helped empower the super elites running the show, and the lower-middle class minions who would stoke the forest of orchestrated rebellion. When asked how he would deal with the super-rich, Brzezinski differentiated people like Warren Buffett and Gates from the rest, while at the same time feeding the mob that Trump now leads and the left learning hordes on the left hanging: “It would be increasingly helpful if there was a movement to publish, worldwide, lists of those who make, largely through speculation, enormous amounts of money almost instantly, and hide the fact from their social context.” A Government of Business Power So, a ruling elite was and is to be lifted, isolated, and protected using demonic intimidation from every vector. Today’s dog and pony show across western capitals have roots in Rockefeller’s and Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission, established to help put in motion the tenets from the latter’s Between Two Ages manifesto. If I throw in the fact that the Trilateral Commission’s notable member list includes such notorious super-rich as Jeffrey Epstein here, I’ve no doubt the reader will be overwhelmed by the scope of this “plan” for turning the world upside down. Finally, the academic Noam Chomsky once criticized the commission’s goals as undemocratic saying the publication of the organization, The Crisis of Democracy reflects how modern democratic systems are not democracy at all, but systems controlled by elites. And the Rockefeller Foundation’s support of the various German eugenics programs and the connections to Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele and Auschwitz tarnish anyone and everyone associated with Rockefeller, and the ruling elite of this new “modern ideal” or technetronic society. In his 1980 book With No Apologies, Republican Senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater called the Trilateral Commission: “A skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical in the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.” The Brzezinski Plan for new democracy is the liberal world order’s plan for humanity. It’s a process that’s been going on for decades, one centered around and dependent on the puppet President Donald Trump. You see, I believe it is Trump’s mission to utterly destroy the very social class of people he is supported by. It is the only idea that makes sense if you examine the loosed cannon idiocy of an otherwise shrewd businessman. What better way to bury the working class who have been bred, reared, and marginalized into mediocrity than to create a revolution against everything they stood for? The Confederate flag, the statues of heroes, the race issues resurfacing, riots, discord, snarling and biting at anyone and anything that is not TRUMP! Real Death, Real Fear, Real Monopolization For this Technetronic Era to culminate in a Utopia for the ruling classes, a pandemic was set loose, a very special kind of virus engineered (probably) for segmenting society. The hard-nosed working class would shun the femininity and weakness of mask-wearing, while the ultra-liberals at the other end of the spectrum would thrive on the morality of caring – and on winning against the callousness of right-wing discord. As I try to explain to those who ask, the situation today is a perfect storm of social upheaval engineered to bring in this new society. You see, both sides of the COVID argument are right – and wrong – at the same instant. This is as it was planned. Bill Gates and his monopoly on vaccines and the health community can hide in plain sight, while Trump’s and Biden’s handlers rake in hundreds of billions playing the dynamic markets. Watching it, at least from my perspective, is like watching the pressure in a boiler build up past the red danger gauge on the outside. In Hitler’s Shadow we find the depth of the US deep state and Brzezinski’s role in the planning for the new world without the Soviets (Russians) in the picture. There’s limited space for describing a CIA operation codenamed AERODYNAMIC which was the forerunner for transformative/revolutionary efforts in the CIS including Georgia, Ukraine, and now Belarus. The reader should understand that Brzezinski, and his father before him, were central figures in a movement to subdue and subdivide the Soviet bloc, and later Russia and her neighbors. No one reading this will know of a man named Mykola Lebed, who operated alongside Joseph Bandera and with the backing of the OSS and later the CIA. He immigrated to the United States because of his importance to the CIA and the deeps state, even though he was in league with the worst Nazis who ever breathed. Brzezinski broadened the scope of AERODYNAMIC, which was in league with former Nazi sympathizers to upend Stalin, and then later Soviet leadership. The history of it is all a deep well no single volume could encapsulate. Again, I have fallen too deep into the rabbit hole of the order, but the reader can observe via this CIA document bearing Brzezinski’s authorship how the plan for today was set in motion decades ago. Trump is destroying the Republican Party for good. Technocrat Bill Gates has monopolized immunization and will leverage it for this new Technetronic Society. The money and power behind this forceful transformation of our society are incalculable, mostly unseen, and probably unstoppable. Think about it, a plan to take over the world put in place decades ago, a plan hardly anyone notices because of its incremental, indomitable, and relentless nature. Sounds conspiratorial, doesn’t it? Well, conspiracies killed Caesar and overthrew the Czar. Conspiracies were the seeds of the American Revolution and the French one too. What? You think control is just a roll of the dice?

[leviathan-supersystem]

Okay, been workshopping my script for the video adaptation of the “currents” post with @sapphixxx​ (thnx bb) and i’m gonna post it here for commentary and critique one last time before i record myself reading it then start editing some clips and stuff for a video, so anyways yeah, hit me with your best critiques, sisters ✨💅

(also i’m thinking i’m going to call the video “social currents” instead of just “currents” because i feel like that gives a better sense of what it’s about. also changed the script to reflect this)

People have proposed various methods for understanding society and how people interact with each other from a scientific standpoint, from dialectical materialism, to memetics, to analysis of incentive structures, even to viewing social groups as a kind of superorganism, with each individual as a body in a cell.

And I thought- what if you were to take those models and jam them together into some kind of big social theory Frankenstein?

We might use the work of B.F. Skinner as a jumping off point- known for his eponymous “Skinner Box,” a simple box that administered rewards or punishment in response to certain actions- pushing a lever, or moving to a particular part of the box. Experimental subjects places in the Skinner Box soon changed their behavior in response to these incentives, generally increasing rewarded behavior and decreasing penalized behavior- even fruit flies, in a simple Skinner Box that heated up when they moved to one side of the box, soon changed their behavior in response to incentives, avoiding that side of the box.

Social interactions can be a bit like a Skinner Box- our actions are either rewarded or penalized by those around us, through everything from subtle expressions of approval or disapproval to more overt forms of reward and penalty, and soon our actions shift in response to this.

How our actions are incentivized or disincentivized depends on the memes the people around us carry- memes not in the lolcat or SpongeBob sense, but in the older sense of the term, an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another. How the people around us will respond to our actions is shaped by their moral beliefs, political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc.- these collections of memes, or memeplexes, often contain a list of dos and don’ts, and people around us carrying these memes will incentivize or disincentivize our actions according to these scripts.

Sometimes people create their own value systems, but usually people just pick up the value systems they’re immersed in by their community through osmosis, or join communities because they find their value system appealing- but all value system memeplexes were created by someone at some point, to serve someone’s interest- perhaps the interest of the community as a whole, or perhaps the interests of a specific class or individual.

A group of people sharing a value system act in tandem as a massive incentive system, affecting the behavior of everyone they contact, in ways from subtle to extreme- to graph out what that looks like, let’s draw a rough diagram loosely inspired by a real life example, let’s say the culture war between the right and left surrounding the new age scene in 1970’s San Francisco.

Let’s represent these worldviews- left wing, right wing, and new age- with color dots, and say the blue dots indicate right-wingers, and the pink dots indicate left-wingers, and the orange/yellow ones indicate new-agers.

And then from there, draw arrows to indicate the influence that people have over each other- with the size of the arrow indicating the intensity of that influence, and the color of the arrow representing which value system is guiding how they incentivize or disincentivize behavior- whether they’re following the values of right-wing politics, left-wing politics, or the new-age scene in how they reward or penalize the actions of the actions of those they interact with.

(Looking at this chart, it might seem strange to think that there would be overlap between right-wingers and new-agers, but those familiar with the new age scene in 1970’s San Francisco wouldn’t find that unusual.)

The social incentives which an individual receives- the social reality that they experience- is determined by their relations to the people around them, and consequently the set of social incentives one person receives will be radically different from that of another. Within right-wing social clusters, they would be rewarded for praising then-governor Ronald Reagan, in left-wing social clusters they would be rewarded for opposing the Vietnam war, in new-agey social clusters they would be socially penalized for expressing disbelief in crystal healing, and so on- these rewards likely taking the form of things like praise and increased social clout, and the social penalties likely including being scorned or even shunned.

This is very simplified rendition, of course- a perfectly accurate one would be excessively cluttered- but this works as a lose rendition of how communities interact. People with shared beliefs cluster together, and influence each other and the people they’re socially adjacent to according to those shared values, and in doing so they coalesce into collective incentive systems which shape the behavior of everyone they come into contact with.

The relation between these incentives and behavior is not always straightforward- for example an intended penalty might act as a reward for a person who enjoys negative attention- but behavior is always inevitably affected by and contextualized by these incentives.

From this angle, social groups which coalesce around memplexes appear as almost a kind of collective organism, with each person being a cell in the body of some kind of massive behemoth- the memeplex serving as it’s genetic- or memetic- code, and the incentives serving as it’s nervous system.

Now, a lot of analysis which has used this sort of metaphor has framed it as strictly negative, but I don’t think that’s useful- these sorts of social organisms form any time you have multiple people together who have even vaguely shared beliefs about right and wrong, and I don’t think it’s meaningfully possible or desirable to prevent people from congregating around shared moral beliefs. We’re all cells in the bodies of vast superorganisms, conduits for forces far larger than ourselves, and that’s okay!

Let’s call these collective organisms “social currents,” building off of the sense of the word current meaning “particular ideas, opinions or feelings being present in a group of people.”

But also referencing it’s more common usage as referring to a current of water - something a person can get caught in the flow of. Or an electrical current, coursing through conduits.

 Most social phenomenon can be described in these terms- groups of people acting in tandem to incentivize and disincentivize behavior according to a memetic script- from political movements, to religions, to cults, to ethical philosophies, to governments, to corporations and even artistic movements- all of these can essentially be thought of as different varieties of social currents.

And there can also be social currents within social currents- for example all corporations are sub-currents of the super-current of capitalism, which is the prevailing hegemonic economic social current.

The incentives used by social currents include everything from material incentives/money, to expressions of approval or disapproval from peers, to legal punitive measures like imprisonment- even our internal feelings of guilt and pride are ultimately based on the value systems we’ve picked up through social interaction, and thus are just another form of incentive that currents use.

Our choices are so heavily shaped by the incentive structures of the social currents we interact with that insofar as we have any kind of autonomy as individuals, this is expressed more by what social currents we choose to interact with or act as a conduit for than it is by what we choose to do within a given current.

Morality, rather than being some unchanging concrete set of laws encoded into the universe, is a function of this social phenomenon- people generate memetic scripts about which actions to incentivize and which to dis-incentivize, and the effect of this incentive structure will be to varying degrees beneficial, or detrimental, to society- or possibly beneficial to one class at the expense of another. Morality isn’t like the laws of physics as much as it’s like a form of technology, which must always be continually updated and improved to be more beneficial to more people.

We could also roughly sort social currents according to the categories of Economic and Ideological- or in Marxist terms, Base and Superstructure.

These both overlap and have a reciprocal relationship, of course, but there is a definite divide between social currents which incentivize mostly through material economic means, like corporations- let’s call these Economic, or Base Currents- and social currents which incentivize behavior through more subtle ideological and personal means, such as political ideologies and religions- let’s call these Ideological, or Superstructure Currents

Often there will be superstructure currents which emerge out of base currents, or base currents which emerge out of superstructure currents- consider the mission statement of the ethos of a company as a superstructure current emerging out of a base current, or a boycott organized by political group as a base current emerging out of a superstructure current- or for a more complex example, the food program run by the black panthers as a base current emanating from a superstructure current, which, had there been a successful revolution, might have evolved into a more larger and more complex base current- a socialist economy.

While usually social currents operate simply through people following the incentive structure while acting in their own self-interest, once an individual has fully absorbed the value system of a current, they will act according to that value system even beyond the point of self interest- whether this is a good or bad thing depends on the merit of the value system of that social current- on how beneficial it is as a piece of moral social technology.

To give a few examples to illustrate this:

A: Two people in the desert come across water. Instead of splitting it evenly, the stronger of the two- who in this hypothetical happens to lack a sense of guilt or conscience- simply kills the other, and takes all the water for themselves. In the absence of social incentive systems, self-interest plays out in horrific ways.

B: Someone donates money, but the primary reason they did so was because they knew they would receive social approval for doing so, and benefit in the form of social approval outweighed the cost to themselves.

C: Someone knowingly gives their life to save the lives of several other people- perhaps a civilian in a warzone throwing themselves on a grenade. In this case there isn’t even the hypothetical chance that they did it purely for selfish approval-seeking reasons, since the cost was their own life, and whatever social approval they may gain, they will never experience it. This is, nonetheless, still a function of social currents- it’s just that they have internalized the value system to the point where they adhere to it not just as a means to the end of gaining social approval (or avoiding social disapproval and punishment), but as an ends unto itself, and will adhere to it even at extreme personal cost.

D: Some incel creep, stewing in forums which treat Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian as heroes, goes on his own similar spree killing, ending the spree by taking his own life. This person also will never receive any social reward from their cohorts for their actions, due to being dead, but had internalized the value system of the incel ideology to the point where they will act on it even at extreme personal cost.

So you can see that while example C and example D are both acting nominally selflessly, example C is morally commendable, while example D morally repugnant- and while both example A and example B are acting selfishly, and example A is just as repugnant as example D, example B is only somewhat less commendable than example C- point is, acting selflessly does not inherently make you better than someone acting selfishly if the moral framework of the social current you are selflessly adhering to is itself a malignant framework. (And this isn’t a static thing either, since a current that was once benign can become malignant).

So selfishness is, overall, Not Great, but the picture is a little more nuanced than “selfishness=bad, selflessness=good”

In practice, social currents tend to have a certain anatomy- already in this diagram here we can see the different currents portrayed have a clusters within them, as well as a noticeable edge- let’s outline those to bring them into clearer focus.

When we do this, we can see an amoeba-like shape taking form- inner nuclei, and an outer membrane. Similar to how genetic code instructs cells on how to organize into an organism, this is how memetic codes instruct individuals on how to organize into collective superorganisms.

When the two memeplexes are more compatible, the superorganisms will overlap as they absorb each other, and when they memeplexes are less compatible, they’ll form more distinct boundaries, and attempt to siphon people away from each other, acting more directly in competition. Here we can see both the left-wing current and the right-wing current overlapping with the current of the new-age scene, making it a flashpoint for culture war sparring- this kind of scenario, where one social current will become the arena in which two other currents battle each other, is fairly common, and in fact the culture war between the right and the left within the new age scene in the 70’s is mirrored today by similar culture war skirmishes between the right and left within the Norse neopagan scene.

Social currents have a tendency to try to place parts of the memeplex which are more appealing to outsiders on the external membrane, and to place parts which are more alienating to outsiders near the nuclei- Scientologists don’t tell people about all the Xenu stuff right off the bat, you feel me? This especially applies when attempting to siphon people away from a competing social current.

The Mormons actually have a term to describe this strategy- “Milk Before Meat”- the idea being that you must first expose potential converts to the Spiritual Milk- the more appealing parts of the memeplex- before exposing them to the Spiritual Meat- the more alienating parts of the memeplex.

In addition, incentive structures are usually more severe, and the rules more strict, the deeper you go- this similarly helps to ease the process by which someone is absorbed into a social current.

In some of those nuclei clusters we can see noticeable power hierarchies, particularly the ones on the top and bottom right, which are clearly centered around specific individuals or groups who the rest of the cluster is subordinate to. To tie this more firmly into the real world, if the pink and blue represent the political left and the right in this model, then the nuclei-like clusters would be both informal and formal groups of political activists, with some of the more formally organized political groups having overt hierarchies and chains of command.

These kinds of power imbalances within a social current have a detrimental effect upon it, resulting in a kind of social decay- to illustrate an example, consider the reverend of a right-wing church gradually making his church more cult-like, consolidating his own power at the expense of his followers.

(Now, a more thorough diagram might show how this church interacts with the larger social current of Christianity, how the different denominations act as distinct yet connected currents, how they’ll act in opposition or in tandem depending on circumstance, and how they overlap with both the right and the left- but it would take years to create a diagram which accurately captured all that.)

A person who already has disproportionate power within the social current, in this case the aforementioned reverend, shifts their value system in their own favor, re-writing the rules to their own benefit- (one popular path for the preacher gone full-blown cult leader is to re-write the rules to allow themselves to take multiple young wives, like David Koresh did)- here I’m representing that shift with the shift from blue to teal-ish in the upper right corner, representing a shift from the background ideology of right-wing christianity to the specific ideology of a tightly controlled reactionary cult- and this has a ripple effect on the cluster surrounding them,

shifting it so that the rest of the people in the current better serves the interests of the leader and his cadre, often at the expense of everyone else within the cluster. The subtle shift from preacher to cult leader, and the attendant shift in the social mores of the church, doesn’t in any way benefit his followers- but given his disproportionate ability to reward or punish his followers, they fall in line out of fear of punishment, adopting the new value system, enforcing it on each other horizontally in addition to the pressure the cult leader is exerting from above.

So while the popular narrative holds that we need hierarchy to maintain social order, in actuality hierarchy is in many ways harmful to social order- the powerful have every motivation to shift the rules in their favor, change the social current’s incentive structures such that it acts to their benefit and exploits the people lower in the hierarchy- not to mention when there is a clear divide between the people who make or enforce social rules, and the people subject to them, the people who make or enforce social rules have little reason to follow them- cops, and Ted Kennedy, can get away with murder.

Of course, a lot of the times the social rules were already in their favor to begin with- hence why they had more influence in the first place.

In either case, whether baked in from the beginning or a function of societal rot as the powerful further entrench their power, the end result of memeplexes being undermined by hierarchy is the same: the prevailing ideas and values are the values of the ruling class, and the interests of the ruling class are disguised as the universal interest of all.

Luckily, hegemonic power attempting to entrench itself isn’t the only way a social current’s value system can shift, and there are other forces which act to counteract the entrenchment of the ruling class- put a pin in that, because we’re going to come back to that in a minute.

There’s also another type of cluster within the social currents in this chart, and that’s clusters of people who have become dissatisfied with the status quo of the social norms of the current they’re within - lets highlight those in grey.

These pockets of dissatisfaction generally emerge in response to legitimate grievances with real problems in the value system of the status quo (though they can also occasionally be founded on illegitimate grievances, like that of a formerly privileged class losing their privilege). Often these problems in the value system are tied into the kind of exploitative hierarchies I mentioned earlier - however, problems can exist within the value system of a social current without them necessarily being to any exploitative classes’ benefit- sometimes the source of the problem is that the rules have been written or re-written to benefit one person or class at the expense of the rest, but occasionally there are problems in the value system of a current which are caused by simple human error, and aren’t to anyone’s benefit.

Lets say that the pocket of dissatisfaction within the left-wing current is people who feel the social norms around sex within the left are dysfunctional, while the pocket of dissatisfaction within the right wing current is people dissatisfied with the excesses of the ascendant evangelical right, perhaps specifically unhappy with the excesses of the preacher turned cult leader they’re socially adjacent to.

On one hand, these pockets of dissatisfaction can act as a point from which a competing social current can attempt to siphon away individuals, in the form of people from the competing current reaching out to the people in the pocket and making the case that they would be happier if they were to leave their current for the competitor- in this example, someone reaching out to people alienated by the church-gone-cult, so that she can make a case to them that the social values within the left prevent this kind of reactionary religious excess- in this framework it can almost be represented as one current extending a pseudopod into the other current to draw in people from it:

This is a relatively simple example- one person reaching out to another- but a current can generate extremely complex social mechanisms to draw people from other currents into itself. For example consider a group like redneck revolt, which reaches out to people in right-wing leaning rural areas and recruits them into the left, or conversely, for another example from same 1970′s time frame as our diagram, the Jesus movement, a right-wing movement which recruited hippies into reactionary evangelical Christianity. Unlike a redneck revolt, which is pretty overt in what it’s goals are, the Jesus movement was more deceptive, framing itself as a left-leaning progressive brand of Christianity when in actuality it’s most prominent figures were  staunchly reactionary- just look at the Jesus movement associated cult the Children of God, which marketed itself to hippies and presented itself as progressive to outsiders, while it’s leader was preaching racist, homophobic, and antisemitic screeds to the people living on the cult commune.

An especially deceptive version of the previously mentioned milk before meat strategy comes into play here, in this case being used as a strategy to siphon people away from the left while concealing that intention, presenting a progressive face to suck in hippies and then indoctrinating them with far-right ideology once they’ve been ensnared. So while the strategy of one social current extending a pseudopod into another to siphon away members may be pretty universal, it can either be done in ways which are more honest about the intentions, like Redneck Revolt, or it can be more underhanded and dishonest like the Jesus movement was, and relying on more overtly deceptive versions of the Milk Before Meat tactic- though almost all social currents use mild Milk Before Meat tactics when drawing people in by at least somewhat downplaying aspects of the memeplex more alienating to outsiders at first.

Of course, Milk Before Meat tactics can sometimes fail- sometimes the more alienating parts of a memeplex end up alienating people, in spite of attempts made to mitigate this- whether this results in those people simply returning to the current they were being absorbed from, or forming a new pocket of dissatisfaction, depends on the scenario, specifically on the degree to which they had transferred from one current to another.

While these pockets of dissatisfaction can act as a weakness for another current to leech off of, they can also act to generate a corrective force, as people in these pockets who have been harmed by the existing social norms within that current create an updated version of that value system, or an entirely new value system, in response to their material needs- so for example, this pocket of dissatisfaction in the diagram represents women who had been harmed by the dysfunctional social mores around sex in the 60’s and 70′s radical scene- this spurred them to create ideological concepts based off of critiques of the “free love” norms of the 60’s radical scene, ideological concept which would later be described as “sex-negative feminism.”

In this diagram this is represented by the grey pocket of dissatisfaction becoming a new internal social current, which acts in opposition to the current surrounding it on the point of contradiction- here the red current within the pink current represents sex negative feminism within the larger context of the “free love” ideology which prevailed in much of the left.

This internal current spreads within the social current surrounding it, absorbing people who resonate with their critiques of the social status quo, eventually dispersing and incorporating itself into the larger surrounding current.

In the classic dialectical materialist model, the first current is the thesis, then the new current growing out of the pocket of dissatisfaction is the antithesis, they synthesize into a new social status quo, which inevitably will have it’s own pockets of dissatisfaction, and the process repeats.

For example, as portrayed in this diagram, the problems inherent in the 1970’s radical scene’s social norms around sex was the flashpoint for the development of feminist critiques of sex and porn, then the flaws inherent within the sex negative framework, such as it’s sometimes excessively puritanical values and it’s ugly transphobia, spurred sex positive feminist critiques, then the flaws within the sex positive framework spurred a new wave of sex critical feminism, and so forth, this back-and forth dialectic working to shape the social norms around sex within social spaces on the left.

Now, I’m sure some would argue that in the back and forth between sex negativity and sex positivity, one of the two was reactionary, and emerged to retain the privilege of an oppressive class and undo progress. However I disagree, I think both sex positivity and sex negativity- and the back and forth dialectic between them- played a progressive role in improving the social norms around sex within the left.

The pattern of “people disenfranchised by the current value system create a new value system, which spurs action which shifts social norms to better accommodate peoples needs” is visible everywhere- revolutionary action by the oppressed against the status quo is not only a force in driving social and moral advancement- it’s the primary force, the grinding dialectical engine at the heart of history and morality.

We can see this pattern playing out especially clearly in the field of LGBT rights, where homophobic and transphobic laws and social mores- which are a harmful incentive system which unnecessarily punishes benign behavior- spurred the emergence of the lgbt rights movement, as the people harmed by homophobic and transphobic social mores and laws to joined together in radical action to change them.

Or for an example on a larger scale, consider the way feudalism was supplanted by liberalism and capitalism, particularly around such flashpoints as the French revolution- so we can see that this dialectical pattern can take different forms, and while sex critical feminism and sex positive feminism both acted internally within the left, the contradiction which spurred the decline of feudalism was more severe, with the liberal enlightenment social current more fully separating itself from the feudal social current before overtaking it.

(Similarly, at this point it’s necessary for capitalism to be supplanted by an entirely new economic current- the contradictions at play here are too severe to be resolved through a more subtle internal dialectical process.)

As noted earlier, the ruling class losing it’s power and privilege due to social progress creates it’s own pocket of dissatisfaction. This can generate a harmful reactionary social current, which aims to undo that progress- and this certainly applies to the decline of monarchy and feudalism. 

Reactionary currents caused by an oppressive class losing their power can have a significant memetic ripple effect, outlasting the actual people who lost their power- and the reactionary current which emanated from the aristocracy and monarchy losing their power after feudalism declined continues to this day. The central narrative of monarchist reactionaries in the wake of the decline of feudalism (this will sound familiar) was that progressivism and democracy were bad, and that Jewish people, freemasons, and the Illuminati were behind them (especially in relation to the French revolution)- as you’ve probably already noted, this narrative which continues to play a central role in reactionary movements to this day, from fascism to neoreaction- though some original flavor moldbuggian neoreactionaries attempted to swap out the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theorism for a sinister Calvinist conspiracy.

The Illuminati was a small short-lived enlightenment-era discussion group, but then some deranged pro-monarchist priest named Augustin Barruel accuses them of having caused the French revolution, and from there the telephone game of the memetic ripple effect exaggerated the Illuminati into the ultimate shadowy boogeyman in the reactionary narrative. More than anything else, the fact that the whole right-wing conspiracy theory about the Illuminati is directly traceable back to the reactionary response to the French revolution shows just how severe the memetic ripple from that reactionary social current was, and how firmly caught up in it’s wake a lot of modern reactionaries are. Both fascism and neoreaction can be understood as essentially mutations and cross-pollinations of the reactionary current that emerged in response to the French revolution.

However, while reactionary currents can undo progress, nonetheless the general overall trend of history is toward improvement- the long moral arc of the universe bending toward justice.

Now, if power imbalances are harmful, and if these sorts of dialectical processes correct power imbalances through social upheaval, the question must be asked- why do power imbalances exist in the first place?

To answer this question with a question- how do you create an incentive system without that incentive system creating a power imbalance between those it rewards and those it punishes?

It’s a difficult question, with no easy answer!

Of course, this may drive many to deem social currents and incentive structures inherently evil- “We must cast off all binds that might shape our behavior, destroy all the authoritarian social mores, reject all coercive social systems, and embrace individualism fully!” they might say “’The People’ is dead! Good-day, Self!” They might also tell you you’re “spooked” and tell you to read Stirner.

Here’s the thing though- as noted earlier, any time you have people in a group where some of them have shared beliefs about which actions are good or bad, these kind of social incentive systems are going to emerge- you could try to prevent people from doing anything which might in some way incentivize or dis-incentivize the actions of others- but how would you convince people not to reward or penalize the behavior of others, without in some way rewarding or penalizing their behavior yourself in order to convince them?

And more importantly, would we really be better off if there were no social incentive systems or consequences for action? Would we really be better off if, for example, abusers, faced no repercussions? And recall here that we’re talking not only about formal legal penalties but also decentralized social penalties like “people not liking you”- which, mind you, can be a pretty powerful social tool for shaping behavior.

So as you can see, there isn’t an “out” here, and the dream of a world without incentive structures is in actuality neither possible nor desirable. The goal shouldn’t be to abolish all social incentive structures, but rather to correct what is broken, to replace flawed incentive structures with better ones, and to improve upon the social technology of morality.

So, what is the takeaway from all of this?

Especially, what is the takeaway from all this when it comes to the question of how to make and keep a revolution?

Anarchist approaches to revolutionary theory generally hold that a revolutionary movement must reject all forms of hierarchy and authority to create a genuinely revolutionary movement.

Marxist approaches on the other hand, as per Engels in On Authority, take a view that hierarchy and authority are not strictly negative, and it’s the class character they serve which is the important thing.

What we can see from the framework I’ve laid out here is that the truth lies essentially somewhere in the middle- namely, that anarchists are correct that hierarchy is inherently corruptive, and should be avoided or it will undermine a revolutionary movement from within. However they are incorrect in the individualistic social-libertarian approach which they generally tie in with their rejection of hierarchy- Engels may have been wrong on hierarchy, but he was correct on the reality that a sense of discipline, unity, and order is necessary in a revolutionary movement if it is to maintain itself long enough to supplant the hegemonic order, let alone sustain itself afterward.

The revolutionary social current we create must be more functional, and more beneficial to human well-being if we are to successfully supplant the prevailing hegemonic current.

[amargarone772]

Expert Interview: Discussing France’s Political History and Current Events with Professor Elizabeth Carter

https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/expert/carter-elizabeth

  The following interview is an interview conducted with Professor Elizabeth Carter, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of New Hampshire. Carter has been a member of the UNH faculty since 2015, and has received her PhD in political science at the University of California Berkeley as well as her M.P.A from the University of Washington. Her postdoctoral research was done at the Max Planck Institute of the Study of Societies in Cologne, Germany. Carter’s areas of focus are European politics, political economy, and food politics.

         Carter provides insight on France’s history and the Front National Party. She also examines the current refugee crisis, the political system under President Macron, and the yellow vest movement that has been taking over France since last November. Carter discusses the media’s role in Macron’s presidential election, and compares the current day issues of France to those of other European nations and the United States. Carter’s educational background and personal affiliation with France provide her with the ideal qualities to discuss these critical topics.

         We also discussed the Front National Party under Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose goal was to protect French identity and defend the fundamental values of our civilization (Betz, 2003, p. 196). In the past, immigrants coming to France were able to assimilate easier because they mainly came from other European nations (Betz, 2003, p. 197). However, most new immigrants came from African, Middle East, and Asians regions and had cultural backgrounds that the Front National claimed would threaten the French culture (Betz, 2003, p. 197).

 Interviewer: Ali Margarone, senior Communication student at the University of New Hampshire

Interviewee: Professor Elizabeth Carter, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of New Hampshire

 Interview Transcript:

Refugee Crisis

A: What are your opinions on the current refugee crisis?

PC: When I think about the refugee crisis, I first think about Germany and Chancellor Merkel’s response. There is the Syrian refugee crisis that relate to the German history. Angela Merkel is the Chancellor and the leader of the center-right party, the Christian Democrats. She took a pretty contested stance in her party, which was to welcome the refugees with quite open arms. The rhetoric that was said, not by Merkel directly, was other people took in German refugees at our darkest hour, now we can do this and step in to help others. At that time, she was in a Grand Coalition with the Socialist government that would be to the little bit to the left, so she may have been a bit more influenced in some ways by that party. Overall, Germany had a really exceptional stance on integrating migrants. So I think the question is, what is the effect of that in France?

A: Do you mean how is France being affected by what Germany is doing?

PC: Yes. Because it’s not like France is a peaceful place that had good immigrant relations and then there was the refugee crisis in about 2013. 

A: In regards to the refugee crisis, do you know exactly what French President Macron’s stances are?

PC: I almost want to say centrist, because I was following the situation that was going on in Calais with the camps being taken apart. He tends to be an ally with Chancellor Merkel, and I think he wants to be the pragmatic centrist. But he also wants people in France to be happy. France has a ton of immigrants, but the thing you hear people talking about in Germany is the Syrians; in France, it’s not. There definitely have been Syrian refugees in France, but again I think its like pressing on the already sensitive spot of the many Muslim immigrants. There’s still an influx of refugees from Tanzania, Algeria, and Sub-Saharan French former colonies. You walk around Paris, and there’s boulevards full of tents, at least 10 sleeping bags on one block. I’ve been going to France for 20 years, and this is something I’ve never seen before. They do often seem to be refugees who have come to France because they think they can get a better life. France has a really strong identity that’s tied to being French and having French values, language, being Catholic but secular. They aren’t open to people, especially Muslim immigrants, who they feel won’t take on the French culture.

 A: Some research I’ve done showed that it’s the way you look that greatly affects the way in which you are treated. The French tend to be more accepting of other European refugees rather than those from Africa or the Middle East. Do you think this is true?

PC: I noticed that much more in Germany, who only considered Germans to be those with German blood. France’s take on nationality is that you are French if you are born on French soil; anyone can be French, as its about liberty, equality, and brotherhood. You have to speak French and adopt the liberal values of the French Revolution and the French state today. France’s issue with the hijab was interpreted as Muslim women rejecting French culture. However, when I taught in public school in France, I noticed my students would wear bandanas on their heads to get around the law that banned the hijabs. It was their way of protesting they would not allow France to push this law on them. Even though France has this identity of liberty and equality, they fall short of their ideals. In France, there is no hyphenated identity. If someone referred to themselves as Algerian-French, it’d be considered a threat because it weakens your French-ness. As a result, there are no statistics collected on what the ethnic backgrounds of people in France are because they don’t ask.

When it comes to being hired in France, you put your photo on your application. If your name is Mohamed, you will not be hired. While not everyone discriminates and is racist, I have a friend in France who does sales that claims he won’t hire anyone with the name Mohamed because he knows other people are racist and would no longer buy from his company if they saw this. While the issue of discrimination is so prominent, they can’t even diagnose the issue because they have no idea how many people of color or of a certain religion there are in a certain school because they don’t have that data.

History of the Front National Party

A: How do you think France’s history has led up to what is going on now?

PC: That’s everything. So if we want to talk about it, we have to talk about Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Front National Party. The party has now changed names, but we will call it the Front National because that is what the party had been called for decades. Understanding Jean-Marie Le Pen involves understanding his really complicated and long history.

A: This is because he was very racist and said a lot of things about the Holocaust that he claimed didn’t exist and didn’t allow France to take responsibility for it or didn’t think that they should.

PC: Yes, they both he and his daughter Marine Le Pen said some crazy things, and she would argue that her father is crazier. She’s seen as relatively more moderate, but the important thing to keep in mind about Jean-Marie Le Pen is where he came from ideologically, which was a movement called the Poujadist movement that came out of the Algerian War. Algeria is a majority Muslim country in Northern Africa which used to be a part of France. The French considered it to be a French state. The Algerians decided in the 1950s to fight back during Charles de Gaulle’s presidency in France. There was a lot of guerilla tactics and some would even consider terrorist actions because they had limited resources for other ways of fighting. When the Algerians won the war, Jean-Marie Le Pen and other Poujadist members saw Charles de Gaulle as a traitor, that he had stabbed France in the back, that he had let go a part of France. This is when the Front National started. It was more nationalistic than the de Gaulle Party, which was a center-right party. In the beginning, it was pro-European Union, but of course, that changed. It was interesting because the Front National wanted and considered Algeria to be a part of France that was lost, but at the same time, they were very anti-Muslim. This anti-Muslim component and this tension around French relations with the Muslim and Arab world, especially with the Algerians, have always been the cornerstone of the Front National.

If you go to France today and ask people about what’s going on with the far-right movements, you will meet people who are critical of them, especially those in academia. But I’ve been shocked by how many people identify as Fascist, who are blatantly anti-Muslim and even those trying to be liberal will say the problem is we have too many immigrants here. It’s Algerian immigrants and those from other former French colonies in Sub-Saharan and Northern Africa. There is also a huge amount of anti-Semitism in France which continues to be a massive issue that’s been reported on more recently in the press. So this is why the Front National has always been nationalist and anti-immigrant that’s been seen well before the recent crisis. I think at first Jean-Marie Le Pen was seen as kind of a crazy, out-there guy, and then people were really shocked when he made it to the second round of presidential vote in 2002. Jean-Marie Le Pen did make it to the second round in 2002 but then lost to Jacques Chirac by 85% to 15.

A: So is this when the Front National gained my attention worldwide?

PC: Yes. While people in France always knew about this movement, his advancement to the second round really put the Front National on the map globally. Although his daughter Marine has been able to situate herself definitely as a populist, but maybe less provocatively and offensive.

A: Well wasn’t that one of her goals?

 PC: Yes, and she’s distanced herself. She kicked her father out of the party.

The Yellow Vest Movement

A: What are your thoughts on the yellow vest movement?

PC: I actually was in France when the gilets Jaunes movement started.

A: Oh wow, so did you see it all happen?

PC: No, the day there were the big riots I went to the London for a day and I came back and met my friend at the train station and he told me you know parts of the city are burning and I thought it was a joke.

A: Yeah, I had friends who were there for spring break and they saw all the riots going on too so it’s definitely still prominent. 

PC: The thing with France is whenever the government tries to make a change there’s a mass protest. And this can even be when it comes to trying to change the benefits for the railway workers. The railways will stop. Or whoever the threatened group is will go on strike and then the government will be forced to rescind what they are trying to do. France has a really unique historical structure. France is a historically centralized country, kind of uniquely centralized. There is a lot of power at the presidency and a lot of power in Paris, and people will say the consequence of that is you don’t have very strong intermediary organizations. So in a country like Germany, if you’re trying to make reform, intermediary organizations like employer groups and unions will get together to try and work these out in cooperation with the state. In France, they don’t have those groups. They have weak unions and a strong state, and you would think that the French Unions are strong because they could have so much protest, but actually when unions are weak its because they can’t actually have a voice at the table, and when they don’t get their voice at the table their only weapon is to strike. Striking is a last resort.

The gilets jaunes started because of the proposed gas tax and there is a French culture of striking as a way to try to pressure the government. And it seems they were quite successful; Macron said okay I’m going to postpone this tax, but it was kind of like a snowball got pushed down the hill and people protesting on this movement often go because the scope of this protest has increased because people have been upset about other things for some time. 

A: Do you feel the movement is different from how it started?

PC: It is, as it has become much more extreme. In a way, it’s a parallel to Brexit too, which is another thing that started off one way and then morphed into a different kind of movement with different people and different interests in it. I think a lot of people are protesting economic inequality and security more broadly. In France, they usually have really protected workers and strong benefits. And how they have tried to adapt to a changing economy is basically by having more precarious or temporary employment. So a lot of young people today are temps, along with huge levels of unemployment. They no longer have things to count on that older generations once had.

People are sick of this, and who are they blaming? They’re blaming their government, they’re blaming the European Union, they’re blaming globalization. Why are they blaming the European Union? Because European leaders have had a habit of everything time there’s an unpopular change they need to make, they blame it on the EU. There’s been a lot of “I don’t want to do this, but we need to do this for Europe.” And then the net consequence of this is to build up resentment towards the European project. That’s why the Front National that used to be pro-Europe, now take Europe as a scapegoat. They claim that instead of increasing French independence and sovereignty that it’s a threat to it.

MEDIA

A: What’s your opinion on the role of the media in France, in particular to the most recent presidential election?

 PC: As far as the role of media in presidential elections, I think one think worth mentioning is Macron created his own party ‘En Marche!’. He had very little political background. How the French elections are structured in time has changed now so that parliament and the president are just a few weeks apart. It used to be staggered by years, and so it would be kind of like what we have in the U.S., it would always be a president that would be of one party, and then the parliament would be of the other because it would be a protest vote and they never get anything done. So, they’ve coordinated these. The president is election first, so Macron was elected with this new party, and then had like six weeks to get together this ticket of new potential parliamentarians and he was very successful with that and they were able to get a number of seats.

A: So do you feel that the media helped him?

PC: I don’t know the details of that but what we can say is that the media is different and nothing has ever happened before like with what happened with Macron in France. So, is that a correlation or a causation? I’m not going to go there and make that judgment, but someone could make a case that it is more than just correlation.  

He has positioned himself as a new type of president, but the ways of protest aren’t different. They haven’t worn yellow vests before, but they taking the streets and they’re looting and rioting and they’re doing things that they’ve done quite regularly since the French revolution. But you have a new type of president and an old type of political movement, and they don’t seem to be too persuaded by the actions he’s taking. He’s spent over a hundred hours talking to people, and it sounds to me he is trying to come up with innovative solutions. The thing happening in France is that in every election, people are voting for someone very different. Like okay, we’ll vote for a socialist, we’ll vote for the center-right guy, we’ll vote for the new party. They’re trying to vote for anyone who they think can break their stalemate because they have some kind of institutionalized sick stalemate. And when it comes to kind of their economic sclerosis – that’s a word that’s used to call European political economy in general when there wasn’t any, it was called a Eurosclerosis, which would be a sclerotic economies of Europe after the 1970s – when there was no growth. So I think people are seeing that France has suffered from no growth and keep electing a different type of president thinking he would be able to fix it, but he isn’t able to fix it. They reject the president, then try something else. I think what nobody knows is that when you have institutionalized problems, you can’t just change one office and think everything was going to reform. Most French presidents, with the exception of Hollande, have been trying to move France closer to the market. And the French are trying to, they want to keep what’s considered a uniquely French model in a globalized economy, which is Anglo-Saxon. And the question is can they do it, and Macron thinks that they need to move towards the Anglo-Saxon variant, which means more ‘précarité,’ more precariousness, more people being fired, etc. 

Comparing the U.S. and Trump to France

A: Do you think the discrimination and racism Trump tries to ignite within the United States compares at all to what is going on in France?

PC: What’s going on in France right now is different from Trump. It was actually really weird for me to hear Trump use all this anti-immigrant rhetoric because almost everyone here is an immigrant unless you’re Native American. Most of his wives were immigrants, and we don’t have an immigration influx. What Trump is doing is borrowing rhetoric from Europe; Trump tried something and it worked. I actually spoke with someone who was a former member of the Trump administration who claimed Trump isn’t even anti-immigrant. Steven Miller, far-right senior advisor for policy of Trump, is anti-immigrant and has a rhetoric that worked. Trump saw how effective Miller was with his demographic. Trump doesn’t really care about immigration, but he realizes that it is helping him with his base. What he is doing is very similar to what is being done in Europe, the only difference is we don’t have same issues as them. It isn’t people in San Diego on the border supporting Trump, its those in the heartland who are losing their jobs and looking for someone to blame.  

Citations:

“Xenophobia, Identity Politics and Exclusionary Populism in Western Europe.” Socialist Register 2003: Fighting Identities: Race, Religion and Ethno-Nationalism, by Hertz-Georg Betz, Merlin Press, 2003.

https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/expert/carter-elizabeth

[wannabeemoprincess]

Over the past year of a global pandemic, there seems to be two main competing narratives of recent events that we have in the West. The first narrative being that COVID is a very real issue that we need to take action to fight against, the other that COVID is either completely fake, or greatly exaggerated for some sort of political gain, and any action the government takes in the name of fighting it is actually a sinister power grab. The first narrative tends to focus on personal responsibility, insisting that if we wear our masks, wash our hands, stay 6 feet apart, refuse to hug grandma, and listen to the experts everything will be fine. the people who refuse to comply are either dumb or bad, or both. 

The second narrative claims to focus on personal liberty, insisting that government overreach is killing small businesses, that public health orders to wear masks or get vaccines is some how tyranny and a violation of their "self ownership", and liberals hate your grandparents for being old racist white people so they want them to die alone. Or something. Both these narratives have their flaws, and I would like to try and address both while presenting a more dialectical understanding of recent events.

The first narrative definitely gets the closest to the truth, but it really fumbles explaining much or providing a plan after it identifies the very real problem of COVID, and the need for a proper response to save lives. This concept that anyone who is anti-vax or anti-mask is just simply anti-facts, anti-science, and either bad or dumb or both is dangerously reductive *at best*. A lot of the time when I see people responding to anti-mask/anti-vax rhetoric it's very dismissive, telling people to just shut up and trust the experts, because you are dumb and they are smart and essentially good people who only want to help us. But like, if you bother to actually look at history you can find *tons* of examples of supposed experts either lying or covering up information for corporate profits at the cost of the well being of the people. One easy example would be when tobacco companies used to insist that doctors actually recommended smoking, promoting their deadly cancer sticks as some how healthy.

A more relevant example would be the Tuskegee experiments, an experiment in 1932 where around 600 Black men were deceived into participating in the experiment under the belief they would receive free medical care, however, instead were used without informed consent as human test subjects. The objective of the study was to observe untreated syphilis, treatment was never part of the plan. This wasn't only a massive ethical violation, but a prime example of how white supremacy can effect every aspect of society and even parts such as health care are tainted by it. The men abused for this "study" were told it would last 6 months, however it was extended to last 40 years, only cancelled after a leak caused public pressure to finally stop this barbaric "study". Unfortunately 128 of the victims had already died at this point due to syphilis or related complications.

Now, A lot of the anti-mask and anti-vax crowd tends to be white. And I'm honestly not sure how many of them are very informed on the subject of the Tuskegee experiments. However, there is a very recent example that has almost definitely affected the typically privileged middle class white demographic particularly harder than usual where medical professionals deceived the public for financial gain, experts lied in their "studies", and a lot of families are either still rebuilding from the fallout, or will never get back friends or family members they lost to the opiate epidemic.

Dangerous drugs like Oxycodone were being pushed like candy, with studies that "proved" they weren't addictive or habit forming. Doctors were basically being bribed by pharmaceutical companies to prescribe more and more pills. There was a point where it seemed like anyone could take their kid to the doctor, and complain about their inability to focus, and get an ADHD diagnosis and some pills to fix them. A lot of people felt lied to and abused by medical professionals, someone who you were raised to trust as a friendly noble profession that had your best interests in mind. Big Pharma, to be clear, is literally a faceless monster that cannot care about human lives, and only seeks to create more and more profit for owners & investors. And unfortunately, the rest of the medical industry is pretty much reliant on Big Pharma & the Medical industrial complex, as it would be pretty much impossible to open a medical practice without any medicine or equipment. So I can fully understand why an appeal to the authority of the experts can easily get brushed off as "ignorant sheep" who trust "the man", honestly.

But there's a very big material difference between the opiate epidemic, or really most medical issues, and something like COVID & vaccines in general. And that would be that vaccination *relies on as many as people being vaccinated to actually work*. If only the rich and powerful can access a vaccine, the disease will not be eradicated, evolve and mutate, and eventually the vaccine is rendered useless. This means they have a very real material interest in ignoring their profit motive, for once. 

Something to consider would be the Black Plague & the change from feudalism toward capitalism. One of the major factors that destabilized the monarchy's absolute power was the mass deaths of the working population. When there are hordes of hungry people desperate for work, they tend to have very little power to demand better conditions when they do find work, as they are easily replaceable. With a drastically lowered work force, the power balance between peasant & Lord was exposed, the peasantry was able to revolt, and over throw the Kings, and a new power relationship was established of worker & owner, which was progressive at the time, but we're now at the point where the divide between the working class and the owner class is even greater than the old divide of serf and lord. 

Those who own capital, be it rental properties, a factory, or investments, have complete power over those who only have their body and their time to sell to those who own the stores & factories, to rent the homes they can't afford anymore from landlords who hoard housing as a commodity to profit off of. We're told if we work hard enough, we could possibly own something, too. And we're just bitter and ungrateful when we complain. And we're replaceable. But how would that change if the masses of workers were dying in the streets of a plague again?

 While wealth definitely creates a lot of privilege, and their experience of living through a pandemic is immeasurably different from ours, at the end of the day they haven't yet lost sight of the reality that without masses of poors to exert their power over, their money becomes entirely useless. Which is why they’re willing to part with vaccines without completely maximizing their profits, though as vaccine patents & the West hoarding vaccines while the Global South continues to suffer show they still haven’t totally let go of their profit motive, and are definitely willing to let masses of brown people die to protect the profits of shareholders and investors at home.

I guess I can quickly address the conspiracy that vaccines are some how microchips to track you or whatever:

Smart phones.

They can already do that.

Now, with all that said, I fully do believe that masks & vaccines are effective, and that we all should use them! But I'm still incredibly critical of the way the government has handled this crisis. For one, it's absurd to try and use tickets and fines to enforce mask mandates when the State has failed to distribute masks! Expecting it to be everyone's personal responsibility to buy their own masks during an economic crisis is incredibly ignorant of the reality of just how desperate living from paycheck to paycheck can be. Free masks should have been provided, shipped directly to the people. Considering how many cases have been coming from factories & other brutal working conditions , the emphasis on personal responsibility clearly ignores how corporations are willing to sacrifice their employees health and well being to maximize their profits. Even in a country with free medical care, you have a financial incentive to try and just "tough it out" and hope its a cold if you live paycheck to paycheck and have no paid sick leave. 

I think the left is fumbling a real opportunity to  demand better and seize meaningful power that would make us a real force of change instead of a fringe ideology people mostly only hear about on the internet. There's a lot of legitimate fear and anxiety over covid, the economy, and  even the idea of trusting experts that will never, ever be addressed as long as people just wag their finger and tell those who are scared that they're just dumb and bad and they should be good and smart like us. Which isn't to say that I don't think there aren't morally bankrupt grifters. 

I'm almost positive anyone leading any of these movements, selling their own brand of "patriot rebel" merch to the hordes of followers they amass is some kind of grifter. And I've been to the counter protests , I've seen the white power hand signs in the crowd. There's definitely fascists who see this as an opportunity to capitalize on the fear and unrest, and see these movements as a perfect breeding ground for new recruits. But I've come to the realization that by letting them keep me responding to them, I'll never actually be able to properly challenge their narrative. I'm frequently expected to defend the neoliberal hypocrisy in the covid response while I'm arguing with them, and when I try to explain my criticisms of neoliberalism they're already gishgalloping to another talking point, and it's impossible to actually present a nuanced argument that presents a more dialectical framework to understand these things. 

I realize now that we need to make our criticism and our demands loudly, and we need to be able to take the spotlight off of far right reactionaries preying on the fears and paranoia that they only see as nothing more than an opportunity for profit. There is no going back to normal when COVID is over. We have to decide now, socialism, or barbarism.

[existentialfreak]

im really really bored so here you go

(treat this like wikipedia - don’t plagiarize and trust the links below more than what i actually write)

Many people all over the world have been trained, even as young children, to hear the word communism associated with some form of oppression or tyranny. In practice, that does seem to be a common theme, but why must that be the reputation for communism? Authoritarianism goes against the guiding principles of the ideology, so why do communist governments often tend to end up as a dictatorship? The answer to these questions can be long and complex, yet they all stem from the Russian Revolution of 1917. Before this revolution, Russia had been under the autocratic tsarist rule of the Romanov Imperial Dynasty at the time, led by the incompetent and oppressive Czar Nicholas II. The Bolsheviks (at the time the Russian Social Democratic Party) rallied the people against the tyranny of The Czar in the February revolution, calling for a change in government, and eventually forcing the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. In order to sort out who would actually govern Russia, a provisional government was introduced. After April 1917, when Vladimir Lenin (a very influential democratic socialist) returned from exile, the Bolsheviks gained supporters due to his effectiveness in rallying the people. When the Bolsheviks gained enough power they ended up staging a coup against the provisional government in the October Revolution, taking over, and very quickly abandoning all ideas of democratic socialism, introducing a dictatorship led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. My essential question is: how did the faded initial goals Russian Revolution affect the world view and practice of communism? The failure of these initial democratic goals of the Russian Revolution influenced communism in practice due to the compellingness of the initial fight against tyranny, as well as the influence of the authoritarianism that eventually rose under communism as a response. The inconsistency of how communism was used during and after the Russian Revolution defined how the rest of the world practices and views communism in this same contradictory nature.

The Russian Revolution easily gave into these contradictions, forgetting their intentions for leadership of the people and fading into an oppressive dictatorship that suppressed the human rights they had fought for. Originally, the revolution was a massive success for the people, which is what made it so inspiring for other groups around the globe that would later become communist. This goal was led strictly by socialist ideology of giving the proletariat power in their own lives and government, in this case, in opposition to the oppressive rule of the imperial government. “For the first time, a revolution led by the working class won power in an entire country and began attempting to construct a socialist society based on the ideas of workers’ control and real democracy.” This was the initial goal of the Russian Revolution as led by Lenin with inspiration from Marx. A socialist society that focuses on the ideas of the workers, where the people of the state contribute to its governance and all work toward a common goal. This is so important because Russia was the first country to convert to any kind of socialism and the revolution was won by the people, from their sacrifices, with all of this in mind. They were fighting for “Peace, Land, and Bread”, the platform that Lenin gained power with. The revolution was for the people and so it inspired many forces around the world to fight for the same goal of this peace. This may not align with the general public’s idea of communism because, despite the initial idea, it eventually became an extremely oppressive dictatorship. Thus, contradicting the initial goals of the ideology and why the people fought for communism. After the October Revolution, the Bolshevik Leaders tightened their dictatorship, revealing an actual hierarchy, contradictory to founding principles of Marxism. “The utopian, libertarian ideas that had inspired many party leaders and members in 1917 faded from the immediate agenda.” This shows how very quickly and drastically after the revolution the goals of the government changed. Their goal of a socialist democracy, or a free market society under socialism, quickly faded into authoritarianism and a dictatorship. The revolution changed the meaning of dictatorship of the proletariat from Marx’s idea of the collective worker’s rule, to a former proletariat leader or few leaders who formed a dictatorship. This matters because of how influential this switch of principle is to how communism is later practiced and thought of all throughout the 20th century and up to present day.

Russia’s major control and influence over how communism is practiced even today is due to the establishment of the Communist International in 1919, as well as how Russia led by example and setting the standard for what communism means in practice. The Communist International, or Comintern, was set up directly after the Russian Revolution by the Bolsheviks of Russia, in a succeeding attempt to push other communist groups to revolution and to follow the Soviet model. “Though its stated purpose was the promotion of world revolution, the Comintern functioned chiefly as an organ of Soviet control over the international communist movement.” People all over the world were subject to oppression, both because of the failure of the Russian Revolution’s goal for democracy, and also because most other countries did not have the same set up and industrialization that Russia did. This could easily result in a humanitarian crisis. For example, The Great Leap forward under Mao’s leadership in China: the Soviet model failed in China, and so Mao’s goal of rapid industrialization (like what Russia had gone through earlier) was unguided and impulsive, resulting in the greatest industrial failure and mass murder in history. Even removing the intentional influence of Russia from the equation, it still defined the practice of communism by example. Russia was the first country or state in the world to convert to communism and therefore set the standard for the idea of communism around the world. “The Soviet system itself affected global politics as the leading example of a Communist state.” Russia’s now communist government became the blueprint for rapid industrialization, forced nationalization of industry, and the reliance on state terror. Even though global communist powers were often at odds with each other, Russia influenced how communism is practiced and how these governments were formed. The reliance on state terror is a tactic used in generally all communist governments, not because it is necessary to communism, but arguably because the Russian Revolution set the standard for how communism operates in practice. These authoritarian fear tactics and dismissals of human rights that come with rapid industrialization and forced nationalization of industry are not exclusive to communism, but they are a common thread in many communist societies. The initial goals of the Russian Revolution show how this is not the basis of the ideology, yet the failure of those goals show how communism can easily become hypocritical if not guided in the egalitarian direction.

The Russian Revolution influenced communist powers of the world in both intentional and unintentional ways, forming the pattern of how communism in practice most often diverges from the original focus. Having a government ruled by the proletariat, where everyone works together for a common goal, is replaced by a tyrant or small group of tyrants oppressing the rest of the population. All revolutions need supporters, often from the middle class. These future tyrants rallied the proletariat under the principles of real communism in an ideological sense. Communism would not have gained so much power if the pure ideas are not something a majority of people, often the oppressed people, can get behind in a promise to uplift them. Despite this possible utopian version of communism, a majority of people now think of it as something with only negative connotations. This is not because it could lack the potential to be an effective form of egalitarian government due to other factors such as human nature, but because of misconceptions about what communism actually means. All of these misconceptions or problematic standards for communism can be traced back to the Russian Revolution and the failures of its initial goals.

Gasper, Phil. "The Russian Revolution: A Brief Reading Guide." The Russian Revolution: A Brief Reading Guide | International Socialist Review. July 01, 2010. Accessed February 23, 2021. 

https://isreview.org/issue/105/russian-revolution-brief-reading-guide.

History.com Editors. "Russian Revolution." History.com. November 09, 2009. Accessed February 22, 2021. 

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/russian-revolution. 

History.com Editors. "Bolsheviks Revolt in Russia." History.com. February 09, 2010. Accessed February 26, 2021. 

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bolsheviks-revolt-in-russia. 

Retish, Aaron B., and Matthew Rendle. "Introduction From Lenin’s Overcoat? The Global Impact of the Russian Revolution." Revolutionary Russia. December 11, 2018. Accessed February 26, 2020. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09546545.2018.1549351?needAccess=true. 

Rosenberg, Jennifer. "What Happened During the 1917 Russian Revolutions?" ThoughtCo. April 19, 2018. Accessed February 22, 2021. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-russian-revolution-of-1917-1779474.

"Russia's Revolutions: How 1917 Shaped a Century." HistoryExtra. February 26, 2020. Accessed March 09, 2021. https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/russias-revolutions-how-1917-shaped-a-century/. 

Smith, Bonnie. "Russian Revolution and Civil War: Crash Course European History #35." YouTube. February 13, 2020. Accessed February 22, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6KR4cLLVzQ. 

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Encyclopædia Britannica. May 1, 2017. Accessed February 26, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Third International." Encyclopædia Britannica. April 28, 2017. Accessed February 27, 2021. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Third-International. 

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Russian Revolution." Encyclopædia Britannica. October 30, 2020. Accessed February 23, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution.

[charlie-bradcherry]

MARK PELLEGRINO INTERVIEW: LUCIFER IN S13

Here is the interview or ‘information post’ with Mark Pellegrino that I promised to show you guys because it is pretty interesting to read. I copied and pasted it in this post because Tumblr format is a lot more enjoyable to read for most, and I edited it a bit so it’s more pleasant for the eyes. If you wanna read it on the site, click here.

I bolded the lines that I think are really worth thinking about, that gives us a little bit of insight on Lucifer and spoilers for the upcoming episodes!

Question 1: There’s been a lot of talk in the fandom about an article that you did – I don’t remember who it was with – but it had that quote that you said in this last episode [The Rising Son] about Lucifer being smart and not totally evil. There’s been a lot of talk about Sam’s experience with Lucifer and how badly he was tortured; when Sam and Lucifer do finally meet again in this season, is Sam still going to be so fearful of Lucifer? What are your thoughts on that whole situation?

I imagine that Sam is going to have some PTSD. You don’t spend time in the cage and come out of that experience completely whole. I think he will have some residual feelings about the old Lucifer. The dynamics in the universe have shifted, or are going to shift to a degree that people’s feelings about each other don’t matter so much. When the world was faced with fascism, America and the Soviet Union – sworn enemies ideologically – became allies. So weird things happen when universes shift.

Question 2: (The Interviewer) Lots of people say that they don’t want to see Lucifer’s redemption, if Lucifer has a redemption arc. I said, if we don’t see Lucifer as a fully formed, well, angel in this case, he becomes just a one-dimensional foil for Sam and Dean, and honestly, that’s just boring. As the actor that plays Lucifer, I’m assuming that you prefer the roles where you have more than just a one-dimensional character to play.

I do. You can’t act what isn’t there, but I always try to add different dimensions to a character, that I don’t necessarily see on the page. Redemption of a character like Lucifer – I’m not even sure what it means. Just think about it. Just because I see the mythology of Lucifer in our culture as one massive paradox, you know what I mean? On the one hand, there are these absolutely noble characters that he possesses, and if we saw them in a human being, we would say, “This man is a king of virtue.” His stubbornness, resilience, his insurmountable will and his sense of justice … and the thing that he’s probably put down for most, his sense of pride.

To me, these are virtues. If I saw them in another person, instead of pride as in arrogance but pride as in a sense of justice and a feeling for your own ability to deal with the universe … it’s a different sensibility toward pride than the one that Western culture gives you.

On the one hand, I seem him as the first rebel against authority; whose own personal characteristics drove him to say no. The first to say no. I see him as the being that introduced humanity to its moral sense. The paradox in all of this is that all of these characteristics are seen as sins in a religious world. Instead of rebellion, conformity and obedience are seen as virtues. Instead of an independent mind, and a moral sense, submission is seen as a virtue. Humility instead of pride, so somehow our society adopted – they say whoever wins the war dictates the history. Lucifer lost the war, so the opposition made the history and turned values upside down.

So the guy who actually thinks he’s a figure of virtue, instead of vice, I don’t know what kind of arc that would be … to acknowledge the other side is right and to change from what he is, would mean embracing the opposite of what he stands for. I don’t want that to happen, but I do want healing to happen. I think that the bad parts of Lucifer’s character were bred from – I don’t think they are nature, I think they’re nurture, and this is an argument that was started by Sam. They’re just saying Lucifer is just inheritably bad, whereas Sam wants to apply a different kind of ethics to Jack, but I don’t think Lucifer is inheritably bad … I think his dad even said that. I think isolation from love and alienation from an entire universe, and being painted as the villain from time immemorial, can sour a person.

Just in the five days that I was painted as worse than the devil himself in the eyes of social media were annoying as fucking hell! I can’t imagine going through it for a fucking eternity. And not being pissed off at everybody.

So if you have a sense of pride and dignity, when you’re being attacked like that, it’s going to inspire a vast reprisal. I think Lucifer’s desire for revenge – I used to think that was what motivated him but it seems a little different. I don’t remember if it’s already been filmed or if it’s happening in the future, but Lucifer has a very specific take on creation and on his father. And it’s not what you think. It’s actually kind of interesting. You’re going to see it in a few episodes. (!!!)

Question 3: In this last episode, one of my favourite lines that Lucifer said something like, “You have no idea what I care about.” So what does Luci care about?

I love that line, especially now, because of all the flack and pain that a certain group of people put me through. I see that most of the battles that we fight are fought against straw men. We forget that underneath that straw man we’re hacking to death there is a human being, and the real thing. That’s what I think I meant to her. She knows what she thinks I care about; she’s got her ideas of me. But she doesn’t know me. And I’m not going to tell you what Lucifer cares about; I think it would be revealing spoilers.

That’s a great maxim that we should carry into life, don’t you think? You don’t know me, so stop acting like you do.

Question 4: Do you think there was any correlation between that first opening scene with Lucifer and Mary, in this last episode where Mary’s like you’re going to kill me, and Lucifer’s like no, I’m not, and then at the end when Michael basically has Lucifer by the throat and Michael’s like I need you, I’m going to let you live – do you think there are any correlations between those two situations?

Oh yeah. I think that’s good writing, that’s power reversal right there, and Lucifer being put in Mary’s spot. Lucifer even said something about it in another episode. He’s definitely low man on the totem pole in this universe. What was so funny that he’s the low man on the totem pole in the narrative, which he keeps confronting, “What? This fucking place sucks!” Every time that he’s confronted with the narrative that Lucifer is dead, he’s actually confronted with the fact that he’s not top dog in that world. That’s pretty castrating.

One of the beautiful things that I love about Lucifer is his indomitable will. I don’t care where you find him, he’s still going to go, “Fuck ya. You’re not going to get me. You can tear me apart above the skies of Abilene, like you did to the alternate universe Lucifer, but my middle finger will still be flipping you off as I’m falling down to the ground.” You’ll see that too. You’ll see that Lucifer carries himself with his typical sassy, irreverent demeanor, no matter what horrible situation he finds himself in.

That’s where Lucifer is very different from me. I’m oversensitive, and very affected by the things that people say and do to me … I may not seem that way because you see me probably battling people all the time … but I’m sensitive to the things that they say, and I feel like I don’t want to challenge people to harm me. Lucifer would challenge people to harm him. He pushes the limit all the way to the end and says, “Let’s see how good you are, let’s see how strong you are. Let’s see if your will matches against mine.”

Question 5: At the end of the premiere episode, which really had me bawling – the scene where Sam and Dean and Jack are saying goodbye to Cas, Kelly Kline and Crowley … I don’t know how much you want to talk about Crowley’s demise … but because Crowley has been Lucifer’s nemesis for so long, do you think he actually maybe misses him?

I hope you noticed that when Crowley showed up in the alternate universe, before he was sacrificed, Lucifer did something when he noticed it was Crowley. He kind of wriggled around on the ground and said, “Crowley!” That was sort of a spontaneous thing that happened in the moment … I think Lucifer’s character being what it is … he admires men and women without limits. He admires cleverness and intelligence and will. Crowley demonstrated the ability to outsmart him. He liked it … he liked the challenge … the challenge now of fighting this formidable being … like any great boxer is going to be defined by his opposition. Ali wasn’t Ali until he met Foreman and Frazier. And that’s what made him a champion.

The same with Lucifer … I think he would see things in the terms of bring me your biggest challenge and I’ll meet it. I think he would miss Crowley to be honest. Especially with this new guy Asmodeus coming up. That guy’s a real piece of work. I think he’s a lot worse and a lot more powerful than Crowley. Crowley was sort of an ambitious CEO … sort of a ruthless CEO, there was something about his intelligence that I admire. I don’t think that’s the same with Asmodeus, he’s a tyrant.

So in answer to that, I think yes, I think Lucifer would miss Crowley.

Question 6: The season premiere really hit me, at the end when Sam is talking to Jack and explaining how you say goodbye to someone who has passed. Sam’s line – and Jared’s delivery of that line – was exactly what I needed to hear at exactly the right time. And that’s one of the reasons why I love Supernatural … it seems to have the timing of picking up on stuff that is the perfect timing for a lot of things. I know that’s the way it is for a lot of people as well.

I thought that was an interesting for Sam to say as well. I thought it was a great summation of the process of understanding death for the living. Here’s what I love about Supernatural – we all know that the story is about family … but it’s about orphans. It’s about people who’ve had to become their own guide in a crazy universe, and only had each other to rely on. That’s pretty powerful … so many of us come from broken homes, where we miss one parent or there are other abusive family relationships … if you come to the world fractured and you have to survive by your own wits. Being in a show like this, even as fantastical as it is … it’s possible to defy even a whole universe and be right. To be treated like they were, but still find love and loyalty … the family don’t end in blood thing is all about that. I think that’s why so many people find solidarity in the show itself.

Any opinions on this interview?

[interested-in-history]

‘The legacy of the enslavement of Africans is still with us.’

The legacy of the enslavement of Africans is still seen today within two main institutions - schools and their education, and the Criminal Justice System. These two institutions are creating and perpetuating racial hierarchy through teaching an ethnocentric curriculum disregarding any black culture until one month of the year, and through racial discrimination which unfairly targets certain sets of people due to what they appear to represent rather than their actions. The two institutions involved maintain a level of inferiority pushed onto blacks and enable the systems of punishment to legally discriminate in ways that were acceptable during the enslavement period. By maintaining the subordinate position, many ask was slavery declared dead or just reincarnated through new institutions. This legacy haunts many today and questions the level of emancipation that has been ‘gained’ over the years. In this essay, I will argue that the role of education and police relations for those of African decent are intrinsically linked and that one often follows the other in what is known as a self perpetuating situation. Within education the example of the Jena Six incident in 2007 explains this view as well as the deep rooted racism that occurs in nearly all schools across the world. The police relations and Criminal Justice System also have deep rooted racism links and the example of Rodney King in 1991 and the events that followed show this in great detail. These specific instances are both recent points in history when the legacy of slavery can still be seen impacting lives after 129 and 145 years since the emancipation of all slaves was proclaimed. As James Baldwin said, the great force of history, comes from the fact that we carry it within us, unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. Much political thought surrounding the situation have the mentality of ‘we are here because you were there’.

Firstly, in education the idea is that all students are taught the same lessons and subjects and it is their responsibility to work hard and achieve in order to move up in the world. However, research over the years has found this not to be the case. 

Many education systems hold unconscious racial profiles and teach accordingly, often these are based upon stereotypes held by generations or images portrayed in the media. Blacks are often pushed into more physical activities and this could be based upon the idea that slave owners had a preference for athletic specimens on plantations. Schools stereotyping races into different areas of academia often leads to a poorer education and expectation of failure for the black students. If asked, schools would deny any aspects of institutional racism and through education we are taught a learned ignorance - we can see race but we aren't supposed to really see it. What this means is the colour of someone’s skin is still, subconsciously considered a marker of identity which was commonplace during slavery. Even when teachers aren’t subconsciously racist the system of education unfortunately is, and perpetuates the inferiority of black cultures as well as other non-Western cultures. There have been asks to include more culturally diverse teachings with education at all levels, yet this faced huge opposition especially to the changes designed to provide instruction in mother tongues, black studies and the appointment of more black staff in order to supply a role model and cultural diversity to an ever-continuing white system. By sidelining other histories especially, it reflects a racist ideology and cultural homogeneity which in turn causes an educational disadvantage among black children. Black Marxism believes that this hegemony maintains the position of power and by negating ‘others’ histories and cultures creates disadvantages within races.

A educational disadvantage is clearly shown in the Completion Rates of 18 to 24 year olds - those who left high school holding a basic education. The completion rate of Blacks was 86.9% in 2008 compared to 94.2% of whites - meaning that 3,744,000 blacks had a basic education compared to 16,018,000 whites. In 2008 only 13.7% of blacks held this educational level compared to 62.3% of whites. These statistics show that the education deprived blacks massively and this separate and unequal education impacts more than most realise. With less blacks achieving the basic education, it then stops them achieving success and stunts their influence in the world forcing them into manual, low paid jobs often then housed in poor areas overrun with drugs and crime, which often ends in prison time. This stunted success keeps them at an inferior position much like the enslaved Africans unable to change their subordinate position. Black Liberals take the view that racism was to justify slavery and this is now the primary impediment to social progress in the world today. As long as there is racism, social progress will be stunted and disadvantage those of colour.

The Jena Six incident of 2007 illustrated how the institutional racism and tensions caused students to turn on each other, it also highlighted how responses to students are very different and how stereotypes can affect these outcomes. In Jena, Louisiana a high school that was predominately white had a long history of racial tensions from traditions that were continued into the 21st century. Students of white and black sat on opposite sides of the auditoriums, held separate dances and a common race-based practice involved a ‘White Tree’ where only white students sat. One black freshman asked to sit under this tree and shockingly the following day three nooses were found hanging from a branch. This is a clear link to the lynchings that haunt black history and was commonplace in slavery in order to scare into submission. The school spoke out against the ‘prank’ and no action was bought against the white students involved, this sparked the growing tensions and it resulted in clashes ending with a group of black students beating up a white student. One of the boys involved, Bell, who was only a minor at the time was charged with attempted murder and subsequently jailed. There was a national call to release this student and the school was put under fire for the way they punished the black students severely but did nothing to the white students that started this race-related conflict. More than twenty thousand supporters marched on Jena due to the severity of the sentence given making it the biggest civil rights campaign since the 1960s. 

The Criminal Justice system and the criminalisation of certain communities is anchored in slavery as well as implying the view of a constrained emancipation, especially for those victimised by the system. Blacks are often the face of crime and the overpowering stereotypical image of deviance. The negative relations between police and blacks can be seen in the example of Rodney King. In 1991, he was caught after a high speed chase, the officers pulled him out of the car and beat him brutally while a cameraman caught it all on videotape. The four officers involved were indicted on charges of assault and excessive use of force. However, a predominantly white jury acquitted the officers sparking violent riots in Los Angeles., King became a symbol of racist tensions in America. In 2012 King spoke with The Guardian stating the assault was “like being raped…being beaten near to death…I just knew how it felt to be a slave”. The fact King was beaten by white officers increased the distrust the black held against the police as well as expose the racially skewed Criminal Justice System. Research then heavily focused on the prison populations and how the racial bias shown in the officers in 1991 was a product of the Criminal Justice system which disproportionally victimised those of colour. This is a direct link to slavery and how those of colour were automatically seen as criminals and ‘trouble’. This automatic link to criminality continues today and as Marc Maver articulates, black men are born with a social stigma equivalent to a felony conviction. 

Once you look at the prison statistics the evidence is clear, there is an estimated 2.2 million people behind bars with blacks making up 46 percent of that population. In 2001, 18.6 percent of blacks were expected to go to prison with 32.2 percent serving time at least once. Once in prison and after, the term ‘felon’ especially for blacks carried the life sentence of legalised discrimination. In nearly all the ways it was once legal to discriminate against African Americans in slavery, a felon is subject to the same injustices. These felons become part of a growing under-caste that is found through the analysis of ‘the new racism’ and part of the Critical Race Theory. This theory believed that White Supremacy was maintained over time and law plays a role in this, it also believe that racial emancipation and anti-subordination should be a mass movement in order to change the systems. Even Black Marxist Wallerstein believed racism was institutionalised since the establishment of capitalism, but Robinson argues that racism was a product of history that has always been around. Once black civilians are locked up they are then locked out of mainstream society forcing them into menial jobs and into areas were gangs, crime and drugs are commonplace only to create cycles of oppression and resistive subcultures similar to those found in groups within slave plantations. In todays terms, mass incarceration is, metaphorically, the New Jim Crow. The nightmare of slavery continues to haunt us even today, through different institutions placing blacks in an interior role and ultimately seeing the colour of their skin as an indicator of their actions rather than actions themselves. 

Even today, these two institutions show a complete difference in the way races are treated and this can be seen stemming from the enslavement of Africans. The educational system does discriminate against non-english speakers and those who do not have western ties in their histories. Many black histories especially are forgotten or told from a western standpoint according to Black Marxism which maintains inferiority. The Jena Six incident shows how schools can be racist due to a learned ignorance and punish differently according to colour. The fact the white students got away with a ‘prank’ but the retaliation landed black students with felony charges that shows this differing approach. The educational failings often then tie into police-relations and the high possibility of prison. Rodney King being unfairly targeted for his skin colour and then beaten on the side of the road showed how unforgiving the police can be. History has not passed by as far as we believe it has - the stagnation of many blacks and the stereotypes associated with their colour means that they are unfairly disadvantaged and this racism stopped social progress entirely according to Black Liberalists. One must ask is freedom really being achieved or is it constrained emancipation?

Bibliography

Ahlualia, Pal, and Miller, Toby, ‘We are here because you were there’, Social Identities, Vol 21/6 (2015), p527-528

Alexander, Michelle, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (The New Press; New York, 2010)

Berman, Bruce J, ‘Clientelism and Neocolonialism: Centre-periphery relations and political development in African states’, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol 9/2 (1974), p3-25

Cascani, Dominic, ‘The legacy of Slavery’ BBC News, 20th March 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6456765.stm> [accessed 29th March 2018]

Chapman, C, Trends in High School Dropout and Completion rates in the United States: 1972-2008 Compendium Report, 2010 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011012.pdf> [accessed 3rd April 2018]

Davis, Angela Y, The meaning of freedom (City Lights Books; San Francisco, 2012)

Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (Penguin Books Ltd; London, 1967)

Hall, Catherine, ‘The racist ideas of slave owners are still with us today’, The Guardian, 26th Sept 2016 <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/26/racist-ideas-slavery-slave-owners-hate-crime-brexit-vote> [accessed 3rd April 2018]

MacNeill, Tim, ‘Development as Imperialism: Power and the Perpetuation of Poverty in Afro-Indigenous Communities of Coastal Honduras’, Humanity & Society, Vol 41/2 (2017), p209-239

Mulinge, Munyae M, and Lesetedi, Gwen N, ‘Interrogating Our Past: Colonialism and Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa’, African Journal of Political Science, Vol 3/2 (1998), p15-28

Murji, Karim, and Solomos, John, Theories of Race and Ethnicity, Contemporary Debates and 

Perspectives (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2015)

Ramdin, Ron, The making of the black working class in Britain (Gower Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, 1987)

Robinson, Cedric J, Black Marxism, the making of the Black radical tradition (University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill, 2000)

‘Rodney King Biography’, 2018, <https://www.biography.com/people/rodney-king-9542141> [accessed 5th April 2018]

Russell Brown, Katheryn, The Colour of Crime Second Edition (New York University Press; New York, 2009)

Salih, M.A.R. Mohamed, and Markalis, John, Ethnicity and the state in Eastern Africa (Nordiska Afrikainstitutet; Uppsala, 1998)

‘Legacies’, 2011, <http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=313&Itemid=225.html> [accessed 29th March 2018]

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/mark-pellegrino-deconstructs-supernaturals-lucifer-redemption/

Mark Pellegrino deconstructs 'Supernatural's' Lucifer and redemption

I had the chance to have another nice, lengthy chat with Mark Pellegrino recently about his character, Lucifer. Mark doesn’t need much introduction … There’s been a lot of talk in the fandom about an article that you did – I don’t remember who it was with – but it had that quote that you said in this last episode [The Rising Son] about Lucifer being smart and not totally evil. There’s been a lot of talk about Sam’s experience with Lucifer and how badly he was tortured; when Sam and Lucifer do finally meet again in this season, is Sam still going to be so fearful of Lucifer? What are your thoughts on that whole situation? I imagine Sam is going to have some PTSD. You don’t spend time in the cage and come out of that experience completely whole. I think he will have some residual feelings about the old Lucifer. The dynamics in the universe have shifted, or are going to shift to a degree that people’s feelings about each other don’t matter so much. When the world was faced with fascism, America and the Soviet Union – sworn enemies ideologically – became allies. So weird things happen when universes shift. One of the other comments that I actually got involved in was someone was saying that they do not want to see Lucifer’s redemption, if Lucifer has a redemption arc. I said, if we don’t see Lucifer as a fully formed, well, angel in this case, he becomes just a one-dimensional foil for Sam and Dean, and honestly, that’s just boring. As the actor that plays Lucifer, I’m assuming that you prefer the roles where you have more than just a one-dimensional character to play. I do. You can’t act what isn’t there, but I always try to add different dimensions to a character, that I don’t necessarily see on the page. Redemption of a character like Lucifer – I’m not even sure what it means. Just think about it. Just because I see the mythology of Lucifer in our culture as one massive paradox, you know what I mean? On the one hand, there are these absolutely noble characters that he possesses, and if we saw them in a human being, we would say, “This man is a king of virtue.” His stubbornness, resilience, his insurmountable will and his sense of justice … and the thing that he’s probably put down for most, his sense of pride. To me, these are virtues. If I saw them in another person, instead of pride as in arrogance but pride as in a sense of justice and a feeling for your own ability to deal with the universe … it’s a different sensibility toward pride than the one that Western culture gives you. On the one hand, I seem him as the first rebel against authority; whose own personal characteristics drove him to say no. The first to say no. I see him as the being that introduced humanity to its moral sense. The paradox in all of this is that all of these characteristics are seen as sins in a religious world. Instead of rebellion, conformity and obedience are seen as virtues. Instead of an independent mind, and a moral sense, submission is seen as a virtue. Humility instead of pride, so somehow our society adopted – they say whoever wins the war dictates the history. Lucifer lost the war, so the opposition made the history and turned values upside down. So the guy who actually thinks he’s a figure of virtue, instead of vice, I don’t know what kind of arc that would be … to acknowledge the other side is right and to change from what he is, would mean embracing the opposite of what he stands for. I don’t want that to happen, but I do want healing to happen. I think that the bad parts of Lucifer’s character were bred from – I don’t think they are nature, I think they’re nurture, and this is an argument that was started by Sam. They’re just saying Lucifer is just inheritably bad, whereas Sam wants to apply a different kind of ethics to Jack, but I don’t think Lucifer is inheritably bad … I think his dad even said that. I think isolation from love and alienation from an entire universe, and being painted as the villain from time immemorial, can sour a person. Just in the five days that I was painted as worse than the devil himself in the eyes of social media were annoying as fucking hell! I can’t imagine going through it for a fucking eternity. And not being pissed off at everybody. That is so true. So if you have a sense of pride and dignity, when you’re being attacked like that, it’s going to inspire a vast reprisal. I think Lucifer’s desire for revenge – I used to think that was what motivated him but it seems a little different. I don’t remember if it’s already been filmed or if it’s happening in the future, but Lucifer has a very specific take on creation and on his father. And it’s not what you think. It’s actually kind of interesting. You’re going to see it in a few episodes. In this last episode, one of my favourite lines that Lucifer said something like, “You have no idea what I care about.” So what does Luci care about? I love that line, especially now, because of all the flack and pain that a certain group of people put me through. I see that most of the battles that we fight are fought against straw men. We forget that underneath that straw man we’re hacking to death there is a human being, and the real thing. That’s what I think I meant to her. She knows what she thinks I care about; she’s got her ideas of me. But she doesn’t know me. And I’m not going to tell you what Lucifer cares about; I think it would be revealing spoilers. That’s a great maxim that we should carry into life, don’t you think? You don’t know me, so stop acting like you do. Do you think there was any correlation between that first opening scene with Lucifer and Mary, in this last episode where Mary’s like you’re going to kill me, and Lucifer’s like no, I’m not, and then at the end when Michael basically has Lucifer by the throat and Michael’s like I need you, I’m going to let you live – do you think there are any correlations between those two situations? Oh yeah. I think that’s good writing, that’s power reversal right there, and Lucifer being put in Mary’s spot. Lucifer even said something about it in another episode. He’s definitely low man on the totem pole in this universe. What was so funny that he’s the low man on the totem pole in the narrative, which he keeps confronting, “What? This fucking place sucks!” Every time that he’s confronted with the narrative that Lucifer is dead, he’s actually confronted with the fact that he’s not top dog in that world. That’s pretty castrating. One of the beautiful things that I love about Lucifer is his indomitable will. I don’t care where you find him, he’s still going to go, “Fuck ya. You’re not going to get me. You can tear me apart above the skies of Abilene, like you did to the alternate universe Lucifer, but my middle finger will still be flipping you off as I’m falling down to the ground.” You’ll see that too. You’ll see that Lucifer carries himself with his typical sassy, irreverent demeanor, no matter what horrible situation he finds himself in. That’s where Lucifer is very different from me. I’m oversensitive, and very affected by the things that people say and do to me … I may not seem that way because you see me probably battling people all the time … but I’m sensitive to the things that they say, and I feel like I don’t want to challenge people to harm me. Lucifer would challenge people to harm him. He pushes the limit all the way to the end and says, “Let’s see how good you are, let’s see how strong you are. Let’s see if your will matches against mine.” At the end of the premiere episode, which really had me bawling – the scene where Sam and Dean and Jack are saying goodbye to Cas, Kelly Kline and Crowley … I don’t know how much you want to talk about Crowley’s demise … but because Crowley has been Lucifer’s nemesis for so long, do you think he actually maybe misses him? I hope you noticed that when Crowley showed up in the alternate universe, before he was sacrificed, Lucifer did something when he noticed it was Crowley. He kind of wriggled around on the ground and said, “Crowley!” That was sort of a spontaneous thing that happened in the moment … I think Lucifer’s character being what it is … he admires men and women without limits. He admires cleverness and intelligence and will. Crowley demonstrated the ability to outsmart him. He liked it … he liked the challenge … the challenge now of fighting this formidable being … like any great boxer is going to be defined by his opposition. Ali wasn’t Ali until he met Foreman and Frazier. And that’s what made him a champion. The same with Lucifer … I think he would see things in the terms of bring me your biggest challenge and I’ll meet it. I think he would miss Crowley to be honest. Especially with this new guy Asmodeus coming up. That guy’s a real piece of work. I think he’s a lot worse and a lot more powerful than Crowley. Crowley was sort of an ambitious CEO … sort of a ruthless CEO, there was something about his intelligence that I admire. I don’t think that’s the same with Asmodeus, he’s a tyrant. So in answer to that, I think yes, I think Lucifer would miss Crowley. The season premiere really hit me, at the end when Sam is talking to Jack and explaining how you say goodbye to someone who has passed. (To read my review regarding this episode, go here.) Sam’s line – and Jared’s delivery of that line – was exactly what I needed to hear at exactly the right time. And that’s one of the reasons why I love Supernatural … it seems to have the timing of picking up on stuff that is the perfect timing for a lot of things. I know that’s the way it is for a lot of people as well. I thought that was an interesting for Sam to say as well. I thought it was a great summation of the process of understanding death for the living. Here’s what I love about Supernatural – we all know that the story is about family … but it’s about orphans. It’s about people who’ve had to become their own guide in a crazy universe, and only had each other to rely on. That’s pretty powerful … so many of us come from broken homes, where we miss one parent or there are other abusive family relationships … if you come to the world fractured and you have to survive by your own wits. Being in a show like this, even as fantastical as it is … it’s possible to defy even a whole universe and be right. To be treated like they were, but still find love and loyalty … the family don’t end in blood thing is all about that. I think that’s why so many people find solidarity in the show itself.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[cogentranting]

In which I tell Legends of Tomorrow how to do it’s job regarding the Legion of Doom

The Legion of Doom story line could have been so much better if they actually played to the differences between the members and recognized the established canon qualities of those characters. (It’s not that I disliked the season, it’s just that it could have been so much more if they hadn’t decided that a watered-down Eobard Thawne was the best thing since sliced bread)

For one thing, all three of the main Legion members have wildly different motivations for wanting to change reality. Thawne is acting out of a very primal survival instinct- he’s being hunted and he wants to prevent being erased. It’s immediate and urgent and it’s going to make him dangerous and desperate. Darhk is the most supervillain-esque in his motivation- he also wants to avoid dying but it’s a very distant abstract thing for him (he knows he’s going to die 30+ years down the road- that’s a far cry from seeing a corpse-like monster coming for you every time you stay in one place for too long) but beyond that he wants power. Merlyn, on the other hand (ba dum tss), is actually primarily motivated by loss- most recently that has been loss of power, but his bigger concern has always been his family. Arrow 3x12 indicates that Merlyn is actually a lot more remorseful than he lets on, and when you come right down to it, losing his family is what changed him and given the option, he would potentially undo a lot his choices in order to regain his family. Merlyn wants his wife and son to be alive, and to repair his relationship with his daughter (he goes about these things in a horrible perverse way, of course, but the underlying idea isn’t evil. And of course he would definitely grab power along the way if he could. He was a billionaire ceo who was best friends with the Queen’s- he was never a saint).

Apart from a single throwaway comment, it was also never played with that these three men are from three different times- Darhk was pulled from the 70′s (??I think??), Merlyn from 2016, and Thawne is the distant future. Could have been interesting. 

The three also have three very different methodologies. All of them are mastermind style villains (which was somewhat ignored. They didn’t seem to plan anything. Thawne a bit, but the other two didn’t). But they diverge quite a bit. Darhk completely embraces destruction and intimidation. He puts his forces right out in the open and faces his enemies on a regular basis (he probably has close to twenty different fights with Team Arrow). He’s about coercion and intimidation and ultimately his goals are much more inclined toward destruction for it’s own sake than the other two. Thawne is a very personal villain. His plots are typically about his own immediate needs and personal vendettas. His time on Flash was all about revenge and getting home. He didn’t have world domination goals or some manifesto. It was very selfish. He’s also a master manipulator. He orchestrated events for (I don’t want to look up the number- 17?) years to carry out his plan. He created a new identity for himself and worked his way into the lives of many people. He formed relationships with Barry, Cisco, and Caitlin and moved them like chess pieces, even shaping their characters into who he needed them to be. He maintained a paradoxical love and hatred for Barry at the same time, and truly cared about Cisco and Caitlin but was willing to toss them aside (murder them) at a moment’s notice. The fact that Thawne’s attempts to control the Legion were limited to “I’m a speedster; do what I say” is really disappointing given the manipulation he’s capable of. Merlyn is the most ideological of the three- he (like his nemesis Oliver) has a crusade that he believes in. He doesn’t delight in destruction the way Darhk does, it’s a tool he uses when he deems it necessary (which is often). He’s ruthless but not against those he cares about like Thawne is. Merlyn will go to great lengths to protect his loved ones (as much as he’s capable of love) like Thea, Moira, Tommy and at times Oliver. Merlyn is also the most likely to genuinely try to win people over to his crusade- he tries at different times to convince Moira, Robert, Tommy, Thea and Oliver that his crusade is actually just. Merlyn strikes a middle ground between Darhk and Thawne in terms of intimidation vs. manipulation but he’s also very prone to striking deals that he undercuts for his own advantage. 

So, based on these methodologies shown on Flash and Arrow: Thawne should have tried a subtle manipulation of both the Legion and the Legends; Darhk should have been the most violent and most inclined to killing or tormenting the Legends and probably the least concerned about leaving time intact; Merlyn (having potentially the most noble goals) should have tried to play both sides, trying to convince the Legends (particularly Sara- which he did briefly but... it was very brief and poorly argued) that he was going to influence reality for the better by undoing the damage he caused (no Undertaking, no five years in hell for Oliver and Sara, no Slade Wilson siege, no League invasion of Starling, no Rebecca, Robert, Tommy, Laurel, or Sara deaths, maybe even offer to take Darhk and Thawne out of the picture eventually). With minds like the Legion’s have, the three of them interacting should have been a master chess game. 

And skill sets. Thawne is the science guy. He’s got the science-based super power, he’s from the future. He should be all things tech and time travel and super powered. And they mostly did that. BUT. Damien is the occult guy. He’s very old and full of knowledge of magical artifacts and secret orders. The spear of destiny is an ancient magical artifact. Darhk should have been the one they relied on for information on that. And he should have had an established rivalry with Amaya (the other magic user). With that- I will never understand why they chose to have their version of Darhk be without magic. It would have balanced out so much better if our three villains were superpower, magic, skill (tech, once Snart arrived). Merlyn, being somewhat versed in the occult, but not on Darhk’s level, should have been stressed as the modern characteer- aka the one who knows the most about the world. The well-traveled character who has met and gained knowledge of many (if not most) of the Arrowverse characters. Merlyn should have been the one to know the most about the Legends, and the most about what’s going on in the world. And it REALLY should have been emphasized that Merlyn is the best fighter (not necessarily most powerful, but certainly most skilled). Because canonically, Merlyn’s fighting skill is only surpassed by Ra’s and Oliver (and maybe Slade and Sara. They’re certainly close). That’s 2-4 people in the entire Arrowverse. So yes, acknowledge the pre-established abilities of the characters and use that to create a team of villains that actually seems to gain something from teaming up. As is, they really made me question why Thawne was working with the other two at all. He seemed to want lackeys so why didn’t he hire lackeys?

Snart should have been included earlier. Snart could have been played for so much more emotion than the other three. Apart from Sara, the Legends don’t really have any connection to the members of the Legion (some small ones, which should have been mentioned) so having their teammate who died for them, there and fighting against them could have been exceptionally tragic. But it was ignored except for Mick and wasn’t introduced soon enough to really explore. Bringing him in sooner could have made for a more gradual arc that established the split in Mick’s loyalties and the team’s distrust of him (making them look less like massive jerks) and could have shown a gradual fracturing the of the Snart/Mick relationship so that Snart eventually turning on Mick actually made sense. He also provides a nice contrast to the other three Legion members by being smaller scale. He’s not a villain mastermind bent on destroying (fill in the blank)- he’s a rogue and a thief. Very smart, so he can keep pace to a certain degree with the Legion. But not ambitious on their scale. And yet still very contemptuous of the more powerful villains. Playing Snart as the outsider to the group could have been very intriguing. 

And finally, Doomworld was done wrong. First of all, every single one of the Legion members aimed too small. He has the power to alter reality so Mr. “I want to nuke the world and create my own society that I control absolutely” makes himself mayor? Thawne basically reclaims what he had at the beginning of the Flash and does nothing else for himself, not even going back to his own time period like he spent 17 years plotting to do? Merlyn shows no trace of his crusade that lead to the Undertaking? No sweeping cleansing of his city? Snart doesn’t make any attempt to fix his and Mick’s childhoods (like he did in season 1 the moment he got a time ship) and doesn’t even mention Lisa? And the importance of Team Arrow and Team Flash was massively underplayed. I know they couldn’t be present, but they should have been more talked about. For one thing, the Legends should have showed a little bit of concern for the fact that numerous friends of theirs had been brutally murdered in this reality. Apart from pushing Sara’s buttons with Laurel, no one seemed affected on a personal level. And the idea that Darhk was the one who killed them/had them killed/(more likely) changed reality so that they were dead, makes no sense because (being a past version of himself) Darhk is the only one without a personal vendetta against the teams. Thawne is the Flash’s nemesis, he should have been the one to have done something to Barry and whoever else from Flash. And Merlyn should have been the one to act against Team Arrow (maybe not Laurel since the fact that Darhk is the one to kill her in reality is important)- particularly Oliver. Merlyn should have either forcibly brought Oliver to his side, like he did with Thea, since Merlyn has often expressed that he sees Oliver as his son, or been the one to kill Oliver since he is his nemesis and Oliver most recently cut off his hand and left him with nothing (no League, no company, no master plan, no Thea). Rather than try to convince the audience that the Legion had a greater desire to torment the Legends than they did Team Arrow and Flash (who they have much greater reason to hate), the show should have played it as, they didn’t kill them because of Mick’s influence and because they really didn’t see the Legends as a threat- they underestimated them. Which is more in keeping with the themes and conception of Legends anyway. 

[and really: Thawne is the reason that Ronnie died- Stein should care a LOT about that. Darhk imprisoned Ray for months- he should care about that. Nate (I believe) is from Star city (or maybe Central) so the terror that at least one member of the Legion inflicted on his home could have been used to establish a connection there (he knew someone killed in the Undertaking etc). Rip’s motivations in season 1 are strikingly similar to Merlyn’s motivations (save his wife and son) so that could have been toyed with. Mick and Sara are not the only one’s who could have personal reasons for stopping the Legion.]

[ultraletseatstuff-blog]

Populism will become the primary political strategy in the 2020’s. Populism itself is defined as a political strategy that appeals to common people who believe that their concerns are disregarded by the establishment elite. While populism flourished in the 1930’s, I believe it will rise again and dominate world politics just like it did then. If I had wrote this ten years ago, it would have been much harder to lay out cohesive points with evidence and reason like I can now. In the last decade, we have seen a radical transformation in world politics, from the old establishment figures to new populist firebrands that shook the system to it’s core. During 2016, we saw the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. While these two figures are political opposites, they, and their supporters, share many of the same attributes. Both Trump and Sanders are populist figures who grew authentic movements that pushed back on the establishment. They both promised their supporters they would destroy the establishment and put power into the hands of the common man. While their supporters generally dislike each other, they are the most similar major political groups that exist in the US. Both groups have radical ideas and have a devotion not to a party, but a singular figure. Both groups argue with passion and rely on emotional connection rather than statistics to get their points across. Another monumental similarity is the anger which both groups hold. While the anger may be directed at different things, the feeling that is felt by the MAGAs and the Bernie bros is red hot anger. One of blessings of the 2016 election was the ability to see what would happen in all sorts of “what if” scenarios. For starters, a billionaire, TV personality won the presidency, the establishment camps of both parties lost, in albeit, different ways, and the first major socialist movement in the US took off with Bernie Sanders. I believe the biggest difference in the campaigns of the Sanders and Trump was not the policies, but the way in which they were received by the establishment. Initially, Trump was not only hated by the establishment, his presidential run was debated on whether or not it was a joke! Trump did not receive good treatment like some of the other Republican nominees until later in the run, after he had gained a group of die hard, vocal supporters. Bernie’s story was similar, if less extreme, as he was generally ignored and labeled a crazy socialist early into his presidential run. Like Trump, as time went on, Bernie collected young, passionate followers who dominated much of the left wing discourse. The similarities split however, when the Republican party belatedly embraced Trump, while the Democratic party sought to sabotage Sanders. In my opinion, when this fundamental shift happened, the election was over, Trump was going to win. Ultimately, he did win in one of the greatest political upsets of all time. While many were surprised, I wasn’t. The presidency of Trump was made possible because of the unique era in which it took place. During 2016 we were riding a wave of a new political energy. Like I said, the two biggest candidates were very much unlike the normal establishment politicians such as Jeb Bush or Joe Biden. They were firebrands and icons, where their opponents were career politicians that presented a polished, manufactured aesthetic. More important than their aesthetic were their movements, the populist, with a motivated organic following, versus the establishment that uses billions of dollars to prop up an astro-turfed movement that lacks substance. While it was hard for populists to gain traction In the past, by 2016 we were increasingly moving into a new era in American politics, one motivated by emotion and grievance, rather than rhetoric and statistics. Fast forward to today, we are seeing this trend fully manifested. We are in the middle of an election, where a very similar phenomena is happening right before our eyes. On one side, we have the populist Trump, with a 97% approval rating within his own party and an extremely devoted base. On the other side, we have the neutered Bernie movement and the presumptive establishment nominee Biden. It seems that the Democrats are making the same mistake they did in 2016, by snubbing the grassroots Sanders campaign and picking the deeply establishment Biden for their nominee. It is clear statistically and anecdotally, that the excitement for Biden does not exist. The supporters of Bernie not only believed in his message but also believed in him as a man. This was very apparent when Bernie dropped out, only to have massive portions of his base basically pledge allegiance to him and vow to punish the Democratic party but either voting third party or not voting at all. Due to these same mistakes, Trump will win again easily in 2020 and if the democrats don’t change their strategy, they will have serious problems in 2024. While the focus has been on American politics, this trend of populism and tribalism has not been exclusive to the Union. All across the world we see the same political trends happening and we see the same strategies being used. Everywhere from President Modi in India, Boris Johnson in the UK, Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orban in Hungary, we see traditional post war politics be pushed aside for something that is both ancient and new. The 2010’s saw the birth of this new political wave, but in the 2020’s it will run it’s course. The 1920’s saw the rise of communism, the 1930’s saw fascism, but the political movements of today don’t break down the same way. Instead of one ideology becoming dominant, there are many ideologies sharing the same space, what has changed is the way in which these ideologies are presented. It’s true that the only real losers here are the centrists, the battle lines have now shifted to the fringes, as both diametrically opposed forces now go to war with each other. The time for unity has passed and now, the only thing that matters is if your side wins. I think young people have been able to acclimate to this new political world more efficiently than the older generations as young people have been increasingly taking the forefront in political dialogue and activism. In Sweden, a 16 year old girl named Greta Thunberg gained worldwide attention when she went on a tour speaking about climate change. At that moment, no one cared about tax law, or the negative affects of Greta’s agenda, all they cared about was this girl who was giving passionate speeches. This theme of emotion and passion have been seen all around the world. Many politicians have gained more fame from their tactics than their success. When French populist Marie le Pen lost to Macron in France, the majority of the news coverage didn’t surround Macron’s victory, it surrounded Le Pen’s defeat. As the younger generations become increasingly influential in society and politics, the same passion they felt when they were younger will be transferred into reality. Growing up in generation Z, we have seen nothing but war, recession, and corruption in our lives. The disillusionment with the system and the contempt we have for those in power who tell us not to worry, is starting to bear consequences. While many may fear populism, I think their fear is unmerited. To catch up to the radical changes in our society, we need radical change. We need to fight fire with fire, or else the system will not be able to go on. For so long, the system has been held together by the elite at the top, but the years of stagnation in the economy, climate and society are taking its toll and we need solutions before it’s too late. While the establishment relies on the status quo, in fact I would venture to say it exists to propagate the status quo. As long as the ones at the top can effectively control those beneath them, they can keep the system running to their own benefit. This is materialized in the way which the elite gets to participate in society. When an elite commits a crime, they are given a slap on the wrist, rarely receiving lasting punishment. There are many in our government and society that get to play by their own rules as they contribute to the societal decay. This sort of immunity is increasingly noticed by the masses. The populist figures that are rising up is the response of the disillusioned masses. During the election of 2016, Trump spun his rallies into chants of “Lock her up” and “Drain the swamp”. Without making a moral judgement on these terms, the underlying attitude is that of a resentment of the elite and those who are perceived as being invulnerable to justice. We will continue to see what is already happening before our eyes, the common man has said “enough” and whatever comes next will be the reaction and retribution for what has been decades of decadence.

[theliterateape]

Seeking Big Changes vs Fighting for the Status Quo

by Don Hall

A creature like a virus is simply nature doing its thing. It doesn’t see us the way we see ourselves. We are simply a means to an end, the end being endless procreation. Endless survival. The thing jumps from body to body without discrimination based on race or gender or financial status. Your credit score is not going to make a bit of fucking difference to the COVID beast (although, funny enough, my credit score jumped in the past few days and I have no clue as to why…).

If you spend any time in isolation binging on streaming TV, I’d recommend you watch a few hours of nature documentaries. Watch how nature operates and see that nature is not a PIXAR character. Nature is a cycle of death and regeneration and the story of the female spider being eaten by her children or the lioness taking down a gazelle ain’t a fairy tale.

From the view of nature, humans are all the same.

There are big changes afoot in the world. The global economy is taking a hit that may be create the next Great Depression, the perspectives on healthcare worldwide are shifting, the differences between the Haves and Have Nots is becoming even more apparent than ever before. 

For many people, this is a welcome switch. People whom the current model has not benefited in a whole lot of ways. They’ve been angry and helpless. They have turned to the mob power of social media to affect the changes they believe are necessary. Pandemic has merely pulled the curtain back a bit and given them the opportunity to show the less likely to see a view of the huge inequities endured.

For others, this is a fight to keep what they have and to bolster the status quo in the hopes that when the virus has ceased its assault on humanity, things will return back to normal.

Sifting through the noise between the two is a challenge. I‘ve come to the belief that when confronted with two extreme versions of the truth, especially when those versions are fueled more by opinion and speculation, the reality falls somewhere in between. Evidence, when compiled honestly and without partisan bias, can be a solid source for finding that middle ground.

On the other hand, if there is a lesson to be learned from the past few weeks is that no amount of speculation is going to be worth the effort. Here in Vegas we’re under government shut down until April 17 so we are in the business of planning to re-open then. It’s work that should be done yet there is a feeling of pointlessness to it given that no one knows what the fuck we’re doing right now. The idea that we will in a few weeks be up and running seems as remote and unthinkable as pretty much everything else.

I’ve been thinking on why, when it comes to society handling this challenge, there are such extremes. Some folks believe it’s all just a ridiculous over reaction and that we’ve indelibly damaged the economy by freaking the fuck out. Others believe this is 1918 all over again.

My theory is that it is all about Trump (Christ, he’d love that wouldn’t he?). Those who voted for him or are in that polling percentage approving of him have not felt crippling and self imposed anxiety over the state of the world. Those who did not have felt as if they are in the pool of quicksand from one of those classic movies set in the jungle — no matter how much they thrash and grab for vines, they keep sinking.

Because we see each other as enemies, because one side feels like everything was fine and the other side sees everything as a travesty, we cannot see the Coronavirus in the same way. So we self isolate and see what happens. Cash grabs on both sides. Potentially dangerous forays into social gatherings in defiance. Pushing to re-open businesses to get back to that which we understand as our default way of life.

I wonder if I want things to get back to normal? Sure, the hours I put in for the wage I am then awarded pays for things that Dana and I enjoy: an apartment, our digital devices, heat and air conditioning, clothing, food, travel. I wonder, though, if the hours I put in to be able to enjoy these basics are somehow better used for something else and further wonder if this sort of thinking will bring me to the place under some viaduct wearing shoes taped together and a refrigerator box for a home?

I wrote earlier on my Facebook wall that now was an ideal time to reassess our priorities and I suppose that is exactly what I’m doing. I’m not entirely thrilled with a life off the grid, as they say, but the allure of eschewing this rat race known as the day-to-day grind is sexy and relieving and cool as a summer’s breeze.

So we fight it out amidst the invisible monster jumping from body to body. What will the world look like when it’s past and the virus has run its course? Will we simply go back to the massive inequity between those with enough resource to skate on top of nature’s vengeance and those destined to be ground down by it? Will we learn something substantive from the violent exposure of meaningless rules and regulations, hypocritical bailouts for corporations that then buy out their own stock rather than bolster the labor force?

After all is said and done, will we still be allowed to bring twelve ounces of Purell on planes or will we go back to the bizarre and arbitrary regulations that include taking our shoes off in security? Will we bail out the airlines only to return to that industry nickel and diming us at every turn? Will the big Vegas casinos survive this experience by continuing to charge us outrageous resort fees and charge for parking or will the corporate suits just be happy for us to come and play?

Will we re-animate our desire to rid ourselves of Trump or simply be thankful we didn’t lose as many of our loved ones to settle in and forget to run his ass out on a rail? Will we still use social media as a weapon or remember how connected it made us feel in these times of crisis and choose the latter?

I hope it lands somewhere in between the extremes. I hope we find genuine changes that we needed anyway and enough of the life we lived to find value in those simple rewards for hard work. I hope we can at least begin to put away our childish tantrums about ideology, race, and sex and begin to see ourselves as nature does — all the exact fucking same but with different costumes on.

Yeah. I’d like us to see ourselves with the same lens as nature. Maybe that’s too much to ask.

[businessliveme]

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Responsibility Push Angers PewDiePie

(Bloomberg) –YouTube spent 2019 answering critics with some of the most drastic changes in its 15-year history. With each step, it gave those activists, regulators and lawmakers more reasons to attack its free-wheeling, user-generated business model.

Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s chief executive officer, announced her goals in April. “My top priority,” she wrote, “is responsibility.” Her company spent the year trying to traverse an almost impossible tightrope: nurture a growing community of demanding creators, while pledging to police troubling videos and protect millions of underage users who officially shouldn’t even be watching. The efforts pleased almost no one and highlighted an existential quandary. Every time YouTube tries to fix something, the company, an arm of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, risks losing the neutrality that it needs to thrive.

“They know that every time they are successful catching problematic content or removing it, this just raises expectations,” said Mike Godwin, a senior fellow at think tank R Street Institute and a trustee of the Internet Society. “It’s a never-ending cycle of increasing demands for these dominant platforms to operate fairly.”

As 2020 begins, the largest online video service is being dragged deeper into political fights over privacy, copyright and content moderation. In response, YouTube is trying to preserve the sanctity of its status as an online platform with little liability for what happens on its site. Instead, that burden is increasingly falling on the shoulders of regulators, video creators and other partners.

Nowhere is that more evident than YouTube’s approach to kids. A landmark privacy settlement this year with the Federal Trade Commission is forcing YouTube to split its massive site in two. Every clip, starting in January, must be designated as “made for kids” or not. The overhaul puts billions of ad dollars at stake and has sparked panic among creators, who also now face new legal risk. The company isn’t offering creators legal advice or ways to salvage their businesses. It isn’t even defining what a “made for kids” video is on YouTube — and has argued to the government that it shouldn’t have to.

“Creators will make those decisions themselves,” Wojcicki said last week. “Creators know their content best.”

YouTube privately considered taking more control. Earlier this year, it assembled a team of more than 40 employees to brace for the FTC decision. The team was code-named Crosswalk — as in a way to guide kids across YouTube’s chaotic streets. Among its proposals was a radical one, at least by the standards of Silicon Valley: YouTube would screen every video aimed at kids under the age of 8 in its YouTube Kids app, ensuring that no untoward content crept into the feed of millions of tots around the world. A press release was even drafted in which Wojcicki said professional moderators would check each clip, according to people familiar with the plans. Yet at the last minute, the CEO and her top deputies ditched the plan, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.

The rationale was clear to some at YouTube, one person involved in the project recalled. Hand-picking videos, even for kids, made YouTube look too much like a media company, not a neutral platform. A YouTube spokeswoman denied the idea was turned down because it put the company in charge of programming, but she declined to comment further on the decision. In a recent interview, Wojcicki made it clear that her content-moderation push only goes so far, telling CBS News that even being liable for video recommendations would destroy the essence of the service.

“If we were held liable for every single piece of content that we recommended, we would have to review it,” she said. “That would mean there would be a much smaller set of information that people would be finding. Much, much smaller.”

YouTube’s balancing act between media publisher or hands-off internet bulletin board has sparked intense debate internally. For some business partners and employees, this year’s decisions leaves them with the impression that the company is unable to take a serious stand.

“What is the mission of this company? People don’t even know,” said Claire Stapleton, a former YouTube marketing manager who left this year after clashing with Google over employee protests. “YouTube is so ill-equipped to manage these massive challenges.”

The YouTube spokeswoman said the company has made significant investments to better protect its online community. Over the last 18 months, the results of this effort include an 80% reduction in views of videos that violate its policies. YouTube also increased viewership on videos from “authoritative news publishers” by 60%, according to the spokeswoman. “While there will always be healthy debate around this work, we’ll continue to make the hard decisions needed to better protect the openness of the YouTube platform and the community that depends on it,” she added in a statement.

No episode in 2019 typified YouTube’s arduous search for middle ground more than the Maza affair. In June, gay journalist and YouTube creator Carlos Maza accused Steven Crowder, a conservative YouTuber, of repeated harassment. The Vox reporter put together a montage of clips from Crowder’s YouTube channel to highlight what Maza said were homophobic and racist insults.

So, I have pretty thick skin when it comes to online harassment, but something has been really bothering me.

— Carlos Maza 🌹 (@gaywonk) May 31, 2019

After saying it would review Maza’s complaints, YouTube concluded the comments were not in violation of its policies, angering some of its own employees. YouTube staff held a private call to explain its rationale to Maza, who remained unconvinced. “It was very awkward,” he recalled.

(3/4) As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.

— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 4, 2019

Crowder, meanwhile, devoted a 21-minute video to rehashing his comments. After days of criticism, YouTube removed ads from his videos, angering him.

At a conference about a week later, Wojcicki apologized to the LGBTQ community, but defended YouTube’s decision to keep Crowder’s videos on the site. Removing his clips, or banning him from YouTube, would have put the company in an untenable situation, with millions of viewers asking “what about this one?” for hundreds of comedy, hip-hop and late-night TV-show videos, the CEO said.

Two months later, a group of LGBTQ YouTube creators filed a class action lawsuit accusing the company of discrimination. The case mirrored similar charges from across the ideological aisle — a filing from PragerU, a conservative video channel, which has accused YouTube of censorship. In fact, the lawsuits were brought by the same attorney. “It just looks like YouTube is taking the maximum amount of time for a solution that pleases no one,” said Stapleton, the former employee.

YouTube spent the months after the Maza episode rewriting its harassment policy. The update, announced earlier this month, set new rules that would now treat Crowder’s videos as violations subject to removal. Like clockwork, the decision riled other creators. Felix Kjellberg, YouTube’s biggest star, who posts as PewDiePie, declared he was leaving the video site and blamed the new policy. “We have this anarchy system, okay,” he said. “If YouTube knows what’s good for them, they’ll keep their [expletive] hands out… Don’t come and ruin it for us.”

While criticism comes from all sides, YouTube’s challenge is practically insurmountable: More than 500 hours of footage are uploaded every minute. And the company’s software is still unable to gain a thorough understanding of the content before people start watching. “You are trying to keep free speech going and, at the same time, you’re trying to make sure crud doesn’t get in, and trying to make sure that people who watch aren’t getting affected. It’s a really, really, really hard problem,” said Diya Jolly, a former YouTube executive who left in 2017. “Susan is doing an awesome job.”

Wojcicki’s task is set to become even more difficult. The European Parliament has approved rules that make YouTube liable the moment anyone uploads a video that violates a copyright. That could force YouTube to take down content from popular creators, while hiking its legal bills and hurting ad sales. Wojcicki used Google’s political muscle and invited creators to lobby against the regulation, but she has failed to stop it. According to one former senior employee, the fight often claimed as much of the executive team’s attention in 2019 as the more-public battles over children’s privacy and inappropriate content.

Even in the U.S., the walls are closing in around YouTube. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have proposed peeling back protections that have shielded internet companies from liability for decades. YouTube’s dominance may draw antitrust scrutiny. Lawmakers are also considering tougher copyright laws, egged on by YouTube’s rivals in media and music. “That’s where there is a lot of money at stake, and people have valid objections,” said Jeff Kosseff, an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and an expert on internet law.

For now, though, YouTube’s biggest challenge is kids’ privacy. In September, the FTC fined Google for illegally tracking children for its ads business, forcing significant changes to YouTube’s operations. On Nov. 13, YouTube sent an email to tens of thousands of creators about the coming “made for kids” designation. If marked as “made for kids,” videos will lose lucrative personalized ads and other valuable features, including user comments. If clips aren’t labeled this way, and the government decides the footage is indeed reaching children, creators can be fined thousands of dollars.

“We know this won’t be easy for some creators, and that this required change is going to take some getting used to,” the company wrote in the email. YouTube has also advised many of them to “lawyer up,” according to partners. A recent regulatory filing went further, with Google estimating the changes will mean YouTube creators “who make mostly child-directed content will likely lose a majority of their revenue.”

In contrast, YouTube itself emerged relatively unscathed. Google paid a $170 million fine, a tiny sliver of its profit. The FTC settlement on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, focused on YouTube, not other parts of Google. The internet giant worked hard to limit any broader impact on the rest of its businesses, according to one former executive. Best of all for YouTube, it doesn’t need to screen clips before they go up, nor is it liable for any infringing videos.

The FTC is now rewriting its COPPA rules and has invited public comment. In a filing, Google told the agency it was worried about any laws forcing it to “identify and police” videos aimed at kids. The company was, in effect, arguing it couldn’t know for sure the age of its audience and shouldn’t be punished for that.

Critics were appalled. Lindsey Barrett, a staff attorney at Georgetown Law’s Communications & Technology Clinic who worked with complainants in the FTC case, found it hard to imagine the contortions required for Google to make this argument. “Our entire business is based on being able to slice and dice our audience, and see who’s watching what,” she said. “But we couldn’t possibly tell you if there’s a child here!”

The YouTube spokeswoman said the company has done its best to comply with its COPPA obligations, as it understands them, and has asked the FTC for more clarification on the rules.

The company is “not answering the questions everyone wants,” said Greg Alkalay, chief executive officer of BatteryPOP, a children’s media company. “YouTube’s success comes from its creators. They built a beast and don’t know how to wrangle it.”

–With assistance from Ben Brody.

  The post YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Responsibility Push Angers PewDiePie appeared first on Businessliveme.com.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/34YVyat via IFTTT

[bharatiyamedia-blog]

Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore sees US and China on collision course: Battle of values set to play out in Indo-Pacific

http://tinyurl.com/y4m549gd Singapore: Tiny however ebullient, this nation the place the East mingles effortlessly with the West is a pure theatre for a Nice Energy Sport unfolding within the Indian Ocean Area — a very powerful piece of geopolitical actual property on the planet right now. Primarily, it is a conflict of concepts which have had forex for many years; however the affect of the end result on actual world occasions and the stability of energy will reverberate for a lot of extra many years to come back. And within the speedy foreground is the express menace of conflict in some of the militarised stretches of ocean wherever on the planet. On the three-day Shangri La Dialogue (held from 31 Could to 2 June), the 2 predominant protagonists on this battle — the US and China — set out competing visions of the Indo-Pacific. Notably, it was the primary time they did so from the identical stage. Talking first, Appearing US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan was blunt in his warning to China: “Nobody nation can — or ought to — dominate the Indo-Pacific,” he mentioned, detailing at size Chinese language techniques to intimidate smaller nations diplomatically and militarily, by reclaiming and constructing navy bases in disputed waters throughout the South China Sea. The Chinese language say these bases are to defend China in opposition to “outdoors powers” just like the US, France and Britain, who conduct freedom of navigation operations to maintain the waters claimed by China open to all. “The Indo-Pacific,” Shanahan continued, “is our precedence theatre”. On this closely militarised theatre, the US has 370,000 troopers deployed, 4 occasions as many as every other area on the planet. It additionally has 2,000 plane, 200 submarines and ships. As well as, plane service teams name at port often. File picture of US President Donald Trump and Chinese language President Xi Jinping. AP Talking after Shanahan, each British and French defence ministers expressed sturdy dedication to the US-led Indo-Pacific coverage explicitly geared toward containing China. Britain’s Penny Mordaunt revealed that British forces had an “unbroken presence” within the area for the entire yr. French defence minister Florence Parly warned of a worldwide confrontation within the area. The present “evolving” safety order, she mentioned, contained the “constructing blocks” of worldwide confrontation. And France was “not going wherever”. As she spoke, a French plane service group led by the Charles De Gaulle was anchored close by. Accompanied by frigates and submarines, the De Gaulle had simply accomplished “superior” coaching workouts with the Indian Navy, she mentioned. The service group will go on to carry workouts with Japanese and Australian forces. Parly mentioned France had 5 navy instructions and three bases within the area. Responding from the identical stage the very subsequent day, Chinese language defence minister Wei Fenghe dismissed the robust discuss by the US and its allies. “Talks, we welcome. To struggle, we’re prepared. Until the tip,” he mentioned, “The PLA will not be afraid of sacrifice.” The Chinese language defence minister clearly specified two areas the place the PLA wouldn’t “yield an inch”: Taiwan and the South China Sea. Wei, whose presence right here itself is noteworthy, was remarkably confident as he deftly dealt with questions from the viewers, at one level sneering at western values as evidenced by the historic enslavement of black Africans and persecution of the Jews. “Hegemony over others, these will not be Chinese language values,” he mentioned. The Chinese language have, over time, stored a lightweight presence at this annual safety summit attended by defence professionals from the West and throughout the area. For the reason that dialogue started in 2002, solely as soon as has a Chinese language defence minister been in attendance. This time, Wei’s presence and his calibrated however unrestrained utterances had been clearly meant to offer an unequivocal response to the US and its allies amid the rising tensions over the brand new Indo-Pacific coverage. First voiced by US president Donald Trump a yr earlier, the brand new Indo-Pacific coverage had its most complete rollout final yr, when India took a central function in it with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sweeping keynote speech. This time, maybe by design however induced primarily by the latest nationwide vote, there was nearly no Indian presence. A senior defence official mentioned that the simply re-elected prime minister was considering modifications within the prime management of the armed forces. Solely two comparatively junior officers attended. Sources mentioned Nationwide Safety Advisor Ajit Doval had expressed his lack of ability to attend nicely prematurely however organisers had been eager to have him and tried to get him to attend until the final minute. Because of this, he was billed to talk at a session. He didn’t attend. The Chinese language defence minister, who was requested how China would react to India’s simultaneous rise within the neighborhood, didn’t give a direct reply. Wei responded by saying solely that there was “some progress” within the relationship because the Xi Jinping-Modi Wuhan summit final yr. “The momentum is getting higher,” he mentioned, noting that the disputed border was secure. The confrontation between China and the democratic West has lengthy been billed as a “conflict” of “civilisations” — and the divergent values that underpin these societies. Actually, the speeches of western navy leaders on the convention had been liberally sprinkled with the phrase “values”, a phrase that was ubiquitous throughout deliberations. The People, maybe with some justification, claimed a common standing for liberal western values. “These will not be American ideas; they’re broadly accepted throughout this area and the world,” Shanahan mentioned. He additionally pointedly reminded the Chinese language that their prosperity itself was owed to the commerce and safety framework put in place by the Allies after the Second World Conflict and enforced by the US Navy in these waters. Singapore, a exceptional success story, itself owes a lot to this “rules-based order”. However extra: Its relevance to this unfolding saga is replete with symbolism. It was right here, on a go to in 1978, that then senior vice-premier, Deng Xiaoping, impressed by this tiny nation’s success, discovered the mannequin he replicated at house on a big scale. It’s right here additionally that Deng borrowed from founder Lee Kuan Yew’s restricted “democracy with Asian traits” mannequin. Again house, he coined the phrase “socialism with Chinese language traits” and used it to bridge the ideological hole between Communism and China’s dalliance with market economics. Paradoxically, Xi, who has declared the start of a “new period” in Chinese language historical past, is nothing just like the chief envisaged by Chinese language custom or communist thought. Xi is flamboyant in a tradition that frowns on shows of character or showmanship. The distinction was on show months earlier than he took full cost of the State equipment, throughout his first “rollout” in entrance of the world. Not like every other Chinese language chief, Xi strode throughout the stage, mike in hand, basking within the adulation of celebration cadre somewhat like a rock star. Supremely assured, even brash, he appeared utterly comfy in entrance of the world media, a change from the forbidding mien cultivated by previous Chinese language presidents. This brashness has since been evident within the suddenness and irrevocability of the change he has wrought. In a short while, Xi has modified the complete construction put in place by Mao Zedong, and added brick-upon-brick by successive leaders. Xi has abolished time period limits, enshrined his ‘thought’ into the Structure and brought China’s engagement with the world in a dramatic new route. His scope and ambition is breathtaking, and his choices appear to be marked by flamboyance. Though the modernisation of the Chinese language navy started over twenty years in the past beneath Deng’s successor, President Jiang Zemin, it took on a complete new life beneath Xi. The massively, maybe overly, formidable Belt-Street Initiative can also be Xi’s child as are the Confucius Institutes being utilized in a giant gentle energy push to affect neighbours. And the aggressive, generally predatory, loans to taking part States. Within the present tussle with the West, Xi faces two essential shortcomings. First, he’s the primary Chinese language president to not have been picked by Deng. Second, Singapore’s Lee, China’s greatest interpreter to the West, isn’t any extra. For the entire 19th Century, there was a politico-diplomatic tussle between Britain and Russia for colonies. Britain was frightened of Tsarist Russia’s designs on its “jewel” India. And Russia blocked Britain’s attain into Central Asia. It was referred to as the First Nice Sport. Within the Second Nice Sport, oil corporations vied for untapped oil wealth within the Baltic States after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within the 21st Century, a Third Nice Sport is being performed over values — Chinese language and Western. India, the opposite massive Asian energy, which is philosophically and politically allied with the West, entered this Nice Sport final yr, when Modi cited historical past to say an Indian Ocean legacy stretching “from Africa to the Americas”. Singapore, which has a Chinese language majority that sees itself as uniquely Chinese language, and is multicultural, greatest illustrates the challenges Xi faces as he tries to promote his model of a benevolent, peaceable China making an attempt to “rise peacefully” in a deeply suspicious world. Whereas Singapore has caught to a Swiss-like neutrality in coping with the 2 Large Powers, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made clear the place his coronary heart lay in his keynote speech to open the dialogue. “America is welcome and has many buddies in Asia,” declared Lee, “It’s not that they (the US) purchase them, however there’s a sure breadth of spirit, generosity, coverage.” That breadth — and a wholesome respect for concord — will be present in decorous and formal Chinese language tradition, too. However will China’s neighbours ever style it? !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '259288058299626'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/all.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.9&appId=1117108234997285"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); window.fbAsyncInit = function () { FB.init({appId: '1117108234997285', version: 2.4, xfbml: true}); // *** here is my code *** if (typeof facebookInit == 'function') { facebookInit(); } }; (function () { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; e.async = true; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }()); function facebookInit() { console.log('Found FB: Loading comments.'); FB.XFBML.parse(); } Source link