#unapologetic critic demanding honesty from people

[protect-namine]

.

[se1inah]

RESEARCH CONTENT

'Listen to Us' - Home Brew (Ft Tourettes)

Release date -> 2012

HOME BREW ->

Home Brew is New Zealand hip hop originating from West Auckland, creating music under the genre of conscious rap. The members of the group are Tom Scott, Lui Gumaka, and Harry 'Haz Beats' Huavi. They released their self-titled debut full-length album (Home Brew) in May 2012 to some critical acclaim. It hit number 1 on the New Zealand album charts in its first week, and was the first New Zealand hip hop album to top the charts since Scribe's album The Crusader in 2003.

^ Link to the lyrics 

^ 'Listen to Us' Music video

^ This particular article and review on the song 'Listen to Us' goes incredibly well into the appreciation of honesty behind this song, and what Home Brew talks upon.

Personal notes and thoughts ->

-> 'Listen to Us' by Home Brew is an incredibly strong song in both it's delivery and reality. Despite having been released nearly 12 years ago now, it unfortunately remains very relevant in our current nation today - a side of Aotearoa that many refuse to acknowledge or see. 'Listen to Us' criticizes the government unapologetically and demands for the peoples voice to be heard - calling out the blatant hypocrisy and cruelty of the government with no true consideration and respect for those struggling under their governance.

-> Although the song and the lyricism as a whole are strong, a few lines stood out to me the most powerful and hard hitting :

All we got is luck and hope Dreams going up in smoke

The same old story that you heard a million times before I bet it probably doesn’t even cross your mind no more

Where justice is just some Juxtaposition between the police and the judge’s decision

And even if we scream Who the fuck is going to listen to us?

John key can suck my dick

There’s no depression in New Zealand Yea just a soul sinking feeling

Dignity? can’t afford that on minimum wage

Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor

^ These particular lines on their own commentate on the injustice and lack of compassion and understanding that the government has for the people - particularly for those who are struggling. This is (unfortunately) extremely relevant today in 2024 - if not becoming even more evident.

-> I overall wanted to base my design project around this song and what it stands for as I believe it is becoming increasingly more important for both the leadership and people of Aotearoa to understand and truly acknowledge.

'Listen to us' is a demand - a form of protest and a blatant call out to the government and oppressive force.

[ninjakelvin0789]

Unveiling the Social Artistry of Shepard Fairey: A Brush with Activism.

Introduction:

In the dynamic realm of contemporary art, Shepard Fairey stands as a luminary, recognized for his distinctive style and profound socio-political commentary. Fairey's art is a canvas that not only captivates with its visual allure but also resonates with a powerful narrative, delving into issues that define our society. This article explores the social artistry of Shepard Fairey, examining the impact and significance of his work, particularly in the realm of posters.

Shepard Fairey: A Maverick in the Art World

Shepard Fairey rose to global prominence with his iconic "Hope" poster, a graphic masterpiece that became synonymous with Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. This work catapulted Fairey into the mainstream, showcasing his ability to blend artistic prowess with political activism. Shepard Fairey's art is a testament to the convergence of aesthetics and ideology, where each stroke carries a message, and every color serves a purpose.

Shepard Fairey Art: A Visual Symphony

Fairey's art is characterized by a unique blend of street art and pop culture aesthetics. His use of bold colors, striking imagery, and compelling typography creates a visual symphony that demands attention. The subjects of Sherpard fairey artwork often range from political figures to social justice icons, each piece telling a story that transcends the confines of the canvas. The visual appeal of Shepard Fairey's art is unparalleled, drawing admirers from diverse backgrounds.

Shepard Fairey Posters: Tools of Activism

At the heart of Shepard Fairey's social artistry are his posters, which serve as powerful tools of activism. The accessibility of shepard fairey posters allows his messages to reach a wide audience, turning public spaces into canvases for social and political discourse. The "Obey Giant" campaign, featuring the enigmatic face of wrestler André the Giant, became an underground phenomenon, challenging conventional ideas of authority and questioning the power structures embedded in society.

Shepard Fairey Artwork: A Chronicle of Social Issues

Beyond the iconic "Hope" poster, Shepard Fairey's artwork delves into a myriad of social issues. Themes of environmentalism, racial equality, and anti-establishment sentiments permeate his portfolio. Fairey's art acts as a chronicle of our times, capturing the zeitgeist with an unapologetic honesty. The bold use of symbolism and metaphor in his artwork invites viewers to engage in critical discourse, prompting reflection on the pressing issues that define our collective existence.

The Evolution of Shepard Fairey's Social Art

Shepard Fairey's journey as a social artist has been marked by evolution and experimentation. From the streets of Providence, Rhode Island, where he began his career with street art and skateboarding culture, to the global stage where his work adorns galleries and public spaces, Fairey's trajectory is a testament to the power of art as a catalyst for change. The evolution of his style mirrors the evolution of his activism, as he continues to adapt his artistic language to address contemporary challenges.

The Impact of Shepard Fairey's Art on Popular Culture

Shepard Fairey's influence extends beyond the art world; it permeates popular culture. The "Obey Giant" motif, with its subversive undertones, has become an emblem of counterculture, finding its way into fashion, music, and mainstream media. Fairey's art has the ability to bridge the gap between the esoteric realm of galleries and the everyday lives of people, making socio-political commentary accessible and engaging.

Shepard Fairey: Catalyst for Change

Beyond the aesthetic appeal and cultural impact, Shepard Fairey's art is a catalyst for change. By addressing societal issues through his work, Fairey encourages viewers to question the status quo and envision a more just and equitable world. The use of powerful symbols, such as the clenched fist and the iconic "Hope" image, serves as a rallying cry for social justice, inspiring individuals to become active participants in shaping their communities.

Conclusion:

In the tapestry of contemporary art, Shepard Fairey's social artistry stands as a vibrant thread, weaving together aesthetics and activism. His posters, characterized by bold imagery and powerful messages, transcend the traditional boundaries of art, transforming public spaces into platforms for social discourse. Shepard Fairey's impact on popular culture and his role as a catalyst for change underscore the enduring relevance of art as a medium for societal transformation.

[whitehotharlots]

The point is control

Whenever we think or talk about censorship, we usually conceptualize it as certain types of speech being somehow disallowed: maybe (rarely) it's made formally illegal by the government, maybe it's banned in certain venues, maybe the FCC will fine you if you broadcast it, maybe your boss will fire you if she learns of it, maybe your friends will stop talking to you if they see what you've written, etc. etc. 

This understanding engenders a lot of mostly worthless discussion precisely because it's so broad. Pedants--usually arguing in favor of banning a certain work or idea--will often argue that speech protections only apply to direct, government bans. These bans, when they exist, are fairly narrow and apply only to those rare speech acts in which other people are put in danger by speech (yelling the N-word in a crowded theater, for example). This pedantry isn't correct even within its own terms, however, because plenty of people get in trouble for making threats. The FBI has an entire entrapment program dedicated to getting mentally ill muslims and rednecks to post stuff like "Death 2 the Super bowl!!" on twitter, arresting them, and the doing a press conference about how they heroically saved the world from terrorism. 

Another, more recent pedant's trend is claiming that, actually, you do have freedom of speech; you just don't have freedom from the consequences of speech. This logic is eerily dictatorial and ignores the entire purpose of speech protections. Like, even in the history's most repressive regimes, people still technically had freedom of speech but not from consequences. Those leftist kids who the nazis beheaded for speaking out against the war were, by this logic, merely being held accountable. 

The two conceptualizations of censorship I described above are, 99% of the time, deployed by people who are arguing in favor of a certain act of censorship but trying to exempt themselves from the moral implications of doing so. Censorship is rad when they get to do it, but they realize such a solipsism seems kinda icky so they need to explain how, actually, they're not censoring anybody, what they're doing is an act of righteous silencing that's a totally different matter. Maybe they associate censorship with groups they don't like, such as nazis or religious zealots. Maybe they have a vague dedication toward Enlightenment principles and don't want to be regarded as incurious dullards. Most typically, they're just afraid of the axe slicing both ways, and they want to make sure that the precedent they're establishing for others will not be applied to themselves.

Anyone who engages with this honestly for more than a few minutes will realize that censorship is much more complicated, especially in regards to its informal and social dimensions. We can all agree that society simply would not function if everyone said whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. You might think your boss is a moron or your wife's dress doesn't look flattering, but you realize that such tidbits are probably best kept to yourself. 

Again, this is a two-way proposition that everyone is seeking to balance. Do you really want people to verbalize every time they dislike or disagree with you? I sure as hell don't. And so, as part of a social compact, we learn to self-censor. Sometimes this is to the detriment of ourselves and our communities. Most often, however, it's just a price we have to pay in order to keep things from collapsing. 

But as systems, large and small, grow increasingly more insane and untenable, so do the comportment standards of speech. The disconnect between America's reality and the image Americans have of themselves has never been more plainly obvious, and so striving for situational equanimity is no longer good enough. We can't just pretend cops aren't racist and the economy isn't run by venal retards or that the government places any value on the life of its citizens. There's too much evidence that contradicts all that, and the evidence is too omnipresent. There's too many damn internet videos, and only so many of them can be cast as Russian disinformation. So, sadly, we must abandon our old ways of communicating and embrace instead systems that are even more unstable, repressive, and insane than the ones that were previously in place.

Until very, very recently, nuance and big-picture, balanced thinking were considered signs of seriousness, if not intelligence. Such considerations were always exploited by shitheads to obfuscate things that otherwise would have seemed much less ambiguous, yes, but this fact alone does not mitigate the potential value of such an approach to understanding the world--especially since the stuff that's been offered up to replace it is, by every worthwhile metric, even worse.

So let's not pretend I'm Malcolm Gladwell or some similarly slimy asshole seeking to "both sides" a clearcut moral issue. Let's pretend I am me. Flash back to about a year ago, when there was real, widespread, and sustained support for police reform. Remember that? Seems like forever ago, man, but it was just last year... anyhow, now, remember what happened? Direct, issues-focused attempts to reform policing were knocked down. Blotted out. Instead, we were told two things: 1) we had to repeat the slogan ABOLISH THE POLICE, and 2) we had to say it was actually very good and beautiful and nonviolent and valid when rioters burned down poor neighborhoods.

Now, in a relatively healthy discourse, it might have been possible for someone to say something like "while I agree that American policing is heavily violent and racist and requires substantial reforms, I worry that taking such an absolutist point of demanding abolition and cheering on the destruction of city blocks will be a political non-starter." This statement would have been, in retrospect, 100000000% correct. But could you have said it, in any worthwhile manner? If you had said something along those lines, what would the fallout had been? Would you have lost friends? Your job? Would you have suffered something more minor, like getting yelled at, told your opinion did not matter? Would your acquaintances still now--a year later, after their political project has failed beyond all dispute--would they still defame you in "whisper networks," never quite articulating your verbal sins but nonetheless informing others that you are a dangerous and bad person because one time you tried to tell them how utterly fucking self-destructive they were being? It is undeniably clear that last year's most-elevated voices were demanding not reform but catharsis. I hope they really had fun watching those immigrant-owned bodegas burn down, because that’s it, that will forever be remembered as the most palpable and consequential aspect of their shitty, selfish movement. We ain't reforming shit. Instead, we gave everyone who's already in power a blank check to fortify that power to a degree you and I cannot fully fathom.

But, oh, these people knew what they were doing. They were good little boys and girls. They have been rewarded with near-total control of the national discourse, and they are all either too guilt-ridden or too stupid to realize how badly they played into the hands of the structures they were supposedly trying to upend.

And so left-liberalism is now controlled by people whose worldview is equal parts superficial and incoherent. This was the only possible outcome that would have let the system continue to sustain itself in light of such immense evidence of its unsustainability without resulting in reform, so that's what has happened.

But... okay, let's take a step back. Let's focus on what I wanted to talk about when I started this.

I came across a post today from a young man who claimed that his high school English department head had been removed from his position and had his tenure revoked for refusing to remove three books from classrooms. This was, of course, fallout from the ongoing debate about Critical Race Theory. Two of those books were Marjane Satropi's Persepolis and, oh boy, The Diary of Anne Frank. Fuck. Jesus christ, fuck.

Now, here's the thing... When Persepolis was named, I assumed the bannors were anti-CRT. The graphic novel does not deal with racism all that much, at least not as its discussed contemporarily, but it centers an Iranian girl protagonist and maybe that upset Republican types. But Anne Frank? I'm sorry, but the most likely censors there are liberal identiarians who believe that teaching her diary amounts to centering the suffering of a white woman instead of talking about the One Real Racism, which must always be understood in an American context. The super woke cult group Black Hammer made waves recently with their #FuckAnneFrank campaign... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone associated with the GOP taking a firm stance against the diary since, oh, about 1975 or so.

So which side was it? That doesn't matter. What matters is, I cannot find out.

Now, pro-CRT people always accuse anti-CRT people of not knowing what CRT is, and then after making such accusations they always define CRT in a way that absolutely is not what CRT is. Pro-CRTers default to "they don't want  students to read about slavery or racism." This is absolutely not true, and absolutely not what actual CRT concerns itself with. Slavery and racism have been mainstays of American history curriucla since before I was born. Even people who barely paid attention in school would admit this, if there were any more desire for honesty in our discourse. 

My high school history teacher was a southern "lost causer" who took the south's side in the Civil War but nonetheless provided us with the most descriptive and unapologetic understandings of slavery's brutalities I had heard up until that point. He also unambiguously referred to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshmia and Nagasaki as "genocidal." Why? Because most people's politics are idiosyncratic, and because you cannot genuinely infer a person to believe one thing based on their opinion of another, tangentially related thing. The totality of human understanding used to be something open-minded people prided themselves on being aware of, believe it or not...

This is the problem with CRT. This is is the motivation behind the majority of people who wish to ban it. It’s not because they are necessarily racist themselves. It’s because they recognize, correctly, that the now-ascendant frames for understanding social issues boils everything down to a superficial patina that denies not only the realities of the systems they seek to upend but the very humanity of the people who exist within them. There is no humanity without depth and nuance and complexities and contradictions. When you argue otherwise, people will get mad and fight back. 

And this is the most bitter irony of this idiotic debate: it was never about not wanting to teach the sinful or embarrassing parts of our history. That was a different debate, one that was settled and won long ago. It is instead an immense, embarrassing overreach on behalf of people who have bullied their way to complete dominance of their spheres of influence within media and academe assuming they could do the same to everyone else. Some of its purveyors may have convinced themselves that getting students to admit complicity in privilege will prevent police shootings, sure. But I know these people. I’ve spoken to them at length. I’ve read their work. The vast, vast majority of them aren’t that stupid. The point is to exert control. The point is to make sure they stay in charge and that nothing changes. The point is failure. 

[secretmellowblog]

The more I think about the concept of a Javert Lives AU, the more I realize that— Javert quitting his job isn’t *just* the most in-character choice for him to make given everything in Derailed, and it isn’t *just* the the thing that makes the most sense thematically with Les Mis’s attitude towards prisons/police...............it’s also the most compelling direction for his story to go?

Like, let’s ignore all the other reasons why Javert would quit his job for a second.

Let’s ignore the fact that the whole point of les mis is (paraphrased) “’our criminal justice system isn’t neutral but designed to punish people for being poor,/marginalized, because the criminal justice system sucks and is evil.” And that the point of Javert is that All Cops Are Bastards.

Let’s ALSO ignore the fact that the entire point of Javert Derailed is that Javert realizes the system he’s been serving is bad. It’s not about realizing “I was mistaken about that one guy” it’s about realizing “the system I served was wrong.” The authorities he’s been worshiping are wrong, there is “a gulf on high,” and so on and so on.

Let’s ignore the fact that we’ve already seen how Javert reacts to moral crises about his work, in Montreuil-sur-Mer-- and that his reaction is to instantly quit his job, because he can’t work with self-doubt. His fallback job (he tells Valjean) is to become a farmer, and he’s perfectly willing to to do that if he ever loses his faith in himself: “I have hands, I can till the fields. It makes no difference to me.”

Let’s ignore that Javert’s entire thing is that he can’t work if he has any self-doubt., so the idea that he would simply go back to work after everything that happened at the barricades, as if nothing happened, is.....odd? Javert believes that the only reason he “deserves” his position is because he hasn’t committed any infractions, not even minor ones,  and the moment he commits one he believes no longer has any right to  punish people. He doesn’t see “being a cop” as position he’s entitled to, but as a privilege that can and should be taken away the moment he messes up-- something Hugo stresses makes Javert EXtremely Different from every other police officer in France, who don’t have the moral standards he does. Javert has weird awful moral standards, but he holds himself to them honestly. He can’t work with self-doubt. So once Javert helps an insurgent galley-slave escape, he would never think he had the “right” to continue punishing people for the infractions they commit, since he’d feel he was just as guilty as any of them-- the hypocrisy would eat him alive.

He even thinks in Javert Derailed that “All authority is dead in him.” If he hadn’t killed himself post-barricades Javert might’ve demanded to be fired, the way he demanded Valjean fire him in M-sur-M! And because police aren’t nearly as forgiving as Valjean they’d be like “uhhhhhh okay?” and fire him. 

And let’s ignore the fact that... even if police were good and Javert was The Only Bad One, the things he did as a police officer were awful and showed he wasn’t worthy of the power that he had. He killed Fantine, he was unapologetically cruel to Valjean-- and quitting his job would be the absolute *least* he could do to atone and hold himself accountable.

Let’s also ignore the fact that Javert’s letter to the prefect might have gotten him fired anyway. Like....whistleblowers aren’t treated kindly by the police IRL? It’s not that the reforms Javert suggested were very revolutionary (they were all very minor) it’s that he’s writing a letter criticizing his boss. Javert was valued primarily because he kept his head low and was obedient. The moment he starts critcizing his superiors is the moment he loses his value. That’s why they brush off his suicide note as the ramblings of a crazy person. If he were alive to insist he had not gone mad and meant every word he said, (with his usual weird honesty) they wouldn’t have treated him kindly.

And let’s also ignore the fact that being a cop wasn’t good for Javert either. That he was a victim of police violence who became a perpetrator of it, that he was born in a prison and never really left; that working as a police officer brought out the Worst in him, made him cruel but also utterly hollow and alone, so that even the “joy” his work gives him is described as being savage and horrible and “pitiful.”

Finally let’s ignore that Javert’s suicide is literally described as his “turning in his resignation”- to God, but I also argue to the police as well, especially because he turns in his suicide note to the prefect of police.

Ignoring ALL of that

Ignoring ALL of it:

Javert quitting his job is just, a much more interesting story?

Again this is all my subjective interpretation/opinion. To me the entire appeal of an au where Javert lives is “what would Javert do if he didn’t know what his purpose was anymore— if this authoritarian didn’t have an authority who could tell him what to do?”

Saying “Javert doesn’t have to lose his purpose at all! He can go back to being a cop and continue having the same sense of Purpose, submitting to the same authority :)” ....Idk, it misses the entire Thing that makes the story compelling.

Especially because, as I’ve talked about before, part of why Javert is Like That is because he has Never gotten to experience life outside of prison and the police. He was born in a prison, became a prison guard, then became a cop whose entire life was wrapped up in his work; he’s never gotten the chance to do anything else, which is why he doesn’t he realize he can be anything else.

There’s something really interesting about Javert being forced to reckon with his own purposelessness, and the pointlessness of his own past cruelty. His entire soul was wrapped up in mindlessly worshipping authority— but now he would have to reckon with the reality of his own free will, and how to be a moral person when he has no authority to follow.

[unsafepin]

Optical Illusions: A Study of Aesthetics in Activism in Two Accounts

There’s been a particular thing bothering me about social media for a while. I should probably get a cool editing app, write it in a few bullet points and post it on Instagram. You know what I’m talking about, right? The goddamn infographics. If I have to sit through another slideshow explaining to me another military conflict, another societal issue, another existential unfairness on a baby pink background in a cheery font, I might combust. But the cognitive dissonance of aesthetics in activism has been a problem for a while, hasn’t it? So today, I want to examine the effect of focusing on aesthetics over content, or, on the flipside, not considering the optics of your activism enough, and what it does to the consumer of your content by picking apart two local activist-adjacent media projects, Tetraedras and Giljožinios.

Firstly, I want to make my own bias abundantly clear. I am personally acquainted with the teams of both projects, so obviously there will be innate personal bias involved. I highly encourage anyone reading to check both projects out themselves (@t3traedras and @giljozinios on Instagram, as well as Giljožinios’ YouTube channel) and make their own conclusions on the matter. I believe that while my familiarity breeds deeper knowledge of my subjects, it also makes me more vulnerable to assumptions about individuals involved. My insights come from the perspective of an observer, not an expert. Welcome to the circus.

The use of the word “optics” in a metaphorical political sense sprung up in the 1970s to describe the way major political decisions would not necessarily affect an average citizen, but how it would appear to them, e.g. 'U.S. President Barack Obama temporized for weeks, worrying about the optics of waging war in another Arab state after the Iraq fiasco' (Toronto Star, 19th March 2011). However, it’s become increasingly relevant in our age of social media, an age of perceptions over substance, of shortening attention spans and increased barrage of information one has to stomach daily. Social media is the great equalizer - a random person off the street can theoretically hold as much influence as a politician - thus it is becoming increasingly crucial for the average Joe posting on the countless apps owned by Facebook to be as familiar with PR terms as a firm with a six figure salary. Or at least that would be nice, seeing that more and more average Joes are becoming actively involved in politics and education, seeking to influence their newfound audience.

So, let’s see how successful average people with no media or politics degrees are at balancing their image. Both Tetraedras and Giljožinios lean into their 2010’s social media project optics: millennial pink themes, bold names, young teams. But that’s where the similarities end. Tetraedras’ brand is safety. The shades of color on the profile are calming, the illustrations are youthful and playful, their more serious posts are interspersed with more relaxing content (poetry, photoshoots, etc.). Giljožinios is confrontational. The colors electric, posts loud and to the point, they’re what it says on the box - a leftist project - and unapologetic about it. This might help to explain why audiences react as differently as they do to these two, on the surface, similar accounts. Because while you might’ve stumbled on Tetraedras organically while browsing, them having almost two thousand followers, Giljožinios crashed into the educational/political social media scene by being featured on the goddamn national news, that’s how controversial the project is. And obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, Tetraedras slowly built up to posting more opinionated content, while Giljožinios came in guns blazing accusing USA of imperialism, but you’ll have to let me explain. Tetraedras, in its essence, is a welcoming environment. They explain complicated problems in short bullet points with accompanying comforting visuals, their mascot is a inoffensive geometrical figure and their face is a beautiful girl, make-up matching the theme of the post. Giljožinios is named after a revolutionary device, their profile picture is a monarch being beheaded, their host quite infamously sat in front of Che Guevara memorabilia in their first and (as of writing) only video. It’s a lightning rod for angry comments by baby boomers, no matter what comes out of their mouth. In fact, I would argue that, if presented accordingly, the idea that the US is conducting a kind of modern imperialism is just a simple fact and personally can’t wait until Tetraedras posts that with a quirky illustration of Joe Biden to introduce the concept to the wider public.

This leads me to my next point, because despite what’s been previously suggested, I’m not here to solely sing Giljožinios’ praise. There is a cognitive dissonance in both of these flavors of social media activism, but while I can understand Tetraedras’ on a PR level, I’m kind of personally insulted by Giljožinios’. While purely personally I find aspects of Giljožinios’ radicalism distasteful, I appreciate the honesty in the youthful maximalism, of coming in strong and not backing down, but from the guys that made a communist Christmas tree once I almost expected something more stirring than “military industrial complex bad”. This leads me to ask: who is your content for? Your average breadtube-savvy twenty-something already heard this a thousand times, because they consume similar english-speaking content and I doubt any minds of the vatniks that came by to fume in the comment section are being changed. I’m obviously harking on a newborn project here, the team of which has already been bitten by authorities censoring their content, but so far there has been a lot of optical bark, but no substantial bite, especially considering the team seems to be in a safer place now. And the inverse is true for Tetraedras, while I can understand wanting to be visually interesting yet inoffensive, their visuals are sometimes laughably, morbidly light for the topics they discuss Sexily posing in Britney Spears-inspired outfits while discussing the horrors of her conservatorship springs to mind (funny how Britney’s conservatorship leads her to have next to none bodily autonomy, including her public costume choices). And, once again, your target audience is teenagers. They understand English, they’ve seen the news, they don’t need you to translate infographics filled with statistics and information that’s locally completely irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of middle ground between aesthetic cohesion and common sense, because this all signals to the viewer that the content is meant to be mindlessly consumed first and to educate second.

Which leads me to ponder what kind of consumption accounts like these encourage, which will surely lead me to an early grave as I drink away the existential dread of how social media rots all of our brains. Because yes, actually, producing funky visuals to convey an idea way too complicated for an Instagram post is fun. I myself got distracted multiple times during writing to make the first slide for my own post. Meta, I know. This is obviously more of a problem for Tetraedras, who seem to fervently resist injecting their content with a few more paragraphs and a tad more nuance, but even with Giljožinios choosing a more appropriate long-form format to educate, I still pray everyday they don’t get lost in the revolutionary reputation their group built up and forget to make a point, not just talking points.

Because what all this all inevitably leads to is misinforming the public. Again, this seems to be less of a problem for Giljožinios, as the amount of critical eyeballs they have on them leads to them being corrected on every incorrect numerical figure and grammatical mistake, I just hope all this harassment, once again, doesn’t get them all caught up in the optics of a revolution against all the Facebook boomers and forgetting to do their due diligence to the truth. As far as I know, the only factual mistake is miscalculating how much Lituania invests in NATO and there’s still a historical debate in their comment section about the existence of a CIA prison in Lithuania, if anyone’s concerned. Tetraedras, however, is safe. And safe content goes down just like a sugar-coated pill, you don’t even feel the need to fact-check it. And fact-checking is what it sorely requires, or else you’re left with implying that boxing causes men to become rapists and citing statistics of every country except the one in which, you know, me, the team and the absolute majority of their followers live in.

So what’s my goddamn point? Burn your phone and go live in the woods, always. But in the context of this essay, if you are a content creator that aims to educate, inform, incite, whatever, you need to put aesthetics on the backburner. And, more importantly, we as consumers need to stop tolerating content that puts being either pretty or inflammatory first instead of whatever message it’s trying to send, because the supply follows where the demand goes. Read books, watch long-form content made by experts, not teenagers on the internet chasing followers out of not even malicious intent, but almost a knee-jerk reaction. Because while the story of those two accounts cuts especially deep, expectations for local-, even friend-made content being much higher than that for some corporate accounts shooting their shot at activism, the problem is entrenched deep, thousands of accounts exhibiting the same problems racking up millions upon millions of followers. Having said that, my attention span is barely long enough to read the essays I write myself, so maybe do burn your phone and go live in the woods.

Also, pink is actually my brand so both of these accounts are being contacted by my lawyers and the rest of you don’t try any shit.

[xoruffitup]

Adam Driver/Pale in Burn This

It’s now a week since I saw the play, and less than a month until I go back for Opening Night! Now that I’ve had some time to process past the initial fangirl feels and “He was so incredible, HOW?!”, I’ve finally got more substantive reflections on Adam’s performance and character. (Warning: Spoilers abound!)

This has got to be one of the most interesting and demanding roles Adam has ever played. (Except for maybe that weight loss for Silence) The character of Pale encompasses practically the entire spectrum of human emotion - Including the primal extremes of soul-wrenching grief and violent, blistering rage; along with the tender stillness of affection between the two. The amount of energy Adam expends traveling between these polar extremes so often and so quickly throughout the play is simply awe-inspiring. Somehow, there’s never a moment that feels forced or melodramatic. The most compelling and compulsively attractive quality of his character is his overwhelming vitality - His overzealous emotions, the honest brunt of his emotional expression that is abrasive and shocking and disquieting, because there’s never a single moment when it is filtered through niceties, excuses, or pretense. He is the embodiment of primal instinct and the depth of hard, gritty human emotion most of us would often rather not confront. 

(Also, he has a New York accent through the whole thing. Think the coffee shop skit from SNL.)

I already explained in another post how I saw the play, at its heart, being about the conflict between socially-mediated and disingenuous human emotions vs. the chaotic but purpose-giving deeper forms of human experience. Burton and Pale are representative of these two different modes of being, and Anna finds herself torn between them. Although Pale’s character is brash, crude, and insensitive, his unapologetic honesty and the sheer force and size of his personality make this a performance that is unforgettable in its authenticity and compulsion. He is truly perfectly cast. The director, Michael Mayer, stated very aptly: “Adam has this explosive, dangerous, unpredictable animal quality that really is this character Pale.”

Before I recount the particularly memorable moments of Adam’s performance, I do want to examine the character himself a little bit first. I have to admit, I think I would feel a lot less charitably towards the character had anyone else portrayed him. This is half because Adam has a way of making the character insistently charming, and of course half because I have an instinct to always love Adam on sight. :)) But because I can never quite turn off my feminist analysis lenses, there are still plenty of aspects to this character I have problems with. 

Yes, he’s technically separated from his wife, but he’s still cheating and the fact that he doesn’t tell Anna he’s married before they sleep together is highly suspect.

He lapses into violence when he and Burton meet, and never knows when to draw the line when it comes to being antagonistic. He never pulls his punches, neither in actions nor in words.

While it’s clear Anna reciprocates the attraction, he keeps assuming his welcome and access to her sexually, before giving her the space to work through the many complications their relationship causes. 

He makes unacceptable comments about Anna’s body before they’re intimate. (”You know you got no tits at all.” Yes, it’s a funny moment and Adam pulls it off for genuine laughs without it sounding lecherous, but still a red flag.)

He never confronts or admits the fact that he should have been more present for his brother. Anna says that Robbie talked about Pale and liked him, but Pale never seems to give full recognition or respect to Robbie’s sexuality or his artistic endeavors as a dancer. (It sat heavy with me when he used a slur to refer to Robbie and Larry.)

There were a couple moments when the character vacillated a little too close for comfort towards thoughtless, irreverent masculinity. Without Adam to endear the character to me, it’s likely I would have come away disliking him in full. 

But then - There were the touching, debilitatingly gentle moments that Adam portrayed with such feeling, it was impossible not to be taken in and share this character’s pain. 

He weeps. A lot. I mean full-body, hiccuping, sniffling, red-face weeping. Adam would sweep his hair back from his face, and that wasn’t the face of an actor working to manufacture tears - It was the face of an utterly broken man trying desperately to hold the tears back.

The sounds that are impossible to distinguish between screams and sobs. The first time he breaks down, he sinks to his hands and knees and with his head hanging, just starts screaming under the weight of everything he’s feeling. It’s jarring and unexpected, after his character spent the last 10 minutes in a rapid-fire, curse-laden monologue bitching about parking and how dirty and shitty the whole city is. But these screams aren’t angry anymore. They’re so full of every other emotion, they’ve become empty and helpless. Rather than extending the blistering, raging energy Pale charged in with - The primal sound is him breaking apart and all of the rage cracking open to abandon him, leaving him utterly hopeless. 

Although he makes comments about Anna’s body and her state of undress when she answers the door that hint yes, he notices her, he does seem to fall into their intimacy just as haphazardly as Anna does. This is a very, very fine balance Adam does a fantastic job portraying, because if this were lost then the character would lose any shred of likability or respect. He’s not preying on her because she’s grieving. If anything, it’s actually the opposite. He’s the grieving one in need. When they first sit down on the couch together and he puts his arm around her to hold her, he seems to be the one seeking comfort more than she. Their first physical contact is gentle and respectful, and Pale seems to seek it because he’s the more vulnerable in that moment. And its out of that vulnerability that they share a moment of profound connection. When they kiss, it doesn’t just feel like a distraction. It feels like the first genuine form of mutual understanding that’s happened on the stage so far. 

Although yes, he takes it a bit too far in assuming they’re a ~Thing now and of course they’ll continue sleeping together, this intimacy with Anna is just as bracingly genuine as everything else he does. And although the character can be insensitive, this is not selfish. The intimate moments with Anna are achingly quiet and fragile, showing that both of them are on equal terms to the extent that they’re exposing their true selves to the other. Pale becomes slow, quiet, and tender - The effect equally as impactful as his massive, violent moments; And devastating in its difference from his louder moments.

This line alone - One of the most memorable moments to me, the first time they kiss: “Let’s just start up the engines real slow here … maybe go halfway to the city and stop for somethin’ to eat … You talk to me, okay? … You’re gonna find out there’s times … I’m a real good listener.” He’s opening up and being honest with her about the extent of his own grief, but at the same time wants to give comfort just as much as he’s seeking to receive it himself.

The fact that he LISTENS when Anna breaks thing off, and finally gives her space to think everything through and make choices independently. The way he silently got dressed, tied his shoes, gathered his things, and gave her that last soft kiss before he left. 

“I’m gonna cry all over your hair.” - Delivered as a chagrined apology.

While looking up the script, I found this quote in a summary of the play and it really captures Pale’s essence perfectly: “Menacing, profane, dangerous and yet oddly sensitive, Pale is both terrifying and fascinating and, in the end, the one who brings to Anna the unsettling but compelling love that, despite her fears and doubts, she cannot turn away.”

NOW, let’s talk about Adam. It’s no exaggeration to say his first appearance on stage is as a literal hurricane. He doesn’t appear until about 15 minutes in, but then remains on stage for about 30/40 minutes in a blistering, restless bundle of raw energy. He is utterly absorbing, even entrancing. First he’s stalking around the stage yelling about the traffic, bitching that his pants and shoes have dirt on them, criticizing Anna and her apartment. Then he and Anna begin probing the topic of Robbie, and he starts coming apart - His rage unraveling into loud, dramatic misery. Once he sinks to a level of such wretchedness that Anna begins trying to comfort him, their exchanges turn gentle and sympathetic. She leans against him to comfort him, he puts an arm around her, and next thing you know they’re gently kissing. It’s nothing short of a stunning progression, considering that during Adam’s first five minutes yelling on the stage when he seemed clearly repugnant to Anna, I could not for the life of me see how these two were going to end up attracted to each other. And then within a half hour together, it happens. And it’s believable and incredibly touching - Thanks in large part to Adam’s insane range that enables him to embody such polar opposite emotional states and unite them within a single convincing character. 

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT PURPLE ROBE SCENE. He comes out from Anna’s bedroom in her purple silk kimono-style robe and it’s THE MOST HILARIOUS SHOCK I’VE EVER SEEN. My brain needed a moment to process which was a DAMN SHAME because he first comes out with the robe untied and just underwear underneath before he ties it. So people - Be ready to check out that chest for those couple seconds it’s on display!! :’D

He then spends a few minutes struggling to get his massive arms through the billowy sleeves with holes in weird places, and it’s simply hilarious. As if him wearing this robe (and paired with knee-high socks!!!) wasn’t enough, this entire scene just becomes more and more golden. When Anna’s roommate Larry offers him tea, Pale admonishes him for making it wrong and goes to make a proper pot of tea himself. So picture this - Adam in a women’s purple silk robe, expertly fussing with a kettle on the stove, then very precisely pouring out tea with a dishtowel wrapped around the kettle handle (to keep from burning him of course.) I just.... cannot believe I was blessed to witness that. :’)

I honestly don’t know how Adam doesn’t lose his voice! He does an insane amount of yelling and screaming, and holds nothing back. But even as he’s yelling most of his lines, he’s sending the audience into hysterics every other minute. Pale’s monologues are absurd and bizarre and only half lucid. It would be so easy for both actor and audience to just get lost adrift in these long verbal onslaughts - But Adam manages to give meaning to everything, and also somehow convey a connection between his far-fetched rants and some emotion the audience can tap into. The way Pale sees the world and the descriptions he uses are thoroughly unconventional and strange - And yet Adam’s delivery elevates them to more than just the ravings of a man on amphetamines. He becomes insightful, perhaps even clever, with a total lack of self awareness and thus zero pretensions. 

All in all, the two most important elements of Adam’s performance:

He can deliver the kind of sweeping, consuming, all-encompassing emotion and desperation that this character demands

He can balance the spectrum of the character’s explosive emotional displays with just enough control to make Pale someone we can still root and feel for. He makes Pale just purposeful enough that he never quite hurdles past the point of losing self-control or becoming unhinged. Yes, his character is unsettling and threatening in some moments (we certainly believe Anna when she says she is scared of him), but he is not aggressive or violent by nature. The audience can recognize that the volatility within him is just as likely to turn him gentle and sincere as it is to cause the explosive moments. We can feel all too easily why Anna cares for him so quickly and deeply. 

Not only does Adam bring the character to life with unforgettable spirit and biting intensity, he also brings heart and sympathy to a character who - for me - could easily have had neither on the page. I’m so thankful I got to see this stellar performance, and it’s truly no exaggeration to say Adam is hands-down one of the most talented actors in the biz. I hope lots of fans will get the chance to see him in this insane, brilliant role. <3 If anyone has any further questions at all, I would be more than happy to answer!

[thewebofslime]

Closed-door events spark further questions about anti-Semitic rhetoric SHARE TWEET EMAIL US Representative Ilhan Omar / Getty Images BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0 March 22, 2019 1:50 pm Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has been holding a series of secret fundraisers with groups that have been tied to the support of terrorism, appearances that have been closed to the press and hidden from public view. The content of these speeches, given to predominately Muslim audiences, remains unknown, prompting some of Omar's critics to express concern about the type of rhetoric she is using before these paying audiences, particularly in light of the lawmaker's repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes in public. Omar recently spoke in Florida at a private event hosted by Islamic Relief, a charity organization long said to have deep ties to groups that advocate terrorism against Israel. Over the weekend, she will appear at another private event in California that is hosted by CAIR-CA PAC, a political action committee affiliated with the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR a group that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive terror-funding incident. Omar's appearance at these closed-door forums is raising eyebrows in the pro-Israel world due to her repeated and unapologetic public use of anti-Semitic stereotypes accusing Jewish people of controlling foreign policy and politics. With Omar's popularity skyrocketing on the anti-Israel left, it appears her rhetoric is translating into fundraising prowess. It remains unclear what Omar has told these audiences in her private talks. Washington Free Beacon attempts to obtain video of past events were unsuccessful, and multiple local news and television outlets in the Tampa, Fla., area, where Omar spoke to Islamic Relief last month, confirmed they were unable to gain access to the closed door event. Islamic Relief has come under congressional investigation for what lawmakers have described as its efforts to provide assistance to terrorist group such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The charity has been banned by some countries as a result of these ties. In 2017, Congress sought to ban taxpayer funds from reaching the charity due to these terror links. A representative from Islamic Relief declined to provide the Free Beacon with any material related to Omar's appearance. "The event was closed to the media. No materials are available," the official said. On Sunday, Omar will hold another meet and greet in Irvine, Calif., for CAIR-CA PAC. Those wishing to hear Omar speak are being asked to donate anywhere from $50 to $250 dollars, according to a flyer for the event. The CAIR event also appears closed to the press. Free Beacon attempts to contact the organizer and obtain access were unsuccessful. Requests for comment on the nature of the speeches sent to Omar's congressional office also were not returned. CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group known for its anti-Israel positions, was named by the U.S. government as part of a large network of groups known to be supporting Hamas. CAIR has been cited by the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL, for using its network of supporters to promote an "anti-Israel agenda." "CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization," according to the ADL. "While CAIR has denounced specific acts of terrorism in the U.S. and abroad, for many years it refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name, which the U.S. and international community have condemned and isolated." Sarah Stern, founder of president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, or EMET, a pro-Israel group that has condemned Omar for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, told the Free Beacon that the private nature of these events before controversial Islamic groups is very concerning. "I just wonder what is Rep. Omar saying to a group of Islamic supporters that she feels is so secretive that she cannot say it to the American people, as a whole?" Stern wondered. "What is so secretive that it has to be off the record and closed to reporters? Will she say the same things in public to her Jewish voters in Minnesota that she says to her Islamic friends? What does this tell us about her openness, her honesty and her integrity?" One veteran Republican political operative expressed concern about the secretive nature of these talks, telling the Free Beacon that Democrats must hide behind-closed-doors to appease these groups with anti-Israel rhetoric. "Of course she's holding these meetings in secret. That's just how Democrats roll these days," the source said. "They're for limiting your ability to spend money on the candidates you want to support, and for secretly fundraising from Islamist groups who support them. It really puts their support for campaign finance reform into perspective." After last month's Islamic Relief event, Stern's EMET and many other pro-Israel groups penned a letter to Democratic leaders in the House demanding Omar's removal from the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. These groups argued that Omar's anti-Semitic rhetoric and secretive meetings should disqualify her from a seat on that committee, which oversees the U.S.-Israel military alliance. "Rep. Omar's presence as a keynote speaker to raise funds for Islamic Relief USA, whose parent organization and chapters have documented ties to terrorist organizations, demonstrates that she has learned next to nothing over the last few weeks when she was reprimanded by your office and by other Democrats for posting ugly, anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and their organizations," the pro-Israel groups wrote in a letter send to House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Elliott Engel (D., N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.).