#which is exactly what is happening with the abortion laws in this instance

[fashionlandscapeblog]

I am not a religious person, but if I was, I would easily believe the Evangelical Christian far-right/MAGA people ruling Florida and other states making laws forbidding children and young people to learn anything against racism or history of racism in the US, banning anything remotely endorsing diversity or anything they consider 'woke' or social (they are banning and satanizing rainbows in schools, for Christ's sake), banning books that talk about the Holocaust, making it legal for kids to work, are the Antichrist themselves. These people have passed so many evil laws against minorities, it's not funny.

Now a doctor can deny healthcare to anyone they wish, based on their 'ethical views', which is so ambiguous that it could actually mean ethnic minorities, not just queer people (how 'ethical' is to deny healthcare to anyone in the first place? It's a fundamental contradiction). The Republican Party has already started a genocide against trans people and they have started it with laws that are essentially forbidding their existence and denying them healthcare, which will cause a lot of them to commit suicide, something that is already a problem in their community, because society doesn't accept them, let alone if they aren't allowed to transition.

I am pretty sure that if Jesus resurrected today, these MAGA people would crucify him again for being too 'woke' and a sinner loving commie (reminds me of The Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov). These people are talking even about banning women's rights to vote, they are criminalizing trans and gay people. Believe me, they already came for trans and gay people, the next big target is women (they already started with anti-abortion laws). When the Nazis rose to power, trans people were the first ones they targeted and exterminated, then came the Jews and ethnic minorities, gay people, then came communists and political dissidents. When something batshit crazy like this starts, at the end no one will be safe. But of course, this will all be dismissed as 'paranoid' and 'exaggerate' by the majority, that's exactly how and why fascism advances.

Even though there are so many urgent problems to solve like for instance climate change, poverty, etc, these people are focused on finding scapegoats (trans people are literally only 1% of the population, but they are, according to them, the biggest 'threat'), making laws and all their political discourse about them, deviating the attention of the general population away from the really important issues. This has happened before in history and that's what the right always did.

You guys need to stop watching this happen and should begin to seriously protest this, because if this continues, it will be catastrophic not just for your country, but for the whole world, given the power of the US.

[cithaerons]

me posting tonight like. the institution of the supreme court is important and must be maintained. i think we should have another civil war btw

[ecoamerica]

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

[vampireinterview]

what exactly is going on in Poland right now

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise when the Polish Constitutional Tribunal proclaimed abortion illegal in the case of a fetus with a defect and/or one which is potentially dead. Perhaps there is some truth to the statement that the people should have seen it coming for years. And the same thing could be said about the fact that today, on a peaceful Wednesday on January 27th, the ruling was officially published, making it the letter of the law. 

So, what does this mean, exactly? Well, for one it makes abortion virtually illegal. The only instances in which a fetus can be legally removed are as follows: (a) legal proof of rape or incest and (b) endangerment of the life of the person carrying the fetus. 

(source)

In reality, the numbers speak for themselves: while about a thousand abortions used to be performed every year in Poland, roughly 40 of them will now be legal (for example, the data from 2019 says that out of the 1110 operations performed that year, 1074 would be illegal as of today). Rape is undeniably almost impossible to prove in court, not to mention even getting a ruling within the first few months (realistically such cases take years and are almost never ruled in favor of the victim). Abortion therefore isn’t fully illegal, but almost unreachable for anybody (even if their health is at risk, an example of which might be the case of Alicja Tysiąc who wanted to perform an abortion because of her health and was denied that right, later on fully losing her eyesight upon being forced to give birth).

The previous law did not allow choice in the case of a healthy fetus & a healthy mother, making it one of the strictest law systems in this regard in Europe, but what it did is it offered a way out for people who were carrying a fetus that was dead or ill. So what happened? In short: the Constitutional Tribunal happened. 

(source)

What the Tribunal is supposed to be is a body meant to guard the constitution from the potential laws imposed by the ruling parties. The politicization of the Tribunal is widely regarded to have made it into the exact opposite of that: it seems like an institution almost openly repurposed to solidify conservative and right wing reform drafted by the ruling party (Law and Justice). With its politics leaning heavily into the positions taken by the Catholic Church, the ban had already been attempted multiple times in the past. The justices put into the positions of power at the Tribunal voted on the abortion ban on October 22nd but they had yet to publish the ruling.

Meanwhile, people took to the streets. Tens of thousands marched for weeks, with the red lightning as their symbol, screaming about the many injustices the ruling party and the Polish Catholic Church have committed. The many instances of police brutality did not scare people away as they formed what is estimated to be the biggest street protests in the history of the country. The anti choice lobbyists celebrated but the overwhelming majority of the country disagreed with the Tribunal’s ruling (according to some polls as much as 75% of Poles wish to re-institute the old abortion “compromise” which consisted in the right to remove a fetus with defects, and when surveying among people aged 18-29, that percentage rose all the way up to 96%).

That being said, the social unrest started making people question the previous “compromise”, and there was a public debate about perhaps even fighting for a full pro choice option, allowing Poles to perform abortion surgeries as freely as the people from other European countries have done for the past decades. The ruling party backed down for a while, hesitant to publish the official law, waiting all the way to the last moment.

(source)

Today marks the day when abortion, in practice, becomes illegal in Poland. The publishing of the ruling was sudden, quiet, unannounced in hopes of reducing the public outrage. Performing an abortion has become a luxury for the people who can afford leaving the country and paying for a surgery at a private clinic somewhere abroad. That is virtually impossible for the members of the working class. Groups that are also especially vulnerable are LGBTQ+ people and people from rural areas who often find no financial or emotional support in their local communities and family members. 

And so it goes. Many of us are taking to the streets again. Big cities outside of Poland will also be hosting protests in solidarity with the people in Poland. I decided against posting any direct links to the events but you can easily find them on social media, they usually gather around Polish embassies. You can also consider donating a couple of bucks to the Abortion Dream Team (an organization helping Polish people with financing abortions in foreign countries and/or help in covering the travel expanses) or to the Women’s Strike (an organization which organizes the protests). 

If you want to learn more & see more of the protests in November and December, here are some mainstream videos in English you can watch: (x) (x) (x) (x) 

[a-room-of-my-own]

A while before the latest hoo-ha about Judith Butler, I had just been reading her again. Though she claims her critics have not read her, this simply isn’t the case. I read Gender Trouble when it first came out and it was important at the time . That time was long,long ago. She was just one of the many ‘post-structuralist’ thinkers I was into. I would trip off to see  Luce Irigaray or Derrida whenever they appeared.

I got an interview  with Baudrillard and tried to sell it to The Guardian but they  didn’t know who he was so its fair to say I was fairly immersed in that world of theory.  For a while, I had a part time lecturing job so I had to keep on top of it. Though Butler’s idea of gender as performance was not new , it was interesting.  RuPaul said it so much more clearly in a  quote nicked from  someone else “Honey ,we are born naked, the rest is drag”

What I was looking for again , I guess is not any clarity – her writing is famously and deliberately difficult-  but whether there was ever any sense of the material body. She wrote herself in 2004 “I confess however I am not a very good materialist. Every time I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language” . 

Butler from on high ,cannot really think about the body at all which is why they (Butler’s chosen pronoun) are now the high priestess of a particular kind of trans ideology.  The men who worship Butler are not versed in high theory. The fox botherer had a “brain swoon” at some very ordinary things Butler said. Mr Right Side of history nodded along in an interview. Clearly neither of these men are versed in any of this philosophy and would be better off sticking to tax law and the decline of the Labour Party. Butler is simply a totem for them.

Butler said in the Guardian interview for instance  “Gender is an assignment that does not just happen once: it is ongoing. We are assigned a sex at birth and then a slew of expectations follow which continue to “assign” gender to us.”

So yeah? That’s a fairly basic view of the social construction of gender though I take issue with the assigned at birth thing ,which I will come back to and why I started reading her again in the first place.

This phrase “Assigned sex at birth” is now common parlance but simply does not make sense  to me. I am living with someone who is pregnant. I have given birth three times and been a birthing  partner. I know where babies come from. There is a deep disconnect here between language and reality which no amount of academic jargon can obliterate. 

Babies  come from bodies. Not any bodies but bodies that have a uterus. They grew inside a woman’s body until they  get pushed out or dragged out into the world. 

The facts of life that we are now to be liberated from in the form of denial. Only one sex can have babies but we must now somehow not say that. The pregnant “people” of Texas will now be forced into giving birth to children they don’t want because they are simply “host bodies”. The language of patriarchal supremacy and that of some of the trans ideologues is remarkably close, as is their biological ignorance.

There is no foetal heatbeat at six weeks for instance. When a baby is born , doctors and midwives do not randomly assign a sex, they observe it and they do it though genitalia. 

There is a question over a tiny percentage of babies ,less that one percent with DSDs but even then they are sexed with doctors having  difficult conversations with parents about what may happen later.

Somehow, though when I read the way in which this is now all discussed it is clear to me that the people talking have never been pregnant, never had a foetal scan, never been near a birth , never miscarried, do not understand that even with a still birth babies are still sexed and often named. 

If you want to know the sex of your baby you can pay privately and know at 7 weeks ((*49-56 days from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual cycle). A 12 week scan will show it. That is why so many female foetuses are aborted . I have reported on this. 

Talking to paediatricians about this is interesting because they do indeed have to think through these things that we are being told are not real eg. that sex is just a by-product of colonialism for instance.  Sometimes pre-conception , geneticists will be looking at chromosomes because certain diseases are more likely in men or women. Males have a higher risk of haemophilia for instance.  

One doctor told me “When babies are premature, the survival advantage of females over males is well known throughout neonatology. This is sometimes something we talk about with parents when there is threatened premature labour around 23 weeks' gestation and options to discuss about resuscitation and medical interventions. In fertility treatment (or counselling around fertility in the context of medical treatments) it is pretty inherent to know whether we need to plan around sperm, or ova + pregnancy.”

She also said that if she involved in a birth that “assigning” isn’t the word she world use. “Observed genitals a highly reliable observation, just like measuring weight or head circumference which is also done at this time. “ Another doctor said that anyone involved with a trans man giving birth  would be doing the best for the patient in front  of them. 

Sex then is biological fact. A female baby will have all the eggs she will ever have when she is first born which is kind of amazing. It is not bio-essentialist to say that our sexed bodies are different nor is it transphobic to recognise it.

Except of course in my old newspaper ,The Guardian who are now so hamstrung by their  own ideology they have got their knickers in such a twist they can barely walk.  They completely misreported the WiSpa incident , basically ignored the Sonia  Appleby  judgement at the Tavistock. Appleby was a whistle blower ,a respected professional concerned with safe guarding. She won her case. The cherry on the cake this week was an interview with Butler, themselves (?) in which they went on about Terfs being fascists and needing to extend the category of women.

Does anyone EVER stop to think that most gender critical women are of the left, supporters of gay rights, often lesbian and that this is not America? We are not in bed with the far right. This is bollocks. Just another way to dismiss us.  

As we watch Afghanistan and Texas ,to say Butler’s words were tone deaf is to say the least. But they didn’t even have the guts to keep the most offensive stuff in the piece and overnight edited it out without really explaining why : the bits where Butler described gender critical people as fascist. Perhaps because the person their “reporters” had  defended against  transphobia at WiSpa turned out to be a known sex offender,  perhaps because someone pointed out that Butler was throwing around the word fascist rather like Rik Mayall used to do in the Young Ones. 

All of this is rather desperate and readers deserve better. When I left that newspaper I said that I thought and expected editors to stand up for their writers in public. Instead they go into some catatonic paralysis. I may have not liked this interview but it should never have been cut. Stand by what you publish or your credibility is shot.

But this is about more than Judith Butler and their refusal to support women . Butler is not really any kind of feminist at all. What this is about is the large edifice of trans ideology  crumbling when any real analysis is applied. Yes, I have read Shon Faye’s book and there are some interesting points in it and I totally agree that the lives of trans people should be easier and health care better . I have never said anything but that.

What Faye does in the book is say that there can be no trans liberation under capitalism so there will be a bit of a wait I suspect. 

Yet surely it is the other way round and what we are seeing is that trans ideology (not trans people – I am making a distinction here ) represent the apex of capitalism .

For it means that the individual decides their own gendered essence and then spends a fortune on surgery and a lifetime on medication to achieve the appearance of it. Of course lots of people spend a lifetime  on medication but not out of choice.  Marx understood very well that the abolition of our system of production would free up women.

Now it is all about freeing up men. Who say they are women. Quelle surprise.  

 Nussbaum’s famous take down of Butler is premised exactly on the sense of individual versus collective struggle “ The great tragedy in the new feminist theory in America is the loss of a sense of public commitment. In this sense, Butler’s self-involved feminism is extremely American, and it is not surprising that it has caught on here, where successful middle-class people prefer to focus on cultivating the self rather than thinking in a way that helps the material condition of others. “

Such thinking now dominates academia. There is simply an unquestioning  rehearsal of something most of know not to be true thus Amia Srinivasan writes in The Right to Sex  “At birth, bodies are sorted as ‘male’ or ‘female’, though many bodies must be mutilated to fit one category or the other, and many bodies will later protest against the decision that was made. This originary division determines what social purpose a body will be assigned.”

What does ‘sorted’ mean here? A tiny number of intersex babies are born. A tiny number of people are trans and decide to change their bodies. The feminist demand to challenge gender norms without mutilating any one’s body no longer matters. What matters now is this retrograde return  to some gendered soul. This is not something any decent Marxist would have any truck with . Of course one may change over a lifetime and of course gender is never ‘settled.’ We are complex people who inhabit bodies that often don’t work or appear as we want them to.

But not only is there a denial of basic Marxism going on here , what becomes ever more apparent is  that there is a denial of motherhood. Butler said “Yet gender is also what is made along the way – we can take over the power of assignment, make it into self-assignment, which can include sex reassignment at a legal and medical level.”

Self-assignment is key . One may birth oneself. No longer of woman born but self -made. This is a theoretical leap but it also one that has profound implications for women as a sex class. We are really then, just the  host bodies to a new breed of people who self-assign.

Maybe that is the future although look around the word and there isn’t a lot of self-assignment going on. There are simply women shot and beaten in the street, choked to death or having  their rights taken  away. There is no identifying out of this , there is no fluidity here . This is not discourse. It is brutality and do we not have some responsibility to other women to confront male violence ?

Instead the hatred is aided and abetted by so called philosophers describing  other women as Terfs. It is utterly depressing.

The sexed body. The pregnant body. The dying body. The body is in trouble when we can’t talk about it . I thought of Margaret Mary O’Hara’s  beautiful and  strange lyrics and what they might mean. I await my child’s return from the hospital as hers is a difficult pregnancy and thank god they are on the case. The sex of the child she carries does not matter to me at all .

It simply exists. Not in language but within a body. 

Why is that so difficult to acknowledge? 

[patchun]

WBaWC Deep Dive: Part 2/2

In the game's preliminary description, ZUN describes it as "a shooting game that's darker than usual, full of animal elements, and just a bit aggressive."

Part 1 here.

Yachie Kicchou. Is this maybe the longest profile of any Touhou character? Yachie's profile gives us more information than anything else about the Animal Realm, so I'd highly recommend reading all of it before we continue. Scroll down and find her profile, then click "Expand." If you're on mobile, this will look pretty bad, so switch to the Desktop mode. While reading, keep this in mind: this profile seems to be just about the only instance of a perspective from a beast spirit. This isn't a neutral perspective, this isn't ZUN's perspective - this is the perspective of a beast spirit, though it doesn't seem to be Yachie's own perspective. I'll be giving my evidence of this later.

The Animal Realm, the ultimate survival-of-the-fittest world.

It's a world where the strong rule as they desire... or at least it was, until a few beasts that were just a little more clever and wily than others began to form organizations.

By now, a select handful of gigantic organizations dominate the world.

The thing about WBaWC is that it's very vague. ZUN does not come out and say "animal rights", he does not say "you should be a vegan", or anything like that. The only thing ZUN wants us to do, without a doubt, is to think about these things, in particular the power dynamic we currently have between humans and animals in the modern world. I mentioned previously the argument for humans to have moral rights because of sentience, and then because of intelligence - but there is another line of reasoning that is used frequently. "This is just the natural order. The survival of the fittest." Opponents of animal rights will say this. But ZUN makes it very clear here - this world no longer follows those rules at all. "It's a world where the strong rule as they desire... or at least, it was..."

Further in her profile, we learn that the beast spirits finally found peace when they gathered all the humans into one area like farm animals and made them into their slaves. So, ZUN begins the game by introducing three characters which cause us to question our notion of moral status, two of which (Urumi and Kutaka) are animals that humans mistreat on a massive scale today, and then, he flips it - puts humans on the other side - all to ask a simple question. "Do you like this? Are you happy with this?" When humans are the ones being dominated, are you satisfied?

Now, there are some really crucial lines here that indicate that this profile is not actually an accurate account, but rather, the situation as told by one of the lesser beast spirits.

Almost all of the animal spirits already have no chance of victory by themselves, and the only way to survive was to team up with one of these organizations and continue fighting as their slaves forever.

Even as everyone continues to fight to exhaustion, an organization can never be stopped.

Pre-Primate Spirit Garden. This is what indicates to me that this is not Yachie's direct perspective. This wouldn't be a beneficial narrative in order for her to maintain her status as a member of the ruling class.

The beast organizations' ruling classes created a shelter for the humans, so that they could continue to be used as ever-capable slaves without going extinct.

The shelter was called the Primate Spirit Garden.

Only when they looked over the Primate Spirit Garden, filled with humans who had no means of resisting, did each of the organizations forget about their conflict. The Primate Spirit Garden was a peaceful recreational facility for everyone in the Animal Realm.

The word here, "shelter" generally has a positive association, right? And look at the last sentence: a peaceful recreational facility for everyone in the Animal Realm? That doesn't sound right. Now, sure, this is interesting, but why am I bringing up that this profile is from the perspective of a beast spirit? What does that matter to our overall understanding of the situation? Well, because of this next line, also within Yachie's profile:

The human spirits intended to devote themselves to the divinity beyond the idols, but they actually came to worship the idols themselves.

As a result, it was only natural that these idols began to dominate the humans.

The idols took control of the Primate Spirit Garden, and the status of the human spirits plummeted to the bottom once again. In being dominated by idols, the Primate Spirit Garden became the most awful, out-of-control organization of all.

Because this, according to everything else I've read, is NOT an accurate description of what ended up happening. The word "dominate" here is particularly noteworthy - from the perspective of a beast spirit, who within this world only understand things from a lens of survival of the fittest, that is exactly what this situation appears as. The thing is, this is where the game's vagueness makes interpretation very difficult - but here's what we know. We know from Yachie's profile that the human spirits were miserable while being ruled by the beast spirits, so much so that they cursed their helpless existences and prayed to Keiki. And we also know this, from ZUN's SCoOW interview:

Q: What do the human spirits who summoned Keiki think of her?

A: The game doesn't mention even a word of that, after all. In that world, the human spirits are nothing more than "materials". Everyone's fighting to steal those materials from each other. Keiki doesn't think of them as anything but materials, either. The reason for that is because the humans in that world want to be that way. You could say they just wanted to become cogs in a better society.

These descriptions... don't really match up, right? You'd read Yachie's profile and assume that the situation got really out of control, that the humans were miserable. Even according to ZUN in the interview, it has gotten out of control to some extent, but... also according to ZUN, this is... what they wanted. So, all that to say, Yachie's profile is not an unbiased description. I thought that was pretty interesting, and it will be important to consider when we talk about the situation of the human spirits under Keiki.

But for now, let's go back to the beast spirit's story of what happened - humans were dominated by the idols and plummeted to the bottom once again.

Survival of the fittest - the law of the animal realm. It's what's natural. What's natural, according to the beast spirits, is good! There is actually a philosophical moral theory called "natural law", and it's kind of the basis for the survival of the fittest argument. But it's also usually used to argue against stuff like homosexuality, abortion, being trans, etc... so uh, I have yet to meet any actual philosophers who use that theory (though I'm sure they exist). In the end, natural law is kind of shaky - because you have to ask the question - if what is natural is what is good, then what exactly do we define as natural? For example, we can look at penguins and see homosexuality, does that mean that natural law can no longer be used to attack homosexuality? Vaccines aren't natural, right? Cars aren't natural, right? Modern technology isn't natural, right? So are these things morally bad? But that's the thing - those three things I said may not be """natural""" according to the general public, but how exactly are they not natural? Vaccines, cars, and modern technology, those things are all made from nature, one way or another. Homosexuality, even if it DIDN'T occur in "nature" occurs within humans for sure! And humans are natural! What we view as natural is fully dependent, more or less, on what we were taught to view as natural. At the end of the day, isn't everything natural? And this is where things get really funny, because in many instances, natural law has been used cynically to defend the status quo and oppression. People were taught that black people were lesser, so it was natural to have them serve us. They were taught homosexuals were unnatural, so keep believing in the church and giving us money. They were taught that animals are meant to be eaten, that's how it is in the wild, so factory farms are okay. These arguments tend not to say "the current power structure isn't natural, so we need to dismantle it" but almost always "the current way things are is the way things should stay." So when we look at Mayumi Joutouguu...

You may not like it,

But this is what peak performance looks like.

Unable to be harmed by anything spiritual, Mayumi and the other idols are invulnerable to the attacks of beast spirits, easily able to defend the humans from their attacks. In other words, in the Animal Realm... Mayumi Joutouguu IS THE FITTEST. Really let that sink in. The Animal Realm, where the strong rule over the weak. Mayumi Joutouguu is the peak of that strength - and yet?

"I shall liberate the human spirits (our prey)

from you accursed idols! Prepare yourself!

It's the law of the Animal Realm that the strong eat the weak!"

From Reimu(Wolf).

"The god of destruction who broke the laws of animal-kind!

Keiki Haniyasushin!"

And this is just two instances. On multiple occasions, Keiki is referred to as having somehow broken the natural law by the beast spirits. And I'm sure that's what the beast spirits believe, because, in Youmu's Otter ending:

"Youmu returns to the Primate Spirit Garden and finds Yachie and Keiki squaring off. Youmu is confused by this and asks if the two of them get along well. Yachie explains that there is no such thing as ‘getting along’ in the Animal Realm. Keiki is surprised by this, stating that she was willing to work with the beast spirits in the future. Yachie acknowledges Keiki as a worthy opponent, but she then states that Keiki must be removed in consideration for the struggle for resources. Keiki tells Youmu that the resources Yachie refers to are the human spirits. Youmu is disturbed by this. Yachie then points out that is another reason why Keiki doesn’t belong here. She states the animal spirits are resources too. In the Animal Realm, everyone is driven by selfishness. Yachie follows the natural order here. However, Keiki, who was summoned by the human spirits, had thought differently."

No longer is the natural law "survival of the fittest", but rather, "everyone is driven by selfishness." Natural law was only used as a justification for the power structures within the Animal Realm until the ruling class was displaced. This game, by and large, follows the narratives of the ruling classes, from the beast spirits to Keiki herself. In that way, the second half of the game is asking more questions about power than it is about animal ethics. It's likely that Yachie and the other beast spirit heads are the ones who present this narrative to the lesser beast spirits, who we have already established according to her profile earlier are miserable, "fighting to exhaustion as the slaves of the large organizations, which could not be stopped". Gives me some serious neoliberalism vibes, but because of the lack of structure in the Animal Realm, I don't think it would be easy to make a political comparison.

So yeah, it's really funny that Mayumi and Keiki aren't really breaking any rules. They're just the new fittest, and the beast spirit ruling class isn't happy with that.

Some side notes about Mayumi:

It's been predicted that the workforce of human and animal spirits will be gradually replaced by the more efficient haniwa, because they can be immediately repaired after they've been destroyed, they can't get sick, and they don't need any rest.

In the SCoOW interview, ZUN compares Mayumi and the idols to AI. He's kind of an old man about it, too, saying that the humans went from being slaves to the beast spirits to being slaves to technology. But if you recall, I mentioned labor when we talked about Eika, and I did so because, well... We don't really have any idea what kind of labor the human and beast spirits are doing, WBaWC is too vague, and doesn't give us much detail. But, ZUN presents this idea, and then describes the Primate Spirit Garden under Keiki as kind of an opposite extreme "dystopia". According to ZUN:

A real "civilization gone too far" situation, where it's becoming a dystopia in a really obvious way.

The way I see it, it's something where "they built objects to rule over the world with, and in the end came to be ruled by those objects." The same as AIs and the like.

But also remember earlier, where ZUN says that that's what the human spirits wanted. Here it's almost as if ZUN is kind of bringing up a WALL-E type situation, where humans will no longer have to work, and every need of theirs will be taken care of by their idols. A very old man thing to say, but what's funny is actually another line that was just a bit earlier in the interview about Mayumi and the haniwa.

Haniwa certainly are mysterious; you wonder why everyone was making them. Archaeology is quick to ascribe religious reasons to anything it doesn't understand, but if you think about it with today's moral values in mind, it might not seem that way. I've thought about things like that for a long time. Personally, I believe they made them just because they felt like it. That might not have been the initial reason, but the act of creation itself gradually became enjoyable, and they started making more variations. To fulfill their creative desires, you know?

Think about that for a second. ZUN has introduced a society with very little forced labor, and called it dystopian. But he has also just stated that he believes that the people who made haniwa worked on them because they wanted to. To be honest, I don't know if ZUN even realizes this.

Finally, Keiki Haniyasushin. Thanks for sticking with me so far. Taking a look at her profile, the main thing that stands out to me is this:

The idols she creates are excellent items that can gather faith, act as stand-ins, play with you, and decorate your home.

A very different description than what was given by the beast spirit, huh? Is this what Keiki thinks her idols are doing? Is it actually what her idols are doing, and the beast spirits simply see that as domination because they can't comprehend any other way? Or is this just a little joke? Or is it somehow all of these? WBaWC is too vague! I'm sorry, but I don't know! Without a human spirit perspective on this, we really just can't deduce that. All we know is that the human spirits for sure liked living under Keiki more than living under the beast spirits.

As for Keiki, I don't have all that much philosophical to say, but I did think these quotes from the Marisa endings were cool.

Marisa (Otter)

"Yachie then explains the story from the beast spirits’ perspective. Marisa thinks it would have been better if she was told this from the start. Yachie apologies, but she reasons that didn’t want to risk failure. According to her, if she revealed the plan to the humans, there would be a chance Keiki would hear about it. However, Marisa was unable to read Yachie’s true intentions from her words. It is suggested that Marisa just didn’t see Keiki as an evil god."

Marisa (Eagle)

To Marisa, Keiki didn’t seem like an evil god. She wonders why the beast spirits hated her so much.

While Reimu and Youmu viewed what they were doing as more like work, Marisa was just in it for the ride, and as a result, she had some interesting thoughts about Keiki when she reflected on what she had just done. Keiki is one of the few Touhou bosses to not recognize at all that she was doing something bad, because Keiki doesn't believe she was doing anything bad. It's mentioned multiple times that she planned to coexist with the beast spirits "so long as they started to respect human spirits". Which casts further doubt on the description of the haniwa in Yachie's profile, which almost made it sound like they were going around indiscriminately slaughtering beast spirits. Wouldn't that be unnecessary if they were invincible?

Keiki's relationship to human spirits could also be looked at as pet ownership, or more accurately, like animals at a zoo or preservation area, I think. Caring for their every need, protecting them from the cruel "survival of the fittest" world outside. I mean, I don't have a problem with pet ownership at all, but I do have a problem with people who own pets irresponsibly and don't try as hard as they can to meet their pets' needs. My cat is my son.

The last thing I'll say is this: Keiki is coming back. Probably in 17.5. This may not be news to those of you who have already looked into this, but let me inform you if not. Marisa (Wolf)'s Extra, after beating Saki:

Marisa: I got no idea what the politics of the Animal Realm are like...... But I can hardly imagine this family o'yours ruling it. There's no denyin' you guys are strong, but......

Saki: What is it?

Marisa: Keiki strikes me as the most dangerous person.

Somehow it seems like she can come at us with all her power again.

And in Reimu (Wolf)'s ending:

Afterward, Reimu learns that Keiki threw the Animal Realm into chaos through her idolatry. She had the feeling that not humans vs. beasts, not physical vs. spiritual, but a religious confrontation was approaching.

And in Youmu (Eagle)'s ending:

Later, Keiki Haniyasushin showed up on Earth. This wasn’t too surprising since Keiki was never a god of the Animal Realm in the first place. However, for some reason, it seemed eerily likely that the Animal Realm’s survival of fittest conflict would follow Keiki into the surface world.

And personally that makes me very excited. And we just got a game about markets?? Hm...

FINALLY. This game has heavy Buddhist themes, and I am no expert on Buddhism, but:

Saki Kurokoma, Prince Shoutoku's horse that was ridden around to spread Buddhism. I don't have much to say about this character, haha. But I figured you'd want to see her anyways, and it's my Buddhism segue.

As far as Buddhism goes, the "animal realm" is one of the realms of reincarnation. To go from the human realm to the animal realm is bad, it means you were probably a pretty selfish person. Which begs us to ask, what might these people have done in their past lives? Does that mean that they deserve the suffering in the unnaturally cruel Animal Realm of Touhou? And what does that say about the dynamic we have with animals in the modern world, the parallel to the Animal Realm? Well, in the (Buddhist) animal realm, according to some Buddhist teachings, you act only on instinct and only for selfish desire. This is because of the misconception that animals act only on instinct and for selfish desire, a theme that we've played with a bit in this exploration, and a theme that ZUN strictly opposes with the character of Kutaka. If you own any pets, you already know that this just isn't true. Just like with humans, animal behavior is complex, and to attribute it to pure instinct is accurate to a degree - but the thing is, you can do the exact same thing to human behavior (we're also animals). It's just another way of creating human exceptionalism, something this game is really challenging. Specifically, the Buddhist animal realm is not a place, though, it's just a cycle of reincarnation. It's not actually a hell, not even close, it just means you've been reincarnated AS an animal in the real world. And this isn't a negative thing inherently, but it is viewed as hellish because of how animals are treated, not only by humans, but also by other animals!

So, there's probably more to say here. When reading Yachie's profile you may say, "Everyone working to exhaustion as slaves to huge organizations owned by a select few? Wow, that sounds like corporate America!" and you'd be right, and there's probably something there, to be honest. But because the Animal Realm is extremely vague, it's difficult to make any connections like that.

I think there's probably deeper stuff to dive into. Like I said, I'm no expert on Buddhism, so someone who is may be able to find a meaning that I've missed here. But to conclude,

As ZUN said, if you look for something the game is trying to show you, you'll just find a world filled with satire and vague circumstances. But... if you look for what the game is trying to ask you... there's quite a lot.

What is the criteria for moral rights? Can we create a criteria that makes sense and only applies to humans?

What is our justification for our treatment of animals in the modern world?

How would you feel about it if that dynamic was reversed?

And well, we don't really get any answers. ZUN really just gives us two pieces of his personal view:

The survival of the fittest argument is bullshit.

Natural law is bullshit.

Our current relationship with farm animals is not healthy, and we need to create a more positive image for them outside of being just our tools for food.

Thanks for reading. Reblogs appreciated.

[alecat33]

ONE NATION TRACKED...2,000 ATTENDEES OF TRUMP RALLY ON JAN 6, 2021 WERE TRACKED BY THEIR CELL PHONES WHICH LED BACK TO NAMES, ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, TEXTS, EMAILS, ALL SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS ETC....PREPARE TO BE DOXED.......

By Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson

Mr. Warzel and Mr. Thompson are writers in Opinion. They previously reported on smartphone tracking for the series “One Nation, Tracked.”

Feb. 5, 2021

In 2019, a source came to us with a digital file containing the precise locations of more than 12 million individual smartphones for several months in 2016 and 2017. The data is supposed to be anonymous, but it isn’t. We found celebrities, Pentagon officials and average Americans.

It became clear that this data — collected by smartphone apps and then fed into a dizzyingly complex digital advertising ecosystem — was a liability to national security, to free assembly and to citizens living mundane lives. It provided an intimate record of people whether they were visiting drug treatment centers, strip clubs, casinos, abortion clinics or places of worship.

Surrendering our privacy to the government would be foolish enough. But what is more insidious is the Faustian bargain made with the marketing industry, which turns every location ping into currency as it is bought and sold in the marketplace of surveillance advertising.

Now, one year later, we’re in a very similar position. But it’s far worse.

A source has provided another data set, this time following the smartphones of thousands of Trump supporters, rioters and passers-by in Washington, D.C., on January 6, as Donald Trump’s political rally turned into a violent insurrection. At least five people died because of the riot at the Capitol. Key to bringing the mob to justice has been the event’s digital detritus: location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing.

The sacking of the Capitol was a shocking assault on the republic and an unwelcome reminder of the fragility of American democracy. But history reminds us that sudden events — Pearl Harbor, the Soviet Union testing an atomic bomb, the Sept. 11 attacks — have led to an overreach in favor of collective security over individual liberty that we’d later regret. And more generally, the data collected on Jan. 6 is a demonstration of the looming threat to our liberties posed by a surveillance economy that monetizes the movements of the righteous and the wicked alike.

The data we were given showed what some in the tech industry might call a God-view vantage of that dark day. It included about 100,000 location pings for thousands of smartphones, revealing around 130 devices inside the Capitol exactly when Trump supporters were storming the building. Times Opinion is only publishing the names of people who gave their permission to be quoted in this article.

About 40 percent of the phones tracked near the rally stage on the National Mall during the speeches were also found in and around the Capitol during the siege — a clear link between those who’d listened to the president and his allies and then marched on the building.

While there were no names or phone numbers in the data, we were once again able to connect dozens of devices to their owners, tying anonymous locations back to names, home addresses, social networks and phone numbers of people in attendance. In one instance, three members of a single family were tracked in the data.

The source shared this information, in part, because the individual was outraged by the events of Jan. 6. The source wanted answers, accountability, justice. The person was also deeply concerned about the privacy implications of this surreptitious data collection. Not just that it happens, but also that most consumers don’t know it is being collected and it is insecure and vulnerable to law enforcement as well as bad actors — or an online mob — who might use it to inflict harm on innocent people. (The source asked to remain anonymous because the person was not authorized to share the data and could face severe penalties for doing so.)

“What if instead of going to you, I wanted to publish it myself?” the source told us. “What if I were vengeful? There’s nothing preventing me from doing that. It’s totally available. If I had different motives, all it would take is a few clicks, and everyone could see it.”

There is an argument to be made that this data could be properly used by law enforcement through courts, warrants and subpoenas. We used it ourselves as a journalistic tool to bring you this article. But to think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence, as happened in cities across America last summer.

The data presented here is a bird’s-eye view of an event that posed a clear and grave threat to our democracy. But it tells a second story as well: One of a broken, surreptitious industry in desperate need of regulation, and of a tacit agreement we’ve entered into that threatens our individual privacy. None of this data should ever have been collected.

This is Ronnie Vincent.

We traced a phone inside the Capitol to Mr. Vincent’s home in Kentucky. Confirming his identity led us to his Facebook page, where we found a few photos of him standing on the steps of the building during the siege. Another photo shows a crowd standing in front of the Capitol, its doors wide open.

“Yes we got inside. One girl was shot by the DC cops as she was knocking on the glass. She probably will die. We stopped the voting in the house,” he wrote.

Shortly after he posted the photos, Mr. Vincent, a pest control business owner in Kentucky who goes by the nickname Ole Woodsman, took them down. When we reached him by phone, he insisted he never entered the Capitol.

“There is no way that my phone shows me in there,” he said. Yet it did.

For all its appearance of omniscience, the data can be imprecise. In a situation such as the Capitol riot, exact locations matter. A few feet can be the difference between a participant who committed a serious crime and an onlooker.

While some location data is accurate to within a few feet, other data is not. Location companies can work with data derived from GPS sensors, Bluetooth signals and other sources. The quality depends on the settings of the phone and whether it is connected to Wi-Fi or a cell tower. Issues like population and building density can sometimes play a role in the quality of the data.

Mr. Vincent told us that when he wrote “we got inside,” he meant “we the people got in.”

He added, “I did not go in.”

Can we say definitively Mr. Vincent was inside the Capitol on Jan. 6? No, and that is one of the problems with this type of data.

While the power and scope of this commercial surveillance come into sharp focus when we look at the specific time of the attack on the Capitol, it’s important to remember that it is recording the movements of millions of Americans all day, all night, all year, wherever they are.

The data set Times Opinion examined shows how Trump supporters traveled from South Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Kentucky to the nation’s capital, with pings tracing neatly along major highways, in the days before the attack. Stops at gas stations, restaurants and motels dot the route like bread crumbs, each offering corroborating details.

In many cases, these trails lead from the Capitol right back to their homes..... "

YOU WILL NEED TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE ONLINE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE TO VIEW PICS, VID AND REAL TIME TRACKING OF PHONE "PINGS" FROM RALLY POINT TO CAPITOL BUILDING ( I found this through EPOCH TIMES). THE LOCATION PINGS ARE ACCURATE TO 185'....THIS IS DISTURBING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR PHONE IS OFF IT STILL TRACKS WHERE YOU ARE...I HAVE ALWAYS ADVISED DO NOT ENABLE THE TRACKING FEATURE ON YOUR PHONE....NEVER.....

[ecoamerica]

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

[lokiondisneyplus]

As the film and TV industry attempts to restart after a COVID-19 shutdown, some states like Georgia hope to be trailblazers. Home to Tyler Perry's sprawling film studio, Pinewood's Atlanta outpost and other production facilities, the Peach State is establishing itself as a pioneer in the industry's quest to get back to work.

Perry was one of the first Hollywood players to lay out his plans to restart production. The producer — who said he'd fly actors on two of his TV shows, Sistas and The Oval, to Atlanta on his private jet and keep cast and crew quarantined on his 330-acre studio campus throughout the duration of filming in July — detailed on-set safety protocols May 20 in a 30-page document titled "Camp Quarantine." But he's far from the only producer who's been plotting a return to filming in the state.

While studios are wary of naming specific projects and target shoot dates due to the volatile nature of the pandemic (after all, Georgia set a new single-day record on July 1 with 3,000 new COVID cases in 24 hours), sources say that some of the major projects expected to start or restart production in the state in the coming months include Universal's feature adaptation of Dear Evan Hansen, MGM's Sylvester Stallone action pic Samaritan and a pair of Disney+ series: Loki and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. In addition, at least two major Netflix projects plan to return to Georgia: comedy thriller Red Notice, starring Ryan Reynolds, Dwayne Johnson and Gal Gadot, and Stranger Things. Sources say the cast of the latter was told season four production would tentatively start back up again on Sept. 17.

“Georgians want to get back to work and show that we can not only beat this virus but be leaders in this industry to hopefully encourage America to get back to work,” says John Rooker, founder and owner of Atlanta Metro Studios (AMS), where HBO’s Watchmen filmed.

Georgia, which has lured Hollywood productions in recent years with its uncapped film incentives program, says it plans to hire an estimated 40,000 production workers across roughly 75 upcoming productions. Together, those projects are expected to invest $2 billion into the state’s economy over the next 18 months. The industry first got the green light to get production back up and running when Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp officially released the state’s protocols for film and TV production on May 22, two weeks before California released its filming guidelines.

"Thanks to the 'Best Practices' for set safety released by the state, in addition to the guidelines provided by the national guilds and unions, we look forward to helping thousands of crew members and support service personnel get back to work safely," says the state’s film commissioner, Lee Thomas. "It will help Georgia maintain its position as one of the busiest production locales worldwide."

A large part of that return to work will be led by Pinewood Atlanta Studios. President and CEO Frank Patterson has spent the past few months exploring how to make the facilities safer, investing $1 million in new safety protocols. The film studio has brought on BioIQ, a medical testing firm that will monitor the wellness of entrants, and Synexis, a biodefense company that uses tech to try to reduce viruses, bacteria and mold in the air.

"We've put a whole lot of thinking into how we should do this safely, and I think we're going to learn and iterate a lot in the next few months in terms of how these protocols work," says Patterson. Though he isn't at liberty to name any of the projects starting up soon, sources say Pinewood has two feature films and multiple streaming shows (including The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Loki) beginning preproduction this month, with the aim to start filming as early as August.

Some studios are testing out protocols with smaller productions first. Atlanta Metro Studios, for instance, recently hosted a commercial shoot. "It was a good dress rehearsal for when production comes back full speed," says Rooker, who notes that he has a large show (which he also can't name) returning in July that will be using their entire facility for the remainder of the year.

Over at Atlanta-based Blackhall Studios, which saw HBO's Jordan Peele and J.J. Abrams-produced series Lovecraft Country and Paramount's Chris Pratt thriller The Tomorrow War conveniently wrap production just before the shutdown, chairman and CEO Ryan Millsap has focused on the physical aspects of making the facility safer — that means looking at getting rid of door handles and swapping out all the bathroom fixtures for touchless ones — in an effort to get his facility ready for the rush of projects he's anticipating post-virus.

In fact, there are currently six productions vying for space at his studio, and he has room for about two. "Right now, we have people circling like sharks," says Millsap. "It's just a question of who can finally pull the trigger in a world where everybody wants to be working but nobody knows exactly how to work — and it's going to come down to whoever is ready to go tomorrow."

In an effort to remain competitive, others in the state are building out new production facilities that are pandemic-proof. Patrick Millsaps, a lawyer and political consultant turned film producer, is constructing a brand-new 1,500-acre studio complex in Albany, Georgia, named Kane Studios that will not only offer 650,000 square feet of purpose-built soundstages, 300,000 square feet of production offices and 1,000 acres of backlot — it will also be able to sequester an entire production the way that Perry’s studio can.

"We hopefully won't open until post-vaccine of this pandemic, but Bill Gates keeps calling this Pandemic One, so we're making sure the things that we've learned during this pandemic are a permanent part of what we're building," says Millsaps, adding that the studio is slated for a 2022 debut. “In this business, where people are always crammed in on top of each other, we just thought, why not make this the safest and healthiest studio on the planet?”

Surely, now more than ever, Georgia’s wide-open spaces are appealing to cast and crew coming from densely packed cities like New York and Los Angeles. And in another recent win for the state's film supporters, concerns about its controversial abortion legislation were attenuated this week when the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Louisiana. Though a Georgia Senate discussion about the uncapped film incentive program may have briefly worried some, ultimately the Senate Finance Committee's approval of a bill that requires audits for all film and TV projects that claim the credit seemed to quell any concerns about potentially more significant changes to the program.

"There’s a really beautiful element to what's happening in Georgia and the support that we're getting at the political level to return to production," says Millsap, noting he gets regular calls from the governor's office and state senators asking him when he's getting production going again. “They know that entertainment is one of the few sectors that's going to come up out of COVID like a rocket ship, and everything I hear from all of my relationships with politicians in Georgia is that they are ready to rock and roll this thing.”

[thecorteztwins]

I love how you care so much about obscure characters. Who is your favorite underrated female X-men character

Awww thank you! I love bringing them love, so it makes me really happy for you to say that! My absolute fave is Haven, but I read “faves” as plural so I wrote down a bunch...my faves can bounce around a bit but here’s a list of some of them! It’s under a cut because it’s long, I really like to explain who these gals are and why I like them so much! Warning, there is some description of pretty horrendous sexism and racism for some of these, since nothing makes me latch on to a woman harder than wanting to defend her from the SHITTY THINGS WRITERS DID TO HER! I kinda wrote novels for Haven and Madelyne, then I did links to previous things I’ve written about others. This is a LOT, I’m so sorry, I just love sharing!! Thank you for asking!!

THE BIG ONES Basically my consistent mega-faves I’m always ready to talk about! RADHA “HAVEN” DASTOOR - This lady has been at the top of my list for over five years and counting! She just really resonated with me on a deep level. She’s this mysterious woman who turns up in X-Factor for seven issues, and though she’s very benevolent towards them (even when they attack her) she is technically a villain, as she’s trying to destroy 3/4 of the world to bring about the Mahapralaya, a sort of Hindu apocalypse that will bring about an age of peace and end to suffering. So, her motives are very compassionate, and as it turns out, the horrible things she’s trying to do aren’t actually her fault. She’s being posessed by the Adversary, a demon of the highest order and an entity of cosmic evil. Or more specifically, her unborn child is. See, Haven was a really, really good woman. She was not a mutant, but she was sensitive to the pain and suffering of others from an early age, and she devoted her life to helping the poor and needy. She’s incredibly rich, so she could have helped just from afar, but instead she not only used her wealth to help others, she herself went out in the streets to attend to the poor and sick with her own hands. She bathed lepers, cradled dying babies, everything. She actually GOT the name “Haven” from a children’s hospital that she renovated, the kids started calling HER that instead. What a villain, huh? It all goes super wrong when she fell in love with a guy. After he took her virginity, he took off, leaving her pregnant. This was in 1970s India, and she was a very a religious woman, she felt INTENSE shame and horrible guilt and sunk into a deep depression, now living on the streets herself she was so broken. And then...then her fetus started talking to her. Yeah, see, technically she wasn’t posessed by the Adversary, her unborn child was. It incubated in her for twenty years, corrupting her mind, making her its pawn, all basically for its own amusement til it could be reborn into the world, killing her. And the guy who knocked her up? Got off scott-free. Basically she had sex ONE time and she had to be punished for it by being stripped of her agency, forced to betray everything she loved and believed, and then finally killed in the mud while a Marvel deity stood over and told her how she brought this on herself. It’s a slut-shaming Victorian morality tale of how no matter how good a person you are, you’re tainted forever if you violate purity culture just once, and we’re expected to AGREE with this narrative as readers. It’s sick. It gets even worse in how X-Factor treats her. She first appears RESCUING Polaris from government agents who are trying to kill her, because despite WORKING for the government at this time (X-Factor was a government team during this period) Polaris’s energy signature matched Magneto’s. Haven is the one who saved Polaris by teleporting her away. Polaris was distrustful and threatened Haven. Haven tried to talk her down, but also opened her arms and said that if Polaris truly did not believe her, then she would not resist. Polaris decided to “give trust a try” but I also truly believe that if Lorna had attacked her, Haven indeed would have let her. Haven is a human but the Adversary gave her INCREDIBLE power, she could WIPE PEOPLE FROM EXISTENCE by THINKING ABOUT IT, but she was a pacifist every step of the way, even as a villain. X-Factor would REPEATEDLY attack her later...she NEVER retaliated. The worst thing she did was, once they kept on attacking her, she just kinda put them in her pocket dimension as a time-out, but didn’t hurt them any. I really don’t think she COULD, possessed or not. Anyway, after meeting Lorna, she ‘ports Lorna back to safety and leaves her be. She is interested in recruiting Lorna and the rest of X-Factor to her cause, but she’s very moral about it, and never uses situations like these as leverage; for instance, when she heals Rahne of the Genoshan bonding process and gives her back her free will and her ability to resume her fully human form, Rahne is ECSTATIC and ready to do ANYTHING for her. And rather than exploit this, Haven just hugs her and tells her that her joy is thanks enough. Again, what a villain! Anyway, it turns out this Haven lady is also an activist! She’s big on promoting peace between warring groups (which I think makes it very significant that she’s an Indian character from Mumbai, then Bombay, who was created in 1992, the same year when Hindu/Muslim tensions in India resulted in the Bombay Bombings and subsequent riots, and she indeed mentions Hindu/Muslim tensions in her pro-peace speeches) and she emphasizes accepting MUTANTS in particular. It is very rare we see humans who are pro-mutant, though they had happened before, but this is the first time we see a human who is pro-mutant WITHOUT any affiliation or friendship with the X-men, and who is a public figure who seems to have some real social power---she’s a best-selling author, lecturer, and apparently her being a very wealthy woman has made some very wealthy people listen to her. She is basically the perfect ally for mutants if you take out the demon-possessed part, and I always found this super interesting and wish more had been done with it. So, she’s speaking at Brahma Hall (Brahma, notably, is the Hindu creator god) and...THIS happens. It’s...it’s really distressing. I’m sure it’s bad enough in its own time, but reading it NOW, in a post-9/11 world, a world where POC are routinely slaughtered by law enforcement (they always were but social media has made us more aware) it’s chilling. And we, the reader, are supposed to see X-Factor as JUSTIFIED in how they treat this unarmed, non-threatening, apparently-human-for-all-they-know woman who is promoting peace. Because no matter how nice she is, the US government says she’s an evil terrorist, and the US government turns out to be right! Yay, America! This might be a good time to mention Haven was the first Hindu character in X-Men comics, and the philosophy that the Adversary is manipulating her with comes directly from Hindu cosmology, and that is WAY IFFY to say THE LEAST. Holy xenophobia, Batman! And in an X-MEN comic of ALL PLACES! Oh yeah, and our good guys also describe her beliefs as “New Age psychobabble” and make fun of her temple decor as "very 60s" when BOTH ARE FROM HINDUISM, WHITE USA HIPPIES DID NOT INVENT IT, YOU IGNORANT SHITS So anyway, Haven’s very interesting to me as someone who is so deeply pacifistic and compassionate, that even when she’s being steered by a literal demon that has been talking in her womb for 20 years, she’s still someone who is perpetually polite, who won’t hurt the HEROES even when they want to hurt her, who SURRENDERS during a FIGHT in order to HEAL ONE OF THEM, and...who ends up with an abruptly aborted arc where she’s killed by her own “child” and victim-blamed in her last moments by Roma, the Omniversal Guardian Goddess and foe/counterpart of the Adversary. It’s made all the more tragic by the fact that Haven’s last pleas to Roma weren’t for herself, but for Roma to stop the Adversary, as she had realized now what her “child” really was. Even in her final moments, Haven was thinking of others, of the world. It’s just....awful to me that a character as interesting and unique as she was was thrown away like that, and that she was treated in such a sexist, racist, xenophobic way by both the HEROES and the story itself. I stan Haven 4 life. MADELYNE PRYOR- She’s maybe not “obscure” per se, I think most X-Men readers have a basic understanding of who she is, but the problem is that “basic” is not enough. What most people know is ”she’s Jean Grey’s evil clone” and some might know that “she was married to Scott Summers and went evil when he ditched her for Jean”. But that’s so far from the whole story, and it really does Madelyne a disservice, and canon has done her ENOUGH disservice already. Madelyne was originally created by Chris Claremont to truly be just a human woman who looked just like the dead Jean, with whom Scott would settle down and have a kid, and leave the X-Men. It’s a pretty nonsensical notion, the idea that this woman just happens to look exactly like Jean and meet Scott and fall in love, but this was his plan, he has confirmed it. And like...that’s pretty sexist from the start, in that she’s very literally created as a replacement for Jean on a narrative level, there’s NO REASON that she should have to look exactly like Scott’s dead ex besides as a way for Scott to still “get” Jean in a way. But Maddie rises above that swiftly by being a super strong, super cool character in her own right. She’s a pilot, she’s fearless, she’s adventurous, she’s got a mean right hook, and she’s got a tragic backstory when she crashed her plane and cost the lives of over three hundred passengers. She gets involved with Scott and by extension the X-Men, and she holds her own despite having no powers. Weird fact, this means that some of the X-Men, like Rogue, met Madelyne before they ever met Jean. She also gets a cool story where she gained healing powers, and the reason her powers specifically took the form of healing is because they were what she wanted them to be. She’s a good person, and also a total badass. Then, Jean came back, and the Powers That Be wanted her back together with Scott. But Scott was married to Madelyne. Rather than have them get a divorce or something, it was decided Madelyne had to be very literally demonized and then murdered, because we can’t just have two women co-exist, no, they must be divided into a “good” woman and a “bad” woman and fight over a man. Actual quote from Chris Claremont: “ Then, unfortunately, Jean was resurrected, Scott dumps his wife and kid and goes back to the old girlfriend. So it not only destroys Scott's character as a hero and as a decent human being it creates an untenable structural situation: what do we do with Madelyne and the kid? ... So ultimately the resolution was: turn her into the Goblin Queen and kill her off.” So, after something like EIGHT YEARS of being a character unto herself, Madelyne gets retconned as actually having been Jean’s clone all along! Which, okay, does make sense, certainly more sense than ‘this woman just happens to look EXACTLY like Jean and hook up with Jean’s ex” but then the REASON that Sinister cloned her...is nothing to do with Maddie or Jean themselves. Madelyne’s creation isn’t ABOUT her the way so many other clone/created-in-a-lab type stories are, like Laura Kinney. She wasn’t important. She was made literally just to have a baby with Scott, the BABY is what’s important. She is REPEATEDLY called a “brood mare” in fact (a female horse used specifically for breeding) So basically, her only value, her only REASON for existing, is her reproductive capacity. A lot of people think that Madelyne either found out she was a clone and went crazy-evil, or she went crazy-evil when Scott went back to Jean. That’s not what happened. Madelyne goes through a long, long series of arduous tragedies that piece by piece dehumanize and violate and traumatize her, and even then she doesn’t become evil until she’s TRICKED into being infected with demonic energy. Being “evil” was NEVER her choice, and everyone forgets that. See, first Scott walked out on her and the baby. Then, the Marauders attacked her, nearly killed her, and stole her baby and left her for dead in a coma for months. When she woke up, her baby was still missing, and she rejoined the X-Men to help them while they also helped search for her son. She sacrificed her LIFE alongside them to defeat the Adversary (yes, the same one Haven was pregnant with!) and then was resurrected with them too by Roma (yes, same Roma). She continued to work with the X-Men, despite the fact Scott had left her, and used her tech expertise to be the X-Men’s computer gal in Australia. When she saw X-Factor on one of the news monitors, including Scott with Jean, she realized why he’d abandoned her. She punched the screen and the explosion knocked her unconscious. While she was knocked out and dreaming, the demon Sym invaded her mind showed her a few different reflections of things she could be, one of which was a demonic reflection of herself. She chose that one, saying “What the heck, it’s only a dream.” And then Sym infected her with demonic energy. So she literally JUST found out her husband left her and their now-missing son for another woman, and she thinks she’s dreaming so yeah she picks the idea of being a demon IN THE CONTEXT OF A DREAM, A FUCKING FANTASY, WHEN SHE’S GOT EVERY RIGHT TO BE PISSED and oh well now you’re gonna be evil for real honey you don’t get a choice. Serves you right for being angry even for a moment, woman! But even then, she didn’t instantly turn evil. Horrible shit had already happened to her, but she still held out…so of course, more shit happened to her. While she and the X-Men were trying to help an escapee from Genosha (which was still enslaving mutants at that point) she ended up captured herself, and since their readings indicated she was not quite human (though what exactly she was, they didn’t know) they tried to put her through the “mutate bonding process” that would enslave her too. As a result, her latent psychic powers finally manifest, and she telekinetically explodes the place. From there, we start seeing big hints that something is going really wrong with Maddie, she seduces Havok and she’s entered into a secret bargain with the demon N’astrih, who promised to help her find her still-missing son (whom she still wanted to find and save at that point because she was still mostly herself) and of course, that bargain transformed her into the Goblyn Queen. After this transformation, though, she STILL had not gone past the point of no return. That didn’t happen until she met Sinister and she found out the truth of her origins—-not only was she a clone of Jean Grey physically, the few memories that she had also came from Jean, and her emotions from Scott had been PROGRAMMED into her (meaning she never had a choice at all in the man she loved) and it was all to be a brood mare, to produce a child with him. Only then did she go off the deep end completely, and agreed to N’astrih’s plan to sacrifice her own son (who he now found and gave to her, as this was his plan all along) because it was the absolute BIGGEST fuck you she could give to Sinister and to Cyclops. And like, yes, that’s evil, but given at that point she was not only magically infected/corrupted with demon energy AND insane with trauma that had been building up for months if not YEARS of development…she basically had a better excuse than ANYONE in all this who was also corrupted by Inferno. Yet she’s the one who doesn’t get a break. The unfairness is just…staggering, really. Even her death isn’t without indignity, violation, and depersonalization---she tries to commit a murder suicide, linking her mind with Jean’s and killing herself so that Jean will be dragged down into death with her. Jean, who really is the kindest to Maddie, urges Maddie to live instead, but Maddie’s last words are “not in the same world as you”. Jean survives. Maddie does not. And then...Jean takes Maddie’s memories and psyche into herself. It’s meant as beautiful, but to me it’s a heinous violation. Maddie wanted nothing more than be APART from Jean, so much so she KILLED HERSELF, and now Jean has made her a part of her forever, and we’re meant to applaud this? It’s DISGUSTING. Madelyne gets resurrected in the 1990s by Nate Grey, but it turns out that was an accident on his part, his mind was subconsciously seeking...Jean Grey, of course. And we he finds out he’s the one who brought her back to life, HE TRIES TO KILL HER. Jean stops him, but it’s no wonder to me that poor Maddie runs to the arms of Sebastian Shaw...who, of all people, actually treats her as an individual from the get-go and ends up being a pretty good boyfriend to her. Never even tries to use her in any evil schemes, it’s crazy. Madelyne has come back and died again and come back a few times since then, but she’s never really been “Maddie” again, whether it was brave adventurous Badass Normal pilot Maddie who just wanted to help people, or the bitter, conflicted, morally grey Maddie of the 90s. No, she’s just....she’s not even Goblyn Queen anymore, she lacks the pathos, she’s just this sexy evil misogynist caricature of herself and I hate it. I really love Madelyne Pryor. She came into this crazy world as a normal human, and when she got pulled into superhero shenanigans she held her own. She was a badass, she was a spitfire, she had a huge heart. She deserves a lot better than just being a gross Sexy Evil Lady with no personality, especially since she no longer has the whole “demonically possessed” issue going on. It’s just stupid and sexist at this point. I personally love original 80s Maddie, and also 90s Maddie where like...this shit has happened to her and she’s darker for it now, and understandably so, but she’s also still HER. Like, she leaves Sebastian Shaw not because he ever treated her badly, which he did not, but because he was doing things that could hurt OTHER PEOPLE, and that was where she drew the line. She was an enemy to the X-Men now or at least really hated them, she killed Threnody for bringing up her past as being “bred to breed”, but she also wasn’t about to be with a man who would risk the lives of millions of innocent people with his schemes, no matter how well he treated her, no matter if he was the one man who ever saw her for HER. Real Maddie is INTERESTING and Real Maddie is GOOD and I want Real Maddie back so she can call everyone on their shit and then go off and live her best life instead of being eternally dragged back into pointless villainy by authors who can’t think of anything better! MEGGAN PUCEANU - As with Madelyne, she’s maybe not UNKNOWN per se, I mean she’s one of the lead characters of Excalibur, but I also don’t think she’s an A-lister at all either. I’ve written about her HERE and HERE and her relationship dynamics with Brian Braddock/Captain Britain HERE so I feel like those links will probably be better than another novel like I did for Haven and Maddie! CATSEYE AKA SHARON SMITH - The deaths of all the Hellions were a tragedy, but Catseye is the one I found most interesting and with the most potential! I’ve written about her HERE and the Hellions in general HERE with a segment on her. She’s just so cute and innocent and INTERESTING, I want to know so much more about how she behaves, how she perceives the world and interact with others, how she gets on with her teammates, how she reacts this and that, I just love her! MINDMELD - Appears for only one issue, is arguably the first transgender mutant in Marvel, and also a total badass who I think is really sexy. I write more about her HERE and HERE. HONORABLE MENTIONS I’m not freaking out over these girls AS MUCH or AS CONSISTENTLY but they all have a place in my heart!! Really all it takes is someone MENTIONING them to get me revved up all over again!

THRENODY AKA MELODY JACOBS- Another Marvel gal who can’t catch a break, when she’s remembered by anyone at all. I wrote about her HERE prior to her most recent return in Deadpool, then HERE about said return. I just really, really want Threnody to be happy. She’s suffered enough. Admittedly, that could be said for most women on this list, maybe all of them. GOSAMYR- Wrote about her HERE! Most people who know of her at all typically hate her but I find her extremely interesting. She’s like everything people HATE about women, every stereotype of “toxic femininity”, but then this is explained as part of her culture and biology, and this is, to her, what is normal, and how is she to KNOW that everyone acts nuts around her when she has no basis for knowing how they act when she’s NOT around? She interests me in the questions and dilemmas she raises, and I just kinda have a thing for women we’re supposed to hate because of their feminine traits. KWANNON- The Japanese woman whose body Betsy Braddock had for years. I was very excited when she was brought back to life and given her own series, I wanted for her at last to be a CHARACTER with her own PERSONALITY and LIFE that wasn’t just an excuse to give a white woman a ninja makeover, and then I got...Fallen Angels. And she’s just...she’s literally just 90s Psylocke. I was very disappointed. But I still like Kwannon HERSELF in terms of potential, and now that she’s back maybe she’ll become a real person sooner or later. SATURNYNE AND SAT-YR-9: Wrote about them HERE! I really like Sat-Yr-9 as a villain (I especially enjoyed her short stint in the Hellfire Club as White Queen with Viper as her lieutenant and not-so-subtle girlfriend) and I like Saturnyne as a sort of celestial bureaucrat, someone who isn’t a force of good or evil but a force of ORDER, like the opposite of “embodiment of chaos” type characters. MURMUR AKA ARLETTE TRUFFEAU: I have not written about her before but HERE IS HER WIKI ARTICLE. As with Gossamyr, she seems like the “sexy shallow slut we’re supposed to dislike” type, so of course I like her. BIANCA LANEIGE- A Generation X villain who bore a grudge against Emma Frost from her days in the Hellfire Club, I wrote about her HERE. She’s pretty comedic as a bad guy, but that’s not a bad thing! I’d like to see her around again one day, either as silly as ever or made more serious. LIFEGUARD: Wrote about here HERE. She was in the first X-Men graphic novel that I bought and I’ve always had a soft spot for her since. I really liked that she didn’t give a shit when she found out who her bio-father was, it’s such a refreshing reaction compared to the usual “what if I’m just like my father/I can’t believe I’m adopted/etc” angst. Comparatively, she’s super upset about her Shi’ar lineage, because that actually altered her INTERNAL self when it manifested, she started seeing everyone around her as PREY and I reckon that’s pretty distressing for someone like her. Always wanted to see her come back; she’s in the background at a Krakoa party! SILHOUETTE CHORD: Wrote about her HERE and HERE. I just like her I guess! She’s maybe not obscure per se since she’s a main cast member of The New Warriors, but I’ve never really seen her get any attention. BLACK MAMBA AKA TANYA SEALY: Wrote about her HERE! THE ASP AKA CLEOPATRA NEFERTITI: Wrote about her HERE! SKEIN AKA SYBIL DVORAK: Wrote about her HERE and HERE! She was on the “Woman Warriors” team with Black Mamba and Asp, and I like the idea they just hang out as friends a lot!! ANACONDA AKA BLANCHE “BLONDIE” SITZINSKI: Wrote about her HERE! I just want her to hug me...really, really hard :) SHARADA DARTHRI: A minor villain that shows up during the “all female X-Men” team era in...2013, I think? Wrote about her HERE. DRAGONFLY AKA VERONICA DULTRY: Wrote about her HERE MANTIS : Despite the fact that she’s very well-known for her film version in Guardians of the Galaxy, most people don’t seem to know much at all about her comics version even though she’s been an Avengers member since the 70s. Wrote about her HERE and HERE and HERE, someone else writes about her HERE PENDING These are characters that I have not had the chance to personally read up on myself yet, but I want to! Their names link to their Marvel wiki articles! TOPAZ FIREBIRD SNOWBIRD SILVERCLAW There are honestly countless others I’m probably not remembering but this is a good handful I think! Oh, yeah, and also...COOTER. Because her name is COOTER oh my god.

[lunasantcs]

hi hi! it me, leonie ( mariangels mun ), with my second muse luna! unlike mari who’s a total lawful good, luna is more of a mixture of chaotic good and chaotic neutral who’s very much just starting out in life because her mom’s a cray cray rich lady. more on that below, pals. feel free to leave a LIKE and i’ll come to you for plots! OR! feel free to message me on discord at ( emeravdes#9932 ) since i’m not in the gc bc i get overwhelmed very easily. thanks for coming to my ted talk & feel free to read this ridiculously long essay i’ve come up with. <3 @frostfordstart​

TW: MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE

full name: luna raquel santos

nicknames: lu, lulu or raquel (but only her grandparents call her that bc they hate the fact that her parents named her luna lol)

birthday: april 30th

current age: twenty six

sexuality: bisexual, panromantic

personality (+): benevolent, adventurous, free spirited, appreciative, energetic, fun loving

personality (-): sheltered, reckless, outspoken, stubborn, envious, attention seeking

luna was born and raised in frostford to yuliana and marcos santos - both of which are of brazilian roots but their families have been living in the us for decades. her family is rich rich and it stems back for a few decades. don’t ask me how they made their fortune because i actually have no clue as of right now. we working on it.

she was the youngest child and only daughter to yuliana and marcos which meant that she was instantly their pride and joy. their princess. their doll. 

she has two older brothers - jax (32) and santiago (35) - who love their little sister to pieces and have never really been a big fan of the way their mother treats luna,

INCOMING MOMMY ISSUES

yuliana was the kind of girl that wanted to be in pageants growing up but her family never allowed her the chance because they valued education over anything that had to do with glamour despite having the money to blow on the fancy aspects. so! the moment yuliana found out that she was having a daughter, she was ECSTATIC. she could finally get to live the life of pageants that her parents robbed her of and she was thriving.

so comes my baby luna

from the moment she was born, her mother had her in fancy dresses and from the moment that she could walk, yuliana made sure that her daughter could perfect the pageant walk before she could perfect walking like a normal human being. if she did something right, she’d drown luna in affection. if she did something wrong, she’d scowl and tell her to do it again. often times this resulted in her crying - especially when she was still a toddler.

over the course of her childhood, she continued with the pageant life and slowly it became something that she lived and breath. she felt like it was the best way to connect with her mother and a part of her really did have a love for the whole ordeal. for a while. by the time she was eight, her mother essentially had the picture perfect pageant girl and she’d completely forgotten that this girl also needed love and a mother to help her through life.

but her dad? a sweetheart, a gem, the most affectionate dad that she could have ever asked for and she loves him to pieces. calls him every single day. or texts. santos fam group chat is her, marcos, jax, santiago, and her maternal grandparents. ANYWAYS! WE CONTINUE!

despite yuliana’s instance that her kids go to private school, her parents convinced her to just send her kids to public school because it would offer the kids a chance to actually get to know people around town that weren’t in their parents circle of rich idiots. this was luna’s saving grace. in school, she made genuine friendships and she finally found a sense of comfort. 

not that that lasted long because yuliana was instantly up her ass telling her that those kids from school weren’t real friends and that she had to focus on her priorities aka pageants. only pageants. always PAGEANTS. so... that’s exactly what luna did. 

can you tell that her mom is a demon yet? ‘cause we got more!

moving on to high school! things were essentially always the same. luna would go to school, live her life, make some friends but eventually she’d lose said friends because of her mom or because luna put up a wall since she knew that she’d lose them anyways. 

she was in a car accident with her older brother jax when she was sixteen which resulted in her missing a pageant which made yuliana BIG MAD. 

it was in her senior year of high school that yuliana set luna up with one of her friends sons and essentially forced her to be in a relationship with someone she had no connection w/at all. 

she dated this person for a while (again, to make her MOM happy, not herself) up until her mother started talking about getting married which was when luna was like LOL ABORT MISSION and broke up w/the dude. did she like him? sure. but she wasn’t going to get married after high school. no thanks. 

yuliana, naturally, was furious. got mad. was mad for a while. oscar the grouch mad 24/7.

THEN CAME COLLEGE! LUNA WAS FINALLY FREE! well... not really because her mother picked her school for her as well as her major; columbia university with a major in business. why? because she knew people who worked at the school that would be able to keep an eye out on her daughter. 

SOMEHOW? luna still managed to find a sense of freedom the moment she stepped foot onto campus and was away from her mother. she was studying something she hated but she finally could live a life where she didn’t feel like she had to constantly please her mother or worry about falling out of line. it felt amazing.

this was where she discovered hook ups and friends w/benefits and BOI OH BOI was she thriving!

it was in her senior year of college that she had a long talk with her grandparents about what she wanted for herself and where she saw herself going. they wanted what was best for her and that meant getting her out from their own childs clutches who only saw luna as someone to parade around. it took her a while but the words from the talk stayed with luna until she was twenty two and she finally stood up for herself and told her mother NO MAS. 

yuliana was like BITCH WHAT but luna was like YOU HEARD ME even though it was a bit less... blunt that i just made it seem. 

at twenty two, she stopped competing in pageants and went off on an adventure to europe with her grandparents. her grandparents were really only with her for a month as they settled them into a nice place in italy but after that, she was finally happy. 

she lived in italy and traveled around europe until she was twenty five which was when she moved back to frostford because she missed her grandparents, dad and older brothers. when she moved back, her grandparents helped her find a cute little home and she even got herself a red husky named kida - since she’d never been allowed to have a pet before in her life. 

her dad still gives luna anything and everything she could ever want bc we stan a man who watches out for his child but luna also wants to make a life for herself outside of her parents money so she went and got a job. it was harder than she expected but she finally was willing to get one thanks to june diaz so now she’s a waitress at the whole enchilada and has been since she got back a solid year ago. 

did i mention she’s been back one year? i feel like i should have mentioned it somewhere above but oh whale. 

her new found freedom (its new even after four years OKAY) has also left her with a bit of a reckless streak. she is, in fact, a lot to handle at times and there’s other times where she falls back into that docile behavior her mom basically morphed into her. so... yeah!

FUN FACTS!

she wanted to be a cheerleader in high school but her mother was like NOT ON MY WATCH YOUNG LADY

her very first shift working at the whole enchilada resulted in her accidentally dropping a customers food on the floor and getting yelled at which resulted in her hiding in the bathroom to cry

she’s fluent in english, portugese, italian and french

she’s a flirty drunk which means she will probs try to get w/you if she’s drunk. unless you’re taken bc she knows her boundaries and she says NO to taken men. 

anything she does regarding men is mainly to spite her mother bc she doesn’t really think she’s capable of falling in love. thanks to her mom basically making her feel worthless all her life :)

she’s a harry potter nerd and spiritually identifies as hufflepuff with slytherin tendencies even though pottermore told her 12 times that she is, in fact, a gryffindor. but she refuses to accept that. nope. not happening. 

her hair is currently dyed a lavender purple. it’s almost always lavender purple. just assume it’s that color 24/7 lol. 

CONNECTIONS!

i put together a wanted connections page for luna but it’s probs gonna get reworked like... two more times because i’m a perfectionist and am obsessed with providing too much detail. too much for my own good imma be hoe-nest. but feel free to hit me with anything! KTHNXBYELOVEYOULOTS<3

[drumpfwatch]

Attack on Abortion

So, it finally has started. For the past...well 50 years really, the Right has been trying their hardest to do everything they can to fight abortion. Recently, they became a lot closer. So let’s talk about what’s happening.

Their most recent take has been Jim Crowing Abortion by making it stupid hard to get for women, regardless of state. In Mississippi for instance, there is one abortion clinic for the whole state. The whole entire state. And if you finally get there, you have to wait 72 hours before an actual procedure can be performed after you consultation.

I won’t get into every single detail of how this was done, but it was piece by piece, and in the name of protecting women.  These legislatures would draw up new regulations specifically for abortion clinics - which, by the way, are only not a part of hospitals because everyone is afraid to admit abortion is a useful and helpful medical procedure - after going and examining all of them. They then would come back with a plan that none of the clinics could abide all of the regulations of. You have to have walls that are certain distance apart (which doesn’t matter because surgical gurneys aren’t used in most, if any, abortions), you have to hospital admitting privileges (which is also not all that important because by the time the situation would reach that point the patient is probably already in a hospital), can’t be within a certain distance of a school (because all abortion-performing OB-GYNs are sex offenders, apparently). Literally every trick they could try to limit access to abortion without banning abortion or otherwise making it completely inaccessible because that would be illegal.

Honestly, I could go on for hours and hours on this topic, so I’ll try to keep it brief while still making the points I want to make. But the big thing to know is that while Roe V. Wade is still law of the land, it has since been...altered by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. The law is now “Abortions must be accessible, buuuut you can make women jump through a few hoops to get them, I guess, as long as there aren’t too many.”

Which I’m not sure which part of that is more insulting, the fact that these idiots think that abortions are such a causal decision for women that a little inconvenience would discourage them from getting one, or the fact that these are the same standards for dog agility contests.

Let me be clear up front, right here, right now. Women don’t get abortions casually. It’s not like they’re sitting there 7 months into the hell that is pregnancy and suddenly decide “You know, maybe this just isn’t for me” and aborts. Mostly because that’s not what’s actually legal. Neither do they just fuck anyone they want and then decide “OOps, I got pregnant, better go get a quick aborch to fix this mistake laaaawal!”.

Let’s talk about what is actually allowed and what actually happens in an abortion.

So let’s say a woman has sex and the condom breaks. It’s an accident. She might go to the store and get an order of Plan B. Plan B is not an abortion. Plan B needs to be taken quickly, because what Plan B does is prevent the egg from implanting in the uterine wall - a process that begins the actual pregnancy. It’s possible for a fertilized egg to not make this, and when this happens it’s so minor it’s not even considered a miscarriage. If you believe that life begins at fertilization then you have to grapple with all these innocent babies that die without any fault of the mother.

Anyway, let’s say the woman doesn’t know the condom broke. Hey, it happens. It will take her at least a month to find out that she’s pregnant, because it turns out that unless you get a pregnancy test (which, you used a condom, why would you think you need one?) it’s more or less impossible for a woman to know she’s pregnant until she stops having her period. And keep in mind periods are fickle temperamental things that will change when they show up for whatever reason, so it might be 6 weeks before a woman even has a reason to suspect she’s pregnant if something went wrong. So she goes to the doctor and gets an abortion.

At this stage in development, the fetus is more or less vaguely human shaped, but incredibly tiny and really only has the rudiments of various organs. It’s not even aware yet because it doesn’t even have what could reasonably be called a brain.

So, the woman realizes - wisely - that she is not in a position to have a child despite being pregnant. Maybe she doesn’t have the financial resources, maybe she doesn’t have the time to dedicate to the consuming and difficult task of raising a child. Maybe she just isn’t emotionally capable of it. This is the part most anti-abortionists never think of - why might a woman want an abortion? Even if she puts the baby up for adoption (which is its own complicated and expensive process), she still has to go through the actual 9 months of pregnancy. Her entire life for nine months will be dominated by taking care of this thing. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been pregnant understands what it’s like. There’s so much you can’t do or experience while pregnant. It’s like being hooked up to a life support machine for another person for nine months. And if you didn’t agree to it, well then, that’s a problem.

So, this lady goes to a doctor and gets an abortion. Within the first trimester, these procedures will nine times out of ten be either minor procedures of suction or even just taking a pill that will cause a miscarriage. No anesthetic required. The fetus at this point is unable to live on its own, of course, so it dies. At this stage you could freeze the damn thing and unfreeze it at a later point and it would theoretically still be viable if you could somehow implant it back in a woman. Which, Representative Smitherman, is not a thing, but whatever.

Most women who don’t want a pregnancy know they don’t want it and decide on an abortion before three months. Which, by the way, another one of those Jim Crow type laws that they liked to use was putting in weighting periods so that it’d be after the three month mark that it’s illegal to get an abortion for whatever reason.

See, without going into specifics, the further along in a pregnancy you are, the harder it is to get an abortion. Second trimester limitations basically mean you need a reason more complicated then “Nah, I just don’t want it” and it’s actually illegal to get an abortion in the third trimester if the baby isn’t a threat to the mother’s life. And that makes sense.

Most women who go through with a pregnancy that far willingly want the baby. They’ve been planning for it, they have a room set aside for it, they’ve bought cribs and toys and had baby showers. I haven’t ever met a woman in her third trimester who wasn’t excited for her child. So getting an abortion then is always a tragedy.

The only reason they get it is because the child is dying, if it’s even still alive. The baby could potentially survive outside the mother at this point with a bit of medical help, but that’s the thing. The baby isn’t going to survive at all. We’re talking skull deformations that collapse the brain in on itself, lungs that won’t ever form properly, hearts that half the size they need to be. These children are loved, they sometimes have names already, but tragically they’re just not going to make it. This is basically the only reason a woman gets an abortion in the third trimester, mostly because it’s more or less illegal to get an abortion at this point and most of them have made the decision by now.

This is where you get the rather horrible looking and graphic procedures that pro-deathers like to shove in your face - half of which are so graphic because the baby’s already dead, if they’re even real at all - and that’s more or less the story of how and why abortions happen.

So now that we established how the process of an abortion actually happens, let’s talk about these new laws.

Because these new laws that have been showing up in, say, Alabama, have a purpose too. While the Jim Crow Type laws were meant to try and skirt Planned Parenthood V Casey by making abortions as difficult to get as possible, these laws outright ban abortion.  And there’s a reason for that. With Trump loading the bench with people like Brent the Rapist Kavanaugh, suddenly there’s a chance that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe V. Wade.

That’s why these laws are stupid and draconian. When the 25 cis white heterosexual men who voted for the abortion ban voted for it, they were doing so with the full knowledge that even most Alabamians would find it disgusting because as it turns out most human beings have at least some understanding of sexual health enough to know why this is complete nonsense.

No, we have records of them specifically debating things like, say, whether or not they should include exceptions for rape and the safety of the mother, and deciding they shouldn’t because that wouldn’t guarantee a challenge. And that’s what they’re looking for. These fuckheads don’t care about this law coming into effect, they’re not interested in what the actual law says. The purpose of this law is so that it - and every other one of the heartbeat bills and such - can be used as a wedge to burst open the Supreme Court now that it’s stacked with people who hate abortion and don’t care about women and kill Roe V. Wade. But here’s the thing, the law is going to be upheld in the process.

I want you to look at this picture and remember these names and faces as I tell you this. IF the Supreme Court upholds the law, then until Alabama decides to change the law - and that’s a big if - then every woman in Alabama will be unable to get an abortion in the state of Alabama. She’ll have to leave the state, and to where? Well, we’ve already established that Mississippi is horrible to go to, and Louisiana and Georgia aren’t much better. I’m not sure about Florida’s abortion laws, but I’m willing to bet Kentucky isn’t exactly convenient to get one in either. That’s all the states touching Alabama, so at that point you’re looking into a road trip or a plane ticket.

You see the problem? Rich people can still get those abortions by leaving states and going somewhere else, but the poor people suddenly can’t. Now, one mistake is enough to condemn a poor woman to teenage motherhood. Meanwhile the rich bitches can go wherever they need to to get one done quick and cheap, away from any sound of a heartbeat bill.

And here’s the thing. A disproportionate number of those poor women are going to be black, because it’s Alabama and that’s just a thing there. So not only is this law sexist, an argument could be made that it’s racist too! But that’s not the half of it.

Some women are not capable of bringing life into this world. I don’t mean that physically, I mean that mentally. Some are too young, some don’t have the financial acumen, some have mental illnesses that just make it too hard. These women are condemned to motherhood. But it’s not just that.

Say what you will about what pregnancy actually is, you cannot deny it’s incredibly risky. Death is not an uncommon outcome, and increases in all manner of diseases are just a fact of it.

These men are willing to kill the poor black women of Alabama just so they can take rights away from women all over the United States. And that is disgusting.

[nhayes19ahsgov-blog]

Constitutional Assessment

1. Ohio V. Akron Center for Reproductive Health

2. June 25, 1990

3. Ohio legislature passed House Bill 319 in 1985, which requires a physician to notify the parents of an unmarried minor who is requesting an abortion, unless they qualified for one of three exceptions with specific criteria. A suet in the federal district court by a minor, a doctor and their clinic claimed that the procedure for judicial bypass violated the rights granted by the 14th amendment regarding due process.

4. The case’s justices were to decide whether or not the judicial bypass requirements, the physician notification element, and the burden of proof mandated by the parental notification bill violate a minor’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

5. The case revolved around the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process.

6. The court ruled 6-3 against the suet, claiming that the law did not violate a minor’s right to due process.

7. Ultimately, the decision was supported by stating that the requirements of the law are “not an undue burden on the doctor or the minor.” The precedent set by this ruling was that legal decisions of this weight can be made partially by the level of convenience as perceived by the justices.

8. I, personally, disagree with this ruling. To explain this, I will quote some of the passages of the justifications for ruling against. They felt it made sense that the minor should have to prove “whether she was mature enough to make the abortion decision”, “that the abortion is in her best interest” and that “requiring a minor to prove maturity by clear and convincing evidence is a fair evidentiary burden”. To start off, how exactly is any minor to prove maturity? This is the most vague statement which relies entirely on the opinions of those handling these women’s cases. Next, what guidelines are there to specify in what instances an abortion would be in someone’s best interest? What happens if a minor, hypothetically, did have the financial and practical means to support a child, but was simply not ready to be a mother? If a young woman is not mature enough to decide to have an abortion, how is she mature enough to raise a child? I phrase these points as question because I feel it adds to the absurdity of the statements.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-805

S: Chad Readler and Eric Murphy; two anti-abortion judges recently nominated by President Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

A: This article was written for the Bustle website by Lani Seelinger.

C: The two judges have been in support of numerous anti abortion actions and have promised to continue on this track if they are approved for the positions. Many cases regarding reproductive rights pass through the Sixth Circuit Court of appeals and there are already some waiting to be heard. This means that Readler and Murphy may have the chance to revoke much of the reproductive freedoms which has been loosely given by the Fourth Amendment.

A: This matter has the potential to impact the lives of women throughout the country. This means that the audience is widespread and diverse, so having as many people stay informed as possible can only be beneficial.

P: The author shows some bias against the beliefs of the federal court nominees, but does keep it mostly factual, allowing readers to come to their own conclusions on the matter.

S: The major significance of these nominations is well stated in the article. If these men get approved, “their presence on the court could pave the way toward the Supreme Court making a decision that could severely cripple Roe v. Wade.”

I do agree with the perspective of the author, though she did maintain a fairly objective stance. One of her main points in writing this article was to get it out into the world so that people could be more informed and prepared for what very well may be coming to them. I personally had not heard a word about this prior in the wake of the mess of Kavanaugh. However, now that I do know,  this is definitely a story I will be following until it’s end. 

https://www.bustle.com/p/two-more-anti-abortion-judges-might-be-confirmed-to-federal-courts-soon-12261041

[arcticdementor]

Handle has a new blogpost up for the first time in almost a year, a detailed review of Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option. And it’s a doozy:

The book is an extended exposition of what is at heart a very simple thesis and message.

That premise: “Genuine, traditional Christianity is quickly dying throughout the West, as it has been for a long time. But now things are getting to a critically bad stage. If committed Christians don’t appreciate this, and aren’t ready, willing, and able to make radical changes in the way they live their lives, then The Faith will surely die out soon, perhaps carried forward in name only by what will have become little more than an imposter. Many Christians don’t appreciate this state of affairs, either through ignorance on the one hand, or willful denial and obtuse blindness on the other. The war is lost, and so it’s well past time for Christians to start thinking seriously about the strategic requirements of cultural survival. Hopefully it’s not too late, but it very well might be, especially if Christians don’t stop sleepwalking off the cliff. They will need to come to grips with the sheer precariousness of their situation, and figure this all out, pronto.”

…

On occasion I will also go a little hard on Dreher when he engages in double-mindedness. He sometimes lacks consistency regarding how concerned one ought to be about respectability and normalcy. Dreher also tends to switch modes between writing as if this is an urgent and dire struggle for survival, but then denies advocating for exactly the kind of extreme measures that would be warranted were the situation as dire as he claims. Maybe there’s no one right position on those matters and so Dreher’s style merely reflects a judicious balance between competing interpretations. Whether that’s right or not, I’ll be pointing those occasions out, so that you can judge for yourself.

Now, Dreher’s focuses almost exclusively on the situation for Christians, which is a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it allows him to keep a narrow focus on something about which he is more well-informed per the maxim “write what you know”. On the other hand, that exclusivity tends to obscure the real nature of what is going on, as if it were a strictly and peculiarly Christian issue.

It’s not: the premise clearly extends to any kind of traditionalism. That’s true whether it is tied to a particular religion or ideology, or whether it is merely a passively acquired collection of informal elements of social capital and culturally-embedded folkways. Regardless, any form of traditionalism stands no chance against the ‘ideological rectifications’ which characterize the contemporary forces of social change.

For example, there are plenty of secular atheists who want the sex segregation of toilets to continue to be the default cultural practice, and who aren’t on board with the latest PC crusade to impose this innovation on everyone, like it or not.

Eventually, these people are either going to get on board, or they are going to find themselves mixed in with the Christians and all the others in a bigger set of “Culture War Losers”.

…

Reading Dreher can be frustrating in that he so frequently crawls all the way up to an important insight and then … disappointingly chokes on the social undesirability of the conclusion at the last minute. (He may be doing this as part of a strategy to stay above the minimum threshold of public respectability, and there are a few times I suspect that, but my impression is that he’s almost always being sincere.) He’s like one of those sports teams which one can’t stop rooting for because it always gets so close to a win, but which just keeps breaking one’s heart.

But at least he chokes in an ironically predictable way. It is always the direction of “Mainstream, Respectable, Literate, American Christian Nice.” The kind of Nice oblivious to the way it is having its usually noble, pro-social sentiments abused and exploited by its sworn enemies. In this sense, if he has not transcended the very error he is begging his co-confessionists to overcome, then at least he is writing as one who knows them so well from being one of them, in a way that no one else can.

(I have to very much second Handle’s view here.)

…

First, at times, on certain subjects, he seems like the infamous fish that doesn’t know it swims in water, and he lacks conscious awareness that he’s committed to some concept or moral notion that owes more to modern progressivism than anything with an authentic Christian heritage.

And second, despite frequently covering instances of their latest ideological excesses, he still tends to get the tenets and character of current progressivism wrong. Mostly, he is out of date. He buys into the neutrality narrative spun by the old liberal public intellectuals (many of whom are now also balking at the latest developments) for today’s real thing: the bullying power games of contemporary PC and the Social Justice Warriors

This causes him to repeatedly make an error, which is to say that ‘religion’ is being eroded by a neutral, empty, nothing of relativism with an ultimate form of individualist secularism as the end point. Instead, it is simply being replaced by a new ideology that fills the vacuum with its own mythologies, orthodoxies, and an endless efflorescence of sacred norms, rules, and regulated status relations.

This puts someone like me in an odd and unique position. Almost all Dreher’s critics accuse him of crying wolf or being a chicken-little at best, and more usually a looney-tunes-level alarmist kook or worse. Meanwhile, I’m saying that Dreher is underestimating his enemy, painting an overly rosy picture, and not being nearly alarmist enough.

…

Dreher opens the book by saying he experienced the very common kind of political transformation that happens when a man becomes a father and tries to take a shot at traditionalist, wholesome child rearing in the current American scene. The responsibilities and interests of that role tends to lead to a new perspective on social affairs with different areas of emphasis and concern. When one starts to grasp the problems one faces, it is indeed a rude awakening.

It’s a political awakening in the “mugged by reality” sense, when someone in that position realizes just how ideologically naive they’ve been (often in a libertarian direction), and how the deck has been stacked against them, and in so many ways beyond their control and power to mitigate.

Shared public spaces – and the official and informal social rules which govern them – have a character that either supports wholesome families or repels them and forces them into a self-imposed house-arrest. The situation is a zero-sum conflict of interest.

…

He wondered whether the Republican Party was still a political coalition able and willing to defend the interests of religious families, and he concluded that it wasn’t.

Within the GOP, there had long been tension between traditionalist. social conservatives on the one hand, and those who were more interested in resisting leftist economics and statism from a libertarian, individualist, and market-based perspective on the other. The latter group was indifferent or neutral to the social requirements of families, and over time, they seem to have won out.

What about the churches? Worthless. They had become culturally impotent, inert, and beleaguered. But worse, they were now mostly uninterested in counter-culturally challenging the ideological zeitgeist. The Roman Catholic Church under Pope Francis seems intent on surrendering to it almost entirely, And Dreher – once a Catholic himself – has blogged in a way that leaves little doubt that regards Pope Francis the same way that Dante judged Pope Boniface VIII – “a wicked man who leads his flock astray.”

But it’s by no means only a Catholic problem, and Dreher is not shy about insisting that all denominations of “his people” suffer from the same malady. He writes:

Even though conservative Christians were said to be fighting a culture war, with the exception of the abortion and gay marriage issues, it was hard to see my people putting up much of a fight. We seemed content to be the chaplaincy to a consumerist culture that was fast losing a sense of what it meant to be Christian.

Well, ok, but what kind of “fight” did Dreher want or expect? What would he have liked to have seen? More sermons? I have a feeling that if counter-culturalists of any stripe organized to put up real fights, Dreher would recoil in outrage.

…

Few want to admit what is plainly true: full participation and the social integration of ‘normalcy’ is now deeply incompatible with a traditional lifestyle. And, like it or not, there is no alternative but to surrender on the one hand, or retreat and withdraw on the other. If you want your kids to grow up a certain way, believe in and cherish certain things, then there is no other option but to separate them from general society and surround them with a highly-selective peer group – really an entire sub-society – which will give you the support you need.

…

No one wants to admit to the embarrassment of being on the losing side of a power and status conflict. It is humiliating to concede that one is being shoved-out and compelled to leave by stronger, higher-status victors. And the opposition is likely to encourage the delusion to keep down their adversary’s guard and avoid triggering their early warning detection systems.

That’s all understandable, but if it doesn’t change, it’s going to be why 99% of Christians are going to fade away.

…

Dreher’s best contribution to the modern conceptual toolkit is his “Law of Merited Impossibility”: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”

It began as a description of the untrustworthy rhetorical style by which elite progressive public intellectuals would argue for some social reform. It’s a slippery slope argument. Opponents would reasonably and accurately point out that the reform logically belonged to a class containing much more objectionable measures, and would open the door to them. All of those measures are bound together by a similar ideological value, but one that admits no articulable limiting principle, or provides any line of demarcation between the arguable and the awful. Thus, acquiescing to the nose in the tent would sooner or later mean letting in the whole filthy camel.

Which is what principled progressives really wanted, or at least found unobjectionable. They knew there was no such limiting principle, and that disliked subsequent changed would follow. But they understood that admitting as much honestly and publicly would be politically foolish, as the camel’s filth remained too unpopular, at least, for the moment.

…

So they misled and tried to forestall these arguments by claiming their opponents were avoiding the merits of the narrow issue at hand. They then switched rhetorical gears, mocking those rivals mercilessly for fear-mongering and concocting absurd scenarios. They would say that all sensible people knew those scenarios were extreme exaggerations, which would never come about, and which were something the progressives weren’t even arguing for and, besides, everyone understood those things to be politically “impossible.”

Then, the minute the narrow reform was implemented or some political or judicial victory was won, it was suddenly ok to start publicly working on accomplishing those impossibilities without skipping a single beat.

…

In the final part of the introduction, Dreher outlines the structure of the book, and lets the reader know he isn’t going to get behind any specific proposal or suggestion. He is going to continue to raise the alarm, present some examples of Christians giving it a shot, and hope that it inspires people to get together and try to solve the problem.

Like, say, cutting themselves off from the mainstream and running for the hills.

Oh, whoops, Dreher doesn’t want to say that. That’s because it is one of two major ‘critiques’ of his thesis which are made by nominal Christians who really don’t want to admit they’re now going to have to choose between their Christianity and comfortable lifestyles. “Dreher says run for the hills!” is an interesting kind of argumentative fallacy. It is a sneaky way of trying to dismiss Dreher’s basic premise. If (1) a conclusion follows from Dreher’s statements, and (2) is so undesirable that my brain won’t accept it, then (3) it must be wrong and absurd, thus (4) Dreher is nuts and everything he says can be ignored. So (5) Whew, what a relief! Now we can ignore the problem and just go back to whatever we were doing. QED.

…

It’s true that Dreher insists over and over that he isn’t saying run for the hills. But unfortunately, he can’t show that the solution set for the problem includes anything less drastic or radical He would be more honest to say, “I might be saying run for the hills. I’m not sure yet; nobody is. It’s not something I’ve worked out or could work out. I really hope I’m not saying that, but it’s possible I am. To be even more gloomy and frank about it, it may turn out in the final analysis that even running for the hills wouldn’t be enough. Hills are much protection anymore.”

I suspect that everyone, Dreher and his critics, grasps all that, but that the rhetorical games dance around it. Both Dreher and his critics may suspect it to be true, but have to pretend it’s false, for different reasons.

The critics pretend RFTH is false because that implies they don’t have to get off their asses to do anything: the most comfortable and pleasant possibility.

Dreher has to pretend RFTH is false because he doesn’t want it to scare away readers before even having a chance to make his case.

But again, how do we know that Christians won’t need to RFTH? How do we know that Dreher’s historical examples of Christian survival despite oppression and adversity are relevant to the modern age?

Modern religion faces a different kind of enemy: the metaphysical revolution of empiricism and eliminative materialism. One is contending not with superstitious pagans or even someone like Celsus but with a set of ideas altogether (and durably) antithetical to all serious theological sensibilities. And it is a set which has solidly owned the perch atop all the hierarchies of our intellectual life for centuries, with every sign of being irreversible so long as advanced civilization persists.

The other major criticism from these types is the claim that separating from mainstream society can’t preserve Christianity because it is inherently anti-Christian. All Christians, these critics say, are commanded to evangelize and proselytize on behalf of the faith. They are to be the salt of the earth and a light unto nations. That, at a minimum, requires them to remain integrated with the heathens in order to be ambassadors for Christianity and winsome examples projecting the noble virtuousness of the Christian character. By such example and good works, and by routine display of courage and the strength of their commitments, they will generate such a positive impression that it will open the hearts and minds of the heathens, and make them receptive to the gospels.

This argument has even more rhetorical strength and emotional resonance than the previous one. Religious commandments are not easy to counter by rational explanation of exceptional circumstance in which injudicious obedience would be self-destructive. When the pragmatic mode of cognition turned off, the counterargument – that there is no sustainable strategy if converting one man come at the cost of losing two – simply doesn’t resonate. “Will the last convert please turn out the cemetery lights.”

…

I understand why he can’t be more blunt, but I sometimes wish he would break down just once and hit them with a 2×4 of frankness, like this:

It’s completely unethical of you to abuse the duty to evangelism as an excuse to do nothing except put your head in the sand, deny the crisis, and avoid reality. It’s not like you’re some full-time missionary, converting and baptizing people left and right, and I’m asking you to stop all that and give up your important, holy works. You just don’t want to make the sacrifices that would follow from disengagement and separation from mainstream society. And you’re so desperate to avoid them that you’ll disgustingly pretend it would be anti-Christian to do so, which is perverse. And also, frankly, blasphemous, since the result of your counsel would mean a continuation of the status quo which is, obviously, the suicide of Christianity. “Passive evangelism” goes both ways, and you don’t look winsome to the abyss without it looking winsome back to you, or, more importantly, to your kids. It’s so winsome, in fact, that you can’t bear the thought of leaving it, even if means the death of your Faith for your family. That allure is why you’re making all these excuses in the first place. You can’t bullshit your way out of this one, so get you head out of your ass. Jesus commands you to tend to the survival of Christianity, and isolation or insulation of one kind or another is only the bare minimum of what it’s going to take. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. Once we could play offense. Now we must play defense. Or perish. So buck up, it’s time to get with the program.

…

It is of course usually good to have an allergy to fighting dirty. But that’s not the case when you are innocent and your life depends on it. Prison gangs are every bit worthy of everyone’s condemnation and disgust. But in the special context of prison, one joins or one perishes.

…

But what he seems to share with those Northeast fellow travelers is a common desire for disaffiliation and social distancing. Nearly all prominent right wing writers want desperately to be taken seriously and to be seen as special cases worthy of civility, respect, and thoughtful consideration in the eyes of liberals and progressive elites. They want to be friends, not enemies. They want to be seen as distinct: more principled, sophisticated, and nuanced than those straight-ticket-voter-for-life hoi polloi fundamentalists. They don’t want to be presumptively dismissed, reflexively disposed of, and ostracized from polite society. They abhor being found guilty by association.

…

And, to be blunt, there is just something pathologically suicidal about modern American Christianity un-tempered by a commitment to a superseding principle of the survival of the things one claims to care about.

There is something that craves the self-righteous satisfaction of taking a conspicuously public stand for collective martyrdom for the sake of ‘principle’ – one that is hard to distinguish from generic, progressivism-compatible ‘niceness’ – no matter how futile, impotent, unreasonable, or counterproductive. These performances overflow with displays of sanctimonious indignation, but at the end of the show it’s clear that they don’t take the danger of failure seriously. That’s someone else’s problem.

Absent the special circumstance of a solid track-record transforming this kind of commitment into net increase and propagation, any beleaguered group whose members care about something more than survival, won’t survive. We cannot all be the priests in the French Carmelite Convent, or the holdouts on top of Masada, or there will be no one left to honor the martyrs and be inspired by their example.

Either you’re willing to accept the end of something, or you’re not. Well then, what if you’re not?

…

All of this seems consistent with common sense and normal moral intuitions, so why is the commentary so lopsided, and why do American Christian public intellectual commentators so often stick with advocating naively idealistic policies even when they are clearly counterproductive? There’s just no incentive for them to do otherwise. That’s what virtue signaling is all about. When one doesn’t actually bear any responsibility for consequences, one is judged only on what one says, not on the bad results which follow. That why the focus on things like ‘reputation’ instead of consequences.

At any rate, the “preserve our reputation” line relies on a myth. With perhaps the exception of a few high-status Christian commentators, Progressives have already believed that about all religious conservatives for a long time: either they were brainwashed idiots or Elmer Gantrys at best. Nothing but evil liars paying lip service to religious sentiments they didn’t share, and scriptures they had never read, merely as means of suckering the brainwashed idiots as a road to power. The minute a principled man of character steps into the limelight and emerges as a potential threat, the progressives give that individual zero credit and their media apparatus spares no time at all in smearing the man as evil incarnate, whether that individual lived a scandalous life that gives them plenty of ammunition to do so, or whether he’s been a spotlessly clean boy scout from birth. E.g., Mitt Romney. (Though they are happy to emphasize all those positive traits and rehabilitate all the beautiful losers the minute after they no longer pose any political threat, and prove useful for other purposes.)

…

At this point one might well ask what “coming to terms” means after transcending mere denial. But judging from many of the reactions to Dreher’s message to date, it seems that dealing with denial alone is such a major front in the war that one needs to focus on that, and ease them into it as gently as possible. Thus it’s best to be vague about next steps. And there is some value to letting people think it through for themselves.

But then again, maybe they already have on some level, and this frame has the direction of causation reversed. Perhaps it is a protective reaction that is downstream from already having faced – on some psychological level – some uncomfortable implications about the hard requirements of the near future.

…

People are going to have make the hard choice about how much they are willing to sacrifice. On the one hand, there is fidelity to faith but cultural withdrawal and separation. On the other, a normal, successful life, integrated into mainstream society and culture, and able to interact and socialize in general with one’s reputation and status intact, able to get into the good schools and good jobs.

“I’m not saying run for the hills!” – “Yeah, I know you’re not saying it. But … it kind of sounds like … we’re going to have to run for the hills. At least, that’s the level of sacrifice we’re talking about. And, if I’m being honest with myself, I’m not the run for the hills type. So, though I don’t like to admit it, I’ll probably just cave.”

No one wants to admit that. And one doesn’t have to: the only thing one has to do is pretend and deny the problem exists at all.

…

After all, the “being salt and light …” rebuttal is like trying to plead with the lions in the arena, or ‘inspire’ the spectators who only came to see you become a fun, fancy feast. If it ever worked, it doesn’t any longer. The fact is, everybody knows this strategy has been tried for our entire lives, and it has failed, utterly.

…

But while Benedict dose indeed have a special and important role in the history of Christianity, it’s worth asking before even getting started whether the example is a good analogy for our time or not. Have we actually been here before, or are modern technological times simply too different, too ‘disenchanted’, and too unique?

If we aren’t sure, then how do we know if we can actually learn anything of practical and spiritual use from Benedict’s example? After all, if the book is called The Benedict Option, and spends a lot of time on Benedict and his monastery, then and now, then if we even suspect that the answer to that question is negative, why even bother?

Rome’s fall left behind a staggering degree of material poverty, the result of both the disintegration of Rome’s complex trade network and the loss of intellectual and technical sophistication.

That was Benedict’s context, but consider just how different that description is from today’s conditions in which, if anything, it is our wealth and material prosperity and government welfare expenditures that make us much less dependent on neighbors or community.

…

MacIntyre, Dreher, Deneen, and many other non-progressive Public Intellectuals of a certain age are still stuck in the ‘Relativist’ frame (cf: “Relativism and the Study of Man” – 1961) which goes back well over a century but which started to fade away during the early “New Left” era. They are beating a distracting dead horse, when there is a live one running around, winning the race.

Ask whether it makes sense that virtue is being undermined to critically low levels at the same time that “virtue signaling” is exploding in frequency of usage. It is being used as a legitimate complaint about an increasingly intense social phenomenon of sanctimonious conspicuously displays of critical and judgy-condemnations. One can’t signal arbitrary, individualized virtues. It’s only possible when there a dominant ideology emphasized by nearly all high status people has social currency.

Furthermore, does it make sense to say that it’s still all about choice and self-interest – the emancipation and liberation of individuals from authority – when ‘liberals’ are completely eager for state authority to impose various behavioral and speech rules on everybody, according to their moral vision?

All the relativism and principled (as opposed to boutique) multiculturalism talk occurred during what we can now appreciate to have been merely an intermediate phase of our political evolution. It characterized an early stage of the diffusion of a minority elite ideology into the cultural mainstream, until that ideology established sufficient levels of adoption and dominance to encourage its proponents to switch gears.

One argues for ‘relativism’ when one is trying to tear down an established moral order to make space for something new. And one drops that effort the moment one achieves the upper hand, then works to consolidate one’s gains and eliminate all rivals.

This evolution is entirely analogous to the evolution of progressive positions from free speech absolutists to ruthless speech police during the same time-frame.

The truth is, we’re not ‘after’ virtue at all. We’re just after the old set of virtues, which have been replaced by a new, progressive set.

…

Actually, I think Dreher already knows that leftism / progressivism is not ‘after virtue’ but consists of ‘different virtue’ than the set handed down in the West’s Great Tradition, with its substantial Christian inheritance and influence.

Just like the critics of older Socialist movements and keen observers of the ‘sociology of Marxism’, Dreher has an instinctive recognition of the religious mindset, even when directed towards secular ends. He finds it intuitive to use religious terminology to explain the social psychology of contemporary progressivism. Terms like zealot, fanatic, Puritan, blasphemy, heresy, excommunication, etc., all seem to flow naturally and cut the nature of common and instinctive norm-policing behaviors at the joints.

…

So why all the emphasis on relativism and unlimited liberation then?

I think it’s two things:

1. People just can’t get past the “‘Religion’ Requires A Supernatural Deity” frame. They will say things like, “Without God, and without a fixed moral revelation, how can there be any basis for asserting moral claims? And the immediate logical implication of the absence of such a tether is obviously moral nihilism.”

This is made more difficult by the fact that secular progressives also operate within the same epistemic framework, and would reject any identification of their ideology with a ‘religion’. They certainly wouldn’t go even further and recognize that is effectively our “state religion”.

But that’s not how the social psychology of ideological cognition works. For better or worse, God is not a necessary ingredient.

The human moral mental architecture is able to accommodate, latch onto, and implement other, secular systems. And so long as enough high-status people signal their belief in that system, then the vast majority of adherents will be untroubled by any logical contradictions or other intellectual problems deriving from alternative, trans-objective metaphysical constructs taking the place of God.

2. The erroneous obsession with a purported “unlimited liberation of the individual” derives from the traditionalist social conservatives focus on sexuality and the family. If one maintains this cynosure, then the past 60 years look like

… a cutting asunder of straps and ties, wherever you might find them; pretty indiscriminate of choice in the matter: a general repeal of old regulations, fetters, and restrictions …

New rights to contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, the moral welter of modern family law, a right to sodomy and to gay-marriage, normalization and commercialization of promiscuity, cohabitation, voluntary single-motherhood, all the new pronoun-Nazi and socially-contagious sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) stuff, ‘toxic’ masculinity, etc. The list goes on and on.

…

One can see how someone of a traditionalist bent would view all that as almost morally nihilistic and libertine ultra-individualism. It seems to be heading inevitably towards unrestricted license to do almost anything with anyone or anything, like Bartol’s Alamut: “Nothing is true; everything is permitted,” or Crowley’s Thelema, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

But all that is in error. Progressive sexual morality gives with one hand but takes away with the other, and can be obnoxiously and inhumanely strict in new ways depending on who is trying to what to whom.

…

When progressives propose some social reforms, traditionalists get worried. Some reforms are bigger deals that others. Some cross long-established lines that underpin important social compromises and hold back a flood of other measures. When the reform looks to be a crack in that dam, traditionalists figure out that new moral and legal principles would be established, the implications of which would include changing a lot of things they strongly care about. So they bring up the examples of those implied, undesirable consequences as an argument against implementing the reform.

Progressives don’t assuage such concerns by credibly committing to forswear the enactment of these potentially aggravating policies. If they were willing to do so, there are plenty of clever ways they could try to accomplish it. For example, they could do so by explicitly prohibiting them in the law, or perhaps by placing huge public bets against the prospect. Instead, progressives prefer to deploy an alternative, rhetorical strategy by saying that traditionalists are either lying to cover up their bigotry and/or being literally crazy, hysterical, and paranoid about what ‘everybody knows’ will never come to pass.

And then, when all that was predicted in fact comes to pass, and usually in just the blink of an eye, the progressives not only refuse to admit they were deceitful or even just innocently wrong, but say that of course it should be this way, because it’s a clear and obvious logical implication of a (now sacred and established) moral principle!

Since this keeps happening the same way, over and over again, in practical terms, Dreher’s Law translates as, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, or a thousand times in a row, shame on me. So don’t trust them again. They’ll ask for an inch, but when you give it to them, they’ll take a mile, call it justice, and still ask for more and more again. Either insist on rock solid assurances, or fight them to the end.”

…

(For some historical perspective: remember that a Mayflower full of Puritans left Plymouth over 20 years before Newton was even born, and would set up a strict theocracy on a new continent.)

…

Whether Dreher’s telling actual makes sense as a sufficiently, causally explanatory historical narrative could be the basic of endless debate. But we should ask to what extent is all of this explanation even necessary to Dreher’s thesis? Dreher writes:

For our purposes, the Enlightenment matters because it was a decisive break with the Christian legacy of the West. God, if He was mentioned at all, was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the nondescript divinity of the Deists.

Well, that says most of it rather concisely. It was an irreversible metaphysical upheaval. When Science, reason, and empirical thinking – the Enlightenment state of mind – became high status and intellectually fashionable among European elites, then received traditional theology came to be doubted as unfounded superstitions suitable only for children and simple, low-status commoners.

…

One must note here that it is impossible, or at least incredibly unstable, for a government run by human beings to have no effective substitute for an “ultimate conception of the good”. Civilizations cannot be governed well without a set of ideas which provides both the popular legitimization of coercive power and a moral and practical guide for how to make all kinds of decisions which necessarily involve countless value judgments.

Whether recognized as such or not, all states have an effective state religion, with or without a supernatural Deity, and America is no different. If the state does not collapse, and when the old religions fade in importance and influence, then the state religion persists, evolves, and adapts to fill any vacuum left behind.

…

There are a few quotes about Eros and the liberation of an individual’s carnal desire becoming a cult that … doesn’t quite jive with the #MeToo era and cries of #ToxicMasculinity. Again, Dreher starts to go off track when the subject is progressive sexual morality:

The Romantic ideal of the self-created man finds its fulfillment in the newest vanguards of the Sexual Revolution, transgendered people. They refuse to be bound by biology and have behind them an elite movement teaching new generations that gender is whatever the choosing individual wants it to be.

That doesn’t sound right. For instance, most LGBT advocacy rejects Foucault’s framework in his The History of Sexuality and insists on “Baby I was born that way.” That is, these identities have nothing to do with “choice” and are “real and authentic,” innate and immutable characteristics that therefore deserve the same special legal protection as other discrete and insular minorities.

…

Everyone has a right to develop their own forms of life, grounded on their own sense of what is really important or of value. People are called upon to be true to themselves and to seek their own self-fulfillment. What this consists of, each much, in the last instance, determine for him- or herself. No one else can or should try to dictate its content.

No way does that describe out current culture. There is zero tolerance of ‘bigots’. No one is allowed to be racist or sexist, to discriminate or segregate or hate. Taylor’s description was the rhetoric and spin used by the Old Liberals when it was socially expedient to do so. That era was over long ago.

The church, a community that authoritatively teaches and disciplines its members, cannot withstand a revolution in which each member becomes, in effect, his own pope.

But each person is not his own pope. We have whole institutions dedicated to forming culture and shaping public opinion, that can broadcast to everyone on earth simultaneously at zero marginal cost. And humans are social animals who have a spontaneous desire towards mimicry of high status elites, which includes conspicuous adherence to the same beliefs in their attempts to signal affiliation.

It’s like the magnetic field at the North Pole, and all the compass needles all around the world respond to the field in the air and point toward it. That’s our new pope. That’s everybody’s pope, if not already, then soon enough. Even the actual Pope now follows that pope.

…

I realize Dreher is using it metaphorically, but one must appreciate how bizarre, exaggerated, and even absurd, the use of “Dark Age” must seem to a typical progressive looking around at what he or she perceives as the richest, most technologically sophisticated, and most ‘just’ society that has ever existed.

Furthermore, they are unlikely to agree that they have failed to replace God with ‘reason’. For one, they have replaced God. And they imagine their secular system of morality and conception of social justice to be objectively reasonable and vastly superior to anything which came before, the best that could be said about which is that they were grasping towards the current understanding. Serious thinking Christians do themselves no favors by using language that betrays a failure to pass the Intellectual Turing Test on this point.

Dreher doesn’t want to give progressives any more ammunition to pick the fight they want to have with him, and that’s prudent. But if one is going to survive a war one really has to know how his adversaries think.

…

Dreher has written the book from what he calls the small-o orthodox Christian perspective. After all, even though it’s a little light on actual strategy, the subtitle is, “A Strategy For Christians in a Post-Christian World.” Emphasis on the Christian, and did I mention Christian?

That’s fine, and it confers several advantages.

He sticks to his areas of expertise, stays focused without overly broadening the scope of his effort, and retains the ability to talk to a selective audience in a language they already understand, and use symbols and stories with which they are already familiar.

He also avoids picking a fight and provoking the progressives to rabid, bloodlust-level rage by saying he’s only writing about Christians. That’s instead of for a potentially larger (and thus more dangerous) coalition of the religiously-minded, traditionalists, and social conservatives. Also non-progressives of all stripes who may also be just as interested in carving out a different vision of community and a sustainable alternative to the progressive cultural hegemony.

…

When facing severe cultural and political pressure, there is an obvious temptation to engage in complete political withdrawal and quietism in the hopes that the powers that be will leave one alone. The Napoleonic example shows that this is a foolhardy hope and an exercise in wishful thinking.

So, if the Benedictines offer a glimpse of the Christian future, then how can we know whether that future isn’t susceptible to being snuffed out in an instant by new or revived anti-Christian attitudes and movements? Why are the members of the current ideological vanguard and their allied enforcer agents of the state not the proper inheritors of the French revolutionaries? After all, consider their clearly allergic reaction to quite mild claims of The Benedict Option itself.

The problem is that no institution based on values at odds with state law or modern mainstream society can long survive without being selective as to its membership and associations. And that necessarily implies some degree of discrimination which will run afoul of the absolutist egalitarianism and anti-discrimination tenets of contemporary progressive ideology. That’s what’s so pernicious about the principle of anti-discrimination when taken to extremes: there is simply no end to the obnoxious interventions in intimate human affairs that it can justify, no private sphere immune from molestation.

…

The brain is clearly always performing some specialized cognitive function of socially-relevant “intelligence collection”, and then calculating not just the optimal response, but instead constantly reprogramming the self. At least, to the extent it can, given its hardwired genetic constraints and other limitations (e.g., the familiar decrease in flexibility resulting from age).

It is a process that flies under the radar of conscious awareness, and for which the executive function mostly serves to concoct cover stories and rationalizations. People can always try to put up a conscious and deceptive act – to merely pretend they are conforming – but most people simply aren’t very good at lying. On the other hand, they are often intuitively good at detecting lies, at least at the gut-feeling level. So a better approach is to self-brainwash and really come to believe what it is socially expedient and useful to believe.

This is how most acculturation and assimilation really works, and it is also the basis of Rene Girard’s insight into “acquisitive desires” and “mimetic preferences”. We are constantly trying to show off: to seem cool and impressive, but without seeming as if we’re trying to look impressive. But that requires that we know what everyone else will find to be impressive.

…

Most everyone grasps that this is the way things work for kids and especially teens who, in modern times, spend most of their waking hours away from parents. And it is why their peers and popular media have such a strong influence on their whole personality. They are more reluctant to admit that it works in the same way for adults and throughout our lives. Indeed, most advanced and sophisticated attempts at influence people are trying to leverage these mechanisms, and to give one an impression of new common knowledge, of what all the other people are thinking and doing. Especially the cool people.

And while most people don’t realize it, this is what the culture war is really all about.

It’s a kind of “mental environmentalism.” No man is an island, and no countercultural (and fading) set of beliefs or traditions can expect to long survive if its members are thoroughly integrated and regularly exposed to the distinct values and habits of mainstream society.

If one isn’t going to reject, withdraw, and separate from mainstream society to a substantial degree, then one needs the normal, everyday social and mental environment to continuously support and buttress that desired worldview, for oneself and one’s children.

…

So traditionalists need to shape the whole mental environment not just for their kids, but for themselves. There is pent-up, desperate demand from parents for help in this regard, for when and where their influence reaches its limits. And many of our political debates have this ‘postmodern’ insight lurking in the background as context. But if one can’t rely on the whole of society, then one needs the liberty to construct a separate, micro-society that accomplishes as much of the same functions as possible.

In his blogging, Dreher tends to both emphasize parental culpability, while also providing plenty of personal stories undermining that impact of that blameworthiness.

He is quick to blame lazy and weak parents for not doing enough at home, for not choosing Christian schools or homeschooling, for not going to church enough or living Christian-enough lives, and for allowing their kids access to popular culture and social media technologies.

But then he posts letter after letter from people whose parents did pretty much everything possible along those lines, or sometimes from the parents themselves about their lost kids, as projects that ended in complete failure. Usually the very minute the kids left home and joined mainstream society.

The lesson is that it’s impossible to do it alone, but it’s easy if the elites, law, and culture have your back. The public square has private impact, and so everyone has a stake in it. A hands-off strategy just means being at the mercy of whoever owns the megaphones. And if you can’t control the public square, all that’s left is exit of some kind or other, to your own private village where you can make your own square.

…

And so the fact is that everyone has a huge stake in what the social environment feels like, what messages it sends and influences it has. Taking a hands-off and free-market’ approach – a legacy of enlightenment values – is unilateral disarmament in the never-ending war for our souls.

…

But here’s the thing: the culture war is lost.

Or, at the very least, a lost cause. It’s far too late for any more “mainstream shaping and influence operations,” in order that the world “be made safe for” Christianity. One must accept the ugly truth that if Christians, or traditionalist social conservatives in general, ever get the mainstream culture back, it won’t be for many generations.

It is no longer possible for there to be a cohesive, coherent, and unified American popular culture in which the religious enjoy sufficient status with enough respect and perceived normalcy that they and their children can remain fully integrated into ordinary life while keeping their faith from imploding. The excruciatingly hard choice is either capitulation or strategic withdrawal with increased insularity. There is no alternative.

If religion survives in the West, it will be in deeply fragmented societies. And despite all the talk about multiculturalism, most Western countries have not had to maintain peace and order amidst such serious divisions for a long time. If it is to be done at all, it will require some substantial institutional innovation, both at the level of the state, and the level of independent, value-based communities.

A hopelessly incohesive and low-trust society requires different institutions than the society which gave birth to our inherited ones that are groaning under the pressure of a new, polarized context. These will not necessarily be “new” institutions, perhaps they will look like some updated version of old ones such as the Ottoman system of millets, or Chinese special areas. But the old ways will not persist, so new ways must be discovered.

And this is what the Option is really all about. But in the meantime, it’s going to get tougher.

The closure of certain professions to faithful orthodox Christians will be difficult to accept. In fact, it’s hard for contemporary believers to imagine, in part because as Americans, we are unaccustomed to accepting limits on our ambitions. Yet the day is coming when the kind of thing that has happened to Christian bakers, florists, and wedding photographers will be much more widespread. And many of us are nor prepared to suffer deprivation for our faith.

The “certain” professions are likely to become “all” of them, at least, if one doesn’t hide, lie, pay lip-service, and either compromise one’s integrity or one’s theological principles. The progressives will insist on measures that force the bigots to out themselves, or accept the humiliation of silent heresy. What happens when the company wants everyone to attend the pride event, or to wear rainbow apparel, or to use forms of address inconsistent with traditional scruples?

How much of the labor force could really be immune to such trends and pressures? Christians trying to withdraw economically from all the sectors that might put their values at risk would be doomed to even lower status by means of lower status work, and lower overall life success. They would be poor, which by itself is no insufferable condition. But today, that poverty would imply an inability to afford to separate from the American underclass whose lives are defined by constant familial and sexual chaos, dysfunction, disorder, and sin. Which is not exactly Mayberry on the “wholesome environment in which to raise your kids” scale. A Christian-flavored gypsy subculture cannot be the goal.

People might think about withdrawal and dropping out of normal society to be better Christians, but their Social Calculus Module is sounding off the loudest alarms anticipating what a drop in status such a move would entail. And it will drive them with irresistible compulsion to invent some excuse rationalizing why they can’t do it, or why it need not, or even must not, be done.

…

Dreher compares this to a “fast”, but what is implied here is a permanent lifestyle fast. We can all admire and be inspired the examples of extraordinary martyrs and saints who kept the faith despite incredible trials and hardships. But, realistically, a faith that requires a life of constant suffering is not a “test” most people can pass.

At the very least, people are going to need tight-knit and geographically proximate local communities to protect their interests and their faith. But our nations are still urbanizing, leading to a hollowing out the smaller locales where such communities ones existed. We are quickly moving to an increasingly atomized society and a point where nobody knows how to live in that old fashion anymore, let alone form them in sustainable and enduring ways.

…

Today, one doesn’t care to know his neighbors in part because one can’t want what is irrelevant to one’s interests. The combination of modern prosperity and state subsidies means that people are more independent and don’t need to rely on each other the way they used to.

And modern technological and economic developments continue to make us more independent from each other every day as the trend is to try to unbundle and transactionally substitute for the services we used to barter with each other.

For example, one can view marriage as incorporating a kind of economic “deal” into the overall relationship. Maybe the wife does housework while the husband does yardwork, and after all, the cleanliness of the house and the beauty of the yard are things they enjoy in common. But if the couple is wealthier, maybe they just pay for maid service and landscaping, which frees up time to pursue their individual interests. Their marriage has gained something in an obvious sense. But it has probably also lost something in a more subtle sense.

We want power and freedom and independence but we also want community and belonging and lasting friendships. We are human and we want it all, even if all means a bundle of mutually exclusive contradictions. But for a community of deep and durable relationships, we need to need.

…

Dreher says that with the loss of the culture war, the era of religious right “values voters” having any kind of significant influence and sway over the GOP and state policy is over. That is, if they ever actually did have any influence above the lip-service payment level, which is debatable.

And so, traditionalists will have to abandon those pursuits as impotent, futile, and often counterproductive, and adjust their perspective and tactics to the new reality of permanent defense.

…

Dreher is again trying to convince Christians to give up on normal politics, to give up on fighting a lost cause, and to focus as much as possible on building and maintaining their own “thick communities”, and strengthening their own faith and pious practices. He especially wants them to stop rationalizing exceptions and making excuses for themselves. They need to both withdraw and also to stop fooling themselves that current levels of “engagement” with the fallen mainstream culture are sustainable. Christians are to mind their own proper business and, “tend one’s own garden,” in Voltaire’s terms.

But the trouble with appeals to quietism or an ill-defined ‘localism’ is that while you may decide to not be interested in politics, politics can still be interested in you.

And relying on the good graces of adversaries so that they will not dissolve your monasteries is simply not a workable strategy.

The truly revealing thing about those infamous florist, cake decorator, and other cases is just how incredibly nice, pleasant, charitable, good, and friendly the defendants were in those cases were. How they had lived lives indistinguishable from the ‘Mr. Rogers’ ideal advised by all those commentators going on about reputation and ‘winsomeness’. Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some of them even voted for Obama. None of that made a lick of difference for them, and there is certainly no reason to think it would in the decreasingly Christian future.

…

Now, it may not be their dream house, or anything more than an “any port in a storm” refuge, but at 81 percent, it kind of sounds like at least some American Christians have a political shelter of necessity after all. Again, most Christian public intellectuals are much more likely to be Democrats or progressives. They have nothing but disdain for Trump which spills over into deeply bitter resentment for the support he enjoys among their fellow confessionists.

But support for Trump derives from the pragmatic political necessity of making the best of a tough situation, and dancing with the one that brought you when nobody else would.

Dreher warns this will ruin their reputation, but that’s trying to close the barn door after the horse has already bolted. Once a group is thought to consist of occasionally nice people, but who are still, fundamentally, “refusnik bigots” and loyalists of a “Homophobe Confederacy”, then in the words of the other candidate, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

…

Dreher gets real again, in a good transition to the next section, “Traditional Politics: What Can Still Be Done”

The best that Orthodox Christians today can hope for from politics is that it can open a space for the church to do the work of charity, culture building, and conversion.

This line is extremely important, but it goes by fast if you’re not careful to stop and appreciate its full implications.

So, at the risk of going off on the kind of provocative and triggering sidetrack that – judging by nearly all of the critics of TBO – will make everyone forget everything else in this discussion, let me put that a little differently.

The best orthodox Christians, traditionalists, or rejectionists of all types can do is try to enable and protect the members, subcultures, and institutions of Benedict Option Communities, so that, in whatever form they may take, they won’t be dissolved by the state like so many monasteries before them.

Following from the logic of Perpetuationism, the existential considerations of cultural continuation and political survival necessarily take precedence over other matters, because those other matters could not otherwise be addressed at all.

And so, for social conservatives of all stripes, this goal ought to be become the primary purpose of traditional, non-local politics. This is nothing more that the result of it being the last goal left when all the other, grander objectives are taken off the table, as no longer feasible.

…

Which leads one to ask, “Well, OK, if religious liberty legislation can’t get passed by ordinary methods even in a situation like that – in as ideal circumstances as one can hope for these days – then to the extent one views these legal protections as essential, what would it take to get them?”

After the failure in his own state, former Kansas legislator Lance Kinzer who spearheaded the original effort just keeps banging his head against the same wall.

Yet Kinzer has not left politics entirely. The first goal of Benedict Option Christians in the world of conventional politics is to secure and expand the space within which we can be ourselves and build our own institutions. To the end, he travels around the country advocating for religious liberty legislation in state legislatures. Over and over he sees Republican legislators who are inclined to support religious liberty taking a terrible pounding from the business lobby. … Pastors and lay Christian leaders need to prepare their congregations for hard times.

Well then, as a purely logical matter, it looks like it’s either “game over”, or, else, something will have to be done about that business lobby.

So, if those Christian leaders are not to simply capitulate on the matter of engaging in traditional politics to expand their religious liberty and rights to community autonomy, and if it is not yet practically impossible, then it seems that they have no alternative but to play political hardball. With the business lobby, with Democrats, and even with the country at large, to whatever extent that proves necessary.

Which in turn raises the question: what would nonviolent, civil, and legal “political hardball” look like?

…

So, getting back to hardball, for one, it would require sufficient organization and coordination such that most sympathizers vote as a reliable bloc – a “votebank” – according to leadership endorsements of Republican primary candidates who can be trusted to pursue a religious liberty agenda.

True, previous efforts at such counter-establishment organization on the right have not had promising results, to put it mildly. And in general this kind of coordination and level of commitment is extremely hard to pull off.

…

One example of a non-mainstream American religious group which has already operated in this manner for decades – and to enviable levels of success – are the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities of the Northeast. The power of the Satmar bloc in New York is legendary (or infamous, depending on your perspective). When the heads of those communities tell a candidate that they have the ability to get every adult to the polls and have them all vote the same way, they mean it, and they deliver. They are the ultimate “community organizers,” in that sense. Though in truth the community is already extremely organized by its very nature, and the leaders are merely riding that way to play the democracy game. Benedict Option Communities will surely be so as well.

Despite their minority status and relatively small numbers, by and large, these ultra-orthodox Jews punch well above their weight, and so they tend to get what they want. And, in addition to as much public subsidy as possible (which is what any “organized community as special interest group” seeks), what they want is to maximize their autonomy: to be left alone and to manage their own affairs according to their own rules, with as little interference and oversight as politically and legally possible.

It’s a form of clientalist group solidarity which is a very pared down version of the old “machine” politics. And, for them, it works. It works really, really well.

Many contemporary American Christians – especially white ones – have been acculturated to bristle at that approach to democratic politics, just as they have nothing but contempt for the left’s constant agitation for identity politics and ceaseless denigration of ‘privileged’ class enemies. But seeing as those Christians have no other workable alternative, they’ll get over it, and the fact is, they’re already headed down that road.

Because, like it or not, clientalism based on group solidarity works. There is no stable equilibrium in a two-party democratic system – especially in an era of shifting demographics – in which only own party makes use of this potent weapon while the other maintains a policy of neutrality and unilateral disarmament

…

Now, if something like that could be done – to be sure, an astronomical if – then how would those elected politicians actually go about playing hardball?

Well, if “hardball” is to mean anything it all, then when someone lacks carrots, that only leaves sticks. And, to be blunt about it, that means deterrence by a credible threat against something your opponents care about. A legal and non-violent threat – this isn’t antifa – but a compelling one nevertheless. So, what does the business lobby care about?

Now, in the US at least, due to a combination of historical contingencies, the geographic distribution of the population, and the founders’ intentionally frustrating vision of state political organization – in which ‘ungovernable’ was a feature, not a bug – it turns out there is a way for a steadfastly determined minority to get its way.

And everybody already knows what it is: Shutdown. Or, in the words of Internet inventor and nearly-President Al Gore, “Political Terrorism“.

…

Except, it’s never worked before, which is why the idea always gets such weary eye rolls from the commentariat at even the faintest whisper of floating the idea. “Oh brother, here we go again. This never works, and worse, it’s always counterproductive, resulting in nothing but completely pointless hassle for ordinary, innocent people.”

But ‘never’ isn’t right. That claim rests on thinking that the future will keep on looking like the recent past. But for Christians and traditionalists, it won’t.

There’s a simple explanation for why shutdown warnings have not worked so far, which weighs against believing that will continue to be the case in the future.

Brinksmanship threats don’t work if they’re both bluffs, and known by one’s opponents to be bluffs. They can’t work if your opponent is sure that you aren’t serious and, at best, merely going through the performative motions of signaling by means of frustrating political theater.

A nuclear option is worthless if your opponents knows ahead of time you’ll never actually press the button, as if they were able to read your instructions in your letters of last resort and learn that you ordered your commanders to just lie back and think of England. You can’t win a game a chicken if your counterpart can see you are sure to swerve away. Where’s the fear? If there isn’t any, then it’s all just a show.

And this is the charade which has characterized every single shutdown in modern history. It has always been an exercise in crying wolf, since nobody really means it.

But, it’s just a matter of time until someone comes along who does really means it. And they’ll really mean it, and everyone else will know they really mean it, because they will believe they have absolutely no other choice left but to really mean it.

…

Dreher channels Havel and describes the political consequences of refusing to “live within a lie” and put the sign in the window:

His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth” – and it’s going to cost him plenty. He will lose his job and his position in society. His kids may not be allowed to go to the college they want to, or to any college at all. People will bully him or ostracize him. But by bearing witness to the truth, he has accomplish something potentially powerful.

He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world. …

Because they are public, the greengrocer’s deeds are inescapably political. He bears witness to the truth of his convictions by being willing to suffer for them. He becomes a threat to the system – but he has preserved his humanity.

Or … he’s dismissed by all right-thinking and respectable people as some bigoted and hateful crank or delusional troublemaker who deserves everything he’s going to get before everybody forgets about him forever. Hoping for Havel’s outcome, as hard as his journey was, is naively optimistic in our present situation.

Imagine the typical progressive’s reaction to hearing someone got fired for refusing to wear a company rainbow pin during pride month. Are they moved by his “bearing witness”? Do they really think he’s a “threat to the system”? Or is it just, “good riddance to bad rubbish.” The image of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. In this way, the story of the naked emperor is inapt. Half the people – and nearly all the educated and elite ones – see him clothed. They react to any claim of nakedness by concluding there is someone seriously wrong with the claimant.

So while Havel is a hero, and his essay inspiring, the story isn’t exactly reliable. One has to remember that details about life in the West had penetrated enough into the consciousness of people under the Soviet system that it had gone a long way towards undermining faith in and commitment to that system, and any optimism and true belief had long given way to widespread cynicism. When the West was widely perceived to have higher status, the writing was on the wall, and any failure of will to meet any sign of resistance with an immediate, brutal crackdown would spell the beginning of the end. And just so, it ended. But the West has no West.

…

Any anyway, what exactly is so bad about retreating into ghettos? And is there really a clear distinction between a ‘ghetto’ and a Benedict Option?

It’s fairly clear from the history of the Jews in Europe that the existence of ghettos, whatever their other drawbacks, was likely instrumental in preserving the continuity and traditions of local Jewish communities. When the Jews were liberated and emancipated and dispersed themselves out of their formal enclaves, it only took a few generations for most of them to assimilate and integrate into the cultural mainstream and watch their distinctive faith and practices gradually become watered down and fade away. Meanwhile, the ultra-orthodox, penned in by their eruv wires into modern, voluntary ‘ghettos’, and with their higher fecundity, are probably what the future of Judaism in the West will look like. Ghettos work.

…

When faith becomes weird, embracing the weirdness will set one free.

It’s not about losing respectability so much as it is about the members of the church putting themselves in a position where they are no longer so sensitive to the typical human impulses to care so deeply about perceptions of normalcy and broad respectability in general society.

The gap between churchgoers and secular infidels can grow so wide that it goes past a “point of no return”. Or, perhaps more precisely, past any point of remaining ambiguity where it would still be feasible to keep a foot in both worlds without marking yourself clearly as a “different other”.

Once that tether to mainstream secular culture is cut, it no longer pulls members into heretical or weaker forms of faith. If it pulls, it pulls out completely, and so those who remain become ‘free’ from the pressures to conform and compromise. In the alternative, they have intentionally been made (or purposefully made themselves) simply too incompatible with the mainstream to ever integrate easily, and too exclusively dependent on their coreligionists for social, spiritual, and even ordinary transactional needs.

Many traditionalist religious groups require conspicuously distinctive habits of dress and patterns of life which by design do not allow one to blend in with mainstream society. Members of future churches will need to be metaphorically and psychologically ‘branded’ with costly signals of commitment in a similar, hard-to-reverse fashion.

…

Part of the problem is that, especially in the US – and as a longstanding feature of American history – many Christians – and especially Protestants – are not effectively a ‘captive audience’ of any particular sect.

This means in part that they have the social right to exit and only suffer comparably minor social penalties and negative consequences from switching denominations. Furthermore, this is generally viewed as a common occurrence and personal matter which ought not to warrant harsh reproach, or raise any great deal of consternation or opprobrium. Indeed, sects optimistic about their own growth opportunities obviously see it as their theological mission to swipe members from other denominations as ‘fair game’, and are thus eager to engage in the ‘conversion contest’ while fishing for souls.

The trouble is that this state of affairs turns “churching” into a mere economic sector and competitive marketplace, with typical competitive pressures leading to a ‘customer service’ mentality of indulgent and obsequious unobtrusiveness. The attitude of “the customer is always right,” (or else he’ll leave) reverses the typical relations of authority and status. It also leads to gimmicks of low-brow appeal which are by their nature fragile and ephemeral when exposed to the fickle and discursive whims of the masses.

Indeed, such pressures weigh hard on those who cater to any minority, refined, or ‘elite’ tastes, which can increasingly only be done in the largest or most cultured cities with a critical mass of these rare patrons. Nevertheless, one might try to counter with the fact that, however diminished, the market still manages to supply these few, special consumers with products in their niche interests. So why should devout Christians worry about competition all-but-eliminating non-mass-appeal churches?

Because unlike all those other goods and services and entertainments, churches cannot be trying to please consumers. Instead, churches and religions must make difficult demands on the individual, teach the individual that it is he who ought to work hard to try to please God. It is very much a “no pain, no gain” message. And just like with strenuous physical exertion, people can train themselves to maintain the right perspective and attitude, and learn to enjoy and even love the process. As with exercise, it’s easier to get into, and near-effortless to maintain, if everyone else you like is also doing it, and it’s equally difficult if you are all alone while you’re friends are out at the bar.

But there is no question that members of households are told to give up their time, money, convenience, pleasure, every spare mental ‘clock cycle’, and many other life opportunities. That’s in order to fulfill their religious duties, and so the congregation functions all day, every day, as a constantly exercised social organism: the primary community of one’s entire life. Churches insist that instead of trying to indulge their impulses, congregants abstain from feeding and yielding to their desires. Churches may claim that a faithful life is ‘liberating’ in a certain, counter-intuitive sense, but such ’emancipation’ is still occurring under a system that emphasizes obligation, submission and one’s duty to obey holy authority.

…

Churches also offer a ‘service’ that has no close analogy in a competitive marketplace. Companies are trying to tempt you with ever more intense ways to feel good. Churches place at least some emphasis on making one feel bad. The concept of sin and the emotions of shame, embarrassment, humiliation, guilt, remorse, contrition, repentance and atonement are all part of the natural and instinctive arsenal ordering human group behavior. The proper channeling of those moral impulses makes the higher forms of civilization characterized by strong religious community possible.

Yes, there is the upside of release and salvation via purification and forgiveness, but in the necessary moments of emotional discomfort those upsides lack salience. One perhaps need not go all the way to Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God every day. But give people plenty of choices, and the market will eventually weed out all the hectoring, which will throw some very important babies out with the bathwater.

…

This is a key line:

A church that looks and talks and sounds just like the world has no reason to exist.

Exactly right, and this is the precise reason why most Mainline Protestant denominations continue to implode.

…

Parents, teachers, and other adult authority figures like to believe they are key influences in their kids’ lives and the main molders of their character and worldview. Alas, a lot of that is wishful thinking. As a salutary corrective to such thinking, Judith Rich Harris’s The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do remains one of the most important books of the last half century and required reading for any intelligent parent.

It’s important your kids have a good peer group. By “good,” I mean one in which its members, or at least most of them, share the same strong moral beliefs. Though parental influence is critical, research shows that nothing forms a young person’s character like their peers. The culture of the group of which your child is a part growing up will be the culture he or she adopts as their own.

Engaged parents can’t outsource the moral and spiritual formation of their kids to their church or parachurch organization. Interviewing a wide variety of Christians for this book, I often heard complaints that church-affiliated youth groups were about keeping kids entertained more than disciplines.

At times like this in the book I begin to suspect that even many devout and pious parents start to secretly think to themselves, “Good grief, who has time, energy, and persistence for all that? My faith is deeply important to me and I believe it to be the cornerstone of my life and existence. But honestly, I’m not a saint. I’m just an ordinary person who has to work late and comes home tired and sometimes it’s a struggle to just get dinner on the table. I can’t supervise everything all the time. Nor would I want to even if I could. I just don’t know if I’m up to handling being that “engaged” all the time. I’m going to need a whole lot of help.”

In other words, “It takes a village.” But one at culture-peace, not embroiled in culture-war, the battles of which parents are likely to lose.

…

First, while teenagers are often portrayed in popular culture as being naturally “rebellious”, they are in fact incredibly conformist and hypersensitive to matters regarding social opinion and approval. This may seem unbelievable to any parent who has experienced the struggle with surly and disobedient adolescents, probing for opportunities to reset the boundaries of dominance and power in the relationship. But that ‘rebellion’ is merely the manifestation of the teenager’s status radars switching targets away from their parents and locking instead to the worldview and attitudes of their peers and that of the general mainstream culture.

Second, “social contagion” is a real, powerful, and extremely important phenomenon. The young mind’s flexibility and tendency to self-reprogram in response to environmental cues about socially important matters has almost limitless potential, for good or ill. In certain circumstances, one bad apple really can spoil the bunch, and in contemporary society what happens during times of peer-interaction are particularly hard for parents to supervise. We are already at the end of the era where it is possible to discuss the truth of this matter as relates to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity without being reflexively accused of bigotry by the people who relish the role of making such accusations. But any educated person can acquaint themselves with the history of diverse cultural approaches to sexual matters to arrive at the conclusion that “baby I was born that way” is hardly the full story.

And third, at some level most parents already understand the importance of peer groups. But when “good peers” are a scarce resource, in the American system, parents start to compete with each other in a zero-sum price war for rights to attend the “best” local schools. Parents collectively pretend that this has something to do with the ‘quality’ of the education at those schools. But they nearly all secretly know what makes a “good school” is a high concentration of “good students”, and there just aren’t enough of those to go around. If parents find themselves unable to pay the prices in that bidding war either by money, grueling commutes, or other lifestyle sacrifices, then they’ll need another way to be selective about their kids’ friends.

…

Dreher seems inconsistent and conflicted about the ideas of ‘extremism’ and ‘fanaticism’. On the one hand, he knows that he and many people of similar levels of Christian piety and devotion are regarded as akin to extremist fanatics by mainstream culture. Dreher in particular is accused of being so when he is perceived to be calling for the self-exile of Christians away from normal society.

But then, instead of concluding that there’s something fundamentally wrong at root with the idea of this kind of judgment, he tacitly concludes that it’s just wrong for him. He looks a little past where he happens to be and seems willing to turn that same artillery on others. He knows friends like him who lost their children to the faith, and thinks it’s because of “the culture”, but when it happens to people more strict or alarmed than he is, it’s the parents fault, having “sheltered” them and “driven the children away.”

Aren’t the monks in the monasteries “fanatically religious”? Won’t the people in their Benedict Option communities be called “fanatics” and “cultists”, and indeed, with justice? Isn’t a ‘cloister’ a sheltering enclosure separate from the outside world? But if that’s what living the faith means, then what’s wrong with any of that?

My provisional conclusion is that because Dreher is a smart guy, he knows what he’s doing here, which is once again have to throw normals and the idea of ‘normalcy’ an occasional bone. That avoids the kind of triggers that make those normal people put up their mental shields and give themselves an easy out as a convenient justification to disengage from the whole uncomfortable topic.

Still, he’s doing the overall message of the book a disservice by using the same disparaging terms. Ask a typical European what he or she thinks about American Christians withdrawing from morally corrupting public schools and choosing to home-school. “Weird” and “Cult” and “Creepy” and “Fanatics” is exactly what you’ll hear. If that’s wrong – which it is – then what’s wrong with it that isn’t also wrong with Dreher’s vague prescriptions?

…

First of all, as above, parents don’t make teens into ‘rebels’. Teens ‘rebel’ because they are conforming to new sources of ‘social authority’ which are displacing familial authority. If anything, it just reinforces the above point that Ellen’s parents failed because they lacked a village.

Second of all, for every story of ‘fanatical strictness’ that goes this way, there’s another that goes the other way, with children brought up to love and cherish their faith, keep it throughout their lives, and pass it on to their own children.

And finally, the real problem here is the lack of a full-life plan. That is, a place in the village for children, for students, for adults with young families, for the retired, and for everybody at every stage. What even the most devout Christians – especially Americans – have been doing instead is just “raise and release”. As with domesticated animals, this is a perfect recipe for quick feralization.

The Anglo-Saxon tradition of having children move away from home and establish their own distinct lives at relatively young ages could only work to preserve family traditions in a cultural environment in which the fact that those traditions were widely shared could be taken for granted. But, for the social influence reasons explained above, that practice has always been counterproductive for counterculturalists, which Christians now are. So “raise and release” will have to change too.

…

But for any Benedict Option to be viable, matters of real estate and concentration will have to have central importance to the overall plan. When done intentionally or inadvertently, such actions will have the effect of a kind of local development plan which resembles the process of gentrification, especially if the land started out cheap. Members of these communities will have to find ways to accomplish these ends without upsetting other neighbors or local civil authorities. And political experience teaches us that people can be quite passionate and determined when fighting over ‘turf’ like this.

…

Related to religious real-estate development plans, in the Eastern Orthodox Community in Eagle River, Alaska:

A number of cathedral families live within walking distance of the cathedral, on land purchased by church members decades ago, when it was affordable.

“When it was affordable.” Could that work elsewhere too?

Paul and Rachel’s parents were among the early settlers of a distressed neighborhood in Augusta, Georgia where the new community’s members could afford housing. They helped each other fix up their places and began life in common. Today the Alleluia Community has around eight hundred members, many of whom remain in Faith Village, which is what they call the original settlement.

A pattern emerges. The same was true for the early Catholic families trying to concentrate themselves in Hyattsville, Maryland. They got in while the getting was good, but part of the reason that particular neighborhood is no longer as affordable today is because by their very presence they made it a more desirable place to live, especially for each other.

…

“If you isolate yourself, you will become weird.” … The idea of community itself should not be allowed to become an idol. A community is a living organism that must change and grow and adapt.”

This is just dead wrong. It’s not coming out of his own mouth, but including this quote at all was Dreher’s biggest error in drafting the book. I’m not saying he should be wearing “Make Christianity Weird Again” baseball caps necessarily, but warning Christians to be wary of forging their own path because they might seem strange from some other perspective is antithetical to the rest of his premise.

First, that’s almost the exact same rhetoric used to advocate for a series of liberalizations that end in the dissolution of the original faith. The ‘idol’ language is meant to be a warning not to take anything to an inappropriate extreme, but that includes throwing around idol language every time someone wants to merely insinuate that they are on the ‘moderate’ side of a debate, but without actually making an argument. “Don’t idolize warnings not to idolize.”

And while it’s not Dreher saying it, ‘weird’ is a particularly daft word. As explained above, devout Christians of all stripes don’t just seem weird to secular types. Like it or not, and whether they want to admit it or not, Christians are indeed weird now.

Warnings about weirdness are faulty at root and play right into the pressure towards secularization. It is completely at odds with Moore’s statement that, “by losing its cultural respectability, the church is freer to be radically faithful.” Worrying about being ‘weird’ means worrying about losing cultural respectability, which, in effect, means the prohibition of radical faithfulness.

…

Some Mormon practices are seen as ‘weird’, and generate a lot of mean-spirited mockery, but laugh all you want, the Mormons are winning and probably in better shape than any other Christian group. Ultra Orthodox Jews seem really bizarre, especially with their unconventional costumes. But outside of Israel, and going by current demographic trends, in a generation or two, nearly all observant Jews will be Orthodox. Speaking of Israel, the story of that country and Zionism fits so well with Dreher’s premise that its absence comes off as a conspicuous omission from his book. After all, Israel is like a Benedict Option writ large – all the way up to national sovereignty.

The point of Israel in the classical Zionist conception is precisely to serve a place of refuge and sanctuary for the people of a particular faith, to be a Jewish state, and one in which, almost anywhere one goes, one can’t help but breathe in Judaism with the air. That is, to be the easiest place on earth to be authentically Jewish. I understand that if Dreher even mentioned Israel it would open up a completely distracting can of worms, and that he was wise to avoid it. Still, what Benedict Option Christians want and need are their own little Zions.

And speaking of foreign places, the past, too, “… is a foreign country; they do things different there.” Weird things. At least, to modern eyes. But if we are going to look backwards for inspiration and examples of how to live in a new, harder age, then we are going to have to recognize that ‘weird’ is a bogus group insult.

…

Part of the hesitation is the instinct that any such project presents a massive coordination / “Aumann common knowledge” problem that, by its inherent social nature, requires a lot of people to sign on all at once. Which they won’t do, unless they feel certain that everyone else will too. One needs to gauge real levels of interest and commitment, but you can’t really obtain reliable information leading to accurate predictions by merely asking people to provide a costless and riskless indication of interest.

Fortunately, commitment vouching and threshold-triggering techniques like the crowdfunding approach used by Kickstarter are emerging to help solve these coordination problems. Those who wish to form new Benedict Option communities would be advised to learn more about them.

…

Two observations worth pointing out. First, Czechia, while an astoundingly impressive economic recovery case and an increasingly prosperous nation, has not recovered culturally, at least insofar as levels of fertility and religiosity are concerned. There are few large and devoutly Catholic families like the Bendas left. But while the Communist tyranny undoubtedly played some role, in these matters Czechia does not seem all that different from other prosperous European countries, and so it seems clear that Benda was fighting a phenomenon of cultural transformation even bigger than the influence of Communist totalitarianism.

And second, while it’s easy to overplay the role and exaggerate the influence of education, everyone still recognizes how important it can be. This obviously includes the state, as demonstrated in this case even while it was relaxing controls on everything else. Any attempt to wrest control over education that the state perceives is opposed and threatening to its interests will clearly be met whatever legal and political measures are thought necessary to neutralize that threat. It will be either in hard forms like outlawing homeschooling (as many other countries do), or softer forms such as curriculum control, ideologically problematic mandates, exclusion from competitions and other opportunities to demonstrate talent and merit, disqualification for grants or scholarships, or refusal to accredit, certify, or grant certain credentials, which are de facto requirements for many careers.

The state is likely content with an outcome such that the choice of non-state-sanctioned educational options means a loss of respectability and recognition so severe that it effectively means sacrificing any chance of a normal, successful life for any talented student. This creates a heart-wrenching situation for his or her parents who are forced to decide between their faith and their duty to improve the welfare of their children.

Benedict Option communities will have to stay out of politics whenever possible, but it seems likely that in the particular matter of education, broad autonomy and near immunity from state intervention and oversight must be fought for as a non-negotiable priority. It’s so important that it’s even be worth the cost of some inevitable unfortunate cases of incompetent and inadequate instruction. For if those are to be regulated, supervised, and made to conform with the state’s will, everything will be.

…

Don’t be too sad for the Catholic Poles in losing the dark night that inspired them to keep a candle lit, because it turns out they are in luck. Fortunately for them, the European Union seems determined to offer a soft and bureaucratic substitute for foreign domination by a totalitarian menace. And, at least at the moment, it seems like Poles are reacting with their characteristic failure to submit.

Meanwhile, in America, the fact that we are our own enemies in the Cold Civil War fails to trigger similar reactive impulses.

…

Progressives are not used to arguing for the value of public education with the same terms that the military uses to describe its goal of creating camaraderie and esprit de corps. That is, of inculcating a homogeneity of outlook that helps foster shared experiences and group consciousness, of common dedication to higher ideals, of national coherence and cohesion and collective patriotism instead of segregated insularity, and so forth. But watch the progressives turn on a dime and wrap themselves in the flag when it’s Christians talking about withdrawing from public schools en masse. That’s a trigger as effective as a matador’s cape is to a raging bull.

…

At any rate, if Benedict Optioners need a higher education plan, then when does the Christian learning stop after that? The answer is clear: it doesn’t.

The obvious implication of all this emphasis on education is the need for an institutional arrangement that insists upon a perpetual, lifetime of learning, and of staying together with one’s ‘classmates’ for as much of one’s life as feasible. This is the kind of attitude toward constant religious learning that is behind the use of the Yiddish terms shul (“school”) and batei midrash (“houses of studying”) for synagogues.

If we start to pull all of Dreher’s suggestions into a synthesis we get something approaching a residential college campus. Once again see that universities are the most reliable guide for how to preserve and adapt traditional religious institutions like monasteries and project them into the modern age while maintaining their function. Like military bases abroad, residents would likely spend most of their time and social interactions with each other, living in ‘base housing’ or barracks, dormitories, faculty quarters, or fraternity group arrangements, and with everything revolving around the primary mission of the community.

And, conveniently, with just a few exceptions so far, universities are granted a legal status that affords them a remarkably broad degree of autonomy, selectivity, and the right to police up the behavior of all members of the campus community. Children and young students would go to school full time, but even working adults can come together and take a night class every semester, according to their availability and intellectual capability, and for the rest of their lives.

Such a community is more like a village or shtetl that can adapt and expand its capacity to deal with all the various needs of its members. They may even find ways to network with each other for the sake of employment opportunities. And, as has been known to happen on campuses on occasion, they may even be able to fall in love with each other, and then form their families in the warm supporting embrace and cultural consistency of their fellow residents.

The setup could be one of clear physical enclosure like a ‘gated community’, or an informal amalgamation combining a lot of small and close properties together. But either way, some sort of ‘religious campus’ is the only sort of thing that has any hope of solving all the big problems at once.

…

Some disturbing quotes from professors at religious colleges.

“You would be surprised by how many of our students come here knowing next to nothing about the Bible,” he said sadly. “A lot of our students come here from some of the most highly regarded Catholic schools in this region,” said one professor. “They don’t know anything about their faith and don’t see the problem. They’ve had it drummed into their heads that Catholicism is anything they want it to be.”

That raises the question of how did such utter failure of religious instruction come about at these supposedly Catholic schools. But the broader point is that widespread ignorance is a real problem even in the best of circumstances. Religious scripture, doctrine, commentary, and history cannot be an optional sideshow or mere elective; it must be part of the daily life of study.

Again, we can learn from Jewish education here. Charles Chaput, the Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, witnessed the power of Orthodox Jewish education on a 2012 visit to Yeshiva University. After observing students studying Torah as part of the university’s basic coursework, Chaput wrote how impressed he was by “the power of Scripture to create new life.”

Imagine multiple generations of entire families living at and attending a lifetime version of their religion’s approach to Yeshiva University together.

…

Dreher’s appeal is to connect people of the present to their deep heritage and to honor and carry on the memory of the entire long chain of their predecessors. Notice how opposite this spirit is from the recent trend of the Great Erasure, the PC-based implementation of damnatio memoriae which involves blotting out every public trace of each and every historical figure who would not be found perfectly compliant with today’s dyspathetic sensibilities. The effect of all of which is to alienate moderns from their history, focus on condemnation instead of respect, insist on the past’s irrelevance instead of the idea of that history containing insights worthy of modern consideration. To break any sense of continuity or commonality, gratitude or duty.

We have already come a long way in that direction.

…

This section will probably strike the average reader as the most radical and personally burdensome element of Dreher’s counsel.

Because public education in America is neither rightly ordered, not religiously informed, nor able to form an imagination devoted to Western civilization, it is time for all Christians to pull their children out of the public school system.

There’s the matter of ideological conflict as well.

Plus, public schools by nature are on the front lines of the latest and worst trends in popular culture. For example, under pressure from the federal government and LGBT activists, many school systems are now welcoming and normalizing transgenderism – with the support of many parents.

Or, just as often, without the support of many parents. Or even the knowledge of many parents, who either aren’t informed about these matters, or, sometimes, and even in the cases of their own children, are simply lied to by school staff as implementations of official policy, when such lying is deemed to be more fully consistent with being an ‘ally’ to those children, in the name of an Orwellian version of “safety”

There’s not much hope in fixing the public schools in this regard.

…

Many American Christian schools are hardly Christian in anything more than name only, as a mere carryover from more religiously serious origins. Many of them gradually succumbed to the various competitive and market pressures to be little more than another typical private prep school, and a means to non-religious ends.

The principal of one Christian high school told me that he and his faculty are constantly battling parents who find the serious moral and theological content of the curriculum too burdensome for their children. “All they think about is getting their kids into a top university and launching them into a good career,” he said. Another principal, this one at a pricey Christian academy in the Deep South, said, “Our parents think if they’ve paid their seventeen-thousand-dollar tuition bill, they’ve done all that’s expected of them about their child’s religious education.”

…

As mentioned above, we live in an era of specialization, which includes the compartmentalization and disaggregation of the ‘trades’ underlying many social interactions. An individual these days, especially as enabled by new technologies, may have different and non-overlapping sets of ‘friends’ specific to the contexts of work, sports, studies, games, intellectual conversations, and so forth.

That’s completely different than doing everything with the same set of friends, even if it’s by necessity, and when it often means as least one person in the group isn’t particular interested in the event of the moment. That not very ‘efficient’ in a technical sense, though sticking with the same group of friends in a variety of contexts has a value all its own.

The former situation allows for a variety of context-specific ‘identities’, whereas the latter scenario of being a ‘known quantity’ compels a static personality from context to context. Scott Adams has a famous and controversial blog post about the potential to disaggregate marriage itself. That current flows against the kind of deep, multi-contextual human relationships needed to form the foundation of a strong and durable religious community. Such communities will need to focus intently on pulling the fraying strands back in and weaving them together in a sustained effort at reaggregation.

…

The trouble is that homeschooling comes at the opportunity cost of one spouse’s potential income. In a society in which most households are supported by one breadwinner, that wouldn’t present an insupportable burden. But dual-income households have constituted a majority of families for nearly half a century. The economic logic of the two-income trap means that failing to keep up with the rat race can yield a substantial drop in one’s standard of living and ability to afford a home in a quality neighborhood.

But it is possible for some, provided they are willing to live ascetically. Maggie added that she and her fellow homeschooling moms are surrendering careers, success, and given the local cost of living, significant material wealth for the sake of their children.

The deeply faithful will of course give up nearly everything for God, but as a purely practical matter, encouraging the marginal cases to ramp up their pious observance at life-altering cost is an awfully hard sell.

…

The specter of persecution in the name of ‘antidiscrimination’ now persistently looms over the roofs of religious institutions. The trouble is that advocates had long tried to convince the jurisprudential community that the analogy between racial matters and those like sexuality – which touch on the core of religious convictions – is legally isomorphic. That process is now nearly complete, to the point where it will inevitably be deemed to justify any action which was ever judged permissible in the fight against racial discrimination. The precedent of the Bob Jones case extending to non-racial matters is now what animates most of the justified fear.

…

Now is the time for Christians whose livelihoods may be endangered to start thinking and acting creatively in professional fields still open to us without risk of compromise. The goal is to create business and career opportunities for Christians who have been driven out of other industries and professions.

Yeah, sounds good. But talk about having to deal with the problem of antidiscrimination lawsuits. Dreher says one outlet for entrepreneurial energies will be satisfying the demands of other Christians for specifically Christian goods and services. For example, for wholesome entertainment content and modest clothing.

An example of the potential market for these products, could be several Mormon companies including CleanFlicks and VidAngel (the latter claiming to operate under the ‘filtering’ provisions of 2005 Familiy Movie Act). These specialized for a time in Bowdlerizing popular films to remove all morally objectionable and inappropriate material, and then distributing those edited version to the pent-up demand of a large market particularly sensitive to those matters. The demand was there, proving the potential. But in these particular cases the major movie studios were not cooperative with the project, to put it mildly.

…

People used to be able to make a living as farmers, but now they can’t. If industrialism is the new agrarianism, the risk is that the same thing is coming for our die-setters and tradesmen. How long until all die-setting is done by robots? It’s not that far away; it’s going to happen in our own lifetimes. Elk County will adapt, but whether there will be enough manufacturing jobs left to go around remains an open question.

…

But more generally, the traditionalist conception of social organization is one in which the fundamental and culturally prioritized unit is the family, not the individual. As Milton Friedman once said regarding the role of inheritance in the human motivation to work and save, “We are really a family society, not an individualist society.”

If one takes that seriously, not just as a description but a prescription, then one arrives at the perspective of familialism. Raising that concept to a fundamental principle and purpose of the civilized social order naturally implies a whole framework and constellation of norms, policies, and folkways that sustain that order against the entropy and chaos of primitive human impulses.

And of course Christian norms also emphasize a particular, traditional vision of family life such that its doctrines regarding sexuality build upon this common familiastic foundation. In other words, any ideology that focuses on the family cannot help but be “stuck on sex” as the most fundamental matter to regulate and tame, and the most fundamental impulse to be channeled and elevated to sacred importance. In an ideologically-stable family-based society, everything necessarily orbits around a particular ideal enjoying the highest status and level of social (and divine) approval.

This necessarily comes at the expense and exclusion of all deviations from this ideal, which is unfortunate. But that’s part of the tragedy of the human condition, for status is always a zero sum game, and for there to be winners, there will also be losers. Winners should of course treat losers with as much charity, compassion, and generosity of spirit as is compatible with the maintenance of the effectiveness of the mental environment. That is in exchange for the pro-social sacrifice that is being thrust upon them, and in the past this has been managed with some hypocritical leniency and tolerance so long as matters are kept private and discrete. But none of that implies that the system should be abolished, in a naïve and futile attempt to end the tragedy. It’s built into who we are; there’s no getting rid of it.

Nothing but the whole arsenal of social institutions and pressures can hope to contain impulses as powerful, volcanic, and potentially dangerous as those surrounding the evolutionary imperative of sexual reproduction.

Social conservatives have been warning for generations that traditional moral institutions are indispensable to this hard project, and that human sexual nature being what it is means that tearing down these institutions in the name of other values thinking that these reforms will be ‘harmless’ will yield results that are anything but. They will come mostly at the expense of the social normalcy of strong and healthy family life, especially for the lower classes. And that’s exactly the collapse we watched happen over the past several generations.

…

This gets back to the point about ideological messages needing to be able to be expressed with multiple layers of depth, suitable for different personalities, needs, and levels of sophistication and maturity. Sometimes detailed, rational explanations are just the ticket. But sometimes they can be counterproductive, even undermining other hard demands when someone falls into the conceit of thinking that no rule can be legitimate or worthy without a rational explanation, but being unable themselves to articulate such a justification.

Generals must sometimes provide their subordinate officers with detailed explanations so that they can understand the big picture. These lower ranking officers then exercise their independent judgment and use their delegated authorities to improvise and help accomplish the overall mission when the situation’s complexity and uncertainty overwhelms any prior attempt at planning. But the junior enlistedmen need just the opposite. That is, a spirit of faith and trust even in the absence of explanations, and a readiness to simply follow orders, submit, and obey, as suits their role and purpose. And by such reliable obedience, they deliver a better outcome for everyone involved.

…

Dreher’s sympathies with singles is understandable and compassionate. But social nudges are usually as uncomfortable as they are necessary. And there’s nothing wrong with that nudge, quite the contrary. Progressives have a long tradition of arguing against the ‘stigma’ that traditional social institutions place on anti-social behaviors. But that stigma, emotionally difficult as it may be to bear, serves a vital social function.

And in contemporary America, it’s remarkable to what extent life in high status circles -where intense working conditions are common – is dominated and run by singles. Or by people who relegate their family life to such minor important they might as well be single. That’s because people who have to devote any percentage of their potential working time to the needs of family or church are at an obvious competitive disadvantage when it comes to maximizing productivity, availability, and flexibility. They will either not be selected to fill those top roles, or they will not even try in the first place.

These incentives are highly discouraging of family formation. At these levels, the scales of the secular world are already out of balance in favor of singles, and it is entirely appropriate for religions to push them in the other direction, to say that it is the duty of singles to join the social order of family life, or to serve it in prescribed ways, but not to stand apart from it.

…

One should be cautious in using the results of convenient empirical studies to try to bolster a religious point, for fear of sawing off the branch one is sitting on. This grants a higher magisterial authority to Science, which is the metaphysical break that led to the modern condition.

…

Technology as a general term includes pretty much any tool or technique that humans developed since the origin of their distinction from animals. Not just “since the stone age”, but including the stones. Discoveries, innovative inventions, and other technological progress – to include items we now regard as simple like pots and wheels – are essential elements of civilization and any state of human existence that can even approach a condition of prosperity. Even cultural institutions are “social technologies” in a way, and ones necessary to sustain civilized communities.

Technological development occurred all over the world and long before Jesus was born, and there is little evidence that the metaphysical applecart was overturned by the ideology of technology every time someone create a new, better tool. Dreher says we don’t have to go Amish (and even the Amish are using plenty of technology), which implies there might be some way to approach technological use with enlightened awareness, discipline, and moderation. He will make some suggestions in this regard, but it’s hard to know whether anything could really work.

A more likely story would be that our use and development of tools does not displace traditional philosophy with a “technological ideology”, but that instead the wealth, capabilities, and social changes that are the consequences of technological progress produce conditions and incentives that enable new concepts to flourish which were once prohibitive or infeasible. These influence the ideas people use to make sense of and navigate these new and very different worlds. That is, it may not the “ideology of technology” but “ideology after technology.” The really pessimistic view is that if one doesn’t like the bathwater of that modern ideology, one has little choice but to throw out the baby as well, but no one knows for sure.

…

For the sake of both convenience and maintaining amicable relations with their children, parents are sorely tempted to want to trust their kids to make good – or at least innocent – choices with digital technology. But that is profoundly naïve wishful thinking.

Moms and dad who would never leave their kids unattended in a room full of pornographic DVDs think nothing of handing them smartphones. This is morally insane. No adolescent or young teenager should be expected to have the self-control on his own to say no.

Another useful supplement to the “no smartphones” policy is a “no screens in bedrooms” rule. The only way to deal with the risks of digital connectivity while preserving some of the benefits is to make the use of such devices as public as possible.

Additionally, this problem once again illustrates the need for widespread social support and reinforcement for a “wholesome commons”, because one either makes the public world safe for children or has to keep them sheltered from it. This is impossible without widely shared agreement as to fundamental values. For example, there are products available that provide filtering or monitoring capabilities, but what kinds of things will be filtered out in our contentious environment? It’s likely that any company with a product that even offered the option of an “LGBT filter and monitor” would immediately bring the entire force of progressive ire on top of them like a ton of bricks.

…

It’s now a common joke for non-millennials to say that they thank God they made their mistakes before the advent of Facebook and Twitter and so forth. But young people will have no such luck. The danger is that they do not have the cautious instincts and norms needed to preserve their future reputations in an increasingly digital world. The Onion headline, “Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due to Facebook,” is funny precisely because it expresses the disturbing truth of the matter.

Dreher says ban it all, even though your kids will hate it, and hate you for it. At least until they grow up to appreciate the wisdom and necessity of the action. They’ll hate much less, and think it’s normal, if you are able to surround them with peers who all face the same rules instead of all being free of them. Yet another reason we need Benedict Options.

In another example of his conflicted inconsistency regarding cult-like weirdos and control freaks:

Yes, you will be thought of as a weirdo and a control freak. So what? These are your children

“So what” indeed.

[beneaththetangles]

Solo Leveling and the Value of Life

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous…”

Matthew 5:43-45

As imperfect humans trying to solve intricate problems with our flawed human approaches and intellect, it’s no surprise that the issues in our communities, countries, and world are substantial and difficult to resolve. So it seems too simplistic to advocate what Jesus teaches from the Sermon on the Mount—to love our enemies in addition to our neighbors and those who already love us in return.

However, I don’t see that instruction as naive but rather as the perfect model we should emulate. It’s more the “getting there” that’s challenging, perhaps more pronounced than ever in this country if not for much of the rest of the world. For instance, Twitter these days is afire over the recent outlawing of most all abortions in my home state of Texas, leading to much anger and aggressive tweets by those outraged by the law and the Supreme Court’s decision to allow it. I’ve read a few reasonable tweets, but they are overwhelmed by angry and vicious ones, and by those that are gloating in nature as well.

Doesn’t sound a whole like like loving one’s enemy, even from those that proclaim themselves Christian, users who identify as Christ followers.

Fundamentally, I think the issue comes down not to pro-life vs. pro-choice, but rather to how we treat other people. How we see them. How we value their lives.

As all this is raging in the background of my life—for indeed, we’ve been having conversations at the dinner table almost daily about the issue the past few weeks—I’ve simultaneously been reading a light novel that made me think further about life. Solo Leveling, a webtoon adapted into manga and now also into the light novel form that I’m reading, features a revisioning of this world, but one where fantastical monsters and real-life RPG mechanics exist.

Sung Jin Woo, Solo Leveling’s protagonist, is the lowest rank of “hunter,” level E, before an incident pushes him to what appears to be a wholly undiscovered level of adventurer. Once a laughingstock and constantly in danger against even the lowest level creatures, Jin Woo now has powers exceeding, well, most anyone. (SPOILERS ahead for volume two of the light novel, volume four of the manga, and chapter 54 of the webtoon.)

He generally hides his powers, but in volume two, is forced to reveal his own strength in a dire situation where he and others are trapped in a Red Gate dungeon. An unusual phenomenon, when Red Gates appear, they confine the party within a dungeon (level) that features very high-level monsters in sometimes difficult elements. The hunters are unable to escape unless they defeat the dungeon boss or the dungeon is somehow broken. As an hour in real life is the equivalent of a day in the dungeon, days and months can pass by for the adventurers, during which time all but A-level hunter all likely to die.

In this particular situation, the hunters divide into two groups. Chul, the only A-level hunter presents, takes with him the other strongest remaining players, while the weaker ones are grouped with Jin Woo, who is still ranked as level E though he is now far stronger than that. Eventually, Chul’s party is decimated and he barely escapes with his life, stumbling onto Jin Woo’s group, which is faring quite well under his leadership. An arrogant and selfish man already, Chul attacks the group, but is knocked unconscious by a single smack from Jin Woo.

What happens next is what made me consider the topic at hand. After this melee, Jin Woo and his party are attacked by the dungeon boss and his minions. During the havoc, Chul awakens and charges Jin Woo, intending to kill him, but the latter predicts this possibility and calls forth one of shadow warriors, Igris, who defends his master and kills the A-rank hunter. After the entire battle is completed, Jin Woo, who had earlier in the novel wondered what would happen if he used his summoning skill to turn a dead human into a follower (basically a zombie) as he had with monsters like Igris, does just that with the dead Chul, who now joins his undead army.

Part of what makes Solo Leveling compelling—and a bit sickening—is how Jin Woo becomes a man of little compassion for others. He has some fear, some heart, but much like Naofumi in The Rising of the Shield Hero, does his tasks without much care. Chul’s death is an example—he has the ability to disarm the adventurer, but kills him instead, and then zombifies him, later expressing no qualms about doing so.

To Jin Woo, Chul is a bully and worthy of death. Worse still, he has no idea what this action will do to Chul. While already dead, does this magic restore some half-life to him? Is he giving the former hunter an eternity of living death, a sort of hell?

In a non-fantastical context, very few of us are given the opportunity to deal out death (much less eternal death) to our enemies. And yet, Jesus words ring no less true as he speaks about how many around him must have lived during his humanly stay on earth, which feels no different than now and how your or I might harbor a hatred towards our “enemies” in our minds, in our hearts, and with ever increasing frequency, on social media. And make no mistake—hatred is a murdering of another human with one’s heart.

“Murder by words” is a way of life these days. As I read through the tweets on my dash, I get frustrated at the amount of tearing down rather than building up, with most of my frustration reserved for those tweeting out of spite or just, like Jin Woo, with a lack of care, while also expressing their faith in some way.

Christians are missing the point in troves and, via social media, in such a marked way. Loving one’s enemies is a way to model Christ for a lost world and to show them the way to salvation. And loving one’s enemies is precisely what the church as a whole is struggling with, now more visibly, as least, than ever.

I know that there are many Christians doing good work. I’ve seen it. I experience it. And I know, too, that we might know that we should love but fall into these unloving acts. Believe me, out of this mouth of mine I will impart godly lessons (as I hope this one is) and then curse others, treating them as inhuman, for that is exactly what I do when I call out “raca” to them by mouth, mind, or word. I’m taking away their humanity, for I’m seeing them as something less than one imbued with the goodness of God, as something less than God sees them, and forget in that moment, too, that my need for God and salvation is every bit as great as my enemy’s.

That’s last bit is perhaps what worries me the most. In forgetting another’s humanity as we call them out, clapback, or just generally rail against others’ points of view (especially without a godly context), we forget our own humanity—the sickly and dying insides that were repaired and restored only by the grace of God.

It is that gift which should challenge us to love others like he loves us. And to love others may mean not reveling in a pro-life law or mandate, but rather opening conversation with a pro-choice friend to understand her better and grow closer to her heart. It may mean abandoning one’s worship of a political or organizational philosophy and to engage those our hearts have turned bitter against.

It may mean once again loving those we once loved, but have grown cold toward. It may mean loving our neighbors who sharply disagree with us. And most of all, it may mean loving our very enemies, those who might even be okay with seeing us get hurt, punished, or die.

For remember, we were once the enemy, too, but instead of an awful and lasting punishment we deserved, like that which Jin Woo inflicted upon Chul, we were given grace, forgiveness, and life instead.

And now, it’s time for us to do the same, to trade those clapbacks for grace and mercy—for that is His way. And it must be our way, too.

[treehugginglibrarian]

Bob & Sally Are Not Friends

There have been a lot of calls on social media lately, in the form of blogs, memes, videos, and status updates, demanding that Trump supporters and not-Trump supporters put aside our pitch forks and learn to get along. Given the current political climate, and the fact that the more liberal sections of society are the ones doing the loudest protesting, it’s safe to say that most of these memes et al are probably not aimed at those supporting the President. Since many make references to “snowflakes” or encourage one side to “grow up,” two insults pretty routinely flung at minority factions who are busy stomping the streets attempting to ensure we don’t start losing rights we’ve worked literally decades to attain, it’s safe to assume that most of these memes are aimed at making the anti-Trump team get over their anger.

Here’s the thing, your memes aren’t working. You can shove stick figure Bob and Sally up your ass. If you voted for our current President, I may well tolerate you, but I’ll never accept you- a stance many Trump supporters should be quite comfortable with, since they’ve been applying it to minority populations their entire lives. I don’t forgive you. I probably never will. And for those of us who are suffering, or stand to suffer, under the current administration’s practices, your memes are doing nothing more than illustrating the same privilege that let you vote for him in the first place.

It’s super easy to look at a hostile political climate and scream “can’t everyone just get alone” when you stand to lose absolutely nothing. If you are a white, straight, cisgender, Christian human, this administration is going to take almost nothing from you. If you are male, on top of that, they are going to literally take nothing from you (except your healthcare, some of your finances, and possibly your job. Sucker). If you are not these things, there is a good chance that at some point during the duration of this administration, you are going to lose a right that has already been given to you, or you are going to find yourself staring down an extra decade without a right that you felt you were pretty close to securing.

Since I’m queer, I will use my queerness as an example to illustrate the overwhelming frustration that minority populations feel when Trump voters, or generally privileged populations, whine loudly that we need to just all get along.

All things considered, I’m a pretty privileged queer person. I live in a city that has anti-discrimination ordinances on the books. I work in a city with the same. Our capital is the second largest gay mecca in the country. My employer has incredibly stringent anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender presentation, and everyone at my place of employment is either very accepting or completely silent regarding their homophobia. My neighbors don’t harass my wife and I for being queer. I am, in general, pretty safe. I know how lucky I am, because I know how unfriendly spaces can be to queer people. Some of those spaces exist in my state which, despite locally granted protections, does not have a single state-wide protection granted to LGBTQ persons.

In my state, the state Constitution stipulated that marriage was for only a man and a woman up until three years ago, when the Supreme Court rule that this wasn’t okay. Because of that ruling, queers in my state are entitled to get married and are entitled to all the rights that come with that marriage, but they are entitled to absolutely nothing else. We can be fired for being queer. We can be denied housing, denied promotions, or asked to leave a business or public space, because we are queer. We can be told which bathrooms we are allowed to use, we can be denied the right to adopt just because we’re gay and, at times, we can even be denied medical treatment or other basic services. Since there are also absolutely no protections for sexual orientation built into federal law, excepting the right to marry, we have no recourse if we do not live in a space that has incorporated these rights and protections into their local laws or ordinances.

Thankfully, my state is one where cities and towns have been allowed to create their own local protections for queer people, since not all states are quite so… “kind.” North Carolina, for instance, all but went to war with itself when individual cities attempted to rebel against the hatred often espoused at the state level. The end result was a statewide “bathroom bill” that isn’t really abided by in a lot of more liberal spaces, but does a great job of making homophobes and transphobes feel like their views are valid and worthwhile. Indiana has had similar issues with Mike Pence’s religious freedom bill.

Telling a queer or trans person to suck it up and get along with a Trump supporter is, effectively, telling them to suck it up and get along with someone who is comfortable stripping them of their rights or allowing them to continue living in an environment where they have fewer rights than those who are straight or cisgender. Admittedly, not all Trump supporters voted for him because they hate gay people or because they want to see gay people oppressed or treated like shit. A vote for him, however, is an admittance that they don’t really care if gay people are oppressed or treated like shit, though. Trump told us exactly how he felt about the LGBTQ community when he selected Pence, possibly the most anti-LGBTQ politician in the country right now, as his Vice President. He told us how he felt about us when he acknowledged that, though he would be unlikely to work to overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing us to marry, he would have no trouble signing a national religious freedom bill, ensuring that those with a moral opposition to who I am as a human, never have to actually treat me like a human.

Bills like that are more than just “cake” and “flowers,” as anyone who is actually queer can tell you. A bill of that nature would guarantee that full rights under the law, for LBGTQ individuals, would never exist. All anyone who didn’t like us would ever have to do to legally discriminate against us, is claim that serving us is a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Don’t want to serve gay people at your coffee shop? Claim we violate your religious beliefs. Don’t want us to go clothes shopping there? Claim our shopping method violates your religious beliefs. Don’t want to have to treat us in the emergency room? Claim that doing so violates your religious beliefs and, just like that, you’ve contributed to the death of yet another queer or trans person in America. Fuck the cake. Fuck the flowers. I want to know that if my house is on fire, the local fire department isn’t going to let it burn down because, “Ew, lesbians are  yucky,” and actually get away with that response.

If you voted for Trump, you might not personally light my house on fire, or kick me out of a coffee shop, or refuse to treat me if I’m sick, but you’re admitting that you don’t really care that much if these things happen to me. Because it was stated, clearly and repeatedly, that things like this were a possibility if he won, which meant you voted for him knowing that his election to office would probably hurt me and others like me. You don’t get to passively allow injury to another party out of some espoused indifference to their well-being, only to then get angry when the party in question decides that maybe you’re not actually their friend after all.

Now take this is and multiply it by every minority group in this country that is being negatively effected by this administration’s quest to do precisely what they said they would do while they were campaigning. Racism is rampant, with crosses being burned in yards and white supremacist rallies taking place all over the nation. There are literal Nazis in the streets, as evidenced by the fact that they are carrying Nazi flags and sporting Nazi regalia. Our nation is locking small immigrant children into detention centers and, even after swearing that they will get them back together with their parents, routinely failing to make that happen. Women may well lose the right to abortion and certain types of birth control with the inevitable appointment of another far-right, anti-Roe v. Wade, justice to the Supreme Court.

If you voted for Trump, you helped make this happen.

I’m not going to be mean to you about it. I’m not going to taunt you about the fact that you might not have healthcare anymore and, if you work in manufacturing or agriculture, there’s a real chance he’s going to kill your job instead of make you more money. I’m not going to point at you in public spaces and taunt “look everyone! A Trump supporter! Look upon the face of stupidity and evil!” But I’m also not going to make myself be friends with you and I’m not going to forgive you. It won’t matter how many times you call me childish. It won’t matter how many stupid fucking memes you make about Bob and Sally and their stick figure friendship.

At the end of the day, my well-being was not a factor in your overall decision making when you went to the polls. To that end, your well-being, specifically your desire to feel liked and appreciated, is of absolutely no concern to me. If you wanted me to like you, perhaps you should have cast a vote that implied that you like me. I deserve better from my friends. So do the black people in this country. So do the immigrants in this country. So do the young children this country is keeping in cages. I can’t make you realize that you need to care about other people, but until you figure out how I think you need to stop bitching that the very people you don’t care about, don’t really care about you, either.

So, no. Bob and Sally aren’t friends. And Bob’s just gonna have to get over it. It’s a concept he should be familiar with, since he probably spent the first six months after the election telling Sally precisely that. It sort of sucks when people you thought were your friends make it apparent that they don’t really like you, doesn’t it?

Now imagine that “sort of sucks” coming with a side of “no more civil rights.”

Fuck you, Bob.  

[floggingink]

Riverdale, “Chapter Twenty-Five: The Wicked and the Divine”

Jughead has seen more “mob movies” than I have, so I can’t verify his “classic trope,” but he’s speaking my language

I found Archie’s Devil Wears Prada errand-montage zippy and playful, much like Hiram Lodge himself

especially the direction of the construction guy’s arm clapping Archie’s shoulder to add movement to the swerving transition (not a technical term) as he steps into the trailer

Hiram’s soft V-neck sweater is, I assume, cashmere

Veronica’s look is so inseparable from collars and pearls that she has a collar made of pearls sewn into her dress

RAS wanted a Veronica-confirmation episode, so by God, he is getting one, and Veronica’s age be damned! Hiram and Hermione wanted “the same monsignor” from Veronica’s baptism, who I guess has been on leave at the Vatican for five years okay!

Archie wants to know if Veronica will have “to memorize stuff”

Veronica’s confirmation sponsor is her grandmother, which is par for the course, as is volunteering at a soup kitchen for her like 8 hours of required community service. I also had to write a report on Saint Lucy and pray a rosary in front of an abortion clinic. Veronica probably won’t have to do that, since you can’t say abortion on Riverdale

do soup kitchens have any actual paid employees, or are they all stocked with kids who just need volunteer hours/Matthew Goode’s character from The Good Wife in his spare time wearing that blue sweatshirt to characterize him as being “just that nice”?

Hiram is such a fucking soap opera star when he says Veronica has made him “the happiest father ALIVE.” like, alive?

“ISN’T SHE A MIRACLE?”

on FP’s kitchen table is the same kind of half-gallon of milk that Jughead was drinking from the morning after his birthday party. the Andrewses kept a spare half-gallon of skim milk just for Jughead in their fridge? the nicest thing Fred ever did for him

Jughead doubts it: Jughead is VERY sassy with Sheriff Keller and FP loves it!!!! because Jughead can have an anti-authoritarian ’tude WITHOUT NECESSARILY being “a gang member” at that particular moment!

FP is so crisp and put together! FP looks GREAT! what up though, Gladys?

wow I can’t believe Jughead’s article wielded so much political power that its legal ramifications echo throughout the entire episode, as if Jughead were Nellie Bly

“CAN I GET A QUOTE?” this is the Jughead that FP plainly adores

Jughead and Betty both drink skim milk, so, their wedding will be soon

are men on webcams actually fool enough to ask the webcam girls if they can MEET IN REAL LIFE? I have no knowledge about this world, but I would imagine the answer would be “Have you ever seen a film, ever?”

50 Shades of Betty: Betty looks pretty great in that severe black fucking wig and I still want an apology from Chuck specifically about dissing the wig

“Catholic chic” means veils optional, like the stole in black tie

What damn high school in America: Jughead doesn’t have to wear the preppy Lodge uniform, I see? shame

Best costume bit: Betty’s heart sweater is possibly my favorite thing she’s ever worn. I want it BADLY

ARE YOU TELLING ME HIRAM LODGE WANTS TO SUE A HIGH SCHOOL NEWSPAPER?

“DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER”? IS THERE SOMETHING HE WROTE THAT WASN’T TRUE? ARE YOU ~NOT~ BUILDING BOWLING ALLEYS ON NATIVE AMERICAN LAND? I will fucking suit up and be Jughead’s lawyer on this. as has been demonstrated, I have seen every episode of The Good Wife and can probably practice law in Illinois (for instance I know that in Illinois you only need one-person consent to secretly record a conversation)

I love Betty and Jughead being in the same room, of course, but Betty’s gentle, poking “And...did you?” is EXCEPTIONALLY cute. Betty is so cute. and sometimes scary

Jughead’s least clueless moment of the season so far is him looking back knowingly at Betty when she says maybe he would do it to “avenge Toni’s grandfather”

“WE’RE PALS.”

Jughead kind of looks great leaning against the window. like the lighting or something. God, please let me one day see the two of them making out with Betty in her cheerleading uniform

okay, I thought Betty and Jughead, IT WAS IMPLIED, had already had sex, because I was shown them waking up together after they had slept together in the trailer. apparently they LITERALLY slept together. APPARENTLY THEY HAVE NOT HAD SEX YET. I should have known, from the sleeper biceps, that Jughead was still pining IN THIS WAY, FOR THAT! I should have KNOWN Betty had not RIDDEN JUGHEAD INTO THE SUNSET YET. fuck! what am I doing!

Every triangle has three corners, every triangle has three sides: I also emotionally defend Betty’s ecru lie about not having “done anything” with anyone since the breakup since, as one will recall, immediately after her and Archie’s kiss they stared in horror at each other and have not talked about it since, thus cancelling it out as a real kiss (this is also a statute of Illinois law)

Hermione Lodge has some sort of skinny gold Lothlórien belt on over her deep merlot blazer

Archie > Dawson: Archie is sweet when he apologizes for making Pop double-check the order: “It’s more to make sure I get everything right.”

Archie hears Pop’s slip about Hiram being “the boss,” but other things happen and he FORGETS! at what inopportune time will he remember? when he’s physically embracing Jughead Jones?

although couldn’t Pop just play it off like Hiram is Archie’s boss? think on your feet, Pop

for the record I love Agent Adams and his whole deal. his plan is so insane that it might be brilliant. I just do still wish he were being played by either Sterling K. Brown or Max Greenfield

he doesn’t appreciate Archie’s attitude: “Is there a problem?” yeah, uh, Archie’s like twelve years old and not a trained undercover field agent? I love this stupid shit

oh, everyone’s being evicted from Sunnyside? if only Jughead hadn’t driven the southside’s only lawyer out of town with Kenickie Murdoch’s switchblade

OH MY GOD HERMIONE’S PANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

according to everyone’s facial expressions, Veronica is under the impression she is doing good political maneuvering inviting the McCoys to her confirmation, Hermione is stunned she did so, Veronica really wanted to sing a solo, and Josie doesn’t know why she has to fucking apologize for anything

Josie being Veronica’s “gift” from Mayor McCoy is horrifying

Sixth period is Intro to Film: Cruel Intentions is a fantastic Catholic standard, containing as it does cocaine, “experimental” girl-on-girl French kissing, Ryan Phillippe’s ass, the line “I'm the Marcia fucking Brady of the Upper East Side and sometimes I want to kill myself,” and implied step-sibling fucking, all of which I think Riverdale should include more of

the blue and red lighting inside the Wyrm is still nice. does the Wyrm even count as a dive? strippers probably wouldn’t waste their time at dives

wow there are some true beards in this crowd

okay…..the idea that Tall Boy is a better suspect than Jughead…...because he’s physically taller…..is singularly the most fantastic thing…..I have ever heard…..

I’ve seen Brick like thirty times: the sound of Archie shifting on the leather of Hiram’s couch is real good

“I RESPECT A MAN WHO WOULD GO TO SUCH EXTREMES.” HIRAM PLEASE!!!!! ARCHIE IS TOO DUMB FOR THIS!!!!!!

Gay?!: Ben? who the fuck is Ben? who is BEN? who the fuck?

OH MY GOD Jughead got in to see the mayor AGAIN! is Ethel Muggs her secretary???

Jughead interrupted Mayor McCoy eating her salad at her desk

for like the third time in the series she says she’s “always liked” Jughead, which, fat lot of good that’s done him

in Riverdale there is a red uniform at the soup kitchen, because even THE POOR must abide by aesthetics

Archie doesn’t know what cutting cigars means

Archie’s shoulders are nice under that polo

Betty’s plan about “treat it like a missing person’s case” and making it like this snooping Blue and Gold intrigue thing is of course welcome as a pretense for the two of them working together (on the show’s part), but in reality it’s just the fucking bare minimum that THE AUTHORITIES should ALREADY BE FUCKING DOING THEMSELVES

at this point I went to bed and had a very gripping, sexy dream about Veronica and Jughead. Veronica and Jughead

“Damn good coffee”: Hiram floating having to “bring Archie in” on the Lodge Family Tammany Hall is only slightly less absurd than the Federal Bureau of Investigation having already done so. what does Archie need to be brought in on, exactly? he’s just Veronica’s arm candy. he barely knows what a cigar is

while it is STILL ODD that Veronica has done a 180 on her accepting her father’s criminality, she still holds Archie up as a beacon of goodness, because, like I said, shoulders, polos

Jughead’s “order of the Ophidians” as he tapes up the Missing poster is either, so far as I can tell, an extremely obscure MMORPG reference or he’s just calling them snakes, but like, in Latin

Penny didn’t die of gangrene from her blistering wound like on the Oregon trail? probably a plus

FP is in some deep pain here. this is so far beyond his worst fears about Jughead joining the Serpents that he like never even fucking considered—I NEVER FUCKING CONSIDERED IT, IT WAS FUCKING RIDICULOUS

I certainly don’t think Penny’s terms are like, PARTICULARLY OUT OF LINE

ooooh Jughead’s little snipe at his father for fridging Jason!

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH “YOU WILL BE THE DEATH OF US,” THE ANGUISHED REALIZATION IN FP’S EYES, GLADYS STAY AWAY!!!!!

I can’t believe the sixth season of The Wire takes place in Riverdale and doesn’t even have Sonja Sohn playing Agent Adams

Alice’s angel wing-white Founding Father blouse and Betty’s textured peach sweater

Hal is REALLY skittish about Chic, considering that HE’S HIS SON, SO FAR AS WE KNOW. but Hal hordes important information until the bitter end, so he probably just knows some shit

The Blossom Whoever the fuck’s spawn: “He’s a stranger. That’s my beef.”

“It’s been ~some time~ since my last confession” is usually the most accurate clocking I could give as well

I love the very dangerous clusters of candles inside the confessional

These students are legally children: NO ONE is helping Veronica. Veronica is trying to “find her thing” like, in the dark, lit by votive candles

I loved the circle of beautiful mob wives drinking wine and talking about how praying to “the Almighty” for “forgiveness” makes them feel better #aspirational

Hiram isn’t fucking around with Mr. Man “disrespecting Pop Tate.” Pop Tate is an angel, doing his best out here in a chaotic world. his poutine is probably great!

Archie’s stuck using the wrong kind of plunger

Poppa Poutine says Hiram lost his “mojo” in “the joint”

is Poppa right? is Hiram weak? if you subtract the Andrews boys, he doesn’t seem to have any problems

The 2001 Josie and the Pussycats movie was a masterpiece: Josie is back with killer witchy earrings, a lovely dress, and a fierce hold on the remainder of her personal agency

of course it’s “Bitter Sweet Symphony” but with harps. you know the Verve doesn’t get any royalties from that song? are the Rolling Stones the worst band in the world?

I LIKE THE SWOOSH FROM LARRY OR WHOEVER AND POPPA BACK TO ARCHIE WATCHING THEM

the back of the church is bathed in purple, the altar is yellow, the monsignor is in BRIGHT PALM SUNDAY RED, and this is what church should have always been like

Fwoopy hair is the best hair: Hermione’s strong-shouldered structured white jacket is amazing and Jughead forgoed his hat, to be respectful

Cheryl’s a chaos angel from hell: slightly strangely, Cheryl isn’t there at all this episode, but what we are truly robbed of is seeing what she would have worn to the confirmation

Veronica has a SUPER-SWEET very light pink/purple manicure!

Summer + Blair = Veronica: you better believe when Veronica was asked if she renounced Satan I was like, IS SHE GOING TO LOOK AT HER FATHER AND STORM OUT OF THAT CHURCH????? I THOUGHT SHE MIGHT!!!!!

instead I got an amazing thematic light show about Veronica choosing to believe in Archie’s unflagging internal compass and following his light (“the light of the Lord”!)

HE GIVES HER A TINY HAPPY NOD WHILE SHE’S THINKING, LIKE “YEAH BABE I KNOW YOU RENOUNCE SATAN!!!!!”

Veronica was rich: Veronica does look like a fucking angel up there

wow, Dilton isn’t DJing the afterparty? weird

why are Betty and Archie standing together AT ALL?

Abuelita is 100% right about pinching Archie’s cheek and Archie goes with it because he is respectful

Jughead eats: Jughead is so tormented he neglects the buffet!!!!!!

Jughead’s suit is very nice. I like the progression of his wearing better and better suits

Betty takes the news of Jughead’s CONFESSION that he “cut” Penny pretty stoically, as she did boil a guy once

POOR JUG IS RIGHT, IT DIDN’T EVEN MATTER!

Closed Captioning tells me the junkyard guy’s name is “JUNKYARD STEVE,” MY MAN

“If only we lived in a town where the answer could be no.”

Sexy, aesthetic Southside: Jughead in his leather jacket OVER HIS SUIT JACKET is pretty good!

“BY ANY CHANCE WAS THIS GENTLEMAN TALL?” OH MY GOD!!!! CASE FUCKING CLOSED BOYS!!!!!!!

Hermione hauling Veronica back for the photographer

Archie looking up from behind the closing art deco elevator doors

The female gaze: Archie is of course so handsome and perfectly proportioned in his suit. his handsomeness is such a given that I take it wholly for granted, like how when not suffering an allergy attack I can breathe from both nostrils but when one hits and I’m sneezing up my guts I’m like, air coming in from both nostrils? true bliss, I’ll never forget it again

God, did he get rid of his tailored cranberry Blossom suit? not the WORST crime committed in Riverdale, but probably worthy of eviction

Fifth period is AP English: as @hangingonyourwords noted, Archie knowing the word “coup” is VERY surprising! GOOD, ARCHIE

Hiram Lodge is, I think, listening to that song from Carmen while pouring himself a stiff drink, the massive Rory Gilmore portrait of Veronica over one shoulder and the blue light of an antipodean sea streaming in over the other, using a rotary phone to call in A MURDER

Tall Boy having to suffer interrogation by Jughead, whom he surely must have always despised, is his final indignity 

Jughead calls Betty “one of us,” which has not been given enough fanfare by ANYONE in the show! Betty is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT as much a Serpent as Jughead, unless Jughead’s mother is a Serpent, except that she hasn’t had to shout their stupid rules into someone’s face yet

I’m writing a scene where it’s gay.: “YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED MY SON’S QUESTION.”

the poor Serpents have been twisted around rich northsiders’ fingers for so long that they don’t have any fucking idea what to be doing when NOT at the behest of a blackmailer or bribery. I don’t know what it means to be a Serpent except that it means you’re poor and comely. and VERY civic-minded

“You’re a Judas, Tall Boy. And an idiot.”

Gay.: Sweet Pea raises both his arms to vote

FP’s gonna run Tall Boy out of town. a word of advice: one town over is not far enough

hell, Archie’s seen all those mob movies too! he and Jughead must’ve watched them together while Jughead was sleeping in his bedroom

Archie’s speech to Veronica is GOOD, ARCHIE, and what Veronica gets out just reinforces my thought that Hiram is literally starting a second town under Mayor McCoy’s nose, which would concern me expect that it has been definitely shown that even after things are executed on Riverdale I confuse myself and am invariably exactly wrong

I would probably kiss Archie too if he looked at me like that and said “I’m with you,” which I think explains Betty

HAHAAAAAAAAAAA OKAY!!!!!! SOMETHING IN THE WATER IN FP’S TRAILER

Jughead’s suspenders? a startling plus!

I like the quietness of “Maybe we can ask Veronica on Monday.” it reminded me of Archie’s face-saving some-other-time-definitely promise to go to the library with Jughead

“Maybe we should just investigate quietly until we know more.”

BLESSED BE THE CHILDREN and Jughead’s brusque scoff at himself for saying “my darkness”

in a move that the last few episodes haven’t shown him as having enough sense to make, Jughead puts his hand, not on Betty’s hand, but directly on the skirt of her dress

also Jughead knows that dress zippers have a point where you think it’s gone all the way down but really you’ve got a little further to go otherwise you can’t get the waistline over the hips? Jug’s got a little bit of game going on!

I like the silhouette of Jughead’s Adam’s apple

while Jughead is doing an excellent job delicately checking in with Betty’s sacral chakra, with his bare hand, I don’t want to overlook either his own gently crossed ankles as he holds her or his AMAZING SOCKS

when Betty tells him she needs to tell him something, he EXHALES a “What?” before he says “What is it?” WHOOP

she is missing a pretty sick meatloaf or pork of some more at her mother’s dinner table

I didn’t think there was a physiognomically scarier white guy around than Chic himself, but I was wrong!!!! it’s definitely that guy at the door!!!!!!

oh shit, Archie sort of got somebody (else) killed. this is like when Jughead didn’t mean to but definitely got somebody’s face beaten in by Tall Boy and Serpent Baby—holy shit what happened to that kid!!!! where did Serpent Baby go???

Certified pedigree: OKAY SENDING THE STATUE HEAD TO HIRAM LODGE VIA A CONFIRMATION “PRESENT” TO HIS DAUGHTER IS A PRETTY GREAT MOVE. I ASSUME THIS WAS YOU, FP JONES. FP IS REALLY GOOD AT PUTTING WORDLESS THREATENING MESSAGES INTO BOXES

in the shot bingo of Riverdale, the middle box would have to be Betty coming through her front door and pausing because she hears something suspicious

Mädchen Amick, MÄDCHEN AMICK: the squishy sound effect of the rags on the wet floor? her perfect hair? her bright blue turtleneck? “Elizabeth, did you lock the front door?” Alice is already three steps ahead!!! Alice Alice Alice!!!!!

Alice and FP have now both cleaned up somebody else’s murder’s cranial blood (I’m assuming Chic clocked this guy, which means it was probably Melody), further proof they belong together

Please protect Betty: Betty fucking Jughead probably saved her life

Next week: Cheryl shoots a bow and arrow!!! into my heart!!!!!!!!!

[districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog]

The Significance Of the Shadow Docket In Evaluating Sowell’s “Greenhouse Effect”

By David B. Arnold, American University Class of 2021

March 9, 2021

The   image   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   popular   imagination   is   of   a   body   of   scholar-judges   who decide   cases   in   an   open   forum.   Whether   or   not   one   likes   the   current   justices,   or   even   the institution,   many   people   think   of   the   Court   as   a   somewhat   public   body.   Of   course,   most controversies   appealed   to   the   highest   court   are   never   heard,   because   they   do   not   raise   new   and important   constitutional   issues.   However,   there   is   a   third   way.   An   increasing   number   of   decisions are   reached   in   private   with   no   oral   argument   and   only   initial   briefing.   This   is   the melodramatically   named   “Shadow   Docket”. According   to   Mark   Walsh   of   the   American   Bar   Association,   the   recent   discomfort   of   many jurists   with   the   Supreme   Court   shadow   docket   is   the   way   in   which   it   was   used   by   the   Trump Administration.   In   the   later   years   of   the   Trump   Administration,   the   Solicitor   General’s   office would   often   try   to   go   directly   to   the   Supreme   Court   for   emergency   relief   issues   where   the government   had   lost   at   the   trial   court.   As   Justice   Sonia   Sotomayor   wrote   “Stay   applications   force the   court   to   consider   important   statutory   and   constitutional   questions   that   have   not   been ventilated   fully   in   the   lower   courts,   on   abbreviated   timetables   and   without   oral   argument,”   she wrote.   “They   upend   the   normal   appellate   process,   putting   a   thumb   on   the   scale   in   favor   of   the party   that   won   a   stay.”   [1].   This   is   an   unorthodox   remedy,   as   the   normal   path   would   be   an   appeal to   the   court   of   appeals   for   the   district   that   the   trial   had   occurred   in.   The   Trump   Administration actively   pursued   a   strategy   of   appointing   judges   who   it   saw   as   sympathetic   to   conservative values   and   an   extreme   view   of   the   extent   of   executive   power.   This   no   doubt   informed   the   shadow docket   strategy,   although   results   for   the   Trump   Administration   on   controversies   at   the   Supreme Court   was   very   mixed,   as   we   were   reminded   this   week   when   the   Court   handed   down   an   order   to Trump’s   accountancy   firm,   Mazers   LLC,   to   cooperate   with   the   New   York   Attorney   General’s investigation   into   Donald   Trump’s   conduct   regarding   his   tax   obligations,   in   effect   reiterating   a decision   from   May[2].   The   conservative   Supreme   Court   also   refused   to   hear   a   single   election based   challenge. 

Orders   and   memoranda   from   the   Supreme   Court   need   not   be   a   controversial   instrument   in   and   of themselves,   but   the   last   four   years   have   seen   increasingly   major   rulings   on   federal   policy   made by   summarily   written   orders,   not   always   signed,   and   often   with   the   vote   count   undisclosed. Texas v.   Pennsylvania (2020) ,    which   contained   a   theoretical   view   that   states   could   not   sue   each   other over   internal   voting   procedures,   an   important   doctrine   that   went   ascribed   to   no   one   [3].   However, the   more   mystifying   instances   are   cases   like    Archdiocese   v.   Cuomo (2020) which   contained   33 pages   of   varying   opinions   by   the   various   Justices   despite   only   the   appeal   and   the   response   having been   read[4].   Although   the   way   judges   vote   can   be   somewhat   predictable,   argument   can   be worthwhile   by   differentiating   the   case   from   earlier   precedent   or   bringing   up   novel   arguments.   It seems   somewhat   concerning   for   the   Court   to   issue   a   detailed   opinion   on   a   case   that   it   has   only analyzed   in   a   very   general   way.

While   the   Supreme   Court   may   seem   to   be   absolutely   untouchable,   Congress   can   affect   its procedure.   Recently,   there   has   been   a   bipartisan   push   on   the   House   Judiciary   COmmittee   to legislate   that   going   forward   decisions   have   to   be   signed   and   have   a   breakdown   of   the   votes   and some   brief   synopsis   of   the   reasoning   for   the   order[5].   This   would   be   useful   both   from   a transparency   perspective   and   by   creating   clearer   precedents   by   showing   the   judicial   reasoning. However,   it   also   raises   questions   about   what   exactly   the   Supreme   Court   owes   the   public.   The judiciary,   as   the   branch   that   “decides   what   the   law   is”   to   quote   the   great   Chief   Justice   John Marshall,   was   not   designed   to   be   accountable.   In    Federalist   No.   78    by   Alexander   Hamilton,   he editoralized   that,  

“The   complete   independence   of   the   courts   of   justice   is   peculiarly   essential   in   a   limited Constitution.   By   a   limited   Constitution,   I   understand   one   which   contains   certain   specified exceptions   to   the   legislative   authority;   such,   for   instance,   as   that   it   shall   pass   no   bills   of attainder,   no   ex-post-facto   laws,   and   the   like.”[6]

This   shows   an   original   intent   that   the   Supreme   Court   had   to   be   able   to   stand   against   the democratic   arms   of   the   government   when   they   were   acting   unconstitutionally.   The   Shadow Docket   is   uncomfortable   to   witness,   but   it   does   in   a   sense   protect   the   justices   from   popular pressure   over   tough   votes.   A   reasonable   person   might   ask   exactly   why   a   justice   of   the   Supreme Court   would   care   about   popular   pressure;   they   serve   for   life   or   during   the   duration   of   their   good behavior.   There   is   a   body   of   scholarship,   however,   that   promotes   the   idea   that   the   tendency   of especially   conservative   justices   to   make   uncharacteristic   votes   is   in   part   an   effort   to   win   the respect   of   the   educated   elite   in   the   media   and   legal   profession,   who   skew   somewhat   liberal. In   conservative   organizations,   for   instance   the   Federalist   Society,   there   is   often   talk   of   a “Greenhouse   Effect”[7].   This   is   in   reference   to   New   York   Times   Supreme   Court   correspondent Linda   Greenhouse,   who   is   often   perceived   by   conservatives   as   writing   in   a   way   to   gin   up pressure   in   the   legal   community   on   judges   to   vote   in   a   generally   liberal   direction.   An   example   of this   is   before   the   crucial   Obamacare   decision   in    King   v.   Burwell (2015) ,    ““[n]ot   only   the Affordable   Care   Act   but   the   court   itself   is   in   peril   as   a   result...The   fate   of   the   statute   hung   in   the balance   then   and   hangs   in   the   balance   today...   this   time,   so   does   the   honor   of   the   Supreme   Court” [8].   Assuming   the   Supreme   Court   is   open   to   this   kind   of   chiding   (and   that   is   the   core assumption),   these   are   powerful   words.    This   idea   was   initially   formulated   by   conservative economist   Thomas   Sowell,   and   has   some   adherence   among   jurists   and   judges. 

The   theory   has   critics.   If   there   is   such   a   thing   as   the   Greenhouse   Effect,   it   seems   to   exist   very selectively   for   some   progressive   priorities   and   not   at   all   for   others.   The   Supreme   Court   through the   entire   2000s   has   dealt   major   setbacks   to   antitrust   legislation,   environmental   protections,   and voting   rights.   Even   liberal   Justices    like   Elena   Kagan   and   Sonia   Sotomayor    have   been   relatively business   friendly   [9],   and   of   course   the   Supreme   Court   has   not   seen   fit   to   prevent   the reintrocuton   of   the   federal   death   penalty.   Commentators   who   say   the   Supreme   Court   is   becoming increasingly   liberal   often   only   focus   on   issues   like   abortion   or   gay   rights,   whereas   on   economic issues   or   controvesies   centered   around   racial   policies   (voting   rights,   affirmative   action)   the Supreme   Court   has   shown   itself   very   much   restrained. The   reason   the   Greenhouse   Effect   is   worth   mentioning   in   the   context   of   the   Shadow   Docket   is that   in   the   event   the   Supreme   Court   has   to   be   much   more   public   in   its   decision   making,   then what   will   happen   in   effect   is   that   it   will   become   falsifiable   to   a   much   greater   extent.    Afterall,   the pressure   exerted   by   journalists   and   activists   on   the   Supreme   Court   is   only   emotional,   no   effort has   ever   come   even   close   to   removing   a   Supreme   Court   justice.   Eliminating   the   Shadow   Docket would   lead   this   emotional   pressure   to   increase.   The   Greenhouse   Effect   hypothesis   leads   us   to   the conclusion   that   this   will   lead   to   a   noticeable   leftward   swing   at   the   high   court.   If   this   does   not come   to   pass,   we   can   safely   say   that   the   Greenhouse   hypothesis   lacks   validity. 

______________________________________________________________

1.Walsh,   Mark.   2021.   “The   Supreme   Court's   'Shadow   Docket'   Is   Drawing   Increasing   Scrutiny.” ABA   Journal.   Accessed   February   27. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/scotus-shadow-docket-draws-increasing-scrutiny .

2.   Sisak,   Michael.   2021.   Associated   Press   News. https://apnews.com/article/manhattan-prosecutor-trump-tax-records-87f675d7ae8e24fbf2e8f33c4 80869d6 .

3.    Texas   v.   Pennsylvania (2020),    Docket   for   22O155.   Accessed   February   27. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html .

4.   Wermiel,   Stephen.   2020.   “On   the   Supreme   Court's   Shadow   Docket,   the   Steady   Volume   of Pandemic   Cases   Continues.”   SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/on-the-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-the-steady-volume- of-pandemic-cases-continues/ .

5.   Romoser,   James.   2021.   “Lawmakers   Consider   Nudging   Supreme   Court   toward   More Transparency   on   the   Shadow   Docket.”   SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/lawmakers-consider-nudging-supreme-court-toward-more- transparency-on-the-shadow-docket/ .

6.   Hamilton,   Alexander.   2021.   The   Avalon   Project   :   Federalist   No   78.   Yale   University.   Accessed February   27.   https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp.

7.   Tolchin,   Martin.   1992.   “Press   Is   Condemned   By   a   Federal   Judge   For   Court   Coverage.”   The New   York   Times.   The   New   York   Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/15/us/press-is-condemned-by-a-federal-judge-for-court-cover age.html .

8.   Andrews,   Cory   L.   2015.   “Linda   Greenhouse's   Blatant   Effort   To   Invoke   'Greenhouse   Effect'   In Affordable   Care   Act   Case   Fails.”   Forbes.   Forbes   Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2015/02/06/linda-greenhouses-blatant-effort-to-invoke-greenho use-effect-in-affordable-care-act-case-fails/?sh=14d330382318 .

9.Richard   A.   Posner,   Lee   Epstein   &   William   M.   Landes,   "How   Business   Fares   in   the   Supreme Court,"   97   Minnesota   Law   Review   1431 (2013)