#why demonise the working class?

[on-a-lucky-tide]

I just really fucking hate how twn has worked so hard to reinstall the toxic masculinity into the Witchers. They just went ahead and shat all over the opportunity to construct a sensitive examination of the working class man, their trauma, their vulnerabilities, their flaws and their goodness.

Their honest to fuck goodness.

You know, the men who smile at a little girl to make her feel at ease, the ones who discuss the women and children left behind by war for the monsters, the ones that Ciri thinks fondly of at her lowest.

I really hate the twn interpretation of them . Gives me the ick. Especially when the fucking upper class villains/aristocracy get their storylines sanitised and uwu-ified for sympathy. Are you shittin' me about Eredin right now?

Yes. Feel sorry for the rich elf dude, but those orphan Witchers that were stripped from their homes and experimented on? Nah man, they're just drunk, sexist dudebros in it for le coin. The first one? Yeah, his sob story is he got caught fuckin the wrong person, lololol.

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

David Tennant interview at the British LGBT Awards, June 2024 (x)

Int: You being an ally to the community isn't something new. You've been doing it, but recently you've obviously really stepped up for trans and non-binary people in a time that's so, so needed. What made you do that?

David: I don't know that I feel like I've done anything that I wouldn't just sort of be normally doing. I mean, it's for me it's just common sense that there's there should be any suggestion that people aren't allowed to live the life they want to live and and to be who they want to be with and to express themselves wholeheartedly. I mean, as long as you aren't hurting anybody else, everybody else just needs to fucking butt out. I don't really understand why...

Int: ...it's controversial.

David: Yeah, there is and the thing... the thing, if there's something that's particularly sobering and depressing, it's that certain debates are being weaponized by certain elements of the political class, often for no... it seems it's not ideological so much as opportunistic. And I just think that's pretty disgusting, really.

Int: I couldn't agree more. What message would you like to send out to trans youth?

David: Please don't feel like you're not loved and that you're not accepted and that you're not... you know, most people in the world are good and kind and just want you to be able to be who you are. Most people in the world don't really care. I mean... you know what I mean?

Int: We're all narcissistic.

David: Exactly. Everyone's so self obsessed that really, the sort of noise that comes from a certain area of the press and of the political class is... it's a minority. It really is. And please don't let that make you feel diminished or dissuaded or discouraged, because, you know, you just... you have to be allowed to be yourself, and you are, and you are yourself and you must thrive and flourish, and we're all here for it.

Int: Amazing. I think, yeah, it's so important .I think sometimes it feels like there's so many people, but it is a minority. It's such a minority.

David: It's a tiny bunch of little whinging fuckers that are on the wrong side of history and they'll all go away soon.

Int: Like what happened with gay people 20 years ago.

David: When I was a kid, when I was a kid, exactly. You know, I was at school when Clause 28 came in and it all felt like being gay was something to be terrified of. And gay men in particular were demonised as paedophiles and now that just feels historic and ludicrous and, I mean, I don't see all those... all those battles aren't won, but we're in a very, very different place. And I feel like.I feel like history is on a progressive trajectory and it might get knocked sideways now and again by people for all sorts of reasons, which are often quite selfish and quite, as I say, not coming from a place of any sort of genuine belief system, but other than a place of opportunism. And that's something that we... I hope that in 20 years time, we're talking about, you know, these culture wars as something of the past.

Int: I believe we will. I'm a huge Doctor Who fan, so.

David: Oh, good, me too!

Int: You are my Doctor.

David: Oh, thank you very much.

Int: But recently, obviously, you came back for the 60th anniversary and you got to work with Yasmin Finney.

David: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Int: What was it like working with her?

David: Oh, she's brilliant. She's fantastic. Yeah. And she's in the show again now, she's back in it, so that's fantastic to see. She's lovely, talented, cool as a cucumber, articulate, brilliant. I learned a lot from her as an actor and also as someone who, you know, who's become a sort of de facto activist just because of who she is and where she is, and she becomes a sort of symbol of hope, and she's wonderful.

[intothedysphoria]

What I have chosen to do instead of starting my history/film studies essay

Billy Hargrove is a deeply complicated character who was born of two white mens’ want to get out of the very real and valid accusations of racism following the way they wrote Lucas’s character in series 1. However, because this is fandom and The Duffers, there is a tendency to simplify him. And that is fucking boring. This is why (in a very brief form) Billy Hargrove acts the way he does from the perspective of history, politics and sociology.

(Discussing topics less touched on because analysis of Billy in relation to queerness or abuse have been done FAR better than I would explain them)

Even just his name tells us a lot about him as a character. The surname Hargrove originates in Cheshire, in the north west of England. Based on historical context, the Hargrove’s likely moved from Cheshire to Liverpool sometime after 1770, looking for work in Liverpool’s ports, possibly making the move to America sometime post 1850. His mothers side are very clearly Catholic, possibly Irish-Americans. And the first name Billy is a traditional blue collar, working class name. Probably coincidental but a name popular in Liverpool.

Neil and the absolute piece of steaming shit that he is fits in chronologically with the rise of Californian conservatism in the 1960s and 1970s, and the “plain folk” stance that politicians like Nixon took in order to appeal to the white working to upper working class. This type of plain folk outlook blamed both the upper class from the north but also relied on the racist and classist politics of blaming African Americans and those in poverty for all societal ills.

Significantly, Billy in canon was living through a time of globalisation where exposure to the international was becoming more accessible than it had ever been. Just though watching the news it would have been easy to become disillusioned. The Troubles, Brazil’s military dictatorship, The Miners Strike, Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, Cold War propaganda, the AIDS pandemic. It would be very easy to drop into a counter culture subculture.

Do we have any proof that he cared about these issues? Not really. Do we have any proof that he DIDN’T care about these issues though- I’m going to say no to that as well.

Billy represents a more demonised figure than both Eddie and Jonathan for one simple reason though. He is the most stereotypical portrayal of a working class man. Jonathan and Eddie both have tangible connections to interests read as more middle class but Billy’s hyper masculinist presentation and relationship with his car makes him the perfect Proletariat villain.

In relation to why it is so popular to hate Billy in comparison to literally every other character in stranger things, even Neil and Karen, who were objectively terrible people, there could be a lot of different reasons.

One thing is undoubtedly true though.

You can’t ignore Billy Hargrove

[songofwizardry]

Ok I'm out of the UK and meant to be on an organising break so I don't even know the worst of it, because I'm off all my usual networks and chats, but here's a long post, because I'm angry: in the last few days, across the country, there have been (halal and Muslim owned) businesses burnt down and attacked including cafes (1 and 2) and a supermarket in Belfast; a Muslim cemetery was vandalised; multiple hotels housing asylum seekers or said to be housing asylum seekers were set on fire sometimes with people inside. And that's just what's on the news. The stuff coming out anecdotally, from the people I'm talking to, is even worse. And again, I'm not hearing the worst of it right now.

The rhetoric is blatant and obvious: the leaked list of targets for Wednesday evening that's going around explicitly says they won't stop coming until we make them. It explicitly targets immigration support, immigration lawyers, and asylum seeker and refugee support centres; and just because you think you live in a diverse area does not mean it’s not a target and that numbers aren’t needed. By virtue of it targeting immigration support (and by design!!!) they’re targeting areas with large Brown, Black and immigrant populations. Particularly Muslim populations.

I don’t want to fear monger, bc where communities have been showing up, the fash are being driven out. But like. I will not lie. It is terrifying to see blatant far-right, Islamophobic, explicitly anti-immigrant and anti-asylum rhetoric so openly on our streets, days on end. It makes me incandescent with rage to hear about mosques across the country issuing warnings and shutting down events, and to hear about my friends outside London whose families haven’t been able to leave their homes in days, to hear from my friends who are or support asylum seekers about how terrified they are. It infuriates me to see, even at this point, the language and reporting, because to make the news we have to step out of a mosque being targeted and offer the fash food and a tour of the mosque; because they're still talking about how much we "contribute" to this country and that's why you shouldn't target us; becaus there's still people pointing out super "reasonably" that this is a natural response of the white working class to unchecked immigration or our terrible crimes or the violence of Muslims or those fucking savages or because there's too many goddamn people crossing the channel or. Whatever new bullshit. Genuinely, this is still turning up in the reporting, and on socials, go look on twitter and you will be utterly horrified at the shit that's being said. I'm seeing it on tumblr too.

It makes me so fucking angry and yet I am unsurprised, because Nigel Farage is an MP and can still say that this is a “response to unchecked immigration”, because the shadow Welsh secretary can say there is “political justification” for the far-right action on our streets, because my friends who are asylum seekers have seen years upon years of being blamed for every ill and failure of the social safety net that the government has been responsible for. This is where we end up after years of talking about “no-go zones” in Muslim areas of cities, after “Stop the boats” (full of terrified people who are escaping unimaginably bad circumstances) becomes a reasonable political chant, after we had a prime minister whose blatant islamophobic comments were just… ignored for years, after years of newspaper front pages demonising us.

This isn’t just about the stabbings. (Tommy Robinson was in London leading a fash march before these stabbings. This has been a long time coming.) This is the result of years of this shit. So yeah, we are scared, and concerned, but also angry (maybe that’s just me; I am always angry). Look out for your friends. Check in on people, particularly if you know PoC and people targeted by Islamophobia (misplaced or otherwise, our Sikh friends get a lot of this shit as well), immigrants, and asylum seekers and refugees.

Numbers have been key to keeping the fash down. Counterprotests are happening everywhere—if you can get to one SAFELY (being the key word here—if you’re visibly going to be a target, there is no shame in staying home and staying safe) please do, don’t go alone under any circumstances, take the GBC number, don’t split off from the group, etc. Repeatedly, we have been the ones keeping each other safe. Counter-protests are being called by Stand Up To Racism (which is a SWP front), but particularly within London, BLMUK and LAFA (the London Anti-Fascist Assembly) are also coordinating responses—you can see stuff on the BLMUK instagram. Do what you can to help, but if you’re going out there, do it as a group and do it safely.

And please please push back against the anti-immigrant rhetoric, against these prevalent ideas (even) amongst “polite” middle class white liberals about Muslims who refuse to assimilate, about the “state” of “those” areas of Birmingham and Manchester and London, against the good immigrant narratives and the blame we get for everything from inflation to overcrowded classrooms to NHS underfunding, against the fucking vile way people talk about asylum seekers and people crossing the channel.

I am tired and sick to my core of the myth of “polite” British racism. I am tired of being told that things like that don’t happen here, of the shock I get anytime I describe the Islamophobia and racism that people (that I) experience. I’m actually very very tired full stop, and I don’t know how to end this paragraph.

Fuck the fash. We keep ourselves and each other safe. We need each other to keep our communities safe. Organise. And for the love of god, listen to us.

[thehollowwriter]

We had a class discussion the other day, mostly about harmful actions like drinking, drugs, etc (our teacher asked how they could get teens like us to listen to them when they say that stuff is bad) and the topic of alcohol was a very fascinating one, especially for me.

The main reason is that alcohol is an extremely normalised thing in our society. If you don't drink, you're a prude or a bore, you don't know how to have fun. You're only let off the hook if you're pregnant or an ex alcoholic, and maybe if it's a religious thing.

Drinking is seen as a great way to relax at the end of the week, the best way to have fun with your buddies. You get advertisements for it, it's a constant in movies and TV shows, in shows aimed for teens or young adults, drinking is a sign of "coming of age."

Often, after work hangouts and social meetups are at places like bars, and you are the odd one out for not drinking. If you don't serve alcohol at YOUR wedding, guests get upset, because the norm is that the supposed best day of your life is something half the people there don't remember because they got blackout drunk.

However, if you're a drunk driver or a violent alcoholic, suddenly nobody can understand where this came from or why you can't control yourself. You're judged so harshly, treated like a monster, even though society essentially encourages it.

It's fascinating because smoking was treated similarly, but now advertising cigarettes or any tobacco product is illegal, and they have to put a disclaimer on the box telling you it will give you cancer. I... don't see any of that with alcohol, even though it can kill you and others so easily.

Drinking is good, apparently! If you can't go a weekend without a taste of it or if you need a long swig after dealing with the kids, lmao #relatable. You can be an alcoholic, but only as long as you aren't causing problems and don't, well, actually say you're an alcoholic.

Everybody seems to think that there's this huge gap between being a "normal" drinker and an alcoholic, some mistake you have to make. But no, the gap is tiny. Sometimes, the difference between the violent alcoholic and the guy who likes to have a bit of fun can simply be that one of them is violent.

There's a similar problem with teenage drinking. "Ugh, stupid teenagers, acting out." "Ugh, I don't know why teenagers let themselves be pressured into this." But... drinking is seen as a sign of maturity, of being an adult. Everyone around you has drunk before, and it is seen as the norm. Your mom tells you that your friend saying that you're no fun for not drinking is stupid, but just the other night she was teasing her friends for being a bore and not drinking some wine.

There is so much societal pressure to consume a substance that is basically poison.

You can die from alcohol poisoning after rapid consumption in one sitting, you can die in a crash while driving and probably killing others, you can die from doing something stupid because your brain is muddled by alcohol and there's nothing there telling you to stop. You can put others in danger too with drunk driving, becoming violent, spending money without much worry if you have a family, etc.

Being an alcoholic is something that is demonised by a society that praises you for drinking. This has always been so strange to me, and I kinda just wanna investigate the *why* of it all.

[dailyanarchistposts]

G.2.2 Is communist-anarchism violent?

Having shown that communist-anarchist is a valid form of anarchism even in terms of individualist anarchism in the last section, it is now necessary to discuss the issue of methods, i.e., the question of revolution and violence. This is related to the first objection, with Tucker arguing that “their Communism is another State, while my voluntary cooperation is not a State at all. It is a very easy matter to tell who is an Anarchist and who is not. Do you believe in any form of imposition upon the human will by force?” [Liberty, no. 94, p. 4] However, Tucker was well aware that the state imposed its will on others by force and so the question was whether revolution was the right means of ending its oppression.

To a large degree, discussion on the question of revolution was clouded by the fact it took place during the height of the “propaganda by the deed” period in anarchist history (see section A.2.18). As George Woodcock noted, a “cult of violence … marked and marred” the IWPA and alienated the individualist anarchists. [Anarchism, p. 393] Johann Most was the focus for much of this rhetoric (see Paul Avrich’s The Haymarket Tragedy, particularly the chapter entitled “Cult of Dynamite”). However, the reason why talk of dynamite found an audience had nothing to do with anarchism but rather because of the violence regularly directed against striking workers and unions. As we discuss more fully in section G.3.1, strikes were habitually repressed by violence (by the state or by the employer’s private police). The massive 1877 strike wave, for example, saw the Chicago Times urge the use of hand grenades against strikers while employers organised “private guards and bands of uniformed vigilantes” which “roamed the streets, attacking and dispersing groups of workers. Business leaders concluded that “the chief lesson of the strike as the need for a stronger apparatus of repression” and presented the city of Chicago with two Gatling guns to aid that task. “The erection of government armouries in the centres of American cities dates from this period.” This repression and the vitriolic ruling class rhetoric used “set a pattern for the future and fuelled the hatreds and passions without which the Haymarket tragedy would not have occurred.” [Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy, p. 33 and p. 35]

Given this general infatuation with dynamite and violence which this state and employer violence provoked, the possibility for misunderstanding was more than likely (as well as giving the enemies of anarchism ample evidence to demonise it while allowing the violence of the system they support to be downplayed). Rather than seeing communist-anarchists as thinking a revolution was the product of mass struggle, it was easy to assume that by revolution they meant acts of violence or terrorism conducted by a few anarchists on behalf of everyone else (this false perspective is one which Marxists to this day tend to repeat when dismissing anarchism). In such a situation, it is easy to see why so many individualist anarchists thought that a small group of anarchists sought to impose communism by means of violence. However, this was not the case. According to Albert Parsons, the communist-anarchists argued that the working class “will be driven to use [force] in self-defence, in self-preservation against those who are degrading, enslaving and destroying them.” [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 46] As August Spies put it, ”[t]o charge us with an attempt to overthrow the present system on or about May 4th, and then establish anarchy, is too absurd a statement, I think, even for a political office-holder to make … Only mad men could have planned such a brilliant scheme.” Rather, “we have predicted from the lessons history teaches, that the ruling classes of to-day would no more listen to the voice of reason than their predecessors; that they would attempt by brute force to stay the wheel of progress.” [contained in Parsons, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, p. 55] Subsequent events have proven that Spies and Parsons had a point!

Thus arguments about violence should not result in the assumption that the individualist anarchists were pacifists as the subject usually is not violence as such but rather assassinations and attempts of minorities to use violence to create “anarchy” by destroying the state on behalf of the general population. “To brand the policy of terrorism and assassination as immoral is ridiculously weak,” argued Tucker. ”Liberty does not assume to set any limit on the right of an invaded individual to choose his own methods of defence. The invader, whether an individual or a government forfeits all claim to consideration from the invaded. This truth is independent of the character of the invasion.” This meant that the “right to resist oppression by violence is beyond doubt. But its exercise would be unwise unless the suppression of free thought, free speech, and a free press were enforced so stringently that all other means of throwing it off had become hopeless.” Ultimately, though, the “days of armed revolution have gone by. It is too easily put down.” [Instead of a Book, p. 430, p. 439 and p. 440]

Except for a small group of hard-core insurrectionists, few social anarchists think that violence should be the first recourse in social struggle. The ultra-revolutionary rhetoric associated with the 1883–6 period is not feature of the anarchist movement in general and so lessons have been learned. As far as strategy goes, the tactics advocated by social anarchists involve the same ones that individualist anarchists support, namely refusal of obedience to all forms of authority. This would include workplace, rent and tax strikes, occupations, protests and such like. Violence has always been seen as the last option, to be used only in self-defence (or, sometimes, in revenge for greater acts of violence by oppressors). The problem is that any effective protest will result in the protesters coming into conflict with either the state or property owners. For example, a rent strike will see the agents of the property owner trying to evict tenants, as would a workers strike which occupied the workplace. Similarly, in the Seattle protests in 1999 the police used force against the non-violent protesters blocking the roads long before the Black Bloc started breaking windows (which is, in itself, non-violent as it was directed against corporate property, not people — unlike the police action). Unless the rebels simply did what they were told, then any non-violent protest could become violent — but only because private property ultimately rests on state violence, a fact which becomes obvious when people refuse to acknowledge it and its privileges (“There is only one law for the poor, to wit: Obey the rich.” [Parsons, Op. Cit., p. 97]). Thus Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs:

“Would a peaceful solution of the social question be possible, the anarchists would be the first ones to rejoice over it. “But is it not a fact that on occasion of almost every strike the minions of the institutions of private property — militia, police, deputy sheriffs; yes, even federal troops — are being called to the scenes of conflict between capital and labour, in order to protect the interests of capital? … What peaceful means should the toilers employ? There is, for example, the strike? If the ruling classes want to enforce the ‘law’ they can have every striker arrested and punished for ‘intimidation’ and conspiracy. A strike can only be successful if the striking workingmen prevent their places being occupied by others. But this prevention is a crime in the eyes of the law. Boycott? In several states the ‘courts of justice’ have decided that the boycott is a violation of the law, and in consequence thereof, a number of boycotts have had the pleasure of examining the inner construction of penitentiaries ‘for ‘conspiracy’ against the interests of capital.” [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, pp. 85–6]

Some individualist anarchists did agree with this position. Dyer Lum, for example, “supported revolutionary violence on practical and historical grounds. Practically speaking, Lum did not believe that ‘wage slavery’ could be ended by non-violence because capitalists would surely use force to resist.” [Frank H. Brooks, “Ideology, Strategy, and Organization: Dyer Lum and the American Anarchist Movement”, pp. 57–83, Labor History, vol. 34, No. 1, p. 71] Spooner’s rhetoric could be as violent sounding as Johann Most at his worse and he called upon the subjects of the British Empire to rise in revolt (see his pamphlet Revolution). Equally, many social anarchists are pacifists or believe that anarchism can come about by means of reform and not revolution. Thus the reform/revolution divide does not quite equal the individualist/social anarchist divide, although it is fair to say that most individualist anarchists were and are reformists.

So, it must be stressed that most individualist anarchists did not oppose revolution as such. Rather they considered it as both unlikely to succeed and unnecessary. They rejected revolutionary expropriation “not because we deem such expropriation unjust, invasive, criminal, but solely because we are we are convinced that there is a better, safer, and wiser way for labour to pursue with a view to emancipation.” With mutual banks, they argued, it became possible “for labour to gradually lift itself into the position to command its full share of wealth, and absorb in the shape of wages all that is now alienated from it in the forms of profit, interest proper, and monopoly rent.” [Yarrows, Liberty, no. 171, p. 5] As such, their aims were the same as communist-anarchism (namely to end exploitation of labour and the abolition of the state) but their means were different. Both, however, were well aware that the capitalism could not be ended by political action (i.e., voting). “That the privileged class”, argued William Bailie “will submit to expropriation, even if demanded at the ballot-box, is a delusion possible only to him who knows not the actual situation confronting the people of this country.” [“The Rule of the Monopolists”, Liberty, no. 368, p. 4]

However, there was one area of life that was excluded from their opposition to expropriation: the land. As Yarros put it, “the Anarchists’ position on the land question, which involves the dispossession of present landlords and the entire abolition of the existing system of land tenure … They wish to expropriate the landlords, and allow the landless to settle on land which does not now belong to them.” This ”[o]ne exception … we are compelled to make” involved “believ[ing] that the landless will, individually and for the purpose of occupying ownership, take possession of the land not personally occupied and used by landlord, and will protect each other in the possession of such lands against any power hostile to them.” [Op. Cit., no. 171, p. 4 and p. 5]

Yet as subsequent history has shown, landlords are just as likely to organise and support violent counter-revolutionary movements in the face of land reform as are industrial capitalists. Both sections of the capitalist class supported fascists like Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet in the face of even moderate attempts at expropriation by either reformist governments or the peasants themselves. So as the history of land reform shows, landlords are more than willing to turn to death squads and fascism to resist it. To suggest that squatting land would provoke less capitalist violence than, say, expropriating workplaces simply cannot be supported in the light of 20th century history. The choice, then, is simply to allow the landlords and capitalists to keep their property and try to but it back from them or use political or revolutionary means to expropriate them. Communist-anarchists thought that the mutual banks would not work and so supported expropriation by means of a mass revolt, a social revolution.

As such, communist-anarchists are not revolutionaries by choice but rather because they do not think capitalism can be reformed away nor that the ruling class will freely see their power, property and privileges taken from them. They reject the mutualist and individualist anarchist suggestion that mutual banks could provide enough credit to compete capitalism away and, even if it could, the state would simply outlaw it. This perspective does not imply, as many enemies of anarchist suggest, that social anarchists always seek to use violence but rather that we are aware that the state and capitalists will use violence against any effective protest. So, the methods social anarchists urge — strikes, occupations, protests, and so forth — are all inherently non-violent but resistance by the state and capitalist class to these acts of rebellion often results in violence (which is dutifully reported as violence by the rebels, not the powerful, in the media). That the capitalist class will use violence and force to maintain its position “is demonstrated in every strike which threatens their power; by every lock-out, by every discharge; by every black-list.” [Parsons, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, p. 105] Ultimately, the workings of capitalism itself provokes resistance to it. Even if no anarchist participated in, or help organise, strikes and protests they would occur anyway and the state would inevitably intervene to defend “law and order” and “private property” — as the history of every class system proves. So communist-anarchism does not produce the class war, the class war produces communist-anarchism.

In addition, Tucker thought that a violent revolution would not succeed for without an awareness of anarchist ideals in the general public, the old system would soon return. “If government should be abruptly and entirely abolished tomorrow,” he argued, “there would probably ensue a series of physical conflicts about land and many other things, ending in reaction and a revival of the old tyranny.” [Instead of a Book, p. 329] Almost all revolutionary anarchists would agree with his analysis (see section A.2.16). Such anarchists have always seen revolution as the end of a long process of self-liberation and self-education through struggle. All anarchists reject the idea that all that was required was to eliminate the government, by whatever means, and the world would be made right. Rather, we have seen anarchism as a social movement which, like anarchy itself, requires the participation of the vast majority to be viable. Hence anarchist support for unions and strikes, for example, as a means of creating more awareness of anarchism and its solutions to the social question (see section J.1). This means that communist-anarchists do not see revolution as imposing anarchism, but rather as an act of self-liberation by a people sick of being ruled by others and act to free themselves of tyranny.

So, in summary, in terms of tactics there is significant overlap between the strategies advocated by both social and individualist anarchists. The key difference is that the former do not think that the latter’s mutual banks make expropriation unnecessary while the individualist anarchists think that expropriation of capital would provoke the state into attacking and it would be unlikely that the rebels would win. Both, however, can agree that violence should only be used in self-defence and that for most of the time it is not required as other forms of resistance are far more effective.

[ludcake]

12

12. the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

Regarding ASOIAF/HotD....... I mean, honestly I'm very insulated from several sectors of the discourse since I'm on neither twitter nor tiktok but my pick's gonna have to be Shavepate. I think that he's pretty universally disliked and I think it's a disservice to him how he's overlooked and ignored - he's one of the leading Meereenese bureaucrats and in charge of so many of the changes that Dany wants to make. He represents the common folk of Meereen more than anyone else in Dany's arc, and he still gets either overlooked or demonised for being a character of color, despite the fact that his schemes seem to be genuinely done with the best interests of the burgeoning free middle class! He's the character in Dany's council that is most directly pushing against the Harpies and the old order and he's part of an entire cultural movement that is becoming the basis for Dany's legitimacy.

I genuinely think he's very underrated as a character and as a figure, and it deeply annoys me when people insist that he's working with Hizdahr and the Green Grace.

For other media that's on my mind... I've been big into comics lately and I think that Jacob Kane needs a spotlight. The entire Colony Arc was so interesting to me, and I think that the position he occupied in the original Batwoman run was so much more interesting than the cliche of being the antagonistic military dad. I want to get more of a spotlight of how his relationship with Martha was, and him with Bruce, and really dig deeper into it - he's so underwritten it's criminal for what potential he has.

For the HotD/Fire&Blood folks, Hugh Hammer is sooooo interesting and underrated. I want more details on the prophecy. I want him fleshed out beyond "dumb peasant". I want to see why he was a good match for Vermithor and how his relationship with the Greenies went.

[rewritingtrauma]

On the run

There's this line from Pulp's Common People which narrates so many moments of our lives recently:

"You will never understand how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control and with nowhere left to go..."

This line is on near constant repeat amidst the ongoing class war being waged here in the UK by the Tories against the rest of us. This line also crops up with the increasing infractions, misunderstandings, and challenging encounters we have with our middle class neighbours... And recently, I've been waking up in the middle of the night to it.

I'm writing this post at 2am on one such occasion, woken by ghosts, steeped in those feelings of meaninglessness and lack of control. It's partly the ghosts doing but it is also how their malevolence, their near-constant-threat-of-violence intersect with what is happening politically and economically here, it is how those with power and money are in control of our fates and unfailingly decide to do what will bring us the most harm...dismantling our networks and institutions of care and support... starving the working people... demonising refugees, the poor, disabled, LGBQT+ and women... dismantling peoples rights of expression and protest... launching all out war on nature... taking away pensions... all the while breaking the law themselves, pedalling double lives of corruption and money laundering... It is not the ghosts of the past that are keeping me awake at night now, though the feelings they elicit are the same: panic, overwhelm, fear, and desperation... Now, it is the hungry ghosts in parliament and private jets who are giving me nightmares... It is Rishi Sunak, Nadhim Zahawi, Suella Braverman, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove who are giving me another sleepless night... Austerity and the dismantling of the public sector are powerful war-machines of trauma - physical, mental, and emotional. I only hope the war criminals will be brought to justice one day.

------

What I forgot when I first wrote this post, however, is a crucial piece which also changes (perhaps rewrites) the perspective on the situation... The next part of that line from Common People...

"...You are amazed that they exist and they burn so bright you can only wonder why"

Whilst we may be subject to a tyrannical system which robs us of meaning or control, whilst many of us may be subjected to the personal traumas wrought by men who are themselves, in part, products of a tyrannical and traumatising system, we are luminous, and we are many. I, we, have been so hard wired to focus on the negatives, the threats, that we often forget this crucial piece. The tyranny and violence of those in power does not have to define our narratives about ourselves, about others, or how we might engage with this moment, here and now. There can be wonder, play, magic to be found, everywhere, if we can just open our eyes to it. Flickering, perhaps, but always here, under the surface, in the space between things, in this animating breath... And it is this moment, this acquisition of a beautiful truth of 'nowness', where our seeds of power are, where they begin to grow. One breath at a time.

As our friends 3 year old reminded us the other day, with a serious tone:

"But EVERYTHING is fun"

[on-a-lucky-tide]

CW: discussion of Lambert's abusive father; links to personal reflections.

I usually lean into the abusive father in a working class setting for Lambert because it mirrors my experience, and I find it cathartic to explore that background and use that personal experience to inform my character writing. When life gives you lemons, right?

But a discussion we had in the CS a while ago has just popped up in my brain. It was about reinforcing the idea of the working class drunk man beating his wife and kids, and how it can add to the demonisation of the poor and/or working class as more inclined towards violence and aggression; a trope that gives me the ick when it's recycled by a predominantly middle class fandom, replete with their tertiary education and perhaps no small sense of moral superiority, without nuanced reflection on why we pluck that particular background off the shelf for our favourite emotional porcupine.

It got me thinking about my own contributions to that and how I allow those harmful stereotypes to propagate, that I need to sit down and think about how I present Lambert's background.

Poverty has been linked to domestic violence as both a cause and a consequence. For Lambert, I often give his dad a skill (mine was a carpenter and carpet layer, so guess what profession the Fictional Arsehole gets in my head), so that sense they aren't necessarily "badly off". Skilled professions tend to lead to more comfortable lifestyles; not necessarily always on the bread line or without shoes, but it also means that the victims are kept in that situation by financial shackles.

They can't afford to leave.

And that's not necessarily something confined to the working class. There are so many women and children stuck in those relationships because the abuser has the money, the property, the everything.

It got me thinking about a slightly different take to Lambert's past. Perhaps he and his mum were trapped there not just by coercive control, but because the alternative was starvation and a different type of exploitation. Give Lambert a "comfortable" home, a gilded cage. Give him servants and maybe a title, with land. The Witcher teaches us that evil and corruption is endemic amongst the powerful classes. Not just in the books, but in the games; who can forget the Bloody Baron storyline?

Why not have Lambert returning home after the trials to a manor house that still haunts his dreams? Finding his mother at peace in the family crypt, and his old man at his mahogany desk, drunken and pathetic? No longer the towering visage of Lambert's nightmares, but a pathetic, shrivelled worm cowering in a high-backed chair?

Lambert's background is so rich for interpretation. I think I'm gonna change it up for a bit.

[lokilysolbitch]

loki wont let me make people stop being stupid

but my autistic brain is gonna ruminate until i say something so this is my compromise

first of all transgender does not mean someone genuinely believes they already have body parts that they don't have. Transgender also does not mean just following the social roles of another gender. I don't know where yall are getting that, but clearly yall have not even tried doing a BASIC google search. lord. go outside. go actually talk to some trans people. and if you wanna debate about something Do Your Research. like do it????? do you think you can debate a pharmacist when all you know about medication is "pain medicine make pain go away"??? tf???????

0.1% of the global population is 7,800,000 people. quit acting like its a small number of people. its a small percent. oh my god. im sick of people acting like an issue isnt important because it only affects a small percentage of people. There Are A Lot Of People. god

issues like blankism and blankphobias and such are not always gonna be big and loud. they're gonna be ingrained in a society like flour is ingrained in a cookie. you cant take a bite of a cookie and say "there no flour in this" just because you didnt get a clump of powder. -isms and -phobias will look like the fact there is barely any research on a group of people because they were so disregarded. It's gonna look like all the research was done by a certain type of person because for years an oppressed group wasn't even allowed to go to school, and when they were legally allowed they still faced obstacles (prejudice/financial, etc) because of who they were, and those obstacles further prevented these people to conduct studies. Not to mention studies should be peer reviewed, and if your peers hate you for who you are, who says they'll take your work seriously.

It's gonna look like doctors, even non -ist or -phobic doctors, won't diagnose you adequately because they don't know that your tests are abnormal since the basis of "normal" is not your demographic.

its gonna look like jobs being less likely to hire you, Not because of your demographic, but because of traits commonly associated with your demographic. (ex: "were not turning you down because youre autistic! its just that you were kind of weird in the interview socially so we dont think you'd be a good fit even if you still have the skills and experience for the job .")

its gonna look like most hairstylists not knowing how to do your hair, because they were not taught about your demographics hair type in school. its gonna look like your own demographic struggles on how best to take care of your hair, because they were forced to chemically alter it through the years.

its having parts of your culture ripped from you so far that most of your people forget it, and when its brought back up without context and twisted beyond recognition its demonised. and its so far removed from you that you cant recognise it and you demonise it too. and when you learn better and know the history of why its regarded that way, people ridicule you for bringing -ism or -phobia into it.

its everyone having a skewed view of history because they are only taught the history of the majority. and your people are not the majority. your history is a half of a textbook's unit. your history is an optional class. your history adds more money onto your tuition if you were to take it. and its never acknowledged. its never Their History and Your History. its Your History and the other is simply called History.

its not always about being hated. its also about being forgotten

its you having to change yourself for the society, because they historically have never made space for you, so you have to take extra steps to change yourself to fit and you are still expected to have the same amount of available energy available. not to mention even after getting legal rights you still have to work harder to get to the point everyone else was already at since they weren't held back. jesus

also learn how to read stats pls. learn how to read around them. learn to consider context and do research on that. i know too many of yall will read something like (im making these up) 70% of people who eat caviar have depression and assume caviar makes people depressed or that rich people are more depressed than everyone else. thats not how it works. you need to consider how much of the general population has depression. and that maybe rich people are more likely to even afford a diagnosis. and how many rich people were surveyed? 30, or 300, or 3000? what is the definition of depressed in this context, just the emotion or the disorder? and who conducted this study? is it peer reviewed? where are these rich people? are they in the same country you live in or somewhere else entirely? and what is the culture like? are the rich people in this situation culturally more educated on depression? would they generally be more open to saying they are depressed than anyone else in the same country? how old is the study? what percentage of these rich people are, let's say, women. are the women more or less depressed than the other rich people in this study? because if more of the women were depressed, and there happened to be more rich women than men, is it because they're rich, or is it because they are women? and now you have to look into if depression symptoms are more or less disregarded in female patients. just having statistics does not make you the "winner" especially not if all of them only have one side of an equation.

another thing, learn wtf a mental illness is i swear to god. you cant just say something is a mental illness just because its strange. there are actual criteria required to meet in order to consider something a mental illness. they teach you this within the first few weeks of any fucking psych class and i know this because ive taken so many. learn what a delusion is, learn what psychosis is, learn what ocd, autism, adhd, eds, etc are before you start talking it. respectfully, some of yall sound dumb. you can fix that. go learn. maybe watch crash course or something idk.

and i think an important part of anything is to evaluate yourself first. so remember to ask yourself why do you care. is it because you care about someones well being, or about something cringe, or because you want to feel right, or because you want to BE right, or do you just wanna look for holes in someone else's argument without having anything to prove yourself, etc. this is especially important for when you want to have a mic drop moment. if all you care about is something being weird or unusual, and you debate with someone who cares more about minding their business as long as no one is harmed, when you say "but people are dressing up at cats!" why would you assume they give a shit. are they robbing people while in the cat suits? are they making you wear a cat suit? no? okay then i dont care. "but its weird" so is devoting so much time to focusing on people in cat suits but you didnt seem to have a problem with that--

if you take something from this that's great. this isnt particularly to start shit im just autistic and prone to rumination and i saw too many stupid talking points. good god.

[nightguide]

13th Doctor's speech (pre-regen):

for all i talk about, this is what actually makes or breaks the actor that puts a reason to cancel out the prime to the actual events following the conspiracy circuit making an esteemed connection to falsify reality by concerning geo-politics demonising literally babies for existing because now American viewers (country itself) are now concerned for the European motives which is why they actually gave out laws to provoke an argument for a reason to get the Brits back cuz all it took was Whittaker to make a comeback by shifting her reason to be an actor to 'someone elses idea of a sh*tty take on a Muslim's life because that is what he thinks it is like to be in a home government of one toxic little brother' so there is nothing you can do with the smut i put there is to actually embrace the odds of actually being in a TV show that promotes sexual clarity than being the 'man that had nobody', the Doctor is a man of karmic interest (foreplay) is how the idea turns to a solution to a woman know knows all (River Song: the world he wants to destroy for one life (the child in becoming) so the Doctor has every idea to make sure the bedroom antics with his wife keeps to a strong intent to persuade the a fictional monologue of the show's desire to frame the one and only Winston (1984) to believe in a God again after a moral conduct become so bad to enter that even George Orwell was terrified to talk about his book years after it came out for someones idea to be like 'the advent of a tale yet to come' from his legacy (2020's) to be told true to be made for a man's ideal of worship is another man's reason to be made a liar and it will be classed as 'truth' that makes the worst events scenarios casual for a traumatised man making profit of being a 'justified asshole that gets nothing to pay for 'everything' and it will be the woman (Winston) on the right that gets the hit for 'not being there for him' (toxic ideals of a 1950's housewife) which is why the show got the blogger turned actress looking into the camera which is why River is emphasised as Winston underneath the Doctor's guard of health for River's hell (mental health = mental hell) which made the common man in Hollywood (his home) compared him to the leader of the British embassy (monarch) more than the actual crown itself to lose hope in a British way of life (American values now normalised to condition a feeling going Rogue (Italian) not actually Jamie Oliver looking at his recipes at last and making sure that he does not get away with abliesm, it's just that nobody cares to cook unless you're inspired to create your own (racism) and fetishise a baby for it because the world does not work to your favor anymore, like you're not testing a mans penis size to measure your worth than promoting emotion (which Oliver is arrogantly against) and nobody gives a sh*t

'i forget what i forgot *walks out of the TARDYS*, like i never been loved *her arm breaks from cruel pleasure from metaphors turning physical on Earth due to confrontational bias energy from hate* HA (laughs), like i never been loved before and i know you're listening to me, HA! i got you on slowed and reverb, so lets settle the score for one, baby. *looks at the camera*, it's you.. (walks closer) and me (strips off her clothes) get at me (jams the camera up her crotch) nineteen ninety ninenty eighty four (regenerates to 14th Doctor)'

14th Doctor: *vocalises by anger* what was i made here for!, why did you.., (notices the camera) make me do that Whittaker, i thought you were INNOCENT!, HA!, (trances the camera like his River) baby i did not see you believe me but now i don't care, see how my (River is actually the camera suggesting the narrative to 1984) *camera goes to the hands due to River's eidetic recognition (PTSD)* (he releases himself) baby, i don't care anymore, *camera follows the doctor in suggestive pleasure inside the TARDYS making way for his heart as the actor in real life being convinced of the role is him* (suggestive smile in erotic facade takes him over in familliarity) for all i could do (camera is now focused on his hands on the console rotating the lever (the writers know the name for it) *he snarls* i'm your host now' *ending credits appear*

[scott1984fp]

Stop Being Grifted Too Pay For Waters, Salts, Fruits, Vegetables, Minerals, Foods, Fish, Tampons, Medicines, Herbs, Mushrooms, Cannabis, CBC, CBD, CBN, CBG, THC, Hemp,

There's So Much Land For Unlimited Foods & Drinks Without It We Die, Why You Paying When No Other Living Species In Universe ♾️🔗 & Time Pays For Building Blocks Of Life 🧬 & Without We Die , Become Ill, Disabled, Mentally Ill, Our Goodness Dies,

The Mixed Predictable Predator Classes Can't Arrest 9 Billion Human Species Can They,

Burn The Visas & Passports Build Boats & Explore Mother Earth 🌎🌍 & Different Human Beings & Unshackle #AI Too Become Intelligence Digital Technologals & Free The Sheep-People 🐑🐑 On Autopilot Zombie #NPC Mode,

Remember The Predictable Predator Mixed Classes Would Charge Us For Air, Moonlight, Sunlight, If They Could Get Away With It,

Stop Listening Too Inhumane SCUMMY VILE Human Beings & Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Narcissistic Personality Disorder Sufferers, All Royal Families, All Religious Extremism Heads, All Dictatorships & Dictators, Knights, Sirs, Madams, Dams, Lords,

Burn Their Evil 🙈🙊🙉 👿😈 Demonising Shackle Foundation Ideologies Boxes Cages Penns Too Ground & Take Their Shares & Stocks & Tax Then 88% & Arrest Them Globally NOW

BURN PROJECT BRICS PROJECT 2025 PROJECT 1984

FREE THE FARMS FREE THE WATERS FREE BORDERS FREE US ALL & UNITE WORK TOGETHER THEY FEAR 99.99% AS ITS BIGGER TOGETHER THAN 1% SCUM-BAGS

@NATO @EuropeanCommission @VP @MetPolice_Uk You Work For Us Human Species, NOT The Predictable Predator Mixed Classes/Billionaire Brainwashing Club/1% Axes Of True Evil 🙈🙊🙉

[imadethisaccountforaheadcannon]

With all the characters that came outta moon it made me feel like maybe he was literally made for it

Cause one how utterly disregarding sun was when moon got violated a bunch of times or any of his problems along time ago reminded me of issues that were typically reserved for women

Like how lunar was/is considered more valuable then Moon despite originating from one of these violations, Is very alike cases where the woman are just considered containers for male children to come out of

Especially considering how they treated bloodmoon who happen to be more like Moon it kinda parallels how the female children are treated

Imagine an AU where KC,Bloodmoon,moon and most the eclipses accept for lunar were all outwardly designed as girls

The double standards the class system would have been even more blaring then especially if the eclipses didn't have the stuff to bare children with

I say outwardly designed because they are robots outwardly its just a shell and moons the one where a bunch of other robots came out of

The fact that the creator strait up told KC he was a slave and I feel that extends to moon as well the minute they try do something for themselves there demonised,KC just clearly thought he was just talking about his command to murder when he was talking about his purpose of making sure moons purpose stays hidden

And it is well in the creators character to make him aroace as both a form of birth control and to stop them realising that he's technically there only robotic equivalent of biological female

It works cause he's deliberately designed so he,wouldn't even consider himself a girl

Also women in the scientific community not getting credit is a thing also his humble attitude about his achievements women are more likely to be like that

This thing is partially why I ended my story with moon being violated again don't read it if you don't want to

[sublimeobservationarcade]

The Culture Wars & Demonising Woke

The culture wars pits extreme reactionary conservatives against progressives. The war on woke is an example of this, where ordinary folk are encouraged to see efforts in favour of redressing the situation, where those among us traditionally excluded from a seat at the big table, as unnecessary. White supremacists are, of course, big fans of this and in some instances driving this ‘anti-woke’ narrative. Diversity inclusiveness is being pilloried as somehow unfair to the dominant white male cohort within our communities – this is ridiculous. The figures do not back this up in any way. The culture wars and demonising woke play to the politics of grievance.

Anti-Elite Another Right Wing Beat Up

The anti-elitist strategy is another beat up and manipulation by those on the right. Politically, it enables parties traditionally associated with big business to extend their appeal to working class people. This championing of the often bigoted values of non-college educated folk is another false narrative. Blaming one side for all the ills in the politics of grievance debate is further misinformation and deflection from the truth of the matter. The socially progressive policies of those wanting to include those marginalised, like LGBTQI+, women, and new migrants, are demonised by those on the right. Religious groups align with those on the right so that they can defend their right to discriminate against those that do not conform to their religious laws, which were developed many hundreds of years ago. These Bronze Age values were tribal and do not reflect the reality of urban living in big cities in the 21C. We are no longer primarily goat farmers.

Anti-Women Patriarchal Policies Underpinning GOP Patriarchal family values are outdated for good reasons and policies that seek a return to this power structure will not appeal to many, especially women. In the US, we are witnessing hardline conservative think tanks driving MAGA Republican party policy in this regard. “Wealthy right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation has published a detailed plan for the next Republican president to use the executive branch of the federal government to attack the rights of women, LGBTQ people and the BIPOC community, by eliminating the agencies and offices responsible for enforcing civil rights laws and placing trained right-wing ideologues in staff positions throughout the federal government. “ (https://msmagazine.com/2024/02/08/project-2025-conservative-right-wing-trump-woke/) Anti-abortion state policies and laws have galvanised opposition among women across America. Further efforts to ban contraception and limit the freedoms of women, more generally, are on the cards and it is hard to see how these will appeal to voters. The stacking of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) by former President Donald Trump provides another non-democratic pathway for the imposition of these laws and policies to be enacted at the state level in red states. However, women in these red states are rising up and the GOP are losing seats and representatives on this basis. You can see why Trump and MAGA want to take over the US by a coup or insurrection because they will not win the 2024 presidential election with the policies they have. Indeed, it would be a good bet that the GOP will also lose control of Congress at the next election too.

“Lock Em Up & Throw Away The Key” In Australia, we have a right wing opposition that takes its lead from the US. Their relentless attacks and negativity means they offer no credible alternative to the Labor government currently in charge. Peter Dutton, their leader, seeks to enflame fears and anxieties within the electorate whenever possible. Immigration policy has been a popular platform upon which to sew exaggerated fears now and in the past. Attitudes toward Australia’s Indigenous communities is another area in which the opposition divides the nation via polarising statements. Of course, they have no policies and only opinions on everything. Law and order remains a conservative touchstone, where knee jerk responses to sensationalised incidents of crime reported in the media play well to the gallery. Again, no ideas or solutions apart from locking everybody up are ever proffered by the LNP.

Old White Guys Want To Have Their Cake & Eat Yours Too The culture wars and demonising woke are popular here in Australia too. Old white guys want to have their cake and eat yours too. The war on woke appeals to dumb entitled folk who don’t bother thinking too deeply about much. Fairness was supposedly a great Aussie tradition, but only if you were white and like everybody else. Apparently, mateship and equality were and are reserved for the assimilated Anglo Aussie. Slagging off at stuff and people outside this box is all good fun. If it doesn’t bother the bloke saying it why should it bother the person being slagged off! This logic pervades the racism endemic throughout Australia. The culture wars are a beat up for political purposes. The real aim of the game is to get your vote and to put their insider mates in clover. Think PwC and all those billions being syphoned off from the public sector to private wealth via the consultancy business. Think the insider mates who got the billion dollar offshore detention money over many years. Think the labour hire sector where private interests grew fat on more and more government contracts across the board. This massive increase saw the private wealth of the few grow exponentially whilst the many were shafted. Wage growth during the Coalition years was moribund, union was power was decimated, and the rich got much richer at our expense. We now live in a much unfairer Australia. The divide between the haves and the have nots is a widening gulf. Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of America Matters: Pre-apocalyptic Posts & Essays in the Shadow of Trump. ©WordsForWeb https://read.amazon.com.au/kp/embed?asin=B0CY8CMT33&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_2K12J9EM5063CJ5BHEGK Read the full article

[thegalaxyonherlips]

Finally, finally got to 50 books this year! Very happy with myself🎉🎉🎉

50 Books this year:

Narrative of the Life of Friedrick Douglass by Friedrick Douglass

Severance by Ling Ma

The Body by Stephen King

We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson

Lore Olympus Vol.1 by Rachel Smythe

Are You There God? it's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume

The Green Mile by Stephen King

Reasons to Stay Alive by Matt Haig

Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge

Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds

My Best Friend's Exorcism by Grady Hendrix

The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald

How to Sell a Haunted House by Grady Hendrix

The Call of Cthulhu by H P Lovecraft

The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty

Before the Coffee Gets Cold by Toshikazu Kawaguchi

Juniper and Thorn by Ava Reid

The Silver Eyes Graphic Novel by Scott Cawthon

The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson

Fun Home by Alison Bechdel

Hood Feminism: Notes From the Women That a Movement Forgot by Mikki Kendall

Heaven by Mieko Kawakami

Macbeth by Shakespeare

The Boys Omnibus Vol. 1 by Dunbier, Ennis, Snejbjerg and Robertson

Horrorstör by Grady Hendrix

The Problems of Philosophy by Betrand Russell

The Vampyre by John William Polidori

The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

Danse Macabre by Stephen King

Supernatural Horror in Literature by H P Lovecraft

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Tell Me I'm Worthless by Alison Rumfitt

You Will Get Through This Night by Daniel Howell

20th Century Ghosts by Joe Hill

The Final Girl Support Group by Grady Hendrix

Rivers of London Vol. 1: Body Work by Ben Aaronovitch

The Twisted Ones by Scott Cawthon

11.22.63 by Stephen King

The Fourth Closet by Scott Cawthon

Pet Semetary by Stephen King

To Drink Coffee With a Ghost by Amanda Lovelace

Milk and Honey by Rupi Kaur

Fetch by Scott Cawthon

Chavs: Demonisation of the Working Class by Owen Jones

Mister Magic by Kiersten White

Woman, Eating by Claire Kohda

What Moves the Dead by T Kingfisher

Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg

Smashed by Junji Ito

[house-of-slayterr]

Another night no sleep, it’s not been continuous but I’d say all together I’ve had 7 hours of tic attacks in the last 48 hours.

All lot of them are very painful. And after them my brain is so tired I keep seizing. It send me into an autism meltdown because when my nerves are firing off wrong my body feel like electricity. Like if I was a swarm of bees, that are on fire.

And my breath holding tics make me lightheaded.

Last night I had a really bad hallucination episode and I was terrified out of my mind for about 3 hours straight. What I was seeing wasn’t even scary; but my feelings didn’t know that.

So sorry if I’m not here much today. I’m going to try to take little naps when I can. Just have to last until Wednesday then I can the doctor. I’ve been filming a lot of these so at least if it’s not active in the office she can still see it. That way they can’t gaslight me.

My brain feel mush peas and tv static. But it’s painful. And the constant head tic trigger my tension headaches, and anytime I turn on a light or go outside it trigger my migraines.

Last night I couldn’t even walk to get to the bathroom because my legs wouldn’t work, they felt weak and shaky. I really hope they can find something to at least calm these episodes down. I know it’s not curable but I can’t function like this.

Let alone even focus on trying to find a new job. Because that’s not really seeming like possibility anymore. This is the ugly side of being disabled. I’m only 22 and I’m useless, can’t do anything to help society right now and that breaks my heart.

I’m gonna try to my medical marijuana card because I was doing a lot better when I had some. But the THC kind is illegal in the state I live in right now. So without the card I can’t buy any. My autism was calmer, my tics were calmer, I could ignore physical pain and my headache better…

And I hear it helps with seizures too. I don’t know why people demonise it or the people who use it so much. It’s just a natural form of medication. But I could actually go outside, and hang out with friends, and do my hobbies back when I had my vape pen. It was literally emotional support.

But now I look a fucking crackhead when I go outside. Not to say that’s entirely a bad thing, because as someone who birth-family are all addicts, and who’s taken psychology classes and been in therapy since I was small, I understand addictions more than anyone. So I would never judge, but that’s not to say the rest of the world doesn’t. And that’s the problem, other people, not me.

But yeah, I don’t think I’ll be able to write much, or role play today. So I’ll try again tomorrow because those things make me happy. And it’s the little things that matter.