#and propaganda shared will be limited to non-existant | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

adhdnojutsu · 6 months

Text

Identity wars & the Uchiha

I always wondered why Itachi haters hate him because he committed mass murder, but excuse Sasuke, Obito, and Madara, for doing/attempting the same. I finally managed to put my finger on why exactly this doesn't sit right with me, other than just being plain silly or using trauma or marginalisation as an excuse for just about anything. Look, I'm queer, doesn't mean I get to walk into a roomful of c*s folks and empty my clip.

Itachi weighs human life in absolute numbers. Anti-Itachi, pro-Uchiha fans weigh human life in identities.

To them, each marginalized life is worth a whole busload of non-marginalized lives. They forget that social justice is NOT revenge, ie marginalized people taking the whole cake and leaving the non-marginalized to starve, but to redistribute the cake so NO ONE goes hungry.

To them, anyone in Konoha other than the Uchiha are non-marginalized aka "the oppressor", so their lives carry not even half the weight of an Uchiha's.

Because clearly, when they defend Sasuke's planned mass murder, it's not just "Danzo and the elders", no, these people think "guilt by association" is the new social justice, so everyone "laughing" in Konoha, to use Sasuke's words from his unhinged rant, is guilty and deserving of retaliation, too. There are no "victims" or "innocents" in Konoha unless they have a ping pong bat on their shirts, it seems. Not even babies or elderly. They're all guilty of something only 3 living people are even aware of.

They don't realize they're justifying school shooters. Because yes, the boy was victimized by a handful of bullies and had every right to go after them, but what, pray tell, justifies shooting up the whole school? That's what Sasuke, Obito, and Madara are. Glorified mass shooters. They have righteous beef with an entity or handful of people, and they're happy to take everyone else down with them for sharing the enemy's zip code.

When lumping all Konoha residents/people everywhere in with "the oppressor", these people don't take into account:

-genuine ignorance of the administration's rotten tactics

-if aware, a lack of power to change anything

-repercussions of treason/desertion -rational thought, ie. not criminalizing someone for living in the only place they've ever known

-other forms of marginalisation existing within Konoha, as well as civilians and dissenters -cultural/propaganda impact, ie. drinking the kool

-aid not typically being an act of malice and thus not warranting a death sentence

-limited responsibility for elected leaders: you may not have voted for this leader, or your elected leader may not keep his promises

-various personal and societal struggles not leaving capacity to march for the marginalised; remember Konoha doesn't even pay decorated ninjas enough to have their sick children treated: Mukai Kohinata had to spy for an enemy village to pay his son's hospital bills, and Konoha sent Itachi to kill him for it

-Kage are not democratically elected, making people living under them even LESS responsible for their administration. The Kage administration is a dictatorship, making everyone living under a Kage oppressed and victims. This also adds not-so-voluntary pressure to the "voluntary" decision to serve as a ninja. Imagine saying no to a dictator with a huge standing army of brainwashed child soldiers.

-the public reaction to the genocide. If they hated Itachi that much for it, surely, they could have made good allies to the Uchiha if the latter had EVER bothered to share their concerns rather than simmer in silence!!

All they see is "Uchihas oppressed, so everyone else bad". So they don't mind that Sasuke or Madara or Obito kill a bunch of innocent and marginalized people along with "the oppressor". Collective punishment, guilt by association, all those things I thought we all agreed are ALWAYS bad, are suddenly excusable if committed in the name of justice (revenge) rather than power.

Itachi "looks bad" because he only killed oppressed people, under orders from the oppressor. Itachi haters don't even take into account that he did so in tears and hating his commander and only obeying because of the many INNOCENT lives he thought were at stake - many more than those 60 or so Uchihas. He didn't kill the clan "for the oppressor" (a government), he, from his POV, killed the clan for the people who didn't ask to live under this, or any government - after all, there is no opting out of "enabling injustice through citizenship" no matter where you go, so why fault anyone for existing where they do?

Is all of Konoha really "the oppressor" because of those 4 old people? Where could Konoha residents go in protest where they would not collaborate with some form of oppression, where is that utopia of innocence and justice? Fugaku sure wasn't gonna build it, since he would have to establish a new iron fist rule to keep people in line after *checks notes* kidnapping a leader who only ever showed them a loving face.

"Guilt by association" is not how to advocate for social justice. Not in the Narutoverse, not IRL. You just turn the aggressor-victim dynamic around, not eradicating oppression.

#itachi #naruto #itachi uchiha #itachi naruto #uchiha itachi #uchiha clan #uchiha massacre #uchiha #obito #madara #anti itachi #pro uchiha clan #anti konoha

39 notes · View notes

starwarspissorgy · 1 year

Text

For a while I've been thinking about the closedness and ephemerality of (non-broadcast) D&D as a virtue it has as an art form, and today I had a thought about ephemeral art that I want to share and hopefully develop.

The idea that it is automatically better for your art to reach more people is flawed. There are really only three arguments I can see.

You cannot commercialize art that has severely limited reach. The problem with this is obvious; art does not exist only as a commodity.

Reaching more people with your art extends how much you are able to change people's minds, which is generally going to be good in service of changing the world in a positive way. Art does not need to serve this function, however, and separating your art from your activism is fine; that your art has not maximized its impact as propaganda is not (typically) valid criticism of your art.

Reaching more people means that in a vaguely utilitarian sense your art does more direct good. Let's talk about this one.

I think 3 has always been the big one for me because I've always had vaguely utilitarian intuitions (I am aware of why I need to always be questioning my intuitions). The idea that something is better because it had more total positive impact has a lot of pull for me. The problem with this argument is that attention is a limited resource for each person. If my queer SF book gets in the hands of someone, that person is often reading it instead of someone else's queer SF book, or at least instead of playing an interesting game or thinking idly about something that's been on their mind or going outside. On average, I think it's a fair assumption that people make better choices for themselves the more choices are available, but this has to be a very small amount on average. If I release a book that does very well and it winds up on a staff picks shelf, on average each person who picks it up instead of the other book next to it that they haven't read probably has their life improved relative to the counterfactual world where they pick up the other one only by a fairly small amount; that other book could have been just as good for them.

This is not a reason not to write books - the impact is still positive, and overall impact is not the only important thing about art. But it is a reason books are not automatically better than in-person D&D campaigns (or social practice or any other art form). Because other art forms have the capacity to increase options much more deeply for a smaller number of people. Running a D&D campaign very often opens up an entirely new avenue of expression for a small number of people, which is going to do a lot for each person who gives that a try and sticks with it. It is entirely possible that the impact the story you tell with a handful of other people has on the world is bigger than what even a published book would have had, due to the relative magnitude for those few people.

It's an extension of the general ideology of looking local. Everyone wants to change the world, but the thing is that changing the world is the only thing we can't ever help but do every day. Sometimes effort spent on community organizing is more impactful than it would have been spent on some international campaign; sometimes effort spent on a D&D campaign is more impactful than it would have been spent on a book. The stories we tell with each other don't need to be consumable by other people, and the fact that we're telling them with each other is enough reason to keep telling them this way anyway.

#ttrpg #d&d #dungeons and dragons #mackedemia

0 notes

deco-devolution · 3 years

Photo

Sexuality & Gender In Columbia

Okay, so this is a frankly huge topic to cover, and because there is so little direct reference to any non-heterosexual/cisgender culture in the games, a lot of this will be me sharing/explaining my headcanons/worldbuilding. My ideas will be based on historical record of LGBT+ struggles at the time (1890-1915) and mostly US-centric, as Columbia seems to be fairly westernized. in addition, I will be focusing purely on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities to cut down on post size and research time. Here we go!

Note: These all refer to Columbia (Rapture has a separate post) culture in the peak of the city’s life- a snapshot into queer Columbia circa 1910, roughly speaking. As such my talk about the culture is purely as I’d imagine it to be at that specific time only with no details as to the cultural development to that point.

cw for homophobia, transphobia, q slur

Sexuality In Columbia

If you’re not straight it’s over for you

Quips aside, just from playing the game you can tell Columbia is ruled by the most staunch of conservatism. The Edwardian Era in real-world history made heavy emphasis on modesty and a sense of duty but Columbia takes it a step beyond, and this can be seen in most every example of media or dialogue found in-game. Having such traditional Biblical leanings, it can easily argued that this also extends to sexuality.

Right off the bat, I feel like this is Heterosexual (& Cisgender) Land™. Any other sort of attraction, be it gay, bisexual, or anything else, is considered reckless experimentation at best and ungodly and deserving of punishment at worst. Aside from the religiously-motivated belief that only straight relationships are legit, there’s another reason they’re so heavily emphasized- population growth. Columbia, for all its pomp still has a relatively small population on a national scale- just from some educated guesses I’d put it around the borough to town region, as indicated on the settlement hierarchy of ekistics. While the limited space of the city means that the population can’t just continue to grow, a certain rate of births is needed to keep the population level.

Interestingly enough, even though Columbia is a hotspot of religious zealotry, the city still follows the conventions of Edwardian/Early WWI society- very proper, highly formalized in its ideals. Aside the propaganda and fearmongering, personal details are still taboo in polite conversation.

Cruising is done in places where social conventions are significantly different from formal events or even everyday conventions- namely the beach, pubs and lounges.

In the same vein, hookups, flings, and dates are called vague things like “going out to lunch/drinks”, “going for a stroll” or “having a picnic” and same-gender partners are typically referred to as close friends. It’s all very underhanded, the result of both Edwardian discreetness and closeted language.

Gender In Columbia

Like most of Columbian society, the queer groups in Columbia tend to gather based on gender. Lesbians share space with bisexual women, and gay men stick with bisexual men. As far as trans communities go, however, the cisnormative, rigid interpretation of gender predominant in Columbia means that they tend to be misunderstood among the other queer groups. Typically not in a blatantly hostile way but rather an obnoxiously condescending “poor confused dear” way.

Gender is not so much an identifier as much as an determinator; whatever you are assigned will be the factor driving not only your upbringing but your life choices as well.

There are quite a few social clubs that operate as safe spaces for the community- they typically rotate between the members’ houses and frequently merge or splinter with or from other groups, going from book club, to knitting social to any other politely banal gathering.

For those looking to dress how they’d like in safety, ‘costume clubs’ are popular among gender non-conforming, trans people and those interested in crossdressing. They present themselves as sort of novelty dance halls with every day being a masquerade. While technically legal, their image is strongly connected to immorality and looseness in Columbia and as such they’re rare and subject to higher levels scrutiny then other halls.

Because of the rigidity of the culture, the LGBT+ culture in Columbia uses nonverbal queues to state their identities- for example men place certain flowers in buttonholes or alternatively pin them to their lapels to let outsiders know they’re in the community. Women can put these same blossoms in their hats, brooches and hair. These include flowers such as lavender, violets, pansies, carnations and daffodils.

There are HRT gene tonics for sale- they’re marketed under the guise of improving a woman’s femininity or man’s masculinity, they’re sold in pharmacies in the health and beauty aisles without the need for a prescription. This helps some looking to transition do so much easier, though the issue of financial barriers for those who are younger and/or living in poverty still linger. As far as options like SRS go, the procedure is entirely underground, practiced by surgeons of varying repute. While being able to do so successfully is considered a show of skill, most practitioners and citizens are morally opposed to the idea.

Unlike Rapture, there’s not many fun or quirky terms for LGBT+ citizens. Those with same gender attraction are rudely referred to as “victims of unnatural passions” and those who ID as anything other then cisgender are accused of “falling into delusions of identity”. Among themselves though, WLW call themselves “Lady Lovers of Liberty” (as in the statue based on the Roman goddess Libertas) while MLM call themselves “Sons of Antinous” while trans citizens typically refer to themselves as “Children of Agdistis”. (Note that while Agdistis was portrayed as intersex in Roman mythology, their nonbinary existence and transformative identity made them a relatable icon for most trans people in Columbia)

Questions or comments? Let me know! Thanks for reading.

#mine #bioshock infinite #biotalk #bioshock #will update soon!

129 notes · View notes

deborahdeshoftim5779 · 3 years

Quote

MYTH Human Rights Watch has proven Israel is an “apartheid” state. FACT In its longstanding campaign of demonization of Israel, Human Rights Watch (HRW) adopted a new tack in its latest report. Knowing the absurd and ineffective efforts of anti-Israel propagandists to compare Israel to Afrikaner South Africa, HRW decided to write a new definition of “apartheid” it could selectively apply to one state – the Jewish state. HRW relies on definitions that apply to the systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are racial groups so HRW expands the definition to include groups – actually only Palestinians – that share descent, national or ethnic origin. As Professor Gerald Steinberg noted, “Beyond South Africa, no other regime or government has been deemed to meet the international definition of apartheid, not even murderous and oppressive regimes practicing separation based on race, religion, and gender such as Saudi Arabia and China” (Gerald Steinberg, “Human Rights Watch demonizes Israel via propaganda of apartheid,” Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2021). “The report mocks the history of apartheid by using its hateful memory to describe a grab bag of policies that HRW happens to disagree with, and in many cases are not in effect, or were never in effect. Apartheid is not just a term for policies one dislikes,” the Kohelet Policy Forum wrote in its response to the report (“HRW Crosses the Threshold into Falsehoods and Anti-Semitic Propaganda,” KPF, April 26, 2021). For its part, the Biden administration wasted no time rejecting HRW’s conclusion: “It is not the view of this administration that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid,” a State Department spokesperson said (“US disagrees that Israel carrying out ‘apartheid,’” France24,” April 28, 2021). Too often, however, truth does not matter. When a human rights organization, even one with a long history of anti-Israel bias, makes an inflammatory accusation it is assured of attracting media coverage, as was the case with HRW’s report. Journalists rarely factcheck the material before quoting the report and its authors in stories with incendiary headlines. By the time the information is evaluated by third parties, it is too late because the original, unverified story has been transmitted around the world to become fodder for Israel’s detractors. Graphic courtesy Elder of Zion Thus, you are unlikely to see any quotes about the report from Judge Richard Goldstone, who was appointed to the Constitutional Court of South Africa by Nelson Mandela, played an important role in that country’s transition to democracy, and was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged crimes committed during Israel’s operation in Gaza in 2009. In a New York Times essay, “Israel and the Apartheid Slander,” Goldstone wrote, “In Israel there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute” used by HRW in an effort to get around the specious comparison to South Africa (New York Times, October 31, 2011). In a rebuke to the equally fallacious claims made in the recent B’Tselem report, Goldstone noted, “there is no intent to maintain ‘an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.’ This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.” Presciently anticipating the similarly misguided argument of John Brennan, Goldstone notes, “until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed.” Speaking to those who demonize Israel while claiming to be interested in peace, Goldstone concluded, “The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.” Hirsh Goodman, another native South African, said HRW “is blind to fact and reality.” He called the report, “a disgrace to the memory of the millions who suffered under that policy in South Africa” (Hirsh Goodman, “I left apartheid South Africa. Applying the term to Israel is disingenuous,” Forward, April 27, 2021). Goodman noted that HRW is an advocate of discrimination against Jews, supporting the anti-Semitic BDS movement, and that the report came out as an Israeli Arab, a member of an Arab party in the Knesset, and an Islamist no less, had the potential to determine who would be Israel’s next prime minister. In the previous election, a coalition of Arab parties was the third largest faction in the Knesset. This is discrimination? What about Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens? They have the opportunity to vote for their leaders in Palestinian elections, which were last held in 2006 (the one scheduled for May was just cancelled because the president, serving the 16th year of his four-year term, is afraid of losing). HRW apparently has no problem with the fact that a Jew cannot vote in a Palestinian election even though the outcome will affect Israel or that a Palestinian who has acquired Israeli citizenship also cannot vote in the Palestinian Authority (Elder of Ziyon, “Another Double Standard: Palestinian Law Excludes Israelis From Voting,” Algemeiner, March 26, 2021). HRW condemns Israel for treating Palestinians in the disputed territories and Israeli citizens differently, but Israel has no obligation to treat them the same. In the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed the Palestinians should be responsible for their own lives in virtually all areas except security; hence, about 98 percent of Palestinians are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The fact that both deny their own people civil and human rights goes unmentioned by HRW. HRW also ignores reality while applying a standard that would make nearly every country, including the United States, guilty of apartheid. Take, for example, the report’s criticism of the Law of Return. Yes, it grants automatic citizenship to Jews, but non-Jews are also eligible to become citizens under naturalization procedures similar to those in other countries. More than two million non-Jews are Israeli citizens and 21% of the population are Arabs who enjoy equal rights under the law with Jewish citizens. Meanwhile, Ireland has a law allowing immigrants of “Irish descent or Irish associations” to be exempt from ordinary naturalization rules while Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany and a number of other democratic states also have policies similar to Israel’s Law of Return and yet are not labeled by HRW as apartheid. HRW apparently has no problem with Arab nations that have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the exception of Palestinians, or with Jordan’s “law of return that provides citizenship to all former residents of Palestine – except Jews. Graphic courtesy Elder of Zion For HRW it is a crime for Israelis to want a Jewish majority in the Jewish state. Are Muslim states equally guilty for not accepting a non-Muslim majority? The report castigates Israel for placing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, ignoring that checkpoints and the security fence were created to protect Israeli citizens – Jews and non-Jews from terrorists. It accuses Israel of “Judaization” of Jerusalem, the Galilee and the Negev, implying that Jews should not be allowed to live in parts of Israel where there are “significant Palestinian populations” (which is not the case in the Negev), including its capital. Israel is also condemned for not agreeing to commit suicide by allowing the 5.7 million Palestinians UNRWA calls “refugees” to live in Israel. To refute the charge that Israel is therefore discriminating against Palestinians simply refer to the thousands of Palestinians who left the country and were allowed to return and become citizens (“Israel Claims 184,000 Palestinian Refugees have Returned since 1948,” Al Bawaba, January 1, 2001). Israel has also repeatedly offered to accept a limited number of Palestinians as part of a peace agreement (Gene Currivan, “ISRAEL TO ACCEPT 100,000 REFUGEES; Offer, to Go Into Effect When Peace Comes, Is Delivered to Arabs at Lausanne,” New York Times, July 30, 1949). Summarizing the absurdity of HRW’s argument, one writer tweeted: “Israel: The only country that’s shrinks when it colonizes, grows the population it’s genociding, fattens the people it starves and consistently increases quality of life and freedoms on every metric for the people it apartheids” (@TheMossadIL, April 29, 2021). Contrast Israel’s behavior with that of the Arab states which deny Palestinians living within their borders, sometimes for decades, the right to become citizens. The Lebanese government goes even further by denying Palestinians a host of rights and placing limits on where they can live and work (Lisa Khoury, “Palestinians in Lebanon: ‘It’s like living in a prison,’” Al Jazeera, December 16, 2017). If you want to talk about discrimination, consider that it is a crime for a Palestinian to sell land to a Jew and a fatwa was issued by the preacher of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Ikrimah Sabri, saying it is permitted to kill the seller (“Khatib Al-Aqsa issues a Sharia fatwa regarding the diversion or sale of real estate to settlement associations,” Sama News Agency, April 8, 2021). Ironically, the author of the HRW report, Omar Shakir, was happy to live in Israel (imagine a black person choosing to live under the Afrikaner regime) until the Supreme Court revoked his residency permit. He is an advocate of the BDS campaign, which raises the question, Why would HRW choose someone who objects to Israel’s existence as the arbiter of its behavior (Ben-Dror Yemini, “A most dangerous and mendacious report,” Ynet, April 27, 2021)? Highlighting HRW’s hypocrisy, the Jerusalem Post reported that one of the organization’s board members runs a venture-capital fund that invests in Israeli start-ups (Lahav Harkov, “Human Rights Watch chairman invests in Israel as he calls it ‘apartheid,’” Jerusalem Post, May 2, 2021). It is also worth remembering that HRW uses its anti-Israel record as a fundraising tool, as we learned when Sarah Leah Whitson, the director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division, went to Saudi Arabia to raise money by highlighting the group’s demonization of Israel (David Bernstein, “Human Rights Watch Goes to Saudi Arabia,” Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2009). The founder of HRW, Robert Bernstein, said in 2009 the organization had become devoted to “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.” Contrasting Israel with the countries HRW once focused on, he noted it had “at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world.” Writing in the context of a biased HRW investigation into Israeli actions in Gaza, Bernstein lamented that “Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism” (Robert L. Bernstein, “Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast,” New York Times, (October 19, 2009). Israel’s government is not immune to criticism and many of its policies are subject to vigorous debate and, in some cases, harsh condemnation by Israelis. What distinguishes Israel from the countries HRW should be investigating is the internal democratic processes that lead to self-examination, more enlightened policies and, where legally warranted, punishment for criminal activity. Nevertheless, Israel’s detractors and anti-Semites will use the report to reinforce their existing prejudices and try to convince the uninformed of HRW’s alternative reality. It also feeds into the BDS narrative by arguing it is not just the “occupation” that is bad; Israel itself “is intrinsically racist and evil” and therefore should be dismantled (Herb Keinon, “The HRW apartheid report: Does it matter?” Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2021).

Jewish Virtual Library refutes the odious myths perpetrated by “Human Rights Watch” (except Jewish rights) in their latest edition of “Myths versus Facts”.

44 notes · View notes

all-things-are-nothing-to-me · 4 years

Text

The Fetishization of the Working Class

The left is mired in identity politics. While leftists often express their opposition to systems of domination based on class, gender, sexuality and race, they tend to oppose such systems by accepting and reinforcing the very identities created and imposed by such systems of domination. While all such identities are problematic, I believe that none of them is as harmful as the left’s idealized and fetishized identity of “the worker”.

The working class as an identity differs from identities such as identities based on gender and race in the sense that a worker is an actual thing that exists apart from how we define it(as opposed to a “black” person or a “woman”). That being said, the worker only exists as long as he reproduces social relationships that define him as a worker. The moment he stops working he ceases being a worker. But why do I consider embracing the working class identity to be so harmful?

Before we get into that, let’s look back at the creation of the working class and the working class identity. We can trace the birth of the working class back to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England, which needed a disciplined workforce to run the factories that were emerging like mushrooms after the rain. There was, however, one major problem for the owners of these factories: nobody wanted to work in them.

Peasants preferred to work their plots of land, and autonomous artisans wouldn’t dream of submitting themselves to the nightmarish factories. Both saw wage labor for what is is: paid slavery. Unfortunately, the state and the bourgeoisie were determined to turn both peasants and artisans into workers, and they had the tools and the power to accomplish that. Land enclosures robbed peasants of their lands, creating a mass of landless vagrants. Anti-vagrancy laws forced these ex-peasants to chose between being criminalized or reduced to mere cogs in an assembly line. Mass-produced goods out-competed artisans, and the creation of the modern police made sure that the population was proletarianized whether they wanted it or not.

This process sparked a wave of resistance. The most emblematic revolt against the new conditions being imposed was the Luddite uprising, when textile workers and weavers rose in revolt against industrialization and proceeded to destroy as many machines as they could. Eventually, the uprisings were put down and people were forced into becoming workers.

The shared experienced of being forced into becoming workers and of working together under grueling conditions (16 hours work journeys, miserable wages, poor workplace safety, etc) forged a solidarity among the first wave of proletarians, which created the conditions for the birth of the labor movement.

Accepting their new role, workers began to organize and fight for better conditions. Struggles for better wages, working-hours and for the legalization of unions took place, and the tactics of the infant movement began to develop. Working class solidarity grew, and the identity of the worker slowly took hold upon the new class as new ideologies were developed around it. These are the ideologies that eventually gave rise to the modern left.

It is in this context that socialism appeared. As a critique of capitalism emerged from worker struggles and from the thoughts of socialist thinkers, the bourgeoisie was identified as an enemy of the working class. From this perspective, visions of struggle and “liberation” began to emerge. The most well known of these perspectives is that of Karl Marx, which originated marxism. Marx recognized the antagonist nature of the relationship between classes, and sought to create a vision that could lead to a stateless and classless society (which he termed communism). His revolutionary subject was the working class, which Marx believed to be the only inherently revolutionary class under capitalist soiety. The non-workers who were excluded from the system were seen by him as crude “lumpens” with no revolutionary potential.

According to Marx, workers should seize the state through a violent revolution and create a “proletarian” (and socialist)state. With the state in their hands, workers would dismantle capitalism and speed the development of the “productive forces”, which Marx believed are being held back by capitalism. As the socialist society ran it’s course, the state would supposedly become increasingly unnecessary and wither away (although no marxist ever made clear how this process would actually happen).

Bakunin and other anarchists living at that time (correctly) predicted that the takeover of the state would simply create a class of state bureaucrats that would become a new self-serving elite. This critique was essential to the development of anarchist theory and praxis, which views the state as an inherently oppressive institution that cannot be used for liberating purposes.

That being said, both Marx and Bakunin (as well as socialists/anarchists at the time with very few notable exceptions) believed that the productive forces should not only be maintained but also developed. Not only they failed to identify the inherently oppressive nature of industrial technology, they also failed to see that workers can never be liberated as long as they remain workers.

Much time has passed since then, but the left still glorifies and fetishizes industrial society and the working class that keeps it running. Even the vision of the most “radical” elements of the left (contemporary revolutionary socialists and left anarchists)refuses to go further than the idea of a society where the means of production are administered by the working class. But what good is it to get rid of the bourgeoisie if we are still enslaved by work, civilization and industrial technology? Should I be exhilarated at the possibility of managing my own misery instead of seeking to abolish it?

And why should I look upon the working class as “The Revolutionary Class” when the vast majority of the working class would defend industrial society with teeth and nails even though it is the source of their misery? Now, don’t get me wrong. In the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class I will always side with the working class. That being said, I cannot envision more than a small fraction of the working class rallied behind a true liberating vision, not when most workers cannot even imagine (and wouldn’t want) a world free from the shackles of industrial civilization.

And how can the “radical left” claim to fight for the liberation of the working class when most workers don’t want to be liberated? If forced to choose between the radical left and their capitalist overlords, most workers will side with the latter (not to mention the increasing number of working class folks who are willing to turn to fascism in response to an increasingly crisis-ridden world). You can always claim that this is simply a matter of educating workers so they can see their own oppression, but it doesn’t change the fact that you cannot speak for those who would never wish to be represented by you. Also, Seeing workers as mere pawns of capitalist propaganda is a patronizing and elitist attitude which denies people their agency as individuals. Yet, such attitude is prevalent among the left.

This is not to deny the social dynamics that are at play shaping people. What we can accomplish as individuals is always limited by our social environment. Yet, if we are nothing more than products of our environment with no individual agency,there isn’t even a point in trying to oppose society.

Either way, it is clear that the left’s ideas about the working class and its revolutionary potential are as irrelevant as their ideas about revolution and “liberation”. The working class can only be liberated to the extent that it is destroyed and transcended. As for me, I will side with members of the working class that are willing to rise up when it suits me, but I won’t let off the hook those that get in my way. As for those who refuse to be molded into workers and are willing to steal back their lives, they can always count on my strength and solidarity.

#guará #post left #nihilism #leftism #communism #anarchism #post left anarchy

74 notes · View notes

lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers · 4 years

Text

Ok, but consider that British society, and perhaps especially London society, is basically structured around the idea that you work all week 9-5 (or longer) in a job you hate, probably with a hellish commute because you can’t actually afford to live near where you work and all the rest of it, and the only thing that actually makes it bearable is going and drinking yourself into oblivion in the pub on Friday night, and that as a country we are basically incapable of socialising without alcohol anyway, and an awful lot of places have lost any sort of meaningful social space that isn’t a pub.

Consider that so many people live in absolute tiny spaces, without even a balcony, or in shared houses with very limited privacy. And consider again that again the thing that gets many people through the year at work in the soul-destroying, office/retail job is the thought of that one week on a Greek island or whatever, and how many people have had that snatched away from them this year or for the foreseeable.

Consider that a humane approach to lifting lockdown wouldn’t have been shoving people out into non-essential jobs or jobs that can easily enough be done from home, wouldn’t have been centred around having your cleaner in your house before your own mother, or considered playing golf more important than friends meeting up, or, like, actual human affection. Consider that many people are being told that social distancing or mask wearing isn’t essential at work or for their kids to go back to school.

Consider that we went into lockdown after almost every single other European country, consider that a factor in that decision making was the existence of Cheltenham and the bloody gambling lobby putting huge amounts of pressure on the government. Consider that part of our reasoning for rushing out of lockdown is Brexit, and another part of it is Dominic Fucking Cummings.

Consider who the Tory government want you to blame if there is a second wave, and consider why the fuck you are doing their propaganda for them.

Consider that the problem isn’t individuals, the problem is the system and by the system I mean capitalism.

#uk politics #politics #coronavirus #opening pubs #beaches #lifting lockdown #capitalism #blame capitalism #the capitalist state #is fundamentally the wrong thing #to look after people during a pandemic #if this reads a bit like a reblog #it was going to be #but I decided that going off like this on the bottom of someone's post #was probably not ok

62 notes · View notes

stevebillyrecs · 4 years

Photo

Not-So-Fluffy Holiday Season Recs

Ho-ho-ho, it’s that time of the year again! Where we all drown in thoughtful gifts, family bonding, and mistletoe kisses! If you’re looking for something other than just pure fluff (like me) but still want to get your holiday season fix, this is the rec list for you. That’s not to say that there won’t be any fluff, just that it’s not the sole focus of the story!

Included: Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s Eve fics containing family drama, smut, heavy plot, or just some good ol’ angsty pining. Also, still a whole lot of fluff in between the non-fluff. Not included: Fics about any other, especially non-Christian holidays… because I couldn’t find a single one. Sad!

24 fics under the cut!

mistletoe and other holiday propaganda by brawlite / @brawlite & ToAStranger / @toast-ranger-to-a-stranger (54k, E)

Everybody wants something for Christmas. It just so happens that the only way for everyone to get what they want is for Billy and Steve to pretend to be dating over Christmas break. It’s really the only option.

Yule Shoot Your Eye Out by eternalgoldfish / @eternalgoldfish (3k, T)

Steve moves to Indianapolis to avoid Hawkins, but Billy doesn’t get the memo. Now it’s Christmas, they’re snowed in at work, and Steve is giving up on holidays. Merry Christmas, I could care less.

been crawling series by kate_button / @un-buttoned (8k, E)

The crop top was right there on the main aisle in the women’s section. Steve’s not entirely sure, like, why it exists, but he’s not disappointed about it. The rest of it came together pretty quickly (and cheaply) after that. So anyway, that’s how he finds himself drinking jungle juice out of a red solo cup looking like the twenty-two-year-old-man version of Karen Smith, animal ears and too much skin, bada boom, costume. I’m a dog. Duh.

You Get the Mistletoe and I’ll Be Your Santa, Baby by LazyBaker / @granpappy-winchester (2k, G)

Steve’s looking at him and Billy’s wearing Steve’s itchy and warm handmade I love you sweater, looking right back. They’re sharing a blanket.

nothing is finite (in the evening light) by Philosoferre / @babyhargrove (22k, T)

“It’d be convenient,” Billy adds. He’s looking at Steve expectantly, but he’s still a little guarded. “And, uh. Road trips, you know. They’re supposed to be fun and shit. Don’t make this a bigger deal than it is, Harrington.” Steve finds himself smiling; he doesn’t bother trying to hide it. Billy narrows his eyes curiously. "Sure,” Steve says. Or, Steve and Billy go on a road trip to Hawkins for Christmas break. Both of them might be very much in love.

If You Kissed Me Now by socknonny / @socknonny (1k, T)

When Steve kisses Jonathan under the mistletoe at the Byers’ Christmas party, it’s only for a joke. But for some reason, it sets Billy off, and Steve won’t leave him alone until he understands why.

Christmas in the Benz by flippyspoon / @flippyspoon (6k, E)

Steve escapes a crappy Harrington Christmas only to find another crappy Christmas refugee.

Under the Moon by ImNeitherNor / @imneithernor (3k, T)

“Hargrove?” The voice yanks Billy back into the present and he stands up fast enough to make himself dizzy. He blinks twice, shifts his boots in the snow, and looks over to where the voice had floated from. Standing in his Members Only jacket with that fucking bat over his shoulder, Steve looks at him like he’s seen a ghost. Billy clenches his fists and notices how Steve’s eyes trail to the blood on his mouth, the blossoming color on his cheek. “You’re bleeding,” Steve points out, like Billy doesn’t know that. “Really fucking observant, Harrington,” Billy curls his lip up and flicks his tongue out, over the split, and Steve’s eyes follow it like they always do. It’s a visceral thrill up his spine but anger eats it up. Steve is off limits and, as much as Billy wants to lick into his mouth and feel those lean muscles against his own, he isn’t stupid.

I don’t want a lot for Christmas by r0nj4 / @a-station-on-your-way (1k, M)

Steve buys a Christmas present and has mixed feelings about it.

well damn, billy, i can't control the weather by obsceme / @hartigays (7k, T)

narrator: and there was only one bed all of us, collectively: (gasps) and there was only one bed

Last Christmas by shocked_into_shame / @bornwithoutsin (2k, E)

It’s Billy and Steve’s first Christmas together, and Steve will not stop singing that fucking Wham song. Billy doesn’t mind, though, because Steve agrees to make it up to him.

Thankful For by ChrisLeon / @vgorodye (8k, NR)

The ad read: ‘No one to bring home for the holidays? Looking to piss off your parents? I’m your guy. 22 y.o. ex-con, never graduated high school, proud owner of a Camaro one year younger than I am. I can play anywhere from 18 to 29 depending on if I shave or not. Currently working as a line cook and late nights at a bar. If you’d like to have me as your strictly platonic date for Thanksgiving, but have me pretend to be in a serious relationship with you to torment your family, I’m down.’ Steve knew it was bad idea. He clicked on it anyway.

Five Days (To Midnight) by Blink_Blue / @winters-blue-children (7k, E)

It's been months since Steve left Hawkins and walked out of Billy's life. He's back for the holidays and Billy gets one last chance to make things right. They have five days together. Five days left of the year. Five days to cherish.

Time after Time by lemonlovely / @lemonlovely (10k, E)

“Really, Harrington. Stop avoiding the question. Tell me.” Those blue eyes flashed like an animal's in the dark depths of the Camaro. He repeated himself, enunciating like Steve was particularly slow. “Why. Would I have seen. Your wallet?” Steve glared down at Billy, feeling like they were caught in some kind of a staring contest that he hadn’t actually initiated, but also didn’t particularly want to lose either. Which seemed to happen a lot when he was around Billy – and that hadn’t been a lot for a few months. He’d been avoided like the plague, or maybe it was the other way around. Jesus Christ, apparently Billy was really gonna make him say it, as much as Steve didn't want to. He grit his teeth together. “Because.” Steve said. “I think I might have left it in…the backseat of your car. You know. That night. And I need it back.”

Deck the Fucking Halls by XxmerthurcatxX / @callmelilyshameless (700, T)

Billy hates Christmas but he loves Steve.

Mountain of Dreams by socknonny / @socknonny (1k, E)

Steve's drunk, and someone is singing.

Rivers 'Til I Reach You by tracy7307 / @tracy7307 (10k, E)

“I know lifting's a bad idea but I’m feeling.” Shame twisted up in Billy’s gut, and he toyed at his lasagna with his fork. “I don’t feel as. I don’t know. Confident.” His muscle mass was not as bulky as it used to be -- his abs and biceps just a shadow of what they once were. He had a soft little belly now. And then there were the scars. Dark pink floral patterns of scars all wound over his back, sides, and abdomen. Suddenly the thought of shirtless summer weather struck dread in his heart. For now, long-sleeved henleys and sweatshirts provided the perfect way for him to hide. It was literally the only time he’d been thankful for winter. “Hey,” Harrington said from across the table. He paused until Billy looked up to his eyes. His tone grew delicate and serious. “I’m not fucking around, okay? You. Look. Good.” And the way that Harrington looked at him -- brown eyes soft, his gaze lingering on Billy’s face. On his eyes. Well, maybe he meant it. “Yeah?” Billy asked. He felt his face heating. “You think so?” Harrington took the last bite of his lasagna. “Definitely.”

I Play Along with the Charade by moonflowers / @eatingmoonflowers (7k, T)

Billy'd been keeping an even closer eye on Harrington after that night at the Byers' - only natural, right? Thing is, watching and wondering never was enough for Billy.

in the wilderness life becomes by lymricks / @lymricks (3k, T)

Back in Hawkins for a winter break, Steve and Billy remember what it was like and learn about what it could be. Or, three old memories of Hawkins and one new one.

Bah Humbug, Billy Hargrove by LaVeraceVia / @laveracevia (14k, E)

“It’s okay, Billy. You’re not in any danger. No one can hear us,” Harrington says, and something about his tone—it’s not right. It’s too calm. Too…what? Certain. It’s too certain. Steve Harrington doesn’t talk like that. He means to say are you fucking high?, but what comes out instead is, “Who are you?” “Would you believe me if I said I was your guardian angel?”

merry christmas (i don’t want to fight tonight) by gothyringwald / @gothyringwald (1k, T)

Billy stands alone by the wall, beer in hand, a string of lights twinkling cheerfully above his head. Across the room Stacy Brent corners Steve under the mistletoe, pointing at it with one artfully manicured nail and smiling suggestively. His stomach turns and his blood heats. He chugs his beer, wipes his hand over the back of his mouth, jaw clenching as Stacy leans in.

Tell me, baby by socknonny / @socknonny (2k, M)

Steve finds Billy chopping down the worst tree in the entire Christmas Tree Farm.

A Love Thing by tracy7307 / @tracy7307 (2k, E)

Even five months after recovering from his injuries, Billy still has residual effects from the mindflayer. It's Christmas. Steve wants to help.

Happy Holidays From Your Least Favourite Homosexuals by bry0psida / @bry0psidawrites (1k, T)

Steve's family haven't had any contact with him since he came out as bi. He gets wind from Robin that he's being excluded from the family Christmas Card. Billy has the solution.

#harringrove #harringrove fics #harringrove fic recs #stranger things #reclist #trope:christmas #trope:thanksgiving #trope:newyears

435 notes · View notes

raptured-night · 4 years

Note

Hello, I have two questions this time. Why do you think we can’t really compare Death Eaters to Nazis? Why can’t we really compare purism with racism? Oh and do you think Death Eaters are more like nowadays’ terrorists or not?

So, it's no secret that I have drawn attention to the issue of Death Eaters being treated as literal stand-ins for Nazis or blood purism as a literal example of racism. Importantly, there is a difference between acknowledging the ways that Death Eaters or blood purity might work as semi-functional allegories for the Nazis and their ideology, white supremacy, racism, etc., and treating fictional representations of invented prejudices as if they were comparable or on par with non-fictional Nazi ideology, white supremacy, or systemic racism.

An article for Medium makes this point very well:

Silent resisters and ‘I don’t really care about politics’ people deserve our contempt. But what makes those who filter life through fiction and historical revisionism worse is that they are performing a soggy simulacrum of political engagement.

As a woman of colour watching, all I can do here is amplify the call to step away from your bookshelf. Let go of The Ring. My humanity exists independently of whether I am good or bad, and regardless of where the invented-fictional-not-real Sorting Hat puts me.

Realise that people are in danger right now, with real world actions needed in response, and not just because you want to live out your dreams of being Katniss Everdeen.

The problem with discussing Harry Potter’s fictional examples of prejudice as if they were literal or completely comparable with real-life prejudices is that it does lead to an oversimplification of the reality of prejudice (whether white supremacy, racism, homophobia, transphobia --looking at you Jo-- or otherwise) and the very real people who experience these prejudices every day. The fantasy of being Harry Potter up against Umbridge or Voldemort in a YA series where the line between the good and bad guys is almost clearly denoted by the narrator is a far cry from the reality of what activism is or what living under oppression is like for many marginalized people.

I would argue that this is also a leading reason why the “social justice” (yes, in many cases I believe that deserves to be enclosed in dubious quotations) discourse in Harry Potter fandom trends more towards performative than it does sincere (one need only look at the defense posts for Rowling in response to real marginalized groups criticizing her for things ranging from her offensive representation of Asian people, Indigenous and Native peoples, or her failures in representing the lgbtq+ community particularly in light of her coming out as an open TERF and they can get an idea of how those “I’m an intersectional feminist/social justice ally and that’s why I read HP!” fans quickly shift gears to throw the bulk of their allyship behind Rowling instead) because when you spend all of your time debating fictional prejudices it’s much easier to detach oneself from the reality of non-fictional prejudice and its impact on real people.

Fiction has no stakes. There is a beginning, middle, and end. In Rowling’s fictional world, Harry Potter ends with Harry and “the side of light” the victor over her allegorical representation of evil and he gets his happily-ever-after in a world we are led to believe is at peace and made a better place. In the real world, decades after the fall of Hitler, there are still Nazis and white supremacists who believe in the glory of an Aryan/pure-white race and are responsible for acts of violence towards marginalized groups; even after the fall of the Confederacy in the U.S. we are still debating the removal of monuments erected in their honor (and the honor of former slave owners and colonialists like Christopher Columbus) while the nation continues mass protests over the systemic police brutality Black people and other people of color have long faced (not to mention the fact the KKK are still allowed to gather while the FBI conspired to destroy the Black Panther Party and discredit them as a dangerous extremist organization).

As a professor in literature, I’ve often argued that fiction can be a reflection of reality and vice versa. Indeed, it can be a subversive tool for social change and resistance (e.g. Harlem Renaissance) or be abused for the purposes of propaganda and misrepresentation (e.g. Jim Crow era racism in cartoons). So, I am not underscoring the influencing power of fiction but I do believe it is important that when attempting to apply fictional representations to real-world issues we do so with a certain awareness of the limitations of fiction. As I have already observed, there is an absence of real-world stakes for fiction. Fictional stories operate under a narrative structure that clearly delineates the course they will take, which is not the case for real life. In addition, the author’s own limitations can greatly affect the way their fiction may reflect certain non-fictional issues. Notably, a close reading of Harry Potter does reveal the way Rowling’s own transphobic prejudices influenced her writing, not least in the character of Rita Skeeter (but arguably even in her failed allegory for werewolves, which are supposed to reflect HIV prejudices, but she essentially presented us with two examples of werewolves that are either openly predatory towards children or accidentally predatory because they canonically can’t control themselves when their bodies undergo “transformations” that make them more dangerous and no surprise her most predatory example, Fenrir Greyback, seems to have embraced his transformation entirely versus Lupin who could be said to suffer more from body dysmorphia/shame).

Ultimately, fiction is often a reflection of our non-fictional reality but it is not always an exact reflection. It can be a simplification of a more complex reality; a funhouse mirror that distorts that reality entirely, or the mirror might be a bit cracked or smudged and only reflecting a partial image. Because fiction does have its limits (as do authors of fiction), writers have certain story-telling conventions on hand through which they can examine certain aspects of reality through a more vague fictional lens, such as metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. Thus, the Death Eaters can function on an allegorical level without being problematic where they cannot when we treat them as literal comparisons to Nazis or white supremacist groups (particularly when we show a greater capacity for empathy and outrage over Rowling’s fictional prejudice, to the extent we’ll willingly censor fictional slurs like Mudblood, than we do real-world examples of racism and racial microaggressions). As an allegory, Voldemort and his Death Eaters can stand in for quite a few examples of extremism and prejudice that provoke readers to reflect more on the issue of how prejudice is developed and how extremist hate-groups and organizations may be able to rise and gain traction. Likewise, blood prejudice looked at as a fictional allegory goes a lot further than when we treat it as a literal comparison to racism, wherein it becomes a lot more problematic.

I’ve discussed this before at length, along with others, and I will share some of those posts to give a better idea of some of the issues that arise when we try to argue that Voldemort was a literal comparison to Hitler, the Death Eaters were literal comparisons to Nazi, or that blood purity is a literal comparison to racism.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism and Death Eaters as Nazis, per @idealistic-realism00.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism, my own thoughts.

On the issue of Death Eaters and literal Nazi comparisons, per @deathdaydungeon and myself.

Finally, as I have already argued, the extent to which fiction can function as a reflection of non-fictional realities can be limited by the author’s own perceptions. In the above links, you will note that I and others have critiqued Rowling’s portrayal of prejudice quite thoroughly and identified many of the flaws inherent in her representations of what prejudice looks like in a real-world context. The very binary (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong, dark/light) way that she presents prejudice and the fact that her villains are always clearly delineated and more broadly rejected by the larger society undermines any idea of a realistic representation of prejudice as systemic (we could make a case for an effort being made but as her narrative fails to ever properly address prejudice as systemic in any sort of conclusive way when taken along with her epilogue one can argue her representation of systemic prejudice and its impact fell far short of the mark, intended or otherwise). In addition to that, the two most notable protagonists that are part of her marginalized class (i.e. Muggle-born) are two comfortably middle-class girls, one of whom is clearly meant to be white (i.e. Lily) and the other who is most widely associated with the white actress (Emma Watson) who played her for over a decade before Rowling even hinted to the possibility Hermione could also be read as Black due to the casting of Noma Dumezweni for Cursed Child.

Overall, Rowling is clearly heavily influenced by second-wave feminist thought (although I would personally characterize her as anti-feminist having read her recent “essay,” and I use the term loosely as it was primarily a polemic of TERF propaganda, defending her transphobia, and reexamined the Harry Potter series and her gender dichotomy in light of her thoughts on “womanhood”) and as far as we are willing to call her a feminist, she is a white feminist. As a result, the representation of prejudice in Harry Potter is a distorted reflection of reality through the lens of a white feminist whose own understanding of prejudice is limited. Others, such as @somuchanxietysolittletime and @ankkaneito have done well to point out inconsistencies with Rowling’s intended allegories and the way the Harry Potter series overall can be read as a colonialist fantasy. So, for all of these reasons, I don’t think we should attempt to make literal comparisons between Rowling’s fictional examples of prejudice to non-fictional prejudice or hate groups. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are better examined as more of a catch-all allegory for prejudice when taken to it’s most extreme. Aicha Marhfour makes an important point in her article when she observes:

Trump isn’t himself, or even Hitler. He is Lord Voldemort. He is Darth Vader, or Dolores Umbridge — a role sometimes shared by Betsy DeVos or Tomi Lahren, depending on who you’re talking to. Obama is Dumbledore, and Bernie Sanders is Dobby the goddamn house elf. Republicans are Slytherins, Democrats are Gryffindors.

The cost of making these literal comparisons between Voldemort or the Death Eaters to other forms of extremism, perceived evil, or hate is that we impose a fictional concept over a non-fictional reality and unintentionally strip the individual or individuals perpetrating real acts of prejudice or oppression of some of their accountability. I can appreciate how such associations may help some people cope and for the readers of the intended age category of Harry Potter (i.e. YA readers) it might even be a decent primer to understanding real-world issues. However, there comes a point where we must resist the impulse to draw these comparisons and go deeper. Let Voldemort and the Death Eaters exist as allegories but I think it is important we all listen to what many fans of color, Jewish fans, lgbtq+ fans, etc. are saying and stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by treating these fictional characters and their fictional prejudices as if they were just as real, just as impactful, and just as deserving of our empathy and outrage as the very real people who are living daily with very real prejudices --because they’re not equal and they shouldn’t be.

#anti-rowling #systemic racism #nazi mention: cw #white supremacy #godwins law #allegory #harry potter #harry potter meta

65 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 3 years

Text

20 Years of Post-9/11 Amnesia

Memories of the last 20 years are rarely focused on increased state violence and repression in the post-9/11 world. The damage has largely been forgotten.

The constant demand that we “Never forget!,” the events of September 11, 2001 is rather laughable. Forgetting is difficult after enduring 20 years of war propaganda. News stories about that day are plentiful albeit useless, that is to say they add nothing to our understanding of why the U.S. was attacked and depend upon sentiment, jingoism, and tried and true claims of exceptionalism to maintain fear, hatred, and support for war.

The aftermath of September 11 gets surprisingly short shrift but it is just as important as the who, what, when, where, why, and how of that date. It was just three days later that the Senate and House of Representatives voted to begin what are now called the forever wars. On September 14, 2001 California’s congresswoman Barbara Lee cast the lone vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It gave George W. Bush broad authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001…”

The 9/11 event isn’t forgotten, but the near universal approval of the attack on Afghanistan is rarely mentioned now. The corrosive impact of that war on international and domestic law is also swept under the rug. In the past 20 years presidents have claimed the right to kill anyone they claim is a threat, deny the right to civilian trials, and gather and keep electronic information on everyone in the United States. These assaults on human rights have been largely forgotten, as the shock of the day turned otherwise intelligent people into supporters of aggression.

Thanks to the state’s collusion with corporate media, there was even an unwillingness to find out how the attacks were carried out and ascertain who in Bush’s administration should have known what was going to happen. During that summer of 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to fly on commercial airlines. He obviously knew there was a threat.

Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford was one of many eyewitnesses to strange activity on the day in question. He recounted meeting two men in Jersey City, New Jersey watching the towers burn. They claimed to be Polish but spoke Hebrew, had fake press passes, brand new cameras, and a joyful attitude about the unfolding tragedy. There were other reports about Israelis ostensibly working for a moving company who also watched the towers fall and celebrated as they did. These documented incidents inconvenience the official narrative and were given insufficient attention by the government and their friends in media.

The shamefully inadequate 9/11 commission didn’t take place until months later. George W. Bush and his national security team garnered fawning media attention but hardly any scrutiny about what they knew and how the attacks were carried out. No one was fired, no one resigned, and hard questions were eschewed in favor of deference to the people who failed their country so badly.

Even when there was reporting on links between Osama bin Laden, the U.S. government, and the Saudi royal family, the stories cast suspicion everywhere except where it should have been directed. They rarely delved into bin Laden’s beginnings as an ally of the U.S. in the Afghanistan regime change effort, and his ties to the Saudi allies that would have embarrassed the Bush family and the entire foreign policy apparatus. It is true that bin Laden relatives and Saudi royals were whisked out of the country when airspace was shut down for everyone else. But tales of evil Arabs predominated instead of real reporting which would have asked hard questions about every president from Jimmy Carter onward who funded jihadists like bin Laden as proxies for U.S. foreign policy designs.

By all means let us remember. Remember the drone strikes, the kill lists, the Abu Ghraib torture, and the Guantanamo Bay prison where men still languish after 20 years. Remember that the rush to war in 2001 was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Remember that Secretary of State Colin Powell lied at the United Nations about non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Remember that even our popular culture has been impacted, and that film makers are given access to classified documents if they agree to produce pro-torture propaganda. The New York Times wouldn’t even print the word torture if the U.S. was the perpetrator. “Harsh interrogation techniques” and other such euphemisms were substitutes for the truth.

Twenty years later the U.S. is a changed country and not for the better. Congress still gives presidents broad authority to bomb, change foreign governments at will, and sanction any country that becomes a target. Regime change is acceptable as long as U.S. troops aren’t directly involved in the dirty work. The media follow suit and citizens who object to wars of terror and a growing surveillance state are marginalized. Even politicians who call themselves progressive go along to get along and eagerly vote to support a defense budget that is now more than $750 billion.

Memories are limited to September 11, 2001 and not to what happened afterward. The attacks were a pretext for doing what the imperialists always wanted. Glen Ford put his strange experience in perspective. “In effect, Washington was claiming revenge as the motive for crimes that it had long been planning to commit. Precise causality for the specific events of 9/11 becomes near-irrelevant, submerged in the much larger aggression that was conceived long before the towers fell.”

It is little wonder that there is so much confusion about the world we live in now. War, austerity, and inequality were just what the ruling class ordered. They needed a war against humanity and they have been waging it for the last 20 years. If there are going to be shared memories about post-9/11 life, that harsh truth must be among them.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents . Her work can also be found at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

1 note · View note

nicklloydnow · 3 years

Text

“A fundamental change in the relationship between the state, natural elites, and intellectuals only occurred with the transition from monarchical to democratic rule. It was the inflated price of justice and the perversions of ancient law by kings as monopolistic judges and peacekeepers that motivated the historical opposition against monarchy. But confusion as to the causes of this phenomenon prevailed. There were those who recognized correctly that the problem was with monopoly, not with elites or nobility. However, they were far outnumbered by those who erroneously blamed the elitist character of the ruler for the problem, and who advocated maintaining the monopoly of law and law enforcement and merely replacing the king and the highly visible royal pomp with the "people" and the presumed decency of the "common man." Hence the historic success of democracy.

How ironic that monarchism was destroyed by the same social forces that kings had first stimulated and enlisted when they began to exclude competing natural authorities from acting as judges: the envy of the common men against their betters, and the desire of the intellectuals for their allegedly deserved place in society. When the king's promises of better and cheaper justice turned out to be empty, intellectuals turned the egalitarian sentiments the kings had previously courted against the monarchical rulers themselves. Accordingly, it appeared logical that kings, too, should be brought down and that the egalitarian policies, which monarchs had initiated, should be carried through to their ultimate conclusion: the monopolistic control of the judiciary by the common man. To the intellectuals, this meant by them, as the people's spokesmen.

As elementary economic theory could predict, with the transition from monarchical to democratic one-man-one-vote rule and the substitution of the people for the king, matters became worse. The price of justice rose astronomically while the quality of law constantly deteriorated. For what this transition boiled down to was a system of private government ownership — a private monopoly — being replaced by a system of public government ownership — a publicly owned monopoly.

A "tragedy of the commons" was created. Everyone, not just the king, was now entitled to try to grab everyone else's private property. The consequences were more government exploitation (taxation); the deterioration of law to the point where the idea of a body of universal and immutable principles of justice disappeared and was replaced by the idea of law as legislation (made, rather than found and eternally "given" law); and an increase in the social rate of time preference (increased present-orientation).

A king owned the territory and could hand it on to his son, and thus tried to preserve its value. A democratic ruler was and is a temporary caretaker and thus tries to maximize current government income of all sorts at the expense of capital values, and thus wastes.

(...)

While the state fared much better under democratic rule, and while the "people" have fared much worse since they began to rule "themselves," what about the natural elites and the intellectuals? As regards the former, democratization has succeeded where kings made only a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elite and nobility. The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families' tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten.

Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state's continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but "nouveaux riches." Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else. Consequently — and thank goodness — their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than most other people's.

Democracy has achieved what Keynes only dreamt of: the "euthanasia of the rentier class." Keynes's statement that "in the long run we are all dead" accurately expresses the democratic spirit of our times: present-oriented hedonism. Although it is perverse not to think beyond one's own life, such thinking has become typical. Instead of ennobling the proletarians, democracy has proletarianized the elites and has systematically perverted the thinking and judgment of the masses.

On the other hand, while the natural elites were being destroyed, intellectuals assumed a more prominent and powerful position in society. Indeed, to a large extent they have achieved their goal and have become the ruling class, controlling the state and functioning as monopolistic judge.

This is not to say that democratically elected politicians are all intellectuals (although there are certainly more intellectuals nowadays who become president than there were intellectuals who became king.) After all, it requires somewhat different skills and talents to be an intellectual than it does to have mass-appeal and be a successful fundraiser. But even the non-intellectuals are the products of indoctrination by tax-funded schools, universities, and publicly employed intellectuals, and almost all of their advisors are drawn from this pool.

There are almost no economists, philosophers, historians, or social theorists of rank employed privately by members of the natural elite. And those few of the old elite who remain and who might have purchased their services can no longer afford intellectuals financially. Instead, intellectuals are now typically public employees, even if they work for nominally private institutions or foundations. Almost completely protected from the vagaries of consumer demand ("tenured"), their number has dramatically increased and their compensation is on average far above their genuine market value. At the same time the quality of their intellectual output has constantly fallen.

What you will discover is mostly irrelevance and incomprehensibility. Worse, insofar as today's intellectual output is at all relevant and comprehensible, it is viciously statist. There are exceptions, but if practically all intellectuals are employed in the multiple branches of the state, then it should hardly come as a surprise that most of their ever-more voluminous output will, either by commission or omission, be statist propaganda. There are more propagandists of democratic rule around today than there were ever propagandists of monarchical rule in all of human history.

This seemingly unstoppable drift toward statism is illustrated by the fate of the so-called Chicago School: Milton Friedman, his predecessors, and his followers. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Chicago School was still considered left-fringe, and justly so, considering that Friedman, for instance, advocated a central bank and paper money instead of a gold standard. He wholeheartedly endorsed the principle of the welfare state with his proposal of a guaranteed minimum income (negative income tax) on which he could not set a limit. He advocated a progressive income tax to achieve his explicitly egalitarian goals (and he personally helped implement the withholding tax). Friedman endorsed the idea that the State could impose taxes to fund the production of all goods that had a positive neighborhood effect or which he thought would have such an effect. This implies, of course, that there is almost nothing that the state can not tax-fund!

In addition, Friedman and his followers were proponents of the shallowest of all shallow philosophies: ethical and epistemological relativism. There is no such thing as ultimate moral truths and all of our factual, empirical knowledge is at best only hypothetically true. Yet they never doubted that there must be a state, and that the state must be democratic.

Today, half a century later, the Chicago-Friedman school, without having essentially changed any of its positions, is regarded as right-wing and free-market. Indeed, the school defines the borderline of respectable opinion on the political Right, which only extremists cross. Such is the magnitude of the change in public opinion that public employees have brought about.

Consider further indicators of the statist deformation brought about by the intellectuals. If one takes a look at election statistics, one will by and large find the following picture: the longer a person spends in educational institutions, someone with a PhD, for instance, as compared to someone with only a BA, the more likely it is that this person will be ideologically statist and vote Democrat. Moreover, the higher the amount of taxes used to fund education, the lower SAT scores and similar measurements of intellectual performance will fall, and I suspect even further will the traditional standards of moral behavior and civil conduct decline.

Or consider the following indicator: in 1994 it was called a "revolution" and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, was called a "revolutionary" when he endorsed the New Deal and Social Security, and praised civil rights legislation, i.e., the affirmative action and forced integration which is responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation. What kind of a revolution is it where the revolutionaries have wholeheartedly accepted the statist premises and causes of the present disaster? Obviously, this can only be labeled a revolution in an intellectual environment that is statist to the core.

(...)

The situation appears hopeless, but it is not so. First, it must be recognized that the situation can hardly continue forever. The democratic age can hardly be "the end of history," as the neoconservatives want us to believe, for there is also an economic side to the process.

Market interventions will inevitably cause more of the problems they are supposed to cure, which leads to more and more controls and regulations until we finally reach full-blown socialism. If the current trend continues, it can safely be predicted that the democratic welfare state of the West will eventually collapse as did the "people's republics" of the East in the late 1980s. For decades, real incomes in the West have stagnated or even fallen. Government debt and the cost of the "social insurance" schemes have brought on the prospect of an economic meltdown. At the same time, social conflict has risen to dangerous heights.

Perhaps one will have to wait for an economic collapse before the current statist trend changes. But even in the case of a collapse, something else is necessary. A breakdown would not automatically result in a roll-back of the State. Matters could become worse.

In fact, in recent Western history, there are only two clear-cut instances where the powers of the central government were actually reduced, even if only temporarily, as the result of a catastrophe: in West Germany after World War II under Ludwig Erhard, and in Chile under General Pinochet. What is necessary, besides a crisis, is ideas — correct ideas — and men capable of understanding and implementing them once the opportunity arises.

But if the course of history is not inevitable (and it is not) then a catastrophe is neither necessary nor unavoidable. Ultimately, the course of history is determined by ideas, be they true or false, and by men acting upon and being inspired by true or false ideas. Only so long as false ideas rule is a catastrophe unavoidable. On the other hand, once correct ideas are adopted and prevail in public opinion — and ideas can, in principle, be changed almost instantaneously — a catastrophe will not have to occur at all.

This brings me to the role intellectuals must play in the necessary radical and fundamental change in public opinion, and the role that members of the natural elites, or whatever is left of them, will also have to play. The demands on both sides are high, yet as high as they are, to prevent a catastrophe or to emerge successfully from it, these demands will have to be accepted by both as their natural duty.

Even if most intellectuals have been corrupted and are largely responsible for the present perversities, it is impossible to achieve an ideological revolution without their help. The rule of the public intellectuals can only be broken by anti-intellectual intellectuals. Fortunately, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, freedom of contract and association, personal responsibility and liability, and government power as the primary enemy of liberty and property, will not die out as long as there is a human race, simply because they are true and the truth supports itself. Moreover, the books of past thinkers who expressed these ideas will not disappear. However, it is also necessary that there be living thinkers who read such books and who can remember, restate, reapply, sharpen, and advance these ideas, and who are capable and willing to give them personal expression and openly oppose, attack, and refute their fellow intellectuals.

Of these two requirements — intellectual competency and character — the second is the more important, especially in these times. From a purely intellectual point of view, matters are comparatively easy. Most of the statist arguments that we hear day in and out are easily refuted as more or less economic nonsense. It is also not rare to encounter intellectuals who in private do not believe what they proclaim with great fanfare in public. They do not simply err. They deliberately say and write things they know to be untrue. They do not lack intellect; they lack morals. This in turn implies that one must be prepared not only to fight falsehood but also evil — and this is a much more difficult and daring task. In addition to better knowledge, it requires courage.

As an anti-intellectual intellectual, one can expect bribes to be offered — and it is amazing how easily some people can be corrupted: a few hundred dollars, a nice trip, a photo-op with the mighty and powerful are all too often sufficient to make people sell out. Such temptations must be rejected as contemptible. Moreover, in fighting evil, one must be willing to accept that one will probably never be "successful." There are no riches in store, no magnificent promotions, no professional prestige. In fact, intellectual "fame" should be regarded with utmost suspicion.

Indeed, not only does one have to accept that he will be marginalized by the academic establishment, but he will have to expect that his colleagues will try almost anything to ruin him. Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. Yet throughout their lives, they never gave in, not one inch. They never lost their dignity or even succumbed to pessimism. On the contrary, in the face of constant adversity, they remained undaunted and even cheerful, and worked at a mind-boggling level of productivity. They were satisfied in being devoted to the truth and nothing but the truth.

It is here that what is left of the natural elites comes into play. True intellectuals, like Mises and Rothbard, can not do what they need to do without the natural elites. Despite all obstacles, it was possible for Mises and Rothbard to make themselves heard. They were not condemned to silence. They still taught and published. They still addressed audiences and inspired people with their insights and ideas. This would not have been possible without the support of others. Mises had Lawrence Fertig and the William Volker Fund, which paid his salary at NYU, and Rothbard had The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supported him, helped publish and promote his books, and provided the institutional framework that allowed him to say and write what needed to be said and written, and that can no longer be said and written inside academia and the official, statist establishment media.

Once upon a time, in the pre-democratic age, when the spirit of egalitarianism had not yet destroyed most men of independent wealth and independent minds and judgments, this task of supporting unpopular intellectuals was taken on by individuals. But who can nowadays afford, single-handedly, to employ an intellectual privately, as his personal secretary, advisor, or teacher of his children? And those who still can are more often than not deeply involved in the ever more corrupt big government-big business alliance, and they promote the very same intellectual cretins who dominate statist academia. Just think of Rockefeller and Kissinger, for instance.

Hence, the task of supporting and keeping alive the truths of private property, freedom of contract and association and disassociation, personal responsibility, and of fighting falsehoods, lies, and the evil of statism, relativism, moral corruption, and irresponsibility can nowadays only be taken on collectively by pooling resources and supporting organizations like the Mises Institute , an independent organization dedicated to the values underlying Western civilization, uncompromising and far removed even physically from the corridors of power. Its program of scholarships, teaching, publications, and conferences is nothing less than an island of moral and intellectual decency in a sea of perversion.

To be sure, the first obligation of any decent person is to himself and his family. He should — in the free market — make as much money as he possibly can, because the more money he makes, the more beneficial he has been to his fellow man.

But that is not enough. An intellectual must be committed to the truth, whether or not it pays off in the short run. Similarly, the natural elite have obligations that extend far beyond themselves and their families.

The more successful they are as businessmen and professionals, and the more others recognize them as successful, the more important it is that they set an example: that they strive to live up to the highest standards of ethical conduct. This means accepting as their duty, indeed as their noble duty, to support openly, proudly, and as generously as they possibly can the values that they have recognized as right and true.”

#hans hermann hoppe #hoppe #libertarianism #liberty #anarchocapitalism #anarchism #rothbard #mises #state #elites #intellectuals #milton friedman #newt gingrich #monarchy #democracy

4 notes · View notes

shirlleycoyle · 4 years

Text

The Man Who Helped Turn 4chan Into the Internet’s Racist Engine

In two decades, 4chan has evolved from a message board where people talked about anime to a casually racist but influential creation engine of internet culture, and now into a generator of far-right propaganda, a place where dangerous conspiracy theories originate, and an amplifier of online bigotry. This evolution, according to 4chan moderators who spoke to Motherboard and leaked chat logs, is in large part because of an anonymous administrator who used moderation enforcement, or lack thereof, to allow the influential website to become a crucial arm of the far-right.

4chan attracted hordes of disaffected young men who trolled various other websites, creating popular memes (many of them racist or sexist) and originating a great deal of internet culture. In recent years, however, 4chan has evolved into something actively sinister: a hive of bigotry, threats of violence, and far right ideology. This rapid and severe descent wasn’t driven solely by the mass action of disgruntled young men.

One current and three former 4chan moderators believe the process was aided along by the de facto administrator of the site, a far right supporter with the handle “RapeApe” who helped turn the site into a meme factory for extreme politics. Motherboard agreed to let the janitors speak anonymously because they said they signed non-disclosure agreements with 4chan.

Because of 4chan’s often wildly offensive content, many assume that the site is completely unmoderated. But 4chan has a corps of volunteers, called “janitors,” “mods,” or “jannies,” whose job it is—theoretically—to make sure that content on the site abides by the rules. (4chan draws a distinction between more senior “moderators,” who are responsible for all boards, and “janitors,” who patrol one or two; we refer to them interchangeably because janitors also moderate discussion.) The janitors we spoke to and a major trove of leaked chat logs from the janitors’ private communications channel tell the story of RapeApe’s rise from junior janny to someone who could decide what kind of content was allowed on the site and where, shaping 4chan into the hateful, radicalizing online community it's known for today.

Started in 2003 by Christopher Poole, 4chan was initially a place for people to discuss anime. Since its founding, the site has expanded to include discussion boards on everything from travel to fitness to video games to origami. It now claims around 22 million visitors a month. Some parts of it are also recruiting grounds for Neo-Nazi groups.

4chan’s more recent extremist element can be traced back to an infamous board: “politically incorrect,” which is listed as "/pol/" on the site. Ostensibly devoted to discussing politics, /pol/ threads often involve users calling each other racist terms, arguing for the genocide of whole nations or ethnicities, or debating about whether different concepts are “degenerate”—a Nazi term of art for material (or people) that ought to be purged. Posters there celebrate and lionize some of the most notorious mass murderers of the last decade, from Anders Breivik to Dylann Roof.

The forum has popularized iconography like Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character reappropriated by some as a racist symbol of the far right that President Trump’s son has tweeted images of. According to academic researchers, 4chan's /pol/ has become one of the most prodigious factories for content on the internet. And the boundaries of its influence spread far beyond the borders of 4chan itself, affecting everything from YouTube to Twitter to mainstream Republican politics.

The politically incorrect board wasn’t always this bad. In fact, former 4chan moderators told Motherboard that /pol/ wasn’t added to the site until 2011, eight years after the site started. For the first few years of its existence, according to two former janitors, Poole intended the /pol/ board to siphon off the racism from other areas of the site so that other users could enjoy their own, board-specific pursuits.

“It was started as a containment board,” one former moderator told me about /pol/. According to chat logs and former moderators, in its early days, moderators at 4chan removed racist posts and users from other boards while ignoring them within one board, “random” (/b/, which was supposed to be a kind of “no rules, anything goes” space. /b/ is where many early memes were born, and is where the hacktivist group Anonymous came from). Such posts also sometimes slipped by on the /pol/ board as well, even though they technically violated the rules there. “Enforcement was more active in the past,” a former moderator said. In contrast to its current far right political climate, “4chan skewed extremely progressive when it first started,” according to the mod, although the use of bigoted and misogynistic language was widespread even then.

But 4chan has changed in recent years. Several studies of the site have shown that 4chan has become more racist, bigoted, and toxic in recent years—especially the /pol/ board. Ideologies propagated on /pol/ have become linked with violence and domestic terrorism. 4chan janitors' main job is to clean up and remove child pornography, lest 4chan draw the wrath of federal authorities, but they also shape the discourse there by setting the limits of acceptable discussion. If a thread goes off-topic or starts to get too racist, the janitors have the responsibility for asking mods to delete it and potentially issue bans against specific users.

According to leaked logs and the 4chan janitors who spoke with Motherboard, the manager of 4chan’s janitors is RapeApe. Relatively little is known about him, even by the janitors who spoke with us and worked for him, although he has been supervising 4chan’s day-to-day operations for around a decade.

In 2015, Poole announced that he had decided to sell 4chan to a Japanese businessman named Hiroyuki Nishimura. Nishimura previously owned 2chan, a Japanese website which inspired 4chan. Janitors who spoke with Motherboard described Nishimura as being almost completely hands off, leaving moderation of the site primarily to RapeApe.

“[RapeApe] basically fulfills the role of an administrator considering Hiroyuki [Nishimura], the actual admin, doesn't touch the site,” a current janitor told me. Poole and Nishimura did not respond to repeated requests for comment. RapeApe responded by sending an email that contained only a single link to a video of naked muscular men dancing.

Even prior to the site’s change in ownership, RapeApe functioned as the primary judge of what constituted acceptable content on the site, as well as the person who educated the staff on what did and didn’t cross the line. As Gamergate became a subject on the site in 2014, 4chan users began harassing women in the video game industry due to what they perceived as progressive bias in reporting on games. Eventually, RapeApe tried to stop 4chan’s campaign of intimidation. “[Gamergate] is no longer allowed on the video game boards. So said [RapeApe],” one janitor informed another in the leaked chats. When other jannies protested, RapeApe rapidly shut them down: “This isn’t a democracy,” RapeApe wrote. “Gamergate has overstayed its welcome. It is starting to cause a massive burden for moderation.”

WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 12: Counterprotestors to the Unite the Right 2 rally burn a Kekistan flag, a white nationalist symbol, in the middle of 15th St. NW near the White House on August 12, 2018 in Washington, DC. Image: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

In 2015, an anonymous former moderator leaked an extensive chat history of the janitors from 2012-2015 to a file-sharing service. One of the former janitors included in the chats confirmed their authenticity. According to a brief message posted with the logs, the leaker was unhappy with “the direction of the site.” From those leaked logs and the current and former janitors who spoke with Motherboard, RapeApe claims to be a military veteran who served in Afghanistan as well as a voracious reader, interested in video games, guns, and Warhammer: 40,000. He often complained about his family impeding his work and was afraid they would walk in on him looking at questionable or pornographic posts as he was moderating.

According to the janitor and chat logs (as well as a deleted Twitter account two staff members confirmed was his), RapeApe is also politically conservative and racist. One former janitor described him as “a typical right winger and /pol/ dude.” His Twitter account featured him responding approvingly to Tucker Carlson clips, urging another user to buy an AR-15 rifle for self-defense, wondering whether the state would force people to be homosexual and suggesting that Twitter was “staffed by leftists” who were deleting conservative users’ accounts. In conversations with other janitors in the leaked chats, he found humor in horrifying news about riots, shootings, and the Ebola epidemic—especially when that news involved Black people dying.

But RapeApe isn’t just a typical /pol/ user who happens to run the site. According to three current and former staff members, RapeApe shaped 4chan into a reflection of his own political beliefs. “RapeApe has an agenda: he wants /pol/ to have influence on the rest of the site and [its] politics,” a current janitor said.

Alone, RapeApe couldn’t steer 4chan to the far right. But he supervises a staff of dozens of volunteers who control discourse on the boards. According to the leaked chats and janitors who spoke with Motherboard, he instructed janitors on how to handle the more bigoted content on 4chan—and dismissed them if they deleted content he likes. He took a special interest in the /pol/ board, telling a novice janitor in the chat logs to “treat /pol/ with kid gloves. So long as they obey the rules, they are allowed to support whatever abominable political positions they want.”

4chan has an extensive list of rules posted on the site and each board has its own smaller set of edicts. A little-known and rarely enforced 4chan regulation, Global Rule #3, prohibits racist content on the site. But the leaked chat logs show many incidents of moderators and janitors discussing when racism got severe enough that it ought to be banned. Indeed, RapeApe himself deleted at least one thread for violating Rule #3 early on in his 4chan career, before he became a manager.

Once he became head moderator, RapeApe began to post reminders that moderators ought to be as hands-off as possible. In the leaked logs and according to current and former janitors, RapeApe pushed his staff into a position where almost no content could run afoul of the rule against racism. Instructing the janitors, RapeApe wrote, “And remember that with racism we're targeting the intent of the poster and not the words themselves.” One current janitor told me that in practice, within 4chan’s warped, irony-poisoned culture, this meant there was no way to ban a user for even the most flagrant, bigoted language or images. They could always claim that the intent wasn’t racist, even if the content unquestionably was.

"The plausible deniability excuse for racism—I was just joking, I was just trolling—is bullshit," Whitney Phillips, an Assistant Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Syracuse University and author of This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture, told Motherboard. "Intent can matter when thinking about the things people say, but it matters very little when considering consequences. Whether or not someone says a racist thing with hate in their heart, they're still saying a racist thing and that still contributes to dehumanization and the normalization of harm. Anyway, the very criterion is absurd, as you can't assess what's in someone's heart just by looking at the things they post, especially to a place like 4chan. The only reasonable conclusion is that, whatever might have been written in the site rules, this moderator ensured that there was no policy against racism. Instead it became a pro-racism policy."

The leaked chat logs show that RapeApe didn't want /pol/ to be totally unmoderated, despite allowing racist content. He was concerned with making sure 4chan wasn’t hosting illegal material. “Mostly I just want to keep the site legal,” he wrote to the staff in one message in the leaked chats. He posted frequent reminders to the channel to “take it easy” and ignore, rather than ban, racist content. In the leaked chats, RapeApe quotes judicial decisions on whether photos depicting animal abuse are illegal, concluding that they only rise to that level if the abuse is sexual in nature. In another case, he reluctantly told a janitor to delete some revenge porn, though not without belittling laws against it.

Nishimura’s purchase of the site in 2016 and RapeApe’s ascension to de facto administrator of 4chan coincides with an incredible 40 percent spike in the volume of racist and violent language on /pol/. Other, comparable sites and communication channels also pushed towards extreme conservatism independently of 4chan, so RapeApe and /pol/ certainly aren’t the only reasons why 4chan slid towards the far right. Some experts credited 4chan’s evolution to Donald Trump’s overtly-racist political campaign, others to an influx of new users, and still others to active interference and recruiting of 4channers by Neo-Nazi elements.

While other websites also host increasing amounts of violent and bigoted language, 4chan is an outlier even compared to other internet gathering places filled with similar ideologies. A VICE News analysis found that there was more hate speech on /pol/ than in the comments on one overtly Neo-Nazi site, the Daily Stormer. Mass murderers have posted manifestos on 4chan. White nationalists have used the site to coordinate protests.

When one Neo-Nazi group polled their supporters to discover how they came to the movement, /pol/ was tied for the most common gateway. Gab, another far right hotbed, contains about half the rate of hate speech as /pol/, and 4chan has 20 times more users. The only popular websites more toxic than 4chan are its much smaller offspring sites, like 8chan, now 8kun.

According to one current and three former janitors, RapeApe’s push for a hands-off approach combined with his preference for janitors who shared his political beliefs has shifted the website further into the extremes of bigotry and threats of violence in which it now operates. “He wants 4chan to be more like /pol/,” said one former janitor.

Over time, /pol/ has come to dominate the public perception of 4chan, overshadowing the quieter, less vile topic areas which make up much of the activity on the site. /pol/ is regularly the most active board on the site, but even so, it makes up a small portion of the total posts. Under RapeApe’s management, however, /pol/’s bigotry has metastasized.

“[W]hen RapeApe took over fully after [Poole] left, he put in a ‘laissez-faire’ policy of moderation, knowing exactly what would happen, that right wing ideas would dominate the site thanks to /pol/ spilling over onto other boards,” said a current janitor.

The /pol/ forum often hosts threads in which users talk about flooding other, unrelated boards with racial slurs and bigoted imagery. These “raids” expose users who were on 4chan to discuss other subjects to its unconventional, far-right politics. Posters who logged on to the site to chat about sports or browse pornography could find themselves learning about Neo-Nazi ideology instead. Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a professor at American University and expert on far-right extremism, describes this phenomenon as “gateway content.” Simply by exposing people to hate speech, psychologists have found that it’s possible to desensitize them to further hate speech and dehumanize outgroups. By raiding other boards and giving users a taste of their ideology, /pol/ diehards hoped to bring them into their fold.

In one incident from the chat logs, when a moderator tried to clean up such an “invasion” of the science board, RapeApe wasn’t having it. Rather than delete the thread a janitor described as planning a raid, RapeApe argued that they weren’t doing anything against the rules. “Are they actually vandalising or defacing anything, or harassing people?” RapeApe added: “Because if they're just posting things, that's not really a raid.”

Current and former janitors say that one moderator named Modcat was fired for disagreeing withRapeApe's laissez-faire moderation policy.

“Some jannies got in trouble for overusing [global rule 3, against racism],” said one former janitor.

An analysis of the archives of the anime board (/a/) Modcat used to patrol, derived by scraping its past threads, shows that Modcat’s departure and replacement with another janitor had consequences on the language used there. Motherboard used a 4chan archive and wrote a program to scrape data from the board over the last five years, counting the number of instances of common hate speech terms against Black, Latino, Jewish, and LGBTQ people each day, as well as Neo-Nazi slogans. This program scraped text only and so did not include instances of speech within images, a common medium of communication on 4chan. Immediately after his departure, according to former moderators, /pol/ users raided the board, spamming Neo-Nazi slogans like “sieg heil” and “heil Hitler” in about one in every 50 posts. (Use of these terms had been negligible before Modcat left.) Even after the initial raid on /a/ subsided, there were long-term effects on the forum. During Modcat's brief tenure, the anime board had hate speech in only about one in every 50 posts overall. Since his departure, that has risen to about one in every 30 posts.

Leaked chat logs demonstrate other instances of seemingly politically-motivated firings. Not long after a janitor named yetsturdy argued that the use of terms like the n-word and stereotyped depictions of Jews violated 4chan’s rules, they were fired. (Leaked chat logs show janitors suggesting that his firing was due to arguing with another janitor). A janitor who described himself as a “lefty” in leaked logs was let go ostensibly for losing his anonymity, although another 4chan staff member with far right politics is open about his identity on Twitter and publishes newspaper editorials under his real name.

Others in the leaked janitor chats noticed the firings of their colleagues. One even alluded to RapeApe’s apparent agenda, asking him directly: “with all these janitors quitting/getting fired, is… is /pol/ winning?” (In the chat, RapeApe quickly denied that it had anything to do with /pol/’s political agenda, saying that the fired janitors had violated clear rules.)

Five years later, the politically incorrect board’s conflict with the rest of 4chan has been settled: /pol/ won. After years of declining volume both there and on the site in general, /pol/’s activity (in terms of the number of users and posts) is on the rise once again, according to a site that tracks 4chan. Jumping upwards in May 2020, /pol/ boasted the highest number of posts per day since election day in 2016, when ecstatic users celebrated Trump’s victory by calling for a second Holocaust and harassing journalists.

/pol/’s surging popularity coincides with a boost for the rest of the site as well. According to SimilarWeb, a company that tracks web traffic, 4chan has risen to become one of the top 400 sites in the United States in terms of engagement and visits. The domain now rivals or exceeds major news sites in terms of the number of visitors: it gets more traffic than abcnews.com, for example.

And the /pol/ channel continues to create massive amounts of right-wing content. RapeApe’s “meme factory,” as he described /pol/ in one leaked chat log, is chugging along smoothly. “[RapeApe has] basically fulfilled his intentions,” a current janitor told me. “[4chan] exists as a fully developed political tool used for propagating memes and propaganda.” 4chan’s content sometimes spreads beyond its esoteric corner of the internet into the mainstream discourse, using a well-established pipeline running through Reddit and Twitter into more popular channels.

Journalists have chronicled the outsized influence 4chan has had on our culture and created many theories to explain its slide into racist extremism, connections to the rise of Donald Trump, and a surge in white nationalist movements around the world. Disaffected young men across the globe have participated in creating a hateful melting pot of conspiracy theories, bigotry, and hate speech with a massive, global audience.

We can’t know exactly how much impact the rhetoric on the site had on the world or the full extent of its influence on the broader political landscape. But we can dispel some of the mystery about how 4chan became filled with hate. Like every other platform, 4chan’s evolution stems in part from the choices made by its administrators about what speech is acceptable and what is not. Facebook allowed Holocaust denial content until Mark Zuckerberg decided not to; Reddit allowed its Donald Trump-focused subreddit to popularize 4chan’s content until it shut it down. 4chan became the dangerous cesspool we know today because of the choices of a site administrator who wanted to amplify far right content and an owner who doesn’t care.

The internet is one of the most powerful technologies the world has ever known, but why that power so often results in dehumanizing and hurting people is not as mysterious as we sometimes assume. It is the direct result of the choices people with control over internet platforms make.

The Man Who Helped Turn 4chan Into the Internet’s Racist Engine syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

2 notes · View notes

saarism · 4 years

Text

Chapter 1. About Saarism

I will try to write as clearly as possible, because that is the meaning of this article.

Saarism is the absolute, which has many branches, the center of which is a single divine Essence. (I will cover this topic in more detail in the article about the manifestations of the Essence of the World.)

Saarism is a direction of thought, mind and soul that leads to self-knowledge, self-identification in the world of things, awareness of their powers and abilities, their study, improvement and application to achieve their goals and complete spiritual development.

In short, Saarism is a set of Teachings about the World that will help people understand its mechanisms, as well as learn to extract knowledge from everyday life. The world by Saarism from the point of view of the teachings of Animacotrix, consists of inner and outer spheres of Existence. All levels of the Universe are divided into spheres. The number of spheres depends on the number of living beings who have a transcendent divine essence developed to an infinitely indefinite span of space and time, i.e., not limited by time and matter in every moment of impermanence - these are Demons and Deities.

Saarism as a whole is a great Teaching about spirituality, about new moral and aesthetic ideals, about self-development and self-improvement, written by otherworlders.

Saarism is a creation built on the beauty of forms and the perfection of the soul, its dynamism and constant interaction with other souls and forms.

Saarism is the Doctrine of creation and the creation of the continuity of ideas, actions and outcomes, focused on creating beautiful and beyond reason.

Saarism is not built on existing religions and teachings of people, it is an incomprehensible image of the World Order, which acquired features and meanings when it was formed into a system of Unearthly Knowledge.

Saarism purposefully studies the Cosmos, Matter, the Order of Things, spiritual potential, the physics of worlds, biology and structure of living creatures, the whole Reality, the aesthetic aspect of which is reflected through creativity.

Saarism reveals the meaning of existence of everything, has answers to many questions, reveals the essence of beauty and helps to know real things, as well as teaches a person spirituality and the discovery of their own hidden potential.

Saarism faith

Saarism is partly a belief based on the principles of Natural Unity and co-existence of all living creatures in a favorable environment for the development of the Essence, and it is also a belief that offers knowledge of Natural Gods, Deities, Demons, Entities and all kinds of life forms and creatures from a different side than the human one.

In short, the belief of non-humans.

This is a way to display the power of Knowledge obtained not on Earth, but in their worlds and abodes, their presentation and demonstration, in order to produce a kind of"exchange of Knowledge and experience". They can be exchanged by all those beings who have the ability to transfer Knowledge in the form closest to the understanding of other beings.

Book texts, audio messages, and video files are a way of presenting Knowledge, a mediocre form of communication designed to bring it closer in understanding.

Before the beginning of Saarism on Earth, there was already the knowledge of non-humans, which became the basis for the promotion of a new faith and new traditions.

Traditions themselves support the incentive to change. This is, perhaps, the most non-conservative system of views on the Universe from an unusual side for human perception.

Saarism as the direction

In Saarism as the direction of exist not of the dominant groups. All social groups of people can be part of this trend and propagandize the views, Knowledge and faith of Saarism as a tool for philosophical and consolidating purposes. This is necessary so that every person who is aware of himself as another being Knows that there is a place for him in this world.

Saarism as the direction is a way of communication all beings identify themselves as otherworlder.

Since saarism reflects certain views, It has its own thinking and ideology, which may differ greatly from the thinking of existing religious groups and denominations.

This is a normal phenomenon and morally justified, given the differences in the views of the representatives of these societies themselves. Saarism as a trend does not call for cruelty towards other social groups, individuals, or confessions that do not agree with the ideology of Saarism or any of Its teachings. After all, this is a manifestation of their own unconscious attraction, due to distrust of their Knowledge. I will not give examples of this, because it would be a rather large wall of text.

Saarism also does not call for violation of laws and regulations, and should not contribute to the negative impact of people in relation to different social groups.

In Saarism as in the direction have the structure of the provision of Knowledge.

The Manifesto and Foundation of this structure is the teaching of Animacotrix (stands for "spiritual beauty") - its representatives and founders are Diorion Arh Lucimus and Anogiast Demon Dominus.

In the direction Saarism can join and share their knowledge of other Otherworlder. Here Saarism becomes a kind of platform or Foundation for the freedom Teachings.

Animacotrix begins this direction because it contains a large amount of Knowledge about the World, inherited from its representatives.

I Know that there are people on Earth who cannot, for some reason, write something of their own and present it to the public. Here you will be able to create your own Teaching, communicate with representatives of others, and learn new things about the World.

Saarism is a point which can intersect a lot of roads here, everyone can find a place.

Saarism as a religion

Saarism as a religion does not have a clear system of rules and laws, since it is a dynamic religious institution. It does not contain a system of subordination, division into classes and groups.

Saarism as a religion is a free, multi-threaded and multicommunicative group that fulfills and integrates the will of creation and creation. Saarism different from the existing religious schools specific provision of Knowledge, the dynamism of traditions, interests and ideology against the whole World.

Saarism as a religion is aimed at reconnecting with Nature, showing love for it and love for oneself, for Life in all its diversity.

This is propaganda for the rejection of militarization, from the use of weapons that bring pain and death to the Living, this is a religious protest against militancy and human reckless consumer behavior against not only themselves, but also life around Them, this is a protest against the creation of dangerous technologies for the planet and the use of nuclear weapons.

Results

Saarism is supposed to be an open community, which can be joined by any person who is aware of himself as a different being to promote his Knowledge.

Saarism does not have a clear system of rules and obedience.

Saarism offers the freedom of information and protection of the rights of participants to its use and organization.

Saarism as a collection of Teachings about the World based on the teachings of Animacotrix.

Saarism both the direction and the informal religious organization founded in 2019.

The founders and members of Diorion Arh, Anogiast Demon.

#philosophy #esoteric #otherworlder #other #aesthetics #knowledge #doctrine #teaching #supernatural #civilization #faith #Demon Art #art #graphic #human nature #world #creators #saarism

5 notes · View notes

dorkery · 4 years

Video

youtube

I manifest, briefly, to write about this miniseries WHICH I HAD EXTREMELY HIGH HOPES FOR, and it disappointed me so much I’m compelled to write an actual review about it. In summary, of course. If I did it in-depth, it would probably have to be on my proper blog (oops shit I haven’t updated that in ages).

INTRO ABOUT JAPAN AND WWII (skip this to get to actual review of series)

TOKYO TRIAL. Ah. The Asian parallel to Nuremberg. Media about Japanese war crimes and the subsequent actions (the trial, the rehabilitation of criminals, the adoption of Unit 731 research by American forces, the conflicts between the Japanese Imperial Army and its victims) is not as extensive as the war in Europe. In fact, the Tokyo Trials themselves were not as punitive as the Nuremberg Trial (for a host of bureaucratic reasons, but also the lack of systematic eradication of Japanese citizens, but this is a very simplified explanation). And most media about the Japanese occupation is usually Chinese or Korean (understandably) even though the Japanese did a good job fucking up the Philippines, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies and so on. Also, much media about the Japanese occupation, I find, tends to be about the overall general existence of the Japanese occupation force, rather than specific historical figures (I am making a blanket statement here, I’ve watched limited amounts of Korean and Chinese language media on the Japanese occupation). There’s nothing wrong with this, of course, but the lack of quantity then leaves a viewer chomping on the bit for some good historical drama.

Part of it, probably, is due to the relative mystery of the Japanese occupation when compared to the Nazi occupation. Nazis, the Holocaust, the Third Reich are everywhere in media and have been researched and shared to death. Not so for the Japanese invasion (well, probably in English). The Rape of Nanking (book) was probably THE thing that shone a spotlight on Japanese atrocities, but it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the overall Japanese action in Asia (newsflash: the Japanese ALSO tortured the people in countries that were not China, even though yes, I will readily admit they especially tortured the Chinese populations in countries that were not China).

There is so much Good Shit TM from a edutainment perspective on stuff you can squeeze out of the Japanese invasion. DID YOU KNOW??? THE JAPANESE ARMY CYCLED - ON BICYCLES - FROM THE KINGDOM OF SIAM TO SINGAPORE OVER 2 MONTHS, CAPTURING ALL THE TERRITORY THEY CYCLED THROUGH (because the locals supported the Japanese invasion at the time - Asia For Asians! was the propaganda they put out which was total bullshit, the locals would eventually discover), AND THEN ACCEPTED A BRITISH SURRENDER. THE KING OF SIAM AGREED TO LET THE JAPANESE USE THEM AS THE BIKING ENTRY POINT IN EXCHANGE FOR “DON’T INVADE ME BRO” AND ALSO “can I have some northern malayan territory”. THE JAPANESE AGREED. You can’t make this shit up. And this is the non-atrocity part of it. The atrocity part is as vicious, but differently so, from the Holocaust (which I would prefer not to get into as that’s an entire essay in and of itself - summary: the Japanese bayonet everything - EVERYTHING - and also Contest to kill 100 people with actual Japanese swords as promoted by Mainichi and Nichi Nichi Shimbun and also soap water drinking stomach bulge boot step interrogation technique ok let’s stop this here)

You get what I’m saying. It’s an entire period of history that has not been harvested for good quality drama. And I don’t need fabricated romantic bullshit (I’m looking at you, Embun (even though you were damned good, you’re STILL BULLSHIT)). I’m talking Schindler’s List-type films, with history and gravitas and nuance. Most historical movies have immature script-writers who basically paint the Japanese occupiers as monsters (not necessarily inaccurate, but painfully one dimensional). (Digression: Recently I watched Kanang Anak Langkau which was about a Malayan (and then Malaysian) Ranger who helped fight off the Communists after the Japanese occupation ended and, man, the entire movie was flat... except the Communists??? Like, they were clearly terrible but they were well-portrayed and had great actors. So. Opposite problem. Asians are really bad at war films that aren’t Classic Period Dramas.)

As a citizen of a Japanese-occupied country, with YEARS of history textbooks dedicated to the Japanese occupation, and a generation of Japanese war survivors either dead or unwilling to discuss their experiences, in a region with... pretty bad recording of this sort of history, I think you get my interest and fascination with this entire chapter. And since I’m in a country that isn’t the centre of the Japanese invasion (i.e. China and Korea) it makes even more sense that I’m interested in the occupation and action in countries like the Philippines, Malaya and so on.

ACTUAL REVIEW OF TOKYO TRIAL MINI-SERIES

OK. Sorry. I had to get that off my chest. SO. Tokyo Trial.

This is actually the second piece of media about the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal on video that I’m aware of (that’s been dramatised). The first one was a movie, also called TOKYO TRIAL, and it was a Chinese production (in English) from a Chinese perspective. The protagonist was the Chinese judge on the bench, Justice Mei. Tokyo Trial the Movie (TT(M) from here on out) was heavily dramatised and abridged in order to make for (well, attempted) excitement, action and historical legal thrills. It gets bogged down at times with some typical pacing problems (typical for Asian films). Like a good historical legal thriller, it focuses on victim testimony and the arrogance of the accused and of course it culminates in the feel good moment where you can watch outraged/distraught Japanese war criminals reacting to their sentences. Overall not a bad movie to watch, but not really great. Made interesting only by the righteousness of the protag and the severity and outrageousness of the subject matter. But it suffers from some stuttered pacing and an extremely narrow Chinese POV (understandable, given the protag and the production).

Now. Tokyo Trial (Mini-Series) (TT(MS) from here on).

Pros: Very beautiful. Decent Actors. VERY BEAUTIFUL.

Cons: Literally everything else.

HOW. HOW DO YOU CREATE A MINI-SERIES ABOUT THE JAPANESE WAR CRIMES TRIAL WITHOUT FEATURING JAPANESE WAR CRIMES?????

Astounding. I’m truly astounded. Where to even begin.

1. The protagonist

GUESS WHO IT IS. No really, guess. In a movie about the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, guess who the main character is. I guarantee you won’t get it.

It’s the Dutch Judge.

WHY?

The Judge, btw, doesn’t even have any kind of personal or professional link to the Japanese occupation. Even when the protag is asked by a stranded German diva about how he must have suffered during the Nazi occupation, he admits that he didn’t have it as bad as others. His family is entirely intact although they were in the Dutch East Indies when the Japanese invaded.

2. The focus of the series

can you fucking guess

it’s the goddamn judges

the entire series is about the trials and tribulations (pun fucking intended) of the GODDAMN JUDGES

DURING SERIOUS TESTIMONY OF VICTIMS AND THE ACCUSED, THE SHOTS ARE OF THE CONCERNED/CONSTIPATED FACES OF THE JUDGES

The mini-series, 4 episodes long, opens with the Dutch Judge writing to his wife and giving some decent introduction to all the major players. And then it brings into focus the various justices from around the world who will be partaking in this historical undertaking.

The President of the Tribunal is Sir William Webb, Australian. He looks great but suffers from terrible lines and staging. BTW all the characters are extremely one dimensional WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS: The British Judge (who veers between an ally, a one-note antagonist, but is then redeemed as an anti-hero - clearly the deuteragonist) and the Chinese Judge, who is soft-spoken, well-mannered, firm but not unyielding, a clear contrast to the fiery and righteous protag of TT(M). Honestly, I think he would be the best portrayal except... halfway through, Irrfan Khan appears as the Indian Judge, and honestly Paul Freeman was so good as the British (Scottish) Judge.

The entire series is about the judges politicking amongst one another and trying to argue about whether crimes of aggression (or crimes against peace) are valid grounds for a case, as these crimes have never existed before (cue arguing about the precedent set by Nuremberg).

Our intrepid (barf) protag intersperses the tense boardroom confrontations (really can barely be called that: a serious point is brought up in court, they adjourn to their chambers, they START to argue, and then the Tribunal President immediately says ok let’s all go retire for the day before any interesting or insightful conversations can begin) with one-on-one interactions with (1) a German pianist diva whom he admires as he plays violin (their duet sucks btw) (2) a Japanese intellectual who hangs out at the beach (they have zero onscreen connection and exists only to instill doubt in the Dutch judge’s mind as he contemplates the trial) (3) various judges as they begin gossiping over the latest judge to pose drama in the chambers.

That’s all. Honestly. That’s the content of the mini-series in a nutshell.

3. The pacing and the script

god it’s so

MEALY

Every scene, EVERY SCENE, is played as grave and solemn

You think this isn’t bad? Every single scene begins with thoughtful pauses and long poignant looks, even over such lines which you can picture your grandpa and uncle just quipping at each other (”The marathon begins” “I’d rather hope it would be a sprint”).

Mealy = the actual script is so awkward. It doesn’t sound like human beings talking. It’s a mouthful. ugh.

Pacing = Example: in episode 3, probably, literally 3 scenes side-by-side, 2 judges talking to each other as they walk down a path. Each scene is: A asks B about C. And then it is immediately followed by D asking C about B. CAN YOU IMAGINE??? They don’t intersperse the shot at all. It’s just 3 conversations in a row gossiping.

Pacing 2 = time passes but badly. Suddenly a year has passed, but we don’t get a sense of it unless we’re told; there’s no difference in appearance or speaking manner among the judges. there’s no real development at all, except for the position of the Dutch Judge whose position on crimes of aggression changes as he gets pulled in several ways by several people, and you end the series without any feeling of resolution or satisfaction. AT ALL. I feel like you end where you start in terms of the arguments and everything.

4. Reflections

I’ve discovered that this mini-series was nominated for an emmy in 2017 for best series. I’ve also discovered 2 reviews (ONLY) online for this series, one on a blog and on one iMBD, both praising the series for being good for history buffs that showcases an unknown part of history.

i) That is not accurate. It is a terrible series that showcases the politics and drama of the tribunal judges, and not of the japanese war crimes. literally nobody needs to know, or care, about the judges of a war crimes trial (british, canadian, US, NZ judge conspire to get the president replaced, he leaves, US judge is chosen as his replacement, HE COMES BACK, NOBODY CARES) (aside with Blakely the US lawyer and what he’s trying to accomplish in court with his controversial and it’s not explained and ignored later)

ii) Historic footage is interspersed, meaninglessly. This includes the footage of the accused and 2 victims giving testimony, I believe. It is THE MOST INTERESTING part of the series. The footage used is minimal. And it just doesn’t gel with the whole series as a whole.

iii) This show was made by a Japanese crew and NHK so.

All in all, from an entertainment perspective, Tokyo Trial failed to be compelling, interesting or noteworthy. The actors were bogged down by a bad script and weak direction. If you want to watch a show about the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, watch the older Chinese movie - less accurate but way more entertaining, and it ACTUALLY focuses on Japanese war crimes.

#tokyo trial #netflix #review

17 notes · View notes

bestcbdwater · 4 years

Text

What is Hemp?

Hashish is a genus of flowering crops in the Cannabaceae members of the family, which is made up of 3 principal species: Hashish sativa, Hashish indica, and Hashish ruderalis. Click Here Even though hemp and pot are frequently referred to as species or strains of Hashish, many in fact do not qualify as either one. In simple fact, some people couldnât technically be deemed as crops at allâ¦ Hemp and cannabis are basically broad classifications involving Hashish that have been adopted into our tradition nevertheless, they've been not legitimate nomenclature for the Hashish plant. To make transparent the big difference among Hemp and Cannabis and totally obvious the smoke on this regularly misinformed topic, let us look into what each and every of these conditions in fact implies and the direction they relate to Hashish. What is Hemp? Hemp is a expression useful to classify types of Hashish that include. three% or much less THC articles (by dry weight). Even though the legal distinction described previously mentioned had not been legitimized until the Agricultural Act associated with 2018 had passed, hemp has typically been employed to explain non-intoxicating Hashish that is harvested for the industrial using its derived goods. With proof of its use noted down during history, which includes the discovery of content produced from hemp in excess of 10, 000 many years ago, numerous reckon that hemp was the initial crop at any time cultivated by man. With the capabilities to generate essential assets this sort of as meals, rope, clothes, paper, housing content, and far more, hemp has been the catalyst for manâs earliest improvements. What exactly is Cannabis? Cannabis is a expression utilized to classify types of Hashish that include far more than. three% THC (by dry weight) and can induce psychotropic or euphoric outcomes on the visitor. Even though the use of this expression is popular during Usa tradition, it offers a grossly inadequate misrepresentation of Hashish. Most educated individuals and businesses in the Hashish internet business refuse to use the expression and some think about it to be racist. Around early American history, the expression cannabis was nonexistent and hashish was the principal expression utilized to classify the actual plant. Amongst 1910 and 1920, practically a , 000, 000 Mexicans migrated into the United States in search of refuge from the Mexican Revolution. For the duration of this time, anti-Mexican sentiment had started to difficult and the expression cannabis arose as a adverse correlation from its use by Mexican immigrants. Shortly following, rumours started to area, warning People in america of the harmful and homicidal tendencies caused by using Mexican hashish or locoweed, that guide to an even better rise in anti-Mexican sentiment. For the adverse perception of hashish intensified, the federal government started regulatory hashish far more aggressively. By 1927, eleven states obtained passed anti-cannabis rules and by the 1930s anti-cannabis propaganda and the worry of Reefer Insanity was in complete shot. Following the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which imposed weighty, unrealistic taxes on the possession, deal, and transportation of the plant, the federal federal government found effectively banned cannabis, paving the way for the subsequent 90 many years of hashish prohibition. The Confusion Presented simply by Hemp vs Cannabis Based on the context utilized to explain Hemp and Cannabis, the defining attribute among the two might be primarily based on a one factorââthe sum of THC in the plantââor rather regardless of whether it will get the user high. Even though any intoxicating homes of each and every plant is an critical element considering, categorizing Hashish as either hemp or cannabis structured on a one attribute offers a skewed portrayal of Hashish which stops users from entirely comprehending its spectrum. To give you a comparison, think about the taxonomic hierarchy of fruits during the citrus species: Categorizing Hashish as either Hemp or perhaps Cannabis is akin to classifying all fruits in the citrus genus as either sweet or bitter, without having acknowledging the varied attributes of each and every fruit. In addition , hemp and weed can typically appear indistinguishable from one another. This has witout a doubt led to many troubles of regulation enforcement officers getting arrests and seizing hemp that is 100% legal mainly because seems exactly like cannabis. The classification of hemp or cannabis absent of a accurate comprehending of Hashish supplies a obvious concern of purpose. The obvious resolution is for most of these phrases to have never ever existed nevertheless, now that these disorders have become deeply ingrained in our society, this difficulty can be challenging to reverse. The only realistic resolution is to re-teach our society in excess of time. In the meantime, it is almost certainly most suitable to continue to be educated about what hemp and cannabis necessarily mean and how they are utilized in our society and legal method to know your rights and steer clear of any issues when using hemp or CBD goods. four Important Variances Amongst Hemp and Cannabis As types of the same plant species, hemp and cannabis share numerous similarities and can even look exactly alike. With contrasting legal laws and extremely various outcomes and usages, you certainly do not want to get both of these confused. To comprehend just how various these two are, think about these kinds of four key differences among hemp and cannabis. Hemp vs Cannabis: Composition The defining attribute among hemp and cannabis is the chemical composition contained within each individual plant. Both hemp and cannabis can generate superior quantities of CBD, the nonintoxicating hashish compound nonetheless, THC is made at quite various ranges. Even though hemp can include no far more than. three% THC by waterless weight, cannabis can include up to thirty% THC articles. Hemp vs Cannabis: Legality Owing to the big difference among your ranges of THC, hemp and cannabis are governed quite otherwise underneath the regulation. Even though hemp was previously regulated as an unlawful material underneath the Managed Compound Act about 1970, it was removed as an unlawful material underneath the Farming Enhancement Act of 2018, which federally legalized hemp and hemp-derived goods that include no far more than. three% THC. Cannabis, on the other hand, is nevertheless dealt with as a been able material and is federally unlawful underneath the Managed Compound Action. Hemp and cannabis are harvested for various arguments so , normally, they require various increasing situations. Cannabis varieties are selectively bred in managed environments which are designed to improve the breedâs attributes and generate woman crops this generate budding bouquets. To appropriately cultivate a cannabis or hashish plant, a grower must spend shut down attention to the plant at each and every stage of the daily life cycle and preserve actual situations in its atmosphere, this sort of as suitable temperature, lighting, and water. In contrast, hemp is developed to maximize its size plus generate. To attain this, hemp is normally developed outdoors as well as does not require the degree of management and attention that is definitely needed to grow cannabis. Hemp vs Cannabis: Utilization Hemp and cannabis each and every offer a assortment of usages which are different to their composition. As a effective psychoactive agent, THC might immediately bind to the CB1 and CB2 receptors while in the Endocannabinoid Program, which induces the brain-altering, euphoric successes referred to as currently being high. Even though cannabis is typically regarded because of its leisure utilizes, scientific studies have unveiled its prospective in a very vast assortment of therapeutic apps. In comparison, hemp is collected to generate a vast assortment of goods which includes, but not limited to: Conventional goods this sort of as paper, clothes, building components, and plastic Foods goods this sort of as cooking oil, hemp flour, and hemp seed-primarily based goods Medicinal commodities this sort of as Cannabidiol (CBD), which is then utilized to yield a assortment of things which includes CBD vape juice, CBD tinctures, CBD topicals, and other CBD-infused goods. Hemp-Derived CBD vs Cannabis Derived CBD When it comes to CBD and the position of hemp and cannabis, we are confronted with but some other critical topic that must be resolved. CBD can be derived from possibly hemp or cannabis, nevertheless, given the distinctive features of each and every plant, one would believe that the CBD derived from any plant is various in some way. Astonishingly, they are not. Jeremy Riggle, Ph. D., and Chief Scientist at Maryâs Nutritionals claims that the CBD molecule and its connected pharmacology are the same, regardless of whether it was extracted from hemp and from cannabis. CBD is CBD, no matter of where by it was initially derived from, So if CBD is the legitimate same at a molecular degree, CBD need to be legal no matter whether it is derived from hemp or cannabis, as prolonged considering that it is beneath. three% correct? Not exactlyâ¦ This is exactly the spot where the regulation can get a minor perplexing, but enable me express. Below the Agricultural Act of 2018, typically labeled as the 2018 Farm Invoice, hemp and hemp-derived products, which includes hemp-derived CBD, have been legalized. A widespread belief about the 2018 Farm Invoice is that it legalized CBD no matter of if it was derived from hemp or hashish. This is not accurate. Based on the guidance of the DEA, CBD is certainly nevertheless deemed a Routine I managed material. In the event that, nevertheless, the CBD is derived from hemp which contains zero far more than. three% THC, it would not be licensed as a managed material and is federally legal. The keyword and key phrase here is derived from hemp. The 2018 Farm Invoice clearly applies to hemp and hemp-derived goods. It does not include cannabis-derived CBD, which continues to be underneath the regulation of the Foods together with Drug Administration (Food and drug administration) as a handled material. Even if the CBD contains. % THC, if derived from cannabis, it is not legalized underneath the 2018 Farm Payment. To summarize and re-make clear: Hemp-derived CBD is 100 % legal if it contains. three% THC or much less underneath the Agricultural Act of 2018 Cannabis-derived CBD is unlawful which is nevertheless categorized as a managed material no matter of it's share of THC. Hemp vs Cannabis: Final Thoughts Despite the fact the topic can be a little bit intricate and quite perplexing, Lets hope to have drop some mild on this critical topic and additionally appropriately defined the big difference among hemp vs marijuana. Despite the dysfunctional use of the conditions hemp and pot, these conditions have become deeply ingrained in our tradition in addition to society. There is certainly a want to re-teach The us about Hemp and Cannabis, but to reverse this concern, it has to get time. Because these conditions are utilized in a appropriate context, it is critical to comprehend what they imply, how theyâre various, and how they relate to hashish to comprehend your legal rights and steer clear of prospective legal issues when using CBD goods.

1 note · View note

jewish-privilege · 5 years

Link

After months of discussion, the Highland Park Borough Council brought their resolution on anti-Semitism to a vote on Tuesday, October 29. The final result, at the end of the nearly four-hour, standing room-only meeting, was a 3-3 tie, with Mayor Gayle Brill Mittler casting the tie-breaking vote to table. The mayor had previously supported the legislation, and asked for a new version to be presented at the next council meeting on November 12.

Public comments and debate significantly exceeded the originally allotted time. Attendees in the room were, according to different descriptions, between two-thirds and one-half favor of the resolution, which would have condemned anti-Semitism and included the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions) movement as an example of anti-Semitism.

Compounding the problem was that the resolution put up for vote was slightly changed earlier in the evening, replacing the working version that had been posted on the council website last week. The resolution spoke of condemning all forms of anti-Semitism from “both ends of the political spectrum,” including bias, hate speech, discriminatory behavior, and hate-based groups, and charged that “components of BDS activities” are anti-Semitic.

In introducing the new resolution, Councilman Matt Hale noted that the council was in receipt of approximately 100 emails and three petitions, with approximately two-thirds in favor of the resolution and one-third against. He also called out the lack of civility in discussions about the topic and implored the audience to keep the discussion respectful and polite.

Among supporters of the resolution, community resident John Kovac urged the Council to “say no to hate,” adding that anti-Semitism exists in societies specifically when it is unchallenged. Jeff Schreiber reminded the council that the Holocaust era began with the boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany and that BDS should be considered anti-Semitic because it singles out the only democracy and only Jewish country in the Middle East, while other countries with terrible records on humanitarianism are given a pass.

Andrew Getraer, a Highland Park resident who serves as director of Hillel at Rutgers University, said the resolution condemning BDS and anti-Semitism was unique because all the local Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative rabbis agreed—something that does not happen very often. If the council wants to eliminate anti-Semitism, it must eliminate all forms, including BDS, he said.

Rabbi Phillip Bazely of Congregation Anshe Emeth (Reform) in New Brunswick said he stood in agreement with the community rabbis in support of the resolution. He nodded to Rabbi Yaakov Luban (Ohr Torah, Orthodox, Edison) and Rabbi Eliyahu Kaufman (Ohav Emeth, Orthodox) and others.

There were close to 20 speakers who opposed the resolution, for a variety of stated reasons. While not all objections focused on BDS, anti-Israel and other comments were made with varying degrees of rancor. One speaker questioned why Israel exists and “why the Arabs have to pay for what the Nazis did.” Another said it was a misappropriation of government funds to support the state of Israel.

One commenter felt that the resolution should include racial discrimination for condemnation and address each incidence of bias separately. The resolution’s language including Israel’s self-determination was questioned as the resolution doesn’t include the same rights for the Mohawk, Navajo, Lenapi, Catalan and Kurdish peoples. Many of the speakers against the resolution brought up how their Jewish roots led them to feel support for the oppressed Palestinians and the shameful living conditions for Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

As the resolution went to a vote, Councilman Josh Fine said he agreed that the resolution was imperfect, but for many reasons, he was supporting it. Councilwoman Elsie Foster-Dublin said she was conflicted about the resolution; so many Jews were fighting each other on both sides of the resolution. How could she, a non-Jew take a stand on any side? She voted to “table.”

Councilman Phil George began his comments with the fact that Highland Park was deliberately targeted with the “P is for Palestine” reading. He researched all sides of the issue and ultimately compared the resolution discussion to the issue of immigration reform where President Trump was putting politics over the truth. Adding that the resolution makes things worse than before and that people won’t change their positions, he voted “no.”

Councilman Hale voted in support of the resolution after noting that there were many complicated issues involved. He noted that there are a large number of people in town who are extremely frightened of anti-Semitism from the right, left and center of the political spectrum. He shared that when he started working on the resolution he had no idea how complicated it would become, but said that anti-Semitism is growing in the community and has to be stopped. He voted “yes.”

...Councilwoman Susan Welkowitz agreed that a new version agreed upon just that day was an issue, but the council was working to a point of exhaustion to get to the heart of the matter. The mayor had asked for an anti-Semitism resolution and they created one. The addition of BDS to the resolution made things more difficult but it could not be “walked back,” she said. She was concerned that the educational component to promote awareness and fight anti-Semitism was perceived as promoting pro-Israel propaganda. Adding that this was never an issue limiting free speech for those who dislike Israel or align with the Palestinians, she can “smell, taste, and feel” that BDS is anti-Semitism and something needs to be done. Weeding out anti-Semitism, does not mean that people don’t care about Palestinians. She voted “yes.”

Mayor Brill Mittler began her remarks noting how disappointed she was with the process and that Highland Park is a diverse community, and with that comes responsibility. There is freedom of speech, but BDS tactics are anti-Semitic. She said she requested a resolution on the topic seven months ago and brought Rabbi Esther Reed from Rutgers Hillel to the borough’s Human Relations Committee to present evidence of the horrifying rise in anti-Semitic activity in New Jersey, Middlesex County, and specifically Highland Park. Brill Mittler said she found it hard to understand why seven months later the situation is still unresolved, adding that the addition of BDS verbiage “blew everything up.”

After noting her family ties and expressing love for Israel, Brill Mittler said her primary concern was keeping the residents of Highland Park safe. If people felt that the addition of BDS language makes people feel unsafe or targeted, then she cannot support the resolution. The mayor ultimately voted to table the resolution.

When pro-BDS attendees applauded, the mayor admonished them. Saying that she cannot tolerate Highland Park residents being attacked in the streets and the council needs to come back at the next council meeting on November 12 with a new resolution. In the meantime, residents have to feel safe and stop fighting one another.

Exiting the meeting, Michael Gordon noted that this outcome was what the ADL had predicted. “Kicking the can down the road emboldens BDS supporters” and their future activities. Others leaving the meeting noted the fallacy of the signs on Highland Park lawns saying “Hate has no home here.” Someone was overheard grumbling that an asterisk should be added to the signs saying “except for Jews.”

Community activist Josh Pruzansky took to Facebook after the meeting. “Last night we faced an uphill battle with the anti-Semitism resolution in Highland Park and almost won. I don't view it as a loss but rather as a step in the process for our community of being heard and respected. The bottom line is although we lost the vote, and I attribute it to members of the Council being unprepared for this vote; we still accomplished much,” he wrote.

#personal opinion: they shouldn't have included language specifically about BDS

10 notes · View notes