#it is the struggle between having a life of freedom and being human and thus being connected to other people

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

“The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management. “So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses. “The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it.” [pp. 15–16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes “anarchism … has traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, “Anarchism … originated in everyday struggles” and “the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, “the proof” of his mutualist ideas lay in the “current practice, revolutionary practice” of “those labour associations … which have spontaneously … been formed in Paris and Lyon … [show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59–60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was “close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon … and the program of the Lyon Mutualists” and that there was “a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers.” [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

“There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectual idea. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.” [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]

In Kropotkin’s eyes, “Anarchism had its origins in the same creative, constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past all the social institutions of mankind — and in the revolts … against the representatives of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used them for their own advantage.” More recently, “Anarchy was brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to Socialism in general.” Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism, “lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State.” All anarchist writers did was to “work out a general expression of [anarchism’s] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings” derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism “emerged at the end of the eighteenth century …[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State.” [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for example, that “from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists.” [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the “official” anarchist movement and argued that:

“From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority… Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild … and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority.” [Anarchism, pp. 158–9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that “the labour combinations… were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few — the capitalists in this case” as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were “the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the ‘Sections’ of Paris and all great cities and many small ‘Communes’ during the French Revolution” in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution — the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian ‘Sections’ during the French Revolution, the workers’ councils and factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin’s The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people’s experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals.

#faq #anarchy faq #revolution #anarchism #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #organization #grassroots #grass roots #anarchists #libraries #leftism #social issues #economy #economics #climate change #climate crisis #climate #ecology #anarchy works #environmentalism #environment #solarpunk #anti colonialism #mutual aid #cops #police

[kseniyagreen]

Two monsters in Jang Jun-hwan's films

"To stop seeing a monster, you need to become one"

The first (Save the Green Planet) and the second (Hwayi: A Monster Boy) feature films by the famous Korean director came out 10 years apart.

But although these works are very different in style and plot, there is a deep semantic connection between them. Both films deal with the theme of monsters.

Both films reflect the ruthless, ugly side of the world, where money can buy or sell human life, and even the police are on the payroll of gangsters. And those few police officers who can be called honest are too limited and are not able to see a living person behind the dossier. So the hero, who finds himself in an inhuman situation, can only rely on himself.

(This review contains spoilers) 

In both films, the central image is the hero, who, due to age, character, or social position, looks like a "little harmless man".

But being driven to despair, he turns into a cruel and furious monster slayer.

However, not all the monsters he sees are external. Some of them live in his own soul.

Save the green planet - a film-cabbage, a film - snag. At first, you think you understand what's going on. Crazy from grief and drugs, a man invented aliens and hunts them. By the end of the story, you start to wonder - what if he's not crazy? What if aliens are real? But the final shots make you wonder - what was actually happening on the screen in general? Or did everything really happen only in the imagination of the poor Byeong-gu? 

Aliens, bloody revenge, a strange image of either a girl or a circus woman - as if Lee Byeong-gu took the image of a girl from some old memories and tried to "grow" it to himself.

But then what is the movie about? Perhaps about the struggle for their inner humanity. But moral choice comes from the state of freedom. And freedom has two sides. To truly be human, you need to be aware of the inhuman in yourself.

Byeong-gu and Hwayi have very different personalities and destinies. But there is a bright unifying feature - they both see what others do not see. Hwayi calls it a monster. Byeong-gu - aliens. And in both cases, these images carry a dual meaning. That is, they cause fear and disgust of the characters, but at the same time, somewhere in the depths of the soul, they attract.

Declaring those whom he hates "aliens", Lee Byeong-gu , as it were, takes them out of a multitude of people, thus solving his moral contradiction. You can hate "non-humans", while continuing to feel your connection with the world of humans. As if taking out of the brackets of the human world what is unbearable, what Byeong-gu cannot accept and agree with.

But at the same time, the alien is Lee Byeong-gu himself. That part of him that feels superfluous in this world. And at some point it comes to the question: is this world worth saving? Or rather, is it worth to save his connection with this world?

The image of the monster in "Hwayi" is also ambivalent. On the one hand, the monster appears when Hwayi meets evil. The boy, stolen from his parents as a child and adopted by bandits, is used to taking his fathers and their "work" for granted. But the underlying feeling that something is very wrong here haunts Hwayi all these years, incarnating in the form of a monster at especially critical moments.

The conclusion suggests itself that the monster is an image of evil inside. But Hwayi's monster has the sparkling, mirror-like scales of a toy whale from his childhood. A single spark of memories of family and home.

Why did a child's toy turn into an image of a monster? Because it reminds him about something that does not allow Hwayi to integrate into the system. Fully adapt to the world of his "fathers", become the same as them - and no longer be afraid.

Byeong-gu had a victim's fate. Hwayi had a fate of a criminal, a predator. But the inability to fit into the system and just live life according to an already prepared scenario is what unites these two heroes. Natural sensitivity does not allow them to come to terms with life as it is. But the inhuman cruelty of the surrounding world seeps in, drop by drop, giving rise to a grave contradiction. And at the moment when the hero surrenders to the monster, he feels relieved for a moment.

In the life of both main characters there is also the image of a "monster mentor". In Byeong-gu's case, it's more of a part of himself. "Alien prince" (even a title straight from the fantasy of a child from a poor family), who became disillusioned with people and life in principle. And he wants to end this whole world that hurts him.

In Byeong-gu's internal struggle, after the death of his mother, this part of him wins.

In Hwayi's case, this monster is a very real external figure. The main of his "fathers", the most terrible and at the same time with him the strongest emotional connection.

It is interesting that if other "fathers" live like animals - doing evil, but not feeling it as evil, just living by their instincts. He always felt "dirty".

And judging by how eager he is to get Hwayi completely on his side, he still feels like that. Other bandits are not even puzzled by excuses. He brings an entire ideological base under his villainy - that becoming a monster is the only way out for people like him.

As if the thirst for warmth is combined in him with the desire to destroy it.

Young Hwayi turns out to be stronger than all his fathers - even the one who tried to hide from reality behind prayers. Because he can be a monster and a human at the same time.

 Byeong-gu loses his battle with the aliens, either completely losing touch with reality, or dying from drugs. Hwayi survives - accepting his inner monster enough to cold-bloodedly shoot the man who ordered his father's murder. But the final shots of Byeong-gu's memories and Hwayi's drawings give the feeling that the dream of lost harmony is alive.

The monster can be creepy, ugly. But his mirror skin is visible because it reflects the inner light

#shin ha kyun #Yeo Jin Goo

[uselesslilium]

Brainstorming a kind-of-reverse Princess Tutu AU for ShuMika

Shu is the heartless prince - originally a brave (if arrogant) ruler who had his heart shattered by the monster Raven in the process of sealing it away.

Kuro is, of course, the reincarnation of the failed knight who died trying to protect the prince in the battle against the Raven. He wants to make up for that in his present life, but fears that another failure is inevitable and between that and Shu's fragmented state, struggles to be truly close to him.

Nazuna is the reincarnation of the swan princess, the prince's story mandated True Love™, and the one initially tasked with restoring his heart in the present. He is even more at odds with his past life than Kuro, unsure where his own feelings for Shu lie and mostly just carried along by the sense that 'it's destiny, so what else can I do?'

Mika is an ordinary crow who Shu, even in his heartless state, still protected and nursed back to health. Mika would have done anything to repay Shu and make him happy - so the author (Eichi) invited him into the story as a brand new character. Nazuna lost his motivation to restore Shu's heart, as all the pieces he found thus far were of Shu's less-admirable traits, like his possessiveness and controlling tendencies. Someone else needs to take over - so why not this desperate little creature?

So Mika is given the blood of the monster Raven, and granted a human form with its power. His official role within the story is to act as the Raven's agent while its sealed away, finding shards of the prince's heart and making it whole so the Raven can be unbound and devour it. Mika's willing to play along with this, because he has every faith that the prince who saved him once will be able to defeat the Raven in the end.

Nazuna finds new motivation with Mika's entrance into the story, because he gets to know Mika and thinks he's a sweet kid just being manipulated, and fears that he'll wind up a casualty in the battle when the prince fully awakens. Nazuna's willingness to let Shu remain in his current condition indefinitely to protect Mika only makes Mika angry though. :') He's just a crow, after all. If the prince can get his happy ending, that's more important to him than his own life. So they have dance battles over it.

But of course, the process of saving Shu's heart also moves it. As Shu gradually continues to awaken he realizes Mika was acting out of love for him, even when he was nothing but an amalgamation of his worst flaws. He wants to repay that dedication by ensuring Mika's freedom from both the monster Raven and the author - so he, Nazuna, and Kuro all go against the author to save one lonely little crow.

#au thoughts #the gamble of a lifetime

[grandhotelabyss]

speaking of Ulysses, on a semi-related note, can you recommend any novels that portray the relationship between a mother and son? Why does it seem there are fewer mother-son novels? For whatever reason, Bovary and Anna Karenina don't feel like strong examples. As I Lay Dying?

As I Lay Dying is good. I guess Sons and Lovers is the canonical example, maybe illustrating why others avoid this subject matter: the canon's incest motif, which Freud hardly invented.

The Greeks give us Oedipus and Medea, the incestuous son and the murderous mother; the Hebrews give us Sarah, Rebecca, Tamar, etc., the mothers ambitious for their sons as proxies; and Christianity, our first pass at synthesizing Athens and Jerusalem, gives us on the one hand Christ's hostility to his mother as a blockage of the universal and on the other hand the mysterious icon of the virgin mother.

So the tradition renders the whole thing difficult from the start, first of all. Then, as long as there were "separate spheres" for men and women, male writers replicated Christ's repudiation and female writers were mostly childless women. In the transition from Stephen Hero to A Portrait, Joyce excises his mother from his bildung only to have Stephen cry out in Ulysses, "No, mother. Let me be and let me live." At the other end of the century, Roth buries his mother's death, however movingly, in the first Zuckerman trilogy, while his father's death gets a whole memoir. Then this, in the second Zuckerman trilogy:

You don't have to murder your father. The world will do that for you. There are plenty of forces out to get your father. The world will take care of him, as it had indeed taken care of Mr. Silk. Who there is to murder is the mother, and that's what he saw he was doing to her, the boy who'd been loved as he'd been loved by this woman. Murdering her on behalf of his exhilarating notion of freedom! It would have been much easier without her. But only through this test can he be the man he has chosen to be, unalterably separated from what he was handed at birth, free to struggle at being free like any human being would wish to be free. To get that from life, the alternate destiny, on one's own terms, he must do what must be done.

Jesus couldn't have said it better. Except for the pointed example of Mary Shelley—and the bitterly ironic one of Charlotte Brontë, who died of morning sickness—Morrison is the first ultra-canonical female writer to have been a mother, and a mother of sons. But though Morrison wrote both the novel of maternity in the American canon and one of the best male bildungsromane, there was never a mother-son novel.

This article tries to "puncture the myth" of the childless female writer, which begins with Woolf, but its examples of female writers who had "plenty of babies" are mostly second-raters, as Woolf could have told them; Gaskell is the best they can do until the Silent Generation. The great male writers who had children, by the way, fucked their kids up pretty much to a man—even Hawthorne, by all accounts a model and devoted father with none of the problems exhibited by Dickens, Tolstoy, Joyce, Hemingway, etc.

Anyway, the thing to keep in mind about the childless writer is the allegorical significance of Homer's blindness: it means that, being blind, he could hardly have been a warrior, but he possessed the poet's second sight to grasp and capture the essence of the warrior's existence. Thus I myself write from the maternal point of view all the time.

Now that men and women no longer live in separate spheres, now that more mothers are major writers, now that fathers are expected to tend infants from birth, now that nobody has any children at all, now that universal queerness obsolesces the very word "mother," etc., the whole structure of the question may change. I am agnostic about whether the social developments of the last half-century are able to be stabilized by technology and economic growth or not; if not, then they mark the end or decadence of an imperial cycle, and we'll return to a barbarous stage when only warriors and mothers will matter at all, and nobody will do much writing, and men like me and women like Woolf will for practical purposes cease to exist, slaughtered on the rocks as useless to the tribe.

Until the grid collapses, though, here's a good idea for a contemporary narrative: a son who wants to be a great artist has a mother who is a great artist, and this in a time when male achievement per se is disparaged. In other words, the mother in the paternal role of the oedipal triangle—or both roles, I guess. Maybe I'll write it!

(It occurs to me—Mr. Rieff, if he reads this, will have to forgive me—that this is part of Sontag's story, too. Perhaps I'll put it in my play.)

#literature #literary criticism

[disordersos]

Diverse philosophy  

Throughout time, humanity has always been in search for something due to their innate desire to explore, whether in themselves or in nature. As in result, they evolved to a different lifestyle that has greatly enhanced many aspects of life. However, despite this growth, many people still struggle to find meaning in their lives and, most fundamentally, to determine the correct way of living. 

  With that being said, is there indeed a correct way to live? If so, can humans adapt to it with  their own freewill? And is there any relationship between determinism and unintelligence?

   At first, the answer might seem obvious. The human being is considered an intelligent and thoughtful creature, capable of adapting to its environment, and free. However, if this statement is true, how can the existence of stupid people and low-IQ (intelligence quotient) people be justified? And, how can a human be unintelligent?

  Firstly, the term "intelligence quotient," or IQ, is used as a measure of a person's reasoning ability. In other words, an IQ test is supposed to gauge how well someone can use information and logic to answer questions or make predictions. Therefore, a person’s IQ doesn’t define intelligence but rather a person’s reasoning abilities, which can be improved by training the mind through experience or some exercises like reading, meditation, exercising, and sleeping enough.

  Secondly, the term "stupidity" is fundamentally misunderstood; in reality, this term has several definitions, among them:

"Stupidity is doing the wrong thing when you know the right thing." Or simply stupidity is basically not using the brain.

By these definitions, the term "stupidity" does not refer to a lack of intelligence. but, rather, not using intelligence. Because every human is intelligent in some way, unless they’re suffering from a mental condition or just unaware of their intelligence."Everyone is born a genius, but the process of living degeniuses them,'' as R. Buckminster Fuller said.

 So, what is the first cause leading to stupidity?

   Some people believe that the cause leading to stupidness is mainly lack of education. Nonetheless, education and intelligence aren’t related in most forms. 

One of the main reasons for stupidity is school itself.

Yes, the role of school is to teach, educate, and make good citizens. However, this statement only scratches the surface. The main purpose of the educational system is to build and program employees with little to no doubt of the government's intentions and ambitions who blindly follow the system, which also kills the natural desire for learning and questioning things.

All this is just to hold more power over the nation using every available method, whether violent or peaceful.

The government is taking away the freedom of the society and manipulating them into the illusion of freedom by claiming human rights with the current capitalism system…

 So that brings us to the first question: do really humans act from their free will? Is there any prodigious power behind the will of humans?And how can free will exist if God is omniscient?

   Freedom of will is the capacity to act and choose without any external or internal obligations.

From a religious perspective, all humans will be judged in the end and go either to hell or heaven as a result of their actions. Because God gave humans the ability to act from their own free will and decide their own paths, even with the omniscience of God, humans are still free because God knows the future that was created by a person's actions.

"There’s a bridge between knowing and controlling."

 And from another view, people are built and influenced by society. And, overall, the inside and outside environment, meaning what people often refer to as "reality," is just their beliefs and ideologies on how they see the world based on things they have been taught and learned during their lifetimes. Thus, their "free will" is only determined by these outside factors. However, this ideology contradicts the definition of a person. Even though information and some behaviors are gained from the environment, humans contain a sacred energy known as consciousness. They have the ability to develop, create, and suppress things thanks to the mind, and thinking plays an important role in that.And to add another point, "determined" doesn’t mean absence of free will but rather impacting the choices made. Because free will manifests itself in the ability to make choices.

  So in conclusion, humans act from their free will to some degree. But the process of thinking evolves the person’s free will to a different level."We are free to think if we think."

 Nonetheless, what if freedom of will is merely nothing but an illusion? If so, is seeing through the illusion conceivable? And how can right and wrong be determined if this reality is an illusion?

   Many philosophers claimed that free will is just an illusion, simply because most of our actions are controlled by our subconscious minds. And, every decision made is the result of one or more triggers that include human needs, society's obligations, etc. And yet, we’re still responsible for that thing called "free will," if there is any.

 And in another vision, freedom is absurdly only a sensation.

G.I. Gurdjieff said: "You are in prison. If you wish to get out of prison, the first thing you must do is realize that you are in prison. "If you think you are free, you can't escape."

  It is impossible to find the truth under the illusion of reality created by society.

Philosophy is all about opening up to different realities in order to seek the truth and the answer to some complex questions, such as "What is life?" and "What's the purpose of it all"? 

 Which depends mostly on a person’s environment, because personality and thoughts are basically reflections of their environment. So for the sake of pursuing the existential truth, giving up on past beliefs and thoughts, along with thinking and observing, is needed to generate an outside perception, as well as answering these questions based on logic and rationality. Or, paradoxically, just stop thinking. Because non-thinking is also as important as thinking, non-thinking gives a clear idea of subconscious thoughts in addition to an awareness of the inputs of actions, feelings, and thoughts, resulting in a greater understanding and perhaps the development of more free will. 

 Mentioning beliefs, another question arose: can a belief be identified as a truth?

   From a human perspective, yes. At some level, some beliefs can be defined as truths if they reflect reality. However, there are multiple complex topics that the metaphysics discusses that can't be proven in the real world, so the answer gets only as far as the imagination and logic.

 All this concludes that humans are limited by their minds and logic. Therefore, the truth of existence will remain a mystery perhaps until the end.

  Nevertheless, what if there is no truth or purpose? And if there’s one, is it possible for the mind to extend and define it?

   Nihilism (the ideology of nothing) believes in the lack of meaning that existence represents, that everything is meaningless and there’s no purpose. Everything came from nothingness and will end in nothingness. It goes head-to-head with atheism; they both create deep suffering and, in some cases, kill the will to live of a person. For instance, most modern social problems (gender equality, abortion, prostitution, free speech) are heavily influenced by nihilism (everyone is free to believe and act the way they want because everything is senseless, then why shouldn’t they do it?) And the government plays an important role in promoting indirectly this belief through a depressive system by being a source of distraction.

Nihilism will bring society into the abyss of disorder.

 However, there exists an optimistic approach to Nihilism that views the meaningless life as a life worth living even if it lacks purpose.

A nihilist can find peace by accepting that life is meaningless and there’s no truth; by losing faith in a meaning, the heavy weight vanishes.

 While on the other side, Nihilism remains only as a belief like other beliefs with holes in them. Humans often associate ignorance with non-existence. "If there’s no answer, then it’s nonexistent." Nihilism throws away the fact that the human mind is limited and there are countless pieces of information the human brain doesn’t have access to or can’t comprehend as it’s limited by an invisible boundary known as logic.

 It’s absurd to assume that life is meaningless just because the brain couldn’t think of a logical answer to it.

The answer might be somewhere out there. but certainly not in the rational understanding of the human brain.

   All things considered, philosophy must orient itself toward a faithful side that relies more on an upper consciousness known as God to answer some questions that can’t be answered simply by such ignorant creatures as humans.

Furthermore, the initial question, "What is the proper way of living?" has not been addressed.

#philosophy #free will #intelligence quotient #truth

[mediaevalmusereads]

Red Clocks. By Leni Zumas. Little, Brown and Company, 2018.

Rating: 4/5 stars

Genre: literary fiction

Part of a Series? No

Summary: In this ferociously imaginative novel, abortion is once again illegal in America, in-vitro fertilization is banned, and the Personhood Amendment grants rights of life, liberty, and property to every embryo. In a small Oregon fishing town, five very different women navigate these new barriers alongside age-old questions surrounding motherhood, identity, and freedom. Ro, a single high-school teacher, is trying to have a baby on her own, while also writing a biography of Eivør, a little-known 19th-century female polar explorer. Susan is a frustrated mother of two, trapped in a crumbling marriage. Mattie is the adopted daughter of doting parents and one of Ro's best students, who finds herself pregnant with nowhere to turn. And Gin is the gifted, forest-dwelling homeopath, or "mender," who brings all their fates together when she's arrested and put on trial in a frenzied modern-day witch hunt.

***Full review under the cut.***

Content Warnings: abortion, blood, gore, animal death, references to domestic violence, infertility, references to cannibalism

Overview: I put this book on my TBR list after Roe was overturned in the United States, and I’m only now getting around to reading it. When I did pick it up, I finished it in the span of one day, and that’s perhaps due to a number of things I liked: the short, vignette-style chapters; the lush, evocative prose; the sympathetic yet flawed inner lives of the protagonists. There are things I feel like I can criticize - such as the lackluster story of the female Arctic explorer - but overall, this was a well-written novel that really resonated with me as a reader interested in reproductive rights. Thus, it gets 4 stars from me.

Writing: Zumas’ prose is very literary in that it combines lyrical descriptions with a kind of experimental, loose structure. Some readers may be put off by this style, but personally, I found it incredible engaging and it held my interest, perhaps because I find the topic of reproductive rights more meaningful when driven by emotional, human stories (as opposed to debates about power and statistics). Zumas has an incredible talent for writing emotion, and I felt like I could understand what each character was experiencing without being told “XYZ happened” and “this character did this.”

I do think, however, that the little snippets of the life of the Arctic explorer, Eivør, were under-developed. These snippets occur between each chapter, and most are only a few lines or a paragraph. While I do think they added to the tone and setting of the novel, they didn’t really do much for me in terms of the themes of the book. If Eivør had been another character in her own right or her life was much more strongly about rejecting motherhood, I think it would have fit in better, but as it stands, the snippets felt a bit like filler.

Plot: The plot of this book follows four women in a small Oregon fishing town as they try to navigate issues of motherhood and womanhood in a world where abortion, IVF, and adoption by single parents have been banned. Over the course of the novel, we watch Ro (a single woman in her 40s) struggle to conceive a child using artificial insemination; Susan, a mother of two who is trapped in an unhappy marriage; Mattie, a teenager faced with an unwanted pregnancy; and Gin, a “witch” who lives on her own and distributes remedies to the local women.

Zumas seems less interested in telling the reader what happens than she is showing the reader various impressions of the protagonists’ emotions, and personally, I liked it better than your traditional dystopian novel. Zumas doesn’t put power and government at the center of these women’s lives, but instead focuses on their inner lives and what challenges they face in a post-Roe world.

As a result, this book perhaps hits a little differently today than it would have at the time of publication. Reading it in 2022, the “dystopian” elements are less a product of imagination and more a reflection of the very real reproductive rollbacks we’ve been seeing in the United States. The “Pink Curtain,” for example, calls to mind the recent discussions surrounding restricting women to travel for abortions; the claim that less abortions would mean more available babies for adoption - while seemingly farfetched in the novel - was actually said by a US lawmaker this past year. All in all, the scary similarity to today’s world makes this book feel less “speculative” than something like The Handmaid’s Tale, and perhaps that’s why I took to it so readily.

Characters: There are quite a few characters in this book, so for the purposes of this review, I’m going to focus on our four protagonists: Ro, Susan, Mattie, and Gin.

Ro was incredibly sympathetic in that she was desperate to have a child and was irritated by all the judgments put on her regarding her age, marital status, and income. Reading her perspective made me understand how earth-shattering it could be for one’s life to go in an unexpected direction, and I think her story was an important look at what a post-Roe world would mean for (potential) mothers who were not your typical young, married, upper-middle class white women. I did get annoyed by her when she began to feel resentful of Mattie’s pregnancy, and I got the sense that she was almost entitled at a certain point - but this was a very real and understandable flaw that doesn’t necessarily come from a place of rationality, and it made Ro a bit more realized as a character.

Susan was also sympathetic in that she was presented as both a loving parent and a parent who felt trapped by her kids and her marriage. Reading her perspective illuminated the pressure that many women feel to present themselves as devoted wives and mothers, and after reading about how Susan’s husband is absolutely useless, I was rooting for her to find some happiness away from her family. Susan also has some flaws in that she can be judgmental - especially of Ro - but again, it’s a very human flaw, and though I might be irritated as a reader, it also meant that Susan felt like a real person.

Mattie was perhaps the perspective that tugged at my heartstrings the most. At age fifteen, she gets pregnant and seeks an abortion, going so far as to attempt to escape to Canada and avoid arrest when visiting underground, unregulated providers. Her perspective was filled with fear, and I think it would be hard to look at someone like Mattie and tell her to just have the baby - so much was at stake, including Mattie’s future, and I desperately wanted her to be okay in the end.

Gin was a very intriguing perspective in that her role as the “village healer” was an interesting callback to the days when women’s local knowledge was in conflict with male institutionalized knowledge. Gin seemed to have a cure for any ailment, including unwanted pregnancies, and her failure to finish school just hammers home the gap between knowledge and education, as well as the history of women taking care of other women. But what I really liked about Gin was her rejection of the “normal” world and her insistence on living her life on her own terms. Even in her more grumpy and eccentric moments, I took a liking to her, and I think her trial was an important lynchpin that tied many of the book’s narratives together.

TL;DR: Red Clocks is a eerily prescient look at a post-Roe America, focusing on four very distinct women as they navigate the nebulous category that is “womanhood.” While the prose style and organization might not be to every reader’s taste, I think the more impressionistic look at a post-Roe world makes for a great emotional impact, and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the effect that a rollback on reproductive rights might have on individuals.

[spainkitty]

DAO has really helped me be more inspired to do creative stuff. I'm actually really disappointed by the idea that later games don't have the Origin stories! But since I'm here, I just really wanna brag about my girls.

Aleandria Cousland is my main storyline. I finished her story all the way through Witch Hunt (though I haven't done the GoA yet). She's a baby, just 19 when her world falls apart, and full of optimism and faith and love. She grew up with a silver spoon and she knows it, so she tries, with every choice and judgement she has to make, to pay that privilege forward. She is the epitome of Lawful Good, with just a little bit of veering off the path of annoying righteousness thanks to her grey-moralled biffies. She and Alistair fall in stupid goofy love, obviously, and he trains her to use Templar abilities (she becomes better at it than him🤣). In the end, she becomes Queen of Ferelden alongside her devoted King. She chooses to ally with the Architect, and, while she doesn't quite regret it, she is uneasy with her choice for the next decade. (Then, Witch Hunt made me sob because she spent all that time and effort just to find her friend, to tell her she trusts her and loves her, and Morrigan doesn't have to do this alone! But Morrigan leaves anyway and I fell down sobbing at Morrigan's last look over her shoulder. Spending the time to get up Morrigan's approval as high as possible in DAO was so so worth it for the scenes with Morrigan calling Aleandria her friend and sounding like she was about to cry)

Lanil Surana is my elf mage and she is also Babey. She's aroace spec and her story is unfinished. Thus far: She's been in the Circle so long she doesn't remember anything else, and honestly doesn't care. Why do people keep asking about her elf heritage?? It means nothing to her. She's a mage. She's not exactly smart, but she's bright and strong-willed and confident to the point of arrogance. She is talented at magic, very rarely struggles, and all she cares about is more magic. And (what leads her into trouble) wanting her friends to be happy. Jowan wants to be a farmer and get married and give up his magic? Gross, but okay. She'll help if it'll make him happy. Ofc he's not a blood mage, he wouldn't lie to HER. She knows her friend, there's no way he could hide something like that--oh. oh no. She's still unsure of how she feels about being a Warden; a part of her remains in the Circle, where she feels like she will always belong, even if it meant being made Tranquil for what she truly believes is her own mistake. Going out into the world, seeing something bigger than herself, will hopefully help her learn empathy and perspective. There is more to the world than the Circle, and not all apostates are evil or deserve punishment. Morrigan especially is a good influence on her. Going back to the Circle to save it was the most heartwrenching and terrifying experience of her life and she struggles between her trauma and her growth when it comes to blood magic and freedom. (Extra: everything with Cullen still lingers in the back of her mind. WtFUCK was that?? What was he... talking about? Did he love her or something? No way. Maybe?) In the future, maybe she'll even find a connection to a heritage she's never bothered to care about.

Danae Tabris is a city elf. And she's ANGRY. Her whole life has been about being made smaller, quieter, and scraping by for survival. She is pragmatic and cold to strangers (esp humans), but not unnecessarily cruel. When the Arl's son ruins her wedding day, a day she only half-begrudgingly accepted for her single father's sake, despite having zero interest in her would-be-husband (or any man), Danae's anger is unstoppable. Saving the young elf women around her, protecting them from the monsters masked in human skin, gives her, for a moment, power. True Power over her fate that leads to beheading the Arl's son while still dressed in her wedding finery. Being killed for it feels more like a reward than a punishment, there is true pride in her when she steps forward, it was worth it to save the other elves and end the life of even one oppressor. But then Duncan offers her a life in the Grey Wardens. While she can't truly trust him, she latches onto the idea of more power, the ability to be stronger, faster, and FREE. That freedom and power is all that matters to her, at first. Could Leliana be the one that shows her that she can forgive the world for letting her down? And that humans can, in the end, be good and true and... worth loving? She can not only save a few young elves, she can save the entire country and love wholeheartedly, unreservedly. She will be capable of wielding power, yes, but also capable of Greatness. (Though, she'll never be comfortable with the idea of being a "Hero" and definitely disappears so people will please forget her face.)

#dao #dao tabris #dao surana #dao cousland #i just really love my girls #i made two dwarves too but i havent played them yet #or figured out exactly what their personalities are #long post #please ask me questions if you want to about them #id love that

[lifeofkaze]

Happy FFWF! 🧡 You know what I’m going to ask you…

Each of your OCs has a story with an overarching theme. What are these themes, and how did they develop with the characters and their stories?

And you know this question is the sole reason I'm actually playing this week 💛 So let's go:

Selene: There's many things going on with Selene but if you break it down, her theme is about the struggle between the responsibility we have to take for others vs. the wish and need to be our own persons and live out or freedom.

Caro: Everything about Caro is about the definition of beauty and her changing perception of it as she grows up. The theme kind of was always there and evolved into different aspects over time, with Brady as an artist showing her the beauty beyond the bare practical use of things, to her sister being scarred for life, to her issues with her own self-worth.

Henry: Henry's story deals with all of our bane, the impostor syndrome. With his gift for sensing the stories in the world surrounding him, he develops a fear of forgetting any of them and also being forgotten yet he never fully believes he is capable of telling his own story. Much of this as well as his unhappy love story came to me in a rush of angst where Henry spilled his heart to me, lol.

Caitlin: Caitlin suffers a lot by Selene not telling her the truth about her father and it’s the main reason for the troubled relationship with her mother. She is all about finding her roots and learning that only because someone is different and has different values it doesn’t mean that they’re a bad person. This was her concept all along but she was never meant to be more than a link in the family tree so her story was greatly expanded.

Lizzie: As my main girl, Lizzie has the most big fics and thus the most themes going on. But one thing that pops up in all of them is the theme of making mistakes, and that making mistakes is human and okay as long as you learn from them. The road to happiness is never straight, after all (thank you for the contribution, Orion 🙄). She is the OC who has developed the most and least out of all of them alongside these themes because she made the jump from self-insert to OC but from then on (aside from her plot line in Source of Balance) most of her story was set very early on.

Ava: It’s hard to talk about Ava without spoiling her story, but the main theme with her is forgiveness and learning to forgive - others as well as herself. Same as Lizzie, this was her theme from the very beginning.

Mina: Mina is one of my more realistic and relatable OCs, I think. For her story she had to learn how to grow out of her comfort zone and face the more bitter parts of life to come out on top. She was originally meant to focus more on overcoming her phobia of reptiles but it turned into her current theme pretty early on.

Dana: Dana’s main struggle is the idea modern society has of how a young, independent woman should be. She knows it’s a privileged to be able to do what you love for a living, but deep in her heart she also feels that this is not what is fulfilling her and she wishes for a more traditional life. This is something about her I realised only very recently. I didn’t want to give her the angst but she literally begged me for it.

Dylan: Dylan is all about the (realistic) miscommunication between men and women. As funny as it sounds, especially when there are actual problems involved, his stoic approach can often come across as cold or him not caring and he has to learn to take people expressing their emotions more intensely than him seriously. This concept developed alongside Dana’s angst fest, naturally.

Reva: Reva pushed her theme on me with all her power and it took me a while to understand what she wanted from me. Interestingly enough, her concept is the one who translated from concept to the actual writing process. Only when I let her out of her old ship and my plans for her and let her discover her own self and her self-love was she ready to truly let people in and love someone else.

#ask game #ffwf #lizzie jameson #ava campbell #mina pendleton #selene fraser #carolyn nyberg #henry lovecraft #caitlin fraser #danielle parkin #dylan amari #reva amari

[francesbeau]

Eros & Civilization - Herbert Marcuse

Wasn’t going to create a post for this but you know when a preface begins with ‘ As the affluence of society depends increasingly on the uninterrupted production and consumption of waste, gadgets, planned obsolescence, and means of destruction...’ it will have informative singular quotations 

- ‘The people, efficiently manipulated and organized, are free; ignorance and impotence, introjected heteronomy is the price of their freedom. ‘ (pp5)

- ‘it makes no sense to talk about surplus repression when men and women enjoy more sexual liberty than ever before. But the truth is that this freedom and satisfaction are transforming the earth into hell.’  (pp5)

- ‘I hesitate to use the word -- freedom -- because it is precisely in the name of freedom that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated. This situation is certainly not new in history: poverty and exploitation were products of economic freedom; time and again, people were liberated all over the globe by their lords and masters, and their new liberty turned out to be submission, not to the rule of law but to the rule of the law of the others.’  (pp5)

- ‘Society which made servitude more palatable.’  (pp5)

- ‘The Marxian concept stipulated that only those who were free from the blessings of capitalism could possibly change it into a free society: those whose existence was the very negation of capitalist property could become the historical agents of liberation.’ (pp6)

-‘ Can we speak of a juncture between the erotic and political dimension? ‘ (pp7)

-  ‘ However, intensified progress seems to be bound up with intensified unfreedom.’ (pp9)

- ‘ Freud questions culture not from a romanticist -- 18 -- or utopian point of view, but on the ground of the suffering and misery which its implementation involves. Cultural freedom thus appears in the light of unfreedom, and cultural progress in the light of constraint. Culture is not thereby refuted: unfreedom and constraint are the price that must be paid.’ (pp14)

- ‘that feeling of guilt which accompanies sexual repression.’ (just like the phrase)

- ‘ The rebellion against the father is rebellion against biologically justified authority; his assassination destroys the order which has preserved the life of the group.’ (pp30)

- ‘ Freud attributes to the sense of guilt a decisive role in the development of civilization; moreover, he establishes a correlation between progress and increasing guilt feeling . He states his intention "to represent the sense of guilt as the most important problem in the evolution of culture, and to convey that the price of progress in civilization is paid in forfeiting happiness through the heightening of the sense of guilt." 1 Recurrently Freud emphasizes that, as civilization progresses, guilt feeling is "further reinforced," "intensified ," is "ever-increasing.’ (pp36)

- ‘ The excessive severity of the superego, which takes the wish for the deed and punishes even suppressed aggression, is now explained in terms of the eternal struggle between Eros and the death instinct.’ (pp36)

- ‘ The rationality of domination has progressed to the point where it threatens to invalidate its foundations; therefore it must be reaffirmed more effectively than ever before. This time there shall be no killing of the father, not even a "symbolic" killing -- because he may not find a successor.’ (pp40)

-  Material and intellectual progress has weakened the force of religion below the point where it can sufficiently explain the sense of guilt. The aggressiveness turned against the ego threatens to become senseless: with his consciousness co-ordinated, his privacy abolished, his emotions integrated into conformity, the individual has no longer enough "mental space" for developing himself against his sense of guilt, for living with a conscience of his own.’ (pp42) 

Obviously amazing and intellectual but just could not bring it to myself to finish the last 20 pages. 

Herbert Marcuse. (Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1955).

#herbert marcuse #freud #political theory

[yermak]

Ukraine is now fighting two wars at once

by Andriy Yermak

Published on March 15, 2024

As Ukraine enters a third year defending itself against Russia’s illegal and barbaric war that has left hundreds of thousands of its people displaced and mourning the loss of loved ones, many observers would expect Ukrainians to turn inward and want to focus solely on rebuilding their own country. Yet even amidst the horrors of Putin’s war, I have been heartened by Ukrainians’ continued desire to reach out to the wider world and help those also struggling in desperate circumstances. Nothing better exemplifies this than Ukraine’s humanitarian initiative ‘Grain from Ukraine’, which is part of President Zelensky’s Peace Formula. Launched in 2022, this programme has been delivering much needed food supplies to countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East whose populations face severe food insecurity, hunger and potential famine. In cooperation with the UN World Food Programme, more than 30 countries and international organisations have joined Ukraine in delivering the initiative, and, by the end of 2023, over 170,000 tons of grain had been delivered to countries experiencing the most challenging food situations, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Yemen.

In these early months of 2024, already two more countries – Nigeria and Sudan – have been added to the list, with grain and wheat flour received from Ukraine serving as a much-needed lifeline to vulnerable populations there. The ongoing conflict and persistent violence in northeast Nigeria has displaced 2.2 million people and left another 4.4 million food insecure, with prices of food staples rising. Ukraine’s shipment of 25,000 tons of grain, which arrived in Port Harcourt last month, will help alleviate the pressure on many impacted people who would otherwise have no easy access to food. In Sudan, which is grappling with an ongoing armed conflict and the world’s largest internal displacement crisis thus far, half of its 50 million people need food aid, approximately eight million of whom have been uprooted from their homes. The recent arrival of 7,665 metric tons of wheat flour in the country will help feed for a month, over a million Sudanese affected by the conflict. Ukraine’s support for populations facing extreme hunger demonstrates humanitarian concern by Ukrainians for others facing misfortune around the world; more significantly it highlights the underlying values divide at the heart of Russia’s war – between belief in a shared humanity and peaceful co-existence, and the use of brutal aggression to try and coerce other by force. For it is not just those suffering the impact of internal conflict whom Grain from Ukraine is supporting, and not just Ukrainians who are being harmed by Russia’s invasion. The knock-on effects of Putin’s war are being felt much further afield, not least by the 70 million people around the world now on the brink of starvation. By disrupting the supply chains that previously allowed Ukraine to produce and export food to the rest of the world, Russia is multiplying the victims of its invasion, and demonstrating why Ukraine and its allies must prevail. Most of you reading this will be familiar with images of the war which bring to life the fortitude and determination of Ukrainians defending their homeland, their families and their way of life. Ukraine’s determination to drive back the Russian invaders is only matched by a steadfast commitment, even at a time of war, to continue to play a role in another important conflict: the fight against starvation, food insecurity, and extreme hunger. Building on the success of ‘Grain from Ukraine’ so far, plans are already in place to expand the global relief programme to other nations and a wider range of food products. As President Zelensky has emphasised repeatedly, never again should hunger be used as a weapon against the freedom of a people. Ukraine is firmly determined that, even in one of its darkest hours as a nation, it will remain a point of light for those facing extreme hunger, and a beacon of hope for the values that are being fought for on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. The free world must not let the light and hope to be extinguished. Andriy Yermak is Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine.

#andriy yermak #ukraine

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?

As we have seen, “an-archy” implies “without rulers” or “without (hierarchical) authority.” Anarchists are not against “authorities” in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations (see section B.1 for more on this distinction). In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown’s words, “believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual.” [The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for ”[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others … My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals.” [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the “authority” of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:

“The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official.” [quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]

In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.

This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and, as a result, people’s “mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities are dwarfed, stunted and crushed” (see section B.1 for more details). Thus one of “the grand truths of Anarchism” is that “to be really free is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as each allows all to do the same.” This is why anarchists fight for a better society, for a society which respects individuals and their freedom. Under capitalism, ”[e]verything is upon the market for sale: all is merchandise and commerce” but there are “certain things that are priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee to all.” Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt, resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, “believe in peace at any price — except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life … they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?” [Lucy Parsons, Liberty, Equality & Solidarity, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p. 134]

So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty (and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists, would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel this attitude needs any sort of explanation.

#faq #anarchy faq #revolution #anarchism #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #organization #grassroots #grass roots #anarchists #libraries #leftism #social issues #economy #economics #climate change #climate crisis #climate #ecology #anarchy works #environmentalism #environment #solarpunk #anti colonialism #mutual aid #cops #police

[redstarnotebooks]

"The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968."

Article 1:

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

... Article 5:

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether inside Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian. Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

...

Article 8:

The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute – both their organizations and the individuals – one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

Article 9:

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

...

Article 16:

The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country’s religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

Article 17:

The liberation of Palestine, from a human point of view, will restore to the Palestinian individual his dignity, pride, and freedom. Accordingly the Palestinian Arab people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world.

Article 18:

The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

…

Article 20:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

…

#palestine #plo #masar badil

[blognistia]

Review clearly the message contained in the selected work of Denny Ja 1: Fang Yin's handkerchief

In this article, we will review with the clear message contained in a chosen work from Denny Ja, namely "Fang Yin's handkerchief". In this work, Denny JA displays interesting stories and contains deep moral messages. This article will discuss various aspects in the work, including plots, characters, and themes presented by the author. I. Introduction "Fang Yin's handkerchief" is a literary work written by Denny JA. This work tells about the journey of life of Fang Yin, a woman of Chinese descent who lived in Indonesia in the colonial period. Fang Yin is a tough woman who must face various challenges and difficulties in his life. In this work, Denny JA succeeded in describing social and political life at that time, and highlighted issues such as racism and human rights. II. Plot The plot in "Fang Yin's handkerchief" is well designed and flows smoothly. This story begins with the introduction of the main character, Fang Yin, and his background. Fang Yin grew up in a rich and influential family, but had to face complicated internal conflicts, especially in terms of his identity as a Chinese woman in Indonesia. This story then developed when Fang Yin was involved in the political and social struggle in Indonesia. Denny Ja succeeded in describing Fang Yin's struggle with touching details and made the reader connect with the main character. This plot also presents various conflicts and climaxes that make this work more interesting and attractive. III. Character The characters in "Fang Yin handkerchief" are well designed and have many dimensions. Fang Yin is described as a strong and strong woman, but also has vulnerability and uncertainty. In the course of his life, Fang Yin must face various traumatic events and moral dilemmas, which describe the complexity of his personality. In addition, there are also supporting characters who play an important role in this story. Each character has a different background and motivation, and conflict between characters enriches the story and makes it more interesting. IV. Theme The theme presented in the "Fang Yin Sanker" is very relevant to the current social and political life. In this work, Denny Ja highlighted issues such as racism, discrimination, and human rights. Fang Yin as a Chinese woman must face a variety of discriminatory treatments and must struggle to get her rights. Another theme presented is a struggle to fight injustice and gain freedom. This work illustrates Fang Yin's struggle to fight for justice in a corrupt and full of oppression. Denny Ja conveyed the message that this struggle is the duty of everyone, and every individual must dare to speak and act for better change. V. Conclusion In "Fang Yin's handkerchief", Denny Ja succeeded in presenting an interesting and attractive literary work. This work contains a deep moral message, and is able to describe social and political life at that time in detail and accurately. Through a strong character and plot, Denny Ja conveys important messages about racism, discrimination, human rights, and struggle for justice. Thus, "Fang Yin's handkerchief" is a literary work that is worthy of being reviewed clearly. This work is not only as entertainment, but also as a social reflection that can inspire readers to act and fight against injustice in society. 

Check more: review clearly the message contained in the selected Denny JA 1: Fang Yin's handkerchief

[zoroastriancowboy]

The Purpose of Life

The Zoroastrian religion posits that the universe is currently undergoing a cosmic conflict between the forces of light and darkness. As humans, we are the centerpiece in this battle between good and evil, and we have been endowed with free will to choose which side to align with.

Those who opt for the path of virtue by manifesting good thoughts, words, and deeds, serve Ahura Mazda, the supreme God of light, wisdom, and love. Consequently, they are destined to experience a positive and joyous existence in the afterlife. On the other hand, those who perpetuate evil through their thoughts, words, and actions contribute to the forces of darkness in the world, thus causing human suffering. The latter serve the evil spirit Ahriman and will ultimately face an afterlife characterized by misery and gloom.

This dualistic worldview is justified by the observation of good and evil in the world in various forms, such as order and chaos, life and death, justice and injustice, knowledge and ignorance, and war and peace. This struggle is ongoing and can be seen in various conflicts throughout the world such as those between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and inside Iran between the genocidal Islamist Khomeinists and the freedom-loving children of King Cyrus.

The question of how a good God can exist when there is so much suffering in the world is a common source of doubt for many who lack faith in a higher power. When you see innocent children being killed in Ukraine and schoolgirls being gassed with chemical weapons in Iran, it makes you question why. This dilemna is known as Theodicy, and Zoroastrianism is the only religion which offers a satisfactory solution from a philosophical standpoint. The religion does not view God as the creator of evil but rather sees suffering as a result of wrongful human choices resulting from the influence of the evil spirit. In this way, Zoroastrianism emphasizes individual responsibility and human agency in the struggle between good and evil.

Ahura Mazda is not the creator of evil. Instead, it is Ahriman who has corrupted the universe. Ahriman is not a fallen angel, but rather a completely separate metaphysical entity who is hostile to God. Zoroastrianism sees evil and suffering as a result of humans who chose to align themselves with Ahriman. In this way, the religion provides a solution to the problem of Theodicy by emphasizing the role of human agency and the importance of individual responsibility in the cosmic struggle between good and evil. Those religions which expound the belief in an all-powerful deity who created the world and the evil within it are illogical and must be abandoned for the sake of humanity.

The purpose of life in Zoroastrianism is to live a happy and fulfilled life - but people cannot be happy when evil is causing them harm, thus Zoroastrians have a religious duty to fight evil through "Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds". The Zoroastrian duty is to understand and perform the will of the creator, which is known through the good religion of Zarathushtra.

In conclusion, Zoroastrianism presents a compelling worldview that centers on a cosmic struggle between the forces of light and darkness, emphasizes individual responsibility in the fight against evil, and offers a unique solution to the problem of theodicy.

#iranrevolution

#Zoroastrianism

#womanlifefreedom

#theodicy

#goodandevil

[theabyssalmuses]

[ @cyfaredd​ sent in: “Sunflower, Violet, Lavender [Lalnable (& Hektor by extension)” ]

[ Botanical Headcanons - Open! ] [ sunflower :   what brings your muse the most joy in life ?  ]

For the Lost Ruler, King Hektor Nobellius, it’s a simple question. It’s not a matter of ‘What’ - but ‘Who.’ His other half, The Queen to his Kingdom, the one whom he loved with his whole being - the one whom his love for is the very force that holds his very being together. His One, True and Only Love.

The Great Demon King. The Demonic Aspect of Pride. The God of Magic. These grand titles that meant little to him, for he loved them all the same. They were the only one to bring a truthful, genuine smile to his face- the one who taught him that life is more than black or white. The one who enabled him to shine brightly from within the shadows. By whatever name, by whatever form, in whatever place and in whatever time -

His love is beyond any and all constraints - and for that, he smiles.

And yet- the alternate version of The Lost Ruler-  Hector “Lalnable” Nobellius. A man lost within himself, who believes whole heartedly in his own Sin, who walks a path of Darkness because he believes he wants to. Vying for freedom in a world already open to him, seeking to throw off impossible shackles, he struggles against the world, himself and everything in between. To say he is evil is incorrect, yet he believes he is so. To say he is good is not incorrect, yet he believes he is not. Yet the inverse is also Truth - in his own world of Lies.

What is it that brings such a lost, twisted individual True Happiness? Is there truly anything that could?

                                              Of course.

           One can’t be happy if you don’t accept that you can be.

[  Violet:  how does your muse respond to betrayal ? ]

And thus- the differences between “King Hektor Nobellius” and “Hector “Lalnable” Nobellius” begin to blur. Both respond similarly. Annoyance, yet somehow, they expect it.

Both men know of their rotten core, and thus expect betrayal as a matter of course. However- where King Hektor accepts his own darkness as part of who he is, and would simply laugh a betrayal off easily - “If they wish to forefeit their lives so easily, they can be my guest!” for Lalnable, it’s entirely he was already awaiting the betrayal (or planning his own.)

While both men share the trait that “Betraying them will llikely End Badly for You.” Hektor is more likely to let it pass, biding his time for the perfect moment- or even simply letting it go entirely, deeming it not worth his time. As with Lalnable, it was likely expected and he most definitely already got what he wants.

Whereas Lalnable would prefer an agreement to come to a cordial end- for more drowned in “the Human Condition” , the need for companionship still plagues him. If he could hold an agreement with someone and not have it end in betrayal, it would be preffered-- henceforth, he reacts much more immediately and violently.

[ lavender :   how easy is it to gain your muse’s trust ?  once their trust is broken ,   how might one go about mending it ?  ]

For King Nobellius - it’s surprisingly simple. As easy as it is to swear allegiance aloud, he will accept it. He welcomes one and all into his ‘Kingdom’ - any and all are allowed to survive and thrive under his reign and live freely.. however. Once you break that trust...depending on the severity of what you’ve done, it really depends. For smaller offences, you may be forgiven... “After all, it’s expected for others to make mistakes. Not everyone can be as infallible as I.”

But certaintly, more extreme case will be met with with much more resistance. He may blow you off - perhaps violently - or perhaps he will simply ignore you, deeming you not worth his time. As a King, he has many important things to think about - the affairs of those beneath him that wish to throw their lives away are none of his business.

For Lalnable - it is already nightmare enough to earn his trust. A man who has driven himself into seculsion, so intnetly believing in his own vile rotteness - hating himself and others while loving the people around him such that he believes he should stay away from them - they are too good for him.

He would only taint their light.

If by some chance, he grew trust someone - anyone - to have him for once open his heart just a tiny bit...

A dangerous man, a dangerous weapon. Like a Nuclear Explosion, the result of breaking what little trust he gives could leave lasting, permanent damage.

#asks: Interesting Inbox Intercommunications #hi #Lalnable: The Darkest White piece on the chessboard #King Hektor: Forged in Darkness; lost in the Light #ehhehehe #this was long and hard #hehe! #fun though #headcanon: the truth of this reality

[spockandawe]

Okay, I think I found what I really wanted to root out with Wen Kexing and Zhou Zishu and the physicality of their book relationship.

Because I will argue for days that Wen Kexing is terribly touch-starved, especially at the beginning of the book. For eight years, as the Valley Master, he’s only allowed Gu Xiang within a meter of him. They have a fairly casual relationship, but they straddle an awkward line between family and master/servant, and as the Ghost Valley Master? Everyone in Ghost Valley, including Gu Xiang, is at least a little frightened of him. He’s affection-starved as much as he is touch-starved, and having one person who cares more than she’s frightened isn’t really enough to overcome that degree of isolation. When a servant woman is combing his hair and accidentally hits a snag, she begs for her life, and his first reaction is to ask if someone forced her to wait on him. He’s been the Valley Master since he was a very young adult, and he’s been in Ghost Valley since he was a child.

And it’s so interesting to me that a lot of cnovels really emphasize that when the leads are in a relationship, it’s their first relationship, and they never wanted anyone else, but Wen Kexing (and jing beiyuan in lord seventh, which is an interesting parallel) really directly subvert that. Gu Xiang almost immediately remarks that Wen Kexing spends plenty of nights with male courtesans, and partway through the book, Wen Kexing uses a handkerchief from a famous courtesan to treat Zhou Zishu’s injury. He left the valley and entered the human world, and immediately threw himself into the arms of other men.

And Zhou Zishu, I would say, is also touch starved and affection starved, but is coping differently from Wen Kexing. No matter how strained and/or political his relationships with the Emperor and the government are, and even though he took charge of the Four Seasons Manor at... fifteen, iirc, he did have at least one close, affectionate (for a zhou zishu value of affectionate), trusting relationship, with Liang Jiuxiao. And where Wen Kexing starts the book with a comfortable relationship with Gu Xiang, Zhou Zishu starts the book knowing that his shidi is dead, and in Lord Seventh, we see the ways that he failed and/or “failed” Liang Jiuxiao, with Jiang Xue, and with staying at his post during the final battle instead of rushing off and trying to find his shidi, and it working out... not well. And I think it’s fascinating that unlike Wen Kexing, when he leaves Tian Chuang to reenter the human world, he’s content to be almost completely solitary, and focuses his attention on seeing the sights and drinking good wine.

A really interesting parallel to me is in the Ye Baiyi extra, where he mentions that it’s only human nature to crave food and sex, and he’s too old to care about sex, so food it is. Because that’s not a thought he ever shares with the other characters, but it’s very interesting to me that in the novel, in that first burst of enjoying their freedom, Wen Kexing is so focused on physical intimacy, first with courtesans, and then with Zhou Zishu, while Zhou Zishu is much more focused on physical pleasure must less dependent on other humans, like sightseeing and wine.

But once Wen Kexing and Zhou Zishu are in action together, and once Wen Kexing definitively gets invested in Zhou Zishu, the physical progression of the relationship is really interesting to me. Wen Kexing gets very handsy and very forward, very quickly. Zhou Zishu tends to either endure or push him away, depending on the situation, but compared to something like, say, svsss, there’s much less ‘but i’m not gay though’ and much more generalized irritation until he (much more slowly) gets invested in return. 

And I probably would have brushed it away except for that one scene where they were about to do it, and get interrupted by the Scorpion King. First, this line, which makes it absolutely clear that as much as Zhou Zishu had given up on living a long, normal human life, Wen Kexing was in exactly the same position. Now, seeing Zhou Zishu potentially get a new lease on life, he’s forced to reckon with the idea that it might be possible for him to live on in the same way, which casts a whole new light on how casually he slept around with courtesans and propositioned Zhou Zishu earlier in the story, versus where he stands now.

They were both lone wolves who had been caught in hunters’ traps, struggling with all of their strength to free themselves to no avail, and thus, were willing to gnaw their own legs off without mercy.

[Wen Kexing] hadn’t been able to help following him, from watching him. Then a revelation had dawned— He’d realized, for the first time, that if Zhou Zishu could live like this, was it also a possible for him to live like this?

And then when Wen Kexing starts to catch a fresh round of feelings, Zhou Zishu’s response says volumes about his prior reactions whenever Wen Kexing got forward with him.

“A-Xu, sleep with me once. This way, we’ll keep each other in our hearts. You won’t die so easily then, and neither will I. What do you think?”

He said it jokingly, yet Zhou Zishu did not reply, only looked at him oddly. A while later, he finally asked, “Are you truly sincere about this?”

Wen Kexing laughed, his body tilting towards Zhou Zishu. He spoke, nearly against Zhou Zishu’s lips, “Can’t you tell if I’m sincere or not?”

Stunned, Zhou Zishu paused, then said in a low voice, “I… truly can’t tell. I haven’t experienced many instances of sincerity over the course of my life, and can’t identify it. Are you?”

Wen Kexing's fingers drifted up his shoulder, and tugged his hair loose. Dark hair cascaded down, making the tough man before his eyes look a few degrees more fragile in an instant. He dropped his cheeky grin, and in a soft voice, filled with momentous certainty, said, "I am."

Wen Kexing is most starved for touch, while Zhou Zishu is most starved for sincerity. Zhou Zishu was up to his neck in court politics in Lord Seventh, where a major focus of the story is about how sure, the Crown Prince may be deeply in love, but he’s the future Emperor, and ultimately, his feelings land way down the priority list. Up until this point in the story, with Wen Kexing waxing eloquent about how pretty Zhou Zishu must be, and calling it ‘mariticide’ when Zhou Zishu hits him, and being like ‘no no let’s hear the man out’ when the Scorpion King wants them to put on a sexy show for him, Zhou Zishu hasn’t been able to tell whether  Wen Kexing means it. 

I love me a story where the leads are terrible communicators and it causes them much Suffering, but this is a really tasty variant that I don’t feel like I see that often. Their hungers are so similar, but just disjoint enough that they can’t understand each other’s reservations. For a soulmates story like this, it’s just the right kind of tension to make the relationship work extra well for me. They’re in sync about this, as they are about so many things, with just enough of an offset that they’re both left ever so slightly uncertain, and it isn’t until they trust each other enough to ask a question as plain as ‘are you truly sincere about this?’ that they’re finally able to close the gap and reach that understanding with each other. 

#wenzhou #wen kexing #zhou zishu #faraway wanderers #meta