land march

The fact that Taraji P. Henson didn’t get an Oscar nomination for Hidden Figures is so insulting, unfortunate, and tragic in every aspect.

An Idea...

So I was stalking Tumblr the other day and I noticed that other than the artists and writers, the MM fandom isn’t really well acquainted with one another… I also did a little search and I don’t think this is a thing yet so here we go.

I was planning to have a fandom meetup here on Tumblr, so that those in the Mystic Messenger fandom can get to know each other and have a fun time.

(I also got inspired by the phandom meetups as I used to be in the phandom for a few years)

Since National Potato Chip Day lands on March 14th in America, I thought to have the meetup then to celebrate 707′s love for Honey Buddha chips at the same time!

I will make a page about this, and put it in my calendar, but I want to see the reception to this idea first.

So please share this around so that more and more people would know about it!! Thank you guys so much for the support xx

So under the cut is some info about what a meetup actually is:

Keep reading

Tomorrow is Day 5 for Clexaweek and lands on March 3rd…otherwise known as the day jason rottenburger unwittingly threw away his career.

Tomorrow is Alternative Canon/Canon Divergence…which means we get to fix it however we see fit, whether that means the story changes so Lexa’s never killed in the first place, or we save her, or we bring her back to life…whatever you choose, I can’t wait to see how you all metaphorically flip jason off, whether by creating stories of wlw he doesn’t give a shit about, or changing his shitty story around!

Get a good night’s rest, kru! Tomorrow- GON WAR

Originally posted by matonda

No Platform for Land: On Nick Land’s Racist Capitalism and a More General Problem

We invite the New Centre for Research and Practice, if they are to retain any credibility as a critical institution, to end their course taught by Nick Land (ongoing through March and April 2017). That students have paid for this course is not a problem they should be burdened with; a refund, whole or in part, would be the appropriate recompense.

Nick Land promotes racism, in its eugenic, ethnonationalist, and cultural varieties, and yet he continues to be feted in art and theory scenes. As the crisis lurches into the Frog Twitter presidency, the New Centre for Research and Practice hosts Land for a suite of eight seminars; Urbanomic, the experimental small-press, announces a reprint of Fanged Noumena, the Land collection that hooked-in his philosophy fan club; and an academic conference is advertised, in terms all too flattering, on Land’s ‘ferocious but short-lived assault’.

Is it that these institutions and projects are wittingly racist? No, they strike us more as Land’s ‘useful idiots’, enhancing the reputation, credibility, and reach of a far right racist while imagining his presence in their scenes furthers different agendas. Sure, they make the odd noise against his racism, when challenged, but it peeves them to do so, their hackles rise; racism is an irritant, the assumed radicalism of their projects seemingly absolving them of mundane responsibilities to investigate further, to reflect on their role, to cut Land loose. Instead, their cutting-edge philosophy morphs into liberal commonplace as they deflect opposition to the content and aims of Land’s racism and the means of its circulation and traction into abstract defense of the free play of ideas, of ‘reflect[ing] the landscape of contemporary thought’, of ‘working with controversial thinkers’. One wonders if this kind of philosophy reaches any point at which the content of an idea provokes critical opposition?

It is suggested that lack of critical attention to Land’s racist scene allowed it to proliferate unchecked, that, as the New Centre puts it, ‘the political left’s dismissal of right accelerationism and neoreactionary thought [i.e. the Land camp] is one of the many reasons as to why we are seeing an unchallenged rise of fascism and white nationalism in Europe and North America’. Quite so, they are right to highlight this lapse of attention. Though they have missed the logical conclusion of their observation: that we should critically oppose all the means by which far right racists rise and gain credibility, including when the means locate themselves on ‘the left’ or within experimental philosophy.

We are accused of not reading Land, of a failure to understand him, but the only defense we can see of those who are yet to cut loose from Land is that this failure of understanding lies with them. So let us clarify a little with some brief exposition of Land’s far right racism. We hope it will also be of use to others concerned about the spread of the far right under cover of esoteric philosophy.

Nick Land advocates for racially based absolutist micro-states, where unregulated capitalism combines with genetic separation between global elites and the ‘refuse’ (his term) of the rest. It’s a eugenic philosophy of ‘hyper-racism’, as he describes it on the racist blog Alternative Right, or ‘Human Biodiversity’ (HBD). Here, class dominance and inequality are mapped onto, explained, and justified by tendencies for the elite to mate with each other and spawn a new species with an expanding IQ. Yes, this ‘hyper-racism’ is that daft – and would be laughed off as the fantasy of a neoliberal Dr Strangelove if it didn’t have leverage in this miserable climate of the ascendant far right. Regarding the other side, the domain of the ‘refuse’, Land uses euphemism to stand in for the white nationalist notion of a coming ‘white genocide’: ‘demographic engineering as an explicit policy objective’, ‘steady progress of population replacement’, is the racial threat he describes on the bleak webpages of The Daily Caller.

It is claimed Land has a superior philosophy of capitalism (‘accelerationism’ – you’ve heard of it – the topic of his New Centre course). But like the Nazis before him, Land’s analysis of capitalism produces and is sustained by a pseudo-biological theory of eugenic difference and separation: the redemptive productive labour of well-bred Aryans, for one, the escalating IQ of an inward-mating economic elite for the other. There’s no ‘philosophy’ here to be separated from Land’s far right ‘politics’; the two are interleaved and co-constituting. ‘More Capitalism!’ has always been the essence of Land’s supposedly radical critique, from his early philosophy at the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) to now. Hence it’s little wonder that his philosophy is inseparable from the racism that has always accompanied capitalism as an integral dynamic – from chattel slavery and the blood-bath of colonial expansion, to the passive slaughter of migrants in the Mediterranean and Black populations at the hands of the police, their mundane exposure to death calibrated to the crisis of the labour form. Land’s oh so virulent assault on the ‘Human Security System’, as he framed it in CCRU days, thrilling those who thought him the transvaluation of all values, is revealed to be the latest in a long and monotonous line of tropes that would disqualify the life of particular humans – the working class, minorities, and other ‘refuse’. For hyper-racists can rest assured, the elite’s ‘Human Security System’ is to be bolstered, by capital accrual and the proliferation of hard micro-borders.

That Land’s chosen people are internally homogeneous global classes of high ‘socio-economic status’ and not exclusively ‘white’ should not be the distraction he intends; the physical and psychological violence of racism has its own sorry architecture, but it has always closely partnered with the production and perpetuation of class privilege and pleasure. And inevitably, more traditional racist tropes of fear, hatred, and ridicule of Black people and Muslims, of ‘cucks’ (as the alt-right call those who would live without ‘race’ boundaries), feature with enough regularity in Land’s blog and Twitter (Outside in, @Outsideness, @UF_blog) that his ideas can merrily slop around on social media with the full gamut of racisms.

Take an example, posted on the day Land gave his third seminar at the New Centre, as if to rub their noses in it. On 19 March he tweeted favourably to a rabidly racist blog that explained German crime rates as the result of the supposed innate propensities of ‘races’ (and not, as anyone with a critical philosophy of capital knows, a result of racism, insecurity, and poverty); ‘Blessings from the Maghreb’, Land captioned it, with a wit worthy of Nigel Farage. Another chimed in to this dreary taxonomy of racial types with the observation that the Chinese ‘are impeccably well behaved’, to which Land’s response: ‘90% of my racism is based on that fact’. Don’t be mistaken to think the latter is some kind of light-hearted humour, for Land adopts – and teaches his junior interlocutors by example – a calculated ambiguity to his racism, all the better to broaden the milieu within which his odious ideas can circulate unchallenged.

Then there’s Land’s broader neoreactionary scene. For instance, he converses with Brett Stevens on Twitter as interlocutor, not opponent, and the two spoke as part of the ‘neoreaction conference’ (Stevens’ description) at LD50 in summer 2016. Stevens is a self-declared white nationalist whose ideas influenced Anders Breivik and who, in turn, praised Breivik’s murder of 77 people for, in Stevens’ eyes, being an attack on ‘leftists’: ‘I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I,’ Stevens wrote of Breivik. ‘[N]o comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream’.

It is surely apparent from all this that any appeal from Land or his advocates to ‘free speech’ is a dissimulation, willed or accidental, that aides his efforts to extend the reach of his racism. It’s only those at the greatest remove from the violent impact of racism who don’t see that ‘free speech’ is repeated by the alt-right to such a degree – always front and centre in their profile – that it has become integral to their reproduction and dissemination. As ever, the art scene and liberal media have trouble seeing what’s right in front of their eyes. Look at Frieze’s recent effort, the magazine’s will to promote ‘free speech’ taking the form of a stacked ‘survey’ about the anti-racist shutdown of LD50, with an unbalance of three to one of those unable to fathom why it’s ill advised to give far right racists and their apologists a free pass through east London, the art world, and the university.

It has been said that we should learn from Land’s purportedly well-honed critique of the cognitive ecosystem of ‘the left’, the rather limited view that those who would overcome the violence, exploitation, and tedium of capitalist society are all just whingers. But the readiness of people to be impressed by this point suggests they may already be on the slippery slope to the right. For it would take little effort to find a wealth of critical work from radical theory and practice – from feminism, post-colonial theory, anti-racism, queer theory, Marxism, critical theory, communism – on the limitations of our scenes. That has always been a feature of radical currents, the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’, where ‘all’ includes the standpoints from which that critique is made (in contrast to the drab inviolate principles of the far right: bourgeois individuality, race, nation). Undoubtedly, this critical capacity needs honing. Sustained critical and experimental engagement with this conjuncture and our limitations is sorely wanted, for there is much worse in the world today than Nick Land. But part of that critique should be opposing the presence of Land and his ilk in experimental scenes, rejecting the idea that we have anything to learn from these narcissistic, racist identitarians – nothing except how they came to proliferate so unopposed.

And that is a lesson for the future too. As the crisis deepens, we will be seeing more of these far right ideas disseminated under cover of ‘controversy’ and ‘free speech’; right wing ‘solutions’ camouflaged with leftist flavours; reactionary conservatism masquerading as techno-futurism; left wing scenes adopting right wing metaphysics; fantasies of social collapse arming the status quo, etc. Not that we’ll have to look too hard. Nick Land openly declares his racism, and yet critical institutions continue to promote him. Can they ride out opposition to Land and sail again on philosophical waters untroubled by the realities of class exploitation and racism? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely. Instead, we invite them to ditch their positive association with Land, before their credibility is tested beyond repair.


anonymous asked:

In my story the main faction is losing badly and taking heavy casualties, forcing them to draft people, train them as quickly as possible, then immediately deploy them. If you had one or two weeks to train a bunch of fresh faced draftees, what are the most important things you could teach them? Note: They'd be infantry fighting guerrilla style in a desert environment.

Welp, the three people who looked at this question made a consensus, but first let me reiterate aunty’s rule of reality: you break it, you bought it. If your world requires that troops take two weeks to train, you have to decide what they need to survive the war zone you’ve set up.

Otherwise, I assume you’re talking about infantry, as most people do. You’re gonna look for

• Physical Fitness
Drill sergeants will probably push the recruits as hard as they can. Most soldiers get months to train their bodies to withstand the strains of war; getting things condensed into two weeks will mean brutal training, and it’ll probably also mean that you’ll be required to join already physically fit (yes, there’s a little leeway when you first enlist).
 Depending on the attitude of the army, either there will be a ton of broken soldiers who should’ve been medically discharged due to physical disability but they’re hanging in there because the army can’t afford to lose them, or the army will trim the fat as much as possible and kick out anyone with even a moderate profile. I feel like either way given the current way the VA works, the government is going to be paying for these soldiers anyway, so it’ll probably try to retain people it realistically shouldn’t, since in that case it’s at least paying active duty soldiers rather than just a disabled veteran.

• Weapons maintenance and qualifying
Learn how to take your weapon apart, learn how to clean your weapon, learn how to put your weapon together again, learn how to shoot your weapon, learn how to clear your weapon. Learn how to take your weapon apart, learn how to clean your weapon, learn how to put your weapon together again, learn how to shoot your weapon, learn how to clear your weapon. Learn how to 

• Tactics
Field tactics crash course. Hand signals, crouching, high crawl, low crawl, ruck marching, land nav, comms, all of this condensed into the barest forms.

• Combatives/Pugils
While the recruits may not get as much time as they’d need devoted to this, there would probably be at least a class or two on combatives and pugil sticks, that is, basically training for melee combat both with your hands and with a rifle. While these would only be used in emergencies, suffice to say it’s one of those skills worth taking a day out to teach.

• Basic CLS ?
Hubby and I disagree on this one. I think in this situation, the army would skip teaching joes combat lifesaving courses, (applying tourniquets, pressure bandages, and so on) and they would instead just employ more soldiers to serve primarily as medics. Specializing training like this leaves soldiers more time to learn the shit they’re actually supposed to be doing. Infantry might be expected to apply a tourniquet; infantry are definitely expected to engage an enemy.
Hubby thinks that the army would actually prioritize CLS over land nav with the understanding that saving every soldier is critical, (after all, if the training time is down to two weeks, plainly we don’t have enough bodies to go around) and having soldiers trained in CLS is statistically more likely to save combatants lives. Which is true; that’s why the army started training all soldiers in CLS to begin with. 

We think things like army history, the wear of the uniform, common courtesies, chain of command, drill and ceremonies, and things of that nature would probably be done away with. I think that morning PT would be done away with and drill sergeants would just get their recruits doing PT during any downtime they would ordinarily get. I also think recruits would get significantly less hot meals and probably less leniency for illness or accidents. You’re almost guaranteed to go to sick call at least once in BCT, but in this case needing to stay off an ankle for a few days may as well push you back to the beginning of training with another unit.

This is just basic training, not even including AIT! Especially if you’re looking at medics and EOD, I certainly hope the troops have longer than two weeks to train for that! 

Ultimately, a world like this would be pretty rough on a new soldier, and I expect a lot of people won’t be able to handle a basic training this intense. Some of us could barely handle the current version, and that can take between ten to twelve weeks depending on reception lengths and any other delays. There might be a lot of drop-outs, or there might be people who couldn’t handle it but the army pushed through anyway and they absolutely were not fucking ready for this, but that’s all up to you, and I hope you play around with all this in your story! 


Was this post informative? Entertaining? Eye-opening? Then consider supporting SPC Kingsley on Patreon!

A Mother's Rage

HEY HEY HEY. I’m back with another story in this Series! Can I just say that I fucking love this AU?

Cause I do.

It’s so amazing I swear to GOD.

@virus-arc-tracer is my partner in crime, and she has made designs for Amazon! Damian. (They’re amazing go look at them right now)

And, as always, @fishfingersandjellybabies because without me tagging her she wouldn’t know what happens next in this series and I don’t want that.


Anywaysn, here’s the summary!

When it comes down to Damian’s safety and sanity, Diana is not afraid to bloody up her hands with the blood of her son’s biological mother.

Diana doesn’t play around when it came to claiming vengeance.


Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Why didn't Aegon & Co. try to take Dragonstone first? Wouldn't that have carried some symbolic weight as the ancestral seat of House Targaryen?

Good question!

While Dragonstone carries symbolic weight, it doesn’t carry a lot of political/military weight - as Stannis bemoaned in the Prologue of ACOK, Dragonstone only has three thousand men sworn to it. And by the time that Aegon and Co. show up, those men are gone - either they died at Blackwater, bent the knee to King’s Landing, or they’re up in the North with Stannis. So you’re taking on the same risks as besieging Storm’s End, but without any payoff. 

Moreover, it’s a high-risk strategy: you’re parking yourself on an island right next to King’s Landing, which means you’re going to have to go right at the Iron Throne right away because they’re going to do it to you. And if you lose the naval battle, you might not be able to retreat at all.

By contrast, Storm’s End holds quite a bit of political/weight. Not only do you make a big name for yourself if you can take the unconquerable castle, but I think there’s as many as 12.5k men in the Stormlands who never joined up with Renly, who could potentially be recruited into Aegon’s army - more than doubling it in size. 

And the nice thing about the Stormlands is that it’s close enough to King’s Landing that it’s a quick march away, but it’s also far enough that if King’s Landing marches against you, you have opportunities to fight them defensively at some nice spot in the Kingswood or when they’re trying to cross a river. And if you lose, you can still retreat back to Storm’s End, one of the strongest castles in Westeros. 

Plus, Jon Connington wants his castle back and his castle is in the Stormlands. 

The Curse of the DC-10

At the very end of the 60′s, the entry of the Jumbo Jet, the Boeing 747, into the airliner world, heralded a new age of aircraft development, the wide-body airliner, and following the success of this behemoth of the skies, the world-renowned american company Douglas Commercial, legendary for planes such as the DC-3, DC-4 and DC-8, quickly entered in this new market with a brand-new aircraft of their own, the DC-10

Little would they, and really, anyone else know, that this plane seemed to be hopelessly cursed in her early years:

November 3, 1973, National Airlines Flight 27: An uncontained engine failure in the N°3 engine due to vibrations of unknown origin, launched debris at the fuselage of the plane, penetrating it and causing rapid decompression of the cabin area, alongside damage to electrical and hydraulic systems. A passenger was ejected from the hole in the fuselage, and the rest survived as the pilots managed to safely land the plane.

March 3, 1974, Turkish Airliners flight 981: A design flaw in the cargo door resulted in a catastrophic in-flight failure that lead to an explosive decompression of the fuselage, critically damaging the control surfaces and leading to a crash that killed all 346 on board. 

May 25, 1979,  American Airlines Flight 191: Improper maintenance led to the loss of the N°1 engine during take-off, which took with it most of the left wing’s leading edge, effectively destroying its lift ability, which led to a stall and subsequent crash that killed all 271 on board plus 2 on the ground.

October 31, 1979, Western Airlines Flight 2605: Pilot error led to the collision with construction equipment after landing on a closed runway at Mexico City International Airport, killing 72 of the 88 people on board and one person on the ground.

November 28, 1979, Air New Zealand Flight 901: During a sightseeing flight into the Antarctic, lack of visibility and a dire navigational error by Air New Zealand’s management let the aircraft to fly into Mount Erebus on Ross Island, killing all 237 passengers and 20 crew on board.

1979 would be the worst year of the model, and while safety improved and therefore, crashes heavily diminished after that fateful year, the ugly head of this curse would still show up in the form of two of aviation’s most bizarre accidents:

July 19, 1989, United Airlines Flight 232: Uncontained engine failure on the N°2 (tail) engine due to a manufacturing defect of the titanium used in the engine’s fan assembly, lead to the destruction of the hydraulic systems, rendering the aircraft almost uncontrollable, where the excellent crew on board managed to control her enough with the remaining wing engines via the throttles, leading to a failed landing attempt that nonetheless managed to save 185 of the 296 people on board.

July 25, 2000, Air France Flight 4590: Curiously, the last fatalities brought by a DC-10 wouldn’t happen in the plane itself, but rather, in Concorde’s only crash, as the aircraft was lost after striking an engine thrust reverser fragment that fell from a DC-10 that belonged to Continental Airlines.