they are hostile nations

2

Refugees unlawfully detained in airports after Trump’s immigration executive order

  • On Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending the nation’s refugee settlement program and barring immigrants from countries with “would-be terrorists,” namely Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
  • The executive order went into immediate effect, meaning refugees on planes to the United States landed in a nation newly hostile to their presence. 
  • Though they were given permission to settle here by the U.S. State Department, after a long, complex vetting process, they are now being detained in U.S. airports, waiting for news of their fate. Read more.

flonde  asked:

On punching Nazis: if you advocate violent suppression of opposing viewpoints you might be a fascist.

On liberals that misunderstand fascism so severely that they ignore every other characteristic of fascism (e.g. hostility to socialism/liberal democracy; perceptions of community/national decline/obsessions with myths of nationalist rebirth & greatness; an emphasis with racial or national “purity;” the scapegoating of “others,” often racist in nature; the fetishization of violence as a political tool to purge or “cleanse” the nation of “corrupting” or “alien” elements; prioritization of military might and national security; seeking to replace the current ruling elite with their own idealized class; the imposition of their brand of “order” on the rest of the population; an obsession with nationalism/ultra-nationalism; wanton disregard for human rights, intellectuals, and the arts; rampant cronyism and corruption coalescing around the ownership or control of government by one person or a tiny group of people) in their ahistorical attempt to paint anti-fascists as fascists using false equivalence: if you believe that fascism is an “opposing view point”  and not a completely discredited, potentially lethal, utterly illegitimate belief system; if you think fascists can be prevented from murdering people with your liberal witty repartée or hugging it out; if you’re completely oblivious to the use of physical force smashing fascism during world war two or beating back the fascists of Daesh in our times; if you sit on your fucking hands and do sweet FA when fascists are openly organizing in your community but rush to condemn those brave enough to stand up to them before they start shooting up mosques or calling bomb threats into Jewish centers or setting immigrant-owned businesses on fire or randomly shooting racialized people or stabbing black men to death in the streets or attempting to beat refugees to death; then you’re just as bad as the fascists are.  

As Joy Kogawa put it, “if there’s just one thing that history teaches us, just one thing, it’s that bystanders and perpetrators are both on the same side.“  

We’re don’t need to hear your tired, old, liberal-ass nonsense, flonde.  Give your head a shake and do something fucking useful for once in your life or GTFO of our way - we have important, life-saving work to do.  

chasing--the--universe  asked:

I'd to point you to a couple of things. They are. Soviet Russia. Maoist China

Original.

Soviet Russia and China are examples of countries that were still entrenched in feudalism at the times of their respective socialist revolutions, which effectively catapulted them into variations of state capitalist development instead of full workers-democratically-control-production socialism. The state became the analogous capitalist class and instituted developments and policies over the course of a few decades that private capitalists elsewhere were pushing for centuries – think forced proletarianization of peasants and concentrated industrialization. The state took over the functions of a bunch of private capitalists, appropriating surplus value generated by workers and distributing the surplus where deemed necessary; they often put this towards the industrialization of infrastructure and public services, but it just as often was used to enrich the party apparatus. Even Lenin literally deemed this setup as “state capitalism”, the idea being an intermediary stage for formerly-feudal societies before full socialism. 

As a libertarian socialist/Marxist, I don’t defend the actions taken in these countries, but it’s important to contextualize what was going on. The idea is that it’s near-impossible to just jump from feudalism to socialism – a period of capitalist development/accumulation and liberal institutions makes the jump more viable. As far as I’m concerned, this could have been accomplished through mutualism or market socialism, combining the liberalism of markets with the democratic accountability of worker control (thus mitigating much of the poverty and violent consequences of class domination).

To quote Terry Eagleton:

“Marx himself never imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions [i.e. Russia and China]. Such a project would require almost as bizarre a loop in time as inventing the Internet in the Middle Ages. Nor did any Marxist thinker until Stalin imagine that this was possible, including Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership…

Building up an economy from very low levels is a back-breaking, dispiriting task. It is unlikely that men and women will freely submit to the hardships it involves. So unless this project is executed gradually, under democratic control and in accordance with socialist values, an authoritarian state may step in and force its citizens to do what they are reluctant to undertake voluntarily. The militarization of labor in Bolshevik Russia is a case in point. The result, in a grisly irony, will be to undermine the political superstructure of socialism (popular democracy, genuine self-government) in the very attempt to build up its economic base…

As Marx insists, socialism also requires a shortening of the working day – partly to provide men and women with the leisure for personal fulfillment, partly to create time for the business of political and economic self-government. You can not do this if people have no shoes; and to distribute shoes among millions of citizens is likely to require a centralized bureaucratic state. If your nation is under invasion from an array of hostile capitalist powers, as Russia was in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution, an autocratic state will seem all the more inevitable…

To go socialist, then, you need to be reasonably well-heeled, in both the literal and the metaphorical senses of the term. No Marxist from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Trotsky ever dreamt of anything else. Or if you are not well-heeled yourself, then a sympathetic neighbor reasonably flush in material resources needs to spring to your aid. In the case of the Bolsheviks, this would have meant such neighbors (Germany in particular) having their own revolutions, too. If the working class of these countries could overthrow their own capitalist masters and lay hands on their productive powers, they could use those resources to save the first workers’ state in history from sinking without a trace. This was not as improbable a proposal as it might sound. Europe at the time was aflame with revolutionary hopes, as councils of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies (or soviets) sprang up in cities such as Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Munich, and Riga. Once these insurrections were defeated, Lenin and Trotsky knew their own revolution was in dire straights.

It is not that the building of socialism cannot be begun in deprived conditions. It is rather that without material resources it will tend to twist into the monstrous caricature of socialism known as Stalinism. The Bolshevik revolution soon found itself besieged by imperial Western armies, as well as threatened by counterrevolution, urban famine, and a bloody civil war. It was marooned in an ocean of largely hostile peasants reluctant to hand over their hard-earned surplus at gunpoint to the starving towns. With a narrow capitalist base, disastrously low levels of material production, scant traces of civil institutions, a decimated, exhausted working class, peasant revolts, and a swollen bureaucracy to rival the Tsar’s, the revolution was in deep trouble almost from the outset…

Imagine a slightly crazed capitalist outfit that tried to turn a pre-modern tribe into a set of ruthlessly acquisitive, technologically sophisticated entrepreneurs speaking the jargon of public relations and free market economics, all in a surreally short period of time. Does the fact that the experiment would almost certainly prove less than dramatically successful constitute a fair condemnation of capitalism? Surely not. To think so would be as absurd as claiming that the Girl Guides should be disbanded because they cannot solve certain tricky problems in quantum physics. Marxists do not believe that the mighty liberal lineage from Thomas Jefferson to John Stuart Mill is annulled by the existence of secret CIA-run prisons for torturing Muslims, even though such prisons are part of the politics of today’s liberal societies. Yet the critics of Marxism are rarely willing to concede that show trials and mass terror are no refutation of it.” 

TL;DR:

1) You can’t just expect socialism to quickly arise in materially- and socially-isolated countries in the throngs of feudalism (Russia and China). A material base of industrialization and a social base of liberalism are generally understood to be useful/basically-necessary prerequisites to build from. If other capitalist countries had undergone socialist revolution and provided aid to the struggling formerly-feudal state capitalist countries, they probably wouldn’t have congealed into top-down bureaucracies. A domino effect of worker revolutions across capitalist countries is considered necessary for socialism to fully take hold, just as a domino effect of bourgeois revolutions across feudal countries was needed for capitalism to fully take hold.

2) The violent primitive accumulation of early capitalism and the concentrated industrialization of state capitalist Russia and China served similar analogous functions in the broader context of historical materialism. Private capitalism for the enrichment of individual capitalists over the centuries, state capitalism supposedly for the enrichment of society’s material base and an eventual transition to full socialism. 

3) Capitalist societies have unleashed violent imperialism, mass enslavement, systemic poverty, and police states. If we’re going to bring up the disasters of isolated countries that set their aims at socialism, then we need to bring up the centuries-long disasters of not-isolated capitalist countries that have actively oppressed domestic and foreign populations of people. 

4) We live in an era of material abundance aided by advanced technology and automation; any attempt at socialism in late-capitalist countries would be significantly easier than what Russia and China experienced. As such, these industrialized late-capitalist countries need to undergo social revolution and provide aid to each other and to struggling countries that would have otherwise been state capitalist. 

(This answer has mainly been for the benefit of people already at least relatively sympathetic to anti-capitalism; I realize it is unlikely to sway someone so entrenched in capitalist ideology that they have no clue what socialist movements have entailed and strove for. If your analysis stops at “Russia and China were bad and that’s what socialism means and therefore it’s not worth fighting for”, then I don’t know what to tell ya. If your analysis stops at “capitalism preaches liberal individual freedom so therefore it is good”, then I don’t know what to tell ya. Dig past the ideology you’ve been spoon-fed by capitalist media and the state since childhood and recognize that you’ve been conned, all for the enrichment of the bosses and the bureaucrats.)

-Daividh

i

In view of the fading animals
the proliferation of sewers and fears
the sea clogging, the air
nearing extinction

we should be kind, we should
take warning, we should forgive each other

Instead we are opposite, we
touch as though attacking,

the gifts we bring
even in good faith maybe
warp in our hands to
implements, to manoeuvres


ii

Put down the target of me
you guard inside your binoculars,
in turn I will surrender

this aerial photograph
(your vulnerable
sections marked in red)
I have found so useful

See, we are alone in
the dormant field, the snow
that cannot be eaten or captured


iii

Here there are no armies
here there is no money

It is cold and getting colder,

We need each others’
breathing, warmth, surviving
is the only war
we can afford, stay

walking with me, there is almost
time / if we can only
make it as far as

the (possibly) last summer

—  Margaret Atwood, “They are hostile nations”

demonicmiracles  asked:

How exactly do y'all plan on stopping fascists? Who even are the fascists? Because, you're not going to stop them by trying to censor and induce violence (Which is contradictory to your group). I doubt there's any real way to stop them, and they most definitely are not going to back off by what you guys are doing. They're going to use it as ammo and cry censorship.

Hi there, thanks for asking us these questions.  Starting with:

Who even are the fascists?”

The fascists are those whose political outlook is characterized by some/most/all of the following:

-hostility to socialism and liberal democracy;
-perceptions of community/national decline and obsessions with myths of nationalist rebirth & greatness 
-an emphasis with racial or national “purity”
-the scapegoating of “others,” often racist in nature, as a unifying tactic
-the fetishization of violence as a political tool to purge or “cleanse” the nation of “corrupting” or “alien” elements
-prioritization of military might and national security
-seeking to replace the current ruling elite with their own idealized class
-the imposition of their brand of “order” on the rest of the population
-an obsession with nationalism/ultra-nationalism
-wanton disregard for human rights, intellectuals, and the arts
-rampant cronyism and corruption coalescing around the ownership or control of government by one person or a tiny group of people

If you’re paying attention to what’s going on, this might sound uncomfortably familiar.

How exactly do y'all plan on stopping fascists? 

The same way anti-fascists have been stopping fascists for the last 90 years - by organizing our communities to oppose, confront, and disrupt their attempts to recruit, organize, and act on their dangerous and illegitimate beliefs.

Because, you’re not going to stop them by trying to censor and induce violence (Which is contradictory to your group)

Censorship is the governmental suppression of communication or information.  We don’t recall any anti-fascist group calling for this.  Perhaps you’re mixing up censorship with the position of “no platform for fascists.”  Here, let this stick figure explain things to you:

Violence doesn’t stop fascism, huh?  We know of a few hundred thousand people that might disagree with you about that.

I doubt there’s any real way to stop them, and they most definitely are not going to back off by what you guys are doing.

Fascists were stopped all over Europe in World War 2 and fascist groups have been stopped dead in their tracks and forced back into the holes they crawled out of by anti-fascists all over the world literally for decades now.  Maybe you should read up on anti-fascism before you draw conclusions that demonstrate how precious little you know about anti-fascist history.  Here’s a list of books you could start with.

They’re going to use it as ammo and cry censorship.

Which they have been doing for decades now.  But that dog don’t hunt anymore because opposition to people calling for genocide isn’t censorship - it’s the right thing to do.

Let’s say you’re right though - that anti-fascists are ineffective and nothing they do can stop fascists.  So what do you think should be done?

popotum  asked:

also can you give me recommendations for poets to read (especially for someone who enjoys beautiful things but doesn't read a whole lot of poetry)

this was supposed to be a quick & dirty rec list for my girl but then it got out of hand so i’ve broken it off into categories 4 ya! this is by no means an extensive list but i was starting to realize that this was verging on Too Long. happy readings & i hope u find something that moves along the soil of ur soul!!

FAV ESTABLISHED POETS 

margaret atwood / they are hostile nations, marrying the hangman, we ate the birds, the poet has come back
louise gluck / all hallows, mock orange, elms, nocturne, vespers: parousia, adult grief, mutable earth 
gregory orr / love poem, trauma (storm), gathering the bones together, origin of the marble forest, when eurydice saw him
mahmoud darwish / your night is of lilac, in jerusalem, in the presence of absence, now as you awaken, psalm one 
mark strand / the dreadful has already happened, eating poetry, keeping things whole, lines for winter, tomorrow
ee cummings / somewhere i have never travelled, buffalo bill’s, if there are any heavens, luminous tendril of celestial wish, pity this monster manunkind
michael ondaatje / application for a driving license, the cinnamon peeler, the time around scars, excerpts from the collected works of billy the kid
jack gilbert / failing and flying, it is difficult to speak of the night, the sirens again, how much of that is left in me?, the forgotten dialect of the heart
pablo neruda / one hundred love sonnets: xvii, white thighs, hillocks of whiteness, absencehere i love you, clenched soul
anne carson / glass essay, book of isaiah, compostela, short talk on hedonism & sylvia plath, ghost q & a, an excerpt from autobiography of red, excerpts from nox 

FAV ONLINE POETS

creuxing / obsessed with redefinding girlhood, the summer starts in your car, another meteor crashed outside, the girl with frizzy hair and thin wire glasses
teamcaptains / a terrible crime in the tropics, reaping, zach calavera, he left, and the pink electricity, golden age 
mythaelogy / an attempt in poetry, atlas hands, wandering hearts, her, psychopomp & circumstance, i thought it had gone away
wefragilehumans / non est, luck is a funny thing, war chant, severe weather warning, a study in restoration
deergodareyoulistening / home (reforming), lighting & thunder, a diagram, ceremony, red elk, how to eat a moon 
starredsoul / a creation tale, how we learn what it meansall along, the mother weepingdreams of the moon and birds singing together
starseas
/ deep sea diver.mp3, space age surrealism, the fact of the matter is you need to get your heart back, time travel wears a black tracksuit 
katejustkate / incase it doesn’t work out, iphone notes therapy, coma dreams, it took 3 long-ass days for you to respond to my ‘are u alive’ text
ohgdlights, the way out of winesburg, ohio, to m // for j // from me, we ran like wolves, variations on a tomato
inelegancies /  in the aftermath we are left with a girl, in another universes the sky is always pink, rules for the internet, for children

FAV POETRY

tonight, in oakland by danez smith
tinder by keith s. wilson
if being a lesbian were anything like netflix movies portrayed it to be by southwestwitch
bad poem by kelsey danielle
padlocked chest pt 1 / afterthelonely
a bronze god, or a letter on demand by clifton gachagua
lilac time by joan newmann
notes from the antichrist’s guardian angel by notbecauseofvictories
with ruins & persimmons by li-young lee 
for my best friend by  crimescened
my first lover speaks to me as i sleep with her by raven jackson
phoenix by overwhelmington
how the signs die, or fall in love, or both, maybe by cursedvideogame​ 
national geographic by elisabethhewer 
your airplanes by rachel mckibbens
sierra doesn’t watch when the world ends by wildflowerveins 
before by carl adamshick 
there is a gold light in certain old paintings by donald justice 
afterimage, 2015 by bhalbers
other lives and dimensions and finally a love poem by bob hicok
folly by antonina palisano 
albuquerque, nm by 7cigars
sometimes when on fire by kathryn regina
heart by bhanu kapil

anonymous asked:

When someone asks me, "how is china no longer socialist?", what exactly should I say to them? What, in your words, is a concise and strong argument for China being capitalist and imperialist?

The defence of contemporary capitalist China as “socialist” or “existing socialism” is more often than not a conflation of dubious economic data with reports by the corresponding organs of the CPC, to which certain western communists pay lip service to and fail to perform any materialist analysis.

State ownership of key sectors is interpreted as “socialism”, despite the series of capitalist countries who do, and have done so in the past – yet no one considered them as “socialist”.

Following this line of thinking, someone else will argue that the economy is planned under the “Five Year Plan” but then they are faced with the material reality of the prevalence of the private sector and how it provides the majority of employment and controls the majority of enterprises – it appears rather impossible to manage such an economy through an organ dedicated to central coordination. Most of this planning amounts to macro guidelines, in no different manner to what South Korea, India, and Singapore have used to develop the infrastructure of their economy.

You’re also faced with the conditions of workers under this supposed “socialist” country or where the “commanding heights of the economy” are apparently “socialist”: workers are, simply put, worked to death for meagre waves. We have all heard of safety nets in industrial facilities and the amount of suicide related deaths committed by workers who could not cope with an inhumane number of work hours, workers in enterprises where the labour is financed by foreign capital and there is little to no regard of safety regulations or the general well being of the workers themselves.

China’s ‘internationalism’ in the 21st Century amounts to exporting capital to third world countries in a similar manner as other imperialists powers, building infrastructure to further ease the extraction of resources and exploitation of third world workers, not to mention its rapidly growing military power allied with belligerent nationalism. If it behaves like the U.S. and other hostile imperialist powers not only to other countries but its own peoples, how can the government of China and its bourgeois bureaucrat hub the Communist Party, be interpreted as socialist?

Only fools of the highest calibre, anti-Marxists, and people with a mind set no different to flat-earthers can believe that today’s China is socialist – it is a capitalist, imperialist power set on rivalling the hegemony of the U$.

Luidzhia

I can’t believe I, of all people, the guy who’s written thousands of words on this very site about how Donald Trump is a liar/man-being-telepathically-controlled-by-a-malevolent-elder-god-from-the-great-cosmic-beyond is about to admit this, but … Donald Trump was right about wiretapping and we should cut him some slack.

No, Barack Obama didn’t send a swarm of nanobots into Trump’s brain to steal the daydream he drifts into during intelligence briefings wherein he imagines himself motorboating Ivanka’s tits, or whatever Trump thinks wiretapping is. Lost in the recent flurry of news about Trumpcare and his administration’s alleged coordination with Russian hackers to stifle Hillary Clinton’s momentum during the election was one news story that proved Donny sort of right. A building he was living in was wiretapped. Just not him, specifically.

Between 2011 and 2013, a non-Donald Trump resident of Trump Tower in Manhattan was under FBI surveillance. In a twist that does nothing to help Trump’s image as a possible accomplice to the subversion of American democracy by a hostile foreign nation, this resident was a notorious Russian criminal who was running an illegal gambling ring out of apartment 63A.

The One Trump Story We Should Cut Him Some Slack On

14 Characteristics of Fascism
  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
    Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

  2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
    Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

  3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
    The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

  4. Supremacy of the Military
    Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

  5. Rampant Sexism
    The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

  6. Controlled Mass Media
    Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

  7. Obsession with National Security
    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

  8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

  9. Corporate Power is Protected
    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  10. Labor Power is Suppressed
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

  11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

  12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  14. Fraudulent Elections
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

“In the recorded cosmic or Midgard concepts of the Indo-Europeans, man has his proper place in the great scheme of ordered life, but he is not enchained to it as are the oriental religions, with their star worship and priestly prophesies of the future — the study of entrails and the flight of birds, practised by the Babylonians, Etruscans and others. He appears in a trusting relationship with his God, whose nature itself is connected with the world order, and he joins with this God on a national scale in the struggle against all powers hostile to man and God, against chaos, against Utgard. The Indo-European recognises Midgard, the earth-space, as the field in which he may fulfil his destiny, cherishing life as a cultivator or farmer, where plants, animals and men are each called to grow and ripen into powerful forces asserting themselves within the timeless order. Guilt in man — not sin — arises wherever an individual defies or threatens this order and attempts through short-sighted obstinacy to oppose the divine universal order in life. For such a crime an individual incurs guilt. By such a crime, his people are threatened with the danger of decline and degeneration, and the world order with confusion and distortion.“

~   Hans F. K. Guenther,  The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans

State of the Meta: The Scoundrel and the Rogue

By Helmight

Riot have outdone themselves this time. Our next “champion” is actually a pair of champions instead, complete with their own unique interactions. Rakan, the Charmer, is a wily scoundrel who loves the spotlight and can quite easily grab it with his flashy support plays. Meanwhile, Xayah, the Rebel, is a moody warrior who relies heavily on her feather minigame to dish out damage in the ADC role.

Abilities

As you might have guessed, Rakan and Xayah are an ADC/support duo. While there are bonuses for having both on the same team, each has their own reasons to be picked and can function alone if necessary.

Rakan’s kit has a variety of different tools that he can use to set up plays. Gleaming Quill and Battle Dance let Rakan heal and shield his allies, keeping them safe from harm, while Grand Entrance allows the Charmer to set up ganks or all-in trades with its AoE knockup. Once Rakan hits six, his ultimate - The Quickness - gives him the potential to charm entire teams, forcing them to stare after him helplessly as his allies turn them into mincemeat.

However, Rakan’s abilities emphasize being in the thick of the fight, forcing him to rely heavily on his high mobility to stay alive. A squishy support can’t survive long under focus fire, and Rakan literally has to run at the enemy team if he wants his ultimate to do anything. Following up on an initiation is where Rakan will shine, as he can chain The Quickness to the tank’s CC before dashing to safety with Battle Dance. 

While Rakan darts around freely in fights, Xayah is a lot more grounded. She can deal significant amounts of AoE damage in teamfights by properly managing her passive, Clean Cuts - which essentially gives her a mini-Twitch ult every time she uses an ability. Xayah also has a reasonable amount of self-peel thanks to Bladecaller’s root, though she’ll have to be careful about where her feathers have landed.

The feather minigame is the core of Xayah’s kit, and she’ll want to pay careful attention to where they’ve landed before attempting to make plays. Double Daggers and Featherdance give Xayah a way to get feathers on the battlefield quickly, though stacking them with her passive is a more reliable way to do so in teamfights. Her damage output seems fairly high on paper, but it remains to be seen if that’s the case in-game.

Playstyle

Xayah and Rakan are interesting in that they have abilities that exclusively affect each other. Rakan’s Battle Dance has double the usual range if it targets Xayah, and Xayah’s Deadly Plumage bonuses will apply to Rakan if she casts it while near him. On top of that, the lovers can sync to each other’s recalls, effectively accelerating the amount of time it takes to get back to base. One thing’s for sure - if you don’t pick both of these champions in the same draft phase, you probably won’t get one or the other.

Drafting them together is a fairly effectively strategy, as the pair compliment each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Rakan can help keep his immobile carry by shielding and healing her, while Xayah can lay down enough damage for the both of them thanks to Clean Cuts. Drafting either one of them alone isn’t a bad thing though - Rakan functions fairly effectively as a hybrid disruptor/enchanter in teamfights, while Xayah can DPS with the likes of Caitlyn or Jinx.

As it stands however, Rakan is the most likely one of the two to see professional play. His kit contributes a little of everything to fights, and he functions quite well in both protect-the-carry and teamfight comps.

Thematics

We don’t know much about the lovers yet, but there’s at least a little that we can extrapolate from the info we have. Rakan and Xayah are lovers, and apparently are part of some kind of rebellion. Who or what they’re rebelling against is unclear, but we can hazard a guess that they’re upset with the Ionian government, given that their brief stories mention killing an Ionian soldier. Discrimination against vastaya seems a likely candidate, but this IS Ionia we’re talking about. The nation is unlikely to be outwardly hostile towards anyone without good reason.

Honestly, the worst part of Rakan and Xayah is their voiceovers. The former sounds like an arrogant trash-talking jock from high school, while the latter is a moody teenager who’s trying to be edgier than Shadow the Hedgehog. How the two ever came to be friends, let alone lovers, is beyond me - I wanted to hit the mute button the second I heard Xayah’s voice.

At any rate, I look forward to seeing more of their backstory and finding out what rebellion they’re a part of. I just hope that it doesn’t involve listening to them.


Let me know your thoughts on the new champions in the comments, and be sure to like and reblog this post if you enjoyed it!

[Fates Rewritten - A Retelling of FE:F]

(All right, this is just a fan rewrite that came from some general discontent with how Fates was handled. I’ll have gone through a couple drafts of this before I’ll be satisfied enough with how it turned out to post it. If you guys like this, show your support and I’ll post chapter summaries for each route sometime in the future! Thanks for reading!)

Keep reading

7

Fascist Architecture 

Fascist architecture is a style of architecture developed by architects of fascist societies in the early 20th century. The style gained popularity in the late 1920s with the rise of modernism along with the nationalism associated with fascist governments in western Europe. The style resembles that of ancient Rome. However, the fascist-era buildings lack ostentatious design, and were constructed with symmetry, simplicity, and a general lack of ornateness. Both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler utilized the new style of architecture as one of many ways to unify the citizens of their nations and attempt to mark a new era of nationalist culture, and to exhibit the absolute rule of the nation.

Projects identified from the top:

  • Le Palazzo dei Congressi (EUR, Rome) 
  •  Palazzo della Civiltà del Lavoro (EUR, Rome)
  • The Zeppelinfield Arena (Nuremberg)
  • Prora Holiday Resort (Rugen)
  • The New Reich Chancellery (Berlin)
  • Olympic Stadium (Berlin)
  • World Capital Germania

The 14 Points of Fascism

  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
    Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
  2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
    Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
  3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
    The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
  4. Supremacy of the Military
    Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
  5. Rampant Sexism
    The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
  6. Controlled Mass Media
    Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
  7. Obsession with National Security
    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
  8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
  9. Corporate Power is Protected
    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
  10. Labor Power is Suppressed
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
  11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
  12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
  13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
  14. Fraudulent Elections
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~ George Santayana (The Life of Reason, 1905)

Follow the Source Link for images sources and more information.

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.
—  Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
Nadine & Mike OTP

Obsessing a little bit about them… so glad the writers see their potential as a slightly odd, but kick-ass power couple.

Is it just me, but I thought Nadine and Mike always had a sizzling chemistry, even when it was lightly hostile sometimes? I remember S1E17 “Face the Nation”, when Bess had her PTSD breakdown and they had to work together:

About their scene in the last episode (”The Seventh Floor”): whoa! I do believe in foreshadowing, and that the Joni Mitchell song playing in Nadine’s car has a deeper meaning:

Help me
I think I’m falling
In love again
When I get that crazy feeling, I know
I’m in trouble again
I’m in trouble

Also, Nadine’s look when he says that he leaves (before he asks her why she didn’t call him back) - as if she doesn’t want him to go, despite her saying she does.

I love how much Mike is obviously into her, and after failing to convince her with his usual “Mike B.” attitude, he realizes that he only has a shot by being vulnerable and his true self. So looking forward how this plays out. And I love that he left Nadine all hot and bothered ☺

From a storyline perspective, it is kind of remarkable too that he now has a son… as does Nadine.

What do you think?

anonymous asked:

(1/2)WRT the Chantry: A lot of DA fans seem to think that the Chantry is a bad thing, which aught to lose its army, or be otherwise diminished. But this, to me, seems a risky proposition. Thedas lacks any real formalisation for international relations. The factions of Thedas are largely relegated to reasonably polite interactions due to Chantry oversight, and no other organization seems ready to fill that gap (given the fates of the Inquisition). Without some bureaucracy for war, trade and such.

Oh, Anonymous person. What did I say? ‘Please not another ask about how the Chantry should absolutely have an army’. And what do I get?


Anyway, I’m still missing your part 2, but this was a week and about 14 boxes of tissues ago, and besides, unless the part 2 is a ‘Belated April Fools!’ I’m not sure I’d survive it. So. I’ll just work with this.


But why do people keep asking stuff like this? I mean – we have real-world examples, both historical and current, of why giving a religious organisation a) weapons, and b) political power is a really fucking awful idea. How many corpses do we have to scatter across history before people work this out?


1) The Chantry as somehow the only people who are capable of handling international relations.


I have no idea where this idea would even come from. I realise that pre-First Blight history gets a bit murky, but it’s not as though humans, Andrastianism, Orlais or the Chantry somehow invented diplomacy.


Groups of ancient elves seem to have traded and worked with humans:


What’s more, those elves who spent time bartering and negotiating with humans found themselves aging, tainted by the humans’ brash and impatient lives.

– Arlathan: Part One


and the dwarves had trade deals with the Tevinter Imperium before the Chantry ever existed:


It was with the Tevinter Imperium that things changed. Paragon Garal moved the seat of power to Orzammar to more closely oversee the trade that began with the surface. It seemed that our people were entering a new age of prosperity.

– Orzammar History: Chapter One


Moreover, consider this, from a Chantry source, no less:


The queen spent decades making alliances in the ancient Rivaini way: marriage. She wed her many children and grandchildren strategically into nobles houses across the continent. Within thirty years, Antiva was so well-connected that any hostile action against it would force half the nations of Thedas into war.

– Queen Asha of Antiva


Two obviously noteworthy things here: one being that Antiva is in no way relying on the Chantry even slightly to keep things civilised; two being that Asha is doing things ‘the ancient Rivaini way’, which is to say that nations have been handling international relations through mutual defence pacts and intermarriage since well before the Chantry was even thought of. And just to follow up, note the specific reference to Rivain, a specifically multicultural and largely non-Chantry society:


The influence of the Qun, if not absolute adherence to its teachings, is present throughout Rivain, getting stronger as one heads north toward Kont-aar … The Rivaini people trace their roots to pantheist ancestors, and many in Rivain still believe that their god and the universe are one and the same … Nowhere in Rivain is the Chantry influence stronger than in Dairsmuid, the capital. Rivaini royalty are Chantry faithful, but also progressive in their beliefs, if only out of necessity. The nation, with its patchwork of cultures, remains one entity through consensus and compromise.

World of Thedas I


Does any of that make it sound as though the Chantry is somehow essential to maintaining international relations? In fact, one might say it looks as though diplomacy is strongest where the Chantry is weakest.


2) The Chantry as somehow morally capable of handling international relations.


I mean, that’s pretty laughable. ‘Reasonably polite’? Polite? Try rampant bigotry and racism:


The Chantry began and has continued to be a predominately human organisation. Other races are seen to be further from the Maker. The elves have their pantheon of false idols. The dwarves worship themselves. The Qunari are worst of all, actively crushing the worship of the Maker and desecrating Chantry values in the name of the Qun. For these reasons, other races are considered all the more worthy of saving. The Chantry believes the Maker won’t return until even the Qunari sing his name

World of Thedas I


Look at all that lovely prejudice the Chantry rolls around in every morning. Again, two things of note:


1) Despite the claim that all of this is because these peoples follow different religions, the simple fact that the Chantry is just outright fucking racist. There are countless Andrastian elves. Now try to imagine an elven Divine … or Grand Cleric … or Revered Mother … or anything.


2) The Chantry’s ideals are toxic to diplomacy. They not only believe that their religion is the right one, but that any non-believer is actively preventing the return of their god. Their whole philosophy is ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us … and the Maker’.


Conversion is their primary mission. They will do it by persuasion, politics or outright violence – and have done all three. This means that the Chantry is hostile, not only to elves, dwarves and Qunari, but even to non-Chantry humans. Those Rivaini pantheists? Evil. The Chasind? Evil. The Avaar? Evil. Other Andrastians who don’t follow the Chantry? Evil. Remember that the Annulment at Dairsmuid happened because these people were practising non-Chantry traditions. They weren’t hurting anyone. They were following their own faith. And they were murdered for it.


Note that this is also a problem that, as bad as it is now, is only likely to get worse. Thedas is only one continent on the world Dragon Age inhabits. Traders trade and explorers explore; there has been some contact already. There’s a whole world out there that has never heard of the Chantry. How do you think it’s going to go when long-term contact is established?


I don’t know what you mean about polite interactions. At best, it sounds like you mean that two Chantry faithful humans might be able to bond over how superior they are to everyone else. And guess what? That’s not what functional diplomacy looks like.


3) The Chantry as some kind of neutral organisation with the right to manage international relations.


Um. You do know that the Chantry isn’t some lovey-dovey politically neutral faith that sprang out of the ether, right? You know it’s the official religion of the Orlesian Empire, right? You know – one of the most aggressive, intolerant, I’m-taking-your-land-because-it-is-the-Maker’s-will countries in Thedas?


It was founded by Kordillus Drakon, as part of his campaign of conquest:


At the time, the ‘nation’ his mother ruled over was not even half the size of modern-day Orlais, and unified only in their love of Andraste and shared hatred of everyone else. Prince Drakon believed it could be much more. For he had a vision. He believed Andraste had appeared to him in a dream when he was a child and and charged him with redeeming the world in the eyes of the Maker.

He began his holy quest at the ripe old age of sixteen by taking to the battlefield. At the time, each clan had its own variety of the cult of Andraste, its own rituals, traditions and versions of Andraste’s words. Young Drakon unified them by the sword.

Their campaign of expansion stalled as they met heavier resistance in the North. Drakon, fearing that his cause was failing because the Maker questioned his devotion, refocused his attention on glorifying his god. He began by demolishing the ancient Ciriane fortress that was once home to Jeshavis herself and using its foundations to build, he said ‘a chantry where the one true song of Andraste shall forever after be heard.’

World of Thedas II


Its first Divine was military leader:


According to Chantry writings, Justinia I was, before her coronation, the only female general in Emperor Drakon’s armies and a devout missionary of Andraste … Divine Justinia I is most well known for compiling the Orlesian Chantry’s interpretation of the Chant of Light. Her version of the Chant has survived with few changes to this day and is still recognised as part of the canon.

World of Thedas II


This is a religion that was designed, on purpose, to be part of the Orlesian war machine. It may seem logical to talk about ‘Andrastianism’ and ‘the Chantry’ as though they’re synonymous, but that’s only because the Orlesians murdered the fuck out of anyone who disagreed with them, then proceeded to slander their memory.


The Chantry declared an Exalted March on the Dales, giving a blatant Orlesian land grab the holy seal of approval. This has resulted in the destruction of a nation, the dispersal of a people and the near destruction of a rival faith. It did bugger all to intervene when Orlais occupied Nevarra, and the Orlesian occupation of Kirkwall is framed as a religious liberation. Later, explicitly to please the Orlesian empire, it engineered the downfall of the viscount of Kirkwall in order to undertake a covert Chantry take over of the city. Meghren, the Orlesian ruler of Ferelden during the occupation, has a Grand Cleric as an advisor – she does eventually turn on him, yes, but throughout much of The Stolen Throne you will see her attempting to legitimise his rule, which is hardly the act of an organisation attempting to protect a weaker nation from the depredations of a strong one.


On other fronts, multiple Exalted Marches have been conducted against Tevinter, which of course is in no way about two imperial powers butting heads for fun and profit, to the detriment of everyone else. And when the Chantry warred with the Qunari, it was the Qunari who came to the table. Why? Because Chantry diplomacy is always ‘murder everyone who disagrees with us’, and the Qunari, for all their other flaws, recoiled in horror from Chantry barbarity.


International relations. Right.


4) The Chantry as somehow disinterested even in its own right.


Never mind Orlais for a moment. The Chantry, in and of itself, is hardly some kind of disinterested international watchdog.


Consider lyrium. It is in Chantry interests to retain a stranglehold on the lyrium trade – they are able to use it to control their templars, to bolster the powers of their mages when approved, and to earn a tonne of money by handing it off to the Tranquil. Probably the fact that lyrium can only be safely mined by dwarves is the only thing keeping them safe. Also note another motive for repeated conflict with Tevinter: that’s the other big lyrium consumer.


So … what exactly is it that you think the Chantry is doing that makes life better for anyone? Why do you think that it is somehow managing international relations in a fair and just manner? Because people like Cassandra and Josephine think so? But they are Chantry devout humans – in many ways the beneficiaries of Chantry crimes, whether they intend to be or not.


What you think is risky, I think is a basic step toward a functional civilisation. I want to take away everything the Chantry has: its armies, its political power, its obscene wealth. All of it. You know what I think it can still have, at the end of all that? Freedom of religion. They don’t want to leave anyone with that.