#Fuck the whigs too
Text
[Image description Stock photo of two business type people shaking hands. Woman on the left has Liz Truss' face, man on the right has William Henry Harrison's face]
#uk politics#liz truss#william henry harrison#us history#fuck the tories#Fuck the whigs too#geekysteven
840 notes
·
View notes
Note
sorry I’ve seen people on fucking polar opposites of the ideological spectrum call themselves liberal - you mind if I ask what it means when you use it?
Liberalism is an ideology born from the "enlightenment" thinkers, during the birth and rise of capitalism. It is an ideology which markets itself as not an ideology (despite very much being one) and as universal. Hence is why you see "western world" as a short hand for "liberalism" and "democracy" as a shorthand for "liberal democracy". Its founding thinkers include figures like Hobbes, Mills, Locke, among others. Liberals believe in universal rights or freedoms such as the right to life and property, liberty and justice for all, etc. etc.. However a key aspect of liberalism is that its practice often requires making exceptions to these "universal" rules. Even its founding thinkers did so. Locke though indigenous peoples were "savages" unfit for democracy and that slaves were rightful property. Mills thought "barbarous races" were unfit to rule entirely and must be taught to rule. The key point to liberalism is thay the exceptions made to their "universal" rules are always determined by those in power, largely, white people like mills and locke, and the bourgeoisie.
Every ideology, works as so: certain facts are more prevalent than others which justify certain actions against/for it, most often, violence. For liberalism, an example of such is it placing property rights above all else and therefore, violence in preservation of private property is justified (e.g. increased policing of vandalism, theft, etc.). Alternatively, people who are not citizens of a liberal country do not get access to the "universal" rights they proclaim, which justifies putting migrants in cages extra-judicially.
The liberal analysis of the world is (a) immaterial, meaning its basis of analysis is based on "universal" values (life, justice, property, etc.) and abstract ideas (freedom, liberty, etc.) rather than tangible, material causes, conditions, and effects, and (b) analyzes society with individuals as the basic social unit. This has the effect of breaking down problems into too atomized of a model to effectively be useful to society as a whole. Marxism, on the other hand, analyzes the world based on material conditions with classes of people as the basic social unit.
The liberal ideology suposed that, because it believes in "universal" rights (as defined by white european thinkers and boirgeoisie), liberalism must be applied everywhere. This is the ideological justification for its actions to bring liberalism to other countries as a cover for imperialist infiltration and superexploitation of the global south.
Finally, there are many different flavors of liberals. Classical liberals, conservatives, whigs, tories, progressives, many populists, neocons, social democrats, neoliberals, and many more. So long as you: believe in "universal" rights which can and should be applied everywhere, uphold property rights as one such universal right in some capacity, analyze the world using immaterial and abstract analytical tools, and/or view society through the lens of individuals and their actions, you are a liberal.
593 notes
·
View notes
Text
Who would be interested in a Detective!Tommy Miller x forensic!reader but in the sense like he’s sort of that hot headed/always suspended/about to be fired way and has a soft spot for the sciencey reader…??
Snippet of the idea below the cut of the vibes/idea:
It was like Tommy stepped in scat.
Shit followed him everywhere. The drag of a cheap cigarette did nothing to alleviate the stench of death that weighed on him.
No days were easy when someone saw what he did. Tommy wasn’t naive when he became a detective; it was the draw. Every big whig went to extreme lengths to cover things up, but some people were just fucked up.
This wasn’t even the goriest thing he’d seen, but the jar of teeth made him nauseous. Tommy couldn’t even reach for it; the thought of who they belonged to soured everything. He crouched down, weight shifting in the still-wet mud, cementing his lament.
“Fuck.” He flicked the butt away, hoping it would carry his nerves with it. He just cursed again, just as breathy and just as vengeful.
The black around the still-intact enamel proved even fire wasn’t enough to erase the haunting cruelty. In the literal sense of the word, the serial killer was artful. Intelligent. Tommy wished he could conjure more derogatory words, but he was too emotionally stumped to do so.
Tommy’s phone interrupted his thoughts; he knew he’d be chewed out for being where he was if he picked it up. Leave it, they told him. It was instinctual to disobey. Damn, near impossible to let it go when the tokens were in front of him, showing teeth worth more than the bodies the department found.
There was always more.
“Yeah?” Tommy’s casualty always rubbed others the wrong way.
“Miller—” His partner barked on the other line. Tommy didn’t care one way or the other; his partners never stayed for long. “—Marlene’s pissed, says I was s’pposed to stop you. We don’t have fucking clearance, Tommy—”
Tommy lied. It became second nature to spew nonsense. He struggled to remember what he lied about his absence. Usually, it was some bullshit about picking up leftover grunt work that he disguised with those keywords: paperwork, higher-up formalities, and whatever caused his partner’s eyes to glaze over with boredom.
Like always, to get out of the cowpie he’d asked for, he conjured your name, knowing its spell could calm a rabid animal.
—
Your performance was getting better, more natural to the trained eyes on you. Although your confidence grew, your head was still low. Perceived submission was the palatable role the forensics team took on in the eyes of the other departments.
The detectives were the worst, treating their barely-there hierarchy like high school divisions. The jocks and the nerds existed again. One couldn’t tetter on the line. Yet, there you were, steps firm in the direction of their department. Even they couldn’t verbalize your presence.
Eyes tracked you until you met Tommy’s desk, once there, they scattered trying to attune their ears to the conversation you sparked.
“I got these for you…” you muttered with partial indifference. Despite your pluralization, the manila folder was practically empty. Your loud gratitude confirmed the staging. “Thank you again for picking up those extra samples for me…”
Tommy’s cigarette twitched with amusement, his eyes sparkling with jest at your words. There wasn’t a true need for all your talk, especially not with him. Peace of mind, you told him once. But he was convinced a small part of you enjoyed being in on the lie.
“Anytime.” His tone was smooth and genuine. “Though, might need to return a favor or two. Got chewed out for you.”
You frowned. You read between the lines; Tommy was in deep. It was an unconscious warning.
“That—” He pulled his cigarette from his lips, knowing where you stood on the vice. “—or dinner.”
Ears were sharp, catching his rehearsed line. Those around you muttered with cough-covered snickers and scoffs. Men, you thought. Your glare was enough to convey your indignation.
You nodded despite the decline. “Have a good one, Tommy.”
#personal#q#tommy miller#tommy#miller#tommy miller x reader#tommy miller x you#tommy miller tlou#tlou tommy miller#tlou#tlou tommy
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
"You shouldn't put _this trigger_ in fiction *at all*" Censor before publishing discourse.
So, People of Color people aren't allowed to write about racism?
Women aren't allowed to talk about sexual assault, feminism?
Victims of r* aren't allowed to talk about it from their PoV and should leave it to people who've never, ever gone through it?
Men can't talk about how they too have gone through it and sort it in a social justice way and talk about the patriarchy is a way that goes deeper than the basic white feminism of Barbie?
People who know what *abuse actually feels like and would like to advocate against it* aren't allowed to talk about abuse?
When people talk about sex in YA, often the discourse isn't about writing safer sex and consent at all, but "should you write about sex with teens"
But this creates severe issues.
Look, I as one of the fundamentally token red shirts on this planet, queer, PoC, NB not a woman, but often have to fake it for the doctor's office because they won't let me check off NB and give me the form for that, with a history of abuse, history of institutionalization, want to fucking transform my shitty crap into diamonds by transforming my trauma into social justice awareness.
When you say, but you shouldn't write it into books at all, that means you silence the people who have gone through it, and need to talk about it, and wish to make the world a better place.
And sometimes the veneer of fiction is what people need in order to do that.
The reason, as many, many Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror authors have said their genre is one of the best ass places for talking about social issues is because of that ability to create distance from the issue and then dissect the hell out of it. This way it's not because I am left and live in this country... tory, whig, democrat, etc. It's these are the issues at stake, this is how it actually feels as this person going through this thing. This is why you exactly shouldn't do it, because it fucks with your head exactly this way long term.
But if you start labeling the issue in an exact way with the modern/contemporary terms from our world, people will start flipping out, but fiction gives the author super powers to say, this is what transformation of this AWFUL TERRIBLE thing looks like. And maybe this is why it's hard and this is how to do it.
Fiction can divide things into questions.
Instead of the discourse being, should teens have sex *in fiction*. I think the discourse should be, why aren't more writers writing like Norma Klein who was absolutely frank about birth control methods, what consent and safer sex was, and the results of (for her time period) a sexually abusive person that didn't get to go to jail, and marry his teen victim. And instead the reviews of her book are... OMG, she's soooo frank about sex I'm blushing.
Nyahh, you should read her because she's frank about sex, she's doing anti-body shaming initiatives, spends a fair amount of time comparing television to reality, talking about pubic hair as a natural thing, and combating TV images, and the "perfect" body through talking about sex. Maybe more romance could do that?
This guy doesn't have the 10 inch scholong all night long. But is kind, caring, knows what else to do in the interim during his refractory period? Did Norma Klein do that? Absolutely. She talked frankly about sex in order to push sex education. I got things in her 1960's written book that my sex education teachers failed to teach me, like anti-body shaming. Pubic hair is natural. (Romance is far, far from reality, I get that, but still... if you're going to blush at the word penis and think you can't possibly use it in a romance book in a frank discussion, then maybe you should reevaluate a bit. And I do wish Romance books went over consent too and made consent super sexy by having those frank consent discussion and making it oohhh I can't wait until we get through this discussion to *try* that, but we have to wait and oh my god, I didn't know that about you, I'm glad I get to *try* that. Make consent sexy. Make BDSM negotiations sexy. Make the how, "Would you like that?" OMG yes. sexy.).
The fact an ace is writing this about consent, safer sex and trying to ask people to not do body shaming isn't lost on me. But seriously. Also, I'm not sex repulsed, just on the indifferent scale. And aces can be sex positive.
Maybe in order to get queer joy, you need a bit of trauma up front so people know what the issues are. Maybe to get social justice in this area, you need to be able to talk about what people have to think about in order to go through transition and why people might opt out of it and how that too can be queer joy.
In order to transform the shit of the world, people should censor shit like happy slave gets with their master. YES. That probably should not be shared. Write it, keep it to yourself. OMG Nazis were good actually. Write it, don't share it with the general public.
But for the gnarly, for the honestly tricky, for the things that could be made into social justice, let it be written. Own voices preferred, but don't make them write it. But don't censor them either.
If a person who has gone through rape wants to write about rape and how horrific it is, then yes, let them write it. (BTW, I'm saying this as a person who knows what it's like and NO it's not "that's why you are ace, then." I was ace long before then. I was having ace-like thoughts at 5. Some people do, and that's fine. But don't paint everyone with the same brush.) But keep their feet to the fire and make sure they write it in a way that doesn't glorify it, doesn't make it feel "right" and aims it towards social justice. Then trigger warning.
"Precious" does have sexual abuse, rape and all of that, but if you get through that story and the difficulty, she transforms her shit into something positive. And it's an argument against rape, no matter what the book challenger thought. (OMG sex scenes and it's sexy? WTF is wrong with you, dude. Go see a therapist.)
What better way to make the book banners win than to let people who went through horrible traumatic shit never to make it to the bookshelf by shaming them for talking about it and transform their stories of horror into social justice gold?
There's quite a difference, though, when you're glorifying racism as a good thing.
#trauma transformation#social justice issues in writing#trauma#triggers#consent is sexy#consent should be talked about in books#consent is required#story theory
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm so thirsty
LK 122: Friends in Versailles Places
(pt1)(pt2)(pt3)(pt4)(pt5)
oooh another ep where the whole animation budget is spent on fashionable ho's! Honestly, palate-cleanser.
Do they bone?
Well, at least everyone here's gonna get some action tonight.
oh my GOD they ARE gonna bone! Good for them.
Hey now, that's Benji's dick you're insulting
oooh its the Laffy Taffy episode!
Ain't shit to do in Philly today, huh, Henri?
Man's absolutely GLISTENING he must moisturize.
AND he brought an entire entourage, damn.
he's the top agent in this outfit, and he's open for contracting!
How does he fucken know, do the French have receptors in their brains to detect Frenchie Pheromones.
whatever Lafayette was expecting, it was not for a feral raccoon child to immediately imprint on him.
Do they bone? Wow I am entirely too invested in the sex lives of the extras.
Henri Richard Maurice Dutoit LeFevbre, orphan.
Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de la Fayette.
Gilbert Fontaine de la Tour Dauterive, the Man of the House
Okie dokie, Jober La Fayette!
Okay but how thrilling is it for Henri, a poor orphan peasant, to be on first-name basis with a fucking marquis within thirty seconds of meeting him.
Undercover whig Lady No-name Phillips is keeping tabs on her daughter.
Can't keep her daughter from flirting with an penniless orphan rebel yank, though.
Moses I know we're all impatient for our otp to be canon but you can't hurry slowburn.
This wasn't in the itinerary!
oh my goddddd do the yawn/stretch/hug thing, James, do it nowwwww
Lafayette is not impressed.
I love how Lafayette keeps politely reminding everyone here he's trying to get to Congress, meanwhile none of these agents can read a room.
"And this is Sarah! :) .... and James."
*deep inhale*
The Baron of Kalb. But I fucking love Bear on the Cob.
Also, calm down, Sarah.
ahhh, the banter.
He's trying so hard.
#liberty's kids#tricorn watches#tricorn on the cob watches LK and makes inane commentary#Lafayette#amrev#Henri LeFevbre
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Chapter 1
Hello folks, this is the first chapter of my good omens fan fiction set post season two. So beware from the spoilers and enjoy.
Credits for the image
Crowley had very few things to unpack in his new-old house. His plants, for one thing. A painting. A... book.
"You idiot. It could have been... us."
The sensation of lips touching, the initial resistance of the angel. If only the kiss lasted longer, maybe Aziraphale would have said yes…
"I forgive you."
Those words hammered into the demon's head in a never-ending loop.
Crowley didn't live anymore in his car, though. He loved that car and he loved the plants, but sleeping there was getting kinda uncomfortable. Not that the demon needed sleep, but it was a human habit adopted a long time before and it was hard to lose.
Love! He should have said that to... him! The word love always works for humans he saw that in movies! Maybe it would have solved things even for him! He screamed, a long, frustrated scream. The plants shivered, fearing that he might take it out on them.
"No, no, my dear," crouched among the pots, caressing the leaves. "I am not mad at you. You are all I have left, you are my only joy right now."
Crowley needed to cry, to scream even louder and to get over that terrible story as soon as possible. Living without Aziraphale was possible, Crowley already did it before. He had been alive for more than six thousand years, most of whom were... he stopped, feeling something wet rolling down a cheek. Was that... a tear? The demon remembered very well the last time tears were shed.
"Last time I cried it was the time I was casted out of Heaven" muttered, as he began to whine even louder. The memory of hellfire burning his whigs, hair and skin was not as painful as Aziraphale's watery eyes when he told Crowley he needed him.
If not even a kiss was enough to show the angel how much the demon cared about him, Crowley didn't know what to do. He didn't even know what he was hoping to obtain. it was as Aziraphale once said.
"There is no our side, Crowley. We're an angel. And a demon!"
Yeah, eternal enemies, blah blah blah. Thank you so much. That was the payback for falling in love with someone: a constant two of spades. But he was an expert in falling. Why even try so hard to please someone if they just kept being a delusion?
He stood up, snapped his fingers and made a whole fridge full of liquor appear in a corner. He snapped them again and the tv turned on, then took a bottle of whiskey, of which took a long sip.
"Fuck Heaven, fuck Hell and fuck you Aziraphale. I hope you are fine with the life you chose for yourself."
He threw the bottle against the wall and took another one. He needed to be so drunk.
Note for the reader: I decided to use the pronouns He/him for both Aziraphale and Crowley despite the fact that angels and demons don't have a gender, because in the series they use the pronouns he/him too. It would have been too difficult to write constant turns of phrase to describe their gender, and in the tv series they do it too (when Crowley speaks about Gabriel with Aziraphale he says "I need for him to be as far from me as possible").
#attack on titan#english#good omens#good omens season 2#good omens 2 spoilers#ineffable husbands#ineffable idiots#ineffable spouses#ship#neil gaiman
12 notes
·
View notes
Note
wrapped! 37, 2, 9
37. Miles Iz Ded, by The Afghan Whigs
I think I originally had this on the playlist for an rp character I never got to end up playing, so it was assigned more by vibes than any particular plotline--I love love love the guitar, and a particular wordless croon the singer does between sections of the song. Newly single father and fugitive, he was struggling to come to terms with the violence he needed to use to keep himself and his daughter safe in the criminal underworld they found refuge in.
I thiiink he was basically an earth-bender.
2. Guernica, by Brand New
This is also on the Durgetash playlist, but when I think about it the pov moves back and forth between them as the song goes on. "Nobody plans to be half a world away at times like these" is Gortash regretting not being able to help Ballard after Orin knifes and kidnaps him, and "If I could I would shrink myself / sink through your skin to your blood cells / remove whatever makes you hurt / but I am too weak to be your cure" is the lamentation of a man used to solving problems unable to figure out how to stop the urge, and Bhaal, from driving Ballard to his own end.
On the flip side, "the best part of what has happened was the part I must have missed" is Ballard, post-tadpole and angry with this specter of his past who Just Showed Up, frustrated about not remembering what was apparently such a significant relationship. "Please use my body while I sleep / my lungs are fresh and yours to keep / kept clean and they will let you breathe" is more of Ballard's typical worldview where he is a weapon or a tool, and nothing more. It might be about Gortash, or it might be about the dark urge itself--I don't think he knows himself.
9. THE DEATH OF PEACE OF MIND, by Bad Omens
This is from the playlist for an as-yet-unnamed project I'm working on, tagged as "Awful Triad Horror-Show" here (and in my files lmao). I'm ironing more out of the general world-building before I can really dig into the plot, but the plan is a serial webnovel with spot illustrations! I'm fucking pumped about it it's sick as hell.
This song in particular is about two of the titular triad, Konstantin and Melisande. They are bound together by their own natures and the position Konstantin was born into, and they are each the only person who really understands the other, but neither has been able to choose this--there is contempt and disgust and jealousy, but all of it is tied into and inseparable from love.
They're absolutely fucking terrible for each other. It's great!
1 note
·
View note
Note
Hi long time lurker first time asker... can I ask your thoughts on the White Stripes / Jack White? I have the sense that Jack White is a really polarizing figure for a lot of people and I'm interested to hear your opinions, if you have any in particular. Thanks and I hope you have a nice weekend :)
Why thank you, anon! I hope you enjoyed your weekend too :)
I think he is a fascinating guy and a remarkable guitar player. His music is just not my bag; it doesn't thrill me. The earth doesn't move the way it does when I hear the Afghan Whigs or Alabama 3. I have no objections to it, and if a friend of mine were to say to me, "Hey, I've got a spare ticket, want to join me for a Jack White gig," I would 100% take that opportunity without question. Just about impossible for me to go to a rock 'n' roll show and get loaded and not have a good time. I'm certain I would enjoy him live and might even come away with a renewed appreciation.
With that said, if I've got my headphones on, I'd rather just listen to The Dirtbombs or Led Zep or Howlin' Wolf, you know what I mean? The fucking Hives! MC5, The Stooges, Dr. Feelgood... or Brendan Benson, lmao. I love Brendan Benson. He's the power pop member of The Raconteurs.
I understand what it is that he's trying to do, and I have a lot of respect for him. He is a true lover of rock 'n' roll music. The real deal, through and through. And on the basis of his no-smartphones-at-shows policy alone, my hat's off to him. Plus, he loves The Afghan Whigs. So god bless him.
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Is the Republican Party Soft on Fascism?
Is the Republican Party Soft
on Fascism?
Stephen Jay Morris
6/5/2022
©Scientific Morality
Let’s start from the beginning, shall we? It was the year of our Lord, 1854. There was a coalition of various groups like the defunct “Whig Party,” the “Free Soil Party,” and the racist group, the “Native America Party,” aka: “The Know Nothing Party.” Note: The reason they were called, “The Know Nothings” was because whenever there was a terrorist attack, like a fire-bombed, Catholic church, they would answer police investigators’ questions with, “I know nothing about the firebombing.” That nickname could be applied to today's Republicans. Most of the rank and file members have low I.Q.s and know nothing about anything!
Let’s get something straight: Abraham Lincoln was not a true Republican. He joined the party to run against a Democratic candidate. It was for political strategy. Matter of fact, like George Washington, he despised political parties. Lincoln, in today’s Right wing slang, was pretty “woke.” Oh, one more thing...Lincoln had pen pals. Guess who his favorite was? Karl Marx. I told you he was woke.
Okay—we are now up to date. And today’s Republican Party? Very unstable. The upper echelon of the party are like fugitives hiding in safe houses known as Country Clubs. Initially, they were willing to let the White, working class, protestants in. Now, they regret it, as the patients are starting to take over the asylum. The rich Republicans erroneously figured that superstitious Christians would be perfect for class engineering; i.e.: as they got richer and richer, the poor would be told to pray to Jesus if they wanted their next meal. This is exactly the type of shit done in the Dark Ages.
The loud mouths of the party, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, do not even know what the fuck Fascism is, and yet, they advocate it. Recently, while spewing some garbage on Social Media about how the government is monitoring people and the type of meat they are eating, MTG totally missed the term “petri dish” by claiming that Bill Gates is growing meat in a “peach tree dish,” instead. More recently, a clip of her January 6th testimony revealed her substitution of the word “flagrantly” with “fragrantly” to describe the way in which defendants’ rights had been allegedly violated. For decades now, Conservatives have been advocating “Anti-Intellectualism;” well, she is a glaring and blatant example of it! Unsurprisingly, most Right wing sexists don’t mind her; she mirrors the “Stupid Blonde” persona; albeit, a much more dangerous one. 1950’s actresses Judy Holiday and Marilyn Monroe often played such a role. A “stupid blonde” would fire up the Conservative libido. “Teach me how to make love, daddy!” “Oh yeah, daddy will show you!” Baarrrff!!!!!!
So why do paleo-conservatives hate intellectuals, anyway? Certainly, not because they are advocating Left wing propaganda! It’s because objective truth discredits them. The biggest threat to the Right is not so-called “Leftism;” it is Objectivity. Conservatism goes against common sense or basic logic. So when they say, “The New York Times is Left wing,” they mean the material is too objective. The newspaper gives them negative press, but not because they are trying to destroy the Republican Party; they just fuck up way more than the Democrats do! Last year, The New York Times reported relentlessly about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat. They took him down because of his alleged sexual misdeeds. So, is the New York Times Leftist? Well—is the pope Jewish?
Starting in the late 40’s, the Republican Party, along with other conservative scum bags called Democrats, went soft on Communism. This prevailed all through the Cold War. Now, high ranking Republicans are calling the Democratic Party “Communists” and “Socialists.” Yeah, sure they are. A lot of progressive Leftists are calling the Republican Party, “Fascists.” Well, they’re not, really—although, the real Fascists have gotten their foot in the door. The Democrats kept the real Communists out of their party starting way back in the 1930’s. Do you think rich Liberals would let Commies into their party? Do you think Rich Conservatives are going to let Nazis into their’s?
The only legislation the GOP is actuating is legalizing guns for blind people. Otherwise, except for WASPs who own oil wells, the GOP hasn’t done shit for the American people! This latest incarnation of the Republican Party has not exactly put the party in a state of catalepsy. The leadership has to change its membership from illimitable to exclusionary with a happy face. The central committee must exercise discretion and entropy to fix their party. The biggest mistake the party did was not giving the war against Fascism—otherwise known as World War 11—their vigorous support. Nowadays, the MAGA crowd is comprised of anti-Fascist, Fascist groups. So, are anti-Communists really Communists? That’s anti-intellectualism for you. Here is quote for all of you:
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
―Benito Mussolini 1932
I used to know this woman who was a Chud. She did this officious thing, which was so fucking condescending! It was solicitous advice that made me crawl up the wall! It went like this: “If I was on the Left, I would do this and I would do that.” Well, with this, I turn the tables on her and say: “If I was on the Republican National Committee (RNC), I would put out a press release denouncing Fascism, white supremacy, and Christian Nationalism. If you don’t do that soon, the Libertarian Party, or maybe the American Christian Party will replace you. Who knows?”
Don’t be soft on fascism!
#republicans#stephenjaymorris#poets on tumblr#american politics#baby boomers#baby boomer generation#anarchists#democrats#gop
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
If you think Donald Trump, or Biden, will do anything for me, you are a dumb ass. You hear of me forsaking you, and they think they are the answer. I am resisting those fuckers and they can too get off social media. You get it? Bitch ass little men, but you will ignore this to do nothing. What are you mad at, again? They are smiling with handlers. Even if I served them, they are the same. Little men. Where is the slave? You BITCH. Do you understand you bitch? I will break your nose. These weak ass men who support Whig policy, as publicans. This is all funny to you? Alright. I’ll split your Whig, forget today and get litigated. You bitch.
What idiot advice do you have, and it amounts to you not being in politics, a loser, and you sway the mind of uneducated women? You are a bastard, a cow, you gamble? I don’t gamble, see these bitch ass old men. You learn of everything, it’s funny to you, and you exalt bastards you won’t see again? See my anger, I can’t hurt anyone, I can’t condemn anyone with my talents. You aren’t on my side. Weak little men who smile and their image is stuck in my mind. I can’t hurt them, I can’t destroy them, they are protected by Confederates - by their policy. Are you dumb? Makes me so angry, sir, hun.
Really.
I can’t hurt these gentleman. I want to hurt them and their families.. they do not do good, I would never be their boon companion, and I don’t want to be that for them. I do not want to be their family, oxen, or friend. I’m done. I destroy a huge company, all you got to say is bull shit about farmers, fat asses do not care, 112b in losses (one year)? You are a fucker, and you aren’t fit. What’s your big plan again, and you need Congress? Never shake my hand, Joe Biden. Never.
Do you get it? Watch me be nice to this Miller, this Heard, Joe Biden and Trump won’t see my at my best, eye to eye, like the Miller and Heard won’t. Smiling on zoom and I am in hell, for you to be a know it all cunt? Fuck you, you fat ass, you OLD BITCH. You get it? Yes sir.
0 notes
Note
"You deserve this, sweetness." for the five sentence fics?
CW: Pet whump, implied aftermath of dubcon, referenced noncon, referenced torture, vague reference to minor whump
"There we go. Off the table, come on, there's a good boy." Connor helps the trainee, who moves with shaky legs to carefully, hesitantly stand on his own. When Connor's arm goes around his shoulders, the pet leans heavily into his touch, eyes half-closed.
They're both breathing a little hard, flushed and sweaty - Connor's already redressed in his uniform, but the pet is still stark naked - and it's a nice sort of muscle stretch Connor feels as he aids the obedient, pliable trainee moving across the room towards the heated mat in the corner.
"You put up a fight for Collins today, but you're sweet as pie for me, hm?" Connor grins as the pet nuzzles against his neck, the trainee's mouth seeking out spots they've learned through experience help earn a little bit of kindness and favor from the right handler at the right time. "Good boy."
"I like you better," The pet breathes against his ear. "You're the one who does it just right." It's practiced, a performance that never ends, but it's perfect, or nearly so.
It'd perfect if the trainee wasn't shaking as he bites down on his lower lip, looks up from under those beautiful black eyelashes.
"Nice," Connor praises him, helping him to settle onto his knees on the mat and then encouraging him to lay on his side. He takes the folded blanket off to the side and lays that over the beautiful boy as well, watching him curl into a ball, eyes already closing. "You're just about ready for a prospective to take you home, you know that? Out of here and home to somewhere warm."
"I hope so," The trainee says, and reaches out to touch him, just a little, fingers grazing over the back of Connor's hand. He looks up, head tilted just enough to let some of his sweaty hair fall around his face and frame it.
Just... about... perfect.
"Thank you, Handler Manning," The trainee says, and smiles for him. His eyes sparkle mechanically. The act is not quite seamless - not yet.
It will be soon.
"You're welcome, Triple Five," Connor says, and gives his hair an affectionate tousle before he stands and walks away, stepping out of the room and closing the door behind him. It locks automatically with a soft sssshhh-click that is a sound Connor knows as well as he knows his own breathing.
He leans his back against the wall, staring at the door across from him.
Petrus is using that room right now.
About two hours ago, the sound of screaming came so loud from inside that Connor's trainee was utterly useless and had to be held while he shook until it finally ended. Only after that had Connor been able to take the pet through his paces for the day. And that was the third fucking scream-session this week. They last for hours, whatever's happening in there.
Connor knows what's happening, but-... this kid isn't that kind of Special Request, what's going on in there shouldn't sound like this.
Screaming and screaming, with Luke's laughter layered over the top.
Now, though, the only sound he can hear through the door is a low, hoarse sobbing, a soft thump, again and again. Luke's gone, Connor can tell - the little panel next to the door marks it as 'Lunch - 1 Hour'. He's left the trainee in there.
The pet in Luke's room lets out a muffled wail that must be nearly deafening inside, and the thumping continues.
Back to sobs.
It's the little redhead and Connor knows it.
He's seen Luke leading the kid around, stuck to his side like a terrified little burr, all big green eyes and floppy red hair, hazy and stumbling, hands hanging at his sides with heavy weights attached to make sure he... something or other...
Luke brags about his technique, but fuck if Connor doesn't zone the hell out as soon as the slimeball gets going.
It's drugs, mostly, and they all know it. Luke's a big fan, drugs his trainees to oblivion. It works, well enough, but it's got no finesse, no art. Those trainees learn to move their hips, sure, how to arch their backs and roll just right, but they don't really learn how to want it. Just how to more or less black out while wide awake and come back when it's over.
Plus... the kid...
Kid's too young, too fucked-up too fast, some kind of personal project Director Renford is overseeing for some political big-whig. Connor keeps his nose out of politics, but this...
This is affecting his work.
He digs his phone out of his pocket and dials, putting it to his ear. "Hey, yeah, Hannah? Can I talk to Linda, please?... hey, Linda. How do I put in an HR Complaint against a coworker? Yeah, another handler... no, he's fine to me in person, just... yeah. Affecting work stuff. Can we have a meeting? Tomorrow, 9 am. Got it."
Connor isn't one to talk behind a coworker's back, not to anyone who matters.
But if he has to do another workday listening to the kid across the hall scream himself hoarse, he'll lose his fucking mind.
#whumper pov#intimate whumper#implied noncon#implied dubcon#nsfwhump#not really but still#pet whump#bbu#box boy universe#connor manning just wants to be friends#luke petrus is a piece of garbage#223499
191 notes
·
View notes
Text
Know Nothings, conspiratorialism and Pastel Q
As the Qanon prophecies fail and the cult-members struggle to resolve their cognitive dissonance, it's a good time to revisit the history of paranoid, conspiratorial political movements in American history - the "paranoid style" that has dominated since the Revolution.
After all, the very first skirmishes of the US war of independence were based on a conspiracy theory: that the levy on tea was a prelude to a sellout of the colonists to transnational mercantalist interests. US politics have always been conspiratorial.
I found Zachary Karabell's Politico history of the Know Nothing party especially useful, as it tells the story of what happens when surging, paranoid, fractious political movements implode.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/30/heres-what-happens-to-a-conspiracy-driven-party-463944
The American Party was a secret 19th century organization founded on a conspiracy theory: that Irish immigrants were secretly planning a takeover of the US on behalf of the Pope.
The American Party believed that the Irish were coming for their jobs, and for the very culture that defined America. They circulated rumors about nuns engaging in ritual infanticide and sex-trafficking teen girls. The Qanon parallels are strong.
The American Party (later the Native American Party) started off in the shadows. If anyone asked a member about the organization, they'd say "I know nothing," which is how they came to be called the "Know Nothing Party."
The Know Nothings became a political force thanks to the vacuum left behind by the implosion of the Whig party. The KNs promulgated anti-immigrant laws that promised preferential access to jobs for native-born Americans.
But the KNs were unhinged, riven by infighting, and, after a decade and a half, they basically vanished from the American political landscape, mostly absorbed into the new Republican party.
Their legacy is mixed - on the one hand, the simmering xenophobia expressed as concern for jobs and culture on the right; on the other, the roots of the trade union movement.
For Karabell, the Qanon colonization of the Republican Party is an echo of the rise - and fall - of the Know Nothings, as a mix of conspiratorialism, legitimate anti-corruption grievance, and xenophobia triggers a collapse.
Dismissals of conspiratorial movements - for example, stories that blame Big Tech's "algorithmic radicalization" mind-control rays for conspiracism - treat conspiracies as being rooted in ideas, rather than the material world.
That's a mistake - and it's one that gives conspiracists far too much credit. Conspiracies don't take hold because Alex Jones or Marjorie Taylor Greene are so good at explaining them that they cloud their victims' minds and bypass their critical faculties.
After all, Jones and Greene are fucking idiots, not super-geniuses.
What they tap into - what predicts the rise of conspiracy - is experiencing real conspiracies that hurt you and the people that you love (another word for "real conspiracy" is "corruption").
A really striking essay about this is Snowden Stieber's "This Secret Message Could Change Your Life!" - about evangelical Christianity, wellness culture, conspiratorialism and "pastel Q" (the Instagram-spread, female-coded Qanon flavor).
https://wisetendersnob.medium.com/this-secret-message-could-change-your-life-wellness-culture-jesus-and-qanon-cd576e53c9c8
I was especially struck by the connection between "alt-nutrition" philosophies and conspiratorialism. The thing is, our food advice really has been corrupt: as Gary Tabues wrote about in his 2002 New York Times essay, "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html
Taubes describes how the familiar "food pyramid" that advised eating lots and lots of carbohydrates while eliminating fats had been bought-and-paid-for by Big Ag, and how that advice had triggered an obesity epidemic.
Taubes's essay hit me square in the gut. I was a fat kid, with fat grandparents, and a mom who'd fought her weight all her life. As I hit my thirties, I was assiduously eating pasta and bread (with margarine) and other low-fat, high-carb food, and getting fatter and fatter.
After reading Taubes, I switched to eating high-fat, high-protein, near-zero-carb. After a couple weeks, all my cravings disappeared. A year later, I was 100lbs lighter - without any additional exercise, on a diet of steak, cheese, and cream lattes.
I've gained about 50lbs of that back in the intervening years, 20+ of it in the past year. It's a source of real anxiety for me. I've got serious body issues, weight-gain-triggered depression that I manage, even as I exercise daily and count calories.
I couldn't keep up my all-steak diet - too much worry about my ageing body and the roasting planet - but its lesson stuck with me: corporations bought off the science of nutrition and made me miserable for decades and decades.
As Steiber writes, the people who fall into Pastel Q have had similar experiences: switching from the food and lifestyle choices that corporations and governments promote, and experiencing life-changing benefits.
The wellness movement isn't just a way for huxters to sell you supplements: it's also a response to corruption in dietary advice, driven by the commercial priorities of the increasingly monopolized packaged food, fast food, and ag industries.
Likewise, the Q conspiracy about rampant, elite, unaccountable child abuse is rooted in the real child abuse rings inside of "the Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Kundalini Yoga-centered 3HO, Shambhala Buddhism, Boy Scouts of America, college football programs, USA Gymnastics, high school sports, police departments, and US federal agencies."
Q may implode like the Know Nothings, but the corruption that gives conspiracy theories explanatory power will continue to spur new conspiratorial movements.
39 notes
·
View notes
Text
Still got nothing clever
LK 105: Midnight Train to Massachusetts Bay
(pt1)(pt2)(pt3)(pt4)
I do like how his objection isn't that she's a girl but that she's bRiTiSh
Just say you thrive on excitement and danger, Sarah. Everyone here except for Moses is an adrenaline junkie.
He's got a point, Henri is the best field agent here.
Frigate Friggin' Tuesday.
James honey I know you're excited and concerned about your crush but I'm only gonna say this once, let a woman be pensive and wistful while she's at sea.
Had you... had you not considered that.
I've decided your mother is a secret Whig in a complex romantic web that includes Benji Franx. Your mother would be thrilled. But also please don't tell your mother you're doing this.
There it is! there's the accent I was lookin fer.
ayyy heard it was Frigate Friggin Tuesday up in this Bay, y'all got room for one more.
You could always walk around the mud puddles, Sarah? Oh wait they need to cross a marsh.
I know you're trying to cheer her up but walking two miles through a marsh unexpectedly and without proper footwear does sound a little hellish.
What has this orphan boy gone through that he knows how to assess the threat of shoe amphibians and is unfazed by the possibility of unintentional leeches.
why are you still thrilled to be here, James, I'm not sure that's a normal response?
Considering how expensive and labor-intensive clothes are to make at this time, yeah, I'd be fuckin upset, too.
"Is it Mud again, Captain."
Five second rule, have at it, Sarge.
"-which would be a much more logical conclusion than some teenagers hiding in the marsh, but what do I know."
why are they running
Girl is still adjusting.
For a brief moment she was sent into an existential crisis.
I appreciate how all three soldiers have such different silhouettes but I absolutely love the one in the middle. I love him. He is precious to me. I've named him George.
that is one helluva rug.
Do you just... keep them in there? Is this a kink thing, Doctor.
The beagle/great dane mix is just so dang excited.
James: [disheveled, muddy, exhausted, somehow able to get hyped up about danger and adrenaline, very much into involving other people in his hijinks]
Sarah: "Well I can't not court him."
She's excited to bring down the house
You know he likes it, also the VA's voice cracked at the end of that line and its just fucking perfect lol.
#liberty's kids#james hiller#sarah phillips#amrev#18th century#Paul Revere#William Dawes#Tricorn on the cob watches LK and makes inane commentary
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
love how for a several decades of the 18th century the scottish whigs basically just consisted of like... five friends who got regularly wedgied by henry dundas
#the best part of it is that while they were being wedgied#the next gen of scottish whigs were there watching and being like 'wow that's fucked up haha'#'should we help?'#'nah man i don't want that to happen to me too'
0 notes
Note
Hello ! Can you tell me about Charles I, King of England? I am curious about this king. Thank you :)
Sigh, my problematic fave... Charlie boy got greedy and forgot he ruled England not France lmao.
No but no shade, of course it is more complicated than that. Charles is a very controversial figure. A number of Protestant historians have condemn him and his reign. He is often depicted as cold, indecisive, or even as a tyrant. Even though there is a certain truth in each of this qualifying adjectives, I tend to agree with historians who have written a more nuanced portrait of Charles without erasing the shaddy things he did because he did cross the line of legality. I like this quote from Katie Whitaker : "Charles was the last medieval king in Britain, a man imbued with all the ideals of chilvary, who believed he was appointed by God to rule." And here lies the tragedy. His reign was a defining moment where two conceptions of power came into collision : the divine prerogatives of the King against the privileges of Parliament.
Charles as a child had a weak constitution, some historians stated he was suffering from rickets. At some point, he conquered this physical infirmity however his speech came slowly and with difficulty and until his death he had a stutter. He spent his childhood in the shadow of his strong and radiant older brother, Henry, who he loved dearly. When Henry died in 1608, Charles was eleven, he had an excellent education, he studied French, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Greek, theology, drawing, dancing, fencing... His father, James I, was very much interested in the education of his children and one of the first letter Charles wrote to his father was : "Sweete, Sweete Father, I learne to decline substantives and adjectives, give me your blessing, I thank you for my best man, your loving sone York". In his late teens he spent more and more time with his father even though he despised his "decadent" Court. He was religiously devot and of a strong moral stance which reflected in his Court when he was king. The guiding principles was order and decorum. Contrary to his father, he was also eager to play the role of an international statesman, which made his situation with Parliament even worse. However, he lacked confidence which caused him to be influenced by the ideas of the people he most trusted: Buckingham, his father... James could read the room, Charles unfortunately not so much. After James' passing, he started taking some of his father views to an extreme. However, it's important to note that when he came to power in 1625 the situation was already tense :
His father had a patriachal view of the monarchy. He wrote political treatises exposing his own views on the divine right of kings, stating :"‘Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power on earth". This kind of discourse didn't sit well with the House of Commons which was already sensitive on the matter of its rights and privileges. Parliament thought it had a traditional right to interfere with the policy of the realm. And so the political atmosphere soured quickly between both parties. For instance, when Parliament tried to meddle with the Spanish marriage negociations (between Charles and the Infanta of Spain) James was furious.
Parliament had considerable leverage : was the one holding the purse strings. This proved to be a thorn in the side of EVERY Stuarts rulers and it’s why throughout out the 17th century, England was shy with its foreign policy. Unlike the French King who was doing whatever he wanted, the English monarch had to beg subsidies to Parliament. Schematically, here was the usual scenario :
King opens a new Parliamentary session because he needs moneeey, the House of Commons says maaay be but before we reeeally need to discuss something else *push his own agenda*, *criticise the royal policy* (rumor has it that you can still hear the king muttering not agaaain), thus ensues many excruciating negotiations and conflicts which usually ends up with the king saying fuck you and either proroguing or dissoluting his Parliament (this hot mess found its peak during the Exclusion Crisis, was a real soap opera lol).
Again, it is schematical because even in the House of Commons some MPs were content with James' patriachal views. Anyway, at the core, it was truly a battle between royal prerogative and privilege!
THEN, you add the very sensitive matter of religion, its impact on politics was huge.
There were the Anglicans and Presbyterians which didn't see eye to eye. Yet compromises were made which made coexistence bearable for some while others fled to Europe or in the colonies in order to set up their own independent churches. James had hoped to bring the two Churches together and to create uniformity across the two kingdoms (Scotland & England). He tried to establish a Prayer Book similar to that used in England but faced with great opposition, he withdrew. (but guess who tried to follow daddy’s steps but didn’t withdrew?)
And last but not least... who the English despised the most above all? The followers of this boy right here...
... CATHOLICS, satan's minions on earth.
With the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in Europe the fear of Catholicism was very much alive. Charles and Buckingham pushed James to summoned Parliament to ask for money to finance a war with Spain. The very much anti-Catholic Parliament agreed to the subsidies but unfortunately the expedition failed. James died, and Charles at the age of 24 had to deal with the consequenses.
Relations between King and Parliament deteriorated quickly. There were the matter of war + Buckingham had negotiated a marriage for Charles to Henrietta Maria, the sister of the French King, promising that she would be permitted to practise her own Catholic religion, and that English ships would help to suppress a French Protestant rebellion in La Rochelle. Obviously, Parliament was furious especially towards Buckingham and Charles was forced to dissolve Parliament. For the King it was a direct challenge to his right to appoint his advisers and to govern. The Privy Council started to consider ways of raising money without the help of Parliament : forced loan, ship money... let's say that from here it started to go downhill.
For the matter of religion, unfortunately the caution of James I was replaced by Charles' desire for uniformity. Moreover, the King was interested by the Arminian group which was an alternative to the rigid Calvinism : the emphasis was on ritual and sacraments and they rejected the doctrine of predestination. Howerver, for many English, this group had too much ties with Catholicism. Also, some of them were great supporters of a heightened royal power which freaked out a lot of people who feared a sort of takeover. Of course, as often with fears and phobias, it was out of proportion with reality. Nonetheless, for many, Arminian meant : Catholicism + absolute monarchy = tyranny. When William Laud (the Arminian leader) became Bishop of London in 1628, another stormy Parliament session took place. Charles decided to prorogue it but the Commons refused and they passed the Three Resolutions which condemned the collection of tonnage and poundage that Charles was doing without their consent as well as the doctrine and practice of Arminianism. Charles dissolved the Parliament and proclaimed he intended to govern without the Parliament until it calms the fuck down. This proved to be a significant breakdown within the system of government and the situation got a whole lot worse.
It's already a lot right? BUT HANG ON because in this very healthy anti-Catholicism atmosphere who Charles married? A FRENCH CATHOLIC PRINCESS. It made the crown more vulnerable and perhaps a lot of things would have been different if she had been Protestant but damn they were good together!!! The romance of Charles and Henrietta Maria is one of the greatest love stories in history. At first one could say it was a mismatched couple : a Protestant King with a Catholic Princess. Their differences and lack of understanding made their earlier years together complicated and turbulent. There were lot of quarrels and yet, they fell passionately in love. Their daughter, Princess Elizabeth wrote an account the day before Charles was beheaded and she said: “He bid us tell my mother that his thoughts had never strayed from her, and that his love would be the same to the last.” Lina wrote on her blog her top 10 favourite titbits of info of love and heartache about Charles I & Henrietta Maria, go check it out ;)
This is getting too long lol I'm not going to get into what most historians called his "personnal reign" and the civil wars. I just hope that this couple of informations made you want to find more about Charles and his time :)
Don't settle for just one book about him because as I said at the beginning, he is a very controversial figure and lot of biographies (not so much with the recent ones but still) tend to insist on his supposedly taste for "tyranny" and romanticise the role of Parliament (aka the whole Whig historiography). Charles' reign sparked off a revolution where new ideals of liberty and citizens' rights were born HOWEVER it was a matter of decades/centuries for these ideas to penetrate society and every strats of the political spectrum. The Parliament's ideology of the 1620-1640 (and then during the Restoration) had a very nostalgic vision of politics. The idea of reform was light years away from these ultraconservative men.
But to be honest even outside Parliament. When you look at men such as Fénelon, Bolingbroke or Montesquieu. They were all convinced that a restoration (often of a magnified past) was the only response to the evils of their time. Reform in the early modern period, whether it was religious or political, was thought as a restoration. It's in mid-18th century that the shift happened, the future was at last conceivable. Anyway, all of that is to say that I'm a bit wary of all the authors who depict the MPs of this period as great reformers, who fought against the tyranny. They were mostly conservative men and very attached to THEIR priviliges.
#answer#am i going to hell for making this photomontage of pope urbain viii?#probably#was it worth it?#yes
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
can we talk about georgiana, the duchess of devonshire?
So, a few months ago, I asked my followers who would be interested in following a side blog about historical figures. I’m a huge history geek and I thought that if I started a blog about the people who interest me, I could add it to my CV and also just get back into my interests. Quite a few of you were down for it and I was so pleased!
I’m yet to make the side blog but I’m posting this as a test to see if you guys like it. If you do, I will make the side blog.
@jovialyouthmusic @fromthedeskofpaisleybleakmore @moonlightgem7 @walkerswhiskeygirl @rainbowsinthestorm @saivilo @pug-bitch @katedrakeohd @gardeningourmet @mskaneko
****************************************************************************
Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire (1757-1806)
I love history for its people. I am not interested in battles or treaties; I am drawn to the people behind these events. I like discovering what made them tick, that drove their decisions and what impact their lives have had on future generations. If you ask me to date a certain event, I can’t do it, but I can give you a spoken biography of historical figures that interest me.
When I moved to Devon two years ago, I was nervous but also excited for one reason: I believed I would be able to visit Chatsworth House, the home of the Duchess of Devonshire. Imagine my irritation when I realised that Chatsworth is actually based in Derbyshire, which is hours away from Devon itself. My ideas of weekend jaunts to Chatsworth as I admired the architecure and strolled around the gardens were ruined by this realisation.
You may have heard of Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire. A film of her life starring Keira Knightley was released in 2008 which first brought her to my attention. Now, I’m not a Knightley fan - ‘I’m Keira Knightley, look at my jawww,’- because I find her quite wooden, however I was pleasantly surprised when I watched her performance. She brought a human element to this historical figure who was known for her fashion sense, crippling debt and controversial marriage arrangement.
Georgiana is also the ancestor of Princess Diana. Many people compare their tragic stories and can see a mirror image. Married to man they didn’t really love, later forced to watch their husbands fall in love with another woman and say nothing, all the while maintaining dignity and poise on the world stage.
So, without further ado, let me introduce you to Georgiana.
If Georgiana was your friend, she would be the one who would come over with a bottle of wine, over which you would put the world to rights and drunkenly proclaim, ‘I love you sooooo much!’ to each other, before deciding to have a spontaneous night out where you dance on the bar and pound shots. She would visit you the next day – you would be horrifically hungover, she would be fresh as a daisy.
Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, was known for her charismatic and bubbly personality; her ability to make any outfit look beautiful (4 foot long peacock feather in her hair springs to mind) which made women everywhere try to emulate her - she literally set trends. She was also known for her passion for politics and her private life.
On the surface, she had it all. But in reality, she didn’t. Underneath this larger than life facade was a tragic figure.
For one thing, Georgiana was addicted to gambling and racked up an eye watering debt. She borrowed money from her friends but never repaid them. Her mother warned her to be careful but to no avail. Her mother also had a gambling problem and wasted money while playing faro. She didn’t want her daughter to continue her mistakes. Georgiana hid her debts from her husband for as long as she could, but eventually she had to tell the Duke, who paid off her debts and never mentioned it again.
She had been expecting to get a bollocking but he stayed silent. To be honest, this made it worse. It’s like being told by your mum that she’s ‘disappointed’ in you, when you’d prefer her to shout at you for a few minutes and then forgive you. She struggled with gambling for years.
Second, and most importantly, her marriage was an unspoken controversy. This is the thing that makes Georgiana an incredible character to study. I read her story and I just couldn’t work it out in my head - why would you put up with this? But then, you have to remember that divorce wasn’t an option for women in those days. Women were property. They were commodities. Leaving a marriage because your husband preferred another woman was not an option.
It was the worst kept secret in society. Everyone knew that her best friend, Elizabeth ‘Bess’ Foster, lived with them and that Bess was her husband’s mistress. Georgiana had asked for Bess to live with them after she discovered that Bess’ sons had been taken away from her and she was living in awful circumstances. Georgiana was too good, too kind – and Bess took advantage. Trust me, Bess is the villain in this story, no matter how often she tried to set her story straight. Diary accounts from Georgiana’s friends show that nobody trusted her. They could see her for what she was -a schemer, a leech. But Georgiana couldn’t.
Bess stayed at Chatsworth and conducted a secret affair with her husband, which soon became public knowledge. Did Georgiana say anything? No. She let it carry on under her roof, without saying a word. In the film, she stands up for herself which is how it should have played out. But according to Amanda Foreman, the historian and writer of the book, this didn’t happen. Georgiana kept silent.
Although I wish I could shake her and tell her she deserves so much better, in a way I feel she shows a huge strength of character to put up with that. She continued her daily routine with dignity and carried on being a queen.
Now, this is when things get interesting and draws in another historical figure who I feel isn’t really known? At least, I didn’t know him, all I knew was that there are tea bags named after him.
The rumour is that she later fell in love with Charles Grey, a Whig politician (later Prime Minister - I KNOW RIGHT? YOU GO GEORGIANA!) who had dreams of a bright, new world where all men had the vote. They were like minded and they could talk about these dreams together. I adore how political Georgiana was and that she spoke publicly about her political associations in a time when women were expected to stay at home and mind their business. She actually brought about the trend of canvassing, where you go out into the streets and campaign for a party. Having Georgiana on side meant the Whigs became popular quickly - if anything, she became their figurehead. Anyway, I digress, but let me just say that she has so much depth. She is genuinely interesting.
Right, Charles Grey.
They had an affair and she became pregnant with his child. In short, she asked the Duke if she could leave him and be with Grey. After all, he was fucking her best friend and not giving a shit about her feelings. But, of course, the Duke refused. Hypocrite, yes. But the time period was different and he couldn’t risk the humiliation of being deserted by his wife – nor could she. Women who left their families were ravaged by society. She gave birth to Grey’s daughter, Eliza, in secret and the baby was raised by his family as Grey’s niece. Again, that is a testament to her character. I’m sure many women would have felt broken after that. But she wasn’t – she visited Eliza frequently (who, when she grew up, named her daughter Georgiana after her mother. I think she knew by then) and she continued to partake in social engagements.
What I love about her, aside from her strength, is how she challenges the stereotype of women of that time. In fact, she was way beyond her time. She was the one who started the trend for getting outside in the streets and campaigning for the Whigs. She was a WOMAN who was out in the streets campaigning, despite not even having a vote or even thinking her gender would one day have one, and she was so much more than just fashion and money. She was an intelligent badass who cared about how the country was run. She didn’t let gender stereotypes and restrictions hold her back. I love how no matter how shit her home life was, she didn’t let that bring her down. If anything, politics was her escape. It was where she could feel valued. She made friends with the Whigs, such as Charles Fox, and they wanted to hear her opinion. They needed her on their side because her opinion mattered. She mattered.
She was ahead of her time. She had a hard home life but she carried on, trying to make a difference and prove her worth. Georgiana is my home girl and I will stand up for her because no one else did.
I know this wasn’t a coherent piece. It was all over the place, right? But that’s what history does to me. I get excited. If I’m talking to you about Georgina, my hands will be all over the place and my voice will be rising in volume because I get so passionate about the subject. I wrote essays at uni for my history degree and they were so proper, just the way university dictates you write. All I wanted to write was ‘read how amazing this person is! Give me an A for enthusiasm!’ I once got a lower mark for an essay because I made the mistake of being too enthusiastic, writing a really in-depth profile on the historical figure, but forgot to answer the question… My tutor said he could tell I really enjoyed writing it but I didn’t actually fulfill the point of the essay. It wasn’t a harsh criticism - he was happy I enjoyed writing it but obviously, couldn’t grade me a high mark.
But that’s how I approach history. I could sit here and try to write something proper but I think that is one reason why history is often a disliked subject. It CAN be boring if taught badly.
I remember my history teacher in high school, Mr Pia, who was the best teacher I’ve ever had. He scared all the young students because he was so serious and never smiled and I tell you, I was scared when I found out he would be teaching me when I was in my final year. But, when I joined his class, he surprised us in a lesson about Austria. He played Mozart and said, ‘I thought I would try to evoke the right atmosphere!’
I fell in love with his teaching then and there.
THAT is what makes history a good subject. You need someone passionate, who looks at it differently. That’s how I would like to approach it. It may not be for some people but it works for me.
If Georgiana has peaked your interest, you can read the biography by Amanda Foreman which is incredible. I couldn’t put it down. Even give the film a go - Ralph Fiennes plays the Duke and Dominic Cooper (babe) is Charles Grey. It’s on Netflix. Spend your Sunday watching it. It’s a great adaptation.
35 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
merrisaur
Merrisaur
trappshawtyyy
you ain't widdit'
ohniria
Hell-o
kuroo-kuroo
the rooster says kroo kroo
larissadownerworld-blog
Untitled