Fighting Back in an Age of Impunity

Its the last essay of the year and the events going on in Gaza - and similar events elsewhere - had me pondering some thoughts for those who may feel powerless and like they can't do anything. It's not perfect, but its something. Full essay under the cut. Happy Holidays.

I feel like I increasingly start each of these essays with checking on folks and seeing how they’re doing following “the event” – with whatever “the event” is varying depending on what time of the year the essay is occurring in. When I first started thinking about what I may be writing for my last essay of 2023, I thought the worst event I’d have to think about was Azerbaijan’s assault on Artsakh, which resulted in over 100,000 ethnic Armenians fleeing their homes as Ilham Aliyev finally realized his genocidal dream of cleansing the region and forcing it fully into Azerbaijan by force.

Of course, then October 7th happened.

This is not to say that what happened with Artsakh should be forgotten about by any stretch of the imagination. We definitely shouldn’t forget about Armenia and Azerbaijan – especially as Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, continues to make aggressive statements suggesting it may attack the Republic of Armenia proper in order to secure a corridor to its exclave in Nakhchivan. This is still very important and deserves our attention.

At the same time, if you’ve been following world events at all since October 7th, you kinda know what the most pressing, soul-sucking issue of the moment is. In the weeks since the attacks launched by the Gaza-based Palestinian militant groups – spearheaded by the Islamist political-military movement HAMAS, which largely controls the enclave – Israel has used that unarguable tragedy as an excuse to launch a horrific campaign of violence of its own in revenge, the sheer scale and scope of which has left the Israeli bodycount of October 7th in the dust as more and more Palestinians are killed by the Israel Defense Forces with each passing day – most of them women and children.

I originally was going to shift focus and write something entirely about what’s going on in Gaza, but I was also not sure what more I could say that would be constructive and not simply venting to avoid exploding (something I do on Twitter on a regular basis). I also didn’t want to complete leave Armenia and Azerbaijan in the dust, because I felt there were a lot of parallels between the two situations and their histories (which makes sense since Azerbaijan and Israel have such a cozy relationship, with Israel being one of Azerbaijan’s main arms suppliers in its wars against Armenia and Armenians).

In the end, I decided I wanted to write about something that is more generally going on, and that we’ve seen in Israel’s campaign against Palestinians, Azerbaijan’s campaign against Armenia and Armenians, Russia’s war against Ukraine (which Putin says isn’t ending anytime soon in case you were curious), and other acts of aggression by hostile states and armed groups in what feels like every corner of the globe these days. Everywhere you look, it seems that fascistic states and groups are taking every possible opportunity to try and conquer and kill that which they covet or hate.

We are currently living through what I conceive of as a new “Age of Impunity” in international relations, of which the current assault on Gaza is only one example – though certainly the most egregious and barbaric of the moment. Such ages are not new, and have waxed and waned throughout history, but they all have one core theme in common: during their span, we see a drastic increase in aggression by those states and groups who are determined to hammer home the Thucydidean cliche that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

But there is a new rub to this tale as old as time. Now, in an age of an increasingly interconnected world via the internet and social media and smart phones and etc., aggressors are not just seeking to prove that might is right, but to gaslight us constantly as they do it, doggedly endeavoring to convince us that this state of affairs is not simply the glib, bleak reality that is allowed to persist in international relations, but is actually good and right and just and fair that those of us that dare question their narrative are insane and sick and even criminal for believing otherwise. To try and add further legitimacy or distance themselves from the acts of information warfare, such aggressors often enlist third parties as well who are aligned to them either ideologically or financially (i.e. they’re paid to).

This combination of consequence free mass violence combined with an aggressive campaign to make you feel insane for not thinking its actually good is enough to make anyone with a moral compass feel actually insane, or to feel incredibly depressed and distraught over it all. Its so easy to feel completely and totally powerless from events such as Gaza and more, boiling over inside with a sense of impotent rage, especially when it seems that all that a key set of individuals and governments would need to do to stop it all – or at least less the impact – is show a modicum of backbone and a slight bit of effort to go along with it, but they don’t.

However, it is important for us all to understand against this backdrop of slaughter, that we are not powerless – not completely. There are limits on our power as “normal” people, absolutely; but we are not totally powerless, and the longer we go on thinking that the longer this Age of Impunity will last – to say nothing of other negative states of affairs we’d rather not stick around. There are actions that we as people can take to try and effect better outcomes. These actions are often indirect, focusing on applying pressure in various forms on those who can actually do something or who can otherwise force someone else to do something, but are none the less impactful and not to be disregarded.

To the end of helping folks not feel powerless in the face of impunity and aggression and giving them a concept through which they can push back on aggression and fascism and authoritarianism worldwide, I’ve crafted an approach of my own. The approach I’ve conceived of is extremely simple, straightforward, broad, long-term and almost certainly incomplete – but a start. So, if the gifts you’re looking to get this holiday season are a shred of hope, a sense of purpose, a modicum of agency, and the ability to actually make an impact upon ongoing global events, let’s open up Santa’s big bag of toys and see what’s inside for all the good little guys, gals, and non-binary pals out there. Ho ho ho.

BLUF: “Don’t Shut Up”

I already warned you that my plan is pretty simple. What I haven’t warned you is that this plan, in a nutshell, may make some people roll their eyes and go “yeah, right, whatever” (or something more impolite), so consider yourself warned of that now.

So, the plan? Don’t shut up. Ok, obviously this is going to need more expounding upon.

To build upon “don’t shut up” in more detail, the plan is simply to not give up voicing your opposition to the unjustifiable acts of aggression going on throughout the world – whoever it is that is undertaking them, whenever they occur, and wherever they occur. This opposition can come in various forms, be it protests and various other forms of activism and civil disobedience, both physical and virtual, but it really can be boiled down to those three words: don’t shut up. Keep talking – shouting, rather – about what’s going on and don’t let people forget what’s going on.

Not to get defensive right off the bat, but I am anticipating some people reading this feeling a bit disappointed, dismissive (maybe to the point of eye-rolling), or frustrated with this simple approach. So I want to take a little time to push back gently before we get more into the nuts and bolts. I’m going to try and not go on for too long with this because I wrote this earlier and fully made half of the essay me being defensive so be thankful I went back to make this part shorter.

First, to those saying “that’s it?” I would say, ‘yes’; but with the caveat that while its a simple answer, its also a simple problem (which I will get into more detail about later). To those saying “that won’t work,” I would say “based on what?” I feel the problem with that strain of preemptive defeatism, dismissiveness, and doomerism are a uniquely American-centric perspective that is focused only on our own experiences – and also, a very recent and limited view of them. All you need to do is look to the rest of the world to see instances where mass movements that refused to be silenced and maintained pressure accomplished the ousting of various dictators and autocrats (I picked relatively recent examples here, but you can look even further back). I know we’re all tired and demoralized and depressed (hence why I’m writing this), but all you need do is widen the aperture a bit and look beyond our shores to see that things are not as hopeless as they seem. That doesn’t mean that there are quick and easy solutions (something else I’ll get into – we’re in this for the long haul), but again, that doesn’t mean that we are powerless and that our actions mean nothing.

Ok, I got my defensive preemptive pushback on doomerism out of the way and I did it in two paragraphs instead of a page and a half. You’re welcome. So let’s actually get into the nuts and bolts.

Using the potential criticism of “that’s it?” as a starting off point, I will concede again that t his is a very simple approach. But, I would also assert that the activity that this approach is crafted to counter is actually fairly simple in its own right when you think about it. It makes sense that a relatively simple problem demands a relatively simple answer (note that just because the idea is simple doesn’t mean the execution will be quick or easy, but we’ll get to that).

Regardless of the approach or the medium through which they are attempting it, in the information sphere, the ultimate goal of an aggressor to is to silence criticism and to boost its own narratives and supporters. If aggressors can’t coerce or cajole you to their side, they’ll settle for getting you to shut up by whatever means are at their disposal – which is just as good to them; it doesn’t matter if they don’t actually have a lot of popular support at home or abroad, but as long as they can silence dissent and criticism and keep their narrative as the main one, they can just keep on doing what they’re doing.

This can take multiple different forms: drowning you out with torrents of useless, twisted, or outright false information, intimidating you through hostility and harassment, depressing you by making you feel weak and powerless and convincing you that there is absolutely nothing that can stop them (potentially giving you a genuine mental breakdown through their gaslighting), and mental and emotional exhaustion from some or all of what was previously described, just to name a few different methods. These methods may be utilized by the aggressors themselves, or through various allies, partners, and proxies – be they other states and organizations various individuals who are consciously or unconsciously boosting the aggressor’s narratives and attacking the aggressor’s detractors. But the end goal of all of these methods remains the same in every case, but in different guises: to shut you up. If the aggressor’s goal is that simple, it make sense that our response doesn’t need to be that complicated either: deny them their objective by simply refusing to be silenced and, in fact, continuously increasing that pressure.

If information is a domain in warfare, it is probably appropriate to think of your role in it not as a soldier in the army of a peer competitors in a high-end conventional fight. Rather, you should think of yourself as a fighter in an insurgent army, and as this information warfare as an insurgency or rebellion or an uprising rather than the information equivalent of a conventional war (at least not at this stage; we have a few more stages of Mao’s guide to get through first in this analogy). If you conceive of it that way, it can make your task seem even more daunting, but then it also can reveal the inherent advantages that we have in our approach and the challenges it creates for an aggressor trying to manage information.

The Cognitive Insurgency of Attrition

I’ve talked about insurgency and counter-insurgency in the physical domains of warfare before at great length, with my main takeaway being that counter-insurgency is almost always a losing game for whoever is acting as the COIN force. Unless they are prepared to make significant political concessions, they are likely to never win; the best they can ever hope for is to not lose – which will require constant fighting and expenditure of resources of all kinds, indefinitely (something that few countries, even reasonably prosperous and powerful ones, can hope to keep up).

Recalling that takeaway, your advantage and the disadvantage of the aggressor becomes clearer. When I said earlier that really all you have to do is not shut up, I really meant it, because as long as you and others refuse to be gaslit and continue to speak out against particular aggression and injustices, the aggressor is failing at the primary objective they have regarding you. As long as you exist and continue to act and speak out, they will continue to have to expend time and resources to try and counter you. The struggle with the aggressor becomes a battle of wills, and by simply continuing to exist and refusing to be silenced, you are wearing them down in a war of attrition. The more they are worn down, the more likely they are to make mistakes and to show more of their true colors, and the full extent of the horror becomes harder and harder for more and more actors (be they people, organizations, states, and etc.) to ignore and turn a blind eye to, and the pressure mounts to take actual action.

This whole approach and the idea of not shutting up and not giving up is closely tied to another idea, which is that “bullying works” (another thing I originally had in a section unto itself, for another peek behind the curtain, but decided it wasn’t dissimilar enough to separate out). As you refuse to be silenced and continue to speak out and apply pressure, one form of that pressure, is in effect, “bullying.” Basically, making sure that those who are either taking part in various acts of aggression or who are facilitating it or supporting indirectly won’t get a moments peace in their lives as long as they continue to do so. They need to be shown that people will not forget what’s going on and will not go away and will be reminding those who are carrying out out aggression or supporting it at every possible opportunity and be making their lives very difficult for as long as it takes and for as much as it takes until change for the better occurs. Remember kids: bullying by punching down (figuratively), is bad; but bullying by punching up (again, figuratively), is not only good, but necessary for a healthy society!

The inherent downside to this overall approach, of course, is that it is a long-term one. This is not a single battle, but a broader campaign in the wider war against aggression and authoritarianism and fascism. This in its own right may be discouraging to some, but also a bitter pill that must be swallowed. To be perfectly clear: this is not me saying that we shouldn’t bother trying to apply pressure and affect change on issues in the short term. To use our primary example of Gaza once more, we should absolutely be trying in the short term to bring more pressure to bear to bring about a lasting ceasefire and greater humanitarian relief and more in Palestine. However, we’d be deluding ourselves if we believed any action we take right now would suddenly and decisively end the occupation and fundamentally change the political status quo in Palestine in the short term.

As discouraging as this reality can be, it should not dissuade us from taking action, but compel us to gear up for the long fight. Much as the right is willing and able to do with its policy goals at home and abroad, we need to undertake more generational and multi-generational efforts to achieve our aims in all areas – especially when it comes to foreign policy and international relations. Like an actual insurgent force fighting an occupying army or authoritarian regime, we must take a long-term view. This long-term view may encompass short term surges and bursts of activity to achieve specific, tangible, secondary and tertiary goals (like a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, or what have you), but its primary goals and planning must be fundamentally protracted in nature.

Even if you understand, agree with, and accept the protracted nature of this approach, that doesn’t mean it can’t still be demoralizing in the short term. However, there are reasons to be optimistic, because if you look around you can see the signs that this approach is already bearing fruit. In the case of Gaza, you can see signs that the dedication to not “shutting up” about the plight of the Palestinian people on the receiving end of Israel’s military campaign in how the Israeli government and its supporters are either becoming more deranged in their defensiveness for their actions, with some Israeli government officials being increasingly mask off about their genocidal intentions towards Palestinians and their homes, as well as increasingly dismissive towards ideas such as the two-state solution – which governments like that of the United States continue to cling to. We also see this in the reaction of some states supportive of Israel, such as the United Kingdom, where now former-Home Secretary Suella Braverman labeled all pro-Palestinian protesters in the country as “hate marchers” (and was fired from her post not long after that).

In other cases, where governments and groups supporting Israel haven’t gone fully deranged, its becoming increasingly difficult for them to look the other way in the face of Israel’s mask-off violence and aggression. Even as US President Joe Biden continues to stand by Israel doggedly and assert its right to “defend itself”, the administration has internally squirmed at Israeli actions (as well as the potential for escalation). While the administration continues to fruitlessly try and have it both ways (which is fundamentally impossible and only wastes time as more civilians die), the fact that they’re even attempting to do that rather than continue to support Israel wholeheartedly shows that the pressure is mounting. This is born out by polls in the United States that show that support for Palestinians is rising. If aggressors and those running support for them are lashing out or are becoming more desperate in their attempts to control the narrative or silence opposition or even have a leg to stand on in their support, those are signs that the pressure that countless regular people are bringing to bear with their humanity is having an impact. Don’t give up now.

I am once again asking you not to give in to despair

We can’t stop everything going on in the world on our own as individuals, that’s true. And posting alone also won’t stop anything – that’s also true (as much as a lot of us wish it would – or convinced ourselves it will). But we are absolutely not powerless, and we must avoid falling into that trap, or the aggressors win right off the bat.

You are fighting in one particular campaign in a much wider war against aggression and fascism and authoritarianism the world over. There are other fronts that exist now and there will be more in the future – both physical, and virtual. But combat of various sorts (literal and figurative) will be required on all of them in order to achieve successes. It is a collective effort; we are are all in this together, in numerous different ways. To crib a line from the trade union anthem Solidarity Forever: “yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one, but the union makes us strong.”

The broader struggle against fascism and aggression will be a long war, and all likelihood, it will likely never end in an absolute victory, and only be one in a series of wars and struggles to come (again, both figurative and literal). As I’ve always said in my writing, part of the reason I’m sure people like me will still have a job even in a better world is because there will always be authoritarian aggressors of some kind who can convince others to fight and die for them in service of their rancid ideology and hatred (hence why I say a “better world” and not a “perfect” one). But even if we there will always be another enemy around the corner in some shape or form, we can set ourselves up to be stronger, smarter, more united, more compassionate, and better prepared for the additional struggles and wars ahead.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that everything I just talked about isn’t exclusively for responding to acts of aggression abroad, but is perfectly applicable at home as well. The approach that I’ve laid out can be applied to fascist aggressors of the domestic political variety, just as much as they can be applied to aggressor states and groups overseas engaging in armed aggression. In the United States in particular, we face an ever increasing war from within. Even if the political crisis in the United States doesn’t escalate to the level of a full scale civil war (something that I certainly don’t want, that I imagine most sane people don’t want, and something we should all work to avoid), we still find ourselves in an American Years of Lead situation at bare minimum that will very likely only get worse as we approach the 2024 election. Again, we can see some promising signs that these approaches are actually working, from the progressive gains that have been made in recent off-year elections on matters such as abortion, legalization of marijuana, and other progressive causes – many of which have been in response to right-wing forces doubling down on their extreme positions in desperation as normal people increasingly point out and deride their “sicko” behavior and refuse to let it go unanswered.

However, as heartening as these victories are, polling shows that the 2024 election is looking increasingly fraught, and nothing should be taken for granted in the eleven months that remain before election day 2024 – especially as former-President Donald Trump has been perfectly blunt about what his plans are if he makes it back into the White House (to say nothing of the coterie of other sickos and chuds that he will put into positions of power in his administration if he wins). While far from the only tool at your disposal, the approach I have laid out previously for pushing back on the narratives of fascism, authoritarianism and aggression abroad may very well make a real difference in the rhetorical and political battles against those same insidious forces at home. Keep that in mind on the road to November 5th, 2024 (or, if you live outside the United States, to road to whatever political battles you have to face in the near future).

We live in particularly bleak times in general, there’s no arguing that. This current Age of Impunity we find ourselves in has no shortage of dictators, tyrants, and fascists who are eager to take advantage of global instability and shifting geopolitics to take things they’ve long coveted, settle scores and seek revenge, and carry out a laundry list of other heinous acts. But even in those acts of aggression, we can find hope. For example, in Myanmar, a diverse coalition of varied ethnic groups – spearheaded by young people – are pushing the fascist junta back on its heels in that country’s civil war. While their battle is far from over, the progress they’ve made in recent weeks since launching a new offensive against the junta has been remarkable. Wherever we can, we need to grab onto examples of maintaining persistence, applying pressure, and not giving up hope – whether its on literal battlefields, or political and ideological ones. We need to take the progress and victories where we can, to remind us why we’re doing any of this at all: because we believe a better world is not only possible, but necessary and inevitable. It is on that note, I leave you on this last essay of 2023. I’ll be back with another by mid-March at the absolute latest for the first essay of 2024 (God only knows what I’ll be writing about by then, but we’ll see where Mr. Bones’ Wild Ride takes us all). For those of you who are celebrating, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday Season, and also a Happy New Year to you all. Please, wherever and whenever you’re able, even while you all try to keep up the struggle, try to find some time to rest and be kind to yourself because we all need that. See you in 2024. Stay safe.

when a lovely flame dies, smoke gets in your eyes

OR: what were we supposed to take away from episode 3 if not ‘bucky is a war widow’

I used to talk about this a lot but 

IDW Prowl is probably one of the most complex characters in the comics and I absolutely hate it when hes reduced down to “the asshole character”

Cause like

Yeah sure hes got a bit of a stick up his ass

But I feel like people just end there analysis of him there

Has he committed a lot of war crimes and done unethical stuff

Yes

But so has literally EVERYONE else in this universe

Starscream is literally the pinnacle of war crimes

The comics make a point calling out even Optimus for his questionable actions and orders during the war with the Dinobots saying he makes them do the dirty work for him

Megatron literally commits genocide and yet his story ends with an alternate version of him going free and exploring the universe with the LL

The literal war lord was treated better and is looked upon more positively than Prowl and I think it just came down to how fucked Prowl got by the writers

Because while Megatrons redemption was all in your face and you got a shit ton of flashbacks that try to justify the eventual atrocities he would commit you don’t get that with Prowl

Even when Prowl is absolutely in the right you constantly have it disregarded by characters making jokes about him overreacting (being mad OP is sending the space tyrant away with free reign of his own ship isn’t overreacting btw-) and as such you start to think of him as a genuinely irrational character when hes not

Prowl is bad at keeping the relationships he forms yes 

But he is not always at fault for that

While his relationship with CD ended poorly Chromedome is also shown to be kinda of a dick sometimes and commits his fair share of fucked up things such as when he literally ATTACKS PROWL AND FORCES HIS WAY INTO HIS MIND TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS ACTIONS WHEN PROWL THREATENS TO TELL REWIND ABOUT THE SHITTY STUFF HE DID IN HIS PAST

This leads to Prowls inevitable snowball out of control when this attack leads to an opening for Bombshell (I think its been a while since I read the comics) to use his tech to mind control him forcing him into combining with the contructicons

Something we learn is an immensely intimate thing with their minds being kinda melded 

This was something Prowl did not want 

And when all was said and done and he was calmed down he still had to live with that gesalt he was forced into with them following him around like fanboys

Nobody ever even really stopped to check in on him 

And as such he understandable went a little bit insane

He had just faced an immensely traumatic invasion of his body and mind and on top of stress form feeling like everything was out of his control and like he couldn’t stop the bad things from happening alongside bitter emotions being brought back up with a return visit to Earth and reunion with spike AND the fact that he feels like Optimus doesn’t trust him and like hes just letting Starscream do whatever he want (something that understandably freaks him out seeing as how he spent 4 million years fighting Starscream) he just kinda snaps

He trys to destroy the space bridge so that no one else can leave or get through and so he can regain some semblance of control

Is it wrong

Yes

But he was not in a good state of mind and no one was helping him at all 

And immediately following his arrest afterward Prowl is confronted by OP who is supposed to be his friend and when Prowl doesn’t say the right things to him to placate him Optimus’ response is to punch him out a window and beat the shit out of him

And not being given any room to breath this is immediately follow up my him getting kidnapped by Tarantulas who is very obviously an impactful and negative part of his past

Prowl just has bad event, one after the other, happen to him over and over again and not only does no one check up on him afterwards to see if hes okay but everyone actively makes fun of him for being understandable unstable

Prowl is a fucking tragedy and not many people seem to be able to see beyond what characters in the comics think of him

it’s snowing. maybe they’ll brush hands to “share warmth.” or maybe they’ll just keep pining forever. [ft. different color palettes under the cut]

And with that, 2000 years of history and 10+ years of an animated adaption later, Attack on Titan is over.

I wasn't planning on making an essay post about this but like all of my essay posts, it got crazy out of hand, so here we are. I have a lot to say on it and the more I wrote, the more I realized exactly what the Attack on Titan finale was about. It's cathartic. It's also kind of a big shitpost but not for the reasons you might think.

Spoilers for the Attack on Titan finale ahead! CW: DISCUSSION OF WAR AND GENOCIDE AHEAD!

Now for anyone who knows what I'm about to talk about (and anyone who follows my stuff here), I'm sure you're wondering , what side do I fall on in regards to Attack on Titan's ending? Am I about to talk shit about it? It's very divisive and somewhat inconclusive. It followed the exact ending in the manga which, while expected, was still disappointing to many who had hoped the anime would take some other path.

But I have to ask, could there have been any other way?

Eren committed mass genocide, bordering on extinction of the entire human race. There was no way that he was gonna come out of it redeemed or as a hero, and he knew it. He went straight up Walter White core here and like Walter White, he is not a hero.

The fact that the Marlayans have been constantly going to war with other countries using Eldians as their personal soldiers goes to show that for countries that seek out conquest, there's no target too small or insignificant that can't be marked as an "enemy", and we see that reflected in Eren as well, in his pursuing of "freedom", an ever-moving goalpost that can never truly be satisfied.

The Jaegerists were hellbent on creating a new empire on the bloodshed of Marley - 'an eye for an eye', so to speak.

Nothing was ever going to truly satisfy either 'side' in the conflict of humanity vs. Eldians because such conflicts' origins have been obfuscated in hundreds of years of history, propaganda, and generational trauma that has repeated itself for so long that many don't even know what they're fighting for anymore, aside from one thing - that they don't want to suffer, that they shouldn't have to suffer for the actions of their ancestors, that they want peace and happiness but don't know where to start with taking the first step.

I think people are disappointed in this ending because, let's face it, it's anime, and it's an anime adaption that took years to finish. We always want to see some kind of vindication from stories like these, but I think in having vindication, it ultimately removes the point altogether of what's being said.

As much as we may try to fight it, try to deny it, the course of human history travels in a circle. Conflict will always arise. History is written by the victors, and those victors will be seen as heroes by whichever side they're fighting for regardless of what heinous acts they may have committed to justify their salvation. And after all of that conflict, regardless of the result - time goes on, and new conflicts arise.

But I don't think that means we have to succumb to grief and suffering and that's a point that I'm seeing missed in a lot of the discussion around the finale. There's a very powerful scene between Armin and Zeke, in which Armin talks about how he was born to run up the hill with Mikasa and Eren. He recognizes fully that if his life isn't meant to be long, he can still cherish those small moments that he thinks back on fondly, the moments that defined his life with the people he cared about.

And that's really all life is. Small moments and experiences that stick with us until the end. The very act of being born in and of itself is a cosmic miracle that gives us the chance to experience things that bring us joy and stay with us forever - however short or long that 'forever' may be. We take these small moments for granted when we're comfortable, but we look for them the most when we're suffering.

If I can relate all this to another piece of media that says the same thing - albeit with a much brighter ending - FF XIV: Endwalker also asks a similar question to Attack on Titan - is the only meaning in life to suffer and die? Of course, by its end, we learn that while death and suffering is an inevitable part of life - not something that should be avoided - it shouldn't persuade us to give in to fear and despair as a constant state of being. And I think Attack on Titan goes for a very similar approach, albeit slightly more as a cautionary tale - a nihilistic reminder that ultimately, the losses and victories we find in our current point of history are still just that, a single point, a blip that will be forgotten until it's ultimately repeated, and there's no escaping that.

It cautions us that freedom cannot exist without constant vigilance for war and conflict. It cautions us that our values and core beliefs for attaining freedom, love and happiness can be twisted into a weapon to cause harm, vindication gained at the cost of another. It cautions us that when left in the wrong hands, power can and will be abused by the ignorant while propagandizing itself as "the greater good".

So why not just find the joy that we can? The friendships, the little moments, the things that bring us happiness even if only temporary. Conflict is inevitable, suffering is inevitable, but that doesn't mean life isn't worth living. "Happiness" is not a tangible end point - it's the side effect of living a meaningful life that's true to yourself.

Attack on Titan is over. Some will argue the ending was the only way, others will argue that there could have been another way and that the anime adaption had the chance to change it but still didn't for reasons beyond their comprehension.

But isn't that the whole point? We'll argue. We'll bargain. Many of the arguments made will reinforce our own beliefs further rather than sway us. Many of us will insist there had to be another way, just as Armin insisted that this couldn't have been the only way, that humanity must have had another option. Meanwhile, many of us will acknowledge that at the end of the day, this is the story Isayama wanted to tell, and regardless of whether or not it makes him an idiot toying with his audience and admitting defeat by lampshading it in the penultimate scene of Eren admitting to his own idiocy, this was the power given to him and he used it in the best way he knew how.

Much like in any conflict, there's one thing that unites both sides - the human need for joy, connection, and freedom.

We might not agree on how Attack on Titan ended, but we can agree that it was a hell of a ride, and I hope we can all agree that it was worth riding, even if it wasn't satisfying for everyone in the end. It brought many people together regardless of their backgrounds, experiences, and differences, and connected them through something they all loved for over ten years. And despite how big a part of our lives it was, life will still go on, and we'll move on to other things to watch, enjoy, and argue over. Isayama will move on to whatever awaits him next, knowing fully well that his choice was his own, that he created the series he wanted to create regardless of how people feel about it. We'll all look for our own forms of joy and happiness as life moves on around us, as conflicts come and go.

Isn't that really what freedom is at the end of the day?

okay i meant to make this post forever ago but my personal opinion on why so many people were so dissatisfied with lightfalll (disclaimer: i am not one of these people, i love lightfall SO much), is that lightfall was kind of subjected to a really aggressive marketing campaign.

like, stick with me here, i feel like almost all the lightfall release content (the trailers especially) were so focused on battling the witness, how this battle has been centuries in the making and this is the Second Collapse Finally Finding Us, only for there to be,,, no real resolution. the end was left on such a severe cliffhanger, but not only that, there was NO battle with the witness. the witness didn't even seem to be having a hard time at all with what we WERE throwing at it.

and for narrative reasons *i* am obsessed with this ending; in terms of storytelling i adore practically every creative decision that was made in lightfall, but i think the reason that so many people were so upset about it is because lightfall had such intense marketing and was rooted in the implication that this was the End of Days, only for us to get almost no closure, and instead so many more questions.

(there's also something to be said, i think, about the fact that the people who ARE most upset about this are like, the youtube gamer dudebros who's content is very very often rooted in the aggressive, violence-and-warfare, pvp-centric, no-interest-in-lore approach to destiny, and that the people i've seen primarily ENJOYING the narrative decisions (or at least being understanding about it) are the artists and writers and loremasters of the fandom, but i'm not quite sure,,, how to expand on that point.)

blame game trains in star wars are always so funny because if there are two parties directly involved in any incident, you can blame the one whos immediate fault it is, the one(s) who had jack shit to do with the issue, you can go above everyone's heads and blame palpatine, but if you really want to get to the bottom of things you blame george lucas

wip wednesday: made a HUGE amount of progress this week (for context—purple is unfinished & yellow is finished; last week all of them were purple) … i am in the home stretch here

I wonder about 13. If Caesar really was unlikely to face prosecution, why the Civil War? We know that had he been elected Consul again, the threat of prosecution would have virtually disappeared. If he could have crossed the pomerium without fear, why wouldn't he?

From @solidorange69 on my misconceptions post. I've made a few posts before about why Caesar's civil war erupted:

Why I don't believe Caesar was at risk for prosecution, and alternate explanations for his behavior.

The Road to War: A Timeline of Caesar and Pompey's Breakup

Erich Gruen argues that multiple factions strained Caesar and Pompey's alliance to the breaking point.

Robert Morstein-Marx puts a lot of blame on the anti-Caesarian hardliners in 51-49 BCE, and believes there were genuine ideological differences in each side's arguments, as well as several missteps that eroded trust between Caesar and Pompey over the course of 50 BCE.

Fred Drogula also has a good discussion of the civil war's causes in his biography of Cato. He also faults Cato and the anti-Caesar hardliners, and believes they were trying to bluff Caesar into stepping down from his command. They misjudged, badly.

Gruen and Morstein-Marx don't agree with the prosecution theory; Drogula and some other historians do. Personally, I think Morstein-Marx's arguments are the most thorough and plausible. If you want to judge for yourself, check out Drogula's Cato the Younger (chapter 7), Morstein-Marx's Julius Caesar and the Roman People (pp. 259-263, 622-624) and Gruen's Last Generation of the Roman Republic (chapter 11).

STOP GETTING INTO FEAR AND HUNGER!!!!!!! IF THOSE BEAUTIFULLY CONSTRUCTED CHARACTERS GET ASSASSINATED BY FANDOM BECAUSE EVERYONE'S BREEZING THROUGH THE GAME CENSOR MOD ON AND BEING EXPOSED ONLY BY OTHER PEOPLE'S MEMES AND BADPOSTING I WILL TURN INTO A CORN COB AND EXPLODE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes art is meant to be uncomfortable and messy and scary to retain its quality depth and message and if you are not ready to absorb&process it the way it was intended to be maybe you are not ready to get into that art in the first place

dude i have a question that might be considered out of pocket but i need your brilliant take on it

i was rewatching the finale last night (because i like to cause myself pain) and i got to the part where aemond said he wanted to make a gift of luke's eye to his mother

so my question is

genuinely, what the hell do you think alicent would have done if aemond returned with luke's fucking eye😭😭😭

lmao welcome to my entirely unrequested character study of aemond. short answer: she'd be horrified, and that scene more than anything speaks to the beautiful fraught asymmetry of alicent and aemond's relationship, palpable and tragic and woefully understudied.

alicent does not desire violence and does not particularly respect violent people. e.g., we can imagine characters who might have been heartened or reassured — even if interspersed with guilt — that larys had been willing to kill to advance their interests. alicent is never shown to appreciate this silver lining; she is deeply remorseful and properly disturbed. the end of the season finds her attempting to stave off catastrophic violence surrounded by men who are effectively unbothered by the thought. aemond is one of these men. he is also her favourite man. i think this breaks her heart a little.

i'll preface this by stating again how much i sympathise with aemond, who is really neither a slick badass — his facade — nor a calculating psychopath — his caricature. aemond spends his childhood awash in a feeling of inescapable, humiliating powerlessness, and everything he becomes is a direct response to this experience, including his unfailing loyalty to his mother, his sole childhood advocate and ally. but aemond clocks alicent's powerlessness, too; and probably at no other time more palpably than during the quarrel at driftmark. viserys leaves her in the lurch; cole backs out when the rubber hits the road. when he tells her i gained a dragon, i don't think he's actually saying it was a fair exchange; clearly he doesn't really feel that way — he's still seeking his revenge years and years later (and fair enough). rather, i think he's telling her — and importantly, telling the people he perceives to be her enemies — we have real power now. we're safe. i got you.

aemond consistently strives to be alicent's one reliable ally. aemond also spends his life trying to make himself more powerful, and, if i were to really speculate, probably hasn't determined within his own heart whether he's done so to protect himself and his mother in the conflict he's seen presaged at driftmark, or in excited anticipation of that conflict as an opportunity to seek revenge. herein we find the crucial difference in how alicent and aemond each perceive safety, and perceive power — alicent thinks safety is found in the absence of violence, and power is the ability to be free from it; aemond seems to believe safety is found in a monopoly on violence and power is the ability to do it. it's entirely unrelated, and not to be insensitive by mixing factual and fictional tragedy, but i think sometimes about something prince harry once said about his childhood experiences watching the press chase and torment princess diana — his frustration knowing he would one day be a man, that he would one day be able to protect her, but not yet — and the anger, the frustration that caused. i append to aemond, though fictional, a very similar pain.

regardless, to whatever end, aemond's intention is to be feared and to be dangerous. he tells cole i don't give a fuck about tourneys for the express purpose of tipping us off: aemond is trying to become as effective as possible at killing real opponents in a real conflict. two things here: first, though aemond may not care for tourneys like the knights Rhaenys calls green as summer grass, he's equally inexperienced; he also doesn't know — cannot know — the true meaning of war or the costs associated. (see, e.g., his crucial misunderstanding of the nature of vhagar.) and second, tragically, though he's probably (if perhaps only partially) done so for her, he's become exactly the kind of man who has left alicent feeling trapped and perpetually terrified. olivia cooke somewhere noted that alicent lives in trepidation surrounded by 'psychopath men', and part of this fear seems to be what these men will do in her name and under the guise of advancing her interests. e.g., she knows larys' murder of lyonel did double duty. Tis only a look of pride, Ser Criston. Larys is the new lord of Harrenhal. to have become somewhat afraid of aemond — apprehensive, at least, of his adult nature — will likely only grow harder on her and harder to ignore. and the same will likely come of aemond's unintentional killing of lucerys, and would come had aemond returned instead with his severed eye: horror at the act; guilt and terror and frustration at the knowledge — however deeply buried — that aemond would have done it not for her, or for their family, but for himself; and that once again, she has been made the unwilling catalyst for the very violence she strives so painfully to prevent.

Firewatch (March 2024 edition, Part 1)

Yes, finally, the first War Takes essay for 2024. In it, I decided to take some time to consider some of the major flashpoints for crises and conflicts in the world, and I ended up writing so much I had to divide it up to post it on Tumblr (lmao). Part 1, under the cut. Enjoy.

It occurred to me recently, looking at my feeds on social media, that I've been (for the most part) laser focused on what's going on in Palestine and the broader Middle East. To a lesser, but still strong, extent, I've also primarily been focused on the state of the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine. While I think there are very good reasons for the focus on those two conflicts, its also made me realize how much more that has been going on in the world of conflicts and crises that has passed me by (or that I've intended to talk about and then completely forgotten about by the end of the day).

With all that in mind, for my first quarterly essay of 2024, I decided now was a good time to go around the horn, widen the aperture, and identify some other ongoing armed conflicts and burgeoning crises that are important to keep an eye on. It's been a while since I've done one of these in general, so I felt it was overdue (it also works out well for me because I had exactly zero ideas on what I wanted to write about for this one so consider this my equivalent of the teacher wheeling the big TV into the classroom when they're hung over).

I want to try and formalize this as a recurring piece that I do (at least) once a year to update folks on important goings on in the field of conflict and warfare, so with that in mind I have a fun new flashy name for it: "Firewatch." This isn't just me trying to be cute, but putting it in the context of "fires" also actually helps me a bit with trying to categorize things by severity and level of concern that (in my opinion) you should probably have at this moment in time.

Before we get into things, a few up front disclaimers. First: these are all entirely subjective assessments based on my own personal analysis and knowledge, with my being stronger in some areas and admittedly weaker in others; take it all with a grain of salt and know I'm not perfect; in that same vein, I picked conflicts that I thought in my opinion were the most important to keep an eye on at the moment, but that doesn't mean that others aren't worth your attention (again, this is all subjective and I'm not trying to overtly dismiss anything). Second: these are all based on what information I could find at the time of writing, and the situations could all change rapidly (my Haiti piece in this was literally changing as I was writing it), so keep that in mind too and know that this could all be made out of date rapidly by new events. Third and final: again, I'm not perfect; if I missed anything, I swear it wasn't a purposeful omission and I apologize and please let me know so I can reassess my analysis; I'm only one guy, and the internet is getting harder to search these days; I'm doing my best to just try and keep folks on the Left informed about what's going on.

Ok, with all that out of the way, let's dig in to what's going on with the fires out there.

Roaring Flames

These are the conflicts that are at the point that not only are things on fire, the flames are rising and being actively fanned in many cases. These are conflicts you've probably already heard about in between other pieces of news, but may not have as much depth on compared to other ongoing events (unless you're a weirdo like me who soaks up conflict news like a sponge).

Sudan

Sudan has been locked in a civil war (its third since independence, if you're counting) for what will be a year this coming April. Coming on the heels of years of political upheaval and a prior coup against a civilian transitional government launched by the Sudanese Armed Forces in 2021, the war was sparked by an attempt by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces to then seize power from the SAF back in April of 2023 amid a power struggle between the two forces. When the RSF coup went off half-cocked and failed to immediately take over the entire country from the SAF, you'd probably have been making the smart bet by putting your money on the SAF as opposed to the RSF. While both forces were roughly comparable in numbers of personnel (a lesson in why you shouldn't build a parallel military to compete with your military), the SAF had all the advantages in heavy firepower, possessing tanks, helicopters, jets, and so on.

However, the SAF has proven unable to snuff out the RSF over the past ten months or so of fighting, with the group proving remarkably resilient in its ability to take and hold territory throughout Sudan. This is despite the fact that the RSF is widely feared and hated, descendant from the infamous Janjaweed militias that were used by Bashir's regime during the War in Darfur to commit numerous crimes against humanity. In fact, after much of 2023 being a stalemate for both sides in Sudan, the RSF has made notable gains against the SAF in recent weeks and months, with the momentum of the war seemingly shifting dramatically in its favor. Part of this has had to do with increasing international involvement, with the leaders on both sides of the civil war seeking and gaining foreign support on the battlefield, such as supposed weapons support provided by the United Arab Emirates to the RSF, or even reported support by the Ukrainian special operations forces to the SAF (facing off against the late-Yevgeny Prigozhin's Russian PMC Wagner Group who have also been providing support to the RSF). However, in recent days the SAF appears to have had a rebound of its own, securing some high profile reversals against the RSF, showing that the outcome of this war is anything but certain just yet.

The international involvement in Sudan belies why this conflict should be on your radar. Obviously, a civil war in any country with almost 50 million people, like Sudan, will have widespread repercussions. Add in the fact that Sudan is located along the strategically important Red Sea (very topical at the moment, as you may have noticed), and also lays astride the Nile river, and you see even more reasons why international interest in Sudan is high. Add in the potential of the RSF winning the war and taking control of Sudan after having cut a swatch of indiscriminate destruction across the country, and more problems seem almost immediately around the corner (let me be clear, the SAF junta is by no means 'good', but the RSF is a unique kind of bad in its own right). An additional complicating factor comes from Sudan being between Egypt and Ethiopia, which have both sparred and threatened one another over usage of the Nile River (to say nothing of Ethiopia's own internal issues, which will come up later). But if you don't care about any of that, there's the sheer human cost in terms of civilians brutally killed, forced to flee their homes, and potentially starve. In so many words: this is a conflict to keep a close eye on if you haven't been already, both for reasons of geopolitics and of simple humanity.

Myanmar (Burma)

Thinking about Sudan makes me depressed, because all I can think about is all the innocent civilians caught in between bad (the SAF) and worse (the RSF), just trying to survive it all. But if there's one conflict going on right now that actually gives me some degree of hope for the people involved – and for humanity in general, really – its the ongoing civil war in Myanmar (AKA: Burma), which I've covered to varying extents in several past essays of mine.

Like with Sudan, the initial spark that eventually led to Myanmar's war was a coup d'etat. The Myanmar Armed Forces (commonly referred to as the "Tatmadaw" - or more preferred by those resisting the military: the "Sit-Tat") had already previously been in total control of the country of decades, and the coup came after years of apparent shifts towards democratization in the country. However, this was all dashed in the course of a day on February 1st, 2021, after the election held the previous November failed to deliver the result the military wanted.

An ethnically and religiously diverse country, Myanmar was already host to a number of political and paramilitary organizations that have waged low-level conflict against the central government (largely dominated by the Burmans or Bamar ethnic group, which makes up around two thirds of Myanmar's population) for decades, in search of better treatment and varying degrees of autonomy. But the brazenness of the 2021 coup and the incredibly brutal and violent crackdown by the military that ensued against those who openly opposed the usurpation of democracy, has served to not only energize and encourage resistance to shift to outright armed opposition, but also galvanize a broad front against the Sit-Tat and create a new sense of unity between the People's Defense Force stood up by the anti-coup National Unity Government to fight back against the Sit-Tat (many of their members overwhelmingly young people and students from the Bamar majority who protested the initial coup) and the preexisting ethnic armed groups.

The unity and energy that the combined opposition is bringing to the table seems to be paying dividends, as in recent weeks and months the junta appears to be on the ropes. Previously propped up with support from Russia and China, the Sit-Tat has been left wanting in that department as Russia has been increasingly distracted by its own war of aggression in Ukraine and China has been perturbed by the junta's inability to control Myanmar's shared border with China (which is one of several factors that has led China to lend support to some of the opposition groups and attempt to play a double game and preserve its relationships and influence in the country no matter how the war turns out). Due in no small part to the drying up of support to the junta and increased coordination and unity among the opposition, Sit-Tat has lost significant ground to the resistance in a series of offensives that have been ongoing since late last year. The situation has become so dire for the Sit-Tat that it has reportedly had to resort to enforce conscription for the first time in years (a move that has made many living in Sit-Tat controlled territory reportedly very eager to move out of it, for obvious reasons).

The international isolation of the Junta and its constant reversals on the battlefield seem to suggest that its living on borrowed time. However, many questions about this war remain to be answered; not simply when the Junta will fall, but what comes next? There is admittedly a possibility that the situation in Myanmar may not improve once the Sit-Tat is gone, or could even become worse – with some worrying the country could be ripped apart entirely. The prospect of infighting among the diverse members of the opposition shouldn't be ignored given Myanmar's history of internal ethnic conflict, but the idealist buried deep down under my cynicism holds out hope that this time things may really be different for the country. While the number of armed groups opposed to the Junta in Myanmar is vast and varied, most seem to be generally united under the ideas that authoritarian rule is unacceptable and that there should be some kind of confederal or federal democratic system in Myanmar with respect for the rights of all the groups of peoples that live there. While a lot could still go wrong and many issues that will need to be worked out in the aftermath if and when the resistance forces win, I say that's at least a good starting point for a new Myanmar and worth supporting and hoping for. This is why I continue to keep a close eye on what's going on in Myanmar even as other crises and conflicts fill me with more negative emotions, and I continue to hope the best for Myanmar and its people.

Haiti

Haiti is a country that has been plagued by a myriad of issues since it first gained its independence from France, many of them the result of outside interference. The state wasn't even recognized by many countries for decades for reasons of outright racism and slavery, with France later forcing Haiti to pay it reparations for the loss of French planters' slaves in the revolt that won them their freedom. Haiti then suffered imperialism in another guise through a twenty-year long occupation by the US Marines starting in 1915, with the US later helping to prop up the brutal dictatorships of the Duvalier family that lasted from the late 1950s through the 1980s. The 1915 US intervention was only the first in a series of 20th and 21st century outside military interventions by the United States and the international community as a whole that typically did nothing to substantively improve the conditions within the country (and arguably making them worse in some cases).

Even given the scale of the prior trials and tribulations Haiti has experienced, be it coups and earthquakes and various interventions, the country now faces a crisis unprecedented for it in modern times, with the country in the midst of an open revolt by armed gangs that is bordering on civil war. The current crisis began with the dramatic assassination of then-President of Haiti Jovenel Moise in July 2021, when a group of foreign mercenaries (primarily Colombians but including two Haitian Americans) that were reportedly hired by a Haitian doctor with Presidential aspirations stormed into the President's home in the Haitian capital of Port-Au-Prince and gunned him down. The President's murder created a power vacuum in the country, which was filled by Prime Minister Ariel Henry. In the time since taking over, Henry has failed to hold fresh elections on multiple occasions as tensions mounted and conditions worsened inside of Haiti, with armed gangs steadily expanding their control of the capital and levels of violence rising.

It was the most recent delaying of new elections – despite an agreement to hold them and pass on power by February 7th of this year – that served as impetus for the violence to escalate to its current level. Gangs and other armed groups have stepped up their violence to outright attacks on government buildings and institutions and stretching already overtaxed and under-resourced police and security forces to the limit and reportedly taking control of over 80% of the capital. These gangs appeared to have coordinated their actions, launching their wave of attacks as Henry was out of the country on a visit to Kenya in search of foreign police and troops to intervene in the country on his behalf. As Henry struggled to re-enter his own country, the gangs called for his ouster. After days of stonewalling and radio silence, following a conference of the Caribbean Community in Jamaica, Henry did just that.

While Henry is now on the outs (and will likely be missed by few in Haiti or elsewhere), the crisis in Haiti appears to be far from over. While their principal demand has been met, the gangs appear in no mood to back down, refusing to accept any new government imposed from outside forces. Instead, the gangs themselves seem to be aspiring to power – in particular, their unofficial leader, Jimmy "Barbecue" Cherizier, a former police officer and leader of the gang known as G9 who has been crystal clear about his willingness to seize power violently if necessary. But Barbecue also faces competition, such as from fellow gang leader Johnson Andre (aka "Izo"), and former attempted coup leader Guy Philippe – recently returned to Haiti after serving a sentence in the US for taking bribes from drug traffickers, and making no illusions about his own desires to take power.

As the violence in Haiti continues with an associated and worsening humanitarian crisis, the United States and other foreign powers have debated and struggled to put together troops and police for some kind of intervention force and stabilization mission for months, with few governments seeming particularly eager to step into the breech after the past few interventions. Among those that are willing, such as Kenya, they've experienced various domestic roadblocks.. All while the and number of dead and displaced continue to rise amid worsening conditions (with some migrants to the neighboring Dominican Republic being forced back across the border into Haiti). However, in recent years Haitians have been understandably apprehensive if not outright hostile to the idea of yet another foreign military adventure in their country that will likely not solve any long term problems and potentially make them even worse yet again. Even as the gangs wage war in Haiti, its important to remember that there are regular people who are also protesting their frustration with their prior, ineffective, corrupt governments, in addition to foreign interference. The right path forward for Haiti remains unclear, all while foreign governments, the gangs, and other aspirants to power seem set on a collision course if nothing changes. Given conditions seem unlikely to change for the better at this moment in time, we should be prepared for things to get much worse in Haiti – and potentially the Caribbean as a whole – in the near future. (Note: I'm dumb and didn't realize how stringent Tumblr's character limits are now, so find part two here, with the rest of my thoughts and a conclusion) Photo credit: @operation1027 (on Twitter)

i got a high 1st in my classics creative project!!!!!

Among single antiwar images, the huge photograph that Jeff Wall made in 1992 titled "Dead Troops Talk (A Vision After an Ambush of a Red Army Patrol near Moqor, Afghanistan, Winter 1986)" seems to me exemplary in its thoughtfulness and power. The antithesis of a document, the picture, a Cibachrome transparency seven and a half feet high and more than thirteen feet wide and mounted on a light box, shows figures posed in a landscape, a blasted hillside, that was constructed in the artist's studio. Wall, who is Canadian, was never in Afghanistan. The ambush is a made-up event in a savage war that had been much in the news. Wall set as his task the imagining of war's horror (he cites Goya as an inspiration), as in nineteenth-century history painting and other forms of history-as-spectacle that emerged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries—just before the invention of the camera—such as tableaux vivants, wax displays, dioramas, and panoramas, which made the past, especially the immediate past, seem astonishingly, disturbingly real. The figures in Wall's visionary photo-work are "realistic" but, of course, the image is not. Dead soldiers don't talk. Here they do. Thirteen Russian soldiers in bulky winter uniforms and high boots are scattered about a pocked, blood-splashed slope lined with loose rocks and the litter of war: shell casings, crumpled metal, a boot that holds the lower part of a leg. . . The scene might be a revised version of the end of Gance's J'accuse, when the dead soldiers from the First World War rise from their graves, but these Russian conscripts, slaughtered in the Soviet Union's own late folly of a colonial war, were never buried. A few still have their helmets on. The head of one kneeling figure, talking animatedly, foams with his red brain matter. The atmosphere is warm, convivial, fraternal. Some slouch, leaning on an elbow, or sit, chatting, their opened skulls and destroyed hands on view. One man bends over another who lies on his side as if asleep, perhaps encouraging him to sit up. Three men are horsing around: one with a huge wound in his belly straddles another, lying prone, who is laughing at a third man, on his knees, who playfully dangles before him a strip of flesh. One soldier, helmeted, legless, has turned to a comrade some distance away, an alert smile on his face. Below him are two who don't seem quite up to the resurrection and lie supine, their bloodied heads hanging down the stony incline. Engulfed by the image, which is so accusatory, one could fantasize that the soldiers might turn and talk to us. But no, no one is looking out of the picture. There's no threat of protest. They are not about to yell at us to bring a halt to that abomination which is war. They haven't come back to life in order to stagger off to denounce the war-makers who sent them to kill and be killed. And they are not represented as terrifying to others, for among them (far left) sits a white-garbed Afghan scavenger, entirely absorbed in going through somebody's kit bag, of whom they take no note, and entering the picture above them (top right) on the path winding down the slope are two Afghans, perhaps soldiers themselves, who, it would seem from the Kalashnikovs collected near their feet, have already stripped the dead soldiers of their weapons. These dead are supremely uninterested in the living: in those who took their lives; in witnesses—and in us. Why should they seek our gaze? What would they have to say to us? ''We"—this ''we" is everyone who has never experienced anything like what they went through—don't understand. We don't get it. We truly can't imagine what it was like. We can't imagine how dreadful, how terrifying war is; and how normal it becomes. Can't understand, can't imagine. That's what every soldier, and every journalist and aid worker and independent observer who has put in time under fire, and had the luck to elude the death that struck down others nearby, stubbornly feels. And they are right.

—Susan Sontag, from Regarding the Pain of Others

Screw it, I’m gonna crowdsource this. Fellow God of War Enjoyers, what are the scenes people most commonly bring up as “Atreus being annoying” even though there was obviously more nuance and depth to that? I’m accepting scenes from both Norse era games.

I will never let anyone forget that the genre of music played in Star Wars cantinas is called “jizz”. George, you beautiful bastard.