i feel like discourse about hockey (and sport in general) would really improve a lot if more people realized that spectator sport is a form of narrativized media and applied their literacy skills accordingly

The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:

1. Transwomen are women.

2. Sex work is work.

3. Feminism is bourgeois.

Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.

The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:

“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”[1]

Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[2] That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.

So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3] Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.

But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”[4] Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors. Intersex people, which form a distinct material category, are also lumped into this community of “exiles” because they too are unable to fulfill the goals of the patriarchal sexual hierarchy. Such communities of exiles have existed throughout history, and continue to exist to this day in all parts of the world, from the hijra in India to the two-spirited people of the Native Americans to the contemporary shunning and violence directed at gender non-conforming individuals. But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society.

While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.

While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.

By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism.

Opportunism and the “fear” of being on the “wrong side of history” are also driving forces behind this embrace of revisionism. The Anglophone left, especially in the United States, given its weakness in the overall political arena, has long sought to be seen as “acceptable” and “polite”, and is often eager to jump on any bandwagon it believes can advance it. This desire to be accepted also drives the fear. It is true that communists have made serious errors in judgment in the past, but that is not an excuse to rebel against core philosophies and hastily embrace ideas and movements without fully analyzing their beliefs and goals. This is not to say that communists should not be on the forefront in defending gender non-conforming individuals. A thoroughgoing socialist revolution requires that these existing oppressive structures be cast aside. But it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.

Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.

In the next part, we will examine the second big lie plaguing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”.

In the past I had often fervently wished that one day everyone would be passionate and excited about scientific research. I should have been more careful about what I had wished for. The crisis caused by the lethal COVID-19 pandemic and by the responses to the crisis have made billions of people worldwide acutely interested and overexcited about science. Decisions pronounced in the name of science have become arbitrators of life, death, and fundamental freedoms. Everything that mattered was affected by science, by scientists interpreting science, and by those who impose measures based on their interpretations of science in the context of political warfare.

One problem with this new mass engagement with science is that most people, including most people in the West, had never been seriously exposed to the fundamental norms of the scientific method. The Mertonian norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism have unfortunately never been mainstream in education, media, or even in science museums and TV documentaries on scientific topics.

Before the pandemic, the sharing of data, protocols, and discoveries for free was limited, compromising the communalism on which the scientific method is based. It was already widely tolerated that science was not universal, but the realm of an ever-more hierarchical elite, a minority of experts. Gargantuan financial and other interests and conflicts thrived in the neighborhood of science—and the norm of disinterestedness was left forlorn.

As for organized skepticism, it did not sell very well within academic sanctuaries. Even the best peer-reviewed journals often presented results with bias and spin. Broader public and media dissemination of scientific discoveries was largely focused on what could be exaggerated about the research, rather than the rigor of its methods and the inherent uncertainty of the results.  

Nevertheless, despite the cynical realization that the methodological norms of science had been neglected (or perhaps because of this realization), voices struggling for more communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism had been multiplying among scientific circles prior to the pandemic. Reformers were often seen as holding some sort of a moral higher ground, despite being outnumbered in occupancy of powerful positions. Reproducibility crises in many scientific fields, ranging from biomedicine to psychology, caused soul-searching and efforts to enhance transparency, including the sharing of raw data, protocols, and code. Inequalities within the academy were increasingly recognized with calls to remedy them. Many were receptive to pleas for reform.

Opinion-based experts (while still dominant in influential committees, professional societies, major conferences, funding bodies, and other power nodes of the system) were often challenged by evidence-based criticism. There were efforts to make conflicts of interest more transparent and to minimize their impact, even if most science leaders remained conflicted, especially in medicine. A thriving community of scientists focused on rigorous methods, understanding biases, and minimizing their impact. The field of metaresearch, i.e., research on research, had become widely respected. One might therefore have hoped that the pandemic crisis could have fostered change. Indeed, change did happen—but perhaps mostly for the worst.

…

Personally, I don’t want to consider the lab leak theory—a major blow to scientific investigation—as the dominant explanation yet. However, if full public data-sharing cannot happen even for a question relevant to the deaths of millions and the suffering of billions, what hope is there for scientific transparency and a sharing culture? Whatever the origins of the virus, the refusal to abide by formerly accepted norms has done its own enormous damage.

…

Many amazing scientists have worked on COVID-19. I admire their work. Their contributions have taught us so much. My gratitude extends to the many extremely talented and well-trained young investigators who rejuvenate our aging scientific workforce. However, alongside thousands of solid scientists came freshly minted experts with questionable, irrelevant, or nonexistent credentials and questionable, irrelevant, or nonexistent data.

Social and mainstream media have helped to manufacture this new breed of experts. Anyone who was not an epidemiologist or health policy specialist could suddenly be cited as an epidemiologist or health policy specialist by reporters who often knew little about those fields but knew immediately which opinions were true. Conversely, some of the best epidemiologists and health policy specialists in America were smeared as clueless and dangerous by people who believed themselves fit to summarily arbitrate differences of scientific opinion without understanding the methodology or data at issue.

Disinterestedness suffered gravely. In the past, conflicted entities mostly tried to hide their agendas. During the pandemic, these same conflicted entities were raised to the status of heroes. For example, Big Pharma companies clearly produced useful drugs, vaccines, and other interventions that saved lives, though it was also known that profit was and is their main motive. Big Tobacco was known to kill many millions of people every year and to continuously mislead when promoting its old and new, equally harmful, products. Yet during the pandemic, requesting better evidence on effectiveness and adverse events was often considered anathema. This dismissive, authoritarian approach “in defense of science” may sadly have enhanced vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vax movement, wasting a unique opportunity that was created by the fantastic rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. Even the tobacco industry upgraded its reputation: Philip Morris donated ventilators to propel a profile of corporate responsibility and saving lives, a tiny fraction of which were put at risk of death from COVID-19 because of background diseases caused by tobacco products.

Other potentially conflicted entities became the new societal regulators, rather than the ones being regulated. Big Tech companies, which gained trillions of dollars in cumulative market value from the virtual transformation of human life during lockdown, developed powerful censorship machineries that skewed the information available to users on their platforms. Consultants who made millions of dollars from corporate and government consultation were given prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unconflicted scientists who worked pro bono but dared to question dominant narratives were smeared as being conflicted. Organized skepticism was seen as a threat to public health. There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science—and science lost.

…

Honest, continuous questioning and exploration of alternative paths are indispensable for good science. In the authoritarian (as opposed to participatory) version of public health, these activities were seen as treason and desertion. The dominant narrative became that “we are at war.” When at war, everyone has to follow orders. If a platoon is ordered to go right and some soldiers explore maneuvering to the left, they are shot as deserters. Scientific skepticism had to be shot, no questions asked. The orders were clear. 

…

Heated but healthy scientific debates are welcome. Serious critics are our greatest benefactors. John Tukey once said that the collective noun for a group of statisticians is a quarrel. This applies to other scientists, too. But “we are at war” led to a step beyond: This is a dirty war, one without dignity. Opponents were threatened, abused, and bullied by cancel culture campaigns in social media, hit stories in mainstream media, and bestsellers written by zealots. Statements were distorted, turned into straw men, and ridiculed. Wikipedia pages were vandalized. Reputations were systematically devastated and destroyed. Many brilliant scientists were abused and received threats during the pandemic, intended to make them and their families miserable.

Anonymous and pseudonymous abuse has a chilling effect; it is worse when the people doing the abusing are eponymous and respectable. The only viable responses to bigotry and hypocrisy are kindness, civility, empathy, and dignity. However, barring in-person communication, virtual living and social media in social isolation are poor conveyors of these virtues.

Politics had a deleterious influence on pandemic science. Anything any apolitical scientist said or wrote could be weaponized for political agendas. Tying public health interventions like masks and vaccines to a faction, political or otherwise, satisfies those devoted to that faction, but infuriates the opposing faction. This process undermines the wider adoption required for such interventions to be effective. Politics dressed up as public health not only injured science. It also shot down participatory public health where people are empowered, rather than obligated and humiliated.

A scientist cannot and should not try to change his or her data and inferences based on the current doctrine of political parties or the reading du jour of the social media thermometer. In an environment where traditional political divisions between left and right no longer seem to make much sense, data, sentences, and interpretations are taken out of context and weaponized. The same apolitical scientist could be attacked by left-wing commentators in one place and by alt-right commentators in another. Many excellent scientists have had to silence themselves in this chaos. Their self-censorship has been a major loss for scientific investigation and the public health effort. My heroes are the many well-intentioned scientists who were abused, smeared, and threatened during the pandemic. I respect all of them and suffer for what they went through, regardless of whether their scientific positions agreed or disagreed with mine. I suffer for and cherish even more those whose positions disagreed with mine.

There was absolutely no conspiracy or preplanning behind this hypercharged evolution. Simply, in times of crisis, the powerful thrive and the weak become more disadvantaged. Amid pandemic confusion, the powerful and the conflicted became more powerful and more conflicted, while millions of disadvantaged people have died and billions suffered.

I worry that science and its norms have shared the fate of the disadvantaged. It is a pity, because science can still help everyone. Science remains the best thing that can happen to humans, provided it can be both tolerant and tolerated.

50.

Before returning to liveblogging, I’d just like to say that the organization I used for the Aspects (3 sets of 4, with Freedom, Fate, and Mixed categories) in my last post is one of many different possible ways of categorizing the Aspects.  Their nature is complex, and they individually preside over such broad aspects of reality that any one system of dividing among them is not necessarily going to capture all the nuances and connections to be found between them. The one way that is known canon to organize among these would be the Aspect Pair system, which, as one can see due to the way I described the four categories, is not mutually exclusive with the schema which I utilized in the post. To clarify: I mostly chose this particular way of organizing the Aspects for my counter to Dirk’s train of inquiry for the sake of showing that while many of the Aspects lend themselves to a Fate reading, Free Will is just as well supported. ...

***snickers***    Well, that’s certainly one way to describe the blurring resulting from the intermingling of numerous shards of her soul which is now occurring. On a side note:  It is very interesting that his control is ongoing in pseudo-real time, for his frame of reference, and that his ego is so narrowed/focused at the moment (possibly as a result of the difficulty in maintaining narrative control?) that he can possibly have such slips as a result of distraction on his part. I wonder if Rose not speaking is more a result of the general narrative pause that he is implying might happen if he is not focusing (unlikely, considering all indications are time flow continues) or his manipulation/entanglement of Rose.

How benevolent of him. That said:  Yes, indeed, what he is saying does make quite a bit of sense, especially with the tense “could have been,” suggesting that this is a matter of present and past intermingling, such that the future selves that split off from at least her current main node of being (from her perspective) are not integrated preemptively, for that would probably skew their creation, mess with possibility, et cetera.        Moreover, what he is saying with regards to the psyche needing to be at a certain level of strength very much makes sense, as well. His own is only capable of this because of his Unbreakable Soul personal trait, most likely. He cracks, splinters, bends, but doesn’t fully break~ (And no, I don’t think that Dave being able to cut his Unbreakable Sword suggests that this is no longer the case; rather, it is most likely a sign that he achieved greater mastery of his soul and was able to divest its connection with the sword temporarily, showing an increased degree of flexibility on his part.)

I don’t entirely trust this, insofar as I am not entirely sure Rose is ready to open them, but if Dirk is being truthful as far as his intentions go, at the very least this suggests that his agenda of “becoming a single god” might be more benevolent insofar as it might be more local (meaning specific to him).   If that is so, it could explain the discrepancy that seemed to crop up with Rose being able to actually talk/think in presumably her own (that is to say, deviant from Dirk’s) manner / persona, and might suggest he at least intends for this measure to be temporary.

Hmmm. Well, this all makes it seem somewhat sinister again, insofar as “what I want her to see” could be interpreted as being “only” what he wants for her to see, and the antagonistic “martyr” comment a moment before makes that vibe a bit stronger; however, I DO think that she at least eventually needs/needed to have opened her eyes for the sake of her cohesion and development, so I am quite conflicted on this matter, and in my opinions of it. (Note: I think she needs this because she’s presently quite restricted and narrowed in her field of vision, for her expanded Vision as a Seer of Light is being constantly resisted by her, and thus she is essentially putting blinders on to the burning rays of the sun.)

This could be interpreted both as dangerous, psychically subsuming, insinuating behavior on his part, or as the natural result of her Seer status making things happening seem like noise in her wider-opened consciousness.

Well, that’s a very interesting act of metaphorical/-physical manipulation. So very subtle and questionable and interesting~

LET’S TAKE A FIELD TRIP TO CANDYLAND!!!

That is a weird and silly way of viewing things.  Of course there can be regret. Humans agonize over things they can’t help/change all the time, dummy. :P

Yes, indeed, I do appreciate that spoiler protection, Narrator. Though perhaps a hint might have been more interesting. Perhaps a hint might still be yet to come. Indeed, though: it is likely that no change would happen while I was gone, if I randomly flipped to the equivalent page, Candy 25, and looked back.   I will not do so, regardless of the temptation.

***chorus of Cherubic laughter***     Negatives and positives. Very interesting, indeed.  For some reason, I am suddenly struck with a desire to know whether and/or how these epilogues might intermingle in Homestuck^2, should it be a direct sequel to them.

Now... that is a particularly interesting manner of describing things. I wonder: does this describe the uncertainty/opacity that was naturally supposed to emerge from the narrative End of Homestuck gap in the works that allowed for the escape out of canon in the first place? The “blend ingredients responsibly” comment probably refers to the fact that Lord English presented the primary force that insisted on there being a single Alpha Timeline that, regardless of the retcons, Scratches, and narrative loop-de-loops required to reach its conclusion, ensured his ascension and the natural progression of his being, within Canon.    Presumably, outside of Canon, reentry might be both possible and required in order to maintain the balance of that narrative shell that protects the rest of meta-textual reality from LE’s ire-filled gaze, and thus there are multiple “pathways of promise” that have equivalent legitimacy, and which can simultaneously take place, so long as one of them actually leads to LE’s most important battles’ proper conclusions.     A similar situation to this actually happened in Homestuck’s canon, with the splitting of Vriska, though I’m sure you knew that already.   Of course, only one timeline in this scenario actually successfully left to the exit of canon, along with the kids’ victory state, and presumably the situation is now majorly different. Anyway: I do again wonder how these two main branches shall combine and/or split off in the future-- what sort of interactions they might have~

I am very curious what actual mechanics might have led to this particular sweet and rancorous set of circumstances being forced into being. Is it just random chance that leads to this “irresponsible” outcome?   Is it a necessary sacrifice for the narrative “oomph” to oppose Lord English, in order for the measure of wills to be balanced?   Very curious, generally.

Wow, indeed that sounds incredible. Also ominous. Particularly the use of “bleed,” and the contrast of majesty+disheveled, light and shadow.

Somewhat creepy, but okay.  (I guess the fact that Doc Scratch was a creepy uncle figure always meant that Dirk was intended to be creepy like this, to some extent.)   That said:  Indeed, I agree that this is probably very reflective of her true/Ultimate self.

Again, somewhat creepy.  Additionally: Interesting that he seems uncertain-- unable to truly penetrate her mind, just then --and that this comes across almost as him reassuring himself.

I do truly appreciate this semi-blind, selfish desire of his.   Truly, that is one of the greatest needs of the thinking being: acknowledgement. 

That is a very complex thought. It certainly will be her, but it will be more. Regardless, as will have been elaborated upon by the later passages: she absolutely needs to let go if she is to survive. Her physical form is dying, and the only choice is to either perish, or to allow herself to naturally develop as her godly self is naturally designed to.  While there is technically a choice, as is the case with The Choice that the Denizens present, there is really not much of one to begin with. She will know what is right in her heart, when the choice is made, and her own character will not have permitted her to turn another way.  The only question is if there’s a third option. I would just like to say that Dirk’s statement of “better” is somewhat untrue, likely. There are likely positives and negatives of the choice-- things Rose will have to sacrifice in order to make it work.  Thus, while her Greater Self will be better in some ways, she may well be deficient in others.

Her earlier statement, as I laid out earlier, was in fact incorrect. That said, it is indeed necessary to have abandoned humanity at the point.  Whether or not it was additionally necessary to break down quite all those barriers is another matter. I would suspect that this is in fact not the case.   I do wonder: shall individuality between the two of them actually buckle with the entanglement of their being on a psychic level?     For some reason, I suspect that their cores shall in fact remain somewhat unfused. However, this is mostly intuition, based on the fact that he is/intends to struggle to maintain her physical body for at least a while, yet.   We shall see how things truly turn out, either way.

***lip curls into a snarl***     What disgusting, wretched nonsense.   That kind of verbiage directly contradicts your desire for an understanding equal, Narrator.   Why does your intelligence have to outstrip your wisdom to such a degree?    ***sighs***

Yes. Yes, it does.  Whilst it is not such a linear or meta-stable structure as might otherwise be thought, anyone knowing the nature of Narrative should be aware of the key time-based interactions which allow it to function. I am beginning to absolutely loathe Dirk’s arrogance. ~~~ Post Script Note:  It is very interesting to see the “You” at the end, there, for it could represent Rose, rather than the Reader, at this moment, and the aforementioned blurring of their consciousnesses which I suggested some time ago. 

Thoughts on ‘The Beginning’

So - as with The Trial of Jim Gordon, I'm going to regard this episode as an extra, and do some meta as opposed to a full recap.   My rationale is pretty much the same: this is an optional easter egg, and one that can easily be regarded as outside canon if desired.  

Also - I found the deeper message, like that in The Trial of Jim Gordon, was so unpalatable it strained the show’s broader ideas and themes.  So I’ve decided it’s not part of canon, for me.

Thoughts after the cut.  Same disclaimer as with The Trial of Jim Gordon.  I love the show.  I tweeted like a maniac as episodes were airing, and got booted from Twitter.  I want another network to pick it up.

However, my idea of meta is the old fandom one, which is critical analysis.  If that’s not your thing, fine - but that’s what I’ll be doing here.

So, first things first.

I understand the rationale behind the time-jump, to an extent.  The two extra episodes were just that - extra.  One was spent on The Trial of Jim Gordon, which I have already been salty about in another post.  This one was a sort of nod to the fans - offering Batman as a sort of reward.  I’ve always been more interested in the story Gotham actually set out to tell, though, the story before Batman.  The story of the city and its inhabitants.  As such, I was always going to be less taken with an episode which was fundamentally mostly interested in giving us Batman. 

But there were a couple of other issues that confused me.  Gotham has always presented its own vision of the city, the characters.  It’s shown it can be creative with canon, as well as adding its own ideas.  Not only, for example, is their take on Oswald unique, but Fish Mooney – so pivotal in his development – only exists within Gotham’s universe.  We got the Executioner and Cyrus Gold – yes, but we also got Nathaniel Barnes and Butch Gilzean, who had character and stories and lives all of their own.

I like that it thumbed its nose at Jim’s moustache.  But go all the way with it.  Yes, we know Batman’s coming.  But if you want to continue to focus on Jim, and his wrestling with the notion of heroism – then just do that.  Have the courage of your convictions.  You can draw inspiration from the 60s series if you want, but you’re not shackled to it: Oswald doesn’t have to don a top hat and become 60s Penguin if you don’t want him to.  The city doesn’t have to morph aesthetically into something we saw in the movies.  You’ve told your own story. See it through.

That aside - the details.

The flash-forward was also a difficult ask because the story has been unnaturally cut short.  Characters who were still wrestling with huge issues didn’t really get to address them in a truncated season and - as such - it’s sort of hard to accept where we find them now.  

For example

We’ve seen Jim deal with several demons over the years.  He has major issues with authority.  His relationship with his father looms large.  He wants to be a hero, but gets on better with the villains.  He compartmentalises like crazy.  He’s emotionally dishonest with others and himself.  He enjoys playing dangerous games.  He can’t resist a pissing match. 

Am I to honestly believe that Jim has been entirely clean and pure in the interim?  Why?  Because the city was saved after near destruction?  That’s happened before – he didn’t change.  If anything, he’s more likely to have reverted to old habits once the crisis was over.  Is he reformed because he’s a father now?  Didn’t stop him killing Theo Galavan while Lee was pregnant.  

Jim’s development was still very much in progress.  As such, he feels unsatisfying here and - given what we know about him - you can’t help but feel he’s probably been up to his old tricks, but we’re just getting to see the sanitised surface of his life.

Lee likewise generally suffered quite a bit from the truncated season, and is  good example of how the flash-forward doesn’t serve characters well.

In season 4, we saw her explore a darker side to her personality that the show has strongly and consistently hinted at since way back in season one, explicitly – when she says that Jerome’s confession of matricide thrilled her, and implicitly, when we wondered why the hell she was working in Arkham.  We also saw her enjoy power in season 4.  We saw her deeply committed to improving the lot of the residents in the Narrows, even if her way of going about it was short-sighted. We saw her shoot Sofia Falcone point-blank in the head in cold blood.  We saw her, although many hated it, form an intense romantic relationship with Ed, where she seemed to find a fulfilment and recognition that she never found with Jim or Mario.

However, in season 5, the show clearly needed her to quickly step into the role of Mrs Jim and stepmother to Barbara.  This meant becoming the angel at the hearth again, so it essentially erased those experiences, all that new characterisation.  

As such, like Jim, she feels flat here – like we’re only getting to see a facade.  She’s back in her old post of intermittently saying supportive things to Jim, and apparently quietly looking forward to him quitting his job.  When she's bizarrely given the task of defusing the bomb, as Lucius the tech specialist stands by the side - it really only underlined that stripping her of all that history and characterisation meant that she doesn't really have a real role of her own in the wider workings of the city.

Now to the heart of my problem with this episode.

We’re told, without any explanation, that Oswald was sent to Blackgate shortly after reunification, and Ed to Arkham.  

Now, to be honest, I find this fairly implausible.  In all the rebuilding efforts, I doubt the authorities would have the will or energy to go back and rake over who committed what crime when the city had been abandoned by the government. And even if they did, both their actions – willingly manning the barricades (Oswald sustaining an injury when doing so), would have likely gone some way to mitigating everything else.  

You could argue that it's for some nameless crime they committed later - but the show could easily have indicated that by throwing in a line about some heist or scheme they tried to pull off that ended up with them being put away.

Mayor James - ‘Oswald Cobblepot is getting released tomorrow’

Harvey - ‘Should have got 20 years for that stunt he pulled after reunification - not 10.  So should Nygma.’

It didn't take the trouble to do that - so I'm left assuming they were sent away on the basis of crimes committed during the split.

However, this poses us with some problems both in terms of the plot, and more deeply in terms of narrative repercussions.  Because if we are going to start to get persnickety about charging people with crimes they’ve committed, and then having them face actual consequences – well, we saw Barbara shoot loads of randoms in season 5.  Going back not too far, Lee shot Sofia Falcone in the head.  Going back further still, Jim murdered Ogden Barker and Theo Galavan, and was indirectly responsible for several deaths by inviting Sofia Falcone to town.

So – then – if we’ve decided that actually charging people and sending them to prison is now the done thing, why are we so selective with who’s punished? Gotham is a show with a million shades of grey.  It gives its villains humanising back stories and motivations – but it ultimately still wants to punish a select few like it’s a black and white universe.  You can’t do that when your good guys are equally tainted. Not unless you want to give off an unfortunate stench of hypocrisy, anyway.  

Oswald flat-out asks Jim on the pier.  I could have escaped this city.  I chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend it.  Why was I punished?

It’s telling that Jim never actually furnishes Oswald with any good answer to his question on the pier.  Because - over the years - the show itself has never quite figured out how to answer this one.   He can’t answer.  What could he possibly say?

Why then, do some get away scot-free, while others are punished?  Why, as Ed observes, do some get to make choices - while others never get the chance?

Jim and Lee are ‘heroes’ (arguably wandering into designated hero territory, at points).  They're never going to face consequences for anything.  Jim going on a self-pitying drinking binge doesn’t count - not compared to a ten-year stint in Blackgate or Arkham.  Lee never expressed any remorse for Sofia.

As for Barbara, well Barbara is brought back into the heroic fold, too.  

First and foremost, she’s offered moral redemption by bearing Jim’s child.  Becoming a mother meant all previous sins were forgiven.  

When we meet her here, we see now that she’s wealthy and powerful – playing a serious role in the city.  It’s empowering in a way – but it’s also a means of re-affirming the established order and putting her back in her box.  Remember that Barbara is from one of Gotham's elite families - and she's finally behaving like someone from an elite and wealthy family would do.  To make her position clear - she’s explicitly placed in the same category as Bruce here in terms of her wealth and control of the city.  I’m assuming that pregnancy also made magically clean whatever money she used to buy up the city when it was on its knees.  She didn’t seem to have access to her parents’ cash before now - so she must have used her ill-gotten gains.  

(I would argue that strategically buying up parts of the city post-reunification is screamingly Oswald, but like other chunks of his characterisation and storyline, it got sent Barbara’s way in season 5 in a bid to flesh out her character)

Last up, she’s not demanding a romantic relationship with Jim anymore, but they’re now forever safely tied in that context due to their daughter - there’s no mention of Tabitha, or casual mention of a new partner.   Troublesome, restless Barbara, poor little rich girl – demanding of Jim’s time and attention, namelessly unhappy, and with a murky ‘past’ is now ‘fixed’ and neutralised.

Thinking about those brought into the fold necessarily asks you to think about those who were excluded.

Oswald might have roots in an elite family, like Barbara, but - crucially - he’s also one part poor immigrant (as well as all his many other markers of 'otherness').   He can’t escape this - we got his jangling east European music as soon as we saw him in this episode, and we were reminded of Gertrud when he said he would lay flowers on her grave as his first act after his release.  

Ed’s background is unknown, but we can safely hazard a guess that there’s no moneyed upper-class upbringing there.  He was also willing to step up when it counted, and was even used by those in power for their own ends during the break – but none of that counts for anything, apparently, and he finds himself in Arkham.  You could argue that Ed is unwell, and needs to be in a hospital – but Arkham is not shown as a hospital in any meaningful sense in the show.  It’s an oubliette, where you send those you just can’t be bothered dealing with.  It doesn’t look any better here than we’ve seen it before.  Why hasn’t anyone tried to improve it? Again, they don’t have to succeed - if you’re determined to stick to canon, but why not suggest that Jim or Lee or Lucius has at least tried to have conditions improved or an official review launched into treatment of inmates?  It would go a long way to nodding to the long and complex histories these characters have.  However things ended – Lee and Ed had a pretty intense relationship.  They cared about each other.  She can sleep at nights knowing he’s in Arkham?  

Jeremiah might have been clever enough to win himself a scholarship and a way out of the circus – but it’s not enough to enable him to escape his past – either explicitly, when he was hunted down by his resentful brother, or implicitly – when he winds up in a similar situation to the other outsiders.  Yes, Jeremiah might have been manipulating the situation – but he was still sent to Arkham and left vulnerable to casual abuse.  Whether it’s intended or not, Jeremiah’s accusation of abandonment can be read more deeply.  Bruce left town - but, just like Oswald and Ed, the city in general abandoned him.

Selina’s an example who, I would argue, reinforces that this moral order of the universe.  She's always been depicted more ambiguously - capable of villainous acts, but tied to the heroes through her bond with Bruce.  This is reflected in what we learn about her here.  Like Jeremiah, she's been punished by Bruce's abandonment, but her grey heroic status means that she doesn't lose her freedom, despite living a life of crime.

So what picture are we painted of the city?

Aubrey James is back in charge - corrupt as Oswald ever was as mayor, but less competent.  The city’s remains were picked clean by Barbara - it’s now seemingly largely owned and controlled by two scions of the city’s elite. The commissioner’s got more than one murder to his name.  His wife has one attempted murder to hers - giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Sofia’s still in her coma.  Arkham’s still a hellhole.

What does all that say?  Like I said before, you can argue that this was the inevitable endpoint – but you’ve changed the story already, so that doesn’t wash.

What you’re left with is the outsiders comprehensively punished.  You can sacrifice your chance at escape and an easy life in favour of standing shoulder to shoulder to defend the city, you can be unwell, you can be a victim – doesn’t count.  No matter what you do – you’ll always be an outsider anyway.  You can’t win for losing.  Some are chosen, some aren’t. And if you’re not, tough luck.  

So in this universe, why the hell not don a showy suit and your best hat and commit yourself to villainy?  Go for it, I say.

(Yes - I’m aware this is more analysis than it warranted, and it really just wanted to say ‘look Oswald has a monocle and Batman’s here now!’ - but I felt the need for venting meta)

Not BL-decoding sexuality in Banana Fish

Disclaimer:

I do not intend this to be a commentary on Banana Fish. Nor will I call it a review of the story-if anything, it's probably closest to a review of my response to the story. It is subjective, sentimental, and inconsistent. It is negative, but-alas do I find it SO important to highlight this-it is by no means a negative opinion on Yoshida Akimi and her deeply touching, aesthetically exhilarating masterpiece. I love this story, but it is precisely because of this, that I also find it crucial to decode some of the seemingly less reasonable (or evem dangerous) response it incites within me--just so that I may love it without fearing the peril of being misguided.

Now let's begin.

I first heard of Banana Fish when the anime project was announced in summer. There was an argument going on on my newsfeed, and from someone whom, as far as I knew, barely argued openly about anything at all. It was rather vehemently and somewhat indignantly pointed out that, some blogger, by labelling Banana Fish with the loose term 'BL', was doing it an egregious injustice, and that the two main characters, Ash and Eiji, are 'friends', (very firmly) NOT lovers.

Knowing nothing about the story then, I found the argument both baffling and discomforting-even homophobic. It seemed along the line of other common 'unconscious/internalized homophobia' in fiction, such as the over-used 'straight by default but gay for someone' trope. How can being lovers by any means lessen a relationship? And, even if BL is nowadays better used more cautiously to refer to the very specific genre of boys' love, is it that much of a big deal that another story involving (but not focused on) two male characters being in love with each other is referred to as BL?

I did not think of this until I've finished the entire series very recently. What scared me was that I did not only understand that argument for the first time, but, still deep in my BF-PTSD, found that sentiment even a bit agreeable than it seemed.

Perhaps it all boils down to: why do some people find it unacceptable to think of Ash and Eiji's relationship as physical?

The answer is simple: because then it will be more difficult to rise above all the other physical relationships depicted in the story.

It's a story about a victim of sexual abuse of the worst kind. It depicts sexual abuse with ruthless explicity and painful straightforward-ness. There's zero romanticization (and in this it already differs from the yaoi genre-the latter focused more on sexual fantasies and thus granted more allowance with their depiction of power dynamics in sex, not always what we'd call 'healthy' irl), not only on the level of plot but also on the very superficial level of visual representation-the abusers, Marvin, Dino, Fox, etc. are all physically grotesque, and that leaves little to no space for romanticization. Banana Fish does an absolutly perfect job in getting its message through-sexual abuse is painful and grotesque and there is nothing romantic about it. Never.

Further complication arises, however, when sexual abuse is intertwined with other themes that consist the core of the story. It's not only a story about a victim standing up against his abusers; it's also a story about the under-privileged against the richest and most powerful, the young against the old, the rebellious against the established, the isolated justice against the organized evil. It's not only manifested on Ash; Yue-Leung's arc fits all the above themes just as well. Even Eiji's escape from his unsuccessful athletic career (and the suppressed society back home, as Ibe mentions at one point) and his subsequent participation in this surrealisitc adventure may be read as a rebellion against his own society, which is constantly referred to as an antithesis of America. It's in the background, but to the wider Japanese readers it may have meta-textual significance-but that's mere speculation.

It's about rebellion, and rebellion against sexual abusers needs to be integrated into the extended motif. Sexual abuse does not only sit remotely in the narrative past in Ash's childhood memory. It comes to the surface, many, many times, but its essence remains consistent. Even the abusers are the same. Those who abused Ash when he was a kid want to or indeed do abuse him again when he is 17.

Here we have the boundary between paedophilia and homosexuality seriously blurred. We can't tell if Marvin is a paedophile or a homosexual or both, just as we can't tell about Dino, or about that gay bar owner/human trafficker whose name I don't recall atm.

When Marvin first appeared in ep1 we see him harassing Ash with thinly-veiled obscene innuendos. In ep2 we first see Skipper telling Eiji that 1) Marvin's gay and 2) he prefers blonde. It's not until later in ep2, when the tapes are being played (a highly disturbing and excellently performed scene), that we learn that Marvin is actually a paedophile. But it does not require us to contrast the later information with the earlier--Marvin has a fetish for people like Ash. That he is gay, that he prefers blonde, and that he prefers kids are but three ways of directing his sexual desire towards Ash. It's three steps of narrowing it down to our protagonist. 'Gay' is offered as a part of the information because it refers to a minority (and thus effectively narrows down the subject matter). If Marvin is a Humbert-Humbert, I doubt if Skipper will have said, 'He's heterosexual and he prefers blonde'. As much as we are unwilling to admit, heterosexual is still default in many contexts (more so in the time when Banana Fish was originally created), and that's precisely why only homosexuality merits the importance to be mentioned. Yet as a result of this economy of expression, homosexuality is associated with paedophilia.

What is a big relief to me is that they did not put in that scene with the gay bar owner's husband. For those who have only watched the anime--that human trafficker who raped Ash many times and is overtly paedophilic is not only a gay bar owner but also married to another man. Again it's not about narrative plausibility--a paedophile can totally also be married and own a gay bar--the problem is that all these information are unified to enhance one single image of one specific character--he is gay, he is married, he is a paedophile and a human trafficker, and he raped kids. I by no means suggest that this association is by any means intended--that will be a very serious and terrible accusation--but the economy of narrative means that, at that point in the story, there is simply not enough space nor necessity to discuss in detail how homosexuality and paedophilia are unrelated.

Dino is more complicated--he certainly has paedophilic acts, but we also see him sleeping with Yue-Leung and intending to sleep with Eiji, who by that point is 19 and physically different from pre-puberty kids victimized by paedophiles. His intimate contact with Ash (again highly disturbing) seems to suggest that he is obssessed with Ash regardless of his age. Homosexual intercourse is for the character of Dino less about information but about thematic unity--his dominance is manifested as the old over the young, the rich and powerful over the powerless, the established over the isolated. Here homosexual intercourse is not only associated with paedophilia--it's integrated into a more general evil of hierarchical dominance. This dominance and its non-consensual nature becomes all the more clear when Ash mentions that he once loved a girl at the age of 14.

There are many other sexual representation in the story--Fox, the prisoners, or even Hua-Leung to his half-brother Yue-Leung. If anything, their similarity is that they are all non-consensual, disturbingly and purely erotic, and involving significant age- and power gaps. It is age gaps that we feel most directly as part of the motif of dominance and rebellion--in other words, it's the young-old contrast that has thematic significance (as opposed to child-adult, which as a theme cannot extend from Ash's childhood into the narrative present) but age gap is relative, unlike the more fixed definition of child, adult, or paedophile.

Now back to Eiji and Ash. As a contrast to the darker side of grown-ups, their interactions are presented in such a way that it contrasts the sexual and abusive nature of Ash's encounters with many others. We never see deliberate physical contact between them; their beds are separate; even when they have to have physical contact, it's by no means erotic. Same can be said of another (among the few) positive relationship--that between Yue-Leung and Blanca. Blanca is overtly straight, and the comical depiction of Yue-Leung framing him with feigned homosexual contact between the two puts the possibility safely out of the picture. In a sense, all the positive relationships in the story are more about emotional mutual dependence (as positive relationships should be, one may argue).

It need not mean that it strictly excludes sexual contact, but, because of the established antitheses of the story, the emotional needs to be contrasted with the sexual just as the young needs to be contrasted with the old, and the victims need to be contrasted with the abusers. It's sexual abuse that Ash meets, so it's emotional comfort that he seeks. if it's not a story about sexual abuse, it will not have had the need to strictly exclude sexual contact from most of the positive relationships depicted. Opposites are not the most accurate way to understand the world but remains a powerful way to present it. Yet when artistic need demands so, some things simply have to be grouped into the 'positive' and their opposite the 'negative' to achieve the effect.

I will, perhaps, remain repulsed by any sexual depiction of the relationship between Ash and Eiji. I don't know if there are others who share the same sentiment, but it's perhaps better to remind oneself that it has more to do with the story's thematic presentation rather than intentional and detrimental stereotypes.

What do you think should happen next season for vld to be good again? If you were to predict it, how do you think the story should go after the events of season 6?

Well, ‘good’ is hard to quantify, so once again with my writer’s hat on – in other words, separate from my fan’s hat – I can at least tell you what VLD requires, as a story, for it to have anywhere to go from this point. 

We need protagonists with goals and stakes. We need antagonists with goals in direct opposition who also have means, motive, and opportunity. And then we put those together and see what arcs we’d get. 

1. Protagonists 

We’re back to the original seven we began with + Romelle and Krolia. At the very least, we should be able to safely assume the story will be about these particular people. Next we need to establish why they’d be in the story. Things have changed since S1E1, so it wouldn’t hurt to revisit. 

Allura: “continue to unite our forces and rebuild the once great coalition that my father, King Alfor, began.” Logical stakes would be the universe descends into (or stays) in complete chaos. Unfortunately, this isn’t really a compelling drive, because it’s a bit impersonal; it’s not clear why it must be Allura achieving this, as opposed to any of the many characters we’ve met who also want peace. 

Shiro: still has no answers about his missing year, and the question of whether he’s worthy to be a paladin. (Maybe we’re supposed to see ‘a year inside Black’ as answering that, but I’d hope not; a driving question should be answered within the narrative, not off-screen.) If his self-worth question hasn’t been answered, his stakes remain the same: discovering he is a monster would necessitate stepping down as a paladin. 

Pidge: her previous goal’s fully achieved; about the only goal I can see for her now is to help complete Allura’s mission. Since Pidge’s seat has never been in contest, it’d be reasonable for her to assume she can’t step down. That means her stakes are leaving the team short a pilot for Green. 

Hunk: the closest he got to a goal was expressing a wish to defend the helpless. Given the current chaos, I’m not sure if this goal is really done. His stakes, then, would be that failure to help would leave people defenseless. Also, as an uncontested seat, there’s no one to replace him. 

Lance: the story never gave him a goal, nor stakes. Plus, with the lion swap, his seat is contested (and could be changed again), so without a truly compelling personal goal, he potentially faces no consequence for leaving, knowing someone else could step in and take over. 

Keith: he’s found his family and Shiro, so he’s also lacking a goal (other than ‘protect what I found’). And like Lance, there’s an option for him to vacate and not disrupt the team. 

Romelle: free her people. Pretty straightforward, with a deadline, too, if Lotor’s continued supervision was the only way to keep the colony intact/safe. Her stakes are also high, since failure puts her people at risk. 

Coran: has never really had a goal, other than perhaps ‘keep Allura safe’; that does make his stakes quite sharp, since failure means losing the last of his family. (The introduction of the Alteans muddies this, on a larger level.)

Krolia: like Coran, her goal’s probably ‘keep my kid safe’. If we assume that like Coran, Keith is Krolia’s only family, then the stakes are the same. 

An aside: the goals for Coran and Krolia aren’t truly goals, in terms of what a story needs. I mean, one could also say that each character has a goal of “don’t get dead,” which, sure. But then all you have to do is avoid what might get you dead. Not exactly compelling. 

2. Antagonists

For every story-goal in #2, we need an antagonist with four things. They need a goal that’s in direct opposition, something they stand to lose if they fail (which goes to motive), and then – these two get forgotten a lot – the means and  opportunity. One villain with two ships isn’t a good antagonist; the threat is too minimal, comparatively. Another villain who’s all the way across the universe doesn’t work, either, because there’s no opportunity without a lot of story-stretching.  

For Allura, we’d want an antagonist whose objective is either to destroy the coalition, keep the empire in chaos, or return the empire to a position where it could refuse to participate in peace treaties. If the antagonist is personal – ie, Lotor as spurned lover – the antagonist’s goal is simply a determination to block Allura. 

(What you really want is an antagonist with their own goal, because that’s when you get a chess game. With an antagonist whose only goal is that someone else must fail, the conflict becomes tic-tac-toe. Not a lot of tension.)

For Shiro, we’d want an antagonist who gains via Shiro’s continued ignorance.– or by his discovery of the truth (ie, thereby demoralizing him enough to step down). This one feels played-out, though, since most of the clone arc, Haggar’s goal was to keep the clone in the dark. Not sure what’d be at stake for any antagonist with this goal, however. 

For Keith, Lance, Hunk, and Pidge, their lack of goals means it’s really hard to pinpoint what antagonist would block them. Additionally, the lion swap (for at least two of them) has undermined the urgency of the whole ‘chosen and bonded’ aspect that locked them into place the first time around. 

For Romelle, the field is open much wider. Anyone with the opportunity to learn of Lotor’s experiments, and the means to continue them, and they’re in direct opposition to Romelle’s goal of saving her people. There’s also a clear stake for the antagonist, thanks to that ‘need energy’ undercurrent in the story. 

Krolia and Coran… basically anyone who threatens their family would work. But it could also end making Krolia and Coran basically being walk-on extras in someone else’s conflict. (eg, just along because you threatened Keith.) 

3. Possible Final Arcs

If Sendak pops back up again with his FoP cult, he’s the most likely candidate for Allura’s opposition. Not hard to see Sendak aiming to smash the coalition and refusing to negotiate. The story has no trouble conjuring endless resources for him, and keeping him in the loop as needed. 

If Haggar intends to carry on Lotor’s work (with the Alteans), that puts her in opposition to Romelle + Voltron (in terms of 4 team members willing to fight in defense/protection). The magical element means Allura can then play the antagonist’s role to Haggar, in turn.

If either Sendak or Haggar has knowledge of Shiro’s missing year – and the information is explosive enough to shove Shiro off-balance (and it’d take a lot; the boy’s been through just about everything the story could cook up, so far) – then Shiro would be collateral damage. 

In other words, both Allura and Romelle have objectives that require an intact Voltron. Therefore, an antagonist with the means to block one or more of the paladins would indirectly impact Allura’s or Romelle’s goal, too. 

Which is how you tie together seemingly disparate goals in the same story, although it does render Shiro’s arc subordinate to someone else’s. It also means his question would be resolved sooner, a hallmark of a secondary character. Even in an ensemble, you’ll still have a central protagonist (either the core POV or the one with the biggest overriding goal), and their goal should be last, as the finale. 

I have no idea what the EPs/writers planned, but I’d probably set Sendak up for the broader large-scale fighting. That would keep the team occupied; either Sendak or Haggar could reveal Shiro’s memories and demoralize the team. Of course, we have a spare pilot, so that’s not actually doing much. But if it buys time, then it’d be enough for Haggar to do… I don’t know what, at this point.

Progression-wise, it makes sense to end up with the team fighting Sendak (the big noisy battle part) for the colony’s freedom (as stand-in for all colonies), while Allura is on the ground battling Haggar on the same level. Which is kinda the same way the end of S2 played out, too. Let’s just hope this time it doesn’t involve an eighty-step Rube Goldberg teladuv, too. 

And, oh, Lotor. I have no idea where Lotor comes into this. He has no allies nor resources, so no means nor opportunity. Unless he walks back into the picture with a full army of Alt-Alteans behind him, in which case, all bets are off. 

Well, there aren’t any bets, anyway. Your guess is as good as mine, at this point. Road trip, anyone? 

Fox Sports Apologize For Their Opinions Of Giannis

The build up to game 6 of the NBA finals has brought with it some interesting analysis and a lot of it was really self-analysis on the part of the television analysts and the media attempting a kind of mea culpa regarding their perceptions of one of the best players in the league.

Fox Sports has spent most of the day questioning their perceptions of Milwaukee Bucks star, Giannis Antetokounmpo, starting with Nick Wright. 

To Nick’s credit he brought up some very great points about how most stars that accomplish what Giannis has accomplished get far more open and gushing praise and far more respect from the media and current players.

All this goes back to comments James Harden made a year ago regarding Giannis, to the effect of “I can’t just be seven feet tall and dunk the basketball. I gotta have skill”. The obvious implication being that Giannis doesn’t have skill which was utterly ridiculous and down right untrue when Harden said it and has been prove to be even more ridiculous now.

Indeed Nick Wright is 100% on the money here. Any NBA star that wins 2 back to back MVP’s and a Defensive Player Of The Year award to boot, would be regarded as the unquestioned best two-way player in the league.

It’s a false narrative and James Harden coming to the Nets overweight and unable to help Kevin Durant win a series against the Giannis and the Bucks. Harden didn’t face nearly enough backlash for that.

However the guy that should have caught the most heat during the Nick Wright segment in question, was his co-host Brandon Marshall, who has repeatedly said over the last two year that Giannis’ lack of shooting skill would prevent him from being in the position that he’s in now.

He’s clearly looking like one of the worst analysts on tv right now because of this and you have to wonder how these guys can get paid to be wrong. It’s one thing to hedge your bets on a players succeeding but it’s a whole other thing to bet on a player’s failure and that’s what a lot of these guys in sports media do. 

Brandon Marshall is the beneficiary of a tv sports media culture that doesn’t pay you to be right they pay you to be on time. The way it should work is that guys lose money for getting it this wrong but that would be meritocracy and the media want meritocracy for athletes but nor for themselves.

These NBA playoffs have reminded me of the 2019 NBA playoffs, not because of Giannis but because once again you have a team and a star player in the Finals that the media would have not chosen if they were to have their preference.

The media are shamelessly pushing for big market teams to make the finals and some of it is jut job preference. Stephen A Smith has said many times that he would rather have to travel to Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago than Toronto, San Antonio or Milwaukee. Most of the media would rather be in big cities.

The problem is that it’s not supposed to matter what they want. It has nothing to do with the game, the sport or anything else for that matter. 

Just Do Your Job!!!!!!!!!!!

Some of it is a style of play thing with Giannis and people thinking that Steph Curry is more fun to watch which is the dumbest thing ever. 

 Some of it of it is the belief in analytics and 3-point shooting being the defining factor separating elite players from the rest, which is clearly false. The Suns in this series have proven the limitations of 3-point shooting and the Warriors in 2019 were still capable of big shooting nights but the Raptors were just better.

I have one question for those that think Damian Lillard, Steph Curry, James Harden, Kyrie Irving and any other player who favors flashy plays and ankle breakers, “How many of those guys have ever carried their teams to a championship?”.

Kyrie Irving was instrumental in the Cavs 2016 win but he was not the best player on that team. 

Steph Curry in 2015, was not named Finals MVP and the team he played against had injuries, and before you point out Giannis and the Bucks injury luck this year, remember that Giannis also came back from the nasty knee-bending injury that looked for sure, as if it would end his season. Any other player comes back from an injury like that within mere days, the way Giannis did would have stories written comparing him to Willis Reed. 

By the way, American media tried to say that the Bucks would be better with Giannis off the court, because now the other Bucks can be more aggressive, which is ridiculous. The Hawks were without Trae Young and when he came back he was hobbled, these are not difficult things to point out given that it was just a few weeks ago but can you imagine another star being talked about in this way. 

Yesterday, Fox Sports’ Colin Cowherd spent the entire day backtracking on things he had said about Giannis over the last two years. As always Colin just pretended all of his old takes don’t exist and he explains that away as “adapting to changing information” as opposes to it being that he was always wrong.

Completely undermines things Colin said a year ago during an interview with Doug Gottlieb, another known hater of small market teams.

The meat and potatoes of this is that the media should stop trying to tell us what people like and what they like and just report what actually happens on the court.

The idea that fans are less interested in a Suns-Bucks finals series and that the game’s biggest stars (LeBron, Durant, Curry) not being present at this time of year is hurting the NBA is absolute hogwash. More than that though it shouldn’t matter as far as the audience is concerned.

The other layer of this is media commentators, like Jason Whitlock who believe that the decline in the NBA’s rating is due to them supporting Trayvon Martin and movements like Black Lives Matter, like a way of punishing a corporation for not being indifferent towards racism or racist behaviour. 

It is absolutely astonishing how little these guys actually know about the wider world. If I lose 1 million local viewers and I gain 3 million international viewers have I really lost ground? Does math matter? Are your sources/metrics for keeping up with the rating a true reflection of ALL your total viewership or are you still using the old Neilsen ratings because you’re boomers, and there is no other country except  America considered in the metric?

A combination of cord-cutting, new media, streaming and all other manner of things means that the NBA is better off embracing the idea of this being a global sport. Adam Silver understands this better than the talking heads on TV. 

I cannot with this nonsense.

It struck me while writing this that usually at this time of the year, there are soundbites and callouts and subtle digs being thrown about in post game press conferences. Chris Paul tried some of that after game 5 when he said that “everybody expects Giannis to miss free throws”. I’ve been respectful towards Chris Paul even though this sereis has given me every bit of ammunition not to be. 

I’ll only say this; Giannis has led his team from down 2-0 and the whole time, he’s been missing free throws but what does that say about the guys that gave up the 2-3 lead. What does that say about a guy that has given up multiple series leads?

Game 6 awaits tonight and yes, people are doing what they always do at this time of the year and the media vultures are already taking pieces of flesh out of Chris Paul. The talk in the media is that Chris Paul losing would hurt his legacy. I don’t agree but every year it’s got to be someone and this year it might CP3.

As For Giannis and further adding to how the media relate to the guy, is that his press conferences have no sound bites. There’s no calling someone trash or saying that “that’s a bad shot” or  “claiming that the series is over” or that “they can’t guard him”, even if the last two of those things may in fact be true. 

He has handled the media with kid gloves and in turn there is a stability and calmness about the Bucks. 

For one thing, Giannis has completely challenged and flipped the media’s expectations of what a star player can be in this league. Long may he reign.

It’s a new day as far as the NBA media goes and if you’re not adapted, you’re dying.

Finance Redefined: Alchemix rugpull remuneration, and Aave v. 2.5! June 16-23

After close to a month of consulting with industry experts and journalists within Cointelegraph and without, we’re proud to unveil a new segment for Finance Redefined, a.k.a. the premier DeFi industry newsletter: on-chain analysis. Reporters will often look to public records to bolster stories, and the blockchain is no different. Everything from analyzing the wallet of the fake Banksy NFT artist to following-up with exploiter wallets in the wake of hacks, the data is often used but arguably not to the extent that it could be.For instance, there is a wallet widely-known to be that of Mark Cuban, serial entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He’s doxxed himself indirectly and directly many times — the address is the owner of markcuban.eth, for christsakes. And yet, when he announces that he’s invested in Polygon (or an algo stable shitcoin, RIP Titan) it’s news, but when he makes the moves on the wallet in real time…. the crypto-news industry ignores it?Reporting on wallet transactions is fraught with complications, however. As Sam Trabucco of Alameda Research told me in Miami, “doxxed” Alameda wallets know that they’re doxxed (“contaminated” is the term they use internally), and trying to interpret a buy from one ‘known’ wallet may only be glimpsing a small part of a much larger picture — Alameda may be hedging with another acct, and as such public buys/sells are ultimately not indications of a wider opinion on an asset. Check out this thread on folks trying to uncover what Alameda is doing with CRV as an example — the tail-chasing and narrative flip-flopping is extreme:Alpha Leak! You guys have been wondering why Sam dumps his $CVX everyday?? But rn, he's buying back!!https://t.co/e7kKO1e2QG 1/Probably he's controlling the price to accumulate more and more! This could be a good sign, @ConvexFinance => FTX soon?— Ade- $CRV maximalist (@MrFro92) June 15, 2021Additionally, despite ample evidence, if Mark Cuban ever came out and said that a wallet is not his — doesn’t matter if he has the ENS, doesn’t matter if he’s even claimed it as his in the past — we, as an outlet, have no way to definitively prove to the contrary, and as such explicitly linking an individual or institution to a wallet is unacceptable regardless of any amount of circumstantial evidence. So, we’ve tiptoed and wondered and thought and thought about it some more. On-chain data is both public and wildly underused by news outlets, but it’s a new source type from a journalism perspective and really uncharted ethical ground. Some of the language decisions we’ve made might seem a little obtuse, but they’re measured and we think appropriate. Let us know what you think. We hope you like our first installment, courtesy of Bill Zerox aka @0xbilll:Alchemix rugpull remuneration analysis After a rug pull, desperate community members typically beg developers to return the stolen funds and social media channels become chaotic — filled with stories of tragic loss and impoverished nurses. It only makes sense then that in the first "reverse rug" in DeFi history, it’s the developers begging the community to return the funds. The big difference is that instead of ignoring requests, as exploiters often do, the community has seemingly responded.Last week, Alchemix suffered a bug that saw users walk away with 2262 ETH (almost $4.5 million USD, even with the recent price decline) in what is being called the first-ever “reverse rug”. Instead of using treasury funds or minting a new token, steps that other protocols have taken to recoup a loss after a bug or hack, the Alchemix team is asking users who benefited to return the ETH. In exchange, Alchemix is promising users 1 ALCX per 1 ETH returned. If users who benefited from the bug return the full amount of ETH that they were able to withdraw, the team says the generous exploiters will also receive a “special” NFT that includes "yet-to-be-determined functionality in the Alchemix DAO.” If you benefited from the reverse-rug, then please consider becoming an Alchemix legend and returning the free money. Every bit counts, and all contributors will be remembered https://t.co/GqkkIBG9Ma— scoopy trooples (@scupytrooples) June 21, 2021 Although unconventional — as the best things in DeFi are — on the surface their ask to the community has been a success. Taking a look under the hood, however, reveals that the majority of funds were donated from one altruistic Alchemist developer while the accounts that walked away with the most ETH show no signs that they will return the funds.On-chain data shows that the majority of ‘returned’ funds have come in the form of community members donating ETH, as opposed to users returning the ETH that the bug allowed them to claim. 1129.85 ETH has been returned as of this afternoon. Breaking it down, 358.21 ETH (~32%) is from users who benefited from the bug, while 771.64 ETH (~68%) has been donated by community members.

Data taken from Dune Dashboad thanks to 0xGranger at ~2:45 EST June 23rd; https://duneanalytics.com/queries/66340/132563The largest donation so far is a staggering 730 ETH from an apparent Alchemist developer with the ENS handle n4n0.eth. They did not receive ETH from the exploit, so they are presumably reaching into their own pockets — a testament to their belief in Alchemix and their desire to make the protocol whole.When called out in the Alchemix discord, n4n0 simply said, “I’m in it for the tech.”

Screenshot taken from official Alchemix Discord channelA Twitter profile with the same name lists their role as “codemonkey @ http://alchemix.fi."Outside of n4n0.eth’s 730 ETH donation, 196 other addresses have donated a total of 41.64 ETH. While some of the addresses may be speculating that those who donate will be eligible for future airdrops, the response also shows that the community wants Alchemix to succeed. Looking at addresses who received excess ETH from the exploit, the top 20 addresses walked away with almost 1800 ETH, ranging from 25 to 500 ETH. Of those, so far only four addresses have returned the full amount they got off with for a total of 174 ETH. One of these addresses, themockingjay.eth, returned the 40 ETH that they were able to withdraw because of the bug. Their address shows that they are active DeFi users and early Alchemist supporters, as demonstrated by them apeing into pool 2 a couple days after the protocol launched. Zerion currently shows themockingjay.eth’s net worth at over $2 million, demonstrating that they are characteristic of DeFi users who are in a position to support a protocol, as opposed to carry off with the funds.With the promise of an NFT and the chance to live in Alchemix/DeFi/Crypto history forever, perhaps the response here should not come as a surprise. Sign up for weekly DeFi news before it hits the main site!Aave 2.5, and airdrops to comeLike many DeFi protocols, Aave isn’t having ‘growing pains’ so much as the project is sprouting wings. A former perennial top-10 on rankings websites, they’re now the definitive #1 in DeFi with nearly $17 billion in TVL on the back of a highly successful liquidity mining program. However, in an interview with Cointelegraph Aave co-founder Stani Kulechov weighed in on the same problem dozens of protocols now face: how to continue the explosive growth in an increasingly complicated system?“Now the question is, how do we keep growing at the same pace, and also expand the growth as new projects are coming in, as new ideas and innovation comes into the whole ecosystem?” He asked.The first step for Aave is applying what works to new environments. The team is working on a governance bridge that can let users vote on layer-1 for decisions that will apply to the various layer-2 implementations of the market, allowing for “cross-chain decentralized decision making,” says Kulechov. This new feature will be available in a matter of weeks. However, larger changes are coming as well:“We believe the future is multi-asset and multi-governance. This means we’ll have more inclusive decision making in the community.”Multi-asset governance —- say, AAVE and BAL holders voting on a AAVE-specific proposal — will of course be an entirely new experiment, and comes with specific considerations for the community. In Stani’s view, which assets other than AAVE should determine Aave’s fate largely depend on the synergy. Ultimately it will be up to AAVE holders to vote on who gets in, but Stani pointed towards protocols like Balancer — who have a forthcoming deep integration with Aave to deposit unused AMM liquidity into lending pools — as a prime option in a multi-asset governance framework. Likewise, MakerDAO is building a system where the protocol deposits DAI into Aave, and then uses aDAI as collateral in special vaults to assist with liquidity crunches — another deep integration that would possibly warrant inclusion for MKR in multi-asset governance. This is part of a broader framework for the Aave core team stepping away from the project after the eventual Aave v3 launch. At that point, major users of the Aave protocol (including other protocols that may be using Aave), should be the ones to decide its parameters. As a result, the day may come when the most significant votes on Aave governance come from addresses controlled by other governance communities. What if there was a social media protocol built on top of a DeFi Protocol..?— Aave (@AaveAave) April 17, 2021 But what will the core development team do after the launch of Aave v3? Social media protocols? High fashion on the blockchain? And will it involve potentially lucrative airdrops to current AAVE holders? Kulechov was scant with details (despite his odd Tweets on the topic here and there), but did wax philosophical when it comes to possible airdrops:“The two key principles are distribution — how do you empower the Aave community when you distribute new assets — and secondly how you can use tokeneconomics to empower your product and your community.”As an example of empowering a community, Stani pointed to staked Aave, stAAVE, which is used to backstop the protocol as an insurance fund in the case of a shortfall event. Depositing into this fund rewards users with more AAVE and therefore more governance power — ultimately using the token to reward deeper engagement. The development of the backstop model — also known as Aavenomics, a whitepaper that laid out how the protocol would attract liquidity, and the security to back that liquidity — took six months. Stani said the team settled on a model where “the AAVE token becomes a way to transfer risk to community members, as they’re the ones making risk-based decisions.” This forces the community to be more involved, as they bear risk, but proportionally rewards them. Kulechov expressed skepticism that new tokens would be needed for new projects from the core team because “you can build value with new protocols directly in the ecosystem you have, and reinforce the current value there.” He also noted that the Synthetix model, which will lead to four new tokens in the coming months, may have downsides: “The risk is that if you come to market with five new tokens, you kind of might dilute the main asset and the community there, and split your community.” Potential fat airdrops aside, for now the focus is on the forthcoming “Aave v. 2.5,” the penultimate upgrade before v3.Enter DeFi Decade— stani.eth =(⬤_⬤)= (@StaniKulechov) June 17, 2021 Aave 2.5 comes with a focus on risk mitigation. The update will include supply and borrow caps on certain assets, and improved liquidation mechanisms — what Stani calls “the final version before the ultimate protocol we wanted to build (v3),” and afterwards the community will take over the protocol and its development entirely. The team at Parafi Capital, who co-authored a liquidity mining proposal for Aave, are some of the chief architects of the overhaul. Ultimately, while the Aave team continues to iterate and learn from fellow protocols, Stani says the kind of bold experimentation Aave has made (and continues to make) is the best path forward for the space:“The best way to do things is being experimental. You actually need to fail with tokeneconomics before you can find something that actually works.”  Source Read the full article

A Conversation With Chuck Palahniuk, the Author of Fight Club and the Man Behind Tyler Durden

It’s been more than 20 years since Chuck Palahniuk first unleashed Fight Club on the world and simultaneously inspired legions of impressionable young men and appalled their parents. But the themes Palahniuk explored in that book — the emasculation of late-capitalism and the creeping sense of worthlessness and dread that accompanies it — seems more relevant now than it did even back then. Modern men find themselves in a precarious position, where masculinity itself is being (justifiably) re-evaluated, and in some cases, derided as the source of all society’s ills. And many of them are facing the troubling realization that they will never be as successful as their parents.In response, a substantial number of them have dug in to oppose that evolution — men who seem to worship at the altar of tyler durden, the Fight Club character who was a paragon of unfettered, unapologetic machismo. If Durden were alive today, he wouldn’t inspire Project Mayhem — he’d be wearing a MAGA hat, leading a group of disaffected young men through the streets with pitchforks and staging #GamerGate-esque online harassment campaigns. And so, Fight Club seems to be a rallying cry for their anger.MEL recently spoke with Palahniuk about the book’s influence on the toxic ideologies that have taken hold in our culture today; why he thinks another kind of toxic ideology — toxic masculinity — doesn’t exist; the meaning of Harvey Weinstein, Joseph Campbell and John Lennon’s assassination; and how he coined the derogatory term “snowflake.”A lot of the things you wrote about in Fight Club and revisit in Fight Club 2 seem even more pertinent today than when you originally wrote them more than 20 years ago. Specifically, the disillusionment of men who haven’t radicalized but have adopted radical ideologies and the infantilization of the modern workplace. You were able to see the seeds of what has now grown into these very toxic elements in our culture.In Slaughterhouse-Five, there’s a comment about how many people are being born every day. Someone else responds by saying, “And I suppose they’re all going to want dignity and respect.” This dovetails into a grueling dread that I felt as a younger person — that status and recognition would always be beyond my reach. I think subsequent generations, larger generations, are coming up against that same realization: That despite their expectations, they might never receive any kind of status. And they’re willing to do whatever it takes at this point to make their mark in the world.It seems like a lot of these movements, though, have seized on the ideas expressed in Fight Club. They’ve co-opted these things that you wrote about and made it a part of their own ideologies. Do you feel any regrets or resentment about this? Or better put, how does it make you feel when you see men’s rights activists on Reddit quoting your work to rationalize the terrible shit they say online?I feel a little frustrated that our culture hasn’t given these men a wider selection of narratives to choose from. Really, the only narratives they go to are The Matrix and Fight Club.Yes, they get red pilled and then they look at tyler durden as the platonic ideal. Exactly. Almost all the narratives being sold in our culture take place in this established, very static sense of reality. We have very few narratives that question reality and give people a way to step outside of it and establish something new. So far, the only two things are The Matrix and Fight Club. I feel bad that people have such slim pickings to choose from.But it almost sounds like you have a certain level of sympathy for these guys as well.I have sympathy in that I was young a long time ago. And I know the terror of worrying that my life wasn’t going to amount to anything — that I wouldn’t be able to establish a home or create a career for myself. I can totally empathize with that panicked place young people are in.What are your politics?My politics are about empowering the individual and allowing the individual to make what they see as the best choice. That’s all Fight Club was about. It was a lot of psychodrama and gestalt exercises that would empower each person. Then, ideally, each person would leave Fight Club and go on to live whatever their dream was — that they would have a sense of potential and ability they could carry into whatever it was they wanted to achieve in the world. It wasn’t about perpetuating Fight Club itself. Have people come to you and said, “Fight Club helped me realize my potential”?In a lot of different ways. Many people decided to, as a permission through nihilism, to go ahead and do the thing that they’ve dreamt of doing. And a lot of fathers and sons were able to connect to this story and express their frustration about what little parenting they themselves got from their fathers. A lot of people think of you as a nihilist. Do you bristle at that label?You know, I am kind of a nihilist, but I’m not a depressive nihilist. I’m a nihilist who says that if nothing inherently means anything, we have the choice to do whatever it is we dream of doing. You’ve been known to go after some of your critics throughout your career. Is that something you wish you hadn’t done in retrospect?I willingly did it twice. And they were both instances very early in my career. I’ve never done it otherwise, so I can forgive myself for maybe taking actions I shouldn’t have taken. But what the hell? I had to learn.This was before social media had taken off, too, and everyone was a critic. What is it like now when everyone can either directly give you praise or tell you what a terrible writer you are and how you should go die in a fire?You have to completely ignore it. Because if it’s all praise, it just gets you high and that’s not healthy. And if it’s all criticism, it just gets you depressed and that’s not healthy. So I ignore it as much as I possibly can. And the people who bring me the news, I know those people aren’t my friends. It’s like Nora Ephron, one of my favorite writers, once wrote: It takes two people to hurt you — one person to actually say or do the thing, and a second person to tell you that this thing has been done against you.Both Fight Club and Choke have been made into movies. Did you take any issue with the film versions?No. You know, there is no point. The book will always be there. The film needs to be its own thing; it’s a different medium. It needs to express itself through different aspects of this story. So you can’t expect the film to be completely the book.But with Fight Club specifically, there were so many people who got rich and famous and whose entire careers were changed by that movie. I mean, David Fincher became one of the biggest directors in Hollywood afterwards. Is there any type of resentment that people are dining out on this thing that you created and that maybe your role in it has been lost somewhat?Not in the slightest. Because when that movie came out, it was an enormous failure. It was a failure in a way that Blade Runner was initially a failure. It was out of release within maybe two weeks and considered a massive massive tank. Pretty much everyone associated with the movie lost their jobs. It took a year or two of putting together the meticulous DVD to dig that movie back into profitability. Earlier, you mentioned the terror you experienced as a young man about maybe never being successful. But now that you are successful — and I imagine successful beyond your wildest dreams — are you fulfilled? Or do you have the same sense of dread?I’m very fulfilled. Because I get to work with many gifted creative and passionate people. That’s great because we all want to live our lives in the company of other people who love what they’re doing. There’s no better life than that. On the other hand, I’ve started to teach because I do want to be back in touch with what it was like to be that kid who couldn’t write a great story. I want to be able to be with those people until they break through and can write something fantastic. I ask because in Fight Club 2, we find that the narrator has successfully put his tyler durden alter ego to the side. He got married and had a kid and is living the American dream in his house in suburbia. But he’s deeply unfulfilled. He worries his wife doesn’t love him, and he’s worried his kid doesn’t respect him. So tyler durden starts popping back up. To me, that seemed to express that there’s a certain hollowness or lack of fulfillment in achieving what you want.It’s funny, it isn’t the process of getting stuff, it’s the stuff itself that becomes the anchor. It’s buy the house, buy the car and then what? It’s that isolated stasis that’s the unfulfilling part you ultimately have to destroy. That’s the American pattern — you achieve a success that allows you isolation. Then you do something subconsciously to destroy the circumstance because you can come down into community after that. Maybe you’ve got this great career where you can do whatever you want, but on the side, you’re sexually harassing and assaulting women. You’re doing something that’s going to force you out of the isolation of success. It’s going to push you back into the community with other people. We like to move between isolation and community and back to isolation again. Are you referencing Harvey Weinstein specifically?Well, whether it’s Weinstein or successful people who abuse drugs or have affairs like Tiger Woods, people always create the circumstances along the way that will destroy the pedestal that they’ve found themselves on. Then they can come back to earth and just be a person among people. Lance Armstrong is another good example.So more of a self-destructive impulse. But is there any way to keep those two things in balance? Can those two things co-exist as a part of a man’s personality? Or are they irreconcilable?Can you build a house on a plot of land without tearing down the house that’s already there? I think it’s inaccurate to call it self-destructive. In a way, it’s a different form of self-improvement or a different form of creativity. That act of demolition in order to replace the thing with a more profound and better thing.In the book, you also seem to portray suburbia as an affront to masculinity and manhood itself. Do you personally feel that way? I know you’re an outdoorsman and live in a rural area. Is that something that you seek out to maintain your edge?That’s a tough one. Because I’m not so much talking about suburbia as I am talking about this self-isolation that goes back to the whole snowflake metaphor where we’re taught that we’re special and hyper-individualized by being told that we’re unique and innately a treasure. It’s that idea of ourselves as different that drives us apart from one another. It was only once I realized, No, actually, all of us have far more in common than we have differences, and I’m not a snowflake, that I recognized myself in other people. That’s when I started to write about myself as part of a larger pattern of a larger experience. “Snowflake” is an interesting word. It’s what tyler durden uses to tell men that they’re not unique or special. But now it’s been coopted by the alt-right as their favorite epithet of liberals and people who have no toughness. Which gets back to what we were talking about before…You know, you want people to adopt the thing. You want to put the book in the movie producer’s hand and have them adopt it like a baby, raise it and put a huge amount of energy into it. In doing so, the movie producer is going to change it so that it reflects the movie producer’s experience. And once that material passes on to an audience, the audience adopts it. It will become the child of the audience and will serve whatever purpose the audience has for it. It would be insane to think that the author could control every iteration or every interpretation of their work.So you just feel like an innocent bystander to how it’s being used? You don’t feel any type of feeling either way — good or bad?No, I do not. You know, it’s like J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye and the death of John Lennon. I don’t think Salinger felt huge remorse that he’d written a fantastic book, and this book was interpreted by a damaged person. Nor do I think it was Salinger’s fault.There’s one passage in Fight Club 2 that I found particularly interesting. You write, “Throughout childhood, people tell you to be less sensitive. Adulthood begins the moment someone tells you that you need to be more sensitive.” Is that something that you’ve specifically had to work on as you’ve grown older?Oh, hell yeah. It’s one of those little truisms. You have so many people telling you, “Don’t be so sensitive.” Then, suddenly one day, it turns around.You seem very soft and gentle over the phone, I’m surprised that the man who wrote Fight Club seems so tender in his voice. I’m a much older man now too. Fight Club was 20 years ago for me. It seems like you’re saying that you’ve released a lot of the rage you had as a young man.I was going through a huge disillusionment. I’d been a really good student. I kept my nose clean. I followed this blueprint society had presented to me that said that if I did all these things — get my degree, pay back my student loans and work very hard — eventually I’d achieve some sort of satisfying success. But it just wasn’t working. Around the age of 30, all of that good boy stuff starts to fall apart. You have to make a choice as to whether you’re going to continue along that road, or whether you’re going to veer off that road and find ways to succeed you weren’t taught. That’s where I was. I was really disillusioned that I’d been given the same roadmap everyone else was given, but that none of us were finding it effective. We hear the term “toxic masculinity” a lot these days. As someone who writes a lot about manhood, what does it mean to you?Oh boy, I’m not sure if I really believe in it.Why?It seems like a label put on a certain type of behavior from the outside. It’s just such a vague term that it’s hard to address.Let me take the opposite approach then: Who would be the male role model in today’s culture? Is there somebody who young men have to look up to as the ideal man and is someone who I should aspire to be like?Joseph Campbell said that beyond a person’s biological father, people needed a secondary father — especially men. Typically that was a teacher, coach, military officer or priest. But it would be someone who isn’t the biological father but would take the adolescent and coach him into manhood from that point. The problem is that so many of these secondary fathers are being brought down in recent history. Sports coaches have become stigmatized. Priests have become pariahs. For whatever reason, men are leaving teaching. And so, many of these secondary fathers are disappearing altogether. When that happens, what are we left with? Are these children or young men ever going to grow up?Is that what you fear — that we’re going to have a generation of young men who have never been fully socialized? Who have never been fully taught, not just how to be men, but how to be fully realized people?I’m not afraid that it won’t happen, because it’s gonna happen. One of the things that I loved about Campbell is that he explained gangs by saying this is what happens when there’s no secondary father. These gangs are taking young men and giving them impossible tasks, giving them praise and rewards and coaching them to an adulthood. But it’s a negative adulthood. And so, as these secondary fathers disappear for everyone, there will be similar forms that will appear and fulfill that function. But they will coach these young men to maybe more negative manhoods. Yet it also seems like there’s a lack of universally accepted male role models at the national level. There’s no Frank Sinatra or Hugh Hefner anymore — no one who, for better or worse, everyone looks up to. Do you think I’m wrong in that assessment?I think you’re wrong in that these were maybe not the healthiest male role models to model yourself after. I prefer to think of someone like John Glenn.Okay, I’ll buy that. Is there a modern-day John Glenn?Maybe not on the big, big level that everyone can emulate. But I think that on a more local level, there are teachers who mentor students. The man who taught me minimalist writing, Tom Spanbauer, was very much the master of this workshop of students. And among his apprentices — the people who could produce work that was marketable — bought their way out of his workshop. They achieved a mastery of their own. I’d like to see more of that happening. Instead of people just being given grades and being given loans to repay. I’d like to see them actually demonstrate a mastery in something useful in this kind of apprentice/mentor student role.You’ve experienced a lot of death in your life and even volunteered at a hospice for a time. Why were you drawn to something so morbid?It panicked me as a young person to first get a sense of my mortality — that at some point, I was going to be called upon to die. Because I had no idea what it was like to die. By working at a hospice, I was able to see what the process was like — that some people die beautifully and some people die horribly, but that if they could do it, I could do it, too. It gave me a greater sense of ease around the inevitability of dying. Later in life, your father was murdered by the ex-husband of his new girlfriend. When something that terrible and seemingly random happens, how do you try to make sense of it?By using my journalism degree. By going to the trials and talking about all the details. By understanding moment by moment everything that took place. And by establishing a sense of, not quite control, but a sense of having mastered the narrative of what led to what.On another strange and inevitable level, my father had almost been killed as a child. His father had become very upset and killed his mother and himself. But he also tried to kill my father. He just gave up searching for him before he committed suicide. When my father was finally killed by this woman’s ex-husband all these years later, a mattress fell on top of his body as the building he was in burned. The mattress is what preserved his body well enough that they could identify him as my father. Crazy enough, the reason my father survived as a child when his father went insane was that he had hidden underneath a mattress.There were so many coincidences like that. So in a way, my father’s death seemed like this perfect circle back to this past event actually coming to fruition. There were just too many odd coincidences to completely ignore them all.And yet, despite all these coincidences, you still identify as a nihilist? Something like that is uncanny. It almost seems otherworldly that there would be that many parallels.There’s a choice — you can either identify as a nihilist, or you can try to impose your own belief system on something you don’t understand. The latter option says more about controlling other people, and I prefer not to do that. I’d rather work from a position of nihilism, because I think that’s the best base for creativity and play.Still, you needed to process your father’s murder as a story and have some control of it in order to get past it.I treat storytelling as a digestive function. You ruminate like a chewing animal. And you chew a story over and over again until it has absolutely no emotional reaction, and you’ve resolved your emotional reaction to it. First by distancing it as a craft exercise — by turning it into a story — that’s one step. But the big step is to tell that story over and over again until you’ve completely assimilated the event into your identity, and you’ve exhausted your emotional reaction. You are no longer used by the story; you’re using the story at that point.You also supported your father’s killer being sentenced to death, a sentence that ended up getting commuted. I can’t imagine you arrived at that conclusion lightly. Some of the officials showed me documents from this man’s lifetime of incarceration. It was unethical, maybe even illegal, but there were a long string of things that he’d been convicted of doing since childhood. This man had created so much pain and had destroyed so many people’s lives that it just seemed like the cleanest way of resolving his life. What was the most important thing that your dad taught you?When I was little, we lived out in the country and had this chopping block where we killed chickens. My father had told me not to put metal washers over my fingers and get them stuck. But I did it anyway. The washer got stuck, and my finger turned black. I went to my father, and he said, “We’re going to have to cut this off.” It was completely clear to me that it was my fault, that there was a price to pay and that my father was doing me a favor by washing my finger and putting rubbing alcohol on the axe so it would be sterile.When we got to the chopping block, my father had me kneel down and put my finger on it. Then, he swung the axe and missed by an inch. Afterward, he took me inside and took the washer off with soap and water. But in that moment, I was very clear — and I’ve been very clear since — that if things are going to happen in my life, I’m gonna have to make them happen — and if they don’t happen, I’m going to have to take responsibility. That’s one parenting technique…He was like a 22-year-old guy. So I don’t want to be too hard on him.That’s very gracious of you. Nowadays, someone would call DCFS if something like that happened.Again, he was a 22-year-old guy whose father had killed himself and his mother in a murder suicide. He’d been beaten as a child and had grown up to the best of his abilities. He had no parenting skills. I think he did a marvelous job when you consider his circumstances.Aside from your father’s murder, the other big element of your personal life that’s become public is your sexuality. You didn’t, however, come out until 2003. And, in fact, even gave the impression that you were married to a woman. Why?Because of my partner. He doesn’t want to be a public person. And the next question they ask you after coming out is, “Who are you with?” So I chose not to go down that road. For the same reasons so many celebrities will refuse to talk about their children — they don’t want to make their children into public figures.If you were to start your career today, would you be more willing to come out? I imagine it would be much easier now socially speaking.I’d probably do it exactly the opposite way. I’d say no picture on the book. I’d use a pseudonym like the author of The Hunger Games. I’d refuse to do any kind of public relations. I’d keep myself entirely out of the process. Why?Because I’d like the work to stand on its own and to be judged on its own. I’ve become exhausted with the constant explanation of the work, which I don’t think is necessary. Too much of the presence of the author can get between the reader and the story. Afterwards, the reader will no longer see themselves in the story; they will see too much of the author.That’s interesting because there’s a certain kind of bro-y, straight white guy who really loves the Fight Club movie — and the book if they happen to read it. I imagine that they’re a little surprised when they find out the author is gay. Would you consider that accurate?They are, and they aren’t. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I also wrote Invisible Monsters, which gay guys love as well as straight women because it’s all about that panicky feeling that this beautiful thing isn’t going to be beautiful forever and that you’ve got to transition that beauty into a different, more lasting form of power. That’s something so many beautiful women face and why people really attach to Invisible Monsters. And so, I think that by the time that book came out, I had such a variety of books in the world that the particulars about me were less important.You’re really downplaying your own role in this. You don’t take pride in the fact that people really resonate with your work and want to discuss it with you?That’s because my degree is in journalism. My job is to listen to people at parties and to identify their stories and to find a commonality in the pattern between them. Because when someone tells an anecdote that goes over well, it evokes other people to tell almost identical anecdotes from their own life. Then you choose the very best of these to demonstrate a very human dynamic. In a way, what I do isn’t so much invent things as it is identifying them. Later, I just put them together in a report that looks like a novel.You think of your fiction as reporting?It is. I have so little imagination. But I have so much admiration when I hear a great story from someone — the journalist in me wants to preserve it, archive it and honor it in some way.Not long ago, we were talking about male role models, but it just dawned on me that I never asked you who yours was when you were growing up.Dr. Christiaan Barnard. He was a heart transplant surgeon in South Africa. There was an article about him in a magazine when I was a small child, and something about him just completely captivated my attention.Do you know what it was exactly?The idea that he had dedicated his life to heart transplant research but that he had developed arthritis so severe that he could no longer do the work himself. That seemed like such a tragedy and made him infinitely more appealing. John McDermott is a staff writer at MEL. He last wrote about how we need a better name for net neutrality to get people to start caring about it.More conversations:A Conversation With Conner Habib, the Syrian-American Gay Porn Performer and Radical PhilosopherMoments after the solar eclipse peaked over Los Angeles on Monday, I found Conner Habib perched on his porch. We sat on…melmagazine.comA Conversation With Chris KluweThe outspoken former NFL punter whose mouth got him blackballed from pro footballmelmagazine. comA Conversation With Dan Wilson, the ‘Closing Time’ Singer Who’s Written Hits for All Your Favorite…How the former Semisonic frontman became a hitmaker for womenmelmagazine.comA Conversation With Keith Law, Baseball’s Foremost Intellectual and FirebrandESPN’s sabermetrics guru discusses antidepressants, the importance of logic and his great new book about the future of…melmagazine.comA Conversation with Langston Kerman, the ‘Insecure’ Star and Slam Poet-Turned-Standup-ComicLangston Kerman is an L. A. -based comedian who tours the country performing stand-up and is on the verge of starring in…melmagazine.com

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism

  1.0 The Flaws of Liberal Democracy

  The developed nations of the Western world are currently characterised by a political-economic system typically referred to as “Liberal Democracy“*. Up until very recently, there has been a tendency for all major political parties to converge on an ostensibly moderate, centrist, Liberal Democratic position. This position is characterised by Representative Democracy on the one hand, and commitment to Liberalism (both social and economic, but with emphasis on Market Liberalism) on the other. This worldview is frequently depicted by its proponents as the polar opposite of and only ethical or viable alternative to Authoritarian forms of social organization.

  1.1 Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism

  Of course, for decades there have been those who questioned that narrative. While things were apparently going well for Liberal Democracy these critics were never going to be paid much attention by the general public, and it was trivially easy for the establishment to marginalize them on the basis of their frequent association with discredited ideologies such as Marxism. Things have shifted since the Great Recession, however. To put it simply, things are no longer going so well for Liberal Democracy, and it is not quite so easy to dismiss alternatives out of hand. We will discuss the matter of alternatives in parts 2 & 3 of this article, but first we should take this opportunity to examine the claim that Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism are diametrically opposed.

I would argue that Liberal Democracy is in fact not only inherently Authoritarian (or at least not nearly as liberal or democratic as it claims to be), but that it fosters more direct forms of Authoritarianism – even Totalitarianism – in developing nations and relies upon them to justify its own agenda. Here I will briefly consider three aspects of this complex relationship; The track record of Liberal Democratic governments (both domestically and abroad), the symbiotic relationship between Liberal Democracies and directly Authoritarian governments, and clear tendencies amid the most ideologically extreme proponents of Liberal Democracy.

  1.2 The moral failure of Liberal Democracy

  Liberal Democracy is regularly argued to be the most ethical of political-economic systems, thanks to its apparent emphasis on giving the people a voice, and ensuring their freedom to act as they see fit within society. I believe that not only are these false claims in a number of important ways on a domestic level, but that the implicit and explicit foreign policy of Liberal Democracies denies the people of other nations those same freedoms.

On the domestic level, I believe that Representative Democracy is not true democracy at all. It is a system which allows governments to give the impression of democracy, while they and their favoured private-sector partners more or less do as they please. Centrist Liberal Democratic parties control parliaments in a kind of “revolving door” arrangement, which coupled with their increasingly similar policies means that there is no true choice to be found in elections at all. It is true that there is a strong argument to be made for decision making by meritocracy where expert knowledge is critical, but many currently centralised societal decisions could be made by referendum and decentralised direct democracy (i.e. according to the principle of Subsidiarity).

Additionally, the Liberal Democratic claim to “freedom” tends not to mean any such thing for the average citizen who is not economically self-sufficient, but is instead a friendly sounding name for the policy of giving corporations Carte Blanche in matters of broad societal interest. On that point, I would assert that Liberal Democracy is an ideology organised around defense of the most dysfunctional aspects of Capitalism, and it is nigh impossible to assess one facet of this belief system without considering the other. In other words, “Liberal Democracy” is not really the ideology of true liberty or democracy, but of Capitalism.

It can be hard to convince people living in developed nations that Liberal Democracy isn’t actually very liberal or democratic, especially in the midst of good times. When Capitalism is bringing home the bacon, people are usually not inclined to be bothered that they don’t have half the freedoms or democracy that they imagine. Internationally, however, it is easier to see that Liberal Democratic deeds speak much louder than words. Aside from Western support for Authoritarian regimes (more on that below), we can note an almost non-stop string of military interventions dating back to World War II. These wars began by benefitting certain Capitalists indirectly (i.e. mostly Military-Industrial Complex contractors), but in recent decades it has become clear that war itself is an exercise in profit-making, and that most of that profit comes from oil. Despite plenty of moderate and humanitarian rhetoric, the West never engages in serious work to rebuild devastated nations, unless it is to install an Authoritarian “client” regime.

  1.3 Symbiosis between Liberal Democracy and Authoritarianism

  The West – exemplified primarily by the United States – has an appalling track record when it comes to installing and supporting Authoritarian regimes in nations which have some value as a client state, but which are not contenders to be developed into full-blown Liberal Democracies in the near term. I only hesitate in laying the blame for this trend solely at the American door because other major powers have indulged in this game in the past, and would do again in the future given the chance. For now, all of the other major nations seem to fall into the categories of “US client state” or “emerging competitor”.

I am sure that many defenders of Liberal Democracy would cite Realpolitik, and claim that even the most benevolent superpower would have to operate strategically in a wider context of less-than-ideal partners. Perhaps so. But there is another, equally valid way to characterise this relationship between the Liberal Democratic West and its Authoritarian partners in the East and South. This is to say that they are two sides of a single coin, or two partners in a single symbiotic relationship. Authoritarian client states clearly benefit from Western support, usually in the form of military and/or covert logistical aid (e.g. in the case of Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile). The same is true for non-state clients such as the Afghan Mujahideen.

Liberal Democratic states primarily benefit from these relationships by opening up new markets, although there are sometimes additional strategic benefits to maintaining such clients. Advocates for Liberal Democracy invariably spin the creation of new markets in terms of spreading “Freedom” and “Democracy”, when in reality what is being exported is Capitalism. The lack of true freedom and democracy we see in Liberal Democratic states is even more acute in these client states, where the Authoritarian regimes typically allow foreign corporations to act as they see fit, exempt from any reasonable level of regulation. This of course represents a bonanza for the companies, the most powerful of whom effectively control the deep policies of Western governments through lobbying and control of core institutions.

In short, we are told that Liberal Democracy stands in lone opposition to Authoritarianism, but in fact it is not truly liberal (in the sense of offering deep freedom) or democratic (in the sense of the people having any real voice), and it deliberately fuels Authoritarianism in order to expand the Capitalist sphere of influence. Not all Authoritarianism is the product of Capitalism run amok – far from it, and contrary to the Marxist just-so story on these matters – but I do feel that we must address this false claim of opposition between two phenomena that are in fact very closely related.

As much as we do not want to gloss over complex truths, it is often helpful to draw attention to important ideas through the use of a simple image, or shorthand. We can encapsulate this idea of a complex symbiotic relationship between the Liberal Democratic West and various forms of Authoritarianism in the East and South by thinking in terms of a puppet show. We may watch such a show and see apparent conflict between two characters, but behind the scenes there is only one motivator, one puppeteer. We should not take this image literally, and indulge in unhelpful conspiracy theories of people orchestrating worldly events from “behind the scenes”. All I am saying is that where we are told that there are two different entities with different values and motivations – First World Liberal Democracies and Second/Third World Authoritarian regimes – there is in fact only one.

The picture I have painted above hinges on close cooperation between Western governments and corporations. I and others have characterised that as a “Corporatist” relationship in the past, and the various possible meanings of that term lead to complications that we don’t have time for here. Most broadly, we can characterise a Corporatist system of governance as one in which government and business are deeply and deliberately integrated. Corporatism is at essence about gathering influence, and using every tool available to achieve that end. Government is used to further the Corporatists’ business concerns, and private businesses are conversely used as tools of government. Furthermore, just as the division between public and private is dismantled, the Corporatist quite happily uses the Authoritarian apparatus of other states to achieve their goals where necessary. There are no boundaries to the Corporatist, no sense of loyalty or identity which stops them playing the game from all sides.

  ​1.4 Ideological paradoxes inherent to Liberal Democracy

  Given that Liberal Democracy is the ideological mask of choice for our current Corporatist system, it is an interesting irony that the Right or Economic wing of the Libertarian movement opposes Corporatism as a corruption of “true” Capitalism, while at the same time we might reasonably argue Libertarianism to be the ideological vanguard of Liberal Democracy. On the outermost edge of Economic Libertarianism we find the Anarcho-Capitalists, who take the basic tenets of Economic Libertarianism to their logical conclusion, and so are instructive in making the core beliefs and trends in that movement clear. Where the Libertarians tend to argue for a bare-minimum (“Night Watchman”) state apparatus, the Anarcho-Capitalists would have no state whatsoever. Where the Libertarians claim to prioritise personal and social freedoms but tend to emphasise economic freedoms, Anarcho-Capitalists invariably claim that economic freedom is the root of all other freedoms.

  The problems with Liberal Democracy I have outlined are particularly vivid in their Libertarian incarnation. In defense of Libertarianism I would say that the core impulse of what we might call “Good Faith” Libertarians is to defend personal freedoms of all sorts, which is perfectly laudable. The problem is that of Liberal Democracy writ large; that all too often when Economic Libertarians talk of “freedom”, they at least implicitly mean the freedom of large organizations to do what they want while ordinary human citizens might be free in principle but are in fact enslaved by circumstance. The ‘circumstance’ I refer to is commonly known as Structural Violence. In other words, the freedom of companies comes at the expense of the true freedom of regular people when it is taken too far.

  Libertarianism makes the inherent paradox of Liberal Democracy clear. Liberal Democracy is in truth the ideology of late Capitalism, in which progressive ideals like freedom and democracy are perverted in service of the needs of a Corporatist Establishment. (Right-wing, Economic) Libertarian heroes such as Ayn Rand tell fables in which Übermensch-like innovators are oppressed by evil collectives, and these childish stories reflect an innate Libertarian fear and hatred of true democracy.

  Reality is never as simple as an Ayn Rand story. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, Capitalism has been a powerful force for good on a number of levels, and there are Authoritarian forces opposed to Capitalism which are even greater threats to civilization. Similarly, while it is good to recognise the problem of Corporatism and strive for true liberty, it is a particularly tragic irony when someone imagines that problem can be solved by becoming a cheerleader for the Liberal Democratic system.

  The next two installments in this series will consider alternatives to Liberal Democracy. Just as a desirable alternative would in fact be more truly democratic, it would also be more truly liberal, and worthy of those activists who seek a better paradigm rather than to be just another puppet on the strings of the current one.

  *It is important to note that where I refer to “Liberal Democracy” and particularly “Liberal Democrats” above, I am referring to the wider political system and not political parties who share that name (e.g. the UK Liberal Democrats). Such parties are, however, very much an enthusiastic part of the system I am criticising here.

  2.0 The Social Futurist Alternative

  Most broadly, Social Futurism stands for positive social change through technology; i.e. to address social justice issues in radically new ways which are only just now becoming possible thanks to technological innovation. If you would like some introduction to Social Futurist ideas, you can read the introduction page at http://socialfuturist.party. In this post I will discuss the Social Futurist alternative to Liberal Democratic and Authoritarian states, how that model fits with our views on decentralization and subsidiarity, and its relevance to the political concept of a “Third Way“.

  Part 1 of this article offered some strong but necessarily brief criticisms of Liberal Democracy, essentially saying that not only does it not deliver the promised freedom and democracy but that it and non-Western Authoritarian regimes are united in a kind of Corporatist symbiosis. The aim of this second post is to discuss a few aspects of the Social Futurist alternative that I advocate.

  2.1 The Virtual, Distributed, Parallel (VDP) State

  One of the ideas proposed in the “Social Futurist policy toolkit” is known as the VDP State. The idea is described as follows in the article linked above:

  We advocate the establishment of communities with powers of self-governance known as VDP States, where VDP stands for “Virtual, Distributed, Parallel”. ‘Virtual’ refers to online community, orthogonal to traditional geographic territories. ‘Distributed’ refers to geographic States, but ones where different parts of the community exist in different locations, as a network of enclaves. ‘Parallel’ refers to communities that exist on the established territory of a traditional State, acting as a kind of organizational counterpoint to that State’s governing bodies. Two or three of these characteristics may be found in a single VDP State, but it is expected that most such communities would emphasise one characteristic over the others. Alternatively, a VDP State may emphasise different characteristics at different stages in its development.

  Given Social Futurist emphasis on voluntarism, VDP State citizenship must be entirely voluntary. Indeed, the entire point of the VDP State is to broaden the range of governance models which people may voluntarily choose to engage with, where they are currently told that they simply have to accept a single model of governance.

  For the purposes of this article, there are three aspects of the VDP State (VDPS) idea to think about. One is the question of how a VDPS can avoid the problematic trappings of Authoritarianism, Corporatism, and Liberal Democracy. Another is the relationship between the VDPS and its citizens. Finally, we must also consider the matter of feasibility; How can such a thing seriously be established and maintained?

  Encoding Social Futurist Values into the VDPS

  Clearly, any Social Futurist state worthy of the name would have to be designed to systematically avoid the problems associated with Authoritarianism, Corporatism, and Liberal Democracy. The widely acknowledged answer to the problem of Authoritarianism is Decentralization; i.e. to design the state as a network of communities and services operating according to the principle of subsidiarity. As long as a common set of shared principles and goal states are recognised by all elements of the state, then a single authority tasked with making all executive decisions for the entire network is unnecessary, not to mention fragile, dangerous, and inefficient.

  The question of decentralization and subsidiarity is considered in more detail in the second section of this article, so now we must ask ourselves what problems Corporatism and Liberal Democracy pose which are distinct from and additional to the threat of Authoritarianism. It would appear that if the essence of Corporatism is to deliberately violate boundaries in order to accrue centralised influence, then decentralization is the answer to it, also. Beyond these forms of creeping control, the remaining problem I’ve identified with Liberal Democracy is its inability to live up to its defining claim to exemplify freedom and democracy. Direct democracy fits naturally with the idea of a decentralised network of federated communities. Cross-community referenda and citizens’ rights can be guaranteed by a single set of principles shared by all parts of the state network (formal agreement with the principles being a minimum requirement for a community to join the network). Finally, the problem of structural violence can be solved with automation in combination with Universal Basic Income, being a transition phase into full technological Post-Scarcity.

  I have tried to not only keep these proposals as simple as possible, but also to explain them in terms of traditional political ideas and themes. A key element of Social Futurism, however, is acknowledgement that we live in an era of accelerating technological development. All of the proposals offered above could in principle be encoded in the function of decentralised software and hardware tools, potentially making the “Social Contract” of a VDPS an explicit, tangible thing. The Zero State community has begun work toward implementing these ideas through the creation of a cryptographic Distributed Autonomous Community (AKA Decentralized Autonomous Community, Cooperative, or Corporation; DAC).

  The Social Futurist Citizen and their relationship to the VDPS

  It is my belief that we cannot simply focus on the nature of the VDPS and ignore any consideration of its citizens. I have established in earlier articles that the voluntary nature of VDPS citizenship and a right to “free exit” must be enshrined in the core principles of any such state if it is to comply with Social Futurist ideals. This is the foundation stone of a growing list of Social Futurist state obligations to treat citizens fairly, and of course all citizens must abide by the core principles of the state if they wish to retain that citizenship. Beyond that basic obligation, however, what qualities might we expect such people to have?

  Because Social Futurism seeks to avoid onerous restrictions upon people of the sort found (explicitly) in Authoritarianism and (implicitly in) Liberal Democracy, there can be no requirements of citizens beyond behaviour compatible with principle (and of course to comply with the law, which must itself be principle-compatible). Beyond the matter of official requirements, however, we might reasonably discuss ideals that citizens may wish to aspire to. Indeed, the very concept of the Social Futurist Citizen might be held up as just such an ideal. The Social Futurist Citizen would be a person who not only complies with principle and derived laws as a matter of course, but who also seeks to fulfill the spirit rather than simply the letter of those principles. Such a person would not only avoid crossing the bounds of unacceptable behaviour, but their example would demonstrate the true spirit of the principles to others.

  Just as we would expect a fully realised Social Futurist VDP State to employ the most effective technologies available – to integrate them into its deepest infrastructure – we should expect the same kind of commitment from the Social Futurist Citizen. Most generally we could characterise this expectation in terms of the Transhumanist idea; that we can and should improve the human condition. Given our emphasis on voluntarism and evidence, I don’t think we can say much about ways in which people may choose to become “better than well”. For now, we can leave this matter with an acknowledgement that in Social Futurism both the State and its most committed Citizens would seek to evolve into a greater fulfillment of the same principles and ideals.

  Establishing and Maintaining the VDPS

  Ideals and hypothetical evolutionary processes aside, the single most pressing question about VDP States is how to realistically establish and maintain them. Previously I have noted that this is a serious issue, and that the answer would largely depend upon the nature of any given VDP State. For example, a primarily virtual state would be the easiest to build and maintain, including questions of defense which would mostly boil down to matters of information security. A primarily virtual state would, however, be the least satisfying when it came to meeting the needs of physical communities. There are certain things that a decentralised software environment can do to empower a distributed group of people – the internet has made that quite clear – but ensuring shelter, food, hygiene, and defence are not among them.

  A primarily distributed state (i.e. a network of physically separate communities) has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, more or less the inverse of the virtual state. It can meet the physical needs of its citizens as long as supply lines and territorial integrity can be maintained, but defense is no longer merely a matter of information security, and requires serious resources. This is particularly true where such communities exist on territory claimed by another state, or where organised piracy is a serious threat.

  The strengths and weaknesses of a parallel state are a more complicated matter, depending on the nature of both the new state and its host. Both may be considered to be more or less permeable, which is to say flexible about the integrity of their borders and what they allow within them. A relationship between a parallel and traditional state may be viable as long as at least one of the two is highly permeable (or both are moderately so). For example, a strongly enforced traditional state may allow an informal intentional community to call itself a “state” on its territory, and a weak state may even be obliged to tolerate a powerful microstate within its borders. But two low-permeability states cannot peacefully coexist in the same space; a strongly enforced traditional state simply will not tolerate a powerful microstate on its territory without some special mutual agreement (such as that between Italy and the Vatican).

  Taking these factors into account, it seems clear that the most effective approach to establishing a VDP State would be to see it as a network, with different nodes within that network emphasising different characteristics. So there would ideally be a mixture of (1) highly permeable parallel state nodes in low-permeability countries, and (2) low-permeability nodes in high-permeability countries, together constituting (3) a distributed state of physical enclaves, plus (4) a network of virtual nodes providing communications support. Such a network would be resilient to local failures of supply lines or territorial integrity, and would of course be a natural fit for implementing the Social Futurist ideal of Subsidiarity.

  On the theoretic level, decentralization is required in order to pass the moral test which Authoritarianism and Liberal Democracy both fail so badly.

  2.2 Decentralization and Subsidiarity

  We can see that the Social Futurist idea is strongly interrelated with the idea of decentralization, on both theoretic and pragmatic levels. On the theoretic level, decentralization is required in order to pass the moral test which Authoritarianism and Liberal Democracy both fail so badly. On the pragmatic level, Social Futurist practice can only be implemented by establishing alternative, distributed, voluntary networks which operate outside the bounds of traditional institutions. This section will briefly explore how that could work and would affect modern society.

  I have previously considered how Socialists and Libertarians (or any traditionally incompatible pair of ideologies) could co-exist within a decentralised network of enclaves and affiliations, to the extent that they could all agree to respect a common set of principles. I believe that we can and should extend those ideas to explore the Zero State idea of cooperative networks, how they might apply to networks of physical enclaves, and also how these ideas map on to models of responsible business and innovation.

  I have previously argued that cooperative networks can accommodate disparate points of view, even apparently incompatible ideologies, by allowing different groups to govern their own affairs while remaining embedded in a wider confederation defined by a single set of unifying principles. Such principles act as the basis for cooperation across the entire network, and make a number of decentralised cooperative modes possible.

  For example, clear principles can make it instantly apparent if the behaviour of one part of the network is no longer compatible with the whole. In other words, if a group “goes rogue” and starts acting in ways that clearly contravene the wider network’s principles, then the network’s response should be dictated by those same principles. In an extreme case, clear principles make it possible for the network to develop a kind of decentralised “immune response” to deal with both external and internal threats.

  Where there isn’t good reason to do things differently, freedom of action should apply at all levels of the network where the principles are not being contravened. In other words the principles should apply to groups and organisations as much as to individuals, starting with the principle of free exit. This means that as long as any group satisfies the demands of principle then it should be able to manage its own internal affairs as its members feel is appropriate, and in turn the principle of subsidiarity is satisfied. That said, it is probably a good idea that the principles insist upon any networked group or organisation having a single self-chosen coordinator or point of contact. This is not necessarily a leader or democratic representative of any sort (Social Futurism would favour direct democracy within networked groups), but simply someone who can act as a spokesperson for the group within the wider network, and vice versa. The Social Future Institute operates exactly this kind of system, enabling various direct-democratic project groups to coordinate their efforts in line with a single set of principles, with no central controller telling everyone what to do.

  It is useful to distinguish between organizational affiliates and geographic enclaves. Both are potential nodes in a cooperative network, but like the different forms of VDP State they have different strengths and weaknesses. Networked organisations (e.g. companies, activist groups, charities) can often operate internationally, and can sometimes establish significant physical presences, but those presences will usually be subject to the authority of a State of some sort. Geographic enclaves (e.g. colonies, intentional communities) are necessarily limited to acting in one location, but their activity can encompass the entire life-experience of participants. In order to achieve a degree of resilience, networks should try to spread their bets by including nodes of various types. Beyond a certain common interest these different types of node should be expected to have different concerns and priorities, underscoring the need to devolve decision making authority to the most local level practicable in any given matter.

  2.3 The Third Way and Radical Centrism

  Given this emphasis on diversity and subsidiarity across a resilient network, it is worth considering how such a network might encourage a balance of social justice concerns, trade, and innovation. If we think of businesses or trading entities as nodes in the network, then we can easily see that their right to connect with other nodes (i.e. other companies and communities of potential clients and customers) will be predicated on compliance with the basic network principles. Companies which do not comply with the principles will not be allowed to act as part of the network, which means no engagement with any of its nodes. If any part of the network tries to circumvent the ban and trade with a company that contravenes principle, then it too would be ejected from the network. This creates incentive both to comply with the principles and to only engage with compliant nodes, as long as network membership is valuable (e.g. for allowing trade access).

  Of course, international companies have a tendency to play host countries off against each other for tax breaks and so on, and any company which wanted to trade within the network but not do so in accord with principle may well try to exert pressure on the network by taking its business elsewhere. In order to minimize this kind of risk, cooperative networks should (1) develop principles which reward responsible business and innovation, and (2) enlarge the network through growth and cooperative agreements with similar networks. The point of enlargement through cooperation or growth is to give hostile companies (or indeed any hostile entity) a smaller space of alternatives to work with. If refusing to trade with one network will come at too great an opportunity cost, then traders will think twice about doing so in an effort to avoid regulation.

  Neither Left nor Right, nor “Liberal Democratic” Centrist

  Our core concern is with balancing the engines of societal innovation (whether we’re talking about technology or businesses that develop it) with social justice. Of course, that is a concern shared with every political activist who isn’t so extreme as to believe that one thing should be pursued wholly at the expense of the other. We must understand that committed Left- and Right-Wingers invariably believe that their point of view is the best way to achieve such balance, while the “other side” has views that are inherently extremist and dangerously unbalanced. Sometimes such people will even have a point, as both the Left and Right have at least some good ideas which society ignores at its peril.

  In other words, it is sometimes the case that the Left or the Right is objectively correct on some matter, but this is simply because they’ll be advocating an idea which happens to be correct. That does not mean that every other idea advocated by the same broad coalition of people and ideologies will also be correct (or indeed appropriate for any given society). Added to this, we mustn’t forget that ideas have a way of migrating, or being advocated by different factions at different times. For example the Right has for some time been associated with prioritising economic growth over social issues, but now that so-called “Austerity” is a touchstone of the Right, the Left has moved to promote the idea of economic stimulation as an essential societal goal. Taken together, these things show that it is a mistake to focus on whether “the Left” or “the Right” is best, and better to focus on the best ideas.

  There is already a movement to advocate the best and most progressive ideas, whether they are currently “owned” by the Left or Right in any given country. That movement is as nebulous and multi-faceted as either the Left or Right, and is most commonly known as the “Third Way” or “Radical Centrism“. Personally I prefer Radical Centre over Third Way, simply because it is slightly more informative. Both labels speak to a balance between ideas from the Socialist Left and Capitalist Right, but the word “Radical” should in principle distinguish a true third alternative from the situation we have in Western governments these days, where all of the major parties blur into an indistinguishable mass of so-called Liberal Democratic centrism. As the Third Way Wikipedia page demonstrates, the mainstream paradigm of centrism is that of Tony Blair, David Cameron, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, even George Bush Jr. It isn’t a dynamic exploration of the best ideas for society so much as stagnation and entrenchment of a dysfunctional Capitalism and professional political class.

  Part 1 of this article flatly rejects the current global political-economic system, which is said by definition to be better than any other possible system, despite the evidence in front of our very eyes. I would prefer to see a system that more truly promotes social freedoms and citizen engagement in decision-making processes. I believe that a true Radical Centrism would indeed be Radical, and make a break with the historical dysfunctions of Liberal Democracy. In their place, a true Radical Centrism would attempt to build a better system from the ground up, drawing on the best ideas of both the Left and Right, and transcending the flaws of both.

  I have already written an article which identifies some of those ideas (“Social Futurist revolution & toolkit”), and so will not dwell on them here. Instead, I will simply note that I believe Social Futurism to be a Radical Centrist position in the true sense. It is not the only possible true Radical Centrism of course, but it is the one I advocate, because it represents a mix of ideas that I personally support. I will discuss Social Futurism at some greater length in the next part of this series, but for now I would like to close by looking at an example of how a true Radical Centrism could integrate ideas from across the political spectrum and develop them into something truly innovative rather than the insipid balancing act which typically plays out in Western governments.

  Growth and the Marius Principle

  A core belief of Market Liberalism which has all but become a defining feature of Western civilization is the idea that the economy must constantly grow. Aside from the degree to which this is a matter of ideology for some, there would certainly be serious consequences if our economies stopped growing for too long while our central institutions are utterly dependent on credit. In addition to this problem, we have become addicted to a kind of false growth, largely based on financial speculation and debt. The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Great Recession made it abundantly clear that when a major institution is found to be insolvent, the consequences have the potential to wipe out large swathes of the banking system upon which society has become utterly dependent. In short, debt pushes us into a need for growth, and false growth based on debt breeds cumulative risk.

  We cannot simply abandon the idea of growth unless we wish to court disaster, but we can try to seek healthier forms of growth, and to reduce the fragilities in our society that make any temporary lack of growth so dangerous. As to the question of reducing fiscal fragility, we could accept the Right’s call for fiscally responsible government, but at the same time we would need to reign in companies which create systemic financial risk – and certainly not bail them out when they fall into difficulties of their own creation. So far, this is a classic centrist position, if leaning a little toward Economic Liberalism and Libertarianism, but it is not particularly radical. The Social Futurist policy toolkit includes advocacy of Full Reserve Banking and other more radical ideas, but another truly radical thing would be to attempt solving the other half of the equation: To address the question of acceptable growth.

  The idea of putting constraints of what kinds of growth are acceptable (i.e. prioritising social concerns over free trade) certainly looks like Left Wing policy, while the idea of prioritising economic growth at all costs comes from the Right. The issue gets considerably muddier when we introduce what we might call the Marius Principle. This is the idea that true growth, or healthy growth, can only be based upon resources that are either being created or made accessible to the system for the first time. Simply rearranging resources that are already available and not adding any significant functionality is not true growth, but merely speculation. In this model “fiat” money is not a true resource, as nothing is actually being created beyond an agreement to transfer potential control over extant resources. Invention is one way of driving true growth, as increased value correlates with an actual increase in the ability to do things which previously could not be done. In the old days communities would “make new resources available to the system” by invading their neighbours and stealing resources, or exploring new lands. I do not advocate the former, but the latter is an option in the form of space-based industries such as solar power production and off-world mining. Yes, it is easier in the short term to simply speculate and trade in debt than it is to open up new frontiers, but we as a civilization will pay dearly if we cannot grow out of this infantile phase and learn to look outward.

  ​I call this the Marius Principle after the Roman general and statesman Gaius Marius, who reformed the Roman army by introducing the recruitment of landless citizens. These new soldiers were invariably poor, and they had to be paid in some fashion, so Marius promised them a share of land from any territory conquered under his command. In essence there was a need for resources to meet an obligation (to the soldiers), and Marius determined that the soldiers should therefore be directly motivated to secure those resources. In a single move this vastly increased the size of the Roman army, increased soldiers’ motivation and loyalty, and increased the reach of Rome. If we look past the military context of Marius’ situation to see his deeper strategy, we see that it can be applied to today’s economy: Give private enterprise serious incentive to innovate and explore (while disincentivizing speculative and parasitic behaviours), and you will get more innovators and explorers, with greatly enhanced motivation, and true growth for the entirety of society will be made possible. Of course, such a program is truly radical, and would require us to step outside the limited thinking that characterises current parliamentary centrism.

  In summary, part 1 of this article criticised the current centrist paradigm of Liberal Democracy. In part two I began by discussing the idea of VDP (Virtual, Distributed, Parallel) States offering a Social Futurist alternative to Liberal Democracy. Such States would essentially stand outside the current system and be characterised by a direct democratic network structure. I discussed the role of principles, citizenship, and pragmatic concerns in creating such an alternative societal model. From there I addressed the importance of decentralization and subsidiarity, before moving on to consider how ideas from across the political spectrum might be balanced and incorporated in such a system. Finally I argued that Social Futurism is a truly Radical Centrist or Third Way ideology, and gave an example of the kind of policy we might expect from that ideology. In part 3 I will examine ways in which we might expect Social Futurism to relate to Techno-Progressivism, Natural Law, Resource Economies, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Socialism.

  3.0 Social Futurism & Related Concepts

  The first two articles in this series criticised the dominant political paradigm of the Western world (Liberal Democracy) and briefly outlined the beginnings of an alternative called Social Futurism (SF). The aim of this final article is to begin exploring relationships between the core SF idea and a few relevant concepts.

  3.1 Social Futurism, Techno-Progressivism, & Socialism

  As things currently stand, Social Futurism is essentially a synonym for Techno-Progressivism, but that may change as both positions develop over time. The picture is further complicated by the fact that different theorists will inevitably favour different interpretations of these schools of thought, and some combinations of those interpretations will be more compatible than others. For now, it is perhaps most helpful to identify their core commonalities. I have claimed that Social Futurism is essentially an integration of social justice and technological concerns. Similarly, Techno-Progressivism stands broadly for progressive social change (the Wikipedia page mentions “the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and a wider rights culture”) but also insists that progressivism must complement and be applied to technological developments. Again, we may refer to the summary on the Techno-Progressivism Wikipedia page:

  Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology.

Of course, any view which sees questions of personal rights and techno-social change as being interrelated is going to be relevant to Futurist schools of thought such as Transhumanism and Singularitarianism. There are some minor complications there (with certain Transhumanists disliking Techno-Progressivism, and vice versa), but for the most part these are broadly like-minded streams of thought. In addition to emphasis on social justice and technology, Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism share an opposition to Bio-Conservatism. In fact they are arguably defined by opposition to that viewpoint, which holds that society should be particularly hesitant to adopt new technologies, especially when those technologies may alter the traditional human condition or social order. In other words, Bio-Conservatives oppose new technologies because they upset the status quo. Finally, Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism both champion ethical technological developments, but simultaneously oppose unethical and dangerous applications of technology. That willingness to assess the relative risk and benefit of any given technology could in principle lead to agreement between Techno-Progressives and Bio-Conservatives on specific issues.

  The four core commonalities described above (emphasis on [1] social justice and [2] technology, opposition to [3] Bio-Conservatism and [4] dangerous or unethical practices) make it clear why it is reasonable to consider Social Futurism a synonym for Techno-Progressivism. Indeed, that would be a truism if we could not identify any meaningful differences between the two schools of thought. In looking for such a potential difference, we might reasonably start by examining the term “Social”. That label implies some connection between Social Futurism and Socialist thought, even if that connection is not prescriptive or even necessarily intended. We need to consider the historical relationship between Socialism and Progressivism, and any continuing influence it may have on the relationships between Socialism, Social Futurism, and Techno-Progressivism.

  Socialism itself is a complex of ideas, methods, and attitudes. It is far from a monolithic ideology, despite what some people believe. Traditionally those who favoured open interpretations of Socialism’s goals and approaching them via the methods of parliamentary democracy have been called Social Democrats. Social Democracy has a lot in common with the Labour Movement and a number of threads within historical Progressivism. Marxists (by which I include Marxist-Leninists and other forms of Communist), on the other hand, take a narrower view of what counts as Socialism, saying that unless a society’s means of production are owned by the workers instead of a class of Capitalist investors then a system cannot be considered Socialist. Of course there are all sorts of shades and nuances of belief to be found here, but the key point is that Marxist beliefs hinge upon a concise core definition of Socialism, and Marxists reject all other interpretations as “Populist Socialism”. This is important to note, because Populist Socialism is often taken to imply or even be an outright synonym for Fascism, for both valid historical and less valid propagandistic reasons.

  There is much to commend a concise, consistent definition of the core principle at the heart of a movement. If nothing else, it makes it clear what the movement stands for, and helps protect against “mission drift” or even outright hijacking by entryists. Social Futurism (henceforth SF) would benefit from having an easily identifiable core principle rather than a nebulous collection of values and commitments. Whatever candidates might emerge for that principle, however, it seems safe to say that it cannot be the Marxist principle of worker ownership which stands at the centre of Communism. The reason for this is that both Techno-Progressivism and Social Futurism as they currently stand are advocated by a broad range of pro-technology social activists, many of whom oppose the dysfunctions of Capitalism but only a small proportion of whom would actually support its total abolition. In short, SF is potentially compatible with Marxist ideas in the broadest sense, but there is no a priori reason to allow it to be limited by Marxist sensibilities and indeed alienate many SF advocates in the process. This logic applies to both Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism as they currently exist, and so could be counted as another reason to consider the two terms synonymous.

  Having established that position – that SF is concerned with techno-social progress and social justice but not limited by Marxist definitions – a certain situation seems to be inevitable. This is that, from a doctrinaire Marxist perspective, SF falls into the category of Populist Socialism. Marx himself would probably have categorised it as “Utopian Socialism” (a term he used to distinguish the views of earlier Socialists from his own perspective). Given the close connection between SF and other Futurist lines of thought, I believe that SF advocates should be encouraged to feel comfortable with their characterization as Utopian Socialists, despite the fact that the label is clearly intended as a slur. Similarly I would be dismissive of Marxist claims that SF is merely “Populism”, especially when those claims are delivered in an emotive fashion or without constructive thought on where points of agreement might be found.

  Any unsubstantiated or implied association with Fascism is to my mind an example of authoritarian bullying to accept Marxist doctrine or else, and in my opinion opposition to such authoritarianism must be a critical component of a mature SF. To be constructive and conciliatory, however, I will once again stress that I think SF needs a core principle which will cement its commitment to meaningful change toward deep social justice, and if that principle is not Marxist then we must make it clear (1) why that principle is of greater net value than the Marxist one, and (2) how Marxists can approach their own beliefs and goals if they wish to cooperate with SF advocates. Discussion of candidate principles and the issues mentioned above is a huge topic, beyond the scope of the current article. Having marked that topic for future consideration, we can now turn our attention to a different, but related matter.

  3.2 Internationalism, Nationalism, and the European Question

  An ideological commitment common across different forms of Socialism is the idea of Internationalism. Internationalism asserts that common causes which unite people across borders (such as social issues) are more important than the concerns of any given nation, and/or that the deepest concerns of individual nations are in fact best served through international cooperation rather than isolation or competition. Radical forms of Internationalism propose that all people should be able to freely move across borders as they see fit, or indeed that nations should cease to exist.

  There are good arguments to be made for these views, as long as they do not come bundled with authoritarianism, and therein lies the rub. There is of course a common right-wing conspiracy theory interpretation of Internationalism which depicts a drive for authoritarian “one-world government”, and it does reflect a true correlation between support for Socialism and Internationalism. We need to ask ourselves if there isn’t a valid question to ask here, buried somewhere under the distraction of conspiracy theory, and whether anything about the inherent logic of SF speaks to the issue of Internationalism. Firstly, given the connections between Socialist and Internationalist attitudes on the one hand and Socialism and SF on the other, it shouldn’t be surprising that a number of SF advocates are also ardent Internationalists. So the question that follows is not whether some current Social Futurists & Techno-Progressives are Internationalists, but whether they must be. Whether or not there is an inherent ideological connection between Internationalism and SF.

  I believe that not only is there no such explicit ideological connection as things currently stand, but that there cannot be. The reason for this is that even though one or more schools of thought grouped under the SF labels could in theory declare a strict adherence to Internationalism, it would have to do so at the expense of certain personal freedoms which are already central tenets of Social Futurism. In other words, up until this point SF has gone to great lengths to emphasise a priority on personal freedoms insofar as those freedoms are not being used (whether deliberately or accidentally) to reduce the freedoms of others. Insofar as SF might be considered Socialist, that would have to be an anti-authoritarian or even Left-Libertarian form of Socialism. Internationalism is often cast in terms of personal freedom (e.g. to cross borders unhindered), but Leftists sometimes forget that true freedom worthy of the name also includes the freedom to maintain one’s own community of choice, as long as that community doesn’t harm others by its existence. This is the Left-Libertarian idea writ large, enacted on the scale of communities rather than individuals.

  This is an awkward issue, because the very assertion that anyone should enjoy freedom to determine the form of their own community (including laws, traditions etc) is the hallmark of a modest form of Nationalism, which is invariably taken to be the antithesis of Internationalism. I say “modest” because extreme Nationalism which advocates expansion of one community’s influence at the expense of others’ is in fact Imperialism, and not defensible in terms of a freedom to determine one’s own community. Again, hardline Internationalist Marxists (e.g. Trotskyites) would often be quick to denounce freedom to determine one’s own community as the seed of Fascism. My own point of view is that although any given SF advocate may not feel any kind of Nationalist inclinations themselves, they must allow for freedom of community if SF is to have any plausible claim to being non- or even anti-authoritarian. Of course, any kind of community supported by SF advocates would have to avoid authoritarian and imperialist tendencies in itself, and there is no reason whatsoever why many small communities of choice cannot exist together in a wider cooperative network, enjoying mutual respect and support.

  In this way, we can see that Nationalist and Internationalist ideas need not necessarily oppose so much as complement each other, if approached from a constructive point of view. SF cannot oppose the freedom to determine one’s own community and remain true to its own anti-authoritarianism, but it can insist that any Nationalist impulse be tempered and complemented by Internationalist cooperation between networked communities. We might illustrate this idea by making a comparison between a nation-state and a family’s home. No-one should have the right to simply invade that family’s home and take it for their own as long as the family are not harming anyone by insisting on their own private space. At the same time however, that family should enjoy the benefits of connection to and support from the wider community as long as they in turn do their part to support the wider community they are a part of.

  In order to ground these considerations in the real world, to see what their implications are, I would like to very briefly consider the question of Europe. After all, Europe should be particularly sensitive to SF sensibilities (given its technological and political history), and it is a continent currently thinking hard about the relationships between its constituent nations. I believe that the argument above should lead Social Futurists and Techno-Progressives to advocate further evolution toward a Federal Europe which respects the continued existence of constituent nation-states but emphasises cooperative integration between those states. One might argue that we are already on track to such a thing existing, but that it is simultaneously anathema to both strident Nationalists and Internationalists for different reasons. From the perspective I’ve described it is most interesting to ignore such criticisms for the moment, and instead look closer at the details of how cooperation could work at the different scales of a thoroughly reformed EU.

  Holarchy

  I would like to briefly glance at how things might work on three scales; that of continent-sized federations, of nation-states within the EU, and of communities within any given European nation-state. The key theme here is the idea that the same principles apply across all scales, like a kind of Holarchic system.

  Federal Unions

  To start with, we already live in a world of major blocs which balance prioritization of their own goals with the demands of interdependence. It is quite clear that there are advantages available to states than can assemble into larger meta-states for the purpose of negotiating relationships with other large powers. No-one would expect an independent Oklahoma or Florida (or even California or New York) to have the same international leverage that those states enjoy as part of the larger United States of America, and the same is true for any state within the EU, Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China (admittedly an authoritarian bloc, rather than a federation), or less traditional agglomerations such as NATO, OPEC, or BRIC. So we live in a world of cooperating entities at the largest scale and will continue to do so – that’s simply a fact of life – even if that cooperation is unfortunately not always as peaceful or constructive as we might hope for. The only real question is what kind of meta-state we would advocate; i.e. how it should operate internally, on the level of constituent states and the smaller communities they are composed of in turn.

  States and Nations

  That, of course, is the tricky question. The most ardent Internationalists do not believe that people should have to tolerate any national borders whatsoever, and I will consider that issue further in the context of The Zeitgeist Movement, in the next section. On the other hand, Nationalists across Europe are currently using the ongoing economic crisis to clamour for greater dis-integration of the European Union, and the reclamation of greater national independence. In my opinion the European Union has been characterised by an unfortunate degree of centralised political control from Brussels in combination with too little economic uniformity, but total dissolution of the Union would be a disaster for its constituent nation-states.

I do not believe that we face a simple, stark choice between no EU at all, and a centralised authoritarian one. After all, few would take the idea seriously that the USA is inevitably and inherently authoritarian and so must be entirely dismantled rather than working toward a sensible balance of rights and responsibilities! So, our question is what kind of European Union (or indeed USA, or Russian Federation, African or South American or Chinese Federal Republic) Social Futurists and Techno-Progressives should advocate. I feel that the EU should evolve toward a state of fully common economic and military policy, but with a written constitution guaranteeing strongly devolved political decision making in all other areas. No solution to the European question will satisfy everyone and the road to any solution will be rocky, but this approach would maximise stability and external influence while preserving as much freedom of self-determination as possible, in exactly the manner I argue should be the hallmark of a SF/TP approach to such questions.

  Local Communities of Choice

  This is the part where things get really interesting. Many people will develop their views on Nationalism and Internationalism with an eye on one particular scale within this scheme, but not apply the same view equally at all other scales. For example, Nationalists will frequently argue the right of self-determination for their nation but then not afford the same right by the same logic to smaller communities within that nation. SF/TP is a political philosophy in its infancy, and so it still has the opportunity to develop in a rational, consistent manner when confronting issues such as this. In order to be consistent, we clearly must approach the issue of sub-national communities in exactly the same fashion we consider states and federations.

In other words, small communities of choice must have the freedom to manage their own internal affairs to the extent that they do not harm others, but at the same time they should be encouraged to see themselves as part of the wider milieu and ready to support other communities in the network. In terms of my proposition for Europe, that would mean that the Federal government coordinates economic and military matters across the continent, while state governments develop all other policy as it applies to local communities, but then local communities have the right and responsibility to interpret and apply those policies – and develop new policies – as they see fit and in accord with the European Constitution. According to the principle of subsidiarity, in this scheme local communities would be able to manage their own affairs while embedded in a much larger network of mutually supportive communities with common macroeconomic and military policy.

  3.3 Natural Law / Resource Economies, & The Zeitgeist Movement

  The previous sections explored the relationships between Social Futurism and Techno-Progressivism, between both the SF/TP philosophies together and various forms of Socialism, and between a hypothetical Socialist-Internationalist interpretation of SF/TP and acceptable forms of Nationalism demanded by our commitment to personal rights and freedoms. Finally, I would like to turn to ideas promoted by The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) which represent a continuation of the historical current that gave rise to Socialism and Internationalism, and which now have much in common with the views of SF/TP advocates and other Futurists. I hope that by applying Social Futurist views to TZM ideas we may learn more about both in the process.

  TZM describes itself as:

“A global sustainability advocacy organization that conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of global and regional chapters, project teams, annual events, educational media and charity work.”

Its core idea is that planetary resources are managed inefficiently and unethically by the Capitalist system, and that a Natural Law / Resource Based Economy (NL/RBE) could help to realise Post-Scarcity without introducing authoritarian, centralised control of any sort. Of course that’s a tall order, and to be fair TZM members seldom claim to have all the answers. Instead they seek widespread recognition that the current system simply isn’t working (hence the TZM motto “Realizing a New Train of Thought”), and emphasise that their solutions would not be doctrinaire but rather driven by the scientific method applied to humanitarian ideals.

Very broadly speaking, this is of course the raison d’être of Social Futurism, and I have said elsewhere that I believe TZM to be an intrinsically Social Futurist organization. Of course as I have mentioned different theorists will emphasise different aspects of their chosen ideologies so two representatives of even very similar philosophies may express themselves very differently, but the main thing is that at its heart TZM ideology is about a combination of social justice values and the promise of science. The potential value in this observation is that it doesn’t only apply to TZM. The same could be said of many different organizations and movements, which clearly opens the way to cooperation between them toward common goals. Often the primary barrier to cooperation is a simple lack of recognition that two groups want the same thing, and the idea that many different groups may for all their differences belong to one Social Futurist category could help bring that recognition about.

  TZM activists have committed considerable time and energy to clarifying similarities and differences between their own views and those expressed by earlier movements such as Technocracy and Marxism. Inevitably, these distinctions have earned the movement partisan labelling as Populist Socialism and worse, but the movement’s consistent emphasis on broad core values has helped to retain the sympathies of many Socialists and Futurists. Given that I’ve already asserted the TZM worldview to be inherently Social Futurist, the following points should really just be taken as exploratory diversions which Social Futurists of different persuasions may find interesting. Although a self-identifying Social Futurist or Techno-Progressive may not agree with any given TZM view below or my brief analysis of it, I would ask that readers try to see past such superficial differences of opinion and recognise a common philosophy which unites a disparate community of activists.

  Natural Law / Resource Based Economy?

  Not the most elegant term in the world, I grant you. But it’s content that counts, and in this case the content is a vision (courtesy of the Venus Project and before them the Technocracy movement) of a world in which there is an accurate public map of all available resources, their efficient distribution and use is maximised through science and technology, the Open Source era idea of common access replaces the Communist notion of common ownership, artificial scarcity and money are abolished, and everything is decentralised as much as possible.

  I haven’t actually been able to determine the origin of TZM’s use of the phrase “Natural Law Economy”, but assuming the traditional meaning of “natural law” I would take this to mean an economy which takes the laws of nature for its structure, moving to meet demand wherever it exists etc. I have serious reservations about that term and its implications, which I may detail at a later date, but they do not detract from the general soundness of the idea of managing resources intelligently. There are a lot of questions we could ask about how this is supposed to work, and we don’t have time for them here, but TZM activists have expressed various opinions with different degrees and types of merit. Most importantly in my opinion, we should note that the movement emphasises a change in train of thought or narrative; i.e. that the point is to get people asking the right questions rather than providing just so answers.

  ​Tell me how this isn’t Totalitarianism again, please?

  I must admit that my primary initial reservation about TZM was that I couldn’t see how such a vision could be achieved without magic or centralised control. This turns out to be an area where TZM does not have all the answers, but it does have an appropriate response, in two parts. First and most importantly, we are told that the movement explicitly opposes the idea of centralised control of resources (as we saw under the Communists in the USSR and PRC). Secondly, we are reminded that TZM’s goal as an organization is to encourage a shift in perspective or values which sets these outcomes up as widely understood societal goals. What it doesn’t do is lay out an exhaustive set of steps for achieving those goals, which is the part where all safeguards against Totalitarianism have to be developed, along with all of the other tools required to get from here to there. If you want to help ensure that the outcome is as anti-authoritarian as TZM activists hope for, then it is more helpful to offer constructive suggestions and make it so than sling baseless claims of authoritarianism.

  In short, the most articulate TZM advocates have been consistent in saying that they oppose authoritarianism, that reducing elite control over artificial scarcity goes some way toward reducing other forms of control, and that everyone is encouraged to work toward solutions to these problems. For my part, I have simply asserted that I will only ever involve myself with groups or movements that have anti-authoritarian principles like free exit at their heart – participation in such systems must be strictly voluntary – and would strongly encourage others to take the same stance.

  If I had the space to elaborate here, I would also detail my belief that Totalitarianism would be required to stop all forms of emergent trade, and so markets in artificial scarcities would have to be tolerated in an ethical RBE society, within certain parameters. A successful RBE would be one which rendered all truly important goods, services, and resources non-scarce, and in that world it wouldn’t matter if there were fleeting markets in artificially scarce trivialities, especially if the alternative is authoritarian control. But that is a topic that will need to be fully discussed another day.

  What about technological unemployment? Do robots have rights in a NL/RBE?

  Technological unemployment is certainly a key issue in TZM circles, and feelings seem to be mixed since the human cost of unemployment is currently a serious problem, but TZM hopes to see technology used to circumvent mandatory employment in the long run so… it’s complicated. Which is more or less the opinion I’ve encountered amongst Futurists, too. I’ve been asked quite a few questions along these lines, because I move in Futurist circles where the ideas of AI and artificial sentience are taken seriously. The simple answer is that TZM has not worked the answers to such questions out any more than the Futurist community have, so the Futurist community and SF/TP advocates have the opportunity to steer TZM thinking as it develops to fully account for radical technological change.

  A final note on events and some conclusions

  Over the years I’ve been to a number of meetings involving Futurists, TZMers and like-minded others, and one recurring thought throughout these meetings was that many of these people are working their way toward a common vision, and that the common vision is of humanitarian ideals approached through the medium of radical technological solutions. I have come to characterise that vision as Social Futurism, and explained why I believe Social Futurism to currently be synonymous with Techno-Progressivism. Not only that, but I believe that Social Futurism is a simple set of values and principles which underlies the efforts and aspirations of many different groups, whether they know it or not. That’s a good thing, because it encourages cooperation between organizations and movements which might not have seen themselves as like-minded or sharing common goals before.

  This article started out by casting a critical eye over Liberal Democracy; the ideology with a friendly-sounding name that has some far from friendly effects around the world. From there it went on to introduce the idea of Social Futurism, and now finally we have looked at some of the similarities and differences between Social Futurism and a few other points of view.

  What happens next, I leave as a question for you.

Liberal Democracy, the Third Way, & Social Futurism was originally published on transhumanity.net

‘𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒌𝒆𝒓𝒔’ 𝑩𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒇 - 𝑹𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘

Monday 25th November 2019

Project 3 | Term 1

Aims and Objectives:

Be able to analyse and research a 2D problem in Art & Design.

Be able to use an integrated approach to 2D problem solving in Art & Design.

Be able to use evaluation to support solutions to problems in 2D in Art & Design.

Integrated means to coordinate or link various parts or aspects to something. In order to achieve this objective, I must make sure that I am showing how my research has influenced the work I am producing. This will benefit me because, as someone not particularly very familiar with the fantasy genre, I can see what professionals in the industry and learn from them in order to improve my own narrative.

𝑩𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒕:

Character Design

Narrative Theory

Frame by Frame Animation

Fantasy

Concept art

Primary Observations and Research

𝑰 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒎𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈:

Initial ideas and concepts presented as maps and visual research

Concept drawings of characters and their locations/surroundings

A model sheet/turnaround of my ‘seeker’.

Frame animations of my character based on the mapping of key positions

500 words of evaluation analysing the effectiveness of my work this term

A PowerPoint presentation documenting research & development of final work.

𝑲𝒆𝒚𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑻𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕:

𝑵𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 - A spoken or written account of connected events; a carefully constructed story usually involving characters within specific scenarios circumstances or situations

𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕 - The leading character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel, etc. An example of this is Finn in adventure time or Izuku Midoriya from Boku no Hero Academia

𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕 - A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. An example of this in modern animation is the character Ice King from Adventure time or All For One from Boku no Hero Academia

𝑨𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒚𝒑𝒆 - A recurrent type of character in literature, films, plays, etc.

𝑸𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕 - A journey that someone takes, in order to achieve a goal or complete an important task. Accordingly, the term comes from the Medieval Latin word “Questo”, meaning “search” or “inquire”.

𝑭𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒔𝒚 - A genre of speculative fiction set in a fictional universe, often inspired by real world myth and folklore.

The brief ‘Seekers’ focuses on introducing us to key frame animation and is going to encourage us to create stories and narratives behind character design. I Think this will benefit me in helping me to understand the basic formulae for how a narrative is put together. Visual Language will be extremely important in this assignment, as I must be able to break down the aesthetic of a character’s design to understand what the illustrators intentions were when creating them. This will help me to make decisions based on the visual aesthetics of my characters and understand why I intended them to look or feel a certain way depending on what I wanted the viewers to feel about them.

This project, I am looking forward to being able to create a narrative, as world building is something I enjoy doing in my own time with personal characters of my own. I am also looking forward to learning how to create an animation from two key frames. One thing I know I have to focus on in this project that I didn’t last time is pushing myself to come away from drawing and animating on my IPAD. In order to improve, I must step out of my comfort zone and use more professional software that I would likely have to use in the work place. Another thing I know I must improve on is my research. For the rest of this term, I want to take the initiative to find animators and illustrators that inspire me personally and be able to show a clearer comparison to a wider range of sources to show how I have been influenced.

𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕?- This can be one or a few main characters in a story whom we mainly see their point of view from. They are the ones that make important decisions that influence the direction of the plot. They are usually made to be quite relatable characters in order to make the viewer like them. An example of how they could be made relatable is the way they may make mistakes sometimes and have to suffer with the consequences for their imperfect actions. What makes them a ‘hero’ is the way they’ll overcome adversity to achieve their goal. Protagonists usually go on a journey or adventure which will shape and develop them as a character. By the end of the story, they may be a completely changed person.

𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕? - The bain of their existence is commonly to destroy the protagonist or interfere with their quest. This may be because the hero is tying to stop them from their wrong doing. They actively oppose the main character, making it difficult for them to reach their goal. Often, they are shown to have dark backgrounds in explaination for their evil ways, likely the product of harsh treatment from the world, making them not as fortunate as the protagonist. An example of this could be a poor, neglected upbringing or abandonment from parents.

𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒚𝒑𝒆? - This is a very typical example of a certain character used often in order to portray and influence their influence towards the story. This sort of character embraces a certain stereotype, but not to such an extreme extent. An example of an archetype could be a character used for comical relief when part of the story becomes very dark (The Jester), the free thinker (The Sage), the optimistic one always searching for happiness (The Innocent), the bold traveller (The Explorer), the classic leader (The Ruler), the clever non-conformist (The Creator), the maternal protester (The Caregiver), the great revolutionary (The Magician), the one who fights for honour (The Hero), the betrayed and disappointed (The Orphan) and the sensitive lover (The Lover).

𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔:

Simon Bisley

Andrew Maclean

Luke Pearson

Frank Frazetta

Pendleton Ward

Jeffery Alan Love

US “Color Revolution” Struggles in Hong Kong The Western media has been boasting over recent protests in Hong Kong. Western headlines have claimed the protests have “rattled” Beijing’s leadership. The protests have been organized to obstruct Hong Kong’s elected government from moving forward with an extradition bill. The bill would further integrate Hong Kong’s legal system with that of mainland China’s, allowing suspects to be sent to the mainland, Taiwan, or Macau to face justice for crimes committed anywhere in Chinese territory. The protests oppose the extradition bill as a wider means of opposing Hong Kong’s continued reintegration with China – arguing that the “One Country, Two Systems” terms imposed by the British upon Hong Kong’s return under Chinese sovereignty in 1997 must be upheld. Uprooting the Last Vestiges of British Imperialism The story of Hong Kong is one of territory violently seized by the British Empire from China in 1841, being controlled as a colony for nearly 150 years, and begrudgingly handed over to China in 1997. The “One Country, Two Systems” conditions imposed by the British were a means of returning Hong Kong to China in theory, but in practice maintaining Hong Kong as an enduring outpost of Western influence within Chinese territory. The West’s economic and military power in 1997 left Beijing little choice but to agree to the terms. Today, the Anglo-American international order is fading with China now the second largest economy on Earth and poised to overtake the US at any time. With economic and military power now on China’s side, it has incrementally uprooted the vestiges of British colonial influence in Hong Kong – the extradition bill being the latest example of this unfolding process. Beijing has reclaimed Hong Kong through economic and political means. Projects like the recently completed Hong Kong high-speed rail link and the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge have helped increase the number of mainlanders – laborers, visitors, and entrepreneurs – travelling to, living in, and doing business with Hong Kong. With them come mainland values, culture, and politics. Hong Kong’s elected government is now composed of a majority of openly pro-Beijing parties and politicians. They regularly and easily defeat Hong Kong’s so-called “pan-democratic” and “independence” parties during elections. It is the elected, pro-Beijing government of Hong Kong that has proposed the recent extradition bill to begin with – a fact regularly omitted in Western coverage of the protests against the bill. US Color Revolution Masquerades as “Popular Opposition” Unable to defeat the bill legislatively, Hong Kong’s pro-Western opposition has taken to the streets. With the help of Western media spin – the illusion of popular opposition to the extradition bill and Beijing’s growing influence over Hong Kong is created. What is not only omitted – but actively denied – is the fact that the opposition’s core leaders, parties, organizations, and media operations are all tied directly to Washington DC via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and corporate foundations like Open Society Foundation. Hong Kong’s opposition has already long been exposed as US-sponsored. This includes the entire core leadership of the 2014 so-called “Occupy Central” protests, also known as the “Umbrella Revolution.” Western media has portrayed recent anti-extradition bill protests as a continuation of the “Umbrella” protests with many of the same organizations, parties, and individuals leading and supporting them. The Western media has attempted to dismiss this in the past. The New York Times in a 2014 article titled, “Some Chinese Leaders Claim U.S. and Britain Are Behind Hong Kong Protests,” would claim: Protest leaders said they had not received any funding from the United States government or nonprofit groups affiliated with it. Chinese officials choose to blame hidden foreign forces, they argued, in part because they find it difficult to accept that so many ordinary people in Hong Kong want democracy. Yet what the protest leaders claim and what is documented fact are two different things. The New York Times article itself admits that: …the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit directly supported by Washington, distributed $755,000 in grants in Hong Kong in 2012, and an additional $695,000 last year, to encourage the development of democratic institutions. Some of that money was earmarked “to develop the capacity of citizens — particularly university students — to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.” While the New York Times and Hong Kong opposition deny this funding has gone to protesters specifically, annual reports from organizations opposition members belong to reveal that it has. Hong Kong’s opposition leaders receiving US support include: Benny Tai: a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the US NED and NDI-funded Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) also of the University of Hong Kong. In the CCPL’s 2006-2007 annual report, (PDF, since deleted) he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL’s 2011-2013 annual report (PDF, since deleted), NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI) is listed as having provided funding to the organization to “design and implement an online Models of Universal Suffrage portal where the general public can discuss and provide feedback and ideas on which method of universal suffrage is most suitable for Hong Kong.” In CCPL’s annual report for 2013-2014 (PDF, since deleted), Tai is not listed as a board member but is listed as participating in at least 3 conferences organized by CCPL, and as heading at least one of CCPL’s projects. At least one conference has him speaking side-by-side another prominent “Occupy Central” figure, Audrey Eu. The 2013-2014 annual report also lists NDI as funding CCPL’s “Design Democracy Hong Kong” website. Joshua Wong: “Occupy Central” leader and secretary general of the “Demosisto” party. While Wong and other have attempted to deny any links to Washington, Wong would literally travel to Washington once the protests concluded to pick up an award for his efforts from NED subsidiary, Freedom House. Audrey Eu Yuet-mee: the Civic Party chairwoman, who in addition to speaking at CCPL-NDI functions side-by-side with Benny Tai, is entwined with the US State Department and its NDI elsewhere. She regularly attends forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “SynergyNet,” also funded by NDI. In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women’s Centre “International Women’s Day” event, hosted by the Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) which is also annually funded by the NDI. Martin Lee: a senior leader of the Occupy Central movement. Lee organized and physically led protest marches. He also regularly delivered speeches according to the South China Morning Post. But before leading the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, he and Anson Chan were in Washington D.C. before the NED soliciting US assistance (video). During a talk in Washington titled, “Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters,” Lee and Chan would lay out the entire “Occupy Central” narrative about independence from Beijing and a desire for self-governance before an American audience representing a foreign government Lee, Chan, and their entire opposition are ironically very much dependent on. NED would eventually release a statement claiming that it has never aided Lee or Chan, nor were Lee or Chan leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement. But by 2015, after “Occupy Central” was over, NED subsidiary Freedom House would not only invite Benny Tai and Joshua Wong to Washington, but also Martin Lee in an event acknowledging the three as “Hong Kong democracy leaders.” All three would take to the stage with their signature yellow umbrellas, representing their roles in the “Occupy Central” protests, and of course – exposing NED’s lie denying Lee’s leadership role in the protests. Additionally, multiple leaked US diplomatic cables (here, here, and here) indicate that Martin Lee has been in close contact with the US government for years, and regularly asked for and received various forms of aid. Other opposition leaders have been literally caught meeting secretly with US diplomats including Hong Kong opposition leaders Edward Leung and Ray Wong in 2016. Delaying the Inevitable Despite the supposed size of the protests it should be remembered that similar protests in 2014 and 2016 were also large and disruptive yet yielded no concessions from either Hong Kong’s elected government or Beijing.The extradition bill will pass – if not now – in the near future. The process of reintegration it represents will continue moving forward as well. The longer the US wastes time, resources, and energy on tired tactics like sponsored mobs and political subversion, the less time, resources, and energy it will have to adjust favorably to the new international order that will inevitably emerge despite Washington’s efforts. During this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue – an annual forum discussing Asia-Pacific security – the US would reiterate its designs to encircle and contain China. For an added twist, the US would include nations like the UK and France in its plans – specifically because of Washington’s failure to cobble together any sort of alliance of actual Asia-Pacific states. China’s growing influence and its style of international relations built on investment, infrastructure development, and non-interference contrasts so favorably with Washington and Europe’s coercive neo-imperial foreign policy that despite a century headstart – the West now finds itself being left behind. The protests in Hong Kong are organized to delay the inevitable end to the West’s “primacy” over Asia and in particular its attempts to dominate China. In the process, these protests will continue to expose Washington’s methods of fuelling political subversion and the Western media’s role in deceitfully promoting and defending it – compromising similar operations being carried out elsewhere across Asia-Pacific and around the world.

How do speculative design approaches reveal qualities of digital prototyping practice, and what are these important qualities?

Introduction

Digital practices of prototyping are widely spread throughout the internet’s landscape. From polished-looking application mockups to fully functioning yet continuously iterated web platforms, digital prototyping is ubiquitous in the everyday experience of internet users, either through interactive engagement or simply visual exposure. It is hard to draw a line between a finished product and one still in iteration as these categories overlap and intertwine. Due to such scope and variety as well as for the purposes of this essay, prototypes are to be thought of as genotypes, a term suggested by Dunne (2005). As he writes, the idea of a genotype is an alternative that allows the concept of a prototype to gain a more abstract function. This function can, in turn, draw a user’s attention away from the aesthetics of composition to that of use (p. 90). Dunne’s proposal helps place digital prototyping and its qualities in the light of a speculative design approach. Revealing digital prototyping as a solid medium for speculation is ever more urgent, because, although ubiquitous and often perceived as standardized, it is nevertheless fertile ground for experimentation with different genres of digital media and its audiences. I begin by expanding upon what speculative design is in the context of this essay and go on to apply its perspective on two key qualities of digital prototyping practice: iteration and persuasiveness of dissemination.

Widening the delimitations of speculative design

Speculative design, being part of the critical design phenomenon, should not be understood as based on rigid oppositions between affirmative and critical, “an ideal whose relationship is very difficult to understand from the perspective of real designs” (Bardzell & Bardzell, 2013, “Critical Design is Opposed to Affirmative Design”, para. 4). I wish to instead consider a “more accessible range” (“Introduction”, para. 5) of approaches that would allow for a less mystified view of critical design (Bardzell & Bardzell, 2013) without settling on an ideal. It is likewise important to open up the limits of critical practices when it comes to digital prototyping because of its newness in the realm. An openness to different practices is also significant because this essay draws upon personal experience of carrying out a speculative design project for the first time in a study context and within a limited timeframe of one month only. This group project falls somewhere in-between affirmative and critical. It centered around us building a product landing page for a hybrid ice-cream that can be eaten on the beach or on a boat. Afterward the dye-filled bubbles remaining from it could be used to color dying corals. Not being a rigid opposition to affirmative products (Dunne & Raby, 2009), our result presented itself rather as discursive design. The unusual ice cream is to be understood as a possible utility that could very likely function in the every day life of tourists, yet the discourse it carries is our main concern (Tharp & Tharp, 2013, p. 407). Therefore, a speculative twist of interpretation is this very dissonance that positions our design as more accessible through its perceived mundaneness. Finally, discursive design is defined as an umbrella category including critical design and it supports the argument for a wider spectrum of practices (Tharp & Tharp, 2013, p. 407) and its open-ended delimitations provide a solution to the rigid borders of critical design and suit the nature of this essay.

Iteration as dialogue

One quality of digital prototyping highlighted by speculative design is its iterative nature. Speculative designs are about semantic openness and often intentionally leave gaps in presentation in order to provoke a sense of ambiguity. A theoretical concern with the applications and implications of intentional ambiguity as a strategy for design was one of the key elements in the development of critical and speculative design. Gaver (2000) argued that if presented as possible narratives with a conscious lack of refined functionality, implementation or aesthetics, design ideas remain open to be extended and modified by the users themselves. He suggested that such imaginary opportunities are hard to achieve by completed designs (p. 215). Hence if openness is to be defined as an approach of speculative design, the feature of digital prototyping responding to it is iteration. Characterized by the use and reuse of design patterns and specific communicative stylistic elements, digital mockups allow designers to determine what level of implementation and functionality is needed for developing a persuasive yet open preliminary version of their products. In addition, the ease of testing an idea adds to the iterative quality of digital prototypes as well. In our group project, user testing started out by trying out the prototype’s communicativeness. We displayed visual mockups, infographics and photos one after the other as the person at hand progressed to interpret the discourse deeper with each new visual clue. These probe-like initial sketches led to a recognition of different levels of interpretation emerging in the testing. We then used them when structuring our speculative landing page. Thus iteration builds upon engagement with possible audiences: as Dunne (2005) argues, speculative prototypes become “testpieces” which, through use or scenario, explicate beliefs embedded in the everyday and transmitted through electronic products (p. 145). Following a speculative approach, digital prototypes are facilitative because of reoccurring iteration. Each iteration facilitates a response, a dialogue with potential users. These dialogues, often heavy with frustration and estrangement, can reach an almost poetic level.

Dissemination as persuasive framing

Persuasiveness through dissemination is another quality inherent in digital prototyping. Being so ubiquitous, applications and websites have an established place in the everyday life: screen interfaces coupled with internet access allow for momentary transmission of digital experiences. Dissemination as a means of making the fictional appear more mundane and real holds potential for digital practices to take a speculative turn. Digital prototyping can, for example, be inspired by the history of avant-garde design practices which have pioneered speculation through mainstream media. As Tharp and Tharp state, “Memphis may be the first significant product-design related movement towards discursive design” (p. 408, 2013). Here Rossi’s (2013) outline of the post-war Italian design history proves relevant in understanding the role publishing played in Memphis’ practice.  Mid 60’s saw a crisis in the economy and a growing disappointment with consumerism.  Most notably, as stated by Rossi, this gave birth to the first wave of Italian avant-garde and “In the shift from market-driven to conceptual-oriented design, all that was needed was something that could be photographed and disseminated through a magazine, however fictional it was” (p. 35).  By publishing photographs of small-scale prototypes in magazines, Memphis created a fictional impression of their realness (Rossi, 2013). Similarly to Memphis, we in our project drew insights from the current western economic reality and discussed how it shapes the commodification of digital products and services through the use of template-based aesthetics. We decided to go with a landing page template in order to achieve a high level of similarity to real product pages yet worked to present an inherent strangeness through the visual content. We were consciously ignorant of the many other possible futures that are available for those not part of the socio-economic class we are targeting, the tourists. Therefore it must be noted that dissemination always implies a specific audience. By choosing particular media outlets or templates designers frame the immediate public of their prototype. As Tharp and Tharp write, although Memphis did articulate a concern for its impact on the wider cultural landscape, they focused primarily on the impact on design practice. Authors suggest that the collective’s effect on culture as a whole was a consequence of that (p. 408, Tharp & Tharp, 2013). Hence the persuasiveness of dissemination can encourage digital design practitioners to consider their experimental approaches of media as ways of targeting specific publics and use prototypes as a “publicity plot” (Rossi, 2013, p. 41).

Conclusion

In conclusion, speculative design approaches allow designers to see the practice of digital prototyping as generating knowledge beyond pure functionality or visual aesthetic. Although omnipresent in our daily lives, digital products seldom attempt to question or inform in ways beyond pleasing the user. Potent as it may be, the digital realm lacks criticism from within and is not as established in the sphere of speculative practices as, for example, product design. I suggest that this need not be definitive. As the qualities of iteration and dissemination demonstrate, digital prototyping is a rich toolkit for generating knowledge about working in a speculative manner. When it comes to iteration, open-ended prototypes can become instruments for facilitating meaningful discussions around values implicit in our cultures. Here user testing transcends the goal of optimizing the product and is instead a valuable space for dialogue. What is more, the ease of disseminating digital prototypes by embedding them in the everyday experiences of internet users can, in turn, shape these discussions. By consciously framing their prototypes through specific media genres designers are able to reach target audiences in an instance. Finally, these two qualities of digital prototyping discussed throughout the text are just some of the many that a speculative design approach can foreground. If approached as an extensive toolkit, its many important features could provide a strong foundation for emerging criticism from within the practice itself.

References

Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2013, April). What is critical about critical design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3297-3306). ACM.

Dunne, A. (2005). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design (MIT Press).

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2009). A/B, a manifesto. Retrieved June 2, 2019 from http://dunneandraby.co.uk/content/projects/476/0

Gaver, B., & Martin, H. (2000, April). Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 209-216). ACM.

Rossi, Catharine (2013) From Mari to Memphis: the role of prototypes in Italian radical and Postmodern design. In: Valentine, Louise, (ed.) Prototype: design and craft in the 21st Century. London, U.K. : Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9780857856821

Tharp, B. M., & Tharp, S. M. (2013). Discursive design basics: Mode and audience. Nordes, 1(5).

Tonkinwise, C. (2014). How we intend to future: review of Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. Design Philosophy Papers, 12(2), 169-187. 

5.4.1 Week 4 Mastery Reflection - Task 3: Reflection

During my four weeks of Design Research I was tasked with digging deeper into my research to explore and evaluate design options, investigate methods for text handling and layout, utilize critical thinking skills, and to translate the concepts into effective visual communications.

Reflection:

In week one I began by reading Basics Advertising 03: Ideation by Mahon and explored Riga, Latvia and the many facets of the city from culture to architecture. As I worked to develop the narrative as well as establish the voice and tone for Riga, I initially struggled to focus my narrative on what Riga’s personality as a brand needed to be as opposed to writing jumbled copy for a tourist brochure. Mahon 2011, suggests “However, some of the most creative ideas are generated by exploring different routes and directions that can't merely be logically explained” (Mahon 2011, p. 24). The more research I conducted on Riga the more the city’s personality became clear to me.

In week two it was time to delve into creating a style sheet that featured the necessary design elements for Riga’s burgeoning brand. With a polished and refined narrative, the three words that described Riga’s brand: Cultured, Well-Read, and Accomplished, as well as a color palette, textures/patterns, images, and a typography sampling I was laying the ground work for week three’s Vision Boards. Felton 2006 offers “Find the human story in your brand, tell it, and watch people gather around the fire” (Felton 2006, p. 80).

Style Sheet:

In week three it was time to dig even deeper into my research. As I explored layout and text handling in Basics Design 02: Layout (second edition) and The Fundamentals of Typography (second edition) by Ambrose & Harris as well as Best Practices for Graphic Designers, Grids and Page Layouts: An Essential Guide for Understanding and Applying Page Design Principles by Gavin & Jura, it was time to apply these concepts in two iterations of Vision Boards. The initial vision board showcases the Art Nouveau treatment and styling of the brand while my attempt at a revised vision board showcases applied concepts of text handling such as alignment and utilizing a baseline grid, but is styled in a more structured grid that is too contemporary and was sadly a departure from the visual tone of the brand. Ambrose & Haris 2011, suggests “Type and image are treated and arranged as separate elements, but the consistent approach unifies these elements into a coherent whole” (Ambrose & Harris 2011, p. 90). After receiving feedback and critique from Professor Argo, I knew that I needed to step up my game in week for, re-frame my thinking, and meld the best aspects of both iterations of my vision boards into my infographic.

The Initial Vision Board:

The “Revised” Vision Board:

In week four it was time to implement all the concepts I had learned and all the research I conducted to create an infographic on the brand identity I developed for Riga. Ambrose & Harris 2011 argues, “There are a number of axioms in design, for example that range left is easier to read than range right, or that range left is more `modern' than centered type” (Ambrose & Harris 2011, p. 110). With this brand I had a fine line to walk in balancing contemporary elements such as white text, flush left text alignment, and sans-serif typefaces, with more traditional elements such using a serif typeface for the sub-headings, ornate floral patterns and motifs, and dark blue that would bolster Riga’s reserved timeless elegance. After all, this brand aims to invite the intended target audience to explore the city’s abundance of culture, Art Nouveau architecture and to experience the epitome of worldly sophistication.

Infographic:

Degree Learning Outcomes:

Synthesizing:

Hierarchical Grid - The infographic needed to maintain flow lines yet adhere to the organic presentation that enhanced the visual hierarchy of my initial vision board. “These grids create specific alignments within the material as a method of developing a hierarchy of information. Because they rely on an intuitive placement based on specific content, an in-depth review of the materials and requirements at the outset of the project is crucial” (Graver & Jura 2012, p. 40). After critically reviewing both of my vision boards, and my style sheet it was time to plug in various elements.

Baseline Grid - For the infographic, the copy cross-aligns to accommodate for the varying sizes of the header, sub-heads, and body texts. “The use of cross alignment enables a designer to use different type sizes while maintaining a consistent baseline” (Ambrose & Harris 2011, p. 51). Since there is a plethora of information to be read, maintaining a consistent baseline is essential to making it easier for the target audience to read.

Problem Solving: Maintaining a Consistent Approach - Throughout the last four weeks I struggled to maintain consistency in my approach to this brand from the get-go. For example, my initial attempt at a theme was “Worldly citified”. I was suggesting “urbane”, but not only did the theme not make any sense, “citified” denotes and undercuts the worldly culture and sophistication of the brand as a whole. From there, my next struggle with consistency came in week three with my vision boards. I had reviewed too many contemporary pieces in my research and thus delivered a final vision board that was a complete departure from my brand. Felton 2006 suggests, “There’s a continual struggle between being on-strategy and being clever. Each wants to pull you away from the other. Your job as a thinker and problem solver is to keep both in mind, to spin the strategy without losing hold of it” (Felton 2006, p. 86). While Felton is referring specifically to writing headlines, this quote reminded me to keep a firm grasp on the concepts I had developed thus far and to return to the Art Nouveau style for my brand’s infographic.

Before:

After:

Innovative Thinking: Avoid “Templates”: Breaking away from the mistakes made in my revised vision board meant making a return to the original and diverse perspectives my Art Nouveau stylings had to offer. By moving away from a geometric grid so often seen in contemporary mood boards on Pinterest, I allowed myself to think outside the circles and force myself to dig deeper in reviewing Art Nouveau designs for architecture (and windows), posters, and vintage ads. By breaking away from the geometric grid, my brand moved away from the “template” trap and was bolstered by embracing the ornate and otherworldly motifs that makes this brand so unique. Graver & Jura 2012 advises “When attempting to unify content elements through the organizing principle implied by the grid itself, it is important to make sure there is visual balance between the items. Frequently, this is successfully achieved when the content areas seem to communicate with one another” (Graver & Jura 2012, p. 137). Rather than allow the grid itself to rule the page, I had to utilize the organizing principles of a hierarchical grid while allowing the brand’s elements to communicate effectively. 

Common Practice: What to Avoid

Acquiring Competencies:

1. Baseline Grid - With a plethora of information it is important to keep the reader in mind and how maintaining a consistent baseline will enable the target audience to read with ease and thereby better understand the content on the page. Ambrose & Harris 2011 write ”The baseline grid provides a guide for positioning elements on the page with accuracy, which is difficult to achieve by eye alone” (Ambrose & Harris 2011, p. 54).

2. The Size & Shape of the Page - You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole just like you can’t squeeze design elements and throw them where they don’t belong. “Prose or materials focusing on the writing itself may be better served by a slightly wider format that encourages slow, deliberate reading. Similarly, content that is primarily defined by horizontal images should not be forced into a narrow vertical format” (Graver & Jura 2012, p. 94). Admittedly, I still need to work on this. The fine balance of negative space and placing the content in a manner that bolsters the viewers understanding of the content and maintains a consistent brand approach.

3. “Templates” Beware - In reviewing too many contemporary pieces that utilized more geometric forms and shapes, somewhere along the way I lost sight of the concepts I had worked to develop for this brand and the resulting “revised” vision board showed that. One of my biggest takeaways from this course is that I cannot loose sight of my originality and perspectives to crank out something similar to what hundreds of other people are doing. The challenge for myself is remember the DLO’s I have learned so far and to always dig deeper into research when I am stuck. Felton 2006 states, “As a creative person, you are dedicating yourself to transcending clichés” (Felton 2006, p. 263).

References:

Ambrose G. & Harris, P. (2011). Basics Design 02: Layout (second edition). Retrieved from: https://ce.safaribooksonline.com/book/graphic-design/9782940447169

Ambrose G. & Harris, P. (2011). The Fundamentals of Typography (second edition). Retrieved from: https://ce.safaribooksonline.com/book/graphic-design/9782940447244

Felton, G. (2006). Advertising Concept and Copy, Third Edition. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, (Originally Published by Pearson Education, Inc.).  

Graver, A. & Jura, B. (2012). Best Practices for Graphic Designers, Grids and Page Layouts: An Essential Guide for Understanding and Applying Page Design Principles. Retrieved from: https://ce.safaribooksonline.com/book/graphic-design/9781592537853

Lonely Planet. (n.d.). Welcome to Rīga. Retrieved from: https://www.lonelyplanet.com/latvia/riga    

LIAALatvia. (2014, February 2). About Riga, Capital of Latvia [Video file]. Retrieved from​: http://www.liaa.gov.lv/en/invest-latvia

Mahon, N. (2010). Basics Advertising 02: Art Direction Retrieved from: https://ce.safaribooksonline.com/book/graphic-design/9782940439447​

Mahon, N. (2011). Basics Advertising 03: Ideation. Retrieved from: https://ce.safaribooksonline.com/book/sales-and-marketing/9782940411504

Teddy Roosevelt, Eggman, and the Message of Classical Sonic

The origin of both Sonic the Hedgehog and Eggman was a character design contest for a mascot held by Sega of Japan, with the designs submitted to the approval of Sega of America on the perception that a game to compete with Mario on the new Sega Genesis would need to do well in the ‘States. Many of the characters resemble American more than Japanese animation influences from Max Fleischer to The Simpsons (images @ The Cutting Room Floor). One design is even a wolf in an American flag shirt brandishing his fists, a rather backhanded compliment to a country that emerged as the predominant global superpower while both the Japanese economy crashed and the Soviet Union collapsed not long before in 1991. In any of the possible characters selected for a mascot, there’s a kind of commentary to Americans about American culture, not least in its edginess and rebellion. Commentary on the selection of Sonic himself will have to wait for another day. But it’s important to note that among the entries is a character in his pajamas who impeccably resembles Eggman. Or put another way, both characters physically resemble the iconic 26th President of the United States of America, Theodore Roosevelt.

It’s important to realize in this context that if Sega of America had favored his design, there would probably have been a side-scroller starring the Roosevelt character given the adorable Teddy Bear treatment as the heroic lead. Roosevelt is indeed often regarded as a heroic figure American history, confronting the monopoly capitalism of robber barons in the Gilded Age with the avowed intention to give Americans a Square Deal. His design more resembled the features of Mario himself, while trying to sell kids and their parents on a blue punk rocker was a riskier decision. But what happened rather was that a very deliberate decision was made to take the same character, and make him the bad guy. In other words, why might one make the exercise seeing Roosevelt as emblematic of the bad guy in a narrative the Nostalgia Critic rightly observes has “an environmental message that’s… subtle”? Wasn’t it Teddy Roosevelt who enacted landmark conservation legislation like the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate National Monuments protected for posterity from extraction and development by industrialists?

Roosevelt exemplifies the paradox of the hunter and taxonomist who was very prolific in gunning down hundreds of animals, but within those experiences became interested in the politics of conservation to institute limits against relentless industrial extraction of resources. If Sonic and his friends are wild animals, it’s easy to see how they could become threatened by someone in his likeness. For Roosevelt, the experience of joining in the Westward expansion of America was pivotal both to his sense of identity and his political persona. Among other things, Roosevelt went to the Dakota Territory to participate in the massive boom in cattle ranching seeking fortune and solitude. The obverse of an enterprise ultimately linked to the industrialized slaughterhouses of Chicago was the mass extermination of the buffalo and corresponding mass starvation of indigenous peoples. Here at the 21st century, American cattle culture is often regarded as a major factor in global climate change because of the methane emissions they produce.

Roosevelt ultimately conceived of an America to become a massive expansionist imperial and industrial power, and acted toward what would come to be called the “American Century”. But in seeking to place limits upon this power, combined with his nephew Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, he engendered a powerful enduring hatred among political interests who sought no restrictions and no protections from its exercise. Among other things, this expresses itself in the continual efforts to scale back and repeal the elements of the New Deal and any remaining economic and ecological safety net in America, and in books with a conservative or libertarian bent sincerely arguing that both Roosevelts were fascist or communist dictators. In terms of “communism”, the actual belief of the Roosevelt Presidents was that only political reform could stave off radical revolution, so they are more accurately identified with the politics of progressivism or a noblesse oblige sensibility.

In terms of “fascism” in a broad sense, it was rather the case that the imperial expansionism of Italy, Germany and Austria, and Japan drew on precedents in American society and culture in seeking to have what Americans had, their understanding of what Made America Great. Consequently, when common themes can be found between the writings and declarations of Roosevelt with those of Hitler and the Nazi Party, this was not because the former was an exceptional figure, but because for better and for worse he articulated views common to American culture in the Gilded Age. Where Americans, Europeans, and Japanese invested in competitive cultural projects of imperialism and industrialization sound retrospectively like Nazis when they spoke on themes like Social Darwinism and eugenics prior to World War I, that is because the Nazis were steeped in such ideology and influences. Fascist movements flourished most in nations where there was a widespread feeling of being slighted or scapegoated by the new world order effected by the Treaty of Versailles, sufficient to build mass support to defy the League of Nations, and launch massive projects of empire building and effect systematic war crimes against colonized populations. Fascism as such did not arise until 1919, the very year Teddy Roosevelt died without achieving his ambition for a third term as President.

A more fruitful consideration would be the extent to which American democracy, with all its violence and injustice, whether codified into law or exerted in lawlessness lent de-facto toleration, has lent the scripts and justification for oppressive regimes. To look on America from the outside must be very disconcerting. The polarized two-party system routinely alternates Presidents, typically every 4-8 years, and with them national policy becomes most opposed to the things it most supported. Or else, continuities between parties where there should not be, such as building up a massive military-industrial complex from the Cold War onward in the teeth of the older conception that America should not maintain a standing army because the presence of such a force was a sure road to tyrannizing absolute monarchy. Still more blatant, the contradiction between a society that simultaneously declares an aim to make the world “safe for democracy”, as Woodrow Wilson said of America entering World War I and shaping the ensuing balance of power, and a society that has overthrown democratically elected leaders, installed fascist or military dictatorships, and supported the systematic atrocities they have carried out. The culture of Japan, having undergone radical transformations following American military interventions in 1853-1854 and from 1945-1952, has developed an acute sense of this Jekyll-and-Hyde conundrum constantly effecing their position of the world. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the Sonic Team under Yuji Naka, collaborating first with Sega of Japan on Sonic the Hedgehog and then with Sega of America on future sequels for the Sega Genesis, would want to include implicit commentary on this state of affairs in communicating to Americans and an Americanized international audience.

I propose that the link between Teddy Roosevelt and Eggman is that the face of the famous American President as the game antagonist is included because he symbolizes the cultural project of the American Century. Because the faces behind the office change so frequently, one face must be chosen who exemplifies the traits of a wider paradigm spanning between them. To show the first face in such a lineage can be particularly effective. When exactly the “American Century” began is a matter of historical debate, although most agree it to have been fully in effect after World War II when America assumed many of the roles that had been carried out by the British Empire in the “British Century.” However, as early as the turn of the 20th century, America had already made cultural decisions toward facilitating such a world-historic shift under the Presidency and punditry of Roosevelt.

The Westward expansionism of America after its Civil War not only brought a considerable number of European immigrants, but also aroused considerable envy contributing to the volatizing Scramble for Africa as the empires of Europe sought to claim their own frontiers at the expense of a stolen continent. Roosevelt not only participated in settler colonialism and its economic frontier, he also promoted it as a paradigm and way of life. It’s fair to say that if Buffalo Bill’s carnivalesque Wild West shows popularized Manifest Destiny to the masses in the field of entertainment, Roosevelt’s writings did the same in the field of intellect. Roosevelt’s “Rough Riders” in the 1st United States Voluntary Cavalry were meant to give the impression of the extension of this paradigm into the Caribbean in the fight against the Spanish Empire, creating the impression of chivalric modern warfare waged by manly rugged Americans.

In this context, a major cultural rift opened among Americans in terms of whether America should define itself as an imperialist power or an anti-imperialist power facilitating decolonized self-determining nations. Roosevelt, along with his processor William McKinley, were distinctly on the side of American imperialism. This created certain cultural contradictions; how could Americans have been so outraged by reports of atrocities and concentration camps by the Spanish in Cuba, and then go on to carry out atrocities and institute concentration camps to claim the Philippines as a U.S. colony? It was this contradiction that brought Roosevelt to power, insofar as the radicalized steel worker Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated President McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo in 1901 spoke of “outrages committed by the American government in the Philippine islands.” (Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, The Untold History of the United States p. xxviii)

The ensuing policies effected by Roosevelt involved both outright colonialism to assert naval dominance over the Pacific (even as he realized a catastrophic war with Japan became a virtual inevitability), and of neo-colonial military and economic presence in Latin America and the Caribbean, most famously in the political intrigue surrounding the creation of the Panama Canal. America was already asserting themselves as a diplomatic superpower, brokering the treaty in the Russo-Japanese War under Roosevelt, and then playing a major role in the Treaty of Versailles under Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt can also be seen as an early phenomenon of modern American pop culture, including the teddy bears prototypical of Sonic himself. By the 1920s, America became a cultural superpower, as people internationally consumed American pop culture like cinema and jazz records to assert a cosmopolitan sense of modernity against the stagnation and entrenchment of old world powers. The parallel sense of Japan as a cultural superpower around the turn of the 21st century involves a complex relationship to a hybridization of American forms and Japanese content, a globalized phenomenon in which Sega was a major player.

If the question is posed what the world looks like to Eggman, it must be said that the world looks like an unending number of frontiers, with living and dead carbon-based lifeforms to be extracted and exploited for his personal aggrandizement in the empire he is building. In effect, classical Sonic games position the player on the receiving end of Manifest Destiny, contrasting with the many computer games to relish in the ego-trip of empire-building. Even without conscious associations to any U.S. President, it’s easy to identify a certain anti-intellectualism wherein players as Sonic, embodying the nineties “cool pose” in his hip sneakers, revel in blowing up the arrogant ‘egghead’ in his hover ship time after time. There’s something familiar about him in a bad way. Blake J. Harris identifies Sonic with political and cultural shifts in the nineties away from the 12-year Reagan and Bush era (which also included a shift away from climate change denialism in policy): 

Sonic wouldn’t just become the face of the company but also would represent their spirit: the tiny underdog moved with manic speed, and no matter what obstacles stood in his way, he never ever stopped going. Sonic embodied not only the spirit of Sega of America’s employees but also the cultural zeitgeist of the early nineties. He had captured Kurt Cobain’s “whatever” attitude, Michael Jordan’s graceful arrogance, and Bill Clinton’s get-it-done demeanor. (Blake J. Harris, Console Wars: Sega, Nintendo, and the Battle that Defined a Nation p. 76)

In terms of the message of classical Sonic games, it’s helpful to consider the almost wordless story told by the level design, and the sequence of levels. Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic 2, Sonic 3, and Sonic & Knuckles all begin with an opening level filled with resplendent natural beauty encroached upon by a cyborg army that constitute an imminent threat to the homeland of Sonic and later Knuckles. Sonic 3 later evocatively has the lush tropical landscape Angel Island Zone set ablaze by a combat drone as an ecologically disastrous act of scorched earth warfare. Sonic the Hedgehog then brings players into the Marble Zone, another instance of Sega’s fascination with classical ruins, culture, and mythology that stand as a counterpoint to the way the game company aesthetically defined themselves with the public image of a hip nineties urbanism. In terms of these levels appearing throughout the four classical Sonic games that take the player through areas resembling Greek, Roman, and Egyptian ruins, the idea is a kind of gothic contemplation on the frailty of civilizations that would define themselves as eternal, what courses of actions might prolong or accelerate the collapse of a civilization. By repeatingly alternating these levels with chaotic metropolises filled with high-tech mad science emphasized by the jazz-funk music and weaponized cyborg animals, Sonic the Hedgehog applies this lesson to the present and near-future. Both the ecological and civilizational zones are threatened with collapse by Eggman’s aggressive Manifest Destiny paradigm.

Sonic 2 makes this subtext more explicit as it brings the player through levels suggestive of extractive enterprises devastating to the ecosystem inhabited by Sonic and his friends. Chemical Plant Zone is filled with massive pools of deadly toxic chemicals. Mystic Cave Zone has become the site of a large mine prone to collapses and hazards. Oil Ocean Zone and its music has a certain Middle Eastern feel in its music evocative of massive petro-states and the politics of hydrocarbon consumption so culturally contentious then as now. If the slogan “no blood for oil” appeared in the Gulf War just as it did in the Iraq War under two Bush presidencies, Sonic Mania evocatively has the oceans of oil burning like the huge oil fires in Kuwait during the former conflict when it remixes this level. This can’t be good in terms of carbon emissions and climate change, which is much the point. Sonic 2 introduces sites of Eggman’s military-industrial complex in zones like Wing Fortress Zone and Death Egg Zone, a weaponized space program akin to Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiatives to rain death from above. Takashi Murakami’s book Little Boy: The Arts of Japan’s Exploding Subculture explores how Japanese pop culture has been haunted by the shadow of the nuclear bomb after World War II (itself a product of the nuclear arms race between Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler). So it is for the scramble for the chaos emeralds in the Sonic games, as collecting them all will grant either Eggman or Sonic with invincible power. The metaphor isn’t terribly subtle.

Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles (originally intended to be one game) introduce a colonial dimension on the Caribbean-like floating island, inhabited by the dreadlock-headed Knuckles the Echidna as he is manipulated into battling Sonic before eventually realizing Eggman is the true enemy to all he holds dear. There’s a great deal of lush tropical beauty here interspersed with the ruins of a mystical civilization from the bygone past constructed on the immense power of the Master Emerald that keeps the island flying (i.e. the sequence from Lava Reef Zone to Sky Sanctuary Zone). It’s quite easy to draw comparisons to Hayao Miyazaki’s anime film Castle in the Sky where a European-styled imperialist and his army receive their comeuppance on the floating ruins of a similar island. The environmentalism of Studio Ghibli films is widely acknowledged, but that of Sonic games is less so.

Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles continues many of the tendencies in level design discussed hitherto, now including the transformation of environments for worse or for better. The stage Carnival Night Zone, like Casino Night Zone in Sonic 2, imply a certain neon-drenched conspicuous consumption in tandem with the extractive enterprises shown, evocative of two Gilded Ages around the turn of the 20th and 21st century. America and Japan alike would recall the lavish décor of the yuppies exemplified by the architectural design of Donald Trump’s casinos, hotels, and resorts. The Trump Taj Mahal could easily fit in here. By the time of Sonic CD on the ill-fated Sega CD, the designers introduced the innovation of multidimensional time travel to show what the levels used to be, what Eggman has turned them into in the present, and two divergent possible futures in terms of their destruction or rejuvenation. This is, I think, an important imaginative exercise in an era of what Naomi Klein terms “disaster capitalism.”

In the context of the counterprotests to the Unite the Right rally in Charleston, Virginia, where so many torch-carrying Neo-Nazis and armed paramilitaries where in evidence, a young Asian man was photographed in a Sonic cap with a spraypainted shirt in which the blue hedgehog extends the middle finger as the text declares “Sonic Says NO To fascism and racism”. The image has since become a t-shirt sold on Redbubble. That interpretation is both plausible, and humorously riffs off the old “Sonic Says” segments on the cartoon Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. I have here tried to argue that what “Sonic Says NO” to is not only a neo-fascist politics to “Make America Great Again” by rejecting the international order effected after World War II in terms of paranoid ravings about other countries “laughing at us”, but also to institutionalized practices of systematic destruction rationalized more than a century ago in terms of Making America Great. On this view, Sonic would also get behind politics of environmentalism, antimilitarism, anticolonialism, and indigenous rights in the sense that we should too. Insofar as Teddy Roosevelt is implicated in a model of the American presidency that sustains ecological and economic devastation internationally to the peril of all, his face has been lent to Eggman as a video game antagonist exemplifying these qualities.