Journal ︎

Amidst a sea of literature covering the Roman Empire, very few authors attempt to critically look at Julius Caesar. Most literature covering his life portrays him in an unsavory light, calling him a "dictator" and "oppressor". While it is true he was a conqueror winning resources through war and slaughter, Michael Parenti refuses to follow past paths of seeing Caesar as a unique evil. In his book, Parenti instead analyzes the various aspects of Roman life in order to show the material conditions that made him.

Julius Caesar's assassination was not just about him; it was about the aristocratic senate he belonged to, the policies they wrote and enforced, the class conditions within society, the misogyny, and Roman conservatism. Cicero, too, is covered extensively, including his rather unique youth and how that led to his (word for despising) hatred of Caesar. Parenti leaves no stone unturned in his book to analyze why Julius Caesar was assassinated. This itself is a rather refreshing read, considering most books covering Caesar simply repeat word for word what Cicero had said about him two millenia prior.

One of the few places that Parenti turns his eye from Caesar is in Cicero's chapter, analyzing the orator himself and his illustrious past that provides explanation for both his conservatism and his weight in modern interpretations of Caesar, from Shakespeare to the gentleman scholars of the nineteen hundreds. This chapter provides more context for the overall negative view of Caesar himself, as many contemporary sources of him were written by the aristocracy that had conspired against him.

Parenti's book weaves an informative narrative that culminates and ends at the assassination of Julius Caesar and the immediate aftermath, never straying from his subject. An entertaining read, short by my standards, I would suggest anyone interested in Ancient Rome to read it. My only stipulation would be to not buy into Parenti's rather exhaulting view of Caesar, as after all, he was still a conqueror who upheld the class society that enabled him.

Since Donald Trump's second inauguration, various news outlets in the nation have been fearmongering about Trump's presidential power (though conveniently forgetting Joe Biden himself used his power to back a genocide and put an Eastern European nation in a meat grinder to "wear down" a cold war enemy, but I digress) while supporting Trump's continuation of an "American first" foreign policy. All of this is done while inflation continues to rise as capitalists in the US continue to try and squeeze out as much profit as possible in a short amount of time. Why?

The simple answer is that United States is a dying empire, no longer seeing as many super profits as it did in its post-war heyday of the 1940s and 1950s. During this period, the United States gained profits from a war-torn Europe now under its heel with NATO and the EU, as well as colonies such as Puerto Rico, Cuba (until its revolution), Korea and Japan, and this is not including the various coups in South America to install puppet dictators like Pinochet. Donald Trump himself is a symptom of a decaying empire; his focus on finance over ideology indicates a focus on profits over maintaining the soft power built up in the post-war period. Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is the proof in the pudding of a "profits and hard power over soft power" turn, choosing to both eliminate USAID, which funded US propaganda around the world that would aid color revolutions, and eliminating any words Musk himself assumes are "DEI" a.k.a. words he finds too "liberal".

Objectively, Musk's failed attempts at making a "less woke" government have worked in favor of socialists simply due to exposing a couple of CIA black sites, sites no longer blacked out for having the word "black" in them. USAID being cancelled is objectively good as well, removing the United State's fingers from various pies in nations that, had Kamala been elected, may have ended up being crushed by the empire for super profits. Trump's moves to ally with Russia, meant to dissuade China from pursuing deeper relationships with the nation, also aim to expand on profits. By forcing Zelenskyy to the negotiation table, Trump is attempting to secure meager returns on a war that had two outcomes that would ruin Ukraine, either through removing the limited amount of precious mineral deposits or through a forever war that would attempt to wear down Russia as it destroyed Ukraine. That war and the Euromaidan coup were never about "freeing" Ukraine as the United States' press said, but instead to wear down a nation it saw as the enemy to keep its imperial power in Europe.

As for Palestine, Trump's agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza is another of profit, but personal rather than for the US. By "aiding" Gaza through rebuilding, he is able to build more hotels, making it a tourist colony under his thumb. Granted, this likely will not happen. What will happen is that Trump will allow the IOF to focus its assault on the West Bank instead. During his first presidency, by declaring Jerusalem the capitol of the settle colony known as "Israel", he effectively declared to the world he did not recognize Palestine and supported the fascist ideology of Zionism. This, too, for imperial profits, as Israel is a joint colony of the US and the UK using a white supremacist system to genocide Palestinians and allow Jewish settlers to play "Cowboys" in the SWANA region while US private companies set up shop and siphon the crude oil to ship off and sell at a cheap price back home.

All of this is done though, as China continues to grow. The US and western Europe's support of a genocide has shown the world that the imperial core will continue to back colonialism, racism, war, plunder and fascism, all of which built these nations themselves. Donald Trump is not a "unique evil"; he is nothing more than an agent of liberalism, attempting to drain profits from other nations to sustain the United States. At the very least, US imperial power is waning. The "Police of the World" will be no more soon. Now is the Chinese century, one that may herald the death of a violent empire that has been the cause of countless genocides in the name of profit.

It's no secret the war in Ukraine was one of a lose-lose scenario: the nation was either going to be sold out by the United States and its allies, or be destroyed by Russia as cannon fodder for the US-NATO alliance. Now, with Zelenskyy's outburst in the White House and subsequent dismissal, the former scenario proved to be true. Trump is a business man, money-focused and worries more of theatrics than the ideological machinations of the US empire, allowing the world to get a clear view of how the US treats its "allies"; if you are not making the Empire money, you are functionally useless.

Despite what western media, especially in Europe and previously the US under Biden, claimed that this war was due to Russia's aggression and invasion of Ukraine, the war did not start there. Its material reality took shape during the Euromaidan coup, which resulted in Viktor Yanukovych being removed from his position as president (due to allying with Russia over the United States and NATO) and Petro Poroshenko, a NATO puppet, in power to begin the process of turning Ukraine further away from its former ally. One must remember that NATO was formed by the United States and placed Nazis in positions of power in the organization, simply because these men were ardent anti-communists.

Poroshenko himself, a liberal, spent his five years in office antagonizing Russia and allowing members of neo-Nazi militias (such as the Azov Battalion, which Zelenskyy later integrated into the Ukrainian military) to bomb and shell the Donbas region that had voted to return to Russia. Due to his deemed disaster as president of Ukraine, he lost the 2019 election to Zelenskyy, a comedian-cum-politician who had higher hopes of Ukraine being a staunch ally of the US and a NATO member.

What Zelenskyy failed, and still fails to realize, is how lethal it is to be an ally of the US. He had grown accustomed to the soft imperial power Biden wielded, ideologically driven by anticommunism and Zionism just as Zelenskyy is (does "We want Ukraine to be the Israel of Europe" ring a bell?), and expected funding even if the United States wasn't seeing a return on its lending. This all cumulated during the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting; Trump explicitly told him "we aren't going to be aiding you unless we get something of profit in return." 700,000 killed and wounded, only to be denied the two things Zelenskyy was promised; Russia defeated and a spot in NATO, while his national resources are bled dry by the nation that held a knife behind its back with sweet platitudes that it was a staunch ally, willing to fund its proxy war to economically crush its enemy.

The war comes down to this; it was never just a conflict between two former socialist nations vying for resources while crumbling under a shock therapy of neoliberalism. It was a proxy war initiated by a decaying empire looking to make more profit in an indirect way while taking out a perceived enemy. Trump knew this, and seeing a profit loss is what made him and his administration openly turn on Zelenskyy. Had it been Kamala, it would have gone in a similar manner, though I'm sure the "Top Cop" wouldn't have wasted her breath that could've gone to telling transgender people to accept transphobic laws, and instead had the CIA execute him and install another puppet for the US to weaponize.

Where does NATO stand in all of this? NATO nations are decrying the treatment of a Nazi collaborator simply because many of them are no longer economically dependent on Russia since the Nordstream bombing two years ago. Even as people in Britain freeze to death, or as Germany itself begins enabling the Nazis it never truly condemned, European nations are more committed ideologically to being anti-Russia, due to anticommunism. There is still a pervasive belief that, because of US propaganda, communism is and was worse than fascism, despite the latter being the leading ideology for genocides for the last century. The entire narrative against Russia in this war is one born of anticommunism and to a certain extent, racism.

As to where this goes now, I want to point readers to the war in Iraq led by George W. Bush. Saddam Hussein was backed by George H.W. Bush, as his Ba'ath party was against the Soviets. The war in Afghanistan was another proxy war the United States engaged in to weaken its adversary the USSR. Once the Soviets withdrew, and the United States left Saddam in control, he began nationalizing the petro industry in order to make some profit for a nation recovering from war. Instead of a steadfast ally agreeing and supporting this decision, the US began manufacturing consent for an invasion using tactics such as lies of WMDs and beheaded babies, because that last one always plucks at the heartstrings. Once the consent was manufactured, the US invaded to privatize the oil it hadn't been able to profit from due to Saddam nationalizing that industry. Saddam himself was later found hiding in 2004, and summarily executed by US troops after an interrogation. What this administration has in store for Zelenskyy remains to be seen, but if his outburst is any indication, the US may decide to manufacture consent for a regime change in Ukraine if Zelenskyy can't begin churning out a profit by selling his nations' resources to private investors.

This short essay aims at combatting liberalism on an interpersonal level, not a geo-political scale. Mao recognized that in order for a party to properly function as one, the people in it need to be on the same page politically, and to prevent any sort of miscommunication that could lead to infiltration of liberal ideas down the line.

Mao outlines 11 types of liberalism in interpersonal relationships, all allowing for reactionary ideas to slide without any major repercussions or petty squabbling that leads to further splits in the party. He follows the 11 types with, "Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism." Modern politics show this to be true, especially in the United States. Marxist-Leninism is not popular in the imperial core due to liberal individualism, which has given birth to anarchism and "leftism"; a useless term that aims to lump diametrically opposed ideologies together for a sense of cohesion akin to what conservative liberals who ally with fascists have in these nations.

However, this attempt to mesh left-liberals, anarchists and Marxist-Leninists fails due to MLs not having liberal tendencies. It's not "infighting" because liberalism (and anarchism by extension) is inherently closer to fascism by virtue of both desiring to protect capital in the imperial core. Liberals themselves are very adamant against critique, often preferring "[t]o let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate." How common is it for the liberal to refuse to challenge a reactionary relative, because they fear "repercussions"? Too common.

One thing to keep in mind when trying to radicalize others is they have to explore and educate themselves a majority of the time. The one thing communists must do is nurture curiosity, not shut it down. It's hard to decipher between incurious people simply trying to catch you in a trap and a liberal who is genuinely curious at learning more, but it's possible, especially if you trust them. These people also have to want to change. While it is on communists to offer education, they are more of a resource rather than an actual educator. It's not a sin to say "I don't know" if you don't know, it merely means you have more to learn and are aware of that!

Much like "On Authority", "Combat Liberalism" is a fantastic, short read to offer Marxist-Leninists with a framework for how to radicalize and neuter liberalism in their personal lives and in any ML party they are apart of. It's good to practice effect methods of communication to relay concerns with those in one's day to day life, and to try and radicalize slowly while one explores the ideology before themself. It's good to keep in mind, more often than not, it is a singular, transformative moment that often radicalizes oneself.

A new, “trans-inclusive” MRA movement has arisen online, primarily Tumblr. The movement has been backed both by TERFs and former redditor MRAs who see merit in it as a tool of both transphobia (against trans women in particular from the TERF standpoint) and misogyny (from MRAs). “Transandrophobia” has been created to, in the words of adherents, “give a term to the ‘unique’ intersection of transphobia and ‘misogyny’ transgender men face.” This is a ludicrous theory born out of both jealousy of transgender women having a term to describe the actual intersection of transphobia and misogyny they face systemically, and of transmisogyny itself, with “transandrophobia” accusations being utilized to shut down discussions of transmisogyny in the LGBT community online and offline.

Transmisogyny is the specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny that transgender women face. It is a systemic and interpersonal issue, born from gender being not binary, but a hierarchy. In order for “transmisandry” or “transandrophobia” to be real, “misandry” and “androphobia” need to be real and systemic issues. They are not. Cisgender men are not oppressed for being men, but cisgender women are oppressed for being women. Thus, misogyny is real. Nonwhite men are not oppressed for being men, but for being nonwhite (thus, racism). Homeless men are not oppressed for being men, but for being homeless and in the depths of poverty (thus, classism). Neurodivergent men are not oppressed for being men, but for being neurodivergent (thus, ableism). These are all examples of “misandry” that those who ascribe to “transandrophobia/transmisandry” have used, yet clearly, these are not actual depictions of misandry/androphobia.

I want to pause a moment on the term “androphobia” that has become the go-to for trans MRA types because it sounds far less insane compared to misandry. The term “androphobia” is a defunct clinical term psychiatrists have applied to women suffering from trauma dealt by men, and the term has been defined as “an extreme and unwarranted fear of men”. This itself is misogynistic, as the “distrust” of men is bound to happen in a society where men are valued more than women and encourages the abuse and mistreatment of women.

Some of those who believe in transandrophobia have caught on to this; the fact that misandry is not a systemic issue means that as men they are not oppressed. Rather than accept that reality and understand they are oppressed for being transgender rather than men, they fall back onto using their coercively assigned gender at birth, thus some believe that “transandrophobia” covers the “unique misogyny trans men face.” This itself is a fallacy. How are they as men victims of misogyny? To describe this, “Schroidinger’s Gender” has been jokingly stated, but I want to use the term my friend coined; Hardliners.

To define hardliners, one must understand a contradiction of understanding what makes on transgender. “Hardliners” as my friend refers to them, believe that transitioning is a straight line from male to female or female to male. This is an idealistic simplification of gender, one rooted in cissexism and perisexism. The other side is the “Unrecognized”; people who never knew they were transgender, but knew they weren't cis, even if they didn't have the language to explain themselves. Thus, their transgender identity is “unrecognized”, but they rarely if ever believe transitioning to be a straight line. They simply “were [x] gender” but were coercively assigned another gender by society.

Hardliners who buy into transandrophobia are thus able to conceptualize their gender as female to male, often tying in “female socialization” to describe their time when society deemed them women. These men thus conversely created the notion of “male socialization”, something they believe all trans women went through and thus “have internalized misogyny” they must work through. (This assumes that cis women cannot be misogynistic by virtue of being women, but I digress.) By using this language, transandrophobia is able to divert attention away from transmisogyny and labeling trans women who are rightfully outraged at their treatment as “due to their male socialization” and “not really being women.”

These men have two paths before them; this ideology is full of contradictions that have no way of being reconciled outside of: 1. detransitioning and become a radical transmisogynist akin to JK Rowling or 2. becoming Mens’ Rights Activists who believe misandry is a real phenomenon and that women are all just heartless bitches looking to steal their money. There is no way to reconcile these notions, and thus these men will buddy up to TERFs who manage to convince them to join their ranks or redditors and 4chan dwellers who are convinced that feminism has gone too far and women are all hypergamous. Either way, whichever way this ideology goes, it's bound to fizzle out and grow far more transphobic and misogynistic than it already is.

"Authoritarianism" has been used by reactionaries of all types to discredit and decry Marxist-Leninists and principled socialists since the 1870s, when Frederick Engels wrote "On Authority." His short essay aimed at dispelling idealistic understandings of how a revolution would occur and how society would function under socialism. While this entry will cover "On Authority", there will also be heavy coverage of idealistic ideas of how a revolution is to come.

One of these prevalent notions is that revolution will occur around the world once the contradictions reach a certain point to where they are no longer able to coexist. Marx, Engels and Trotsky believed this would and could still occur in imperialist nations, such as the UK (Marx and Engels) and Germany (Trotsky). However, history has shown this to be incorrect. The first successful socialist revolution occurred in Russia, a decayed empire that had fallen back into the periphery. China, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea and Cuba, three other periphery or "third-world" nations, also had successful socialist revolutions. However, no world-wide "permanent revolution" has taken place. Why? The main answer is the contradictions in the imperial core have not come to a head. They're still able to reconcile in a limbo, now is the best time to agitate and alert the proletariat of the imperial core of another method to construct society, though I'm getting ahead of myself and diverting from the topic at hand.

Engels wrote, "Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel." This is what the luddite movement of the early 1800s sought to do, and what modern "anti-civilization" types (though this can apply to bourgeois-aspiring artists who rail against AI art) want: to revert back to a more primitive technology or era, not unlike nostalgic fascists who yearn for a mythologized 1950s life that was formed through racist advertising in the United States. However, Engels focuses less on the logistics of "putting the cat back in the bag", and more on the moralizing of authority that comes from critiques the luddites had. He stated, "Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society." This argument is still around today, despite Engels correctly noting there is no inherent "good" or "bad" quality about authority. Akin to the state, it is a tool that can either be wielded by the proletariat or the bourgeoisie for different effects.

Finally, Engels ends the essay on this note: "But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists." This proves my previous paragraph correct; that the state and authority are nothing more than tools wielded by a class to impose its will upon the other. By trying to morally quantify these terms, the reactionaries who believe in "authoritarianism" effectively defang and betray any movement they are apart of.

"On Authority" will remain relevant to any principled Marxist-Leninist as time marches on and the contradictions of the imperial core continue to remain unreconcilable. This essay will help prepare other MLs for the task of educating allies who are on the fence about what authority entails.

I have a few desires this year, including working on a tapestry crochet blanket that will cover a bed (simply due to not realizing how big my patterns were) and finishing by the end of the year, getting better at Russian, working on this website, and cutting back on some vices. I also want to write a bit more and read a bit more, with a small list of nine books I want to read this year and some small essays related to A Song of Ice and Fire partially written that I want to revisit and finish.

I may end up adding more pages to the website, including my crochet patterns and a offshoot page just for ASoIaF analysis essays. Hopefully, this site will grow a bit and be more engaging by the end of the year, but we shall see. There's a lot going on this year that may draw me away for weeks on end, but this site goes through periods of stasis and activity.

A notion of "vote for the lesser of the two evils" has been floating around and dominating liberal circles since I was four and living through the Bush v Kerry election back in 2004. Every election since then has been "too important to lose" and calls of organizing a possible vanguard party and well as building up support for a truly proletarian party has been met with "not now. We can push a Democrat left!"

Did you push Obama left when he bombed Syria? What about the increased drone strikes in the SWANA region killing thousands of innocent people? When he promised to codify Roe V Wade and didn't? What of Biden, who is engaged in a bloody genocide and stated, "If Israel did not exist, the United States would have to make one"? When he allowed Roe V Wade to be overturned because Democrats are aware they can churn that threat for money? What about the violent anti-trans laws under him that are enacted in many southern states? What about the border, where he continued Trump's wall and kept kids in cages?

My point being is there will never be an ability other push a violent imperialist serving a genocidal empire "left". Any and all "so you want Trump?" should be met with a bashing of a skull. That clearly is not being argued. What is being stated is this: Any member of the US government by default must uphold liberal democracy and all the imperialist terror it reigns down upon the global south. The answer is not choosing a liberal candidate or reforming a nation built upon genocide and slavery, but a proletarian revolution leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Let it be stated: if you find yourself defending liberal democracy, which at it's core is a dictatorship of the bourgeios, as a method of being anti-Trump, you are not a "lefist". You are a liberal. Your hatred of Trump is founded on one of two things: 1. That his belief that the United States is still the most powerful empire in the world and thus can do whatever it wants, which will effectively kill any standing left the US has (this is a good thing to kill.) or 2. You genuinely believe that your rights will be stripped away, to which I have to say: you are delusional to believe any rights can be meaningfully won when the entire US empire has been built on the blood of the global south and black lives forced into slavery to build the empire. You can either grow past these idealistic choices, or do what most do, and shove your head in the sand and scream that the reason the Democrats lose is due to communists on a decaying site.

A major theme of A Song of Ice and Fire is familial trauma; whether generational, cocsa, verbal or physical abuse. Throughout the story, trauma sustained in childhood is shown to affect and change the characters. Through comparisons of various families can the theme shine through. One great example is the parenting styles of Tywin Lannister compared to Ned Stark. Both patriarchs grew up in harsh conditions, born out of a feudal, patriarchal society. Yet how they treat their kids is vastly different, due to their complementary views of what children are.

Tywin Lannister views his children as extensions of himself, akin to trophies that bring him honor, bargaining chips to win him prestigious positions. Cersei he sees as a bargaining chip, using her to marry into families in an attempt to keep the peace, such as the Baratheon's after Robert's Rebellion. Her arranged match with Robert was done both - in order to keep the crown from punishing him for not taking a side in the rebellion and the citizens of King's Landing for staging their own rebellion against him, for the brutalities his bannermen committed while storming the city - as well as a gamble to get closer to the iron throne. By having one child of royalty, Tywin gains more prestige and power. Jaime behaves as a trophy child: he appears to be the ideal knight, handsome, charming, a fantastic fighter. Despite Jaime betraying his oath to protect the king and his vow of chastity, Tywin sees him as the perfect son; while a former heir to the Lord of Casterly Rock, is now a knight of the King's guard. If Cersei is a broodmare to continue the Lannister line, Jaime is the trophy Tywin can look at and point to should anyone ask what he's accomplished.

Tyrion breaks the illusion of the perfect family for Tywin. He's not conventionally attractive, disabled due to his dwarfism (thus cannot be a knight, or even a proper lord in Tywin's mind) and prefers wit to physical violence (not to say he wouldn't fight if pushed, as he is shown to do). His disability is stated to be a curse, Oberyn Martell citing rumors that while Hand of the King, Tywin "saw himself as above the king", making Tyrion a punishment bestowed upon the lord for arrogance. Thus, Tyrion is a reminder that Tywin is human, mortal, capable of mistakes. He resents his son for the reminder, for not being a useful pawn in his bid to gain power and the throne.

The Starks are different: Ned and Catelyn are aware of the differences in each child and nurture it. Ned brings his first son and heir to his meetings and councils, preparing him as a Lord of Winterfell, which serve him wonderfully in his short tenure as King in the North. Catelyn and Ned point out and encourage Sansa to enjoy the arts, needlework and other lady deeds (though there is also something to be said of the misogyny of a society where all women are expected to do these things, as Arya is often socially ostracized for not adhering to the role as a Stark Lady like Sansa.), and, with some understanding of his other daughter, Ned allows Arya to pursue Braavosi water dancing and learning to wield a sword (also encouraged by Jon). We don't get much of a glimpse into the Stark familial relationships as much as the Lannisters due to three of the eight dying, but what little is shown displays that Ned and Catelyn see their children as people exploring the world and society they were born into, with desires and preferences they encourage, as how else are they to learn expect through experience?

Catelyn, while furious with Robb for marrying Jeyne Westerling out of love and breaking his oath, saying "you are a king who broke his promise, one of the worst sins a king can commit", admires how graceful and understanding her son has become when he confesses his sin and intends to make amends with a slighted Walder Frey. Ned too, while upset that Arya is having difficulty adjusting in the Red Keep, allows her to instead pursue her interests as he knows forcing her into doing things she despises will just breed resentment between them. Both parents, while naive to the political machinations going on around them, understand how to be good parents, or at least as good as they can be in a feudalist society.

Thus, the War of the Five Kings is, at some length, a battle of the parenting of Tywin Lannister versus Eddard Stark. The Lannisters manage to win, but only through the slaughtering of the Starks and violating Guest Right, through Stannis kinslaying his brother Renly to be the only "true" Baratheon to win the crown, through a notion of "the ends justify the means." While the abusive parenting style of Tywin Lannister won the war, it has broken the bonds in their family, with Tyrion killing his father, Cersei growing more paranoid, and Jaime sinking into a depression.

I haven't had the drive to write as much, mostly due to stress related to a staff shortage at work as well as some personal planning between me and my partner. I did recently get a personal computer since my ancient laptop was slowing down. (Thankful I got six years out of it though!) With this, I'm hoping to begin writing essays again.

I can't seem to write about far-right people on Neocities anymore. They're like a spectacle to me, pathetic and deserving pity like a worm stuck on concrete in the rain. It's not kind, but understanding they themselves can't provide compassion to anyone not white, I can't find myself to care. I enjoy dissecting them with my friend, question why they went down that dark path when my friend and I, who have and currently are suffering worse, didn't. I explained that maybe it's the entitlment to imperial gains, and so far that seems to hold true. Perhaps I'll delve deeper one day soon when I'm clearheaded and detached enough.

Life itself has been relatively calm, although my partner is dealing with some turmoil. The job he's dreamed of rejected him, and now we're trying to determine where we want to go from here. My mother suggested us moving two hours north, so my partner can work for the company my mother does and I can simply transfer to a new shelter. We'd be closer to our families, but my partner just wants two days off, and I want the same. I also don't really want to move. I despise packing, moving my oldest cat. He yowls in the car without gabapentin, and I don't want to stress him out. My partner will be in Florida at the start of next week, and be back in two. When he gets back, I'm hoping he has an idea of what we should do. Our lease runs out in April, and without a plan I'll just renew to buy us some time. Oh well, I'm sure it'll work out.