Page 4 of 4

Re: Zuggtmoy Tsuggtmoy

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2026 9:15 pm
by kFoyauextlH
"
but a node through which inhuman forces pass — the will of the Outside, using him as a conduit for its own mutation.
"

Wow, this is so much like what I was going to write about these days, starting a few days or weeks ago, right around when my phone got messed up. I'm so glad that the themes still seem to make their way through here even when I'm not as available, which is also like this theme itself, since it is fnnding its way through here whether it is through me or you for now, which is pretty amazing. This also has to do with the idea of the game I mentioned, as well as how I believe things may really work, albeit less exaggerated, but not all that much less in some cases.

Added in 2 minutes 5 seconds:
I also played Macbeth in a play where I gave a stunning performance and I relate to the character, particularly the imges of the character from a recent film starring Michael Fassbender where he has paint pr blackstreaks on his face, possibly also similar to Conan The Batbarian in Conan The Destroyer.

https://i.postimg.cc/85B1PyYk/1000142649.png



https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/learn ... e-witches/

"


Who are the Witches, or ‘Weird Sisters’?

Are they human at all, or are they simply supernatural beings? When Macbeth and Banquo first come across them on the heath they question what they are, unsure whether or not they are human:

What are these,
So wither’d and so wild in their attire,
That look not like th’inhabitants o’th’earth,
And yet are on it?
— Act I, scene 3

The Witches appear to be women, yet they have beards like men, and while they initially appear as real to Macbeth and Banquo as any other person stood before them, they soon after vanish into thin air without warning, leaving them to question their own judgement. Banquo wonders:

Were such things here, as we do speak about,
Or have we eaten on the insane root,
That takes the reason prisoner?
— Act I, scene 3

The Witches are unlike the rest of the plays characters, and in fact the more we see of them, the more we begin to notice the distinctions that set them apart from everyone else. As well as being distinguished from the other characters in their appearance and in the things Banquo and Macbeth say about them, they are also set apart from everyone else in the way that they speak. Most of Shakespeare’s verse is written in lines of 10 or 11 syllables and not rhyming: ‘What bloody man is that? He can report…’ (Act I, scene 2). This is called ‘iambic pentameter’ (see the language section for more exploration) and it is the way that most of the characters in Macbeth speak for the majority of the play. The way the Witches speak however is very different:

When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
— Act I, scene 1

It only has 7 or 8 syllables and is much more rhythmic than much of the play’s speech; it therefore stands out against the dialogue of the other characters. Even before they interact with anyone therefore, the Witches are marked out by their speech as being unusual, unnatural or abnormal.

Many people in 1606, when the play was first performed, believed that witches were real, and carrying out dark magic in Britain. One of those people was King James, who saw a performance of Macbeth in that year. For James and others, the Witches in the play would have definitely been evil, and even accessories to the murders which Macbeth commits. This presents a problem, because the Witches are not punished at the end of the play – they simply disappear. This means that there is a base of evil in the play which goes unpunished. But what if the Witches aren’t evil? If they just tell Macbeth the future, and leave him to decide how to approach it, how can they be blamed for his actions? But if the future is already planned out, whether Macbeth tries to change it or not, then how can he be guilty? What the Witches do, then, is prompt us to question our free will.
"

https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespe ... /read/4/1/

"
Music. The Witches dance and vanish.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witches

https://ailishsinclair.com/2025/09/macb ... e-witches/

https://readingmedievalbooks.wordpress. ... the-other/

"
Jeanne de Montbaston
October 20, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Oh, I wish I’d heard that! It sounds fascinating.

There were hints of sexual deviance in here too (other than cat-arse fetishes, that is), but I needed to see the exhibition again to make sense of what I think there. In terms of masculinities, it relates in to romances about Saracen/black giants, doesn’t it?

I am fascinated by the intersections – and how transferrable all of these tropes are.
"

https://www.essence.com/culture/black-witches-feature/

https://thedevilsdavenport.wordpress.co ... rn-europe/

"
Black Magic: Race in the European Witch Trials

Moving backward from Imani Perry’s exploration of the European witch trials in Vexy Thing, I trace the cultural work of race and gender that the word “black” does throughout the age of witch trials, from the 1324 trial of Alice Kyteler, which charged that she had intercourse with an incubus disguised as a “Black man” or aethiopis, up to the seventeenth-century Salem witch trials and Tituba’s “black dogge.” Building on Cord Whitaker’s “shimmering philology” of raced language in Black Metaphors, I explore medieval beliefs about folk magic, which formed the evidentiary basis for the witch trials. I argue that discourse around magic participated in the structures that created, sustained, and extended patriarchy, as well as white supremacy.
"

https://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4 ... Q59709.pdf

https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3 ... 0_2_08.pdf

https://ia801504.us.archive.org/20/item ... d_text.pdf



"

dgmstraka

2y ago

Yes, I first heard this allegation in Ethiopia: The Unknown Revolution by Raúl Valdés Vivó, in which the author recounts a story that a Cuban-Ethiopian woman who had lived in the country for some time recounted first hand of working at a school in a predominantly Muslim area. It’s an extremely sinister story—Vivo even compares it to a scene in The Exorcist, which had just come out a few months before the Ethiopian Revolution began.

The book is outstanding—it’s basically 10 Days That Shook the World but for the events of 1974. While I found Vivo’s presentation of the allegation believable and found corroborating evidence of a fascination with the occult that Haile Selassie developed later in life, it just doesn’t take much for me to believe that the ruling class—whether in feudal Ethiopia, 1973, or on Little St. James Island in the very recent past—can and does commit heinous, monstrous acts of abuse for self-gratification. When people say, “He would never do that…”, it just sounds pretty naive.

Here’s the bone-chilling excerpt worthy of True Detective Season 1:

“A unique Cuban woman lives in Addis Ababa, at Kebele 08-0312, number 845. Rogelia Emiliana Leon (ID number 12) had a Congolese grandfather and is how an Ethiopian citizen. She was born and brought up in Guanabacoa but emigrated to Ethiopia in 1952 after marrying a young Ethiopian who had been taken to Cuba to study there, by a Cuban veterinarian named Barreras. Nobody quite knows when or how Barreras began to work on the Emperor’s stud farm, The young man’s father had foreseen the war of 1935 when Mussolini attacked Ethiopia and had persuaded his friend Barreras to take his son back to Cuba with him and have him trained as a rural teacher.

The wedding—they are now divorced—took place in Guanabacoa. In Addis Ababa, Rogelia learned Amharic and became Ethiopian by dint of destiny, but she didn't forget the socialist ideas her parents had taught her when she was a little girl. She told me a story that seems to have come out of a film like The Exorcist:

“I remember as if it were today, the day the principal of the school where I worked as a cleaning woman brought in 12 little Black girls, blacker than I, blacker than all the Ethiopians I have known in 25 years. They were so black you could hardly see their hair. This race lives on the Sudan border. It is a strong race. The girls were strong, too, and beautiful. Their ears hadn’t been pierced, because they were Muslims, not Christians. When I saw them arrive, I thought they had been sent to school to be educated, to learn Amharic, since they spoke a dialect. I imagined that they would someday become the mistresses of some figure at the Court—maybe of the Emperor himself, who knows? But one day the principal told me the truth. Every year in December two of them were taken to the palace for the Emperor’s birthday. Not this palace, the one in Bishoust, some 60 kilometers from here. The Debre-Sait Palace. Those two would never come back. When they left the school, all perfumed, they looked so pretty in their white dresses! When they got to the palace they were sacrificed, and their blood was cast into the palace lake. Then, alone, the Emperor bathed naked in that water and drank of it. Then he allowed the servants and other people who were around to plunge into the lake. The girls were so naive that when they saw the portrait of the Emperor with the “three Selassies”—what’s it called? The Holy Trinity! The Emperor was the fourth saint or something like that—they bowed and said “Father.” This went on for five consecutive years, each December. I don’t know what they told the ones who remained in the school; possibly they had the girls believe that the others had returned to their hamlets. When there were only two left, the principal couldn’t stand it any long- er, and she decided to save Debritu, the heavier girl who was very intelligent, and the other, whose name I’ve forgotten, who was even prettier, and slim. In mid ’73, or ’72, she had their ears pierced, as if they had been baptized. This way they were of no use for the blood bath. And as far as I know, no one said anything, because the Coptic religion was so strong that even the Crown respected it... A year ago I found out that Debritu had finished the twelfth grade and the other, the ninth... As for the blood bath, well, the explanation was that the Devil lived in the lake, and he wanted the Emperor to grow old and frail. To appease him, they had to give him Muslim blood, the blood of that pure, innocent race. I don’t know... But I do know that the Emperor came to the throne through murder. The Queen was married to Yasu, a prince. Haile Selassie wanted to be king. He poisoned the prince at a dinner and married the widow. They say she was already pregnant and that that explains why the Emperor despised his eldest son, who wasn’t his, and preferred Makonnen, his second son, who died in an accident though its also said that he was killed by a jealous pilot. I worked also as a cleaning woman in the hospital at night, to earn more money. They didn’t let the doctor or anybody see the corpse.

I know many stories like this. The Emperor was a terrible man, a real monster.””
1
u/backerhedman avatar
backerhedman

2y ago

LIES
2
Other_Feature5250
OP •
2y ago

Hello and thank you for your response. What an incredible story. I almost believed it until I read up on the author :

Valdes Vivo - Valdés Vivo devoted his entire life to the cause of the Cuban Revolution and to the dissemination of progressive and revolutionary ideas, said Jorge Risquet, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba…
"


u/backerhedman avatar
backerhedman

2y ago

I'ts complicated - Hints: Jungian Achetypes (Archetypal Synchronistic Resonance), His League of Nations address, Spiritual battle against fascism, Christological pedigree, He was a "seer" (possessed precognitive ability) for the good
"



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_people

"
The Isaurians were brought partially under control (76–75 BC) by the Romans. During the war of the Cilician and other pirates against Rome, the Isaurians took so active a part that the proconsul P. Servilius deemed it necessary to follow them into their rugged strongholds, and compel the whole people to submission, an exploit for which he received the title of Isauricus (75 BC).[1]
"

https://www.theoi.com/Gallery/P23.9.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgons

Added in 23 minutes 29 seconds:
https://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Phorkys.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorcys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorcys_(son_of_Phaenops)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furcas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foras

"
His name seems to derive from Latin foras, lit. 'out, outside'.
"

https://artmusela.substack.com/p/the-fa ... orgons-and





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stheno_and_Euryale

"
In Greek mythology, Stheno (/ˈsθiːnoʊ, ˈsθɛnoʊ/; Ancient Greek: Σθενώ, romanized: Sthenṓ, lit. 'forceful')[2] and Euryale (/jʊəˈraɪəli/ yuu-RY-ə-lee; Ancient Greek: Εὐρυάλη, romanized: Euryálē, lit. 'far-roaming')[3] were two of the three sister Gorgons, the third being Medusa, who were able to turn anyone who looked at them to stone.[4] When Perseus beheaded Medusa, the two Gorgons pursued him but were unable to catch him.
"

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hourglass_Coven

Added in 7 minutes 51 seconds:
https://myshakespeare.com/macbeth/act-2 ... new-gorgon

https://journals.openedition.org/shakes ... 71?lang=en

"

The title of Thomas Andrew’s 1604 poem The Unmasking of a Feminine Machiavel encapsulates some of the anxieties which women inspired in the early modern period.1 Claiming that a woman will be unmasked, that her true identity will be revealed in the poem, the title shows that women were first regarded as duplicitous creatures, who successfully hid their evil nature beneath their comely appearances.2 Then, calling this woman a “Feminine Machiavel,” the poet suggests that the immoral manipulations which the Italian philosopher prescribed in The Prince (1532) are transposed from the realm of politics into the sphere of love and, therefore, that it is in her romantic and sexual interactions with men that this woman proves particularly deceitful and dangerous.3

4 Thomas Andrew, op. cit., Sig. C4v.
5 For more information on these female hybrids in classical myths, see Pierre Grimal, Dictionnaire de (...)
6 In “Woman as Other: Medusa and Basilisk in Early Modern French Literature”, Nancy M. Frelick thus e (...)
7 Abraham Fraunce’s The third part of the Countesse of Pembrokes Yuychurch Entituled, Amintas dale pr (...)
8 Laetitia Sansonetti, “Représentations du désir dans la poésie narrative élisabéthaine [Venus and Ad (...)
9 In “Représentations du désir dans la poésie narrative élisabéthaine”, Laetitia Sansonetti showed ho (...)
10 Geffrey Whitney, A Choice of Emblemes, and other Devises, For the Moste parte gathered out of sundr (...)

2Intimated in the title, the evil of the “Feminine Machiavel,” and more generally of women, is then obsessively stressed throughout the poem thanks to the enumeration of references to women renowned for their wickedness such as the incestuous Myrrha who tricked her father into her own bed or the bewitching Calypso who detained Odysseus on her island for several years.4 The hybrid silhouettes of mermaids, the half-fish half-woman creatures, of Scylla, the nymph with barking dogs’ heads around her hips, and of Medusa, a Gorgon whose head is crowned with writhing serpents, also appear among the female figures this poem borrows from classical antiquity to draw a dreadful portrait of femininity. That the three creatures should be conjured up for that same purpose can come as a surprise given the diversity and unique significance of the mythological contexts in which they emerged.5 And yet, despite these notable differences, the early modern period often used all three creatures to serve the same metaphorical ends: highlight men’s perilous and troubled relationships with women. Thus, fusing beautiful and alluring human parts with repelling animal bodies, their hybrid shapes often laid bare the contradictory emotions of both attraction and disgust which women could inspire.6 What’s more, their mythological characterisation as dangerous female figures may explain why they were often turned into epitomes of the threats women supposedly posed. The literal petrification which Gorgons’ lethal gazes caused in classical myths thus became a metaphorical representation of the perilous stasis in which a man could lose himself if he became too engrossed in the contemplation of a woman’s beauty and too absorbed by the promise of bodily pleasures that it bore.7 Mermaids also stressed this risk of abandoning oneself to idleness, as Laetitia Sansonetti showed in her analysis of Guyon’s encounter with such creatures in Spenser’s The Faerie Queene: “Les Sirènes […] sont dangereuses non seulement parce qu’elles menacent de détourner Guyon du droit chemin, mais aussi et surtout parce qu’elles l’invitent à arrêter sa course et à sombrer dans la paresse.”8 Disclosing, like Gorgons, the risk of indulging in the idleness of romantic and sexual relationships with women, mermaids’ seductive power nevertheless relied not on sight like the other mythological hybrids but on hearing. This specificity, which originated from the classical myths in which they appeared,9 led to the emergence of a singular metaphorical use for mermaids as they were recurrently conjured up to highlight the dangers that lie behind women’s enchanting but dishonest vows. In the conclusion to his chapter on “Sirens,” Geffrey Whitney thus warns his male readership that: “Such Mermaids live, that promise only joys: / But he that yields, at length himself destroys.”10

3While Gorgons and mermaids stressed the dangers of letting oneself be seduced by a woman’s beauty or words, Scylla denoted lust as is shown by the following passage from George Sandys’s 1632 Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Englished, Mythologiz’d, and Represented in Figures:

11 George Sandys, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Englished, Mythologiz’d, and Represented in Figures, ed. Karl (...)

Scylla represents a Virgin; who […] once polluted with the sorceries of Circe, that is, having rendred her maiden honour to bee deflowred by bewitching pleasure, she is transformed into an horrid monster. And not so only, but endeavours to shipwracke others (such is the envy of infamous women) upon those ruining rocks, and make them share in the same calamities.11

12 It is worth noting that another Scylla, who betrayed her father because of her love for Minos, also (...)
13 This connection drawn between the female sexual organ and Scylla’s monstrous dogs’ heads clearly ap (...)

Here, Scylla’s monstrous transformation dramatizes the physical and moral corruption caused by women’s lust. Not only does the virgin see her body irrevocably blemished because of her licentiousness, but she also imperils the morality of the men that she tries to seduce.12 Scylla’s monstrous dogs’ heads also sustained this metaphorical association of the hybrid with women’s lust as, suggestively sprouting from her hips, they portrayed female genitals as a ravenous, never satisfied organ, always seeking to devour men’s flesh.13

4Keeping men in idleness, deceiving them with flattering words and promises or trying to corrupt them to sate their boundless sexual appetites, women were therefore depicted as particularly dangerous creatures when they took on the shapes of these three hybrids.

14 This appears even more surprising considering the paucity of instances in which they appear as male (...)

5In the light of this metaphorical use, it can come as a surprise that Scylla, a mermaid and a Gorgon should be used to respectively describe Shylock, Angelo and Antony, the three male protagonists of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Antony and Cleopatra and Measure for Measure.14 While paying attention to the specificities of each play and of each of the male characters under study, this paper will show how this innovative treatment of the female hybrids, unusually associated with men, blurs the early modern distinctions between women and men and thus lays bare the precariousness of the male/female categories.
"


Added in 12 minutes 33 seconds:
"
When the messenger brings her news of Antony’s wedding, the Egyptian queen tells him: “Thou shouldst come like a fury crowned with snakes, / Not like a formal man” (2.5.41-42). While Antony’s male-to-female transvestism was pleasant and even sexually arousing to Cleopatra, the feminine attributes which the Egyptian queen invites the male messenger to put on are now monstrous and threatening as they belong to the mythological furies. Like the other female hybrids that the early modern period inherited from classical antiquity, furies appear as particularly dreadful creatures. Described as the goddesses of vengeance, they relentlessly torment their victims whom they eventually drive mad. Ending humans’ lives tragically, the terror which furies inspire also derives from their dreadful hybrid bodies: winged, furies are often “crowned with snakes,” a representation which Cleopatra takes up here.42

24The association of these monstrous female hybrids with the male messenger flags an important change: the blurring of the gender divide which Cleopatra sexually enjoyed is progressively turning into a source of anxiety as men start conjuring up nightmarish representations of femininity. This shift is confirmed as Antony takes the terrifying shape of yet another female hybrid later in this scene. As she is about to leave the stage, Cleopatra indeed reckons that: “Though [Antony] be painted one way like a Gorgon, / The other way’s a Mars” (2.5.117-118).

43 See for instance Palamon’s words to Arcite in The Two Noble Kinsmen: “I have seen you move in such (...)

25Yet again, the destabilisation of the male/female categories appears perilous here as Cleopatra’s femininized lover is now associated with the dangerous figure of Gorgons, the classical monsters with writhing snakes on their heads and petrifying gazes who – as mentioned earlier – were recurrently conjured up to warn men of the dangers they exposed themselves to if they interacted with women. Because of this dangerous femininity associated with Antony, the mention of the Roman god of war appears as the queen’s attempt to reassert her lover’s gender at a time when manhood was often built and asserted through the display of bravery and strength on the battlefield.43 But even this paragon of virility cannot quite crush Antony’s femininity. Describing her lover from two distinct points of view, each revealing a different picture as in an anamorphic painting, Cleopatra points out that Antony’s virile appearance is only a matter of perspective. Though hidden, a monstrous Gorgon always lurks beneath the outward look of a Mars.

26Thus, the dread which Antony inspires in Cleopatra is voiced thanks to his being associated with a monstrous female hybrid. Casting a dark light on gender ambiguity, the nightmarish images of femininity that the Roman inspires in his lover also surface in this scene in the comparison of Egypt with a “cistern for scaled snakes” (2.5.96), which Cleopatra conjures up in her mad jealousy. This comparison indeed echoes Othello’s grim description of Desdemona’s womb, when he believes that his wife is unfaithful. Calling it a “cistern for foul toads / To knot and gender in” (4.2.60-61), the Venetian general turns the organ into a closed space where amphibians monstrously proliferate as a way to express his anxious lack of control over his wife’s sexuality. Echoing Othello’s distressing depiction, Cleopatra’s vision of Egypt as a “cistern for scaled snakes” also destabilises the gender and species divide as in her mad rage she conjures up, yet again, a monstrous representation of women’s sexuality, borrowed this time from an earlier Shakespearean tragedy.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charybdis

Added in 39 minutes 49 seconds:


"
Eldritch monsters are often based around sea creatures and have many tentacles. What would be your twist to this theme?

I'm not saying that creatures from the deep sea based on squids, fish or marine creatures are bad. I just think that most of the time, they feel stale and are straight-up copies from some Lovecraft story, not much originality goes there.

Some examples that come to mind are Blasphemous or Elden Ring, while their "lovecraftian" theme is rather subtle, they are based around trees, sap, and bark, very different than the usual norm.

Even Bloodborne with its famous use of lovecraftian inspiration has a nice spin to it with the beasts. And Darkest Dungeon's main monstrosities are much more "formless hateful flesh" than based on some specific creature.

But it's usually hard to find good resources for stuff that is "out of the norm".

What do you think would be an interesting take on the "monstrosities beyond our understanding"? I particularly would love to develop more of my insect eldtrich-horrors.
"



"
Why would the Elder Gods resemble sea creatures?

I get that the terrestrial ones, such as Dagon and C'thulhu might, and Nyarlathotep would also use such a form as and when, but why would the ones which live in space, Azatoth and such?

To be honest, I would imagine that they would more resemble microbes and whatnot, adapted to survive in the zero gravity, zero atmosphere of Space.

What do you chaps think?
"

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Abeloth

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Aboleth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyss_(religion)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyss_(Thelema)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escutcheo ... ry)#Points

"
Abyss, in heraldry, the exact middle of an escutcheon
"

https://gods-and-demons.fandom.com/wiki/Abyss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abzu

"
Abzû or Apsû (Sumerian: 𒀊𒍪 abzû; Akkadian: 𒀊𒍪 apsû), also called Engar (Cuneiform:𒇉, LAGAB×HAL; Sumerian: engar; Akkadian: engurru – lit. ab = 'water' zû = 'deep', recorded in Greek as Ἀπασών Apasṓn[1]), is the name for fresh water from underground aquifers which was given a religious fertilising quality in ancient near eastern cosmology, including Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. It was believed that all lakes, springs, rivers, fountains, rain, and even the Flood, as described in Atrahasis, originated from the Abzû. In Mesopotamian cosmogony, it is referred to as the freshwater primordial ocean below and above the earth; indeed the Earth itself was regarded as a goddess Ninhursag that was conceived from the mating of male Abzu with female saltwater ocean Tiamat. Thus the divine Mother Earth – on her surface equipped with a bubble of breathable air – was surrounded by Abzû, and her interior harbours the realm of the dead (Irkalla).
"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/abyss

"
abyss(n.)

late 14c. in Latin form abyssus, "depths of the earth or sea; primordial chaos;" early 14c. as abime "depths of the earth or sea; bottomless pit, Hell" (via Old French; see abysm). Both are from Late Latin abyssus "bottomless pit," from Greek abyssos (limnē) "bottomless (pool)," from abyssos "bottomless, unfathomed," hence, generally, "enormous, unfathomable," also as a noun, he abyssos "the great depth, the underworld, the bottomless pit." This is a compound of a- "without" (see a- (3)) + byssos "bottom," a word of uncertain origin possibly related to bathos "depth" [Liddell & Scott]. Watkins suggests a connection with the root of bottom (n.); Beekes suggests it is pre-Greek.

The current form in English is a 16c. partial re-Latinization. Greek abyssos was used in Septuagint to translate Hebrew tehom "original chaos" and was used in the New Testament for "Hell." OED notes, "the word has had five variants, abime, abysm, abysmus, abyssus, abyss; of which abyss remains as the ordinary form, and abysm as archaic or poetic." In reference to a seemingly bottomless gulf from 1630s. Old English glossed Latin abyssum with deagenesse, which is related to deagol "secret, hidden; dark, obscure."
"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/abysm

"
abysm(n.)

"bottomless gulf, greatest depths," c. 1300, from Old French abisme "chasm, abyss, depths of ocean, Hell" (12c., Modern French abîme), from Vulgar Latin *abyssimus (source also of Spanish and Portuguese abismo), which represents perhaps a superlative of Latin abyssus or a formation on analogy of Greek-derived words in -ismus; see abyss. It survived only as a poetic variant of abyss; as late as early 17c. it was pronounced to rhyme with time.
"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/abysmal

"
abysmal(adj.)

1650s, "pertaining to an abyss," formed in English from abysm + -al (1). Perhaps only a dictionary word before 19c. The weakened sense of "extremely bad" is attested by 1904, perhaps from abysmal ignorance (suggestive of its "depth"), an expression attested from 1847. Related: Abysmally.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ocean

https://biologos.org/articles/deep-spac ... -of-heaven

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_N ... _cosmology

"
a primordial cosmic ocean. When the firmament is created, it separates the cosmic ocean into two bodies of water:

the heavenly upper waters located on top of the firmament, which act as a source of rain
the lower waters that the earth is above and that the earth rests on; they act as the source of rivers, springs, and other earthly bodies of water

the region above the upper waters, namely the abode of the gods
the netherworld, the furthest region in the direction downwards, below the lower waters
"

"
the Chaoskampf motif: a cosmic battle between the protagonist and a primordial sea monster
"

"
The firmament was believed to be a solid boundary above the Earth, separating it from the upper or celestial waters. In the Book of Genesis, it is called the raqia.[48][49] In ancient Egyptian texts, and from texts across the Near East generally, the firmament was described as having special doors or gateways on the eastern and western horizons to allow for the passage of heavenly bodies during their daily journeys. These were known as the windows of heaven or the gates of heaven.[50][51] Canaanite text describe Baal as exerting his control over the world by controlling the passage of rainwater through the heavenly windows in the firmament.[52] In Egyptian texts particularly, these gates also served as conduits between the earthly and heavenly realms for which righteous people could ascend. The gateways could be blocked by gates to prevent entry by the deceased as well. As such, funerary texts included prayers enlisting the help of the gods to enable the safe ascent of the dead.[53] Ascent to the celestial realm could also be done by a celestial ladder made by the gods.[54] Multiple stories exist in Mesopotamian texts whereby certain figures ascend to the celestial realm and are given the secrets of the gods.[55]

Four different Egyptian models of the firmament and/or the heavenly realm are known. One model was that it was the shape of a bird: the firmament above represented the underside of a flying falcon, with the sun and moon representing its eyes, and its flapping causing the wind that humans experience.[56] The second was a cow, as per the Book of the Heavenly Cow. The cosmos is a giant celestial cow represented by the goddess Nut or Hathor. The cow consumed the sun in the evening and rebirthed it in the next morning.[57] The third is a celestial woman, also represented by Nut. The heavenly bodies would travel across her body from east to west. The midriff of Nut was supported by Shu (the air god) and Geb (the earth god) lay outstretched between the arms and feet of Nut. Nut consumes the celestial bodies from the west and gives birth to them again in the following morning. The stars are inscribed across the belly of Nut and one needs to identify with one of them, or a constellation, in order to join them after death.[58] The fourth model was a flat (or slightly convex) celestial plane which, depending on the text, was thought to be supported in various ways: by pillars, staves, scepters, or mountains at the extreme ends of the Earth. The four supports give rise to the motif of the "four corners of the world".[59]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

"
In biblical cosmology, the firmament rāqīaʿ was the vast solid dome created by God during the Genesis creation narrative to separate the primal sea into upper and lower portions so that the dry land could appear.[2][3]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehom

"
Tehom (Hebrew: תְּהוֹם təhôm) is a Northwest Semitic and Biblical Hebrew word meaning "the deep" or "abyss" (literally "the deeps").[1] It is used to describe the primeval ocean and the post-creation waters of the earth. It is a cognate of the Akkadian words tiāmtum and tâmtum as well as Ugaritic t-h-m which have similar meanings.[2] According to a theological dictionary, tehom derives from a Semitic root which denoted the sea as a non-personified entity with mythological import.[3]
"

https://www.wisdomlib.org/christianity/ ... n/gomorrah

"
But Genesis 13 probably means only that Lot, seeing the Jordan N. of the Dead Sea, and knowing the whole valley N. and S. to be well watered, chose it. Moreover, the catastrophes palpable to sight all round the southern end imply that the Jordan once flowed to the S. of that sea. Gomorrah means submersion; Arabic ghamara, to "overwhelm with water." Gomorrah was one of the five cities of the vale of Siddim whose forces were routed by Chedorlaomer, until Abram helped them. Zoar or Bela alone of the five, at Lot's request, escaped destruction by the fire from the Lord. Jerusalem when corrupted (for "the corruption of the best is the worst of all corruptions") is termed Sodom and her people Gomer (Isaiah 1:9-10); as the church apostate corrupted is termed "Babylon" (Revelation 17).
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorcys_(therapsid)

"
Phorcys was also unexpectedly large for an early gorgonopsian with a total skull length estimated at ~30 cm (12 in), comparable to in size to later gorgonopsians and notably larger than the similarly aged Eriphostoma with skull lengths of only ~10–15 cm (3.9–5.9 in). This contradicts prior suggestions that gorgonopsians only achieved larger sizes, and associated top predator status, following the extinction of dinocephalians and large therocephalian therapsids in the Late Permian. Indeed, Phorcys was comparable in size to a contemporary specimen of a scylacosaurid therocephalian with a skull estimated to be ~21 centimetres (8.3 in) long, and even to the slightly older anteosaur Australosyodon (skull length ~26 cm (10 in)). Phorcys and other gorgonopsians may then have been top predators in some Middle Permian assemblages.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia



https://bayonetta.fandom.com/wiki/Gomorrah

https://ultra.fandom.com/wiki/Gomora

https://wikizilla.org/wiki/Gamera

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera

"
Gamera is depicted as a giant, flying, fire-breathing, prehistoric turtle. In the series' first film, Gamera is portrayed as an aggressive and destructive monster, though he also saved a child's life. As the films progressed, Gamera took on a more benevolent role, becoming a protector of humanity, especially children, nature, and the Earth from extraterrestrial races and other giant monsters.[10]

The Gamera franchise has been (both directly and indirectly) very influential in Japan and internationally.[9][11] This is seen notably in the productions of the Daimajin and Yokai Monsters film franchises and influences on the entire tokusatsu genre, including the Godzilla franchise, and the domestic television industry.[9][7] The franchise directly and indirectly contributed in starting of two influential social phenomena (the two "Kaiju Booms" (jp)(jp) and their successor "Yōkai / Kaiki Boom"), and Gamera and Daimajin franchises were part of the "Kaiju Booms".[12] Gamera and Daimajin and other related characters have been referenced and used in various topics, such as the naming of prehistoric turtles (Sinemys gamera (jp) and Gamerabaena), an algorithm to study plasma bubbles,[13] and many others. 27 November is publicly referred as "Gamera Day" (Japanese: ガメラの日, Hepburn: Gamera no Hi) in Japan,[14][15] and Gamera and related characters are used as mascots by the city of Chōfu.[16]

Despite its popularity and influence, expansion of the franchise and public recognition of the character[17][18] were severely hindered by Daiei Film and its successors' (Tokuma Shoten[note 1][note 2] and Kadokawa Corporation) precarious financial conditions,[9][21] facing repeated copyright transfers of Daiei properties, failed global expansions despite featuring foreign casts,[21] diminished media attentions,[9] and cancellations of various projects escalated by controversial aspects of the highly acclaimed Heisei trilogy, and the competition against the Godzilla franchise.[22] On the other hand, both franchises bear connections in productions and distributions, and there have been failed attempts to produce a direct crossover.[7][23][24]

Despite being a major film studio and Masaichi Nagata being a highly influential figure,[note 3] Daiei Film was facing a dire fiscal condition and was suffering internal and external factors, including the decline of the film industry itself (even including Toho and its Godzilla franchise) from the competition against the rising television industry,[25][11] which was boosted by the 1964 Summer Olympics, a recession, and the aforementioned "Kaiju Booms" most notably Ultra Q and Ultraman where Nagata's attempt to save the film industry resulted in the governmental supports for kaiju and tokusatsu productions, and the booms were ironically shaped.[26][24][27] Consequently, the original Gamera film became a black-and-white film.[note 4]

Daiei Film's situation improved thanks to the Gamera franchise, which solely supported the company and its subcontractors until Daiei's bankruptcy in December 1971, about four months after the theatrical release of Gamera vs. Zigra.[7][21][25] On the other hand, not only budgets, schedules, ideas,[note 5] and (both physical and human) resources, but also labor conditions continuously declined and impoverished remaining employees,[note 6] leading to deteriorations of the franchise, and to deaths of the actor Taro Marui [ja][note 7] and a staff of Gamera vs. Jiger (1970).[7][29][12] A riot, losses of various materials and expertises, and disputes over the legal rights of the franchise (and Niisan Takahashi's isolation from all stakeholders) were evoked as the company was officially declared bankrupt, triggering further issues on subsequent situations by Tokuma Shoten.[28][30]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimajin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokai_Mon ... ok_Warfare

https://megamitensei.fandom.com/wiki/Gomorrah

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Gomorrahites

I'm always into the oft-neglected secondary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeira

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Numeira

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_edh-Dhra

Re: Zuggtmoy Tsuggtmoy

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2026 9:15 pm
by kFoyauextlH
Added in 22 minutes 17 seconds:


Let your eyes be drawn to the crotches.



Here come the gays:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... dXYYW&s=10

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... N9NXg&s=10











Added in 3 hours 50 minutes 22 seconds:


https://scarab.bates.edu/cgi/viewconten ... norstheses





Added in 2 days 21 hours 26 minutes 21 seconds:


Wow, this came up in a weird and totally unrelated way:

https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/The_F ... om_Outside

https://www.vashtimedia.com/oppenheimer ... ecropower/

Added in 1 minute 20 seconds:
That article mentions "necropower".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necropolitics

"
Necropolitics is a sociopolitical theory of the use of social and political power to dictate how some people may live and how some must die. The deployment of necropolitics creates what Achille Mbembe calls deathworlds, or "new and unique forms of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to living conditions that confer upon them the status of the living dead."[1] Mbembe, author of On the Postcolony, was the first scholar to explore the term in depth in his 2003 article,[2] and later, his 2019 book of the same name.[1] Mbembe identifies racism as a prime driver of necropolitics, stating that racialized people's lives are systemically cheapened and habituated to loss.[1]
"

Added in 2 minutes 59 seconds:


"

Skip to main content
Achille Mbembe - What is the actual specificity of "Necropower" or "Necropolitics" ? : r/CriticalTheory




Ask
Open App
Return to Search Results
Go to CriticalTheory
r/CriticalTheory
5y ago
echoclerk
Achille Mbembe - What is the actual specificity of "Necropower" or "Necropolitics" ?

So, reading Mbembe's Necropolitics (Duke 2019) which is it interesting to note, was originally published in French as Politiques de l’inimitié in 2016 (ie the Politics of Enmity).

But my problem is really grasping what the hell does he even mean by "Necropolitics", what is specific about it. He is so vague about the concept and keeps blurring it together with other ideas.

on p. 80 for instance, he says that "the specific structure of terror that I have called necropower" has "three major characteristics".

He gives one: "the dynamics of territorial fragmentation" but then goes off on a tangent and never really clearly identifies the other two. It seems like that might include two of this set:

- Weizman's Vertical Sovereignty (but this seems to be just a 3D-ization of "territory")

- Infrastructural destruction (bulldozing) (p. 81)

- "tactics of medieval siege warfare" (p. 82)

But before he explicitly clarifies anything, he shifts back to an earlier claim that these examples in fact demonstrate the "concatenation of multiple powers: disciplinary, biopolitical and necro-political" (p. 82)

Then he just moves on the War Machines, starting a new section... leaving it to the reader to somehow work out what was supposed to have been the specificity of necropower?
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
69
Comments Section
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago
• Edited 5y ago

Defense of Mbembe's concept from Christopher Breu:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/773873/summary#info_wrap

Building off the insights of both Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben and paralleling the contemporaneous arguments of Roberto Esposito in Bíos, Mbembe's essay advanced two intertwined and crucial insights (even as he shares with Agamben and Esposito a creative, and generative, misreading of Foucault). The first insight is that Foucault's account of biopower and biopolitics as fundamentally positive (as forms of power organized around producing and intensifying rather than negating or constraining), while representing a crucial theoretical advance, is incomplete without a coinciding theory of negative power. Foucault's account of positive power works only for global spaces and contexts in which relatively soft and subtle forms of power prevail. As Foucault himself notes, it is only when life itself in the aggregate comes under the management of political and economic power that something like a positive biopolitics can be theorized. What Mbembe adds to this framework is the argument that such forms of positive power are necessarily predicated on other more resolutely negative and explicitly violent forms of power. In this his work parallels the arguments advanced by both Agamben and Esposito, but in a context that adds force to their more Eurocentric and abstractly philosophical formulations.

Necropolitics Enfleshed

Christopher Breu

symploke University of Nebraska PressVolume 28, Numbers 1-2, 2020pp. 505-508

Another Review

Review Necropolitics by Anuja Bose

Achille Mbembe
Duke University Press, Durham, 2019, viii + 213 pp.,
ISBN: 9781478006510
Contemporary Political Theory (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-020-00438-w

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 0438-w.pdf

Bose says its not about "who can die" (Foucault) but

"the capitalist state’s inherent propensity to create conditions that make living impossible."

hence the "living dead" I guess.
20
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

Necropower: “the ways in which, in our contemporary world, weapons are deployed in the interest of maximally destroying persons and creating death-worlds, that is, new and unique forms of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to living conditions that confer upon them the status of the living dead.” (p. 92)

14
vris92

5y ago

I’m on mobile now but suffice to say I think Mbembe’s analysis just inherits all the problems of Foucault’s accounting. In a dialectical framework, the relations of domination concretize and determine their participants and become historically specific. Ripped out of that framework and elevated to a quasi-metaphysical principle all its own, “domination” becomes abstract, making no reference to who is being dominated and how or why. In rejecting any sort of totalizing impulse, the ontological relation between different groups in the struggle for dominance is one of total incommensurability (they can only struggle for dominance because they’re illegible and incompatible realities.) Mbembe draws on plenty of concrete examples which is great, but the whole thing feels like an abstract exercise because it’s fundamentally committed to an ontology which sees society as already constitutively fractured by difference such that it couldn’t ever be mediated to begin with, leaving one to wonder what the apparently “further” fracturing could even concretely mean. If society is already endless striving toward unattainable ontological unity, what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?
16
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that domination can only be theorised within a Hegelian-Marxist dialectical framework?

Why? Why must it be dialectical?
2
vris92

5y ago

Well, my opinion is that the lack of specificity you’re claiming to read in Mbembe stems from the lack of a dialectical framework. I’ve tried to spell out the philosophical reasoning for this position. I think you can theorize domination in the non-Marxist framework, but you will consequently and necessarily end up with the shortcomings re:specificity you’ve identified. Postmodernists are okay with that. Revolutionaries aren’t. The choice is yours.
5
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?

I think this is kind of what I don't get about the text. What is it really claiming? What is at stake?
2
vris92

5y ago

I did a reading group with some non-Marxist grad students on this text and I kept asking this exact question and they kept looking at me like I was speaking another language. It was a very strange disconnect.
2
vris92

5y ago

I’m on mobile now but suffice to say I think Mbembe’s analysis just inherits all the problems of Foucault’s accounting. In a dialectical framework, the relations of domination concretize and determine their participants and become historically specific. Ripped out of that framework and elevated to a quasi-metaphysical principle all its own, “domination” becomes abstract, making no reference to who is being dominated and how or why. In rejecting any sort of totalizing impulse, the ontological relation between different groups in the struggle for dominance is one of total incommensurability (they can only struggle for dominance because they’re illegible and incompatible realities.) Mbembe draws on plenty of concrete examples which is great, but the whole thing feels like an abstract exercise because it’s fundamentally committed to an ontology which sees society as already constitutively fractured by difference such that it couldn’t ever be mediated to begin with, leaving one to wonder what the apparently “further” fracturing could even concretely mean. If society is already endless striving toward unattainable ontological unity, what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?
16
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that domination can only be theorised within a Hegelian-Marxist dialectical framework?

Why? Why must it be dialectical?
2
vris92

5y ago

Well, my opinion is that the lack of specificity you’re claiming to read in Mbembe stems from the lack of a dialectical framework. I’ve tried to spell out the philosophical reasoning for this position. I think you can theorize domination in the non-Marxist framework, but you will consequently and necessarily end up with the shortcomings re:specificity you’ve identified. Postmodernists are okay with that. Revolutionaries aren’t. The choice is yours.
5
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?

I think this is kind of what I don't get about the text. What is it really claiming? What is at stake?
2
vris92

5y ago

I did a reading group with some non-Marxist grad students on this text and I kept asking this exact question and they kept looking at me like I was speaking another language. It was a very strange disconnect.
2
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that domination can only be theorised within a Hegelian-Marxist dialectical framework?

Why? Why must it be dialectical?
2
vris92

5y ago

Well, my opinion is that the lack of specificity you’re claiming to read in Mbembe stems from the lack of a dialectical framework. I’ve tried to spell out the philosophical reasoning for this position. I think you can theorize domination in the non-Marxist framework, but you will consequently and necessarily end up with the shortcomings re:specificity you’ve identified. Postmodernists are okay with that. Revolutionaries aren’t. The choice is yours.
5
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?

I think this is kind of what I don't get about the text. What is it really claiming? What is at stake?
2
vris92

5y ago

I did a reading group with some non-Marxist grad students on this text and I kept asking this exact question and they kept looking at me like I was speaking another language. It was a very strange disconnect.
2
vris92

5y ago

I’m on mobile now but suffice to say I think Mbembe’s analysis just inherits all the problems of Foucault’s accounting. In a dialectical framework, the relations of domination concretize and determine their participants and become historically specific. Ripped out of that framework and elevated to a quasi-metaphysical principle all its own, “domination” becomes abstract, making no reference to who is being dominated and how or why. In rejecting any sort of totalizing impulse, the ontological relation between different groups in the struggle for dominance is one of total incommensurability (they can only struggle for dominance because they’re illegible and incompatible realities.) Mbembe draws on plenty of concrete examples which is great, but the whole thing feels like an abstract exercise because it’s fundamentally committed to an ontology which sees society as already constitutively fractured by difference such that it couldn’t ever be mediated to begin with, leaving one to wonder what the apparently “further” fracturing could even concretely mean. If society is already endless striving toward unattainable ontological unity, what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?
16
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that domination can only be theorised within a Hegelian-Marxist dialectical framework?

Why? Why must it be dialectical?
2
vris92

5y ago

Well, my opinion is that the lack of specificity you’re claiming to read in Mbembe stems from the lack of a dialectical framework. I’ve tried to spell out the philosophical reasoning for this position. I think you can theorize domination in the non-Marxist framework, but you will consequently and necessarily end up with the shortcomings re:specificity you’ve identified. Postmodernists are okay with that. Revolutionaries aren’t. The choice is yours.
5
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

what is really being added except a more brutal account of the violence involved?

I think this is kind of what I don't get about the text. What is it really claiming? What is at stake?
2
vris92

5y ago

I did a reading group with some non-Marxist grad students on this text and I kept asking this exact question and they kept looking at me like I was speaking another language. It was a very strange disconnect.
2
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

(p. 92) "I have demonstrated that the notion of biopower is insufficient to account for contemporary forms of the subjugation of life to the power of death"

Mbembe ends chapter 3 with this claim, which really seems quite bold, given how little time he spent actually discussing Foucault.

In the opening paragraph he basically seems to misread biopolitcs anyway, treating it as a form of "sovereignty". Obviously there is some debate on what exactly Foucault means by these terms and the relations between disciplinary power and biopower, but there is something too simplistic in the early presentation given by Mbembe.
13
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

Previous thread which seems to express a similar difficulty in grasping what is significantly "necro"


4
u/plaidbyron avatar
plaidbyron

5y ago
• Edited 5y ago

When Axelle Karera was the keynote speaker at a conference on necropolitics at my department, she responded favorably to a paper somebody else gave on Mbembe and Bataille. Karera even said something to the effect of "If there is to be a future of the concept of necropolitics, it probably won't lie in the direction of Foucault and biopolitics, which is played out, but in the direction of Bataille."

I seem to recall that Mbembe actually talks about Bataille at least as much as (or even more than) Foucault in the Necropolitics essay. So I'm not an expert on this and I am just a little bit skeptical of the novelty of the concept myself (having heard a lot of people describe necropolitics to me in terms that just sound like what Foucault already said), but I'd like to pass along this piece of advice, which was the upshot of that conference for me: see if Mbembe's passages drawing on Bataille help you distinguish something radically beyond biopower in his work.
3
u/plaidbyron avatar
plaidbyron

5y ago
• Edited 5y ago

When Axelle Karera was the keynote speaker at a conference on necropolitics at my department, she responded favorably to a paper somebody else gave on Mbembe and Bataille. Karera even said something to the effect of "If there is to be a future of the concept of necropolitics, it probably won't lie in the direction of Foucault and biopolitics, which is played out, but in the direction of Bataille."

I seem to recall that Mbembe actually talks about Bataille at least as much as (or even more than) Foucault in the Necropolitics essay. So I'm not an expert on this and I am just a little bit skeptical of the novelty of the concept myself (having heard a lot of people describe necropolitics to me in terms that just sound like what Foucault already said), but I'd like to pass along this piece of advice, which was the upshot of that conference for me: see if Mbembe's passages drawing on Bataille help you distinguish something radically beyond biopower in his work.
3
u/bobthebobbest avatar
bobthebobbest

5y ago

It may be helpful to read the essay “Necropolitics” (2003) where he initially sets out the concept, along with its differences from biopolitics. Available here.

I’ve been told the French version of the essay is better, but I can’t read French.
2
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

I think that Chapter 3 of the book: Necropolitics (Duke 2019) /Politiques de l’inimitié (2016), which is titled "Necropolitics" is the same text as the 2003 essay. I had read the essay before the book, and much of the content is the same.

I think there may be slight differences but I haven't compared the two in detail.
2
u/echoclerk avatar
echoclerk
OP •
5y ago

What is really the "Problem" that Mbembe is trying to solve or elaborate? I think this remains quite unclear in the book and essay.

I would say his essential claims are something like:

1- that Foucault's various accounts of power don't fit the Colony/Post-Colony (This would then build on Mbembe's work in On The PostColony which argues similarly that the usual theoretical political-forms do not fit operation of the state in the post-colony).

2- Moreover, Foucault basically ignores the Colony and Post-Colony.

3 - This matters because the intra-"west"/Euro political-forms (models of state and power-structures such as biopolitics etc) are actually dependent on or intractably intertwined with the state-form of the colony/post-colony.

- But then does Mbembe really prove this? How would you prove that the present form of intra "west" politics could NOT have arisen without the violence of the colony and slavery? Is this why you need a dialectical sense of progressive history? ie does Mbembe need a sense of historical necessity to argue that the colony/postcolony was the condition of possibility of the "West"

4 - In the end, Mbembe's alternative thus aims to offer a more complete account of current political forms. ie the stakes are then basically: Who has the best theoretical account of the operation of present international-political-system.

So really its about offering a better theory of present political situation?
2
[deleted]

5y ago

u/echoclerk avatar


[deleted]

5y ago

u/echoclerk avatar


u/Status_Ad8334 avatar
Status_Ad8334

3y ago

Its his mo of writing,if you think you've seen anything check out 'On the post colony' by him.
1
u/PlinyToTrajan avatar
PlinyToTrajan

1y ago

What Mbembe theorized has been given its most compelling expression in real life, in an intentionally demonstrative way, in the Gaza strip.
"

Added in 3 minutes 17 seconds:
https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabul ... opolitics/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8625000039

"
Emerging emotions in the face of the necropower of organized crime: Between domination and agency
"

So, this might be something to clarify and discuss potentially.

Added in 1 minute 29 seconds:
https://socialscienceresearch.org/index ... TS_NLM_xml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

"
In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which means existing without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau merging precarious with proletariat.[1]

Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labor to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labor and must undertake extensive unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings. Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call").

The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]
"

Added in 45 seconds:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7453180/

Added in 2 minutes 36 seconds:
"
The adequacy of any theory of radical democracy requires that it thematize the social conditions within which an emancipatory politics might be enacted. Paul Apostolidis’s The Fight for Time offers a sustained reflection on how democratic politics is both frustrated and facilitated by widespread and increasing precarity. However, as this Critical Exchange demonstrates, the nature of precarity, the forms that political agency and solidarity might take in response to it, and the appropriate site within which precarious social conditions can be contested and transformed, is controversial. Precarity refers to a situation lacking in predictability, security or material and social welfare. Importantly, this condition is socially produced by the development of post-Fordist capitalism (which relies on flexible employment practices) and neoliberal forms of governance (which remove social protections) (see Azmanova, 2020). Precarity entails social suffering, which is manifested in the declining mental and physical health of both working and ‘out of work’ people and compounded by the attribution of personal responsibility to individuals for their politically induced predicament (Apostolidis, 2019, pp. 3–5). Precarity leads to social isolation as workers find themselves segregated and alienated by work processes while the capacity to sustain community is undermined (pp. 8–10). Moreover, precarity leads to temporal displacement with precarious workers finding they have no time to do much else than work: they must constantly make time to find and prepare for work and, in doing so, become out of sync with the normal rhythms of social life (pp. 5–8). Precarity involves social dislocation as people are forced to relocate to adapt to precarious situations at the same time as their movements are constrained and policed (pp. 10–12). Importantly, precarity is distributed unequally, with people of colour, women, low-status workers and many in the global south experiencing its most devastating effects. At the same time, however, some of its aspects penetrate all social strata. As Apostolidis (2019, p. 2) puts it, ‘if precarity names the special plight of the world’s most virulently oppressed human beings, it also denotes a near-universal complex of unfreedom’.

Recognizing that anti-capitalist struggle has always been a fight for time, Apostolidis (2019, p. 15) reflects on how this fight should be adapted to our present political conjuncture. To develop this vision of radical democratic politics, he turns to the experience of migrant day labourers to both diagnose contemporary social pathologies and envision alternative social possibilities. The research for the book is based on Apostolidis’s involvement in the activities of two worker centres located in Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. In addition to participating in various activities of the centres (such as staffing phones and running occupational health and safety sessions), the research team conducted 78 interviews with migrant day labourers. Through interpreting the interviews, Apostolidis practices a kind of political theory inspired by Paulo Freire, which he characterises as ‘critical-popular analysis’ (p. 30). By attending to the self-interpretations of the research participants, Apostolidis characterises precarity and considers the possibility of its transformation in terms of four generative themes around which the book is structured. The first three themes speak to the experience of precarity: ‘desperate responsibility’, ‘fighting for the job’ and ‘risk on all sides, eyes wide open’. The fourth theme envisions an anti-precarity politics in terms of a ‘convivial politics’.

As Apostolidis acknowledges, there is an ethnographic dimension to this project since it provides a thick description of the everyday experiences and practices of migrant day labourers. However, it also entails critical-popular analysis since Apostolidis aims to co-create political theory with the research participants. He does so by staging a constructive dialogue between the self-interpretations and practical insights of day labourers and the systematic and defamiliarized perspective afforded by critical theory. The Fight for Time not only provides insight into how some of the most vulnerable people in society experience, negotiate and resist precarity: from this social perspective, it aims to generate a wider understanding, of what agency all working (and ‘out of work’) people have to challenge the precaritisation of social life.

As such, the book pivots on a fundamental distinction between day labour as exception and day labour as synecdoche. As Kathi Weeks explains below, this paradigmatic understanding of the precarity of day labouring, enables a perspectival shift from the singular experiences and ideas of migrant day labourers to the more general social condition of precarity and the possibility of its transformation. On the one hand, Apostolidis considers those exceptionalising forms of precarity that dominate day labourers’ lives, differentiating them from other members of society. On the other hand, however, Apostolidis considers the significance of day labour as synecdoche for how precarity permeates social relations on a much broader social scale. A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part represents the whole. An often remarked on synecdoche in political language is that of the people, whereby the poor (those who do not participate in politics) speak in the name of the citizenry (the people as a whole). Similarly, Apostolidis treats day labour as synecdoche, according to which the exceptional forms of precarity experienced by labourers might make visible the precarity that increasingly conditions all social relations.

In the final chapters, Apostolidis explores how worker centres might also function synecdochally insofar as the purpose of association is construed not only instrumentally, as protection against the risks associated with precarity, but in terms of their constitutive potential to sustain convivial networks of political possibility for more mutually supportive, creative and pluralistic forms of solidarity than those afforded by traditional unionised spaces. It is in these spaces, which are both mundane and potentially extraordinary, that Apostolidis discerns a nascent form of radical democratic politics that consists in a struggle against precarity. This entails three key elements: first, the refusal of work, i.e. the refusal to allow one’s life to be consumed according to one’s role as worker within capitalist social relations; second, the constitution of spaces for egalitarian social interaction that resist the imperatives of neoliberal governance, and; third, the reclamation of people’s time from capitalist and state powers (p. 34). This recuperation of time (the time robbed from people’s lives, which is symptomatic of alienated labour) is fundamental to understanding how day labour might function as synecdoche both of the wider social condition of precarity and the possibility of its transformation. As Apostolidis explains, ‘working people are running out of time and living out of time’ (p. 8; emphasis in original). In this context, he suggests, day labourers’ socialized activities within the ‘time-gaps’ of the precarious work economy indicate how the ‘time of everyday precarity’ might be remade into ‘novel, unpredictable, and politically generative temporalities’ (p. 29).

The contributors to this Critical Exchange engage with two key aspects of the politics of precarity. The first relates to the subject of an anti-precarity politics and the extent to which the exceptional but inevitably partial experiences of day labourers can function as a synecdoche for the precarity of all. Edwina Barvosa questions whether identification with precarity provides an adequate basis for an emancipatory politics, given that it may condition unreflexive modes of action. Bice Maiguashca suggests that an intersectional politics would require attending to multiple exceptions, each with their own set of experiences and aspirations, as the basis for a coalitional anti-precarity politics. Leah Bassel similarly advocates building a politics of migrant justice from the knowledge experiences that are generated by a matrix of oppression, which requires acknowledging struggles against patriarchy and racism as well as capitalist domination. In this context, she emphasises the political imperative of making settler colonialism visible in any analysis of migrant justice, including acknowledging the social position of migrants as settlers. In contrast, Kathi Weeks highlights how certain appropriations of the Marxian category of Lumpenproletariat resonate with Apostolidis’s synecdochal interpretation of day labour. As such, it can be interpreted as a conceptual articulation of a heterogenous – rather than a homogenizing – political subject. Indeed, in his response, Apostolidis clarifies that the use of the term synecdoche indicates that the perspectival shift from the experience of day labour to the general social condition of precarity is intended as a contingent act of representation – rather than a reductive empirical truth.

The second issue relates to the mode and site of political organizing against precarity, encapsulated in Apostolidis’s demand of ‘workers’ centres for all’. Weeks emphasises the urgency of politicizing workplace death and injury, which is obscured by the managerial appropriation of discourses of health and well-being with increased productivity of workers. Yet, she is concerned that workers centres might be susceptible to co-optation. Moreover, she wonders whether workers centres require embodied social interaction to be effective or might also be realised in virtual spaces. Bassel highlights how such anti-precarity spaces are both sustained by affective labour of women and may reproduce other forms of oppression. Maiguashca wonders what the visionary pragmatism that Apostolidis ascribes to day laborers has in common with the principled pragmatism that she and Catherine Eschle observed among feminist activists involved in the Global Justice Movement. Barvosa questions the assumption that global inequality is most effectively redressed through the mobilization of oppressed groups according to a salt-of-the-earth script. She invokes instead to an alternative keep-only-a-competency script, according to which social inequality might be more effectively reduced by the voluntary giving of the wealthy. In response, Apostolidis elaborates on the benefits of the critical-popular approach he adopts in the book. While the practical focus of The Fight for Time supports a coalitional politics as a key mode of struggle, Apostolidis highlights the limits of a ‘coalitional epistemology’, which would require a cumulative assemblage of particularised knowledges prior to envisioning a desirable form of mass solidarity.

Lois McNay (2014) has rightly highlighted how radical democratic theory risks becoming ‘socially weightless’ to the extent that it treats the social world as contingent, devoid of any significance of its own and able to be reshaped in limitless ways through political action. Radical democrats tend to over-estimate the agency of members of oppressed groups when they neglect the mundane experiences of social suffering, which undermine individuals’ capacity to participate in politics (McNay, 2014, pp. 11, 14–15). As this Critical Exchange demonstrates, The Fight For Time challenges theorists of radical democracy to recognise the weight of the world while reflecting on how political agency is shaped, constrained and enabled by the conditions that it seeks to transform. Moreover it challenges us to reflect on how political solidarity is possible across the differences and inequalities that are currrently being exacerbated and intensified by the social production of precarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"

Added in 58 seconds:
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politics ... /7697/3713

An article about the "young precariat" population.

Added in 1 minute 2 seconds:
https://www.tni.org/files/publication-d ... apter7.pdf

Another similar file, more general perhaps.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-con ... 1200px.jpg

Chopped up so that Africa is missing, even though people wrongfully think of it as one place, like they think of the U.S.A. which gets to be one place while Africa, among others, doesn't.

Added in 3 days 2 hours 36 minutes 10 seconds:



A lot of wonderful quotes there from what was produced earlier in the thread, but those are just some references to refresh as to how I'm bringing in my latest post here after the Necropolitics one, since I think that it is this last post feature "Land" sizes and territorial "Richard" measuring and then a video by someone on YouTube about the Kurds as a hostile outsider group being forcefully absorbed into a burgeoning post-Assad Syria, a testing ground for Nation Building between the major world powers as compared to the likely less interesting or lucrative Bangladesh.

There are several levels that relate to things brought up in what you posted and what I posted in my Necropolitics addition, but we'll address things from your first post.

Nick Land seems inspired to some degree by "Lovecraftian Aesthetics" and the Cthulhu Mythos, and part of that has to do with rebellion, foreigners, and obscure cults among more primitive seeming "old world" characters, who are also part of new revolutions. Lovecraft was aldo probably familiar with the Yezidi which were being sensationalized again as Devil-Worshippers, and they are Kurds, and these people fighting for Kurdish autonomy are likewise Kirds with a similar background, they are fitting perfectly into Lovecraft's ideas as well as working as a neat example for some of the things mentioned by Nick Land, especially eith the attempts to control them and that the new government of Syria is being presrnted as being like the old government of Syria and the Kurds are being pressured to become totally absorbed and assimilated once and for all for the sake of stability, a collapse of difference for ultimately reasons of capital and more of a smooth ride as the country tries to become normalized into the current scheme of nations under the Western Eye.

Any elrment of old genes from the J population serm to be most closely related to the Kurds, and J and K are not only letters next to each other in the English Alphabet but also have a number of historical similarities in being considered other and outsiders and being at odds with and against the world and their surroundings, and that they share close genetic ties and that again the J populace is involved in destabilizing activity in Syria, it all seems to connect and that Nick Land's Outside seems to frequently come through in excessive aggression that tries to create irreversible domino effects using "bold" "others" fighting for "difference" for themselves but eliminating it all in their efforts, just like the world united against the atrocious conduct of the Is as well as the other Is which is just Is in disguise anf armed and fueled by the U.S. or Us. Now the Us has stopped talking as much about Is and Is and has moved on to ICE, which is pronounced similarly to one of them and is likewise trained by the same Is people, as are they all. People eould just throw away as purely stupid coincidence the Is Is ICE thing, but I think that something so weird may be some kind of communication, just like a person might have a weird thought that stems from some part of the bodh trying to communicate something but not being able to really get the message through clearly, and regardless, I think that sounds and words, based on language and the connections we make with certain sounds and ideas based on our language and the typical uses of those sounds and what they usually bring to mind, fo have an impact on the thinking, so that Is, Is, ICE, US, all end up impacting minds and then reactions and actions, and even what other words end up being brought up and connected, like "Terror" and "Cold" and "Ourselves" and "Us and Them".

So why I brought up the complete eradication of the continent of Africa or any recognizable territory that one could associate with "Black Africa" is that in the minds of all the "other" prople, Africa is thought of, very commonly at least, as a heterogenous "Black Land" of perpetual starvation, war, primitivism, and savagery, like r*pe which has replaced cannibalism but has a lot of similarities conceptually as a ravenous and brutal action that defies trust and breeds paranoia and suspicion, which also comes up in the witch hunts attributed to African populations "somewhere in Africa", making Africa the main Lovecraftian Continent of Murder and Mystery, along with places inhabited by people of African descent mainly, like Haiti and certain parts of the Americas and Carribean Islands involved in things like Voodoo and Palo Mayombe. China and South East Asia used to seem more mysterious a hundred years ago but have since become increasingly normalized in the minds of people, losing at least some of their intrigue, especially by adopting infreasingly Western style dress and architecture, though any "South", including "South East Asia" retains more spookiness for people, even within those countries themselves, do that it keeps going as the South of the South of the South of the South, narrowing it down necessarily to some South beyond which there is no more South to reduce it too, and the mysteries that may lurk there.

This spatial dynamic, possibly inspired by recent cartography and the way that people talk about things because of the shape and directions of the maps they see and who is "on top" in those have at the very least contributed to the proliferation of such ideas, but looking through the historical records, there has been a dimension of South suspicion long before maps or Eurocentricism, though the North often also had a spooky reputation, due to its association with ice, cold, and death, which has largely been increasingly minimized due to the lack of people inhabiting or using the North, the power of Northernly places now called "The West", and the North becoming more of a buffoonish joke to many people, though there is some light, half-hearted, Northern Horror, it is scarcely deemed as real or possible and genuinely threatening as anything South still is, even if it is in the South of a place in the Northetnly West, such as in the South of Germany or the South of France or the South of the United States. As you get much further North, since what is below may be more known and familiar and less cut off or remote, the mystery resides in areas far North, such as the Far North of Canada and the Nordic Countries. There is also the waning concerns regarding the East, but the least faded place of horrors tends to be the South, and these dimensions were mapped into the culturally influential ideas from J.R.R. Tolkien also.

These ideas for people are represrntations of the Outside, just like Islam, Witchcraft, Vikings, and Forests were all tied to the Outside and each other, like Jormungandr wrapped around the Earth which would represent any "Inside" and "Our" place from which we look out and around.

https://thekurdishproject.org/wp-conten ... 9130_o.png

https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/up ... quality=80

The Kurds, from the perspective of the West, appear in the center of all kinds of chopped up nations that they don't care about or center in their view from their perspective. Othering the people of the Middle East makes the West think of themselves as an Other, and thus tends to empathize with the Others from the region which they think Others their selves because they are Othering those people, so the West thinks that the J and the K are their representatives in those areas because "Those Others have Othered Thrm like they Other us so we will take the side of the Others the Others have Othered like Us", plus they love to pick on an alienated group to use to destabilize their perceived enemies in order to r*pe and exploit their resources. The Alawites like Assad were considered a convenient Other to place in power of the majority until they grew more closely bonded to the Other White Meat, Russia, one of the representatives of The East and an ongoing suspicion of it, even though they've spent years amply proving that they are just as vile as Western Powers and even also White in appearance, in other eords, the Difference between many places, particularly the superpowers, is increasingly illusory and a relic left in colloquial truisms and ideas that remain in language and thinking, which take longer to phase out after developing and being in use and also keep some things going longer.

Geographical understandings also play a role, for example how the shape of America, The U.K., Canada, Central America, Arabia, even Is now, Russia, India, China, maybe even Brazil, possibly Peru for less, are more well known than even one nation in Africa, except Egypt and Morroco in some cases. So on that map, nothing of Africa caught the eye even if it was there, even though people still think of Africa like it is one big place. So the "other" was cut up so much that nothing of it was even recognizable as anything compared to America and others with recognizable shapes.

I thought that it was an interesting angle that could be thought about in several approaches in relation to what was brought up, sone of which re-quoted above, from the original post.

So those two random seeming links with unrelated seeming information did actually make sense to me in relation to this thread, but I can still move that post if you prefer. They trigger all kinds of ideas for me, some of which I've brought up in these explanations.

Firstly, that "the Outside" has an ontological and conceptual reality that is more frequently referenced than more abstract versions in places like Africa and even closer "less outside outsides" and "others". In the writing of H.P. Lovecraft, which seems to have at least somewhat inspired Nick Land and people attracted to Nick Land's work and use of language, the Outside and alien forces that are threatrning and destabilizing are very frequently associated with the old, primitive, and far away or foreign, in conflict with the status quo and the contemporary, but almost contradictorily making their appearance against the old in the form of modern innovations and even pseudo-science (which gender ideology may someday be called), such as what the foreign looking and ultimately alien in the most literal sense, Nyarlathotep brings with his demonstrations that seem loosrly related to the Crawling Chaos that seems to overtake the area and any place of refuge dissapears or seems unreachable when home becomes infested with the Outside and no longer a sanctuary.

That was an anxiety frequent in H.P. Lovecraft's writing and letters discussing his feelings towards foreigners and immigrants. Recently his work has grown increasingly popular among the two most dominant and loud sides of the political spectrum pumped out like fumes from the American Military Industrial Complex, so that his ideas are much more in the collective conscious of the West, but mainly in the vague form of tentacles and greenish darkness, though all the issues he was decrying are again present, like talk of Haitians and Somalians and rabid Drug Cartels and whatever else, all of it being very strongly about The Outside and keeping the Outside Out and Alien, while the idea is also present that the Inside has become rotted to the core, frequently aldo attributed to the Outside like Russia and China and Is Lobbying groups and the internet, the rapid advancement of technology and communication across the world, the ability for dmall groups to be able to really amplify their reach and influence, Elon Musk as one of the symbols representing Globalist Technologists, and attempts to undermine the Good Old Fashioned Western Anglo-Saxonism and White Old Money class hierarchy.

Syria gets to be a much more rapidly shifting and open to change testing ground for a society filled with largely normal and average people "like anywhere else", having no idea where their future is headed, and in the case of Pal, another testing ground, including one for weapons technologies tested against the captive and now entirely homeless and starving population, as an example of what the Status Quo can do to their prisoners when they put their minds to it with full impunity and zero consequences or oversight, a state which they wish to spread across the world through American might as soon as they can.

The far calculation of such is like the disappearance of Africa, one way or another, either by chopping it into little bits until it is made of too much to recognize, or smearing it everywhere so that it becomes practically meaningless, both represent that Voiding that seems to be the tendency of the Outside that may have been referred to in the text you put up in the original post.