#A Room of One's Own

I can't live where I want to in my budget but a family can? The bias that house owners have is just pathetic. I live in a house currently which is quite an inconvenience to me. I tolerate it because of my freedoms. But I realize now, my freedoms have been illusionary. They're dependent on such basic things.

I tolerate it when the voltage issue makes my house look like a dimly lit Pecos or for some a haunted house. I tolerate bad plumbing. I am constantly reparing things around the house. Rich people keep disrupting my routine. Nobody helps clean but everybody helps destroy this house's floors, switches, my mugs, and walls. Some rich vegan girl who hates adult lady terms broke the toilet seat and has not paid for it. She drank a lot of almond milk in my house for free.

I asked a bunch of painters to come paint my house and they'd rather paint for Instagram than the friend who gave them gigs that made them famous.

I'll do it myself.

I want carpets but it's ground floor and there's too much dust plus my friends seem to never respect the fact that wet shoes are not welcome inside. I want creepers but there's no direct sunlight. Artificial light is at the mercy of poor connection in this house. A few basic things in this house are so dysfunctional. I don't even have a locker to keep anything locked.

I want to cook but there's no air in the damn kitchen. They've closed the chimney. No exhaust fan. Everything sticks because of it. Dust on top of that.

Dry sinks, welcome cockroaches. Keeping the drains clean is also an issue?

There are no shelves with doors. There's no logical arrangement to keep anything in the kitchen.

The hall has out of place really fucked up shelf that keeps hitting me. The mattress on the floor restricts me from brooming because it is too damn heavy.

I hate changing the lights in this house again and again. White light looks bad. Yellow light looks bad. What lights should I put in this damn house?

The shower has an issue with pressure despite me having a seperate tank. I mean for fucks sake I can't even dance in the shower without hitting my elbows against something.

You live on the mercy of when water comes. Tank gets filled.

And it is bloody unpredictable.

My boyfriend says it's alternative days but it's been proven wrong too.

Plus storing is an issue. There's no place for a drum.

I can't keep the washing machine in the toilet. It's a second hand machine that is automatic and cost me only 5k. Have to keep this beloved piece of legend outside the house. People on the street can see in my house easily if I just keep the door open.

There's always water leaking somewhere in this house no matter much you tighten the valves.

I don't have a quiet corner for writing except at nights – 2:30am.

I feel like I'm suffocating in my house.

I have no curfew. I have no restrictions yet it feels like a prison of micro aggressions.

I adjust but I'm so tired. I want basic shit at least. Sunlight but no fucking noise and dust.

All the basic shit is with landlords who charge too much or only rent to families.

PGs have restrictions.

I need a room of my own. The kind that Virginia Woolf described.

‘you do realise you were raped, right?’ i didn’t want to answer. the question coming from someone almost a decade younger has better understanding of boundaries than i do. i knew they were right. but i didn’t want to answer. i knew the answer, i was just not ready to accept it. ‘i consented’, i said meekly.

he always had higher sex drive than me. but he always assured me that he would stop if i ever were uncomfortable. the first time someone did stop when i said no, i cried in their arms. it was years before i met him. i have times when i do not have sex at all. to me sex feels like a time pass that you do when there is not much else to do, and i always have things to do. and he was respectful at the beginning. he stopped when i said no, or i wasn’t in the mood. i took it as a sign that he is nice. i also felt bad. i knew he has higher drive than me, and me not being able to meet his needs has made me feel guilty about myself. what was my worth if i can’t give him everything he wanted from me? i loved him. i would have given my life for him.

first time it happened was in a party. he drank. i did not. i was trying to be off alcohol. he kept touching me in front of others, and i was uncomfortable. previously i have broken up with another partner who did this sober, in daytime, in cafes. this time i justified it by telling myself that he is drunk, he is at home, with me. i did say no, and he stopped for sometime, and then he said, he is sleepy, and whether i can accompany him to the bedroom and lie by him till he falls asleep. i agreed. he started undressing me as soon as i got in, and the door wasn’t even locked. i tried to stop but he said he can’t stop because i am so attractive. i did feel desired. so despite the fear that someone might just walk in on us and see me naked, i gave in. he went to sleep once he was done, and i laid awake with guilt.

he said sorry the next day. he also said he is hornier on alcohol and he also is hornier by the fact that he might get caught and it carried him away last night. but he loves me and can’t think of doing this with anyone but me. i thought to myself, that it is just one time then.

as he cut me off from my friends and kept telling others that they should contact him instead of me, i got more and more isolated. it was only him who was giving me validation and i felt grateful towards him. i would have done anything to keep him happy, to keep myself desirable to him.

he kept asking other people to the house, and as they were sleeping, more often than not, his hands would go inside my top. he would play with my boobs and eventually his hands would go down. he wanted me to wear skirts during bedtime. he said it provided easy access. i took it as a sign that he desires me badly. he got me skirts too, and i am always partial to skirts because they go spinny.

i said no multiple times. at the beginning he would stop, but with more time he just got more bold. i never wanted to have sex with someone present in the bed. so, i wanna be able to move freely, and i wanna be able to moan and make noise. i could do none of that. i also did not wanna have sex clothed, under sheets, and taking on his body weight, that was hot and sweaty and uncomfortable. but if i didn’t gave in, he wouldn’t stop. he kept doing it till 4 or 5 in the morning. i am the designated homemaker. i had to take care of the house, i had to drop off garbage, clean up. and i cant do that if i get to sleep at 5 am and wake up at 12 or 1 pm. so i gave in. it was over much quicker that way. i got to sleep early.

this turned into a ritual. he would invite people over. there would always be someone in the house, sleeping in the bed despite me crying begging to him to have alone time with him. he would invite others and tell me that they wanted to come and they need to be here. i have always struggled with my inability to say no. he knew this, and took complete advantage of that. this i got to know when i told my friends and they said they never asked to come beforehand, he always invited them. and if they wanted to talk to me, he would tell them i am not mentally well enough to have a conversation, i am depressed and overwhelmed. which i was, but i wanted to talk to people that came over to my house.

every night, for months on end, he would keep doing the same to me. if i initiated sex when we were alone, he would flat out refuse to. once he went out, and i put on sexy lingerie, lit up candles, and lied down on the bed like one of those french girls you want to paint. he walked in and burst into laughter. i have never felt that bad ever in my life, i could do nothing but cry, and he said he laughed because he did not expect to see me that way. now i know, at this point he has been cheating on me for months. when he went to mumbai a few months before, he stayed with this wannabe influencer who has been called out as a groomer before, and both of them sported hickies that were not there before. he told others that i gave him to them, but he wouldn’t sleep with me when we were alone, and it happened almost two weeks after he left for pune, even if i gave him hickies, they would have been gone by then.

yet, i liked to think i consented. but when i told my therapist this, they said, it doesn’t count because it was never an enthusiastic yes. i did not have the choice to say no, because saying no made things worse for me, so yeah, what my friends have been saying is right. i was raped. day in and day out, for months. by someone i loved and cared for deeply. and he didn’t see me as a human, but an object for his perverse desires. i do not know how that makes me feel. i do not want to believe i was raped, i do not want to believe an intimate partner was sexually violent towards me, abused me as he pleased, and abandoned me when his needs were met.

i gave him everything he wanted out of me, and i gave him space to heal, and even that wasn’t enough for him to love me. maybe i’ll never be enough for someone. i have been loyal, i have been subservient, i supported him when he had no work from my savings. and that wasn’t enough. i am never enough.

but it is okay, i can’t change the past. i do realise i am not dateable, i can give a lot of labour, but no one is willing to love me for it. so i’d do this labour for me, at least i can’t abandon myself even if i wanted to.

Fruits for my fruits

Disclaimer Welcome to intuitive cooking. These recipes are to unleash the chaos in you. No measurements, just vibes

This ones for all the health conscious queers who've bullied me into caring for myself. Thank you. Without you, I'd forever be in heartburn hell surrounded by eno

Ingredients

• Crunchy fruits
• Soft juicy fruits
• Berries which aren't fruits but consumed as such
• No tomato even though it is a fruit
• Salt
• Honey
• Citrus fruit juice/vinegar
• A fruity foodie to consume said fruits

Instructions

• Chop up your fruits in bite size pieces. I used apples, guava, kiwi, bananas (peeled), and pineapples.
• Top with some freshly squeezed orange/lime juice. You can also use mosambi juice. Sprinkle some salt and a generous helping of honey.
• Mix and consume fresh.

Alternative

• You can mix some pasta amd cheese with this to make a spring/summer pasta salad.
• You can use this as toppings in pancakes.
• You can use this in custard.
• You can make boba balls with these.

Let me know if you'd like quick recipes for boba balls

In Wrestling terms, “work” refers to anything part of the wrestling storyline. In the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, wrestlers treated each aspect of their life as “work.” This led to hilarious results. Once, a wrestler’s wife arrived in the arena with a handgun. To kill the wrestler who had beaten her husband. Yes, wrestlers weren’t allowed to tell their wives about the “fake” aspect of wrestling. So, overall, their lives had become entrenched in show business; their lives had become about work. This happened with factory work as well. If you view the history of how Carnegie managed his companies, you’ll come across the story of “company towns.” By providing them with houses, with entire communities built around the company, they had made the workers dependent on them. Whenever they fight against the horrible conditions in the factories, they risk losing housing and their entire lives. So, they would never protest. They would never be able to have free time, and work would loom all around their lives. Lower salary bands and multiple ways of measuring productivity reconstruct the same scenario for today’s workers. A “bond” that fresher signs to work for a company for at least three years before quitting is a sign of this scenario. History repeats itself daily, and more aspects are repeated than ever before.

The Narratives Built

In the 2019 movie, “Velaikkaran,” the hero goes to work at an FMCG company. In a rousing speech on the first day, the manager (an inimitable villain played by Fahadh Fassil) asks everyone to scream, “We’re the best!” The narrative of being good is baked into every workplace’s philosophy. But it’s a philosophy meant to raise support, not one meant to build a better world. In the movie, the villain usurps power through complicated maneuvers. The hero still wins by creating a protest that lives on in the daily work ethic of the workers. But, we want to focus on the narrative first. How often have you heard of an open, inclusive, and welcoming workplace? How many times do start-ups offer unlimited PTOs? How many times do enterprises flaunt their LGBTQ-forward credentials? The unified narrative around a “good” workplace is created to foster a sense of safety. But a safe workplace doesn’t exist in principle. This is because work is not optional and is necessary for survival. In the same way, anything that is mandatory can never be safe. It has already violated every sense of consent. Sure, there are moments of respite, but that exists everywhere. Think of the times in schools where we’re taken on trips. Or the tiny spaces within the prison where the community plays together. Exceptions, in this case, prove the law. Crafting these exceptions (team fun days, casual Fridays, etc.) is to create a sense of community and safety where there isn’t any. In “Velaikkaran,” the hero realizes his workplace creates toxic chemicals. It’s poisoning the community it serves. On the other hand, he realizes that he’s in between these circumstances, being faced with defective products and costs rising on all fronts. While not as explicitly, how many of us can say that what we do isn’t harming someone down the chain?

Why does work suck?

We often see work as a unique relationship. This starts with the family. We have started viewing work as a family outside the family. So, the low pay and the underappreciated work hours all make sense in the large picture of the family. We’d sacrifice for our community, for our family. But, we’re not working in the family or having fun. Reframing work as a fun part of life is a difficult thing to do. It’s mechanical, most people work in an assembly line where they contribute one small portion repeatedly. And without the spirit of collaboration or the spirit of coming together. The spirit of work today demands that you have fun, that you create a family around your co-workers, and live your life with them. Your social apps become an extension of the workplace and suddenly you’re in a company town.

Against Work

One of Graeber’s central arguments focused on “play.” He observed that animals played with one another, even in nature, without goals or scores. Think of puppies engaging in small fighting competitions only to make up and lay with each other later. Think also of how cats often engage in small, silly explorations into the places they know very well. We did this as children, too, playing randomly, without scores, and without a uniform goal. In a way, you don’t want to go beyond that. You don’t want to build hierarchies and scorebooks and tire yourself out. The life against work needn’t be perfect, Community-led playing is a great way to move beyond work. Today, many systems can work without us putting in work at all. Focusing on creating an experience where you can have fun and do something collaborative is great. This can be anything from painting to writing to discussing knowledge. The point is to have fun while creating or destroying something (“Destruction is inherently a creative urge after all.) You won’t be alone in history to find these collaborations more efficient than normal work. For example – The Spanish Civil War brought together Anti-Fascists from all corners of the world and succeeded in thwarting the advance for a time before an overwhelming force.

Your Future and Mine

Many a communist rejoiced with the emergence of AI. The perspective was simple: if AI can automate our work, we can spend our lives doing something fruitful instead. However, this is a short-sighted view of the world. AI, Bitcoin, and other tech revolutions that promise an apparently free-er future are also gated by tech. Plus, the tech itself depends on a lot of energy and electricity. Both factors can complicate our future of the planet. I don’t advocate for AI because most of my comrades can’t afford or access with, and unless we remove the gating, we can’t dream of this future. And even with equal access, we might not want the future it’ll build. Being without work requires community. It might not be available to you right now, but you’ll have to build layers of mutual aid to survive without work. And these can’t only be urban or rural either. Your connections must transcend borders and limitations and grow like a rhizome to defeat work. But, you can, because I want you to. And you will, because you have will.

heavy spoilers ahead, read only if you have read upto chapter 236 in the manga. avoid if you only watch the anime

This is not really a review, it is more of a prediction. first of all, i am glad gojo is dead. like yeah, gojo already said once a ten shadows user and a limitless user fought and they both killed each other. this time it was ten shadows user megumi plus king of curses sukuna. gojo stood no chance. also, i was bored of the prolonged fight. it went on for months. jujutsu kaisen was more fun when gojo was sealed to be honest. plus gojo stood no chance. sukuna has much more experience fighting, and megumi has mentioned that mahoraga is one shot only. the shikigami user would die because mahoraga wont ho back. and we know that mahoraga needs to be destroyed in one shot, by exposing it directly to the cursed technique once as sukuna did. gojo didn’t know that. not only he exposed his own technique to mahoraga multiple times, at the end destroying mahoraga with hollow purple meant he literally gave sukuna a second chance, just like how sukuna gave megumi a second chance to take over his body later. and also, if someone like gojo, with six eyes, who can see anything, can’t see this attack coming, it is pretty dumb to expect the reader would see it coming. just my two cents.

however i see how the fans are clamouring about the death. that is why i’m writing this. this will be my prediction. i am too elite to write it in a reddit thread. but i will definitely post link to this article if my prediction comes out right.

i think people don’t realise that, in the jujutsu world, the most powerful beings are not jujutsu sorcerers. it is the people who has no jujutsu at all. people like toji, or maki. toji almost killed gojo, and he would have succeeded, if he knew gojo can work reverse cursed technique. maki literally wiped out the whole clan of hers full with jujutsu sorcerers. they literally are monsters.

they can’t also be controlled after death. Kanjaku will never possess gojo because his brain is not equipped to handle the information six eyes receives. but no one has tried to control a limitless user before so nobody knows whether it is possible or not, but the bodies of jujutsu sorcerers can be controlled after they die. the only exception are people without jujutsu. toji couldn’t be controlled.

but why am i saying all this? because yuji, the youngest son of kenjaku, is divine intervention personified. yuji is a product of experimentation. Kaori had the power of gravity, that did not pass down to yuji. he was born without any jujutsu. yuji already had superhuman strength, speed, and durability. megumi pointed this out in the first chapter itself about how yuji is like maki. but neither maki nor toji ever displays strength anywhere close to what yuji showed before ingesting the finger. he broke world records in shot putt. toji was the fastest, but he became fast after rigorous training. yuji didn’t need that.

gojo also mentioned that eventually sukuna’s cursed technique would be etched on yuji’s body. which means beside being the strongest human without jujutsu, yuji would also be channelling the cursed technique of sukuna.

here is the thing, sukuna can heal bodies like any other curses. unlike humans. and in his supreme power he had four hands. two for channelling cursed energy into techniques, and two for fighting. sukuna never yet had four hands here. sukuna also had a lot more experience fighting others than gojo.

however, no one like yuji has been there in the jujutsu community. he is a literal product of experimentation, when kanjaku took over itadori kaori’s body. yuji hasn’t yet realised that himself. here is where jjk start looking like fullmetal alchemist to some extents. however, gege tries really hard to break shounen stereotypes, so i am hopeful something or the other is going to happen. we also need to take stock of what yuji wants to live by. he wants to die surrounded by his loved ones, unlike his grandfather. but here is the thing, everyone dies alone anyway, death is lonely. you can be lonely surrounded by others and be misunderstood. what yuji wanted was to be around people who understood him. The first to go was Nanami. he is dead. the second to go was Nobara, as she is beyond getting healed. it was probably her who could actually deal damage to sukuna or kenjaku significantly in her prime. her technique is that much powerful. the strawdoll technique is overpowered in my humble opinion and others don’t even see it coming. next to go was matsumoto, and then megumi. megumi needs to die to get rid of sukuna. because yuji can’t be taken control of just like toji, but megumi is not like yuji. so megumi is gone as far as i’m concerned. and yuji just saw magumi kill gojo mercilessly. people who understood yuji are all gone. all of them. thus, yuji is alone anyway. yuji need to understand that.

but then again yuji is young. he will meet people who will understand him better than all of these people. yuji needs to give himself the chance of living a fulfilling life. once yuji understands that and realises he is like toji or maki, but better, he is going to be unstoppable. that is all.

personally i would love to see yuji’s domain expansion, and i think either yuji or megumi is gonna grow two more hands. i’d rather it is yuji. that would make more sense to me as those extra two hands would be specifically to channel sukuna’s cursed technique that has already been etched.

let’s see what happens. i am extremely excited to see what happens in chapter 237 and i personally hope the manga ends by chapter 300.

I remember Bhooter Bhabishyat coming out when I was in class 12 or 11. can’t remember. didn’t have the luxury of watching films back then. when i went to college and had access to better internet, I pirated it.

even then i remember not getting satisfied with the story, however, haven’t seen a bengali movie with such interesting dialogues before. it was a semi musical, where characters spoke in couplet. and yes, the crude sexual puns were funny to me as a teenager.

However, now that i’m edging 30, a raging tranny, and have much more idea about caste identities, and feminism, i wanted to revisit the film to see whether the film has any value or not. part of it was also there to see a funny movie, that is widely praised as good bengali new generation film.

sadly, i was deeply disappointed. things that i missed as a teen was here in such a capacity, i couldn’t ignore them anymore. satisfaction can go fuck itself, i was deeply uncomfortable almost the whole movie. the film tries to be a parody, but all it does is point out the deep rooted misogyny, casteism, and hollowness of urban bengali upper caste intellectuals.

lets start with parambrata. it is evident after hearing first couple of his dialogues that he is pretentious. he has no idea about making films, but gives large talks just like a ju filmbro bodda who asks teenagers in his empty flat to discuss godard. he is making a film of which he doesn’t have the ending to. that simply points out to him being an unoriginal writer copying from some other film, who needs to change the ending to not directly plagiarise the film. any writer worth their salt comes up with the conclusion much faster than the literary devices they have to set up to reach there. it’s only copied work that struggles with ending, because reimagining ending to something you know takes a lot of experience. this is even more evident when sabyasachi offers him a story and he just agrees to it without even bothering to ask his name. i mean he wasn’t gonna credit him anyway, so why bother asking for the name? he also mentioned he wants to have a masala film. there are filmmakers who earns money to make films, and then there are filmmakers who make films to earn money. calling the latter’s work film is a reach, it is basically a product devoid of anything artistic. we can start to see which category parambrata falls in and by proxy the director himself. Parambrata quotes Tarantino, but tarantino worked oddjobs for years to collect money to make his first film, and specifically didn’t give handjobs to corporate. parambrata or by proxy the director comparing himself to tarantino is just delusion of grandeur.

let’s talk about sabyasachi. the unreliable narrator present to package the story in a sellable manner. who was apparently killed by police during naxalite movement. i mean kolkata police did kill a lot of lower caste immigrant students in kolkata for sport, and some of those police officers are now famous writers. biplab is literally an heir of a zamidar family whose ancestors built their estate by stealing from others, and he never even tries to redistribute that, never even acknowledges that. he calls himself a communist or a naxal and tries zero reparations. charu mazumdar was never killed, he was let go by the authorities, and he is called the father of naxalism. i hope you all see the casteism of bengali kayasthas and how they appropriate and take all the credits of ideas that people from the grassroots come up with. all other people associated with charu and the naxalbari movement was brutally assassinated. charu was only kept alive and let go because of his surname, he was the elite, CPI could only claim power by using his name as the ideator for the vote bank, jangal santhal or shanti munda would not have gotten the votes. nobody even knows the names of nine tiller women who died in naxalbari. whose deaths were weaponised and politicised by charu who didn’t even live there. hence sabyasachi dying in a police encounter cannot be true. charu himself died in police custody, not shot. it is simply claimed oppression, rewriting the narrative to fit the revolutionary fetishisation of the bengali upper caste. moreover, he goes to forests to teach maoists how to make bombs, but gives the blood money to parambrata to make the movie after meeting him for the first time? without even trying to get to know him better or his politics?that is just caste nepotism. if he gave that money to maoists, it would have serve the society much better, but he won’t do that. because he is not a revolutionary. he only cares about the class and caste. communist my ass. he is a liberal, who is left leaning in talk, but actually a conservative when it comes to money.

now let’s talk about the women of the movie. they are peak example of “r/menwritingwomen”. there are only two women in the main ghost cast. one is a kept woman of the family from a bygone era, and the other one is someone who committed suicide from modern times. they did not allow the middle aged man who committed suicide, but the old man melted seeing this young kid and remarked how she reminds him of his granddaughter. that is just fucked up. even from the dialogues she loses the individuality.

here, both the women are always accompanied by men, and the only time they are alone for a single scene, they talk about men. yeah, the movie doesn’t even make an effort to pass the bechdel test. a famous topic among the film bros of kolkata who use it to shit on bengali tv serials. there are two more women, one of them is enamoured by parambrata, something self aggrandising men think about women who work around them, and the other is a marwari housewife who does an item song. there is no reason or justification as to why this happened except a one sentence explanation by the narrator later. this is known as insulting the audience, and in fan culture it is called an asspull. as the defining moment is done off screen, it is firstly bad writing, and secondly it considers that the audience is not smart enough to realise that. also, why would a housewife do an item song just for revenge and let him go after? what kind of story is it? you are literally setting up what teenagers call a KLPD? ending doesn’t even make sense

i cant even write much about the women because there is nothing interesting happening with them or by them anyway. they are always dependent on the men around them. it’s one of the most misogynistic movies i have seen. some of the dialogues literally refer to swastika’s vagina to illicit laughter. was the script written by virgin incel teenagers or what? the women has only one purpose in this film, either act like a bimbo to illicit laughter or sexualise their own bodies for the gratification of men. there doesn’t happen anything else with them, there is no character growth for any of them. not that other characters have any, but they still get some kind of roll to play. in the climactic scene, both these main ghost characters are missing anyway.

all the other characters except parambrata and sabyasachi are shown as stereotypical examples of their community. their services satisfy the patriarch, and that is why they get to stay in the house. much of the comedy of the film stem from this stereotype, which basically is punching down. it is akin to gay men who think it is their solemn duty to shit on women because they don’t fuck one. however, the lack of self awareness of the director makes both parambrata and sabyasachi the stereotypical bengali intellectuals whose politics is only at a surface level, mired with upper caste ignorance and positivity that lacks working knowledge of politics. even satyajit ray did the same mistake in ganashatru, he completely removed the politics from the original story he adopted it from, trying to make it about religion, something that doesn’t really affect the bengali upper castes. it comes from a saviour complex mixed with chasing trauma.

all of this comes from unchecked privilege. the guitarist dude can talk about how casteism and untouchability is bad and how the rickshaw driver should be allowed upstairs, but it is just a talk, nothing really changes for him. he is at the bottom rung and your think that living for eternity would make the ghosts more socially aware, but it seems bengali upper caste men are more interested in maintaining the social hierarchy even after death. making the bengali adage that your behaviour doesn’t change even after your death a reality.

the film makes it a point to mock people with disabilities, and people from lower class. it makes pramod pradhan with speech disability to reduce his name to pond (asshole). and he would say wrong educational stuff to showcase how illiterate he is. similarly, TK Guchhait has that particular surname just before which he stutters to make a poop joke. this film is more like Prem Aggan, where there was a joke about how jay mehra should be gay mehra. one of the worst script writing in my honest opinion. whoever wrote it didn’t understand the assignment and failed in his job. to quote tom cruise, “a nutless monkey could do this job better”.

Privilege is when you willingly get beaten by police in a protest march for political clout knowing full well that come what may, police wouldn’t kill you because of your surname. grassroots activists do not have that luxury. thus upper caste upper class urban educated people can appropriate their work and pretend to be woke by talk, but they aren’t really interested in changing the system. upper caste men are the oppressors. they can’t be left leaning without giving up their family, surname and all other privileges. thus almost any communist from upper castes with good family relations are there to muddy the movement and derail it. the guillotine doesn’t judge the caste.

parambrata getting the money and kickstarting his career is more comparable to how upper class upper caste worthless men launch their filmmaking/photography career with their family’s blood money. who has to appropriate others’ stories to fit their own narrative. by proxy it is the director himself.

the only redeeming quality of this movie is its dialogues. most of which is punching down comedy anyway, but the couplet system was something new in bengali cinema itself. i guess that is the reason the film was popular amongst the urban upper class folks. this movie has been remade in hindi and has been a resounding flop. understandable, good films has good content, this has nothing. certain highly memed tv serials has better content than this garbage, as they get translated to multiple other regional languages and always does well with the audience.

i’ll not increase the review much. for a vapid film i have already word vomited a little too much anyway. i’d give this film a 1 out if 10, if i were to give a round number.

see you all soon.

There’s something unique about Jawan. In the first half, before everything is turned up a notch due to different causes, SRK (whose name in this movie doesn’t matter) spends a moment with Suji (his soon-to-be-daughter). As she explains what she expects from a father, SRK looks on with an expression he has mastered, a calming, emotional expression that says he is falling in love. And as fans, you fall in love, too, mainly because you have seen the same expression in twenty other films. But also because you end up realizing something. SRK was a romantic hero at some point, but now, most of his relationships on-screen don’t scream out for romance. Instead, his relationships with his leading ladies and everyone else are friendly. His charm extends to every side character. And you don’t question his story when he kisses the forehead of a fallen comrade in the movie.

Not the Common Man

Atlee and Shankar's movies have a common thread. Their heroes look common but aren’t. They’re also good fathers, husbands, boyfriends, and other things. There’s no need for complexities here because the story is simple. It’s the story of a superhero is saving people. And if you could slap a pair of tights on Vijay in “Mersal,” you’d have felt the same. This follows Rajnikanth, Vijay, through Kamal Hassan (in the recently released “Vikram,” he shakes off a knife wound like nothing). SRK is following the same thread. He could have died a thousand times over in Jawan. But the story doesn’t need to make sense. The standard connection lies in them being the “common” man. Vijay’s character in Kaththi comes to mind. Of his two roles, only one is a superhero. The other one gets beat up and doesn’t have a way to escape prison, but the superhero can solve problems in a second, create a revolution with his words, and do so much more. Looking at “Revolution in Everyday Life,” we’re not discussing things that Vijay or SRK do in these movies. The all-powerful nature of the hero drives the plotline forward. And this has been a trope in Action movies forever. Forgive the blasphemy here, but in Kurosawa movie, when one Samurai cuts down everyone else, or when the outlaws win again in a Billy Wilder movie, it follows the same thread. Creating “Legends” out of ordinary men by covering them in plot armor is a time-honored legacy in movies. It can manifest in two ways. * The authority figure – A policeman doing the right thing (think Salman Khan in Dabbang) * The non-authority figure – An ordinary man taking on the ever-present system (Vijay movies in general) Movies from the South have long created these mythical characters in opposition to hierarchy. The “CM for a single day” trope was exploited in “Nayak” so efficiently. “Nayak” also shows that the system catches up with you eventually, and then you need to do things in queer ways to defeat the system (in this case, a brilliant Amrish Puri.) In Jawan, the system catches up to SRK even after the big win. And an all-out fight gives him the final win. It’s also an excellent metaphor for how the state works. Movements can drive changes but are silvery veneer on the rotting legislature underneath.

Of Illogic and Other Scenes

Illogic is the thread that ties a lot of masala movies together. This is by design because you can’t imagine these heroes to be the same people as us. No one looks at “Singham” and fantasizes that the pot-bellied cop in the neighborhood is the same person. No, it’s an ideal they follow and someone they aspire to become at the end of the day. SRK crafts this illogic with expertise. In the movie, the narrative often impressively shifts from him. When someone complains about him, his followers tell his long-winded story without breaks. He manages when he comes to the jail, and the ground applauds. In showing backbreaking work done by prisoners, we see him participating in the work. In a way, the “illogic” that Atlee crafts in his films is that of idealism beyond reason. This idealism might seem alien to anyone who follows the logical traps in capitalism; for communists and anarchists, this idealism is the core of our philosophy. But, no, the film isn’t communist. It defers to authority and depends on the Army and Police to mette out its justice (even if illegal, the authority figures are the only ones shown as being just.) The critical point to focus on in the film is that idealism is essential to drive changes, and it can make a significant dent. In this case, the stories of the girls who surround SRK help in a significant way. So does the collective disillusionment with the “system.” At points in the film, it’s said that if the system wanted to do right, it would. That’s where the film fails because the truth that Atlee won’t admit in movies is that the system can’t do right. It must be broken down from the outside to make the change. Something that SRK does in the film. This is also illogical, but an ideal system would do this. And if nothing else, masala movies are a function of belief.

Having fun and loving it

My partner is not a fan of SRK. But, in the middle of the film, we discussed how the performance seemed platonic by default. Even during implied sex, SRK looks more like a friend. He does not have lust but admiration in his eyes. And it doesn’t take away from the chemistry either. The film is filled with small, consequential details like these. SRK spends a long time having fun with his costars. The director has fun putting in dialogues from other films and creating long references that don’t make any extra additions to the movie. It’s a fun film because it seems like a collaboration between the people involved. When the blood drop falls into the dirt in the first scene, you feel the cameraman, who has waited for a shot like that for years, laughing. You also feel joy in the dialogues. “Naam to Suna Hoga” hasn’t sounded this joyful since the 2000s. And when other people have fun, having fun yourself is so much easier, which is what matters. Beyond philosophy, beyond long speeches, “Jawan” is about fun in the movies in a way we haven’t had in a while. Part of that is because of the heavy-handed politics that demand un-fun to be a part of Bollywood films throughout.

Nationalism isn’t Fun, yeah, really

In early 2014, Akshay Kumar could do no wrong. He had a long string of hits and was firing on all cylinders. But that fell short in the decade since then. It appears that nationalism is a strong story, but no one likes seeing the authority win repeatedly. Because, at the core, we all understand that the state is wrong. We have understood and internalized that fact quite effectively over the years. Even staunch bhakhts are aware of corruption and the small ways in which they miss out on their chances. They just blame the wrong people for it because of propaganda. But, the overarching story of authority winning is less resonant than other stories. This is why films like “Pushpa” and “RRR” work. They’re stories of people rising against the system and not for it. Thus, nationalism must hide behind the pretenses of rising against the system, craft separate narratives, and try to win that way. But it's no longer working, and the people are looking back at SRK. This isn’t a win, but it's something to celebrate, and we haven’t had one of those reasons in a decade. And that’s why “Jawan” works, and I love it. I love it so much.

Oil free egg drop noodles

Disclaimer Welcome to intuitive cooking. These recipes are to unleash the chaos in you. No measurements, just vibes

Ingredients

• Noodles (I used wheat maggi for the masala, you can also use maggi masala separately)
• Eggs
• Soya sauce
• Spring onion
• Ginger garlic paste
• Chilli flakes
• Coriander
• Salt
• Sesame seeds

Instructions

• In a pot of water, simmer soya sauce, spring onion and ginger garlic paste
• Beat eggs with salt in a bowl
• Add the eggs slowly in the simmering mixture
• Increase the heat and stir the contents occasionally in intervals of a few seconds
• Drop the noodles and the maggi masala and stir to mix it all up
• Once the noodles are cooked about 80% remove from heat
• Add chilli flakes and coriander and mix
• Transfer to serving bowl
• Sprinkle a little bit of sesame seeds and spring onions to break the texture and serve piping hot

Alternatives

• You can use vegetable stock or chicken stock instead of water
• You can add vegetables or chicken or paneer or tofu to enrich the soup even more
• You can add a half boiled egg on top or a sunny side up or crisp fried bacon to the side to increase the protein intake
• You can add black peppers to the eggs
• You can temper the soup with some coriander seeds, curry leaves and peppercorn

My dad seldom picks up my calls to my mother every day. It is a part of my routine; I call my mother every night. I listen to her worries and her perturbations. In a few seconds, I become the mother, mothering my child.

But why do I call?

Most Indian children can relate to the daily call to their mothers and fathers. We’re used to calling people and always being in sync. We tally our numbers, discuss our dues, and then match up against everything. But there may be a deeper reason. Why is calling the family so important anyway? Why must we always know about each other?

The History of Everything

Family Keeps Watch

In the beginning, when the joint family was de rigeur, the eyes followed you everywhere. Of course, people built a community instead of a mother and father and child dynamic. But, then, we need to argue about what a community does. In all senses, these communities hadn’t killed the cops in their heads. So, they ended up creating rules and laws. Thematic guardrails became entrenched. And since people aren’t infallible, these guardrails came from a long line of guardrails, from the leaders, politicians, and everyone else watching the proceedings. The result was that the unit, the smallest unit, became subject to surveillance, and every single day became a jail. The family home was comforting. It provided all the essential comforts a man might want but ate off their morals and needs as it went forward.

It goes nuclear

When families became smaller, larger communities were built. These were built with gossip, with words, with vague whispers. Soon, people became used to watching their steps everywhere. The fear of living in a city where your parents are is also exacerbated by this very gossip. This very structure keeps increasing and eating everything in its path. So, when you smoke a cigarette, you’re not afraid of your mother finding out. Because your mother doesn’t go through that road because that isn’t how it’s structured, but if you’re worried a friend of hers will see you, they will notice. Then, it will ricochet from there. Become an entire thesis on how you’ve destroyed your life and have nowhere to go. And soon, you’re suffering everywhere.

The Panopticon

The concept is simple. It is a central tower that watches every prisoner all around the tower. So, you can never leave its gaze. Everything is reduced to brutal efficiency. If you think social media is a voluntary mode of this, you are right! The same principle repeats itself with social media, and then it causes a lot of conflict. So, you can wear your political badge with pride (and liberals will surely congratulate you for being brave), and suddenly, two people in your college will want to kill you one day. Private spaces are increasingly rare in this life. I do not know if my parents will read this blog and if they’ll decide to throw me out.

The policing construct

The family always polices you. It doesn’t do it out of love. It doesn’t do it out of respect. It doesn’t do it out of care. It polices because that’s what it knows how to do. In the history of things, the family has never been permissive. In the community, it was permissive because when you get a mixture of parental figures, the authority divides itself repeatedly, and you get weak authority, something you can depend on to grow.

So What to do

Nothing might be a silly answer. But, it is an accurate one. Not doing anything might be the best bet for you. If you stay still and never move, the family never has questions, it never polices. But you need to have questions, and you need to create conversation. You need to take action and move into a better place. So, what do you do? You create shields. You never leave trails. And then make your own way through the space. Of course, there’s no simple way out of this. So, you acknowledge the faults, the cracks, and everything in between. Then you grow. You grow despite policing because nothing else is possible.

My friend is moving forward after a traumatic breakup and I'm here making it about myself. This is unfiltered and an expression of my rawest emotions and yes they're not very empathetic but that's the point of this space

A little bit of context. I met both of them through social media, separately and instantly connected with them both. They're both intelligent, interesting people and they both came across as empathetic (one more than other) people trying to make the best of a shitty situation (living amongst cishets yuck). Oh I loved them both so much it physically hurt. They were my first signs of adult friendships, a field I've failed at spectacularly for most of the time before this.

Things escalated quickly after that. My friend told me they like my other friend and for the first time, things started to fall into place. I never had healthy romantic relationships to look up to, so I modelled mine after theirs. Imitation is the best form of flattery, after all. My ex left but my friends were happy and I was hopeful that the next time, I'll do it better.

After a few months, I met my partner and forgot all about modelling my relationship after my friends' because my partner knows healthy relationships. He's always known them.

My friends got engaged. I was so over the moon with happiness, I cried. I mean it's not a big deal, I cry about everything but I was so happy for them. Both of them have had lives of varying levels of difficulty and this felt like the relief they needed. This probably seems a little weird but it had been a while since I'd known them at this point and I started to think of them as my family. Like they're my blood and flesh.

And it all changed. With one phone call. I wanted to scream at the one who broke up. I wanted to tell him he took away my family. He broke my trust in people. Oh I loved him so! My friend who will never hurt anyone knowingly, my friend who protects everyone like his own. He's lost and I'm angry about it. I didn't want to lose him. I needed him to stay the same.

Worst of all, he proved nothing is constant. My whole worldview is shattered. All my life through every up and down I always tried to believe that people are inherently nice. My partner once asked me how come I wanted to live with him even though all my experiences sharing a living space with someone has been so horrible. I told him it's because not everyone is the same and everyone can find it in themselves to be a little nicer. I guess the opposite is true too. I don't know how to go on with that. I don't know how to live everyday knowing that people are not driven by morality but by needs and wants. All my life I have believed people will rise to the occasion if needed. That we'll always do the right thing if offered the choice. My friend having to move forward after this is proof that I was wrong. I do not like being wrong.

Homemade healthy veg aata “dumplings” to gently trick your vegetable averse loved ones

Disclaimer Welcome to intuitive cooking. These recipes are to unleash the chaos in you. No measurements, just vibes

Ingredients

• Aata (Wheat Flour)
• Any kind of refined oil/ghee
• Baking powder (optional)
• Salt
• Sugar
• Black pepper powder
• Leftover veggies chopped really tiny (carrots, beans, cauliflowers, cabbage, radish, etc)
• Cheese (optional)
• Water
• A steamer/a deep dish, aluminium foil and a lid

Instructions

• Mix aata with a little salt, a pinch of sugar and baking powder
• Pour oil on the mix and then slowly add water and mix till the dough is easily removed from the sides of the dish
• Now dust some aata on a flat surface and knead that dough like it's not a dough but your English teacher from high school who simultaneously virtue signals young children and possesses the wrongest moral compass (As you can see, I'm still holding on to quite a bit of justified anger)
• Set it aside when the dough is soft and supple to touch. Think of the texture if you were a cis male author describing a lead female character
• Chop up your veggies real tiny
• Mix in your cheese, salt, sugar and black pepper
• Roll out the dough and put a tiny ball of stuffing in it and shape your dumpling
• The salt will draw water and we'll mix it with some in the bowl we want to use as a steamer. This can be used as a base for a soup. You can also add some vegetables to it
• If you do not have a steamer, you can cover a deep bellied dish with aluminium foil, poke a few holes in it. Place the dumplings on the aluminium foil and cover it with a lid
• Steam the dumplings for about 30 mins
• Serve hot with any spicy chutney

i have been following the case for a very long time, and to be honest the only reason the queer lawyer is not making any headroom in the court is frankly she is subpar as a lawyer. i’ll explain further.

Marriage is a social contract. but under capitalism, marriages are for producing labourers for the state. ensuring marriage rights makes queers eligible for being viewed as a family unit, and granting them certain social and economical advantages of being the model family. these advantages are generally things like wider social acceptance, and importantly, having a partner with whom you can have a joint account and share fiscal responsibilities.

regardless of marriages, in a partnership, regardless of gender identity this happens anyway. two people share a house, become emotionally dependent, and share fiscal responsibilities. if one of the partner is abusive and leaves after treating the relationship as transactional, instead of romantic, in a queer set up, there is no reparations for the one who has been left.

but this happens in cis-het relationships also. men leave. almost always the woman is left alone picking up the pieces. if the woman was a housewife without proper financial independence or safety nets, even if they were married, the wife almost always ends up with losing everything. if it is an intercaste marriage and if the upper caste man leaves, you know that the lower caste woman will never even have a lawyer that would be interested in winning the case for her, provided someone picks it up. as we have already seen, dalit lawyers do not even get hired, do you think a dalit woman will get justice if harassed by an upper caste? not really, if it did, casteist crimes would have gone down, and not up.

so the problem isn’t queer marriages, the problem is marriages itself. the current legalities do not support people without power. it ensures people with power can continue to hold on to it. and that has been the problem all along. something the lawyer is too inexperienced to understand, and not the right one to fight for it.

the current legal structure do not allow homemakers to seek reparations for the harm caused bu intimate partner violence. marital rape is not even considered a crime in a lot of cases. it is as if, post marriage, the person with less power and agency in the relationship are relegated to a post of providing free labour for the man, and the law also do not register their agency, bodily autonomy, and human rights.

asking for queer marriage without pointing out the issues is wrong. asking for marriage without asking for a redefinition of the structure of family and their association with internal power structure is asking for trouble. this will only make lives of marginalised queers even more unbearable.

that’s what i think anyway. i have known friends who have been divorced and left for nothing after giving decades of their lives for their men. they can’t get justice. there are legal ways, like a pre-nuptial agreement that any privileged person can use before the marriage to indulge in any kind of debauchery post marriage knowing that a divorce can’t really hurt them. something that was never brought up in the marriage issue.

not everyone is also humane. just like there are pedophile priests, there are also predatory queers. who feast on queers more marginalised than them. there are queers who seek out exclusively newly out queers to groom them. one of my daughters got groomed by a queer person recently who has a very high social capital in the local queer scene. there are also queers who behave like straight people and dilute the queer political cause.

legal marriage had been a cis-het thing. without understanding the pitfalls of it, getting into marriage is only going to bring misery. a lot of queers do not also go through the unlearning process of cis-het behaviours, and internalise the toxicity that they mete out to their intimate partner. more often than not even after being in a queer relationship, and being surrounded by community, this can make the homemaker alienated and lonely. legalising gay marriages won’t solve them.

i want you all to ask this question that what do you think marriage is? what do you think family is? you have seen your parents. do you really wanna live a life like them? are you questioning the internal power structure that each relationship brings, or are you still hung up on the social power structure of age and status? how can we live a life that rejects the notion of free labour and domestic responsibility for the homemakers? you spend most of your life in a home, if you can’t help your partner build a better home for you both, do you even see their sacrifices?

today in therapy i realised in my personal life i haven’t practiced what i preached. that has made me feel not being able to face my moral self. i have never expected myself to be in this side of the road. but now that i am, my path is clear. i need to learn to forgive myself for the mistakes i make, and i need to grapple with the fact that reality may not be what we think it is. but hey, i trust myself. i know i’ll get back on my feet. i know i will learn from my mistakes. and i have to be more open about my feelings and i need to share more with the world not to just affirm my own beliefs, but also see things in a way i was incapable of seeing owing to rose tinted glasses. that’s all.

eggs, potatoes, veggies – it's got it all

Disclaimer Welcome to intuitive cooking. These recipes are to unleash the chaos in you. No measurements, just vibes

Ingredients

• Bread
• Egg
• Potato
• Cucumber
• Mayo
• Cheese
• Salt
• Jalapenos
• Pickle (refer to Alex Arson's Pickle Rage for the recipe)
• Black pepper powder

Instructions

• Boil potatoes and eggs for 12-14 mins.
• Peel and mash them along with some diced cucumber, mayo, salt, black pepper. (Do not add salt if you're setting the mixture aside for a while as it will draw water from the mixture. Instead, add the salt right before assembly.)
• Slather some mayo on the bread and toast it.
• Add cheese, sandwich filling, jalapenos and pickle and cover with another toasted bread.
• Toast each side again to melt the cheese.
• Cover with a muslin cloth if you're putting it in a tiffin box to absorb extra moisture so your sandwich stays crisp.
• You can add lettuce between the bread and the filling to reduce absorption of moisture. I didn't have any on hand.

One of my earliest encounters with violence happened quite normally. I was a teen who was drinking on the streets. And cops came in and ushered us into a world of violence. The truth was, we were just kids drinking. We had smoked a few cigarettes and sat around in the car. But we hadn’t done anything major. Why am I talking about this? Because violence from the state is often neither explicit nor created equally.

The Anatomy of Violence

Let’s assume we’re all living our lives normally. That in the brief history of everything, there has been nothing wrong at all. But then you realize that things are not as they were before. I think to recognize state violence, you likely need to flip the switch. Just think of what you’d consider as abuse in a relationship: * Verbal abuse: Cursing you, using slurs, using a variety of words to get you down * Emotional abuse: Bringing you down again and again * Isolation abuse: Leaving you alone * Food/money/other abuse: Depriving people of food, shelter, or monetary gains If you see this list, you will see that the state has been violent throughout. That personal violence has been an ongoing problem for you, and every time a politician curses you out, says hijra-mukto Jadavpur and something else, and every time they beat you up or deprive you of property that is already available and so easily given, or put a pre-requisite of money for any socialization.

Building Understanding

The second phase of uncovering state violence is creating understanding at every level. Now, this is admittedly difficult. We often don’t realize the violence being done to us because we can’t understand how something drives such inhuman conditions at the outset. Maybe because the level of abuse is not measurable, the idea of measuring is difficult, too. So, you spend a lot of time trying to bridge the gap between your relative ethics and the objective morality of the state. The point is simple: if you have a constant state of ethics that guides you, you’re better than the state. And because you’re a good person, you think no one else also violates this set of ethics. This isn’t true. The state will be a greater evil because it needs to be the greater evil. It needs to be something more than the average person. So, it creates chains of responses that deprive you of everything you desire. It creates frameworks that work against you directly, and then it continues to do this repeatedly for the next eighty years until you die.

Confronting Death and Surviving

Violence is difficult to understand. But, it is far more difficult to confront violence and come out alive. When you fight violence, you must build spaces where you can be violent. This doesn’t need to be exhaustive. You don’t need to knife a cop to be safe. But you need a space to scream, rant, and cry. A place where you can look at yourself and remind yourself that unethical behaviors should always be measured against the scale that the state drives at every second of the way. Also, you need to be anonymous in this space. You need to be more than yourself while simultaneously being less than. This is achievable through practice. Once you enter the space of violence, you let yourself leap. You sort through the masks you’ve worn for the state and let the real you peak from the curtain. You might argue that your real self is not anonymous, but we’re hiding so much of ourselves all the time that the real self is the only true masked representation we can find.

Defining the Space

Remember that state violence is not always physical. Remember that violence itself can grow like a fungus and control your soul. So, when you’re defining the space, it doesn’t need to be a Fight club; it needs to be * Safe * Secure * And Homely A community space where you can sing songs together is violence against the state program of isolation. A place where you make love to your partner is a violence against the state program of unlove. Heck, a place to serve food to your friends is violence against the state program of hunger.

You’ve won before. You will again

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mutual Aid groups were spreading like fungi across the lines of states and cities. People came together to cook for each other and then spent time talking to each other and building rapport across the space. This was the sign that the world was turning, maybe not upside down, maybe it never had the capacity to turn upside down. But, it was turning a little bit so as to give space for you to expand yourself, And trannies everywhere were making friends, building connections, and creating a story.

We can always create that same space again. It requires unyielding hope and an enemy we recognize and acknowledge. The first step, however, is understanding that violence exists, that it is forever, and to fight against is will never be the same level of violence because the state’s violence will always surpass yours. And your violence will always be just survival.

On a quiet evening in late June of 2023, the world ended. This was not the first time; I know it won't be the last. But, personally, it still felt like the end.

Capitalism and Needs

I hate hierarchy, but in the context of Capitalism, everything falls into one. My needs do, too. In search for context within which I can envelop myself, my needs were as follows - * Money – Because everything is governed by the perverse search for material to feed our basic needs * Love – Because money creates holes that materialism can't feed * Food – Because love has a way of leaving you hungry This is not to say that needs won't exist past Capitalism. In fact, to move past this philosophy, we need needs. Because nothing else motivates the human psyche like hunger and desire. But it's not that simple under the pre-established hierarchy. Since money is intricately linked with every need we have, we confuse our other needs with a need for cash. The next big salary, the next big client, the next big thing, becomes our governing motivation.

Money Usurps Everything

On a quiet evening in August 2021, I entered the workforce formally. The contract was signed, and I started working the next day. The premise was simple. > You had failed at everything else, so you now needed to write your way out. So, I started writing. And I did it well. I have always written well and made my way forward in the world. But it still missed a key point in my story. I was wrong in my assessment of the situation. I felt that money filled my need for stability. But, I wanted peace in love, in situations, and in different spaces. > So, money never did fill in the gaps, and I became incredibly infatuated with the concept of earning money instead of the need to have stability. This, then, is the central fallacy of life. Money chases us down in every aspect of life because, in terms of a hierarchy of needs, it falls on the top. Let's examine this with a few examples - 1. You need shelter, but to get shelter, you need money 2. You need food, but to get food, you need money 3. You need happiness, but you tie happiness to material possessions for which you need money This is not a condemnation of the need for material possessions. But, the summation of the fact that once you link everything you possess with money, you only crave that one thing.

When the World Ends

In 2023, I lost my job. It would come sooner or later and have sucked my life out. I was there, getting fat on a salary my paymaster's paymasters didn't think I deserved, so I was out. I would get money for the next two months and could continue being accessible. Good deal, right? I spent the evening when I got laid off searching for jobs. The core need was stability, a thing which I already had for two months, but I had already put money ahead of it because of the hierarchy. The theoretical instability that was two months away was scarier because money had already taken weed in my mind with a call for scarcity.

The Scarcity and the Abundance

Honestly, the mind never sees money as abundant. Now, you can see that as you like. But how long does the last raise in your salary take to become insignificant? This is not a function of your deserving to earn more. > Most people deserve to make more. This is a function of the fact that money is self-consuming. Your life quality will continually improve by very little with increasing money because every material possession that is 1.25x better costs 5x more. So, what seemed like a significant amount of money amounts to little when the paycheck comes through. The perceived abundance of cash is a bug, which always occurs from the outside in. Because every slight increase in life quality requires a blast of money, it looks like you're dying from the inside out.

This doesn't mean that there's no UNETHICAL amount of money

Billionaires are bastards from all sides

The point I am making is that of perception. By circling every benefit in life in increasing costs and building hierarchies that deem money the most essential, we have created a death pit we can't walk out of. Since money is always scarce, our life's missions must be connected. Forever growing, killing us.

No, the answer isn't forsaking everything

A knee-jerk reaction to learning about the scam around money is to ask yourself to give up all possessions. To adopt public property as the sole goal, to feel like desires must be cut short and tamed to build a story. This is not true. There are no positives in giving up desires. Desires are what make us hate Capitalism. In fact, we want to kill this philosophy because we desire for better. You see, capitalism has constructed its own enemy. Since the ultimate desire is Infinite money and capitalism can't give us that in its principle of scarcity, we build the opposing philosophies. If money could afford all we would ever want, we would never want Capitalism to end.

Building a new world

Next time you stand at a crossroads like mine, ask yourself, “Is money the thing I need most at this juncture?” Chances are you will answer yes. Chances are you will return to the grind and follow the same line as many have before. But, if you find other desires beneath money, those that aren't satisfied with a signature and a paystub, harness that desire. *If the need is food, learn to steal and grow. *If the need is shelter, squatting is an honorable act. *If the need is safety, a knife is often scarier than a 100 dialed on a phone. You might say these are not safe options for anyone. That's true. This isn't safe. Especially if you're queer and vulnerable from the start. But, the violence from society doesn't stop just because you're doing something legal. No one has stopped cops from killing trannies by being acceptable and smart. And finally, these are options. Illegality is mostly not fun, and there are consequences. So, if you get the chance to go there, do so cautiously. But remember, money is overrated, and the friends and community that'll feed you your next dinner are more valuable than a wad of cash and come with a lot fewer obligations.

Be safe, and remember that material possessions are so-called because they can be repossessed by a thousand stealing souls.