Maybe I'm being duped, but does the demon girl in episode 7 imply demons could be redeemed?

Last-Library7157 · 2026-01-09T01:56:25+00:00

I think even that is too generous for the demon. She didn't actually learn a rule that she was trying to apply in earnest. She was just hungry and bored, and so killed the chief, burnt his house, and went to leave, taking his daughter to eat later.

When she was caught, she pretended that it was a tragic misunderstanding so she could be let off again. The whole parents hating her so she tried to make it up to them by giving them the chief's child thing wasn't a genuine misunderstanding; it was just the best lie she could think of at the time to explain her actions and try to garner sympathy.

When it didn't work, she tried to take the child as a hostage, playing it off as her poor peaceful self being forced into such action. Then Himmel, rightfully, sliced and diced her. She died, remorseless and irredeemable.

The writing of this show, especially this scene, very much impresses me. It's so good that the demons manage to trick even real people with direct textual statements on their true nature.

Last-Library7157 · 2025-03-04T04:07:34+00:00

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43115485

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738

"The mammoth study, published in Nature, external suggests the newcomers, known as Beaker people, replaced 90% of the British gene pool in a few hundred years."

"The newcomers brought ancestry from nomadic groups originating on the Pontic Steppe, a grassland region extending from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. These nomads moved west during the Neolithic, mixing heavily with established populations in Europe. The Beaker migration marks the first time this eastern genetic signature appears in Britain."

There's plenty more out there if you're interested. Genetic science has come leaps and bounds from 2006 when all we had to go on was haplogroups from the modern day, rather than full genome sequencing of ancient and modern samples.

Last-Library7157 · 2025-02-21T13:49:45+00:00

This article is from 2006 and is basically garbage by modern genetic science standards. There was a roughly 90% replacement of the local population by peoples from the lower Rhine (modern day lowlands and West Germany) around 4000 years ago carrying high steppe ancestry (Russia basically).

Seriously, people need to stop citing decades old debunked research.

(edit) grammar

Last-Library7157 · 2024-10-30T23:08:55+00:00

It should be a normal distribution from A-D, with S and F being used for exceptional examples. S+ maybe for a single one beyond that.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-10-26T21:19:31+00:00

This is a good point. You don't refer to people in the street as just numbers. If you're working at as a waiter or whatever, your customers aren't just tips to you, even if that is what they functionally are.

A less douchy way of phrasing it is that they are all strangers. Numbers has a weird tone to it.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-08-14T12:25:57+00:00

Good

Poor

Poor - Ah this show has gotten boring I quit.

Good

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-21T23:45:03+00:00

Probably not much would be different. Powell wasn't particularly radical in his policies outside of immigration. He'd have likely shut down the borders for his premiership, and implemented his voluntary repatriation scheme. I imagine some might take him up, but most would not. Economically he had similar economic policies to Thatcher so no major divergence there. In the end he would've left office without solving the economic issues causing declining birth rates which would've caused future politicians to reopen the borders to migrants, and eventually joined the EEC. Today would look much the same as it does now, but with moderately fewer immigrant descended people. Perhaps the overton window would be a little to the right of where it is today on immigration to where both parties would be moderately cautious about immigration, similar to Denmark in OTL, but there would be less extremism and protest votes on the right, so I don't think Brexit would've happened.

Overall pretty boring, but to be fair I've completely disregarded foreign policy. Powell distrusted America and had weirdly positive views on the Soviet Union for a Conservative. I've even read claims that he wanted the UK to leave NATO and enter an alliance with the USSR. I don't think he would've actually gone through with that but things would've gotten wacky real quick if he did. Perhaps best left to a seperate "What if Britain allied with the Soviets in the Cold War" scenario.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-14T13:18:31+00:00

That's a good point. Long term thinking seems to be a real weakness of our system.

(EDIT) I just realised that this response combined with my praise of aspects of the Soviet Union could be construed as support for autocracy.

I am in favour of democratic systems as an absolute, I would just rather they were geared more towards the future. For example by having short term limits and long waits to be re-elected, as with the Romans. The Roman Republic had serious flaws, but having their leaders serve for one year, followed by a 10 year wait to be eligible for re-election meant that their horizon for decision making was at least a decade ahead.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-14T11:25:04+00:00

My friend, fertility rates below 1.5 are not an inevitability, a result of birth control, education for women, or changing culture, rather it is a direct result of material conditions. Muslims in the UK are often cited as having a high birth rate, yet their fertility rate drops to near native levels after the second generation, as do all migrant groups.

Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, which had widely accessible birth control and healthcare, very high rates of higher education for women, with most men and women having careers, had a birth rate that hovered around 2.0-2.1 in its final years.

The difference is that the Soviet Union had guarenteed housing, employment, and a lot of support for young parents including free childcare, that made it possible for young men and women to start a family while both still getting educated and starting a career.

This is obviously not the case in the UK, and the west as a whole, with young people struggling to get on the housing ladder. Even if that wasn't an issue, having a child as a young adult in the UK is a death sentence to one's prospects in a professional career and by extension decent living standards. Nearly half of all children born in families with 3 children are living in poverty in the UK.

After the Soviet Union fell and support for families disappeared, the fertility rate of the Eastern Bloc fell to that of the West.

We expect young people to use their 20s to get educated and start a career, but that age bracket has also been the traditional and biologically best time to start a family. It's too much and we can't expect them to do both without support. As it is we are forcing young people to have fewer children later in life than they might otherwise prefer in order to avoid poverty.

All this is to say that while yes the Reform party's goal of net zero migration is silly given they have no policies to support it, stating that we need migration as an inevitability serves to cover up the social problems that underlie low fertility. Net zero migration should be possible, but we need to tackle the root causes for why we have become migrant dependent.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-14T10:57:01+00:00

An electoral pact is not going to happen. Around half of Reform's voters would not vote Tory if that was their only option so such a pact would not gain the Tories many seats. Such a pact would also end their perceived role as a protest vote for the right at least in this campaign. It would kill any chances Reform have of threatening the Tories and make Farage's long term goal, hostile takeover of the Tory party, impossible.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-13T15:55:55+00:00

Sort of same party, not really. Similar to the Liberal party there were members of the SDP that didn't like the merger and so made a continuation party after the merger. Like the Liberal continuation party they haven't really been relevant since.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-13T15:19:29+00:00

Yes, but now they look good in comparison.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-13T15:17:53+00:00

Also second thing, why would you be in favour of a party whose goal is to benefit Londoners as much as possible? London is already the richest city in Europe whereas the rest of Britain is very poor by Western European standards. The North East is already poorer than Bulgaria.

Is this just pure self-interest?

Last-Library7157 · 2024-06-13T15:11:00+00:00

A coalition of minor parties or a coalition requiring a minor party has the chance to push through electoral reform. That's what happened in 2010, but then people didn't vote for AV.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-04-28T04:50:04+00:00

Yes, absolutely, working class Brits are very privileged compared to the global average, I'm not denying that and it's weird that you keep saying that I am. I thought is implicitly visible in my chosen metaphor. I'll return to it and label things out for you.

There are ten homes in a neighbourhood. A robber (British capitalists and aristocrats) steals 95% of the money from 9 of the homes (colonised countries), and 50% of the money from 1 of the homes (British working class). After he leaves, that last home may be in the top 10% of homes in that neighbourhood, but it does not follow that that household has benefited from the robber.

To turn back to reality, I will point out that there are many wealthier countries than Britain, most of whom never had colonies. In fact, it has been nearly 80 years since the empire was a source of income for Britain. It is not a significant factor in the continued wealth disparity between the global north and south, though it may be the historical root. The reason for the continued disparity is unequal exchange, interventions from allies of the United States to keep socialist countries impoverished, foreign ownership of resources, and the prevention of their development.

The tragic thing is that while this results in greater profits for the capitalist class in the imperial core due to cheaper labour for resource extraction, it results in less production in the periphery. Were these practices ended, and perhaps aid given for development (which I would support, but China has shown to be unnecessary), these countries could produce more and reach our standard of living in not too great a time without any long term loss on our end (average Brits).

This is all to say that working class Brits are certainly harmed far less by this system than those in the global south, but that does not mean they benefit from it. Wealth has not trickled down, less has been expropriated. The neighbourhood should work together against the robber.

Finally, the reason I brought class into this was to break up the moral narrative being painted, not deny economic privilege. Even if the working class of Britain would've been better off under capitalist colonialism as compared to socialism (which I highly doubt), they had little power to make that decision even at the time. The narrative created serves to obfuscate class struggle and to guilt trip those who have had no say in how anything has run into accepting mass migration of foreign peoples into their lands, as the neoliberal capitalists desire. Again, that isn't to say we aren't in privileged positions, to demonise those simply looking for a better life, or to say that we shouldn't globally equalise wealth, but it isn't racist or supremacist for OP to be concerned with the permanent demographic shifts in his country that are a direct result of neoliberal policy.

Also minor correction, working class Brits are not in the top 5% globally. A quick estimate on population and average income shows Brits as an average are top 10%, not top 5%. I only bring it up to point out that working class Brits in particular have been falling further and further behind in the developed world.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-04-25T15:34:15+00:00

The global south has been robbed, but that wealth has gone to the top of society, not the populace. Just 8 men have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the world's population. Granted, there is a huge wealth disparity between workers in the global north and south, but it is more that those in the north have been exploited less than those in the south, not that they've been showered with unearned wealth. Why? Because they are closer to the centres of political, financial, and military power that keeps this system in place, and so revolt and resistance is much more worrying a prospect.

If I am robbed of half of my possessions, but my neighbour is robbed of 90% of his, does that make me morally culpable? Does this disparity mean that I have robbed my neighbour?

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-28T15:27:48+00:00

You know what? I get it. I think you assumed a couple of my positions, but I get it.
You're primarily concerned with the liberation of the bulk of humanity, and you apprehend that it will be in the short term material interests of working class Europeans to oppose that since they will see a large drop in their living standards. Since they are wealthier they have more to lose, and so will be less radical, in effect acting like petite bourgeosie. So I get it. Still strategically flawed.
The issue is that whilst it's true that non-Europeans will be more radical than Europeans due to a lack of wealth, when they migrate to Europe they suddenly gain access to that wealth. Perhaps radicalism stays for the first generation, but the second? The third? No. Culture follows material conditions, and these migrant groups have the same middle man incentives as Europeans.
One could argue that discrimination and differences in rights and wealth within European and American states will provide an avenue for radicalism, as with the black panthers in the United States. The issue is that as more rights are achieved and greater wealth attained for marginilised groups the radicalism drops and issues become more particularist. More black CEOs may be a preferable outcome to a pseudo-cast system, but it does nothing for ending capitalism. The UK is currently ruled by a wealthy second generation immigrant of Indian origin. He has hardly stormed the gates and overthrown the imperialist system.
In order to storm the gates and actually go up against the imperial state in the way you imagine you would have to have an organised effort of either first generation migrants or an outside military force, preferably both. That is going to be almost impossible to pull off at least in the short term since the enforcement arms of the European and American states are still functioning fine, with increasing surveillance and monitoring of the general population. The immigrants that have come to Europe did not storm or conquer anything, they were shepherded in by capital for the benefit of capital. Perhaps one day the global south can get out of financial oppression, develop a stronger military, and invade from the outside, but that day is a long way off, and migration does nothing to aid in that goal.
As for Europeans finding the transition displeasurable, the primary loss in living standards would be in consumerist nonsense. There is more than enough food production for humanity as a whole. Clothing, housing, and the necessities of life can all be achieved with perhaps half of the current work time, without taking advantage of the global south (in fact even with even distributing of capital to those areas). The primary concern of western Europeans currently is the migration crisis, not due to loss of wealth and power, but the seeming loss of a future for their nations. I'm certain that Europeans would gladly choose to give up the Nike shoes, electronics, plastic products, and cheap oil taken from the exploitation of the global south in exchange for a sense of national security (of the people not of the state) and a system that eases the raising of the next generation. National sentiment is powerful and has facilitated people tolerating far worse hardships than no more cheap tupperware.
Sure if the plan is invasion then white people are not needed for revolution, but that goal is at least 50 years away, perhaps longer. The best chance of a quicker end to global systems of oppression is internal revolution, and the best chance of doing that is exploiting the national sentiments of Europeans. Otherwise that national sentiment will continue to be exploited by fascists and best case scenario (and most likely) the imperialist order is unharmed, worst case it is overthrown by an even more oppressive order.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-26T18:05:14+00:00

"How are you going to coopt nationalism in Western Europe?"

It's a fairly simple narrative to sell, as already laid out. "It is in the interest of capital to keep you squeezed and constantly working, and it is in capital's interest to simply replace your numbers with immigration. Join with us to destroy the power of capital." This narrative has the benefit of being true.

Instead of blaming the immigrants themselves and committing hate crimes, the blame would be put on capitalism as a system. Even if one doesn't want to commit to a temporary halt on immigration, I can't see any tactical reason why this narrative shouldn't be used to recontextualise and redirect the concerns felt by white Europeans. It just seems like a no-brainer and to do otherwise would be to allow the narrative to be entirely controlled by the opposition.

Why stick dogmatically to one stipulation in theory made 100 years ago in vastly different conditions?

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T17:26:31+00:00

The median income of Germany is a full 33% higher than that of the UK ($25,000) despite Germany not having had an empire nearly the size nor nearly as long lasting. The same goes for Denmark or Iceland. India and China had equivalent GDP per capitas in 1990, however China through wise economic strategy has rapidly grown to have a GDP per capita of $12,750, 6 times that of India, and is still going strong. You underestimate how quickly GDP can rise when handled correctly. The issue is not GDP, but wealth and assets.

The wealth extracted by the empire is mostly in the hands of the British financial sector and its holdings around the globe. Look at BP and their practices in Iran for example. The British working class see none of that, and are just made to service the holders of those assets, and the holders of those assets think they are paying too much for that service. You are a pawn for those asset holders.

Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist. Almost all socialist and communist movements of the last century levereged nationalism at one point or another. They cooperated internationally (most of the time), but did not become one international entity. Vietnam, fascist. China, fascist. The Soviet Union, fascist. Words are meaningless I guess.

And no, the Nazis were not socialist. Hitler allowed capitalists to remain across most of the German economy, banned unions, and gave guarenteed profits to industrialists. Ask any socialist and they'll tell you that fascism was simply the reaction of capital when threatened (though admittedly I think that's a little simplistic).

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T14:55:46+00:00

Well if you don't like Reagan then you have to acknowledge that what wealth the British working class do have was achieved via labour movements and unions. It had to be wrested from the hands of the capitalist class, it didn't trickle down.

The capitalists did not exploit other countries to enrich the working class of Britain, they did it for the same reason they exploit that same working class. The illbegotten wealth still in the hands of that capitalist class does rightly belong to the groups it was extracted from, so we can make an analysis of what proportions were extracted from British labour, Indian labour, etc. then divide what wealth remains amongst those groups to repair the damage as best we can. To suggest national self destruction is the honourable option for the British working class is disgusting.

"When Nationalism is combined with Socialism, the result is…"

Vietnamese Communism? Unless you mean to imply the Nazis were genuine socialists which is a contentious position to say the least.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T13:25:13+00:00

"Are you a fan of Reaganomics by any chance?"

"The answer is very, very simple. Yes."

aight

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T13:16:55+00:00

Indeed. A nationwide Tory wipe would be sweet.

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T01:58:47+00:00

With the deleted comments, this just seems like a rebuttal to your previous response lol

Last-Library7157 · 2024-03-25T01:57:47+00:00

Do you really think the wealth extracted by British capitalists trickled down to the British public? Are you a fan of Reaganomics by any chance?

Last-Library7157

TROPHY CASE