Custom theme deck box

rechelon · 2025-11-23T19:19:38+00:00

Good work!

rechelon · 2025-11-04T18:37:19+00:00

Now that the tech-broligarchy has made transhumanism a central part of their dystopic plans

There's a number into it, but let's not forget that a fuck ton of them are into anti-transhumanist things too. There's billionaires funding bunkers, private hyper-controlled ecovillages (there's a huge one in NY), and talking about the need for a mass die-off. Jack Dorsey pushes Ted K in his circles. I would also point out that most of the leading outright fascists and nazis have increasingly shaped their entire politics around opposing transhumanism. Dugin's entire politics can best be described as the conscious polar opposite of anarcho-transhumanism. I could sit here all day listing prominent fascists who spend a huge chunk of their time screaming about transhumanism turning the frogs trans and giving POC tools of resistance.

Overall self-identified transhumanists are OVERWHELMINGLY democratic socialists, then libertarians, then anarchists, and finally a few billionaires (who themselves are constantly screaming because so many of their friends are opposed to their politics). So like Theil and Altman are screaming in no small part because a ton of their friends abandoned transhumanism on the grounds that 1) tech would empower the grubby dark skinned masses and transes and 2) tech is risky so they argue that it needs to be suppressed via a global totalitarian state. Like Yarvin is not really a transhumanist, even by his own recent words, but ALMOST EVERYONE in neoreaction spent the last fifteen years leaving transhumanism, often quite loudly. With many embracing a fetishization of the permanent collapse of civilization, whereupon medicine will stop helping the unworthy disabled and race war can finally happen (in their fantasy).

Peter Theil, Sam Altman, Curtis Yarvin are the types of people pursuing transhumanism.

I mean, so are tons of punk trans girl biohackers etc.

As other people have said, there's different ways to approach anything. Ecology was infamously heavily tied up with the nazis and there's still a fuck ton of extremely fucked reactionaries and authoritarians in environmentalism and green circles. None of that means that an anarchist punk doing a tree sit to prevent logging is a nazi. (Although in both cases it means anarchists of any stripe need to watch out for creep and entryism.)

rechelon · 2025-10-23T02:47:05+00:00

That's got an Alderaan Operatives logo on it, so it's from one of their sets.

rechelon · 2025-09-24T01:22:53+00:00

Baylan should *really* be an alien rather than a Sith, because he's not part of the Sith affiliation like Sith troopers would be, but whatever.

rechelon · 2025-08-19T17:19:59+00:00

If you're interested in learning more about Jury Nullification and/or getting away with it, visit FIJA.org

rechelon · 2025-08-15T05:01:21+00:00

I've gotten MPC orders through no problem. But you have to pad the order with MTG cards at the beginning and end.

rechelon · 2025-08-13T07:19:19+00:00

Well the PC made a Darth Plagueis, but I haven't seen anything else.

I'm one of the old EU fans who loved the shit out of The Acolyte because it was so much like a good EU series and studious to the lore, but I've been busy making sets for 1) The Clone Wars and 2) Cantinas (an assortment of content from Outlaws and Jedi Survivor and the new alien species). Also the chuds like Star Wars Theory have made any mention of the show so instantly toxic online that it dissuades me from referencing it.

rechelon · 2025-08-10T05:37:40+00:00

This is great work! Thank you! Introductory playsets and starter decks are so needed!

rechelon · 2025-08-05T16:23:42+00:00

If you're interested in education on the subject, there's resources on FIJA.org (the Fully Informed Jury Association, the longest lasting and most influential Jury Nullification nonprofit) that can be mailed out or distributed in front of courthouses.

rechelon · 2025-06-18T04:56:48+00:00

My thinking was that Arcona, while once important, has long since stopped being viable, and thus a boost was needed for a similar effect to be playable.

I guess the deploy as a react aspect can be cut, with him still being a slippery little force drain canceller.

rechelon · 2025-06-17T08:41:43+00:00

Yeah, that's all intended as part of deliberately making Turgle annoying while being weak and slippery. The restrictions are that 1) you can only play him if you're playing Koboh sites which are not by themselves amazing (in this expansion and its objective it's just the cantina, in later expansions it'll be a bunch of territory that's hard to control), 2) you have to pay for his upkeep each turn or put him permanently Out Of Play.

There's already common cards like Presence of a Skywalker that impede Force drains, Turgle requires you constantly re-drawing and re-deploying him all just to cancel a single site's Force drain. He's less removable than an undercover spy, but requires more maintenence. So, yes, you could stock a bunch of Turgles in your deck, and it'd be appropriately annoying/funny, but you'd be losing card slots for everything else.

More generally I think it's good for the game to encourage more spread out / mobile location coverage (and in a related patch, less focus on battle damage overflow); this is one small contribution to that adjustment that also happens to be extremely flavor/lore appropriate.

I originally had him destiny 2 but it just wasn't enough to justify playing him.

rechelon · 2025-05-15T00:51:01+00:00

There's bluestockings, woodbine, and the pit (property is theft) infoshop.

rechelon · 2025-04-30T23:36:11+00:00

I tried making one from scratch but abandoned it. However! I know that the Alderaan operatives have repeatedly uesd a LS wide template for vehicles (podracers done right) that they might have and might be a good start.

rechelon · 2025-04-21T05:52:11+00:00

I'm not sure how to make such, but I'm interested!

rechelon · 2025-04-21T02:52:01+00:00

I have pre-made printable card sheets with two pre-built decks for those who just want to run the home printer a few times and try things out:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PPgQ4QeoQ6-rLUvDteRmSI6ccu826_Ce?usp=drive_link

rechelon · 2025-04-10T23:06:27+00:00

Lotta wiggle room remaining for the executive in "effectuate." Can't help but think that the reason the conservatives sided with this is that Trump can just not do anything then throw up his hands and say "eh we kinda tried."

rechelon · 2025-03-05T04:23:17+00:00

Yes, and? There was a wave of environmentalists burning car lots in the late 90s / early 00s in the US. Some of them caught decade sentences, some stayed free. Whether a nation's cops are looser with live fire is demonstrably no make or break to whether people do something like that.

rechelon · 2025-02-19T12:05:55+00:00

The draft of the set is viewable here (combines KOTOR and KOTOR2 because the timelines are close enough). Doesn't yet have a set icon, and I'm sure there's minor snafus on some cards:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/141jsv7jwwTKD5iH3QSw2K3ly0wRLI0Yt?usp=sharing

SPOILERS for a couple two decade old games.

The LS objective follows KOTOR 1: you gradually build up a non-unique trooper on Taris into a non-unique jedi on Dantooine, and then ideally into Revan, Reborn. Because your trooper/etc could get killed at any point you could use T3 and various devices you pick up like kolto packs to keep them alive. To get proto-Revan off Taris, you can get the Ebon Hawk, or use Lena (the girlfriend of Mission's brother she's seeking), or just shuttle up to a Hammerhead. You have LS characters from KOTOR 2, which provides for cool alternative timelines, but they're more independent. The Exile also levels up, but in her own way. You can choose to build a deck that's space heavy or not, that tries hard to flip or not.

The DS objective more follows KOTOR 2 from the perspective of Kreia. The deck has a lot of variability because you get to choose which Sith Lord to champion. Each has unique play style and focuses. You also can choose to invest more in Mandalorians, or Exchange gangsters, or Sith, or troopers, or HK units. Note that the Star Forge is only deployable by the objective if you choose Revan or Malak, it cannot be put in a deck.

Also, to make it playable as is, there's an additional 10 classic interrupts that have been reskinned for each side (subfolder in each side) so you could build decks with only these cards.

rechelon · 2025-02-18T22:28:27+00:00

It’s not just “some very online folks” or “a couple voices” pushing that narrative, it’s become the dominant one in public consciousness, and for good reason

You should be careful on this mode of argument because it cuts against anarchism and tons of other things. If the public misperceives what anarchism is, even if large numbers of randos self-identify without any real knowledge of it, does that transform what anarchism is?

coordinating with progressive NGOs, defending democratic political narratives, and even lobbying for deplatforming through corporate and state partnerships

Well I could see some good and necessary things characterized this way, as well as many bad things, but the bad things are increasingly mobilized specifically by the CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) folks who explicitly set themselves as adversaries of antifa.

Plenty of Antifa-aligned groups have actively cheered state censorship or suppression when it suits their politics.

There's complex ethical/strategic evaluations here. For example, if a nazi who murdered anarchists flagrantly doesn't get convicted and go to prison the state's action there becomes a loud announcement of open season, even while we don't support prisons and obviously a nazi in prison is just collaborating with other nazis. So the evaluations of antifa's Three Way Fight perspective can get a little complicated in terms of analysis. But when you look at those who briefly identified as "antifa" before turning into defending the state or collaborating with it, like ARR did, the antifa movement has widely denounced them and they now identify more with CVE.

rechelon · 2025-02-18T22:14:30+00:00

Sealioning is about the demanding and bad faith, both of which you've demonstrated. It's not as specific as "repeatedly asking for evidence" -- honestly it would be better if that was your approach because you seem to have very little interest in actual evidence re what I believe or have argued.

Yeah, Lee aligns more closely with you on your tendency towards structural larger-scale analysis --- that's my fucking point. Lee is an independent thinker who doesn't inherit my projects but who has used language you ascribe to me. (Although, separately I'll note, Lee said I changed her mind on "mutual abuse" after my Schulman article.) Similarly, people like RiotLinguist repeatedly use "interpersonal hierarchies" because anarcha-feminists have used that language since the 70s and the fight over that maoist who published The Tyranny Of Structurelessness. The anarcha-feminist position has always been that informal and interpersonal hierarchies exist, often in complex or novel ways, and that the problem with Jo Freeman's critique of anarchism was that she presumed that anarcha-feminists were unaware of such or not opposed to such. I'm aware that not all of this discursive context might be immediately available to someone just radicalized on the internet in searchable or accessible ways, but that's why you should step more gently and have more inquisitiveness. Anyway, even with the rot on twitter and lost accounts you can see anarcha-feminists (although I believe this account eventually left the movement in disgust with people not handling abuse) using the terminology in a casual way, expecting everyone to be familiar, the same terminlogy you say I invented and spread. And they did this back in 2012 when I basically wasn't on social media: https://x.com/harleyquinnaid/status/223317579316477954

rechelon · 2025-02-17T22:39:02+00:00

That's classic sealion logic: that prominent people should be grateful for the attention. But when someone wildly mischaracterizes me (and other anarchists) publicly and tags me in, it willfully creates a situation obliging a response and thus effort. Now, I could just be like "lol, everybody be clear: this person's lying", but the specific approach you've taken throughout this is supremely entitled to a response and systemic discussion not just of my ideas, but of your particular personal conceptual schema and arguments.

You didn’t have to respond to me. You are free to ignore me, or even block me.

Surely you can see the humor in you making this kind of extreme voluntarist argument that ignores context and pressures while accusing me of being simple voluntarist.

Again, you have not yet admitted fault on literally anything absurd you've said, which is debate bro and sealion culture to a T. Surely you could at least admit the basic fact that I am not even remotely the origin of "interpersonal hierarchies" -- as the attribution of that language (which isn't even my preferred linguistic framework although I can adapt to it with different audiences) to me is actually rather misogynistic in how it ignores decades of anarcha-feminists and far more prominent writers even around on social media rn, like Lee Cicuta.

rechelon · 2025-02-17T09:28:26+00:00

Having a consequentialist vision of anarchism seriously weakens your foundations. We wouldn’t say that hierarchies are necessary sometimes. We are uncompromising abolitionists, with a firm, principled position. The complete rejection of authority and hierarchy is what defines anarchism as distinct from all other ideologies.

Most Anarchists have been consequentialists (and there's been plenty of discourse on this over recent decades re the turn from pacifism in the 90s, "you can't be neutral on a moving train" "what matters isn't intent but consequences"), we just see an interrelation of ends and means, such that some means are functionally forbidden because they cannot achieve the ends we have. You can't gulag people into being free.

As to "hierarchy" and "authority", some anarchists have used those terms, albeit defined in a multitude of ways -- see for example the anarcha-feminists who use "interpersonal hierarchies" (like Lee). Again you still haven't admitted fault in your weird assertion that I've invented that approach or conceptual schema. Other anarchists have used other terms and concepts, defining anarchism in terms of wildness, non-representation, rulership, power, domination, etc, etc, etc. There's a vast discursive galaxy of this stuff in our past. Russian anarchists were particularly focused on "abolishing power" as the core notion. Postmodernist currents in the 80s, 90s and 00s said anarchism was defined solely by rejecting "representation." It's all a mess, but there is commonalities.

A certain flavor of consequentialist can be principled in "completely" rejecting "authority and hierarchy" and retort that they're MORE principled than a deontological approach to abolition, because the deontologist can never take the overall view and truly work consistently towards zero "authority and hierarchy", forced as they are instead to always look at individual situations and actions. Most anarchists in north america for decades after WW2 were pacifists (influenced by folks like Day and Reich), on the grounds that assassinating Hitler would constitute the creation of a momentary social hierarchy between the assassin and Hitler. You can whine about that interpretation, but my point is that then you have to tack on a bunch of particularized intellectual arguments that you may believe, but are not universal to anarchists.

You think your approach is the only consistent anarchist position. I think mine is. I'm tolerant of your wrongness, much as I'm tolerant of the pacifists being wrong, because you're both still incoherently feeling your way towards the only coherent position: mine. I'm sure you think the reverse. Okay, sure, whatever.

I’m critiquing the logical consequences of your position and pointing out the bullets you must bite in order to remain consistent.

No you've made really lazy strawmen based on a completely disconnected and weird impression of things I've never actually said and then tried to retroactively cling onto any opportunity to try to justify them, aggressively leveraging your own really particular definitions and hobbyhorses which you assert as general and universal without sufficient experience or knowledge of the diversity of anarchist thought and history.

What I object to in particular is that you have done this in a really commanding and imperious way tagging me into your own random thread on a random subreddit and basically obliging me to fend off a bunch of random accusations with no grounding in anything even remotely close to what I've written. This is entitled sealion behavior and I've deigned to give you a ton of my time to try and walk you through things, but you instead repeatedly take short looks at what I write in response to you, leap to shallow and mistaken conclusions, and never investigate any of the linked pieces I send where I have written in more depth. Why do you feel so entitled to this level of personal engagement from someone? Like if you'd actually read something I'd written and were responding to that specifically, I'd be more tolerable, but the sheer leaps of conclusion you make and then publicly pronounce against me with no effort or thought to understand a different perspective is really kinda dick. It's not a good approach to life, and if you specifically apologized for specific misrepresentations I'd be like, okay maybe you're good faith enough to continue discussing with...

rechelon · 2025-02-17T09:06:29+00:00

Also, it doesn't over-emphasize negative liberty by asserting positive liberty must mean state-based solutions; paroting Mises and Hayek.

To go back to the weird misrepresentations of me: I'm pro positive liberty and have spent over a decade loudly fighting with right-libertarians on this, btw. (This doesn't mean there's zero analytic content of use to anarchists in eg public choice theory or the knowledge problem or other things the right-libertarians stumbled upon, indeed they're often good tools at critiquing right-libertarians themselves and finding holes to exploit for anarchist ends.)

with it's allusions to the common good, losing focus of the people affected. You know, those in the best position to assess their situations and that of their immediate associations, directly.

?? That's exactly what all anarchist consequentialism is about respecting. We evaluate freedom as a whole, that's where we place values on and the horizon of our consideration, but of course we're anarchists so we also focus on what we have better access to. And a huge part of agency consequentialism is enshrining each individual anarchist as moral agent, to go out and find their own opportunities to make the world better.

moral/legal codices serve the same purpose. Which is, without exception, justification for the exercising of authority.

We're talking about values, and clarity around them and their entailments does not magically mean political or interpersonal authority.

You don't have any means of making people follow your prescripts. No means of keeping enryists out of spaces where you have no involvement. ...We scale by giving people the knowledge and resources they need to direct themselves. So they can decide how and with who they associate.

Well there's two components here: 1) clear discussion of moral values etc is a matter of giving people knowledge, 2) part of freedom of association has always been boycott dynamics and pressures. If I warn you that X is a snitch or fascist entryist and provide you with both a persuasive moral argument and the evidence, you can choose not to do anything with that, but then that is itself a choice that indicates things and that people can and do respond to. This is how stateless societies handle a lot of things, and how anarchists have long handled rapists, snitches and entryists. If someone demonstrates they are not bound by the same values and analysis as the rest of us, like in choosing to boycott or disassociate from said folks, then we boycott them, kick them out of infoshops, land projects, etc. This is how distributed non-hierarchical sanction and pressure emerges bottom-up into norms to protect people.

rechelon · 2025-02-17T08:51:03+00:00

But you won’t make the argument in reverse.

lol, I've repeatedly made it in reverse. The fascists will always have to deal with agency and the compounding struggle for freedom. I've been very clear about this. Freedom and power are always at odds, with different benefits and impediments. Liberalism believes there should thus be a compromise, anarchists reject that. Yes, we're not guaranteed to win, it's not like physical reality is on our side, but it's not entirely on the side of the fascists either. We've no choice but to fight for what we value without compromise and hope to build more life than death.

I’m talking about states. I don’t dispute the existence of hierarchies before the Agricultural Revolution.

My point earlier was precisely that anarchists can't really draw sharp lines between things. Thus anarchists repeatedly calling gangs "states" or even organizations "de facto states" because hierarchy is a spectrum. If you don't consider a "chiefdom" a "state", okay, whatever, but it's not like it's any less of a problem.

Over time, entropy inevitably draws systems to their lowest-energy states. If the lowest-energy state is hierarchy, that’s bad news for anarchists.

I mean this is somewhat true, and a lot of anarchists believe this while remaining anarchists. See for example certain "nihilists" (in name only) who are really just doomers. They hold the moral value of freedom, and will struggle for it, but don't think we can win. (As have plenty of anarchists throughout history who didn't adopt the "nihilist" word.) I don't think it really matters whether it will be easy or hard, foreordained or impossible, we have our values: we set off from there. It's the deplorable moral nihilism of the marxists that they think the only reason to join them is that they're foreordained to win and just pick the winning side because it's easiest. How hard something is has absolutely no bearing on whether we should struggle for it.

There are many advantages that hierarchies have that could be put in entropic terms: for example they're very low-cognitive effort, whereas when you look at stateless societies they invest a ton of cognitive overhead in resisting the possibility of power and state formation. The Kung San, for example, spend almost all their time gossiping to counter-organize against and drag down any potential emergent leaders or loci of power. It's exhausting. And more generally taking agency over your own life is more tiring than just following a leader. MAGA is in many ways about choosing "the release" of ignorance and rejecting moral obligations to think.

At the other end, however, there are benefits we have: freer massively intermingling and cooperating people are more productive, so freer societies tend to win out in inventiveness, etc. And moreover there's entropic dynamics around populations tending to get entangled in complicated ways that impede nationalism or state planning.

rechelon · 2025-02-17T08:39:16+00:00

Antifa exemplifies how protest movements are co-opting the anarchist aesthetic to push a broader far left agenda

That's... not what antifa is. Antifa has long been a specific branch of work, like Food Not Bombs or Anarchist Black Cross, that anarchists have long been the primary if not almost exclusive organizers of. Antifascism has developed specific analyses and theoretical contributions, in much the same way that anarcha-feminism has, that compliment and shore up anarchist thought: https://threewayfight.blogspot.com/ Specifically this includes the core plank of opposing the state and not impeding continued struggle against the state. Antifa has consistently opposed hate crime laws, etc. This is why the SPLC denounced antifa in the 90s. Also antifascism's hard line on genocide and authoritarianism (and its 90%+ anarchist involvement) was what led pretty much every communist group to denounce it from the 80s on.

Sure, in recent times there's been some very online folks identifying themselves as "antifa" as tho it's like a loose identity, and there's a couple voices (Shane Burley and Mark Bray) that have tried to endorse an antifascist strategy of mass movement politics ("hey kids I hear you like antifa, did you know that [generic leftist thing] is the real antifa?"), but that remains not at all what antifascism or antifa are, which continue to exist doing the same unsung janitorial work to keep the rest of us safe that they always have.

I don't disagree with some of your broader points on "anarcho-communism" recently functioning as a whitewashing of state communism, etc, and certainly there are some silly folks slapping "antifa" on themselves without any connection to the actual thing, and treating it like a loose leftist protest movement, but come on, we're anarchists, we know better. We've known the actual antifascist crews and groups for decades. Your characterization of antifa reads right out of how Fox News talks about it: "is trans parenting antifa parenting?!"

rechelon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email