#and yet something something disregarding humanity for the sake of maintaining a system

[justsomerandomplanet]

Uraume talking about how sorcerers of old disregarded their humanity....looks at tengen who has been called a "higher being" and sukuna who is a natural disaster, a calamity....kenjaku who's whole curse technique means to disregard the human body....

[simonambroise]

I've been tagged by @palebdot. I intend to talk about my work.

QnA under the cut or whatever.

1)What motivates you to write?

I love reading my writing when its good, because I can write the story I want to read with gay people in it. There is also my dearest friend Sahara Wheatbrick, a tumblrless follower whomst knoweth where I live, so... Fear and joy in equal measure.

2) A line/short snippet of your writing that you are most proud/happy of. If not maybe share a line of someone else's work you love (just please credit them)

Oh there's the scene I wrote from Lara's perspective (Lara is an alien called a Ruquati which is bipedal humanoid, typically red, orange or yellow with four arms) when she is first interacting with Taylor, a human child. Lara's internal processes are so fun to write, because she manages to be a space alien and yet so human. I will admit I took some inspiration from the whole humans are weird thing, but I feel the world building and characterization is the best I've ever done. I want to shove the entire chapter in here... But it isn't really a short snippet, yk? Tho its my post and I can do what I want..... Ill spare you the chapter but you'll get the whole scene.

Sorry for rambling tho haha

Lara had been working on a blanket when the larva stumbled in- a simple repetitive task. A useful task. Not the task she had been born for, but a task. Dip into the last row, grab the yarn, pull through. Dip into the last row, grab the yarn, pull through. Dip, grab, pull. She barely registered the door swinging open, but she did notice when little hands with one too many fingers tugged at her transparent sleeve. Lara looked down at the Terran, and blinked slowly. Such a small larva would not have the instincts that said eye contact was a threat, but it was more for her sake. To her surprise, the little Terran blinked back before clambering up to tuck themselves between her lower shoulders and the couch. Their skin was warm, surprisingly so- every reminder that the species could maintain a perfect temperature so well was like a bucket of cold water. A shocking reminder that Terrans were alien in every sense of the word. Another glance at the Terran larva, wide eyes completely unfamiliar on such a tiny face. Ruquatin larva didn’t have eyes, or legs, or much of anything. They only really began looking like adults as pupa, but even when Terran larva first hatched- or rather, ripped their way out of the adult’s stomach like some sort of parasite- they still resembled Terrans. Even inside the adult’s stomach, which Lara assumed was fairly similar to the egg stage, they had arms and legs and… eyes. Well, most of the time. Mistakes happen when you decide to build your descendants inside of your body. It was just poor decision making. A complete lack of planning. How were you supposed to get them out of there if something went wrong? If there were mites or worms or parasites? It was a miracle they even made it to space, Lara thought as the larva tucked close to her. They were warm, as all Terrans were. Radiating heat like the sun. Why they felt the need to head off into the great dark was a mystery. Terrans were a new species by most standards, never mind ancient Ruquatin standards. Their entrance to the galaxy was the catalyst to the fall of the Empire, and Lara could not bring herself to give a single damn. The Empress got what was coming for her. The colony Lara had been born into was gone, and she had been accepted into another. Greta was the Nurse, the healer who stopped what would have been death in it’s tracks. Gabriel was a Architect, a Peacemaker. A planner and mediator, calm and collected. And Piper was the Builder, the Greenie, the Grub, the Cleaner, and the Queen. The one who grew food, the protector, a Queen that ruled over her little colony the same as she cleaned the kitchen sink. She Built their hive with her own hands and Lara could never understand the complete disregard Terrans had for a caste system. Her hive was everything, and Lara was a Diplomat. The one who went outside and made deals, the one who was shunned so the others may remain safe. The larva at her side had begun making little rhythmic growling noises that Piper had referred to as ‘snoring’. It was a behavior, she explained, that some Terrans did while sleeping. Lara was the Diplomat of her colony, the only one. And by Ragaitor she would do her job. For the Queen. For the colony. For the hive.

3) Which OC makes you smile every time you think/talk about them and what are they like?

I don't believe I've mentioned my all time favorite OC on this, but -surprise- its a character I project onto heavily! He's a blond trans guy who's a little goblin and loves embroidery. He's an absolute piece of shit and the most loveable goofball.

Now, for Captain of the Blue Opal, it has got to be Clive. In theory, he's a bad guy. In practice, he's just some guy. Cherry is bullied relentlessly by his crew members for his name, which I believe is entirely unfair to Clay. I mean, Clyde is trying his best. (Sorry to all the Clowns out there. Your name ie valid)

4) What process of writing do you enjoy the most?

First draft, every time. Once I get into the swing of things, words flow and its easy. Its made easier if I plot things out but I find that duller than getting right to it!

5) What part of writing do you think you are the best at? (Yes stroke your own ego it's okay)

Oh no I need to talk about myself. Uhhhhhh... I'm really bad at that lmao. I think I'm good at dialogue. I've never had the issue where I had to figure out what a character was going to say in a given situation, because they just said that. I suppose that goes hand in hand with characterization but I've exceeded my one self-compliment yearly limit.

6) What is something in the writeblr community is most enjoyable?

Its an excuse to talk about my book to people who might actually listen. What's not to love?

7) A writing tool/device you use that helps you with writing? (It could be speech to text, a writing program etc)

Reedsy, Reedsy, Reedsy. Its a double edged sword, but its the sort of website that works super well with my nurodivergent brain. It lets you set goals and reminds you of said goals- both short term and long term. It's divided up into chapters and lets you put fancy scene breakers in. On the other hand, exporting your book in reedsy format is hell. You just can't do it easily. You want o take your book out so you can send it off to a publisher? Haha, if you're not going through Reedsy they're going to make it difficult.

8) A piece of worldbuilding that you like in your own story? (It could be the magic system, a particular place in the story, a law etc)

My Ruquati space alien culture. Their social structure is similar to hive insects, they have a strict caste system. Typically they are warm colors-- red and orange, though there are two exceptions. Greenies, who are in charge of tending to the plants. Their skin color is green because of a chemical they secrete- sort of a pesticide/sun lotion in one yk. Then of course we have blue Ruquati, which are typically seen as bad luck. Blue Ruquati aren't confined to a specific caste like Greenies. Any level could be born blue, at which point they'd be set at the bottom of their particular caste. Unfortunately for Lara, she got the quadruple middle finger (which is weird since Ruquati don't have a middle finger) from genetics, so she's a diplomat (lowest caste) AND blue.

Im trying to keep this short but then I realized if people got bored they'd have left by now... So here's a brief overview of the Ruquati social structure!!!

At the top is The Empress, the chief of hive minds and supreme ruler of the Ruquatin Empire. Hive minds, you might ask, simon, where did the hive minds come from?

Well, my dear friend, the hive mind is made up entirely by Queens, all controlled remotely by the Empress. They are capable of individual actions, just so the Empress doesn't have to waste thought on day to day matters of the colonies.

Architects are a bit harder to explain. In canon there isn't a lot of information on their behavior, seeing as if you get close enough to catch them, you've killed the hive. Architects die with their hive. Because I am the author, I can tell you they are the strategists, the military commanders. They plan battles and the size of the Ruquati Empire was entirely dependent on them. They are often referred to as the Peacemakers, not in the sense they will solve their problems diplomatically but in the sense they'll order the deaths of anyone who may "disturb the peace".

Beneath the Architects are the Builders, a job that is fairly self-explanatory. These Ruquati expand and repair the colony under orders from their Queen. In a warlike species who's only goals is expansion (gross oversimplification but i won't subject you to politics) the architects of that expansion are valued highly.

Then, of course, the Nurses. Unlike human nurses, who fix injuries, these Ruquati watch over the eggs, larva, and pupa of of the colony. Young Ruquati are entirely dependent upon the Nurses for their survival. Medics aren't so much a thing as it's very difficult to injure a Ruquati. Once an injury occurs, however, they are, for lack of a better term, absolutely screwed.

Next up, we've got Grubs, the soldiers. They can be sorted into three categories.

Queen's Guard

This is the one position a Ruquati is not born into. The strongest of all Grubs (common and others) are pulled aside for extra training to become the Guards for the Queen. The Queen's Guard. The guards that protect the Queen. Highest ranked of all Grubs, though still below everyone above. They eat a special specialized diet that makes them more aggressive, more territorial, and larger than the average Grub.

2. Grubs

These are the soldiers who fight foreign wars, sometimes halfway across the galaxy. They leave the hive so that the hive may remain strong, sacrificing so much for the colony. Least territorial, but incredibly aggressive.

3. Common Grubs

Common Grubs are the soldiers who stay behind to defend the colony. They are less aggressive then their mobile counterparts but much more territorial, bordering on Queen's Guard levels of territorial.

Then we've got "The Green Ones" or Greenies. They are distinguished from their fellow workers by the green tint to their skin. They are farmers growing a bioluminescent mushroom. Once harvested, it is the main food source for the Ruquati people. Before harvesting, however, they release deadly spores that can and will grow in Ruquati lung equivalents. The Greenies are immune to the spores because their bodies secrete a mucus the ensures spores do not enter the lungs. This mucus has a habit of dying Ruquati skin green, hence Greenies.

General Workers, another fairly self explanatory title. These people do the stuff higher ups can't be bothered with.

Cleaners, the ones who do the dirty work. They do the small, annoying tasks that nobody else will. They are respected, but are definitely considered lesser.

Drones are here to fuck and then they die. I can't elaborate beyond that because that's what they are. They are all about instant gratification (since they're going to die soon anyways) so they often make stupid impulsive decisions that endanger or even destroy the hive. Its happened too many times for Drones to be put into positions of power.

Now, for Diplomats. Yet another self-explanatory title Simon, love the creativity. They are considered the lowest of the low, because they are sent in when winning a war is not possible. For the most part, that doesn't happen. As a result, Diplomats have a tendency to be seen as useless cowards in Ruquati society. Ah, culture traumatizing those it deems unnecessary. How original! Diplomats are an evolutionary holdover from Before the Empress' Hivemind. Back then, warring queens often fought dirty, and fought dirty often. This all changed when the Empress created her hive mind, but this is veering dangerously close to political territory and I'd need several hours to properly explain the politics of Pre-Empress Ruquati Empire, Empress' Ruquati Empire, and Post-Empress Ruquati Empire. Which isn't actually relevant to my story haha. It be boring for everyone involved.

NOTES:

-Blue Ruquati are considered cursed and get sent to rock bottom of the caste they're already in. If a Queen is blue, she will be considered lesser than the other queens, though still above Builders. As a diplomat AND a blue Ruquati, Lara got the short end of all the sticks.

-Drones are technically lower than diplomats but Ruquati society at least recognizes them as having a use. Still, they are regarded with much suspicion. They attempt to seduce whatever Queen is nearby, have sex and then die. What a life.

-Castes were ranked in order of importance to Ruquati society. They value expansion, war and consider themselves superior to other species. (once again, gross oversimplification but c'est la vie or whatever)

-Most Ruquati stay in the hive their entire lives, except for diplomats, Queens, Queen's Guards and Grubs.

9) What piece of advice would you say to encourage others to write if they are having a rough patch?

For me, my blocks are mental. I have the time to write. Theoretically I have the ability to focus on the writing. If I just started, I'd be fine.

Sit down with the computer. Just open it up to your word processor of choice and sit in front of it. Listen to music, sit there, and stare at that document. Eventually you'll get bored enough to start writing.

Another tip that helped me: for your first draft, set word count goals. I'm not talking 1,000, 2,000 words every day, because even people with writing as their full time job can't do that. I'm talking sit down with the intent to write one sentence. One word, on bad days.

10) Tag some people whose works you love/have been your biggest

ohhhhhhh uh most of the people who inspire me are irl, but i'll mention them anyways. Pseudonyms obviously.

So, to my dearest Dad-Husband-Son-Family-Dog-And-Unlicensed-Nurse-Practitioner (one person), Sahara Wheatbrick, Luigi, Indigo, Duffin Dagels and of course, @coatlsaviator, thanks for the inspiration and support, as well as putting up with my insane rants.

Now for the Tumblr people, of which there are two (three if you count Mike' N' Ike, which I do.) haha. I'm not rlly integrated into the Tumblr ecosystem yet, but part of that is my unwillingness to talk to anyone and Good Old Fashioned Social Anxiety™

I would @ palebdot again but I think that's bad form on Tumblr and i don't want to sent them two notifs for the same post so... Thrilled to see where they're going.

And the Other Writers I Follow Who Seem Cool And Unapproachable to my Social Anxiety Whomst I Wish To Include In The QnA but Do Not Demand A Response From:

@caxycreations @sithbelle

You are mysterious and unknowable friends, Keep Up The Good Work

[2ofswords]

Phi talks factions, ruling families, and endings yet again

After long long last I finished my talk about the factions! So let’s talk about them! There is some discourse about it on here and most of it is really interesting and I wanted to throw my own takes into the mix.

Also, will put this in the very beginning: This essay is very long and hinges on a lot of analysation of very broad topics of the game. It is very possible that I make mistakes in it. I would be delighted to know about them and engage in discussion, but please stay friendly. I tried my best to research and to stay analytical, but I am firstly human and secondly human with a memory that can fail me.

Anyway without further ado: Let’s begin the faction talk!

Prologue: Personal sympathy

This is supposed to be more of an analysation about how the factions work in my opinion. It is not supposed to be an explanation why my favourite faction is the Best™. Still, my opinions will obviously influence my own analysis. So for the sake of levelling the playing field and not even trying to play coy about it – or in case you were curious what my personal opinions are – I will start by listing my own opinions about the factions, the families and the endings.

I consider myself a Utopian but also have a soft spot for the Humble ideology. I just really like progress, I am an idealist who thinks striving for a perfect situation has value (even if I do not believe in practical perfection) and I just really like the Kains’ visions okay? Not their executions, mind you, but their visions. (I am just really really obsessed with magic that involves time and space as a concept…) And I think the concept of human potential is one of the most hopeful and important ones to society and trying to get more out of being a human being is just an important concept to me.  But I also think the personal responsibility is really important and interesting and the thought about individuality vs. society is something that needs to be discussed, so the humbles are just really interesting to me and I sympathise with a lot going on there as well. Not that much of a Termite person though. Sorry

Concerning the endings: If I would be in a position to choose any ending for the town, I would choose the Termite Ending. I would just be really unhappy about it… But it is the only ending that doesn’t involve any direct sacrifice of life and I value that the most, even if I think the trade-off is still pretty devastating. I am still a Utopian, but potential lives in people. The ending I consider second best is actually the Utopian one and by process of elimination I like the Humble ending the least. You will probably learn why this is the case when we get to talk about the endings, so I am saving my argument for later. If it is about how much I like the endings from a narrative perspective: I am a passionate fan of the Utopian ending even though that is very frustrating since I see it in a rather… peculiar way, I think. I also love the Humble ending a lot and it just has the most personal tragedy and a lot to think about. The Termite ending… eh. It serves its purpose and is necessary but not really pleasing in analysis. Or if it is, it’s still a bit frustrating to talk about. It is very useful for writing fanfiction though. ^^

I don’t really have a favourite ruling family. I think the Saburovs are the most sympathetic, but I am also fascinated by the Kains. My favourite members are Victor and Capella. 

Okay? Cool, now that we got that out of the way let’s start with the actual faction talk.

 Part 1: What the factions are (and what they aren’t)

The factions are categories that are very broad and not very concrete. It is probably a good idea to talk about what they are first, before we make any statements about them. So, let us start how I look at them and what the factions stand for, before debating the rest.

Firstly: The factions are a part of classic Pathologic. From what I can tell and remember, they haven’t been mentioned in Pathologic 2 at all. Of course, we can see the struggle of different worldviews there as well, but the split cast of important NPCs is not mandatory in any shape anymore and in fact Artemy is now responsible for everyone in town. While the politics between the ruling families are mentioned and the Kains as well as the Olgimskys still share their beliefs, neither the term “bound” not “faction” is introduced in the game. However that might be because we are starting with the Haruspex as our protagonist. The factions are a bit more important in the other two routes of classic Pathologic after all. The Bachelor being concerned with its politics and the Changeling with its ideology itself. So the terms might be introduced later. For now, their conflict may be a part of Patho 2 and certain aspects can be definitely seen, but they aren’t present yet. So we are mostly talking about Classic Pathologic here.

The factions are introduced in two different ways. First and foremost, they are three different ideologies that are present in the town and by definition in the entire story. It is also told, that the whole town is split into these factions and that roughly one third of the town each belongs to either faction. It is also explained, that the factions are purely made by the ideology and that people of different gender, heritage, age and class can align with different factions. (Which means that they aren’t equivalent to the different parts of town that are at least roughly divided by social status). There is also a philosophical level that strengthens the ideological importance each faction holds, but in this essay, I will focus on the ideological part and how it affects society. That means there is another layer that we won’t be touching today, but believe me, we have enough to do as it is.

The other aspect of the factions is the bound of each healer. All of the bound collectively are described as “Simons friends” at least in the Bachelor route and all of them are now split into the three factions. The name “bound” however is to be taken literally. The characters are part of the agenda each faction follows, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean, that the person one hundred percent shares the ideology of the faction! Most of them do, but it is important to keep in mind that peoples belief-systems still vary and the aligning criteria is the importance to the goal of said faction and not necessarily their own way of thinking. People’s mindset and beliefs can vary after all and some of them even have dynamic arcs (tbh Most of them have). The other way around people can be not a part of the bound of a faction and still share their beliefs. This will be important later! For the Utopians the specific bound criteria is “people who have the potential to overstep human boundaries in any way or form”. They are needed for the creation and upholding of the Utopia as it is imagined. Its goal is in some way after all to create something that oversteps the boundaries of what should be humanly possible. For the termites… well… it’s children. It’s all about the children, it is the children who are able to carry the town in the future. And for the humbles it is the sinners, whose souls are rotten to the core (I guess…). That isn’t only because the Humbles just really like sinners but they are directly needed for Clara’s solution and the Humble’s ideology of willing self-sacrifice in order to maintain society.

Okay. But what are the factions? What do they believe in?

Let’s start with the Utopians, because their whole schtick is kind of in the name. This faction is all about the potential of humanity and striving to create perfection. This is happening with the awareness that such a feat is at least deemed impossible. So, their goal is the defeat – or the power to overcome depending on who you ask – of the nature that prevents them from this kind of progress not being achievable. They value this progress and the possibility to overcome those odds over personal as well as societal comfort and justify it with the belief, that said growth would benefit society in the long run. That being said, not every Utopian thinks this strive for growth needs to be shared by everyone, though a society collectively working towards breaking limits as a whole is preferred. (An example would be Maria's explanation of the town, stating that mundane human life is very much necessary to sustain a Utopia). The Utopians are prone to brash decisions, since part of their ideology is that they are necessary to disrupt the status quo and change – even enforced one – is needed to get rid of complacency and provoke new development of the unforeseen (which is very much needed since we are working against “nature” (the literal one as well as the nature of fate and possibility). Their drawbacks are that brashness and the disregard of comfort. Their potential elitism is shown by their value of humans who try to disrupt the status quo and their adamant protection of people who can move society as “more important” and thus worthy of more protection. (However it is noteworthy that a lot of this thinking was introduced by Georgiy in Pathologic 2 and Marble Nest. I still think it is a legitimate drawback but much less used in P1, where the factions are a thing.) This doesn’t necessarily relate to elitism of an elite class (it can though!) but more so to academic elitism. On the other hand, they have the drive to move things forward, they literally are the builder of society and developers of indescribable magic.

The Termites can be considered the opposite of the Utopians. I have struggled to put a definitive description of them for quite some time because they are the group whose representatives have vastly different ways of thinking. Anyways, I have seen the Termite ideology being described as “preservation” by RagnarRox in “Pathologic 2 is an underrated masterpiece” and I think, that fits amazingly. It is about protection and regaining a status quo where everyone can live their daily lives content and as it was before. The children are supposed to be leading the town into the future, but especially in Patho 1 this is more about taking what the past has already shaped and using this as a guide instead of implementing new ideas and philosophies as the utopians and the humbles do (for better and for worse). If we look at how Capella describes her vision of the town, we can also see that it is about togetherness and comfort. Which makes sense if it is the antithesis of the utopian dream. It doesn’t sacrifice progress just because it wants to but because it endangers people’s comfort and personal safety. Disrupting the status quo can lead to catastrophe and make people unhappy, therefore it should be avoided. People should serve the community but that also means not committing to self-fulfilment that can endanger this togetherness. Khan needing to give up on his own ambitions to serve Capella’s vision of the town might be a good example for that. While there is this bond of togetherness there is also the need for leadership. Again, preservation and comfort are highly valued with the Termites and it is established by a leadership that is supposed to act as gentle but firm guidance. With the children being the bound, there is a strong emphasis on parenthood and again Capella – as the white mistress and the termite's leader – is accepted as taking the leadership together with Khan who are ruling together with love as well as fierceness. Artemy also has his journey of establishing leadership within the kin and dethroning the person who is unfit for the role. It is implementing change but to restore balance and only inside the already established rules. I would say it fits more as a case of rightful leadership that still stems from the menkhu families and Artemy proves himself while using his father’s lessons and notes. And the kids themselves are fated to lead the town itself as the chosen ones that Capella implored Isidor to protect, and set its rules, so that there are the boundaries to keep a way of living established while not needing to change this status quo and what hopefully is a harmonic way of interaction between people. So. Now that we have established what the Termites are, I think with this specific faction it is still important to also name what they aren’t. Firstly: The Termites are an ideology of the town’s future. They aren’t the kids club. Yes, all the Termites are kids, but as mentioned before the factions in themselves are a third of the population with varying members who believe the Termites to have the best solution for the town at hand. There are other members (and I will later talk about the Olgimskys and big Vlad specifically as representatives of the Termite ideology) but the kids are the bound because they are specifically needed to set this new order that they want to established. I would argue that some of the kids have principles that are more adjacent to other ideologies. The obvious one would be Khan who has goals that do not align with his family but similar dreams and more radical ideals about overthrowing the status quo. But Grace also seems to be more of a humble, focusing on caring about others and being quite selfless and self-sacrificing in her care for the dead. That means, the kids fill an important role but we have the strange conundrum that most of this factions bound isn’t together because of their ideology. I will try to take them into account still, but if you see me focusing on Capella and Artemy, this is one of the reasons. There aren’t that many people who clearly speak about the Termite’s vision. The Termites also aren’t the Kin. They are connected to each other but again, the Kin is a specific part of the town which the ideology clearly avoids. (And parts of the Kin are not part of the town and actually stand in opposition to it. Moreso in Patho 2 but with the conflict of the herb gatherers we catch a glimpse of that.) And the children are also representatives of different parts of the town and not of the Kin. The Kin are obviously linked to the towns ancient tradition and preserving their traditions honourably is Artemy’s specific journey. Still, they aren’t the same and with both Aspity and Oyun we have characters who are Kin and also part of a different faction.

Speaking of the Humbles. What’s up with them?

The Humbles also have a name that speaks for itself: It is based around the main idea of being humble. There are different consequences of this main core. The first and in my opinion most important one revolves around responsibility and self-sacrifice. The Humbles expect the individual to sacrifice part of themselves for the whole. I mean… that is quite literally what the ending is about. As with the Termites there is a togetherness but this one doesn’t revolve around looking out for each other (at least not specifically) but about looking at oneself and what you could and should do for society to work best. It puts responsibility not on a collective and its leaders but on yourself and needs you to ask what you did right, what you did wrong and how to take consequences for your own actions. This includes a chance for redemption as well as condemnation. For the purpose of evaluating yourself in contrast to society it is also about self-reflection. You need to look at yourself and at your deeds constantly and this analysation and the realization that you can and will fail as well as that you as a human being have your own limits you cannot and should not cross are what lead to humbleness in the first place. Yulia as a sinner, whose very sin is shaping the very ideology and establishing her ideals over the self. This brings us to the second pillar of the humble ideology: fatalism. It is also to see yourself in context of a greater scheme and accepting these very boundaries. Fulfilling your duty in the way the universe demands of you and seeing yourself unavoidably as a puzzle piece of said force is a big deal for a lot of the Humbles. Yulia is the prime example. Lara actively dislikes her fatalism but still follows her father’s footsteps in her attempt to assassinate Block. Aspity moves in the constriction of the Kin and her fate while still being the one who advocates most for change. The Saburovs are all about law and order albeit in different ways. Oyun cannot do what is entrusted to him which causes his horrible deeds in the first place, because he cannot accept at first that he is not fit for the position (or as the words of a humble: not destined for it). And Clara is struggling with what her fate imposes on her and her very being while trying to control her circumstances as well as the fate of the people entrusted to her.  It all is about analysing but also about abiding to the whims of fate and facing the consequences of acting either against it, failing it or resorting to violence against society to fulfil it in the first place.

As you may see, all of these categories are rather broad. Of course, they are, they are made to encompass very different views of the world from different characters. When Victor speaks about working towards overcoming bounds he sure as hell means something different than Andrey. Hell, Dankovsky has no idea what Georgiy is talking about half the time! Lara and Yulia are both Humbles, yet Lara explicitly states that she hates the way Yulia weaves her fatalism in her ideology about the self. And well… the Termites are a very special case regarding the factions in general, being more of a symbol of their ideology than its actual believers. So let's get to the meat of this whole post. We now have a grasp on what the factions are about, but… why? Why are they in the game, what are they trying to say?

 Part 2: Presentation of the factions and the ruling families

Well… after making an incredibly long introduction, let’s stop talking around the bush. Here is my conclusion about the game’s stance of the factions: … … I am sorry to conclude, that all of them suck. All of them. They are the worst and none of them are worthwhile in themselves. I am sorry. 

Okay, okay, okay. Obviously, they are not only terrible. They have their upsides and all of their ideals are rather beautiful. Making potential become a reality is great! So is comfort and stability, we all could sure as hell use some of that! And the principle of giving something of yourself into society, taking responsibility and the ability to care into consideration… boy is that a good idea! But still… the factions suck. And that is an inherent aspect of them just because they are ideologies. And very unsubtle and uncompromising ideologies at that. To quote novel author Dorothy Sayers “The first thing a principle does is killing somebody.” A principle, if it is used without reflection, always has destructive potential. Even if it is the principle to save as many lives as possible. Put into the wrong dilemma, it will kill. (A single glance at the healer’s path’s is enough to confirm that.) And all three factions have some really potentially bad implications exactly because their ideology is so vastly applicable. It isn’t only about emergency situations, but a lifestyle that regards one way of setting priorities as absolute. Of course, that on its own must go horribly wrong! Leave one single way of thought unattended and it will guide you into fucking catastrophe!

I think the easiest way to highlight this theory and the best prove of the game’s acknowledgement of this line of thought is to take a look at the ruling families. The fact that there are three of them is no coincidence. All three families do not only represent one of the factions but also the destructive extreme this faction can develop.

Let’s start with the Kains again, because their case is the most obvious one and the theme of Utopia and thus uncompromising perfection that has a destructive force is in the fucking title of the game. And creating a project that causes the plague in the first place, forcing the Kin to dig the very hole that tears into the heart of the earth – which they sure as hell did not agree with! – conducting human experiments with their buildings and manipulating the situation so that the Polyhedron gets saved even sacrificing the town for its sake… yeah these are some pretty shitty things to do and they all relate to the Utopian ideal and their strive for development, progress and forming humanity as well as society. And sacrificing everything in order to elevate progress is… obviously a bad idea, especially if it involves using people who never consented to such a sacrifice in the first place! With only development – social as well as personal – in mind the scope of said sacrifice cannot be measured at all, leading to devaluing peoples well-being. It is a horrible thing that harms a lot of people and the strict enforcement of the Kains bring a lot of harm to the town. This damage doesn’t only turn against the town but also has a self-destructive tendency. The self-sacrifice that is demanded to keep the spirit of Simon and Nina is eating the entire family alive. Their strict family loyalties seem to have driven Khan off in the first place (though since his role is “The Termite of the Kains” and he holds a strange middle ground I think he is kind of excluded from the “most extreme faction”-stance). Victor and Georgiy are losing their own identity and eventually their life for the sake of a soul that they consider of higher status than them. And Maria loses her own self to become the next mistress and lead what is left of the town into a new age, which Victor laments as her father because he is literally losing his daughter! The family – even if they “win” the whole town conflict – is actively falling apart and is completely fractured if not destroyed in the end. Not only is the sacrifice the town has to endure obviously morally unacceptable but the disregard of comfort in favour of a greater cause is inherently self-destructive. Which leaves the question: Who is this Utopia even build for, who benefits from it, if everything but it is sacrificed? So yeah, what the Kains are doing and especially the way they are using the Utopian dream in its purest form is absolutely and incredibly flawed.

Sooo… what are our alternatives? How about the Saburovs? They are righteous and they care about people!  I mean… yeah. They do! Buuuuut… their handling of the situation is also very… debatable to put it nicely. Let’s start with the obvious: putting everyone in prison who seems mildly suspicious while a highly contagious plague is ravages the town is just… horrible. It is a prolonged and cruel death sentence to many people either desperate or innocent. And yes, he himself did it with the utmost desire to protect society as a whole from the criminals and organized street violence but… surprise, that is what the humble ideology is about! Judging the individual according to sin without taking circumstances into account is one of the extremes the Humble-ideology has. You should stay put and work towards the common good and acting against that should be judged harshly!! If taken to an extreme it disregards personal circumstances and even a human approach towards the individual. And even if it hits innocents, the few have to take personal sacrifice for the many. Giving your life to uphold stability should be considered a good thing… right? Of course, the faulty leader should also be held responsible… So the judge becomes the judged and the executor of the ideology is destroying himself. Again, we witness the ideology's self-destructive aspect when taken to the extreme. Judgement and assigning responsibility for overstepping with no account on the human situation, looking out for the other individual or questioning where established boundaries should be pushed, will lead to draconian law where the single human being doesn’t matter in the first place! And that… doesn’t sound like a society one wants to live in, does it?Katerina has her own case of judging people albeit in a religious way. Her view splits the world into the sinners and the righteous and sentences the former to death while the others will survive what she is seeing as the plague's judgement. Do I have to elaborate why this is a bad take and why judging people to death based on being a sinner is… just awful? Especially when we look at the humbles and how some of them may have done some shit but definitely not something that warrants death. (Yulia and Rubin being examples, but I also think Lara shouldn’t like… be judged with death. Well, truth to be told I think nobody should be judged with death… Ever.) So seeing the Changeling’s power as a saintly sign is… bad not only on a societal level but also bad because pressuring a teenager like that is just a the worst. Which brings us the Humble’s second point and the one that Katerina personifies as well: Personal responsibility. The Humble ideology isn’t only about sacrificing the individual and applying judgement but also about self-reflection and taking responsibility. Which sounds really good but can be devastating when taken too far. Which brings us to Katerina’s journey of becoming a mistress and her devastating experience of trying to fit into a role that was expected of her to fill. Desperately trying to fulfil a fate that seems to be yours can destroy you. Her despair of not fulfilling as a mistress as well as a wife (in her own terms) are honestly soul wrenching and tragic. And it is an example where letting go of personal duty and seeing to oneself would have been for the best.

Okay so the Saburovs establish a society that seems awful to live in and also actively destroy themselves (they also die with their ending, something they share with the Kains). Which leaves us with… the Olgimskys. And yeah… I think we all agree that they couldn’t exactly be called a beacon of goodness in the world… The way the bull enterprise is handled is exploitative to say the least, dividing the town and enabling even more racism and class distinction.  But what does that have to do with the Termites? After all, only Capella is part of the bound. Which is true but the Termite bound is also the children bound and I would dare to argue that the Olgymskys are unassigned because they represent the ruling families of the Termites but cannot apply as their bounds because of age reasons. Capella is pretty much the head of the Termites, the way Maria and Clara or Katerina are the mistresses of the other ideologies and Big Vlad… well Big Vlad is what the other ruling families are to the other factions. The best reason to stay away from it. (And I could make a point about young Vlad but to not stretch this too much, I will keep it short. Let’s just say that he has a dynamic role in the factions and more or less grows to be a Utopian and is not even really acknowledged at the Bachelor Route. I would put him in the same category as Khan and say that the Kains in themselves still are connected to the Utopian ideology. There are some really interesting parallels between Khan and Young Vlad btw. Both have strong parental issues and feel confined in their role, both appear in the letter about the Bachelor’s and the Haruspexe’s decision as a hopeful addition that isn’t fixed… I am pretty sure there is something to say about that, but this essay is not the right place for it.) There are two main themes with the Termites that are very present in the Olgimskys: stagnation and oppression. I think how the Olgimskys are specifically oppressive and moreso than the other families is pretty self-explanatory. They do not want to bind people to the law or their ideas but to themselves and especially big Vlad is very keen on ruling the town and leading its people directly and forcefully. (And while Capella is obviously the kinder part of the family, she too shares this sentiment. Her alliance with Khan is to align the two families but also to gather force with his dogheads and establish rulership.) They want to be obeyed without question or an established guidebook that gives specific reason to their judgement. But why is this specifically a problem the Termite ideology faces? Well the Termites are about ensuring peoples comfort and life and they do this for any cost. One thing this entails, is saving people from their own ambitions and forming them according to this belief. (Again, Capella’s alliance with Khan and how she sees it is a nice example). They are establishing that humanity should remain in their natural ways, complacent so to speak, while a few chosen individuals lead the town and its people. (The Termites are supposed to do this in the future that is why they need to survive in the first place.) And if we drive this belief and this “ruling as family” ideology, we arrive at Big Vlad’s doorstep. He is the father, he will take care so exactly obey to his wishes without question. Preserve the system that allows you comfort without overstepping your boundaries. Preservation of a system also means preservation of the ruling system without further questions. (And I will remind you that Forman Oyun gets overthrown because the place is not rightfully his and he sucks because of this and the right order gets restored with the right ruling family watching over the Abattoir upholding their alliance with the Olgimskys even if it is now Capella.) In its extreme the Termite ideology can lead to oppression on the guise of guidance and questioning this is not only almost impossible but only allowed to the few people already chosen as the leading caste. (Also if you want to have another look at the connection between preservation and oppression, have a look at “The Void” or “Turgor” and its Brothers which is another game by Ice Pick Lodge. Their whole stick is preserving their realm by oppressing the sisters. The Void seems to reference similar themes in general and can kind of seen as the game’s antithesis… But I digress and just wanted to recommend the game. It’s good!) Why the other problem – stagnation – is a part of preservation is easy to see, but how does it afflict the Olgimskys? Well, firstly it is a big theme in the infight the family has and the conflict that tears the Vlads apart. While Young Vlad wants to follow his legacy, he doesn’t want to follow the exact ways leading to the family breaking apart. Vlads stubbornness and his unwillingness to rectify old mistakes and… I don’t know… open the Termitary is also part of this. Closing it – while done by Young Vlad – is done to preserve the status of the town and deny the plague and its changes to society for as long as possible. A plan that is very, very costly in the long run betraying the Olgimsky’s own duty to ensure their peoples life and safety in the first place! Again, the ideology eats itself.

Of course, only talking about the most extreme and negative example isn’t entirely fair. And I think there is worth in every faction. They obviously aren’t all bad and the ruling families are twisting and radicalizing what could be a good idea. So… was this whole talk about the ruling families just some intellectual pastime that proves how the rulers are shitty but the factions in themselves aren’t? Do they only kind of suck? Or can we actually find the games stance of this radicalization and how each faction alone could affect the town negatively on a larger scale?

 Part 3: The endings of the game

So let’s talk about the endings, since they are literally established as the “successful” outcome for each of the factions. And with that I mean that the fate of the town is decided in favour of one of the factions, eradicating the others and their own hopes and ambitions in return. Best it is seen with the Utopians and the Termites, whose dreams are mutual exclusive by the destruction of the town or the Polyhedron alone. But if we consider that the ending also establishes a new way of living in town and a certain social system, we can see the same with the Humbles. (We can also see this if we think of the Humbles goal as a means to restore the town at its best in favour of personal sacrifice, which still doesn’t happen in the other endings, since part of the town gets destroyed.) For the factions, the plague also brings a chance to shift the power dynamics of a town to their direction and this is referenced by several characters trying to make use of this situation or at least struggling to maintain their power. (The ruling families are again the worst offenders of this. The Kains try to guide the Bachelor to their cause from the very beginning and a lot more deliberate in the second half. The rulers’ unwillingness to even acknowledge the plague, Saburovs’ abuse of administrative power, the way Katerina urges Clara to convert townsfolk, Capella’s alliance with the Haruspex… I can go on, but I think we have talked enough about the ruling families.) Long story short: The endings are distinctly aligned with one side of the power struggle. (By the way this isn’t necessarily the endgoal the healers are striving for. I think it is apparent by now, that I align the factions more with the ruling families rather than the healers, because the healers’ first priority is getting the plague problem solved one way or the other and there are different motives for their solutions. Also they can choose a different healers opinion so they aren’t like… one hundred percent absolutely bound by their ending even if they still align with it. But I digress yet again.) So, they – as the “win” of each faction – are a good way to see how they would hold up on themselves and without the other factions interfering. I will analyse the sacrifice they put on the town as well as the society they are striving to build up (since this is what the factions are about. Changing society). Will one of them hold up and present us with a good solution?

I will not even try to create suspense. We all know, I think that they don't. They all bear sacrifices in contrast to what we had before that make the situation actively worse. A video that sums it up better than I can is SulMatul’s “Heroism in Futility; Pathologic, The Void and the Hero Narrative”. The video is really good in general but it also makes a point of pointing out, that Pathologic as well as the void do not offer a standard “good end” where the hero saves the day, because every possible solution is tainted in one way or another. The heroism Pathologic shows (as well as “The Void”) is struggling against a doomed cause and a hopeless situation despite the odds and not about becoming victorious in it. The Artbook of Pathologic 1 states as much, describing the whole scenario of the game as a trap, where the problem is that every ending can be seen as a victory as well as a failure. So, we have some strong sources but still: Let us look at the endings again and see, if my thesis holds up, that it is the ideology of the factions and the remaining of one in each ending that amplifies the problem the town will face after the catastrophe.

We’ll start with the Utopians, yet again. I think they make the most immediate impression and are easiest to describe. Because, you know… destroying a town and killing the sick is really fucking bad. (Though I feel sometimes it’s forgotten that the healthy get “vaccinated” (immunised for some hours) and evacuated before. It’s not about eradicating all townsfolk. And if I would be a true hypocrite I could be like “Do you find any infected districts and sick people on day 12 that you can’t heal, huh?” But that would be… quite ridiculous and I’m sure the sacrifice of the sick is very much intended here. Let’s just assume that it does kill the sick.) It seems hardly worth it and it very much represents the harshness of the Utopians. So, let’s see how it applies to the ideology. The ending for the most part sacrifices life and comfort for humanities progress. This is what the protection of the Polyhedron is about. The Utopians are not protecting it because they find it kind of pretty and it also is not a preservation of something culturally cool (which would be more the Termite way of thinking) because the usage of it is supposed to vary after the end of the story. (The children are leaving the tower so that the soul of Simon can be housed in the building.) But it is supposed to make the impossible possible and ensure humanities triumph over nature, break boundaries and create new impossible ideas. The visions of the new town Peter describes, tell us as much. It is not only about a building but about a new order, where the impossible is created and where the amount of energy is a crucial aspect of the vision. So, if we weight the different solutions against each other from out outside player perspective, we can see how tied the concept of the solution is to the Utopian idea. We already have a very steep sacrifice for the Utopian ideology here. The other aspect of the Utopian ending establishes this “creation through destruction” mantra that the Utopian ideology can impose in a different light: The Utopian end focuses on eradicating the plague. Which is… actually a good thing for once but still tied to the themes of the Utopians and making their involvement in it stronger. If we look at the Utopian end from a cold analytical perspective, it is literally destroying the playing board creating a tabula rasa, to start this whole town project again. (Or at least that is what our mistress Maria alludes to and who is in charge after the whole ending?…) Which is a very radical use of what the Utopians are about, carry out your vision rash, immediate and drastic and if it doesn’t work, then leave it behind and try again (the stairways to heaven tell a similar story). Which ultimately leads to a sacrifice that is way too big because the losses aren’t supposed to be considered at all.

So what about the counter thesis? If the Utopian ending is so bad, then the termite ending must be the solution. Well… it solves some problems. Mostly people not dying. Which definitely is a really  good thing! But it also comes with its own drawbacks. Namely the destruction of the Polyhedron first and foremost. Which you know… doesn’t seem like that important… It's just some building. Until we reapply the meaning of eradicating the chance to work for the impossible – which the Utopian ideology enables – and a strive to triumph over nature and improve humanity as a whole. Then it suddenly becomes a huge deal. Destroying the Polyhedron is not only about destroying some cool architecture project of some very bored capital graduates (even though this is sure a thing we are doing) but about preventing humanity's progress. We are saving life but we are also preventing the chance to develop a system where humanity can grow, develop new amazing and helpful things and might even reject their mortality as a whole. And even if the last part sounds kind of insane, please consider, that Pathologic is still very much set in a world where magic and miracles exist. We rely on the magic the earth provides in both other routes, see the prophecies of the mistresses and the theatre, visit a talking rat prophet and we can see the magic of the Polyhedron when we visit it as the Bachelor on day nine and of course in the secret ending. Acting like the ambitions as well as the magic of the Utopians is completely unreachable and should be outright rejected, undermines the cost the Termite ending takes to ensure their own victory. So I would argue that there is at least the possibility of the development of humankind and progress into new developments that can help people in general that get destroyed to ensure the lives of the sick as well as the old rules of the town. And that is definitely a costly exchange! This also brings me to an argument that I hear a lot and also want to deny here: “But if the town exists, more towers and miracles can be build again so its not really that great of a loss.” And while this can hold true for the very similar Diurnal ending (if we are really nice and not deny every form of magic, which is kind of the point of that ending… but I digress), the ending in favour of the Termites negates this. Firstly, it explicitly invents a “town of men” where this strive for destroying nature should be prevented. Secondly… the whole underground fluid thing still isn’t really fixed… because that is what gets saved by the Haruspex this is his goal. Which allows for the Panacea but also means that the plague and the traditions that cause the infection aren’t actually off the table. If we would create another Polyhedron the plague would appear again. The old ways of the town are hardly questioned, and they actually cannot be – at least in a way that implies substantial progress over nature – because the laws that get re-establishes actively prevent exactly this. The thread of the plague isn’t gone completely – even if certainly postponed because of the Polyhedrons removal. And that resources run out and the knowledge gets obscured is shown how littler there even is knows about Isidor's earlier experiments. So, we are either creating a word, where humanities progress is distinctly stopped or we create a situation in which the same mistakes that will cause the plague aren’t prevented at all and humanities mistake will repeat themselves. We created a situation, where movement is not possible and actually actively prevented.

The third one – the Humble ending – establishes a balance where both structures can be preserved but movement is still possible. Which first sounds like all is good and the life of only a handful of people could be worth the cost, if we outweigh them against the systematic costs the other endings provide… right? Well… apart from peoples life’s never being a “cost”… this only can hold true if we cannot find a societal problem with this. And we can. Again, with all endings we can see the broad ideologies coming into play and so the very problem of the endings are, that they follow the factions rules so exclusively and absolute. The Utopian end sacrificing life and comfort for progress and vision, the Termite end sacrificing progress and vision for comfort and life and the humble end… what does the Humble Ending do? Well the Humble end saves the precarious balance between the Town and the Polyhedron but at the cost of personal sacrifice. While all aspects of the town may exist the same is true for the plague that gets neither destroyed nor subdued but instead is still active and handled by constantly applying a cure. A cure made out of the humans blood of those who sacrifice themselves for sustaining this very system. Which does mean we will need constant human sacrifice to sustain this system at all. And since a town and a societal system should last for quite some time and there is no other solution in sight to deal with the plague without firing a shot after all… we are facing a plethora of problems.  Firstly: If we assume that for some reason the Changeling – or at least her miracles – are now as immortal as Simon was and she will not suddenly disappear leaving us with no one to even make the cure that we need, then what happens if the sinners we have chosen at the end of the game run out? And if we assume that the town will not like disappear after some years – which shouldn’t be the goal at all! – that will happen eventually. Who gets chosen and for what reason? I remind you again, that this is not a personal thing that people can do if they want, there is a societal need for people to die, it is integrated into the very system of the town. So how do we decide that? Are we just sentencing people to “cleanse themselves by human sacrifice” and just choose the worst criminals? That can be faulty and – again – the death penalty is something that we shouldn’t apply to society! Do we accept a willing sacrifices? Great, now that sounds like important and innocent life being taken for all the wrong reasons and can also hit someone who suffers from suicidal depression! Do we hope that our dear mistress continues her burden and selects who should die next.? That sounds like a horrible fate for Clara and also like a very unjust system. But sentencing someone to death because of a systematic need sounds incredibly unjust in the first place! Plus… you know with a highly contagious and deadly plague sometimes roaming the town, a cure doesn’t mean that nobody will die because of the plague. There still is a high lethality, personal reasons to obscure things and just a frightening time limit. Not to mention that the sandplague hurts before it kills so the pain aspect and the fear of the disease is still lingering. It sure is better then everyone contracting it and dying and the cure is a solution but… not exactly to every aspect of the disease, especially when we do not have the means to subdue it, that we have in the other two endings.

I hope that I was able to show that the endings might solve the catastrophe at hand, but all of them with a cost so huge that the specific solution can become debatable. Defeating the plague for good while saving the possibility to proceed further is really amazing, but destroying the entire old structure and killing the sick is a horrible tradeoff. Subduing the disease is definitely good, but at the cost of destroying the potential to enhance future life or even save more people in the long run and with integrating the enablement of repeating the same old mistakes doesn’t sound like a complete solution and more like turning the wheel and waiting for it to reappear at the same side (or you know… stopping it from turning all together). Preserving the town as well as its wonders is absolutely miraculous but allowing the plague to partake in this new system and requiring human sacrifice as a societal solution is a pretty dystopian thought. Again, the Artbook of classic Pathologic describes the whole scenario and its solutions as a trap. And it is! Because there is no right answer, we have to choose what we apply as a necessary evil and this is all we can do. There is no good ending we can find.

 Conclusion: The meaning of “Utopia”

So where does that leave us? And what does that have to do with the factions? Remember the quote I used at the beginning of my argument? “The first thing a principle does is killing somebody.” And we can see the effect of this with every of the factions. The rashness and costly sacrifice of the Utopian ideals is seen by the way the Kains’ act and the loss of live the Utopian solution provides. The Termites disregard of progress and the oppression that is its result can see in the way the Olgymskiys’ handle its people as well as the sacrifice of the Termite ending. The Humbles enforcement of punishment and their harsh self-reflection influences the Saburovs’ judgement and leads to their solution at the cost of constant human sacrifice in the end.

So… does this mean that there is no hope? Should we assume that all of these solutions and ideas suck and leave this whole essay this depressed? That would be a shame and also missing the mark of what Pathologic is about. It is a tragedy, that much is true, but it is definitely not without hope and humanity. Because all the examples I use have one thing in common: They are examples of the radicalization of each faction and in its sole survival against the other factions. A principle on its own might kill. But that is why there shouldn’t be only one principle. Clara is right when she reminds the other two healers that killing one part of the town of is still killing. That there is a balance that must be uphold and we can see this balance in other characters. We can see Notkin’s idealism that is still rooted in earthly matters and a deep care for his people. We can see Eva’s kindness being born of idealism combined with her will to give herself away to other people (although this also gets taken too far in the end). And there is beauty in all three ideas. Fighting against impossible odds, caring for what is right and should be maintained, watching ourselves to help your surroundings… all of this is good! And all of these things hold solutions for the other factions. When striving for progress we need to watch our own wellbeing and the negative consequences of our actions. When preserving what is old, we have to see what should be changed, where chances for progress are and we also need to look at ourselves and not only the concept we want to preserve. Looking at our own sins and self-reflection is important, but so is our own comfort and our own goals, even if they might seem outlandish at first. By applying the different ideologies on top the one we hold dear, we can balance them out.

The best ways the ideology work – the real utopia – is a balance of all three ideologies together. That means that the best state of the town is what we witness in the beginning of the game (even if I would never call that perfect either! The exportation of the kin shows as much!) But debating and changing through the reflection of all three ideologies is in my opinion how society can be driven to it’s best. Progression is useless without looking out for each other and keeping what works and helps. Preservation leads to oppression and stagnation if self-expression is forbidden. Responsibility and duty are needed but can lead to condemnation and self-destruction if it isn’t balanced out. But comfort while allowing progress. Duty while allowing self-expression. That is what can only be archived through active dialogue. This is, why this game is a trap. This is why every ending falls apart: Because we have to choose. Every end is a victory, but it also is a failure. Something has to be destroyed. And even a miracle can only work on the back of its people. But this choice is the exact reason why. Being only allowed to follow one of the factions by radicalizing all three of them at the end of the game we are not allowed to make a decision that could benefit everyone. And this is – at the end of it all – the tragedy of Pathologic.

[anonymousanomieness]

Cheat the Church of Integrity — Strip the Sanctuary of Truth — Compromise the Cult of Society — Life is YOUR Game

Introducing The Games (Continued):

v. The Property Game

As a very small child, I believed the world was mine — or better yet, the world was me. I frolicked in my house and yard without a care, as a typical bourgeois child would.  At the time, I did not bother to ponder my relationship with the many things that surrounded me.  Did all of this belong to me? Well, of course! How could it be otherwise? I would watch with curiosity a fawn through my bedroom window, gently nibbling on the Kentucky bluegrass.  Did the fawn realize that it was partaking in the delight of another’s foliage? Did the fawn see itself as separate from the grass, the soil, the trees, and the sky? Was it conscious of its own body as a lone entity in a vast world? Or did it not proceed forward nonchalantly with a simple, all-encompassing awareness of…life? The fawn was not merely part of some world; she pranced through what was, to her, her entire world — or simply, herself.  The mother in the neighbors’ yard did not only belong to the fawn; to be sure, the mother was the fawn — through the fawn’s eyes.  As too was the grass.  Did the fawn actually believe she was consuming something outside of herself in search of nourishment? Or was she not one with the grass? Was she not unified with her nourishment, as opposed to being affected by it? Was the sky within its own realm, beyond her reach? Or was it not a beautiful blue chandelier, built to illuminate her glorious existence? Would I dare approach my gallivanting in the same manner? As an older child, I might chase a ball through the same path taken by the fawn and her mother, only to find myself “out of bounds”.  I was well aware that these were contrived boundaries that my playmates and I created as part of the rules of our game; additionally, I was aware that these boundaries were based on a rule of my household, established by my parents: “Do not wander into the neighbors’ yard.”  Despite my awareness of the incorporeality of the bounds created by myself and my friends for the purpose of our game, my interpretation of the boundaries between my yard and that of my neighbors was somewhat of a…semi-tangibility.  I realized there was nothing physically separating my yard from theirs — not a fence, nor a row of begonias; yet, I felt a separation.  This feeling was brought about through an education given to me by my parents on the significance of property. My father, an expert in these matters, would point his finger and trace before my eyes the property line “separating” what’s ours from what’s theirs.  This was rarely a concern, considering the neighbors would frequently walk through each other’s yards and invite themselves into each other’s homes, without hesitation.  They would freely come through my door — sometimes without knocking — to deliver a dish, or simply to make small talk with my parents.  Following their example, when bored, I would often jog next door to see what was going on at the neighbors’ house.   Nevertheless, even in times when we felt as if we all “shared the neighborhood”, I was taught to be respectful of others’ property.  As a younger sibling, I came to understand this concept when toiling with things that were “not my own”.  I had my bedroom, and my sister had hers.  The boundaries were clearly defined by our doorways.  The parlor was the common living space, and was ours…but not the neighbors’! This is a fairly recent phenomenon, when considering that up to only some centuries ago within the Western World, tribal people and their “neighbors” were all collectively sharing the land, as well as the responsibilities that come with maintaining their role within it.  The families were not nuclear microcosms; rather, the entire tribe was a family, as they all mingled and migrated together.  Occasionally, multiple tribes would band together for a common interest, and treat each other as one vast, extended family. Nonetheless, the accumulation of personal materials by individuals, along with a dependence on those things, created a perceived need for invisible boundaries.  These bounds, contrived by human imagination, would ultimately be given life by local governments, in the form of conceived and enforced — as opposed to natural — consequences, that would arise as a result of anyone disregarding these invisible boundaries.  At once, we are introduced to The Property Game. It is a mere game — like the ball game I would play with my friend in my yard.  The rules were contrived by imaginative, entitled people holding particular philosophies about materials, resources, and ownership. In its early stages, the overall structure and rules of The Property Game were still forming, allowing individuals vast potential for innovation and self-actualization.  However, through years of sneaky legislation and social adaptation — by slow coercion or through unwitting cooperation — The Property Game had been enhanced in such a way that if you were to become too experimental, or if you were to attempt to opt out altogether, you would fall hard on your knees.   Most people in the developed world are too materialistic and two-dimensional to even consider opting out.  “Why opt out when you can benefit from the accumulation of property?” They believe that opting out is synonymous with forfeiting, whereas opting in is the way to win! They immerse themselves in a lifestyle of materialism, believing it to be a well-deserved reward for all their hard work and dedication to Society.  Little do they know that it is not a reward at all.  The materials and assets they have become so proud of ultimately become their ball and chain — for they have attached so much of their contentment to these…things.  They do not own their things; their things own them.  Their overindulgence ironically results in suffering from a “poverty” of balance. That being said, it is crucial for me to clarify that The Property Game is not to be confused with the basic situation of individuals claiming territory and resources for themselves.  I am not suggesting that individuals ought to opt out of accumulating what they need as their property, and instead go on to live a life of poverty — even if they choose to view it as a life of “simplicity”.  One might note that Locke did not favor individuals who overlooked wastefulness while claiming more property than necessary.  Simplicity is respectable, as long as it does not err towards poverty and suffering. The human need to set boundaries while claiming territory and resources is completely natural.  Historically, individuals have always needed to claim animals, plants, and land, among other things, in order to survive and thrive.  One might even argue that sentimental items such as jewelry and artifacts — which may not have been necessary to claim for survival — were still necessary for individuals to claim for the sake of preserving identity.  These symbolic objects would be inherited from the elders of a community by those whom the elders deemed worthy (usually the direct descendants).  Without this practice, it was more challenging for an individual to claim a sense of self and stand out from the majority, at least on the surface.  Not all individuals felt the need to stand out — but those who wished to set themselves apart claimed their identity as their property, along with whatever else they believed they deserved.  This behavior, as well as others, was regulated according to the norms set in place by the community — however, regulation depended upon the consent of individuals.  If individuals did not consent, authority figures could attempt to coerce them into submission in order to protect the well-being of the overall social structure; however, coercion did not work on everyone.  Therefore, “Might is right” was fathomable by some individuals, albeit some consequences. Contrarily, The Property Game is a relatively recent, unnatural invention of the Operators.  It is a contrived, sophisticated, pervasive, and merciless system, only benefiting those who created it, and those underlings who agree to play according to its domineering rules. To elaborate on the above, in the case of more primitive communities, if there were an imbalance of power, or a deviation from established norms (i.e., if a group of individuals were to establish and defend their own chosen boundaries, setting themselves apart from the majority), natural consequences would likely befall those individuals — however, their resilience could potentially preserve their individualistic choices, and ultimately garner the respect of others, depending on their innovative strategies.  On the other hand, in the case of The Property Game, deviance by individuals is not tolerated.  If individuals attempt to avoid or work around the established rules, they will automatically be punished under law — not for reasons of pure virtue, but merely for the sake of preserving the integrity of The Legal Game, because The Legal Game’s primary objective is to preserve the power of the Operators, and limit the power of the individual, in all arenas. In the words of Stirner, “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”  Law enforcement violently interferes with individuals’ efforts to simply survive and thrive on their own terms, because the Operators would rather have them survive and thrive under the terms of The Property Game! The Operators claim that the deviant individuals are criminals — but are we to believe that the “crimes” they’ve allegedly committed are violent? Claiming your own territory and resources for the sake of survival, without jumping through the hoops of an institutionalized game, is an act worthy of punishment? The original and necessary means for survival have become sins? To quote Stirner again, “My power is my property.  My power gives me property.  My power am I myself, and through it am I my property.”   If the Operators — the creators of The Property Game — feel free to utter this mantra, why shouldn’t I? To be continued…

[towncalledkingdom]

Bug Man sat on the edge of a hard, creaking chair. His elbows dug into his knees, one hand rubbing at the stubble on his chin nervously- a habit that a man working with chemicals and pathogen-carrying creatures should never have. A single dim light bulb illuminated the table before him, revealing the curving edges of a canvas map of Kingdom. Red tacks had been driven directly through the map and into the table, marking a series of emergency events that had happened over the past few months.

Bug Man had never met Mercury’s Men before tonight. Though he suspected that they had been completing operations all around him for his entire life, this was the first time that he had been introduced.

Mercury was, as many of Bug Man’s clients were, a highly secretive person. Seeing them standing at the back of the room instead of behind their gleaming desk as they usually were was unnerving. For his part, Bug Man wouldn’t usually attend a meeting like this either. He’d worked hard to maintain neutrality over the years, building strong relationships with the many factions and citizens that jostled for control in Kingdom. For many, the Bug Man was a hero. He had been the only person able to handle the bed bug epidemic in The Dungeon. When rats tore through the Phylla storehouses Bug Man arrived and set the people to work, devising a strategy that United all of the Houses against the rodents. Not the people with rodent names, of course. He’d taught classes on basic pest prevention at Smoke University, fought back the termite swarms that threatened to devour the Grandfather Tree, and kept the grounds of the Church of M free of black widows. Disease-carrying fleas and mosquitos no longer posed a threat to the population. If any one person kept Kingdom alive and healthy, it was Bug Man.

Such close proximity to the town’s leadership, coupled with his rare skill set, afforded Bug Man a unique, dangerous sort of power. He was given access to offices and cells that few others knew existed. He heard gossip. He saw things happen. And yet, Kingdom trusted him. They weren’t given much of a choice. Thus, Bug Man’s presence at a secret meeting was a highly volatile situation. If any faction that had not sent representatives that night found out he was there they might worry that he was using some of that knowledge against them. He knew this, and yet he couldn’t stay away. Not tonight.

It was for the sake of the girl seated next to him that he had to come. Kingdom had always dealt with minor stirrings and squabbles, even a few small wars since its founding. But in his own life he had never seen so much social turmoil or distrust. He had been able to avoid taking sides for most of his career, but having Cecilia around changed everything. His plans shifted from a list of weekly appointments to a far-reaching strategy for ensuring her future happiness.

Mercury had brought three agents with them to the meeting. One, a wicked-eyed woman with skin like midnight and nails cut into triangles, introduced herself as “Panic.” A nearly identical woman with unkempt hair, thick-rimmed glasses, and kind, curious eyes had shaken his hand as well. “Network,” she said. Bug Man asked her if she was telling him what to do or if that was her name. She just smiled and sat down next to her sister.

The third agent, a grizzled old woman with wrinkles in her wrinkles gave him a short nod. “Havoc,” said Mercury. “The oldest operating member of Mercury’s Men. She may be the oldest living citizen in Kingdom.” Havoc smiled slightly but remained silent.

Two more citizens were seated around the table, but Bug Man knew them already. Bard the bard sat backwards on the bench, leaning his shoulders against the table’s edge and plucking at a small stringed instrument. His smile was wide and infectious, still managing to shine in the dim light. Cecilia had giggled when he looked at her. At the end of the table a middle-aged woman in an oversized brown robe scribbled furiously into a journal. Her hair was thin and short. It floated in wisps around her head, making her look more like a spirit than a human being. She glanced up occasionally with enormous golden eyes as if checking to see if she was missing something important. In the low light the bottom of her face seemed disproportionately small. This fascinating creature was Owl, Phylla’s own keeper of law and history. All of Kingdom knew that the Watchmen were keeping track of what happened in the town, but several decades ago Phylla had decided to elect a historian that they could actually speak with.

“I probably don’t need to tell you why I called you here tonight,” Mercury began, meandering out of the shadows toward the table. They looked directly at Bug Man. “You know who I am and who I work for, yes?”

Bug Man nodded, “I do.”

“Then you understand what it would take to bring me out here in person, sharing a room with three of my agents at the same time?”

Bug Man repeated, “I do.”

Mercury clasped their hands behind their back and looked at each of the people sitting around the table. “I am aware of the danger this puts you in as well, and the fact that you chose to come tonight assures me that you are looking at how dangerous these recent developments could be for Kingdom.“

Bug Man turned to Cecilia. Her arms were crossed on the table. She listened intently. “None of this ever happened,” he whispered, “Just like we talked about.”

A child’s body turned to him. Ancient eyes stared out from it. “I understand,” she said aloud.

“The abuse and abduction of non-natives by Penitent extremists,” continued Mercury, “The blatant disregard for Kingdom law by the Privateers and the acceptance of their actions by all of us has to end.”

“Some of the Houses aren’t going to like this,” said Owl without looking up from her writing.

“I venture to guess none of us will like this,” answered Bard, “Not in the beginning. Privateer raids have fed our children, built our homes, and diversified our gene pool.”

“They’ve also excused the disappearance of citizens, risked exposing us to the outside world, and empowered a sadist,” answered Panic. “The Privateers no longer fear punishment.”

“Now you’re starting to sound like a Penitent,” Bug Man joked.

She turned her wild eyes on him. “Where do you think I came from?” He dropped his gaze. She did not.

“There’s a system going on here, a bunch of interconnected players and repeated actions,” said Network, “I’ve laid what I know out here on the map with Owl’s help.”

The sound of footsteps was probably quiet to anyone outside, but it was like an alarm to the people gathered around the table. Panic and Network shot from their seats immediately, disappearing on silent, practiced feet into the shadows of a room deeper in the house. Bug Man stood, one hand reaching for Cecilia’s shoulder. She dropped beneath the table. Mercury took a single step back, leaning one side of their head against the front wall. A door closed across the street, knocking gently against the frame before dragging shut. Someone was trying to hide.

More footsteps, further up the street. Bug Man joined Mercury by the front wall. He put his ear to it. “Take your people and fan out, they can’t have gone far,” rumbled a voice. “I want them tonight or I’m taking you all straight back to Jericho.” Unmistakably Berwald. Shit. But who was he talking to?

A panting voice answered him, but Bug Man couldn’t make out what the person had said. "Your people,” he’d said. Whose people? It had to be those Penitent fanatics from Town Square, nothing else made sense. But how many were there? How many could there be?

More footsteps. A lot more. Bug Man looked at Mercury. Mercury held their hands to the wall. What sounded like a sizable crowd had gathered in the stone street outside. A door was kicked open somewhere a few houses up. They were beginning to search the buildings. Bug Man turned to Mercury, then back at Bard and Owl. “What do we do?” he whispered. They looked as terrified as he felt. Something burned at the back of Bug Man’s mind. What was he forgetting? Alarms blared in his mind, something what definitely wrong. He knew what it was before he could start moving. He dropped to look beneath the table. Cecilia was gone.

[areyoueallyreadingthisright-blog]

**Dear Gun Violence**

(A satirical pen-pal letter to Gun Violence)

Dear Gun Violence,

How the hell are you, you son of a bitch?

I thought we talked about this already, you can’t just keep showing up and ruining the mood all the time. You're being a total square GV. We strictly wanted either one of the two situations to unfold; something involving an organized crime shoot-out or some act of terrorism involving the use of the 2nd Amendment to justify racially charged acts of “Pre-emptive protection,” since it seems like that’s the stuff that you and your pals are so infatuated with nowadays.

Anyway, I just wanted to send this letter to check-up on you; I hope things have been going well since, like the beginning of time since guns were invented. No foul intention mind you; Life is a beast and you just have to handle the beast sometimes, we get it.

But the truth behind this is that there's a collection of scenes, a collection of emotions and ideals that are coupled with unbridled anger either in the form of fear ���inferiority” or malicious intent like “perceived superiority.” But where does this anger stem? And is it even anger in some cases? I think that’s the biggest question that we’ve been tackling lately with relation to firearms in general.

In my opinion we treat firearms the same way that we treat monster trucks. At face value they both are impressive pieces of machinery in their own right. Both very capable of harboring destruction when used in tandem with initiative. So why am I trying to make this an analogy you might ask? Think about it, monster trucks themselves are pretty cool; and yeah, maybe their purpose for carnal entertainment is sometimes a bit overrated. But what is fascinating about those kinds of places? And one of the reasons why live music is so encapsulating to so many people. Ontological Design; a device used to recreate mystical and almost magical moments. A place or places “where things happen” that transcend all things and creates its own matter and gravitational force to supplement its existence. Like live music and monster trucks and firearms, they all evoke a rare facet of sometimes perturbing but also very real ideas that we inherit or subconsciously recognize simply based on the association that we have with that particular object. Many times it's by way of feelings that we have carried and stuck with throughout our lives. Memories or some asphyxiation of the real world that grants the phantom memories of those histories.

Or I suppose in other cases, we are persuaded with a very well presented "story" of how , for some apparently *God-granted* reason we are supposed to follow in the footsteps of someone we've never met, and in order to be successful in the after-life, we need to carry-out these acts of "religious freedom" against people who are  identified as a “perceived threat” (see retribution) based on pure speculation. Speculation that stems from uncertainty, irrational fear, or even some hocus-pocus tradition that has insinuated some level of aggression or distaste to an individual group of people for no reason other than to maintain conventionalism.

So all these things considered, many of the conflicts that arise from these "ontological awakenings" typically tend to evoke combat or confrontation, often in the form of a battle with words, maybe sometimes staged as acts of pride under the guise of fear. Mind you, this is still very much a perception of my own understanding of how the presence of firearms has influenced and molded our history and society.

And yet one of the things that I've thought about lately in relation to firearms is this "evoking initiative" sensation that people experience when they are situated in these positions of "perceived-power." What is it about being at a live performance or attending a monster truck show that makes them so captivating. For example, most people would be fairly neutral about monster trucks in general, simply because their level of engagement with monster trucks is fairly low on the scale of "things I interact with on a daily basis." But let's say you get VIP Tickets to the monster show and are offered the chance to ride in a monster truck with a professional. What say your response? (Most would answer Yes! Because when's the next time this will be an opportunity?) So what happens after the professional sit-in with a monster truck driver? You might feel totally different; whether the outcome was positive or negative, since you are eventually exposed to that mentality of "carnage and destruction," a very basic yet powerful level of subconscious influence, especially if you're not aware of it to begin with. You get that dosage of "fulfillment" or "rush." Like the phenomenon "runner's high," which is a big release of endorphins (chemicals in your body similar to morphine) that give runners a very euphoric "feel-good" feeling after long runs.

That's how I feel we think about firearms in the United States. With that same reverence, that same deep respect. But where does the line begin to blur? At what point do we undermine the importance of emphasizing civility at the cost of perpetuating our conventionalism? If conventionalism is similar to tradition then why are some of us so unwilling to pass our traditions aside for the sake of saving innocent lives?

I guess it really just boils down to how much individuals respect others and what the cost of a life is to them. Maybe many of those individuals who prefer to live in exclusivity value the life of another individual less, since they would typically have less human interaction (not always the case, but a heavy generalization) compared to someone who lived in a populated urban area. If that's the case - do these individuals get to offer the same level of opinion as others do? Despite them being a product of their own design.

And that's really when we step into various theories of gun control and the presence of firearms in society today. We are too inundated with pursuing so many agendas related to firearms that we sort of just let the river run under the bridge; totally disregarding that the river is running red with blood. So where does this "evoking initiative" narrative come into play? When people are often found in "the zone," what's the last thing that they're thinking about? Literally anything else beside whatever it is that they're occupied with. So if we take any of the most recent events related to school shootings within the past 20 years, there's somehow this very common thread of why these individuals felt compelled to proceed how they did. (Lack of social connection, victim of bullying, mental health issues gone unaddressed, etc).  Pair that with the mysticism and sheer level of “perceived-power” of a firearm, and you can imagine why so many of these tragic incidents are occurring where they are.

                We look at how the structure of the American Education system has evolved throughout the past couple decades, and we find an environment that has dramatically shifted from embracing an ideal of community in schools and instead has been substituted (almost like a vacuum) with social media. The tolerance of instant gratification has raised alarmingly fast. My age-bracket being at the very cusp of that start. Yet this idealization of instant gratification has left teachers with pop quizzes and paper text-books to compete with their attention? It’s no wonder the United States suffered a deficit of public educators, school teachers, or mentors. So how does the attention of social media influence the proverbial “playground” in the public education system in today’s world?

At times (especially in schools) I think that social media becomes this poisonous medium of public humiliation, self-inflicted isolation, and a reinforcement of fabricated realities where we are defeated and choose to fill in the gaps of others’ lives so that we want to make what seems like a great story/life just perfect.

And of course another result of immersion into instant gratification is this idea of PCT (problem centric thinking). This framework of thinking that is devoid of highlighting the successes or goals in your day-to-day, but instead grinds you for the mistakes or failures that you’ve run into. It’s a combination of pessimism and cynicism rolled up and presented in a way that made me think, “This is normally how people feel everyday.” I couldn’t have been further from the truth. The whole “no pain, no gain” mantra sort of resonates when I find myself falling into the problem centric thinking. This idea that suffering needs to take place before growth can ensue. Sufferance is a very powerful emotion, but I don’t think its part of the recipe for growth.

On top of everything else, its this thought of how unlikely it seems to use weapons against others with whom you share no past. While there is definitely a correlation based on the level of isolation someone may be feeling or who they attribute as a catalyst in their life up until this point; but why is there such a commitment with firearms that we see a split between victims that either had significant relations with or absolutely no relation with? At this point the genesis of motivation is less of a cause and more of a symptom. We are so quick to place accusations based on very generalized or reinforced ideas of why the perpetrator did what they did. And yet we see that these individuals are willing to carry-out violence or aggression in environments they have little to no past or association with.

But who I am to say any of this isn’t difficult for you, Gun Violence? The invention of the firearm was inevitable. But I think the excuse for “ensuring protection” and “keeping the peace” or better yet, offering our “thoughts and prayers” as solace has turned this whole get-up into some “down-range” demonstration of potentially religious, racist, and emotional acts of violence at the cost of I honestly don’t know how many lives have been lost. The thought that even in as much of this text that I’ve written, the names of the victims alone would vastly outweigh my character limit for, I don’t know, the next couple pages most likely is haunting.

And it sickens me to know this is something I have to live with every day.

But really Gun Violence (GV), I understand you have to get out those really juvenile urges, so it’s important that you express yourself in ways that make you, you. I know you’re not a very popular pick amongst the majority, so maybe its best if you pursue a career that fits you more appropriately. Like for example, I would probably suggest attending and/or ruining events for Water Guns fights. Or if you’re feeling more PG-13, maybe even show up to Nerf Gun fights at 12-year olds parties if you really want to act like the sick fuck you are. All-in-all, we love to see you go [forever] and get really disappointed and annoyed when I have to see you on TV again. Like almost as disappointed and annoyed at the frequency of how many times I feel like Amber Alerts need to be matched to the same intensity for a Tweet onslaught by our POTUS. Like, I need to know that I should be preparing myself for what’s to come, you know? I can’t casually receive Critical Updates about our Government through a social media platform only designed for 140 characters (honestly feel like the only reason they upped the limit is because of Donald Trump).

But, go take care of yourself GV, okay? You could always try going after laser tag, ya know? You tried that back in 80s, 1979 to be exact. Didn’t really work out for you, huh? Couldn’t really make a career out of it, shame.  Are you still disappointed that laser tag isn’t a full contact sport? Or is it that Star Wars made super unrealistic expectations about lasers and blasters?

You know, you know what, you don’t need to be doing this GV. We had some good times. Some really really great times. And they were usually always when you weren’t around. And by “we” I mean literally everyone else. I know you have your enemies out there; like gun control or fingerprint-enabled security. I get it, you're just not the one we’re looking for when we’re trying to make change. We have a system in place for that, sort of.

What I don’t understand is that we are constantly being told by a system that we believe is “protecting us” (or at least it should be). So why are you pushing so hard to get people to remember who you are, Gun Violence? The real question is when we are we going to be focusing on the other factor playing into this mess? Stop trying to make Gun Violence a thing, it’s never going to be a thing. Considering your age I can understand why you’re so reluctant to go away. But stop making appearances at the drop of a hat; you’re not a reality that I want to engage with. There are guns, and then there’s violence. They can occur together but that does not justify your existence to continually propagate the idea that guns are inherently violent.  

Also, stop this nonsense like you are always innocent in the face of these tragedies. You berate these people who feel compelled to take action with firearms, and then try to completely disregard that you were an accomplice in the whole situation. It’s as if to spite them for being victims of a nihilistic world that you made. You keep trying to hide behind this idea that there are other people/things to blame for this uprising. And you’re right. It’s hard to overtake a castle with a super-fortress and an army of people. But if you take away the fortress, you only get the people. That’s the point I’m trying to get across; that’s what all these letters have been about. I know you enjoy being recognized because that’s the only thing that we can seem to keep trending in the United States in this era, but I refuse to remain silent while you continue to exist openly.

Your coming-to-be was both unwarranted and unwelcome simultaneously. Like making a gurnt (which I’ve been told is just a loud excessive queef made from a woman sitting on an exercise ball) while lying face-down on a massage table. That’s all I really wanted to say to you after all this time, GV. Sometimes you don’t want to deal with a woman farting profusely on an exercise ball; but someone is gonna have to face the music and tell her that vaginal flatulence on a public piece of equipment is gross and uncivil. Shit, even if it was her own exercise ball, that’s still gross.

If a restraining order could be filed against intangible concepts that are used to further push an unnecessary divide you know we fucking would,

The Internetional Fireworks Association (IFA)*

* = Actually the International Fireworks Association

[marlydichter-blog]

Our Daily Bread provides X-ray Vision…but all you see are Skin and Bones.

Human skin conceals bodily systems like corporations conceal their body’s systems. Likewise, an x-ray produces images of a body’s structure like Our Daily Bread produces images of a corporate body’s structure. What lies beneath the surface is the intersection of multiple organs that are responsible for vital processes. Yet, the backbones of a corporation and a human are hidden behind several layers that protect a body from breaking and disguise the substances that make us queasy, i.e. blood. Flesh is covered by labels and looks: whether it is the Rolex crown on someone’s wrist or the groomed cow on National Beef’s packaging. Buyers regularly consume products based on appealing appearance, but do not allow themselves to digest the unappealing reality. In the same way that radiologists can see a human’s configuration, Our Daily Bread gives the viewer x-ray vision to see the core of how food is created.

While theorists Michael Hardt and Antanio Negri, in “Empire” discuss the disconnect between a source and its creation; theorist John Bellamy Foster, in “The Vulnerable Planet,” discusses the union of ecology and economy. Both pieces raise issues about the harms of ignoring the way a system functions—the reality.

An x-ray of a human fosters the same message as the images from Our Daily Bread because of the structural look, quick movement, connection between every part in the factory (like how bones are attached), and the organization of each limb of the system. However, the barriers to see inside a corporate bodies are similar to the barriers too see inside the human body. MRIs and CT scans can expose assisting functions to the musculoskeletal system like hidden cameras and journalists can expose assisting functions to a factory’s framework. Nevertheless, central roles of the lungs, heart, senses, and digestion are invisible in the same way that hegemonic ideologies require further dissection, corporate structures are deeply embedded, and lies perpetuate to maintain corporate survival.

The failed clone of the human body is partially demonstrated in Our Daily Bread, where the equivalent of a human’s musculoskeletal system is exposed in the capitalist factory system. The development of corporate creation nurtures an unhealthy system because it is triggered by capitalism’s desire to thrive through the sole appreciation of an unnatural greenery—cash. In this setting, where science and capital have conjoined, survival is based on the flow of money instead of the flow of blood. Although the image most similar to the images in Our Daily Bread is the x-ray of the human body, it is the systems that support this structure that bring the body to life. The circulatory system hosts the green substance that controls the heart of the body—where power and wealth guide decision making. The respiratory system goes unnoticed on a daily basis. It is the hegemonic structure that corporations disseminate, so that capitalist ideology becomes the consumer’s oxygen. If truth is ever revealed it would be a pandemic in the eyes of capitalists. The digestive system is responsible for breaking everything down to ensure there is constant movement of the system and that any blockages are cleared quickly. Last, the nervous system controls sensory responses so that consumers react to the appearance of a product, and lack awareness in the reality. All systems must work together to create any kind of functioning body—a macro-system.

The naked eye cannot see what happens inside of their body. We are disconnected from what forms us in the same way that we are disconnected from what forms our food as “everything is becoming detached from the soil it grew in” (Hardt and Negri 285). Marx understands this as a form of alienation “from our labour and therefore alienated from our true human nature” (Ritzer 53).  Our bodies “labour in accordance with the purpose of the capitalist” (Ritzer 53).  While Marx refers to factory labour, this can relate to the labour of our internal bodies because the same occurrence takes place: the alienation from our true purpose.  We do not judge people based on their human functions, but rather “things we buy—that are made by others” (Ritzer 55). We are made up of much more than labels, the same way that food is made up of much more than labels; yet, we focus on the outside instead of connecting to inside origins.

The mantras “never forget where you came from” and “those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it,” accentuate the significance of learning how everything and everyone came to being. The lack of connection between awareness and systems is detrimental to the functioning of society because it creates a gap between the wants of a system and needs of the body as a whole. For example, if you do not know the detriments of GMOs then you may want to eat everything on grocery shelves; but if you were aware of the effects of GMOs, you will know that your body needs natural products. When there is a lack of discourse and knowledge about where things come from, the same faults will recur, and there will never be a paradigm shift to a healthier system. This is because “progress in physics and chemistry was not accompanied by an equally rapid expansion in the knowledge,” about the effects on the environment and on ideologies (Foster 110). Consequently, we will remain in a paradigm where “manipulating information [is] at the heart of economic production” (Hardt and Negri 280). Unless consumers can convince corporations to have a change of heart, the truth will always be concealed to circulate money.

While x-rays and images from Our Daily Bread provide a start to understanding systems, there are a few caveats. First, the exposure of x-rays and the film is not available to the entire public, especially those who do not have access to both kinds of technologies. Second, they explicitly show the skeleton of the system, but only implicitly reference the other factors involved. Last, when one sees a package in a grocery store or a clothed person on the street they still, generally, do not connect the appearance to the reality of what lies beneath.  

Foster would agree with this unnatural disconnect between the origin and the system considering one of his laws of ecology is that “nothing comes from nothing” (Foster 118). However, he has three more laws that supplement that notion: “(1) everything is connected to everything else, (2) everything must go somewhere, (3) nature knows best” (Foster 118).  Evidently, the cloning the human body in an unnatural setting means that the laws of ecology are disregarded for the sake of wealth. Instead of abiding by nature’s laws—in which the system was, in this response, copied from—corporations abide by economic laws: “(1) the only lasting connection between things is the cash nexus; (2) it doesn’t matter where something goes as long as it doesn’t reenter the circuit of capital; (3) the self-regulating market knows best; and (4) nature’s bounty is a free gift to the property owner” (Foster 120).  Therefore, mimicking a system and replacing the goals is problematic because the human body was created for a different purpose than a corporate body. While natural systems strive for innate growth; capitalistic systems strive for forced growth.

The blending of ecology and economy, as Foster contends, makes the planet vulnerable, and the corporations secure through “the transformation of science itself into capital” (Foster 110).  Science may refer to scientific management—like Taylorism—however, it can also apply to the science of human systems. The circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and nervous system reveal the effects of the laws of economics more than the skeletal system shown in Our Daily Bread. The first law expands on the same idea of disconnect between a system and its origin by reducing everything down to money: the only necessary connection to understand is how money is made. This notion alludes to the equivalent of the circulatory system. The second law refers to the equivalent of the digestive system where the end goal is to just keep the system moving. The third law refers to the respiratory system—a self-regulating system that functions instinctively. The last law, refers to the nervous system because it leads consumers to believe that nature is an endless supply that is not valuable because it is just given and not grown. Buyers feed into a system where “natural diversity is destroyed in the same proportion as profits are promoted” because they cannot see how these laws are implemented (Foster 117). Our Daily Bread attempts to reveal this destruction; but, the implicit systems are not evident within the bare-bone structure of the factory, they are only realized when side-effects, like global warming, are felt and available to the naked eye. This is dangerous because “a small perturbation in one place may have large, distant, long-delayed effects elsewhere;” the same way a small issue within the corporate system can spread far beyond a company’s bounds (Foster 118).  

Our Daily Bread epitomizes the concept that “natural cycles—became basic elements of industrial output” (Foster 108). Explicitly, I suggest that the human body itself became the foundation for the industry’s processes. Yet, the “separa­tion of conception from execution,” disguises the realities of any system and promotes hegemonic and corporate structures that facilitate the deterioration of the environment and human health (Foster 111).

This response prompt asks to find images of Our Daily Bread “IRL.” I took that literally and compared the unnatural factory system to the human body. However, real life is not limited to human bodies. In fact, many systems are based on forms of living nature: bee hives, trees, spider webs, and sea shells are all partially responsible for architectural projects by discovering the advantages of certain structures. How can we be independent bodies if we do not truly even know what are systems look like inside of us? How can we depend on systems we never see? Why do we let appearance dictate our realities? We are not immune to the flaws any system carries. Our Daily Bread provides X-ray vision, but it is not enough just to see skin and bones.

 Works Cited

Foster, John Bellamy. “The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment.” Contemporary Sociology, vol. 24, no. 1, 1995, pp. 108–124., doi:10.2307/2075119.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. “Empire.” Harvard University Press, 2000, pp. 280–288., doi:10.1086/376266.

Ritzer, George. “Classical Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory, vol. 8, 1985. McGraw Hill, doi:10.2307/202176.