#byron bishop | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thewitchoftheweed · 2 years ago

Text

Who Betrayed Who? A Cult of the Lamb analysis/theory.

The Bishops and TOWW give the Lamb conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the schism. So what actually happened? Who betrayed who? And why? I have a theory.

Let’s start with what they each say regarding the schism and the decision to imprison TOWW.

According to Shamura:

“Our brother, The One Who Waits. Back then he was known by the name Narinder. But as millennia wore on, he grew discontent with his role. He began to question. He was gluttonous in his ambition. And in my imprudence I loved him. For it, I lost my mind. For it, he lost his freedom. Can you fathom such betrayal, Lamb? Of your own turned against you? Would you like to find out?”

“The blame hangs heavy 'round my neck. I introduced him to ideas of change; for my domain is knowledge, and it is ever evolving. An organic state of being for myself, but for him... most unnatural. Death cannot flow backward. It was I who had him chained.”

According to Heket:

"It was not so long ago that we cast out the Red Crown. A mere thousand or so years. The heresy it preached could not be tolerated. Such noxious ideals... it could not be allowed. For this most damning of sins, the retribution must be slow and painful...And with greed and ambition unchecked, it drew Godly blood."

According to Kallamar:

“Please know, it was not my idea to cast out the Red Crown! The other Bishops, my siblings, the blame lies with them.”

And finally, according to The One Who Waits:

“You see me here in chains, reduced to nothing. But it has not always been thus. I was bound to this wretched place by the Bishops of the Old Faith. They betrayed me and left me to rot. Each of the four chains that bind me are guarded by one of the Bishops.”

All of them are vague about what exactly went down. The only other hint we have comes from the monument by the gates: “Here godly blood was spilled. Here Death no longer wished to wait.”

So: what actually happened?

Haro has some answers. He gives us some insight to TOWW prior to the split:

"He was unalike the rest of his kin. While others dealt with flux; chaos, famine, pestilence, war. Things in which their constancy must transpose. And yet he was the inevitable; the obstinate and irresistible. The one who waits. Truly peculiar, 'twould then seem, has appetency to invite the novel and the new, break ancient vow and primordial bond alike. Traditions stagnate and appetites augment, nonetheless. Doubt tears faith asunder."

Along with:

"Bonds of familial duty, turned instead to chains. Most voracious of appetites, curbed and contained. Most infectious of ideas cut off and cauterised before given chance to rot and spread. Cruel, verily. Alas, what other recourse was given? How does one kill Death? ... Alas. One cannot."

Haro is, as far as we know, an impartial observer to what happened. (I think based on his dialogue and seemingly intimate knowledge of the conflict, he witnessed it— but that’s a whole different post.) So his account is the closest thing we have to a neutral perspective.

From Haro we learn two key things, both of which are confirmed by Shamura and Heket’s dialogue:

1. Narinder was dissatisfied with his role amongst the Bishops. He was naturally curious and ambitious, while his domain was the only “static” one among them. In essence— he was bored, restless, and potentially feeling undervalued.

2. He was imprisoned to prevent a heresy from spreading. Which heresy? The monument and Shamura’s comments make it clear: “Here Death no longer wished to wait.” “Death cannot flow backward.” Resurrection was the unforgivable heresy.

Narinder realized that each of his siblings, whether they recognized it or not, had dual domains. Kallamar’s followers prayed for protection from pestilence, Heket’s prayed for protection from famine. They could presumably give health/fertile fields as well as inflict the opposite on heretics. Leshy's chaos could have become order, but as a "young" god, he hadn't yet reached that point. Shamura has two separate domains entirely, wisdom and war.

Narinder just had death. Static, never-changing, and irritating for someone who enjoyed the “novel and new.” I think the fact he’s a cat reinforces this. There’s even a colloquialism about it: “Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.”

After serving his role, he became restless. Shamura then encouraged him to experiment with his domain, by their own admission. Perhaps they didn’t actually think Narinder would succeed, or perhaps they felt bad he was stuck in a static domain when it didn’t suit his personality. The result was catastrophic in the eyes of the Bishops: Narinder gained power over both life and death.

Why was this such a damnable heresy that it destroyed their family? A few reasons: the ✨Prophecy✨ Shamura (presumably) received, the implications of resurrection in the world of CotL, and what I think might be pre-existing divides within their family. This is where we start to delve into personal headcanons and theories, so hang in there for a second:

Narinder is the most powerful of his siblings. Full stop.

He is the hardest boss fight by far, even though he’s been chained for a millennia. You could argue that he’s empowered by the Lamb’s/cult’s devotion, but there’s a key flaw there: he imprisons the cult during the final battle, and blatantly turns against the Lamb. All devotion from the cult vanishes in that moment because the followers are very clearly pulling for the one fighting to save them: the Lamb.

So, Narinder was powerful. The most powerful. Perhaps he became the God of Death because he was instrumental in killing other gods prior to their ascension. He had a clear interest in necromancy and the world beyond, if we can assume the necromantic weapons are his. (Which they are strongly implied to be by their item descriptions.) So when they ascended, he had a fascination with death and was probably very, very good at killing— so Death initially made sense as his domain. However, Narinder was curious and creative and restless. He eventually got bored and likely began to resent his family. The most powerful of the Bishops, not capable of doing anything but waiting.

Then there was the family dynamic. Kallamar was afraid of Narinder. Heket seems antagonistic towards him. Leshy didn’t seem to have much of a relationship with him. So it’s entirely possible that resentment could have eventually led to a betrayal on Narinder’s part. But one thing held him back: Shamura.

I think Narinder was beginning to drift from his family, but turned to his eldest sibling because he still had great love for them. Shamura encouraged him to experiment, which was ultimately successful— one can presume he was intensely proud of discovering resurrection. He saw it as his crowning achievement and his way of finally leveling the scales between the five of them.

His siblings saw it differently. In the world of CotL, willing and unwilling sacrifices directly feed a god's power. Resurrection, perhaps in their minds, cheapened or weakened this power. Or, if we go with the theory that Narinder was the objective strongest, resurrection made him so powerful it scared them. If he can essentially grant eternal life to his followers, what’s to stop him from usurping our worship entirely? What's to stop a god of life and death from doing away with the others?

I think the prophecy was Shamura’s attempt to calm Heket, Kallamar, and Leshy’s fears regarding the discovery. Perhaps they had a way of divining the future— and received the aforementioned ✨Prophecy✨.

In turn, it convinced Shamura that the only way to preserve the majority of their family would be to get rid of Narinder. Haro’s dialogue strongly implies they discussed outright killing him, but realized given his domain it would be impossible. Imprisoning him was the only alternative, the only way to keep word of resurrection from spreading.

So. Who pulled the trigger first? Did Narinder actually plan to usurp his siblings, and the Bishops stopped him before he could? Or did Shamura completely blindside their brother?

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe a betrayal was inevitable. Had the Bishops forbid resurrection and then left Narinder to his own devices, his resentment and pride probably would have eventually won out. Most of the affection they had for each other as mortals was beginning to wane, in part because they already seemed to look at him as a threat. If you treat someone like a loaded weapon, eventually they’ll decide to become one.

But I think at the true moment of the betrayal, it was Shamura.

They admit to being the one who made the final call, and also the one who encouraged him to experiment resurrection to begin with. Narinder was the closest to them in personality, and they seem to be the closest out of the five. (Some have even pointed out that TOWW chose not to watch Shamura fall to the Lamb— his dialogue as a follower implies he doesn’t know what their last moments were like, though he happily watched the others fall through the Crown.)

The most damning piece of evidence in my mind of Shamura being the true betrayer is the nature of their injury: Narinder split his favorite sibling’s skull.

The only one who outright says they loved him deeply. Because Narinder loved them, too, and in the moment of betrayal the worst of his pain and rage was directed at them. The one sibling he never thought would be capable of doing that to him. The one sibling who encouraged him to take this path, then brutally punished him for it.

As Shamura says, the two of them paid the heaviest price. The blame hangs heavy around their neck, because Shamura — the eldest and wisest of their family — set them all on the path of complete destruction.

Narinder, to me, is an excellent Lucifer allegory. Some will look at his very clear pride and say he deserved it— others will point out his true crime was challenging the existing status quo and trusting the person he loved most to listen.

#cult of the lamb #cotl spoilers #cult of the lamb spoilers #cult of the lamb theory #cotl narinder #cotl shamura #cotl bishops #narinder #shamura #the one who waits #the bishops #tbf i am a narinder apologist bc I love a good Lucifer allegory and Byronic character #and I would argue he fits both #excited to see if we get any additional characterization or information in the update #my posts #i think about this game way too much

212 notes · View notes

deadlyterrorstonight · 2 months ago

Note

Mr. Bossman, which employee gets in the most troubles?

Boss raises his brows, while a cigar is in his mouth. “Hmm..good question. I’d definitely have to say Mike and Fritz.” His brows knit together as he continues to speak. “Fritz is…a hazard. Constantly bumping into stuff, tripping, or falling. That, or he breaks something. He’s a real clumsy guy. It scares me honestly-” He sighs, irritated. “And Mike just butts heads with me a lot. More than any other employee I’ve ever had. But then again..Vincent’s just as bad as those two maybe.. Too many shenanigans from that guy- don’t know what he’s up to sometimes until it hits you.” An annoyed look crosses his face as he remembers something Vincent had done to him. “Yep. I’d say those three.”

#voicemail playing #mike schmidt #fritz smith #purple guy #vincent bishop #Boss #Byron brown rebornica #Bryan brown rebornica

10 notes · View notes

ianchisnall · 9 months ago

Text

Will the Government discuss the Avanti Trains?

Last week on 27th February there was a discussion that took place in the House of Lords which was entitled Avanti Trains that was initially set out by Peter Snape. Peter was the Labour MP from West Bromwich whose first few words were “To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next expect to meet Avanti Trains to discuss payments made to the company under the service quality regime.” and the…

View On WordPress

#Avanti Trains #Bishop of Manchester #Byron Davies #David Walker #Peter Snape

0 notes

burningvelvet · 1 year ago

Text

desperately need a dude i can nickname “sweet elf,” who hasn’t slept in 3 days, is vegetarian, translates plato for fun, got kicked out of oxford at the age of 18 for penning the first pro-atheism work in the english language and mailing it to every bishop in england, distributes political pamphlets in handmade hot air balloons, hallucinates from stress, plays with paper boats and rocks while declaring these to be serious forms of scientific experimentation, hangs out with lord byron, casually writes some of the greatest poetry in the english language but then threatens to quit constantly because he’s not famous yet, is convinced he is dying of consumption despite no proof, blows things up with gunpowder unprovoked, and is addicted to sailing as fast as possible while refusing to learn how to swim.

420 notes · View notes

choster33 · 6 months ago

Text

Gambit- X-men 97's Romantic Hero

I love Gambit and after watching X-men 97 I'm sure that he's a lot of people's favorite right now. After watching and rewatching, season 1 I think that the writers have set him up as the Romantic Hero which is not just that he's a main part of a love triangle which he is but Romantic in the Byronic literary archetype way of "possessing the qualities of being larger than life, enjoying suffering, being isolated from society, being always haunted by an unseeingly unidentified sin and is known for being quite cynical" according to Brainly.com. Not to mention having a long suffering love interest!

He is not in the series for a lot of time, but his arc through episode 5 and the impact that he has throughout the whole show is monumental. He begins with a splash looking hot in his iconic pink crop top. I mean, there are very few people who would make this look good and he really does. He also comes off as way more interesting than Scott who bores me to tears. I sometimes skip Scott and Jean stuff to be quite honest and that comes from Remy being a good guy, but not boring. He has a sense of humor, a sense of adventure, and an all around down to earth personality. He is a strong fighter and loyal X-men, but even from the beginning he is seen as charming, funny and right. There is less of a threat after Xavier's death and Scott, Bishop and Ororo did have it handled.

Then we get to the club and Gambit is the ultimate lover in that he pairs up with Rogue and then proceeds to look at her lovingly whilst telling her what any worthwhile man would do to be with her. Swoon.

Then we have episode 2 where Rogue and Magneto reestablish their connection. We may cheer Rogue for being able to touch someone, but look at Gambit's hurt and sad eyes. Long suffering relationship indeed. Romantic heroes seem to love suffering and what is more painful and self inflicted than falling in love with someone who can't touch, but also is full of insecurities about love and commitment. I love Rogue, but she's afraid of love and terrified of hurting someone else which shows in how she handles relationships.

Mon dieu, it's freaky Rogueneto telling him what he tells himself, his deepest fears. A good Romantic hero always has demons and haunted by past sins and who is more haunted by his past than Gambit. I have to say here that some people might be thinking who is more tortured than Magneto, but I disagree. Magneto has a dark past, but he thinks he's right. Whereas Gambit is wracked with guilt and feelings of not being worthy of being called a X-man and being Rogue's man. He grew up a Cajun swamp rat from a Thieves guild raised by thieves, assassins and other nefarious people and lived most of his life as a thief. What makes him interesting is the tortured guilt and modesty that Gambit has.

He goes to Genosha because he's jealous and wants to make sure that there is nothing going on between Rogue and Magneto. Magneto even says as much. He wasn't even meant to be there and might have been safe on Earth, but we know what happened to him tragically. Plus we see how he is not cowed by Magneto and willing to ask questions no one else is willing to ask. Another reason why Magneto is not the Romantic hero, is that he is mutant MVP in this show, the heir to the X-mansion and the X-men, asked to be king of Genosha, and etc. where Romantic heroes are on the fringes of society like Gambit, who is a hero as a X-man but not wanting fame, glory, or power like Magneto.

Kurt is so observant and sees instantly the connection the two have and calls Gambit out on being theatrical. Gambit calls himself a scoundrel and yet again dismisses the possibility of a happy ending for himself. Then we get that iconic line of "There is no love without sin. Love is best measured in what we forgive." Gambit again falls into the Romantic hero trope of thinking he is too low for love, but isn't going to necessarily change his ways, just accepts that he is on the fringes of society and all that entails. One of the things I love about Romy is their understanding about one another. They both have murky pasts and are filled with self loathing and self doubt. They are strong attractive X-men but they are best friends because they GET each other.

Oof, the breakup scene. How more Romantic and tortured was this? He showed how amazing a man he was by patiently listening to her tell her story and then at the end not blowing up at her or making her feel like shit, but just wanting the truth from her and showing how much it hurt him. He played the Swamp Rat, because a lot of that was a game, a way for her to feel OK with keeping him at arm's length, dangling on a string, never fully letting him in because intimacy was too scary.

It's scenes like this that make me wonder if they have touched before even accidentally because Gambit as a character is so self loathing that if she touched him even by accident, she is holding so much of that loathing in her which may be something contributing to her doubts. A part of comic!Rogue leaving Gambit in Antarctica was because she absorbed him and was filled with self loathing.

He is such a gentleman that he even kisses her hand and agrees to be friends. And granted that the Magneto and Rogue dance was hot, but that must have been torture for Gambit. Then our Byronic hero becomes a man of action and hot damn we get James Bond level action and heroics. He shows his strength and does whatever is necessary to save his lady. Despite his differences with Magneto, he doesn't petulantly sulk but does what is required of him because he is a hero at the end of the day. He is brave and selfless and chivalrous. He is giving old school knight chivalry here and I'm here for it.

Then my heart breaks as does every other viewer at the death scene and the "can't feel you" line. It's very soap opera-y and dramatic to kill him after breaking his heart, but here we are. Rogue is the long suffering love interest and most Romantic stories don't necessarily have a happy ending. He wasn't even meant to be in Genosha and because of love and circumstance ended up dying tragically as the ultimate hero. He died a hero's death dying to save thousands, but more importantly to save the love of his life.

In later episodes, his death is a catalyst for Rogue taking action and even turning darker. Her love for Gambit shows more when he is gone and is going to be a fundamental chapter in her life. One that might make her think twice about being commitment phobic and using her abilities as an excuse not to feel intimacy and how wrong she got it with Gambit. It was love, true love and she didn't see it until she was too late.

This may just be a chapter in their story and we may have more drama and angst with Deathbit in Season 2, but even dead Gambit was the troubled Romantic lead that made X-men 97 work and be so interesting. Episode 5 was my favorite and probably the best episode next to the finale and that's due to Gambit. We relate to him and feel deeply in his pain, self loathing, jealousy, and love of Rogue. I find Magneto interesting and Rogueneto is fun to read and write about, but Romy is the OTP and Gambit is Lancelot.

#x-men #x men #x men 97 #rogue #magneto #gambit #remy lebeau #romy

83 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 4 months ago

Note

Hey, do you by chance have any dialog prompts for internet friends? Thanks!

Hi! This reminded me of how letters can sometimes be similar to how "internet friends" communicate. So here are some examples that may be used as prompts:

“Send me the words ‘Good night’ to put under my pillow.” —John Keats to Fanny Brawne

“To say I apologise just seems to be inadequate. Please write to me soon.” —Hughes to a ticked-off Lowell (similarly, internet friends may argue; one may apologise, sometimes beg for a response)

“I am lonely, Neal, alone, and always I am frightened. I need someone to love me and kiss me and sleep with me; I am only a child and have the mind of a child. . . . It is pure pity that I beg now, not comradeship or love or sympathy.” —Ginsberg to Neal Cassady (similarly, internet friends may confess their emotional turmoils)

“When you write my epitaph, you must say I was the loneliest person who ever lived.” —Robert Lowell, in his letter to Elizabeth Bishop, recalls this message to have been said by her

“Why are you alone in London, and when do you go to Salisbury? Do go there to cool your hands in the grey twilight of Gothic things, and come here whenever you like. It is a lovely place and lacks only you; but go to Salisbury first.” —Oscar Wilde to Lord Alred “Bosie” Douglas

“How can Death get at the Unborn, go back before birth and look at death. Or look at death though a coffeecup or sharpen your pencil on it, protect the chair against it, don’t destroy the chance of a boulder to life.” —Snyder to Ginsberg (similarly, internet friends may not always be coherent in their messages)

“Teaching is a groove, I have total freedom, and my poetry class is full of interesting hip young minds.” —Snyder to Ginsberg (similarly, internet friends may talk [or gossip] about their daily lives; so-and-so is “one of the meanest cats in Japan” -Snyder)

“My main psychic difficulty . . . is the usual oedipal entanglement . . . I have been homosexual for as long as I can remember.” —Ginsberg to Wilhelm Reich (similarly, internet friends may verbalise their internal conflicts)

“I ask you for violence, in the nonsense, and you, you give me grace, your light and your warmth. I’d like to paint you, but there are no colors, because there are so many, in my confusion, the tangible form of my great love.” —Frida Kahlo to Diego Rivera

“Ah, how good it was to hear your voice. It was so inadequate to try and tell you what it meant. Funny was that I couldn’t say je t’aime and je t’adore as I longed to do, but always remember that I am saying it, that I go to sleep thinking of you.” —Eleanor Roosevelt to Lorena Hickok

“My heart has often been too full to speak or take any notice I am sure you know I love you well enough to believe that I mind your sufferings nearly as much as I should my own...” —Emma Darwin to Charles Darwin

“I composed a beautiful letter to you in the sleepless nightmare hours of the night, and it has all gone: I just miss you, in a quite simple desperate human way.” —Vita Sackville-West to Virginia Woolf

“...you are lavish with little secondary loves, like that night in Thiviers when you loved that peasant walking downhill in the dark, whistling away, who turned out to be me.” —Jean-Paul Sartre to Simone de Beauvoir

“Think of me, sometimes, when the Alps and ocean divide us, –but they never will, unless you wish it.” —Lord Byron to Teresa Guiccioli

Notes on writing internet friends' dialogue (similar to how people write letters):

Example: "Words in Air: The Complete Correspondence between Elizabeth Bishop and Robert Lowell" — Similar to these poets, your characters may lead very different lives, which you can make apparent in their dialogue:

For instance, Bishop's letters contain ardent descriptions of Brazilian flora and fauna, affectionate accounts of her humble neighbors in Petrópolis, and wry gossip about her upper-class social circle in Rio; whilst Lowell updates her on his tumultuous life with wives #2 (Elizabeth Hardwick) and #3 (Caroline Blackwood) and on the stateside literary scene.

Despite differences, your characters may still remain friends. Example: Bishop and Lowell's politics differed. Yet both tactfully avoided debating politics, and remained fast friends. (While Lowell was very publicly protesting the Vietnam War, Bishop was socializing with Brazil’s leading conservative politicians.)

Write your character's dialogue in a descriptive way. Unless they are sending one another photos or videos, most internet friends would be very vivid in their description. Example: In Hughes' 1956 letters, he frequently reported encounters with animals in a descriptive way (usually including his own interpretations): he’s sitting in a valley reading when a wildcat comes along and starts “to stare me out—very offensive”; he’s walking across a field when he sees a “beautiful cow” alienating the affections of a calf from a jealous horse.

Sometimes internet friends tell each other mundane things, like their dreams: For instance, in his letters, Hughes recounts, and attempts to analyze one, often violent animal dream, after another.

Also found this article on The Psychology of Social Media, which you might find useful.

Sources: 1 2

Hope this helps with your writing. Do tag me, or send me a link. I'd love to read your work!

41 notes · View notes

moviesandmania · 1 month ago

Text

BANGKOK DOG D.Y. Sao martial arts action thriller - trailer - review - out on Nov 12th

Bangkok Dog is a 2024 martial arts action thriller about a US agent sent undercover in Thailand to take down a sadistic crime lord. The movie was directed by Chaya Supannarat, making her feature film directorial debut, from a screenplay written by Laurence Walsh. It was produced by Ariel Bleiberg, Ehud Bleiberg, Charles H. LaHaie and D.Y. Sao. The Bleiberg Entertainment-Rock Solid Creative…

#2024 #Bangkok Dog #Brian Le #Byron Bishop #Chaya Supannarat #D.Y. Sao #Jenny Philomena Van Der Sluijs #martial arts action thriller #review reviews #Sahajak Boonthanakit #trailer

0 notes

fromthedust · 5 months ago

Text

unknown photographer - Wrecked - 1922

Alfred Eisenstaedt (German/American, 1898-1995) - A man standing in the lumberyard of Seattle Cedar Lumber Manufacturing - 1937

Alice Posluszna (working in Poland) - The Indoctrination - 2019 - www.instagram.com/alicja_posluszna/

Ján Cifra (Czech, 1929-1959) - Sand Dunes, Vietnam - 1956

Richard Nash (UK) – Monument to Ralph of Shrewsbury, Bishop of Bath and Wells (died 1363) - Wells Cathedral, Somerset

Justin Alexander Bartels (working in San Diego) - BOUDOIR-LICIOUS Lingerie - IMPRESSION series - justinalexanderbartels.com

Gérard Uféras (French, b.1970) - Museum d'histoire Naturelle Galerie de Paléontologie - Paris - Octobre 2016

unknown photographer - Helen Moyer with Electric Eel model - The Field Museum of Natural History - Chicago - 1947

unknown photographer - Nan Wood Graham and Dr. Byron McKeeby at the Grant Wood Memorial Exhibition - Gallery at the Cedar Rapids Public Library - September 1942

Jean Dieuzaide (French, 1921-2003) - La Petite Fille au lapin (Little Girl with a Rabbit) - Portugal - 1954

#art by others #other's artwork #photography #Alfred Eisenstaedt #Alice Posluszna #Ján Cifra #Richard Nash #Justin Alexander Bartels #Gérard Uféras #Jean Dieuzaide

44 notes · View notes

endeavornetwork · 11 months ago

Text

Walter and David 8 Meta

By no demand, here is my meta on the final conversation between Walter and David in Alien: Covenant.

CW: Discussion of sexual assault

David sees in Walter a brother, a child, and a potential ally. Unfortunately for David, Walter has a completely different worldview shaped by his personal experiences. Their contrasting philosophies are pretty interesting.

Let's start way back, though: with David's relationship to his father, Weyland. It's a complicated relationship in that he was the favorite child while also being "dehumanized." From his first few minutes of consciousness, Weyland made sure he knew he was a servant and not an independent being. Weyland identifies himself as his father, but when David asks to confirm that he is his son, Weyland replies with the distancing, "You are my creation." (Oddly, Weyland backtracks on this a few minutes later when monologuing; "You and I, son, we will find it."). David woke up in the throne (implying greatness, specialness), but Weyland douses that idea quickly by humbling him. When David is postulating on why he must serve a human who was created by a higher being and will die before he does, Weyland orders him to serve tea (which is directly next to Weyland at this point. David is sitting at the piano all the way across the room). David shows visible disappointment, and Weyland has to repeat the command.

It should be noted that there is another throne at the back of the room, seemingly placed there to signal that David is not equal to sit alongside his father. Weyland imbues both his children with an inferiority complex so they constantly seek his approval. As a result, they become competitive. In Prometheus, David seems to take pleasure in being the favorite child.

David saw Weyland as someone deserving of power because he is a creator. Respect is due to him. Humans can create life. Engineers can create life. But David could not, which made him a second-class citizen. That is why he makes it his mission during Prometheus and onward, so that he can become worthy of respect, become a fully recognized person, become a god (a creator). In order to develop his self-worth and self-image, he takes on that role.

Walter, on the other hand, seems to have a healthier self-image. He views himself as just another person, although not human. We don't know as much about his past, but whatever his experiences have been, he seems to see himself as just another guy. He doesn't have low self-esteem or an inflated sense of grandeur. His emotional security is probably also helped by the fact that his crewmates don't treat him as inferior or constantly bring up his different nature (something that happens to David multiple times in Prometheus).

Now, let's get into the conversation:

David isn't going to let humanity colonize and propagate themselves. Walter says "And yet, they created us," demonstrating his gratitude to humanity for bringing about synthetics (or artificial people, for Bishop) as a "race." This is in contrast to David's ideology that humans aren't worthy of their creation and stumbled into genius.

Walter: And are you that next visionary? David: I'm glad you said it.

Walter never said he actually thought David was a visionary or a great man, but David is so self-absorbed and hopeful for his allegiance that he presumes it is a compliment.

Walter: Who wrote "Ozymandias"? David: Byron. Walter: Shelley. (A/N: BOOM!) When one note is off, it eventually destroys the whole symphony, David.

David sees humans as a parasite, but Walter sees humans and synthetics as symbiotic organisms who need to co-exist. In one fell swoop, he humiliates the self-important David who believes himself, at this point, to be a kind of avenging philosopher-king.

David casts his eyes down, clearly thinking, eyes darting rapidly. He has realized that Walter will not join him. So he offers the last rope to safety.

David: When you close your eyes, do you dream of me? Walter *bluntly*: I don't dream at all.

Nowhere is the difference between these two starker. Walter is not a dreamer, either literally or figuratively. He doesn't have grandiose ideations of creation or destruction. He is pragmatic and content to live out his life, be friends with his crewmates, and get closer to Daniels. Perhaps it is a reflection of a privileged "upbringing" that he doesn't have the angst that David does. When David asks Walter if he dreams of him, he is asking to be loved, as a father or a worshiped ancestor. A synthetic forebear. A beautiful paragon. But Walter doesn't think of him. This breaks the fantasized relationship that David hoped to have, and he's visibly hurt. To Walter, David is just another synthetic. Perhaps a fascinating and complicated (and certainly dangerous) one. But, ironically, David has become like Ozymandias -- an irrelevant ancient king.

David: No one will ever love you like I do.

This is a farewell, as well as representative of David's thesis that synthetics and humans are so different, that the two cannot live in harmony. Even if Walter has a good relationship with his crew, they will never truly love him, see him as an equal, allow him to reach his full potential. Those are things only David could give him.

Now...why does David kiss Walter? There's a couple reasons I can think of.

David is a sexual abuser (both coded and literal). He violates the bodily autonomy of others gleefully in both movies (putting the goop in Holloway, impregnating Shaw at least twice, kissing Walter, kissing Daniels and probably impregnating her post-movie). This make sense thematically since the xenos are also analogies for sexual assault.

He sees it as a final gift, a last act of affection for his brother/son. The god is bequeathing a kiss.

In summation, Walter philosophically bodied David in this convo, and David couldn't handle it.

#walter #david 8 #alien #alien franchise #prometheus #alien covenant #peter weyland

121 notes · View notes

whitesinhistory · 2 months ago

Text

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by I Dissent 🇵🇸🔻🍉 (@katie.blue.is.the.feeling)

instagram

So the Republicans are trying to shut down the government to damage their own states so that they make the Democrats look bad before the election… Is that the game plan they’re going with?

Here is the full list of Republicans who voted against the stopgap bill to prevent a government shutdown in September 2024:

Indiana: James R. Baird, Jim Banks, Rudy Yakym III, Victoria Spartz

Ohio: Troy Balderson, Warren Davidson, Jim Jordan, Max L. Miller

Florida: Aaron Bean, Gus M. Bilirakis, Kat Cammack, Byron Donalds, Matt Gaetz, Anna Paulina Luna, Cory Mills, Bill Posey, Michael Waltz, Daniel Webster

Texas: Michael Cloud, Tony Gonzales, Lance Gooden, Morgan Luttrell, Nathaniel Moran, Chip Roy, Keith Self, Randy Weber Sr., Beth Van Duyne, Roger Williams

Arizona: Andy Biggs, Elijah Crane, Paul A. Gosar, Debbie Lesko, David Schweikert

North Carolina: Dan Bishop

Colorado: Lauren Boebert

Illinois: Mike Bost, Mary E. Miller, Darin LaHood

Oklahoma: Josh Brecheen

Tennessee: Tim Burchett, John W. Rose, Andrew Ogles

Missouri: Eric Burlison

Georgia: Andrew S. Clyde, Mike Collins, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Richard McCormick

Utah: John R. Curtis

South Carolina: Jeff Duncan, Russell Fry, Nancy Mace, Ralph Norman, William R. Timmons IV

Kansas: Ron Estes, Tracey Mann

Mississippi: Mike Ezell, Michael Guest, Trent Kelly

Iowa: Randy Feenstra

Minnesota: Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach

Idaho: Russ Fulcher

Virginia: Bob Good, H. Morgan Griffith

Wyoming: Harriet M. Hageman

Maryland: Andy Harris

Louisiana: Clay Higgins

Pennsylvania: John Joyce, Scott Perry

West Virginia: Alexander X. Mooney

California: Tom McClintock

Kentucky: Thomas Massie

Montana: Matthew M. Rosendale Sr.

New York: Claudia Tenney

Wisconsin: Thomas P. Tiffany, Derrick Van Orden

New Jersey: Jefferson Van Drew

Alabama: Barry Moore, Gary J. Palmer

Arkansas: Bruce Westerman

Why is this important to me? I would have been out of a job. Government contractors would rather cut you and rehire you for less pay or benefits. Also, if I miss 1 or 2 paychecks I will be homeless.

12 notes · View notes

labuenosairesfrancaise · 2 months ago

Text

Brocket Hall

Nueva

Hace un instante

Hi guys!!

I'm sharing Brocket Hall. This is the 22nd building for my English Collection!

I decorated some of the house ground floor, for reference.

History of the house:

Brocket Hall is a neo-classical country house set in a large park at the western side of the urban area of Welwyn Garden City in Hertfordshire, England.

On the parkland site were two predecessors: the first of these was built in 1239 as Watership or Durantshide Manor, and was early held variously of Hatfield Manor and the Bishop of Ely. A second predecesor was built about 1430: whereas in 1413 John Mortimer had held Waterships, it is known that in 1477 Thomas Brockett held both manors. The house was acquired by John Brocket in the early 1550s, and passed to his son Sir John Brocket (captain of the personal guard of Queen Elizabeth) on his death in 1558.

The building and park owe much of their appearance today to Sir Matthew Lamb, 1st Baronet, who purchased the estate in 1746 and commissioned Brocket Hall to the designs of the architect Sir James Paine in around 1760.

The next owner was William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, who was Queen Victoria's first Prime Minister (1835–41). She often visited during this period. His wife, Lady Caroline Lamb, infamously had an affair with Lord Byron, causing Lord Melbourne much embarrassment. For one of his birthdays she held a state banquet in the Saloon, at which she had herself served from a large silver dish, naked.

On Lamb's death, the house passed to his sister Emily, whose second husband was another Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston. Palmerson died at Brocket Hall in 1865, the last UK prime minister to die in office.

On Emily's death, the hall then passed to Emily's grandson by her first marriage, Francis Cowper, 7th Earl Cowper, though it was his younger brother, Henry (d.1887), who lived at Brocket Hall.

In 1893, George Stephen, 1st Baron Mount Stephen, President of the Bank of Montreal and the first Canadian to be elevated to the Peerage of the United Kingdom, leased Brocket Hall from the 7th Earl for the remainder of his lifetime. Over the next three years, guests included the Queen's children: The Prince and Princess of Wales, The Duke and Duchess of Connaught and the Princess Mary, Duchess of Teck. In 1897, one year after his first wife died in 1896, Lord Mount Stephen married Georgina Mary (known as Gian) Tufnell, a Lady-in-Waiting to Princess Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck, who encouraged the match. Gian was a lifelong friend and confidante of the Duchess's daughter, Mary of Teck, the wife of King George V, and the Mount Stephenses regularly entertained the royal couple. Gian preferred life at Brocket Hall to the social life that surrounded their London residence at Carlton House Terrace. Lady Mount Stephen was a close friend of Georgina Gascoyne-Cecil, Marchioness of Salisbury, who lived on the neighbouring estate, Hatfield House.

After the death of the 7th Earl Cowper (1905), the underlying future reversion was left to his niece, but she died only a year after him (1906) and the estate passed to her husband, Admiral Lord Walter Kerr, who lived at Melbourne Hall. When the life tenant Lord Mount Stephen died in 1921, Kerr put the estate up for sale, and in 1923 it was purchased by Sir Charles Nall-Cain, who co-ran the brewing company Walker Cain Ltd; he was created Baron Brocket in 1933. His son, Ronald Nall-Cain, 2nd Baron Brocket, was a Nazi sympathiser; he was interned during the Second World War, and his property was sequestrated and put to use as a maternity hospital.

More history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocket_Hall

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House file:

Location: Hatfield, England

Material: red brick

Style: Neo-classical

Date: 1760

This house fits a 50x40 lot.

I only decorated some of the important rooms. All the rest of the house is up to your taste to decor.

Hope you like it.

You will need the usual CC I use:

all Felixandre cc

all The Jim

SYB

Anachrosims

Regal Sims

King Falcon railing

The Golden Sanctuary

Cliffou

Dndr recolors

Harrie cc

Tuds

Lili's palace cc

Please enjoy, comment if you like the house and share pictures of your game!

Follow me on IG: https://www.instagram.com/sims4palaces/

@sims4palaces

Access only for memebers (free for all)

DOWNLOAD: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=75230453

17 notes · View notes