#for context -- chapter 11 is Bernard's chapter

[apileofashandember]

me: I wanna finish writing chapter 10 today...

my brain: but then that means it'll be time for chapter 11

me: shit

[synchronousemma]

Tuesday, 5th July (Old Midsummer Eve): Emma reflects

Read the post and comment on WordPress

Read: Vol. 3, ch. 12 [48] 272-278 ("Till now that she was threatened" to "when it were gone").

Context

Mrs. Weston visits at Hartfield and tells Emma of her visit at the Bateses’. Emma regrets her past dealings with Jane Fairfax.

This presumably occurs the day after Emma learns of Harriet’s attachment to Mr. Knightley, given that her assessment of this news takes the rest of that “day” and the “following night” (vol. 3, ch. 11 [47]; p. 270). Baublyté Kaufmann, reading “following night” to mean ‘the night of the following day,’ takes Emma’s reflections to occur over “two days,” p. 68; taking the 4th of July to be one of those days, this is the second.

Readings and Interpretations

The Morning

Emma’s thoughts, having closed the previous chapter, open this one. It seems that Austen takes advantage of a formal gap (the chapter break) to represent a temporal gap (the night). In this new day, Emma turns from considering her past dealings with Harriet to thinking of her past dealings with Mr. Knightley. Her private contrition may in some ways be excessive; like Bernard Paris, who writes of how the revelation has led Emma to “hate[] herself and revere[] Knightley” (p. 90), J. F. Burrows writes that “[t]he very humility that goes with Emma’s sudden access of ‘self-knowledge’ leads her into further errors”:

She admits how little she has deserved Mr Knightley’s long-standing concern for her and how often she has been “negligent or perverse, slighting his advice, or even quarrelling with him because he would not acknowledge her false and insolent estimate of her own.” Though Emma has needed to be humbled, Mr Knightley does not warrant such idolatry as this. By the same token, Emma’s new humility induces a yearning for the past when Mr Knightley had acted as a second and more effective father. No doubt this relationship had been delightful. Yet Emma should not continue to think like Peter Pan—or Isabella Knightley. (p. 118)

Cicely Havely points out that Emma is still engaging in fantasies of objectivity when she determines to observe Harriet and Mr. Knightley together:

while her fantasies have brought her to this pass, her understanding cannot get her out of it. With a forensic—and heroic—objectivity she scrutinizes every shred of evidence that Harriet can muster of Mr. Knightley’s attachment: [quotes from “She should see them henceforward” to “no authority for opposing Harriet's confidence…”]. Here she has tried to assume the role of the ‘reliable’ narrator, and yet she is still in fact exactly as wrong as she was when she thought Mr. Elton was in love with Harriet. Despite being partly the ‘author’ of this situation, she has no more ‘authority’ as a reader of it than Harriet. Understanding is of no more use than fantasy in arriving at a correct conclusion. (p. 129)

Like Burrows, Kaufmann sees Emma’s thinking as a desire for regression. When Emma thinks that, even if Mr. Knightley were to ask for her hand, she would refuse it for the sake of her father, this represents a “wish for a return to the past” that is doomed to futility. “The cyclicity of [Emma’s] life-long relationship with Mr. Knightley [was] cut” as soon as she realized her love for him, with “no way back to the former mode”—“[t]he image of a darting arrow represents the linearity of the moment” (p. 68). Thus this desire for a return is one that arises from fear rather than being an expression of a genuine possibility:

[Emma] clings to her old idea of never getting married in order to protect herself from the possible disappointment. At this point the tension between the cyclicity—the life before the recognition of her feelings—and linearity—the supposed life after Mr. Knightley has married Harriet—is at its strongest point. Cyclicity seems to be the secure option: [quotes from “She had no hope” to “the same Mr. Knightley to all the world …”]. Emma’s wish to fix her world, which is on the threshold of definite transformation, springs out of her fear of an unfavourable change. (p. 68)1

Some critics, however, see more in Emma’s determination not to leave her father than an effort at self-protection. Per Tiffany Potter:

Austen makes clear that Emma does not really want to marry Knightley, but would rather have him remain unmarried and available for friendship and visitation as he always has been. This quotation is significant: [quotes from “Could she be secure of that” to “Marriage, in fact, would not do for her”]. While it may be argued that Emma is simply attempting to convince herself of this at this point in the novel, it is still significant that she wishes Mr. Knightley to fulfil the position of friend—not unlike the position in which she places female companions. It appears that Emma would actually most like to position Mr. Knightley into her continuum of relationships with women, with the same platonic attraction and love that she shares with friends other than Harriet […]. She cannot ever position Knightley in this way, however, since the social dictates of permanent relationships force either marriage or distance between men and women. (p. 196)

Bernard Paris likewise holds Emma’s initial disinclination to marry Mr. Knightley to be genuine:

Emma’s pride receives a devastating blow when she learns of Harriet’s hopes of winning Knightley. The two things most important to her, her self-esteem and her preeminence, are severely threatened by this discovery. When Harriet indicates that Frank Churchill is not her object, Emma waits speechless and “in great terror” to learn the truth (III, xi). When all is revealed, including the fact that Harriet has some reasonable hope of a return, it darts through Emma, “with the speed of an arrow, that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself!” This intuition is in part a recognition of her own love and her need for his affection. It is mainly, however, a response to threat. If Knightley marries Harriet—or anyone else, for that matter—Emma will lose her position of preeminence, both as first lady of Highbury and, insofar as Knightley is in some respects a father substitute, as favored child. Now that she is “threatened with its loss,” Emma discovers how much of her happiness depends “on being first with Mr. Knightley, first in interest and affection” (III, xii). She need not marry him, but he must not marry anyone else: “Could she be secure of that, indeed, of his never marrying at all, she believed she should be perfectly satisfied. […]” Given her bond to her father, this would, indeed, be the best solution. What she cannot stand is the thought of Harriet being “the chosen, the first, the dearest.” (pp. 89–90)

Susan Korba goes further in holding that Emma’s “‘love’ for Mr. Knightley” is entirely illusory, “based on a combination of her desire for ascendancy over Harriet or anyone else in his affections, and her fear of Hartfield’s being ‘comparatively deserted; and she left to cheer her father with the spirits only of ruined happiness’” (p. 158).

The Afternoon

A visitor arrives to interrupt Emma’s thinking: “Mrs. Weston, who had been calling on her daughter-in-law elect” and has now come “to relate all the particulars of so interesting an interview” (p. 273). During the course of this conversation, Emma’s ‘re-reads’ Jane’s behavior in light of what she expresses regarding the misery of concealing her engagement. Burrows writes that Emma’s rereadings during these two days tend to go too far; her earlier idea that Mr. Knightley might have “proved incalculable” to the extent that he may in fact marry Harriet Smith “is a mainspring of the large speculations into which Emma is now driven”:

“Was it new [she wonders] for any thing in this world to be unequal, inconstant, incongruous—or for chance and circumstance (as second causes) to direct the human fate?” These feelings declare themselves in more concrete terms when, influenced not merely by Mrs. Weston’s touching account of Jane Fairfax’s trials of conscience but also by her own fears for Mr Knightley, she renounces her belief that Jane Fairfax had been guided, in the least degree, by calculations of self-interest: “‘Poor girl!’ said Emma again. ‘She loves him then excessively, I suppose. It must have been from attachment only, that she could be led to form the engagement. Her affection must have overpowered her judgement.’” In her consternation, Emma overstates these discoveries. The outburst about Jane Fairfax meets a mild answer from Mrs Weston: “‘Yes, I have no doubt of her being extremely attached to him.’” (p. 117)

For Susan Ford, Emma’s “re-narrat[ion of] Jane Fairfax’s story” puts Jane “in the role of [Gothic] heroine,” with Emma herself supplying the role of “Gothic villain, articulated in high Gothic style”: “‘Of all the sources of evil surrounding [Jane] since she came to Highbury, she was persuaded that she must herself have been the worst. She must have been a perpetual enemy. […]’ What remains, she imagines, is the ‘threatening’ ‘prospect’ due the villain: Hartfield ‘deserted’ and happiness ‘ruined’” (n.p.).

The Evening

Emma’s continued reflections once Mrs. Weston has gone further illustrate how she has come “only to a better, not a perfect, knowledge of herself and the meaning of her actions” (Burrows, p. 116). Burrows writes that the misunderstandings that she persists in are “less concerned with her self […] than with certain relationships between that self and the world about her”:

She continues […] to over-estimate her past influence on others, most notably in her belief that she might have put an early end to Harriet’s current attachment. On the face of it, Emma’s opinion is supported by Harriet’s insistent claims that, without Emma’s encouragement, she would never have dared think of Mr Knightley. But consider the speech to which Harriet chiefly refers. No doubt Emma had meant to be encouraging; but, taking warning from their previous misadventure with Mr Elton, she actually spoke far more cautiously than either she or Harriet remembers. She has forgotten the doubts and reservations she then expressed because she is in a mood of violent self-recrimination. (p. 116)

I would note, however, that Emma is thinking of having ever brought Harriet Smith to Mr Knightley’s notice and into his society in the first place, and not solely what expressed during this one conversation.

At the close of this section, Emma reflects that “the only source whence any thing like consolation or composure could be drawn, was in the resolution of her own better conduct, and the hope that, however inferior in spirit and gaiety might be the following and every future winter of her life to the past, it would yet find her more rational, more acquainted with herself, and leave her less to regret when it were gone” (pp. 277–8). David Minter writes that, “[w]ithin the world of Emma, the alteration disclosed in these lines constitutes a move toward wisdom, a move which provides the only quality Emma needs for marriage to Mr. Knightley” (p. 58). Heather Klemann also has a positive moral reading of this passage, writing that it is here “Emma realizes that one builds moral character not in the progressive trials of courtship but in weathering the cyclical—or, rather, seasonal—ups and downs of life” (p. 525).

Harry Shaw acknowledges that this passage is one example of how “Emma itself can invite, or seem to invite” moralizing, Mary-Bennet-like readings: “[s]uch thoughts can easily conjure up a familiar scenario, one in which the errant, too lively heroine learns, through the discipline of experience and suffering, to know herself and reality better” (p. 207). He argues, however, that “self-deception and self-knowledge have an irreducibly social component, and that more is at stake in being deceived and undeceived than attaining a final, static clarity”; indeed, a wholly static and internal (rather than social) reading of ‘self-knowledge’ may be unduly “modernizing” Austen (ibid.). Throughout Emma, signs must be read in their social context to be made sense of, and misunderstanding of the “self” may often in fact be misunderstanding of one’s “social situation” (p. 211), as when Harriet thinks herself a possible object for Mr Knightley’s affection. Ultimately, “[t]here is little to suggest an existential dimension to the increased rationality Emma imagines herself as achieving, and much to suggest that a social dimension hovers in the wings” (p. 210):

The evidence suggests that Emma would become better acquainted, not with the depths of her soul or its need to forge independent judgments of reality, but with herself and her feelings in relation to those around her. She would make fewer mistakes in spelling out such things, and grow ever more accurate in avowing her place in her social setting. She would gain the sort of knowledge of self (and of the various potential selves that coalesce in our actual self at any given moment) one gains at a party, not in a convent cell. Yet one supposes (and hopes) that she would achieve this with a certain amusement at the self that progressively came into focus, maintaining her privileged ease. One hopes that, unlike Mary Bennet, she would not be too quick to fit the pieces of reality that surround her into neat patterns, but would instead allow possibilities (and improbabilities) to play themselves out. (p. 214)

Footnotes

See also Restuccia, who argues that Emma is “grappl[es] throughout with an unspeakable loss—simultaneously resisting engulfment by it and trying to hang onto it” (p. 449; on this passage p. 462).

Discussion Questions

Which of Emma’s new opinions and determinations are “correct” and which, if any, are “incorrect”?

How does what is revealed of Jane’s feelings in this section cast a new light on the novel’s past events? Why are we given access to Jane’s expressions only secondhand, through Mrs. Weston?

Is Emma genuinely disinclined to marry Mr. Knightley at this point, or is she merely trying to protect herself from disappointment?

Bibliography

Austen, Jane. Emma (Norton Critical Edition). 3rd ed. Ed. Stephen M. Parrish. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, [1815] 2000.

Burrows, J. F. Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’. Sydney: Sydney University Press (1968).

Ford, Susan Allen. “How to Read and Why: Emma’s Gothic Mirrors.” Persuasions 25 (2003), pp. 110–20.

Havely, Cicely Palser. “Emma: Portrait of the Artist as a Young Woman.” English: Journal of the English Association 42.174 (Autumn 1993), pp. 221–37. DOI: 10.1093/english/42.174.221.

Kaufmann, Baublyté Ruta. The Architecture of Space-Time in the Novels of Jane Austen. London: Palgrave Macmillan (2018). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90011-7.

Klemann, Heather M. “Ethos in Jane Austen’s Emma.” Studies in Romanticism 51.4 (Winter 2012), pp. 503–32. DOI: 10.1353/srm.2012.0001.

Korba, Susan M. “‘Improper and Dangerous Distinctions’: Female Relationships and Erotic Domination in Emma,” Studies in the Novel 29.2 (1997), pp. 139–63.

Miles, Robert. “‘A Fall in Bread’: Speculation and the Real in Emma.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction 37.1-2 (2004), pp. 66–85. DOI: 10.1215/ddnov.037010066.

Minter, David Lee. “Aesthetic Vision and the World of Emma.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 21.1 (June 1966), pp. 49–59. DOI: 10.2307/2932698.

Paris, Bernard. “Emma.” In Character and Conflict in Jane Austen’s Novels: A Psychological Approach. Detroit: Wayne State University Press (1978), pp. 64–95.

Potter, Tiffany F. “‘A Low but Very Feeling Tone’: The Lesbian Continuum and Power Relations in Jane Austen’s Emma.” English Studies in Canada 20.2 (June 1994), pp. 187-203. DOI: 10.1353/esc.1994.0034

Restuccia, Frances L. “A Black Morning: Kristevan Melancholia in Jane Austen’s Emma.” American Imago 51.4 (Winter 1994), pp. 447–69.

Shaw, Harry E. “Austen’s Realist Play.” In A Companion to Jane Austen, ed. Claudia Johnson and Clara Tuite. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell (2009), pp. 206–15.

[pamphletstoinspire]

Our Universal Mother - Part 84 - 4

Mary: God’s Yes to Man - Part 4

***

CHAPTER ONE - MARY IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST

1. Full of grace

7. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:3). These words of the Letter to the Ephesians reveal the eternal design of God the Father, his plan of man’s salvation in Christ. It is a universal plan, which concerns all men and women created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26). Just as all are included in the creative work of God “in the beginning”, so all are eternally included in the divine plan of salvation, which is to be completely revealed, in the “fullness of time”, with the final coming of Christ. In fact, the God who is the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” — these are the next words of the same Letter — “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his Blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:4-7).

The divine plan of salvation — which was fully revealed to us with the coming of Christ — is eternal. And according to the teaching contained in the Letter just quoted and in other Pauline Letters (cf. Col 1:12-14; Rom 3:24; Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:18-29), it is also eternally linked to Christ. It includes everyone, but it reserves a special place for the “woman” who is the Mother of him to whom the Father has entrusted the work of salvation. As the Second Vatican Council says, “she is already prophetically foreshadowed in that promise made to our first parents after their fall into sin” — according to the Book of Genesis (cf. 3:15). “Likewise she is the Virgin who is to conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel” — according to the words of Isaiah (cf. 7:14). In this way the Old Testament prepares that “fullness of time” when God “sent forth his Son, born of woman . . . so that we might receive adoption as sons”. The coming into the world of the Son of God is an event recorded in the first chapters of the Gospels according to Luke and Matthew.

8. Mary is definitively introduced into the mystery of Christ through this event: the Annunciation by the angel. This takes place at Nazareth, within the concrete circumstances of the history of Israel, the people which first received God’s promises. The divine messenger says to the Virgin: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). Mary “was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Lk 1:29): what could those extraordinary words mean, and in particular the expression “full of grace” (kecharitoméne).

If we wish to meditate together with Mary on these words, and especially on the expression “full of grace”, we can find a significant echo in the very passage from the Letter to the Ephesians quoted above. And if after the announcement of the heavenly messenger the Virgin of Nazareth is also called “blessed among women” (cf. Lk 1:42), it is because of that blessing with which “God the Father” has filled us “in the heavenly places, in Christ”. It is a spiritual blessing which is meant for all people and which bears in itself fullness and universality (“every blessing”). It flows from that love which, in the Holy Spirit, unites the con-substantial Son to the Father. At the same time, it is a blessing poured out through Jesus Christ upon human history until the end: upon all people. This blessing however refers to Mary in a special and exceptional degree: for she was greeted by Elizabeth as “blessed among women”.

The double greeting is due to the fact that in the soul of this “daughter of Zion” there is manifested, in a sense, all the “glory of grace”, that grace which “the Father. . . has given us in his beloved Son”. For the messenger greets Mary as “full of grace”; he calls her thus as if it were her real name. He does not call her by her proper earthly name: Miryam ( = Mary), but by this new name: “full of grace”. What does this name mean? Why does the archangel address the Virgin of Nazareth in this way?

In the language of the Bible “grace” means a special gift, which according to the New Testament has its source precisely in the Trinitarian life of God himself, God who is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8). The fruit of this love is “the election” of which the Letter to the Ephesians speaks. On the part of God, this election is the eternal desire to save man through a sharing in his own life (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) in Christ: it is salvation through a sharing in supernatural life. The effect of this eternal gift, of this grace of man’s election by God, is like a seed of holiness, or a spring which rises in the soul as a gift from God himself, who through grace gives life and holiness to those who are chosen. In this way there is fulfilled, that is to say there comes about, that “blessing” of man “with every spiritual blessing”, that “being his adopted sons and daughters . . . in Christ”, in him who is eternally the “beloved Son” of the Father.

When we read that the messenger addresses Mary as “full of grace”, the Gospel context, which mingles revelations and ancient promises, enables us to understand that among all the “spiritual blessings in Christ” this is a special “blessing”. In the mystery of Christ she is present even “before the creation of the world”, as the one whom the Father “has chosen” as Mother of his Son in the Incarnation. And, what is more, together with the Father, the Son has chosen her, entrusting her eternally to the Spirit of holiness. In an entirely special and exceptional way Mary is united to Christ, and similarly she is eternally loved in this “beloved Son”, this Son who is of one being with the Father, in whom is concentrated all the “glory of grace”. At the same time, she is and remains perfectly open to this “gift from above” (cf. James 1:17). As the Council teaches, Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently await and receive salvation from him”.

9. If the greeting and the name “full of grace” say all this, in the context of the angel’s announcement they refer first of all to the election of Mary as Mother of the Son of God. But at the same time the “fullness of grace” indicates all the supernatural munificence from which Mary benefits by being chosen and destined to be the Mother of Christ. If this election is fundamental for the accomplishment of God’s salvific designs for humanity, and if the eternal choice in Christ and the vocation to the dignity of adopted children is the destiny of everyone, then the election of Mary is wholly exceptional and unique. Hence also the singularity and uniqueness of her place in the mystery of Christ.

The divine messenger says to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High” (Lk 1:30-32). And when the Virgin, disturbed by that extraordinary greeting asks: “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”, she receives from the angel the confirmation and explanation of the preceding words. Gabriel says to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk 1:35).

The Annunciation, therefore, is the revelation of the mystery of the Incarnation at the very beginning of its fulfillment on earth. God’s salvific giving of himself and his life, in some way to all creation but directly to man, reaches one of its high points in the mystery of the Incarnation. This is indeed a high point among all the gifts of grace conferred in the history of man and of the universe: Mary is “full of grace”, because it is precisely in her that the Incarnation of the Word, the hypostatic union of the Son of God with human nature, is accomplished and fulfilled. As the Council says, Mary is “the Mother of the Son of God”. As a result she is also the favorite daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all other creatures, both in heaven and on earth.

10. The Letter to the Ephesians, speaking of the “glory of grace” that “God, the Father . . . has bestowed on us in his beloved Son”, adds: “In him we have redemption through his Blood” (Eph 1:7). According to the belief formulated in solemn documents of the Church, this “glory of grace” is manifested in the Mother of God through the fact that she has been “redeemed in a more sublime manner”. By virtue of the richness of the grace of the beloved Son, by reason of the redemptive merits of him who willed to become her Son, Mary was preserved from the inheritance of original sin. In this way, from the first moment of her conception — which is to say of her existence — she belonged to Christ, sharing in salvific and sanctifying grace and in that love which has its beginning in the “Beloved”, the Son of the Eternal Father, who through the Incarnation became her own Son. Consequently, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the order of grace, which is a participation in the divine nature, Mary receives life from him to whom she herself, in the order of earthly generation, gave life as a mother. The liturgy does not hesitate to call her “mother of her Creator” and to hail her with the words which Dante Alighieri places on the lips of Saint Bernard: “daughter of your Son”. And since Mary receives this “new life” with a fullness corresponding to the Son’s love for the Mother, and thus corresponding to the dignity of the divine motherhood, the angel at the Annunciation calls her “full of grace”.

11. In the salvific design of the Most Holy Trinity, the mystery of the Incarnation constitutes the superabundant fulfillment of the promise made by God to man after original sin, after that first sin whose effects oppress the whole earthly history of man (cf. Gen 3:15). And so, there comes into the world a Son, “the seed of the woman” who will crush the evil of sin in its very origins: “he will crush the head of the serpent”. As we see from the words of the Protogospel, the victory of the woman’s Son will not take place without a hard struggle, a struggle that is to extend through the whole of human history. The “enmity”, foretold at the beginning, is confirmed in the Apocalypse (the book of the final events of the Church and the world), in which there recurs the Sign of the “Woman”, this time “clothed with the sun” (Rev 12:1).

Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word, is placed at the very center of that enmity, that struggle which accompanies the history of humanity on earth and the history of salvation itself. In this central place, she who belongs to the “weak and poor of the Lord” bears in herself, like no other member of the human race, that “glory of grace” which the Father “has bestowed on us in his beloved Son”, and this grace determines the extraordinary greatness and beauty of her whole being. Mary thus remains before God, and also before the whole of humanity, as the unchangeable and inviolable sign of God’s election, spoken of in Paul’s Letter: “in Christ . . . he chose us . . . before the foundation of the world,. . . He destined us . . . to be his sons” (Eph 1:4, 5). This election is more powerful than any experience of evil and of sin, than all that “enmity” which marks the history of man. In this history Mary remains a sign of sure hope.

[thinktosee]

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, SLAVERY AND MILITARY CONSCRIPTION – BEHAVIOURAL MANIPULATION AND CONTROL THROUGH COERCION and FEAR

“I think a lot about him especially when it comes to my writing or what kind of teacher I want to be. David was fearless and uncompromising of his values in everything and that only pushes me to do better, because I can practically hear his signature critique otherwise.”

-         Zylph, U.C. Undergraduate and David’s friend from St. Joseph’s Institution International High School, singapore

A. INTRODUCTION

Image courtesy picturequotes.com

Military conscription, slavery and hostage-taking are immorally coercive processes designed to oppress, disorient, intimidate, disenfranchise, affect, subjugate, manage, re-orientate and control the victim’s behaviour and actions. Their basic premise is FEAR or the overwhelming ability or threat by the bully, criminal or aggressor to inflict unimaginable physical or psychological pain/distress or both on the victim. These criminal acts originate from a personal desire by the bully/aggressor/criminal for social, political and or economic advantages. These crimes go against the public interest, and yet, they were and still continue to be framed by the bully as mutually beneficial -  “cooperate and nothing will happen to you.” Or “It’s for your own good. You will like it”

B. DEFINITIONS and CONTEXT

1. Stockholm Syndrome

Poster for the 2018 movie, “Stockholm.” Image courtesy www.imdb.com

“A psychological response wherein a captive begins to identify closely with his or her captors, as well as with their agenda and demands.” (1)

On Aug 23, 1973, two criminals’ attempt to rob a bank in Stockholm, Sweden led to the taking of 4 hostages. They were only released on Aug 28. However, the victims refused to testify against their kidnappers (2). Perhaps the words of Natascha Kampusch, a victim of another tragic kidnapping may explain this phenomenon :

"I find it very natural that you would adapt yourself to identify with your kidnapper," she says. "Especially if you spend a great deal of time with that person. It's about empathy, communication. Looking for normality within the framework of a crime is not a syndrome. It is a survival strategy.” (3) 

“Stockholm Syndrome” could essentially be said as a coping or survival mechanism by the victim, in the light of the prolonged ordeal which she encountered.

"It's some kind of a context you get into when all your values, the morals you have change in some way." – Kristin Ehnmark, a hostage in the 1973 Stockholm bank robbery (4)

2. Slavery

Image courtesy www.independent.co.uk 

“A condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.” (5)

Slavery is as ancient as human civilization. In Exodus 9:1, the Lord commanded Moses to tell Pharaoh to “Let my People go….”  From the 16th to the 19th centuries, we learned that Africans were abducted and traded as slaves by the millions to the New World of the Americas. (6) Perhaps unbeknown to many of us, the European colonials were also actively slave-trading in the Dutch East Indies. (7) Slavery’s connection to colonialism, be it European-imposed or localized (8), is undeniable. It was a system of exploitation and discrimination of the human worth in the worst possible way. Slaves were denied their rights to freedom and dignity. This institutionalization of slavery was possible through an elaborate system of governance, laws, customs, education, and other forms of physical, social and psychological coercion, manipulation and restraint. It ensured the total submission of the slave. What was considered immoral or abnormal in one place, was legalized and normalized in another. The slave felt trapped, disenfranchised and helpless. His identity, his very existence, was violently crushed. A new identity was imposed – a tradeable and replaceable product - a slave. Fear, once again was the underlying tool. This time it was wielded by the slave owner and supported by the state.

The American Civil War of 1861-65 was about slavery. I like to highlight an example - the basis for the decision by the State of Mississippi to leave the Union :

“[O]ur position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-the greatest material interest of the world... A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization….” (9) (10)

This statement should always be remembered, particularly since slavery continues to exist in its various tragic manifestations today, as this title of an Oct 2018 report by the United Nations attests :

With 40 Million Forced into Modern Slavery, Third Committee Expert Urges States to Protect Rights of Women, Girls, Companies Must Remedy Violations (11)

A slave may also be someone we know – an abused live-in partner, worker, child, or hostage. Fear, that potent tool of a criminal, is the favoured modus operandi.

Our family’s copy of a classic. A great dramatic tale of Southern plantation life, (built and sustained by slave labour) during the American Civil War and Reconstruction era. Hollywood made this into a movie in 1939, starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh in the lead roles. (12)

3. Military Conscription

Image courtesy abc.net.au “Why Australia said no to conscription.”

“Conscription, also called draft, compulsory enrolment for service in a country’s armed forces. It has existed at least from the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom (27th century bce), but there have been few instances — ancient or modern—of universal conscription (calling all those physically capable between certain ages). The usual form — even during total war — has been selective service.” (13)

Compulsory enlistment or mandated militarized public education is slavery. It presupposes the state, that is, the ruling few, has a claim on the life, freedom, choice and dignity of a citizen, for the public good (I have not encountered any instance where this so-called public good is reasonably and satisfactorily justified. We should thereon read the term “public good” broadly. I submit that in reality, it means for the “good of the self-serving ruling class.”)

Modern conscription may be traced to the Prussian state in the 19th century. (14), (15). This was a period of wars and carnage, including the Napoleonic campaigns, in feudal Europe. (16) The Prussian kingdom deemed it necessary to introduce universal conscription for the security of the “fatherland.” Military expenditure then was said to be as much as 75% of the state’s budget, far above the average of 25% across Europe. In most respects, Prussia could be said to be a militarized kingdom. (17) The French statesman, Count Mirabeau was believed to have said, “Prussia was not a country with an army but an army with a country…” (18) This is a weighty distinction, and it still applies to this day, especially among us who wonder about the youthful soldiers who are shipped far away to another continent to engage in wars in “defense” of their home and country. Or just as curiously, youth who are conscripted and still not allowed to vote or voice their opinion on the matter.

Conscription, especially in peace-time is harmful to the conscript. It is designed to upend the conscript’s identity, with a corollary to establishing a new one, with an affiliation to the military-state apparatus and its agenda. It may be further expressed as follows :

“The tactics of a thought-reform program are organized to:

1. Destabilize a person's sense of self,

2. Get the person to drastically reinterpret his or her life's history and radically alter his or her worldview and accept a new version of reality and causality,

3. Develop in the person a dependence on the organization, and thereby turn the person into a deployable agent of the organization.” (19) 

C. CONCLUSION

          Image courtesy cnn.com

Slavery, abduction and conscription have a common feature – the power dynamics overwhelmingly favour the criminal or offender. The methodologies employed are also similar – fear, threat, harm, disenfranchisement, anxiety, intimidation, inducements/rewards and the like. The objectives too coincide – to control, oppress, induce conformity, empathy and helplessness, with a view to “own” the victim. That’s right – a conscript is a slave and a victim too. Abduction is obviously illegal. Slavery, within its traditional definition, is no longer legal. Time also to call out conscription for what it truly is – brain-washing-cum-slavery.  

Slavery exists so long as we live in fear.

Image courtesy Amazon.com

“Fear is the greatest weapon in God’s arsenal. It is why the church concocted Hell.” 

-   Cardinal Franklin, played by F. Murray Abraham, in 2018’s “Robin Hood.” (20)

 In the Spirit of David Cornelius Singh

By David’s father

https://thinktosee.tumblr.com/

 Sources/References

1. https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome

2. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22447726

3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/11/natascha-kampusch-interview

4. “Promises to Pay (Vol. 1) : Banks, Battles and Bellies”, p235. Rezvi, Masood. 2018. Published by K.M. Rizvi

5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology

6. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7fr82/revision/3

7. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/05/two-centuries-slavery-indonesian-soil.html

8. “Race and Slavery in the Middle East. An Historical Enquiry. Lewis, Bernard. 1994. Oxford University Press. Chapter 1.

9. https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/five-truths-about-black-history

10. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

11. https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gashc4244.doc.htm

12. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-gone-with-the-wind-1939

13. https://www.britannica.com/topic/conscription

14. Ibid.

15. http://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?docpage_id=3895

16. https://www.britannica.com/event/Napoleonic-Wars

17. Ibid.

18. Chap 7, “The Prussian Military State.” Showalter, Dennis. “Early Modern Military History, 1450-1815.” For readers who wish to learn more, we also suggest separately exploring the connection between Prussia and Imperial Japan.  

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230523982

19. https://culteducation.com/cults-in-our-midst2.html

The reference here is based on the research findings of Prof. Margaret Thale Singer and originally published in her tome, “Coercive mind control tactics.” Prof. Singer performed extensive research studies on trauma experienced by POWs and cult members. She was the leading authority on the subject. A brief overview of her research is also available via this link : 

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/coercive-mind-control-tactics.htm 

20. https://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/robin-hood-2018/ 

[leviathangourmet]

Since the ‘60s the male provider role has been under assault. Associated with the strongly bi-furcated gendered division of labor which has come to prevail in the West, it is blamed for hegemonic masculinity—a term used to describe the problems that have followed from that. However, what I want to suggest here is that we should not hurry to label the provider role as a problem. As I argue in my chapter recently published in The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health, male provisioning is actually closely associated with and an expression of responsive masculinity, that aspect of the male psyche that responds to the needs of partner and offspring. Not only is male providing an expression of male nurturing behavior, the providing actually generates the nurturing. The bad publicity has been undeserved.

In 1981 Jessie Bernard wrote an influential paper on the provider role which set the terms of the debate. She explained that the provider role “delineated relationships within a marriage and family in a way that added to the legal, religious, and other advantages men had over women.” She explained how it was psychologically crippling for women:

The wife of a more successful provider became for all intents and purposes a parasite, with little to do except indulge or pamper herself. The psychology of such dependence could become all but crippling.”1

Others took up the baton. An influential report in the U.K. attributed both marital breakdown and fathers abandoning their children to male support for the family.2A United Nations report suggested that it encouraged domestic violence.3

The belief that male support for the family is essentially harmful has helped to propel forward many of our policies here in the U.K. This belief underpins the urgency of the equality agenda and the importance attached to ensuring that women have equal representation in the workplace and equal earnings while surprisingly little attention is given to the financial rewards of men’s work. It has also underpinned a huge swathe of welfare benefits created to ensure that females do not need to depend on direct male support.

The Mystery of Male Altruism

There is little evidence to justify why the provider role has been held in such low regard. The more unpleasant, dangerous and demanding the job, the more likely it is to be done by a man. And while men earn more than women there have traditionally been strong, legally enforced obligations on men throughout the ages to support and provide for women with the result that women spend most of the money earned by men.4 If we look at the creation and movement of resources from men to women, the provider role looks like an altruistic mechanism and it is this possibility I would like to explore.

For men, earning money appears to be strongly linked to reproduction. A number of studies show that men who have partners are more likely to be employed than men who don’t have partners,5 married men earn more than men who are cohabiting and men who are married and living with their own children have the biggest wage premiums of all. The same studies provide evidence to suggest that this is not simply a case of selection bias. Relationship opportunities promote productivity and increased productivity promotes relationships.

The relationships of men who earn decent wages are more likely to transition to marriage: once married, those relationships appear more stable. There is also some evidence to suggest that men with traditional gender role attitudes i.e. those who anticipate providing are more likely to be involved in childcare as well.

As mentioned, this male support for the family appears to be an altruistic activity as most of male earnings are spent on the family and often controlled by mothers6—although this may have been more the case in our recent past when women were more dependent on men.

In order to understand the mystery of male altruism I turn in my chapter to studies of evolution. This is because evolutionary psychology and anthropology have devoted a great deal of attention to the parallel question of paternal investment, that is why human males almost alone of all the primate species stay around to care for their children.

Paternal investment coincided with enormous increases in brain size which began to exceed the capacity limits of the birth canal. This in turn was related to the bipedalism which made the birth canal narrower. Human physiology accommodated this problem by timing childbirth earlier in our development. According to Finkel and Eastwick, compared to other primates humans are born 12 months premature.7 This means that human infants are completely dependent on an adult carer for a much longer period of time than other primates and during this time the caregiver’s capacity to seek resources is significantly compromised. These large brains also require copious amounts of fat which human mothers need to provide through their milk which adds to the burden of care.8 Human mothers required significant levels of support to be able to feed both their offspring and themselves and are particularly dependent on help from those around them. Anthropologists have coined the term “alloparent” for those who help provide this care.9 While there has been extensive discussion about who these alloparents are, and it is accepted that other women and children play a significant role, various lines of analysis have converged on the view that paternal investment was crucial to infant survival. Paternal investment was secured through pair bonding and various suggestions have been put forward about how this pair bonding occurred.10

Male Responsiveness as a Precursor to Paternal Investment

Viewed in this light one can see that the evolutionary pressure was for men to be particularly responsive to the needs and demands of women. It was responsive masculinity which facilitated paternal investment and which in the long run helped their infants (and their genes) to survive.

Psychological clues in support of this hypothesis suggest that I am not far off the mark. Firstly, it emerges that although men and women appear to experience emotions similarly there are gender differences in how emotions are expressed. Women are more emotionally expressive with the presence of familiar others acting as an eliciting stimulus.11 What these emotions appear to be doing is enabling the rapid translation of cognitive information into a form of behavior which will spur others (often men) into action. Often these actions are altruistic in that they do not appear to have any immediate benefit for the actor but will facilitate the perpetuation of his or her genes

This may be encouraged by the higher levels of empathic responsiveness which men have towards women than they do towards other men. In fact, just as male empathic responsiveness towards females is increasing, their empathy for other males goes down. This fits in evolutionary predictions. The process begins in puberty when one can see how an increasing responsiveness to females is likely to further a male’s reproductive fitness as he will be motivated to meet female needs. At the same time a decreasing empathy for other males facilitates their ability to compete with other men for these females.12

One of the clearest products of male responsiveness is provisioning behavior. Ultimately this has been encouraged by females: males are responding to female demand. Evidence from some of the most extensive social and psychological surveys suggest that women attach much more importance to their mate’s capacity to earn than men do.13 And when men are good financial prospects these relationships are more likely to transition to marriage and these marriages to last.14

The Provider Role as the Cornerstone on Which Paternal Involvement Is Built

However, the capacity to provide material goods is not the central and most important aspect of fatherhood. Rather I argue that this capacity to provide secures men a place within the family which then creates the opportunity for further paternal behaviors.

These are helped along because men appear to be primed to have a nurturing response to their infants. For example, men listening to cries from their own infants experienced increased activation in several brain areas including the hypothalamus which has an important role in the release of hormones and therefore will have indirect impacts on behavior. Fathers’ brains also responded differently to images of their own babies compared to unrelated babies showing that babies are a salient stimulus for men.15 Perhaps most importantly research from North America finds that fathers have lower levels of testosterone.16 Other research establishes that committed fatherhood actually causes men’s testosterone levels to drop. Lower levels of testosterone result in increased paternal response in men.

What we can see, therefore, is the biological mechanism underlying the observable change in behavior. The very act of providing for mate and offspring may be the mechanism by which dominant, mate-seeking masculinity becomes responsive and nurturing. Following from this we can see that male providing, far from being a dominance behavior as assumed by Bernard and others, emerges from the male nurturing repertoire.

Barry and Owens explain in their chapter in the same volume that while men are in the stage of mate seeking, i.e. before they have settled into a long-term committed relationship, they have higher levels of testosterone which facilitate dominance striving behaviors. These dominance striving behaviors can take on a very wide variety of forms depending on cultural context. For example, they may involve costly signaling, creative outputs or pro-social behaviors depending on what is valued in the society in which they are produced.

Striving for dominance does not typically involve aggressive behaviors unless other channels for dominance display are unavailable, status has been severely threatened or hierarchies have broken down. However, once men are in a committed relationship, and even more so when they are in a committed relationship in which they have fathered children, their levels of testosterone go down thereby priming them for fatherhood. This shadows the relationship mentioned earlier between male family commitment and male productive activity.

Observable changes in behavior are often associated with biochemical markers. In the particular situation that we are considering, the transition from mate-seeking to mate-supporting behavior, we should not be surprised that this is associated with reduced testosterone levels.

It would be interesting to find out whether the male productive activity following from committed family relationships is also accompanied by the lower levels of testosterone which often accompany fatherhood and facilitate paternal responsiveness. If male productive activity in this context is accompanied by lower levels of testosterone it could be seen as signaling a different “order” of behavior; the male nurturing as hypothesized here, rather than the dominance striving response.

Whether it did so would be influenced by the cultural context in which it occurred. For, as Gray and Anderson explain, fatherhood is not always associated with lower levels of testosterone.17 The association is more likely to occur in monogamous settings and where men are expected to be to some degree involved in the care of their children. It could be socially useful to find out the constellation of circumstances in which male provisioning is accompanied by a decline in testosterone and therefore could signal a form of nurturing behavior. A possible hypothesis following from this could be that where men perceive that their productive behavior has a key role in provisioning the family it could be accompanied by a decline in testosterone. Where men see their productive activity as subsidiary and non-essential the testosterone decline may be moderated.

Conclusion

This discussion is based on my chapter of the same title in The Palgrave Handbook of Male Psychology and Mental Health where it is discussed in more depth. As we can see, a serious analysis of hegemonic and responsive masculinity makes us unable to ignore the strong link between these two aspects of male behavior. That link, and the biochemical changes associated with these behaviors are, as discussed, worth further investigation.

But, if the ideas outlined here are even partially verified they have implications for the impact of current social changes on men. For example, will men who are unable to engage in any form of provisioning activity be equally good at other forms of nurturing? Where channels for constructive forms of dominance striving have been removed how will this impact on men? What impact will being removed from a nurturing, committed relationship have on men’s motivation to provide?

The most important point to take away from this is that the male provider role is not something which we can simply label hegemonic and therefore seek to dispense with. Rather it is a counterpart of responsive masculinity and therefore a deeply rooted and invaluable part of human male behavior. Attempts to ignore male providing, or destroy it without fully understanding it, will, I suspect, incur a terrible human cost.

References

1 Bernard, J., 1981. The rise and fall of the good provider-role. American Psychologist, 36(1), pp.1-12.

2 Coote, A., Harman, H. and Hewitt, P., 1990. The Family Way: A new approach to policy-making. Institute for public policy research.

3 Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Violence in the Family with Special Emphasis on its Effects on Wome. Vienna, 8-12 December 1986.

4 Van Creveld, M., 2013. The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.

5 Dench, G., 2017. What Women Want: Evidence from British Social Attitudes. Routledge.

6 Pahl, J., 1995. His money, her money: Recent research on financial organisation in marriage. Journal of economic psychology, 16(3), pp.361-376. See page 364

7 Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2015). Attachment and pairbonding. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 3, 7-11.

8 Lieberman, D., 2014. The story of the human body: evolution, health, and disease. Vintage.

9 Hrdy, S.B., 1999. Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York, p.315.

10 Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological bulletin, 126(1), 55.

11 Lennon, R. and Eisenberg, N., 1987. Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. Empathy and its development, pp.195-217.

12 Endresen, I.M. and Olweus, D., 2001. Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying.

13 Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(1), pp.1-14.

14 Xie, Y., Raymo, J.M., Goyette, K. and Thornton, A., 2003. Economic potential and entry into marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 40(2), pp.351-367.

15 Swain, J.E., Lorberbaum, J.P., Kose, S. and Strathearn, L., 2007. Brain basis of early parent–infant interactions: psychology, physiology, and in vivo functional neuroimaging studies. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 48(3‐4), pp.262-287.

16 Storey, A.E., Walsh, C.J., Quinton, R.L. and Wynne-Edwards, K.E., 2000. Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in new and expectant fathers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), pp.79-95.

17 Gray, P.B. and Anderson, K.G., 2010. Fatherhood: Evolution and human paternal behavior. Harvard University Press.

[everything-in-particular]

1-100 also 😘

Honestly I deserve this payback. This is gonna take forever to answer.

1: when you have cereal, do you have more milk than cereal or more cereal than milk?

More cereal

2: do you like the feeling of cold air on your cheeks on a wintery day?

I don’t know what winter is I live in Texas

3: what random objects do you use to bookmark your books?

I use literally whatever I have in my hand at the time, paper clips, snickers wrappers. There’s no cute bookmarkes It’s all dog ears and trash.

4: how do you take your coffee/tea?

In large quantities and in many different ways. Coffee, black with some sort of flavor. If not that then just coffee and creamer, no sugar. Tea is usually chai or black just with milk.

5: are you self-conscious of your smile?

No! And No one should be! Smiles to me are the most attractive thing about people.

6: do you keep plants?

I’ve had a succulent for six months and I have not watered it nor cared for it and it’s still alive so…

7: do you name your plants?

I have another succulent that has five stems and my friend named them all after the scooby doo gang.

8: what artistic medium do you use to express your feelings?

I don’t have feelings. But I have literally exhausted all artistic mediums.

9: do you like singing/humming to yourself?

My favorite thing to do is belt out songs when I’m home alone or driving in a car so yeah.

10: do you sleep on your back, side, or stomach?

Trick question I don’t sleep

11: what’s an inner joke you have with your friends?

I have too many. With my best friend sometimes we just scream old people names at each other in text.

Example:

Bff: ALFRED

Me: BERNARD

Bff:  ALTHEA

Me: KEITH

Bff: KEITH!!!

And then with a couple other friends we have one where we yell the “Where are you” from Blink 182’s “I miss you”

12: what’s your favorite planet?

This one. Its really nice. lov the oxygen. having rings lik saturn here would be neato but its cool.

13: what’s something that made you smile today?

I was planning to make brownies tonight and then I gave up half way through so I just ate brownie batter and it was great, college is great.

14: if you were to live with your best friend in an old flat in a big city, what would it look like?

It’d be one of those open industrial plans with lofts and spiral stair cases and wooden frames on the ceiling. Big windows

15: go google a weird space fact and tell us what it is!

if two untreated metals in space touch they will bond permanently bc there is no oxygen to form an oxidized layer around the metal. Dont wear earings in the vaccum of space i guess. You’ll never be able to take the backings off

6: what’s your favorite pasta dish?

All.

17: what color do you really want to dye your hair?

Green

18: tell us about something dumb/funny you did that has since gone down in history between you and your friends and is always brought up.

We had the cops called on us because on of my friends barked at my neighbors dog.

19: do you keep a journal? what do you write/draw/ in it?

I have my notes on my phone and in it are about 807 entries ranging from random shit like a single word “zoo” with no context or explanation. Entire novels that I was writing and gave up on the last chapter, also conversations with no context between characters that I made up that have no names. Also, recipes for stupid things like Mac and cheese balls, ideas for artwork/stories/products. Essentially nothing is finished. I also have around 10 sketchbooks that have never been completed.

20: what’s your favorite eye color?

All of them but the ones that are like brown and then transition to blueish greenish at the edges at trippy and cool.

21: talk about your favorite bag, the one that’s been to hell and back with you and that you love to pieces.

I struggle with bags and purses. I always leave them places. This is why I am a very passionate advocate for womens clothing to have bigger pockets

22: are you a morning person?

If by morning do you mean when I wake up at 2pm? Because even then no. Don’t talk to me when I’ve woken up.

23: what’s your favorite thing to do on lazy days where you have 0 obligations?

Sleep

24: is there someone out there you would trust with every single one of your secrets?

Yeah it’s really nice.

25: what’s the weirdest place you’ve ever broken into?

Not weird just a new house that hadn’t been bought yet.

26: what are the shoes you’ve had for forever and wear with every single outfit?

See I get a pair like that once a year and  I’ll wear the shit out of it then they get holes and I have to get rid of them.

27: what’s your favorite bubblegum flavor?

Mint. I hate the taste of bubble gum flavor bubble gum

28: sunrise or sunset?

If I’m awake to see a sunrise I am not a happy person that shits too early. Sunset all the way

29: what’s something really cute that one of your friends does and is totally endearing?

Exist

30: think of it: have you ever been truly scared?

Yeah. I’ve been absolutely freaking terrified.

31: what is your opinion of socks? do you like wearing weird socks? do you sleep with socks? do you confine yourself to white sock hell? really, just talk about socks.

I like cool socks and I enjoy wearing socks but also I cannot be bothered to actually find a pair to put on in the morning so I never wear socks.

32: tell us a story of something that happened to you after 3AM when you were with friends.

Literally every fun story happens after 3 am, id be here all day. 

33: what’s your fave pastry?

I fucking love Pillsberry Crescent croissants. Like don’t give me legit croissants made in France, I won’t like it as much as pillsberry.

34: tell us about the stuffed animal you kept as a kid. what is it called? what does it look like? do you still keep it?

It’s name is Chicky and it’s actually I think supposed to be a stuffed duck, but I was 2 so I called it Chicky. Fun fact, my mom and everyone would ask me if Chicky was a a boy or a girl because I would call it he and she interchangeably and usually just Chicky. And my response would always be. “It’s just Chicky” and then they would ask “but is it a boy or girl?” And my three year old self was just like “??? Are you not paying attention? It’s a Chicky” so yeah I was fighting gender normatively at a young age, I was a pretty woke 3 year old.

35: do you like stationary and pretty pens and so on? do you use them often?

I’m hella picky about nice pens but I don’t care how they look just how they write.

36: which band’s sound would fit your mood right now?

Of Monsters and Men

37: do you like keeping your room messy or clean?

It’s not that I like keeping it messy but it will always always always be untidy.

38: tell us about your pet peeves!

When people speak for me. Like when someone asks me a question and then someone else goes “Well Annaleise doesn’t want to-” or something along the lines of that. Like I’m right here and I can speak for myself thanks.

39: what color do you wear the most?

Gray.

40: think of a piece of jewelry you own: what’s it’s story? does it have any meaning to you?

I gotta small silver rose necklace that I got for my 16th birthday. And I haven’t taken it off since. I used always love painting and drawing and making a doodling roses. And my mom picked up on it and gave me the necklace.

41: what’s the last book you remember really, really loving?

Always Harry Potter.

42: do you have a favorite coffee shop? describe it!

I’m a slave to Starbucks but there’s a cute place on our campus called The Nook and it’s super hipster and they have huge chalk board walls for people to draw on which I love and of course they have great coffee.

43: who was the last person you gazed at the stars with?

Fourth of July a couple years ago with my cousins. My aunts house is on a lake and the sky is super clear and we could see satellites orbiting. First time I’ve ever seen satellites. Super cool.

44: when was the last time you remember feeling completely serene and at peace with everything?

Spring break when I finally got back home from college I took a heavy dose of Benadryl because of allergies and I woke up in my own bed feeling soft and sleepy and I had not responsibilities at the moment and it was great.

45: do you trust your instincts a lot?

Do people not?

46: tell us the worst pun you can think of.

No puns are the worst. but what do you call a cat who bought a house? A hoMEOWner

47: what food do you think should be banned from the universe?

Coleslaw and coconut water

48: what was your biggest fear as a kid? is it the same today?

I used to be terrified of lava and tornadoes and while I can’t say I’ve ever seen lava I now go outside whenever there’s a tornado siren so see if I can spot the tornadoes. Now my biggest fear is failure. Isn’t that fun?

49: do you like buying CDs and records? what was the last one you bought?

I like the aesthetic of record players but I do not have the patience to actually go out and buy one, pull out a record, and put it on to listen to the music. 1) because I’m all about instant gratification bc I have like no self control so if I can play it in two seconds on my phone then why would I go through all the trouble of a record and 2) I rarely like all the songs from an album. My music taste is all over the place so even if I like a band I like maybe 3 of there songs and they’d be from different albums.

50: what’s an odd thing you collect?

I collected coke cans and bottles. Like any special/old/limited edition coke cans or bottles I would keep them. I have a whole shelf in my closet. I now collect mugs.

51: think of a person. what song do you associate with them?

My brother and Kid Cudi’s “Mr. Rager”

52: what are your favorite memes of the year so far?

The funniest and most random to me has been the “Cask of Amontillado” meme. Also Bone apple tea and student athlete memes kill me idk why.

53: have you ever watched the rocky horror picture show? heathers? beetlejuice? pulp fiction? what do you think of them?

I fuck with Heathers (but the musical) and I have seen beetlejuice but it’s been a while. Not seen the others tho.

54: who’s the last person you saw with a true look of sadness on their face?

My mom.

55: what’s the most dramatic thing you’ve ever done to prove a point?

When I was younger I saw in a movie that trick where you put a chair against a door handle to block people from getting in so I used to do it whenever I got mad at my mom.

56: what are some things you find endearing in people?

I like when people get in a silly mood.

57: go listen to bohemian rhapsody. how did it make you feel? did you dramatically reenact the lyrics?

I can’t not dramatically reenact the lyrics and I don’t trust people who don’t.

58: who’s the wine mom and who’s the vodka aunt in your group of friends? why?

In all groups of friends I’m usually the vodka aunt.

59: what’s your favorite myth?

The Trojan Horse has always been hilarious to me because sneaking a whole army into a city through a wooden horse they made sounds like something I would come up with. It’s ridiculous but it still worked.

60: do you like poetry? what are some of your faves?

Yes, and not to be mainstream but Edgar Allen Poe is my bro and according to my grandma we’re related to him through his cousin. But in middle school I had a really awesome English teacher who was obsessed with him and I basically know “The Raven” “Tell Tale Heart” “The cask of Amontillado” and “Annabelle Lee” memorized because of her.

61: what’s the stupidest gift you’ve ever given? the stupidest one you’ve ever received?

I once gave a kids bop CD wrapped in candy canes for a white elephant. At another white elephant I recieved fabric sleeves that had tattoo graphics on them but it didn’t match my skin color. It was great.

62: do you drink juice in the morning? which kind?

TBH I don’t eat or drink until like 3 pm

63: are you fussy about your books and music? do you keep them meticulously organized or kinda leave them be?

Nothing in my life is organized.

64: what color is the sky where you are right now?

Black

65: is there anyone you haven’t seen in a long time who you’d love to hang out with?

Many people.

66: what would your ideal flower crown look like?

It’d have a bunch of different kinds of flowers that don’t match.

67: how do gloomy days where the sky is dark and the world is misty make you feel?

Super peaceful and chill.

68: what’s winter like where you live?

What is winter?

69: what are your favorite board games?

I loved Candyland as a kid.

70: have you ever used a ouija board?

FUCK.THAT.

71: what’s your favorite kind of tea?

Chai and Black tea

72: are you a person who needs to note everything down or else you’ll forget it?

Yes I do need to jot everything down because I will forget. But do I? No.

73: what are some of your worst habits?

Touching bad skin on my face.

74: describe a good friend of yours without using their name or gendered pronouns.

A super brave and bad ass who also has deep feelings and really cares a lot. Super creative and really hilarious. hot shit. coolest person i know

75: tell us about your pets!

I have a Maltipoo named Poppy and I love her. She’s super sassy and really smart. And yells at me through howling when she wants to play, usually with a toy in her mouth so it sounds super muffled and anything but intimidating.

76: is there anything you should be doing right now but aren’t?

Yeah actually I have a huge fucking project. I gotta make 3 vases for my Studio but instead I’m answering 100 questions. It’s my own fault tho. I started it.

77: pink or yellow lemonade?

Pink

78: are you in the minion hateclub or fanclub?

Minions need to die

79: what’s one of the cutest things someone has ever done for you?

If anyone ever says “I was thinking about you the other day and-” it’s my favorite thing

80: what color are your bedroom walls? did you choose that color? if so, why?

White because it came with the house. I hate it.

81: describe one of your friend’s eyes using the most abstract imagery you can think of.

a cool pillow

82: are/were you good in school?

I tested well and was good at essays but I was bad about turning in shit. So yes and no.

83: what’s some of your favorite album art?

Fleet Foxes

84: are you planning on getting tattoos? which ones?

In theory I love tattoos and in theory I really want one. Will I ever be able to decide on a design? We shall see. Also my mom told us that if any of us got tattooed she’s dissown us.

85: do you read comics? what are your faves?

I don’t like buy comic books but I’m obsessed with all things marvel and D.C. And so I’ll read online stuff.

86: do you like concept albums? which ones?

Idk what this is so i googled it and i still don’t have an opinion of it.

87: what are some movies you think everyone should watch at least once in their lives?

Forest Gump, The Princess Bride, Star Wars.

88: are there any artistic movements you particularly enjoy?

Impressionism, specifically Monet, specifically “The Magpie”

89: are you close to your parents?

I tell them a lot but I also have to withhold a lot. My mom is pretty, uhh strict, conservative and you could say narrow minded. My dad is a little more relaxed but he always goes along with whatever my mom says so I’m careful.

90: talk about your one of you favorite cities.

I’ve literally only been once but I really loved Pittsburgh. I liked the industrial vibe. I liked how it felt like a small town and a big city at the same time.

91: where do you plan on traveling this year?

My family’s trying to go to Canada so I’m excited for that.

92: are you a person who drowns their pasta in cheese or a person who barely sprinkles a pinch?

Drowns in cheese

93: what’s the hairstyle you wear the most?

Ponytail, bun, in a hat, in a beanie, basically any way but down. I have a limited attention span and any time my hair gets in the way I go crazy.

94: who was the last person you know to have a birthday?

My sister! She’s thirteen! Its ridiculous yesterday she was 6!

95: what are your plans for this weekend?

Working my ass off to finish this project and then little party I’m throwing in my dorm. The party I can already tell is a bad idea. Still gonna happen tho. 

96: do you install your computer updates really quickly or do you procrastinate on them a lot?

I have not updated my phone nor computer in years (not really but it takes a fucking while)

97: myer briggs type, zodiac sign, and hogwarts house?

ENTP, Taurus, Ravenclaw

98: when’s the last time you went hiking? did you enjoy it?

A few years ago and yes I wish I lived somewhere where I could do it all the time.

99: list some songs that resonate to your soul whenever you hear them.

Float on by Modest mouse is my life’s theme song

100: if you were presented with two buttons, one that allows you to go 5 years into the past, the other 5 years into the future, which one would you press? why?

Future. It’d be awesome to skip four years of this brutal program and arrive with a degree and a job. Five Years in the past means i gotta go through highschool again. Fuck That shit.

OKAY DONE SORRY FOR THE LONG ASS POST BLAME @jak

[nickyschneiderus]

Why this wild Trump resignation conspiracy theory really makes a lot of sense

On MSNBC’s AM JOY on Sunday morning, Jonathan Capehart led a panel on how Trump’s time in office would end.

Panelists E.J. Dionne, Michelle Bernard, and Jennifer Rubin were on hand to discuss the topic. It began by discussing Sen. Angus King’s (I-Maine) assertion that impeachment and removal would let the American people off the hook—that the best way to deal with the mistake of electing President Donald Trump is to vote him out of office.

“There’s gonna be a lot of evidence of impeachable offenses in a variety of contexts,” Rubin said. But “it would be politically unwise, you wouldn’t be able to remove him, and it would infuriate a good chunk of the American people.”

Capehart then brought up the idea of presidential pardons in the context of Paul Manafort, but the conversation turned to whether Donald Trump would seek a pardon for himself, discussing Rep. Adam Schiff’s appearance on Meet the Press in which Schiff discussed the idea that the president could be indicted once he leaves office.

After a bit back-and-forth about whether Trump could seek a pardon for himself, Capehart asked Rubin for her opinion.

“I would predict, here on MSNBC, that when Trump leaves office, he will resign the presidency 10 minutes before Mike Pence leaves office, allowing Pence to pardon him, if there’s not a Republican president to follow him,” Rubin said, eliciting shock from Capehart and the rest of the panel.

Coverage of the statement has positioned the prediction as wild and improbable.

But the idea that President Trump would resign is not an illogical one. He’s quite comfortable with failure; he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy six times. He’s been divorced twice, not that divorce is a failure, but he certainly has no problem backing out of a commitment. He has multiple failed business ventures under his belt, including magazines, steak, vodka, and a modeling agency. He has no problem abandoning businesses and relationships, so why would the presidency be an exception?

Trump’s tactic for handling failure is to turn the situation around, lie about it, or blame the media, regardless of whether or not that’s true. As observed during the 2016 campaign, failures don’t seem to stick to him, partly because of the way he handles them. 

Further, if Trump thought that this course of action—him resigning the presidency to put Pence in charge for ten minutes to pardon him—would keep him out of prison, he would likely do it. He seems to have little respect for process or the rule of law and has used loopholes to benefit himself for decades.

Whether it would actually work is another conversation entirely.

Pence could give a federal pardon, but Trump is still being investigated in New York; a federal pardon wouldn’t affect the outcome of that process.

Trump may be impeached, indicted, convicted, imprisoned, pardoned, or he might get off with nothing. At this point, no outcome is actually more predictable than any other.

But looking at Trump’s history, Rubin may have a point.

from Ricky Schneiderus Curation https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/crazy-jennifer-rubin-trump-resignation/

[iprayunceasingly-blog]

New superior general elected by SSPX

New Post has been published on https://pray-unceasingly.com/catholic-living/catholic-news/new-superior-general-elected-by-sspx/

New superior general elected by SSPX

Sion, Switzerland, Jul 11, 2018 / 04:32 pm (CNA).- On Wednesday the general chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X, a canonically irregular priestly society, elected Fr. Davide Pagliarani as its superior general.

The July 11 election was made at the Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecône, about 10 miles southwest of Sion, Switzerland. The general chapter is being held through July 21.

Elected as general assistants were Bishop Alfonso Gallareta and Fr. Christian Bouchacourt.

The SSPX was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to form priests, as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Church after the Second Vatican Council.

Its relations with the Holy See became particularly strained in 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer consecrated four bishops without the permission of St. John Paul II.

Fr. Pagliarani, 47, succeeds Bishop Bernard Fellay as superior general of the SSPX. He has a mandate of 12 years in his office as superior general.

He was ordained a priest in 1996, and served at chapels in Italy and Singapore before he was appointed superior of the Italian district of the SSPX. He has been rector of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary in Argentina since 2012.

After accepting his office, Fr. Pagliarani made a profession of faith and took the Anti-Modernist Oath.

The illicit episcopal consecrations made in 1988 resulted in the excommunication of the bishops involved. The excommunications of the surviving bishops were lifted in 2009 by Benedict XVI, and since then negotiations “to rediscover full communion with the Church” have continued between the SSPX and the Vatican.

When he remitted the excommunications, Benedict noted that “doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

The biggest obstacles for the SSPX's reconciliation have been the statements on religious liberty in Vatican II's declaration Dignitatis humanae as well as the declaration Nostra aetate, which it claims contradict previous Catholic teaching.

There were indications in recent years of movement towards regularization of the priestly society, which has some 590 priest-members.

In March 2017, Pope Francis gave diocesan bishops or other local ordinaries the authorization to grant priests of the SSPX the ability to celebrate licitly and validly the marriages of the faithful who follow the Society's pastoral activity.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, spoke about interactions with the SSPX in an April 2016 interview with La Croix. The archbishop, whose commission is responsible for discussions with the SSPX, said that discussions over the last few years have led to “an important clarification” that the Second Vatican Council “can be adequately understood only in the context of the full Tradition of the Church and her constant Magisterium.”

And in September 2015, the Pope announced that the faithful would be able to validly and licitly receive absolution from priests of the SSPX during the Jubilee Year of Mercy. This ability was later extended indefinitely by Francis in his apostolic letter Misericordia et misera, published Nov. 20, 2016.

CNA Daily News – Europe